Dominion Strategy Forum

Dominion => Variants and Fan Cards => Weekly Design Contest => Topic started by: Doom_Shark on September 17, 2018, 01:21:20 pm

Title: Weekly Design Contests #1 - #100
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 17, 2018, 01:21:20 pm

Hall of Fame (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19239.msg777727#msg777727)

The rules:

1. A challenge will have a set of requirements for the entries; entries must conform to the challenge

2. When not restricted by the challenge, custom card types and mechanics are allowed, provided that they are explained in the same post as the entry.

3. After roughly one week, the person who posted the challenge judges the entries, declaring a winner and one or two runners up.

4. The winner of a challenge posts the next challenge.

5. If the winner does not post within a reasonable amount of time, a runner-up may post the next challenge

6. It shouldn't need saying, but I'll say it anyway: a person may not post an entry to a challenge they set, and a person may only submit one entry to a challenge

7. Discussion of other entries is permitted, as well as changing your entries. If you change your entry, please do so as an edit to the post with your original entry and keep a changelog

With all of that out of the way:
Challenge #1: Design a Treasure - Reaction card! Keep in mind that if a reaction stays in your hand, you could, theoretically, reveal it again and again indefinitely

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 17, 2018, 04:00:52 pm

Inflation
$1

---

When another player gains a Treasure card costing at least $3, you may reveal this from your hand to have them exchange the gained card for a Treasure costing up to $3 less.
Treasure - Reaction
$4

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on September 17, 2018, 04:36:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/8lwybzW.jpg)

Investment
$5 - Treasure/Reaction

$2
---
During your turn, you may discard this to reveal your hand with no Action cards. If you do, +2 cards.



Edit: Changed from "On your turn" to "During your turn" - I don't believe a tiny wording change merits a spoiler tag and the old version but correct me if I'm wrong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 17, 2018, 05:47:48 pm

Quote from: Dsell on September 17, 2018, 04:36:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/9UoouLP.jpg)

Investment
$5 - Treasure/Reaction

$2
---
On your turn, you may discard this to reveal your hand with no Action cards. If you do, +2 cards.

What would be the timing for this? Start of turn, or any time during your turn?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on September 17, 2018, 06:07:29 pm

Whetstone - Treasure Reaction, $4 cost.
Worth $3 if your deck is empty, otherwise $1.
-
When you play an Attack on your turn, you may play this from your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on September 17, 2018, 06:08:43 pm

Quote from: Gubump on September 17, 2018, 05:47:48 pm

Quote from: Dsell on September 17, 2018, 04:36:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/9UoouLP.jpg)

Investment
$5 - Treasure/Reaction

$2
---
On your turn, you may discard this to reveal your hand with no Action cards. If you do, +2 cards.

What would be the timing for this? Start of turn, or any time during your turn?

Anytime during your turn that you have no action cards in hand.

It should probably say "During your turn" instead of "On your turn" but oh well.

Edit: It was bugging me so I changed it in the op.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MeNowDealWithIt on September 17, 2018, 07:00:57 pm

Stallion

$2
+1 buy
-
When another player plays an attack, you may first set this aside from your hand. If you do, then at the start of your next turn, +1 card and return this to your hand.

Cost: 5$
Type: Treasure - Reaction

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on September 17, 2018, 09:30:03 pm

Quote from: Dsell on September 17, 2018, 04:36:17 pm

Investment

So it's a Laboratory that can redraw itself, without needing an action to use, and once you don't need to draw any more cards it doubles as a Silver?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on September 17, 2018, 10:04:15 pm

Quote from: Violet CLM on September 17, 2018, 09:30:03 pm

Quote from: Dsell on September 17, 2018, 04:36:17 pm

Investment

So it's a Laboratory that can redraw itself, without needing an action to use, and once you don't need to draw any more cards it doubles as a Silver?

It's only a lab if you don't have any other actions in hand. In strictly BM or games where you only buy cantrips, it's a lab equivalent that can also be used as silver, yes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 17, 2018, 10:26:20 pm

Now that Violet CLM's pointed out the fact that Investment is a Lab variant, it definitely seems overpowered to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 18, 2018, 01:15:32 am

Quote from: Dsell on September 17, 2018, 04:36:17 pm

Edit: Changed from "On your turn" to "During your turn" - I don't believe a tiny wording change merits a spoiler tag and the old version but correct me if I'm wrong.

The spoiler thing is mainly there so that discussion of the card still makes sense after changes are made.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 18, 2018, 04:03:46 am

Junkyard
$3 - Treasure/Reaction

Take your -1$ token. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card costing $3 or more. Discard that card and put the rest into your hand.

---

When another player trashes a card, you may set this aside from your hand, to gain a copy of the trashed card. If you do, put this back in your hand at the start of your next turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on September 18, 2018, 07:38:30 am

(https://i.imgur.com/sAOQiUo.jpg)

Quote

Bribe
Cost: $5
Types: Treasure - Reaction
$2, +1 Buy
-
When another player gains a second card in their turn, you may set this aside.  If you do, gain a copy of that card, and that player gets $2 and +1 Buy.  Return this to your hand at the start of your turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ben_king on September 18, 2018, 11:44:32 am

Quote from: Dsell on September 17, 2018, 04:36:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/8lwybzW.jpg)

Investment
$5 - Treasure/Reaction

$2
---
During your turn, you may discard this to reveal your hand with no Action cards. If you do, +2 cards.

I like the idea of this card, but I think it can't be a reaction, since there's nothing it's reacting to.  You could say "Directly after you finish playing an Action card, you may reveal this..."

If I was going to design a card inspired by yours, I think I'd do a Storyteller variant:

Tales of Investments
$4 - Treasure/Reaction

$2
---
Directly after you finish playing an Action card, you may reveal this, setting it aside.  If you do, +2 cards and discard this at the start of your cleanup phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on September 18, 2018, 12:04:16 pm

Quote from: ben_king on September 18, 2018, 11:44:32 am

Quote from: Dsell on September 17, 2018, 04:36:17 pm

[Investment]

I like the idea of this card, but I think it can't be a reaction, since there's nothing it's reacting to.  You could say "Directly after you finish playing an Action card, you may reveal this..."

That's not a bad suggestion, but I will point out that there are no specific rules on reactions - each one gets its own FAQ. Neither the trigger nor the FAQ for Investment seem like they would be too confusing.

The other drawback to your suggestion is that it limits functionality quite a bit. I was hoping to design a treasure that enables less reliable engines. Using your clause, if Investment is drawn in a hand of all non-actions it's just silver - that's not necessarily bad, but my idea is to give those hands a second chance to kickstart the engine.

The card you create based on this does seem incredibly overpowered though, since you removed the bit about needing to show a hand with no action cards. Your version is a $4 super lab that is just silver if you can't play an action first.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on September 18, 2018, 01:03:59 pm

Quicksilver, Treasure - Reaction, 2$
1$
When you play this, you may discard an Action card, for +2$.
---
At the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand, to set the number of Actions you have to 2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on September 18, 2018, 01:52:40 pm

Quote from: Asper on September 18, 2018, 01:03:59 pm

Quicksilver, Treasure - Reaction, 2$
1$
When you play this, if you have more than 5 Action cards in play, +2$.
---
At the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand, to set the number of Actions you have to 2.

Wouldn't At the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand for +1 Action, be a simpler wording? Unless you want them to not stack.
This card is in my opinion the most interesting one, Treasures for an engine (kind of the inverse of Encampment). It is similar to Cookielord's Realm Tax (https://i.imgur.com/8tIwkjJ.png).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LastFootnote on September 18, 2018, 02:22:11 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 18, 2018, 01:52:40 pm

Wouldn't At the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand for +1 Action, be a simpler wording? Unless you want them to not stack.

No, then you could reveal the same one several times, claiming it was a different one. By the rules of Dominion, nothing stops you from revealing a Reaction card multiple times to the same event, since there's no way for other players to tell if it's the same copy or what.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ben_king on September 18, 2018, 02:26:28 pm

Quote from: Dsell on September 18, 2018, 12:04:16 pm

The card you create based on this does seem incredibly overpowered though, since you removed the bit about needing to show a hand with no action cards. Your version is a $4 super lab that is just silver if you can't play an action first.

Yeah, I could definitely see sense in having it cost $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LostPhoenix on September 18, 2018, 02:34:12 pm

Ransom
$5 Treasure - Reaction

$2
---
When one of your cards is trashed, you may discard this from your hand, to gain a card costing up to $2 more than the trashed card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on September 18, 2018, 02:59:34 pm

Quote from: LostPhoenix on September 18, 2018, 02:34:12 pm

Ransom
$5 Treasure - Reaction

$2
---
When one of your cards is trashed, you may discard this from your hand, to gain a card costing up to $2 more than the trashed card.

I like this concept a lot. Obviously it's a great defense from certain attacks and it's amazing with trash-for benefit. It's just silver on boards with no trashing, but that's not super common. If it had the ability to trash stuff, that seems like it would make it perfect, but I don't know if that would make it too strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gamesou on September 18, 2018, 04:02:11 pm

Tulip
$3 Treasure - Reaction

$4
-$1 per Treasure card you have in play (including that one).
---
When another player plays a Tulip, you may reveal this for +1 Coffers

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on September 18, 2018, 05:06:37 pm

Darn, I knew Quicksilver's top seemed familiar. I wanted it to be more interesting than a fixed amount, but the main catch was starting with a free Action if you have one in hand at the start of your turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LastFootnote on September 18, 2018, 05:09:12 pm

Quote from: gamesou on September 18, 2018, 04:02:11 pm

When another player plays a Tulip, you may reveal this for +1 Coffers

Quote from: LastFootnote on September 18, 2018, 02:22:11 pm

No, then you could reveal the same one several times, claiming it was a different one. By the rules of Dominion, nothing stops you from revealing a Reaction card multiple times to the same event, since there's no way for other players to tell if it's the same copy or what.

Maybe you should mention this thing about Reaction cards in the OP? It seems to be an oft-unknown rule.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 18, 2018, 05:10:43 pm

Quote from: LastFootnote on September 18, 2018, 05:09:12 pm

Quote from: gamesou on September 18, 2018, 04:02:11 pm

When another player plays a Tulip, you may reveal this for +1 Coffers

Quote from: LastFootnote on September 18, 2018, 02:22:11 pm

No, then you could reveal the same one several times, claiming it was a different one. By the rules of Dominion, nothing stops you from revealing a Reaction card multiple times to the same event, since there's no way for other players to tell if it's the same copy or what.

Maybe you should mention this thing about Reaction cards in the OP? It seems to be an oft-unknown rule.

You're probably right, will edit shortly

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on September 18, 2018, 06:04:08 pm

Elektron

$2
——————————————————
When another player buys a victory card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do trash this or discard a potion from your hand. Then gain a duchy or a gold to your hand.

Cost ⚗️ $2


The Greeks use to call Amber elektron. Assuming you have them both in your hand you could gain 2 duchies to your hand or 2 golds to your hand or one of each. Otherwise your just exchanging it for a gold or duchy. This may seem similar to feast. I don’t know if it’s any better. But it does give the potion card another use.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on September 18, 2018, 06:29:49 pm

I know one as well. It is slightly inspired of the usual Smithy+BM thing.

Magic coin Treasure/Reaction, $5
+2$
--------------
When you play an Action, you may reveal this card, to forego its effect for +3 cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on September 18, 2018, 08:10:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/NACqxha.jpg)

Quote

Coffin
Types: Treasure, Reaction
Cost: $4
$2. When you play this, discard a card.

---

When you discard any number of cards from your hand, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash all the discarded cards.

Discard effects down to a threshold (such as Militia) occur at once: You cannot pick and choose the discarded cards that you trash or don't.
EDIT: Thank you for the catch below, LastFootnote. For some reason, I recalled reading that one does not need to show what cards they are discarding to Militia (which would imply a simultaneous discard), but the rules do not say that at all. Regardless, my comment was intended as clarification, rather than balance consideration.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LastFootnote on September 19, 2018, 12:42:37 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 18, 2018, 08:10:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/NACqxha.jpg)

Quote

Coffin
Types: Treasure, Reaction
Cost: $4
$2. When you play this, discard a card.

---

When you discard any number of cards from your hand, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash all the discarded cards.

Discard effects down to a threshold (such as Militia) occur at once: You cannot pick and choose the discarded cards that you trash or don't.

No, they don’t!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on September 19, 2018, 03:25:12 am

I altered the top of Quicksilver to something I didn't steal  :P

New version:

Quicksilver, Treasure - Reaction, 2$
1$
When you play this, you may discard an Action card, for +2$.
---
At the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand, to set the number of Actions you have to 2.

Old version:
Quicksilver, Treasure - Reaction, 2$
1$
When you play this, if you have more than 5 Action cards in play, +2$.
---
At the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand, to set the number of Actions you have to 2.

Edit: I misread the rules in the OP and forgot I had to post the new version here  :-[

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on September 19, 2018, 11:35:34 am

(https://i.imgur.com/DsHrgiy.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on September 19, 2018, 12:32:35 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on September 19, 2018, 11:35:34 am

(https://i.imgur.com/DsHrgiy.png)

I like this concept, but it seems a little weird that you could discard it during an opponent's turn as a reaction to an attack, but then nothing happens with that $3 since it wouldn't stick around until your turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 19, 2018, 07:40:20 pm

Emerald City
Treasure - Reaction - $5
Worth $2
When you play this, +2 cards.
When you draw an action card, you may discard this from your hand to play it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 19, 2018, 09:22:17 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 19, 2018, 07:40:20 pm

Emerald City
Action - Treasure - $5
Worth $2
When you play this in your action phase, +2 cards.
When you draw an action card during your action phase, you may discard this from your hand to play it.

FTFY

We don't want to be playing actions in the buy phase...
Also, does it produce coin when you play it in the action phase or only when you play it in your buy phase?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 19, 2018, 10:41:09 pm

Whoops, I totally meant to write "Treasure - Reaction." Not sure how I screwed that up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 19, 2018, 10:50:05 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 19, 2018, 10:41:09 pm

Whoops, I totally meant to write "Treasure - Reaction." Not sure how I screwed that up.

Oh. But with two of them, it can still lead to playing actions in the buy phase unless you say "When you draw an action card during your action phase"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on September 20, 2018, 05:04:01 am

My personal favourites are Ransom, Coffin and Molten Gold. They all have a unique but elegant catch.

For Molten Gold, I think the Reaction part should be tweaked a bit, as right now it's barely better (if at all) than playing it. Also it not working against attacks is sad.

I like that Coffin costs 4$ and is a Silver with a downside on play, unless you have two of them in hand. Which makes it even more meaningful that it costs 4$, as you can't open with two of them.

Ransom will be broken good with trash-for-benefit cards like Salvager, Bishop or the Remodel family. But not in a bad way. It looks fun. The name is a bit meh to me, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on September 20, 2018, 11:24:28 am

(https://i.imgur.com/55s8i92l.png)

Edit: Changed cost from $4 to $5, effectively making this a Buy-phase Workshop in which you can immediately play Treasures, and also added $1. Hopefully this makes it a viable card for games without Attacks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on September 20, 2018, 02:26:25 pm

My personal favorites are molten gold and scepter. I’m also surprised that scepter wasn’t one of the cards in that antiquities thread.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on September 20, 2018, 03:00:37 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on September 20, 2018, 11:24:28 am

(https://i.imgur.com/mXdzX5ll.png)

The Reaction is cool but I don't think that the Silver gaining (what this will mostly be used for) is all that interesting. There is a reason Hermit sucks gaining-wise compared to Workshop variants.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on September 20, 2018, 03:43:14 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on September 20, 2018, 11:24:28 am

Gain a cheaper card to your hand.

Cheaper than what?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on September 20, 2018, 03:47:49 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on September 20, 2018, 03:43:14 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on September 20, 2018, 11:24:28 am

Gain a cheaper card to your hand.

Cheaper than what?

Cheaper than the Scepter.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 20, 2018, 08:22:36 pm

I think my favorites are Scepter, Ransom, and Molten Gold.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on September 21, 2018, 01:37:13 am

Magnet (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Magnet&description=%242%0A-%0AWhen%20you%20buy%20a%20Copper%2C%20you%20may%20set%20this%20card%20from%20your%20discard%20pile%20aside.%20At%20the%20start%20of%20you%20next%20turn%2C%20put%20this%20into%20your%20hand.&type=Treasure%20-%20Reaction&credit=&price=%245&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F8%2F81%2FMagneticBaseSnake.jpg&color0=3&color1=2&size=0)
Type: Treasure/Reaction
Cost: $5

$2
-
When you buy a Copper, you may set this card from your discard pile aside. At the start of you next turn, put this into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 21, 2018, 03:02:59 am

Quote from: Tejayes on September 20, 2018, 03:47:49 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on September 20, 2018, 03:43:14 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on September 20, 2018, 11:24:28 am

Gain a cheaper card to your hand.

Cheaper than what?

Cheaper than the Scepter.

I had the same question; as worded it sounds more like it needs to be cheaper than the attack card; but it could go either way.

If the card needs to be cheaper than Scepter, then no reason to also say a non-Scepter card. If you are going to say a non-Scepter card, then probably fine to just say "costing up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}", and allow it to combo with cost-reducers like most gainers do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: infangthief on September 21, 2018, 06:38:33 am

Loose Change
Treasure - Reaction - $2

$1. Gain a Loose Change.
-----------------
When you buy a Treasure, you may discard this from play to trash any number of Treasures you have in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on September 21, 2018, 07:07:37 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 21, 2018, 03:02:59 am

Quote from: Tejayes on September 20, 2018, 03:47:49 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on September 20, 2018, 03:43:14 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on September 20, 2018, 11:24:28 am

Gain a cheaper card to your hand.

Cheaper than what?

Cheaper than the Scepter.

I had the same question; as worded it sounds more like it needs to be cheaper than the attack card; but it could go either way.

If the card needs to be cheaper than Scepter, then no reason to also say a non-Scepter card. If you are going to say a non-Scepter card, then probably fine to just say "costing up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}", and allow it to combo with cost-reducers like most gainers do.

So, after Tejayes' reply, I thought the intention was that the on-play is cheaper than the Scepter, but the reaction is cheaper than the Attack.  The on-play was the bit that was confusing me.  Now I'm even more confused.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ben_king on September 21, 2018, 09:17:45 am

(https://i.imgur.com/4T6LBo1m.jpg)

Centerpiece
Treasure - Reaction - $2

When you play this, it's worth $1 per Silver you have in play
--------------
When you play a Silver, you may reveal and discard this to gain a Silver to hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on September 21, 2018, 09:43:34 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on September 21, 2018, 07:07:37 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 21, 2018, 03:02:59 am

Quote from: Tejayes on September 20, 2018, 03:47:49 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on September 20, 2018, 03:43:14 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on September 20, 2018, 11:24:28 am

Gain a cheaper card to your hand.

Cheaper than what?

Cheaper than the Scepter.

I had the same question; as worded it sounds more like it needs to be cheaper than the attack card; but it could go either way.

If the card needs to be cheaper than Scepter, then no reason to also say a non-Scepter card. If you are going to say a non-Scepter card, then probably fine to just say "costing up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}", and allow it to combo with cost-reducers like most gainers do.

So, after Tejayes' reply, I thought the intention was that the on-play is cheaper than the Scepter, but the reaction is cheaper than the Attack.  The on-play was the bit that was confusing me.  Now I'm even more confused.

You are correct. On play, you gain a card cheaper than Scepter. On reaction, you gain a card cheaper than the Attack, assuming you don't gain the Attack itself.

I'll keep fiddling with the wording to make it clearer. I just wish the Card Image Generator didn't make the text so small whenever I add even a little bit more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LostPhoenix on September 23, 2018, 01:37:05 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on September 19, 2018, 11:35:34 am

(https://i.imgur.com/DsHrgiy.png)

Doesn't this need a "from your hand" clause? As written, it looks as if you could discard it from play and get a total of +5$, which is obviously too powerful.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on September 23, 2018, 06:54:03 pm

Quote from: LostPhoenix on September 23, 2018, 01:37:05 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on September 19, 2018, 11:35:34 am

(https://i.imgur.com/DsHrgiy.png)

Doesn't this need a "from your hand" clause? As written, it looks as if you could discard it from play and get a total of +5$, which is obviously too powerful.

Unless otherwise specified, "discard" always means "from your hand". See, for example, Beggar.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LostPhoenix on September 23, 2018, 07:07:55 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on September 23, 2018, 06:54:03 pm

Quote from: LostPhoenix on September 23, 2018, 01:37:05 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on September 19, 2018, 11:35:34 am

(https://i.imgur.com/DsHrgiy.png)

Doesn't this need a "from your hand" clause? As written, it looks as if you could discard it from play and get a total of +5$, which is obviously too powerful.

Unless otherwise specified, "discard" always means "from your hand". See, for example, Beggar.

I see. Haven't played dominion in a while, so wasn't very familiar with the specific wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 23, 2018, 10:27:14 pm

Judging in approximately 24 hours

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LostPhoenix on September 26, 2018, 01:15:38 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 23, 2018, 10:27:14 pm

Judging in approximately 24 hours

*prod*

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on September 26, 2018, 02:33:39 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on September 19, 2018, 11:35:34 am

(https://i.imgur.com/DsHrgiy.png)

All right, I think this new version is a bit better.  You can now use the reaction against attacks, and the reaction is a bit stronger, making it more worth it to try to line it up.  (if it isn't too late to edit my entry)

(https://i.imgur.com/sKfBanL.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 26, 2018, 10:29:03 pm

If I can be late on judging, you can be late on updates. Speaking of, actually finally judging this now. If anyone wants specific feedback when I'm done, feel free to shoot me a pm.

Winner: LostPhoenix's Ransom

Runner-Up: Chappy7's Molten Gold

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Umadin on September 27, 2018, 12:44:28 pm

Late to the game:
(https://i.imgur.com/yw9lYIQ_d.jpg?maxwidth=400&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LostPhoenix on September 27, 2018, 03:12:23 pm

Hey, thanks!

In honor of Renaissance...

Challenge #2: Simple and Elegant
Design a card with 12 words or less on it (name, numbers, types, etc. do not count).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 27, 2018, 05:02:52 pm

Bond
+2 Coffers
Treasure
Cost: $5

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on September 27, 2018, 05:15:16 pm

Quote from: LostPhoenix on September 27, 2018, 03:12:23 pm

Hey, thanks!

In honor of Renaissance...

Challenge #2: Simple and Elegant
Design a card with 12 words or less on it (name, numbers, types, etc. do not count).

Painter
Cost: $2
Types: Action/Duration

+1 Villager
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Umadin on September 27, 2018, 05:55:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OyLso9q_d.jpg?maxwidth=400&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on September 27, 2018, 05:58:14 pm

This is strictly better than Baker.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 27, 2018, 06:20:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/G3jGyel.png?maxwidth=200)
Thanks to theta for helping fix the image size

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 27, 2018, 06:23:55 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 27, 2018, 06:20:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/G3jGyel.png?maxwidth=200)

FTFY

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Umadin on September 27, 2018, 06:29:15 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 27, 2018, 05:58:14 pm

This is strictly better than Baker.

Certainly is!

Actually while I’m at it... I withdraw my first submission and tip this right into full new market for $6:
(https://i.imgur.com/bivYrOd_d.jpg?maxwidth=400&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 27, 2018, 06:30:51 pm

thanks theta

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on September 27, 2018, 06:54:29 pm

I think this just scrapes through at 12 words ignoring the numbers? Sorry if I can't count/misunderstood something. 12 words is really tight... it's a good challenge!
(https://i.imgur.com/KWf0l7a.png)

Quote

Wine Cellar
+2 Cards
Discard any number of Treasures, revealing them. +1 Action per Treasure discarded.
Action
Cost:$4

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Umadin on September 27, 2018, 07:19:41 pm

You can shave off two more words too “, revealing them.”  :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 27, 2018, 07:32:54 pm

Moneychanger
Action - $5
+3 Coffers
Pay any number of Coffers. +1 Villager per Coffer paid.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on September 27, 2018, 07:37:05 pm

Quote from: Umadin on September 27, 2018, 07:19:41 pm

You can shave off two more words too “, revealing them.”  :)

No, you need to have those words there, see Shepherd. You discard the cards all at once, and your opponent can't sort through your discard pile to confirm you didn't cheat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Umadin on September 27, 2018, 09:57:53 pm

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on September 27, 2018, 07:37:05 pm

Quote from: Umadin on September 27, 2018, 07:19:41 pm

You can shave off two more words too “, revealing them.”  :)

No, you need to have those words there, see Shepherd. You discard the cards all at once, and your opponent can't sort through your discard pile to confirm you didn't cheat.

Ah makes sence

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 27, 2018, 11:03:04 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 27, 2018, 07:32:54 pm

Moneychanger
Action - $5
+3 Coffers
Pay any number of Coffers. +1 Villager per Coffer paid.

Just the +3 Coffers alone is too strong for only $5. I'd say this is a $7-cost card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #2: simple, <12 words
Post by: Aquila on September 28, 2018, 03:08:03 am

Confectioner - Action, $5 cost.
+1 Action
+ $1
Draw until you have 5 cards in hand.

(Hope subject change makes sense, in time this thread could get huge and hard to track.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on September 28, 2018, 03:37:30 am

Quote from: Umadin on September 27, 2018, 09:57:53 pm

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on September 27, 2018, 07:37:05 pm

Quote from: Umadin on September 27, 2018, 07:19:41 pm

You can shave off two more words too “, revealing them.”  :)

No, you need to have those words there, see Shepherd. You discard the cards all at once, and your opponent can't sort through your discard pile to confirm you didn't cheat.

Ah makes sence

Well the new Silos project just says "revealed" so I guess 1 word could be shaved off now with that wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on September 28, 2018, 07:56:02 am

(https://i.imgur.com/rsdAbL8.jpg)

Quote

Triptych
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Reveal separate Action, Treasure and Victory cards from your hand, for $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on September 28, 2018, 02:44:48 pm

Royalties, 5$, Treasure
$2
+1 Villager

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mith on September 28, 2018, 03:18:43 pm

Supervisor
Type: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card
+1 Villager
+$1
--------
Setup: Each player gets +1 Villager

(This seems obvious, and I'd be a little surprised if that setup doesn't appear on an actual card.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on September 28, 2018, 03:22:10 pm

I am pretty sure that there won't be many "Villager cantrips" as you often have to use the Villager immediately anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on September 28, 2018, 04:06:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/mwkdB4F.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 29, 2018, 05:00:18 am

Challenge #2: Simple and Elegant Submission

(https://i.imgur.com/v8GeI57.jpg)

Hopefully I'm assuming correctly that "+1 Card" etcetera is considered one word. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gamer3000 on September 29, 2018, 09:09:04 am

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +$1

Old Version:
Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on September 29, 2018, 09:37:29 am

Quote from: Gamer3000 on September 29, 2018, 09:09:04 am

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

I like this a lot. It is better than Secret Chamber (if you ignore its Reaction part) but that removed card was pretty weak so that's not an issue.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on September 29, 2018, 12:10:51 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 29, 2018, 09:37:29 am

Quote from: Gamer3000 on September 29, 2018, 09:09:04 am

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

I like this a lot. It is better than Secret Chamber (if you ignore its Reaction part) but that removed card was pretty weak so that's not an issue.

So much better that I'm pretty sure this is broken. If you get +4 Coffers every time you'll end up getting Provinces way too fast.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on September 29, 2018, 12:58:00 pm

Quote from: Aquila on September 29, 2018, 12:10:51 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 29, 2018, 09:37:29 am

Quote from: Gamer3000 on September 29, 2018, 09:09:04 am

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

I like this a lot. It is better than Secret Chamber (if you ignore its Reaction part) but that removed card was pretty weak so that's not an issue.

So much better that I'm pretty sure this is broken. If you get +4 Coffers every time you'll end up getting Provinces way too fast.

Judging from an Event I tested, which costed 2$ and gave +1 Buy, +1 Coffers, I can confirm that card-shaped things that enable you to trivially amass Coffers by skipping turns is broken, and more importantly, no fun.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on September 29, 2018, 02:09:50 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/cwVCkQGl.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on September 29, 2018, 02:31:12 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/NBPjNvT.png)
(a (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Blessed%20Chapel&description=Trash%201%20to%203%20cards%0Afrom%20your%20hand.%0A%0AIf%20you%20did%2C%20take%20Blessing.&type=Action&credit=Illustration%3A%20Abraham%20Hunter&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=http%3A%2F%2Finfinityfineart.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F04%2F17-2994-post%2FChapel-Of-Hope-1024x681(pp_w940_h625).jpg&color0=0&color1=0&size=0)b (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Blessing&description=When%20you%20trash%20a%20card%2C%0A%2B1%20Coffers.&type=Artifact&credit=Illustration%3A%20Abraham%20Hunter&price=&preview=&type2=&picture=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lighthousegalleries.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F04%2Fautumnglory.jpg&color0=14&color1=0&size=1))

(Possibly cheating.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on September 29, 2018, 05:20:15 pm

Quote from: Aquila on September 29, 2018, 12:10:51 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 29, 2018, 09:37:29 am

Quote from: Gamer3000 on September 29, 2018, 09:09:04 am

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

I like this a lot. It is better than Secret Chamber (if you ignore its Reaction part) but that removed card was pretty weak so that's not an issue.

So much better that I'm pretty sure this is broken. If you get +4 Coffers every time you'll end up getting Provinces way too fast.

Discarding your entire hand for 4 Coffers doesn't look very impressive to me. And the notion that this enables quick Province gaining is dubious. Even if you first thinned your deck enough and bought enough Pawn Shops to be able to play one per turn you'd need 8 turns to gain 4 Provinces and nothing else (ignoring that you thus reduce the chance to play a Pawn Shop per turn).
Seems like the kind of analysis that comes to the conclusion that Silver is an overpowered card because a hand of only Silvers allows you to gain a Province. Such a hand is so strong that even after a Villain attack you can buy a Province! Crazy Silver!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: vishwathg on September 29, 2018, 05:25:02 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 29, 2018, 05:20:15 pm

Quote from: Aquila on September 29, 2018, 12:10:51 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 29, 2018, 09:37:29 am

Quote from: Gamer3000 on September 29, 2018, 09:09:04 am

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

I like this a lot. It is better than Secret Chamber (if you ignore its Reaction part) but that removed card was pretty weak so that's not an issue.

So much better that I'm pretty sure this is broken. If you get +4 Coffers every time you'll end up getting Provinces way too fast.

Discarding your entire hand for 4 Coffers doesn't look very impressive to me. And the notion that this enables quick Province gaining is dubious. Even if you first thinned your deck enough and bought enough Pawn Shops to be able to play one per turn you'd need 8 turns to gain 4 Provinces and nothing else (ignoring that you thus reduce the chance to play a Pawn Shop per turn).
Seems like the kind of analysis that comes to the conclusion that Silver is an overpowered card because a hand of only Silvers allows you to gain a Province. Such a hand is so strong that even after a Villain attack you can buy a Province! Crazy Silver!

But you only need 1 Pawn Shop per turn, not 5 Silvers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on September 29, 2018, 05:41:33 pm

Quote from: vishwathg on September 29, 2018, 05:25:02 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 29, 2018, 05:20:15 pm

Quote from: Aquila on September 29, 2018, 12:10:51 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 29, 2018, 09:37:29 am

Quote from: Gamer3000 on September 29, 2018, 09:09:04 am

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

I like this a lot. It is better than Secret Chamber (if you ignore its Reaction part) but that removed card was pretty weak so that's not an issue.

So much better that I'm pretty sure this is broken. If you get +4 Coffers every time you'll end up getting Provinces way too fast.

Discarding your entire hand for 4 Coffers doesn't look very impressive to me. And the notion that this enables quick Province gaining is dubious. Even if you first thinned your deck enough and bought enough Pawn Shops to be able to play one per turn you'd need 8 turns to gain 4 Provinces and nothing else (ignoring that you thus reduce the chance to play a Pawn Shop per turn).
Seems like the kind of analysis that comes to the conclusion that Silver is an overpowered card because a hand of only Silvers allows you to gain a Province. Such a hand is so strong that even after a Villain attack you can buy a Province! Crazy Silver!

But you only need 1 Pawn Shop per turn, not 5 Silvers.

So? You just need one Vault to always reach 6! Great cycling so far far far better than Pawn Shop! Totally crazy, now you can buy Golds and that Vault soons hits 8! You just need one or two and gaining Golds and then Provinces becomes a piece of cake!

That's partial analysis and it is highly dubious. But let's nonetheless play this game:


Let's assume that you have to buy 5 Pawn Shops to consistently use them and that you play them 8 times for 32 Coin tokens and buy 4 Provinces (now your deck has 19 cards). So 13 moves to get half the Provinces is probably a bit too quick. But if you add 2 bad turns in which you draw no Pawn Shop we are already up to 15. Still better than Big Money though so perhaps a bit too good.

Add any attack, handsize, junking or whatever, and that entire thing becomes more complicated. With handsize attacks Pawn Shop fails and with junking attacks you need trashers or more Pawn Shops. If there is a quick engine it also fails.

So yeah, perhaps too good, perhaps not. Has to be tested to be definitely determined.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Umadin on September 30, 2018, 12:58:47 am

Quote from: Violet CLM on September 29, 2018, 02:31:12 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/NBPjNvT.png)
(a (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Blessed%20Chapel&description=Trash%201%20to%203%20cards%0Afrom%20your%20hand.%0A%0AIf%20you%20did%2C%20take%20Blessing.&type=Action&credit=Illustration%3A%20Abraham%20Hunter&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=http%3A%2F%2Finfinityfineart.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F04%2F17-2994-post%2FChapel-Of-Hope-1024x681(pp_w940_h625).jpg&color0=0&color1=0&size=0)b (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Blessing&description=When%20you%20trash%20a%20card%2C%0A%2B1%20Coffers.&type=Artifact&credit=Illustration%3A%20Abraham%20Hunter&price=&preview=&type2=&picture=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lighthousegalleries.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F04%2Fautumnglory.jpg&color0=14&color1=0&size=1))

(Possibly cheating.)

I feel like this should be 2 still maybe 3.  Like chapel, most people will just buy one, the artifact wont enter your posession until after your first chapel and it seems the chance of that being passed along before payout is high.  Even at 2 chapel still shows almost equal strength since you limit trashing to 3.

I like this very much though!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 30, 2018, 02:27:30 am

(https://i.imgur.com/5s5UPS6.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on September 30, 2018, 05:42:24 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 29, 2018, 05:20:15 pm

Quote from: Aquila on September 29, 2018, 12:10:51 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 29, 2018, 09:37:29 am

Quote from: Gamer3000 on September 29, 2018, 09:09:04 am

Pawn Shop
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Discard any number of cards. For each card discarded, +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

I like this a lot. It is better than Secret Chamber (if you ignore its Reaction part) but that removed card was pretty weak so that's not an issue.

So much better that I'm pretty sure this is broken. If you get +4 Coffers every time you'll end up getting Provinces way too fast.

Discarding your entire hand for 4 Coffers doesn't look very impressive to me. And the notion that this enables quick Province gaining is dubious. Even if you first thinned your deck enough and bought enough Pawn Shops to be able to play one per turn you'd need 8 turns to gain 4 Provinces and nothing else (ignoring that you thus reduce the chance to play a Pawn Shop per turn).

You are not ignoring anything here because there is nothing to ignore. The strangth of Coffers lies, among other things, with the fact that you can ammass them over several turns, and spend them later. You don't have to buy a Province as soon as you have enough tokens. That's the first part of your reasoning that's wrong.

The second part is, you don't need 8 tokend to buy a Province. You might need 4. Or 3 even. Maybe 5 if you are unlucky or late game, but that's it. On average, every skipped turn becomes a Province later.

But you don't need to trust someone who tested a very similar premise. Trust your hyperbolical Silver comparisons.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on September 30, 2018, 05:45:10 am

Quote from: faust on September 30, 2018, 02:27:30 am

(https://i.imgur.com/5s5UPS6.jpg)

This is awesome. I was really surprised when Nocturne didn't have any cards that make use of your unspent coins, and this has a cute catch. Just not sure whether it should spend those Actions/Coins...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on September 30, 2018, 08:12:27 am

Quote from: Asper on September 30, 2018, 05:42:24 am

The second part is, you don't need 8 tokend to buy a Province. You might need 4. Or 3 even. Maybe 5 if you are unlucky or late game, but that's it. On average, every skipped turn becomes a Province later.

You still need two turns. One turn in which you produce the 4 Coffers, another turn in which you play 4 Coppers or whatever. A Province every second turn after some build-up is good but not game breaking. I'd test the card at $4 or $5. At $5 I'd consider making it non-terminal although that might be redundant due to the ability to gainer Villagers via it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on September 30, 2018, 08:13:44 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 30, 2018, 08:08:44 am

Quote from: Asper on September 30, 2018, 05:42:24 am

The second part is, you don't need 8 tokend to buy a Province. You might need 4. Or 3 even. Maybe 5 if you are unlucky or late game, but that's it. On average, every skipped turn becomes a Province later.

You still need two turns. One turn in which you produce the 4 Coffers, another turn in which you play 4 Coppers or whatever. A Province every second turn is good but not game breaking. I'd test the card at $5.

It doesn't have to be game breaking if it's both dull and strong. Big money isn't game breaking, nonetheless it often being a strong and easy strategy was the biggest flaw of base. Arguably, Chapel is more broken than Rebuild, but unlike Rebuild, it isn't dull. That's the main problem here.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on September 30, 2018, 08:15:53 am

Quote from: faust on September 30, 2018, 02:27:30 am

(https://i.imgur.com/5s5UPS6.jpg)

Ignoring the circle of converting previously gained Villagers into Actions and then into Coffers I guess that the latter option is  more important. I'd also test the card at $4. While Recruiter is extremly strong and shouldn't be a benchmark this seems nonetheless weaker than it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on September 30, 2018, 08:19:27 am

Quote from: Asper on September 30, 2018, 08:13:44 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 30, 2018, 08:08:44 am

Quote from: Asper on September 30, 2018, 05:42:24 am

The second part is, you don't need 8 tokend to buy a Province. You might need 4. Or 3 even. Maybe 5 if you are unlucky or late game, but that's it. On average, every skipped turn becomes a Province later.

You still need two turns. One turn in which you produce the 4 Coffers, another turn in which you play 4 Coppers or whatever. A Province every second turn is good but not game breaking. I'd test the card at $5.

It doesn't have to be game breaking if it's both dull and strong. Big money isn't game breaking, nonetheless it often being a strong and easy strategy was the biggest flaw of base. Arguably, Chapel is more broken than Rebuild, but unlike Rebuild, it isn't dull. That's the main problem here.

I fail to see why this card is supposed to be dull (not that such subjective issues are relevant in the first place; somebody might view BM as dull or a hyperthin Chapel deck as dull). Discard for benefit always competes with sifters and trashers and this is in no way a no-brainer if is priced correctly (as I wrote in my last post, I was totally wrong about the balance, this has to cost $4 or $5).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on September 30, 2018, 08:21:03 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 30, 2018, 08:15:53 am

Quote from: faust on September 30, 2018, 02:27:30 am

(https://i.imgur.com/5s5UPS6.jpg)

Ignoring the circle of converting previously gained Villagers into Actions and then into Coffers I guess that the latter option is  more important.

You can't use Villagers outside your Action phase, so there is no circle.

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 30, 2018, 08:17:45 am

Quote from: Asper on September 30, 2018, 08:13:44 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 30, 2018, 08:08:44 am

Quote from: Asper on September 30, 2018, 05:42:24 am

The second part is, you don't need 8 tokend to buy a Province. You might need 4. Or 3 even. Maybe 5 if you are unlucky or late game, but that's it. On average, every skipped turn becomes a Province later.

You still need two turns. One turn in which you produce the 4 Coffers, another turn in which you play 4 Coppers or whatever. A Province every second turn is good but not game breaking. I'd test the card at $5.

It doesn't have to be game breaking if it's both dull and strong. Big money isn't game breaking, nonetheless it often being a strong and easy strategy was the biggest flaw of base. Arguably, Chapel is more broken than Rebuild, but unlike Rebuild, it isn't dull. That's the main problem here.

I fail to see why this card is supposed to be dull. Discard for benefit always competes with sifters and trashers and this is in no way a no-brainer if is priced correctly (as I wrote in my last post, I was totally wrong about the balance, this has to cost $4 or $5).

As usual, you insist to disagree, and that's fine with me. I feel I have sufficiently supported my point for others to draw their own conclusions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on September 30, 2018, 08:23:42 am

Quote from: Asper on September 30, 2018, 08:21:03 am

You can't use Villagers outside your Action phase, so there is no circle.

Circle like in Transmure-esque circle.
Previously, like in Backstreet played previously, on a previous turn.
T1: Coins -> Villagers | T2:  Villagers -> Actions -> Coffers

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on September 30, 2018, 08:26:09 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 30, 2018, 08:22:29 am

Quote from: Asper on September 30, 2018, 08:21:03 am

You can't use Villagers outside your Action phase, so there is no circle.

I wrote previously, like in Backstreet playd previously, on a previous turn.
T1: Coins -> Villagers | T2:  Villagers -> Actions -> Coffers

That's true, of course.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on September 30, 2018, 08:29:25 am

Quote from: Kudasai on September 29, 2018, 05:00:18 am

Challenge #2: Simple and Elegant Submission

(https://i.imgur.com/v8GeI57.jpg)

Hopefully I'm assuming correctly that "+1 Card" etcetera is considered one word. :)

I like it a lot but think that it is a tiny bit too good (of course it cannot cost $7 like the DoublePeddler tested during Prosperity, it is a bit weaker so $6 is the right price)
You can end up with extra Actions in a draw engine but I don't think that it is hard to pull off playing this while only having 1 Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Umadin on September 30, 2018, 01:35:58 pm

Quote from: faust on September 30, 2018, 02:27:30 am

(https://i.imgur.com/5s5UPS6.jpg)

I like this, and although actions to coffers and coin to villagers is novel I think coin to coffers feels cleaner in concept to me but to each their own!  Great card

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Umadin on September 30, 2018, 02:11:45 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 30, 2018, 08:29:25 am

Quote from: Kudasai on September 29, 2018, 05:00:18 am

Challenge #2: Simple and Elegant Submission

(https://i.imgur.com/v8GeI57.jpg)

Hopefully I'm assuming correctly that "+1 Card" etcetera is considered one word. :)

I like it a lot but think that it is a tiny bit too good (of course it cannot cost $7 like the DoublePeddler tested during Prosperity, it is a bit weaker so $6 is the right price)
You can end up with extra Actions in a draw engine but I don't think that it is hard to pull off playing this while only having 1 Action.

I think its priced fine if its not as good as bank, kings court, expand, forge, its less then 7.  This doesn’t seem overpriced in the least, I’d even say its a low valued 6 / high value 5. Compare to mill, bazaar, treasury, hughway, bazaar.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on September 30, 2018, 03:09:28 pm

As I already mentioned, the cost is right. The problem is that I fear, perhaps wrongly, that it is too easy to consistenly make Pioneer work. Compare this to the the only two official DoublePeddler versions, Conspirator and Grand Market:
Conspirator always implies the risk of being a terminal Silver, the downside is that you need to set up an engine before you can make Conspirator work as payload.
Grand Market is even harder, it has an additional extra Buy but you need to do a lot before you can gain it.

Pioneer on the other hand is a card that you can simply buy when you first hit $6 and unless you already have a lot of Villages in your deck chances are high that it will work without any further ado. You can e.g. play BM and use this instead of Gold with zero risk of failing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 30, 2018, 03:35:11 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on September 30, 2018, 03:09:28 pm

As I already mentioned, the cost is right. The problem is that I fear, perhaps wrongly, that it is too easy to consistenly make Pioneer work. Compare this to the the only two official DoublePeddler versions, Conspirator and Grand Market:
Conspirator always implies the risk of being a terminal Silver, the downside is that you need to set up an engine before you can make Conspirator work as payload.
Grand Market is even harder, it has an additional extra Buy but you need to do a lot before you can gain it.

Pioneer on the other hand is a card that you can simply buy when you first hit $6 and unless you already have a lot of Villages in your deck chances are high that it will work without any further ado. You can e.g. play BM and use this instead of Gold with zero risk of failing.

I have the same concerns. I think this works too well in too many situations. The only downside is this clashes with villages (or spliters), but as most of those are cantrips, the risk here is often nominal. If every Pioneer played as "+1 Card, +1 Action, +$2" then cost $6 is a steal, but any amount of "+1 Card" plays are going to drop it's overall value. I just have no idea at what point this has an overall value of cost $5, $4, etcetera.

A lot of unanswered questions with this one! I would like to try and tweak it a bit, but outside the realm of this 12-word restricted competition. 

A possible change is to make it less likely to hit by making it cost $5 and a conditional Gold. Probably a bit more boring, but this way you have to rely more on Villages for draw (if you have them).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 30, 2018, 05:53:09 pm

Quote from: Asper on September 28, 2018, 02:44:48 pm

Royalties, 5$, Treasure
$2
+1 Villager

I think this one's my favorite. Both simple and interesting which was kind of the goal of this mini-contest. It's one that could easily turn out to be in Renaissance.

The power of Backstreet and Pioneer vary greatly depending on how many +actions are in the kingdom, but Pioneer seems a lot more controllable. I don't really like the idea of converting actions to coins anyway (which both of those do, in effect). There's a reason diadem didn't work as a kingdom card.
Also, Worker's Village.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 01, 2018, 12:38:35 am

Challenge #2 - Simple and Elegant Submission

This was going to be my original submission and after some thought I'm going to go back to this. Sorry for the switch! I'm going to remove the image of Pioneer so there is no confusion.

(https://i.imgur.com/CtI81bD.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 01, 2018, 01:46:17 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 01, 2018, 12:38:35 am

Challenge #2 - Simple and Elegant Submission

This was going to be my original submission and after some thought I'm going to go back to this. Sorry for the switch! I'm going to remove the image of Pioneer so there is no confusion.

(https://i.imgur.com/CtI81bD.jpg)

It's a paradoxical card. When it has its extra effect then you have actions after playing it, so it's extra effect doesn't happen and then you don't have actions left so its extra effect happens which causes it extra effect to not happen...
("If you would have no actions after playing this." should do what you want.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 01, 2018, 03:11:19 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on September 30, 2018, 05:53:09 pm

The power of Backstreet and Pioneer vary greatly depending on how many +actions are in the kingdom, but Pioneer seems a lot more controllable. I don't really like the idea of converting actions to coins anyway (which both of those do, in effect). There's a reason diadem didn't work as a kingdom card.
Also, Worker's Village.

Well, the cashing in of Backstreet is delayed, you can't use the tokens the turn you get them. Is that enough to make it work? I don't know what you think the reason is that Diadem didn't work as a kingdom card, so that is hard to address. Of course if you don't like the concept there is not much I can do about that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: infangthief on October 01, 2018, 06:15:43 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 01, 2018, 01:46:17 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 01, 2018, 12:38:35 am

Challenge #2 - Simple and Elegant Submission

This was going to be my original submission and after some thought I'm going to go back to this. Sorry for the switch! I'm going to remove the image of Pioneer so there is no confusion.

(https://i.imgur.com/CtI81bD.jpg)

It's a paradoxical card. When it has its extra effect then you have actions after playing it, so it's extra effect doesn't happen and then you don't have actions left so its extra effect happens which causes it extra effect to not happen...
("If you would have no actions after playing this." should do what you want.)

A simpler solution would just be to remove the bit in brackets completely:

+1 Card. If you have no Actions: +1 Card and +2 Actions.

That works if you're being precise about when exactly your Action count gets updated.
It also works from a common sense perspective. I mean, what else could it reasonably mean?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 01, 2018, 06:45:25 am

You are totally right, to prevent the paradox that LibraryAdventurer mentioned the future time referrence just has to be deleted.

About the actual card, I like it a lot (nothing surprising with Kudasai's designs). If you play two Sunken Cities their net effect is that of Laboratory. That sucks but I think this happens less often that pullung of a to and fro between Sunken City and a terminal.
I also like that it is different from Shanty Town and Cursed Village in terms of what happens when the card "misfires". Drawing a card is probably often better than being a Necropolis. On the other hand, it could warrant further village support which decreases the strength of Sunken City.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 01, 2018, 11:44:55 pm

I can see the confusion with the text "(after playing this)" As I think you all already know, this was meant to help clear up any confusion about Actions being used when an Action is first played and not upon its resolution, but it does a poor job getting that point across. You all seem to think it's not needed, so that's good enough with me for removing it! Thanks for the heads up.

I should however argue that I think the phrasing is fine. I only bring this up, because at some point I might make a card that cares if you have Actions left and has a check for that at some point in the cards instructions. For instance: +$2, If you have Actions (after playing this), some effect. Here I think the "(after playing this)" is much more helpful in relaying the check happens mid-way into playing the card (i.e. after using an Action to play the card).

I'm basing this off the notion that playing an Action has three phases: (1) Play the Action, (2) Following the Actions instructions, and (3) Resolve the Action. Of course the rules don't quite phrase it this way, so I admit I could be wrong here. Would love to hear more from you all! Does my argument make sense? No sense at all!?

At any rate, here is the changed version (v0.2) of Sunken City. Thanks for enduring my rant.

(https://i.imgur.com/nhGQA3D.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 02, 2018, 03:21:43 am

I think you are right. The rulebooks are not totally clear about this but they do distinguish between playing and resolving Actions, e.g.:

To play an Action, the player takes an Action card from his hand and lays it face-up in his play area.
[...]
Furthermore, the player must fully resolve an Action card before playing another one

And of course the wording of 1st edition Coin of the Realm:

Directly after resolving an Action, you may call this, for +2 Actions.

Also, some clarifying text on cards is definitely always helpful. Tragic Hero also says after drawing even though it is not technically necessary.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 02, 2018, 04:46:20 am

From Adventures' second edition, it's pretty clear that a card is being played until you are done resolving it. So the first version of Sunken City wouldn't work. I'd suggest just using something like "If you have no Actions now".

Personally, I feel the difference between powered-up and default play is too extreme for a 5$. Just always give it the +2 Cards.
This would also be prettier in that it now perfectly mirrors Shanty Town. Also it reduces the word count.

I'd actually think about a name that references Shanty Town in that respect (although admittedly, I also have a card called Sunken City, so I might be biased).

Eg:
Suburbs, Action, 5$
+2 Cards
If you have no Actions now, +2 Actions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 03, 2018, 03:57:49 am

Quote from: Asper on October 02, 2018, 04:46:20 am

From Adventures' second edition, it's pretty clear that a card is being played until you are done resolving it. So the first version of Sunken City wouldn't work. I'd suggest just using something like "If you have no Actions now".

Personally, I feel the difference between powered-up and default play is too extreme for a 5$. Just always give it the +2 Cards.
This would also be prettier in that it now perfectly mirrors Shanty Town. Also it reduces the word count.

I'd actually think about a name that references Shanty Town in that respect (although admittedly, I also have a card called Sunken City, so I might be biased).

Eg:
Suburbs, Action, 5$
+2 Cards
If you have no Actions now, +2 Actions.

I agree with all your points. Sunken City never really made sense; I merely wanted an excuse to use that great artwork! If you want it for your Sunken City just let me know. Anyways, here is the latest (and last) change:

(https://i.imgur.com/qtHuPSz.jpg)

You can't get any further from a Shanty Town than a Resort. Kind of fits the theme of the card as well. Often it is rest and relaxation one needs in order to be truly productive.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 03, 2018, 04:23:45 am

Thanks, but too many of my cards have a shade of blue already  :P

Needless to say, the new art is also really pretty.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 03, 2018, 04:28:41 pm

And now it seems clear that an unconditional +2 Cards on Resort is too strong. It is now essentially a Laboratory if you chain them and can provide +2 Actions at times. So I won't be changing it back since I've changed this enough already, but I just wanted to acknowledge I'm aware this is too strong and will change it after the competition.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 04, 2018, 05:34:12 am

I'd stick with the previous version. It looks less elegant but it is mechanically more sound as the net effect of 2 Resorts being played subsequently equals that of 1, not 2 Laboratories like with the new version.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 04, 2018, 06:12:34 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 03, 2018, 04:28:41 pm

And now it seems clear that an unconditional +2 Cards on Resort is too strong. It is now essentially a Laboratory if you chain them and can provide +2 Actions at times. So I won't be changing it back since I've changed this enough already, but I just wanted to acknowledge I'm aware this is too strong and will change it after the competition.

You can always price it higher. But anyhow, your deck is going to contain other cards, too, so I think you shouldn't just assume you'll always be able to chain them directly. Especially if you get other Villages (which you should, because 5$ is still a high price point to get all your Actions from there) it becomes more tricky. At the very least, unlike Lab, this imposes a limitation on how useful other Villages are to you. I think that's a fair tradeoff. +1 Card is just such a god-awful effect for a card costing 5$... Also, it's not like Hunting Party cares too much for Lab's feelings.

Here's another idea, anyhow:

If you have no Actions now, +2 Cards, +2 Actions
Otherwise, +1 Card, +1 Action

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LostPhoenix on October 04, 2018, 08:14:44 am

Will judge in a few hours.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 04, 2018, 11:12:25 am

Quote from: Asper on October 04, 2018, 06:12:34 am

Especially if you get other Villages (which you should, because 5$ is still a high price point to get all your Actions from there) it becomes more tricky. At the very least, unlike Lab, this imposes a limitation on how useful other Villages are to you. I think that's a fair tradeoff. +1 Card is just such a god-awful effect for a card costing 5$.

So far we have: 2 Resorts is 2 Labs. Perfectly balanced. Or to generalize, with n being even: n Resports equals n Labs; n+1 Resorts equals n Labs plus 1 Lost City. Only upsides and no downsides.

But let's take a look at what happens in other bad cases with Village thrown into the mix.

Village plus Resort is a Lab. Bad.
Village plus 2 Resorts is Village plus 2 Labs. Perfectly balanced.

So I think that this very simple worst case scenario analysis suffices to note that the +2 Cards version is too good. You are totally right that +1 Card feels artifical and weird but that's just how it feels. Mechanically soundness is more important than feeling weird because it is novel or whatever.
And about "extremes", if we take a look at similar cards like Cursed Village or Shanty Town (this will also play very similarly, you want to play first Resort and then your terminal with Resort having the advantage over the other two cards that you can actually use it well for a draw engine) there are at worst a Necropolis. Not necessarily that much better than a Ruined Library.

Quote

Here's another idea, anyhow:

If you have no Actions now, +2 Cards, +2 Actions
Otherwise, +1 Card, +1 Action

This would be interesting if Herald did not exist.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 04, 2018, 12:41:50 pm

Hi everyone, this is my first time posting on the forum.

Haunted Mansion
$6
Action-Victory-Doom
Receive the next two Hexes. Gain a Ghost to your hand.
_____________________________________________
1VP

I have a card image, but can't figure out how to post it... Could someone tell me how to do it? Here's the link anyway.
https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Haunted%20Mansion&description=Receive%20the%20next%20two%20Hexes.%20Gain%20a%20Ghost%20to%20your%20hand.%0A-%0A1%25&type=Action-Victory-Doom&credit=&price=%246&preview=&type2=&picture=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofhalloween.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fhaunted-houses%2Fhaunted-house-tim-warnock.png&color0=2&color1=1&size=0 (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Haunted%20Mansion&description=Receive%20the%20next%20two%20Hexes.%20Gain%20a%20Ghost%20to%20your%20hand.%0A-%0A1%25&type=Action-Victory-Doom&credit=&price=%246&preview=&type2=&picture=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofhalloween.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fhaunted-houses%2Fhaunted-house-tim-warnock.png&color0=2&color1=1&size=0)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 04, 2018, 02:08:32 pm

Welcome to the forum.
I like your card. Ghost would probably OKish at a price around $7 and this gains the Ghost to hand but also shoots you thrice in the foot (in the the presence of Ghost that self-junking will hurt a bit less) so it is probably roughly balanced. If it is too good I'd just cut the hand-gaining.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 04, 2018, 02:13:40 pm

Thanks. I've been obssessed with Ghost since Nocturne came out and have been trying to come up with ways of gaining them besides Exorcist and Cemetery. Haven't playtested it yet, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 04, 2018, 02:14:30 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 04, 2018, 12:41:50 pm

Hi everyone, this is my first time posting on the forum.

Haunted Mansion
$6
Action-Victory-Doom
Receive the next two Hexes. Gain a Ghost to your hand.
_____________________________________________
1VP

I have a card image, but can't figure out how to post it... Could someone tell me how to do it? Here's the link anyway.
https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Haunted%20Mansion&description=Receive%20the%20next%20two%20Hexes.%20Gain%20a%20Ghost%20to%20your%20hand.%0A-%0A1%25&type=Action-Victory-Doom&credit=&price=%246&preview=&type2=&picture=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofhalloween.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fhaunted-houses%2Fhaunted-house-tim-warnock.png&color0=2&color1=1&size=0 (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Haunted%20Mansion&description=Receive%20the%20next%20two%20Hexes.%20Gain%20a%20Ghost%20to%20your%20hand.%0A-%0A1%25&type=Action-Victory-Doom&credit=&price=%246&preview=&type2=&picture=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofhalloween.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fhaunted-houses%2Fhaunted-house-tim-warnock.png&color0=2&color1=1&size=0)

You need to find an image hosting website to put your photo on. Then it should provide you a link in BBCode. Copy that link and paste it into your forum post.

I use www.imgur.com. It requires you to create an account, but it is worth the small effort.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 04, 2018, 02:31:51 pm

I can't seem to get it to work. How do I put it into a post?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LostPhoenix on October 04, 2018, 02:58:00 pm

Solid submissions, everyone. I feel like the student critiquing the teacher. This was difficult to decide.

Winner: Backstreet by faust.

Runner up: Secluded Village by Doom_Shark.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 04, 2018, 07:12:26 pm

I just realized that my card did not actually conform to the requirements. It should say 'Gain a Ghost from its pile, so it would be more than 12 words.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 05, 2018, 01:48:40 am

Quote from: LostPhoenix on October 04, 2018, 02:58:00 pm

Solid submissions, everyone. I feel like the student critiquing the teacher. This was difficult to decide.

Winner: Backstreet by faust.

Thanks!

New challenge: Create a Reserve with a call trigger that is distinct from any existing one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #3: reserve with unique call trigger
Post by: Aquila on October 05, 2018, 05:31:43 am

Diarist - Action Reserve, $3 cost.
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you shuffle, you may call this, to pick one of the cards and set it aside face down. Put it into your hand at the start of your next turn, then discard this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on October 05, 2018, 11:40:57 am

(https://i.imgur.com/UEdYxXF.png)

I couldn't figure out how to make the image fit, so her head it cut off.  But you get the idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 05, 2018, 12:29:23 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on October 05, 2018, 11:40:57 am

(https://i.imgur.com/UEdYxXF.png)

I couldn't figure out how to make the image fit, so her head it cut off.  But you get the idea.

Isn't this pretty much Moneylender but better?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 05, 2018, 12:30:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/6GxkkYj.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 12:37:32 pm

Quote from: Gubump on October 05, 2018, 12:30:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/6GxkkYj.png)

I like how it is your last 'resort' to be able to play more actions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 05, 2018, 01:26:23 pm

Quote from: Gubump on October 05, 2018, 12:30:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/6GxkkYj.png)

You could argue that this design space is already covered by CotR as the call part literally does the same thing (you never call CotR unless you need the Actions unless there is something funky going on like Horn of Plenty) but I think that it is just superficial comminality and that the card is  unique enough.
If Renaissance has a $4 village that yields two Villagers it would become retroactively obsolete as it is strictly weaker but I seriously doubt that even a cantrip that yields one Villagers will be in Renaissance.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on October 05, 2018, 01:57:34 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 05, 2018, 12:29:23 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on October 05, 2018, 11:40:57 am

(https://i.imgur.com/UEdYxXF.png)

I couldn't figure out how to make the image fit, so her head it cut off.  But you get the idea.

Isn't this pretty much Moneylender but better?

True....I guess it is quite similar.  Although the whole reserve nature means it can miss shuffles and all that, so IDK if it is strictly better.  I'll think about it and see if I want to tweak it. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 05, 2018, 02:05:27 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on October 05, 2018, 01:57:34 pm

True....I guess it is quite similar.  Although the whole reserve nature means it can miss shuffles and all that, so IDK if it is strictly better.  I'll think about it and see if I want to tweak it.

It is strictly better as you can call it in the same turn in which you played it (ignoring funky stuff like Storyteller and Black Market).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on October 05, 2018, 02:15:24 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 05, 2018, 02:05:27 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on October 05, 2018, 01:57:34 pm

True....I guess it is quite similar.  Although the whole reserve nature means it can miss shuffles and all that, so IDK if it is strictly better.  I'll think about it and see if I want to tweak it.

It is strictly better as you can call it in the same turn in which you played it (ignoring funky stuff like Storyteller and Black Market).

How about

'When you play your second Copper this turn, you may call this to trash that Copper."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ben_king on October 05, 2018, 02:31:44 pm

Vanishing City
Action - Reserve - $3

+2 Cards
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-----
When you play a Vanishing City, you may call this, for +1 Action.


(https://i.imgur.com/7HzpypYm.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 02:53:46 pm

Quote from: ben_king on October 05, 2018, 02:31:44 pm

Vanishing City
Action - Reserve - $3

+2 Cards
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-----
When you play a Vanishing City, you may call this, for +1 Action.


(https://i.imgur.com/7HzpypYm.jpg)

Interesting. I really like this card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 05, 2018, 02:53:49 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oyB5UbL.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 03:12:30 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 05, 2018, 02:53:49 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oyB5UbL.jpg)

I like it, but that seems strong. Maybe put a price range on what it can gain and/or make it +2 Coffers? Also maybe it should be worded 'the player to your left gets +1 Coffers,' maybe not. I don't know if there's any cards to base that off of.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on October 05, 2018, 03:18:36 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 05, 2018, 02:53:49 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oyB5UbL.jpg)

I don't even want to think about how this interacts with Possession.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 05, 2018, 04:10:44 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 05, 2018, 02:53:49 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oyB5UbL.jpg)

This makes things miserable for the player to your left, as they're not allowed to buy a good card. No amount of Coffers is going to take this bitterness away, and no amount of debt to you is going to soften the intent of stealing their card. And if everyone goes for these... it's a very degenerate game. Reserve Smugglers maybe, but not this imo. Still, you probably realise all of this and it wasn't the main issue I had.
I looked at the Adventures rulebook thinking about how calling this on the player to your left's turn would work. It says called cards are 'normally' discarded at your Clean-up, so I suppose this could sit in play until your next turn's Clean-up? Would that be generally self-intuitive? Of course discarding from the Tavern mat to trigger isn't calling it so doesn't meet the contest brief.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on October 05, 2018, 04:15:23 pm

Quote from: Aquila on October 05, 2018, 04:10:44 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 05, 2018, 02:53:49 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oyB5UbL.jpg)

This makes things miserable for the player to your left, as they're not allowed to buy a good card. No amount of Coffers is going to take this bitterness away, and no amount of debt to you is going to soften the intent of stealing their card. And if everyone goes for these... it's a very degenerate game. Reserve Smugglers maybe, but not this imo. Still, you probably realise all of this and it wasn't the main issue I had.
I looked at the Adventures rulebook thinking about how calling this on the player to your left's turn would work. It says called cards are 'normally' discarded at your Clean-up, so I suppose this could sit in play until your next turn's Clean-up? Would that be generally self-intuitive? Of course discarding from the Tavern mat to trigger isn't calling it so doesn't meet the contest brief.

Agreed.  What good are Coffers if you still don't want to spend them on anything?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 04:16:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/xfWQAo5.jpg)       (https://i.imgur.com/WkjCG9w.jpg)

Edit: Just to be clear, if you play Winery and don't have Wine, you take Wine and do not get the +3 Villagers or +3 Coffers.
Edit: Fixed Wine to say Winery.
Edit: Changed both images and renamed Brewery to Winery.
Old versions:
$4 Brewery
Action
If you don't have Wine, take it. Put this on your Tavern mat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
When another player takes Wine from you, you may call this from your Tavern mat for +1 Coffers

Wine
Artifact
When you play a Brewery, +2$ and +1 Buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on October 05, 2018, 04:22:20 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 04:16:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/cPwzA1H.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/pf1cgvA.jpg)

If my opponent bought this, I'd never buy one.  They'd have to buy one, play it, and buy another just to get a Woodcutter effect for each play.  Woodcutter wasn't even good enough at $3 let alone $4. 

I do like the Project kind of feel with Wine and the idea of getting a benefit when it is stolen.

Oh and it seems odd that if your opponent ignores Brewery all of your Breweries are one-shot cards.  Wine needs to be good enough to almost guarantee a tug of war.
I might buy it if Wine said +$3 and +1 Buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 05, 2018, 04:25:27 pm

Quote from: Aquila on October 05, 2018, 04:10:44 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 05, 2018, 02:53:49 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oyB5UbL.jpg)

This makes things miserable for the player to your left, as they're not allowed to buy a good card. No amount of Coffers is going to take this bitterness away, and no amount of debt to you is going to soften the intent of stealing their card. And if everyone goes for these... it's a very degenerate game. Reserve Smugglers maybe, but not this imo. Still, you probably realise all of this and it wasn't the main issue I had.
I looked at the Adventures rulebook thinking about how calling this on the player to your left's turn would work. It says called cards are 'normally' discarded at your Clean-up, so I suppose this could sit in play until your next turn's Clean-up? Would that be generally self-intuitive? Of course discarding from the Tavern mat to trigger isn't calling it so doesn't meet the contest brief.

There are official ways to cause cards to be cleaned up on your opponent's turns actually. Call Coin of the Realm (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Coin_of_the_Realm) after playing Caravan Guard (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Caravan_Guard) as a reaction to an attack. The official rule is that the Reserve cards are cleaned up the turn they are called; so it won't wait until your next turn.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18532.msg754212#msg754212

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 05, 2018, 04:32:01 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 04:16:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/cPwzA1H.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/pf1cgvA.jpg)

It's not immediately clear if you should get the Wine benefit the first time you play Brewery. Some would think that by the time you take the Wine, it's too late, you've passed "when you play a Brewery". Except we do know that "when" effects actually happen after the event is done (except when things say "first"). Meaning you that playing a Brewery would always give you the wine bonus... which actually makes having the bonus on the artifact meaningless/arbitrary. It seems like that bonus could be on the action, while the "when an opponent takes" could be on the artifact.

Also, no reason to have "if you don't have Wine". Other artifact-takers don't. Unless your intent was that the "put this on your tavern mat" was also meant to be part of the condition, in which case you need to fix the wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 04:36:47 pm

Thank you Chappy7 and GendoIkari. Updated version above. Maybe it should cost 5 now... And my intention is that you do not get the Wine bonus from the first Brewery.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 05, 2018, 04:40:42 pm

Quote from: Aquila on October 05, 2018, 04:10:44 pm

This makes things miserable for the player to your left, as they're not allowed to buy a good card. No amount of Coffers is going to take this bitterness away, and no amount of debt to you is going to soften the intent of stealing their card. And if everyone goes for these... it's a very degenerate game. Reserve Smugglers maybe, but not this imo. Still, you probably realise all of this and it wasn't the main issue I had.
I looked at the Adventures rulebook thinking about how calling this on the player to your left's turn would work. It says called cards are 'normally' discarded at your Clean-up, so I suppose this could sit in play until your next turn's Clean-up? Would that be generally self-intuitive? Of course discarding from the Tavern mat to trigger isn't calling it so doesn't meet the contest brief.

I don't think that sitting in front of you until the next Clean-up is an issue at all.

The card stealing is supposed to be nasty (and the card might be totally bonkers) but I don't think that this is necessarily game breaking, it is something like two Rogue attacks in a row and the gaining player has control over what he gains. If the presence of the card makes the game degenerate into Silver buying this looks boring at first sight but if this is the best stratey the player with Barmaid might lose. With +2 Coffers a money strategy looks like an even better counter.  So technically speaking the question is which equilibria might arise due to Barmaid: no Barmaid at all, just Silver gaining without Barmaid calling or ordinary play with everybody going for some Barmaids?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 04:41:59 pm

Should I just make Wine a token or something and say, "If you don't have the Wine token, take it and put this on your Tavern mat. Otherwise +3 Coffers and +3 Villagers." They mean the same thing, I think.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 04:44:13 pm

Is there anyway to make Moat etc. work against Barmaid? That would go a long way in my opinion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 05, 2018, 04:53:24 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 04:16:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ApE0TUO.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/1XPDwDZ.jpg)

A wording hint: "you may call this [from your Tavernt mat] for" suffices, you don't need the stuff in the []. I also wouldn't implement this via a token, it is smaller than a card and the Artifact wandering around the table is much clearer to notice during the game.

I think this is the most creative idea so far among the Reserve cards and it shows what great things you can do with Artifacts beyond the hypersimple Renaissance stuff.

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 04:44:13 pm

Is there anyway to make Moat etc. work against Barmaid? That would go a long way in my opinion.

Barmaid cannot have an Attack type as the actual attack can happen anytime, it doesn't happen right now or next turn like with Duration-Attacks so Moat being played would be impossible to track. Also, flavour-wise the idea is that the opponent gets softly lured into your Tavern and not bluntly crushed by a Knight or whatever.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 04:55:33 pm

Thanks, changed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on October 05, 2018, 05:50:26 pm

It would be nice to keep the winners, and possibly even all the entries, catalogued in the OP @Doomshark.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 05, 2018, 06:04:04 pm

(https://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/my-pathfinder-setting-stuff/character-classes/CoffeeShop.png?attredirects=0)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 06:17:25 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 05, 2018, 06:04:04 pm

(https://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/my-pathfinder-setting-stuff/character-classes/CoffeeShop.png?attredirects=0)

Just wanted you to know if there's supposed to be a card image or something here, there isn't anything (at least nothing shows up for me).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 05, 2018, 07:54:47 pm

Native Guide - $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
When you would draw a card, you may first call this, to look at the top 3 cards of your deck, discard 1 and put the others back in any order.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 08:18:00 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 05, 2018, 07:54:47 pm

Native Guide - $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
When you would draw a card, you may first call this, to look at the top 3 cards of your deck, discard 1 and put the others back in any order.

Neat card. You might want to word it like this: When you would draw a card, you may instead call this, to look at the top 3 cards of your deck, discard 1 and put 1 in your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 05, 2018, 08:25:26 pm

edit: Modded my card so it isn't so weak.

Quote

Coffee Shop
$3 Action-Reserve
+1 Action.
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you gain an action or treasure card, you may call this to set aside the gained card and play it at the start of your next turn.

old version:

Quote

Coffee Shop
$4 Action-Reserve
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you gain an action or treasure card, you may call this to set aside the gained card and play it at the start of your next turn.

[/spoiler]
...how do you use spoiler tags anyway?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on October 05, 2018, 08:31:29 pm

Quote from: ben_king on October 05, 2018, 02:31:44 pm

Vanishing City
Action - Reserve - $3

+2 Cards
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-----
When you play a Vanishing City, you may call this, for +1 Action.


(https://i.imgur.com/7HzpypY.jpg)

I was working on a card quite similar to this:

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/6APu9ttl.jpg)

Researcher
Action-Reserve - $5

+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you play a Researcher, you may call this for +3 Cards.

But since you beat me, I'll officially submit this one instead:

(https://i.imgur.com/olThrsFl.png)

Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

===

Any feedback is appreciated.

Edit 1: Reworded the call effect per ThetaSigma12's suggestion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on October 05, 2018, 09:00:12 pm

Smokehouse should be:

Quote

...you may call this for +1 Coffers per _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} that card costs.

See Recruiter. It's more clear in general and helps clarify for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png)} and _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)} costs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on October 05, 2018, 09:14:49 pm

Reservist - $5 Action Reserve
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you gain a card, you may call this, to put that card on your Tavern mat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: vishwathg on October 06, 2018, 01:02:49 am

Quote from: Violet CLM on October 05, 2018, 09:14:49 pm

Reservist - $5 Action Reserve
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you gain a card, you may call this, to put that card on your Tavern mat.

And what do they do there? Just sit there, like Coppers from Miser? Oh, it combos with Miser too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on October 06, 2018, 01:11:15 am

Unless they're Reserve cards themselves, yes, going by Miser's precedent they would just sit there. Which is nice if you're gaining Victory cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 06, 2018, 03:09:39 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 05, 2018, 08:25:26 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 06:17:25 pm

Just wanted you to know if there's supposed to be a card image or something here, there isn't anything (at least nothing shows up for me).

Is it showing up for other people?

Here's the card text

Quote

Coffee Shop
$4 Action-Reserve
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you gain an action or treasure card, you may call this to set aside the gained card and play it at the start of your next turn.

(It'd probably be okay at $3 cost.)

Yeah, I'd try it at $2 or $3. When you play it, the net effects are -1 Card and -1 Action and when you call it the net effects are +1 Card (and +1 Action if the target is an Action) so they cancel each other out. It is basically a cantrip that provides the advantage that you quicker play the new card. So it does a similar job as sifters.

Quote from: Tejayes on October 05, 2018, 08:31:29 pm

Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

This Salvager variant is fine but looks like a very artificial Reserve. I cannot imagine many situations in which you'd let this sit on your Tavern mat and not immediately call it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 06, 2018, 04:26:18 am

Quote from: Violet CLM on October 05, 2018, 09:14:49 pm

Reservist - $5 Action Reserve
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you gain a card, you may call this, to put that card on your Tavern mat.

Reminds me of this old card from my thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.msg284777#msg284777)...
(http://i.imgur.com/oTPE2Ga.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 06, 2018, 05:35:59 am

Challenge #3 - Unique Reserve Call Submission

(https://i.imgur.com/yH4xo6R.jpg)

Some clarifications on how this plays:
-This cares about draw instructions as a whole and not individually drawn cards. So you could turn +2 Cards into +$3 Coin, but you could not choose to turn +2 Cards into +1 Card and +$3 Coin.
-Cards that have multiple draw instructions can have multiple Revolutionist called for it. So if a Peddler has a +1 Card token on it, it technically reads as +1 Card, +1 Card, +1 Action. +$1 Coin and thus can be turned into +$3 Coin, +$3 Coin, +1 Action, +$1 Coin (+$7 Coin, +1 Action).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gamer3000 on October 06, 2018, 09:39:46 am

Improvements
Type: Action - Reserve
Cost: $4
Put this on your Tavern mat
-
When you would gain a card, you may call this to instead gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. You may put it on top of your deck.
-
When you gain this, gain a cheaper card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 06, 2018, 09:48:45 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 06, 2018, 03:09:39 am

Quote from: Tejayes on October 05, 2018, 08:31:29 pm

Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

This Salvager variant is fine but looks like a very artificial Reserve. I cannot imagine many situations in which you'd let this sit on your Tavern mat and not immediately call it.

Anytime you trash something costing 0?

Quote from: Violet CLM on October 05, 2018, 09:14:49 pm

Reservist - $5 Action Reserve
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you gain a card, you may call this, to put that card on your Tavern mat.

I like this, but $5 seems too expensive. Island does something similar but is only $4. You can reuse this unlike Island, but it's slow. Island is also worth 2 VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 06, 2018, 09:55:07 am

Quote from: Gamer3000 on October 06, 2018, 09:39:46 am

Improvements
Type: Action - Reserve
Cost: $4
Put this on your Tavern mat
-
When you would gain a card, you may call this to instead gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. You may put it on top of your deck.
-
When you gain this, gain a cheaper card.

This seems too strong. Maybe make it cost 5? or have it only gain a card costing up to $1 more than it?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 06, 2018, 10:01:40 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 06, 2018, 09:48:45 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 06, 2018, 03:09:39 am

Quote from: Tejayes on October 05, 2018, 08:31:29 pm

Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

This Salvager variant is fine but looks like a very artificial Reserve. I cannot imagine many situations in which you'd let this sit on your Tavern mat and not immediately call it.

Anytime you trash something costing 0?

This is only a thing if you have 2 copies of Smokehouse in your deck which is likely only a thing if you use Smokehouse to trash Coppers. So you wanna get that Smokehouse of the mat before you shuffle and leaving it on will likely (Fortress is the obvious exception plus gainers to constantly feed Smokehouse) only be a thing if you played the first Smokehouse to trash Copper and the shuffle is still long enough away and chances are that you can use the second Smokehouse to trash an Estate.
Definitely artificial.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 06, 2018, 10:06:53 am

(https://i.imgur.com/OaFaPqG.jpg)

Quote

Wine Critic
Cost: $4
Types: Action, Reserve
+1 Buy
Put this on your Tavern mat
----
After you buy a card, you may call this, for $3

Edit: An earlier version of this card missed out "Put this on your Tavern mat", and another called it the "reserve mat".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 06, 2018, 10:16:45 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 06, 2018, 10:06:53 am

Wine Critic
Cost: $4
Types: Action, Reserve
+1 Buy
----
After you buy a card, you may call this, for $3

This looks worse than Bridge. If you use the two Buys Bridge is +1 Buy +$3 but Bridge provides a Coin token in advance.
Despite the ability to save this for later the megaturn potential is actually lower as you need the extra Buys from another card. This is why I'd put the extra Buy on the calling part.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 06, 2018, 10:54:59 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 06, 2018, 10:01:40 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 06, 2018, 09:48:45 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 06, 2018, 03:09:39 am

Quote from: Tejayes on October 05, 2018, 08:31:29 pm

Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

This Salvager variant is fine but looks like a very artificial Reserve. I cannot imagine many situations in which you'd let this sit on your Tavern mat and not immediately call it.

Anytime you trash something costing 0?

This is only a thing if you have 2 copies of Smokehouse in your deck which is likely only a thing if you use Smokehouse to trash Coppers. So you wanna get that Smokehouse of the mat before you shuffle and leaving it on will likely (Fortress is the obvious exception plus gainers to constantly feed Smokehouse) only be a thing if you played the first Smokehouse to trash Copper and the shuffle is still long enough away and chances are that you can use the second Smokehouse to trash an Estate.
Definitely artificial.

Are you assuming that using the on-play as much as possible will always be better than leaving it on the Mat until something good is trashed by something else?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 06, 2018, 10:57:42 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 06, 2018, 10:16:45 am

This looks worse than Bridge. If you use the two Buys Bridge is +1 Buy +$3 but Bridge provides a Coin token in advance.
Despite the ability to save this for later the megaturn potential is actually lower as you need the extra Buys from another card. This is why I'd put the extra Buy on the calling part.

That's a good comparison.  If you call it the same turn you play it, then you get the same benefit as a single Bridge, which is a good sign for a $4 card.

If you don't, then you need to play something later to be able to bring all your reserved wine critics back for your megaturn.  Another wine critic will do.  In some ways, this is stronger than a bridge, because although two bridges can be +2 Buy +$6, you can't achieve that without a third support card; whereas you can get +1 Buy +$6 with just two wine critics.

If it gave the +Buy on call, you could trigger it whenever you wanted by buying a copper, and you'd get +N buys into the bargain, which seems overly strong to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 06, 2018, 11:06:04 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 05, 2018, 04:16:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tWD44Mp.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/1XPDwDZ.jpg)

Shouldn't a Brewery get you Beer?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 06, 2018, 11:36:11 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 06, 2018, 10:57:42 am

In some ways, this is stronger than a bridge, because although two bridges can be +2 Buy +$6, you can't achieve that without a third support card; whereas you can get +1 Buy +$6 with just two wine critics.

I don't get what you mean with "support card", a village? Wine Critic and Bridge are both terminals so this comparison makes no sense. The only advantage of Wine Critic over Bridge is that you can save it for another turn. But then the extra Buy on the current turn was likely wasted.
Also note that two Bridges are the equivalent of either +1 Buy and +$6 or +2 Buys and +$8 (if you use all 3 Buys you get the cost reduction of 2 on the 3 cards that you buy).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silvern on October 06, 2018, 12:04:09 pm

This one is maybe (=definitely) unwise for logistical reasons, but I think it's balanced!
(https://i.imgur.com/8bzNVXB.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 06, 2018, 12:58:29 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 06, 2018, 11:36:11 am

I don't get what you mean with "support card", a village?

Yep, village would be a good example of a card that would let you play two bridges.

Quote

Wine Critic and Bridge are both terminals so this comparison makes no sense. The only advantage of Wine Critic over Bridge is that you can save it for another turn.

And in that other turn, you can call your reserved WCs without needing an extra action.  So where Bridge needs a support card, WC doesn't.

Quote

Also note that two Bridges are the equivalent of either +1 Buy and +$6 or +2 Buys and +$8 (if you use all 3 Buys you get the cost reduction of 2 on the 3 cards that you buy).

Good point.  Maybe WC should be $4 when called?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 06, 2018, 12:59:33 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 06, 2018, 11:06:04 am

Shouldn't a Brewery get you Beer?

Oops. The question is, do I change Brewery to Winery or Wine to Beer or Mead?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on October 06, 2018, 04:10:58 pm

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on October 05, 2018, 05:50:26 pm

It would be nice to keep the winners, and possibly even all the entries, catalogued in the OP @Doomshark.

I thought about doing that. I decided against it because I wanted this to be something I could leave to run on its own if I had to. If enough people want me to, I can add a hall of fame to the op

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 06, 2018, 04:52:54 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on October 06, 2018, 04:10:58 pm

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on October 05, 2018, 05:50:26 pm

It would be nice to keep the winners, and possibly even all the entries, catalogued in the OP @Doomshark.

I thought about doing that. I decided against it because I wanted this to be something I could leave to run on its own if I had to. If enough people want me to, I can add a hall of fame to the op

I think it's a good idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 06, 2018, 08:18:00 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 06, 2018, 10:01:40 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 06, 2018, 09:48:45 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 06, 2018, 03:09:39 am

Quote from: Tejayes on October 05, 2018, 08:31:29 pm

Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

This Salvager variant is fine but looks like a very artificial Reserve. I cannot imagine many situations in which you'd let this sit on your Tavern mat and not immediately call it.

Anytime you trash something costing 0?

This is only a thing if you have 2 copies of Smokehouse in your deck which is likely only a thing if you use Smokehouse to trash Coppers. So you wanna get that Smokehouse of the mat before you shuffle and leaving it on will likely (Fortress is the obvious exception plus gainers to constantly feed Smokehouse) only be a thing if you played the first Smokehouse to trash Copper and the shuffle is still long enough away and chances are that you can use the second Smokehouse to trash an Estate.
Definitely artificial.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, Smokehouse trashes a card before it ever reaches your Tavern mat, which means you wouldn't be able to call it until another card trashed something (so effectively one Smokehouse would require a second to generate Coffers on "each" play as you alternate the physical Smokehouses). The point I thought was that multiple Smokehouses can be called to a single trash effect, which means you could theoretically trash a Gold for +6 Coffers per Smokehouse on your Tavern mat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on October 07, 2018, 04:03:30 am

Revenant
Cost: $4
Type: Night/Reserve
+2 Villagers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When you gain a card, you may call this, to trash a card from the same supply pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on October 07, 2018, 09:13:53 am

I haven't played Dominion in a while and I have no idea if this is balanced...

Traitor
Cost: $3
Type: Action/Reserve
+1 Card
+1 Action
+2 Coffers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When you buy a Duchy, you may call this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 07, 2018, 09:36:10 am

Quote from: King Leon on October 07, 2018, 04:03:30 am

Revenant
Cost: $4
Type: Night/Reserve
+2 Villagers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When you gain a card, you may call this, to trash a card from the same supply pile.

While I like the concept of the reserve effect, this is not a novel trigger.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on October 07, 2018, 12:34:45 pm

There's no real Dominion Reserve card that triggers on "when you gain a card." Duplicate is closest but that's restricted by price.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 07, 2018, 02:41:03 pm

Full image for my submission, using Eagle's wording suggestion:

(https://i.imgur.com/n36TruJ.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 07, 2018, 04:18:36 pm

Quote from: Violet CLM on October 07, 2018, 12:34:45 pm

There's no real Dominion Reserve card that triggers on "when you gain a card." Duplicate is closest but that's restricted by price.

Ah, yes, sorry. I forgot the price restriction on Duplicate.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 07, 2018, 05:29:59 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jEi1bVV.jpg)

Quote

Bailey
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $2
Discard 4 cards. If you discarded any cards, +$4 and you may put this on your Tavern mat.

---

When another player plays an Attack, you may call this and then put this into your hand. If you do, you are unaffected by Attacks until the start of your next turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on October 07, 2018, 06:55:36 pm

Quote from: Violet CLM on October 07, 2018, 12:34:45 pm

There's no real Dominion Reserve card that triggers on "when you gain a card." Duplicate is closest but that's restricted by price.

Yes, this is exactly, what I also observed. There was no vanilla when-you-gain trigger.

Revenant is the idea of a replayable Acting Troupe. Unlike Acting Troupe, the actions are not usable in the same turn (if you forget about Villa). You can revive the Revenant later in different ways. You opponent plays a Witch? Gain a Curse, trash one from the Supply. That's the way to go.  You can also gather Villagers an collect your Revenants on you Tavern Mat to prepare a megaturn where you buy four Provinces, call three Revenants to trash the last three Provinces. Wow! It shares some similarities with Salt the Earth, will still being different. I had a lot of fun testing that card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 07, 2018, 08:33:04 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on October 07, 2018, 09:13:53 am

I haven't played Dominion in a while and I have no idea if this is balanced...

Traitor
Cost: $3
Type: Action/Reserve
+1 Card
+1 Action
+2 Coffers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When you buy a Duchy, you may call this.

Things you call should have an on-call effect, otherwise it would be 'discard this from your Tavern mat,' like Wine Merchant. For the contest you should have an on-call effect, unless faust contradicts me.

Edit: Nevermind, ignore me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on October 07, 2018, 10:39:05 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 07, 2018, 08:33:04 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on October 07, 2018, 09:13:53 am

I haven't played Dominion in a while and I have no idea if this is balanced...

Traitor
Cost: $3
Type: Action/Reserve
+1 Card
+1 Action
+2 Coffers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When you buy a Duchy, you may call this.

Things you call should have an on-call effect, otherwise it would be 'discard this from your Tavern mat,' like Wine Merchant. For the contest you should have an on-call effect, unless faust contradicts me.

You're right; I should have checked the wording on Wine Merchant first.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on October 08, 2018, 12:52:09 am

Wine Cellar
Action - Reserve - $4
+1 Action
Put this on your tavern mat.
---
At the start of your Buy phase, you may call this, to spend all the coin tokens on it for $1 each. Otherwise, place a coin token on this.

Spending coin tokens works the same as using them from your Coffers. You must use all the tokens when you call the card (although you don't have to spend all the money you get from using them).

EDIT: I had a go at creating the card using Violet CLM's tool, here we go.
(https://i.imgur.com/LJLUHjQ.png) (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Wine%20Cellar&description=%2B1%20Action%0APut%20this%20on%20your%20tavern%20mat.%0A-%0AAt%20the%20start%20of%20your%20Buy%20phase%2C%20you%20may%20call%20this%2C%20to%20spend%20all%20the%20coin%20tokens%20on%20it%20for%20%241%20each.%20Otherwise%2C%20place%20a%20coin%20token%20on%20this.&type=Action%20-%20Reserve&credit=Joseph%20Haier&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F7%2F70%2FJoseph_Haier_-_Monks_in_a_cellar_1873.jpg&color0=5&color1=0&size=0)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 08, 2018, 01:57:46 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 07, 2018, 08:33:04 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on October 07, 2018, 09:13:53 am

I haven't played Dominion in a while and I have no idea if this is balanced...

Traitor
Cost: $3
Type: Action/Reserve
+1 Card
+1 Action
+2 Coffers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When you buy a Duchy, you may call this.

Things you call should have an on-call effect, otherwise it would be 'discard this from your Tavern mat,' like Wine Merchant. For the contest you should have an on-call effect, unless faust contradicts me.

So, that means that cards like my Lady-in-Waiting don't qualify? Now I see why Fragasnap called his card first instead of putting it in his hand from his Tavern Mat directly...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on October 08, 2018, 04:58:17 am

(https://i.imgur.com/GjkyJcJ.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 08, 2018, 06:24:36 am

(https://i.imgur.com/lUQ383y.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on October 08, 2018, 11:32:16 am

Banker
Action - Reserve $4
You may discard a treasure from your hand for +2 Cards and +1 Action. Put this on your tavern mat.
----------------------------------------------
When you play a treasure, you may call this to trash that treasure.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 08, 2018, 01:40:56 pm

It is not a new design and an Avanto variant:

(https://i.imgur.com/fM0I06C.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 08, 2018, 02:15:30 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 08, 2018, 01:40:56 pm

It is not a new design and an Avanto variant:

(https://i.imgur.com/13DhDMD.jpg)

Or perhaps a Wine Merchant (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Wine_Merchant) variant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 08, 2018, 03:56:46 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 08, 2018, 01:40:56 pm

It is not a new design and an Avanto variant:

(https://i.imgur.com/13DhDMD.jpg)

I think you need to change this to have an on-call effect, otherwise you are not calling it but discarding it, and the challenge says for the card to have a novel on-call effect. Also, if you leave it at discarding it should say 'discard this from your Tavern mat.'
Maybe faust doesn't really care if it is actually an on-call effect or just discarding it though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 08, 2018, 05:17:23 pm

Quote from: Aquila on October 05, 2018, 05:31:43 am

Diarist - Action Reserve, $3 cost.
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you shuffle, you may call this, to pick one of the cards and set it aside face down. Put it into your hand at the start of your next turn, then discard this.

Nice card! Feels like a natural fit into what you should be able to do with Reserve cards. A very useful call effect that probably needs the weak on-play to balance it out.

I'm sure anyone playing this would have no problem figuring out what it does, but I think it could use a slight wording tweak to be more in-line with what is actually happening when it is called. This would be my suggestion:

(https://i.imgur.com/3ZXeOoL.jpg)

Also, is it your intention for Diarist to make the reshuffle that triggers it? If so, I'm not sure this will always be clear to the player that a called Diarist can set it itself aside for the next turn. You could make it a standard call clear this up and reduce the text at the same time. It would miss the reshuffle, but this nerf could open up buffing it in other areas like making it a cantrip, or giving it some coin on play. Here is how that could be worded (keeping the current on-play).

(https://i.imgur.com/odQ6t2F.jpg)

Hopefully I'm not overstepping by making a mockup for your card. I just think it's a great, clean card and I think it deserves to shine in this competition. Thanks for sharing!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on October 08, 2018, 11:36:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/xmYDpCl.jpg)

Quote

Atelier

+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you would gain a card, you may call this, to instead gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.

$5
Action - Reserve

Edit: Forgot to put card type in the text version

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 09, 2018, 02:18:22 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 07, 2018, 08:33:04 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on October 07, 2018, 09:13:53 am

I haven't played Dominion in a while and I have no idea if this is balanced...

Traitor
Cost: $3
Type: Action/Reserve
+1 Card
+1 Action
+2 Coffers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
---
When you buy a Duchy, you may call this.

Things you call should have an on-call effect, otherwise it would be 'discard this from your Tavern mat,' like Wine Merchant. For the contest you should have an on-call effect, unless faust contradicts me.

I think I am fine with anything that has a way to remove itself from the Tavern mat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 09, 2018, 03:56:12 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 08, 2018, 05:17:23 pm

Quote from: Aquila on October 05, 2018, 05:31:43 am

Diarist - Action Reserve, $3 cost.
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you shuffle, you may call this, to pick one of the cards and set it aside face down. Put it into your hand at the start of your next turn, then discard this.

Nice card! Feels like a natural fit into what you should be able to do with Reserve cards. A very useful call effect that probably needs the weak on-play to balance it out.

I'm sure anyone playing this would have no problem figuring out what it does, but I think it could use a slight wording tweak to be more in-line with what is actually happening when it is called.

I borrowed the wording from Star Chart. "When you shuffle, you may pick one of the cards" to set aside in the manner of Haven. Calling a Reserve brings it into play, so I hoped it would be intuitive to put the card face down under it to track what it was set aside for. 

Quote from: Kudasai on October 08, 2018, 05:17:23 pm

Also, is it your intention for Diarist to make the reshuffle that triggers it? If so, I'm not sure this will always be clear to the player that a called Diarist can set it itself aside for the next turn. You could make it a standard call clear this up and reduce the text at the same time. It would miss the reshuffle, but this nerf could open up buffing it in other areas like making it a cantrip, or giving it some coin on play. Here is how that could be worded (keeping the current on-play).

(https://i.imgur.com/odQ6t2F.jpg)

Hopefully I'm not overstepping by making a mockup for your card. I just think it's a great, clean card and I think it deserves to shine in this competition. Thanks for sharing!

This second variant is almost exactly the intent, missing the shuffle to balance it further. I had it discard itself after it's done holding the card so it only misses one shuffle, but it may not need it?

I don't mind your mock-up at all, really I appreciate your post. I was on a tablet when I posted it so couldn't do a mock-up, so thanks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 09, 2018, 03:16:20 pm

Quote from: Aquila on October 09, 2018, 03:56:12 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 08, 2018, 05:17:23 pm

Quote from: Aquila on October 05, 2018, 05:31:43 am

Diarist - Action Reserve, $3 cost.
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you shuffle, you may call this, to pick one of the cards and set it aside face down. Put it into your hand at the start of your next turn, then discard this.

Nice card! Feels like a natural fit into what you should be able to do with Reserve cards. A very useful call effect that probably needs the weak on-play to balance it out.

I'm sure anyone playing this would have no problem figuring out what it does, but I think it could use a slight wording tweak to be more in-line with what is actually happening when it is called.

I borrowed the wording from Star Chart. "When you shuffle, you may pick one of the cards" to set aside in the manner of Haven. Calling a Reserve brings it into play, so I hoped it would be intuitive to put the card face down under it to track what it was set aside for. 

Quote from: Kudasai on October 08, 2018, 05:17:23 pm

Also, is it your intention for Diarist to make the reshuffle that triggers it? If so, I'm not sure this will always be clear to the player that a called Diarist can set it itself aside for the next turn. You could make it a standard call clear this up and reduce the text at the same time. It would miss the reshuffle, but this nerf could open up buffing it in other areas like making it a cantrip, or giving it some coin on play. Here is how that could be worded (keeping the current on-play).

(https://i.imgur.com/odQ6t2F.jpg)

Hopefully I'm not overstepping by making a mockup for your card. I just think it's a great, clean card and I think it deserves to shine in this competition. Thanks for sharing!

This second variant is almost exactly the intent, missing the shuffle to balance it further. I had it discard itself after it's done holding the card so it only misses one shuffle, but it may not need it?

I don't mind your mock-up at all, really I appreciate your post. I was on a tablet when I posted it so couldn't do a mock-up, so thanks.

Ahh, I now see that the discarding of Diarist happens the next turn after putting the set aside card into your hand. I guess the problem would have been how does Diarist go from being called into play to being set aside? You'd need some extra text to execute that. As you already mentioned though, the second mockup should play essentially the same without any rules issues.

Glad you like the mockups. I won't at all be offended if you go with your own mockups though. Half the fun of making fan cards is getting the choose the artwork. Actually, half the time choosing the artwork is a nightmare for me, but that's other story.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 09, 2018, 03:29:00 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 08, 2018, 01:40:56 pm

It is not a new design and an Avanto variant:

(https://i.imgur.com/13DhDMD.jpg)

My first thought/fear was that it's probably pretty good with Big Money as you will always have 1 extra Action at the end of each turn to get Azure Coves back into the shuffle, but this is essentially a less efficient Smithy Big Money Deck. So you've got a very powerful card that appears to become less efficient in mass quantities. Very nice design!

As others have said though, this should read "...to discard this from your Tavern mat."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 09, 2018, 04:19:40 pm

Quote from: alion8me on October 08, 2018, 11:36:47 pm

Atelier

+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you would gain a card, you may call this, to instead gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.

$5
Action - Reserve

I like this. If you use it "normally" during your Buy phase it is to Baker as Coin of the Realm is to a Villagers. You cannot always use it like a Peddler though, e.g. when you hit 6 in a Kingdom without 7s you cannot use this to a gain a Province. So not all that great
But it can shine in combination with Workshop variants or as defense against junkers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on October 09, 2018, 04:36:52 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 09, 2018, 04:19:40 pm

Quote from: alion8me on October 08, 2018, 11:36:47 pm

Atelier

+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you would gain a card, you may call this, to instead gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.

$5
Action - Reserve

I like this. If you use it "normally" during your Buy phase it is to Baker as Coin of the Realm is to a Villagers. You cannot always use it like a Peddler though, e.g. when you hit 6 in a Kingdom without 7s you cannot use this to a gain a Province. So not all that great
But it can shine in combination with Workshop variants or as defense against junkers.

And much like with Smokehouse, you can save these up and use them on a single card gain, provided you have no gaps in card costs. In games with $7-cost cards, Poor House, and/or Bridge-variants, you could get Cursed, but then call series of Ateliers to eventually take you up to a good card. In most games, you should easily be able to buy a $2 card, then call four Ateliers to get a Gold.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 09, 2018, 05:16:30 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on October 09, 2018, 04:36:52 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 09, 2018, 04:19:40 pm

Quote from: alion8me on October 08, 2018, 11:36:47 pm

Atelier

+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you would gain a card, you may call this, to instead gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.

$5
Action - Reserve

I like this. If you use it "normally" during your Buy phase it is to Baker as Coin of the Realm is to a Villagers. You cannot always use it like a Peddler though, e.g. when you hit 6 in a Kingdom without 7s you cannot use this to a gain a Province. So not all that great
But it can shine in combination with Workshop variants or as defense against junkers.

And much like with Smokehouse, you can save these up and use them on a single card gain, provided you have no gaps in card costs. In games with $7-cost cards, Poor House, and/or Bridge-variants, you could get Cursed, but then call series of Ateliers to eventually take you up to a good card. In most games, you should easily be able to buy a $2 card, then call four Ateliers to get a Gold.

Maybe lose the +1 Card and make it cost $1 to enable that in every game?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Erick648 on October 09, 2018, 06:43:46 pm

City Founders
$3 Action-Reserve
+2 Villagers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
Place a Coin token each on two different non-Victory Action Supply piles.
-
When an opponent gains a non-Victory card, you may call this, to take the Coin tokens on that card's Supply pile as Coffers or Villagers.

Note: I had to specify "non-Victory" both times to prevent weird interactions with Trade Route.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on October 09, 2018, 08:38:31 pm

Quote from: Erick648 on October 09, 2018, 06:43:46 pm

City Founders
$3 Action-Reserve
+2 Villagers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
Place a Coin token on a non-Victory Action Supply pile.
-
When an opponent gains a non-Victory card, you may call this, to take the Coin tokens on that card's Supply pile as Coffers or Villagers.

Note: I had to specify "non-Victory" both times to prevent weird interactions with Trade Route.

This is interesting - however, it seems kind of weak. Assuming that you have a way to make your opponent gain a certain card (e.g. cursers) it gives you +2 Villagers and +1 of either coffers or villagers, which seems pretty good in the right situations, but still not particularly powerful. However, outside of that, you're playing a card for +2 Villagers (kind of like a more flexible Necropolis) and hoping your opponent buys a card with the tokens on top of it sometime soon, so that you can get your bonus and play the card again. Since its a village (and you're presumably going to want to be able to play them consistently), this makes it seem pretty weak.

However, the villager tokens probably alleviate some of the inconsistency problems and I haven't ever played with them, so maybe this is stronger than I think it looks.

It's also kind of neat how this card interacts with itself if the other player also has it. If you both have City Founders on your tavern mat, who will be the first one to buy a card with coin tokens on it? It seems like in this case you'd probably want to deny your opponent their City Founders though - having the ability to chain actions is usually much more powerful than any single card (this isn't an issue if there are other villages). I like the concept of it only being able to be called when your opponent gains a certain card, though - it just seems like it might work better on something that's not as integral to a deck as villages are.

Also, how does it work in multiplayer?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 10, 2018, 07:45:32 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 09, 2018, 05:16:30 pm

Maybe lose the +1 Card and make it cost $1 to enable that in every game?

This might make it too good against junkers:
A plays Witch
B calls Atelier to gain an Atelier instead of a Curse

Quote from: alion8me on October 09, 2018, 08:38:31 pm

Also, how does it work in multiplayer?

Yeah, it needs some tiebreaker / call order rules.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 10, 2018, 08:16:46 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 10, 2018, 07:45:32 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 09, 2018, 05:16:30 pm

Maybe lose the +1 Card and make it cost $1 to enable that in every game?

This might make it too good against junkers:
A plays Witch
B calls Atelier to gain an Atelier instead of a Curse

Quote from: alion8me on October 09, 2018, 08:38:31 pm

Also, how does it work in multiplayer?

Yeah, it needs some tiebreaker / call order rules.

A plays Witch after playing three bridges.
B calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
A calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
C calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
B calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
C calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
A gains 3 curses
B gains 2 curses
C gains 2 curses
Did I do that right? I could've gone on longer if I had made A play more bridges, because I only stopped because I ran out of Atteliers.
Fun stuff?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on October 10, 2018, 09:29:33 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 10, 2018, 08:16:46 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 10, 2018, 07:45:32 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 09, 2018, 05:16:30 pm

Maybe lose the +1 Card and make it cost $1 to enable that in every game?

This might make it too good against junkers:
A plays Witch
B calls Atelier to gain an Atelier instead of a Curse

Quote from: alion8me on October 09, 2018, 08:38:31 pm

Also, how does it work in multiplayer?

Yeah, it needs some tiebreaker / call order rules.

A plays Witch after playing three bridges.
B calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
A calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
C calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
B calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
C calls two Atteliers and gains Ill Gotten Gains.
A gains 3 curses
B gains 2 curses
C gains 2 curses
Did I do that right? I could've gone on longer if I had made A play more bridges, because I only stopped because I ran out of Atteliers.
Fun stuff?

I think that's correct. (I was talking about City Founders, although its a good point that IGG+Atelier is kind of confusing. However, I would expect this to rarely show up in practice because playing a junker when everything on the board is cost reduced and your opponent has an Atelier is probably a sub-optimal move)

I actually had another variant of the card in mind that turns it into more of a Silver+ type of thing and lets it gain provinces;

Quote

Atelier Variant

+1 Action
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you would gain a card, you may call this, to instead gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.

$5
Action - Reserve

I'm kind of worried that it would be too strong though because now you can use it on silver gainers to get $5's, gold gainers to get provinces, curses/ruins attacks to get $2's, and chaining them is insane. So this isn't my submission, the first Atelier still is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 10, 2018, 09:52:07 am

Yeah, I think the easy solution is to never play with Atelier and IGG.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Erick648 on October 10, 2018, 08:08:06 pm

Quote from: alion8me on October 09, 2018, 08:38:31 pm

Quote from: Erick648 on October 09, 2018, 06:43:46 pm

City Founders
$3 Action-Reserve
+2 Villagers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
Place a Coin token on a non-Victory Action Supply pile.
-
When an opponent gains a non-Victory card, you may call this, to take the Coin tokens on that card's Supply pile as Coffers or Villagers.

Note: I had to specify "non-Victory" both times to prevent weird interactions with Trade Route.

This is interesting - however, it seems kind of weak. Assuming that you have a way to make your opponent gain a certain card (e.g. cursers) it gives you +2 Villagers and +1 of either coffers or villagers, which seems pretty good in the right situations, but still not particularly powerful. However, outside of that, you're playing a card for +2 Villagers (kind of like a more flexible Necropolis) and hoping your opponent buys a card with the tokens on top of it sometime soon, so that you can get your bonus and play the card again. Since its a village (and you're presumably going to want to be able to play them consistently), this makes it seem pretty weak.

However, the villager tokens probably alleviate some of the inconsistency problems and I haven't ever played with them, so maybe this is stronger than I think it looks.

It's also kind of neat how this card interacts with itself if the other player also has it. If you both have City Founders on your tavern mat, who will be the first one to buy a card with coin tokens on it? It seems like in this case you'd probably want to deny your opponent their City Founders though - having the ability to chain actions is usually much more powerful than any single card (this isn't an issue if there are other villages). I like the concept of it only being able to be called when your opponent gains a certain card, though - it just seems like it might work better on something that's not as integral to a deck as villages are.

Also, how does it work in multiplayer?

Yeah, I intended it as a non-attack interaction card.  I originally made the tokens stay on the piles permanently, but that seemed too powerful since it got exponential (your opponent gains a key card with three tokens on it; you call your five City Founders for 3x5=15 Coffers).  In multiplayer, players get the option to call City Founders in turn order, as with Reactions, etc.  Note that you can call it even if your opponent gains a card without tokens on it, if you just want to play it again (meaning that you can play it every turn unless your opponent gains no non-Victory cards).  And yes, you can poach your opponent's tokens if he gains the card first.

It's hard for me to gauge how strong it is, but you're probably right that it's a little weak.  I've edited it to add two tokens instead of one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on October 10, 2018, 08:59:48 pm

Quote from: Erick648 on October 10, 2018, 08:08:06 pm

Quote from: alion8me on October 09, 2018, 08:38:31 pm

Quote from: Erick648 on October 09, 2018, 06:43:46 pm

City Founders
$3 Action-Reserve
+2 Villagers
Put this on your Tavern mat.
Place a Coin token on a non-Victory Action Supply pile.
-
When an opponent gains a non-Victory card, you may call this, to take the Coin tokens on that card's Supply pile as Coffers or Villagers.

Note: I had to specify "non-Victory" both times to prevent weird interactions with Trade Route.

This is interesting - however, it seems kind of weak. Assuming that you have a way to make your opponent gain a certain card (e.g. cursers) it gives you +2 Villagers and +1 of either coffers or villagers, which seems pretty good in the right situations, but still not particularly powerful. However, outside of that, you're playing a card for +2 Villagers (kind of like a more flexible Necropolis) and hoping your opponent buys a card with the tokens on top of it sometime soon, so that you can get your bonus and play the card again. Since its a village (and you're presumably going to want to be able to play them consistently), this makes it seem pretty weak.

However, the villager tokens probably alleviate some of the inconsistency problems and I haven't ever played with them, so maybe this is stronger than I think it looks.

It's also kind of neat how this card interacts with itself if the other player also has it. If you both have City Founders on your tavern mat, who will be the first one to buy a card with coin tokens on it? It seems like in this case you'd probably want to deny your opponent their City Founders though - having the ability to chain actions is usually much more powerful than any single card (this isn't an issue if there are other villages). I like the concept of it only being able to be called when your opponent gains a certain card, though - it just seems like it might work better on something that's not as integral to a deck as villages are.

Also, how does it work in multiplayer?

Yeah, I intended it as a non-attack interaction card.  I originally made the tokens stay on the piles permanently, but that seemed too powerful since it got exponential (your opponent gains a key card with three tokens on it; you call your five City Founders for 3x5=15 Coffers).  In multiplayer, players get the option to call City Founders in turn order, as with Reactions, etc.  Note that you can call it even if your opponent gains a card without tokens on it, if you just want to play it again (meaning that you can play it every turn unless your opponent gains no non-Victory cards).  And yes, you can poach your opponent's tokens if he gains the card first.

It's hard for me to gauge how strong it is, but you're probably right that it's a little weak.  I've edited it to add two tokens instead of one.

Wow, I didn't realize that you could call it even if your opponent gains non-victory cards without tokens on them. In that case, ~90% of the criticisms I had of the card are completely invalid. This also makes endgame with this card a lot more interesting than my misread-version, because when your opponent greens, they also deny you your villages that you were probably getting to use a lot before that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 10, 2018, 10:41:16 pm

Quote from: ben_king on October 05, 2018, 02:31:44 pm

Vanishing City
Action - Reserve - $3

+2 Cards
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-----
When you play a Vanishing City, you may call this, for +1 Action.

Isn't each one after the first a Laboratory? I mean, you can stack them for multiple +Actions, but you could also ignore that and just have $3 Laboratories.

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 05, 2018, 08:25:26 pm

Coffee Shop
$4 Action-Reserve
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you gain an action or treasure card, you may call this to set aside the gained card and play it at the start of your next turn.

This wants to accelerate higher cost cards at the cost of buying and playing the Coffee Shop first. I'm not sure if this will ever be worth the opportunity cost as written, though I like it a fair bit. It needs to be cheaper and easier to get onto your Tavern mat.

Quote from: Tejayes on October 05, 2018, 08:31:29 pm

Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

The fact that it can't trigger off of itself is a neat limiter to the power of Coffers. The stacking is something that I'd like to see play out in some games.

Quote from: Kudasai on October 06, 2018, 05:35:59 am

Revolutionist
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. Put this on your Tavern mat.

---

When you would draw any number of cards (of any number), you may call this to instead get +$3.

I like this. It's a weak draw that turns any non-stop card into economy once you're ready for economy. I think it might need to cost $6. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this one?

Quote from: hypercube on October 08, 2018, 04:58:17 am

Dwarven Smith
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $2
+1 Action. Put this on your Tavern mat.

---

When you gain a Gold, you may call this to gain a card costing up to $2 per Dwarven Smith remaining on your Tavern mat.

It takes 5 Dwarven Smiths to get Gold\Province\Duchy, which you could theoretically setup to do again. Curious, though I'm not sure this is very flexible since you have to gain Golds and then weather the Dwarven Smiths coming back home.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 11, 2018, 02:16:23 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 05, 2018, 08:25:26 pm

Modded my card so it isn't so weak.

Quote

Coffee Shop
$3 Action-Reserve
+1 Action.
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you gain an action or treasure card, you may call this to set aside the gained card and play it at the start of your next turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 11, 2018, 11:12:09 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 10, 2018, 10:41:16 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on October 05, 2018, 08:31:29 pm

Smokehouse
Action-Reserve - $4

Trash a card from your hand.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----
When you trash a card, you may call this, for +1 Coffers per $1 it costs.

The fact that it can't trigger off of itself is a neat limiter to the power of Coffers. The stacking is something that I'd like to see play out in some games.

Player 1 (I'll call them Owen) has 4 Smokehouses on his Tavern mat.
Owen plays a Smokehouse.
Owen trashes a Province.
Owen calls a Smokehouse for +8 Coffers.
Owen calls a Smokehouse for +8 Coffers.
Owen calls a Smokehouse for +8 Coffers.
Owen calls a Smokehouse for +8 Coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 11, 2018, 11:13:16 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 11, 2018, 02:16:23 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 05, 2018, 08:25:26 pm

Modded my card so it isn't so weak.

Quote

Coffee Shop
$3 Action-Reserve
+1 Action.
Put this on your tavern mat.
-
When you gain an action or treasure card, you may call this to set aside the gained card and play it at the start of your next turn.

That should work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 11, 2018, 11:33:30 am

Here's Chappy7's Scrapper with the image fixed. I hope this is okay.
(https://i.imgur.com/jHghZdx.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on October 11, 2018, 04:26:38 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 11, 2018, 11:33:30 am

Here's Chappy7's Scrapper with the image fixed. I hope this is okay.
(https://i.imgur.com/jHghZdx.jpg)

Yes thank you.  Except I think I'll be editing my entry to say "When you play your second Copper this turn, you may call this to trash that Copper." so it isn't always better than moneylender, and a bit more interesting. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on October 11, 2018, 05:30:45 pm

My idea:

Servant
$4 Action/Reserve
2$, +1 Buy
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
-----------------------
At the end of your Buy phase, you may move this card from the Tavern mat onto your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 11, 2018, 06:28:29 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on October 11, 2018, 04:26:38 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 11, 2018, 11:33:30 am

Here's Chappy7's Scrapper with the image fixed. I hope this is okay.
(https://i.imgur.com/jHghZdx.jpg)

Yes thank you.  Except I think I'll be editing my entry to say "When you play your second Copper this turn, you may call this to trash that Copper." so it isn't always better than moneylender, and a bit more interesting.

Here's the cropped image if you want it:
https://i.imgur.com/vQq964w.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/vQq964w.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on October 11, 2018, 08:21:48 pm

Fur coat-
+1 Action +2💵
Put this on your tavern mat.
——————————
When an attack is played not during
Your turn you may call this and gain
A gold;otherwise At the start of your
Next turn you may call this to gain a
Card costing up to 4💵.

4💵  Action-Reserve

If your wearing a fur coat you might find you might find some money in it

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 11, 2018, 10:05:38 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on October 11, 2018, 08:21:48 pm

Fur coat-
+1 Action +2💵
Put this on your tavern mat.
——————————
When an attack is played not during
Your turn you may call this and gain
A gold;otherwise At the start of your
Next turn you may call this to gain a
Card costing up to 4💵.

4💵  Action-Reserve

If your wearing a fur coat you might find you might find some money in it

I'm not quite sure when you would gain a card costing up to $4 here...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 12, 2018, 10:06:48 am

The Judging should be sometime today, right?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 12, 2018, 10:10:44 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 12, 2018, 10:06:48 am

The Judging should be sometime today, right?

Indeed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 12, 2018, 10:44:55 am

Well, this has not not been easy, as we've seen a lot of submissions, and a bunch of really solid ones too. I'll give a top 3:

1. Wine Cellar (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg773077#msg773077) by ConMan

The design is very simple and yet compelling. If you get this early, you might cash in for 10 or more Coffers in the endgame, but you hurt your deck building. I have always liked the stockpiling aspect of Duplicate and this goes in a similar direction.

2. City Founders (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg773253#msg773253) by Erick648

This offers interesting interaction similar to Gathering cards, and is a quite unique Village that your opponent can block by going full BM. It's intriguing, though I am not sure it should be limited to Action cards. And interactions may get too unpredictable in multiplayer.

3. Bailey (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg773055#msg773055) by Fragasnap

It's a more interesting Attack blocker than what we have so far. I also like the on-play effect; it is very situational and still may be strong occasionally, and thus a good fit for a $2. One thing I might want changed is that it protects you until the end of your turn. It may get more interesting if it only protects you from a single attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on October 12, 2018, 02:24:28 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 07, 2018, 05:29:59 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jEi1bVV.jpg)

Quote

Bailey
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $2
Discard 4 cards. If you discarded any cards, +$4 and you may put this on your Tavern mat.

---

When another player plays an Attack, you may call this and then put this into your hand. If you do, you are unaffected by Attacks until the start of your next turn.

Whoops, this card has an issue, that it also gives you the +$4, if you have only one card in your hand, very similar to Tactician. This could be abusable with disappearing money like Festival, Harvest, Candlestick Maker, Pawn and even Poor House.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 12, 2018, 03:01:59 pm

Quote from: faust on October 12, 2018, 10:44:55 am

3. Bailey (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg773055#msg773055) by Fragasnap

It's a more interesting Attack blocker than what we have so far. I also like the on-play effect; it is very situational and still may be strong occasionally, and thus a good fit for a $2. One thing I might want changed is that it protects you until the end of your turn. It may get more interesting if it only protects you from a single attack.

Blocking a single Attack in 2-player games would probably be okay, but in multiplayer I am almost sure it would be weak and, more importantly, immensely frustrating--especially around the hand-size Attacks which Bailey doesn't like. Bailey in a standard hand doesn't care too much about Attacks (discards junk, discard a smaller hand for +$4 anyway), but when you call it to block an Attack it jumps straight into your hand, meaning you will typically have a 6-card hand with a Bailey that doesn't have to discard everything. Blocking a single Cutpurse to then suffer a different Cutpurse anyway would feel really bad.
I felt like blanket protection was the easiest to track and the best solution. Would you consider it significantly improved if it read "If you do, you are unaffected by copies of that Attack until the start of your next turn"?

Quote from: King Leon on October 12, 2018, 02:24:28 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 07, 2018, 05:29:59 pm

Bailey
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $2
Discard 4 cards. If you discarded any cards, +$4 and you may put this on your Tavern mat.

---

When another player plays an Attack, you may call this and then put this into your hand. If you do, you are unaffected by Attacks until the start of your next turn.

Whoops, this card has an issue, that it also gives you the +$4, if you have only one card in your hand, very similar to Tactician. This could be abusable with disappearing money like Festival, Harvest, Candlestick Maker, Pawn and even Poor House.

That is entirely the point.  You ideally reduce your hand to 2 cards to get +$4 out of them on a Bailey play.  It also doesn't automatically go to your Tavern mat so you might be able to abuse this feature in Kingdoms without Attacks.
You need to discard at least 1 card to avoid obvious issues with Throne Room variants.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 13, 2018, 10:15:55 pm

...When are we going to get the next challenge?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 14, 2018, 12:44:35 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 13, 2018, 10:15:55 pm

...When are we going to get the next challenge?

Not in good time. ConMan is trying to ice our creativity.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 14, 2018, 05:54:22 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 17, 2018, 01:21:20 pm

5. If the winner does not post within a reasonable amount of time, the runner-up may post the next challenge

Do we let Erick648 post a challenge yet?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on October 14, 2018, 05:58:07 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 14, 2018, 12:44:35 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 13, 2018, 10:15:55 pm

...When are we going to get the next challenge?

Not in good time. ConMan is trying to ice our creativity.

Also weekends and Australian time zones can get in the way of my posting. That said, thanks for picking my card, faust!

The new challenge is:

Design a card with variable cost.

I'll leave the details up for interpretation - maybe it works like Peddler, maybe it has an alternative means of being gained, maybe you can find some way to have two different costs on the card and rules for figuring out which one to use.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 14, 2018, 06:04:50 pm

Quote from: ConMan on October 14, 2018, 05:58:07 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 14, 2018, 12:44:35 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 13, 2018, 10:15:55 pm

...When are we going to get the next challenge?

Not in good time. ConMan is trying to ice our creativity.

Also weekends and Australian time zones can get in the way of my posting. That said, thanks for picking my card, faust!

The new challenge is:

Design a card with variable cost.

I'll leave the details up for interpretation - maybe it works like Peddler, maybe it has an alternative means of being gained, maybe you can find some way to have two different costs on the card and rules for figuring out which one to use.

Sorry for being impatient  :-[. Good Challenge!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on October 14, 2018, 07:17:27 pm

Quote from: ConMan on October 14, 2018, 05:58:07 pm

The new challenge is:

Design a card with variable cost.

Here's my entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/63BHreBl.png)

Quote

Rare Earth
Treasure - $5
--
When you play this, choose one: +$1 and gain a Rare Earth; or return this for +$ equal to its cost.
-
This costs $1 less for every two Rare Earth in the Supply (round down).

As always, feedback is appreciated.

Edit: Reworded for concision.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 14, 2018, 07:41:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/FwY7SiT.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 14, 2018, 08:09:52 pm

Might as well try something random myself here.

(https://i.imgur.com/VaL6KDH.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 14, 2018, 09:59:28 pm

Quote from: Asper on October 14, 2018, 08:09:52 pm

Might as well try something random myself here.

(https://i.imgur.com/VaL6KDH.png)

I'm not 100% on the rules of when you can pay off debt but you may not be able to use the when buy +$5 on paying off the debt incurred buying the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 14, 2018, 10:29:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/XdOTDNk.jpg)

Quote

Gleaners
Types: Action
Cost: $4*
Look through your discard pile. Trash a card from it or your hand and gain a differently named card costing up to $1 more than it.

---

During your turn, if your discard pile is empty, this costs $3 less, but not less than $0.

Archive

Quote

Gleaners
Types: Action
Cost: $4*
+2 Cards. Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.
-----
During your turn, if your discard pile is empty, this costs $3 less, but not less than $0.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 14, 2018, 10:38:25 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 14, 2018, 09:59:28 pm

Quote from: Asper on October 14, 2018, 08:09:52 pm

Might as well try something random myself here.

(https://i.imgur.com/VaL6KDH.png)

I'm not 100% on the rules of when you can pay off debt but you may not be able to use the when buy +$5 on paying off the debt incurred buying the card.

On my phone so I can't go into too much detail, but the Debt can be paid off after Outskirts is gained.

As for the card itself... awesome looking! I loathe your ability to make a good Duchy alternative.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 14, 2018, 10:57:33 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 14, 2018, 10:29:14 pm

Quote

Gleaners
Types: Action
Cost: $4*
+2 Cards. Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.

---

During your turn, if your discard pile is empty, this costs $3 less, but not less than $0.

This is really powerful. I have a $4 card with the same upper half and it was strong enough to give it a drawback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 15, 2018, 12:31:00 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 14, 2018, 09:59:28 pm

Quote from: Asper on October 14, 2018, 08:09:52 pm

Might as well try something random myself here.

I'm not 100% on the rules of when you can pay off debt but you may not be able to use the when buy +$5 on paying off the debt incurred buying the card.

I wasn't sure myself until I realized this is pretty much what you do for each debt cost card there is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on October 15, 2018, 01:25:46 am

Reconstruct
Type: Action
Cost: $6*

Trash a non-Treasure card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.

--
In your Buy phase, this costs $3 less, but not less than $0.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 15, 2018, 08:39:03 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 14, 2018, 09:59:28 pm

I'm not 100% on the rules of when you can pay off debt but you may not be able to use the when buy +$5 on paying off the debt incurred buying the card.

Debt can be paid off during the Buy phase.  Capital gives special permission to pay off Debt because it is typically discarded from play (thus incurring Debt) during Clean-Up, when Debt cannot normally be paid.

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 14, 2018, 10:57:33 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 14, 2018, 10:29:14 pm

Quote

Gleaners
Types: Action
Cost: $4*
+2 Cards. Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.

---

During your turn, if your discard pile is empty, this costs $3 less, but not less than $0.

This is really powerful. I have a $4 card with the same upper half and it was strong enough to give it a drawback.

Considering how players are still sleeping on Remodel, I know it is strong--most players discredit the power of trash-for-benefits.  I'll take your advice and post a weaker version as I enjoyed but am not married to the quoted version.

Quote

Gleaners
Types: Action
Cost: $4*
Look through your discard pile. Trash a card from it or your hand and gain a differently named card costing up to $1 more than it.

---

During your turn, if your discard pile is empty, this costs $3 less, but not less than $0.

*Original post updated.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread {Design a card with variable cost.}
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 15, 2018, 09:09:05 am

(https://i.imgur.com/5U7nQZG.jpg)

Quote

Grand High Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $8*

+2 Cards
+1 Action
Each other player gains a Curse.
----
While this is in the supply, during your Buy phase, you may look through your discard pile.  When you buy this, you may return any number of Curse cards from your hand or discard pile to the supply.  For each one you return, this costs $1 less, to a minimum of $0.

Clarification: You may buy this card so long as you have enough coins to pay its reduced cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 15, 2018, 09:28:22 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 14, 2018, 10:38:25 pm

As for the card itself... awesome looking! I loathe your ability to make a good Duchy alternative.

He he, thanks... ;)
What can I say, I love me some alt-VP <3

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on October 15, 2018, 01:51:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/qHXiAj4.png) (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Priory&description=%2B1%20Buy%0ATrash%20up%20to%20three%20differently%20named%20cards%20from%20your%20hand.%0A%2B%20%242%20per%20card%20trashed%20this%20way.%0A%0A-%0A%0AWhen%20you%20buy%20this%2C%20as%20many%20times%0Aas%20you%20wish%20until%20this%20costs%20less%0Athan%20%242%2C%20you%20may%20gain%20a%20Ruins%0Ato%20make%20this%20cost%20%242%20less.&type=Action%20-%20Looter&credit=Illustration%3A%20Thomas%20Girtin&price=%248*&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fd3ngf76mkj9kfv.cloudfront.net%2F2018%2F04%2F17080246%2FInterior-of-Lindisfarne-Priory-Thomas-Girtin-Oil-Painting.jpg&color0=0&color1=0&size=0)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gamer3000 on October 15, 2018, 03:44:41 pm

Propaganda
Type: Treasure
Cost: $6*
$2
+1 Buy
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card, +1 Villager.
-
This costs $1 more per Villager on your mat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on October 15, 2018, 04:43:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/52MhBUL.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on October 15, 2018, 04:58:45 pm

Eeegads some of this wording is annoying me:

Quote from: Gamer3000 on October 15, 2018, 03:44:41 pm

Propaganda
Type: Treasure
Cost: $6*
$2
+1 Buy
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card, +1 Villager.
-
This costs $1 more per Villager on your mat.

This needs better timing, like Peddler: "During your turn, this costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} more per Villager you have on your mat."

Quote from: Chappy7 on October 15, 2018, 04:43:00 pm

Renovate

This doesn't need the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png)}? in the cost, the on-buy effect works on its own.

Quote from: Asper on October 14, 2018, 08:09:52 pm

Outskirts

You could just do this as "When you buy this, you may trash an Action from your hand. If you didn't, take _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/21/Debt5.png/18px-Debt5.png)}." Now the wording before was technically correct, but this would have fewer rules clarifications with paying off _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png)} and would have a normal coin cost.

Quote from: Tejayes on October 14, 2018, 07:17:27 pm

Rare Earth
Treasure - $5
When you play this, choose one: +$1 and gain a Rare Earth; or return this for +$ equal to its cost.
-
This costs $1 less for every two Rare Earth in the Supply (round down).

"When you play this, choose one: +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} and gain a Rare Earth; or return this to the supply for +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} equal to its cost in _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}.
-
During your turn, this costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less for every two copies of Rare Earth in the Supply (round down)."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on October 15, 2018, 05:10:46 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on October 15, 2018, 04:43:00 pm

Renovate

You made this in-between the time that I read through the current submissions and finished up my own, sorry if mine's a bit similar to yours.
I think they're different enough that I'll post mine anyways, though:

(https://i.imgur.com/YKM665P.jpg)

Quote

Prophet
$2* Action

+ $2
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Trash any number of them, then put the rest back in any order.
-
This costs 2 debt more per copper you have in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on October 15, 2018, 05:30:25 pm

Quote from: alion8me on October 15, 2018, 05:10:46 pm

Prophet
$2* Action

+ $2
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Trash any number of them, then put the rest back in any order.
-
This costs 2 debt more per copper you have in play.

Again, there's no reason to put _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png)} in the cost (other than to fulfil the challenge). Just make it "When you gain this, take 2_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png)} per Copper you have in play." It's much simpler from a rules standpoint.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 15, 2018, 05:50:53 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZDRm3Hi.png)

Clarification: Cost reduction effects such as Bridge and Highway will make General cost fewer Debt during your Buy phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on October 15, 2018, 06:12:17 pm

(https://imgur.com/gPuU9aY.jpg)

Quote

Silver Smelter
$7* Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Gain a Silver.

Silver produces $1 more this turn.
---
This costs $1 less per Silver you have in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread {Design a card with variable cost.}
Post by: GendoIkari on October 15, 2018, 06:34:06 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 15, 2018, 09:09:05 am

Quote

Grand High Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $8*

+2 Cards
+1 Action
Each other player gains a Curse.
----
While this is in the supply, during your Buy phase, you may look through your discard pile.  When you buy this, you may return any number of Curse cards from your hand or discard pile to the supply.  For each one you return, this costs $1 less, to a minimum of $0.

Clarification: You may buy this card so long as you have enough coins to pay its reduced cost.

I feel like this needs to be reworded somehow. I see exactly what you intend to happen, but not sure that it works with the rules. Your clarification says you may buy it so long as you have enough to pay its reduced cost, but until after you have bought it, there is no way to determine what that reduced cost is! I think you need to have a way of reducing the cost before the buy actually happens. But the only way I can think of to keep identical functionality without breaking rules is pretty messy wording:

In games using this, at the start of your buy phase, you may look through your discard pile and reveal any number of Curses from your discard pile or your hand. This costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less for each Curse revealed this way. When you buy this, return all revealed Curses to the supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 15, 2018, 06:42:52 pm

Quote from: Asper on October 14, 2018, 08:09:52 pm

Might as well try something random myself here.

(https://i.imgur.com/VaL6KDH.png)

The wonderful thing about this card is that when first reading it, I thought "it probably needs to also give +1 buy when you buy it, because otherwise there's always a chance that you won't have anything you can do with that _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} you just got... OH WAIT it costs debt too!"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 15, 2018, 10:01:27 pm

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on October 15, 2018, 04:58:45 pm

Eeegads some of this wording is annoying me:

Quote from: Gamer3000 on October 15, 2018, 03:44:41 pm

Propaganda
Type: Treasure
Cost: $6*
$2
+1 Buy
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card, +1 Villager.
-
This costs $1 more per Villager on your mat.

This needs better timing, like Peddler: "During your turn, this costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} more per Villager you have on your mat."

Quote from: Chappy7 on October 15, 2018, 04:43:00 pm

Renovate

This doesn't need the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png)}? in the cost, the on-buy effect works on its own.

Quote from: Asper on October 14, 2018, 08:09:52 pm

Outskirts

You could just do this as "When you buy this, you may trash an Action from your hand. If you didn't, take _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/21/Debt5.png/18px-Debt5.png)}." Now the wording before was technically correct, but this would have fewer rules clarifications with paying off _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png)} and would have a normal coin cost.

Quote from: Tejayes on October 14, 2018, 07:17:27 pm

Rare Earth
Treasure - $5
When you play this, choose one: +$1 and gain a Rare Earth; or return this for +$ equal to its cost.
-
This costs $1 less for every two Rare Earth in the Supply (round down).

"When you play this, choose one: +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} and gain a Rare Earth; or return this to the supply for +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} equal to its cost in _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}.
-
During your turn, this costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less for every two copies of Rare Earth in the Supply (round down)."

Just wanna say, I agree with all of this, and I was actually literally just going to say the same thing about Outskirts.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 15, 2018, 10:19:55 pm

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Lw_v39lN0BMXHyoTwiVlVkVeK6OUck1atpi9dzNwjymzUe583fRqM-zsLRivs7cLy7SinavPiQ=w285-h437-no)
Older Version:
-
This costs $1 less per card you have multiple copies of in play.
First Submission:
$6* Lost Temple
Action-Doom
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
While this is in the Supply, once per turn during your buy phase you may
receive the next Hex. If you do, +1 Buy and this costs $3 less.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on October 15, 2018, 10:52:13 pm

Taking some advice from earlier to fix Rare Earth:

(https://i.imgur.com/nZUTxkEl.png)

Quote

Rare Earth
Treasure - $6*
--
When you play this, choose one: +$1 and gain a Rare Earth; or return this to the supply for +$1 equal to its cost in $.
-
This costs $1 less for every two copies of Rare Earth in the Supply (round down).

I did not add the "During your turn" bit, though, because I want the cost to be the same for all players at all times.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 15, 2018, 11:05:07 pm

I agree Outskirts would work as ThetaSigma suggested. Personally, I regard it as still being a card with "variable cost" then, but that's up to Con Man.
It loses the debt in the "cost" cost, which you can see as both a good and a bad thing. For instance, it's easier to wrap your head around it being a 5$ basically if you trash a card, but it might be easier to miss that you need to take debt if you don't.

(https://i.imgur.com/DoHxgQ6.png)

Not sure here. If I HAVE to decide for a version, I think this is the right one. Even if it's less flashy and perhaps not considered as "variable cost".
Edit: On second thought, a cost of 5$ would make it gainable by Remodels, which might be a tad too good... On the other hand, a Remodel already trashes a card from your hand. Perhaps I should just make it on gain. But then you could still give it to somebody with a.g. Swindler... You know what, I will think about this before the deadline ends.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 16, 2018, 12:34:47 am

Quote from: Violet CLM on October 15, 2018, 01:51:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/qHXiAj4.png) (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Priory&description=%2B1%20Buy%0ATrash%20up%20to%20three%20differently%20named%20cards%20from%20your%20hand.%0A%2B%20%242%20per%20card%20trashed%20this%20way.%0A%0A-%0A%0AWhen%20you%20buy%20this%2C%20as%20many%20times%0Aas%20you%20wish%20until%20this%20costs%20less%0Athan%20%242%2C%20you%20may%20gain%20a%20Ruins%0Ato%20make%20this%20cost%20%242%20less.&type=Action%20-%20Looter&credit=Illustration%3A%20Thomas%20Girtin&price=%248*&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fd3ngf76mkj9kfv.cloudfront.net%2F2018%2F04%2F17080246%2FInterior-of-Lindisfarne-Priory-Thomas-Girtin-Oil-Painting.jpg&color0=0&color1=0&size=0)

This bears a strong resemblance to death cart when you think about it, but I like it. It may be a little too strong as-is. Death Cart has the drawback that you have to trash an action card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on October 16, 2018, 01:00:56 am

Quote from: Dsell on October 15, 2018, 06:12:17 pm

(https://imgur.com/gPuU9aY.jpg)

Quote

Silver Smelter
$7* Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Gain a Silver.

Silver produces $1 more this turn.
---
This costs $1 less per Silver you have in play.

I am wondering if I should change this to +2 Cards instead of being a cantrip. That would make it much better as a BM enabler and it feels nicer from a flavor perspective. But it's moving away a little from what I was originally hoping for with the design - a card that could be strong with support in BM, but also could be a critical component of interesting engines that like silver.

With the current design I feel pretty alright about the pricing given its comparisons to market and grand market. If I changed it to +2 cards, it might need a bump to $8* because of it's BM strength but I am not so confident in that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 16, 2018, 02:52:14 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on October 15, 2018, 04:43:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/52MhBUL.png)

This is my favourite. Superficially it looks like a mixture between Woodcutter, Cemetery and Donate but it will probably play very differently.
Wording-wise is should probably be something like "When you buy this, look through your discard pile, trash ..."

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 15, 2018, 10:19:55 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yxnsGkz.jpg?1)

Even though there are some nice interactions between the cost reduction and the Hexing (War can trash your Lost Temple, Locusts makes a $2 out of it or trashes it) this is far too good; just compare it to Cursed Village.
I have a hard time imaging situations in which you hit $6 and don't take a Curse in order to be able to buy 2 Lost Temples (unless you want the cost reduction to be only applicable for the Buy and not until the end of the turn).

You could fix it e.g. via self-junking and for thematic reasons I'd pick Ruins. If there is no junking or sifting you paid $3 for a village that draws an extra card while having added a dead card to your deck so the two effects roughly balance each other out. If there is sifting or trashing though you can get rid off or sift through the dead card and you still got a bargain for $3.
So perhaps only reduce the cost by $2?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #4: variable cost
Post by: Aquila on October 16, 2018, 05:08:12 am

(https://i.imgur.com/RE6N6do.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread {Design a card with variable cost.}
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 16, 2018, 06:49:40 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 15, 2018, 06:34:06 pm

I feel like this needs to be reworded somehow. I see exactly what you intend to happen, but not sure that it works with the rules. Your clarification says you may buy it so long as you have enough to pay its reduced cost, but until after you have bought it, there is no way to determine what that reduced cost is! I think you need to have a way of reducing the cost before the buy actually happens. But the only way I can think of to keep identical functionality without breaking rules is pretty messy wording:

In games using this, at the start of your buy phase, you may look through your discard pile and reveal any number of Curses from your discard pile or your hand. This costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less for each Curse revealed this way. When you buy this, return all revealed Curses to the supply.

I agree the wording needs work.  I considered an "at the start of your buy phase" wording, but that isn't quite how I want it to work for multiple buys; with that wording, you could reveal 8 curses and then every GHW you buy would cost $0.

Perhaps something like this:

Quote

In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase, you may look through your discard pile and set aside any number of Curses from your discard pile or your hand.  This card costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less for each Curse still set aside in this way, to a minimum of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}.  When you buy this card, return a set-aside Curse to the supply for each _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} that its price has been reduced by in this way.  At the end of your Buy phase, discard any remaining set-aside curses.

It's still pretty messy - I'm not happy with the "for each $1 that its price has been reduced by in this way" part, but I don't see how else to make it play properly with Bridge and friends.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on October 16, 2018, 07:18:28 am

Quote from: Tejayes on October 15, 2018, 10:52:13 pm

I did not add the "During your turn" bit, though, because I want the cost to be the same for all players at all times.

You need that clause there to determine the timing, and with that clause, it would affect all the copies of Rare Earth, even those owned by other players. See Peddler.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 16, 2018, 07:36:22 am

(https://i.imgur.com/dYyaMV3.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/JnuyjwW.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 16, 2018, 07:43:15 am

Neat idea. It should be "the" Compass to be consistent with official cards, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on October 16, 2018, 11:30:26 am

I wanted to try making an Event with variable cost.

(https://i.imgur.com/4iELe9M.png)

Original version had a base cost of $2

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 16, 2018, 11:33:43 am

Quote from: hypercube on October 16, 2018, 11:30:26 am

I wanted to try making an Event with variable cost.

Just letting you know, it says 'The image you are requesting does not exist or is no longer available.'
Edit: Nevermind, you fixed it already.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 16, 2018, 12:06:48 pm

Quote from: hypercube on October 16, 2018, 11:30:26 am

I wanted to try making an Event with variable cost.

(https://i.imgur.com/Hqcy0xo.png)

Neat. One thing I don't like about the cost ratios are that if you plan to buy 2 cards this turn, there's absolutely no difference between buying 2 cards outright, or buying this event once and then buying those 2 cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 16, 2018, 12:13:41 pm

Quote from: hypercube on October 16, 2018, 11:30:26 am

I wanted to try making an Event with variable cost.

(https://i.imgur.com/Hqcy0xo.png)

Doesn't this just give you buys for free? (as long as the cards you buy are expensive enough) The first one finances itself if you buy 2 cards, and each subsequent one will even make a net profit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 16, 2018, 12:16:57 pm

Quote from: faust on October 16, 2018, 12:13:41 pm

Quote from: hypercube on October 16, 2018, 11:30:26 am

I wanted to try making an Event with variable cost.

(https://i.imgur.com/Hqcy0xo.png)

Doesn't this just give you buys for free? (as long as the cards you buy are expensive enough) The first one finances itself if you buy 2 cards, and each subsequent one will even make a net profit.

It doesn't reduce the costs of Events; only Cards. So to buy it twice, you would need _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} on hand (and then you'd get a refund of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} for each card you bought).

*Edit* I mean, yes, if you have enough money to spend, and are going to use up all your buys, then this does indeed give you more free money and buys. But it's a "rich get richer" type thing; it could turn _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} into _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} if you are going to buy 3 cards, or turn _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/9d/Coin9.png/16px-Coin9.png)} into _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/df/Coin11.png/16px-Coin11.png)} if you are going to buy 4 cards, etc. But you need a lot of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} to start with to use it more than a couple times.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 16, 2018, 12:22:18 pm

Of course you need the cash to buy multiple cards; the same thing is also true if you, you know, just want to buy multiple cards. This card just makes it so whenever you want an extra buy, you can have it (modulo buying other Events or things already costing $0).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 16, 2018, 12:53:25 pm

As faust has pointed out, this is broken as it does more than give you Buys for free (which would already be broken). You could e.g. get 4 Provinces for 29 (instead of 32 and 3 extra Buys ) and 8 Provinces for 43 (instead of 64 and 7 extra Buys).
Travelling Fair style conversion of stuff into each other is fine but free beer isn't.


At a base price of $4 the Event would be OKish though:

# times you buy the Event - cumulated cost - benefit in Coins - net Coin yield - net Coin yield of Travelling Fair

1 |   4 |  2 | -2 | -2
2 |   9 |  6 | -3 | -4
3 | 14 | 12 | -2 | -6
4 | 20 | 20 |  0 | -8

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 16, 2018, 01:22:11 pm

I disagree with the notion that free stuff was automatically bad. Events that give you free stuff make you play a variant of Dominion where that stuff is free. Nothing broken about that.
As such, I don't think that giving you free coins if you already have many is broken, either. You now play a variant of Dominion where buying cards progressively makes further cards cheaper. All players are playing the same variant. There is no asymmetry here, it's not like only one player can have this. It's not random, the Event is there from the start, everybody knows it. It doesn't break the game, because no card except Ruins gives only a buy, so you don't just lose all that many decisions. Instead, you now are encouraged to go for a special strategy, which creates decisions.
Not making a statement about whether this would be fun, by the way. But variants aren't broken.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on October 16, 2018, 01:42:59 pm

Indeed the event was intended to give you free money eventually; otherwise I don't think there would be an incentive to build up enough to buy it more than a couple of times. It's a fair point that a base cost of $2 maybe reduces how interesting the decisions are. I'll change it so that the base is $3 instead, that way you're breaking even if you buy it thrice (but can be doing better if you have other sources of +buy).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 16, 2018, 01:49:04 pm

Quote from: Asper on October 16, 2018, 01:22:11 pm

I disagree with the notion that free stuff was automatically bad. Events that give you free stuff make you play a variant of Dominion where that stuff is free. Nothing broken about that.
As such, I don't think that giving you free coins if you already have many is broken, either. You now play a variant of Dominion where buying cards progressively makes further cards cheaper. All players are playing the same variant. There is no asymmetry here, it's not like only one player can have this. It's not random, the Event is there from the start, everybody knows it. It doesn't break the game, because no card except Ruins gives only a buy, so you don't just lose all that many decisions. Instead, you now are encouraged to go for a special strategy, which creates decisions.
Not making a statement about whether this would be fun, by the way. But variants aren't broken.

Well agreed, but I don't think handing out buys for free improves the game, or is a particularly interesting variant. Delve is a nice variant, but the fact that buys are limited plays a pretty big part in what makes Dominion challenging.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 16, 2018, 02:04:43 pm

Champion being played at turn 1 is indeed not broken but it would not lead to particularly interesting games. Same applies for Champion for Buys being played at turn 1.

There are deckbuilding games without Buy or Action restrictions and while I don't dislike playing a match of Star Realms from time to time the lack of these very restrictions makes the Ascension/Star Realms/Hero Realms family of deckbuilding games extremely fluffy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 16, 2018, 02:04:50 pm

Right, thinking more about the math, I agree with Faust and disagree with my earlier post.

The problem here is that this event as costed completely removes "+buy" as a resource in the game. It almost reads "in games using this, you can buy any number of cards per turn". That just removes a full part of Dominion strategy.

Now, it IS interesting that it allows you to afford more if you are buying more. Making it so that you can buy 2 _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} cards with only _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)} would be interesting, because it's less obvious if you should buy a Province or not. But I feel like it should still make you earn your +buys with other cards to at least some extent. Maybe the event itself can give +2 buys only the first time it is bought.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 16, 2018, 02:29:32 pm

If you just want to make buying a lot of cards worthwhile you could simply cut the extra Buys and merely do a Event that does cost reduction:

$2
+1 Buy
This turn cards cost 1 less, but no less than 0.

If you buy 2 cards it does nothing, if you buy 3 it yields +2, if you buy 4 it yields +6 and so on.
I am still skeptical, there are probably many overpowered combinations if you implement cost reduction as an Event. There is Ferry so DXV probably thought about or tried general cost reduction in Event form for Adventures yet didn't do it for good reasons.

Quote from: hypercube on October 16, 2018, 01:42:59 pm

I'll change it so that the base is $3 instead, that way you're breaking even if you buy it thrice (but can be doing better if you have other sources of +buy).

At a base price of $3 the Event behaves like this:

# times you buy the Event - cumulated cost - benefit in Coins - net Coin yield - net Coin yield of Travelling Fair

1 |   3 |  2 | -1 | -2
2 |   7 |  6 | -1 | -4
3 | 12 | 12 |  0 | -6
4 | 18 | 20 |+2 | -8

same stuff with one extra Buy before you buy the Event:

1 |   3 |  3 |  0 | -2
2 |   7 |  8 | +1 | -4
3 | 12 | 15 | +3 | -6
4 | 18 | 24 | +6 | -8

I am still not a fan of free Buys and would advocate to use the $4 base price version as it makes Buys sometimes costly and thus makes the Event more similar to Travelling Fair. But at least this version is less crazy than the $2 monster.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on October 16, 2018, 02:43:18 pm

The requirement to have $7, $12 etc. in hand to get free buys is nontrivial, it's definitely not the same thing as T1 Champion for Buys.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 16, 2018, 03:01:50 pm

Situations in which you want to buy 3 cards while having less than $7 are rare. Namely piling or only 3 $2s.
Situations in which you buy more than 3 cards are pretty rare beyond endgame megaturns.
So I don't see the supposed general lack of a free lunch in the current version. As I showed above, the most you ever net pay is 1. Which is OK I guess, if you only buy one extra card the Event still competes with Travelling Fair.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 16, 2018, 03:03:00 pm

Quote from: hypercube on October 16, 2018, 02:43:18 pm

The requirement to have $7, $12 etc. in hand to get free buys is nontrivial, it's definitely not the same thing as T1 Champion for Buys.

Well the exception of buying $0 cost cards was already given. Other than that, it is the same... buying 5 cards that don't cost zero has always had a requirement of having at least $5. Usually at least $10.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on October 16, 2018, 04:54:07 pm

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on October 15, 2018, 04:58:45 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on October 15, 2018, 04:43:00 pm

Renovate

This doesn't need the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png)}? in the cost, the on-buy effect works on its own.

Hmmm, well I guess it isn't a good entry for this one then.  I kinda like the card still though.  Now to think of a way to give it a real variable cost....

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on October 16, 2018, 05:51:50 pm

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on October 16, 2018, 07:18:28 am

Quote from: Tejayes on October 15, 2018, 10:52:13 pm

I did not add the "During your turn" bit, though, because I want the cost to be the same for all players at all times.

You need that clause there to determine the timing, and with that clause, it would affect all the copies of Rare Earth, even those owned by other players. See Peddler.

Gotcha. Here we go:

(https://i.imgur.com/0yp75nfl.png)

Quote

Rare Earth
Treasure - $6*
--
When you play this, choose one: +$1 and gain a Rare Earth; or return this to the Supply for +$1 equal to its cost in $.
-
During your turn, this costs $1 less for every two copies of Rare Earth in the Supply (round down).
[\quote]

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 16, 2018, 07:31:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/BVFYm46.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 16, 2018, 07:50:54 pm

Hmm this was going to be my entrant this week but it looks like faust beat me to it with the Artifact thing. I also get the feeling that people will prefer faust's anyway because this is kind of a lazy design...
 (https://i.imgur.com/n1dYSJM.png) (https://i.imgur.com/tTGzsdJ.png)

I'll use this instead because it maybe has some shock-factor:
(https://i.imgur.com/vQc0Fs0.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 16, 2018, 08:37:54 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 16, 2018, 07:50:54 pm

I'll use this instead because it maybe has some shock-factor:
(https://i.imgur.com/vQc0Fs0.png)

I really like Highland, but I can't wait for people to trash on this! Maybe it's all my pent-up rage from failing to make a decent Great Hall variant. :P

At first glance though I can this working. Hard to actually tell without playtesting though. Excited to see if this works!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 16, 2018, 09:49:36 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 16, 2018, 07:50:54 pm

Hmm this was going to be my entrant this week but it looks like faust beat me to it with the Artifact thing. I also get the feeling that people will prefer faust's anyway because this is kind of a lazy design...
 (https://i.imgur.com/n1dYSJM.png) (https://i.imgur.com/tTGzsdJ.png)

No lazier looking than Flag Bearer. I actually like it, though it is very simple.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on October 16, 2018, 11:10:48 pm

https://i.imgur.com/KMtpb08.jpg

Dragon’s hoard

I finally figured out how to post to imgur, however the link is the only way I am able to show you the card. I hope this is good enough for you guys.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on October 16, 2018, 11:20:01 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on October 16, 2018, 11:10:48 pm

https://i.imgur.com/KMtpb08.jpg

Dragon’s hoard

I finally figured out how to post to imgur, however the link is the only way I am able to show you the card. I hope this is good enough for you guys.

Surround the link with these tags: [ img width=200][ /img] (remove the spaces), and that will let it show. Like this:

[ img width=200]https://i.imgur.com/KMtpb08.jpg[ /img]

Without the spaces, it becomes this:

(https://i.imgur.com/KMtpb08.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: vishwathg on October 16, 2018, 11:32:44 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on October 16, 2018, 11:10:48 pm

https://i.imgur.com/KMtpb08.jpg

Dragon’s hoard

I finally figured out how to post to imgur, however the link is the only way I am able to show you the card. I hope this is good enough for you guys.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the dividing line shouldn't be there?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on October 16, 2018, 11:45:37 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/GdYUXUR.jpg)

I’m not sure what you mean I just did it like you did but obviously nothing happened. It only removed the link. I’m doing this with an ipad maybe I can’t do it with an iPad.
Here’s the image without the line.
https://i.imgur.com/GdYUXUR.jpg

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 17, 2018, 01:07:43 am

Quote from: ClouduHieh on October 16, 2018, 11:45:37 pm

[ img width=200]https://i.imgur.com/GdYUXUR.jpg[ /img]

I’m not sure what you mean I just did it like you did but obviously nothing happened. It only removed the link. I’m doing this with an ipad maybe I can’t do it with an iPad.
Here’s the image without the line.
https://i.imgur.com/GdYUXUR.jpg

You need to lose the spaces before img and /img, as Tejayes already noted.

Also I am not sure how this fulfills the condition for this week's contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on October 17, 2018, 02:34:51 am

I agree with faust - I did intend for the definition to be fairly broad and I'm really happy with the ways it's been interpreted, but just having a combined coin+debt cost isn't quite what I had in mind.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on October 17, 2018, 03:03:52 am

I noticed other cards that were coin and debt token. And thought those were allowed too. You should of been more precise. And I was kinda bummed that I missed the last 2 contests. It took me a week just to get it to work with imgur. I’m kinda a slow learner when it comes to tech.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on October 17, 2018, 03:05:53 am

Ah finally man it’s annoying I’ll have to type that in every time though

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 17, 2018, 03:36:52 am

Quote from: Gazbag on October 16, 2018, 07:50:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/vQc0Fs0.png)

I like this far more than the 3/5 Peddler and don't think that it is shocking at all, it looks pretty balanced. Arguably bonkers with Ironworks but if you played two Actions before Ironworks it is ungainable.
I also think that Great Hall was a niche card whereas Mill is something you often get for the DoubleOasis effect and not for the VPs so double the VPs on a cantrip shouldn't be totally crazy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 17, 2018, 04:51:17 am

Quote from: ClouduHieh on October 17, 2018, 03:03:52 am

I noticed other cards that were coin and debt token. And thought those were allowed too. You should of been more precise. And I was kinda bummed that I missed the last 2 contests. It took me a week just to get it to work with imgur. I’m kinda a slow learner when it comes to tech.

The fact that your card shares a trait with some of the other submitted cards doesn't mean that it satisfies the same restrictions. Debt costs are allowed, but it doesn't automatically make a card have a varied cost, which was the challenge.
Outskirts for instance has a varied cost because you can either buy it for 5$ and 5 debt, or for 5$ and an Action card from your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 17, 2018, 07:07:24 am

(https://i.imgur.com/zwCAFxZ.jpg)

For those who are unfamiliar with it, the Season mechanic (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14570.0) is by Asper and Cookielord.
I already play around with the basic idea for some time. The card is strictly weaker than Village and could be made more exciting via exchanging Actions for Villagers but that felt to me like too much is going on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 17, 2018, 08:37:34 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 17, 2018, 07:07:24 am

(https://i.imgur.com/zwCAFxZ.jpg)

For those who are unfamiliar with it, the Season mechanic (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14570.0) is by Asper and Cookielord.
I already play around with the basic idea for some time. The card is strictly weaker than Village and could be made more exciting via exchanging Actions for Villagers but that felt to me like too much is going on.

I appreciate you linking to the thread :)
This goes very well with the Seasons spirit, I think! Not only can you buy it really cheap when it's not useful yet, you can even Remodel it into a Province in the endgame, which makes the Winter part significant, too. Very neat!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 17, 2018, 11:19:26 am

Quote from: Gazbag on October 16, 2018, 07:50:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/vQc0Fs0.png)

I see some people thinking, isn't this an automatic buy for the first turns? Just don't play any until they're all gone. In 2 player games at least, if one player did this whilst the other builds up for later, by turn 6 they're 2 Provinces ahead. It'll be down to how often the building up for later is viable as to how interesting this is.
If it is a problem, increasing the base cost would make the Coppers more important.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 17, 2018, 11:22:22 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 17, 2018, 07:07:24 am

(https://i.imgur.com/zwCAFxZ.jpg)

For those who are unfamiliar with it, the Season mechanic (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14570.0) is by Asper and Cookielord.
I already play around with the basic idea for some time. The card is strictly weaker than Village and could be made more exciting via exchanging Actions for Villagers but that felt to me like too much is going on.

Cool! I don't really like the Season mechanic myself, because you need to track it with a board or something and you can forget, or something, also the cards are usually wordier. That being said, some of the coolest fan cards I've seen are Seasons. I really like this idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 17, 2018, 11:35:40 am

Quote from: Aquila on October 17, 2018, 11:19:26 am

Quote from: Gazbag on October 16, 2018, 07:50:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/vQc0Fs0.png)

I see some people thinking, isn't this an automatic buy for the first turns? Just don't play any until they're all gone. In 2 player games at least, if one player did this whilst the other builds up for later, by turn 6 they're 2 Provinces ahead. It'll be down to how often the building up for later is viable as to how interesting this is.
If it is a problem, increasing the base cost would make the Coppers more important.

The way I see it is taking Baths points over buying a good card for your deck early is almost never worth it, so I doubt going for these would be any better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 17, 2018, 12:54:02 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 17, 2018, 11:22:22 am

Cool! I don't really like the Season mechanic myself, because you need to track it with a board or something and you can forget, or something, also the cards are usually wordier. That being said, some of the coolest fan cards I've seen are Seasons. I really like this idea.

It's true that forgetting to move the token is an issue. This is actually something that would work better in a hypothetical online implementation.
Seasons also has the risk of cards getting wordier if you insist on making it do something specific per Season. Sojourner and Student show that (they are still worth it, I think). In general it's better to just check for a true/false, like on Snow Witch, Sanitarium or Plantation, or to have the same value scale, like with Cottage, Timberland, Restore or, well, Viking Village.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on October 17, 2018, 06:13:58 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 16, 2018, 07:50:54 pm

I'll use this instead because it maybe has some shock-factor:
(https://i.imgur.com/vQc0Fs0.png)

This card is crazy with Pouch, Travelling Fair and other easy-to-get +Buy stuff. And it is even more crazy in an engine with Salvager or Forge. This card’s price needs an upper limit and the it should at least cost $2 (in Vanilla Big Money it is strictly better than Estate, however).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 17, 2018, 06:56:16 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 17, 2018, 06:37:42 pm

CHALLENGE #4 - VARIABLE COST CARD

Not sure what Cost display more successfully shows that there are two different cost to this card. The first certainly works, but having the visual cue of both cost seems neat. The card instructions are the same.

(https://i.imgur.com/4rM85zx.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/Z8LIhNW.jpg)

Very interesting. I think the 4* one is better. Also, costs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on October 17, 2018, 10:45:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/LOkHAsk.jpg)

Can I have a redo then.
Does this at least meet the requirements.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 17, 2018, 11:52:37 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 17, 2018, 06:37:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4rM85zx.jpg)

This variable cost doesn't work. Gaining the card happens after you buy it, so you can't buy it for $2 in the first two turns, and after it's in your deck, there's no record of when you bought it (no way to tell apart a Lumber Camp you bought turn 1 from a Lumber Camp you bought turn 6).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 18, 2018, 03:18:58 am

Quote from: King Leon on October 17, 2018, 06:13:58 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 16, 2018, 07:50:54 pm

I'll use this instead because it maybe has some shock-factor:
(https://i.imgur.com/vQc0Fs0.png)

This card is crazy with Pouch, Travelling Fair and other easy-to-get +Buy stuff. And it is even more crazy in an engine with Salvager or Forge. This card’s price needs an upper limit and the it should at least cost $2 (in Vanilla Big Money it is strictly better than Estate, however).

I disagree. Salvager is indeed a strong combo but with Forge you can "overshoot", i.e. you have 5 or more Actions in play so Forging Highland leads to nirvana. Not to mention the opportunity cost of having to buy cantrips instead of stuff that is useful for you early in the game. So I guess that something like Forging Magpies or Fortresses is easier to pull off.

While this card is indeed better in money decks (is that such a bad thing?) you can only get so many for a cheap price (unless you don't play Highlands when you draw them which seems highly dubious), i.e. there is an inherent self-balance in the design.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 18, 2018, 04:01:40 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 18, 2018, 03:18:58 am

I disagree. Salvager is indeed a strong combo but with Forge you can "overshoot", i.e. you have 5 or more Actions in play so Forging Highland leads to nirvana. Not to mention the opportunity cost of having to buy cantrips instead of stuff that is useful for you early in the game. So I guess that something like Forging Magpies or Fortresses is easier to pull off.

I would at least be somewhat worried about decks where you can gain this early in your turn and trash it late, it may get too ridiculous if you Ironworks this with your second action and Salvage/Bishop it with your 20th.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 18, 2018, 04:40:38 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 17, 2018, 11:52:37 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 17, 2018, 06:37:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4rM85zx.jpg)

This variable cost doesn't work. Gaining the card happens after you buy it, so you can't buy it for $2 in the first two turns, and after it's in your deck, there's no record of when you bought it (no way to tell apart a Lumber Camp you bought turn 1 from a Lumber Camp you bought turn 6).

This should address both of the issues you brought up. Thanks for the heads up. Not sure I really like this card, so I may scrap it or toy with it more in the next few days.

(https://i.imgur.com/qg3pKOa.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 18, 2018, 07:35:05 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 18, 2018, 04:40:38 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 17, 2018, 11:52:37 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 17, 2018, 06:37:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4rM85zx.jpg)

This variable cost doesn't work. Gaining the card happens after you buy it, so you can't buy it for $2 in the first two turns, and after it's in your deck, there's no record of when you bought it (no way to tell apart a Lumber Camp you bought turn 1 from a Lumber Camp you bought turn 6).

This should address both of the issues you brought up. Thanks for the heads up. Not sure I really like this card, so I may scrap it or toy with it more in the next few days.

(https://i.imgur.com/qg3pKOa.jpg)

But what if Ferry is in the kingdom?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 18, 2018, 08:26:40 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 18, 2018, 07:35:05 am

But what if Ferry is in the kingdom?

Then you'll think twice what you'll do with that token.

What I don't like is that the on-gain effect is hugely anti-synergetic. You can either buy this card after your opening, where there's a big chance that it will fail, OR you buy it in the opening, where you will still have to buy it for 4$, but then it starts costing 2$, effectively making it a Woodcutter... Unless you go for a treasure-based strategy, which means this becomes a cheap Big-Money supporter.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 18, 2018, 08:44:33 am

It should also be clarified if you still get the effect when it's tied for most expensive, that will have a pretty big impact on power level.

I actually like the anti-synergy. You can get it early for the economy boost, but it will crumble later, or you wait and end up with a more powerful card. The only thing that bothers me is that it is usually not a very interesting decision whether to go for it later; with cheap engine components you do, otherwise you don't (unless you need a Ruined Market). But maybe the interesting decision in the opening makes up for that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Erick648 on October 18, 2018, 11:50:38 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 18, 2018, 07:35:05 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 18, 2018, 04:40:38 am

This should address both of the issues you brought up. Thanks for the heads up. Not sure I really like this card, so I may scrap it or toy with it more in the next few days.

(https://i.imgur.com/qg3pKOa.jpg)

But what if Ferry is in the kingdom?

How about this wording:
"While you have gained fewer than two other cards this game (including other copies of Lumber Camp), this costs $2 less (but not less than $0)."
That should match the spirit of the card without creating too many rules issues (there may be rare timing-based complexities with dual gainers, e.g., Stonemason, but I don't think those are any worse than you'd find in an official card).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 18, 2018, 12:03:32 pm

Man, then we can just say "If it is one of your first two turns this game, this costs 2$ less (but not less than 0$).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 18, 2018, 12:07:34 pm

Quote from: Erick648 on October 18, 2018, 11:50:38 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 18, 2018, 07:35:05 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 18, 2018, 04:40:38 am

This should address both of the issues you brought up. Thanks for the heads up. Not sure I really like this card, so I may scrap it or toy with it more in the next few days.

(https://i.imgur.com/qg3pKOa.jpg)

But what if Ferry is in the kingdom?

How about this wording:
"While you have gained fewer than two other cards this game (including other copies of Lumber Camp), this costs $2 less (but not less than $0)."
That should match the spirit of the card without creating too many rules issues (there may be rare timing-based complexities with dual gainers, e.g., Stonemason, but I don't think those are any worse than you'd find in an official card).

I don't think that works... there is nothing other than memory telling you how many cards you have gained this game.

This reminds me of my Swamp (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11495.0) card from a while ago; various people had various suggestions on how to make the turn-tracking work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on October 18, 2018, 12:10:06 pm

Martyr, Action-Reaction, 5$

+2 cards

You may play another Martyr.
Each Martyr costs one less (but not less than 0).

****************
If you trash this: +2actions, +buy

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 18, 2018, 01:44:20 pm

Quote from: Asper on October 18, 2018, 08:26:40 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 18, 2018, 07:35:05 am

But what if Ferry is in the kingdom?

Then you'll think twice what you'll do with that token.

What I don't like is that the on-gain effect is hugely anti-synergetic. You can either buy this card after your opening, where there's a big chance that it will fail, OR you buy it in the opening, where you will still have to buy it for 4$, but then it starts costing 2$, effectively making it a Woodcutter... Unless you go for a treasure-based strategy, which means this becomes a cheap Big-Money supporter.

I agree. My goal was to have some kind of terminal Action that was a weak $4 cost, but great $2. Something that you likely would not want early, but could use 3-4 copies of late game. A Woodcutter variant with some added effect seemed like a good place to explore, but it hasn't quite come together.

I think I'm going to go back to my original plan to use the bottom-half portion with a Village card. Opening Village is rarely good, but in this case you'll at least have cheap Villages for the rest of the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 18, 2018, 01:48:23 pm

Quote from: faust on October 18, 2018, 08:44:33 am

It should also be clarified if you still get the effect when it's tied for most expensive, that will have a pretty big impact on power level.

I actually like the anti-synergy. You can get it early for the economy boost, but it will crumble later, or you wait and end up with a more powerful card. The only thing that bothers me is that it is usually not a very interesting decision whether to go for it later; with cheap engine components you do, otherwise you don't (unless you need a Ruined Market). But maybe the interesting decision in the opening makes up for that.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I think I'm going to use the "most expensive" card condition on another card. Maybe this could have worked, but I'm just not quite feeling it right now. If you have any similar card ideas I'd love to hear them, but maybe not on this board. I feel bad enough cluttering this area with non-submission chat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 18, 2018, 01:57:37 pm

CHALLENGE #4 - VARIABLE COST CARD RESUBMISSION

(https://i.imgur.com/QQyyrAG.jpg)

This feels a bit similar to Viking Village. Sorry Holunder9!

[EDIT 10/19/18 12:08AM PST] Changed name and image to Sunken City. It's back!!!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 18, 2018, 02:16:04 pm

I think it is only superficially similar. You want to open with Asylum in order to make it cheap whereas Viking Village is cheap when you don't want it yet.
The effect is cool, I like stuff that rewards overdraw. It is in general weaker than Plaza but in an engine Plaza might have no Treasures to discard and you can convert overdrawing into Coins more easily (Mill does this best but it is also just a cantrip).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread {Design a card with variable cost.}
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 18, 2018, 03:50:20 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 16, 2018, 06:49:40 am

Perhaps something like this:

Quote

In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase, you may look through your discard pile and set aside any number of Curses from your discard pile or your hand.  This card costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less for each Curse still set aside in this way, to a minimum of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}.  When you buy this card, return a set-aside Curse to the supply for each _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} that its price has been reduced by in this way.  At the end of your Buy phase, discard any remaining set-aside curses.

It's still pretty messy - I'm not happy with the "for each $1 that its price has been reduced by in this way" part, but I don't see how else to make it play properly with Bridge and friends.

Maybe I've been overthinking this.  How about:

Quote

In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase, you may look through your discard pile and set aside any number of Curses from your discard pile or your hand.  You may pay for this card by returning set-aside Curses, with each paying for $1 of its cost.  At the end of your Buy phase, discard any remaining set-aside Curses.

That even feels like it might fit on a card.  Though then maybe this isn't a card for this contest - it's an alternative payment, not an alternative cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread {Design a card with variable cost.}
Post by: ConMan on October 18, 2018, 06:30:11 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 18, 2018, 03:50:20 pm

That even feels like it might fit on a card.  Though then maybe this isn't a card for this contest - it's an alternative payment, not an alternative cost.

I'm ok with it. It's still in a pretty broad way the same kind of thing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread {Design a card with variable cost.}
Post by: Kudasai on October 18, 2018, 06:59:52 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 18, 2018, 03:50:20 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 16, 2018, 06:49:40 am

Perhaps something like this:

Quote

In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase, you may look through your discard pile and set aside any number of Curses from your discard pile or your hand.  This card costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less for each Curse still set aside in this way, to a minimum of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}.  When you buy this card, return a set-aside Curse to the supply for each _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} that its price has been reduced by in this way.  At the end of your Buy phase, discard any remaining set-aside curses.

It's still pretty messy - I'm not happy with the "for each $1 that its price has been reduced by in this way" part, but I don't see how else to make it play properly with Bridge and friends.

Maybe I've been overthinking this.  How about:

Quote

In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase, you may look through your discard pile and set aside any number of Curses from your discard pile or your hand.  You may pay for this card by returning set-aside Curses, with each paying for $1 of its cost.  At the end of your Buy phase, discard any remaining set-aside Curses.

That even feels like it might fit on a card.  Though then maybe this isn't a card for this contest - it's an alternative payment, not an alternative cost.

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 18, 2018, 03:50:20 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 16, 2018, 06:49:40 am

Perhaps something like this:

Quote

In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase, you may look through your discard pile and set aside any number of Curses from your discard pile or your hand.  This card costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less for each Curse still set aside in this way, to a minimum of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}.  When you buy this card, return a set-aside Curse to the supply for each _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} that its price has been reduced by in this way.  At the end of your Buy phase, discard any remaining set-aside curses.

It's still pretty messy - I'm not happy with the "for each $1 that its price has been reduced by in this way" part, but I don't see how else to make it play properly with Bridge and friends.

Maybe I've been overthinking this.  How about:

Quote

In games using this, at the start of your Buy phase, you may look through your discard pile and set aside any number of Curses from your discard pile or your hand.  You may pay for this card by returning set-aside Curses, with each paying for $1 of its cost.  At the end of your Buy phase, discard any remaining set-aside Curses.

That even feels like it might fit on a card.  Though then maybe this isn't a card for this contest - it's an alternative payment, not an alternative cost.

I think you're going to have a tough time finding concise wording that gives you $1 coin per Curse discarded, but you can only use it to buy High Grand Witch. I'd suggest either (1) giving $1 coin that can be used to purchase any cards, or (2) reducing the price of Grand High Witch by $1 coin. The former as you mentioned does not qualify for this competition. You've also expressed concern about having the price reduced and the interaction with +Buys. Cost reduction cards are always going to run this type of risk, so I'd just chop this up as a card interaction and something players need to watch out for.

Beyond that, there are some adjustments you can make to reduce the text length. Here is an example using +$1 coin.

During your Buy phase, you may look through your discard pile and return any number of Curses from it or your hand to the Supply. Then +$1 per Curse you returned.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on October 18, 2018, 09:44:23 pm

Treetop Village
$6 Action

+2 Actions
+1 Card
------
This costs 1 less for each card in your hand, but no less than 0.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 19, 2018, 02:19:10 am

Quote from: artless on October 18, 2018, 09:44:23 pm

Treetop Village
$7 Action

+2 Actions
+1 Card
------
This costs 1 less for each card in your hand, but no less than 0.

This is a cool idea but the price is too high, I guess 4 or 5 would do.
I also think that the concept would work best on an alt-VP card to guarantee that it actually does something. Sure, it also does something in Kingdoms without trashing, with junking or with extra Buys and no good way to get rid of Coppers. But I nonetheless think that it would be best if the card were to self-synergize with its ability.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 19, 2018, 03:21:01 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 17, 2018, 07:07:24 am

(https://i.imgur.com/zwCAFxZ.jpg)

For those who are unfamiliar with it, the Season mechanic (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14570.0) is by Asper and Cookielord.
I already play around with the basic idea for some time. The card is strictly weaker than Village and could be made more exciting via exchanging Actions for Villagers but that felt to me like too much is going on.

Quite a cool card! I recognize the top part from a concept you were working on a few months ago. It seemed to be lacking something then, but I think this addition of the variable cost brings it all together. Would like to see this played with Remodel!

Also, I'd change the question mark font in the cost to "Times New Roman" if you want it to be in line with official cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 19, 2018, 03:37:46 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 15, 2018, 10:19:55 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/TEKUM9X.jpg?1)
First Submission:
$6* Lost Temple
Action-Doom
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
While this is in the Supply, once per turn during your buy phase you may
receive the next Hex. If you do, +1 Buy and this costs $3 less.

"+2 Cards, +1 Action, and +$1" I think is priced around $7.5, so giving this a base price of $6 with the added amount per duplicate you have in play seems about right. Also, given that this card rewards diversity it will keep players who try and spam these in line a bit.

Might be best to keep the price changes restricted to your Buy phase. Otherwise, it might be a nightmare to resolve trash for benefit cards during your Action phase. Not impossible though.

Nice, clean submission! Thanks for sharing this one!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 19, 2018, 03:49:26 am

Quote from: Gubump on October 15, 2018, 05:50:53 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZDRm3Hi.png)

Clarification: Cost reduction effects such as Bridge and Highway will make General cost fewer Debt during your Buy phase.

Big fan of this one! Having cards on hand and ready to be throne-roomed is powerful, but this takes awhile to build up. The cost change effect is very unique as well. All the benefits of being able to buy this with debt and being able to remodel these into Provinces. I wonder if this concept would apply well to other cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 19, 2018, 02:06:27 pm

I decided to change Outskirts to the less flashy version. Perhaps it has a smaller chance of winning now, but rationally, there is no good reason to stick with the debt cost.

(https://i.imgur.com/jtg4Y9c.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MattLee on October 20, 2018, 12:35:54 am

(http://i68.tinypic.com/20u7haf.png)

Does this work with the rules of the game? Do unused actions disappear when you enter the buy phase?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on October 20, 2018, 01:26:05 am

They do not disappear. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Diadem)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 20, 2018, 07:39:32 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 19, 2018, 03:37:46 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 15, 2018, 10:19:55 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/TEKUM9X.jpg?1)
First Submission:
$6* Lost Temple
Action-Doom
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
While this is in the Supply, once per turn during your buy phase you may
receive the next Hex. If you do, +1 Buy and this costs $3 less.

"+2 Cards, +1 Action, and +$1" I think is priced around $7.5, so giving this a base price of $6 with the added amount per duplicate you have in play seems about right. Also, given that this card rewards diversity it will keep players who try and spam these in line a bit.

Might be best to keep the price changes restricted to your Buy phase. Otherwise, it might be a nightmare to resolve trash for benefit cards during your Action phase. Not impossible though.

Nice, clean submission! Thanks for sharing this one!

Thanks, fixed. My wording seemed a bit short.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 20, 2018, 07:56:47 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 20, 2018, 07:39:32 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 19, 2018, 03:37:46 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 15, 2018, 10:19:55 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/TEKUM9X.jpg?1)
First Submission:
$6* Lost Temple
Action-Doom
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
While this is in the Supply, once per turn during your buy phase you may
receive the next Hex. If you do, +1 Buy and this costs $3 less.

"+2 Cards, +1 Action, and +$1" I think is priced around $7.5, so giving this a base price of $6 with the added amount per duplicate you have in play seems about right. Also, given that this card rewards diversity it will keep players who try and spam these in line a bit.

Might be best to keep the price changes restricted to your Buy phase. Otherwise, it might be a nightmare to resolve trash for benefit cards during your Action phase. Not impossible though.

Nice, clean submission! Thanks for sharing this one!

Thanks, fixed. My wording seemed a bit short.

Do you want it per card or per differently named card?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 20, 2018, 08:22:13 am

Quote from: Asper on October 20, 2018, 07:56:47 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 20, 2018, 07:39:32 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 19, 2018, 03:37:46 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 15, 2018, 10:19:55 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/TEKUM9X.jpg?1)
First Submission:
$6* Lost Temple
Action-Doom
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
While this is in the Supply, once per turn during your buy phase you may
receive the next Hex. If you do, +1 Buy and this costs $3 less.

"+2 Cards, +1 Action, and +$1" I think is priced around $7.5, so giving this a base price of $6 with the added amount per duplicate you have in play seems about right. Also, given that this card rewards diversity it will keep players who try and spam these in line a bit.

Might be best to keep the price changes restricted to your Buy phase. Otherwise, it might be a nightmare to resolve trash for benefit cards during your Action phase. Not impossible though.

Nice, clean submission! Thanks for sharing this one!

Thanks, fixed. My wording seemed a bit short.

Do you want it per card or per differently named card?

Differently named card, thanks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 20, 2018, 03:00:58 pm

Quote from: MattLee on October 20, 2018, 12:35:54 am

(http://i68.tinypic.com/20u7haf.png)

Does this work with the rules of the game? Do unused actions disappear when you enter the buy phase?

I think it's too strong. I would price it at $7 even if it was just +2 Cards and +2 Actions, with no other bonuses.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 21, 2018, 08:09:58 am

Quote from: Gubump on October 20, 2018, 03:00:58 pm

Quote from: MattLee on October 20, 2018, 12:35:54 am

(http://i68.tinypic.com/20u7haf.png)

Does this work with the rules of the game? Do unused actions disappear when you enter the buy phase?

I think it's too strong. I would price it at $7 even if it was just +2 Cards and +2 Actions, with no other bonuses.

I agree with this, currently the card kind of does everything you need for it giving draw and +buy (as well as a village of course) so I think it'd be more interesting if you had to put in a little more work to get some +buy. I like the idea of the card though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on October 21, 2018, 06:35:32 pm

There are some really strong entrants, and I'm going to have to go through them all and work out which one I like the most. So I haven't forgotten, but I might take a while.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on October 21, 2018, 11:54:19 pm

Ok, I think I'm ready. I have to reiterate - there were some really interesting cards that came out of this challenge. I am not a good judge of balance, so I made my pick on a few criteria: (1) did the alternative cost make sense, and add something interesting to the game, (2) did the card as a whole make sense to me, and (3) did the card sit in my "sweet spot" of complexity?

On that basis, I will first name a couple of runners up:

Sunken Village, by Kudasai
Outskirts, by Asper
Royal Retreat, by Aquila

But my final winner is a card that I would love to play with, despite some slight tracking issues, because it seems to create a cool interactive minigame:

Rare Earth, by Tejayes

Congratulations!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on October 22, 2018, 02:06:18 am

Quote from: ConMan on October 21, 2018, 11:54:19 pm

Ok, I think I'm ready. I have to reiterate - there were some really interesting cards that came out of this challenge. I am not a good judge of balance, so I made my pick on a few criteria: (1) did the alternative cost make sense, and add something interesting to the game, (2) did the card as a whole make sense to me, and (3) did the card sit in my "sweet spot" of complexity?

On that basis, I will first name a couple of runners up:

Sunken Village, by Kudasai
Outskirts, by Asper
Royal Retreat, by Aquila

But my final winner is a card that I would love to play with, despite some slight tracking issues, because it seems to create a cool interactive minigame:

Rare Earth, by Tejayes

Congratulations!

Thank you so much, ConMan! And now...

CHALLENGE #5: NEW TYPE OF SPENDABLE TOKEN

This is a two-fold challenge. First, create a new use for the standard coin tokens used for Coffers and Villagers. Give it a name, describe when you can spend these tokens, and describe what happens when each token is spent. Second, create at least one card (up to three) that allows for gaining these tokens.

The best combination of token and card will be the winner. If your token is similar to a previously-submitted token, that's fine; just give it a different name at the very least.

If there are any questions about the parameters of this challenge, please ask away.

Edit: Changed rules to allow entrants to design up to three cards that all gain the same new token.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 22, 2018, 02:40:21 am

Introducing the tokentoken. The tokentokens are any-token tokens. You may spend a tokentoken whenever you may spend any other token to get +1VP, +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} (like coffers), +1 action (like villagers), +1 card (we know that someone will make a +1 card token for this contest), add a token to the trade route mat (that counts for your trade routes only), or get the effect of any other token, except the adventures tokens (obviously).

Quote

Jabberwock
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} - Action - Attack - Reaction - Jubjub bird
Take 2 tokentokens. Each other player loses a tokentoken. If they don't, snicker-snack, they gain a curse.
-
When another player spends a tokentoken, you may trash any number of cards from your hand. For each card you trash this way, take a tokentoken.
-
When you trash this card, discard it and take a tokentoken, unless you trashed it with a vorpal blade.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 22, 2018, 02:45:25 am

Marketeers are Buy tokens, i.e. you can use them during your Buy phase for +1 Buy.

(https://i.imgur.com/38jvSYi.jpg)

Man, there are some tough guys in the streets, they can easily handle enemy Pirates and Bandits.

Beyond stuff like this happening beyond your turn, worst case is getting the Marketeer at the end of the turn, best case is something like sifting through the card several times per turn. Perhaps this is too weak and could get away with +2 Marketeers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 22, 2018, 02:53:03 am

Are Events allowed, or just cards?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 22, 2018, 02:53:51 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 22, 2018, 02:45:25 am

Marketeers are Buy tokens, i.e. you can use them during your Buy phase for +1 Buy.

(https://i.imgur.com/SIkTIK6.jpg)

Man, there are some tough guys in the streets, they can easily handle enemy Pirates and Bandits.

Beyond stuff like this happening beyond your turn, worst case is getting the Marketeer at the end of the turn, best case is something like sifting through the card several times per turn. Perhaps this is too weak and could get away with +2 Marketeers.

Is being able to gain the whole pile when you buy just one of them intentional?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 22, 2018, 02:59:44 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 22, 2018, 02:53:51 am

Is being able to gain the whole pile when you buy just one of them intentional?

No, such pile driving would be bad. Thanks for the catch, I changed it to on-buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 22, 2018, 04:10:45 am

My best bet are Trade Tokens, as introduced in LastFootnote's Enterprise expansion. I'd probably call them something different (because of "Trade" being commonly associated with gaining Silvers), but their catch is that they don't do something specific, but each card tells you what to do with them. In the case of Enterprise, he used that to create lots of one-shot type effects.

My try at such a card back in the day was Sheriff, but I can't think of another clever Trade Token type card right now. Maybe later.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 22, 2018, 08:22:13 am

Is it okay to use a modification of someone else's mechanic? Like can I use a variation on Gazbag's Freeze/Ice token mechanic?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on October 22, 2018, 09:35:00 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 22, 2018, 02:53:03 am

Are Events allowed, or just cards?

Events are allowed. Landmarks are allowed. Projects are allowed. Cards with Artifacts are allowed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 22, 2018, 09:39:19 am

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on October 16, 2018, 07:18:28 am

Quote from: Tejayes on October 15, 2018, 10:52:13 pm

I did not add the "During your turn" bit, though, because I want the cost to be the same for all players at all times.

You need that clause there to determine the timing, and with that clause, it would affect all the copies of Rare Earth, even those owned by other players. See Peddler.

So, this is much too late a reply, but:
I think this doesn't make a difference here, because unlike Peddler, the value is the same for all players anyhow.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on October 22, 2018, 09:44:05 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 22, 2018, 08:22:13 am

Is it okay to use a modification of someone else's mechanic? Like can I use a variation on Gazbag's Freeze/Ice token mechanic?

As long as it's not an exact copy of the mechanic, go for it. If the token effect is pretty expected (like a +Buy token or a +Card token) and someone has already used it, I'll accept a submission with the same token type as long as the name is different.

Remember, this is about the token/card combo. If everyone submitted a card that gains Card-drawing tokens, I'd be fine with that as long as the cards are different and the names of the tokens are different.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 22, 2018, 10:47:13 am

'Gaining spendable tokens' is loose here, but:

(https://i.imgur.com/1IL8hZP.jpg)
You gain the (poorly named) Tool tokens just by this being in the game, then spend them at the start. 3 tokens for each player, in their colour like with Adventures tokens/chits. This has a few awkward things about it (like buying a Tool-ed card and the drawn things be unusable), so I may revise this later, but I'll keep the names.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 22, 2018, 11:12:25 am

(https://i.imgur.com/PplQFFv.png)

As announced, basically LF's Trade tokens (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2114.0). What can I say? They're great. You could have this be a different token per card that uses it to dodge "re-using" Trade Tokens, but firstly, having it one kind of token (whatever named) opens additional interactions (similar to how several cards use the Journey token), and secondly, it depends on the individual cards anyhow.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 22, 2018, 11:27:55 am

Quote from: Asper on October 22, 2018, 04:10:45 am

My best bet are Trade Tokens, as introduced in LastFootnote's Enterprise expansion. I'd probably call them something different (because of "Trade" being commonly associated with gaining Silvers), but their catch is that they don't do something specific, but each card tells you what to do with them. In the case of Enterprise, he used that to create lots of one-shot type effects.

My try at such a card back in the day was Sheriff, but I can't think of another clever Trade Token type card right now. Maybe later.

Since we are only designing a single card for our token, any concept we have is basically a Trade token. Any card in this contest may be phrased as gaining Trade tokens with the additional text on the card "in games using this, Trade tokens do XY".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 22, 2018, 12:51:04 pm

Quote from: faust on October 22, 2018, 11:27:55 am

Quote from: Asper on October 22, 2018, 04:10:45 am

My best bet are Trade Tokens, as introduced in LastFootnote's Enterprise expansion. I'd probably call them something different (because of "Trade" being commonly associated with gaining Silvers), but their catch is that they don't do something specific, but each card tells you what to do with them. In the case of Enterprise, he used that to create lots of one-shot type effects.

My try at such a card back in the day was Sheriff, but I can't think of another clever Trade Token type card right now. Maybe later.

Since we are only designing a single card for our token, any concept we have is basically a Trade token. Any card in this contest may be phrased as gaining Trade tokens with the additional text on the card "in games using this, Trade tokens do XY".

Sure, but we were also asked to explain the concept behind the token AND that it should use physical coin tokens.

For first edition's Guilds alone, getting that coin token for non-Coffers-purposes without a mat seems ill-advised, and if you are going to get a mat anyhow, conceptually, you would rather have it ready for use with several cards. While this is implicitly the case for Marketeers or Freeze tokens, it's certainly worth an explicit note for context-dependent usage. So yeah, it's about explaining the concept, dude.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Watno on October 22, 2018, 01:45:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/gaQPnlK.jpg)

Obviously, Drawers are tokens that can be used for +1 card at any point during your turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on October 22, 2018, 02:07:22 pm

Quote from: faust on October 22, 2018, 11:27:55 am

Quote from: Asper on October 22, 2018, 04:10:45 am

My best bet are Trade Tokens, as introduced in LastFootnote's Enterprise expansion. I'd probably call them something different (because of "Trade" being commonly associated with gaining Silvers), but their catch is that they don't do something specific, but each card tells you what to do with them. In the case of Enterprise, he used that to create lots of one-shot type effects.

My try at such a card back in the day was Sheriff, but I can't think of another clever Trade Token type card right now. Maybe later.

Since we are only designing a single card for our token, any concept we have is basically a Trade token. Any card in this contest may be phrased as gaining Trade tokens with the additional text on the card "in games using this, Trade tokens do XY".

My goal with this theme was that you would create a token that can be gained by multiple cards, even though you are only designing a single card. It's as if your entry was Coffers and you presented Candlestick Maker as your card. It fits the theme of the challenge while also opening up the possibility for more cards to use this token mechanic.

If it helps, I'll allow for entrants to create up to three cards that gain your created token. That way, if multiple people want to use a Card-drawing token, for example, they can each enter a completely different set of cards that gain these tokens. I'll add this to the original challenge post.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 22, 2018, 02:19:02 pm

Quote from: Watno on October 22, 2018, 01:45:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/gaQPnlK.jpg)

Obviously, Drawers are tokens that can be used for +1 card at any point during your turn.

Without wanting to diss your simple and good design, in my opinion Drawers are the most dubious of the three vanilla tokens as draw is something you rarely want to save. Early in the game cycling is very strong so the main strategic application of them is probably in the endgame, e.g. to set up a megaturn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 22, 2018, 02:22:37 pm

I guess I didn't quite understand the challenge till now. So the tokens need to be spent for something? Not just cards that use a new type of token?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Watno on October 22, 2018, 02:36:15 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 22, 2018, 02:19:02 pm

Quote from: Watno on October 22, 2018, 01:45:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/gaQPnlK.jpg)

Obviously, Drawers are tokens that can be used for +1 card at any point during your turn.

Without wanting to diss your simple and good design, in my opinion Drawers are the most dubious of the three vanilla tokens as draw is something you rarely want to save. Early in the game cycling is very strong so the main strategic application of them is probably in the endgame, e.g. to set up a megaturn.

No worries, I mainly made it for the pun.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 22, 2018, 02:47:14 pm

Quote from: Watno on October 22, 2018, 02:36:15 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 22, 2018, 02:19:02 pm

Quote from: Watno on October 22, 2018, 01:45:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/gaQPnlK.jpg)

Obviously, Drawers are tokens that can be used for +1 card at any point during your turn.

Without wanting to diss your simple and good design, in my opinion Drawers are the most dubious of the three vanilla tokens as draw is something you rarely want to save. Early in the game cycling is very strong so the main strategic application of them is probably in the endgame, e.g. to set up a megaturn.

No worries, I mainly made it for the pun.

Lol I didn't know if you had tried that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 22, 2018, 04:38:04 pm

So, the cards need to provide tokens that are used for the same thing? And they have to be coin tokens (not in player colors)? And they need to be spendable? Uh... In that case, I'm going to sit this one out.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 22, 2018, 05:02:31 pm

Quote from: Asper on October 22, 2018, 04:38:04 pm

So, the cards need to provide tokens that are used for the same thing? And they have to be coin tokens (not in player colors)? And they need to be spendable? Uh... In that case, I'm going to sit this one out.

Yeah, if they need to be 'spent,' not just serve a certain function, I might also.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 22, 2018, 05:17:14 pm

Quote from: Asper on October 22, 2018, 04:38:04 pm

So, the cards need to provide tokens that are used for the same thing? And they have to be coin tokens (not in player colors)? And they need to be spendable? Uh... In that case, I'm going to sit this one out.

Just make your +1 Pizza from Road a spendable token. When you have 6 or whatever number Pizza tokens, message Asper for your free pizza! :P ;D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 22, 2018, 05:26:34 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 22, 2018, 02:19:02 pm

Quote from: Watno on October 22, 2018, 01:45:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/gaQPnlK.jpg)

Obviously, Drawers are tokens that can be used for +1 card at any point during your turn.

Without wanting to diss your simple and good design, in my opinion Drawers are the most dubious of the three vanilla tokens as draw is something you rarely want to save. Early in the game cycling is very strong so the main strategic application of them is probably in the endgame, e.g. to set up a megaturn.

Getting non-terminal draw at the start of your next turn could often be better than terminal draw this turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on October 22, 2018, 06:23:43 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 22, 2018, 02:40:21 am

Introducing the tokentoken. The tokentokens are any-token tokens. You may spend a tokentoken whenever you may spend any other token to get +1VP, +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} (like coffers), +1 action (like villagers), +1 card (we know that someone will make a +1 card token for this contest), add a token to the trade route mat (that counts for your trade routes only), or get the effect of any other token, except the adventures tokens (obviously).

Quote

Jabberwock
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} - Action - Attack - Reaction - Jubjub bird
Take 2 tokentokens. Each other player loses a tokentoken. If they don't, snicker-snack, they gain a curse.
-
When another player spends a tokentoken, you may trash any number of cards from your hand. For each card you trash this way, take a tokentoken.
-
When you trash this card, discard it and take a tokentoken, unless you trashed it with a vorpal blade.

I feel like this is just a token effort.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 22, 2018, 06:27:53 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 22, 2018, 05:26:34 pm

Getting non-terminal draw at the start of your next turn could often be better than terminal draw this turn.

True that but how many Villagers are living in these Fishing Villages? For next turn stuff you don't need tokens, stuff like Gear and Enchantress suffice.
Unlike with all the other vanilla tokens which are sometimes accumulated you will only save Card tokens for tactical reasons during build-up. Once you got something decent running saving a huge bunch can be good for huge turns.

That's simple due to basic asymmetries in the game: without extra Buys you can only make so much out of Coffers, without extra Action cards you don't spend a Villager and without enough Coins Marketeers will be idle. But there are usually some cards in your deck and while you still build you want to see those cards relatively quickly to then see your newly bought cards even quicker and so on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 22, 2018, 10:34:52 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tC71W06.png)

Endurance tokens:
When you would discard a non-Duration Action card from play, you may instead spend an Endurance token, to keep it in play and resolve its effects again at the start of your next turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MattLee on October 23, 2018, 12:31:15 am

(http://i65.tinypic.com/24d22xf.png)
(Edited to fix a mistake on card)

BOOTLEG TOKENS - Whenever another player gains a card costing up to $4, you may spend a bootleg token to gain a copy of that card. You can only use one bootleg token for each card gained.

The flavor here is that you're paying the bootlegger to steal things for you. The more you pay him, they more he will steal for you.

Its obviously inspired by Smuggler (a personal favorite of mine), except its actually more of a remodeler that you have to wait for and don't have a lot of control over.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 23, 2018, 12:38:18 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 22, 2018, 05:17:14 pm

Quote from: Asper on October 22, 2018, 04:38:04 pm

So, the cards need to provide tokens that are used for the same thing? And they have to be coin tokens (not in player colors)? And they need to be spendable? Uh... In that case, I'm going to sit this one out.

Just make your +1 Pizza from Road a spendable token. When you have 6 or whatever number Pizza tokens, message Asper for your free pizza! :P ;D

Psst! The less people know this, the better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 23, 2018, 01:01:00 am

Quote from: Asper on October 22, 2018, 04:38:04 pm

So, the cards need to provide tokens that are used for the same thing? And they have to be coin tokens (not in player colors)? And they need to be spendable? Uh... In that case, I'm going to sit this one out.

Yeah me too. I don't think think there are interesting enough things left to do with this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 23, 2018, 01:02:06 am

Quote from: MattLee on October 23, 2018, 12:31:15 am

(http://i63.tinypic.com/2movz0g.png)

BOOTLEG TOKENS - Whenever another player gains a card costing up to $4, you may spend a bootleg token to gain a copy of that card. You can only use one bootleg token for each card gained.

The flavor here is that you're paying the bootlegger to steal things for you. The more you pay him, they more he will steal for you.

Its obviously inspired by Smuggler (a personal favorite of mine), except its actually more of a remodeler that you have to wait for and don't have a lot of control over.

Problem: How does this interact with Treasures that give variable $ such as Bank or Philosopher's Stone? You have to play them to calculate their value, so would they give no Bootleg tokens at all?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on October 23, 2018, 01:06:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/cwJR5qs.png)
(a (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Sellsail&description=%2B2%20Cards%0A%2B1%20Action%0A%2B2%20Mutineers&type=Action&credit=Illustration%3A%20nachomolina&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Forig00.deviantart.net%2F7cd1%2Ff%2F2010%2F263%2Fd%2F0%2Fsalladhar__s_crew_by_nachomolina-d2z412n.jpg&color0=0&color1=0&size=0) b (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Grotto&description=%2B%20%242%0AEach%20other%20player%0Agains%20a%20Mutineer.%0A%0A-%0A%0AWhen%20you%20discard%20this%20other%20than%20during%20Clean-up%2C%20you%20may%20reveal%20it%20to%20gain%20a%20Silver.&type=Action%20-%20Attack%20-%20Reaction&credit=Illustration%3A%20David%20Teniers%20the%20Younger&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.fineartamerica.com%2Fimages-medium-large-5%2Fvista-from-a-grotto-flemish-david-teniers-the-younger.jpg&color0=3&color1=0&size=0) c (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Diving%20Bell&description=When%20you%20buy%20this%2C%20each%20other%20player%20gains%203%20Mutineers.%0A%0A-%0A%0AUntil%20you%20buy%20this%2C%20when%20you%20spend%20a%20Mutineer%2C%20additionally%20discard%0Aas%20many%20cards%20from%20your%20hand%20as%20you%20have%20remaining%20Mutineers.&type=Project&credit=&price=%245&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fbeoshewulf.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F07%2Falexanders-submersible-with-cat.jpg&color0=15&color1=0&size=1))

Mutineers may be spent during your Action phase at any time when you might spend an action instead, i.e. when no cards are currently resolving. Spending a Mutineer discards a card from your hand. At the end of the game, each unspent Mutineer is worth -1VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 23, 2018, 01:12:45 am

Quote from: Violet CLM on October 23, 2018, 01:06:56 am

Mutineers may be spent during your Action phase at any time when you might spend an action instead, i.e. when no cards are currently resolving. Spending a Mutineer discards a card from your hand. At the end of the game, each unspent Mutineer is worth -1VP.

I think with this rule, I can lose all my Mutineers as soon as I have an empty hand during my Action phase. Is that intentional?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on October 23, 2018, 01:23:30 am

Spa
Type: Treasure
Cost: $5

When you play this, choose one:

Pay a Spa token for +3 $
or:
Trash a card from your hand for +1 $ and +1 Spa token

--
When you gain this, +1 Spa token

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 23, 2018, 05:45:15 pm

Here goes nothing.
(https://i.imgur.com/wbRb3tg.jpg?1) (https://i.imgur.com/NXJBDZb.jpg?1) (https://i.imgur.com/jBo12jI.jpg?1) (https://i.imgur.com/uASo4Ll.jpg)
Credit to Kudasai for this awesome mat!
I may or may not change one of these cards before the end of the week.
The name/flavor comes from Scheme, which is one of my favorite cards.
Edit: The intention for Slum Market is that the while in play effect affects the card you potentially gain.
Also, sorry for having the same name as Holunder9's Slum Market.

First version had you discard one plot token per $3 something cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 23, 2018, 05:50:00 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 23, 2018, 05:45:15 pm

Here goes nothing. I put my token description into a card format because it was fun.
(https://i.imgur.com/eRghb2T.jpg?1) (https://i.imgur.com/wbRb3tg.jpg?1)
I may or may not post another card before the end of the week.
The name/flavor comes from Scheme, which is one of my favorite cards.

Is Conspiracy strictly better than Scheme? 2 Plot is enough to put a card that costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)} or more onto your deck with its own cost-reduction ability. So with the exception of wanting to Scheme a Prince; I think Plot can topdeck anything Scheme could, and it can save tokens for later instead, as well as top-deck Treasure and Night cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 23, 2018, 07:00:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sQfv26i.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/VJ28AVP.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/vLicZ9n.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/VPlCEoj.jpg)

[EDITS]
-Pioneer(v0.2): Cost change from $5 to $6.
-Lumber Camp(v0.2): Gives +1 Stores instead of +2 Stores when gained during your first 2 turns (credit: Asper).
-Pioneer(v0.3): Cost change from $6 to $7; Can now trash two cards instead of one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 23, 2018, 08:18:07 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 23, 2018, 07:00:57 pm

<stores>

This is easily my favorite for this week's contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on October 23, 2018, 08:37:01 pm

Quote from: faust on October 23, 2018, 01:12:45 am

Quote from: Violet CLM on October 23, 2018, 01:06:56 am

Mutineers may be spent during your Action phase at any time when you might spend an action instead, i.e. when no cards are currently resolving. Spending a Mutineer discards a card from your hand. At the end of the game, each unspent Mutineer is worth -1VP.

I think with this rule, I can lose all my Mutineers as soon as I have an empty hand during my Action phase. Is that intentional?

I was concerned that adding a clause "if you have at least one card in hand" might be too precise for the rules of the contest, but looking at them again, I guess it's probably safe to include that part.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 23, 2018, 08:50:17 pm

Quote from: Asper on October 22, 2018, 04:38:04 pm

So, the cards need to provide tokens that are used for the same thing? And they have to be coin tokens (not in player colors)? And they need to be spendable? Uh... In that case, I'm going to sit this one out.

I feel similarly, but I like a challenge.  I figured I'd try to get some variation on +draw tokens to function.  Though frankly, I'm not sure if this was worth all the effort.

Quote

STORAGE
During your Action phase, you may reveal a non-Victory card from hand that costs in coins from $1 to the number of Storage tokens you have. Discard a number of cards (one of which must be the revealed card), remove a number of tokens, and then draw a number of cards each equal to the cost of the revealed card in coins.

E.g. You have 5 Storage tokens, so you may reveal a non-Victory card costing from $1 to $5. You reveal a Silver; you discard the Silver and 2 other cards (3 cards total for Silver's cost of $3); you remove 3 Storage tokens from your mat, 2 remain; and then you draw 3 cards.  You may reveal a non-Victory card costing from $1 to $2 (for your 2 Storage tokens) to do this again (before or after playing Actions).

• Storage tokens effectively turn a card into a nonterminal "Discard X-1 cards, and then +X Cards" effect, where X is the card's cost in coins.
• You may use Storage tokens any time you could play an Action card so long as you have a non-Victory card costing $1 or more in hand and sufficient Storage tokens.
• You do not need to spend or even have actions to use Storage tokens.
• You cannot reveal Victory cards or cards costing $0 to use Storage tokens, but you can discard such cards when using Storage tokens on a different card.
• You always draw cards equal to the cost of the card in coins, even if you cannot discard that many cards (but you must have enough Storage tokens).  Note that you will never reduce your hand size when using Storage tokens.

(https://i.imgur.com/yWzAWh3.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/8CM1KW0.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/5V8oxIL.jpg)

Quote

Cooper
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+3 Cards, +1 Storage. Trash this.

---

When you gain or trash this, +3 Storage.

Quote

Bartender
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+2 Storage, +$2. Each player (including you) may reveal a Curse from their hand. Each player who does gets +2 Storage. Each other player gains a Curse.

Quote

Barrels
Types: Treasure
Cost: $5
$1, +1 Buy

---

While this is in play, when you gain a card, +$1 and +Storage equal to the cost of the gained card in coins.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 23, 2018, 09:14:04 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 23, 2018, 05:50:00 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 23, 2018, 05:45:15 pm

Here goes nothing. I put my token description into a card format because it was fun.
(https://i.imgur.com/eRghb2T.jpg?1) (https://i.imgur.com/wbRb3tg.jpg?1)
I may or may not post another card before the end of the week.
The name/flavor comes from Scheme, which is one of my favorite cards.

Is Conspiracy strictly better than Scheme? 2 Plot is enough to put a card that costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)} or more onto your deck with its own cost-reduction ability. So with the exception of wanting to Scheme a Prince; I think Plot can topdeck anything Scheme could, and it can save tokens for later instead, as well as top-deck Treasure and Night cards.

True. Expect to see Conspiracy changed within a couple of days.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on October 23, 2018, 09:15:05 pm

Garrison
Type: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Choose one: gain a card costing less than it; or take a number of Fort tokens equal to half its cost in coin, rounded down.



When you trash a card, you may spend a Fort token to put the trashed card into your hand.


Edit: Renamed "Fortress token" to "Fort token", due to Fly-Eagles-Fly's suggestion below.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 23, 2018, 09:21:04 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on October 23, 2018, 09:15:05 pm

Garrison
Type: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Choose one: gain a card costing less than it; or take a number of Fortress tokens equal to half its cost in coin, rounded down.



When you trash a card, you may spend a Fortress token to put the trashed card into your hand.

Since Fortress is already a thing, I think you should use a different word. Maybe just Fort? Yes I realize that Fortress tokens make cards have Fortress' when-trash ability, but I still think it's not best to have the token name be the same as the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 23, 2018, 10:20:10 pm

You spend Luck tokens when you shuffle. For each Luck token spent, set aside a card and then put it on the bottom of the deck after shuffling (in any order if you set aside more than one).

(https://i.imgur.com/7bKcXUC.png)(https://i.imgur.com/l0t7yXd.png)(https://i.imgur.com/L3uBhEM.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 23, 2018, 10:23:24 pm

There's so many new mechanics being invented! I may use some of these in my own cards, crediting and linking to here of course.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on October 23, 2018, 10:46:07 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 23, 2018, 09:21:04 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on October 23, 2018, 09:15:05 pm

Garrison
Type: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Choose one: gain a card costing less than it; or take a number of Fortress tokens equal to half its cost in coin, rounded down.



When you trash a card, you may spend a Fortress token to put the trashed card into your hand.

Since Fortress is already a thing, I think you should use a different word. Maybe just Fort? Yes I realize that Fortress tokens make cards have Fortress' when-trash ability, but I still think it's not best to have the token name be the same as the card.

Yeah, I thought about that, but thought it's easier to remember what something does when it shares a name with the official card it's based on. But "Fort" is a clever way to get the best of both worlds. I think I'll edit my post. Thanks for the suggestion!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on October 23, 2018, 11:26:53 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 23, 2018, 10:23:24 pm

There's so many new mechanics being invented! I may use some of these in my own cards, crediting and linking to here of course.

Exactly what I was hoping for! I'm so excited with all of the entries so far. I can't wait to see what else you all come up with!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MattLee on October 24, 2018, 01:03:09 am

Quote from: Gubump on October 23, 2018, 01:02:06 am

Problem: How does this interact with Treasures that give variable $ such as Bank or Philosopher's Stone? You have to play them to calculate their value, so would they give no Bootleg tokens at all?

You're right, thanks. I changed it to only trashing Coppers, Silvers and Golds. Its the least confusing and least wordy way I could think of to fix it.

(http://i65.tinypic.com/24d22xf.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 24, 2018, 02:14:52 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 23, 2018, 07:00:57 pm

These mockups were rushed a bit, so names and artwork may change on some of these.

My main issue with these is that they make greening way too easy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 24, 2018, 02:25:00 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 23, 2018, 07:00:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zpfmstq.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/WQqzBYi.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/vLicZ9n.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/Llaal2j.jpg)


These mockups were rushed a bit, so names and artwork may change on some of these.

Great stuff! Now the obvious use is setting aside Victory cards which makes engine player slightly weaker and Alt-VP stronger. Kinda nice to win with a lot of Duchies instead of an exploding engine for a change.
Looters become relatively weaker although it is hard to get enough Stores to withstand a CUltist onslaught.
Pioneer looks like the best defense against Cursers and Storehouse is a non-interactive version of a card like Forager, i.e. you have to get rid of good stuff to build it up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 24, 2018, 03:18:14 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 23, 2018, 08:18:07 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 23, 2018, 07:00:57 pm

<stores>

This is easily my favorite for this week's contest.

I appreciate the vote of confidence. I like others on here was having a hard time figuring out what to do with tokens outside of the vanilla bonus offerings. I'm happy with this Island-esque style token, but it is such a powerful effect that I fear it will make greening too easy. I guess I can always bump the prices on these to make that less of an issue. I can easily see Pioneer costing $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 24, 2018, 03:36:48 am

Quote from: MattLee on October 23, 2018, 12:31:15 am

(http://i65.tinypic.com/24d22xf.png)
(Edited to fix a mistake on card)

BOOTLEG TOKENS - Whenever another player gains a card costing up to $4, you may spend a bootleg token to gain a copy of that card. You can only use one bootleg token for each card gained.

The flavor here is that you're paying the bootlegger to steal things for you. The more you pay him, they more he will steal for you.

Its obviously inspired by Smuggler (a personal favorite of mine), except its actually more of a remodeler that you have to wait for and don't have a lot of control over.

Cool token idea! I've always secretly wished for more Smugglers concepts. I know you just made a change so you can only trash Coppers, Silvers, and Golds, but I think I have some wording that would allow you to trash any Treasure. It goes something like this:

"You may trash a Treasure from your hand. +1 Bootleg per $1 it would make if played now."

I'm taking some liberties with the phrasing of this, but it should adhere to what the Dominion rules has to say about playing Treasure cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 24, 2018, 03:46:47 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 24, 2018, 02:25:00 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 23, 2018, 07:00:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zpfmstq.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/WQqzBYi.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/vLicZ9n.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/Llaal2j.jpg)


These mockups were rushed a bit, so names and artwork may change on some of these.

Great stuff! Now the obvious use is setting aside Victory cards which makes engine player slightly weaker and Alt-VP stronger. Kinda nice to win with a lot of Duchies instead of an exploding engine for a change.
Looters become relatively weaker although it is hard to get enough Stores to withstand a CUltist onslaught.
Pioneer looks like the best defense against Cursers and Storehouse is a non-interactive version of a card like Forager, i.e. you have to get rid of good stuff to build it up.

Yeah, I'm nervous this alters too much of the game mechanics. I'm not sure if I like that Stores can block attacks. Might change it to cards gained on a player's turn. It could be fine if I end up bumping some of the card costs. Wasting expensive Stores on Ruins and Curses might not be worth it at some card costs. Would appreciate any insights or thoughts you have on Attacks with these.

Thanks for the comments!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 24, 2018, 03:52:59 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 22, 2018, 02:45:25 am

Marketeers are Buy tokens, i.e. you can use them during your Buy phase for +1 Buy.

(https://i.imgur.com/38jvSYi.jpg)

Man, there are some tough guys in the streets, they can easily handle enemy Pirates and Bandits.

Beyond stuff like this happening beyond your turn, worst case is getting the Marketeer at the end of the turn, best case is something like sifting through the card several times per turn. Perhaps this is too weak and could get away with +2 Marketeers.

Interesting! You can open $4/$4 with this on the board if you don't mind the somewhat-dead Slum Market getting in the way. At least you'll have all the +Buys you'll need for those epic 3-pile endings.

Hard to gauge the strength of all these new mechanics, but Slum Market seems fine at +1 Marketeer. This encourages players to get it earlier to amass more +Buys. Giving +2 Marketeers I think would make this aspect trivial.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 24, 2018, 04:56:40 am

Quote from: Watno on October 22, 2018, 02:36:15 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 22, 2018, 02:19:02 pm

Quote from: Watno on October 22, 2018, 01:45:34 pm

Obviously, Drawers are tokens that can be used for +1 card at any point during your turn.

Without wanting to diss your simple and good design, in my opinion Drawers are the most dubious of the three vanilla tokens as draw is something you rarely want to save. Early in the game cycling is very strong so the main strategic application of them is probably in the endgame, e.g. to set up a megaturn.

No worries, I mainly made it for the pun.

My pun was better (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17235.msg772133#msg772133).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 24, 2018, 05:01:11 am

(https://i.imgur.com/qMhGwWL.jpg)

Quote

Ledger
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4
$3
Take @3.  You may trash this.
-
When you gain or trash this, take 2 Creditors

You may spend a Creditor to ignore the effect of Debt when buying one card.

An earlier version of the card lacked "You may trash this."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 24, 2018, 07:59:17 am

I'll admit, this contest brought more interesting concepts than I would have imagined. I'm going to stay in the watcher's row, but it's interesting to see these.

Stores:
Having experimented with several effects that can keep Victory cards out of your deck (Lady-in-Waiting, Glory), I would like to remark that these abilities can be crazy good and should be balanced with utmost care. Opening two Lumber Camps, for instance, will allow you to gain more than your share of the Provinces before having to worry about them clogging your deck. The thing with all such abilities is that they don't force you to build a stable deck. Any deck that can reliably produce 8$ if left alone will now be able to win. A general concern is, if the Victory gaining is too strong, it might overshadow other aspects of the card. All that said, however, I think Kudasai did a pretty amazing job at balancing these, especially for a first post laying out the concept. I feel most of the things I wrote here have been considered already, but I still felt like pointing them out for others to consider. VP gaining is going to be a huge aspect of these cards, I think.

Luck:
Those are cute, but I'd like them better if they just kept the cards out of the suffle. Actually, that's how I had read them when I started writing this post, and I just now realized I had misread. Such tokens would actually be rather similar to Stores, just a bit more fiddly - but with the added advantage that you have to produce them again and again, so the more cards you want to keep out, the more you need to produce. That diminishes the issue of one Pioneer setting up your uncorruptible engine... They can be used rather similar to Freezing tokens, too, and I like how you added them as a drawback for e.g. Woodland Witch. The balance can probably still be improved on some of these, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 24, 2018, 08:29:56 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 24, 2018, 05:01:11 am

(https://i.imgur.com/yGZEj6n.jpg)

Quote

Ledger
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4
$3
Take @3
-
When you gain or trash this, take 2 Creditors

You may spend a Creditor to ignore the effect of Debt when buying one card.

To be clear, this means that you can buy a card when you have debt, not that you can buy a card that has debt in its cost for free, right?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 24, 2018, 08:39:33 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 24, 2018, 05:01:11 am

Quote

Ledger
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4
$3
Take @3
-
When you gain or trash this, take 2 Creditors

You may spend a Creditor to ignore the effect of Debt when buying one card.

Looks to me like a half Capital without the extra Buy that you can use twice before it becomes dead. Pretty weak.

Quote from: Kudasai on October 24, 2018, 03:46:47 am

Yeah, I'm nervous this alters too much of the game mechanics. I'm not sure if I like that Stores can block attacks. Might change it to cards gained on a player's turn. It could be fine if I end up bumping some of the card costs. Wasting expensive Stores on Ruins and Curses might not be worth it at some card costs. Would appreciate any insights or thoughts you have on Attacks with these.

I'll just comment on Pioneer as I think that the two terminals are unlikely to be overpowered.

Mountebank is probably the most interesting Attack. If you Store a Copper you can use Pioneer as Copper trasher, if you Store a Curse you can use it as Curse trasher. The tricky question is, what do you do when you have set aside a Curse, still have Stores and get Cursed. Do you want to use the Store immediately to increase the draw power of your deck at the cost of permanent -1VP or do you decide to trash it later at the cost of a temporarily clogged deck?
This leads to interesting play around junkers and I wouldn't worry about it.

As Asper has pointed out, greening is the key issue. Pioneer can be read as a cantrip that gains  set aside Laboratories which land in your deck once you green.
That seems prett good, compared to something like Tormentor which is terminal and gains something that is weaker than a Lab under particular conditions (with the only advantage that the Imps is immediately yours).

On the other hand, it does nothing while you do not green yet, it only sets up future drawing power. So it will not shine in engines which want draw power long before greening but in stable money decks. You can e.g. imagine a deck with nothing but Chapel, Pioneer, a Gold, 2 Silvers and a Copper that reliably gains a Province per turn.

So the meta question is, do you want a card that is relatively best for money and Alt-VP decks and don't mind that it is extremly strong under such circumstances or do you want to tone it down some? If the latter is the case, I'd consider not making it a cantrip (I guess it'd be OK if it were non-terminal).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 24, 2018, 08:45:17 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 24, 2018, 08:39:33 am

As Asper has pointed out, greening is the key issue. Pioneer can be read as a cantrip that gains  set aside Laboratories which land in your deck once you green.
That seems prett good, compared to something like Tormentor which is terminal and gains something that is weaker than a Lab under particular conditions (with the only advantage that the Imps is immediately yours).

Ummm... I'm sorry, how is Pioneer gaining Laboratories?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 24, 2018, 08:51:28 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 24, 2018, 08:45:17 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 24, 2018, 08:39:33 am

As Asper has pointed out, greening is the key issue. Pioneer can be read as a cantrip that gains  set aside Laboratories which land in your deck once you green.
That seems prett good, compared to something like Tormentor which is terminal and gains something that is weaker than a Lab under particular conditions (with the only advantage that the Imps is immediately yours).

Ummm... I'm sorry, how is Pioneer gaining Laboratories?

I said that it can be read, i.e. interpreted as a cantrip that gains Labs which land in your deck after you gain a Victory card.
A dead card in your deck decreases your draw power by one per shuffle, Lab increases it by one. Spending a Store to set aside a Victory card increases your draw power by one per shuffle as well so it is similar although not identical to having gained a Laboratory.
Island does something similar and it is also compared to Laboratory and discussed in depth in this thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12343.0).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 24, 2018, 08:59:01 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 24, 2018, 08:29:56 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 24, 2018, 05:01:11 am

You may spend a Creditor to ignore the effect of Debt when buying one card.

To be clear, this means that you can buy a card when you have debt, not that you can buy a card that has debt in its cost for free, right?

Right.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 24, 2018, 09:01:13 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 24, 2018, 08:39:33 am

Looks to me like a half Capital without the extra Buy that you can use twice before it becomes dead. Pretty weak.

On its own, yes.  In multiples, or with other debt cost cards, maybe you can do more with it.

I did wonder whether it would be better priced at $3.  What do you think?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 24, 2018, 09:28:07 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 24, 2018, 08:51:28 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 24, 2018, 08:45:17 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 24, 2018, 08:39:33 am

As Asper has pointed out, greening is the key issue. Pioneer can be read as a cantrip that gains  set aside Laboratories which land in your deck once you green.
That seems prett good, compared to something like Tormentor which is terminal and gains something that is weaker than a Lab under particular conditions (with the only advantage that the Imps is immediately yours).

Ummm... I'm sorry, how is Pioneer gaining Laboratories?

I said that it can be read, i.e. interpreted as a cantrip that gains Labs which land in your deck after you gain a Victory card.
A dead card in your deck decreases your draw power by one per shuffle, Lab increases it by one. Spending a Store to set aside a Victory card increases your draw power by one per shuffle as well so it is similar although not identical to having gained a Laboratory.
Island does something similar and it is also compared to Laboratory and discussed in depth in this thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12343.0).

Thanks for the explanation.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 24, 2018, 09:35:42 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 24, 2018, 08:39:33 am

On the other hand, it does nothing while you do not green yet, it only sets up future drawing power. So it will not shine in engines which want draw power long before greening but in stable money decks. You can e.g. imagine a deck with nothing but Chapel, Pioneer, a Gold, 2 Silvers and a Copper that reliably gains a Province per turn.

Note: Like that, the deck you describe is not fully reliable as it is 6 cards and it may be that you don't draw the Pioneer. But still, you can probably get to the proper Golden deck in ~8 turns and that is pretty fast.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 24, 2018, 09:53:14 am

I updated the Plot token description so that it makes you discard one plot token per $2, 2 debt, or potion something costs. Making it be $2 instead of $3 should weaken the Tokens, but I like this one better, and it also affects debt and potion cost cards now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 24, 2018, 10:12:18 am

Fly-Eagles-Fly, regarding your signature, what's FEF?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 24, 2018, 10:17:27 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 24, 2018, 10:12:18 am

Fly-Eagles-Fly, regarding your signature, what's FEF?

What some people call me on the chess.com Variants forum. I was just wondering if anyone here also plays games there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 24, 2018, 12:48:03 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 24, 2018, 09:01:13 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 24, 2018, 08:39:33 am

Looks to me like a half Capital without the extra Buy that you can use twice before it becomes dead. Pretty weak.

On its own, yes.  In multiples, or with other debt cost cards, maybe you can do more with it.

I did wonder whether it would be better priced at $3.  What do you think?

I've added "You may trash this", so that (a) you can use it more times, and (b) it doesn't become a dead card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 24, 2018, 01:03:39 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 24, 2018, 12:48:03 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 24, 2018, 09:01:13 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 24, 2018, 08:39:33 am

Looks to me like a half Capital without the extra Buy that you can use twice before it becomes dead. Pretty weak.

On its own, yes.  In multiples, or with other debt cost cards, maybe you can do more with it.

I did wonder whether it would be better priced at $3.  What do you think?

I've added "You may trash this", so that (a) you can use it more times, and (b) it doesn't become a dead card.

I like it much better now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 24, 2018, 01:30:53 pm

Just added Alliance to my post, has a Catacombs-like draw and gives you Plot tokens for drawing good cards. I really don't know how balanced it is, but it seems like a good idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 24, 2018, 08:00:46 pm

Quote from: Asper on October 24, 2018, 07:59:17 am

Luck:
Those are cute, but I'd like them better if they just kept the cards out of the suffle. Actually, that's how I had read them when I started writing this post, and I just now realized I had misread. Such tokens would actually be rather similar to Stores, just a bit more fiddly - but with the added advantage that you have to produce them again and again, so the more cards you want to keep out, the more you need to produce. That diminishes the issue of one Pioneer setting up your uncorruptible engine... They can be used rather similar to Freezing tokens, too, and I like how you added them as a drawback for e.g. Woodland Witch. The balance can probably still be improved on some of these, though.

Thanks for the feedback. Personally, I like the bottom-of-your-deck implementation better. If they kept cards out of the shuffle they would feel too similar to the Ice tokens. I was seriously considering letting them top deck cards instead, but, well, top-of-your-deck stuff has already been done a bazillion times. I was trying to come up with something that wasn't just an ability that cards already had made into a token. There are also other subtle strategic things you can do with this besides making bad cards miss the shuffle, like making it easier to draw your deck if you're capable of drawing it, and the ability to order the cards might also come in handy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on October 25, 2018, 02:15:12 am

(https://i.imgur.com/uX031GK.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/E6aE5yM.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/3wSJFYf.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/QeuXm9D.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 25, 2018, 04:17:01 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 24, 2018, 08:00:46 pm

Quote from: Asper on October 24, 2018, 07:59:17 am

Luck:
Those are cute, but I'd like them better if they just kept the cards out of the suffle. Actually, that's how I had read them when I started writing this post, and I just now realized I had misread. Such tokens would actually be rather similar to Stores, just a bit more fiddly - but with the added advantage that you have to produce them again and again, so the more cards you want to keep out, the more you need to produce. That diminishes the issue of one Pioneer setting up your uncorruptible engine... They can be used rather similar to Freezing tokens, too, and I like how you added them as a drawback for e.g. Woodland Witch. The balance can probably still be improved on some of these, though.

Thanks for the feedback. Personally, I like the bottom-of-your-deck implementation better. If they kept cards out of the shuffle they would feel too similar to the Ice tokens. I was seriously considering letting them top deck cards instead, but, well, top-of-your-deck stuff has already been done a bazillion times. I was trying to come up with something that wasn't just an ability that cards already had made into a token. There are also other subtle strategic things you can do with this besides making bad cards miss the shuffle, like making it easier to draw your deck if you're capable of drawing it, and the ability to order the cards might also come in handy.

Right, but to me, missing the shuffle is already a subtle strategical thing. A lot of players won't even consider this, and it actually stops mattering when you draw your deck - at least that's how I see it. But it's your entry, not mine.

Insert lame Mine joke here. Insert even lamer Mint joke referencing the lame Mine joke here.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 25, 2018, 06:18:54 am

Flea Market
Action - $2
+1 Bargain

Bargains: When you gain a card, you may spend a token from your Bargain mat to gain a non-victory card costing less than it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 25, 2018, 07:28:44 am

Quote from: ClouduHieh on October 25, 2018, 02:15:12 am

(https://i.imgur.com/uX031GK.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/E6aE5yM.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/3wSJFYf.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/QeuXm9D.jpg)

The design is very interesting, but just letting you know the contest was to use the coin tokens that are used for Coffers (and will be used for Villagers) for another spendable function, not just any new tokens.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on October 25, 2018, 10:30:04 am

I’m sorry I thought I saw someone using the +1 buy tokens for a different use and thought all existing tokens were fair game. Ah well I’ll never have a chance in winning any of these tournaments anyway. Cause I only learn visually anyway. If you had taken a picture of what the tokens look like. Then I would of known for sure. Which to use and which not to use. After all I don’t know what the villagers tokens look like because they haven’t been released. Probably should of at least waited till renaissance was fully released before having a contest using such tokens. I mean I played some of the new cards online but it didn’t give an exact picture to what the tokens look like. Are they metal, plastic or cardboard well we don’t know. They could look just like the inheritance token for all we know. Because we just don’t fully know.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 25, 2018, 11:34:34 am

Go read the second Renaissance preview, he says that the tokens will be the same as for coffers but will also used for villagers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on October 25, 2018, 12:36:02 pm

I don’t want to look at the preview stuff anymore. It just makes it more frustrating waiting for it to come out. I’m only posting on here for fun. If my cards pass great! If they don’t cause of a technicality that I don’t understand oh well. Think of this as apples to apples. One person says all the requirements for this contest. All the players post what they think meets with his requirements. And probably just pick his favorite that meets his requirements. However he is not obligated to choose a card that is within the requirements. Like for instance in apples to apples the requirement is something sticky bubble gum, tape, spider webs, super glue, bandaids and snakes. The player chose snakes cause he loves reptiles.

Now I that would never happen. But here’s a question is each person obligated to pick only with the requirements he’s chooses. Because I don’t remember seeing that in the beginning post.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 25, 2018, 12:39:49 pm

They aren't obligated to necessarily, however they pick from contest entries and technically if a card doesn't meet the requirements it's not a contest entry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on October 25, 2018, 12:41:59 pm

Oh well. It wouldn’t be the first time I didn’t fully understand what’s in and what’s out. And I’m sure it won’t be the last. Dominion is just game after all. I only make sure I have all the facts for important things like teaching people about animals at the zoo.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 25, 2018, 12:42:50 pm

Guys, please. No need to fight. ClouduHieh, I sent you a message  :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 25, 2018, 01:54:42 pm

This might be a good time to clarify that the tokens themselves have no effect on what happens when used. It's where (what mat) the tokens come from that matters. The mats should tell you when and what to do when a token is removed. See the Coffers mat as an example.

I think a lot of the confusion is that the official tokens used look like Coin tokens, but they can really be used for anything, not just +$1. In fact, you can use any thing you want for tokens: Pennies, rusty nails, even VP tokens! That last one might be interesting!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on October 26, 2018, 10:23:23 am

You may spend a Science token at any time during your Action phase. If you do, the next time you play an Action you get +2 Cards +1 Action instead of following its instructions.

(https://imgur.com/x3qypiS.png) (https://i.imgur.com/YNKLT0E.png) (https://i.imgur.com/oEUhr60.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 26, 2018, 12:08:30 pm

Quote from: hypercube on October 26, 2018, 10:23:23 am

You may spend a Science token at any time during your Action phase. If you do, the next time you play an Action you get +2 Cards +1 Action instead of following its instructions.

(https://imgur.com/x3qypiS.png) (https://i.imgur.com/WIxCvba.png) (https://i.imgur.com/oEUhr60.png)

Really cool, but the tokens seem really strong. Glassblower especially seems too strong, compared to Candlestick Maker (which I guess you were using that as a model). Turning any Action into a Lab just seems a lot better than a Coffer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 26, 2018, 12:21:08 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 26, 2018, 12:08:30 pm

Quote from: hypercube on October 26, 2018, 10:23:23 am

You may spend a Science token at any time during your Action phase. If you do, the next time you play an Action you get +2 Cards +1 Action instead of following its instructions.

(https://imgur.com/x3qypiS.png) (https://i.imgur.com/WIxCvba.png) (https://i.imgur.com/oEUhr60.png)

Really cool, but the tokens seem really strong. Glassblower especially seems too strong, compared to Candlestick Maker (which I guess you were using that as a model). Turning any Action into a Lab just seems a lot better than a Coffer.

I am not so sure. Suppose you have a Pearl Diver in hand. Now you can use Glassblower's Science token to draw an extra card. This boils down to Glassblower having being, in hindsight, a Market Square. Not that brilliant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 26, 2018, 12:31:09 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 26, 2018, 12:21:08 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 26, 2018, 12:08:30 pm

Quote from: hypercube on October 26, 2018, 10:23:23 am

You may spend a Science token at any time during your Action phase. If you do, the next time you play an Action you get +2 Cards +1 Action instead of following its instructions.

(https://imgur.com/x3qypiS.png) (https://i.imgur.com/WIxCvba.png) (https://i.imgur.com/oEUhr60.png)

Really cool, but the tokens seem really strong. Glassblower especially seems too strong, compared to Candlestick Maker (which I guess you were using that as a model). Turning any Action into a Lab just seems a lot better than a Coffer.

I am not so sure. Suppose you have a Pearl Diver in hand. Now you can use Glassblower's Science token to draw an extra card. This boils down to Glassblower having being, in hindsight, a Market Square. Not that brilliant.

Yes, but similar to Candlestick Maker it gets much stronger if you save it up. At the start of your next turn you have a Pearl Diver and whatever else, now it's much better than using it right away. Or it can make dead cards live again. All this is saying that it is a very fun and good concept. I just think it's too good for Glassblower.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 26, 2018, 12:35:34 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 26, 2018, 12:31:09 pm

Yes, but similar to Candlestick Maker it gets much stronger if you save it up. At the start of your next turn you have a Pearl Diver and whatever else, now it's much better than using it right away. Or it can make dead cards live again. All this is saying that it is a very fun and good concept. I just think it's too good for Glassblower.

Sure, +1 Card is usually better than +1 Coin so arguably the corresponding token is stronger. But Science tokens are in my opinion weaker than Card tokens. If you have no Action card in your hand left after you play Glassblower you cannot use the Science token and if you only have good Action cards you don't want to use Sciences tokens on them.
This is why I think that the card is fine at $2

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on October 26, 2018, 01:20:28 pm

Quote

Mulligan Tokens
Any time during your turn that you are not currently resolving the effects of a card, you may spend a mulligan token for the effect: +1 card, then discard a card.

(https://i.imgur.com/9OeJAZ2.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/rOvPtpz.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Je081Ep.jpg)

Quote

Storehouse
$3 Action
Take four mulligan tokens.

Quote

Runaway
$5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Take a mulligan token.

Quote

Barrel
$2 Event
+1 Buy
Trash a card from your hand. Take one mulligan token for each $ in its cost.

Quote

Old Barrel
$1 Event
+1 Buy
Take a mulligan token.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 26, 2018, 01:22:39 pm

Fugitive as token looks sound except for Barrel, that is arguably a bit too cheap and thus too automatic if you have left-over Coins.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on October 26, 2018, 02:53:55 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 26, 2018, 01:22:39 pm

Fugitive as token looks sound except for Barrel, that is arguably a bit too cheap and thus too automatic if you have left-over Coins.

Agreed. It could add diversity in playstyle despite being a must-buy, but I think it's a little too monolithic for my taste. Perhaps remove the buy and make it a 3 for 3 type of thing, or add some type of drawback:

Quote

Barrel - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}
+1 Buy
Discard any number of cards, then take a Mulligan token per card discarded.

Quote

Barrel - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}
+1 Buy
Take a mulligan token, then put your -1 Card token onto your deck.

Also, it's an event. A barrel is not an event. This is a nitpick, but I always hate it when people name events after inanimate objects.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on October 26, 2018, 02:53:58 pm

Storehouse is too strong and it should cost 4 in my opinion. Runaway could have a small bonus like, “when you trash this, gain a cheaper card” or similar. Barrel has the Pot of Greed problem. Everyone will use it, it whenever it's possible. That makes games longer without adding fun. I would simply drop that event.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on October 26, 2018, 03:25:05 pm

Quote from: hypercube on October 26, 2018, 10:23:23 am

You may spend a Science token at any time during your Action phase. If you do, the next time you play an Action you get +2 Cards +1 Action instead of following its instructions.

As a potentially useful comparison, Science is usually a Villager that also replaces the next card with +2 Cards. The obvious combo is Ruins; they also let you Enchantress+ yourself when terminals collide. What is the thinking behind limiting Collector's bonus to Action and Victory cards, as opposed the unrestricted ability of Recruiter?

EDIT: Ignore my misunderstanding of how the tokens would work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 26, 2018, 03:33:43 pm

Quote from: crlundy on October 26, 2018, 03:25:05 pm

Quote from: hypercube on October 26, 2018, 10:23:23 am

You may spend a Science token at any time during your Action phase. If you do, the next time you play an Action you get +2 Cards +1 Action instead of following its instructions.

As a potentially useful comparison, Science is usually a Villager that also replaces the next card with +2 Cards.

I fail to see the similarity between Scientist and Villager. Villager provides +1 Action whereas Scientist net yields +1 Card, conditional upon you quasi-discarding (if you shuffle that fellow isn't coming back) an Action card. It is thus only similar to Card tokens and can be read as a generally (sifting through Ruins or hands with too many terminals being the exceptions) weaker version of them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 26, 2018, 03:43:57 pm

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on October 26, 2018, 02:53:55 pm

Also, it's an event. A barrel is not an event. This is a nitpick, but I always hate it when people name events after inanimate objects.

Like Inheritance, Seaway, or Scouting Party?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 26, 2018, 03:46:38 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 26, 2018, 03:43:57 pm

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on October 26, 2018, 02:53:55 pm

Also, it's an event. A barrel is not an event. This is a nitpick, but I always hate it when people name events after inanimate objects.

Like Inheritance, Seaway, or Scouting Party?

I almost said the same thing, but it's not quite the same. You inheriting something is an event, you building a seaway is an event, and you go on a scouting party. It's not quite the same as it being a regular object.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 26, 2018, 03:47:59 pm

Quote from: Violet CLM on October 23, 2018, 01:06:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/cwJR5qs.png)
(a (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Sellsail&description=%2B2%20Cards%0A%2B1%20Action%0A%2B2%20Mutineers&type=Action&credit=Illustration%3A%20nachomolina&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Forig00.deviantart.net%2F7cd1%2Ff%2F2010%2F263%2Fd%2F0%2Fsalladhar__s_crew_by_nachomolina-d2z412n.jpg&color0=0&color1=0&size=0) b (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Grotto&description=%2B%20%242%0AEach%20other%20player%0Agains%20a%20Mutineer.%0A%0A-%0A%0AWhen%20you%20discard%20this%20other%20than%20during%20Clean-up%2C%20you%20may%20reveal%20it%20to%20gain%20a%20Silver.&type=Action%20-%20Attack%20-%20Reaction&credit=Illustration%3A%20David%20Teniers%20the%20Younger&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.fineartamerica.com%2Fimages-medium-large-5%2Fvista-from-a-grotto-flemish-david-teniers-the-younger.jpg&color0=3&color1=0&size=0) c (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Diving%20Bell&description=When%20you%20buy%20this%2C%20each%20other%20player%20gains%203%20Mutineers.%0A%0A-%0A%0AUntil%20you%20buy%20this%2C%20when%20you%20spend%20a%20Mutineer%2C%20additionally%20discard%0Aas%20many%20cards%20from%20your%20hand%20as%20you%20have%20remaining%20Mutineers.&type=Project&credit=&price=%245&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fbeoshewulf.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F07%2Falexanders-submersible-with-cat.jpg&color0=15&color1=0&size=1))

Mutineers may be spent during your Action phase at any time when you might spend an action instead, i.e. when no cards are currently resolving. Spending a Mutineer discards a card from your hand. At the end of the game, each unspent Mutineer is worth -1VP.

This is one of the most interesting concepts so some quick comments.

I guess that you mean that you can discard at any during your Action phase in order to get rid of a Mutineer, i.e. making these bastards walk the plank is conditional upon you discarding a card. Otherwise you could spend all Mutineers when you are down to zero cards in hand.

Diving Bell provides some nice interaction and I think that the Project is interesting with as well as without Kingdom cards that hand out Mutineers.

Sellsail is a pretty cool Fugitive variant.

It is nice that Grotto defends against itself but I am not too fond of the Silver gaining. It looks a bit weak compared to Militia but in 3P games it could be nasty as unlike Militia the tokens stack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 26, 2018, 03:50:24 pm

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on October 26, 2018, 02:53:55 pm

Quote

Barrel - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}
+1 Buy
Take a mulligan token, then put your -1 Card token onto your deck.

This version gives you infinite tokens.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 26, 2018, 04:00:51 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 26, 2018, 03:46:38 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 26, 2018, 03:43:57 pm

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on October 26, 2018, 02:53:55 pm

Also, it's an event. A barrel is not an event. This is a nitpick, but I always hate it when people name events after inanimate objects.

Like Inheritance, Seaway, or Scouting Party?

I almost said the same thing, but it's not quite the same. You inheriting something is an event, you building a seaway is an event, and you go on a scouting party. It's not quite the same as it being a regular object.

Yeah, all the sideways cards are, or can be read, as what they are. Goat and Pasture are really the only two cards that don't match their type.
I understand that some people approach boardgames in general as a bunch of mechanisms in a box but Dominion does have some theme to it (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19131.0). Claims that the game is totally unthematic are as valid as claims that it is multiplayer solitaire.

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 26, 2018, 03:50:24 pm

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on October 26, 2018, 02:53:55 pm

Quote

Barrel - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}
+1 Buy
Take a mulligan token, then put your -1 Card token onto your deck.

This version gives you infinite tokens.

I think it is evident that Theta meant it to work like Borrow, i.e.:

Once per turn: +1 Buy. If your –1 Card token isn't on your deck, put it there and take a Mulligan token.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on October 26, 2018, 04:01:55 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 26, 2018, 03:46:38 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 26, 2018, 03:43:57 pm

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on October 26, 2018, 02:53:55 pm

Also, it's an event. A barrel is not an event. This is a nitpick, but I always hate it when people name events after inanimate objects.

Like Inheritance, Seaway, or Scouting Party?

I almost said the same thing, but it's not quite the same. You inheriting something is an event, you building a seaway is an event, and you go on a scouting party. It's not quite the same as it being a regular object.

The mix of nouns and verbs as published Events is what gets me. Pathfinding, but not Summoning? Expedition, but not Domination?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on October 26, 2018, 04:15:24 pm

I was skeptical about this week's contest and couldn't come up with anything very clever myself, but I am blown away by how cool and innovative some of the things y'all are coming up with are. Looks like another tough week of judging, and lots of interesting concepts that could form the basis of many future cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on October 26, 2018, 04:21:54 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 26, 2018, 03:43:57 pm

Like Inheritance, Seaway, or Scouting Party?

Well, partly. Inheritance is obviously an "event" in one sense of the word, a rich uncle passes away and you get something. Scouting Party also irks me, but it still somewhat implies an event. I interpret it as in the event is you sending the scouting party out and then they come back and give you information. Again with Seaway, it irks me that it's not an event per se, but it somewhat makes sense if you think of it as a seaway being built. Obviously, that would have some effects on your kingdom, and the increase in trade from that event gives you an extra card and the +Buys.

Barrel seems pretty indefensible as an event, though. Perhaps a tweak to something like "Cooperage" would put it more in line with the other cards?

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 26, 2018, 03:50:24 pm

This version gives you infinite tokens.

Whoops! Hlounder is quite right, I meant it to be a borrow knock-off.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on October 26, 2018, 06:59:11 pm

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on October 26, 2018, 02:53:55 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 26, 2018, 01:22:39 pm

Fugitive as token looks sound except for Barrel, that is arguably a bit too cheap and thus too automatic if you have left-over Coins.

Agreed. It could add diversity in playstyle despite being a must-buy, but I think it's a little too monolithic for my taste. Perhaps remove the buy and make it a 3 for 3 type of thing, or add some type of drawback:

Quote

Barrel - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}
+1 Buy
Discard any number of cards, then take a Mulligan token per card discarded.

Quote

Barrel - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}
+1 Buy
Take a mulligan token, then put your -1 Card token onto your deck.

Also, it's an event. A barrel is not an event. This is a nitpick, but I always hate it when people name events after inanimate objects.

I like the idea of making it not super-spammable, I didn't quite realize that when I made it. I came up with a slightly different solution to the problem, in an attempt to also make it more interesting.
Also, barrel is a verb (as in, they barreled the apples to ready them for transport). It's not exactly the common use of the word, though, and I might change the name of it at some point just because of that. On the other hand, I already have art for "barrel" so I'll keep it that way for now.

(https://i.imgur.com/Je081Ep.jpg)

Quote

Barrel
$2 Event
+1 Buy
Trash a card from your hand. Take one mulligan token for each $ in its cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on October 26, 2018, 07:19:45 pm

I feel like the trashing will dominate the card more than the Mulligan token thing now. At _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} for a free trashing, it's already a pretty powerful event.

Also, I would suggest "Coopery" or "Cooperage" as a name. You can keep the same art, but it's a more interesting name, and Coopery feels consistent with Pathfinding as a sort of trade.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 27, 2018, 02:42:14 am

Baker Kingdom
T1: 3 Coppers, 2 Estates
Spend Coffers token, buy Barrel, trash 2 Estates, take 4 Mulligan tokens.
T2: 4 Coppers, 1 Estate
Spend Mulligan token to sift through the Estate, buy a $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 27, 2018, 04:47:52 am

I agree that Barrel doesn't sound like an Event. Even the Events that describe things, most of the time (always?) describe abstract or intangible things. You can't touch a Seaway, Hunting Party, Lost Arts, Summon or Inheritance. A barrel is something you have standing in your Cellar.

Goats used to be something that you would typically trade against other goods, like chickens, or camels in other countries, or eggs... Given the celtic theme of Nocturne, I'm enclined to let that slide. I never really thought about Pasture, but, uh, I guess you could say it describes both the land and the grass your sheep eat? Personally I'm much more offended by Amulet not being a Treasure.

Also, do a Barrel Roll.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on October 27, 2018, 08:09:55 am

Quote from: Asper on October 27, 2018, 04:47:52 am

Goats used to be something that you would typically trade against other goods, like chickens, or camels in other countries, or eggs... Given the celtic theme of Nocturne, I'm enclined to let that slide. I never really thought about Pasture, but, uh, I guess you could say it describes both the land and the grass your sheep eat? Personally I'm much more offended by Amulet not being a Treasure.

That was my justification for both of them too. Livestock has historically been used as currency. Recently, in fact, the president of Zimbabwe suggested people could use goats instead of cash (https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-39639204). Pastures are also valuable and land has been a trade good as far back as property rights were invented.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on October 27, 2018, 04:03:23 pm

But Goat is a Treasure card in Dominion, so you can pay with Goats. And they even have a positive effect. While Beggars and Ill-Gotten Gains increase the money supply, Goats can even eat Copper to counteract the inflation.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 27, 2018, 07:09:51 pm

Quote from: King Leon on October 27, 2018, 04:03:23 pm

But Goat is a Treasure card in Dominion, so you can pay with Goats. And they even have a positive effect. While Beggars and Ill-Gotten Gains increase the money supply, Goats can even eat Copper to counteract the inflation.

Makes sense. The value of a goat is a real, not an arbitrarily assigned one. So it's no wonder they make for a reliable investment. More so than Gold, in fact.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on October 28, 2018, 03:10:13 pm

I'll name my winner and runners-up in a few hours. If there are any last minute ideas to float by, go ahead and submit soon.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tarken on October 28, 2018, 06:05:58 pm

Quote

CHALLENGE #5: NEW TYPE OF SPENDABLE TOKEN

This is a two-fold challenge. First, create a new use for the standard coin tokens used for Coffers and Villagers. Give it a name, describe when you can spend these tokens, and describe what happens when each token is spent. Second, create at least one card (up to three) that allows for gaining these tokens.

The best combination of token and card will be the winner. If your token is similar to a previously-submitted token, that's fine; just give it a different name at the very least.

If there are any questions about the parameters of this challenge, please ask away.

Edit: Changed rules to allow entrants to design up to three cards that all gain the same new token.

---

My submission is inspired by French Revolution. I was also inspired by Violet CLM idea of Mutineers.

Quote

Mutineers may be spent during your Action phase at any time when you might spend an action instead, i.e. when no cards are currently resolving. Spending a Mutineer discards a card from your hand. At the end of the game, each unspent Mutineer is worth -1VP.

---

My submission:

Each Revolution token is worth -1VP at the end of the game.

---

(http://tarken.krakonos.org/dominion/Guillotine.png)

(http://tarken.krakonos.org/dominion/SupportTheRevolution.png)

(http://tarken.krakonos.org/dominion/LetThemEatCake.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on October 28, 2018, 09:44:56 pm

I think it's time to announce my winner! First of all, I want to thank everyone who participated in this weekly contest of mine. Despite the difficulty of the challenge, many of you rose to it and presented some creative tokens and cards. While some entries didn't quite match the guidelines I set, I thoroughly enjoyed pondering every entry.

Before I make the announcement, I would like to contribute my own take on my challenge. While I couldn't enter my own contest for obvious reasons, I did want to show at least one of the ideas I came up with. And since it's not an official entry, I'm breaking my own rules and presenting four cards that use my token (sorry I don't have an official-looking mat like Kudasai and Fly-Eagles-Fly):

(https://i.imgur.com/5Vny1cD.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FfN92fS.png) (https://i.imgur.com/8mYJfqf.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/2KULNqv.png) (https://i.imgur.com/0YAnQbM.png)

Quote

Crafters
Token
-
Once per Buy phase on your turns: You may remove tokens from this to gain a card costing up to $2 per token removed.

Holiday Village
Action - $4
-
+2 Actions
Reveal the top card of your deck, then put it into your hand. If it's an...
Attack card, gain a Curse.
Treasure card, gain a Silver.
Victory card, +1 Crafter.
$0-cost card, you may trash it.

Tailor
Action - $4
-
Gain a card costing up to $4. If it costs less than $4, +1 Crafter.

Con Artist
Action/Attack - $5
-
Each other player reveals the top three cards of their deck, discards one of your choice, then puts the rest back in any order. +1 Crafter for each differently-named card revealed by the player to your left.

Factory
Action - $6
-
+3 Crafters
You may not play any more Actions this turn.
-
While this is in play, when you gain a card using Crafters, you may gain a second card costing up to $1 per Crafter used.

Any feedback on my ideas is always welcome.

---

And now, the moment you have all been waiting for! After considering each set of tokens and cards for the creativity of the token and how well the cards fit with it, I have selected a Top 5 (because narrowing it down to 2 was just too hard, and there were so many that I wanted to compliment). From fifth to first, we have:

5th Place: Gubump's Grant and Endurance
-
My favorite of the entries with a single card. Quite a neat idea to have a token be able to turn a regular Action into a Duration. A powerful token indeed, softened by Grant's one-shot  nature. I would like to see more cards that grant Endurance.

4th Place: hypercube's Science set
-
Science is perhaps the most creative token idea of the contest. It effectively turns a potentially dead card into a Laboratory. The cards that gain Science tokens fit the Science theme rather nicely and would potentially make good Science targets themselves.

3rd Place: Fly-Eagles-Fly's Plots set
-
Complex perhaps, but I like it like that. The tokens can be strong but the mechanic incorporating the card's cost helps keep this from getting too nutty. The cards themselves have some neat effects and complement the Plot tokens nicely.

And now, the top two. This was really difficult; I kept going back and forth between these two as the winner and runner-up. Ultimately, my decision is...

2nd Place: Kudasai's Stores set
-
A token-esque version of Pirate Ship, but so much better and more intuitive in my opinion. Plus, the cards that went with it had very creative uses of the Stores mat itself.

THE WINNER OF THE CREATE-A-TOKEN CONTEST IS... VIOLET CLM's MUTINEERS SET!
-
I fell in love with this the moment I saw it. First, of all of the token ideas I came up with on my own, not a single one of them had a negative effect. As soon as I saw what Mutineers do, I just had to yell, "Why didn't I think of that?!" The nautical-themed cards themselves fit with the Mutineers theme quite well, too. I especially love Diving Bell as a combination of Attack and Mutineers abettor. Still, I do have some confusion over how to spend the Mutineers. At first, I read it as you have to use an Action to do so. Also, make sure it's clear that you must discard a card when you want to rid yourself of a Mutineer. Other than that, though, I had to give this the win due to the cohesiveness of the entire set.

I look forward to seeing what you have in store for the next challenge, Violet CLM. And once again, thanks to everyone for your entries and your comments. I had a lot of fun with this, and I hope you all did, too. See you for Challenge #6!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 29, 2018, 12:03:11 am

Thanks for the thoughtful deliberation! I agree with your winning choice. Mutineer tokens are such a cool idea.

Good luck to you in challenge #6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on October 29, 2018, 02:09:39 am

Ooh, I'm delightfully surprised--thanks for the kind words! The genesis for the idea was very simple: I thought about all the basic Dominion keywords that could conceivably be bound to spendable tokens, and "discard" seemed the most interesting. Their effectiveness as attacks probably varies hugely by kingdom, though, even putting aside the issue of how big a deal -1 point is depending on the VP options... cards like Tunnel, Poor House, Menagerie, or Library would all make me buy Sellsail specifically for the tokens. But hey, maybe that kind of variability is a good thing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 29, 2018, 08:58:07 am

Wow, third! Thanks a lot. I think you got it right with your decisions. Also, nice 'submission' yourself!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: vishwathg on October 29, 2018, 02:51:13 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on October 28, 2018, 09:44:56 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0YAnQbM.png)

What happens if you Throne Room a Factory?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 29, 2018, 02:52:46 pm

Quote from: vishwathg on October 29, 2018, 02:51:13 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on October 28, 2018, 09:44:56 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0YAnQbM.png)

What happens if you Throne Room a Factory?

I would guess that you would only play Factory once. If it said Action cards I would think otherwise.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 29, 2018, 02:58:12 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 29, 2018, 02:52:46 pm

Quote from: vishwathg on October 29, 2018, 02:51:13 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on October 28, 2018, 09:44:56 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0YAnQbM.png)

What happens if you Throne Room a Factory?

I would guess that you would only play Factory once. If it said Action cards I would think otherwise.

And what happen if my Venture hits a Crown?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 29, 2018, 03:54:46 pm

If your boss tells you to murder the annoying client but the penal law says that murder is a capital crime it is not really unclear which commandment you should follow.
In real life as well as nearly all boardgames "don't" trumps "do".
Meaning concretely here that you have to come up with some practical solution, i.e. put the Action card in play but don't resolve it or discard the Action.

Beyond this rules trivia I think that Factory could be too strong. You can read it as "+1 Buy +6 Coins and don't play anyother Actions" (ignoring the below-the-line stuff for the sake of simplicity). Not so nice with Action diggers like Golem, Ghost or Herald but otherwise pretty good; 3/4 of a Province isn't bad for a terminal payload card at $6. Sure, you only want one as they don't stack but it seems fairly automatic in engines as well as money decks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on October 29, 2018, 05:24:20 pm

Perhaps I could change Factory's effect to "Immediately end your Action phase." And if Factory is too strong, what about Con Artist? Maybe you should be forced to remove all Crafters when you decide to use them?

Still, I like these conversations. I should start a thread for my own creations so I can get more feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 29, 2018, 05:57:04 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on October 29, 2018, 05:24:20 pm

Perhaps I could change Factory's effect to "Immediately end your Action phase." And if Factory is too strong, what about Con Artist? Maybe you should be forced to remove all Crafters when you decide to use them?

Still, I like these conversations. I should start a thread for my own creations so I can get more feedback.

That wording should work, and I think it would make it more strategic if you needed to use all of them, since you want to use them sooner to get the full value. It certainly wouldn't make it less strategic, anyway.
Con Artist is probably too strong, maybe +1 Crafters for every three differently named cards revealed by the other players combined? Not sure that works well in practiced, but seems like it should be balanced.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 29, 2018, 07:47:27 pm

Dominion is not most boardgames, it is a boardgame. The fact that most humans like chocolate doesn't mean that one specific human does, and neither can you say what applies for Dominion. Rather, the fact that in all these years such a rule was never introduced speaks for itself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on October 29, 2018, 10:48:26 pm

Quote from: Asper on October 29, 2018, 07:47:27 pm

Dominion is not most boardgames, it is a boardgame. The fact that most humans like chocolate doesn't mean that one specific human does, and neither can you say what applies for Dominion. Rather, the fact that in all these years such a rule was never introduced speaks for itself.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying, but I thought there was a rule like that in Dominion (though it may not be explicit) so that e.g. you know Moat gets priority over Militia.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on October 30, 2018, 03:47:45 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 17, 2018, 01:21:20 pm

4. The winner of a challenge posts the next challenge.

aaaaaaaah sorry sorry I totally forgot about this part

okay, so, uhhh

CHALLENGE #6: INSPIRED BY ANOTHER BOARD/CARD GAME
Your model here is Governor much more than it is Walled Village: design a card-shaped object in some way inspired by the rules of a board or card game other than Dominion. (Also kindly specify which game you're working from because I assume we haven't all of us played 100% of games ever made.) Be careful, though, that the game with the inclusion of your object is still Dominion. At the extreme end, don't write a card that says "play a game of Backgammon with the player to your left--if you win, +$4." But even a Landmark that replaces Dominion's supply piles with the rotating supply from Through the Ages or St. Petersburg is probably a bit beyond the scope of this challenge.

If your idea is better served as multiple card-shaped objects for whatever reason--heirlooms, split piles, prizes, non-supply piles, whatever--sure, go for it, that's fine.

Busen Memo is not allowed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 30, 2018, 04:41:59 am

Homage to Pandemic!

(https://i.imgur.com/CWacToI.jpg)

Embargo tokens work the same as with Embargo.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on October 30, 2018, 05:17:39 am

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on October 29, 2018, 10:48:26 pm

Quote from: Asper on October 29, 2018, 07:47:27 pm

Dominion is not most boardgames, it is a boardgame. The fact that most humans like chocolate doesn't mean that one specific human does, and neither can you say what applies for Dominion. Rather, the fact that in all these years such a rule was never introduced speaks for itself.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying, but I thought there was a rule like that in Dominion (though it may not be explicit) so that e.g. you know Moat gets priority over Militia.

Certainly not explicit, and Moat is as close as it gets.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on October 30, 2018, 06:28:00 am

A traveller line as Hommage to Stratego. My design tries to implicit that you will need a good mix of all travellers. Young Spys Draw-to-5-ability reduces the risk of getting stripped of all travellers.

Marshal ACTION - TRAVELLER
6$*
+3cards
+ 2$

Each opponent discards a traveller costing 5$ (or reveals he can’t).
******************************************************************************************************************



General ACTION - TRAVELLER
5$*
+3 cards
Gain a Silver.

Each opponent discards a traveller costing 4$ (or reveals he can’t).

_____________________________________________________________
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Marshal.
******************************************************************************************************************


Colonel ACTION - TRAVELLER
4$*
+2 actions
+ 2 buys

Each opponent discards a traveller costing 3$ (or reveals he can’t).

_____________________________________________________________
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a General.
******************************************************************************************************************


Miner ACTION - TRAVELLER
3$*
+ 3 actions

_____________________________________________________________
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Colonel.

 ******************************************************************************************************************

Young Spy ACTION - TRAVELLER
$2
+Action
Draw until you have 5 cards in hand.

Each opponent discards a traveller costing 6$ (or reveals he can’t).
_____________________________________________________________
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Miner.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 30, 2018, 07:43:47 am

Based on the resource accumulation spaces of Agricola:

(https://i.imgur.com/BwS7Kcn.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2018, 09:14:26 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 30, 2018, 07:43:47 am

Based on the resource accumulation spaces of Agricola:

(https://i.imgur.com/uKnEtRC.jpg)

Nice! Agricola is my third or so favorite board game. This fits it perfectly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 30, 2018, 09:39:23 am

See this post (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775488#msg775488) for the latest version of this card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2018, 10:34:23 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 30, 2018, 09:39:23 am

I know Carcassonne has been done already, but:

(https://i.imgur.com/HAWtHF5.jpg)

Quote

Cloister
Cost: $8
Types: Action - Duration - Victory
Now and at the start of each of your turns: If this is in play, you may play a non-Duration Action card from your hand. If you do, put it next to this card.
-
During clean-up, if there are eight cards next to this card, discard this and all cards next to it, and take 9 VP.  Otherwise, this card and all cards next to it stay in play.
-
At the end of the game, if this is in play, it is worth 1 VP plus 1 VP for each card next to it.

Clarification: Only cards played as part of the card's effect count as cards "next to" Cloister.  Merely putting a card next to it on the table isn't enough.

Really cool! Two things:
Can you put a Cloister next to a Cloister, or next to other cards played by Cloister, like in Carcassone? Basically, can cards count as being next to multiple Cloisters? Also, the green and orange should be switched.
Edit: Also, I think you want +9VP instead of take 9VP.
And nevermind, you already answered the question.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on October 30, 2018, 11:15:50 am

A Traveller line inspired by Bohnanza:

(https://i.imgur.com/VX36BEQ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/5mBdHdx.png) (https://i.imgur.com/VYN5wPV.png) (https://i.imgur.com/tx7Ii7o.png) (https://i.imgur.com/H5zssWr.png)

Much like Bohnanza, it has various colours of beans, cards that get better when you have multiple copies, and exchanging. I didn't want to put multiple dividing lines on so Blue Bean and Green Bean get unusual exchange conditions. Blue Bean's condition also prevents you from playing all your Blue Beans, then exchanging them on your final turn to score a bunch.

Small change to Wax Bean wording to match Bank.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 30, 2018, 11:20:39 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2018, 10:34:23 am

Can you put a Cloister next to a Cloister, or next to other cards played by Cloister, like in Carcassone? Basically, can cards count as being next to multiple Cloisters?

Good question!  Fixed by changing the clarification.

Quote

Also, the green and orange should be switched.
Edit: Also, I think you want +9VP instead of take 9VP.

OK.  Fixed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2018, 11:23:52 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 30, 2018, 11:20:39 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2018, 10:34:23 am

Can you put a Cloister next to a Cloister, or next to other cards played by Cloister, like in Carcassone? Basically, can cards count as being next to multiple Cloisters?

Good question!  Fixed by changing the clarification.

Quote

Also, the green and orange should be switched.
Edit: Also, I think you want +9VP instead of take 9VP.

OK.  Fixed.

But you can't place a Cloister next to another Cloister, since it's a duration card, but you can arrange the grid so that a card is next to multiple cloisters, is that right?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 30, 2018, 11:25:11 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2018, 11:23:52 am

But you can't place a Cloister next to another Cloister, since it's a duration card, but you can arrange the grid so that a card is next to multiple cloisters, is that right?

Well spotted!  I have changed it so that you can place Cloisters, and so that there has to be room for it.  I guess if I had room I'd introduce a Cloister Mat with a grid on it, but I really don't have any more room on that card :-)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 30, 2018, 11:37:35 am

Quote from: Asper on October 29, 2018, 07:47:27 pm

Dominion is not most boardgames, it is a boardgame. The fact that most humans like chocolate doesn't mean that one specific human does, and neither can you say what applies for Dominion. Rather, the fact that in all these years such a rule was never introduced speaks for itself.

I think within the past year, we did finally get a ruling that "can't trumps do" in Dominion...

Thread here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14887.msg653428#msg653428). (Was 2 years ago).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2018, 11:52:12 am

Quote from: hypercube on October 30, 2018, 11:15:50 am

A Traveller line inspired by Bohnanza:

(https://i.imgur.com/eVYoAPv.png) (https://i.imgur.com/5mBdHdx.png) (https://i.imgur.com/VYN5wPV.png) (https://i.imgur.com/tx7Ii7o.png) (https://i.imgur.com/H5zssWr.png)

Much like Bohnanza, it has various colours of beans, cards that get better when you have multiple copies, and exchanging. I didn't want to put multiple dividing lines on so Blue Bean and Green Bean get unusual exchange conditions. Blue Bean's condition also prevents you from playing all your Blue Beans, then exchanging them on your final turn to score a bunch.

Really cool line! One thing, I think you should reword Wax Bean to match Bank: When you play this, it’s worth $1 per Wax Bean you have in play (counting this).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 30, 2018, 11:53:24 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 30, 2018, 07:43:47 am

Based on the resource accumulation spaces of Agricola:

(https://i.imgur.com/uKnEtRC.jpg)

This is absolutely beautiful in its simplicity. My only concern is that buying it every few turns or so will feel too forced. It's a neat mental battle about whether or not you can get even more if you wait it out, but I don't think there will ever be a game where it can just be ignored. I suppose Donate can't ever be ignored either, but that's generally a decision you have to make once; games using this will have an extra decision to make throughout the whole game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2018, 02:27:58 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 30, 2018, 11:53:24 am

This is absolutely beautiful in its simplicity. My only concern is that buying it every few turns or so will feel too forced. It's a neat mental battle about whether or not you can get even more if you wait it out, but I don't think there will ever be a game where it can just be ignored.

True, but this makes it feel even more like Agricola.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 30, 2018, 02:48:14 pm

CHALLENGE #6: INSPIRED BY ANOTHER BOARD/CARD GAME

(https://i.imgur.com/RIiyDzE.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/37ygkIl.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/Ane5sa8.jpg)


This has a rare interaction with Trade Route that I'll try and address here. If there are any Victory Kingdom card piles like Gardens or Nobles, it is possible to take the Coin token there that is meant for the Trade Route Mat.

In this example I will use Gardens, but this applies to all Kingdom Victory cards. If no Gardens have be gained that game and the number of Panda cards you have in play is more or equal to the number of Coin tokens on the Gardens pile (3+ Panda cards and 3 Coin tokens usually), if you gain a Gardens, two things attempt to happen. (1) A Coin token gets moved to the Trade Route Mat and (2) you take 3 Coin tokens from the pile. Being that there are only 3 Coin tokens and you are trying to do things with 4 Coin tokens, one of these things doesn't happen. As they all happen at once, you do get to choose however. You could take all 3 Coin tokens, or only take 2 and put 1 on the Trade Route Mat.

Just know, once that original Coin token placed by the Trade Route setup is removed, the Trade Route Mat will permanently be down 1 Coin token. Adding more Coin tokens later to the Garden pile with Gardener and gaining a Gardens will not attempt to move a Coin token to the Trade Route mat, since it only cared about the original Coin token it placed, not just any Coin token.

If you do take the Coin token placed by Trade Route, it can be used normally like any other Coin token.


These cards are inspired by the wildly fun game:
Takenoko

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on October 30, 2018, 03:01:35 pm

Quick thought: Panda should probably specify "(VP or Coin)" too for the "take 1 token" instruction, unless you want this to be a pseudo-attack card against Teacher and its event cousins.


(everything looks great so far y'all)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2018, 03:02:37 pm

And now, introducing the long awaited RioGrande/DaysOfWonder Crossover the world has been waiting for,
Dominion: Ticket to Ride!
The expansion, if it was real, would come with an undetermined number Ticket cards and about 19 Tokens numbered 1-19. To play, you put a token on each supply pile that costs more than $0. Then you deal out three Tickets to each player. Each player may return one of their starting tickets, and at any time during their turn may spend an Action to draw three more tickets, of which they may return up to two. The Tickets each have two numbers on them. To complete a Ticket, you need to gain a card from both piles on a ticket in a single turn. When you complete a Ticket, you receive +1VP for every $1 in the combined cost of the two cards. At the end of the game, you receive -1VP for every $2 in the combined cost of the two cards at the top of the needed piles. When you use Tickets and there are no gainers/+Buys in the kingdom, add the event Seaway. (I hope to find a better solution for needing multiple Buys).
I'll probably add to the description later.
Edit: Changed it so you only need to keep one ticket if you draw more tickets later in the game, like in the real T2R.

(https://i.imgur.com/xO4wlFV.jpg)
Here's a ticket, the fact that it uses money symbols doesn't mean anything.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2018, 03:03:26 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 30, 2018, 02:48:14 pm

CHALLENGE #6: INSPIRED BY ANOTHER BOARD/CARD GAME

(https://i.imgur.com/6VinNba.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/T43AwXJ.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/JfF1KFJ.jpg)

These have some funky (but not broken!) interactions with Trade Route, Gathering cards, Defiled Shrine, and Aqueduct. I'll try and address them upfront:
-Trade Route: This is probably the most annoying to keep track of so I'll address this first. In games with both of these, Victory Supply piles will each start with 2 Coin tokens on them (1 from Trade Route's setup and 1 from Panda/Gardener's setup). If you gain a Victory card with Panda in play, 1 token goes to the Trade Route mat and 1 goes to your Coffers/Villagers mat. If you gain a Victory card without a Panda in play, 1 token goes to the Trade Route mat as normal. The tricky part is now making sure no more tokens go to the Trade Route mat from that Victory pile as more tokens can be added via Gardener. This sounds wonky, but Trade Route only cares about the Coin token it put on the Victory pile, not any other tokens on it.
-Gathering cards: Gardener can add VP tokens to Gathering Supply piles and they can then be taken through the various ways Gathering cards take VP tokens.
-Defiled Shrine: Gaining an Action card will move all VP tokens from that pile to the Defiled Shrine Landmark, even VP tokens put there by Gardener.
-Aqueduct: VP tokens added to the Silver and Gold piles by Gardener can then be moved to the Aqueduct Landmark.

Other than that, the balancing on these might need some attention, but I have a whole week for that. I'm just eager to get these posted before anyone else beats me to this game.

And speaking of, this was inspired by the wildly fun game:
Takenoko

If you were playing with some of last week's submissions, would you be able to add tokens to those mats also?
Really cool submission.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on October 30, 2018, 06:08:29 pm

For my board game crossover, I have chosen the most fun, most well-balanced, most strategic, most friendship-building title in history...

MONOPOLY

*whack* *bam* *punch* *slam* *spit*

Ouch... I deserved that.

But anyway, yes, I chose the game that regular people call the most quintessential board game in existence, while we more avid gamers may declare it a waste of cardboard and paper money. But it did inspire this card...

(https://i.imgur.com/1bNv4iRl.png)

Quote

Jail
Action/Duration - $2
---
+$3
At the start of your next turn, trash a Silver or discard two copies of a card from your hand. If you can't, end your turn.
-
During your Cleanup phase, if you don't have three copies of any card in play, discard this.

This comes from the Monopoly mechanic where rolling three doubles (playing three of the same card) in a row lands you in jail. When in jail, you can pay money to get out (trashing the Treasure) or roll a double (discarding two cards with the same name), or just wait three turns (losing your Action phase). If you can stay out of Jail, though, you're in the money!

I did make some more Monopoly-inspired cards, but I felt Jail was enough torture for you all.

Edit: Changed Jail to an Action-Duration because I started to hate the original version.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on October 30, 2018, 06:15:01 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2018, 11:52:12 am

Really cool line! One thing, I think you should reword Wax Bean to match Bank: When you play this, it’s worth $1 per Wax Bean you have in play (counting this).

Good point, I'll make that change.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 30, 2018, 07:22:04 pm

Quote from: faust on October 30, 2018, 04:41:59 am

Homage to Pandemic!

(https://i.imgur.com/CWacToI.jpg)

Embargo tokens work the same as with Embargo.

Time to order more Embargo tokens! I've always wondered if it were possible to make a semi-forced, cooperation card for Dominion and I think you've done a pretty good job of it.

I think you can cut some of the wording here and there:

(1) The trashing has no real reason to be attached to the type of the Supple Pile you removed tokens from. Since you can choose any Supply pile arbitrarily, whether it has Embargo tokens on it or not, the trashing in effect has no condition. You might as well say, "Trash up to 3 cards from your hand." This does of course matter if you decide to clear an Action supply pile and you want to trash a Victory or Treasure card, but this is such a fast trasher, I think all your starting cards will be gone before the embargo tokens start flying. This also removes the restriction of having to essentially trash the same named card, but I don't think this will change much either. Trashing 3 cards per turn whether they have to be the same named card or not will likely get you to about the same deck size for the same number of turns.
(2) The bottom portion probably needs to start as "In games using this, when you shuffle your deck, ..."

Cool submission!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on October 30, 2018, 07:31:46 pm

Inspired by Castell:

Quote

Name: Casteller
Cost: $6
Types: Action
+1 card
+1 action

---

While this is in play, whenever you play an Action or Treasure card costing less than all other cards you have in play, +$1.

The idea is to reward you for playing big-to-small, the same way you stack your people in Castell. Also, there are some fun tricks you can do with Procession or Counterfeit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 30, 2018, 07:38:53 pm

Quote from: terminalCopper on October 30, 2018, 06:28:00 am

A traveller line as Hommage to Stratego. My design tries to implicit that you will need a good mix of all travellers. Young Spys Draw-to-5-ability reduces the risk of getting stripped of all travellers.

Marshal ACTION - TRAVELLER
6$*
+3cards
+ 2$

Each opponent discards a traveller costing 5$ (or reveals he can’t).
******************************************************************************************************************



General ACTION - TRAVELLER
5$*
+3 cards
Gain a Silver.

Each opponent discards a traveller costing 4$ (or reveals he can’t).

_____________________________________________________________
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Marshal.
******************************************************************************************************************


Colonel ACTION - TRAVELLER
4$*
+2 actions
+ 2 buys

Each opponent discards a traveller costing 3$ (or reveals he can’t).

_____________________________________________________________
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a General.
******************************************************************************************************************


Miner ACTION - TRAVELLER
3$*
+ 3 actions

_____________________________________________________________
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Colonel.

 ******************************************************************************************************************

Young Spy ACTION - TRAVELLER
$2
+Action
Draw until you have 5 cards in hand.

Each opponent discards a traveller costing 6$ (or reveals he can’t).
_____________________________________________________________
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Miner.

Stratego! What an amazing game and you've managed to capture a lot of its essence and port it over to Dominion! I'm sad though you haven't included Bombs somehow. :P

I love the mechanics of this, but I do recommend buffing buffing a lot of the on-play effects for these cards. Going through the motions of exchanging Travelers takes time and more so if you're discarding them from other players Attacks. The rewards need to be big enough that a player will risk their buys and time to get them.

The discarding could possibly be a bit too brutal. Maybe Miner can have some effect to help get your discarded Traveler cards back into play faster?

Thanks for sharing. Now I might have to dust off my copy of Stratego from 30 or so years ago.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 30, 2018, 07:44:20 pm

An attempted Sheriff of Nottingham emulation (Couldn't use the word Contraband, unfortunately):

(https://i.imgur.com/KhNgn4u.png)

Quote from: Kudasai on October 30, 2018, 07:38:53 pm

I'm sad though you haven't included Bombs somehow. :P

I'm sad he didn't include Scouts.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 30, 2018, 07:48:12 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on October 30, 2018, 07:31:46 pm

Inspired by Castell:

Quote

Name: Casteller
Cost: $6
Types: Action
+1 card
+1 action

---

While this is in play, whenever you play an Action or Treasure card costing less than all other cards you have in play, +$1.

The idea is to reward you for playing big-to-small, the same way you stack your people in Castell. Also, there are some fun tricks you can do with Procession or Counterfeit.

Really cool card idea! I like cards that in one way or another encourage keeping some Coppers around.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2018, 07:49:21 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 30, 2018, 07:44:20 pm

An attempted Sheriff of Nottingham emulation:

(https://i.imgur.com/KhNgn4u.png)

Wow, all my favorite games are being done here! Great card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 30, 2018, 10:53:31 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2018, 03:02:37 pm

And now, introducing the long awaited RioGrande/DaysOfWonder Crossover the world has been waiting for,
Dominion: Ticket to Ride!
The expansion, if it was real, would come with an undetermined number Ticket cards and about 19 Tokens numbered 1-19. To play, you put a token on each supply pile that costs more than $0. Then you deal out three Tickets to each player. Each player may return one of their starting tickets, and at any time may spend an Action to draw three more tickets. The Tickets each have two numbers on them. To complete a Ticket, you need to gain a card from both piles on a ticket in a single turn. When you complete a Ticket, you receive +1VP for every $1 in the combined cost of the two cards. At the end of the game, you receive -1VP for every $2 in the combined cost of the two cards at the top of the needed piles.
I'll probably add to the description later, and might add an example Ticket.

Ticket to Ride was actually my first choice for a game to port over. Connecting the routes for points seemed like a cool concept, but I gave up on the idea for lack of knowing how to implement it. So, I commend you for coming up with something that seems like it could actually work.

A few questions/concerns:
(1) When you spend an Action to draw 3 Destination Cards do you then return 1 of them as you do in the opening?
(2) Since you need at least 2 Buys/Gains to complete a Destination card, you should include an extra Buy each turn in games using this.

Can't wait to see what you come up with! You could probably come up with some cool gainer concepts that will work for Dominion in general, but work especially well for completing Destination cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on October 31, 2018, 12:50:23 am

Does Dungeons and Dragons count as a board game?

Quote

Ancient Ruin
Action - Gathering $4
+2 Actions
The third time you play an action this turn, put 1VP on the Ancient Ruin supply pile, then you may trash this to take the VP from the Ancient Ruin supply pile.

The idea is that you're exploring this dungeon with your buddies (other actions) and the longer you explore, the greater the risk (of character death), but also the greater the reward (treasure).
(I'll maybe make a nice render with violet CLM's generator later)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 31, 2018, 12:58:08 am

Quote from: Tejayes on October 30, 2018, 06:08:29 pm

For my board game crossover, I have chosen the most fun, most well-balanced, most strategic, most friendship-building title in history...

MONOPOLY

*whack* *bam* *punch* *slam* *spit*

Ouch... I deserved that.

But anyway, yes, I chose the game that regular people call the most quintessential board game in existence, while we more avid gamers may declare it a waste of cardboard and paper money. But it did inspire this card...

(https://i.imgur.com/1bNv4iRl.png)

Quote

Jail
Action/Duration - $2
---
+$3
At the start of your next turn, trash a Silver or discard two copies of a card from your hand. If you can't, end your turn.
-
During your Cleanup phase, if you don't have three copies of any card in play, discard this.

This comes from the Monopoly mechanic where rolling three doubles (playing three of the same card) in a row lands you in jail. When in jail, you can pay money to get out (trashing the Treasure) or roll a double (discarding two cards with the same name), or just wait three turns (losing your Action phase). If you can stay out of Jail, though, you're in the money!

I did make some more Monopoly-inspired cards, but I felt Jail was enough torture for you all.

Edit: Changed Jail to an Action-Duration because I started to hate the original version.

"*whack* *bam* *punch* *slam* *spit*" is how I felt trying to track how this card plays. :P You've packed a very complicated concept into a very small card space. Impressive! Now that I do understand it, I feel it would be easy enough to play with.

I'm assuming "end you turn" means you'll still have a Clean-up phase in order to get the Jail discarded from play? That could be worded a little more clearly, but you're already tight on space.

Might be best to use this wording, "At the start of your next turn, discard 2 copies of a card or trash a card from your hand." This is just a simple switch, but it's more accurate given discarding is always from your hand by default, but trashing is not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on October 31, 2018, 03:51:38 am

Long time reader, first second time submitter:

(https://i.imgur.com/lgbZOvX.png)

Take two! (A previous and notedly bad submission is spoilered below. This one might still be bad, let's find out.) I'm still sticking with Temporum, but this time going for the concept of ruling Times. Here, your bonus for ruling a pile is on-buy VP. Each player gets Coronet tokens in their player color. Let's say they each get 10, like Temporum, but they probably don't need that many. You can use the crowns that come with Temporum, even.

Quote

Decree: Action-Duration, $2
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn, you may move a Decree token to a Kingdom pile without one.

---

Setup: Put the 3 Decree tokens on Kingdom piles; non-Decree Kingdom cards from piles without Decree tokens cannot be played.

Temporum, originally a Dominion spin-off, has spun-on again. Only being able to visit 4 of 10 real Zones at a time is reimagined as only being able to play 4 of 10 Kingdom cards at time. The time-traveling theme didn't fit, but you can see the parallels by replacing "Decree token" with "Real Zone token", and the card name with "Change History". My main concern is this might be a must-buy in games using it. I appreciate any feedback!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 31, 2018, 04:14:20 am

Quote from: crlundy on October 31, 2018, 03:51:38 am

Long time reader, first time submitter:

(https://i.imgur.com/R7Acq8v.png)

Quote

Decree: Action-Duration, $2
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn, you may move a Decree token to a Kingdom pile without one.

---

Setup: Put the 3 Decree tokens on Kingdom piles; non-Decree Kingdom cards from piles without Decree tokens cannot be played.

Temporum, originally a Dominion spin-off, has spun-on again. Only being able to visit 4 of 10 real Zones at a time is reimagined as only being able to play 4 of 10 Kingdom cards at time. The time-traveling theme didn't fit, but you can see the parallels by replacing "Decree token" with "Real Zone token", and the card name with "Change History". My main concern is this might be a must-buy in games using it. I appreciate any feedback!

Well, that is a massive change to gameplay. It is not clear to me whether every player has their own decree tokens (I think they definitely should). I would try to avoid referencing Kingdom cards since that leads to many questions (like, how does this play with Black Market?). Action supply pile may be enough.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on October 31, 2018, 06:02:44 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 30, 2018, 11:25:11 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2018, 11:23:52 am

But you can't place a Cloister next to another Cloister, since it's a duration card, but you can arrange the grid so that a card is next to multiple cloisters, is that right?

Well spotted!  I have changed it so that you can place Cloisters, and so that there has to be room for it.  I guess if I had room I'd introduce a Cloister Mat with a grid on it, but I really don't have any more room on that card :-)

Having slept on it, for the sake of simplicity, I've changed it back to non-Duration, and made it so that you need separate cards for each one.  Less Carcassonne-y, but more actually practical in a real game of Dominion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 31, 2018, 08:28:09 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 30, 2018, 10:53:31 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2018, 03:02:37 pm

And now, introducing the long awaited RioGrande/DaysOfWonder Crossover the world has been waiting for,
Dominion: Ticket to Ride!
The expansion, if it was real, would come with an undetermined number Ticket cards and about 19 Tokens numbered 1-19. To play, you put a token on each supply pile that costs more than $0. Then you deal out three Tickets to each player. Each player may return one of their starting tickets, and at any time may spend an Action to draw three more tickets. The Tickets each have two numbers on them. To complete a Ticket, you need to gain a card from both piles on a ticket in a single turn. When you complete a Ticket, you receive +1VP for every $1 in the combined cost of the two cards. At the end of the game, you receive -1VP for every $2 in the combined cost of the two cards at the top of the needed piles.
I'll probably add to the description later, and might add an example Ticket.

Ticket to Ride was actually my first choice for a game to port over. Connecting the routes for points seemed like a cool concept, but I gave up on the idea for lack of knowing how to implement it. So, I commend you for coming up with something that seems like it could actually work.

A few questions/concerns:
(1) When you spend an Action to draw 3 Destination Cards do you then return 1 of them as you do in the opening?
(2) Since you need at least 2 Buys/Gains to complete a Destination card, you should include an extra Buy each turn in games using this.

Can't wait to see what you come up with! You could probably come up with some cool gainer concepts that will work for Dominion in general, but work especially well for completing Destination cards.

I'm going to follow the T2R rules and say when you draw three later in the game you only need to keep one. For now, to simplify the needing two buys thing, I'll just say add Seaway to the kingdom. Lame, I know. I'll probably come up with something better later, but I'll put this here in case I don't.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 31, 2018, 08:46:35 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 30, 2018, 07:22:04 pm

Quote from: faust on October 30, 2018, 04:41:59 am

Homage to Pandemic!
[card]
Embargo tokens work the same as with Embargo.

Time to order more Embargo tokens! I've always wondered if it were possible to make a semi-forced, cooperation card for Dominion and I think you've done a pretty good job of it.

I think you can cut some of the wording here and there:

(1) The trashing has no real reason to be attached to the type of the Supple Pile you removed tokens from. Since you can choose any Supply pile arbitrarily, whether it has Embargo tokens on it or not, the trashing in effect has no condition. You might as well say, "Trash up to 3 cards from your hand." This does of course matter if you decide to clear an Action supply pile and you want to trash a Victory or Treasure card, but this is such a fast trasher, I think all your starting cards will be gone before the embargo tokens start flying. This also removes the restriction of having to essentially trash the same named card, but I don't think this will change much either. Trashing 3 cards per turn whether they have to be the same named card or not will likely get you to about the same deck size for the same number of turns.
(2) The bottom portion probably needs to start as "In games using this, when you shuffle your deck, ..."

Cool submission!

Thanks. With regards to (1): The trashed cards are not supposed to share a type with the pile you picked, but among themselves. So you could trash 3 Coppers or 3 Estates or even 3 Shelters, but no mixes. In order to make this clearer I will swap the two instructions above the line. The reason to not just say "trash up to 3 cards" is that I want to ensure that there are times when you would prefer another trasher. Maybe it needs to be more restrictive still, I am not sure that Embargo tokens come into play enough with it yet. An option would be to only allow removing 1 token per play. Possibly I'll be posting a tweaked card later.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on October 31, 2018, 10:22:37 am

Here's my attempt at a card inspired by auction and price-setting games like Isle of Skye and The Castles of Mad King Ludwig:

(https://i.imgur.com/QJQUqFj.png)

It's wordier than I like for most cards, but I think it captures the price-setting mechanic as best as it can.  Not totally sure on the costs and the on-play effect (+3 Coffers might be too strong for $6), and I'm also not sold on being able to call it immediately after the turn you play it, (in games where this is the only way to gain Coffers, the first player to play it basically gets a free $5, which isn't super fun--making it so you can't open it helps some).  But in games with other Coffers cards, it can create some nice player interaction, where you want to hold onto Coffers in case someone else calls an auction.  Sometimes you might use this as a gainer, other times you might prefer to bait other players into boosting your Coffers for a bigger play later--just be careful not to get stuck paying for something you didn't really want.  Anyway, the idea definitely needs tweaking, but here's a stab at it. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 31, 2018, 11:08:04 am

Quote from: 4est on October 31, 2018, 10:22:37 am

Here's my attempt at a card inspired by auction and price-setting games like Isle of Skye and The Castles of Mad King Ludwig:

(https://i.imgur.com/QJQUqFj.png)

It's wordier than I like for most cards, but I think it captures the price-setting mechanic as best as it can.  Not totally sure on the costs and the on-play effect (+3 Coffers might be too strong for $6), and I'm also not sold on being able to call it immediately after the turn you play it, (in games where this is the only way to gain Coffers, the first player to play it basically gets a free $5, which isn't super fun--making it so you can't open it helps some).  But in games with other Coffers cards, it can create some nice player interaction, where you want to hold onto Coffers in case someone else calls an auction.  Sometimes you might use this as a gainer, other times you might prefer to bait other players into boosting your Coffers for a bigger play later--just be careful not to get stuck paying for something you didn't really want.  Anyway, the idea definitely needs tweaking, but here's a stab at it.

I don't like that this requires other players to have coffers. Couldn't they just pay in Debt?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 31, 2018, 11:59:05 am

Quote from: faust on October 31, 2018, 11:08:04 am

Quote from: 4est on October 31, 2018, 10:22:37 am

Here's my attempt at a card inspired by auction and price-setting games like Isle of Skye and The Castles of Mad King Ludwig:

It's wordier than I like for most cards, but I think it captures the price-setting mechanic as best as it can.  Not totally sure on the costs and the on-play effect (+3 Coffers might be too strong for $6), and I'm also not sold on being able to call it immediately after the turn you play it, (in games where this is the only way to gain Coffers, the first player to play it basically gets a free $5, which isn't super fun--making it so you can't open it helps some).  But in games with other Coffers cards, it can create some nice player interaction, where you want to hold onto Coffers in case someone else calls an auction.  Sometimes you might use this as a gainer, other times you might prefer to bait other players into boosting your Coffers for a bigger play later--just be careful not to get stuck paying for something you didn't really want.  Anyway, the idea definitely needs tweaking, but here's a stab at it.

I don't like that this requires other players to have coffers. Couldn't they just pay in Debt?

I agree with this, I think it works better if each other player can always choose to gain the card. Also, another one of my favorite games (CoMKL) being done here!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 31, 2018, 12:58:20 pm

Quote from: 4est on October 31, 2018, 10:22:37 am

Here's my attempt at a card inspired by auction and price-setting games like Isle of Skye and The Castles of Mad King Ludwig:

(https://i.imgur.com/QJQUqFj.png)

It's wordier than I like for most cards, but I think it captures the price-setting mechanic as best as it can.  Not totally sure on the costs and the on-play effect (+3 Coffers might be too strong for $6), and I'm also not sold on being able to call it immediately after the turn you play it, (in games where this is the only way to gain Coffers, the first player to play it basically gets a free $5, which isn't super fun--making it so you can't open it helps some).  But in games with other Coffers cards, it can create some nice player interaction, where you want to hold onto Coffers in case someone else calls an auction.  Sometimes you might use this as a gainer, other times you might prefer to bait other players into boosting your Coffers for a bigger play later--just be careful not to get stuck paying for something you didn't really want.  Anyway, the idea definitely needs tweaking, but here's a stab at it.

Wow, that's a brilliant implementation of the price mechanism from Isle of Skye!
I think you could alleviate the "first to play Auction House gains a free $5" problem via adding "When you gain this, each other players gets +1 Coffers." This also makes the card, which you fear to be too strong, slightly weaker.
The only problem is that this would add even more text to an already text-intense card.

Quote from: faust on October 31, 2018, 11:08:04 am

I don't like that this requires other players to have coffers. Couldn't they just pay in Debt?

This doesn't work as the active player is supposed to get the Coffers from the other player. He basically sets a buy price for everybody: she pays the bank respectively if somebody else wants the card they pay her.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on October 31, 2018, 01:02:07 pm

Quote from: faust on October 31, 2018, 04:14:20 am

Well, that is a massive change to gameplay. It is not clear to me whether every player has their own decree tokens (I think they definitely should). I would try to avoid referencing Kingdom cards since that leads to many questions (like, how does this play with Black Market?). Action supply pile may be enough.

Yes, it would be a massive change, which gets to the heart of my initial concern. The idea was to have only 4 tokens total, shared by everyone, to mimic Temporum. There could be additional Decree tokens to make it less dominating. I also forgot to mention this card is absolutely un-playtested (yikes).

I initially referenced Action Supply piles, but that version was one line longer, and that was too much text for me. I forgot about the rules questions with Black Market, though. Hmm, sounds like I might just be better of coming up with a simpler, saner submission.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on October 31, 2018, 01:04:51 pm

Quote from: crlundy on October 31, 2018, 03:51:38 am

Long time reader, first time submitter:

(https://i.imgur.com/R7Acq8v.png)

Quote

Decree: Action-Duration, $2
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn, you may move a Decree token to a Kingdom pile without one.

---

Setup: Put the 3 Decree tokens on Kingdom piles; non-Decree Kingdom cards from piles without Decree tokens cannot be played.

Temporum, originally a Dominion spin-off, has spun-on again. Only being able to visit 4 of 10 real Zones at a time is reimagined as only being able to play 4 of 10 Kingdom cards at time. The time-traveling theme didn't fit, but you can see the parallels by replacing "Decree token" with "Real Zone token", and the card name with "Change History". My main concern is this might be a must-buy in games using it. I appreciate any feedback!

This looks pretty harsh and might boil down to: "in games using this, play BM or lose".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on October 31, 2018, 01:17:08 pm

Inspired by Star Realms, my second favorite deck building game, mostly due to it's simplicity.  I like that all you really do is directly hit your opponents health and they do the same to you. I know there are plenty of games that do this (Magic comes to mind first) but this is the one I play the most because my wife loves it.

This split pile has an aspect of that which sounds fun to me. You try to deal damage to your opponents and once you hit a certain point, you are rewarded.  The bottom f the pile allows you to "heal" if you desire. This also gets exciting in 3+ player games.

(https://i.imgur.com/MFdx86p.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/NJFKu7t.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Watno on October 31, 2018, 03:01:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/immS68p.jpg)

When you play a card from your hand, directly after you finish resolving it, you may replay it once per card copy of that card in your Clientele Mat.

It resembles how you get Clients with the Patron role in Glory to Rome. Similarly to the number of Clients you can have in GtR is limited by your influence, here it is limited by your provinces.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on October 31, 2018, 03:16:25 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 31, 2018, 01:04:51 pm

Quote from: crlundy on October 31, 2018, 03:51:38 am

Decree: Action-Duration, $2
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn, you may move a Decree token to a Kingdom pile without one.

---

Setup: Put the 3 Decree tokens on Kingdom piles; non-Decree Kingdom cards from piles without Decree tokens cannot be played.

This looks pretty harsh and might boil down to: "in games using this, play BM or lose".

Yeah. :/ I will try to get in a game or two with it, just to confirm, and then probably figure out a new submission instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 31, 2018, 05:48:48 pm

Based on Broom Service (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/172308/broom-service):
(https://i.imgur.com/GnCNX5D.jpg)

Quote

Root Gatherer
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $6
+3 Cards. You may set aside a card from your hand face down. If you do, at the start of your next turn, reveal it and each other player reveals the cards they set aside with Root Gatherer cards. If you are the only player to reveal a copy of that card, put it into your hand and gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, discard it.

Haven a card in order to gain a card costing up to $5... unless someone else Havens a copy.  Feeling brave or will you play the cowardly Smithy?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 31, 2018, 05:59:12 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 31, 2018, 05:48:48 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/GnCNX5D.jpg)

Quote

Root Gatherer
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $6
+3 Cards. You may set aside a card from your hand face down. If you do, at the start of your next turn, reveal it and each other player reveals the cards they set aside with Root Gatherer cards. If you are the only player to reveal a copy of that card, put it into your hand and gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, discard it.

Haven a card in order to gain a card costing up to $5... unless someone else Havens a copy. Feeling brave or will you play the cowardly Smithy?

Which game is this based on?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Nflickner on October 31, 2018, 08:26:41 pm

Ok, there is a link to my card below--I couldn't figure out how to add the image correctly.  If anyone wants to fiddle with it and post it, please feel free, I was really struggling with it. 
Update is below.
It's inspired by Orleans, which is a game that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Dominion, because it has taken the deck building dynamic and turned it into bag building, along with a lot of other elements.  This card will also come with a Boatman track, that will have six slots:  a beginning slot to place the players' boatman tokens and 5 other slots starting with a bonus of 1 victory token, progressively adding one more each time and ending in a bonus of 5 victory tokens. 

https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Boatman&description=Each%20time%20you%20buy%20this%2C%20advance%20your%20boatsman%20marker%20once%20along%20the%20boatsman%20track.%20%20Receive%20the%20amount%20of%20%25%20indicated%20at%20each%20advancement.%20%20Once%20your%20marker%20has%20reached%20the%20end%20of%20the%20track%2C%20you%20may%20no%20longer%20buy%20this.%0A-%0AThis%20game%2C%20%25%20may%20be%20spent%20as%20%24%0A%0A&type=Event&credit=&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3ACharon_and_Psyche.jpg%23%2Fmedia%2FFile%3ACharon_and_Psyche.jpg&color0=0&color1=0&size=1

This was the art I was trying to add to it, although it is not the best art it was hard to find good art for this card:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charon%27s_obol#/media/File:Charon_and_Psyche.jpg

Update:  With great help from crlundy, I've adjusted it so that it doesn't need a separate track, just a boatman mat. Below is the link to the improved version.   
https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Boatman&description=If%20you%20have%204%20or%20fewer%20%25%20on%20your%20Boatman%20mat%2C%20add%201%25%20and%20then%20%2B1%25%20per%201%25%20on%20your%20mat.%20%20Return%20the%20%25%20on%20the%20mat%20at%20the%20end%20of%20the%20game.%0A-%0AIn%20games%20using%20this%2C%20at%20the%20start%20of%20your%20Buy%20phase%2C%20you%20may%20return%20%25%20you%20have%20for%20%2B1%20Coffers%20each.%0A&type=Event&credit=&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F4c%2FCharon_and_Psyche.jpg&color0=0&color1=0&size=1

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tarken on October 31, 2018, 08:38:09 pm

CHALLENGE #6: INSPIRED BY ANOTHER BOARD/CARD GAME

I was inspired by 7 Wonders game. In particular, its mechanic of getting cards.

My submission is:

(http://tarken.krakonos.org/dominion/LostWonder.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on October 31, 2018, 09:00:42 pm

Quote from: Nflickner on October 31, 2018, 08:26:41 pm

Ok, there is a link to my card below--I couldn't figure out how to add the image correctly.  If anyone wants to fiddle with it and post it, please feel free, I was really struggling with it.

Nflickner, here's a possible new version (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Boatsman&description=If%20you%20have%204%20of%20fewer%20%25%20on%20your%20Boatsman%20mat%2C%20add%201%25%20and%20then%20%2B1%25%20per%201%25%20on%20your%20mat.%0A-%0AIn%20games%20using%20this%2C%20at%20the%20start%20of%20your%20Buy%20phase%2C%20you%20may%20return%20%25%20you%20have%20for%20%2B1%20Coffers%20each.%0A%0A&type=Event&credit=&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F4c%2FCharon_and_Psyche.jpg&color0=0&color1=0&size=1). Without cropping, the art gets cut off. I also tweaked the wording (I didn't change your design; it should function the same), but it might feel less Orleans-y as I haven't played the game. Hope it helps!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Nflickner on October 31, 2018, 11:18:49 pm

Quote from: crlundy on October 31, 2018, 09:00:42 pm

Quote from: Nflickner on October 31, 2018, 08:26:41 pm

Ok, there is a link to my card below--I couldn't figure out how to add the image correctly.  If anyone wants to fiddle with it and post it, please feel free, I was really struggling with it.

Nflickner, here's a possible new version (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Boatsman&description=If%20you%20have%204%20of%20fewer%20%25%20on%20your%20Boatsman%20mat%2C%20add%201%25%20and%20then%20%2B1%25%20per%201%25%20on%20your%20mat.%0A-%0AIn%20games%20using%20this%2C%20at%20the%20start%20of%20your%20Buy%20phase%2C%20you%20may%20return%20%25%20you%20have%20for%20%2B1%20Coffers%20each.%0A%0A&type=Event&credit=&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F4c%2FCharon_and_Psyche.jpg&color0=0&color1=0&size=1). Without cropping, the art gets cut off. I also tweaked the wording (I didn't change your design; it should function the same), but it might feel less Orleans-y as I haven't played the game. Hope it helps!

Thank you crlundy!  That was very helpful.  I just adjusted a couple things in the wording, but i think your wording is quite good!  Very thankful for your help :) 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on October 31, 2018, 11:48:57 pm

Inspired by Netrunner:
The first one imitates trace. (One player pays credits to increase his trace power, then opponent chooses either pay to exceed trace power, or suffer from the trace ability.)
And the latter two refer to Ice. (In Netrunner, defender builds firewalls named "Ice" to protect his servers from the Runners.)

Hired Blade
$5 Action - Attack
+3 cards
You may discard any treasure cards from your hand.
If you do, each opponent chooses one:
Discard that many treasures, or gain a curse.

Ice Wall
$5 Action - Reaction
+1 card
+1 action
+1 $
---
When another player gains a victory card, you may reveal this.
If you do, that player takes their -1 coin token.

Tax Station
$2 Action - Reaction
+1 card
+1 action
Move the +1 cost token to any pile.
(Cards from that pile cost 1 more on everyone's turns)
---
When any player buys a card from a pile with +1 cost token on it, you may reveal this and gain a coffer.

Clarification: There is only one +1 cost token in game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 01, 2018, 03:27:13 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 30, 2018, 07:43:47 am

Based on the resource accumulation spaces of Agricola:

(https://i.imgur.com/uKnEtRC.jpg)

Others have already stated it, but this is a nice, clean and simple design. I have not played Agricola so I am not familiar with how this mechanic works there, but in Dominion it may need a few tweaks to address some issues.

Here are my concerns:
(1) The opportunity cost does not seem high enough. When setting the price at $3, there is always going to be a number of Coins in the pile that makes that price worth taking it. Depending on the number of players, that magic number may always land on your turns or worse, your opponents. You could make the choice to take the token pile a lot harder by making a Curse gain the condition, similar to Defiled Shrine.
(2) I mentioned this briefly already, but the number of players will drastically alter how this plays. In a 6 player game, some players may never have a shot at getting a decent pile of Coins. You could make this scale less with more players or change what adds tokens all together.

I realize most of the ideas for these competitions are developed on the fly and are going to have issues that maybe are not worth fussing over (my cards certainly apply), but man this is a cool idea and I'd love to see it fleshed out. Thanks for sharing!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 01, 2018, 03:32:34 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 30, 2018, 11:37:35 am

Quote from: Asper on October 29, 2018, 07:47:27 pm

Dominion is not most boardgames, it is a boardgame. The fact that most humans like chocolate doesn't mean that one specific human does, and neither can you say what applies for Dominion. Rather, the fact that in all these years such a rule was never introduced speaks for itself.

I think within the past year, we did finally get a ruling that "can't trumps do" in Dominion...

Thread here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14887.msg653428#msg653428). (Was 2 years ago).

As Donald said, most people find this stuff pretty intuitive.
When I taught Dominion I never had to explicitly tell anybody the rules you mentioned in this old thread: card rules override general rules, can't trumps can, do as much as you can. The reason for this is the generality of such meta-rules in virtually all modern non-trivial card (i.e. not trick-taking but deckbuilding and LCG) games.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 01, 2018, 03:42:03 am

Quote from: Kudasai on November 01, 2018, 03:27:13 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on October 30, 2018, 07:43:47 am

Based on the resource accumulation spaces of Agricola:

(https://i.imgur.com/uKnEtRC.jpg)

Others have already stated it, but this is a nice, clean and simple design. I have not played Agricola so I am not familiar with how this mechanic works there, but in Dominion it may need a few tweaks to address some issues.

Here are my concerns:
(1) The opportunity cost does not seem high enough. When setting the price at $3, there is always going to be a number of Coins in the pile that makes that price worth taking it. Depending on the number of players, that magic number may always land on your turns or worse, your opponents. You could make the choice to take the token pile a lot harder by making a Curse gain the condition, similar to Defiled Shrine.

Yeah, you are right, this should probably cost $4. I don't think that there is a "magic number" though, how attractive the Coin tokens are will change over the course of the game. Typically (of course it is more complex) in the opening you only want them to spike, in the middlegame you only want them if there are a lot because you still build and in the endgame you will take them more frequently because you don't need any more $3s (respectively $4s) for your deck.
I don't want to tie this to Curse buying as this would be unrelated to Agricola.

Quote

(2) I mentioned this briefly already, but the number of players will drastically alter how this plays. In a 6 player game, some players may never have a shot at getting a decent pile of Coins. You could make this scale less with more players or change what adds tokens all together.

I think that 4P Dominion is bad (little engine potential, some scale-sensitive cards like Ambassador are  broken) so I only play 2P and 3P. But even if somebody did something crazy like playing the game with 6 players, I don't think that there will be something like a fixed frequency of token gaining. As I tried to sketch out above, sometimes you have better things to do and something you will take this with very few tokens on it. Just like in Agricola.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 01, 2018, 03:51:55 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on October 31, 2018, 01:17:08 pm

Inspired by Star Realms, my second favorite deck building game, mostly due to it's simplicity.  I like that all you really do is directly hit your opponents health and they do the same to you. I know there are plenty of games that do this (Magic comes to mind first) but this is the one I play the most because my wife loves it.

This split pile has an aspect of that which sounds fun to me. You try to deal damage to your opponents and once you hit a certain point, you are rewarded.  The bottom f the pile allows you to "heal" if you desire. This also gets exciting in 3+ player games.

(https://i.imgur.com/MFdx86p.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/NJFKu7t.png)

I tried for some time to incorporate a healthbar like feature into Dominion, but never got anywhere with it. I even considered making it a challenge if I ever won one of these things. Nice to see someone else having a go at it!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 01, 2018, 04:01:25 am

I think it's worth mentioning that the same game can be covered multiple times. No one really wants to not go first, but that shouldn't stop people from submitting their own takes. There is usually a lot of design space in games and a lot of different aspects can be ported over to Dominion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 01, 2018, 05:01:56 am

Catan Cards :)

Heavily inspired by the Development Cards of “Settlers of Catan”, adding a similar amount of secret weapons.

Setup+ Rules

Each player has a Catan mat. The pile of Catan Cards is a face down Kingdom Pile. When you buy a Catan card (for 5$), you put it face down on your catan mat.
Only you may look at your catan cards whenever you want. Once per turn, you may call a catan card in your action phase whenever you are not resolving an action, turning it face up. It doesn’t take up an action. Once a Catan Card is face up, you are no longer allowed to play it again.

There are 25 Catan Cards: 14 Catanians (couldn’t name them “Knights” ...), 2 Monopols, 2 Progress, 2 Road Building, 5 Peninsula.

There are 12 Handicap cards, 3 of each. Like Miserable, Handicaps lay in front of each player. Handicaps stack.

Also, Catanians can get the artifact “Palace of Catan” (see below).


HANDICAPS

Treasure Handicap
Whenever you gain a treasure, take 1 debt.
This stays in front of you until you play a Catanian.

Victory Handicap
Whenever you gain a victory card, take 1 debt.
This stays in front of you until you play a Catanian.

Action Handicap
Whenever you gain an action card, take 1 debt.
This stays in front of you until you play a Catanian.

Trashing Handicap
Whenever you trash a card, take 1 debt.
This stays in front of you until you play a Catanian.


CATAN CARDS

Catanians, ACTION, 5$
Return your handicaps to their pile.
Each opponent takes a handicap, putting it face up in front of him.

Monopol, ACTION, 5$
Name a treasure. Each opponent reveals his hand and plays all the treasures you named, counting the $ for you.

Progress, ACTION, 5$
Gain an action card and play it.

Railroad, ACTION, 5$
+2 buys
Name a card. This turn, every copy of this card costs 2 less.

Peninsula, VICTORY, 5$
4 VP


Palace of Catan (Artifact)

Take this if you have called at least 3 Catanians and more than any other player.
8 VP

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on November 01, 2018, 05:46:18 am

Well this idea I know shows up in other board games (to name an example, Lifeboat), so I may as well put it in here. For those who saw my first take on it, the cards are a bit different now:

Weather
Cycling start-of-turn effects. Shuffle these 12 cards, and put them face down except the top one. Then at the start of each round of turns, discard the top one (like you discard Boons), and turn the next one over if there are still cards in the pile; each player gets the discarded effect immediately at the start of their turn, whilst knowing the Weather for next turn. When the pile is all discarded and you need to reveal another Weather, shuffle it into a new pile to continue. With the Changing Weather, you get 2 effects coming at once. The Milds are there to tone things down a bit.
(https://i.imgur.com/fhIgoZA.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/fttuG8h.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/jNB6N4m.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/GrSUSE2.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/PqmyCKJ.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/OjOypRA.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/WfLzdDz.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/TskHAbC.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/C4v7kjU.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/sJUcfDM.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/sJUcfDM.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/pvMo2AB.jpg)

Quote

Sunny - +1 Card
Windy - +1 Action
Cloudy - +1 Buy
Showery - + $1
Rainy - if you have 4 or more cards in your hand, take one and put it anywhere in your deck.
Stormy - when you play your first Action this turn, get +1 Card and +1 Action instead of following its instructions.
Snowy - this turn, cards (everywhere) cost $1 more.
Dry - this turn, cards you gain are put onto your deck.
Foggy - gain a Copper.
Mild x2 - nothing, normal turn
Changing - set this and the next two Weathers aside, then discard them. For this turn, each player gets both Weathers in the order they were set aside in.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LaLight on November 01, 2018, 05:59:02 am

Quote from: Aquila on November 01, 2018, 05:46:18 am

Weather

funny, I had that 2 years ago: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16250.0

it was not inspired by any games though. And I like yours much, much better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on November 01, 2018, 06:51:45 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on October 30, 2018, 09:39:23 am

I know Carcassonne has been done already, but:

I got a bit carried away with the idea of cards that keep other cards in play next to them, and this turned into a bit of a mini-Expansion.

(https://i.imgur.com/E3aQC7M.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/cz4nsqO.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/kz6QH5k.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/JLZprzw.jpg)

General clarification: During cleanup, cards "next to" another card stay in play if that card does.  Only cards played as part of a card's effect count as cards "next to" that card.  Merely putting a card next to it on the table isn't enough. 

Quote

Cloister
Cost: $8
Types: Action - Duration - Victory
Now and at the start of each of your turns: If this is in play, you may play a non-Duration Action card from your hand, putting it into play next to this card. If there are eight cards next to this card, discard this and all cards next to it, and +9VP.
-
At the end of the game, if this is in play, it is worth 1VP plus 1VP for each card next to it.

Quote

Field
Cost: $6
Types: Action - Duration - Victory
Put Victory card from your hand into play next to this card.
At the start of each of your turns, you may put a copy of that card into play next to this card.
-
At the end of the game, if you have the most copies of that card in play next to this card, this card is worth 1% per copy.

Clarification: In the case of a tie, all tied cards score.

Quote

Road
Cost: $5
Types: Action - Duration
Play up to two non-Duration Actions from your hand, putting them into play next to this card.
At the start of each of your turns, you may play a non-Duration Action from your hand, putting it into play next to this card.  If you do not, discard this and all cards next to it, and +1 Action per card that was next to it.

Quote

City Walls
Cost: $4
Types: Action - Duration
Now and at the start of each of your turns: If this is in play, you may play a Treasure from your hand, putting it into play next to this card. If it is worth $6 or more, +2VP. If you do not, discard this and all cards next to it, and +$1 per card that was next to it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 01, 2018, 08:08:59 am

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 01, 2018, 05:01:56 am

Catan Cards :)

Heavily inspired by the Development Cards of “Settlers of Catan”, adding a similar amount of secret weapons.

Setup+ Rules

Each player has a Catan mat. The pile of Catan Cards is a face down Kingdom Pile. When you buy a Catan card (for 5$), you put it face down on your catan mat.
Only you may look at your catan cards whenever you want. Once per turn, you may call a catan card in your action phase whenever you are not resolving an action, turning it face up. It doesn’t take up an action. Once a Catan Card is face up, you are no longer allowed to play it again.

There are 25 Catan Cards: 14 Catanians (couldn’t name them “Knights” ...), 2 Monopols, 2 Progress, 2 Road Building, 5 Peninsula.

There are 12 Handicap cards, 3 of each. Like Miserable, Handicaps lay in front of each player. Handicaps stack.

Also, Catanians can get the artifact “Palace of Catan” (see below).


HANDICAPS

Treasure Handicap
Whenever you gain a treasure, take 1 debt.
This stays in front of you until you play a Catanian.

Victory Handicap
Whenever you gain a victory card, take 1 debt.
This stays in front of you until you play a Catanian.

Action Handicap
Whenever you gain an action card, take 1 debt.
This stays in front of you until you play a Catanian.

Trashing Handicap
Whenever you trash a card, take 1 debt.
This stays in front of you until you play a Catanian.


CATAN CARDS

Catanians, ACTION, 5$
Return your handicaps to their pile.
Each opponent takes a handicap, putting it face up in front of him.

Monopol, ACTION, 5$
Name a treasure. Each opponent reveals his hand and plays all the treasures you named, counting the $ for you.

Progress, ACTION, 5$
Gain an action card and play it.

Railroad, ACTION, 5$
+2 buys
Name a card. This turn, every copy of this card costs 2 less.

Peninsula, VICTORY, 5$
4 VP


Palace of Catan (Artifact)

Take this if you have called at least 3 Catanians and more than any other player.
8 VP

Really cool! The Catan cards would seem maybe a bit too strong for $5, except for the fact that you wouldn't know which one you're getting. One little thing: You don't need to say 'This stays in front of you until you play a Catanian' on the Handicaps and also say 'Return your handicaps to their pile' on the Catanians.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 01, 2018, 08:50:06 am

Power Grid!

(https://i.imgur.com/uJgef53.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/huBh7wl.png) (https://i.imgur.com/L1qay0x.png) (https://i.imgur.com/fhv0uZc.png) (https://i.imgur.com/ZjEEUND.png) (https://i.imgur.com/DUbQVLa.png) (https://i.imgur.com/i3lWiOx.png) (https://i.imgur.com/2XNUqPB.png) (https://i.imgur.com/2XNUqPB.png) (https://i.imgur.com/AyMrVFs.png) (https://i.imgur.com/p7672ef.png)

Note 1: Yes, "Powerhouse" should probably be a type, but it just gets sooooo tiny to have it say "Artifact - Powerhouse" in that otherwise brilliant card image generator.
Note 2: Yes, Landmarks technically need to care about VP. But Friedemann Friese loves the color green, so I couldn't bear doing it any other way. Outside of this context, I probably would have done it as an "Edict". Here's an Event version, anyhow:
(https://i.imgur.com/qe9Jfma.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silvern on November 01, 2018, 02:17:59 pm

I wanted to design a card that reflected the simplicity and subtle versatility of my favorite chess piece.
Don't know how well it turned out....tell me what you think!
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/archive/0/0f/20150603215703%21Pawn.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 01, 2018, 02:27:22 pm

Quote from: silvern on November 01, 2018, 02:17:59 pm

I wanted to design a card that reflected the simplicity and subtle versatility of my favorite chess piece.
Don't know how well it turned out....tell me what you think!
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/archive/0/0f/20150603215703%21Pawn.jpg)

Astonishingly unique and different from any card I've ever seen! This is easily the winning entry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 01, 2018, 03:58:20 pm

Catan Card - Monopol(y): Are the played Treasures returned to the player's hand afterwards or are they discarded?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 01, 2018, 05:43:43 pm

I know this is not the right place to post this but I am a Forum Dominion Strategy noob. How do I post images of my cards?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on November 01, 2018, 06:24:19 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 01, 2018, 05:43:43 pm

I know this is not the right place to post this but I am a Forum Dominion Strategy noob. How do I post images of my cards?

Assuming you already have an image file, best bet is to upload it to a hosting site like imgur, then link with the <img> tag (but with [] instead of <>). If you use the "quote" button on a post that contains images, you'll see the exact code used to insert them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 01, 2018, 06:31:44 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 01, 2018, 05:43:43 pm

I know this is not the right place to post this but I am a Forum Dominion Strategy noob. How do I post images of my cards?

Here's one way:
1. Save it to your computer
2. Go to imgur and upload the image
3. Optional, but highly suggested: resize the image to around 500 pixels
4. Right-click it and click 'copy image address.
5. To insert the image here, click the image icon while posting a reply. This text will appear: (img)(/img) but with [ ] instead of ( ). Paste the image address inside.
6. Add this inside the first set of brackets like this: (img width=255) or any other number around there, but not in bold.
I started typing this before ConMan replied, but thought it would a shame to waste it  :).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 01, 2018, 06:34:46 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 01, 2018, 06:31:44 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 01, 2018, 05:43:43 pm

I know this is not the right place to post this but I am a Forum Dominion Strategy noob. How do I post images of my cards?

Here's one way:
1. Save it to your computer
2. Go to imgur and upload the image
3. Optional, but highly suggested: resize the image to around 500 pixels
4. Right-click it and click 'copy image address.
5. To insert the image here, click the image icon while posting a reply. This text will appear: (img)(/img) but with [ ] instead of ( ). Paste the image address inside.
6. Add this inside the first set of brackets like this: (img width=255) or any other number around there, but not in bold.
I started typing this before ConMan replied, but thought it would a shame to waste it  :).

Thanks but is there any way to do it on an iPad?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on November 01, 2018, 08:06:29 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 01, 2018, 06:34:46 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 01, 2018, 06:31:44 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 01, 2018, 05:43:43 pm

I know this is not the right place to post this but I am a Forum Dominion Strategy noob. How do I post images of my cards?

Here's one way:
1. Save it to your computer
2. Go to imgur and upload the image
3. Optional, but highly suggested: resize the image to around 500 pixels
4. Right-click it and click 'copy image address.
5. To insert the image here, click the image icon while posting a reply. This text will appear: (img)(/img) but with [ ] instead of ( ). Paste the image address inside.
6. Add this inside the first set of brackets like this: (img width=255) or any other number around there, but not in bold.
I started typing this before ConMan replied, but thought it would a shame to waste it  :).

Thanks but is there any way to do it on an iPad?

Usually press-and-hold has a similar effect to right-clicking on a computer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GreyEK on November 02, 2018, 02:40:15 am

Inspired by Agricola

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/479797320419115029/507805858957361171/elder.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 02, 2018, 04:29:40 am

Inspired by Arkham Horror

(https://i.imgur.com/MQAntZV.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 02, 2018, 08:50:10 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 01, 2018, 06:34:46 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 01, 2018, 06:31:44 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 01, 2018, 05:43:43 pm

I know this is not the right place to post this but I am a Forum Dominion Strategy noob. How do I post images of my cards?

Here's one way:
1. Save it to your computer
2. Go to imgur and upload the image
3. Optional, but highly suggested: resize the image to around 500 pixels
4. Right-click it and click 'copy image address.
5. To insert the image here, click the image icon while posting a reply. This text will appear: (img)(/img) but with [ ] instead of ( ). Paste the image address inside.
6. Add this inside the first set of brackets like this: (img width=255) or any other number around there, but not in bold.
I started typing this before ConMan replied, but thought it would a shame to waste it  :).

Thanks but is there any way to do it on an iPad?

You can at least post the text of your card so as not to miss out on the contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 02, 2018, 08:51:36 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on November 02, 2018, 04:29:40 am

Inspired by Arkham Horror

(https://i.imgur.com/MQAntZV.jpg)

Are you supposed to be allowed to discard a curse and take 2VP if that's all that is there? Really neat card, I like having another forced-cooperative thing going on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 02, 2018, 12:40:56 pm

Quote from: Gubump on October 31, 2018, 05:59:12 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 31, 2018, 05:48:48 pm

Quote

Root Gatherer
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $6
+3 Cards. You may set aside a card from your hand face down. If you do, at the start of your next turn, reveal it and each other player reveals the cards they set aside with Root Gatherer cards. If you are the only player to reveal a copy of that card, put it into your hand and gain a card costing up to $5. Otherwise, discard it.

Haven a card in order to gain a card costing up to $5... unless someone else Havens a copy. Feeling brave or will you play the cowardly Smithy?

Which game is this based on?

Root Gatherer is based on the Kennerspiel winner Broom Service (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/172308/broom-service), a pick-up-and-deliver game. In Broom Service, each round all players simultaneously and secretly choose a set of all possible actions to take and then players take turns playing those actions they chose.
Each action can either be played cowardly or can be played bravely. The brave version of the action is bigger and better, but if anyone else takes the same action bravely after you, then you lose the action--and the next player can lose it if another player does the same and so on. You must predict what actions players will take, and time your brave actions so they cannot be lost (and to usurp their brave actions).

Quote from: 4est on October 31, 2018, 10:22:37 am

Auction House
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $6
+3 Coffers. Put this on your Tavern mat.

---

After you turn, you may call this to put any number of tokens from your Coffers on a card in the Supply costing up to $5. Each other player may pay you that number of tokens to gain that card (you keep your tokens). If no one does, you gain the card, and pay your tokens.

This is a great use of set-pricing. I would rather it use debt tokens for ease of access, though it would need some kind of catch so that you can't use Auction House to gain cards while you have debt. I am curious if it even needs a cost restriction for the card it targets. Is being able to auction Provinces too much of an issue?

Quote from: Chappy7 on October 31, 2018, 01:17:08 pm

Trebuchet
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player takes a damage token. When a player has 5 damage tokens, they immediately discard them all, and then discard down to 3 cards in hand. If they did, +3VP.
Reconstruct
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Choose one: Trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it; or remove 2 damage tokens for +$2; or gain a card from the trash costing from $3 to $6.

I'm not sure if this is balanced, but I am interested. My chief concern is the desynched player damage in multiplayer games will result in VP distributing wrongly in spiky fashion. Even if I give Player B 4 damage, if Player C plays the next Trebuchet then they get the VP.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on November 02, 2018, 04:29:40 am

Cosmic Horror
Types: Landmark
At the end of your Buy phase, you may discard a Curse from your hand to take 3VP from here. At the end of your turn, put 1VP on this. If there are at least 8VP per player on this, the game ends.

This is cute. I like the way it incentivizes getting some form of cheap-gaining or +buy early so you can pick up a Curse to start generating VP from it. I don't like the way it pulls so many VP from it that if any one player is removing VP it seems unlikely to become an end condition. I'd like to see some games of this to see if 8VP per player is the key threshold value.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 02, 2018, 01:57:53 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 02, 2018, 08:51:36 am

Are you supposed to be allowed to discard a curse and take 2VP if that's all that is there?

By general Dominion rules, yes. Even if there's 0_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} on the card, you can use the ability to discard a Curse and take nothing. Just like playing a Smithy when you only have 0, 1, or 2 cards left in your deck/discard. Or, more similarly, you can call a Ratcatcher even if you have no cards in your hand to trash.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on November 03, 2018, 03:31:31 am

Let's try this again; I'm replacing my previous un-fun submission. (This one might still be bad, let's find out.)

(https://i.imgur.com/lgbZOvX.png)

I'm sticking with Temporum, but this time going for the concept of ruling Times. Here, your bonus for ruling a pile is on-buy VP; it's an Adventures token Event variant. Each player gets Coronet tokens in their player color. Let's say they each get 10, like Temporum, but they probably don't need that many. You can use the crowns that come with Temporum, even.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 03, 2018, 06:51:02 am

Quote from: crlundy on November 03, 2018, 03:31:31 am

Let's try this again; I'm replacing my previous un-fun submission. (This one might still be bad, let's find out.)

(https://i.imgur.com/lgbZOvX.png)

I'm sticking with Temporum, but this time going for the concept of ruling Times. Here, your bonus for ruling a pile is on-buy VP; it's an Adventures token Event variant. Each player gets Coronet tokens in their player color. Let's say they each get 10, like Temporum, but they probably don't need that many. You can use the crowns that come with Temporum, even.

I like this idea. It is very possible that you'd have to do some amount of tweaking on cost and reward for the most interesting play. I would consider restricting this to non-Victory cards since putting the tokens on e.g. Distant Lands seems too automatic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 03, 2018, 08:22:26 am

(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/Oshw6CxS3AJq.png)

Guess Who
Type: Action
Cost: $4

+1 Card +1 Action

Secretly pick a card from the Randomizer cards used for this kingdom. Do this twice: The player to your left asks a yes/no question, you have to truly answer. After answering the second question, he guesses the picked card. If he's wrong, gain a copy of the picked card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 03, 2018, 11:02:30 am

Quote from: crlundy on November 03, 2018, 03:31:31 am

Let's try this again; I'm replacing my previous un-fun submission. (This one might still be bad, let's find out.)

(https://i.imgur.com/lgbZOvX.png)

I'm sticking with Temporum, but this time going for the concept of ruling Times. Here, your bonus for ruling a pile is on-buy VP; it's an Adventures token Event variant. Each player gets Coronet tokens in their player color. Let's say they each get 10, like Temporum, but they probably don't need that many. You can use the crowns that come with Temporum, even.

Cool! I think this is much better than your other one. Wording suggestion: If no player has more Coronet tokens on it than you, +2VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gamer3000 on November 03, 2018, 11:58:59 am

Quote from: crlundy on November 03, 2018, 03:31:31 am

Let's try this again; I'm replacing my previous un-fun submission. (This one might still be bad, let's find out.)

(https://i.imgur.com/lgbZOvX.png)

I'm sticking with Temporum, but this time going for the concept of ruling Times. Here, your bonus for ruling a pile is on-buy VP; it's an Adventures token Event variant. Each player gets Coronet tokens in their player color. Let's say they each get 10, like Temporum, but they probably don't need that many. You can use the crowns that come with Temporum, even.

Did you want this to get VP even if there are no tokens on the pile?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on November 03, 2018, 01:21:21 pm

Quote from: faust on November 03, 2018, 06:51:02 am

I like this idea. It is very possible that you'd have to do some amount of tweaking on cost and reward for the most interesting play. I would consider restricting this to non-Victory cards since putting the tokens on e.g. Distant Lands seems too automatic.

Non-Victory is a good call.

Quote from: Gamer3000 on November 03, 2018, 11:58:59 am

Did you want this to get VP even if there are no tokens on the pile?

No I do not, so the current wording needs some tweaks.

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 03, 2018, 11:02:30 am

Cool! I think this is much better than your other one. Wording suggestion: If no player has more Coronet tokens on it than you, +2VP.

Thanks! I hate wordy cards, so I'm looking for every corner I can cut, to incorporate those other changes.

This version barely still fits on 3 lines. Any loopholes here?

Quote

Coronation: Event, $3
Move any Coronet token of yours to a non-Victory Action Supply pile. (When you buy a card from that pile, if you have any Coronet tokens on it and no other player has more, +2VP.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on November 03, 2018, 04:35:33 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 03, 2018, 08:22:26 am

Do this twice: The player to your left asks a yes/no question, you have to truly answer.

This is significantly closer to a Truth or Dare card than I was expecting we'd get.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 03, 2018, 05:40:29 pm

Quote from: Violet CLM on November 03, 2018, 04:35:33 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 03, 2018, 08:22:26 am

Do this twice: The player to your left asks a yes/no question, you have to truly answer.

This is significantly closer to a Truth or Dare card than I was expecting we'd get.

I tried to compress the text on the card. It was not so easy (English is not my native language) and yes, you may actually ask Truth or Dare questions, if you want.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Erick648 on November 03, 2018, 08:47:03 pm

Here's one I've had for a while based on Agricola:
Agriculture
$5 Action - Duration
You may set aside a non-Victory card from your hand.  If you do, gain a copy of that card, setting it aside with that card.
At the start of each of your turns, put one of those cards into your hand.

Note: It gets discarded at the end of the turn when it gives you the last card (the second turn after playing it).  If you don't set anything aside, it gets discarded at the end of the turn you play it (like Haven) and has no real effect.  When throned, you can set aside two cards (or three with King's Court), make a separate pile for each, and take one card from each pile at the start of each turn (per the FAQ on Archive).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on November 04, 2018, 01:21:58 am

Quote from: Erick648 on November 03, 2018, 08:47:03 pm

When throned, you can set aside two cards and take two cards per turn into hand (unintuitively for those who've played Agricola, you can take both copies of one card on the first turn and both copies of the other on your second turn, or even set aside only one card and take both copies into hand on your next turn; I couldn't find any way to "fix" this that wasn't unnecessarily complex).

Based on how Archive works (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Archive#FAQ), yours should work the intuitive Agricola-y way: "If you Throne Room an [Agriculture], keep the sets of cards separate; you get one from each each turn". You could tweak the wording to be more like Archive. Also, the second sentence should probably say "if you do".

Agriculture would be really fun with Potion and Debt cards, for the free copy!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Erick648 on November 04, 2018, 02:58:03 pm

Quote from: crlundy on November 04, 2018, 01:21:58 am

Quote from: Erick648 on November 03, 2018, 08:47:03 pm

When throned, you can set aside two cards and take two cards per turn into hand (unintuitively for those who've played Agricola, you can take both copies of one card on the first turn and both copies of the other on your second turn, or even set aside only one card and take both copies into hand on your next turn; I couldn't find any way to "fix" this that wasn't unnecessarily complex).

Based on how Archive works (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Archive#FAQ), yours should work the intuitive Agricola-y way: "If you Throne Room an [Agriculture], keep the sets of cards separate; you get one from each each turn". You could tweak the wording to be more like Archive. Also, the second sentence should probably say "if you do".

Agriculture would be really fun with Potion and Debt cards, for the free copy!

Thanks!  I hadn't seen the ruling on Archive; I'll reword my card accordingly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 04:23:05 pm

Old:

Quote

Missile (Pays homage to Battleship)

https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Missile&description=%2B1%20Action%0AYou%20and%20the%20player%20to%20your%20left%20each%20write%20down%20a%20whole%20number%20between%201%20and%204%20on%20a%20piece%20of%20paper.%20Unfold%20the%20pieces%20of%20paper.%20If%20the%20numbers%20were%20the%20same%2C%20%2B%20%24%20equal%20to%20the%20number.&type=Action&credit=Google%20Images&price=%243&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0

Quote

+1 Action
You and the player to your left each write down a whole number between 1 and 4 on a piece of paper. Unfold the pieces of paper. If the numbers were the same, + $ equal to the number.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 04:27:50 pm

Old:

Quote

D&D (Pays homage to D&D)

https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=D%26D&description=%2B1%20Action%0ARoll%202d4.%20For%20each%20die%2C%20if%20it%20was%20a%3A%0A1%2C%20%2B1%20Card%0A2%2C%20%2B1%20Action%0A3%2C%20%2B1%20Buy%0A4%2C%20%2B%20%241&type=Action&credit=Google%20Images&price=%242&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0

Quote

Action, cost $2
+1 Action
Roll 2d4. For each die, if it was a:
1, +1 Card
2, +1 Action
3, +1 Buy
4, + $1

(A d4 is a 4-sided die.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on November 04, 2018, 04:38:53 pm

Everything is great so far, y'all! Keep it up! I really enjoy this theme so I wanted to give some love to some games that haven't popped up yet, though obviously I can't vote for myself and all that:

Betrayal at House on the Hill: (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Betrayal&description=When%20you%20buy%20this%2C%20%2B%20%248%20per%20Estate%20on%20your%20Tavern%20mat.%0A%0AWhenever%20anyone%20gains%20a%20Victory%20card%2C%0Aif%20you%20have%20no%20debt%2C%20%2B2%25.&type=Project&credit=Illustration%3A%20Marion%20Rose&price=%4040&preview=&type2=Heirloom%3A%20Omen&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fd13egrxi1n6w2z.cloudfront.net%2F719_887543l%2Bv%3D201205170414c%2Fthe-burning-of-the-robinhood-mill.jpg&color0=15&color1=0&size=1): (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Omen&description=%241%0A%0APut%20an%20Estate%20from%20your%20hand%20on%20your%20Tavern%20mat.%0AIf%20you%20do%2C%20%2B%20%241.&type=Treasure%20-%20Heirloom&credit=Illustration%3A%20Marion%20Rose&price=%242&preview=%241&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.fineartamerica.com%2Fimages%2Fartworkimages%2Fmediumlarge%2F1%2Flone-raven-marion-rose.jpg&color0=1&color1=0&size=0)
(https://i.imgur.com/vfDnfnf.png)
Estates on the mat stand in for BaHotH's omen cards leading to the haunt roll becoming ever more likely to succeed.

Coup: (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Closed%20Session&description=If%20the%20Curse%20supply%20pile%20is%20not%20empty%2C%20the%20first%20card%20you%20play%20from%20your%20hand%20each%0Aturn%20may%20be%20played%20face%20down%20and%20you%20name%20what%20card%20you%20are%20playing%20it%20as.%0AAny%20other%20player%20may%20choose%20to%20reveal%20the%20face%20down%20card.%20If%20it%20was%20the%20named%0Acard%2C%20they%20gain%20a%20Curse%3B%20if%20not%2C%20you%20gain%20a%20Curse%20and%20the%20played%20card%20has%20no%20effect.&type=Project&credit=Illustration%3A%20Juan%20Pantoja%20de%20la%20Cruz&price=%245&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F9b%2FThe_Somerset_House_Conference_19_August_1604.jpg%2F796px-The_Somerset_House_Conference_19_August_1604.jpg&color0=15&color1=0&size=1)
(https://i.imgur.com/W4jLfEQ.png)
Here "playing it as" is shorthand for the full Overlord/BoM effect. Initially this was just a Landmark, but I decided to make it an expensive Project instead, so it doesn't start slowing down the game until people have a greater variety of cards in their decks.

Terraforming Mars: (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=New%20Horizons&description=If%20there%20are%20fewer%20than%20ten%20supply%20piles%3A%20gain%20a%20Province%2C%20draw%20four%20randomizer%20cards%2C%20choose%20one%20of%20them%2C%20and%20add%20the%20corresponding%20supply%20pile%20to%20the%20kingdom%2C%20performing%20any%20necessary%20setup.%20Return%20the%20randomizer%20cards%20to%20the%20bottom%20of%20their%20deck.%0A%0A-%0A%0ASetup%3A%20In%20games%20using%20this%2C%20begin%20the%20the%20game%20with%20only%20six%20supply%20piles%20instead%20of%20ten.&type=Event&credit=Illustration%3A%20Pascal%20Lee&price=%247&preview=&type2=&picture=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pascallee.net%2Fs%2Fcc_images%2Fteaserbox_888703263.jpg%3Ft%3D1420332367&color0=0&color1=0&size=1)
(https://i.imgur.com/SHkDvob.png)
A few different Terraforming Mars mechanics found their way into this... cards that can't be played until the planet has gotten warm/wet/airy enough, special cheaper ways of acquiring basic resources, and drawing four cards for your research phase. If Young Witch turns up then I guess this only can be used three times instead of four. Not sure how "performing any necessary setup" would interact with cards with heirlooms, though.

Tzolk'in: (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Great%20Wheel&description=%2B1%20Card%0A%2B1%20Action%0APut%20this%20on%20your%20Tavern%20mat.%0A%0A-%0A%0AIf%20this%20is%20on%20your%20Tavern%20mat%20at%20the%20start%20of%20your%20turn%2C%20choose%20one%3A%20discard%20one%20or%20two%20cards%20from%20your%20hand%20for%20%2B1%20Coffers%20per%20card%20discarded%2C%20or%20call%20this%20and%20spend%20any%20number%20of%20Coffers%20to%20gain%20and%20play%20an%20Action%20card%20with%20that%20exact%20cost.&type=Action%20-%20Reserve&credit=&price=%243&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ancient-origins.net%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffield%2Fimage%2FCalendar.jpg&color0=5&color1=0&size=0)
(https://i.imgur.com/EWJ3RpV.png)
Tzolk'in's main mechanic of getting more powerful effects by leaving things on the board for longer, but having your options somewhat reduced in the meantime. At first I had the coin tokens sit on the card itself instead of the Coffers mat, but decided the latter would be more interesting, at which point this turned into a Candlestick Maker variant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 04, 2018, 05:10:56 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 04:27:50 pm

D&D (Pays homage to D&D)

Quote

+1 Action
Roll 2d4. For each die, if it was a:
1, +1 Card
2, +1 Action
3, +1 Buy
4, + $1

(A d4 is a 4-sided die.)

I played with that card and we thought that it was too strong. It should cost $ 4, because every play is literally:

+ ½ Card
+ 1 ½ Action
+ ½ $
+ ½ Buy

In the worst case, this is +1 Action +2 Buys, but it is often a Lab or a Peddler, which are both very strong cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 05:52:33 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 04, 2018, 05:10:56 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 04:27:50 pm

D&D (Pays homage to D&D)

Quote

+1 Action
Roll 2d4. For each die, if it was a:
1, +1 Card
2, +1 Action
3, +1 Buy
4, + $1

(A d4 is a 4-sided die.)

I played with that card and we thought that it was too strong. It should cost $ 4, because every play is literally:

+ ½ Card
+ 1 ½ Action
+ ½ $
+ ½ Buy

In the worst case, this is +1 Action +2 Buys, but it is often a Lab or a Peddler, which are both very strong cards.

If you playtested this card, I will accept your insight and tips. Thank you.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Erick648 on November 04, 2018, 05:59:15 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 04, 2018, 05:10:56 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 04:27:50 pm

D&D (Pays homage to D&D)

Quote

+1 Action
Roll 2d4. For each die, if it was a:
1, +1 Card
2, +1 Action
3, +1 Buy
4, + $1

(A d4 is a 4-sided die.)

I played with that card and we thought that it was too strong. It should cost $ 4, because every play is literally:

+ ½ Card
+ 1 ½ Action
+ ½ $
+ ½ Buy

In the worst case, this is +1 Action +2 Buys, but it is often a Lab or a Peddler, which are both very strong cards.

I disagree.  Maybe you got some lucky rolls, but it looks to me like overall, it's pretty weak.  Specifically, it has the following probabilities:

12.5% chance each of:
Village (+1 Card, +2 Actions)
Market Square (+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy)
Peddler (+1 Card, +1 Action, +$1)
Necropolis-with-buy (+2 Actions, +1 Buy)
non-duration Fishing Village (+2 Actions, +$1)
Pouch-as-an-action (+1 Action, +1 Buy, +$1)

6.25% chance each of:
Laboratory (+2 Cards, +1 Action)
failed first Crossroads (+3 Actions)
non-terminal Buys (+1 Action, +2 Buys)
virtual Silver (+1 Action, +$2)

While the Laboratory effect is strong, it only happens 1 in 16 times.  Most of these effects would be balanced on a $2-3 card, and some wouldn't even be worth $2.  And then you need to discount it for being random (since you won't always get the effect you want and will sometimes get Actions or Buys when you have no use for them). 

On average, playing two of these will give the same effect as playing Village+Market Square, only with more unpredictability (and without the option of using Market Square's reaction).  Given that the unpredictability is a bad thing rather than a good thing (since it makes it much harder to work the card into an overall strategy), I'd probably price it at $2, or possibly [3debt] (since having a debt-only card makes it easier to use the +Buys if you get them at an inconvenient time).  Certainly, I don't think it should cost more than $3, since two of these are pretty clearly worse than a Village plus a Market Square (both of which cost $3).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 09:04:54 pm

Old:

Quote

College Education (Pays homage to Life)
https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=College%20Education&description=%2B1%20Buy%0ATake%20Educated.&type=Event&credit=Google%20Images&price=%405&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=0&color1=0&size=1

Quote

Event (cost $2)
+1 Buy
Take Educated.

Here is educated:
https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Educated&description=At%20the%20start%20of%20your%20turn%2C%20%2B1%25&type=State&credit=Google%20Images&price=&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=13&color1=0&size=1

Quote

At the start of your turn, +1 VP

I think it can be relatively cheap because all the players will be constantly fighting over it. Also it costs 5 debt, one for each bank loan you take at the start of the Life game if you choose college.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 04, 2018, 11:23:25 pm

Quote from: Erick648 on November 04, 2018, 05:59:15 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 04, 2018, 05:10:56 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 04:27:50 pm

D&D (Pays homage to D&D)

Quote

+1 Action
Roll 2d4. For each die, if it was a:
1, +1 Card
2, +1 Action
3, +1 Buy
4, + $1

(A d4 is a 4-sided die.)

I played with that card and we thought that it was too strong. It should cost $ 4, because every play is literally:

+ ½ Card
+ 1 ½ Action
+ ½ $
+ ½ Buy

In the worst case, this is +1 Action +2 Buys, but it is often a Lab or a Peddler, which are both very strong cards.

I disagree.  Maybe you got some lucky rolls, but it looks to me like overall, it's pretty weak.  Specifically, it has the following probabilities:

12.5% chance each of:
Village (+1 Card, +2 Actions)
Market Square (+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy)
Peddler (+1 Card, +1 Action, +$1)
Necropolis-with-buy (+2 Actions, +1 Buy)
non-duration Fishing Village (+2 Actions, +$1)
Pouch-as-an-action (+1 Action, +1 Buy, +$1)

6.25% chance each of:
Laboratory (+2 Cards, +1 Action)
failed first Crossroads (+3 Actions)
non-terminal Buys (+1 Action, +2 Buys)
virtual Silver (+1 Action, +$2)

While the Laboratory effect is strong, it only happens 1 in 16 times.  Most of these effects would be balanced on a $2-3 card, and some wouldn't even be worth $2.  And then you need to discount it for being random (since you won't always get the effect you want and will sometimes get Actions or Buys when you have no use for them). 

On average, playing two of these will give the same effect as playing Village+Market Square, only with more unpredictability (and without the option of using Market Square's reaction).  Given that the unpredictability is a bad thing rather than a good thing (since it makes it much harder to work the card into an overall strategy), I'd probably price it at $2, or possibly [3debt] (since having a debt-only card makes it easier to use the +Buys if you get them at an inconvenient time).  Certainly, I don't think it should cost more than $3, since two of these are pretty clearly worse than a Village plus a Market Square (both of which cost $3).

Since I was strangely curious, I'm going to try to calculate the cost with more accuracy:

12.5% chance each of:
Village (+1 Card, +2 Actions) - $3.
Market Square (+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy) - I think MS without the reaction would only be worth $2, really. How many cantrip +Buys do you really want, normally?
Peddler (+1 Card, +1 Action, +$1) $4 - One of the strongest effects.
Necropolis-with-buy (+2 Actions, +1 Buy) - Barely better than regular Necropolis. $1.5 at most.
non-duration Fishing Village (+2 Actions, +$1) - Squire with fewer options. Given that you'll pick this option the vast majority of the time anyway, I'll be generous and give it $2.
Pouch-as-an-action (+1 Action, +1 Buy, +$1) - Pouch is $2, but honestly, given that I gave Buycropolis only +$0.5 for its +Buy, this should really only be $0.5.

6.25% chance each of:
Laboratory (+2 Cards, +1 Action) - Far and away the best outcome - $5
failed first Crossroads (+3 Actions) - Removing the draw possibility takes away everything even remotely attractive about Crossroads at $2. - $1.5 for you.
non-terminal Buys (+1 Action, +2 Buys) - Just terrible. $0.5.
virtual Silver (+1 Action, +$2) - $3, which at this point is looking shockingly good.

Overall, this is looking even weaker than the above estimate. The final outcome is .125*(3+2+4+1.5+2+0.5) + .0625*(5+1.5+0.5+3) = 2.25. Subtract $0.25 for the randomness and we get an even $2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 05, 2018, 02:09:16 am

You have to count Peddler as $4.5, because Poacher already costs $4. Pouch-as-an-action is definitely a $2, if you compare it to Pawn and Candlestick Maker. The disappearing Silver is probably a $3.5.

But overall you seem to be right. The problem is that this card is a very unsteady Pawn variant, but usually better than Pawn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: singletee on November 05, 2018, 03:00:03 am

Ok, I'm throwing my hat into the ring.

Here are four cards inspired by the four special cards in Tichu:

(https://imgur.com/JVXsoVm.jpg) (https://imgur.com/v8ntn7d.jpg) (https://imgur.com/aajycOh.jpg) (https://imgur.com/Ilwi08I.jpg)

The Little Bird rewards you for correctly guessing a card in the next player's hand. It only works once because they have to reveal to confirm your guess, and after that it would be trivial to get the bonus.

Dominion players are well aware of the principle that one great thing is better than two good things. This is the case in Tichu as well, and the Dog is a card that weakens your own hand but strengthens your partner's. Cards that hurt your current turn to help the next one are a well-explored design space in Dominion, so I had some trouble creating something new. While making this card I kept reinventing Gear, Tactician, and Secret Cave. In the end I settled on a gainer. The synergy with Faithful Hound is a nice bonus.

Phoenix is a wish you can buy! Tichu's Phoenix is a wild card worth negative points, so you get a curse when you play this.

The mighty Dragon has a powerful effect and is worth points, but you don't get to keep him when you play him! This Dragon is a little nicer; you can appease him by feeding him Victory cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on November 05, 2018, 04:15:22 am

I think you need an "if you do" on Dragon.  Otherwise, I can play it, choose to trash a Victory card from my hand, fail to do so because there are none, and still get the effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 05, 2018, 04:59:53 am

Quote from: Violet CLM on November 04, 2018, 04:38:53 pm

Terraforming Mars: (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=New%20Horizons&description=If%20there%20are%20fewer%20than%20ten%20supply%20piles%3A%20gain%20a%20Province%2C%20draw%20four%20randomizer%20cards%2C%20choose%20one%20of%20them%2C%20and%20add%20the%20corresponding%20supply%20pile%20to%20the%20kingdom%2C%20performing%20any%20necessary%20setup.%20Return%20the%20randomizer%20cards%20to%20the%20bottom%20of%20their%20deck.%0A%0A-%0A%0ASetup%3A%20In%20games%20using%20this%2C%20begin%20the%20the%20game%20with%20only%20six%20supply%20piles%20instead%20of%20ten.&type=Event&credit=Illustration%3A%20Pascal%20Lee&price=%247&preview=&type2=&picture=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pascallee.net%2Fs%2Fcc_images%2Fteaserbox_888703263.jpg%3Ft%3D1420332367&color0=0&color1=0&size=1)
(https://i.imgur.com/SHkDvob.png)
A few different Terraforming Mars mechanics found their way into this... cards that can't be played until the planet has gotten warm/wet/airy enough, special cheaper ways of acquiring basic resources, and drawing four cards for your research phase. If Young Witch turns up then I guess this only can be used three times instead of four. Not sure how "performing any necessary setup" would interact with cards with heirlooms, though.

I don't think this works. First, it is unclear how it would even work with kingdom randomizing. I draw 7 kingdom card randomizers, then I draw New Horizons, now what? Also minor complaint, but the theme is completely out of place.

Then it just does its thing way too late into the game. Apart from major "perform any necessary setup" confusion, it just won't do anything. If you're adding new piles only as you are greening, they will have minimal effect. So overall, this event just leads to more boring games with less variety - which does not sound like a good representation for Terraforming Mars.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 05, 2018, 08:18:30 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 05, 2018, 02:09:16 am

The problem is that this card is a very unsteady Pawn variant, but usually better than Pawn.

Usually is not strictly

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 05, 2018, 08:42:55 am

Quote from: Erick648 on November 03, 2018, 08:47:03 pm

Here's one I've had for a while based on Agricola:
Agriculture
$5 Action - Duration
You may set aside a non-Victory card from your hand.  If you do, gain a copy of that card, setting it aside with that card.
At the start of each of your turns, put one of those cards into your hand.

Thematically it is a great match but I think that the card is too weak. You have to play a terminal, not play the strong card that you want to copy, have that strong card out of your deck during the next turn and you only gain the second copy two turns later.
Compared to others $5 gainers this looks incredibly weak. It becomes better with expensive cards that have Potion or Debt in their cost (especially stuff that becomes strong later in the game like City Quarter) but even then the tempo disadvantage might be too significant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 05, 2018, 11:24:28 am

Compared to Harem and Mercenary, Dragon sounds rather strong. Phoenix is a nice Feast variant, but alas a little broken when there are other cursors in the game. What about just giving you a Copper instead of the Curse?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 05, 2018, 11:35:41 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on November 05, 2018, 04:15:22 am

I think you need an "if you do" on Dragon.  Otherwise, I can play it, choose to trash a Victory card from my hand, fail to do so because there are none, and still get the effect.

Yes, just copy the Death Cart wording:
You may trash an Victory card from your hand. If you don't, trash this.

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 04:23:05 pm

Missile (Pays homage to Battleship)

https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Missile&description=%2B1%20Action%0AYou%20and%20the%20player%20to%20your%20left%20each%20write%20down%20a%20whole%20number%20between%201%20and%204%20on%20a%20piece%20of%20paper.%20Unfold%20the%20pieces%20of%20paper.%20If%20the%20numbers%20were%20the%20same%2C%20%2B%20%24%20equal%20to%20the%20number.&type=Action&credit=Google%20Images&price=%243&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0

Quote

+1 Action
You and the player to your left each write down a whole number between 1 and 4 on a piece of paper. Unfold the pieces of paper. If the numbers were the same, + $ equal to the number.

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 04:27:50 pm

D&D (Pays homage to D&D)

https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=D%26D&description=%2B1%20Action%0ARoll%202d4.%20For%20each%20die%2C%20if%20it%20was%20a%3A%0A1%2C%20%2B1%20Card%0A2%2C%20%2B1%20Action%0A3%2C%20%2B1%20Buy%0A4%2C%20%2B%20%241&type=Action&credit=Google%20Images&price=%242&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0

Quote

Action, cost $2
+1 Action
Roll 2d4. For each die, if it was a:
1, +1 Card
2, +1 Action
3, +1 Buy
4, + $1

(A d4 is a 4-sided die.)

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 09:04:54 pm

College Education (Pays homage to Life)
https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=College%20Education&description=%2B1%20Buy%0ATake%20Educated.&type=Event&credit=Google%20Images&price=%405&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=0&color1=0&size=1

Quote

Event (cost $2)
+1 Buy
Take Educated.

Here is educated:
https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Educated&description=At%20the%20start%20of%20your%20turn%2C%20%2B1%25&type=State&credit=Google%20Images&price=&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=13&color1=0&size=1

Quote

At the start of your turn, +1 VP

I think it can be relatively cheap because all the players will be constantly fighting over it. Also it costs 5 debt, one for each bank loan you take at the start of the Life game if you choose college.

You're only really supposed to have one entry into the contest. What VioletCLM meant by this:

Quote from: Violet CLM on October 30, 2018, 03:47:45 am

If your idea is better served as multiple card-shaped objects for whatever reason--heirlooms, split piles, prizes, non-supply piles, whatever--sure, go for it, that's fine.

is that if you need to make more than one card to make your idea work, that's okay, not that you should have multiple entries. Something like your Life College Education/Educated thing works.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 05, 2018, 12:30:46 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 05, 2018, 11:35:41 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 04:23:05 pm

Missile (Pays homage to Battleship)

https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Missile&description=%2B1%20Action%0AYou%20and%20the%20player%20to%20your%20left%20each%20write%20down%20a%20whole%20number%20between%201%20and%204%20on%20a%20piece%20of%20paper.%20Unfold%20the%20pieces%20of%20paper.%20If%20the%20numbers%20were%20the%20same%2C%20%2B%20%24%20equal%20to%20the%20number.&type=Action&credit=Google%20Images&price=%243&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0

Quote

+1 Action
You and the player to your left each write down a whole number between 1 and 4 on a piece of paper. Unfold the pieces of paper. If the numbers were the same, + $ equal to the number.

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 04:27:50 pm

D&D (Pays homage to D&D)

https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=D%26D&description=%2B1%20Action%0ARoll%202d4.%20For%20each%20die%2C%20if%20it%20was%20a%3A%0A1%2C%20%2B1%20Card%0A2%2C%20%2B1%20Action%0A3%2C%20%2B1%20Buy%0A4%2C%20%2B%20%241&type=Action&credit=Google%20Images&price=%242&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0

Quote

Action, cost $2
+1 Action
Roll 2d4. For each die, if it was a:
1, +1 Card
2, +1 Action
3, +1 Buy
4, + $1

(A d4 is a 4-sided die.)

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 09:04:54 pm

College Education (Pays homage to Life)
https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=College%20Education&description=%2B1%20Buy%0ATake%20Educated.&type=Event&credit=Google%20Images&price=%405&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=0&color1=0&size=1

Quote

Event (cost $2)
+1 Buy
Take Educated.

Here is educated:
https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Educated&description=At%20the%20start%20of%20your%20turn%2C%20%2B1%25&type=State&credit=Google%20Images&price=&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=13&color1=0&size=1

Quote

At the start of your turn, +1 VP

I think it can be relatively cheap because all the players will be constantly fighting over it. Also it costs 5 debt, one for each bank loan you take at the start of the Life game if you choose college.

You're only really supposed to have one entry into the contest. What VioletCLM meant by this:

Quote from: Violet CLM on October 30, 2018, 03:47:45 am

If your idea is better served as multiple card-shaped objects for whatever reason--heirlooms, split piles, prizes, non-supply piles, whatever--sure, go for it, that's fine.

is that if you need to make more than one card to make your idea work, that's okay, not that you should have multiple entries. Something like your Life College Education/Educated thing works.

I’m posting these all as separate entries. You’re allowed to do that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 05, 2018, 12:33:57 pm

This is my actual entry:

Split pile: Chute/Ladder (pays homage to Chutes and Ladders)
Chute:
This is less the mechanics than the message of the game. Chute gives something nice (representing how you feel instant gratification when doing bad), but gives -1 VP (representing that doing bad is bad in the long run).
https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Chute&description=%243.%20When%20you%20play%20this%2C%20set%20it%20aside%20and%20return%20it%20to%20your%20deck%20at%20the%20end%20of%20the%20game.%0A-%0A-1%25&type=Treasure-Curse&credit=Google%20Images&price=%243&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=6&color1=2&size=0

(I know the formatting is messed up but if it’s normal you can’t read it)

Quote

Chute (Treasure-Curse, cost: $3)
$3. When you play this, set it aside and return it to your deck at the end of the game.

Ladder:
Again, this is the message rather than the mechanics. The less evil there is in the world (set aside), the more ladders are worth.

https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Ladder&description=Worth%201%25%20per%20Chute%20in%20the%20supply.&type=Victory&credit=Google%20Images&price=%245&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=2&color1=0&size=0

Quote

Ladder (victory, cost $5)
Worth 1VP per Chute in the supply.

EDIT:
Randomizer card:
https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Chute%2FLadder&description=Setup%3A%20Place%20a%20Ladder%20down%2C%20than%20a%20Chute%20on%20top%2C%20then%20a%20Ladder%20on%20to%20of%20that%2C%20until%20there%20are%206%20(4%20in%20a%202%20player%20game)%20Chutes%2C%20with%20a%20Ladder%20directly%20under%20each.%20This%20is%20a%20supply%20pile.&type=Victory&credit=Google%20Images&price=%243&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=6&color1=2&size=0

Quote

Setup: Place a Chute down, than a Ladder on top, then a Chute on top of that, until there are 6 (4 in a 2 player game) Chutes, with a Ladder directly on top of each.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 05, 2018, 01:16:13 pm

Without wanting to judge the interesting subtleties that this mixed pile creates, Chute is problematic. As it is mainly useful for spiking in the opening this can often be a free gift for the first player.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 05, 2018, 01:34:45 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 05, 2018, 01:16:13 pm

Without wanting to judge the interesting subtleties that this mixed pile creates, Chute is problematic. As it is mainly useful for spiking in the opening this can often be a free gift for the first player.

Good point. Maybe having Ladder on top would work?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 05, 2018, 02:03:10 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 05, 2018, 12:30:46 pm

I’m posting these all as separate entries. You’re allowed to do that.

I'm pretty sure you can only have one entry, even if it's not explicitly stated in the rules.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 05, 2018, 10:43:16 pm

When does this round end again? I feel my submission could be improved by making more of the Powerhouses trash cards (and care about what they trash), but I don't have time/energy to do it today...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on November 05, 2018, 10:53:57 pm

In theory it should end in a few hours, but in practice I'd expect more like forty hours, because the US elections are going to consume all my time tonight and tomorrow.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on November 08, 2018, 01:46:18 am

7 Wonders (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775451#msg775451) - Tarken
The appeal of Native Village is not that it has a lot of words but that they all communicate a simple idea. By contrast, while I think I know what idea this card is trying to communicate, I don't see how its text arrives at that idea or really makes for a playable experience at all. I don't see why anyone would want to buy this... if you add a card to the wonder deck, and you want to GET that card, you're basically counting on shuffling before anyone else does, which is a hard thing to control unless complemented by specific cards (Messenger, Scavenger, etc.). You can't even use this as a very weak Attack by putting a Curse in the wonder deck, because then somebody else could just trash it for $2.

Agricola (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775770#msg775770) - Erick648
This feels more like a Haven variant than an Archive variant, despite the borrowing of some wording, but removing Haven's cantrip nature makes it play very differently. Getting the cards back into your hand on two different turns nicely gets around some of the more powerful possibilities of an into-your-hand duplicator (e.g. Treasure Map, Graverobber), and the fact this can duplicate anything (except for victory cards) is likewise balanced by the fact this is very slow and takes a long time to get back into your deck after you play it. All in all, this is a perfectly functional and plausible Dominion card whose influence from another game is quite subtle.

Agricola (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775611#msg775611) - GreyEK
This is cute, but doing something at the start of each player's turn like this is kind of annoying, especially when the text instructing me to do so is buried in a supply pile instead of on a card in front of me. Landmarks can get away with this because they give me points--Elder I wouldn't have as much incentive to remember.

Agricola (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775246#msg775246) - Holunder9
Making this a landscape card instead of part of the supply makes me a bit likelier to remember to add tokens to this one, but this feels a bit too self-contained, and the decision of whether to buy it or not on any given turn doesn't feel very interesting.

Arkham Horror (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775619#msg775619) - NoMoreFun
Oddly, I don't think this suffers from being as hard to remember as the last two Agricolas, because the fact it's a Landmark (and one that can end the game!) makes it function better as a looming presence over every turn. I think I'd need a lot of playtesting before I could really say how well this works, though... if taking 3VP is good enough to buy a Curse for, then does that mean that players will simply avoid buying cards that give Curses to other players? And how likely is it that this would ever actually end the game? It's hard to predict.

Battleship (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775801#msg775801) - MrHiTech
This appears to be a slower, less-integrated-into-general-Dominion-rules version of Chariot Race.

Betrayal at House on the Hill (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775805#msg775805) - Violet CLM
I can't lie: I think this is elegant. Really I'm surprised more people didn't end up using Heirlooms for things. My main concern is that the result of the high debt cost might be that everyone would wait for one player to buy this, then everyone else would buy it in immediate succession, to ride out the debt at roughly the same speed. I'm also not quite sure what I think about the fact that buying Estates before the Project, to make it cheaper, then gives you fewer chances to score lots of cheap VP afterwards.

Bohnanza (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775277#msg775277) - hypercube
Everything about this is stylish, matching the bean colors to the card colors in particular. Wax Bean is a great $2, usually less useful than Silver but just exciting enough to capture people's attention. My main points of concern are Blue Bean and Cocoa Bean... if you only play Coco Bean once, it's a Prince, and between the first and last times you play it, one or more Action cards you like have been removed from your deck. I'm not sure that's significantly more powerful than Teacher or Champion, but Blue Bean is so hard to exchange that getting Cocoa Bean should probably be slower than either of those canonical Traveller line enders. I guess that's the reason the lower Beans focus more on high numbers than on exchanging? On that note, kudos to Black-Eyed Bean for seamlessly giving you a source of useful action cards to use Cocoa Bean on, even if you'd spent the rest of the game only buying Wax Beans.

Broom Service (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775438#msg775438) - Fragasnap
I haven't played Broom Service, but this card reminds me of Basari, so I guess I can relate to it anyway. My suspicion is that this is so expensive there won't be a lot of copies in circulation at any given time, significantly reducing the chance of the gain failing to happen. Turn order has weird effects on this one too, like if player 3's card is revealed on player 1's turn, then player 2 can put down that same card in order to sabotage player 3's turn.

Carcassonne (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775488#msg775488) - spiralstaircase
A mini-expansion is not quite what I had in mind for allowing multiple card-shaped objects to express a concept, so I'm not sure whether to talk about each card individually or focus on what they have in common. In general I'm worried these are a little too focused on concept and not quite focused enough on execution. Cloister's eight card trigger isn't justified by the card's function itself, for example, only by its Carcassonne equivalent, and I am baffled by the $6 threshold on City Walls, which outside of Bank is basically never going to happen. I like Field as a sort of roll-your-own Landmark, and Road is probably quite strong in the right kingdom, but mostly I think these look very exciting but aren't quite ready.

Castell (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775323#msg775323) - scott_pilgrim
I think I'd rather see this concept as a Landmark, in the classic three-2VP-tokens-per-player vein. Otherwise I don't know... this is the kind of unexciting, sometimes-really-useful card that lots of games need, but is that really the right stuff for a $6? In general I'd rather have two Conspirators.

Chess (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775571#msg775571) - silvern
Should be a traveller.

Chutes and Ladders (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775970#msg775970) - MrHiTech
A collection of pretty ordinary fan card ideas, though structuring a split pile in a way other than AAAAABBBBB is an interesting idea. I suspect it would take some work while playing with these to determine how useful these are and how to optimize them.

Coup (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775805#msg775805) - Violet CLM
This is transparently an idea from another game clumsily transplanted into Dominion. It fails to preserve the reason that idea worked in its original context, and fails to integrate that idea with any other parts of Dominion in its new context.

Dungeons and Dragons (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775336#msg775336) - Doom_Shark
I kind of like the idea of a card that becomes much less useful if you draw it late in your turn, but +2 Actions is pretty weak, and in general I think this compares unfavorably with other VP-gaining actions.

Dungeons and Dragons (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775802#msg775802) - MrHiTech
The effects of playing this have been discussed pretty much exhaustively already, but I'll add that the dice don't feel like a very Dominion game mechanic to me. A small stack of cards with different effects, like Boons, would be more plausible.

Glory to Rome (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775411#msg775411) - Watno
The core idea here is sound, though considering how hard it would be to pull this off more than once (multiple Provinces and a specific other card in your hand), it may not need to be $6. Or maybe it could search your discard pile? This is somewhere between a Project and Royal Carriage, and that's not a bad place to be. The name needs changing now, of course.

Guess Who? (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775747#msg775747) - King Leon
An excellent candidate for silver-bordered Dominion, but possibly too strong and definitely too slow.

Isle of Skye (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775386#msg775386) - 4est
"Anyway, the idea definitely needs tweaking, but here's a stab at it," ends this post, and between that and the ensuing discussion I'm not sure what I can add. I'm also not sure from the wording whether the loop has a break instruction, or whether it's possible for every other player but you to end up gaining a copy of the card. Still, with enough tweaking I bet this could be a very cool Dominion card.

Life (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775817#msg775817) - MrHiTech
Hey, it's the Fairy from everybody's favorite Carcassonne expansion. This feels like kind of the simplest possible form of the Artifact idea--despite apparently being a State--and that helps drive home for me that I'm not especially into Artifacts. Some more variability needs to be injected into this idea somewhere.

Lifeboat (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775484#msg775484) - Aquila
Anything like this occupies an odd in-between realm where it has to have enough effect to be worth including in the game but not so much effect that it ruins all the player's plans. Tentatively I'd say this works, though like Boons, I'm sure it's not something people would want to deal with in super serious matches. Being able to see next turn's weather effect in advance is probably not usually too useful, but it could surely combine with some specific cards in interesting ways.

Monopoly (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775311#msg775311) - Tejayes
I'm assuming "discard this" at the bottom of this card is meant to negate the top part's effect, though in light of e.g. Procession+Duration I don't think that's strictly correct? Overall this is a pretty cool card, although I'd leave out "trash a Silver," because it's needlessly specific and also doesn't really seem to belong with the rest of the text. Also trying to define "end your turn" is probably too complicated an endeavor for a single card. But there's definitely a strong concept in here that could use a bit more fleshing out.

Netrunner (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775460#msg775460) - artless
This post didn't get a lot of response, but I like all these cards, even if to work better as challenge entries they should really interact with each other somehow. Hired Blade doesn't really do enough to distinguish itself from Witch probably? But the other two are good if you like your token-based gameplay.

Orleans (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775450#msg775450) - Nflickner
At max, this is $20 for 15VP... by comparison, buying five duchies would cost $25, and you'd also be saddled with them weighing down your deck. Plus, by itself the VP->$ trade isn't the best deal in history, but I would totally pay 1VP to turn $7 into $8. (Though I don't see any reason to invoke coffers at all, as compared to just +$1.) Unless it's too strong, this looks like a fine addition to a kingdom.

Pandemic (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775239#msg775239) - faust
This card takes some thought, but I think I'm mostly sold on it. Players are well motivated to buy this early to trash their Coppers/Estates, then at some point it starts being useful if they wind up with some Curses from not being able to play the card often enough to clear the way for their purchases. The only part that really bothers me is the "[w]hen any player shuffles their deck" trigger, which feels too variable and too vaguely defined.

Power Grid (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775499#msg775499) - Asper
There sure are a lot of cards caring about Provinces in this challenge. Power Grid is not my favorite game, but I think these card-shaped objects make good use of the concept in question, and tying the auction to an event that happens only rarely makes it less of a slog. It's a pity Dominion has no way of keeping track of people's scores, to give the underdogs a bit of an advantage in these auctions, but clockwise order is random enough I suppose. Really there's nothing to complain about here, a single concept well expressed without hitting any obvious traps.

Settlers of Catan (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775482#msg775482) - terminalCopper
Obviously these are all translations of development cards, but I still can't escape the feeling there are two separate concepts at play here: the Catanians/Handicaps, and everything else. And even the latter category is two concepts, powerful Reserve cards that may only be called once each and cards that are bought (and kept) face-down. As is, this post is trying too hard to incorporate everything about Settlers' development cards, but fleshing out some of the individual ideas might well be a fruitful endeavor.

Sheriff of Nottingham (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775325#msg775325) - Commodore Chuckles
Some of the wording here confuses me... "for each player you chose" suggests you can choose more than one player, but the preceding text does not. Can you choose the same player 46 times in a row to empty the Copper pile as part of ending the game? Even if not, this becomes a little too automatic the moment you hit a situation where gaining Copper is good for whatever reason. I wonder how many situations there are where being able to manually reveal another player's hand is beneficial... Gladiator, of course, maybe something else?  But those are all edge cases, and mostly I think this is a nice card. It's probably okay to have one or two, which you'll want considering how strong the on-play effect is, but if you try to rely on this card then your opponent/s will cut you down.

Star Realms (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775403#msg775403) - Chappy7
I'm not totally sold on Reconstruct, whose range of options (most of them unrelated to the top half) confuses me, but Trebuchet looks like a good, straightforward combination of Militia and Farmers' Market. Maybe a little too slow, though indeed 3+ player games would interact with that.

Stratego (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775243#msg775243) - terminalCopper
Even putting aside the issue that these should really be Action - Attack - Traveller, these cards just don't look very useful to me. You can't really assume the kingdom will have a lot of other traveller chains in it, and if not, these cards just don't strike me as powerful enough for me to want to buy some of my own to (occasionally) manage to make you discard yours.

Takenoko (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775295#msg775295) - Kudasai
I mentioned earlier that I'm learning I'm not too enthused by Artifacts, but the same cannot be said for Empires-style cards, and this is very Empires, even if the tokens in question are coins instead of VPs. Panda might be too expensive at $4, but I could definitely be convinced otherwise... otherwise, everything here looks like it'd be a lot of fun to play with. Extra points for Gardener providing a reason to put tokens on a supply pile that nobody (otherwise) wants to buy cards from.

Temporum (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775343#msg775343) - crlundy
Another from the Empires school of design, this is an easy enough Event to understand, but I'm not immediately convinced it would be the most fun thing to play with. This might be incentivizing specialization a little too much, and the player interaction could get nasty.

Terraforming Mars (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775805#msg775805) - Violet CLM
Issues with this one have been pointed out in another reply. A bonus for early Provinces is not a bad idea--see Tournament--but making the rest of the game less interesting is probably not the way to accomplish that.

Tichu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775826#msg775826) - singletee
Like the Carcassonne and Netrunner entries, this is a series of separate supply piles, none of which are guaranteed to show up in the same kingdoms as one another. So that's a bit dubious. These are generally fine cards of varying memorability (though Loyal Companion looks weak to me on first blush), but I can't escape the feeling they're a little too narrowly focused on specific cards from within Tichu without much acknowledgment of the role they play in Tichu's broader rules. For sure some of the entries have flown a bit too close to the sun in trying to incorporate into Dominion rules from other games entirely, but these are too close to the ground.

Ticket to Ride (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775300#msg775300) - Fly-Eagles-Fly
First, a suggestion: using letters instead of numbers to specify each supply pile should avoid potential confusion with costs or the implication that the piles are being ordered. I don't see where the 19 number comes from... normally there should be 15 (ten + silver + gold + estate + duchy + province), and the odd cases with more piles (bane, colony/platinum) are probably not worth making a fuss over. Better to have no tickets reward you for buying Platinums than to have to begin each game by sorting out all the tickets that include numbers >= 16. Hopefully even after that there wouldn't be the full 15 choose 2 (=105) tickets, randomizing the number to supply pile assignment should mean having some gaps is harmless. Anyway, putting aside the issue you bring up of how to ensure players are able to gain two cards in a turn, I worry this might give people too many points without much to limit them besides running out of three piles. Why should I buy a Province when I could get 6VP buying a Village and a Woodcutter instead?

Tzolk'in (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775805#msg775805) - Violet CLM
Probably functional, but it manages to lose a lot of the point of Tzolk'in in the implementation. Tzolk'in is all about looking several turns into the future to set up effects; here you can try to do that, but you're still at the mercy of Dominion's deck shuffling and random card drawing. You can't even adjust the cost of the card you get from this the same turn you gain that card, so if you've spent the last many turns aiming for a Prince, and suddenly you draw a hand of all green and yellow, well, too bad.

---

Judging Dominion cards is an inherently subjective endeavor, all the more so when the standards for judgment were not well established. Some entries were too close to ordinary cards with no influence from other games--other entries were too close to their original games with only a token attempt to be Dominion cards. But I couldn't give you an objective way of measuring that, nor a promise that I was entirely consistent in my reactions to any given point on that scale. Some other entries were also unfairly negatively affected by relying on very precise numbers for their prices or effects, which playtesting could reveal to be exactly right or too high or too low, but which my intuitions were insufficient to fully gauge. Obviously, despite my concerns about this or that point on this or that card, I was really excited to read all these entries and I would enjoy trying out many of them. Still, I have to pick out two that best captured that delicate, poorly-defined balance between being good Dominion objects but also good references...

Runner up: Takenoko (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775295#msg775295) - Kudasai
Winner: Power Grid (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg775499#msg775499) - Asper

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 08, 2018, 02:26:17 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 04:23:05 pm

Old:

Quote

Missile (Pays homage to Battleship)

https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Missile&description=%2B1%20Action%0AYou%20and%20the%20player%20to%20your%20left%20each%20write%20down%20a%20whole%20number%20between%201%20and%204%20on%20a%20piece%20of%20paper.%20Unfold%20the%20pieces%20of%20paper.%20If%20the%20numbers%20were%20the%20same%2C%20%2B%20%24%20equal%20to%20the%20number.&type=Action&credit=Google%20Images&price=%243&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0

Quote

+1 Action
You and the player to your left each write down a whole number between 1 and 4 on a piece of paper. Unfold the pieces of paper. If the numbers were the same, + $ equal to the number.

Why would the player to your left even write another number than 1?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 08, 2018, 07:44:00 am

Oh wow! Thank you :)
I certainly didn't expect to win this one, given how many cool ideas there were this time. I guess with a bidding mechanic, I kind of cheated on the balance front  ;D

I am going to post my challenge later today, when I thought of something worthy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 08, 2018, 08:08:41 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 08, 2018, 02:26:17 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 04:23:05 pm

Old:

Quote

Missile (Pays homage to Battleship)

https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Missile&description=%2B1%20Action%0AYou%20and%20the%20player%20to%20your%20left%20each%20write%20down%20a%20whole%20number%20between%201%20and%204%20on%20a%20piece%20of%20paper.%20Unfold%20the%20pieces%20of%20paper.%20If%20the%20numbers%20were%20the%20same%2C%20%2B%20%24%20equal%20to%20the%20number.&type=Action&credit=Google%20Images&price=%243&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0

Quote

+1 Action
You and the player to your left each write down a whole number between 1 and 4 on a piece of paper. Unfold the pieces of paper. If the numbers were the same, + $ equal to the number.

Why would the player to your left even write another number than 1?

It is not that simple. I know too little about game theory to give a good answer but I guess that the best strategy is to randomize your number with higher probabilities for lower numbers and lower probabilities for higher numbers. Always choosing 1 is definitely not best as this is then a save $1 for the opponent.

That said, the card is obviously far too weak.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 08, 2018, 08:15:02 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 08, 2018, 02:26:17 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 04:23:05 pm

Old:

Quote

Missile (Pays homage to Battleship)

https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Missile&description=%2B1%20Action%0AYou%20and%20the%20player%20to%20your%20left%20each%20write%20down%20a%20whole%20number%20between%201%20and%204%20on%20a%20piece%20of%20paper.%20Unfold%20the%20pieces%20of%20paper.%20If%20the%20numbers%20were%20the%20same%2C%20%2B%20%24%20equal%20to%20the%20number.&type=Action&credit=Google%20Images&price=%243&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0

Quote

+1 Action
You and the player to your left each write down a whole number between 1 and 4 on a piece of paper. Unfold the pieces of paper. If the numbers were the same, + $ equal to the number.

Why would the player to your left even write another number than 1?

Because you know that they would write 1, and you write 1, then you get + $1, so the player to your left writes a different number so you get $0.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 08, 2018, 11:15:30 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 08, 2018, 08:08:41 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 08, 2018, 02:26:17 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 04, 2018, 04:23:05 pm

Old:

Quote

Missile (Pays homage to Battleship)

https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Missile&description=%2B1%20Action%0AYou%20and%20the%20player%20to%20your%20left%20each%20write%20down%20a%20whole%20number%20between%201%20and%204%20on%20a%20piece%20of%20paper.%20Unfold%20the%20pieces%20of%20paper.%20If%20the%20numbers%20were%20the%20same%2C%20%2B%20%24%20equal%20to%20the%20number.&type=Action&credit=Google%20Images&price=%243&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0

Quote

+1 Action
You and the player to your left each write down a whole number between 1 and 4 on a piece of paper. Unfold the pieces of paper. If the numbers were the same, + $ equal to the number.

Why would the player to your left even write another number than 1?

It is not that simple. I know too little about game theory to give a good answer but I guess that the best strategy is to randomize your number with higher probabilities for lower numbers and lower probabilities for higher numbers. Always choosing 1 is definitely not best as this is then a save $1 for the opponent.

That said, the card is obviously far too weak.

That‘s true. The best strategy is to write down

1$ in 12/25 cases,
2$ in 6/25 cases,
3$ in 4/25 cases,
4$ in 3/25 cases.

Even with full information about this strategy, your opponent will have an expected outcome of exactly 12/25, no matter what he does.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 08, 2018, 12:33:01 pm

I am a minimaxer. When I always say $1, Missile is at most a Copper. The worst case ist always $1. For every other number the worst case would be higher. Letting my opponent with an overpriced Copper is much better, even in long terms than giving him a potential +$4. Even with 5 Missiles in his hand, he can never buy a Province or a Gold, if I limit his maximum gain to $1 per Missile. If I would randomly pick numbers from 1 to 4, there is the propability to even let him gain a Colony. In Dominion, the average money is not as important as the maximum money. A $6 and a $2 hand are much better than two $4 hands, for example. A deck with only 2 Golds and 1 trillion Coppers (average hand: $5) can buy a Provice, while a deck with two Silvers and 3 Coppers (average hand: $7) cannot.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 08, 2018, 01:51:03 pm

So, new challenge:

Make an Action-Attack card.
Tertiary types are allowed.
Reusing official components like tokens is allowed.
Strictly one card, so no split piles or Traveller lines.
Please make a new card, don't reuse your older ideas (as good as they may be).
A fitting name would be great.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on November 08, 2018, 02:29:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/JBndjvg.png)

I wanted it to be a $5 cost Throne+ but I think the attack is strong enough that it needs to cost $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on November 08, 2018, 02:36:12 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OC4tPOL.png)

It's like a Library because it's a book and it's an evil cursed book so it curses people and you need to read 4 pages to learn how to curse people. Because it's an attack that makes 5 types always available (action, treasure, victory, curse and attack).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 08, 2018, 04:18:32 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 08, 2018, 12:33:01 pm

I am a minimaxer. When I always say $1, Missile is at most a Copper. The worst case ist always $1. For every other number the worst case would be higher. Letting my opponent with an overpriced Copper is much better, even in long terms than giving him a potential +$4. Even with 5 Missiles in his hand, he can never buy a Province or a Gold, if I limit his maximum gain to $1 per Missile. If I would randomly pick numbers from 1 to 4, there is the propability to even let him gain a Colony. In Dominion, the average money is not as important as the maximum money. A $6 and a $2 hand are much better than two $4 hands, for example. A deck with only 2 Golds and 1 trillion Coppers (average hand: $5) can buy a Provice, while a deck with two Silvers and 3 Coppers (average hand: $7) cannot.

TerminalCopper pointed out that the dominant strategy leads to less than +0.5$.
Your considerations about a more uneven Coin production being superior than a constant Coin production are dubious. But even if they were right, not wanting to help your opponent to spike can hardly be as important as reducing his average Coin production to less than the half of what your strategy would lead to.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on November 08, 2018, 04:23:25 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EbJcK2g.png)

Here's my revised entry, an Action-Attack-Duration!  Stowaway is sort of a mashup of Gear and Ambassador: you save cards from this hand for next hand, and give a copy of one of them to your opponents.  Early game, this will neatly keep Estates and extra Coppers out of your shuffles while junking the other players, though being a duration means it only works every other turn.  In the mid and late game, a pair of these can function as handy utility cards to keep your shuffles clean, as well as set up big turns, just be sure to keep some junk around to hand out copies of (or perhaps a Province when you're ready to end the game).

*Revised to change to an Action type instead of Night, so to fit within the parameters of this week's contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 08, 2018, 04:28:20 pm

Quote from: 4est on November 08, 2018, 04:23:25 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/CR5T0fQ.png)

Here's my entry, a Night-Attack-Duration!  Stowaway is sort of a mashup of Gear and Ambassador: you save your leftover cards from this hand for next hand, and give a copy of one of them to your opponents.  Early game, this will neatly keep Estates and extra Coppers out of your shuffles while junking the other players, though being a duration means it only works every other turn, and the junking is also delayed.  As a Night card, you can also use this to save actions that you drew dead.  In the mid and late game, a pair of these can function as handy utility cards to keep your shuffles clean, as well as set up big turns, just be sure to keep some junk around to hand out copies of (or perhaps a Province when you're ready to end the game).

Cool card, but the contest is for an Action-Attack card. Or maybe he just meant any attack card. I really like the card idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on November 08, 2018, 04:36:45 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 08, 2018, 04:28:20 pm

Cool card, but the contest is for an Action-Attack card. Or maybe he just meant any attack card. I really like the card idea.

Oh whoops, I missed that--this actually started as an Action, but then I thought it would work well as a Night card and forgot that the parameters specified Action-Attack.  I may revise it back to being an Action later. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 08, 2018, 06:06:08 pm

Yes, I meant to make it Action-Attack. Mostly because I wanted the attack effect itself to be new/exiting and feared that Treasures or Night cards would shift the focus to the pecularities of these types. Similar reason for disallowing Travellers and such.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 08, 2018, 06:24:54 pm

(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/0rwmntlXjNSv.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 08, 2018, 06:35:18 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 08, 2018, 06:24:54 pm

(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/0rwmntlXjNSv.png)

Neat, nice and thematic. Anyway, here's my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/N3XImS7.jpg?1)
Alright, I changed my entry now. It's a reverse Druid, each other player has the choice between three hexes. I hope it's not too weak. I played around with different vanilla bonuses and this one seemed the best.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 08, 2018, 06:50:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/vbuAQjI.jpg)

Edit: New wording based on Faust's Suggestion. It no longer has the "while this is in play" thing which apparently is a guaranteed loss in this contest. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 08, 2018, 06:52:28 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 08, 2018, 06:24:54 pm

(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/0rwmntlXjNSv.png)

Just comparing this to Ghost Ship, the drawing is better, and the attack honestly seems better too.  Junking plus topdecking, even if it's weak topdecking, is brutal.  And it stacks. So if this is going to be a card I think it has to cost at least $5.  Maybe $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on November 08, 2018, 07:40:24 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 08, 2018, 06:52:28 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 08, 2018, 06:24:54 pm

(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/0rwmntlXjNSv.png)

Just comparing this to Ghost Ship, the drawing is better, and the attack honestly seems better too.  Junking plus topdecking, even if it's weak topdecking, is brutal.  And it stacks. So if this is going to be a card I think it has to cost at least $5.  Maybe $6.

Agreed, it also seems like an absolute nightmare if you chain them too since it doesn't have a Sea Hag type discard thing. With it being a decent draw card it doesn't seem hard to chain either...

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 08, 2018, 06:35:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/qTHSK1v.jpg?1)
It's a Miscreant knight, the attack is similar to Knights but different, can't tell if it's stronger or weaker. Then if no one trashed an expensive card, you get an extra card.

I'm not sure having a trashing attack that's also draw is great for similar reasons, it seems really easy to set a deck that can play 3-4 of these per turn and decimate the other players decks. It doesn't even have any safety valve like all the other trashing attacks (Knights dying, Giant being slow and such). And it also attacks peoples hands too!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 08, 2018, 07:47:15 pm

Quote from: hypercube on November 08, 2018, 02:29:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yrK9nSS.png)

I wanted it to be a $5 cost Throne+ but I think the attack is strong enough that it needs to cost $6.

Oh man, this was the very first submission, and I'm not sure I can beat it. This card is so cool...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 08, 2018, 10:27:29 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on November 08, 2018, 07:47:15 pm

Quote from: hypercube on November 08, 2018, 02:29:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yrK9nSS.png)

I wanted it to be a $5 cost Throne+ but I think the attack is strong enough that it needs to cost $6.

Oh man, this was the very first submission, and I'm not sure I can beat it. This card is so cool...

True. I saw it and was like, Man can I just have a chance one week?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 08, 2018, 10:29:31 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on November 08, 2018, 07:40:24 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 08, 2018, 06:35:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/qTHSK1v.jpg?1)
It's a Miscreant knight, the attack is similar to Knights but different, can't tell if it's stronger or weaker. Then if no one trashed an expensive card, you get an extra card.

I'm not sure having a trashing attack that's also draw is great for similar reasons, it seems really easy to set a deck that can play 3-4 of these per turn and decimate the other players decks. It doesn't even have any safety valve like all the other trashing attacks (Knights dying, Giant being slow and such). And it also attacks peoples hands too!

Yeah, I'll change it a bit before the end of the contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 09, 2018, 01:54:19 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 08, 2018, 06:50:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yJDQYeh.jpg)

I don't think a "while in play" effect works with attack typing and reactions like Moat. Also it would need a dividing line like this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 02:04:13 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 01:54:19 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 08, 2018, 06:50:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yJDQYeh.jpg)

I don't think a "while in play" effect works with attack typing and reactions like Moat. Also it would need a dividing line like this.

I was going for a Swamp Hag kind of thing.  I guess I should have taken some wording from there.

How is, "Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, it produces 1 fewer $."
How would I word this to make it not stackable?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 09, 2018, 02:38:27 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 02:04:13 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 01:54:19 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 08, 2018, 06:50:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yJDQYeh.jpg)

I don't think a "while in play" effect works with attack typing and reactions like Moat. Also it would need a dividing line like this.

I was going for a Swamp Hag kind of thing.  I guess I should have taken some wording from there.

How is, "Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, it produces 1 fewer $."
How would I word this to make it not stackable?

"Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, they take their -1$ token".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 09, 2018, 03:01:54 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 02:04:13 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 01:54:19 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 08, 2018, 06:50:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yJDQYeh.jpg)

I don't think a "while in play" effect works with attack typing and reactions like Moat. Also it would need a dividing line like this.

I was going for a Swamp Hag kind of thing.  I guess I should have taken some wording from there.

How is, "Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, it produces 1 fewer $."
How would I word this to make it not stackable?

The new wording leads to stacking so I'd stick with the "while this is in play" wording which is the classical anti-Throne wording from cards like Highway and thus totally fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 09, 2018, 03:11:30 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 09, 2018, 03:01:54 am

The new wording leads to stacking so I'd stick with the "while this is in play" wording which is the classical anti-Throne wording from cards like Highway and thus totally fine.

It's not though. There is a reason that Swamp Hag etc. don't say "while this is in play", because it is unclear whether such effects would be blockable with Moat etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 09, 2018, 03:16:43 am

That's wrong. Moat and Lighthouse say "when another player plays an Attack card", i.e. they care only about the moment the Attack is played and not about what the card actually says.
You could e.g. have a Duration Attack that says "in 5 turns, all players get 5 Curses" and while it would be a mess to track Moat would only be able to defend against it if it were revealed at the very moment the Attack card is played.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 09, 2018, 04:06:32 am

Asper, would you except a faux-Attack card like this?

(https://i.imgur.com/Mr3MOLd.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 09, 2018, 05:49:23 am

Quote from: Kudasai on November 09, 2018, 04:06:32 am

Asper, would you except a faux-Attack card like this?

No. I love the little detail of the skulls at the top, though.

I also won't accept cards that harm other players without having the attack type (no IGG, Noble Brigand is fine) nor cards that have the Attack type without needing it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 09, 2018, 07:28:11 am

(https://i.imgur.com/aUHBlnZ.jpg)

Quote

Curfew
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Move your +1 Action token to an Action Supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you first get +1 Action.) Each other player removes their +1 Action token from the Supply.

Institute a Curfew to get the efficiency you want out of the right people, while everyone else grumbles about it.

I was always disappointed that there aren't any cards that make the Adventures tokens move about.  Early plays of Curfew as you try to build your engine can act as a major thorn in other players' attempts to use that token as you keep pushing it away.  Later, multiple Curfews could be used to pass the +Action token around and keep yourself flowing through multiple types of otherwise terminal actions.

EDIT: Correction to match reminder text in quote. Additional theme\history\strategy discussion added.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on November 09, 2018, 08:56:29 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 09, 2018, 03:16:43 am

That's wrong. Moat and Lighthouse say "when another player plays an Attack card", i.e. they care only about the moment the Attack is played and not about what the card actually says.
You could e.g. have a Duration Attack that says "in 5 turns, all players get 5 Curses" and while it would be a mess to track Moat would only be able to defend against it if it were revealed at the very moment the Attack card is played.

But when something appears below a line on a Dominion card, it doesn't happen when the card is played. It's just saying that e.g. a general rule of Dominion is that while a Highway is in play, cards cost $1 less. My gut says if you revealed a Moat when a "while in play" attack is played (assuming the "while in play" is below a line), the "attack" would not be blocked, because you're blocking the effects of the card itself, not the rules of Dominion.

Regardless of whether that interpretation is correct, the more important point is that it's very unclear what would happen in that case, so probably best to avoid that situation altogether.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on November 09, 2018, 08:59:08 am

It was bothering me a little bit that Julius Caesar wasn't a king so I changed the art on Regicide to depict the death of Henri IV instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on November 09, 2018, 09:38:38 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 01:54:19 am

I don't think a "while in play" effect works with attack typing and reactions like Moat. Also it would need a dividing line like this.

Challenge accepted.

(https://i.imgur.com/MOvNIiq.jpg)

Quote

Drunkard
Types: Action - Attack - Duration
Cost: $4
+2 Coffers
The player to your left takes this into their play area.
-
During clean-up, you may pay $3 to discard this. If you do not, it stays in play.
If you have any Drunkards in play at the end of cleanup, you draw one less card.

Clarification: Taking the card does not count as gaining it.

The thing I like best about this is that if your opponent plays a moat, your Drunkard stays in play in front of you :-)

Reworded from "Put this in front of the player to your left" at Asper's suggestion

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 09, 2018, 09:56:19 am

I'm with scott_pilgrim here. Effects under a line are not triggered on play (they don't even count as "instructions", see Enchantress), and therefore it's highly dubitable they warrent the Attack type.

A card without an actual "on play" attack portion has a 0% chance of winning this round.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on November 09, 2018, 10:30:14 am

(https://i.imgur.com/EbJcK2g.png)

Here is a revised version of Stowaway (also updated in my original post (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg776583#msg776583)).

My initial submission of Stowaway was a Night-Attack-Duration card which was outside Asper's parameters for this week's contest as Fly-Eagles-Fly helpfully pointed out.  The Action version is a bit weaker since it doesn't play as nicely with terminal draw as the Night version, so to make up for this, I've made the junking on-play instead of delayed to the duration turn.  This is also better for tracking purposes, reaction timing, etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on November 09, 2018, 10:39:56 am

Quote from: hypercube on November 09, 2018, 08:59:08 am

It was bothering me a little bit that Julius Caesar wasn't a king so I changed the art on Regicide to depict the death of Henri IV instead.

Now it's Caligula (can you tell I've been reading the Wikipedia article on regicides?).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #7: Action Attack
Post by: Aquila on November 09, 2018, 10:50:32 am

Quote

Enforcer - Action Attack, $5 cost.
+2 Cards
Each other player discards down to 2 cards in hand, then chooses either +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

A person enforcing and rewarding a small hand law.

An edit from this:
(https://i.imgur.com/0xjNiIb.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on November 09, 2018, 11:28:44 am

Quote from: Asper on November 09, 2018, 09:56:19 am

A card without an actual "on play" attack portion has a 0% chance of winning this round.

For the avoidance of doubt, do you count "Put this in front of the player to your left" as such an attack?  If not I'll remove Drunkard and reconsider.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:38:04 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 02:38:27 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 02:04:13 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 01:54:19 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 08, 2018, 06:50:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yJDQYeh.jpg)

I don't think a "while in play" effect works with attack typing and reactions like Moat. Also it would need a dividing line like this.

I was going for a Swamp Hag kind of thing.  I guess I should have taken some wording from there.

How is, "Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, it produces 1 fewer $."
How would I word this to make it not stackable?

"Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, they take their -1$ token".

This is great, but the attack is significantly different than what I hoped when worded like this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 09, 2018, 11:46:07 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:38:04 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 02:38:27 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 02:04:13 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 01:54:19 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 08, 2018, 06:50:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yJDQYeh.jpg)

I don't think a "while in play" effect works with attack typing and reactions like Moat. Also it would need a dividing line like this.

I was going for a Swamp Hag kind of thing.  I guess I should have taken some wording from there.

How is, "Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, it produces 1 fewer $."
How would I word this to make it not stackable?

"Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, they take their -1$ token".

This is great, but the attack is significantly different than what I hoped when worded like this.

I don't really see how it would play differently from your original suggestion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:48:14 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 11:46:07 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:38:04 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 02:38:27 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 02:04:13 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 01:54:19 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 08, 2018, 06:50:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yJDQYeh.jpg)

I don't think a "while in play" effect works with attack typing and reactions like Moat. Also it would need a dividing line like this.

I was going for a Swamp Hag kind of thing.  I guess I should have taken some wording from there.

How is, "Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, it produces 1 fewer $."
How would I word this to make it not stackable?

"Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, they take their -1$ token".

This is great, but the attack is significantly different than what I hoped when worded like this.

I don't really see how it would play differently from your original suggestion.

Actually I was thinking about it wrong.  This would be the same.  I was thinking that the -1 token would be once per turn, but now I see that if you played 5 peddlers in a row you'd just be getting it and returning it over and over.  Thanks for the suggestion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 09, 2018, 11:49:30 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:38:04 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 02:38:27 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 02:04:13 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 01:54:19 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 08, 2018, 06:50:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yJDQYeh.jpg)

I don't think a "while in play" effect works with attack typing and reactions like Moat. Also it would need a dividing line like this.

I was going for a Swamp Hag kind of thing.  I guess I should have taken some wording from there.

How is, "Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, it produces 1 fewer $."
How would I word this to make it not stackable?

"Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, they take their -1$ token".

This is great, but the attack is significantly different than what I hoped when worded like this.

If you say "Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, they first take their -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}1$ token", then it would act exactly like your original card intended; except if combined with other attacks that give the -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} token.

However, it really seems like you can get the same basic thing with a lot less complexity with simply:

Action-Attack
+2 Coffers
Each other player takes their -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} token.

If you want non-stackable coin penalty, the -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} token is the way to do it. And if this was only a duration so that it hurts your opponents while it is in play, as opposed to because it helps you next turn, then there's no reason for it to be a Duration if you are using the -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} token.

*Edit* Oh dang, missed that you want it to be stackable in terms of each time your opponent plays a card... so my idea is quite different and weaker.

But I think making it hit all cards could be way too strong. Even just playing one per turn completely destroys a lot of decks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:50:51 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:48:14 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 11:46:07 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:38:04 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 02:38:27 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 02:04:13 am

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 01:54:19 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 08, 2018, 06:50:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yJDQYeh.jpg)

I don't think a "while in play" effect works with attack typing and reactions like Moat. Also it would need a dividing line like this.

I was going for a Swamp Hag kind of thing.  I guess I should have taken some wording from there.

How is, "Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, it produces 1 fewer $."
How would I word this to make it not stackable?

"Until your next turn, when an opponent plays an action card that produces $, they take their -1$ token".

This is great, but the attack is significantly different than what I hoped when worded like this.

I don't really see how it would play differently from your original suggestion.

Actually I was thinking about it wrong.  This would be the same.  I was thinking that the -1 token would be once per turn, but now I see that if you played 5 peddlers in a row you'd just be getting it and returning it over and over.  Thanks for the suggestion.

Although it still technically could be different with a few things.  Capitalism being the first that comes to mind.  With the original, something like peddler or market wouldn't count as a treasure when Tax Collector is in play with the original wording.  But the cases where there are differences should be pretty few.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 09, 2018, 11:53:48 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:50:51 am

Although it still technically could be different with a few things.  Capitalism being the first that comes to mind.  With the original, something like peddler or market wouldn't count as a treasure when Tax Collector is in play with the original wording.  But the cases where there are differences should be pretty few.

This is wrong. Capitalism doesn't care if a card actually produces any money. It cares if it has +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} in the text. Peddler would still be a Treasure because it still has that in the text. Doesn't matter that it produces +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:54:34 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 09, 2018, 11:53:48 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:50:51 am

Although it still technically could be different with a few things.  Capitalism being the first that comes to mind.  With the original, something like peddler or market wouldn't count as a treasure when Tax Collector is in play with the original wording.  But the cases where there are differences should be pretty few.

This is wrong. Capitalism doesn't care if a card actually produces any money. It cares if it has +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} in the text. Peddler would still be a Treasure because it still has that in the text. Doesn't matter that it produces +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}.

Lol I can't figure out Capitalism

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 09, 2018, 11:56:28 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:54:34 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 09, 2018, 11:53:48 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:50:51 am

Although it still technically could be different with a few things.  Capitalism being the first that comes to mind.  With the original, something like peddler or market wouldn't count as a treasure when Tax Collector is in play with the original wording.  But the cases where there are differences should be pretty few.

This is wrong. Capitalism doesn't care if a card actually produces any money. It cares if it has +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} in the text. Peddler would still be a Treasure because it still has that in the text. Doesn't matter that it produces +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}.

Lol I can't figure out Capitalism

Simply put, Capitalism affects any card whose text has a "+" immediately followed by a "_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}" whether that _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} has a number inside of it or not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:59:42 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 09, 2018, 11:56:28 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:54:34 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 09, 2018, 11:53:48 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 11:50:51 am

Although it still technically could be different with a few things.  Capitalism being the first that comes to mind.  With the original, something like peddler or market wouldn't count as a treasure when Tax Collector is in play with the original wording.  But the cases where there are differences should be pretty few.

This is wrong. Capitalism doesn't care if a card actually produces any money. It cares if it has +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} in the text. Peddler would still be a Treasure because it still has that in the text. Doesn't matter that it produces +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}.

Lol I can't figure out Capitalism

Simply put, Capitalism affects any card whose text has a "+" immediately followed by a "_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}" whether that _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} has a number inside of it or not.

I gotta get some more Capitalism games under my belt for sure. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 12:04:33 pm

My post is now edited with the new - $1 token wording

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 09, 2018, 12:04:50 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YeEydsL.jpg)

EDIT: Some changes to reduce craziness and tracking issues.

EDIT 2: Restricted to players with 5-card hands.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silvern on November 09, 2018, 12:15:29 pm

Thought of this one a few weeks ago, finally made it into card form today...hopefully, it still counts!
(....even if it doesn't count for the contest, per se, I'd still like feedback!)
(https://i.imgur.com/SVZIUaom.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 09, 2018, 12:30:42 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 09, 2018, 12:04:33 pm

My post is now edited with the new - $1 token wording

I don't think it's clear if they take the token before or after resolving the card. Under the normal rules of "when", it would be after, but people won't know that necessarily. If you want it to be before (which would match your original wording), then you can put "first" to make it work similar to things like Moat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on November 09, 2018, 12:32:36 pm

Two card ideas:

Heretic
$4
+1 Card
+1 Villager
If you have 4 or more villagers, each opponent gains a curse.

Road Block
$3
+1 Action
+1 Card
Set aside a card from your hand face up.
At the start of your next turn, put it into your hand.
When another player gains a copy of the set-aside card, that player takes 2 debts.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 09, 2018, 12:38:32 pm

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 12:04:50 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rGBNJPY.jpg)

EDIT: Some changes to reduce craziness and tracking issues.

I don't understand why this should be an Attack card. Sure, some cards like Harvest or Abandoned Mine are gone, but other cards like Smithy or Jack of All Trades even like this card

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 09, 2018, 04:02:58 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on November 09, 2018, 04:06:32 am

Asper, would you except a faux-Attack card like this?

(https://i.imgur.com/Mr3MOLd.jpg)

DXV had something similar during Adventure playtesting, an Event that attacks you if you did not buy it (here the trigger is different).
I think that's a cool idea to explore but the concrete card is dubious as gaining it makes it more likely that you are hit. Sure, any engine play does but you can easily imagine player just resorting to money to evade getting cursed in Kingdoms without trashers (and in Kingdoms in which engine play is nonetheless good this is just a Peddler).
So perhaps buying the card should make it easier to defend yourself against the auto-Attack such that the pile will actually empty?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on November 09, 2018, 04:05:16 pm

Quote

Extortionist
Action - Attack $5
+$3
Each other player may discard a treasure card. If they don't, they gain a curse

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 09, 2018, 04:46:18 pm

CHALLENGE #7 - ACTION-ATTACK CARD

(https://i.imgur.com/wpF0OK1.jpg)

The wording for how to interact with the Coffers/Villagers mat is likely incorrect, but as I do not yet have a physical copy of the game and the online manual does not cover this very well, it will have to be as is for now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 09, 2018, 04:49:55 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on November 09, 2018, 04:05:16 pm

Quote

Extortionist
Action - Attack $5
+$3
Each other player may discard a treasure card. If they don't, they gain a curse

I like this. Cutpurse that can target other Treasures is neato!

Quote from: Kudasai on November 09, 2018, 04:46:18 pm

CHALLENGE #7 - ACTION - ATTACK CARD

Attack cards are not my strong suite, but perhaps there's room for a Coffers Attack card.

(https://i.imgur.com/91tZOQS.jpg)

I think this would be more interesting if it yielded Coffers such that the card becomes an Attack that potentially defends against itself. I think 4est had an idea along these lines some time ago.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 10, 2018, 02:34:02 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 09, 2018, 12:38:32 pm

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 12:04:50 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rGBNJPY.jpg)

EDIT: Some changes to reduce craziness and tracking issues.

I don't understand why this should be an Attack card. Sure, some cards like Harvest or Abandoned Mine are gone, but other cards like Smithy or Jack of All Trades even like this card

Well, Fortress likes Knights and they are still an attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 10, 2018, 02:41:09 am

Quote from: silvern on November 09, 2018, 12:15:29 pm

Thought of this one a few weeks ago, finally made it into card form today...hopefully, it still counts!
(....even if it doesn't count for the contest, per se, I'd still like feedback!)
(https://i.imgur.com/SVZIUaom.png)

This is somewhat iffy with Duration rules. By the rules, you should discard this on the last turn it does something. But with the current wording, the last turn it does something is actually the turn of your last opponent, so by the rules, you would have to dscard it during your opponent's turn, which is just weird. I believe this is this reason why other Duration-Attacks always still do something at the start of your next turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 10, 2018, 03:39:15 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 09, 2018, 04:49:55 pm

I think this would be more interesting if it yielded Coffers such that the card becomes an Attack that potentially defends against itself. I think 4est had an idea along these lines some time ago.

Just a quick remark, I've changed the Attack to care about Coffers or Villagers and now the setup gives +3 Villagers instead of +3 Coffers.

As for you comment, that'd be a fun concept to tinker with. I tend to shy away from Attacks that counter themselves. I guess I've had it ingrained in my head that this type of scenario just leads to a card that doesn't get purchased. But maybe it can work if that blocking mechanism also gives benefits (i.e. Coffers or Villagers tokens). For this though competition I'm going to keep it the way it is. I like the idea of players anguishing over whether to use their small pile of 3 Villagers to keep their turn going or use them to block Curses.

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 09, 2018, 04:02:58 pm

DXV had something similar during Adventure playtesting, an Event that attacks you if you did not buy it (here the trigger is different).
I think that's a cool idea to explore but the concrete card is dubious as gaining it makes it more likely that you are hit. Sure, any engine play does but you can easily imagine player just resorting to money to evade getting cursed in Kingdoms without trashers (and in Kingdoms in which engine play is nonetheless good this is just a Peddler).
So perhaps buying the card should make it easier to defend yourself against the auto-Attack such that the pile will actually empty?

Yeah, this was all thrown together very hastily. I was really just posting to see if it was worth pursuing further for this competition. The card most definitely will need some attention. The premise for Centaur is that you're getting a Peddler for a good deal at cost $4.0 given it's about a cost $4.5, but that comes at the cost of increasing your chances of triggering the Attack. But the difference between $4.0 and $4.5 probably isn't worth any amount of Curses. Maybe Ruins would be a better fit? Also, I'd probably change it to 5 cards in play to hit Big Money strategies harder.

I hope to make other Monster cards with various Attacks. Stronger Attacks seem like a natural fit for Split Piles, having a non-Monster on top so the Attack is delayed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 10, 2018, 09:25:41 am

(https://i.imgur.com/6uvly2t.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 10, 2018, 10:11:29 am

About Drunkard, it generally counts as an Attack to make opponents take something bad (e.g. "Miserable" or their "-1 Card" Token). Taking that bad thing is what Moat keeps from happening.

Drunkard however is not taken, it is given. I find it unclear how Moat should interact with this, as the hit player technically isn't told to do anything.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on November 10, 2018, 11:52:12 am

Quote from: Asper on November 10, 2018, 10:11:29 am

About Drunkard, it generally counts as an Attack to make opponents take something bad (e.g. "Miserable" or their "-1 Card" Token). Taking that bad thing is what Moat keeps from happening.

Drunkard however is not taken, it is given. I find it unclear how Moat should interact with this, as the hit player technically isn't told to do anything.

OK - kind of like how Masquerade isn't an Attack, then?

I've reworded Drunkard to be "The player to your left takes this card into their play area", does that work for you?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 10, 2018, 04:55:07 pm

Quote from: faust on November 10, 2018, 02:34:02 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 09, 2018, 12:38:32 pm

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 12:04:50 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rGBNJPY.jpg)

EDIT: Some changes to reduce craziness and tracking issues.

I don't understand why this should be an Attack card. Sure, some cards like Harvest or Abandoned Mine are gone, but other cards like Smithy or Jack of All Trades even like this card

Well, Fortress likes Knights and they are still an attack.

I really don't see how Pretender is an attack. Each other player playing an Action card for free seems like a benefit for them, the opposite of an attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 10, 2018, 05:21:40 pm

The key thing to realize is that they get to play a card non-terminally whereas you don't. So in this respect Pretender is a gift.

But if the card they play is a village it sucks (you get a village, they get a cantrip) for them. Or more generally, all the vanilla stuff except for card draw is wasted. So being forced to play a Smithy seems like a gift.
Here we come to the last issue, handsize attacks. Suppose Alice has Village and Smithy in hand and Bob players Pretender. Alice doesn't want to play the Village as mere cantrip and she doesn't want to play the Smithy lest the Militia hits her afterwards. She wants to keep both Actions in hand but cannot due to Pretender's "Attack".

This is hard to judge but my hunch is that more often that not this is rather a gift than an Attack. The card, or more generally the copy-stuff-from-other-players idea behind it, is very interesting. But I wouldn't categorize it as Attack. Attacks nearly unambiguously always hurt. Sure, you might love Treasure Hunter being hit by Enchantress or love those incoming Curses to feed your Foragers but these are, just like the Knight-Fortess example that faust mentioned, exceptions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 10, 2018, 05:49:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Wxf0s0N.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 10, 2018, 06:28:33 pm

Quote from: hypercube on November 08, 2018, 02:29:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/JBndjvg.png)

I wanted it to be a $5 cost Throne+ but I think the attack is strong enough that it needs to cost $6.

This is one of the best cards I've seen - it really encourages players to use different strategies from each other.

It would probably be fine at $5 as It's easy enough to make the attack whiff

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on November 10, 2018, 07:08:22 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on November 10, 2018, 05:49:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Wxf0s0N.jpg)

I like this one, but I think it'd be fine at $5. The attack is weaker than knights' because the attacked player can choose from any card they have in play for the attack to hit, rather than the top two cards of their deck. Or if it's near the beginning of the game and they only have a couple cards costing more than $2, they can always choose not to play them that turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 10, 2018, 07:57:01 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on November 10, 2018, 07:08:22 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on November 10, 2018, 05:49:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Wxf0s0N.jpg)

I like this one, but I think it'd be fine at $5. The attack is weaker than knights' because the attacked player can choose from any card they have in play for the attack to hit, rather than the top two cards of their deck. Or if it's near the beginning of the game and they only have a couple cards costing more than $2, they can always choose not to play them that turn.

I've been weighing it up, but the main reason I opted for $6 is to give players a chance to get a few cards costing $3 to $6 in their deck before they start losing them to Demagogues. It's less likely to whiff than Knights, and the on play effect is a little better than Knights.

Another thing I could do is a non optional chancellor effect on play to limit the number of times it pops up in a shuffle.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 10, 2018, 08:23:20 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on November 10, 2018, 07:57:01 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on November 10, 2018, 07:08:22 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on November 10, 2018, 05:49:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Wxf0s0N.jpg)

I like this one, but I think it'd be fine at $5. The attack is weaker than knights' because the attacked player can choose from any card they have in play for the attack to hit, rather than the top two cards of their deck. Or if it's near the beginning of the game and they only have a couple cards costing more than $2, they can always choose not to play them that turn.

I've been weighing it up, but the main reason I opted for $6 is to give players a chance to get a few cards costing $3 to $6 in their deck before they start losing them to Demagogues. It's less likely to whiff than Knights, and the on play effect is a little better than Knights.

Another thing I could do is a non optional chancellor effect on play to limit the number of times it pops up in a shuffle.

I, for one, agree with it costing $6, particularly for the first reason you stated.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 11, 2018, 02:30:12 am

Quote from: hypercube on November 08, 2018, 02:29:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/JBndjvg.png)

I wanted it to be a $5 cost Throne+ but I think the attack is strong enough that it needs to cost $6.

I really like the concept of players having to weigh what card is best to throne versus what card to get rid of from your opponents hand. It's a relatively simple concept that offers immense strategy.

Unfortunately I do not think such a focused discard attack can be balanced in it's current state. Cards that favor diverse decks are great, but with only 10 Kingdom cards there will always be overlap and you can probably always find 2-3 common cards that when lost would cripple a players hand. I'm thinking mainly about Village cards, +Buy cards, and such. There is just too much chance of a player locking their opponents out of the game with something like this.

I think this is why there are no official cards like this. The closest card would be Raiders and a player has to put a lot of thought and work into their deck before it can function like Regicide.

I'm sure there's a way to salvage this great concept. Making it so only the first Regicide played attacks would go along way towards reigning this in. This would really make players think hard about which card is best to attack and which card is best to throne.

Anyways, thanks for sharing this and good luck!

[EDIT] I also noticed you've changed your image a few times for this. If you're still undecided on it, have a look at this one. I've had it for awhile, but haven't had a card that fits the theme. It's kind of like an undead Procession. Regicide and how your card plays seems like a great fit!

(https://i.imgur.com/GWCOGDo.png)
Artist Credit: Nick Gindraux

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #7: Action Attack
Post by: Kudasai on November 11, 2018, 04:38:16 am

Quote from: Aquila on November 09, 2018, 10:50:32 am

(https://i.imgur.com/0xjNiIb.jpg)

These purists are against technological progress, believing that only pure manpower should accomplish work.

Great looking card. Hard to tell how much the +1 Villagers eases such a nasty attack, but I think that paired with the +2 Cards on Purist itself provides a nice, soft defense. Draw cards that net +3 Cards or more will certainly be a better defense, but it's nice that Purist provides some draw for this purpose if no other draw is in the Kingdom.

Looks like a good contender!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 11, 2018, 05:05:55 am

Quote from: Gubump on November 10, 2018, 04:55:07 pm

Quote from: faust on November 10, 2018, 02:34:02 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 09, 2018, 12:38:32 pm

Quote from: faust on November 09, 2018, 12:04:50 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rGBNJPY.jpg)

EDIT: Some changes to reduce craziness and tracking issues.

I don't understand why this should be an Attack card. Sure, some cards like Harvest or Abandoned Mine are gone, but other cards like Smithy or Jack of All Trades even like this card

Well, Fortress likes Knights and they are still an attack.

I really don't see how Pretender is an attack. Each other player playing an Action card for free seems like a benefit for them, the opposite of an attack.

Buried in the expanded text of Caravan Guard it states that when you play a card during another persons turn, you get all of that cards benefits, but the only thing that generally carries over are the cards you drew. Specifically, Coin, Buys, and Actions do not carry over.

So this seems to be an Attack in that each other player has to choose a card to burn and the player who played the attack then gets to play one of those cards. As someone pointed out though, any terminal draw cards are a hard counter to this.

I think it's a really, really cool concept, but could probably be worded more clear and it very likely needs some kind of limiter on it. This would be my suggestion:

(https://i.imgur.com/Mc4DUzP.jpg)

Now the big difference here is the Attacked players can't play their cards for draw, which takes away some of the fun of the original. I think by discarding the cards it makes it more clear that the Attacked players mostly don't get the benefit of the played cards. Also, it's unclear when those played cards get discarded. During that players next Clean-up? There really aren't any rules for this.

You could also try adding some text that specifies things like Coin don't carry over, but that would get wordy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 11, 2018, 05:07:39 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 10, 2018, 05:21:40 pm

The key thing to realize is that they get to play a card non-terminally whereas you don't. So in this respect Pretender is a gift.

But if the card they play is a village it sucks (you get a village, they get a cantrip) for them. Or more generally, all the vanilla stuff except for card draw is wasted. So being forced to play a Smithy seems like a gift.
Here we come to the last issue, handsize attacks. Suppose Alice has Village and Smithy in hand and Bob players Pretender. Alice doesn't want to play the Village as mere cantrip and she doesn't want to play the Smithy lest the Militia hits her afterwards. She wants to keep both Actions in hand but cannot due to Pretender's "Attack".

This is hard to judge but my hunch is that more often that not this is rather a gift than an Attack. The card, or more generally the copy-stuff-from-other-players idea behind it, is very interesting. But I wouldn't categorize it as Attack. Attacks nearly unambiguously always hurt. Sure, you might love Treasure Hunter being hit by Enchantress or love those incoming Curses to feed your Foragers but these are, just like the Knight-Fortess example that faust mentioned, exceptions.

Yes, attacking another player is definitely not the central part of what the card does. I think it still should be attack type (the same way a hypothetical card that gives your opponents Silvers should be an attack) because there will be boards where it can be used to hurt other players. The main goal creating htis was to have a novel kind of attack that isn't just a variation on existing attacks. Another more attack-y idea didn't work out.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 11, 2018, 05:18:53 am

Quote from: Kudasai on November 11, 2018, 05:05:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/Mc4DUzP.jpg)

Now the big difference here is the Attacked players can't play their cards for draw, which takes away some of the fun of the original. I think by discarding the cards it makes it more clear that the Attacked players mostly don't get the benefit of the played cards. Also, it's unclear when those played cards get discarded. During that players next Clean-up? There really aren't any rules for this.

You could also try adding some text that specifies things like Coin don't carry over, but that would get wordy.

Thanks for the feedback! I think a problem with your suggestion is that now the first time it is played, Pretender will be significantly more powerful. Forcing people to discard an Attack is almost Pillage-level strong, so having it on a card that is not a one-shot seems quite problematic.

I think the fact that they don't get benefits that cannot be used out of turn should be clear from the existing ruling on Caravan Guard and tokens. When the cards are discarded is less clear, but the idea is to discard them during that player's next cleanup, which is the first time they really can do so since there are no cleanup phases before that.

It could be that playing mulitples of my version is too strong, but in that case I think I prefer just restricting the effect to players with 4 or more cards in hand rather than doing the discard thing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on November 11, 2018, 05:51:43 am

(https://s1.ax1x.com/2018/11/11/iqowGD.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on November 11, 2018, 08:00:53 am

Quote from: Kudasai on November 11, 2018, 02:30:12 am

Quote from: hypercube on November 08, 2018, 02:29:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/JBndjvg.png)

I wanted it to be a $5 cost Throne+ but I think the attack is strong enough that it needs to cost $6.

I really like the concept of players having to weigh what card is best to throne versus what card to get rid of from your opponents hand. It's a relatively simple concept that offers immense strategy.

Unfortunately I do not think such a focused discard attack can be balanced in it's current state. Cards that favor diverse decks are great, but with only 10 Kingdom cards there will always be overlap and you can probably always find 2-3 common cards that when lost would cripple a players hand. I'm thinking mainly about Village cards, +Buy cards, and such. There is just too much chance of a player locking their opponents out of the game with something like this.

I think this is why there are no official cards like this. The closest card would be Raiders and a player has to put a lot of thought and work into their deck before it can function like Regicide.

I'm sure there's a way to salvage this great concept. Making it so only the first Regicide played attacks would go along way towards reigning this in. This would really make players think hard about which card is best to attack and which card is best to throne.

Anyways, thanks for sharing this and good luck!

[EDIT] I also noticed you've changed your image a few times for this. If you're still undecided on it, have a look at this one. I've had it for awhile, but haven't had a card that fits the theme. It's kind of like an undead Procession. Regicide and how your card plays seems like a great fit!

(https://i.imgur.com/GWCOGDo.png)
Artist Credit: Nick Gindraux

That was my thought behind making it unable to target Regicides -- there's always one card with a village effect in the kingdom that can't be attacked. It is definitely a strong card, but I enjoy playing with strong attacks so I don't really mind that. Certainly for a $6 cost attack it falls somewhere between Goons and Raider.

It's possible that having it cost $5 would actually weaken the attack, by making it easier to get that unattackable village. On the other hand, making it $6 means that the attack doesn't start to hit until later in the game (most likely the 4th shuffle instead of the 3rd). I'll have to think about this some more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on November 11, 2018, 01:50:46 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jQgmhhC.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on November 11, 2018, 01:52:08 pm

During the age of guilds. The Firth guilds job was to keep the peace. By any means nessesary

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 11, 2018, 03:10:05 pm

Quote from: faust on November 11, 2018, 05:18:53 am

Quote from: Kudasai on November 11, 2018, 05:05:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/Mc4DUzP.jpg)

Now the big difference here is the Attacked players can't play their cards for draw, which takes away some of the fun of the original. I think by discarding the cards it makes it more clear that the Attacked players mostly don't get the benefit of the played cards. Also, it's unclear when those played cards get discarded. During that players next Clean-up? There really aren't any rules for this.

You could also try adding some text that specifies things like Coin don't carry over, but that would get wordy.

Thanks for the feedback! I think a problem with your suggestion is that now the first time it is played, Pretender will be significantly more powerful. Forcing people to discard an Attack is almost Pillage-level strong, so having it on a card that is not a one-shot seems quite problematic.

I think the fact that they don't get benefits that cannot be used out of turn should be clear from the existing ruling on Caravan Guard and tokens. When the cards are discarded is less clear, but the idea is to discard them during that player's next cleanup, which is the first time they really can do so since there are no cleanup phases before that.

It could be that playing mulitples of my version is too strong, but in that case I think I prefer just restricting the effect to players with 4 or more cards in hand rather than doing the discard thing.

Also, I left out the +$3 Coin option, but that was unintentional. The more I look at this card the more I like it. I think it just takes a bit for the complexity to sink in. I still highly recommend adding something in parenthesis that states that things like Coin and Buys don't carry over. Sure it's a rule, but I'd say it's one of the most unknown rules in Dominion and adding an explanation would go along way.

So in addition to players being able to keep drawn cards they can also keep Coffers and Villagers tokens. They can also play Attacks, which may harm you. Maybe all these counters justifies being able to attack multiple times with Pretenders?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 11, 2018, 08:10:12 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on November 11, 2018, 01:50:46 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jQgmhhC.jpg)

I like this, though I think you mean Frith Guild. I think it's interesting that you can never discard a Frith Guild to another player's Frith Guild, since you would gain a Curse if you had it in your hand. Also, do you want to know the little unimportant errors in the card?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 11, 2018, 08:21:20 pm

Changed Miscreant. Now it's a Woodcutter that only gives the second coin if no one trashed a good card, and the attack doesn't stack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on November 11, 2018, 10:31:46 pm

How bout a fixed spy?
(Can't decide if it should cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} or _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.)

Quote

Infiltrator
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} Action - Attack
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player reveals the top card of their deck. If it's an action or treasure costing at least _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}, they discard it. Otherwise, they put it back. If no one discarded a card, +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on November 12, 2018, 12:02:47 am

Oh whoops yeah I mean frith guild. As for knowing what errors to fix. No thanks. Unless I’m at least a runner up for this contest. Otherwise I’ll wait until i decide to upload this to one of my threads.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on November 12, 2018, 12:13:31 am

For this contest, I wanted to come up with an Attack that you don't always want to block (Moat, Lighthouse, etc.). Yes, it might still hurt, but you'd rather not let your opponent gloat too much when they play this...

(https://i.imgur.com/mDFjmVYl.png)

Quote

Braggart
Action/Attack - $4
-
Name an Action or Treasure card costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.

This will usually mean taking a Copper, but that limits the Braggart to a Silver or other $3-cost card. You block this in a 2-player game, and that gives the Braggart an easy $6-cost card, with you getting bupkis. Sometimes, it's better to let the Braggart brag than to try and counter him.

Any feedback is appreciated, as usual. Do you think I need to add "in the supply" to the first clause?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on November 12, 2018, 12:56:55 am

Quote from: Tejayes on November 12, 2018, 12:13:31 am

For this contest, I wanted to come up with an Attack that you don't always want to block (Moat, Lighthouse, etc.). Yes, it might still hurt, but you'd rather not let your opponent gloat too much when they play this...

(https://i.imgur.com/mDFjmVYl.png)

Quote

Braggart
Action/Attack - $4
-
Name an Action or Treasure card costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.

This will usually mean taking a Copper, but that limits the Braggart to a Silver or other $3-cost card. You block this in a 2-player game, and that gives the Braggart an easy $6-cost card, with you getting bupkis. Sometimes, it's better to let the Braggart brag than to try and counter him.

Any feedback is appreciated, as usual. Do you think I need to add "in the supply" to the first clause?

I'd say yes, it should be in the supply, otherwise I don't think there's anything stopping you from naming a $3 not in the game (or from an empty pile) and just scoring a free $6 of your choice. It's definitely an interesting card idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on November 12, 2018, 01:41:41 am

I think it might be too strong for a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}cost card to give you a Goons at the cost of giving other players a silver. Or getting a Mountebank/Wharf/etc at the cost of giving other players a Duchess/Moat/etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on November 12, 2018, 09:45:08 am

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, it does seem a little strong now that I think about it. I'm offering two fixes - making it more expensive, or nerfing the you-gain effect. Let me know which one (if either) you think is better.

(https://i.imgur.com/g9Cq2CNl.png) (https://i.imgur.com/hlHZqgfl.png)

Quote

Braggart (variation 1)
Action/Attack - $5
-
Name an Action or Treasure card in the Supply costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.

Quote

Braggart (variation 2)
Action/Attack - $4
-
Name an Action or Treasure card in the Supply costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than the named card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 12, 2018, 05:07:41 pm

My card Con Artist got an update. It took me a lot of time to make it more balanced in comparsion to Ghost Ship, Torturer and Young Witch, but here is it:

(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/V8vwgkYxTGS6.png)

Con Artist
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $4

+3 Cards
Discard 2 Cards

Each other player reveals their hand. Those with less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then put a card from their hand onto their deck.

Illustration: Le Tricheur à l'as de carreau by Georges de La Tour

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 12, 2018, 06:03:09 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 12, 2018, 05:07:41 pm

My card Con Artist got an update. It took me a lot of time to make it more balanced in comparsion to Ghost Ship, Torturer and Young Witch, but here is it:

Con Artist
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $4

+3 Cards
Discard 2 Cards

Each other player reveals their hand. Those with less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then put a card from their hand onto their deck.

Illustration: Le Tricheur à l'as de carreau by Georges de La Tour

Little wording suggestion: Each player who revealed less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then puts a card from their hand onto their deck. As far as the card itself, I think that should work well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 12, 2018, 06:41:33 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 12, 2018, 06:03:09 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 12, 2018, 05:07:41 pm

My card Con Artist got an update. It took me a lot of time to make it more balanced in comparsion to Ghost Ship, Torturer and Young Witch, but here is it:

Con Artist
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $4

+3 Cards
Discard 2 Cards

Each other player reveals their hand. Those with less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then put a card from their hand onto their deck.

Illustration: Le Tricheur à l'as de carreau by Georges de La Tour

Little wording suggestion: Each player who revealed less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then puts a card from their hand onto their deck. As far as the card itself, I think that should work well.

If we're going to do wording suggestions, it should probably say "fewer than three Coppers" not "less than"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 13, 2018, 01:07:07 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 12, 2018, 06:41:33 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 12, 2018, 06:03:09 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 12, 2018, 05:07:41 pm

My card Con Artist got an update. It took me a lot of time to make it more balanced in comparsion to Ghost Ship, Torturer and Young Witch, but here is it:

Con Artist
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $4

+3 Cards
Discard 2 Cards

Each other player reveals their hand. Those with less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then put a card from their hand onto their deck.

Illustration: Le Tricheur à l'as de carreau by Georges de La Tour

Little wording suggestion: Each player who revealed less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then puts a card from their hand onto their deck. As far as the card itself, I think that should work well.

If we're going to do wording suggestions, it should probably say "fewer than three Coppers" not "less than"

I actually had similar wordings, but the text became too tiny, so I wanted to compress it. This is the shortest version I could find.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 13, 2018, 08:32:01 pm

Quote from: hypercube on November 08, 2018, 02:29:03 pm

Regicide
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $6
You may play an Action from your hand twice. If it's not a Regicide, each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a copy of it (or reveals they can't).

The turn-order advantage will probably make Regicide brutal.  There are enough Kingdoms with singular important engine cards that slapping out of hand will be devastating, and if it misses it is functionally because your engine failed this turn.  This might even become a little targeted, as if you Regicide a Regicide a Smithy, you'll get to see all the Actions in the hands of players who don't have Smithy cards before you choose the next Action you'll Regicide.  It is a slick design, though.

Quote from: 4est on November 08, 2018, 04:23:25 pm

Stowaway
Types: Action, Attack, Duration
Cost: $3
+1 Action. Set aside any number of cards from your hand face-up (on this). Each other player gains a copy of one that you choose. At the start of your next turn, put these cards into your hand.

I think Donald X. has said that Estate junking isn't so good because they empty so fast--which is especially no good when other pile-emptying Attacks are around.  Ignoring that, I think Stowaway is way stronger than it looks at a glance.  Because two Stowaway cards can juggle all the junk elements out of your deck forever.  I mean: Any number of cards?  Having a bunch of Stowaway cards can set aside other Stowaway cards to ensure they never misfire.

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 08, 2018, 06:50:13 pm

Tax Collector
Types: Action, Attack, Duration
Cost: $5
+2 Coffers. Until your next turn, when another player plays an Action card with a +$ amount in its text, they take their -$1 token.

This needs a next turn effect so it stays in play.  The Attack is super cool.  I don't like the vanilla bonus very much: Butcher and Villain already do the +2 Coffers thing and I don't want a glut of cards that do that.  Thematic ties to Tax Man make me wish it could trash Treasures somehow.

Quote from: Aquila on November 09, 2018, 10:50:32 am

Purists
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. Each other player discards down to 2 cards in hand, then draws a card and gets +1 Villager.

The theme is nice, but the Attack doesn't really fit into it: The other players are the purists?  Either way, +1 Villager is better than having a Village, so I think this Attack is actually super weak.  I might cost Purists at $4 so it's more accessible or have it draw 3 Cards so it's stronger but the stacking gets hairy.

Quote from: Kudasai on November 09, 2018, 04:46:18 pm

Angry Mob
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player removes a token from their Coffers/Villagers mat. If they don't, they gain a Curse.

---

Setup: Each player gets +3 Villagers.

Neat concept.  The value of this Attack is going to vary wildly based upon whether or not you can generate Villagers in the Kingdom, so it might be worth figuring some way to inject Villagers other than setup.  I worry that losing Villagers will feel pretty unfun, anyway.

Quote from: Tejayes on November 12, 2018, 12:13:31 am

Braggart
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Name an Action or Treasure card costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.

The power jump from $4 to $5 is so large that this style of Attack really needs to give other players the option of what they want to gain to be even close to appropriately balanced.  Also anything that can cause a lot of cards to be gained by players I think needs to prevent players from gaining copies of itself to prevent easy pile-running.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on November 13, 2018, 11:53:07 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 13, 2018, 08:32:01 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on November 12, 2018, 12:13:31 am

Braggart
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Name an Action or Treasure card costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.

The power jump from $4 to $5 is so large that this style of Attack really needs to give other players the option of what they want to gain to be even close to appropriately balanced.  Also anything that can cause a lot of cards to be gained by players I think needs to prevent players from gaining copies of itself to prevent easy pile-running.

Hmm, good points, Fragasnap. How about this? (I'll make a mock-up later)

(https://i.imgur.com/WfaKWill.png)

Quote

Braggart
Action/Attack - $4
-
Gain a card other than Braggart costing up to $4. Each other player gains a card costing at most $2 less than it.

Without good $2 cards in the Supply, this will almost always be a junker crossed with a Workshop. Certain boards will still make this an Attack you might want to get hit with sometimes. What do you think?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GreyEK on November 14, 2018, 01:07:56 am

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/479797320419115029/512145530013351936/Arms_Dealer.png)

War keeps anything from being perfect, including player's decks.  Maybe your opponent's gotten a bit more thin than you'd like them to be,
well perhaps trashing some stuff out of their deck would help.  And you get to help thin yourself too!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 14, 2018, 01:08:14 am

Quote from: Tejayes on November 13, 2018, 11:53:07 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 13, 2018, 08:32:01 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on November 12, 2018, 12:13:31 am

Braggart
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Name an Action or Treasure card costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.

The power jump from $4 to $5 is so large that this style of Attack really needs to give other players the option of what they want to gain to be even close to appropriately balanced.  Also anything that can cause a lot of cards to be gained by players I think needs to prevent players from gaining copies of itself to prevent easy pile-running.

Hmm, good points, Fragasnap. How about this? (I'll make a mock-up later)

(https://i.imgur.com/WfaKWill.png)

Quote

Braggart
Action/Attack - $4
-
Gain a card other than Braggart costing up to $4. Each other player gains a card costing at most $2 less than it.

Without good $2 cards in the Supply, this will almost always be a junker crossed with a Workshop. Certain boards will still make this an Attack you might want to get hit with sometimes. What do you think?

Copper Junking is not as bad. I think, this card is much worse than Bureaucrat.

Quote from: GreyEK on November 14, 2018, 01:07:56 am

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/479797320419115029/512145530013351936/Arms_Dealer.png)

War keeps anything from being perfect, including player's decks.  Maybe your opponent's gotten a bit more thin than you'd like them to be,
well perhaps trashing some stuff out of their deck would help.  And you get to help thin yourself too!

This actually helps your opponents to get rid of Estates. In a 3 player game, all Arms Dealers are gone after the third play. I don't like this. Later on, this is a Workshop plus trashing Cutpurse. Horrible ...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GreyEK on November 14, 2018, 01:22:02 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 14, 2018, 01:08:14 am

This actually helps your opponents to get rid of Estates. In a 3 player game, all Arms Dealers are gone after the third play. I don't like this. Later on, this is a Workshop plus trashing Cutpurse. Horrible ...

Oh god, that's right.
People actually play multiplayer.

In response to your other point, you definitely don't get this before your opponent has gotten thin.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 14, 2018, 08:19:22 am

I don't really like my current submission, so I'm going to cancel that one and make another one. Quick question for anyone in particular: We all know that Masquerade doesn't count as an Attack, but if only each other player had to pass a card would that make it an attack? There's other parts to my idea, but would that by itself be an Attack?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 14, 2018, 08:50:35 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 14, 2018, 08:19:22 am

I don't really like my current submission, so I'm going to cancel that one and make another one. Quick question for anyone in particular: We all know that Masquerade doesn't count as an Attack, but if only each other player had to pass a card would that make it an attack? There's other parts to my idea, but would that by itself be an Attack?

If you reveal Moat, are you skipped when passing cards? Do you receive a card, but not pass any? The other way around? Arguably, Minion "attacks" you just as much as the other players, and I wouldn't expect a self-Cursing Witch to be anything but an attack, either. So, to more or less answer your question: I wouldn't expect such a card to win this round.

Speaking of which, I am going to pick the winner in about 24 hours.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on November 14, 2018, 09:39:12 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 14, 2018, 01:08:14 am

Quote from: Tejayes on November 13, 2018, 11:53:07 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 13, 2018, 08:32:01 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on November 12, 2018, 12:13:31 am

Braggart
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Name an Action or Treasure card costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.

The power jump from $4 to $5 is so large that this style of Attack really needs to give other players the option of what they want to gain to be even close to appropriately balanced.  Also anything that can cause a lot of cards to be gained by players I think needs to prevent players from gaining copies of itself to prevent easy pile-running.

Hmm, good points, Fragasnap. How about this? (I'll make a mock-up later)

(https://i.imgur.com/WfaKWill.png)

Quote

Braggart
Action/Attack - $4
-
Gain a card other than Braggart costing up to $4. Each other player gains a card costing at most $2 less than it.

Without good $2 cards in the Supply, this will almost always be a junker crossed with a Workshop. Certain boards will still make this an Attack you might want to get hit with sometimes. What do you think?

Copper Junking is not as bad. I think, this card is much worse than Bureaucrat.

How is it worse than Bureaucrat? Just curious as to how these compare.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on November 14, 2018, 12:19:11 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 13, 2018, 01:07:07 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 12, 2018, 06:41:33 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 12, 2018, 06:03:09 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 12, 2018, 05:07:41 pm

My card Con Artist got an update. It took me a lot of time to make it more balanced in comparsion to Ghost Ship, Torturer and Young Witch, but here is it:

Con Artist
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $4

+3 Cards
Discard 2 Cards

Each other player reveals their hand. Those with less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then put a card from their hand onto their deck.

Illustration: Le Tricheur à l'as de carreau by Georges de La Tour

Little wording suggestion: Each player who revealed less than three Coppers gain a Copper to their hand, then puts a card from their hand onto their deck. As far as the card itself, I think that should work well.

If we're going to do wording suggestions, it should probably say "fewer than three Coppers" not "less than"

I actually had similar wordings, but the text became too tiny, so I wanted to compress it. This is the shortest version I could find.

Dominion would usually say "2 or fewer" instead of "fewer than 3". Here's my suggestion, though you may not like that the discarding is not its own paragraph, or that "it" is potentially confusing:

Quote

+3 Cards

Discard 2 cards. Each other player may reveal that their hand has 3 or more Coppers. If they don't, they gain a Copper to their hand, then put a card from it onto their deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 14, 2018, 01:48:19 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on November 14, 2018, 09:39:12 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 14, 2018, 01:08:14 am

Quote from: Tejayes on November 13, 2018, 11:53:07 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 13, 2018, 08:32:01 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on November 12, 2018, 12:13:31 am

Braggart
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Name an Action or Treasure card costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.

The power jump from $4 to $5 is so large that this style of Attack really needs to give other players the option of what they want to gain to be even close to appropriately balanced.  Also anything that can cause a lot of cards to be gained by players I think needs to prevent players from gaining copies of itself to prevent easy pile-running.

Hmm, good points, Fragasnap. How about this? (I'll make a mock-up later)

(https://i.imgur.com/WfaKWill.png)

Quote

Braggart
Action/Attack - $4
-
Gain a card other than Braggart costing up to $4. Each other player gains a card costing at most $2 less than it.

Without good $2 cards in the Supply, this will almost always be a junker crossed with a Workshop. Certain boards will still make this an Attack you might want to get hit with sometimes. What do you think?

Copper Junking is not as bad. I think, this card is much worse than Bureaucrat.

How is it worse than Bureaucrat? Just curious as to how these compare.

Bureaucrat is a weak gainer with an a moderate handsize attack. It's a poor card overall. If you are playing Base Set only, it is a goid pick in Gardens vs Gardens, though.

Braggart, however, has better gaining, but a horrible attack. Copper junking is not as bad. Copper always gives you $1 if you draw it and  a hand of 5 Coppers is not the worst hand, because you can at buy powerful actions and Duchies.

However Bureaucrat's attack is much more nasty. It can force you to return your Copper to your deck again and again, letting you play with 4 usable cards only. Given your opponent has a 15 card deck, the Copper only weakens every third draw. Bureaucrats topdecking can be repeated much easier and slows the opponent's deck more down. Unlike Curse and Estate, Copper is not a dead card and it is even better than most Ruins (Ruined Market is an edge case). That is the point.

I also submitted a Copper junker, but my card comes with a handsize attack and it has an ability to prevent most pins which also prevents the 5 Copper hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 14, 2018, 04:13:18 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 14, 2018, 01:48:19 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on November 14, 2018, 09:39:12 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 14, 2018, 01:08:14 am

Quote from: Tejayes on November 13, 2018, 11:53:07 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 13, 2018, 08:32:01 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on November 12, 2018, 12:13:31 am

Braggart
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Name an Action or Treasure card costing up to $3. Each other player gains a copy of it. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than the named card.

The power jump from $4 to $5 is so large that this style of Attack really needs to give other players the option of what they want to gain to be even close to appropriately balanced.  Also anything that can cause a lot of cards to be gained by players I think needs to prevent players from gaining copies of itself to prevent easy pile-running.

Hmm, good points, Fragasnap. How about this? (I'll make a mock-up later)

(https://i.imgur.com/WfaKWill.png)

Quote

Braggart
Action/Attack - $4
-
Gain a card other than Braggart costing up to $4. Each other player gains a card costing at most $2 less than it.

Without good $2 cards in the Supply, this will almost always be a junker crossed with a Workshop. Certain boards will still make this an Attack you might want to get hit with sometimes. What do you think?

Copper Junking is not as bad. I think, this card is much worse than Bureaucrat.

How is it worse than Bureaucrat? Just curious as to how these compare.

Bureaucrat is a weak gainer with an a moderate handsize attack. It's a poor card overall. If you are playing Base Set only, it is a goid pick in Gardens vs Gardens, though.

Braggart, however, has better gaining, but a horrible attack. Copper junking is not as bad. Copper always gives you $1 if you draw it and  a hand of 5 Coppers is not the worst hand, because you can at buy powerful actions and Duchies.

However Bureaucrat's attack is much more nasty. It can force you to return your Copper to your deck again and again, letting you play with 4 usable cards only. Given your opponent has a 15 card deck, the Copper only weakens every third draw. Bureaucrats topdecking can be repeated much easier and slows the opponent's deck more down. Unlike Curse and Estate, Copper is not a dead card and it is even better than most Ruins (Ruined Market is an edge case). That is the point.

I also submitted a Copper junker, but my card comes with a handsize attack and it has an ability to prevent most pins which also prevents the 5 Copper hand.

I disagree completely.  Bureaucrat's attack is not very good at all.  In a game with any trashing, I'll get rid of my estates and Bureaucrat won't do anything to me at all until I start greening.  At that point my deck can handle it.  Gaining any junk card, and yes Coppers are most definitely junk cards, is often far worse.  Even if a hand of 5 coppers can get you a decent card, as you said, you won't get to that card as often if you keep gaining Coppers.  We all know that trashing is the most important thing in Dominion.  Gaining junk is the opposite of that. Junking is a brutal attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 14, 2018, 04:45:34 pm

Bureaucrat is mainly weak due to the Silver gaining. The Attack in and of itself is fine although slightly weaker than the more reliable Fortune Teller. But in rare instances Bureaucrat Attacks do stack.
All of this has nothing to do with Braggart which is a bad design. In Kingdoms with decent $2s it is a Workshop that hands out free gifts, in Shepherd games it is a Workshop that hands out very nice gifts and only otherwise (or once the respective piles are empty) it is a Copper junker which is the mildest form of junking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on November 14, 2018, 05:02:17 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 13, 2018, 08:32:01 pm

Quote from: Aquila on November 09, 2018, 10:50:32 am

Purists
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. Each other player discards down to 2 cards in hand, then draws a card and gets +1 Villager.

The theme is nice, but the Attack doesn't really fit into it: The other players are the purists?  Either way, +1 Villager is better than having a Village, so I think this Attack is actually super weak.  I might cost Purists at $4 so it's more accessible or have it draw 3 Cards so it's stronger but the stacking gets hairy.

This is true, it's like each other player gets a 4 card hand where one is Necropolis. So that leads me to a change I wish to make to my entry. Can't do a mockup just now:

Quote

Enforcer - Action Attack, $5 cost.
+2 Cards
Each other player discards down to 2 cards in hand, then chooses either +1 Villager or +1 Coffers.

Purists wouldn't really hand out money, so here's a person enforcing and rewarding a small hand law.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 14, 2018, 05:04:10 pm

Here is a quick shot at a mitigated Knight attack:

(https://i.imgur.com/pev6JWN.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 14, 2018, 06:54:54 pm

Alright, I changed my entry now. It's a reverse Druid, each other player has the choice between three hexes. I hop it's not too weak. I played around with different vanilla bonuses and this one seemed the best.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 14, 2018, 08:05:24 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 14, 2018, 05:04:10 pm

Here is a quick shot at a mitigated Knight attack:

(https://i.imgur.com/pev6JWN.jpg)

Mitigated? This seems more brutal than the Knights, possibly much more brutal. With the Knights you're relieved if you can feed them a Silver instead of one of your precious actions. Here that's not possible, and then it Sea Hags you a Ruin as well... Yyyyyikes! They can hit the Ruins themselves, of course, but that seems about on par with the Mountebank block clause; it only makes Mountebank a bit less scary.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 15, 2018, 12:54:47 am

Updated Pretender (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg776720#msg776720) so that it now only attacks 5-card hands.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 15, 2018, 03:01:47 am

Quote from: 4est on November 08, 2018, 04:23:25 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EbJcK2g.png)

Here's my revised entry, an Action-Attack-Duration!  Stowaway is sort of a mashup of Gear and Ambassador: you save cards from this hand for next hand, and give a copy of one of them to your opponents.  Early game, this will neatly keep Estates and extra Coppers out of your shuffles while junking the other players, though being a duration means it only works every other turn.  In the mid and late game, a pair of these can function as handy utility cards to keep your shuffles clean, as well as set up big turns, just be sure to keep some junk around to hand out copies of (or perhaps a Province when you're ready to end the game).

*Revised to change to an Action type instead of Night, so to fit within the parameters of this week's contest.

To me, this is the best card, and it’s not even close. I’d love to play with it! Some reasons:

1.) Its constructive part is imho the most interesting one in this weeks competition. You can

• setup a big turn
• use it as pseudotrashing
• bring synergic cards together

It’s gear on steroids, without being terminal. There might be “double stowaway decks” similar to “double tac” - but without the nasty “discard your hand” part.

2.) The card seems balanced to me.
Despite having a very interesting constructive part and a strong attack, I don’t think it’s OP, because it is a duration and doesn’t draw, which is both a huge downside.

3.) It defends against itself via pseudotrashing.
Unlike other junk attacks, the game needn’t turn into a slog.

4.) I like games encouraging to buy curses.
This is always an interesting mini-game for me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 15, 2018, 04:04:39 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on November 14, 2018, 08:05:24 pm

Mitigated? This seems more brutal than the Knights, possibly much more brutal. With the Knights you're relieved if you can feed them a Silver instead of one of your precious actions. Here that's not possible, and then it Sea Hags you a Ruin as well... Yyyyyikes! They can hit the Ruins themselves, of course, but that seems about on par with the Mountebank block clause; it only makes Mountebank a bit less scary.

I disagree completely. If you play an engine you will only have a few Silvers in your deck and it is more likely that Knights hit Actions. Just play a Knights game and take a look in the trash at the end of the game. I bet that the ratio of Actions to non-Copper Treasures is around 2:1 or 3:1.

This Attack only hits, on average, every two times. Sea Hagging a Ruins sounds quite nasty whereas exchanging an Action for a Ruins that hedges you against the next Mob Attack sounds pretty sweet. This is especially relevant in multiplayer and when somebody goes for several Mobs.
No idea about the Mountebank comparison as it is just the other way around with Mountebank: you often want 2 as the second one being played during one turn has a higher chance of hitting than the first one. With Mob it is the other way around, the second one has zero chance of hitting.

Also, non-trivially, Mob doesn't hurt BM players. I recently made another Attack which doesn't hurt BM (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18202.msg776587#msg776587) and Kudasai rightly pointed out that this could be a huge issue. So if the card has any serious issues it is precisely this, namely that there is a simple way to avoid the Attack totally.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 15, 2018, 06:03:40 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 15, 2018, 04:04:39 am

Also, non-trivially, Mob doesn't hurt BM players. I recently made another Attack which doesn't hurt BM (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18202.msg776587#msg776587) and Kudasai rightly pointed out that this could be a huge issue. So if the card has any serious issues it is precisely this, namely that there is a simple way to avoid the Attack totally.

There is precedent for Attacks that do not hurt BM in Enchantress. I don't think it's an issue per se, only if the card is strong enough to actually force BM on a large chunk of boards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 15, 2018, 09:17:16 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on November 10, 2018, 11:52:12 am

Quote from: Asper on November 10, 2018, 10:11:29 am

About Drunkard, it generally counts as an Attack to make opponents take something bad (e.g. "Miserable" or their "-1 Card" Token). Taking that bad thing is what Moat keeps from happening.

Drunkard however is not taken, it is given. I find it unclear how Moat should interact with this, as the hit player technically isn't told to do anything.

OK - kind of like how Masquerade isn't an Attack, then?

I've reworded Drunkard to be "The player to your left takes this card into their play area", does that work for you?

Sorry for taking so long to reply to this.

Not really like Masquerade... More like, uh, Possession? Or if Ambassador told you to put the card in another player's discard pile instead of making them gain it, or if Swindler had you trash the cards from the top of other players' decks... It just seems like something you don't want to create an precedent for if you can avoid it. "Hey, I am not affected, does that mean my play area is not affected?". If it's YOU doing stuff when attacked, then you not being affected is more clear. So yes, I will accept the new wording.

That said, I'm writing up the results right now...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 15, 2018, 10:01:43 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 15, 2018, 04:04:39 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on November 14, 2018, 08:05:24 pm

Mitigated? This seems more brutal than the Knights, possibly much more brutal. With the Knights you're relieved if you can feed them a Silver instead of one of your precious actions. Here that's not possible, and then it Sea Hags you a Ruin as well... Yyyyyikes! They can hit the Ruins themselves, of course, but that seems about on par with the Mountebank block clause; it only makes Mountebank a bit less scary.

I disagree completely. If you play an engine you will only have a few Silvers in your deck and it is more likely that Knights hit Actions. Just play a Knights game and take a look in the trash at the end of the game. I bet that the ratio of Actions to non-Copper Treasures is around 2:1 or 3:1.

This Attack only hits, on average, every two times. Sea Hagging a Ruins sounds quite nasty whereas exchanging an Action for a Ruins that hedges you against the next Mob Attack sounds pretty sweet. This is especially relevant in multiplayer and when somebody goes for several Mobs.
No idea about the Mountebank comparison as it is just the other way around with Mountebank: you often want 2 as the second one being played during one turn has a higher chance of hitting than the first one. With Mob it is the other way around, the second one has zero chance of hitting.

Also, non-trivially, Mob doesn't hurt BM players. I recently made another Attack which doesn't hurt BM (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18202.msg776587#msg776587) and Kudasai rightly pointed out that this could be a huge issue. So if the card has any serious issues it is precisely this, namely that there is a simple way to avoid the Attack totally.

I think Mob is about balanced in most games, but when there's things that don't cost $3-$6, i.e. Potion cost cards, $7 cost cards, that are pretty hard to get, that's where Mob can be too strong, since it could hit one player's Ruin and another player's Kings Court or Possession. Also, "If they did trash trashed"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 15, 2018, 10:51:03 am

Quote from: Asper on November 15, 2018, 09:17:16 am

That said, I'm writing up the results right now...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 15, 2018, 12:38:13 pm

Sorry for taking so long. I was torn between several cards. Also, I was writing it up at work, and stuff happened...

So, about all of them, in alphabetical order (sorry for the lack of links, I'm rushing down right now).

Angry Mob:
Seems very good for 3$. I like the Villagers better than the Coffers variant, but removing Villagers still kind of feels like it should cost 4$ (assuming a roughly similar strength to Coffers, this is roughly Cutpurse levels). And you can even open two of these. Even if they collide, you steal more tokens from your opponents than you need to play both. Once an opponent's Villagers run out, this is 5$ material, too.

Arms Dealer:
This has the same issue most trash-from-hand attacks have: It helps your opponents most of the time. And if you ever manage to make them trash a good card, like by playing a Militia first, it can be really harsh. Also, yes, multiplayer is a thing.

Braggart:
It's fine, but I feel a non-attack version that makes you gain a card costing up to 6$, with each other player being allowed to gain a card costing 2$ or 3$ less, would be a better variant of this base idea.

Con Artist:
Much better with the changed wording, as now early hands with Coppers can actually block the attack. The fact that it doesn't hit players with 3 or more Coppers in hand also makes it unlikely to hit early, where replacing a card in hand with a Copper is most likely to help them. Still, it kind of bothers me that the attack is double-edged, after all.

Curfew:
You can't really skip this because of the huge bonus it gives, and the fact that the attack only harms users of the attack (unless there are much more expensive ways to use that token) makes it not really less mandatory. It's a bit too self-absorbed for my taste.

Cursed Tome
Love the flavor here, although arguably a Tome sounds like a Treasure. My main gripe here is that I think it would be more easy to trigger and less board dependent if it used a Cornucopia-esque "4 or more differently named cards in hand" to trigger  cursing. Still a favourite from the start.

Demagogue:
Appears harsh at first, but people still have the option to choose. It follows a similar design idea as my Necromancer, without recycling the knights attack. Well, and Necromancer again is basically a Rogue variant. I'm not sure why I'm not really feeling this. It's a fine design.

Drunkard:
Bonus points for the originality. However, this is still a directed attack that only hits one player. It also delivers the revenge to the attack with itself, meaning it doesn't really provide a bonus to gain this.

Enforcer:
Another cute one. I originally was afraid the bonus was a bit too friendly when comparing the card to Legionary, but at the same time I feel that a 2 card hand is rather cruel. This isn't bad, but the brutality of the discard makes me feel it wouldn't be horribly much fun to play.

Extortionist:
A bigger Cutpurse. Not half bad. The only flaw this has is that it's a bit uninteresting compared to some other cards.

Frith Guild:
Fine. However, I feel this would be better if it made you discard to 4 either way. First, it allows getting rid of an Attack card to dodge further attacks, and also it would allow triggering Firth Guild itself.

Heretic:
Another one that seems kinda cool in principle, but it also looks a tad weak. Perhaps if it drew two to discard two, like Young Witch? Or if it was +2$, +1 Villager base for 5$. Terminal +1 Card is just really, really bad.

Infiltrator:
Also okay, but being a "fixed" Spy it doesn't seem overly interesting, and, like Spy, a tad too slow for a cantrip.

Land Dealer:
This is also perfectly fine, but another one that just didn't excite me much. And of course it's limited to only a few uses before it stops doing anything.

Mob:
I agree that this feels very oppressive, and the fact that playing BM allows you to dodge this completely doesn't make it better. I also don't like that this hits double if it hits. I'd probably like it more if it gave the attacked player a choice between trashing OR gaining a Ruins.

Negotiation:
A bit like a one-turn Embargo... I feel considering its cost and the fact that it might actually be so no other player even wanted to gain that card (and you can't block Victory cards) it's too weak. Also, it should probably say "At the start of your next turn" instead of "When you discard this from play". Not bad, anyhow.

Pretender:
I agree to the issue that often this won't feel like an attack. Sure, it sucks to play +Coin cards, but +Card cards become awesome. It also leads to issues if another player plays an Attack or a Throne Room + another Pretender. Like Braggart, I feel this would be better if it were a non-attack implementation of the core concept.

Regicide
This was one of the cards I was torn between. I like the novelty of the attack. My main worry was that it could lead to unpleasant experiences, because that kind of attack tends to whiff and if it doesn't, it feels really annoying to be hit by it. The first player advantage I think is mitigated a tad by the cost of 6$, but in general I'm not a huge fan of this kind of attack. Sorry, but that's the thing with jury decisions - they are very subjective. A grand submission anyhow.

Sorcerer:
I like this a lot! Obviously if one of the Hexes is Miserable, this is just a terminal Coffers very quickly. In fact, the actual bonus is a bit meh to me; Coffers are everywhere these days. Also, the base idea has been thrown around in the forums already (by you, perhaps?). So that's going against it... Apart from that, cool.

Stowaway
Glad you decided to put the attacking part in the current turn. It's a slightly more aggressive Haven/tactician, so my main gripe is that it doesn't feel terribly innovative. Otherwise it's neat.

Tax Collector:
This seems too brutal to me. I also believe that to make it it feel less brutal, you would have to change it in a way that would make it resemble other cards like Bridge Troll too much. Or, I gues, make it a one-shot? It's innovative, so that's a plus.

---

The finale was a triple between Regicide, Sorcerer and Cursed Tome.

The winner is Cursed Tome by GazBag. Congrats and thank you to everyone who participated.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 15, 2018, 12:39:28 pm

Wow, top three! Also, someone else must have thrown it around, this is the first time I put it it on an actual card. I wanted to do something simple like Druid is, but just +1 Buy and an attack seems rather lame, so I added a Coffer. I'll try to think of something better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on November 16, 2018, 05:33:21 pm

Oh I wasn't expecting to win this, thanks for liking the card Asper!

Non-supply card
A new non-supply card and a card (or cards I suppose) that showcases that non-supply card. It could be something like Vampire/Bats  with 2 intertwined cards or something more like Spoils or Wishes, or something new and unique that I haven't thought of. It's strictly one non-supply card, so no Travellers and I'm also going to say no Heirloom/Shelters type things too.

If anything is unclear just shout at me and I'll try to explain better!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 16, 2018, 08:07:31 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on November 16, 2018, 05:33:21 pm

Oh I wasn't expecting to win this, thanks for liking the card Asper!

Non-supply card
A new non-supply card and a card (or cards I suppose) that showcases that non-supply card. It could be something like Vampire/Bats  with 2 intertwined cards or something more like Spoils or Wishes, or something new and unique that I haven't thought of. It's strictly one non-supply card, so no Travellers and I'm also going to say no Heirloom/Shelters type things too.

If anything is unclear just shout at me and I'll try to explain better!

Holy cow! A while ago I was thinking of if I won what my challenge would be, and this was exactly it. Amazing. Anyway, are we allowed to make two cards to get the non-supply card, or make a split pile or something?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on November 17, 2018, 01:09:46 am

Heretic
$4
+1 Card
+1 Villager
If you have 4 or more villagers, each opponent gains a curse.

Quote from: Asper on November 15, 2018, 12:38:13 pm

Heretic:
Another one that seems kinda cool in principle, but it also looks a tad weak. Perhaps if it drew two to discard two, like Young Witch? Or if it was +2$, +1 Villager base for 5$. Terminal +1 Card is just really, really bad.

Man, +1 villager +1 card is better than +1 action +1 card.
It is a non-terminal curser which requires some build-up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silvern on November 17, 2018, 02:58:25 am

My attempt:

(https://i.imgur.com/RDfq7aRm.png) (https://i.imgur.com/wD9BZoOm.png)

(I note there's a typo--should say "per Flower Seller [singular] that you have")

EDIT: A good question to be asked: how many flower sellers are there? The answer: equal to the number of avenues in the supply (which itself follows standard victory card rules).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on November 17, 2018, 03:58:02 am

Quote

Message
Action $4*
+2 Cards
+1 Action
You may discard a Courier. If you don't, return this to the Message pile.
(This is not in the supply)

Quote

Courier
Action $3
+ $2
Gain a Message from the Message pile.

There are 10 messages

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 17, 2018, 04:00:15 am

Quote from: artless on November 17, 2018, 01:09:46 am

Heretic
$4
+1 Card
+1 Villager
If you have 4 or more villagers, each opponent gains a curse.

Quote from: Asper on November 15, 2018, 12:38:13 pm

Heretic:
Another one that seems kinda cool in principle, but it also looks a tad weak. Perhaps if it drew two to discard two, like Young Witch? Or if it was +2$, +1 Villager base for 5$. Terminal +1 Card is just really, really bad.

Man, +1 villager +1 card is better than +1 action +1 card.
It is a non-terminal curser which requires some build-up.

Sure, but you have to play it as terminal +1 Card at least three times first, which really sucks. Anyhow, I didn't pick my winner for balance reasons. I just excluded cards that I thought were in principle unbalancable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 17, 2018, 04:01:49 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on November 17, 2018, 03:58:02 am

Quote

Message
Action $4*
+2 Cards
+1 Action
You may discard a Messenger. If you don't, return this to the Message pile.
(This is not in the supply)

Quote

Messenger
Action $3
+ $2
Gain a Message from the Message pile.

Messenger is already a card name.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on November 17, 2018, 04:06:46 am

Sorry, I was thinking "Courier" when I came up with the idea, typed the wrong synonym. Fixed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 17, 2018, 07:59:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/KFMAlBX.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Lxnwpha.png)

Quote

Demagogue
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +3 Actions. Victory cards cost $1 less this turn, but not less than $0. Each other player may trash an Action costing at least $5 from their hand. If they do, they gain an Assassin from the Assassin pile, putting it into their hand.

Quote

Assassin
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $0*
+1 Action, +$3. Each other player trashes a Demagogue from their hand (or reveals a hand with no Demagogue cards in it). If anyone does, exchange this for an Action costing at least $5 from the trash.
(This is not in the Supply.)

There are 6 Assassin cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 17, 2018, 01:39:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/dxxqMwH.png)(https://i.imgur.com/JjfgLTK.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on November 17, 2018, 05:21:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yTsJCK8.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/dCWAI4C.jpg)

Redevelop may be a bit too hard to get.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MattLee on November 18, 2018, 12:37:40 am

(https://preview.ibb.co/dvnUvL/ox.png) (https://preview.ibb.co/hQmYN0/oxen.png)

Note the original concept could add a 3rd ox to the yoke to make a herd, but it wouldn't be as clean and doesn't fit the rules of this contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 18, 2018, 04:50:50 am

Removed - i am unable to balance the concept. Feel free to do so :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 18, 2018, 04:54:27 am

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 18, 2018, 04:50:50 am

Time to think about our pension, and raise some children!

My design tries to implicit that it takes a huge effort to do so, makes you lose a lot of time, but can eventually pay off big.

Obviously, to suit the given cards, each player has a pension mat:


Bride, Action, 4$

+ 2 Actions
+2 cards per child on your pension mat

Gain a Child.



Child, Action, 0* [*not in the supply]

+ 2 coffers

You may put this on your pension mat for 6 coffers.
If you do, +4 VP

I think the flavor implications of buying multiple Brides for the sole purpose of impregnating them and have them raise children easily beat Harem in terms of offensiveness.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 18, 2018, 10:23:23 am

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 18, 2018, 04:50:50 am

Time to think about our pension, and raise some children!

My design tries to implicit that it takes a huge effort to do so, makes you lose a lot of time, but can eventually pay off big.

Obviously, to suit the given cards, each player has a pension mat:


Bride, Action, 4$

+ 2 Actions
+2 cards per child on your pension mat

Gain a Child.



Child, Action, 0* [*not in the supply]

+ 2 coffers

You may put this on your pension mat for 6 coffers.
If you do, +4 VP

8 Coffers and 4VP would be crazy even if Child did not buff NecropolisBride.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 18, 2018, 03:29:45 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 18, 2018, 10:23:23 am

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 18, 2018, 04:50:50 am

Time to think about our pension, and raise some children!

My design tries to implicit that it takes a huge effort to do so, makes you lose a lot of time, but can eventually pay off big.

Obviously, to suit the given cards, each player has a pension mat:


Bride, Action, 4$

+ 2 Actions
+2 cards per child on your pension mat

Gain a Child.



Child, Action, 0* [*not in the supply]

+ 2 coffers

You may put this on your pension mat for 6 coffers.
If you do, +4 VP

8 Coffers and 4VP would be crazy even if Child did not buff NecropolisBride.

Oh, maybe I should reword it, you should pay 6 coffers, not gain them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on November 18, 2018, 05:15:27 pm

Quote from: faust on November 18, 2018, 04:54:27 am

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 18, 2018, 04:50:50 am

Time to think about our pension, and raise some children!

My design tries to implicit that it takes a huge effort to do so, makes you lose a lot of time, but can eventually pay off big.

Obviously, to suit the given cards, each player has a pension mat:


Bride, Action, 4$

+ 2 Actions
+2 cards per child on your pension mat

Gain a Child.



Child, Action, 0* [*not in the supply]

+ 2 coffers

You may put this on your pension mat for 6 coffers.
If you do, +4 VP

I think the flavor implications of buying multiple Brides for the sole purpose of impregnating them and have them raise children easily beat Harem in terms of offensiveness.

Yes, but it's historically accurate!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 18, 2018, 06:05:54 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on November 17, 2018, 01:39:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/dxxqMwH.png)(https://i.imgur.com/JjfgLTK.png)

Why don't you just move the "to your hand" to Day Worker's On-gain effect? Other cards like Mine or Explorer also gain other cards to your hand.



Edit: And here comes my card suggestion:
Archaeologist
Type: Action
Cost: $6

+3 Cards

You may return an Excavation Piece from your hand to the Excavation Piece pile. If you do: +1 Card +1 Action, else: gain an Excavation Piece from the Excavation Piece pile.

Excavation Piece
Type: Treasure/Victory
Cost: $0*
$1
0 VP
--
When scoring: If you have 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8 Excavation Pieces, you get 1/2/3/5/8/13/21/34 VP.
(This is not in the supply.)

There are only 8 Excavation Pieces in the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 18, 2018, 10:46:36 pm

Might as well be the one to ask: what's the reasoning behind the unnecessarily convoluted Fibonacci score system? And did you mean to type 34 instead of 24?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 19, 2018, 01:12:58 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on November 18, 2018, 10:46:36 pm

Might as well be the one to ask: what's the reasoning behind the unnecessarily convoluted Fibonacci score system? And did you mean to type 34 instead of 24?

1) You have the choice: Junking your deck or returning junk for a a double Lab. Eventually you are rewarded for playing with a hard-to-play deck full of junk cards. Archaeologist has +3 Cards (or +3 Cards, return ExP, +1 Card +1 Action) to  help you digging through your  deck. The more Excavation Pieces, the harder this is, so the Victory points increase per Excavation Piece.

In my first try they gave VP in ascending order, the first one in the pile had 1 VP, the last one had 8 VP. This was fun, but also not very fair, as one player could snatch the 5 to 8 VP cards very easily and return the rest. My submitted variant fixes this.

2) Yes, it was a typo. 34 is the maximum and means 4 ¼ VP per Excavation piece.

I wanted to have a hybrid of Goons and Lab and that's it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 19, 2018, 02:21:44 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 18, 2018, 06:05:54 pm

When scoring: If you have 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8 Excavation Pieces, you get 1/2/3/5/8/13/21/34 VP.
(This is not in the supply.)

There are only 8 Excavation Pieces in the game.

How about  “This is worth 1 VP for every 2 Excavation Pieces you have (round down)”?
This version scores 0/2/3/8/10/18/21/32, which is similar, but less weird for those which are unfamiliar with Fibonacci.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 19, 2018, 02:43:49 am

(https://i.imgur.com/mw6rPDw.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/8hAq5uj.jpg)

There are 20 Workers.

EDIT: I decided Factory needed a buff, so it gives $1 more and can't hand out the draw token anymore.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on November 19, 2018, 05:01:35 am

Hall of Fame is up! (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19239.msg777727#msg777727) Link added to the op as well

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 19, 2018, 05:20:40 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 18, 2018, 06:05:54 pm

Archaeologist
Type: Action
Cost: $6

+3 Cards

You may return an Excavation Piece from your hand to the Excavation Piece pile. If you do: +1 Card +1 Action, else: gain an Excavation Piece from the Excavation Piece pile.

Excavation Piece
Type: Treasure/Victory
Cost: $0*
$1
0 VP
--
When scoring: If you have 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8 Excavation Pieces, you get 1/2/3/5/8/13/21/34 VP.
(This is not in the supply.)

There are only 8 Excavation Pieces in the game.

I like this, it reminds me of Wild Hunt, but has a different twist. I'm not sure if the Excavation pieces really also need to be Coppers. And they probably do not need to say "0 VP". I would find it hilarious if they read "Worth ((1 + sqrt(5))^n - (1 -sqrt(5))^n)/(2^n sqrt(5)) VP, where n is the number of Excavation pieces you have".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 19, 2018, 05:26:50 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on November 18, 2018, 05:15:27 pm

Yes, but it's historically accurate!

Then of course it goes nicely with the Witches, Bridge Trolls, Pixies and neatly dressed Groundskeepers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on November 19, 2018, 06:00:05 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ryTksOw.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/UUlb6pb.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 19, 2018, 10:53:19 am

Quote from: hypercube on November 19, 2018, 06:00:05 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ryTksOw.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/UUlb6pb.png)

Niiiiiiiice, I really like this one. And I see what you did there with the on-trash.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 19, 2018, 11:18:48 am

Oak-Acorn seems too strong. With deck-drawing, it's an activated Conspirator (with an additional option). And if you don't draw your Acorn the same turn, this is still a better outcome than not activating your Conspirator.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on November 19, 2018, 02:16:10 pm

Quote from: faust on November 19, 2018, 11:18:48 am

Oak-Acorn seems too strong. With deck-drawing, it's an activated Conspirator (with an additional option). And if you don't draw your Acorn the same turn, this is still a better outcome than not activating your Conspirator.

I like it costing $4 with the slowness hopefully providing enough of a drawback to put it on the Conspirator–Vassal–Peddler power level. I'm open to suggestions as to how to make it a bit slower.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 19, 2018, 02:29:45 pm

Quote from: faust on November 19, 2018, 05:20:40 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 18, 2018, 06:05:54 pm

Archaeologist
Type: Action
Cost: $6

+3 Cards

You may return an Excavation Piece from your hand to the Excavation Piece pile. If you do: +1 Card +1 Action, else: gain an Excavation Piece from the Excavation Piece pile.

Excavation Piece
Type: Treasure/Victory
Cost: $0*
$1
0 VP
--
When scoring: If you have 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8 Excavation Pieces, you get 1/2/3/5/8/13/21/34 VP.
(This is not in the supply.)

There are only 8 Excavation Pieces in the game.

I like this, it reminds me of Wild Hunt, but has a different twist. I'm not sure if the Excavation pieces really also need to be Coppers. And they probably do not need to say "0 VP". I would find it hilarious if they read "Worth ((1 + sqrt(5))^n - (1 -sqrt(5))^n)/(2^n sqrt(5)) VP, where n is the number of Excavation pieces you have".

Overgrown Estate also has 0 VP and I added this, to avoid confusion. You only count the VP for Excavation Pieces once and not per card.

Your function has a complex value for a non-integer number of cards. You could also present it as a continued fraction.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 19, 2018, 03:47:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/i2X1w8E.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rEJZYL5.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 20, 2018, 12:50:36 am

Consorts
Action - $5
Set aside any number of Actions from your hand. If you set aside:
2+ - Play them all in any order
1 - Play it twice
0 - Gain a Royal Favour from its pile

Royal Favour
Action - $0*
+1 Card
You may set this aside to play an Action from your hand 3 times. Return this to the Royal Favour pile when you that action leaves play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on November 20, 2018, 06:11:31 am

Lunatic
$4
+2 Cards
Trash a card from your hand.
---
When you trash this, gain a Conjurator

Conjurator
$4*
Play a face up, non-Duration Action card from the trash twice, leaving it there and turning it face down for the turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on November 20, 2018, 06:15:39 am

(https://i.imgur.com/8rnCMdn.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/gJoDt6X.jpg)

Quote

Plotter
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card
+1 Villager per Plotter you have in play (counting this)
You may spend 5 Villagers and trash this to gain a Gunpowder Plot.

Gunpowder Plot
Types: Night
Cost: $0*
+1 Buy
Trash this. If you do:
Return to your Action Phase.  Until the end of your turn, if you play an action, trash it.  Play each action you have in play.
(This is not in the supply)

CLARIFICATION: You don't get the actions from the Villagers you spend to gain a Gunpowder Plot.

The OP version of this card always gave you one villager.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Watno on November 20, 2018, 12:58:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/5eQ4joW.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/rcsS4Fu.jpg)

Thereare 30 copies of Witch Bottle.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 20, 2018, 02:14:28 pm

Quote from: Watno on November 20, 2018, 12:58:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/WqCHuqD.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/rcsS4Fu.jpg)

Thereare 30 copies of Witch Bottle.

Superstitious Witch should be an Attack card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Watno on November 20, 2018, 02:18:45 pm

fixed

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 20, 2018, 02:53:42 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on November 20, 2018, 06:15:39 am

(https://i.imgur.com/E9cMrld.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/gJoDt6X.jpg)

Quote

Plotter
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card
+1 Villager
You may spend 5 Villagers and trash this to gain a Gunpowder Plot.

Gunpowder Plot
Types: Night
Cost: $0*
+1 Buy
Trash this. If you do:
Return to your Action Phase.  Until the end of your turn, if you play an action, trash it.  Play each action you have in play.
(This is not in the supply)

CLARIFICATION: You don't get the actions from the Villagers you spend to gain a Gunpowder Plot.

Asper already pointed out with a similar card that having to play a Ruined Library several times is a pretty harsh cost. The megaturn Night card is interesting but too narrow for my taste. If you time it badly you destroy your entire deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 20, 2018, 06:00:34 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 20, 2018, 02:53:42 pm

The megaturn Night card is interesting but too narrow for my taste. If you time it badly you destroy your entire deck.

That's what happens when you play with Bombs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on November 20, 2018, 07:08:50 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wLOA7Un.png) (https://i.imgur.com/lKzxdrv.png)

Here's my entry: Treaty and Domain.  Treaty is a terminal, one-card trasher that especially loves trashing Estates in the early game, and then later, you can win a Domain from your Treaty.  Domain is 5 VP all together, though just 3 VP if you trash it later, which you probably will.  Trashing a Domain with Treaty gains you a Silver and a Gold to hand, yeeha--hopefully you still have some Coppers left to win that next Domain.  This makes for a fun minigame to try and churn through the Domains, though you'll need some extra help to keep lining up your Treaties with trash targets and the needed treasures to activate.  There are eight Domains in a two-player game, otherwise there are twelve.

*Edit: Adjusted Treaty's price from $3 to $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 20, 2018, 07:54:57 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 05, 2018, 01:32:58 pm

Allies are a sideways card type. They go in your sideways deck, and start in the supply. When you buy an Ally, it goes in front of you, like an Artifact, and you benefit from it while it’s in front of you. Another player can buy an Ally from in front of you, and then they put it in front of them. There is only one copy of each Ally.

Quote

Painter (Ally, cost $5)
At the start of your turn, you may reveal a Painting from your hand. If you did, gain a Gold. If you didn't, gain a Painting from the Painting pile.

Quote

Painting (Action, cost $0*
+1 Card
+1 Action
If you have an odd number of Paintings in play, + $1
*(This is not in the supply)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 21, 2018, 03:14:10 am

Quote from: 4est on November 20, 2018, 07:08:50 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zMtaiA6.png) (https://i.imgur.com/lKzxdrv.png)

Here's my entry: Treaty and Domain.  Treaty is a terminal, one-card trasher that especially loves trashing Estates in the early game, and then later, you can win a Domain from your Treaty.  Domain is 5 VP all together, though just 3 VP if you trash it later, which you probably will.  Trashing a Domain with Treaty gains you a Silver and a Gold to hand, yeeha--hopefully you still have some Coppers left to win that next Domain.  This makes for a fun minigame to try and churn through the Domains, though you'll need some extra help to keep lining up your Treaties with trash targets and the needed treasures to activate.  There are eight Domains in a two-player game, otherwise there are twelve.

It‘s a cute mini-game, but I don‘t like the pricing.

At the beginning, it‘s better than Salvager, because +Silver is better than +buy.
When triggered, it gives at least +3VP, even 5 VP in the endgame.
If it trashes a Domain, it means „gain a silver, gain a gold, +5$“.

That being said, I think it should be a 5$ card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 21, 2018, 03:16:20 am

I removed Bride/Child from the contest, it was simply unbalancable. Here‘s a new try ...

I‘ve heard complaints about Peasant being too easy to play, and a boring must-buy? Let‘s change this:

Here come the one-shot-tokens.



Visionary, Action, 6$

Gain a Vision.


Vision, Action, 0*
Put this on your Tavern mat.

At the start of your turn, you may call this to move your  +card, +action, +$ or +buy token to an Action supply pile you have no tokens on.
When you discard this from play, remove all tokens.

(This is not in the supply).


**********************
Visionary is weaker than Teacher, but more accessible. It‘s sometimes skippable, and it‘s tricky to manage a constant flux of visions. Alternatively, you can call them all at once for little megaturns, which is quite fulfilling (if it works).

Also, I like that true Visionaries don‘t care much about what Teachers said ...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 21, 2018, 04:26:38 am

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 21, 2018, 03:16:20 am

I removed Bride/Child from the contest, it was simply unbalancable. Here‘s a new try ...

I‘ve heard complaints about Peasant being too easy to play, and a boring must-buy? Let‘s change this:

Here come the one-shot-tokens.



Visionary, Action, 6$

Gain a Vision.


Vision, Action, 0*
Put this on your Tavern mat.

At the start of your turn, you may call this to move your  +card, +action, +$ or +buy token to an Action supply pile you have no tokens on.
When you discard this from play, remove all tokens.

(This is not in the supply).


**********************
Visionary is weaker than Teacher, but more accessible. It‘s sometimes skippable, and it‘s tricky to manage a constant flux of visions. Alternatively, you can call them all at once for little megaturns, which is quite fulfilling (if it works).

Also, I like that true Visionaries don‘t care much about what Teachers said ...

I like this, but "remove all tokens" should probably be rephrased, since literal interpretation would force you to clear out Coffers and Villagers as well as all VP tokens - and not only yours mind you, all of them. It should probably be "Remove all of your tokens from supply piles." This limits the amount of strange interactions to Ferry and Plan.

My only other issue is that this card idea could probably be implemented without using a pile of non-supply cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 21, 2018, 05:10:30 am

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 21, 2018, 03:14:10 am

It‘s a cute mini-game, but I don‘t like the pricing.

At the beginning, it‘s better than Salvager, because +Silver is better than +buy.
When triggered, it gives at least +3VP, even 5 VP in the endgame.
If it trashes a Domain, it means „gain a silver, gain a gold, +5$“.

That being said, I think it should be a 5$ card.

I disagree, as a standalone card Treaty is less flexible and weaker than Salvager.
Also note that with all those stop cards in your deck it is harder to create the necessary matches.

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 21, 2018, 03:16:20 am

I removed Bride/Child from the contest, it was simply unbalancable. Here‘s a new try ...

I‘ve heard complaints about Peasant being too easy to play, and a boring must-buy? Let‘s change this:

Here come the one-shot-tokens.



Visionary, Action, 6$

Gain a Vision.


Vision, Action, 0*
Put this on your Tavern mat.

At the start of your turn, you may call this to move your  +card, +action, +$ or +buy token to an Action supply pile you have no tokens on.
When you discard this from play, remove all tokens.

(This is not in the supply).


**********************
Visionary is weaker than Teacher, but more accessible. It‘s sometimes skippable, and it‘s tricky to manage a constant flux of visions. Alternatively, you can call them all at once for little megaturns, which is quite fulfilling (if it works).

Also, I like that true Visionaries don‘t care much about what Teachers said ...

That's a cool idea. I have a hard time to judge the balance of this but my hunch is that this too weak so I'd also test Visionary at $5.
Just some technical triviality, Visionary should say "Gain a Vision from its pile."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on November 21, 2018, 11:05:20 am

(https://image.ibb.co/i6roxA/m1.png) (https://image.ibb.co/mc0FcA/m2.png)

Manager works as a super-smithy until supply lasts, or acts as a single shot KC if you don't mind gaining a marginally useful card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 21, 2018, 01:21:47 pm

I guess Manager needs a gainer or cheap cantrips to kill off in order to work well. Then Intern is also moderately OKish, with plenty of Actions you often do choose the "Peddler" option of Pawn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on November 21, 2018, 06:12:50 pm

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 21, 2018, 03:14:10 am

It‘s a cute mini-game, but I don‘t like the pricing.

At the beginning, it‘s better than Salvager, because +Silver is better than +buy.
When triggered, it gives at least +3VP, even 5 VP in the endgame.
If it trashes a Domain, it means „gain a silver, gain a gold, +5$“.

That being said, I think it should be a 5$ card.

I can definitely see the argument for $5: many official cards that gain Silver to hand cost $5, such as Mine, Explorer, Trading Post, or Sculptor (though each of these also provide additional benefits as well). However Treaty's restrictions for activating (the Silver gain, or the Domain gain) are pretty big ones, and I think it would make it way slower if it cost $5 since you couldn't open it most of the time.

The Salvager comparison is apt; Treaty is better at trashing Estates and Domains but it's worse at trashing literally anything else. That said, Treaty probably could probably cost $4 without changing the card that much, I agree that $3 is maybe too cheap. I'll see about updating the price later today or tomorrow.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 22, 2018, 03:36:37 am

CHALLENGE #7 - NON-SUPPLY CARD SUBMISSION

(https://i.imgur.com/CT7UE9K.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/6fAWWPf.jpg)

Expanded Instructions:
Excavation - You must choose one of the options three times. It can be any combination of choices and does not have to be the same choice each time.

Refinery - Set aside Treasures come from the Supply and are returned there at the end of the current turn. If the Treasure Supply pile is empty you cannot set aside a card from there and thus cannot get the extra $1 when you play copies of it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 22, 2018, 04:44:30 am

Thanks @Holunder9 and @faust, I agree with your suggestions for Rewording.

I don‘t think Visionary is too weak in terms of "too weak to be bought on a frequent basis". I believe that Visionary is strong on every board with a spammable card which lacks one of the engine components "draw, +actions, +buy". These aren't rare.

On the other hand, this mediocre strength wastes the best part of the card: playing with multiple visions, and managing interesting decisions when to call it and where to put the tokens. This will happen much more often if players get multiple Visionaries, and fight for the Vision split. It's a very interesting situation, if one player has a strong deck with 4 Visions (enabling two tokens per turn), and the other has a weaker deck, but 6 visions.

With this situation in mind, I agree with Holunder9 that it's better game design to buff Visionary, maybe even by a lot. I think I will test to reduce cost to 5$, with +2$ on top. I am pretty confident this won't lead to boring games, because Visions need interactions; also Visionaries become lousy terminal Silvers once the Visions are gone, which is an additional motivation to buy other cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 22, 2018, 07:25:26 am

Quote from: Kudasai on November 22, 2018, 03:36:37 am

CHALLENGE #7 - NON-SUPPLY CARD SUBMISSION

(http://i68.tinypic.com/2vmwyeo.jpg)    (http://i65.tinypic.com/2zemjns.jpg)

I don't think that I am a big fan of Excavation but Refinery looks very interesting, a Copper(Silver/Gold)smith variant that actually works.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 22, 2018, 10:19:08 am

To me, the basic idea of Excavation seems interesting: You have to decide whether to harm your current hand or gamble on trashing something random. The main problem, I guess, is how strong trashing 3 cards is. Most of the time trashing 3 cards from your hand is so strong you won't care what you're missing out on, but then trashing 3 known junk cards from the top of your deck is possibly brokenly strong. It also seems like the best option will nearly always be to forget the Refineries and just trash as much as possible.

Refinery, on its own, also seems interesting: You have to decide whether to pile up a bunch of cheap treasures or try to get a lot of expensive ones. I feel the interaction between the two cards is weak, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 22, 2018, 12:25:34 pm

Quote from: Kudasai link=topic=18987.msg777990#msg777990
date=1542875797

CHALLENGE #7 - NON-SUPPLY CARD SUBMISSION

(http://i68.tinypic.com/2vmwyeo.jpg)    (http://i65.tinypic.com/2zemjns.jpg)

Refinery should be a Duration card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 22, 2018, 01:08:49 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on November 22, 2018, 03:36:37 am

CHALLENGE #7 - NON-SUPPLY CARD SUBMISSION

(http://i68.tinypic.com/2vmwyeo.jpg)    (http://i65.tinypic.com/2zemjns.jpg)

Neither of your cards are showing up for me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 22, 2018, 02:54:49 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 22, 2018, 12:25:34 pm

Refinery should be a Duration card.

ABC, Buy phase comes after the Action phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 22, 2018, 02:57:52 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 22, 2018, 01:08:49 pm

Neither of your cards are showing up for me.

Hmm, Imgur was giving me issues last night so I used another wacky hosting site. Are they showing up now?

Also, thanks for everyone else's comments. I will unfortunately have to wait to respond to them until the end of the day!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrFrog on November 22, 2018, 03:00:44 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 22, 2018, 02:54:49 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 22, 2018, 12:25:34 pm

Refinery should be a Duration card.

ABC, Buy phase comes after the Action phase.

Capitalism...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 22, 2018, 03:10:11 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on November 22, 2018, 02:57:52 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 22, 2018, 01:08:49 pm

Neither of your cards are showing up for me.

Hmm, Imgur was giving me issues last night so I used another wacky hosting site. Are they showing up now?

Also, thanks for everyone else's comments. I will unfortunately have to wait to respond to them until the end of the day!

Now Excavation is showing up twice, and Refinery still isn't showing at all.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 22, 2018, 03:12:54 pm

Quote from: MrFrog on November 22, 2018, 03:00:44 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 22, 2018, 02:54:49 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 22, 2018, 12:25:34 pm

Refinery should be a Duration card.

ABC, Buy phase comes after the Action phase.

Capitalism...

True that but one combination making this stay in play doesn't justify making it a Duration. Capitalism already creates confusion so you can deal with some extra confusion in games with Capitalism and Excavation. But in all other Kingdoms players will just stare on Refinery and wonder why it is a Duration.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 22, 2018, 03:51:08 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 22, 2018, 03:12:54 pm

Quote from: MrFrog on November 22, 2018, 03:00:44 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 22, 2018, 02:54:49 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 22, 2018, 12:25:34 pm

Refinery should be a Duration card.

ABC, Buy phase comes after the Action phase.

Capitalism...

True that but one combination making this stay in play doesn't justify making it a Duration. Capitalism already creates confusion so you can deal with some extra confusion in games with Capitalism and Excavation. But in all other Kingdoms players will just stare on Refinery and wonder why it is a Duration.

It is still a Duration because it has an effect that does not take place when you play it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 22, 2018, 04:08:55 pm

Quote from: faust on November 22, 2018, 03:51:08 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 22, 2018, 03:12:54 pm

Quote from: MrFrog on November 22, 2018, 03:00:44 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 22, 2018, 02:54:49 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 22, 2018, 12:25:34 pm

Refinery should be a Duration card.

ABC, Buy phase comes after the Action phase.

Capitalism...

True that but one combination making this stay in play doesn't justify making it a Duration. Capitalism already creates confusion so you can deal with some extra confusion in games with Capitalism and Excavation. But in all other Kingdoms players will just stare on Refinery and wonder why it is a Duration.

It is still a Duration because it has an effect that does not take place when you play it.

So do Bridge, Priest, Scheme, and Merchant and those aren't durations.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 22, 2018, 04:18:19 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on November 22, 2018, 04:08:55 pm

So do Bridge, Priest, Scheme, and Merchant and those aren't durations.

I think the "issue" (well, one combo isn't really an issue) is that these will all be discarded if Capitalism is active whereas Refinery will not as it references a precise point in time.

Quote from: faust on November 22, 2018, 03:51:08 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 22, 2018, 03:12:54 pm

Quote from: MrFrog on November 22, 2018, 03:00:44 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 22, 2018, 02:54:49 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 22, 2018, 12:25:34 pm

Refinery should be a Duration card.

ABC, Buy phase comes after the Action phase.

Capitalism...

True that but one combination making this stay in play doesn't justify making it a Duration. Capitalism already creates confusion so you can deal with some extra confusion in games with Capitalism and Excavation. But in all other Kingdoms players will just stare on Refinery and wonder why it is a Duration.

It is still a Duration because it has an effect that does not take place when you play it.

Technically that's totally right. But giving that fellow a touch of orange for the sake of one combo and at the cost of utter confusion in all other Kingdoms is not something you want to do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 22, 2018, 05:30:38 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 22, 2018, 04:18:19 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on November 22, 2018, 04:08:55 pm

So do Bridge, Priest, Scheme, and Merchant and those aren't durations.

I think the "issue" (well, one combo isn't really an issue) is that these will all be discarded if Capitalism is active whereas Refinery will not as it references a precise point in time.

Quote from: faust on November 22, 2018, 03:51:08 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 22, 2018, 03:12:54 pm

Quote from: MrFrog on November 22, 2018, 03:00:44 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 22, 2018, 02:54:49 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 22, 2018, 12:25:34 pm

Refinery should be a Duration card.

ABC, Buy phase comes after the Action phase.

Capitalism...

True that but one combination making this stay in play doesn't justify making it a Duration. Capitalism already creates confusion so you can deal with some extra confusion in games with Capitalism and Excavation. But in all other Kingdoms players will just stare on Refinery and wonder why it is a Duration.

It is still a Duration because it has an effect that does not take place when you play it.

Technically that's totally right. But giving that fellow a touch of orange for the sake of one combo and at the cost of utter confusion in all other Kingdoms is not something you want to do.

You're right. I misinterpreted "your next buy phase" as "the buy phase of your next turn".maybe "this turn's buy phase" would be better

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 22, 2018, 09:45:05 pm

Just realized it's almost been a week, better pull my ideas together.
(https://i.imgur.com/OoiuZsX.jpg?1) (https://i.imgur.com/6jQ8H0R.jpg?1)
It's a bit thematic. I hope it doesn't look like something I slapped together at the last minute (which it is :P).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 22, 2018, 10:54:56 pm

I ended up rewording Refinery. It should play cleaner now and interact better with Capitalism. The only big difference in play is now you need to decide what Treasure to add the +$1 to before actually knowing how your hand will turn out. Mostly this won't matter as you'll likely just choose the most common Treasure in your deck, but it could create some interesting choices for players.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on November 22, 2018, 10:19:08 am

To me, the basic idea of Excavation seems interesting: You have to decide whether to harm your current hand or gamble on trashing something random. The main problem, I guess, is how strong trashing 3 cards is. Most of the time trashing 3 cards from your hand is so strong you won't care what you're missing out on, but then trashing 3 known junk cards from the top of your deck is possibly brokenly strong. It also seems like the best option will nearly always be to forget the Refineries and just trash as much as possible.

Refinery, on its own, also seems interesting: You have to decide whether to pile up a bunch of cheap treasures or try to get a lot of expensive ones. I feel the interaction between the two cards is weak, though.

I agree with most of what you've said. Excavation is strong enough on it's own to justify the $6 price without ever getting a Refinery. But Refinery is so good that I think players who actively build to get a few will fare much better as the time to get your economy back up is drastically cut. And that is really the connection between the two cards that I was going for.

If the whole thing proves too strong I'll make Excavation trash 3 cards no matter what. This will make it far less playable late game and likely make it so a player has to trash more Coppers in order to get Refineries. That decision will be for another day though.

Thanks everyone for the comments and Happy Thanksgiving (even for ya'll outside the U.S. that don't celebrate it)!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 23, 2018, 01:20:17 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 22, 2018, 09:45:05 pm

Just realized it's almost been a week, better pull my ideas together.
(https://i.imgur.com/OoiuZsX.jpg?1) (https://i.imgur.com/6jQ8H0R.jpg?1)
It's a bit thematic. I hope it doesn't look like something I slapped together at the last minute (which it is :P).

Gallows has the problem, that it has a non-stacking and a stacking attack. This is very political in multiplayer games, because nobody wants to be the first person to choose the discard option.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 23, 2018, 03:53:01 am

Quote from: Aquila on November 17, 2018, 05:21:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yTsJCK8.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/dCWAI4C.jpg)

Redevelop may be a bit too hard to get.

Redevelop is quite good and should be hard to get. I think what you have now is great. Mass Silver gaining is not likely the best way to get to Redevelop, but even if a player chooses this route, they can turn those Silvers into $5 cost cards. So you have a solid baseline strategy, but with many other options (including stuff you can do with Architect).

I do worry the cost of $6* is too good if you got 2 Redevelops.

Great submission!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on November 23, 2018, 05:42:28 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 20, 2018, 02:53:42 pm

Asper already pointed out with a similar card that having to play a Ruined Library several times is a pretty harsh cost.

Good point.  I'd nerfed Plotter a bit from my original idea, because I was concerned that it made it too easy to gain Gunpower Plot, but I've now reverted to the slightly more powerful version, which gives you one Villager per Plotter in play.  Now, you could play it as two Ruined Libraries and a cantrip, or as three cantrips and a Vilage, and have enough spare to get one (if you want one).

Quote

The megaturn Night card is interesting but too narrow for my taste. If you time it badly you destroy your entire deck.

Time it well, then :-)

The idea is that with the villagers you get from Plotter, you should be able to set up a megaturn even on boards where the other cards are all terminal.  And then, you get your megaturn again!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Seprix on November 23, 2018, 10:29:11 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 23, 2018, 01:20:17 am

Gallows has the problem, that it has a non-stacking and a stacking attack. This is very political in multiplayer games, because nobody wants to be the first person to choose the discard option.

Huh? It's not political at all, comparatively speaking? Once you discard to three, you get to just choose the discard option again forever, it'll never hurt more again. It's possibly still annoying because you can freely get Villager tokens which are insanely better than getting +2 Actions, but I wouldn't call this political?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 23, 2018, 02:08:02 pm

Quote from: Seprix on November 23, 2018, 10:29:11 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 23, 2018, 01:20:17 am

Gallows has the problem, that it has a non-stacking and a stacking attack. This is very political in multiplayer games, because nobody wants to be the first person to choose the discard option.

Huh? It's not political at all, comparatively speaking? Once you discard to three, you get to just choose the discard option again forever, it'll never hurt more again. It's possibly still annoying because you can freely get Villager tokens which are insanely better than getting +2 Actions, but I wouldn't call this political?

The card says „Choose one“, not „Each other player ... their choice“.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 23, 2018, 02:30:44 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 23, 2018, 02:08:02 pm

Quote from: Seprix on November 23, 2018, 10:29:11 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 23, 2018, 01:20:17 am

Gallows has the problem, that it has a non-stacking and a stacking attack. This is very political in multiplayer games, because nobody wants to be the first person to choose the discard option.

Huh? It's not political at all, comparatively speaking? Once you discard to three, you get to just choose the discard option again forever, it'll never hurt more again. It's possibly still annoying because you can freely get Villager tokens which are insanely better than getting +2 Actions, but I wouldn't call this political?

The card says „Choose one“, not „Each other player ... their choice“.

And? Suppose you have just one Action left and Miltia and Witch in your hand. Also suppose that Alice is already down to three cards (because Bob played a Miltia on his turn) whereas Bob has 5 cards.
So your claim that Gallows is political is identical to the claim that such a choice that could occur in Base Dominion is political. This might actually be true, depending on how narrow you define "political" when it comes to games. But given that the base game enables such an option and given DXV's total hatred for political games I think it is fair to claim that this is a very mild form of political. Also note that in a 3P game, constant Militia plays always hurt just one player (because the third fellow got already Militia-ed in the previous turn).

You could imagine something similar: only one Curse is left, Alice has a Lighthouse out whereas Bob has not so playing Witch would be political. Yuu could have a Smithy in hand but decide that cursing Bob matters more than drawing an extra card. Is this a political choice? Technically, yes totally.
But it doesn't convert the game in something like Star Realms where you can always choose whom to hurt. So I'd rather view it as ordinary player interaction. Don't got enough Ligthouses? Your mistake.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 23, 2018, 02:37:21 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 23, 2018, 02:30:44 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 23, 2018, 02:08:02 pm

Quote from: Seprix on November 23, 2018, 10:29:11 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 23, 2018, 01:20:17 am

Gallows has the problem, that it has a non-stacking and a stacking attack. This is very political in multiplayer games, because nobody wants to be the first person to choose the discard option.

Huh? It's not political at all, comparatively speaking? Once you discard to three, you get to just choose the discard option again forever, it'll never hurt more again. It's possibly still annoying because you can freely get Villager tokens which are insanely better than getting +2 Actions, but I wouldn't call this political?

The card says „Choose one“, not „Each other player ... their choice“.

And? Suppose you have just one Action left and Miltia and Witch in your hand. Also suppose that Alice is already down to three cards (because Bob played a Miltia on his turn) whereas Bob has 5 cards.
So your claim that Gallows is political is identical to the claim that such a choice that could occur in Base Dominion is political. This might actually be true, depending on how narrow you define "political" when it comes to games. But given that the base game enables such an option and given DXV's total hatred for political games I think it is fair to claim that this is a very mild form of political. Also note that in a 3P game, constant Militia plays always hurt just one player (because the third fellow got already Militia-ed in the previous turn).

You could imagine something similar: only one Curse is left, Alice has a Lighthouse out whereas Bob has not so playing Witch would be political. Yuu could have a Smithy in hand but decide that cursing Bob matters more than drawing an extra card. Is this a political choice? Technically, yes totally.
But it doesn't convert the game in something like Star Realms where you can always choose whom to hurt. So I'd rather view it as ordinary player interaction. Don't got enough Ligthouses? Your mistake.

Yeah, I don't think it's political, at least no more than any other attack cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Seprix on November 23, 2018, 02:38:03 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 23, 2018, 02:08:02 pm

Quote from: Seprix on November 23, 2018, 10:29:11 am

Quote from: King Leon on November 23, 2018, 01:20:17 am

Gallows has the problem, that it has a non-stacking and a stacking attack. This is very political in multiplayer games, because nobody wants to be the first person to choose the discard option.

Huh? It's not political at all, comparatively speaking? Once you discard to three, you get to just choose the discard option again forever, it'll never hurt more again. It's possibly still annoying because you can freely get Villager tokens which are insanely better than getting +2 Actions, but I wouldn't call this political?

The card says „Choose one“, not „Each other player ... their choice“.

okay I misread, don't see the politics really still but wow is that attack busted, you get to stack up villager tokens and also curse and discard potentially at whim? JEEZ. That is going to be a "the rich get richer" card, first guy to get it knocks down everyone else with discard attacks and cursing, and also gets infinite tokens. Discarding with Executioner is even optional. Man.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 23, 2018, 02:43:03 pm

This isn't Followers, the Attack is a Miltia OR Witch and the vanilla stuff is Woodcutter OR 2 Villagers.

The flexibility is nice but this isn't really more crazy than Goons and above all the cost to get it is pretty high: set up Village, Gallows, Gallows, then discard your entire hand which is equivalent to, in the absence of virtual Coins or Alms, losing an entire turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 23, 2018, 02:47:27 pm

Yeah, tbh the thing I most dislike about it is that if someone makes you discard down to three cards, then it's even harder to get Gallows. Maybe the Villagers are too good, but like Holunder said the opportunity cost is very high, high enough in my opinion.
When's the judging?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on November 23, 2018, 02:50:30 pm

I'm a bit ill today so I'll do the judging tomorrow when I'll hopefully be better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 23, 2018, 02:51:26 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 23, 2018, 02:47:27 pm

Yeah, tbh the thing I most dislike about it is that if someone makes you discard down to three cards, then it's even harder to get Gallows. Maybe the Villagers are too good, but like Holunder said the opportunity cost is very high, high enough in my opinion.
When's the judging?

The only thing I'd slightly worry about is combining Villagers with an Attack. Non-terminal Attacks have become more frequent in recent years (Relic, Werewolf, Idol) but it is nonetheless something that should be handled carefully.
On the other hand it is a non-Supply card and far less crazy than Followers or Mercenary.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 23, 2018, 10:51:04 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 23, 2018, 02:47:27 pm

Yeah, tbh the thing I most dislike about it is that if someone makes you discard down to three cards, then it's even harder to get Gallows. Maybe the Villagers are too good, but like Holunder said the opportunity cost is very high, high enough in my opinion.
When's the judging?

You only need to discard 8 to get the Gold, not Gallows.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on November 23, 2018, 11:59:05 pm

If there is still time (and even if there isn't), here's my last-minute entry and possible addition to Yuletide:

(https://i.imgur.com/zTCfc5Vl.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Y5AnCb3l.png)

Quote

Spoiled Brat
Action/Attack - $5
-
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Action, and discards the rest. You may gain a card from the Trash. If you do, gain a Coal onto your deck.

Quote

Coal
Treasure - $0*
-
$1
When you play this, you may return it to the Coal pile if you have at least 3 Actions in play.
(This is not in the Supply.)

So, the Spoiled Brat demands a lot of attention from others, and can often get it. However, a certain person knows this kid has been naughty, and thus will leave an undesired lump in their stocking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 24, 2018, 03:31:39 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on November 23, 2018, 10:51:04 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 23, 2018, 02:47:27 pm

Yeah, tbh the thing I most dislike about it is that if someone makes you discard down to three cards, then it's even harder to get Gallows. Maybe the Villagers are too good, but like Holunder said the opportunity cost is very high, high enough in my opinion.
When's the judging?

You only need to discard 8 to get the Gold, not Gallows.

Yep, you "only" have to, most likely, waste an entire turn to get an Attack card which would be a $5 or $6 if it were a Kingdom card. That is as impressive as a card that says: "You may discard your hand to gain a card costing up to $6."

If another Curser is in the Kingdom my hunch is that in most cases you prefer getting that Curser before Gallows.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 24, 2018, 09:34:30 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 24, 2018, 03:31:39 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on November 23, 2018, 10:51:04 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 23, 2018, 02:47:27 pm

Yeah, tbh the thing I most dislike about it is that if someone makes you discard down to three cards, then it's even harder to get Gallows. Maybe the Villagers are too good, but like Holunder said the opportunity cost is very high, high enough in my opinion.
When's the judging?

You only need to discard 8 to get the Gold, not Gallows.

Yep, you "only" have to, most likely, waste an entire turn to get an Attack card which would be a $5 or $6 if it were a Kingdom card. That is as impressive as a card that says: "You may discard your hand to gain a card costing up to $6."

If another Curser is in the Kingdom my hunch is that in most cases you prefer getting that Curser before Gallows.

I was responding to his first sentence. He said that if you have to discard down to 3 it's harder to get Gallows, which is incorrect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on November 24, 2018, 07:49:36 pm

I don't feel at all qualified to make a sound judgement here.

Avenue/Flower Seller: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777615#msg777615) Oops I probably should have asked for people to say how many of the card there is, ah well. So my worry here is that with only 8/12 Flower Sellers available and Avenue giving 3 Flower Sellers at a time it seems pretty easy to hoard Flower Sellers, kind of like what you can do with Experiment sometimes. Adding more Flower Sellers just makes too many points available. I think the concept is great but maybe Avenue needs to be changed to make it work well.

Courier/Message: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777619#msg777619) This one is nice and simple, I really like Message although I wonder whether a terminal Silver is the best thing to have paired with it. I guess it's a tiny bit like Flag Bearer where you're buying this terminal Silver for some temporary draw.

Demagogue/Assasin: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777630#msg777630) This one is hard to evaluate for me, I appreciate that Demagogue isn't a great early game card so it isn't an auto-open. One thing that I find is worrying is that the Assassinator doesn't get their card back if the assassination fails so it's quite swingy, I wonder if it would be more fun if they got the card back if the Assassin whiffs but not if it hits? I'm also not sure this is great with 3+ players, it seems frustrating to have your Demagogue trashed by an opponent's Assassin that came from your other opponent's Demagogue. The flavour is great though.

Day Worker/Night Worker: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777644#msg777644) I think Day Worker is a cool workshop variant and Night Worker is a clever way of getting actions into play for Day Worker although it is kind of similar to Ghost, although I praised Message which is basically Lab so I guess I can't criticise that. I wonder whether Night Worker needs to be gained to hand, although I guess it costs $5 so it probably does.

Architect/Redevelop: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777657#msg777657) I like Architect, I guess if you just put +2 Cards on a base set card I'll probably like it... but I like how it can gain Silvers and also draws so the condition to get Redevelop makes sense. Redevelop is scary but it's quite hard to get so I guess it has to be, it also seems like the fun kind of scary to me.

Ox/Yoke of Oxen: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777671#msg777671) I love the concept of a card that you can combine like this. Terminal +1 Card is generally frowned upon though and I think the card might be good enough without any +cards. It's not like Woodcutter for $4 is the worst thing ever and combining them seems like quite the upside.

Archaeologist/Excavation Piece: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777695#msg777695) I like this apart from the weird scoring on Excavation Piece, I don't see why it can't just give a flat vp value. I'm not sure Excavation Piece needs to be a Treasure either really.

Factory/Worker: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777724#msg777724) I like this one too, Bank was getting lonely as a building that's secretly a treasure. I like how the workers give your opponents some interesting decisions to make but they seem like a pretty hefty disadvantage so I wonder how often this is worth going for.

Oak/Acorn: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777734#msg777734) This has some great flavour with the on-trash and the acorns growing more trees. It does seem really strong for $4 though. I think it really should cost $5, the Acorns gaining more Oaks I think is what pushes this over what a $4 should be allowed to do. It's such a delightful design though, I really love it!

Sail Boat/Passenger: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777793#msg777793) I like this one a lot too, nice and clean design and seems like it opens up some interesting decisions, looks well balanced at first glance to me too. I guess you could say that it's playing it a bit safe, but really I don't see what's not to like.

Consorts/Royal Favour: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777830#msg777830) This seems like a well balanced Throne+ with lots of decision making. The +1 Card on Royal Favour doesn't read too well but I understand why it's there, I'm kind of grasping to find criticisms here though.

Lunatic/Conjurator: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777844#msg777844) Lunatic is pretty much Masquerade. Conjurator is double Necromancer. I don't know, with Lunatic being so similar to Masquerade and Conjurator just being better Necromancer I'm not sure this is doing much new? And Lunatic doesn't entice you to trash other Action cards either so I'm not sure it's the best fit really.

Plotter/Gunpowder Plot: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777845#msg777845) I love the flavour here, although you should have to gather 11 Villagers, not 5. I didn't actually hate the +1 Card +1 Villager as much as others, saying that you have to play a Ruined Library 5 times is kind of not how it worked because Ruined Library doesn't give +1 Villager which can do things other than get you to Gunpowder Plot if you need it too. But this new version seems kind of bonkers for $3? Villagers are really powerful!

Superstitious Witch/Witch Bottle: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777860#msg777860) This is cute, but I imagine it has a similar thing to Chariot Race but maybe even worse. You know, your opponent draws a Witch Bottle at the right moment and blocks all of your Curses and you don't and oops now I have 3 Curses which make it even harder to draw a Witch Bottle and then things spiral down from there and you're left questioning why you ever played this game. Just a personal bias of mine.

Treaty/Domain: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777890#msg777890) I really like Treaty actually, a very nice little trasher to open with. Domain is maybe a bit too generous? I do like that it entices you to trash it to tie it back to Treaty though.

Painter/Painting: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777891#msg777891) I'm not sure about this Ally thing, I did ask for a card not a card-shaped-thing. So it doesn't really fit what I was looking for, sorry.

Visionary/Vision: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777903#msg777903) My gripe with this is that Visionary is kind of a non-card, like I'm not sure I can justify putting this ahead of the designs that have 2 interesting cards.

Manager/Intern: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777926#msg777926)  I don't understand why this has a Debt cost +3 Cards +$3 seems like something that you'd open with every time to me. I like the idea of the card apart from that though.

Excavation/Refinery: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777990#msg777990) I'm not sure why people are saying Excavation is strong, it seems kind of weak for a $6 to me. Well ignoring the Refinery part at least. I'm not a fan of the blind trashing part of Excavation, given your deck will probably be fairly built up by the time you can afford a $6 it seems like it'll backfire very often and Lookout is very unpopular for its semi-blind trashing so I think it's best to not do that kind of thing. The setting aside part of Refinery is unfortunate, thanks Capitalism.

Executioner/Gallows: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg778056#msg778056) I think this falls into the pitfall of doing too much at once. It can provide draw, Gold gaining, +Buy, +Villagers, Militia attack and Cursing all in one! The only thing it's really missing is trashing. Discarding your hand is a big cost of course, but it's not so bad early on given that Gallows is probably better than anything you could buy anyway and later on you might be able to start doing things with +$ giving Actions (like Gallows) where discarding your hand isn't so much of a big deal.

Spoiled Brat/Coal: (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg778117#msg778117) I think it's on-record that I'm not a big fan of Knights at all? Sorry I know it's just my own personal bias but this is just not for me. I think posting cards that you think appeal specifically to the judge is an underrated aspect of this contest's metagame honestly.


It was really tough to decide a winner, I was torn between quite a few and it was painful to whittle down my list of top contenders.

The winner is Architect/Redevelop (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777657#msg777657) by Aquila. With Consorts/Royal Favour (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777830#msg777830) and Sail Boat/Passenger (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg777793#msg777793) as the runners up (and a lot of others very close, you probably know who you are based on my comments).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 25, 2018, 12:36:25 am

Well this is a bit frustrating. My final submission for Excavation was a cost of $5, not $6. Also, the price is a reflection of Excavation's power, Refineries power and how hard it is to get Refinery. You seem to have attributed the cost merely to Excavation. No one would say Urchin is a poor card even though it's a weak $3 cost, because it can gain you the much more powerful card, Mercenary.

Title: Weekly Design Contest Thread #9: split pile
Post by: Aquila on November 25, 2018, 03:31:40 am

Nice, thanks Gazbag and hope you're better now! I enjoyed the concepts of the other submissions too.

Contest #9: a split pile with 2 different cards in it, a cheaper Treasure and a more expensive Action.
I will accept higher debt as more expensive than lower $. Potions... I'll leave you to convince me there. You can be open with your designs; you don't have to follow the other rules the official split piles do, just fit this brief.

I'll be looking for a design that makes good use of the split pile mechanic, as well as the usual sound, balanced and interesting specs.

Edit: I was wrong, it's already contest #9...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on November 25, 2018, 08:15:54 am

Quote from: Kudasai on November 25, 2018, 12:36:25 am

Well this is a bit frustrating. My final submission for Excavation was a cost of $5, not $6. Also, the price is a reflection of Excavation's power, Refineries power and how hard it is to get Refinery. You seem to have attributed the cost merely to Excavation. No one would say Urchin is a poor card even though it's a weak $3 cost, because it can gain you the much more powerful card, Mercenary.

I thought the cost of the cards together was appropriate. I was just confused because people seemed to be acting like trashing 3 cards is strong by itself for $6, it was more of a tangential comment. I guess that didn't come across though so I apologise.
I mainly didn't find the blind trashing particularly compelling even though I understand (I think?) that it was intended to be a last resort option to try to get the Refinery. Refinery having to have the awkward wording because Capitalism messed it up was also unfortunate, I did like the concept behind Refinery though. It was a really close call and these things meant I couldn't justify putting it above some of the cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 25, 2018, 08:47:20 am

So, here are my two cards:
(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/62OHdFP5azdI.png)(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/Uh5-EOl2NR81.png)

Dragonfly
Type: Treasure - Reaction
Cost: $4

$2
+1 Buy
-
When something causes you to reveal this (using the word “reveal”), each other player gains a Curse.

Bug Collector
Type: Action
Cost: $6

+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the revealed Treasure cards and Curses into your hand and discard the rest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 25, 2018, 11:06:14 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ZKhS1aT.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/WnaMXtb.jpg)

Investment is inspired by Plowing (https://i.imgur.com/BwS7Kcn.jpg) from this very thread and similar to something that DXV did during playtesting (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19203). Could obviously be too crazy:

Quote

Early on I had a Duration card that sat there accumulating Coffers tokens until you popped it.

Banker creates an incentive to keep Investment in play longer than you want anyway. It also becomes better if there are other Durations in the Kingdom. It could still be too weak though and require something extra.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Watno on November 25, 2018, 12:42:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/SyikSi8.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/BtPAzVi.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 25, 2018, 01:10:17 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 25, 2018, 08:47:20 am

So, here are my two cards:
(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/62OHdFP5azdI.png)(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/Uh5-EOl2NR81.png)

Dragonfly
Type: Treasure - Reaction
Cost: $4

$2
+1 Buy
-
When something causes you to reveal this (using the word “reveal”), each other player gains a Curse.

Bug Collector
Type: Action
Cost: $6

+1 Action
Reveal the top cards of your deck. Put the revealed Treasure cards and Curses into your hand and discard the rest.

This should be $5 so it's not a Silver+ for $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 25, 2018, 01:21:47 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 25, 2018, 01:10:17 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 25, 2018, 08:47:20 am

So, here are my two cards:
(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/62OHdFP5azdI.png)(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/Uh5-EOl2NR81.png)

Dragonfly
Type: Treasure - Reaction
Cost: $4

$2
+1 Buy
-
When something causes you to reveal this (using the word “reveal”), each other player gains a Curse.

Bug Collector
Type: Action
Cost: $6

+1 Action
Reveal the top cards of your deck. Put the revealed Treasure cards and Curses into your hand and discard the rest.

This should be $5 so it's not a Silver+ for $4.

I really thought about this, but there are only 5 Dragonflies and at $5 the competition with Gold is too high, that nobody would buy that and hey, the player who buys the last Firefly unlocks the dangerous Bug Collectors, so I don't feel that this is an issue here.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 25, 2018, 03:30:53 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 25, 2018, 01:21:47 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 25, 2018, 01:10:17 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 25, 2018, 08:47:20 am

So, here are my two cards:
(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/62OHdFP5azdI.png)(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/Uh5-EOl2NR81.png)

Dragonfly
Type: Treasure - Reaction
Cost: $4

$2
+1 Buy
-
When something causes you to reveal this (using the word “reveal”), each other player gains a Curse.

Bug Collector
Type: Action
Cost: $6

+1 Action
Reveal the top cards of your deck. Put the revealed Treasure cards and Curses into your hand and discard the rest.

This should be $5 so it's not a Silver+ for $4.

I really thought about this, but there are only 5 Dragonflies and at $5 the competition with Gold is too high, that nobody would buy that and hey, the player who buys the last Firefly unlocks the dangerous Bug Collectors, so I don't feel that this is an issue here.

I disagree. Dragonflies have no synergy with each other so the price should be the same as if Dragonfly was it's own pile. Even without the reaction I'd price it at $5. It definitely would compete with Gold (your argument I believe was that Gold was too good and people would always buy it, which I disagree with). It should definitely cost $5, or even $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 25, 2018, 04:12:05 pm

Patron is no Treasure but it comes most closest to a Silver+ for $4, even closer than Conclave. Being an Action is on average better than being a Treasure (see this thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19020.0)) and being sometimes able to save its non-terminal aspect via the Villager is also good.
So Silver+ for $4 is no longer a big design no-no.

Furthermore every split pile wants stuff on top that is as cheap as possible; otherwise you will rarely see the stuff underneath it.
Also, we already have two $5 Silvers with a Buy and something extra, Charm and Spices. I think it is pretty clear that Charm and especially Spices are on average better than the Curse part of Dragonfly which you can nearly always (not every card with "reveal" is Golem or Blacksmith, lots of them like Vagrant or Patrician reveal only one card) only use consistently if you go for a the quite expensive Bug Collector that comes at the downside of mildly forcing you to play a Treasure strategy.

Also, with other Cursers in the Kingdom it is fair to claim that once you can use Dragonfly to Curse the pile will already be empty.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 25, 2018, 04:19:28 pm

Quote from: Watno on November 25, 2018, 12:42:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/SyikSi8.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/BtPAzVi.jpg)

Looks pretty good, but Wages should probably have some kind of "If it's not your Action phase, return to it" wording. Not sure if this is the best wording or not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 25, 2018, 04:20:52 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 25, 2018, 08:47:20 am

So, here are my two cards:
(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/62OHdFP5azdI.png)(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/Uh5-EOl2NR81.png)

Dragonfly
Type: Treasure - Reaction
Cost: $4

$2
+1 Buy
-
When something causes you to reveal this (using the word “reveal”), each other player gains a Curse.

Bug Collector
Type: Action
Cost: $6

+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the revealed Treasure cards and Curses into your hand and discard the rest.

This looks very cool, and I think it's okay with Dragonfly at $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 25, 2018, 04:59:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/75Ov8ug.png)(https://i.imgur.com/PtLSlXX.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on November 25, 2018, 05:24:02 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/q4PJFvO.png) (https://i.imgur.com/4MeBEKj.png)

To me, the challenge of this week's challenge is finding a way to design a Treasure that will be gained often enough to expose the bottom card. So, I made one that you could gain whether you want it or not. Cobalt is of course an element that poisons mines, reputed to be the work of the evil Kobolds. The Kobold can be useful, but it demands payment.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on November 25, 2018, 05:29:08 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 25, 2018, 03:30:53 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 25, 2018, 01:21:47 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 25, 2018, 01:10:17 pm

Quote from: King Leon on November 25, 2018, 08:47:20 am

So, here are my two cards:
(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/62OHdFP5azdI.png)(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/Uh5-EOl2NR81.png)

Dragonfly
Type: Treasure - Reaction
Cost: $4

$2
+1 Buy
-
When something causes you to reveal this (using the word “reveal”), each other player gains a Curse.

Bug Collector
Type: Action
Cost: $6

+1 Action
Reveal the top cards of your deck. Put the revealed Treasure cards and Curses into your hand and discard the rest.

This should be $5 so it's not a Silver+ for $4.

I really thought about this, but there are only 5 Dragonflies and at $5 the competition with Gold is too high, that nobody would buy that and hey, the player who buys the last Firefly unlocks the dangerous Bug Collectors, so I don't feel that this is an issue here.

I disagree. Dragonflies have no synergy with each other so the price should be the same as if Dragonfly was it's own pile. Even without the reaction I'd price it at $5. It definitely would compete with Gold (your argument I believe was that Gold was too good and people would always buy it, which I disagree with). It should definitely cost $5, or even $6.

The problem is, that we already have Festival as a $5 card. If I made Dragonfly a $5 I require to add another small extra, which would make the card too complicated. Split piles can sometimes do things, which normal piles cannot do. In this case this is having a Silver+ for $4. Look at Spices, which is actually a Silver+ for $3. You pay $5, but you get $2 change back. Dragonfly is just priced well and also the +Buy is required for better synergy with Bug Collector and the case when Curses run out. Also here is a comparison to Ill-Gotten-Gains: IGG's effect is triggered, when it is gained. Dragonfly is much harder to enable and hits much later than IGG. Both cards play very similar in slogs; but while IGG only can gain Coppers, Dragonfly's +Buy is more flexible.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 25, 2018, 05:58:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/DxgrZ2d.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/vgTwB8l.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on November 25, 2018, 08:03:35 pm

1st card:

Quote

Surplus (Treasure-Reserve, cost $2)
+1 Coffers. Put this on your Tavern Mat.

2nd card:

Quote

Glutton (Action, cost $5 and 3 debt)
+1 Card
+1 Action
Choose 1: + $1, or you may trash a Surplus from your Tavern Mat, to gain a Gold to your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 25, 2018, 10:10:40 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yaYsUD9.jpg)

Quote

Pheasant/Chef
Types: Treasure
Cost: $3
This pile starts the game with 5 copies of Pheasant on top, then 5 copies of Chef. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

(https://i.imgur.com/3sVmYfW.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/GYCoN3g.jpg)

Quote

Pheasant
Types: Treasure
Cost: $3
$3, +1 Buy.

---

While this is in play, you can't buy cards that aren't Actions.

Quote

Chef
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+1 Card, +1 Action. You may play a Treasure from your hand twice, and then you may trash it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #8: split pile
Post by: Kudasai on November 25, 2018, 11:20:54 pm

Quote from: Aquila on November 25, 2018, 03:31:40 am

Nice, thanks Gazbag and hope you're better now! I enjoyed the concepts of the other submissions too.

Contest #8: a split pile with 2 different cards in it, a cheaper Treasure and a more expensive Action.
I will accept higher debt as more expensive than lower $. Potions... I'll leave you to convince me there. You can be open with your designs; you don't have to follow the other rules the official split piles do, just fit this brief.

I'll be looking for a design that makes good use of the split pile mechanic, as well as the usual sound, balanced and interesting specs.

Can multiple types be used? For instance can the required Action card be an Action-Victory card?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 26, 2018, 08:49:03 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 25, 2018, 11:06:14 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ZKhS1aT.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/WnaMXtb.jpg)

Investment is inspired by Plowing (https://i.imgur.com/BwS7Kcn.jpg) from this very thread and similar to something that DXV did during playtesting (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19203). Could obviously be too crazy:

Quote

Early on I had a Duration card that sat there accumulating Coffers tokens until you popped it.

Banker creates an incentive to keep Investment in play longer than you want anyway. It also becomes better if there are other Durations in the Kingdom. It could still be too weak though and require something extra.

Quote from: King Leon on November 25, 2018, 08:47:20 am

So, here are my two cards:
(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/62OHdFP5azdI.png)(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/Uh5-EOl2NR81.png)

Dragonfly
Type: Treasure - Reaction
Cost: $4

$2
+1 Buy
-
When something causes you to reveal this (using the word “reveal”), each other player gains a Curse.

Bug Collector
Type: Action
Cost: $6

+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the revealed Treasure cards and Curses into your hand and discard the rest.

Quote from: hypercube on November 25, 2018, 05:24:02 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/q4PJFvO.png) (https://i.imgur.com/4MeBEKj.png)

To me, the challenge of this week's challenge is finding a way to design a Treasure that will be gained often enough to expose the bottom card. So, I made one that you could gain whether you want it or not. Cobalt is of course an element that poisons mines, reputed to be the work of the evil Kobolds. The Kobold can be useful, but it demands payment.

Quote from: MrHiTech on November 25, 2018, 08:03:35 pm

1st card:

Quote

Surplus (Treasure-Reserve, cost $2)
+1 Coffers. Put this on your Tavern Mat.

2nd card:

Quote

Glutton (Action, cost $5 and 3 debt)
+1 Card
+1 Action
Choose 1: + $1, or you may trash a Surplus from your Tavern Mat, to gain a Gold to your hand.

Quote from: Kudasai on November 25, 2018, 11:20:54 pm

Quote from: Aquila on November 25, 2018, 03:31:40 am

Nice, thanks Gazbag and hope you're better now! I enjoyed the concepts of the other submissions too.

Contest #8: a split pile with 2 different cards in it, a cheaper Treasure and a more expensive Action.
I will accept higher debt as more expensive than lower $. Potions... I'll leave you to convince me there. You can be open with your designs; you don't have to follow the other rules the official split piles do, just fit this brief.

I'll be looking for a design that makes good use of the split pile mechanic, as well as the usual sound, balanced and interesting specs.

Can multiple types be used? For instance can the required Action card be an Action-Victory card?

I would assume so.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on November 26, 2018, 11:23:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/uIEwRmY.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/6yozWNN.jpg)

Quote

King's Shilling
Types: Treasure
Cost: $2
$1
You may trash an Action card from your hand.  If you do, +$2.
The next time you buy an Action card this turn, +1 Buy.

Garrison
Types: Action
Cost: $6
Gain an Action card.
-
When you trash this, put it in your hand.

The original version of King's Shilling lacked the +Buy part

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 26, 2018, 12:06:56 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on November 26, 2018, 11:23:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/Wsu9Osw.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/6yozWNN.jpg)

Quote

King's Shilling
Types: Treasure
Cost: $2
$1
You may trash an Action card from your hand.  If you do, $2.

Garrison
Types: Action
Cost: $6
Gain an Action card.
-
When you trash this, put it in your hand.

Clarification: If you trash an Action card with King's Shilling, you get a total of $3.

This looks fun. One thing; King's Shilling should say + $2, like Charm.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #8: split pile
Post by: Aquila on November 26, 2018, 12:10:33 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on November 25, 2018, 11:20:54 pm

Can multiple types be used? For instance can the required Action card be an Action-Victory card?

Yes. Cheaper Treasure and expensive Action are the minimum requirements. From there you can do whatever you like. Every entry so far is valid.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 26, 2018, 12:18:13 pm

Quick question.  When would something be a reaction, like Market Square, as opposed to a non-reaction, like Fortress? The card I'm making has a "when this is trashed" thing, and I'm wondering how to design the card right.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 26, 2018, 01:41:56 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EoxF9uB.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/GHB8J8X.jpg)

I am open to suggestions for how to improve the wording of Smelter.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 26, 2018, 01:50:27 pm

In my opinion the wording is pretty clear. For each card you drew less than 3 is an alternative.
I like Coin Press a lot, it is kind of an inverse of Cursed Gold (instead of you gaining bad stuff, they gain good stuff).

Sure, Smelter prevents your opponents from profiting from Coin Press and Schemes cards in play but I doubt that you are willing to forsake some draw to do that trick. You could argue that to really pull this off you either need to always just draw 2 cards (such that you can at least always topdeck the most likely most expensive card, Smelter) or you get your draw from some other cards and use Smelter exclusively for Scheming.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 26, 2018, 03:01:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/czTu2UV.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/xmqriw5.jpg)

It's a standard split pile - 5 Candles on top of 5 Ghost Hunts

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 26, 2018, 03:21:01 pm

Spyglass is a great Venture variant; I like that it also works with Night cards. I don't see the interaction with Ghost Hunt though which looks overpowered. I think that a next turn KC alone is probably already good enough for $4 or $5 and while it hard to compare this card to Gear or Haven as these cards do something vanilla-ish the unlimitedness of Ghost Hunt has to be worth something, even even though there is no vanilla stuff on the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 26, 2018, 03:33:27 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 26, 2018, 03:21:01 pm

Spyglass is a great Venture variant; I like that it also works with Night cards. I don't see the interaction with Ghost Hunt though which looks overpowered. I think that a next turn KC alone is probably already good enough for $4 or $5 and while it hard to compare this card to Gear or Haven as these cards do something vanilla-ish the unlimitedness of Ghost Hunt has to be worth something, even even though there is no vanilla stuff on the card.

Spyglass can put an Action in your hand which you can play next turn on your Ghost Hunt. I may also put a non optional chancellor effect on Ghost Hunt to nerf it.

Compared to Tactician you're 1 card, 1 Action and 1 buy worse off in a standard 5 card hand, but in return you get a KC (or TR if I nerf it).

I based the cost on my thinking that "you may Haven a card,  then next turn Throne Room" would be fine at 4 - in return for delaying the action a turn there are a few bonuses here and there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on November 26, 2018, 03:57:42 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 26, 2018, 12:06:56 pm

This looks fun. One thing; King's Shilling should say + $2, like Charm.

Fixed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 26, 2018, 04:14:43 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on November 26, 2018, 11:23:56 am

Quote

King's Shilling
Types: Treasure
Cost: $2
$1
You may trash an Action card from your hand.  If you do, +$2.

Garrison
Types: Action
Cost: $6
Gain an Action card.
-
When you trash this, put it in your hand.

First of all, Garrison is a great card. Very simple, few words and yet somehow totally frehs. Most of the times it will be weaker on-play than Artisan but there are some Actions that are more expensive than $5 and the Remodel tricks are also nice. Fortress variants seem to be impossible to pull off but you managed it.

But there is the problem that King's Shilling is just a Copper (ignoring Looters and cards like Sea Hag stopping to be useful) until they are all gone. This is probably not an issue in multiplayer but in 2P this can lead to something we know from City: Alice tries to empty the pile, Bob doesn't play along, the City pile never empties and Bob wins. It is not as grave as with City as it is just half a pile but arguably the cost of having $2 Coppers in your deck is often higher than the cost of having $5 Villages. With all those stop cards it is also less likely that you can later match them consistently with Garrison.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 26, 2018, 04:44:45 pm

Quote from: faust on November 26, 2018, 01:41:56 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EoxF9uB.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/GHB8J8X.jpg)

I am open to suggestions for how to improve the wording of Smelter.

Uh-oh, my entry has a card called Smelter as well (I haven't posted it yet)
As far as the contest goes should I change the name or just leave it as it is?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 26, 2018, 05:27:41 pm

Off the top of my head, the only kingdom treasure I can think of that regularly piles out is Fools' Gold. Even with really good cards like Counterfeit,  Crown,  Coin of the Realm and Quarry, you don't want too many. Scepter and Spices are both great and may be exceptions.

This is a tough challenge; I love it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 26, 2018, 06:47:50 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on November 26, 2018, 05:27:41 pm

Off the top of my head, the only kingdom treasure I can think of that regularly piles out is Fools' Gold. Even with really good cards like Counterfeit,  Crown,  Coin of the Realm and Quarry, you don't want too many. Scepter and Spices are both great and may be exceptions.

This is a tough challenge; I love it.

Well, in this case only 5 need to be bought. But you're right, it's tough to make a Treasure you want a lot of, that's why I made mine a trasher.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 26, 2018, 06:53:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/qsCWRyJ.jpg)] (https://i.imgur.com/6Zyugn8.jpg)

Sorry mine also has a card named Smelter.  I had this made a while ago and just didn't post it.  Hopefully since the first card is different it is unique enough.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on November 27, 2018, 05:01:49 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 26, 2018, 04:14:43 pm

But there is the problem that King's Shilling is just a Copper (ignoring Looters and cards like Sea Hag stopping to be useful) until they are all gone. This is probably not an issue in multiplayer but in 2P this can lead to something we know from City: Alice tries to empty the pile, Bob doesn't play along, the City pile never empties and Bob wins. It is not as grave as with City as it is just half a pile but arguably the cost of having $2 Coppers in your deck is often higher than the cost of having $5 Villages. With all those stop cards it is also less likely that you can later match them consistently with Garrison.

Thanks for the kind words about Garrison!  I see your point about King's Shilling; I guess the obvious fix would be to give it +Buy, but then it would be strictly better than Pouch.  I'll think about it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 27, 2018, 05:36:41 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on November 26, 2018, 06:47:50 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on November 26, 2018, 05:27:41 pm

Off the top of my head, the only kingdom treasure I can think of that regularly piles out is Fools' Gold. Even with really good cards like Counterfeit,  Crown,  Coin of the Realm and Quarry, you don't want too many. Scepter and Spices are both great and may be exceptions.

This is a tough challenge; I love it.

Well, in this case only 5 need to be bought. But you're right, it's tough to make a Treasure you want a lot of, that's why I made mine a trasher.

Yeah, you have to figure something out there. My entry solves it by giving out copies of itself to other players on play. A bunch of entries seem to be going with +buys, but that's only really good in the mid-to-late game, so they will take a while to empty.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 27, 2018, 05:47:58 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 26, 2018, 01:50:27 pm

In my opinion the wording is pretty clear. For each card you drew less than 3 is an alternative.
I like Coin Press a lot, it is kind of an inverse of Cursed Gold (instead of you gaining bad stuff, they gain good stuff).

Thanks!

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 26, 2018, 01:50:27 pm

Sure, Smelter prevents your opponents from profiting from Coin Press and Schemes cards in play but I doubt that you are willing to forsake some draw to do that trick. You could argue that to really pull this off you either need to always just draw 2 cards (such that you can at least always topdeck the most likely most expensive card, Smelter) or you get your draw from some other cards and use Smelter exclusively for Scheming.

Yes, the topdecking is mainly a cute trick. It is more relevant for setting up combos (like Herald) than it is for preventing Coin Press gains for your opponents. The more important interaction between the cards is that Smelter gives the +buy and draw that a deck with some high-value Treasures wants.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on November 27, 2018, 07:15:59 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on November 27, 2018, 05:01:49 am

I see your point about King's Shilling; I guess the obvious fix would be to give it +Buy, but then it would be strictly better than Pouch.  I'll think about it.

OK, I've given it a +Buy conditional on your buying an Action, so you can use it to spam cheap Actions at the same time you buy your Shillings.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 27, 2018, 09:02:25 am

Quote from: Asper on November 25, 2018, 05:58:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/DxgrZ2d.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/vgTwB8l.jpg)

I feel like Contract should be more expensive. In the majority of situations, it is better than CotR.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 27, 2018, 10:52:48 am

Quote from: faust on November 27, 2018, 09:02:25 am

Quote from: Asper on November 25, 2018, 05:58:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/DxgrZ2d.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/vgTwB8l.jpg)

I feel like Contract should be more expensive. In the majority of situations, it is better than CotR.

I agree with Faust, but I think that villa is the closest relative. Both net a buck, an action and a buy at the cost of one card. Also, both synergize with draw to X, notably bookkeeper. That being said,  3$ seems logic as price, because this is what villa effectively costs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 27, 2018, 12:00:39 pm

I think that in general the price does not matter that much with all these Treasures. You want to actually see the bottom part of the pile in some games so being a bit too cheap is not a big issue and $2 vs $3 doesn't matter much.
Unless there are extra Buys. Just imagine Fool's Gold with an extra Buy, it'd probably have to cost $4 because it would be otherwise far too easy to snowball and pick up a lot of them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on November 27, 2018, 12:28:56 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/JBuXy3v.png)(https://i.imgur.com/30xUDi5.png)

5 Horses on top, 5 Paddocks below, like a standard split pile. If a Goat is allowed to be a Treasure then Horse is too! It also trashes things a bit like Goat. Horse might be able to get away with costing $2? I thought I'd play it safe but am open to changing it. At first I had Paddock revealing for treasures first before the +3 Cards, but I like it this way because it works with Wishing Well type things which is always fun. I didn't want the cards to specifically mention each other like a lot of split piles do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 27, 2018, 02:12:16 pm

Quote from: faust on November 18, 2018, 04:54:27 am

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 18, 2018, 04:50:50 am

Time to think about our pension, and raise some children!

My design tries to implicit that it takes a huge effort to do so, makes you lose a lot of time, but can eventually pay off big.

Obviously, to suit the given cards, each player has a pension mat:


Bride, Action, 4$

+ 2 Actions
+2 cards per child on your pension mat

Gain a Child.



Child, Action, 0* [*not in the supply]

+ 2 coffers

You may put this on your pension mat for 6 coffers.
If you do, +4 VP

I think the flavor implications of buying multiple Brides for the sole purpose of impregnating them and have them raise children easily beat Harem in terms of offensiveness.

Quote from: Gazbag on November 27, 2018, 12:28:56 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/JBuXy3v.png)(https://i.imgur.com/30xUDi5.png)

5 Horses on top, 5 Paddocks below, like a standard split pile. If a Goat is allowed to be a Treasure then Horse is too! It also trashes things a bit like Goat. Horse might be able to get away with costing $2? I thought I'd play it safe but am open to changing it. At first I had Paddock revealing for treasures first before the +3 Cards, but I like it this way because it works with Wishing Well type things which is always fun. I didn't want the cards to specifically mention each other like a lot of split piles do.

Is it better to have horses killing other horses lurking for money?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 27, 2018, 04:05:04 pm

Yes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 27, 2018, 08:15:45 pm

Scrap my other submission, I've come up with something I like better:

(https://i.imgur.com/Kmoy4QB.png)(https://i.imgur.com/gdzFT9a.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 27, 2018, 09:08:28 pm

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 27, 2018, 10:52:48 am

Quote from: faust on November 27, 2018, 09:02:25 am

I feel like Contract should be more expensive. In the majority of situations, it is better than CotR.

I agree with Faust, but I think that villa is the closest relative. Both net a buck, an action and a buy at the cost of one card. Also, both synergize with draw to X, notably bookkeeper. That being said,  3$ seems logic as price, because this is what villa effectively costs.

Well, CotR generates one Action more, but doesn't generate a buy. It also removes itself from your deck until called, and honestly I wasn't sure whether I should consider that a downside or upside. And of course, there are 10 coins, not 5. Anyhow, it's not like I hate the idea of costing Contract at 3$ - at the very least it would make it more different from CotR.

About the comparison with Villa, that one of course gives its Actions immediately - and has an on-gain that is pretty central to its design.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Project Grantwood on November 28, 2018, 12:23:22 am

Hi all! This is my first post! I made an account just for this! Yay Cards!

This pile is split 5/5 (Not trying to rock the boat, here)

The Writ of Credit is a silver that lets you trash for benefit, but it also gains (and punishes) debt. It's a little scary to consider buying on its own, but if you get ahold of the Margin Trader, it could help you get that debt back under control and even turn a nice little profit, plus it gives you an extra buy so you can use the profit right away. It's also a sort-of trasher, but you'll want to save it more for a sweet ending move rather than to thin out your deck... and the coffer bomb could backfire if you're not trading on margin ;)

(https://i.imgur.com/myNs6jTm.png)(https://i.imgur.com/0Liyyqam.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 28, 2018, 03:54:46 am

Yee-haw, welcome to the forums! Nice to have you around  :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on November 28, 2018, 04:02:23 am

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 27, 2018, 02:12:16 pm

Is it better to have horses killing other horses lurking for money?

Equus equum lupus est.
Translation: A horse is a wolf to horses.

The question that bothers me more is, why you no interact with Horse Traders?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 28, 2018, 05:56:14 am

Quote from: Asper on November 28, 2018, 04:02:23 am

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 27, 2018, 02:12:16 pm

Is it better to have horses killing other horses lurking for money?

Equus equum lupus est.
Translation: A horse is a wolf to horses.

The question that bothers me more is, why you no interact with Horse Traders?

At least, it’s great with butcher.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on November 29, 2018, 01:23:38 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 25, 2018, 04:19:28 pm

Quote from: Watno on November 25, 2018, 12:42:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/SyikSi8.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/BtPAzVi.jpg)

Looks pretty good, but Wages should probably have some kind of "If it's not your Action phase, return to it" wording. Not sure if this is the best wording or not.

Looking at Villa, it should probably be "If it's your Buy phase". Also, Treasures should say "When you play this".

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 26, 2018, 06:53:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/qsCWRyJ.jpg)] (https://i.imgur.com/6Zyugn8.jpg)

Sorry mine also has a card named Smelter.  I had this made a while ago and just didn't post it.  Hopefully since the first card is different it is unique enough.

Mould should say "that you don't have in play", since now other people might have Treasures in play on your turns (Capitalism + Caravan Guard). ;)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 29, 2018, 02:27:04 am

Great challenge this week! Indeed, it’s not easy to create a desirable Treasure, which also synergizes with the Action ... my attempt is to make the treasures available later and provide a way to bump them up. It took some time to balance it out, and the following cards require some patience, but when they finally exploded, it was real fun:

**********************************

Goldsmith, 5$, Action

+3 cards

You may reveal 3/4 differently named treasures for 1/2 villagers.

**********************************

Medallion, 2$, Treasure

Worth 1$ for every two villagers you have (round down).

**********************************
 
Remarks:
There are 5 Goldsmiths on top, with 5 Medallions below.

If you play Goldsmith and reveal 3 differently named treasures, you get 1 villager, if you reveal 4 differently named treasures, you get 2 of them. But not on top: it’s at most 2 villagers in total. If you don’t like the wording, I’m happy about better suggestions!










Remarks: There are 5 Gold Smithies on top

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 29, 2018, 10:00:00 am

I like the general idea but I doubt that anybody has much of an incentive to go for a Treasure which is a dead card until fairly late in the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 10:14:58 am

This whole thread is a really cool idea
(https://i.imgur.com/nEJwLo0.png) (https://i.imgur.com/gYGuOmQ.png)

And I'm breaking with convention: pile is 7 Gilt on top, 3 Lilies underneath.

Edit: Updated Gilt wording to prevent Estate gains.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 10:32:18 am

Quote from: Watno on November 25, 2018, 12:42:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/SyikSi8.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/BtPAzVi.jpg)

I absolutely love the theme of these, and the backwards village-smithy play order concept in general. Definitely the ones I most want to try out proxied.

Villa says "If it's your Buy phase return to your Action phase."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 29, 2018, 10:43:43 am

(https://i.imgur.com/XntV7CO.jpg?1) (https://i.imgur.com/N87J2V9.jpg?1)
Here's my submission, for now. I used the names/art of some of my other cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on November 29, 2018, 11:17:44 am

Quote from: crlundy on November 29, 2018, 01:23:38 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on November 25, 2018, 04:19:28 pm

Quote from: Watno on November 25, 2018, 12:42:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/SyikSi8.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/BtPAzVi.jpg)

Looks pretty good, but Wages should probably have some kind of "If it's not your Action phase, return to it" wording. Not sure if this is the best wording or not.

Looking at Villa, it should probably be "If it's your Buy phase". Also, Treasures should say "When you play this".

Quote from: Chappy7 on November 26, 2018, 06:53:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/qsCWRyJ.jpg)] (https://i.imgur.com/6Zyugn8.jpg)

Sorry mine also has a card named Smelter.  I had this made a while ago and just didn't post it.  Hopefully since the first card is different it is unique enough.

Mould should say "that you don't have in play", since now other people might have Treasures in play on your turns (Capitalism + Caravan Guard). ;)

I thought about that and I'm okay with how it is.  I think it's kind of a fun interaction

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 29, 2018, 11:32:45 am

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 10:14:58 am

This whole thread is a really cool idea
(https://i.imgur.com/htC2142.png) (https://i.imgur.com/gYGuOmQ.png)

And I'm breaking with convention: pile is 7 Gilt on top, 3 Lilies underneath.

No card from this pile will ever be bought in non-Shepherd Kingdoms without $2 Kingdom cards: you play Gilt, trash a Copper, gain a Gilt and when you later trash a Gilt via a Gilt you gain an Estate.
I don't see much of an interaction between Gilt and Lily.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 29, 2018, 11:36:53 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 29, 2018, 10:00:00 am

I like the general idea but I doubt that anybody has much of an incentive to go for a Treasure which is a dead card until fairly late in the game.

Thanks for your feedback, but I don’t think so: To avoid this, I put the treasures below ...

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 29, 2018, 02:27:04 am

Great challenge this week! Indeed, it’s not easy to create a desirable Treasure, which also synergizes with the Action ... my attempt is to make the treasures available later and provide a way to bump them up. It took some time to balance it out, and the following cards require some patience, but when they finally exploded, it was real fun:

**********************************

Goldsmith, 5$, Action

+3 cards

You may reveal 3/4 differently named treasures for 1/2 villagers.

**********************************

Medallion, 2$, Treasure

Worth 1$ for every two villagers you have (round down).

**********************************
 
Remarks:
There are 5 Goldsmiths on top, with 5 Medallions below.

If you play Goldsmith and reveal 3 differently named treasures, you get 1 villager, if you reveal 4 differently named treasures, you get 2 of them. But not on top: it’s at most 2 villagers in total. If you don’t like the wording, I’m happy about better suggestions!

I also playtested it: with good sidekicks (Splitters helped saving Villagers, other Treasures helped gaining 2 per Goldsmith), the first medallion was already a gold, and ended up being better than platinum.

Of course, this was an extreme edge case (simulation with Forager and Coin of the Realm, which fit perfect). Without splitters or other Treasures, Medallion might be worth 0 and be skipped.

But then again, I don’t think a card is badly designed if sometimes half of the pile isn’t bought. I even think that a good ratio is e. g. if a card is entirely skipped in 30% to 60% of all games, and if it is the best card in the kingdom at a rate of roughly 10%.

What do others think?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 29, 2018, 11:41:50 am

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 29, 2018, 11:36:53 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 29, 2018, 10:00:00 am

I like the general idea but I doubt that anybody has much of an incentive to go for a Treasure which is a dead card until fairly late in the game.

Thanks for your feedback, but I don’t think so: To avoid this, I put the treasures below ...

Sorry, I totally overread this. With the Treasure underneath it is of course totally fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 11:50:32 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 29, 2018, 11:32:45 am

No card from this pile will ever be bought in non-Shepherd Kingdoms without $2 Kingdom cards: you play Gilt, trash a Copper, gain a Gilt and when you later trash a Gilt via a Gilt you gain an Estate.
I don't see much of an interaction between Gilt and Lily.

Maybe this got lost in different versions, I did have Lily costing $2 at one point and then had Lily being stronger than it is, but the idea was emptying the estate pile and fueling Lily with it (and hence Gilt needed to also be basically impossible to drain.)

I think they have a good amount of interaction though, Gilt is a hurdle to get to the Lilies, and you pull tricks like trashing Silver to gain the Lily and then trashing Gilt to put it back on the pile over the other Lily, and Gilt as perpetual point engine components for the player who got 2 Lilies, forcing the other to try to race out the Provinces.

I was actually worried about this being too game dominating, which is why I maybe over-nerfed, but it's a kinda-sorta Fortress-Bishop split pile and I think that's a pretty significant interaction.

Should I somewhat un-nerf Lily, or should I do something with the trash clause on Gilt like "and you may trash a card from your hand" or something like that?

I didn't really want Gilt at 2, Lily at 5 because an exactly-2 clause makes it easy to pile Pearl Divers or whatever with your coppers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 29, 2018, 01:08:56 pm

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 11:50:32 am

Gilt as perpetual point engine components for the player who got 2 Lilies, forcing the other to try to race out the Provinces.

Gilt isn't "perpetual", you still have to gain it somehow again after you trashed it and returned it to its pile. In the absence of spammable extra Buys the cheap price of Gilt is fairly irrelevant and in far more Kingdoms you'd gain fodder for Lily via gainers.
I also think it is hard to make a powerhouse out of Lily. You need to draw 2 cards to get 1VP and you later have to somehow regain a card to feed Lily. So you need draw power and gainers or Buys to get at best, if you have all 5 Lilies, 5VPs per turn. In a Kingdom with gainers or extra Buys and card that provide draw power going for an engine that can buy 2 Provinces per turn in the endgame seems like the wiser choice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 02:04:51 pm

Gilt feeds you other stuff when trashed, and then can be bought without depleting piles is the thing I was talking about, for the player who is behind trying to catch up.

I'm thinking a lot about endgame pile control with this. I'm trying to make it not about VP generation on it's own, but about getting a lead and draining the pile.

Also, +Buy is more common than gainers, isn't it? Certainly not far less common. You don't need a million Buys, you need a few extra.

Note that there are only 3 Lillies, I think 5 is nuts. That's 5 VP a turn and, if you have an engine with some overdraw, milling 5 provinces off the supply if you've bought 1.

---

Idea that just occurred to me: maybe Gilt should gain an Action or Treasure card costing exactly $1 more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 02:32:38 pm

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 02:04:51 pm

Idea that just occurred to me: maybe Gilt should gain an Action or Treasure card costing exactly $1 more.

Updated the original post with this change

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 29, 2018, 02:50:23 pm

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 02:04:51 pm

Gilt feeds you other stuff when trashed,

If that is your intention, you have to word it differently. As it is currently worded it only trashes a Treasure at the end of the turn if it is in play, i.e. if you trash Gilt via another card like Lilies this Upgrade effect doesn't happen.

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 02:04:51 pm

Note that there are only 3 Lillies, I think 5 is nuts. That's 5 VP a turn and, if you have an engine with some overdraw, milling 5 provinces off the supply if you've bought 1.

Sure, the Transmogrify / Salt of Earth like pile control is nice but in order to pull that off you'd need to draw 10 cards: 5 Lilies and 5 cards you don't want anymore. And this or next turn you'd have to regain 5 cards to feed Lilies.
I don't see any craziness.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 02:51:11 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 29, 2018, 02:48:02 pm

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 02:04:51 pm

Gilt feeds you other stuff when trashed,

If that is your intention, you have to word it differently. As it is currently worded it only trashes a Treasure at the end of the turn if it is in play, i.e. if you trash Gilt via another card like Lilies this Upgrade effect doesn't happen.

It's worded how I mean it to be worded, I think it might be perfectly reasonable to get a Spice Merchant with Gilt/Lily, and that shouldn't gain anything. I just mean that it is capable of basically being trashed twice if you're gaining a $2, but I've also updated the wording in regard to the Estates, because I do think that was an over-nerf on reflection.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 02:55:10 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 29, 2018, 02:50:23 pm

Sure, the Transmogrify / Salt of Earth like pile control is nice but in order to pull that off you'd need to draw 10 cards: 5 Lilies and 5 cards you don't want anymore. And this or next turn you'd have to regain 5 cards to feed Lilies.
I don't see any craziness.

You gain mid-turn from Lily. You don't need 5 cards you don't want anymore, you need 1 province and 4 cantrips.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 29, 2018, 03:26:25 pm

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 02:51:11 pm

It's worded how I mean it to be worded

Fine but then there is nothing special about Gilt being fed to Lily except for being cheap which only matters if Buys are cheap to come by.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 03:45:25 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 29, 2018, 03:26:25 pm

Fine but then there is nothing special about Gilt being fed to Lily except for being cheap which only matters if Buys are cheap to come by.

On one hand I don't want to continue this because it feels like it's pointless and you've made up your mind, and also like some of your concerns were addressed by what I changed, but I do feel like you're missing something here.

If there is a $2 Action in the kingdom and you spend $1 and 1 Buy getting a Gilt, you trash it twice before you have to buy another one, because you gain another card to trash. (And it used to be Estates, but I decided that was too nerfed with regard to the early game.)

$1 and a Buy every two turns is not a big ask of the kingdom, there are (lazy approximation using Ctrl + F) 58 + Buy cards, it's not that rare to have a +Buy, and you usually want it. And when the endgame comes around and you're buying multiple victory cards, you're not trashing Gilts, it's a middlegame thing, where sometimes you get a $5 and a $3 on that $8 hand, but often you have 2 Buys and $6 and get a $5 or whatever.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 29, 2018, 03:58:51 pm

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 03:45:25 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 29, 2018, 03:26:25 pm

Fine but then there is nothing special about Gilt being fed to Lily except for being cheap which only matters if Buys are cheap to come by.

If there is a $2 Action in the kingdom and you spend $1 and 1 Buy getting a Gilt, you trash it twice before you have to buy another one, because you gain another card to trash. (And it used to be Estates, but I decided that was too nerfed with regard to the early game.)

I have no idea about what this is supposed to mean. Gilt trashes a card and (potentially) gains a card. It isn't, as you seem to imply, a net-gainer and thus doesn't contribute in this way as Lily fodder provider.
What I meant with cheap or spammable Buy is something like Market Square. Lots of Kingdoms have no extra Buys at all and lots of them have only terminal cards that provide the extra Buys. Terminal space is nearly always scarce so the Woddcutter variants compete with other engine components and it takes quite some effort to build your engine such that you always have several extra Buys per turn that allows you to regain Gilts.

So there isn't much interaction between the cards (as they are both slow trashers they are substitutes rather than, as it should be, complements). It seems far more likely that you will simply feed anything to Lily or use it to pile-drive Provinces.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 04:03:01 pm

Okay, I get what you are saying now, almost want to delete my old comments, I feel dumb about this, wasn't getting quite what you were saying, and wasn't communicating well. Also, mid-typing I confused myself with a previous, unposted, version of the card and that further muddied things. Almost want to go delete things, but that would be even more confusing for poor souls reading this.

Anyway, a lot of what I was trying to say is about having 5 of them potentially being broken in not-that-rare kingdoms. Broken when you have a solid engine = broken.

The underdog player not having to lower piles was a thing I was meaning to talk about somewhere in there. And I do believe costing $1 is a form of synergy, as is being able to gain Lily by trashing Silver, as is being able to put Gilt back on top of the Lily remaining in the pile. Also, Gilt is only a copper trasher, which I think is relevant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 29, 2018, 04:17:05 pm

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 04:03:01 pm

Anyway, a lot of what I was trying to say is about having 5 of them potentially being broken in not-that-rare kingdoms. Broken when you have a solid engine = broken.

Yeah, I totally agree with that although I think that it has more to do with the pile control than the VPs.

Quote

The underdog player not having to lower piles was a thing I was meaning to talk about somewhere in there. And I do believe costing $1 is a form of synergy, as is being able to gain Lily by trashing Silver, as is being able to put Gilt back on top of the Lily remaining in the pile.

$4s are never hard to get. I agree though that blocking the Lilies via Gilts returning to the pile is a nice feature.
What you seem to underestimate though is that the very situation in which you wanna actually use Gilts as Lily fodder requires and engine with decent draw and lots of Buys and my naive question is: can such an engine not do much better?

So I fear that the Lilies will never see the sun in lots of games. If you ignore Lily, Gilt is just a Copper trasher so you want at most 1 or 2 of them. Perhaps 3 to pull of some Upgrade tricks but then Gilt returns to the pile and makes it less likely that Lilies will appear.

I hate to sound harsh but there are simply too many issues with this to work well. You need a stronger Treasure on top with either independent strength or far stronger synergies (I understand why you limited the amount of Lilies to 3 but this comes at the cost of looser ties between bottom and top card; why work card for Gilt as fodder if there are only 3 Lilies) to make this split pile thingy work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 04:29:42 pm

I mean, part of it is that I think being ignored about 20-30% of the time is something to aim for. The problem is overshooting and winding up with Royal Seal.

I think/am worried that having 1 more Lily than your opponent gives enough endgame control that it's a big deal.

And yes, if it were it's own pile and didn't have anything else going on, you'd want 1 Gilt. But the upgrading Copper to Gilt on the way to oblivion is mandatory, it's a bit Rats-like (but admittedly less-so.)

So if both players go for it the pile will get moderately low without a lot of effort, you don't want it to self-trash the first time, but if both players wind up with 3 in deck at the same time, that's 1 left on the pile. The question is when only one player goes for it I think, but if it's the only copper trasher that seems unlikely, as well as if there is a bad trasher and you want some additional non-terminal trashing. If Counterfeit didn't have the +Buy and cost less, would it be ignored too often?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 29, 2018, 06:31:02 pm

CHALLENGE #8 SPLIT PILE W/ ACTION AND CHEAPER TREASURE

Card Splits:
2-Players: 4 Timberlands on top / 4 Treants on bottom
3-6 Players: 6 Timberlands on top / 6 Treants on bottom
(https://i.imgur.com/paoq236.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/R4zBPx6.jpg)

Clarifications:
-Victory cards with a scaling VP amount (Gardens, Duke, Vineyard, Fairground, Silk Road, Feodum, Humble Castle, King's Castle and Pasture) cannot be used with Timberland. :(
-Monster is a type I made up to help players remember that while that card is in the Supply, it has an effect on certain parts of the game. In this case, Victory cards cost $2 more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 30, 2018, 02:59:24 am

Quote from: Kudasai on November 29, 2018, 06:31:02 pm

CHALLENGE #8 SPLIT PILE W/ ACTION AND CHEAPER TREASURE

(https://i.imgur.com/BQc0WCa.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/wXRRrGk.jpg)

Clarifications:
-Victory cards with a varying VP amount (Gardens, Duke, Vineyard, Fairground, Silk Road, Feodum, Humble Castle, King's Castle and Pasture) cannot be used with Timberland. :(
-Monster is a type I made up to help players remember that while that card is in the Supply, it has an effect on certain parts of the game. In this case, Victory cards cost $2 more.

According to what the cards do, Treant is closer to be a treasure than Timberland. I think that Treant is OP. But aside from not really being a treasure, Timberland looks decent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on November 30, 2018, 03:11:42 am

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 04:29:42 pm

I think/am worried that having 1 more Lily than your opponent gives enough endgame control that it's a big deal.

Certainly not, and it is not even close.
A normal engine often catches up a 3-5 province split against BM, corresponding to 12 lily plays. Also, almost no board will give you the time for that, most engine boards end before T15. I don't expect your first lily play
much before T10, unless you buy gilt early, which is terrible, similar to opening small castle.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on November 30, 2018, 07:57:20 am

I don't know, Timberland is as aweful for Copper trashing as Raze (yet Raze is cheaper and can trash other stuff) while the Stonemason tricks with Silver and Gold don't seem to make it shine that much.
So I fear that in any game with other trashers those Treants will never see the light of day. The interaction with Treant, i.e. conversion into Peddlers, is also not that huge.

Perhaps give Timberland 2VPs?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 30, 2018, 02:56:54 pm

First I should mention I've changed Timberland and Treant a bit (v0.2), but the basic premise is the same so I think I can still respond to comments about v0.1 without too much confusion.

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 30, 2018, 07:57:20 am

I don't know, Timberland is as aweful for Copper trashing as Raze (yet Raze is cheaper and can trash other stuff) while the Stonemason tricks with Silver and Gold don't seem to make it shine that much.
So I fear that in any game with other trashers those Treants will never see the light of day. The interaction with Treant, i.e. conversion into Peddlers, is also not that huge.

Perhaps give Timberland 2VPs?

With Timberland I think you might have missed that the cards gained cost less than Timberland and not the Treasure returned to the Supply. I think this makes it quite a bit more powerful. Too powerful in my mind so I changed it around a bit. My hope is that Timberland is a weak $4 cost at the start of the game and then when the Treant pile is revealed it gets a big boast. In addition to Treant being able to turn Timberland into a Peddler, the very addition of having Treant in the Supply makes Timberland cost $6 and thus it can now gain cards costing up to $5.

Timberland is a great value at this point, but the big question is how fast can you get to that point? Are all the good $5 cost cards gone by then? Are all those Timberlands you bought getting in the way? I don't really have answers to these questions yet. :(

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 30, 2018, 02:59:24 am

According to what the cards do, Treant is closer to be a treasure than Timberland. I think that Treant is OP. But aside from not really being a treasure, Timberland looks decent.

Aside from the challenge calling for a Treasure card, Timberland is mainly a Treasure so that it can get rid of itself if needed later in the game. It's a pretty bad trasher so I thought this should at least be included.

Treant is quite strong, but there a few things that hopefully keep it in check: (1) It cost $8. (2) It relies on Victory cards that generally are dead cards in your deck to function, so there is a lot of risk there. (3) Victory cards cost $2 more while Treant cards are in the Supply, so it's much harder to get the Victory cards required to make Treant function.

It could still be broken though. This set came out a bit more complex than I had wanted and I'm now having a hard time determining if it's balanced. There is a lot of subtly between Timberland, Treant and numerous other cards that I can't really account for all the scenarios that could pan out. But hey, it doesn't actually have to be balanced. I just need Aquila to think it is! :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 30, 2018, 03:10:29 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 25, 2018, 11:06:14 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ZKhS1aT.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/WnaMXtb.jpg)

Investment is inspired by Plowing (https://i.imgur.com/BwS7Kcn.jpg) from this very thread and similar to something that DXV did during playtesting (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19203). Could obviously be too crazy:

Quote

Early on I had a Duration card that sat there accumulating Coffers tokens until you popped it.

Banker creates an incentive to keep Investment in play longer than you want anyway. It also becomes better if there are other Durations in the Kingdom. It could still be too weak though and require something extra.

Really cool concept. Token generation each turn does seem quite strong. There doesn't seem to be a lot of drawback to just rushing Investments.

If this proved to be a problem, I could see this working well if a token or two were generated each time you reshuffled. Players would now have to choose between components that speed up their deck reshuffles or getting Investments. Banker's draw would also pair very nicely with this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on November 30, 2018, 03:33:51 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on November 25, 2018, 11:06:14 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ZKhS1aT.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/WnaMXtb.jpg)

Investment is inspired by Plowing (https://i.imgur.com/BwS7Kcn.jpg) from this very thread and similar to something that DXV did during playtesting (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19203). Could obviously be too crazy:

Quote

Early on I had a Duration card that sat there accumulating Coffers tokens until you popped it.

Banker creates an incentive to keep Investment in play longer than you want anyway. It also becomes better if there are other Durations in the Kingdom. It could still be too weak though and require something extra.

Interestingly, Banker is also reminiscent of a Renaissance outtake:

Quote from: Donald X. on November 09, 2018, 04:06:04 am

There was also a duration cantrip giving +$2 next turn, that had a 2-sided State where the 2nd side had you draw a card per Duration at the start of each turn. It upgraded all your Durations. Then the States died, but I had a Project that did that, and I had the duration cantrip with no associated State.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: UmbrageOfSnow on November 30, 2018, 04:00:54 pm

Quote from: terminalCopper on November 30, 2018, 03:11:42 am

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 29, 2018, 04:29:42 pm

I think/am worried that having 1 more Lily than your opponent gives enough endgame control that it's a big deal.

Certainly not, and it is not even close.
A normal engine often catches up a 3-5 province split against BM, corresponding to 12 lily plays. Also, almost no board will give you the time for that, most engine boards end before T15. I don't expect your first lily play
much before T10, unless you buy gilt early, which is terrible, similar to opening small castle.

I agree it's irrelevant in Engine vs. BM, I'm worried about the split being too relevant in the Engine mirror in the cases where the card is relevant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: UmbrageOfSnow on November 30, 2018, 04:56:14 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on November 29, 2018, 06:31:02 pm

CHALLENGE #8 SPLIT PILE W/ ACTION AND CHEAPER TREASURE

(https://i.imgur.com/paoq236.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/QPiKdRi.jpg)

Would Treant's wording look better if it were something like:
Reveal and discard up to 3 cards from your hand. +1$ and +1 card per {VP} they are worth in isolation, ignoring all other cards you have ?

It's a bit longer I think, but avoids defining variable VP.  And slightly buffs the interaction with Castles I guess.

I'm just thinking that variable VP isn't an officially defined term anywhere, is it? And so isn't it worth something to not add that complication, even though everyone on these forums obviously knows what it means

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on November 30, 2018, 05:07:11 pm

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 30, 2018, 04:56:14 pm

Would Treant's wording look better if it were something like:
Reveal and discard up to 3 cards from your hand. +1$ and +1 card per {VP} they are worth in isolation, ignoring all other cards you have ?

Might interact oddly with Wolf Den.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: UmbrageOfSnow on November 30, 2018, 05:10:27 pm

Quote from: Violet CLM on November 30, 2018, 05:07:11 pm

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 30, 2018, 04:56:14 pm

Would Treant's wording look better if it were something like:
Reveal and discard up to 3 cards from your hand. +1$ and +1 card per {VP} they are worth in isolation, ignoring all other cards you have ?

Might interact oddly with Wolf Den.

Wolf Den says "when scoring"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 30, 2018, 05:47:17 pm

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 30, 2018, 05:10:27 pm

Quote from: Violet CLM on November 30, 2018, 05:07:11 pm

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 30, 2018, 04:56:14 pm

Would Treant's wording look better if it were something like:
Reveal and discard up to 3 cards from your hand. +1$ and +1 card per {VP} they are worth in isolation, ignoring all other cards you have ?

Might interact oddly with Wolf Den.

Wolf Den says "when scoring"

And even if it didn't, it would have no impact here. Wolf Den doesn't make a single Province worth 3_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} instead of 6_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}. The Province is still worth 6_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}, and Wolf Den is worth -3_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 30, 2018, 05:48:50 pm

Quote from: UmbrageOfSnow on November 30, 2018, 04:56:14 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on November 29, 2018, 06:31:02 pm

CHALLENGE #8 SPLIT PILE W/ ACTION AND CHEAPER TREASURE

(https://i.imgur.com/paoq236.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/QPiKdRi.jpg)

Would Treant's wording look better if it were something like:
Reveal and discard up to 3 cards from your hand. +1$ and +1 card per {VP} they are worth in isolation, ignoring all other cards you have ?

It's a bit longer I think, but avoids defining variable VP.  And slightly buffs the interaction with Castles I guess.

I'm just thinking that variable VP isn't an officially defined term anywhere, is it? And so isn't it worth something to not add that complication, even though everyone on these forums obviously knows what it means

Variable is not an official term, it's just a word I thought made sense. After reading your post though I can see some ambiguity with it. I don't think it's an official term, but the Dominion Strategy page for Victory cards defines that group as Scaling VP and that for me is a good enough reason to change it. Thanks for your input!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on December 01, 2018, 03:29:47 am

24 hours left before judgment.

Quote from: Kudasai on November 29, 2018, 06:31:02 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/paoq236.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/R4zBPx6.jpg)

I'm going to need to ask what you're doing with number of copies for each card Kudasai. I can't safely assume like with the other entries.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on December 01, 2018, 11:59:08 am

Busy week, and I was not feeling good. I was hoping to playtest this on Tabletop Simulator, and I still might if I get the chance today. Until then, here's the rough idea.

(https://i.imgur.com/yBpSauGl.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/TsU4gmsl.png)

Quote

Magic Beans
Treasure - $2
-
$0
-
When you gain or trash this, trash at least one from your hand, then put this on the bottom of your deck.

Quote

Beanstalk
Action - $6
-
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
You may return a Treasure in your hand to the Supply, to gain a Gold onto your deck.

As I'm wont to do, I perhaps focused a bit more on the theme than the mechanics. But hey, I'm not looking to win this week (there are plenty of other split-pile ideas that I really want to see win and eventually play with).

Anyway, who in the right mind would trade away their belongings for a handful of so-called "Magic" Beans? They aren't worth a thing, and you can't even get rid of them that easily. Just you wait, though, as soon the Beanstalk with sprout. Then, you can finally make use of those silly Beans and even get yourself some Gold. Watch out for the Giant, though; he'll destroy your Beanstalk if he gets the chance and make you Curse ever getting those worthless Magic Beans.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 01, 2018, 12:53:53 pm

Can Magic Beans trash any number of cards from your hand? Then it seems a bit too good compared to Cemetery.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on December 01, 2018, 01:58:03 pm

Quote from: Aquila on December 01, 2018, 03:29:47 am

24 hours left before judgment.

Quote from: Kudasai on November 29, 2018, 06:31:02 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/paoq236.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/R4zBPx6.jpg)

I'm going to need to ask what you're doing with number of copies for each card Kudasai. I can't safely assume like with the other entries.

That's probably an important thing to know. :) In keeping with how Victory card amounts change with how many players a game has, these are the following split amounts:

2-Players: 4 Timberlands on top / 4 Treants on bottom
3-6 Players: 6 Timberlands on top / 6 Treants on bottom

I'll update my Original Post as well with this information!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on December 01, 2018, 07:32:59 pm

Quote from: faust on December 01, 2018, 12:53:53 pm

Can Magic Beans trash any number of cards from your hand? Then it seems a bit too good compared to Cemetery.

I can see your point. Let's try this.

(https://i.imgur.com/9n7fiLwl.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on December 02, 2018, 03:11:36 am

This is extremely strong, which is not necessarily a No-Go. But I would rather try it with 10 copies, because with only 5 copies, it is extremely advantageous to be P1, especially with 4 players.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on December 02, 2018, 04:29:23 am

This has probably been more a challenge for me than you, so much analysis to do with split piles! Well done all, there are some great designs here. I feel I didn't have the time to properly, fully analyse each one but they're all considered.
So, in looking for good use of the split pile mechanic, I was wanting to see convincing reasons for players to contest the pile, good involvement of the timing each card appears, interesting manipulation of the pile, a definite synergy between the two cards that isn't independent, and all the other things making the Empires split piles meaningful.

Dragonfly/Bug Collector
Not bad, this one. Cursing goes well in a split pile. The synergy between the cards is sound yet not so close that the pile can't interact with others; possibly a bit too complete a big money strategy. Dragonfly is in a tough spot price wise though, maybe if were a bit cheaper and weaker it could let players contest them easier, and let the crows fly sooner.

Investment/Banker
There are good design elements in this pile. Banker needs at least 2 Investments without other Durations, which creates some competition for the Investments. But as holunder said himself, there are risks with how strong it is. Investment hoards Coffers, and 3 Investments could be a win condition. Another snag is Investment feels like it should be an Action as it doesn't give immediate benefits.

Wages/Day Labourer
This one was certainly popular. It has a great first impression and follows the principles of a good split pile very well, but I fear the pile synergy is a bit too close and too strong. +2 handsize +1 Action +$1 across 2 cards, better than 2 labs; they each cost $5, whereas these are just $2 and $4.

Magic Crown/Vampire Queen
The Crowns are certainly hot competition, possibly they're worth $4 as they're close to a peddler but they're good fun at $3. Then the Queen; the Action bit is bad, but lets her Throne herself. It's convincing, but possibly Queen is a bit weak? Could she be $4 even?

Cobalt/Kobold
Cobalt very nicely fuels the Kobold, and it makes a fun race to buy the first Kobold like Gladiator to Fortune. There is the gift of Copper trashing for opponents though, which could be minor as it comes from hand; and the first Silvers are nerfed with their money density being the same as Copper, so less likely bought, but sometimes opening Silver has to be done to hit $5 and it adds a +Buy. Yes, this is promising.

Contract/Bookkeeper
Very similar to Wages/Day Labourer. It may not have as exciting a first impression, but it's safer. Contract will probably be contested more than Wages, but I agree that it's a bit cheap, because a Treasure giving a Villager is very, very good with terminal draw. Also means Bookkeeper being draw to X is a good move, you only get the crazy non-terminal draw once unless you work for more. Sound design.

Surplus/Glutton
There might be something going for the basic idea of this pile, but these cards are rather weak. Surplus is a bit steep for what it does, and Glutton is a very expensive Peddler only doing better than one a very few times. Golds to hand aren't that good.

Pheasant/Chef
Great payload potential but with deceptive snags, mainly with how Chef loves Gold and Platinum but Pheasants aren't going to get them so it'll be awhile before you do. Nice, but double Pheasant opening could be automatic in some games, almost like Quarry at $3 with an extra Buy; my main concern is the strength of this in building speed, despite the later game setbacks.

King's Shilling/Garrison
To trash Garrison to Shilling you have to not play it, so the synergy is weak. Using Garrison as a gainer is awkward as it comes in late. And I feel Death Cart does what Shilling tries to do much better.

Coin Press/Smelter
A few issues with this, the most prominent being that 2 Lost Cities, 2 Smelters and 1 other cantrip can play infinitely. Train the Lost Cities for infinite $ and Buys, gain the Supply.

Candle/Ghost Hunt
Similar to Magic Crown/Vampire Queen. The synergy is weaker, since the discard pile is unreliable. This whole pile seems to revolve around the King's Court bit on Hunt, which is non-terminal but has a lot setting it back; it's on a Duration so it's every other turn, sometimes you have to avoid playing the Action this turn to set it aside, and candles are Treasures getting in the way.

Mould/Smelter
Players will only want to buy Moulds for their +Buys, situationally for making into Gold. So Smelter will rarely appear, and when it does the best it usually gives for payload is Woodcutter, trashing Coppers or Moulds that could have been played for $2. And as a trasher it comes in too late.

Horse/Paddock
When Treasures are a relevant strategy, Horse can make for a competitive top card, but you have to be even more careful than you do with Lurker because nobody minds a Gold. Possibly players would rather buy a Silver to be safe and reliable. Paddock is strong and worth emptying horses for, maybe too good with big money decks?

Writ of Credit/Margin Trader
Very mathematical. Looking at why and when you'd buy each card, Credit at the start is a Copper trasher but compares unfavorably to most other trashers, so if they're in the game you'd ignore Credit at the start. To get tokens from it, you'd want it later on and have the cards to trash to it; Silvers I suppose are best, you can pay the debt off easily. So, I don't think Trader will appear very often, and it's a bit too dependent on Credit to work; if you have no debt it's nearly useless. The bottom cards of the official split piles can be used fine without the top. So this premise doesn't really suit a split pile.

Goldsmith/Medallion
This is an interesting format to be sure. The viability of Medallion is put into question with Villagers being so good with Goldsmith's draw, and with a Copper, Silver and Gold in hand you can buy a Gold (I assume the reveal is from hand, it isn't actually stated) so a lot of Villagers are needed to make it a sensible buy. It might overall depend on other sources of Villagers to work. Goldsmith by itself could be a nice card if it's balanced.

Tool/Anvil
Tool looks very scary. Line two up to trash 3 cards, then after trashing they make themselves lesser Fool's Golds that line up very easily. And they cheapen Anvils. I see that this pile is very dominant very often, all you need is a Village and this is practically a complete strategy.

Gilt/Lily
Definitely too heavily nerfed. Gilt is very slow Copper trashing, and only when there's no kingdom $2 pile, so other trashers are preferred. They empty very slowly, if at all, revealing Salt the Earth in portrait form; it's rather unimpressive as a generic source of VP. You'd get this if you're comfortably ahead, but will you be if you've played a very slow game with Gilts?

Timberland/Treant
Number of copies sensible, but there's so much going on here I hope I have it all right. It all hinges around the cost increase on Treant. Timberland might be wanted enough to reveal it, change a copper to a $3 with 1VP. When revealed you can get a $5 (which can't be Duchy), unless you return Timberland to hide it again so you get a $3. All quite neat, but is there synergy between Timberland's gaining and Treant's wanting nice victories? Not really, the only link I see is liking sifting, which may not be present. And Tunnel, the same. Balance? Hard to tell, but Treant doesn't look very safe.

Magic Beans/Beanstalk
I'm not sure Beans will be bought enough to make Beanstalk appear that often, including the ones Beanstalk returns.

Shortlist: Dragonfly, Magic Crown, Cobalt, Contract, Pheasant.

So close between these 5, but I have to tell myself to stop considering them sometime. Upon further reflection…

Winner: Cobalt/Kobold by hypercube.
Runner-up: Pheasant/Chef by Fragasnap.

Congratulations on a challenge well answered.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on December 02, 2018, 07:22:08 am

Thanks Aquila!

Renaissance was missing an alt-VP source, maybe we can fix that? The next challenge will be: design a Victory card. Bonus points will be given for one that could plausibly have appeared in Renaissance.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on December 02, 2018, 11:35:10 am

A fun pile that puts a new spin on cursing and how and when to trash down.  :)

Well this challenge is something I've set myself to meet with my fan set, so if I may I'll use this opportunity to test a card out from there:
(https://i.imgur.com/cs8F9oa.jpg)

I don't expect to win at all, the text is too small amongst other things. I could have used Grand Market's wording for the gain condition, but I just wanted to avoid the confusion with buying a card yet not gaining it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 02, 2018, 12:31:34 pm

Quote from: hypercube on December 02, 2018, 07:22:08 am

Thanks Aquila!

Renaissance was missing an alt-VP source, maybe we can fix that? The next challenge will be: design a Victory card. Bonus points will be given for one that could plausibly have appeared in Renaissance.

Bonus points?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 02, 2018, 12:44:33 pm

Quote from: hypercube on December 02, 2018, 07:22:08 am

design a Victory card

Can it be a card shaped thing like a project?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on December 02, 2018, 12:49:01 pm

Name: Polymath
Cost: $5
Types: Victory
Worth 1 VP per 2 cards you have of whatever type you have the third most of.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 02, 2018, 12:58:58 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 02, 2018, 12:44:33 pm

Quote from: hypercube on December 02, 2018, 07:22:08 am

design a Victory card

Can it be a card shaped thing like a project?

I don't think so, because then it wouldn't be a Victory card.

My entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/KYAcNV4.png)

Edit: Renamed to Parliament, modified wording to make it clear the gained card is put into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on December 02, 2018, 01:01:08 pm

Sweet, I made the shortlist! Thanks!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 02, 2018, 01:03:37 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on December 02, 2018, 12:49:01 pm

Name: Polymath
Cost: $5
Types: Victory
Worth 1 VP per 2 cards you have of whatever type you have the third most of.

(If it's a tie, count either).
Also maybe $6 for the 2nd most common type would be better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on December 02, 2018, 01:14:44 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 02, 2018, 12:31:34 pm

Bonus points?

As in, if there are two card ideas which are approximately equal in quality, preference will be given to one which I think could have been included in Renaissance.

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 02, 2018, 12:44:33 pm

Quote from: hypercube on December 02, 2018, 07:22:08 am

design a Victory card

Can it be a card shaped thing like a project?

It's an interesting idea, but I'll stick to the original wording and say that it has to be a card with the Victory type.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 02, 2018, 01:22:26 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 02, 2018, 12:58:58 pm

My entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/iqcENV4.png)

There's already a card (well, a Landmark) called Fountain.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 02, 2018, 02:48:20 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 02, 2018, 01:22:26 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 02, 2018, 12:58:58 pm

My entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/iqcENV4.png)

There's already a card (well, a Landmark) called Fountain.

Oops! Renamed my entry to Parliament.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 02, 2018, 05:23:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/UNX20gN.jpg)

Nothing from Renaissance, only stuff from Empires and Nocturne, but what can you do.
The purpose of the Debt cost is to make this ungainable except via buying it which is the only way to make the Buy restriction work. Gain restrictions would obviously run into issues.
An alternative wording, similar to Grand Market, would be: "You can’t buy this unless you spend an extra Buy."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on December 02, 2018, 05:39:29 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zRd11dd.png)

Trying to something Renaissancy so uses Villagers and is a good tbf target as well as a tbf card itself. Originally it gave you a choice of Coffers or Villagers but that was kind of crazy (it cost $5 then though). The Villagers part seemed like the fun part so it's just Villagers now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on December 02, 2018, 05:41:05 pm

Congratulations hypercube and thank you for your nice topic for a new card. So, this is an easy one. Enjoy!

(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/OG80S3bjBgLE.png)

Farmstead
Type: Victory
Costs: $4

1 VP
-
When you gain this, gain a non-victory card costing up to $5.


Note, that this plays very different than Banquet-with-Estate. It triggers on gain, so you can combine it with Workshop, for example. It also provides nice trash-to-benefit fodder due to its higher cost and cannot be exploited with Ambassador. Also having a separate pile prevents, that the Estates are emptied early, especially when there are nonterminal +Buys, like Villa, Market, Festival, Spices, etc., in the kingdom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 02, 2018, 07:29:15 pm

To me, a major mechanic theme for Renaissance is trash for benefit. It has more tfb cards than the usual expansion: Improve, Research, Recruiter, Priest (kind of). Also, cards like Lackeys, Flag Bearer, and Silk Merchant, with on-gain and on-trash benefits go well with trash for benefit. So what do trash for benefit cards like, that Renaissance doesn't have? A silver gainer!* Also, sifting to match the tfb card with the cards you want to trash easier.

(https://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/my-pathfinder-setting-stuff/character-classes/ArtGallery.png)

(Original was:
+2 Cards.
Discard up to two cards. Gain a silver for each card discarded. |
Worth 2VP)

I thought about making it give 1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} for every two silvers in the trash (or something like that), but people would complain that it could appear on a board with no trashing (Here's where I restrain from giving my 'why do people assume full random for fan cards' rant**).

*Actually there's Sculptor which is kind of a silver gainer, but I forgot about Sculptor when I was thinking about this. oh well.
**If you want to react to this, please do it in a different thread...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 03, 2018, 12:51:44 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 02, 2018, 05:23:38 pm

The purpose of the Debt cost is to make this ungainable except via buying it which is the only way to make the Buy restriction work.

You can still gain it though, by Stonemasoning a Fortune!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 03, 2018, 02:27:55 am

Some Renaissancy VP card. Sorry LA for the name doubling, I found it hard to come up with something else.

(https://i.imgur.com/CZ5hxuW.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/rq7t0JW.jpg)

Clarification: Painting already affects the Gallery you get it with.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on December 03, 2018, 02:36:28 am

After playing a Highway, Farmstead/Border Village looks a bit too crazy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 03, 2018, 02:48:18 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 02, 2018, 07:29:15 pm

(https://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/my-pathfinder-setting-stuff/character-classes/ArtGallery.png)

This seems a bit too strong as a BM enabler. You can gain 2 Silvers each play, for $4. This is better than JoaT for BM, and it provides you some extra VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on December 03, 2018, 03:08:53 am

Yay, I like this challenge. Sadly somebody has already posted something similar to my idea (Victory card that gives out an Artifact), so I'll have to see whether I can think of something else.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on December 03, 2018, 12:57:03 pm

Quote from: Asper on December 03, 2018, 02:36:28 am

After playing a Highway, Farmstead/Border Village looks a bit too crazy.

Nice finding, Asper ;). This should fix the Farmstead/Border Village loop

(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/Vge_CNOmam6F.png)

Farmstead
Type: Victory
Costs: $4

1 VP
-
When you gain a Farmstead for the first time this turn, gain a non-Victory card costing up to $5.


And yes, it is thematic. Renaissance has many cards with "When you gain this". Also note the synergy with Inventor and the many trash-for-benefit cards which can get rid of Farmstead, if you want.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 03, 2018, 02:13:02 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/LSoCtPA.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on December 03, 2018, 07:32:58 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YGdzCUl.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 03, 2018, 07:41:41 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on December 03, 2018, 07:32:58 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rs8x65M.png)

Bonkers with overdraw and the on-gain bonus is arguably too good relative to Acting Troupe.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on December 03, 2018, 07:42:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/LlSDCjq.jpg)

Quote

Paper Mill
Types: Victory
Cost: $3
Worth 1VP for every 2 tokens on your Villager mat more than the player who has the fewest tokens on their Villager mat (rounded down), but at least 1VP.

---

Setup: Each player gets +5 Villagers.

Note that the first 3 Villagers are free, assuming you can't produce more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 03, 2018, 07:45:33 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 03, 2018, 07:42:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/LlSDCjq.jpg)

Quote

Paper Mill
Types: Victory
Cost: $3
Worth 1VP for every 2 tokens on your Villager mat more than the player who has the fewest tokens on their Villager mat (rounded down), but at least 1VP.

---

Setup: Each player gets +5 Villagers.

Note that the first 3 Villagers are free, assuming you can't produce more.

This is extremly Kingdom-dependent: nice with Villager-yielding Renaissance cards, otherwise strictly worse than Tunnel.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on December 03, 2018, 10:12:30 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 03, 2018, 07:41:41 pm

Bonkers with overdraw and the on-gain bonus is arguably too good relative to Acting Troupe.

You're right about the overdraw. I've changed it so you can't react more than once per turn. About the on-gain, I'm not sure. Keep in mind it's more expensive, and it's a dead card that doesn't trash itself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on December 04, 2018, 01:21:45 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 03, 2018, 07:42:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/LlSDCjq.jpg)

Quote

Paper Mill
Types: Victory
Cost: $3
Worth 1VP for every 2 tokens on your Villager mat more than the player who has the fewest tokens on their Villager mat (rounded down), but at least 1VP.

---

Setup: Each player gets +5 Villagers.

Note that the first 3 Villagers are free, assuming you can't produce more.

This may cause endless games, e. g . with Necromancer and Acting Troupe.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on December 04, 2018, 03:26:21 am

Trying to keep it simple, for those Renaissance-y bonus points:

(https://i.imgur.com/GIIkNO8.png)

Quote

Promenade: Treasure-Victory, $3
$1
+1 Villager

---

1 VP

EDIT: Was missing coin symbols in upper corners.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on December 04, 2018, 01:10:19 pm

Quote from: crlundy on December 04, 2018, 03:26:21 am

Trying to keep it simple, for those Renaissance-y bonus points:

(http://i.imgur.com/NyL7YxA.png)

Quote

Promenade: Treasure-Victory, $3
$1
+1 Villager

---

1 VP

This would be nice with Scout.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on December 04, 2018, 02:51:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/r4ZcP5Z.png)
Just a silly idea I've had kicking around for a while. (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Construction%20Site&description=%0A%0A%0AAt%20the%20end%20of%20the%20game%2C%20just%20before%20scoring%2C%20players%20with%20Construction%20Sites%20may%20exchange%20them%20one%20at%20a%20time%20in%20clockwise%20order%2C%20beginning%20with%20the%20player%20to%20the%20left%20of%20the%20player%20whose%20turn%20the%20game%20ended%20on%2C%20for%20any%20card%20in%20the%20supply.%0A%0A%0A&type=Victory&credit=&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-atl3-1.cdninstagram.com%2Fvp%2Fc1ca6c8201905e50862fdc0443a0cd28%2F5C6D47B9%2Ft51.2885-15%2Fe35%2F41866158_333385500755783_7631687935860661636_n.jpg&color0=2&color1=0&size=0) Gamble on not all the Duchies getting bought, or some extra incentive to force a three-pile ending. (Or, even sillier, make last minute adjustments for Keep/Fairgrounds/etc.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 04, 2018, 03:09:23 pm

Quote from: Violet CLM on December 04, 2018, 02:51:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/r4ZcP5Z.png)
Just a silly idea I've had kicking around for a while. (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Construction%20Site&description=%0A%0A%0AAt%20the%20end%20of%20the%20game%2C%20just%20before%20scoring%2C%20players%20with%20Construction%20Sites%20may%20exchange%20them%20one%20at%20a%20time%20in%20clockwise%20order%2C%20beginning%20with%20the%20player%20to%20the%20left%20of%20the%20player%20whose%20turn%20the%20game%20ended%20on%2C%20for%20any%20card%20in%20the%20supply.%0A%0A%0A&type=Victory&credit=&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-atl3-1.cdninstagram.com%2Fvp%2Fc1ca6c8201905e50862fdc0443a0cd28%2F5C6D47B9%2Ft51.2885-15%2Fe35%2F41866158_333385500755783_7631687935860661636_n.jpg&color0=2&color1=0&size=0) Gamble on not all the Duchies getting bought, or some extra incentive to force a three-pile ending. (Or, even sillier, make last minute adjustments for Keep/Fairgrounds/etc.)

This + Ironworks = bad times.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 04, 2018, 04:23:26 pm

Quote from: Violet CLM on December 04, 2018, 02:51:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/r4ZcP5Z.png)
Just a silly idea I've had kicking around for a while. (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Construction%20Site&description=%0A%0A%0AAt%20the%20end%20of%20the%20game%2C%20just%20before%20scoring%2C%20players%20with%20Construction%20Sites%20may%20exchange%20them%20one%20at%20a%20time%20in%20clockwise%20order%2C%20beginning%20with%20the%20player%20to%20the%20left%20of%20the%20player%20whose%20turn%20the%20game%20ended%20on%2C%20for%20any%20card%20in%20the%20supply.%0A%0A%0A&type=Victory&credit=&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-atl3-1.cdninstagram.com%2Fvp%2Fc1ca6c8201905e50862fdc0443a0cd28%2F5C6D47B9%2Ft51.2885-15%2Fe35%2F41866158_333385500755783_7631687935860661636_n.jpg&color0=2&color1=0&size=0) Gamble on not all the Duchies getting bought, or some extra incentive to force a three-pile ending. (Or, even sillier, make last minute adjustments for Keep/Fairgrounds/etc.)

This is innovative, simple and plain brilliant.
There could be balance issues with the price (how often are Duchies really empty?) and, as faust has pointed out, gainers, but I'd nonetheless first try this at $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 04, 2018, 04:40:13 pm

The concept is indeed interesting, just not sure it is balancable.

A potential minor issue is that you can exchange those for themselves, allowing indefinite stalling. Lets assume A and B both have one Construction Site, and the Castles up to Grand Castle as well as the Provinces are gone. It is easy to imagine a situation where neither player would want to get Grand Castle when their opponent can get King's Castle afterwards, but taking something else will free the opponent to get the Castle and win. The best move is to keeping exchanging them for themselves until everyone starves to death. Of course this is avoidable by disallowing this exchange.

A bigger problem are Colony games. Here, since at most one of Provinces/Colonies is going to run out usually, these are worth 6 VP at least.

The are also some probably resolvable timing issues. When is "at the end of the game"? By Donate/Mountain Pass ruling, the end of the game happens when it's still a player's turn, so theoretically this means that Construction Site is affected by Possession. Also Fleet turns happen "after the game ends", adding further confusion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on December 04, 2018, 07:05:06 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/LRcU7v3.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 04, 2018, 07:41:10 pm

Quote from: Violet CLM on December 04, 2018, 02:51:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/r4ZcP5Z.png)
Just a silly idea I've had kicking around for a while. (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Construction%20Site&description=%0A%0A%0AAt%20the%20end%20of%20the%20game%2C%20just%20before%20scoring%2C%20players%20with%20Construction%20Sites%20may%20exchange%20them%20one%20at%20a%20time%20in%20clockwise%20order%2C%20beginning%20with%20the%20player%20to%20the%20left%20of%20the%20player%20whose%20turn%20the%20game%20ended%20on%2C%20for%20any%20card%20in%20the%20supply.%0A%0A%0A&type=Victory&credit=&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-atl3-1.cdninstagram.com%2Fvp%2Fc1ca6c8201905e50862fdc0443a0cd28%2F5C6D47B9%2Ft51.2885-15%2Fe35%2F41866158_333385500755783_7631687935860661636_n.jpg&color0=2&color1=0&size=0) Gamble on not all the Duchies getting bought, or some extra incentive to force a three-pile ending. (Or, even sillier, make last minute adjustments for Keep/Fairgrounds/etc.)

Is this really a Victory card?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on December 04, 2018, 08:00:04 pm

Going for Renaissance themes of simplicity + Coffers:

(https://i.imgur.com/BliT9Crl.png)

Quote

Stock Exchange
Action/Victory - $5
-
+2 Coffers
-
Worth 1VP for every 3 Coffers (round down) on your Coffers mat at the end of the game.

Go to the Stock Exchange to invest, and as long as you can hang on to those investments, the more this is worth. I'm still working on the cost and the Coffers-to-VP ratio. Right now, with no other Coffers gainers in play, you'll need to play Stock Exchanges five times to make it worth as much as a Duchy. However, it could potentially get pretty nutty with good Coffers gainers in play, like Merchant Guild. May bump it to 1VP per 4 Coffers (or 2VP per 7 Coffers). Will try to playtest if I have time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 04, 2018, 08:19:55 pm

Quote from: faust on December 03, 2018, 02:48:18 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 02, 2018, 07:29:15 pm

Quote

Art Gallery (old version)
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} Action - Victory
+2 Cards.
Discard up to two cards. Gain a silver for each card discarded.
-
Worth 2_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}

This seems a bit too strong as a BM enabler. You can gain 2 Silvers each play, for $4. This is better than JoaT for BM, and it provides you some extra VP.

Yeah, I guess I'll change it back to my original idea which was the same except you always discard one card for one silver (not flexible). I'll edit my OP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on December 04, 2018, 11:29:31 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 04, 2018, 07:41:10 pm

Quote from: Violet CLM on December 04, 2018, 02:51:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/r4ZcP5Z.png)
Just a silly idea I've had kicking around for a while. Gamble on not all the Duchies getting bought, or some extra incentive to force a three-pile ending. (Or, even sillier, make last minute adjustments for Keep/Fairgrounds/etc.)

Is this really a Victory card?

This is a bit off-topic, but it seems like a good candidate for the "Endgame" or "Special" types:

Quote from: Donald X. on August 23, 2012, 03:15:40 pm

A few times over the years, I tried to make a card that cost the other players a victory card at the end of the game. It attacks your score. This version I'm looking at was an "Action - Endgame."

Quote from: Donald X. on June 24, 2013, 03:01:00 am

(https://dominionstrategy.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/small-orphans-1.png)
Cemetery I tried multiple times, since it was novel, a different way to attack the other players. It was always too little or too much.

(Click the image to enlarge, look for the pink cards)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on December 05, 2018, 01:29:39 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 04, 2018, 07:41:10 pm

Is this really a Victory card?

It's a bit of a stretch, yes, but its sole purpose is affecting your score and you only care about its text during (the very start of) scoring, so I think it's close enough.

(I think "just before scoring" is the more important part of the timing, and "at the end of the game" is mostly just there so that people remember when "scoring" happens.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on December 05, 2018, 04:28:16 am

Quote from: Tejayes on December 04, 2018, 08:00:04 pm

Going for Renaissance themes of simplicity + Coffers:

(https://i.imgur.com/BliT9Crl.png)

Quote

Stock Exchange
Action/Victory - $5
-
+2 Coffers
-
Worth 1VP for every 3 Coffers (round down) on your Coffers mat at the end of the game.

Go to the Stock Exchange to invest, and as long as you can hang on to those investments, the more this is worth. I'm still working on the cost and the Coffers-to-VP ratio. Right now, with no other Coffers gainers in play, you'll need to play Stock Exchanges five times to make it worth as much as a Duchy. However, it could potentially get pretty nutty with good Coffers gainers in play, like Merchant Guild. May bump it to 1VP per 4 Coffers (or 2VP per 7 Coffers). Will try to playtest if I have time.

I am actually thinking about a similar idea (vp for 2 villagers), but a problem is the temptation to keep building which makes it a boring long game. I will probably make it trash victory cards to give it an indirect limit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 05, 2018, 07:39:21 am

https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Senate&description=Discard%20any%20number%20of%20cards%2C%20revealed.%20For%20each%20card%20discarded%2C%20if%20it%20was%20a%3A%0AVictory%20card%2C%20%2B1%20Card.%0AAction%20card%2C%20%2B1%20Villager%0ATreasure%20card%2C%20%2B1%20Coffers%0A-%0AAt%20the%20end%20of%20the%20game%2C%20if%20you%20have%20any%20tokens%20on%20your%20Coffers%20mat%2C%20this%20is%20worth%201%25%2C%20and%20if%20you%20have%20any%20tokens%20on%20your%20Villagers%20mat%2C%20this%20is%20worth%201%25%20(If%20you%20have%20both%2C%20this%20is%20worth%202%25).&type=Action-Victory&credit=&price=%246&preview=&type2=&picture=&color0=2&color1=1&size=0

Quote

Senate (Action-Victory, cost $6)
Discard any number of cards, revealed. For each card discarded, if it was a:
Victory card, +1 Card.
Action card, +1 Villager
Treasure card, +1 Coffers
-
At the end of the game, if you have any tokens on your Coffers mat, this is worth 1VP, and if you have any tokens on your Villagers mat, this is worth 1VP (If you have both, this is worth 2VP).

EDIT: Changed from “reveal and discard your hand” to “discard any number of cards, revealed”.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 05, 2018, 07:45:15 am

I like this except for its lack of flexibility. In Kingdoms without a decent sources of virtual Coins you need Silver and Golds and this forces you to discard all of them. This is why I'd rather try: Discard any number of cards, revealed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on December 05, 2018, 09:37:16 am

(https://i.imgur.com/HTy0vGq.jpg)

Quote

Oil Painting
Cost: $4
Types: Victory
Worth 2 VP + 1 VP per Project you have bought.
-
Setup: Add a Project to the kingdom.

Clarification: The added Project is in addition to any other Landscape cards in the kingdom.  So if there are two Events before adding the Project, the maximum value for Oil Painting will be 3VP.  If there are two Projects before adding the extra Project, the maximum value for Oil Painting will be 5VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 05, 2018, 10:36:19 am

Oil Painting would be more interesting if it rewarded you for not getting Projects.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on December 05, 2018, 10:52:18 am

Quote from: faust on December 05, 2018, 10:36:19 am

Oil Painting would be more interesting if it rewarded you for not getting Projects.

Hah, I see what you mean.  I think in general I find the tension of "There are two things I want to do, and I can only do one of them" to be less fun than the tension of "There are two things I want to do, and if I do one of them first then doing the second is easier but I might have missed the chance to do it", but YMMV.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on December 05, 2018, 12:13:03 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on December 05, 2018, 09:37:16 am

(https://i.imgur.com/HTy0vGq.jpg)

Quote

Oil Painting
Cost: $4
Types: Victory
Worth 2 VP + 1 VP per Project you have bought.
-
Setup: Add a Project to the kingdom.

Clarification: The added Project is in addition to any other Landscape cards in the kingdom.  So if there are two Events before adding the Project, the maximum value for Oil Painting will be 3VP.  If there are two Projects before adding the extra Project, the maximum value for Oil Painting will be 5VP.

You only have 2 cubes so the max would be 4 vp

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on December 05, 2018, 03:18:38 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 05, 2018, 12:13:03 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on December 05, 2018, 09:37:16 am

Quote

Oil Painting
Cost: $4
Types: Victory
Worth 2 VP + 1 VP per Project you have bought.
-
Setup: Add a Project to the kingdom.

Clarification: The added Project is in addition to any other Landscape cards in the kingdom.  So if there are two Events before adding the Project, the maximum value for Oil Painting will be 3VP.  If there are two Projects before adding the extra Project, the maximum value for Oil Painting will be 5VP.

You only have 2 cubes so the max would be 4 vp

I also feel like it's fairly likely you will buy an available Project so this will usually be at least a Duchy, for $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 05, 2018, 05:06:24 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 05, 2018, 07:45:15 am

I like this except for its lack of flexibility. In Kingdoms without a decent sources of virtual Coins you need Silver and Golds and this forces you to discard all of them. This is why I'd rather try: Discard any number of cards, revealed.

You’re right. Updated.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on December 05, 2018, 06:24:53 pm

Quote from: terminalCopper on December 05, 2018, 04:28:16 am

Quote from: Tejayes on December 04, 2018, 08:00:04 pm

Going for Renaissance themes of simplicity + Coffers:

Quote

Stock Exchange
Action/Victory - $5
-
+2 Coffers
-
Worth 1VP for every 3 Coffers (round down) on your Coffers mat at the end of the game.

Go to the Stock Exchange to invest, and as long as you can hang on to those investments, the more this is worth. I'm still working on the cost and the Coffers-to-VP ratio. Right now, with no other Coffers gainers in play, you'll need to play Stock Exchanges five times to make it worth as much as a Duchy. However, it could potentially get pretty nutty with good Coffers gainers in play, like Merchant Guild. May bump it to 1VP per 4 Coffers (or 2VP per 7 Coffers). Will try to playtest if I have time.

I am actually thinking about a similar idea (vp for 2 villagers), but a problem is the temptation to keep building which makes it a boring long game. I will probably make it trash victory cards to give it an indirect limit.

You could even consider a direct limit, e.g. "Worth 1VP per 3 Coffers tokens you have (round down), but not more than 5VP."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on December 05, 2018, 06:59:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/cWXuzCV.jpg)

Expanded Instructions:
-Players can look at the cards on their Frontier mat at any time.
-All players reveal their Frontier mats at the end of the game to determine what they are worth before taking those cards for scoring.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 05, 2018, 07:41:12 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on December 05, 2018, 06:59:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/cWXuzCV.jpg)

Expanded Instructions:
-Players can look at the cards on their Frontier mat at any time.
-All players reveal their Frontier mats at the end of the game to determine what they are worth before taking those cards for scoring.

A minor nitpick, and certainly not necessary for a fan card, but how would this work in ShuffleIT in games where you can see peoples’ VP? I feel some of this card’s weakness comes from the fact that you don’t know how much it’s worth until the end of the game and it would be too powerful otherwise.

Also, I think maybe you should add

Quote

(You May look at these cards at any time)

, though that depends on how you want the card to play out.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on December 05, 2018, 09:33:29 pm

I'm changing my submission.

(https://i.imgur.com/GkOw6nu.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on December 06, 2018, 03:15:09 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 05, 2018, 12:13:03 pm

You only have 2 cubes so the max would be 4 vp

That's a very good point.  Let's say that in the hypothetical world where this is available as a promo, it comes with an extra set of cubes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on December 06, 2018, 10:32:04 am

This card probably looks better than it is - it’s a good trasher for estates, but it’s very weak for coppers (if you trash the estate you gain, you’ve spent 2 actions for 2 villagers, needing two turns). And it’s hard to make it worth a lot. But, in the rare cases where it works out it’s fun to see it explode. A bit like groundskeeper, but of course less elegant (it’s not a cantrip, and you have to trash these VP cards to score):


Subversives, Action-Victory, 4$

Trash a card from your hand.
If it’s a victory card, +2 villagers.
Otherwise, gain an estate.

**********************************
This is worth 1VP for every two villagers you have (round down)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 06, 2018, 10:48:04 am

Quote from: terminalCopper on December 06, 2018, 10:32:04 am

This card probably looks better than it is - it’s a good trasher for estates, but it’s very weak for coppers (if you trash the estate you gain, you’ve spent 2 actions for 2 villagers, needing two turns). And it’s hard to make it worth a lot. But, in the rare cases where it works out it’s fun to see it explode. A bit like groundskeeper, but of course less elegant (it’s not a cantrip, and you have to trash these VP cards to score):


Subversives, Action-Victory, 4$

Trash a card.
If it’s a victory card, +2 villagers.
Otherwise, gain an estate.

**********************************
This is worth 1VP for every two villagers you have (round down)

This could get quite silly with Recruiter. The other official Villager cards probably work fine with it, but Recruiter... oh man.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on December 06, 2018, 01:12:23 pm

Quote from: faust on December 06, 2018, 10:48:04 am

Quote from: terminalCopper on December 06, 2018, 10:32:04 am

This card probably looks better than it is - it’s a good trasher for estates, but it’s very weak for coppers (if you trash the estate you gain, you’ve spent 2 actions for 2 villagers, needing two turns). And it’s hard to make it worth a lot. But, in the rare cases where it works out it’s fun to see it explode. A bit like groundskeeper, but of course less elegant (it’s not a cantrip, and you have to trash these VP cards to score):


Subversives, Action-Victory, 4$

Trash a card.
If it’s a victory card, +2 villagers.
Otherwise, gain an estate.

**********************************
This is worth 1VP for every two villagers you have (round down)

This could get quite silly with Recruiter. The other official Villager cards probably work fine with it, but Recruiter... oh man.

It is certainly a Powercombo, but I don’t think it makes the game a silly one. Going for the split and building an engine simultaneously isn’t trivial.

Imho, it’s not a problem if a card is a dominant must-buy under certain conditions. E. G., i wouldn’t call hermit poorly designed just because of its mindblowing synergy with market square. I think this doesn’t make it unbalanced or OP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 06, 2018, 02:47:59 pm

In my opinion a simple benchmark to understand the card is: use this to trash your 3 Estates, don't spend the Villagers, then these are Duchies.
You can gain Estates and later trash them to make this worth more, but you can also spend the Villagers to run your engine which makes this worth less.

I like it a lot and as you said, being strong with Recruiter doesn't break the card (as you have to gain cards to feed Recruiter there is also no loop potential unless Fortress is also in the Kingdom; and 3-card-loops isn't something one should lose any sleep over).  Otherwise you'd also have to argue that e.g. University breaks Vineyard.
Also, Recruiter is already pretty crazy in and of itself so Recruiter being crazier with another card has probably more to do with Recruiter than with Subversives which is a wild shot in Kingdoms with decent trashers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 06, 2018, 05:36:35 pm

Quote from: terminalCopper on December 06, 2018, 10:32:04 am

This card probably looks better than it is - it’s a good trasher for estates, but it’s very weak for coppers (if you trash the estate you gain, you’ve spent 2 actions for 2 villagers, needing two turns). And it’s hard to make it worth a lot. But, in the rare cases where it works out it’s fun to see it explode. A bit like groundskeeper, but of course less elegant (it’s not a cantrip, and you have to trash these VP cards to score):


Subversives, Action-Victory, 4$

Trash a card.
If it’s a victory card, +2 villagers.
Otherwise, gain an estate.

**********************************
This is worth 1VP for every two villagers you have (round down)

Quote from: rinkworks on September 21, 2011, 10:20:30 am

One common omission in fan cards is specifying where cards must be when you use them. If a card's effect is to "Put any number of Treasure cards on top of your deck," where do those Treasure cards come from? From your hand? From play? From your discard pile? From the supply piles? It may sound pedantic to require this to be specified explicitly, but since different cards look for things in different places, the clarity is important.

Where are these cards trashed from? The supply? Your hand? The top of your deck? Your discard pile?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on December 06, 2018, 08:37:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/1L5bo01.jpg)

Can I post more than one idea?

Cause I have one that isn’t in the supply. That can only be gained by an action that is in the supply along with a state type card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 06, 2018, 09:07:34 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on December 06, 2018, 08:37:13 pm

Can I post more than one idea?

Dude, were you there for Violet CLM’s “other board game” challenge, I posted like 5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 06, 2018, 09:11:42 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on December 06, 2018, 08:37:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/1L5bo01.jpg)

Can I post more than one idea?

Cause I have one that isn’t in the supply. That can only be gained by an action that is in the supply along with a state type card.

Wording suggestion:

Quote

Kingswood (Cost $7*)
7VP
-
In games using this, during your Buy phase, you may spend a buy and get -7 Coffers, to gain a Kingswood from the Kingswood pile. *(This is not in the supply)

Still need a way to get those Coffers though...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on December 06, 2018, 10:51:27 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 06, 2018, 09:07:34 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on December 06, 2018, 08:37:13 pm

Can I post more than one idea?

Dude, were you there for Violet CLM’s “other board game” challenge, I posted like 5.

You have to pick one of them to be your official submission. Submitting more than one isn't fair because it increases the odds you'll win.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on December 06, 2018, 11:40:28 pm

That’s why I asked. Cause I wasn’t sure.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on December 07, 2018, 04:35:57 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 06, 2018, 05:36:35 pm

Quote from: terminalCopper on December 06, 2018, 10:32:04 am

This card probably looks better than it is - it’s a good trasher for estates, but it’s very weak for coppers (if you trash the estate you gain, you’ve spent 2 actions for 2 villagers, needing two turns). And it’s hard to make it worth a lot. But, in the rare cases where it works out it’s fun to see it explode. A bit like groundskeeper, but of course less elegant (it’s not a cantrip, and you have to trash these VP cards to score):


Subversives, Action-Victory, 4$

Trash a card.
If it’s a victory card, +2 villagers.
Otherwise, gain an estate.

**********************************
This is worth 1VP for every two villagers you have (round down)

Quote from: rinkworks on September 21, 2011, 10:20:30 am

One common omission in fan cards is specifying where cards must be when you use them. If a card's effect is to "Put any number of Treasure cards on top of your deck," where do those Treasure cards come from? From your hand? From play? From your discard pile? From the supply piles? It may sound pedantic to require this to be specified explicitly, but since different cards look for things in different places, the clarity is important.

Where are these cards trashed from? The supply? Your hand? The top of your deck? Your discard pile?

From your hand. I edited it, thanks for the remark.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on December 07, 2018, 08:13:47 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on December 06, 2018, 10:51:27 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 06, 2018, 09:07:34 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on December 06, 2018, 08:37:13 pm

Can I post more than one idea?

Dude, were you there for Violet CLM’s “other board game” challenge, I posted like 5.

You have to pick one of them to be your official submission. Submitting more than one isn't fair because it increases the odds you'll win.

I agree to this, "See what sticks" shouldn't be an acceptable approach. But I have no problem with people sharing fun ideas they had inside the contest's context (say that fast three times), as long as it's clear they aren't submitting more than one idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on December 07, 2018, 04:26:17 pm

Quote from: Asper on December 07, 2018, 08:13:47 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on December 06, 2018, 10:51:27 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 06, 2018, 09:07:34 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on December 06, 2018, 08:37:13 pm

Can I post more than one idea?

Dude, were you there for Violet CLM’s “other board game” challenge, I posted like 5.

You have to pick one of them to be your official submission. Submitting more than one isn't fair because it increases the odds you'll win.

I agree to this, "See what sticks" shouldn't be an acceptable approach. But I have no problem with people sharing fun ideas they had inside the contest's context (say that fast three times), as long as it's clear they aren't submitting more than one idea.

I will take you up on this offer! I wanted to create a Victory card that interacts with Villager tokens, but there are quite a few of those already. I think the Coffers/Villager Victory card idea can work, but I believe it has to be tied to some physical card that takes up room in your deck. Otherwise, the Victory card can become worth quite a bit for really no ill effect. Also, I think conditional token gaining could work in a way.

Anyways, here is what I came up with. The values are likely off. Any feedback from anyone is always appreciated!

[THIS IS NOT A SUBMISSION]
(https://i.imgur.com/egBEnEQ.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 07, 2018, 04:36:11 pm

This indirect usage of Villagers is a very cool idea that avoids outright brokenness via endless token accumulation.

Outskirts doesn't really support your terminal-heavy engine as it will most of the time be a Ruined Village.  Sure, sometimes you can save superfluous Actions but this very slight increase of engine consistency comes at the significant cost of having to play a card.
This is why I think that it has to provide 2 Villagers to become a proper village that you can actually use. The fact that it doesn't draw will still hurt and the VP this provides are fewer than those of Vineyard so it shouldn't become too crazy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on December 08, 2018, 08:00:29 am

Quote from: Aquila on December 02, 2018, 04:29:23 am

Pheasant/Chef
Great payload potential but with deceptive snags, mainly with how Chef loves Gold and Platinum but Pheasants aren't going to get them so it'll be awhile before you do. Nice, but double Pheasant opening could be automatic in some games, almost like Quarry at $3 with an extra Buy; my main concern is the strength of this in building speed, despite the later game setbacks.

I definitely put Pheasant at $3 so that Chef would commonly be uncovered.  The question really is if piling Pheasants immediately will typically be the right thing to do because of Chef's combo with it, and if doing so doesn't result in an interesting game state.  I was focused on the complexities of building with Pheasant and then timing throwing them away (with Chef particularly) moreso than the question of whether or not your want to buy Pheasant.  I mean, you don't usually ask if you want to buy Goons either.  A bump up to $4 might be better for the health of the game (especially since that would make Pheasants will be more limiting for buying other Pheasants), but I'd err on the side of too little before too much.

Also, it's a bit much to consider Pheasant like Quarry at $3 with an extra buy.  Quarry with a +Buy sort-of provides +$5 for buying Actions, while Pheasant is +$3 for only Actions no matter what.

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 02, 2018, 05:23:38 pm

Pirate Island
Types: Victory
Cost: $8<2>
Worth 1VP per different cost of the cards in your deck.

---

In order to buy this, you need 2 Buys.
Heirloom: Pouch

The different costs guarantees this is worth 7VP.  It becomes 8VP with a $4 Kingdom card, and everything else is edge cases.  I'm not sure how much I like it because, like Fairgrounds, it adds so many more VP to the board that it can make games seem endless.  Any other consideration aside though, the Heirloom reuse is clever.

Quote from: King Leon on December 04, 2018, 01:21:45 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 03, 2018, 07:42:41 pm

Paper Mill
Types: Victory
Cost: $3
Worth 1VP for every 2 tokens on your Villager mat more than the player who has the fewest tokens on their Villager mat (rounded down), but at least 1VP.

---

Setup: Each player gets +5 Villagers.

This may cause endless games, e. g . with Necromancer and Acting Troupe.

Necromancer\Acting Troupe\Paper Mill Sounds more circuitous than Bishop\Fortress, Bishop\Graverobber, Bishop\Lurker, Bishop\Rogue, Bishop\Treasurer, Patron\Paper Mill, and, well, Monument.

Paper Mill only increases in VP if you can outstrip another player's +Villagers.  If there is no way to produce +Villagers, then Paper Mill provides +3 Villagers for free, and you can still use the rest of the Villagers if doing so allows you to end the game.  Otherwise improving other players' Paper Mills from 1VP to 2VP probably isn't typically worth +2 Villagers.
I'd consider having Paper Mill produce Villagers in some fashion, but that could give it a fairly dull play pattern in comparison to the dynamism of depending on other Villager producing cards and otherwise being an odd free source of +Villagers.

Quote from: crlundy on December 04, 2018, 03:26:21 am

Promenade: Treasure-Victory, $3
$1
+1 Villager

---

1 VP

I feel like everybody doesn't like Coin of the Realm.  This tastes so similar that I'm not a fan.

Quote from: Violet CLM on December 04, 2018, 02:51:20 pm

Construction Site
Types: Victory
Cost: $4
At the end of the game, just before scoring, players with Construction Sites may exchange them one at a time in clockwise turn order, beginning with the player to the left of the player whose turn the game ended on, for any card in the Supply.

Ignoring any wording issues, I've played with effects like this before (called them End cards that were played in a special End phase).  It's a fairly limited shape of thing with a complex rules overhead, so I ultimately dropped the concept.  This probably has big scaling issues since 4-player games so commonly end on piles.

Quote from: spiralstaircase on December 05, 2018, 09:37:16 am

Oil Painting
Cost: $4
Types: Victory
Worth 2 VP + 1 VP per Project you have bought.

---

Setup: Add a Project to the kingdom.

You could probably simplify this as 2VP per Project you have bought.  It might be more compelling if it was worth 2VP per Project you haven't bought, but then it would be worth 6VP in games with 3 Projects, which probably isn't reasonable.

Quote from: spiralstaircase on December 06, 2018, 03:15:09 am

That's a very good point.  Let's say that in the hypothetical world where this is available as a promo, it comes with an extra set of cubes.

Somewhat amusingly, the rules are more explicit about you having 2 cubes for Projects than playing with only 2 Projects.  I wouldn't recommend changing that.

Quote from: Kudasai on December 05, 2018, 06:59:16 pm

Frontier
Types: Action, Victory
Cost: $6
+1 Action. Put a card from your hand face down on your Frontier mat.

---

Worth 1VP per differently named card on your Frontier mat that the player to your left does not have on their Frontier mat.

The cap of Frontier is typically 16VP, but it will definitely be dragged down by the Scattergories thing.  My big concern is the left-right binding here.  Possession and Smugglers' turn order issues have nothing on Frontier's.  I'd much rather it care about the "differently named cards that no other players have copies of on their Frontier mats."

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 07, 2018, 04:36:11 pm

This indirect usage of Villagers is a very cool idea that avoids outright brokenness via endless token accumulation.

I wouldn't worry about the "outright brokenness via endless token accumulation" unless the card itself is a great source of tokens.  The only non-combo infinite sources of +Villagers are Exploration (which is super slow) and Patron (which reads very similarly to Monument if there is a card that cares about the number of tokens you have on your Villager mat), and anything that is a 3-card combo has plenty of 3-card combos with which to contend.

Quote from: Kudasai on December 07, 2018, 04:26:17 pm

Outskirts
Types: Action, Victory
Cost: $4
+1 Villager

---

Worth 1VP for every 3 Action cards without +Action amounts in their text in your deck (rounded down).

This ought to be 1VP per 4, to avoid comparing too well to Silk Road.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on December 08, 2018, 11:43:20 am

Here's my submission, sorry I don't have a mockup yet:
City Hall
$3 Victory
1VP
-
When you gain this, +3 Villagers, and each other player gets +1 Villager.

Simple like Renaissance, and obviously Villagers. Also, a lot of cards in Renaissance had on-gain effects, so there's that too. Is City Hall a medievalish name?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on December 08, 2018, 05:48:17 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on December 08, 2018, 11:43:20 am

Is City Hall a medievalish name?

The "strictly medieval" theme was thrown out long ago, particularly with Empires. At this point, the only rules are no guns, steam or electricity.

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 08, 2018, 08:00:29 am

I feel like everybody doesn't like Coin of the Realm.

Wait, who doesn't like Coin of the Realm?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on December 08, 2018, 06:04:02 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on December 08, 2018, 05:48:17 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on December 08, 2018, 11:43:20 am

Is City Hall a medievalish name?

The "strictly medieval" theme was thrown out long ago, particularly with Empires. At this point, the only rules are no guns, steam or electricity.

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 08, 2018, 08:00:29 am

I feel like everybody doesn't like Coin of the Realm.

Wait, who doesn't like Coin of the Realm?

Yeah, I love that card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on December 09, 2018, 12:25:00 pm

I'm going to have to postpone the judging until tomorrow.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on December 10, 2018, 06:13:44 am

Thanks to everyone who contributed! Other than general quality stuff, I tried to judge the cards in large part based on how important to the design it was that the card is a Victory card, and how well I thought it would fit in Renaissance, both in terms of simplicity and using Ren mechanics.

Parade: The condition to gain Parade seems like it would be met in two types of decks: strong engines that can draw a lot of Treasure payload using relatively few Actions and "good stuff" kind of decks, where you're maybe playing a few Peddlers and a couple of Treasures to buy this. I think it's an interesting challenge for the engine but maybe being able to gain this will be too luck-driven for the second type of deck. I like how the gain condition being different from Grand Market's opens up different methods to cheat it.

Polymath: This seems well balanced; it should be fairly easy to get up to 3-4 VP most of the time and occasionally it'll be really centralizing (which is good, in my opinion.) I like it a lot; my only reservation is that the amount of counting and deck tracking you'll want to do to optimize it will make playing with it could be a bit of a hassle.

Parliament: This is a really nice design for an Action/Victory I think, with a top half that does something interesting but which would be hard to price as its own card. The idea of having "disappearing victory cards" for a draw-to-X deck is also neat.

Pirate Island: This will naturally be worth 5-7 VP most of the time, with 8 readily achievable. It feels like something in between Fairgrounds and Colony, and compared to either I think it's too expensive for what you get out of it. I prefer the Fairgrounds approach of being cheaper, but requiring more effort in deck construction to get full VP value. Having Pouch as an heirloom to ensure you can always buy it is a nice touch.

Residence: This is similar to Recruiter at first blush, but while Recruiter is a crazy good card that I almost always get Residence is much more tactical, which is intriguing. I like the idea of getting a bunch of these and then blowing them all up in a chain reaction (although maybe that's not actually "good").

Farmstead: I like this concept; I think it's different enough from Banquet to be a good idea. I'm just worried that in its current form it might suffer Banquet's fate of being ignored most of the time; it probably needs to be souped up a bit somehow to really make it playable. Maybe it would work as part of a split pile with a good TFB card underneath?

Art Gallery: The top would fit in Renaissance, but I don't think it needs to be a Victory card. Probably it would be fine as a plain Action for $3.

Gallery: Very solid design which could open up some good tactical decisions in the endgame. I like including an Artifact as I think they were maybe a bit underutilized in Ren.

Tulip Field: Very well done, it ties VP to having tokens without getting out of hand, and I think the bottom half provides an interesting, unique way to get tokens. Maybe it can get a little bit crazy, but you need a lot of draw support for that to happen, and Renaissance definitely has some very powerful cards in it.

Paper Mill: This has a lot going for it; I really like the setup condition, and allowing other players to block with their own villagers without needing to gain Paper Mills is a good approach. The worry about endless games is real, especially with the Recruiter/Treasurer combo, but having to actually keep the green cards in your deck to get the VP alleviates some of the concern. I think I would much prefer 1 VP/Villager, which makes it crazy with a lot of Ren cards but also would mean it actually gets bought in games without another way to get Villagers. The bit about it having a minimum VP value of 1 seems like a needless complication.

Promenade: I appreciate the simplicity (and the attempt to make a half-Harem work) but I think this is a bit weaker than Coin of the Realm and wouldn't play significantly differently. The 1 VP doesn't add very much to the card in my opinion.

Construction Site: This is a really creative and cool idea. I don't really think it's a Victory card though, I see it as a Victory card gainer. I think something like this could work better in the vein of Distant Lands, as an Action you play and then set aside until the end of the game (maybe gaining an Estate or something at that point to keep the stop card in your deck). That neuters some of the potential for degenerate rush strategies (I do enjoy the occasional degenerate rush strategy, but I think Construction Site might make them too strong) and makes the card more fair if you're gaining a bunch at the end of the game. That all being said, the concept is so interesting that it's definitely a contender.

River: I don't think the world needs another Great Hall, this time with a bonus that only helps a pretty narrow set of strategies.

Stock Exchange: I think this swings too much from being too strong with other Coffers-gainers around to too weak on its own. I'm not really a fan of giving VP for Coffers, I think VP for Villagers is a more promising route. When you're stockpiling Villagers you can still use the rest of your deck to buy Provinces or whatever, whereas a Coffers-focused deck (especially a Baker stack) might find it never beneficial to work towards ending the game once it's set up.

Senate: The top is promising but the bottom is low-impact and wordy enough that I think it would be better as a pure Action.

Oil Painting: I am a fan of the setup clause; I like the idea of playing a game with 3 Projects available but you can only buy 2 more than getting an extra cube though. Projects are good enough that this will usually be worth at least 3 VP, but I don't think having a Duchy available for $4 breaks anything in particular.

Frontier: Interesting concept. It feels like it would be too slow at $6, but maybe too strong at $5? It's difficult to gauge since it obvoisly gets much worse if the player to your left also gets a few.

Caretaker: Kind of like Shepherd but for Villagers rather than draw. I like it, but it might need a more compelling reason to be a Night card (like gain-to-hand).

Subversives: Good design for a VP from Villagers card. I think the rate at which you'll be able to acquire Villagers is well balanced. Villagers are generally so good that I don't think this is going to provide much VP (except with Recruiter).

Kingswood: I'm not sure 7 VP for $7 is enough extra value to make you jump through that extra hoop of building an engine that produces mostly Coffers.

City Hall: This is pretty much an Acting Troupe which junks you and helps your opponents. Acting Troupe is pretty weak, so I don't think this is going to be strong enough to see much play.

Lots of good options! There were two that really stood out to me as being exciting ideas that needed to be on a Victory card, and out of those two one barely edged the other on the basis of feeling more like a Renaissance card.

Winner: Tulip Field by NoMoreFun
Runner-up: Parliament by Gubump

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on December 10, 2018, 05:58:59 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on December 08, 2018, 05:48:17 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on December 08, 2018, 11:43:20 am

Is City Hall a medievalish name?

The "strictly medieval" theme was thrown out long ago, particularly with Empires. At this point, the only rules are no guns, steam or electricity.

It's a slippery slope. Just wait a few years and we'll have "Dominion - Wild West".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 10, 2018, 06:09:22 pm

Quote from: Asper on December 10, 2018, 05:58:59 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on December 08, 2018, 05:48:17 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on December 08, 2018, 11:43:20 am

Is City Hall a medievalish name?

The "strictly medieval" theme was thrown out long ago, particularly with Empires. At this point, the only rules are no guns, steam or electricity.

It's a slippery slope. Just wait a few years and we'll have "Dominion - Wild West".

Better yet-Dominion: The Final Frontier

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on December 10, 2018, 06:28:57 pm

Quote from: Asper on December 10, 2018, 05:58:59 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on December 08, 2018, 05:48:17 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on December 08, 2018, 11:43:20 am

Is City Hall a medievalish name?

The "strictly medieval" theme was thrown out long ago, particularly with Empires. At this point, the only rules are no guns, steam or electricity.

It's a slippery slope. Just wait a few years and we'll have "Dominion - Wild West".

There will have to be a colonial-times-ish expansion first so that the guns aren't too jarring. So, basically, Dominion: Gunpowder.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 10, 2018, 06:33:45 pm

Thank you hypercube

Challenge: "Each player (including you)"

Design a card that, somewhere in its text,  has an effect (positive, negative or mixed) that affects all players.  It doesn't need the exact wording in it,  but there must be some effect experienced by everybody.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on December 10, 2018, 08:25:50 pm

Quote

Name: Philosopher
Cost: $4
Types: Action
+1 card
+1 action

---

When you gain this, choose a token (+1 Card, or +1 Action, or +1 Buy, or +$1). Each player (including you) removes all of their tokens from the Philosopher pile and adds the chosen token to the Philosopher pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on December 10, 2018, 10:07:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/t1wT2NL.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 11, 2018, 07:42:44 am

(https://i.imgur.com/7SKJZP6.jpg)

Terminal draw coupled with discard for benefit puts a cap on the usefulness (after several plays) of this for the opponents.
Among the 'party for everybody cards' we mainly had draw with Council Room and Governor as the 3 other vanilla thingies are not savable but with tokens they are.
Marketeers are Buy tokens; VP tokens could be easily broken in overdrawing engines.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 11, 2018, 07:46:05 am

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on December 10, 2018, 08:25:50 pm

Quote

Name: Philosopher
Cost: $4
Types: Action
+1 card
+1 action

---

When you gain this, choose a token (+1 Card, or +1 Action, or +1 Buy, or +$1). Each player (including you) removes all of their tokens from the Philosopher pile and adds the chosen token to the Philosopher pile.

I like this, it is a very interactive card with a nice mini-game around gaining (you want a lot of them but not too many lest one the other players who have fewer gain the last one and convert your nice Labs into Market Squares).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on December 11, 2018, 09:48:17 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 11, 2018, 07:42:44 am

(https://i.imgur.com/7SKJZP6.jpg)

Terminal draw coupled with discard for benefit puts a cap on the usefulness (after several plays) of this for the opponents.
Among the 'party for everybody cards' we mainly had draw with Council Room and Governor as the 3 other vanilla thingies are not savable but with tokens they are.
Marketeers are Buy tokens; VP tokens could be easily broken in overdrawing engines.

I like the idea a lot, despite being just a smithy at first glance, I think people will buy it at 5$, too. But I think it would be better to reduce it to the villager gain. It’s simplier, and also I believe that it’s stronger that way, because the moment where your opponents stall will come earlier.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 11, 2018, 10:27:14 am

(https://i.imgur.com/khoZvsD.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on December 11, 2018, 02:12:49 pm

(https://mediacrush.coding4.coffee/storage/2G_OnBew4hlL.png)

Refresh
Type: Action
Cost: $4

+1 Action
Each player (including you) may trash a card from their hand.
Draw until you have 5 cards in hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 11, 2018, 02:59:51 pm

Quote from: terminalCopper on December 11, 2018, 09:48:17 am

I like the idea a lot, despite being just a smithy at first glance, I think people will buy it at 5$, too. But I think it would be better to reduce it to the villager gain. It’s simplier, and also I believe that it’s stronger that way, because the moment where your opponents stall will come earlier.

This actually was initially just about (discard anything for) Villagers but I feared that it would be too dominant. You can discard the junk for Villagers on your/their turn and then play your Cabins as Double Labs. That felt like a too powerful sifting/draw/village mixture.
The current version makes it much harder to use this non-terminally and the stuff you want to discard most often yields the token which is worth the least in quantities.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on December 11, 2018, 05:20:59 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/902RS7c.jpg)

Quote

Sorceress
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+$1. Each player (including you) may reveal a Curse from their hand. Each player who does gets +1 Coffers. Regardless, each other player gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.

Would like a better name, though...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 11, 2018, 06:49:03 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 11, 2018, 07:42:44 am

(https://i.imgur.com/7SKJZP6.jpg)

Terminal draw coupled with discard for benefit puts a cap on the usefulness (after several plays) of this for the opponents.
Among the 'party for everybody cards' we mainly had draw with Council Room and Governor as the 3 other vanilla thingies are not savable but with tokens they are.
Marketeers are Buy tokens; VP tokens could be easily broken in overdrawing engines.

No offense, but Marketeer is a bad name. I think “Vendor” would be better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on December 11, 2018, 07:08:48 pm

I personally like "+X Credits".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 11, 2018, 08:58:39 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on December 11, 2018, 07:08:48 pm

I personally like "+X Credits".

That sounds like it would be:
1) Space-themed (SW), not medieval
2) Like it would give +$.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 12, 2018, 05:36:03 am

Quote from: faust on December 11, 2018, 10:27:14 am

(https://i.imgur.com/khoZvsD.jpg)

This is the most novel idea and I like it for that.

In a 2P game this is a free lunch for the opponent (unless there is Relic and Villa in the Kingdom) unless you get a second Mason's Guild. So this creates an incentive to get slightly more drawing Workshops than you would usually want and it could lead to crazy pile-driving (if the opponent "retaliates" and also gets a second one).
In a 3P mirror game free lunch is prevented without somebody having to get a second copy. So I think that overall this works slightly better in 3P games.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on December 12, 2018, 07:07:24 am

(https://i.imgur.com/uZwpT5Z.jpg)

Quote

Prisoner's Dilemma
Types: Action - Attack
Cost: $5
Set a card aside from your hand. Each player (including you) names a card. Reveal the set-aside card and return it to your hand.
If you named the set-aside card, each player who named it gains a Gold, and each who didn't gains a Copper.
If you did not, each player who named it gains a Curse, and each who didn't gains a Silver.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on December 12, 2018, 09:01:37 am

(https://i.imgur.com/0mwKoP2.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 12, 2018, 12:28:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/75hsqE0.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on December 12, 2018, 02:49:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jsceawN.jpg)

Edit: format change to match 2E Events, and made your returning to Action phase conditional to getting a card from discard.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 12, 2018, 02:58:26 pm

Quote from: Aquila on December 12, 2018, 02:49:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Rwk4V7t.jpg)

I love this, except for being perhaps too automatic which is, given that you can construct your deck such that you have a discard more often, arguable. Do you think that it would be too expensive if it costed $1?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on December 12, 2018, 06:12:24 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 12, 2018, 02:58:26 pm

Quote from: Aquila on December 12, 2018, 02:49:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Rwk4V7t.jpg)

I love this, except for being perhaps too automatic which is, given that you can construct your deck such that you have a discard more often, arguable. Do you think that it would be too expensive if it costed $1?

It doesn't give +1 Action like Villa, so that makes is less automatic imo. (Also, you can put the +1 Buy after the "once per turn" for bigger text, like Save.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 12, 2018, 06:23:44 pm

Quote from: crlundy on December 12, 2018, 06:12:24 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 12, 2018, 02:58:26 pm

Quote from: Aquila on December 12, 2018, 02:49:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Rwk4V7t.jpg)

I love this, except for being perhaps too automatic which is, given that you can construct your deck such that you have a discard more often, arguable. Do you think that it would be too expensive if it costed $1?

It doesn't give +1 Action like Villa, so that makes is less automatic imo. (Also, you can put the +1 Buy after the "once per turn" for bigger text, like Save.)

It is an Event "cantrip", there is no cost of playing it beyond the gift to the opponents. When you return to your Action phase the number of Actions you have remains constant. Also, what I just noted is that like Villa this is bonkers with draw-to-X (but unlike Village it doesn't flood your deck with degenerate villages).
If one wanted to avoid this one could do it as Edict (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0): In games using this, once per turn during your Action phase, you may look through your discard pile to put a card from it into your hand. If you do, all other players may do the same.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on December 12, 2018, 07:16:32 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 12, 2018, 06:23:44 pm

Quote from: crlundy on December 12, 2018, 06:12:24 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 12, 2018, 02:58:26 pm

Quote from: Aquila on December 12, 2018, 02:49:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Rwk4V7t.jpg)

I love this, except for being perhaps too automatic which is, given that you can construct your deck such that you have a discard more often, arguable. Do you think that it would be too expensive if it costed $1?

It doesn't give +1 Action like Villa, so that makes is less automatic imo. (Also, you can put the +1 Buy after the "once per turn" for bigger text, like Save.)

It is an Event "cantrip", there is no cost of playing it beyond the gift to the opponents. When you return to your Action phase the number of Actions you have remains constant. Also, what I just noted is that like Villa this is bonkers with draw-to-X (but unlike Village it doesn't flood your deck with degenerate villages).
If one wanted to avoid this one could do it as Edict (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0): In games using this, once per turn during your Action phase, you may look through your discard pile to put a card from it into your hand. If you do, all other players may do the same.

One thing, though: If you want to put something in your hand that you just bought, it will cost an additional Buy, because you have to buy it after you bought the other thing. The text is triggered immediately after you buy it, right?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on December 13, 2018, 06:16:39 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Txxb9sH.jpg)

Check it out.  Artificer and Workshop had a baby.  I thought the semi-attack was kinda fun. 
You can usually gain an action to your hand to discard for Coffers if you want to.  That way it turns into a normal workshop +2 Coffers (and some player interaction.)  Or you can keep the card you gain and it's more like a Sculptor/Cobbler! If you have the actions for it that is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on December 14, 2018, 04:29:34 am

Edit to my entry, format change to match 2E Events (thanks crlundy), and made your returning to Action phase conditional to getting a card from discard (thanks holunder for identifying that this can just empty your Treasures out of hand, one can't do this by itself now).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 16, 2018, 03:07:03 pm

Judging will take place in 24 hours

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on December 16, 2018, 03:42:48 pm

A (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Bedtime%20Story&description=Choose%20one%3A%20Turn%20your%20Journey%20token%20over%20(it%20starts%20face%20up)%20and%20gain%20a%20Silver%3B%20or%20each%20player%20(including%20you)%20turns%20their%20Journey%20token%20over%2C%20and%20if%20yours%20is%20face%20up%2C%20gain%20a%20Gold%2C%20or%20else%2C%20gain%20a%20Copper.&type=Night&credit=Illustration%3A%20Johnson&price=%244&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0021%2F6183%2F6095%2Fproducts%2FJohnson_Bedtime_Story_Giclee_on_Canvas_40x30_LE6of195_RU1800_RF2500_1024x1024%402x.jpg&color0=10&color1=0&size=0) bit of Nocturne-style unpredictability. I wanted to do something with debt and "if you have any debt," but Capital kept getting in the way, so here's some different less-explored territory instead. Maybe getting all these treasures for free is too powerful, I dunno, I didn't have any better ideas.
(https://i.imgur.com/9AFC1hd.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 16, 2018, 08:14:49 pm

Quote

Real Estate (Action-Attack, cost: $2)
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each player (including you) gains an Estate. Then, you may trash any number of Estates from your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 17, 2018, 03:57:17 pm

Thank you to everyone who sent in a card. This wouldn't have been the easiest round to design cards for, so it was very nice to see so many interesting cards that use the concept in different ways.

Ancient City: A bit too powerful.; very easy to play a lot of these and get all the actions you could ever want,  and only the first one helps your opponents.

Cabin: A good card that really understands the idea behind the contest. However while I didn't rule out creating new tokens, but I didn't like "+1 Marketeer" - I felt like it added very little value to the card for a new mechanic. I suggest replacing it with "+1 Card" for discarding a Victory card.

Sorceress: I don't generally like $4 cursers, but this one seems more fun. It has the same problem as other cursers where you essentially have to buy it, even though you do end up benefiting from being the player with more curses occasionally.

Refresh: Looks interesting, fun and fast... maybe too fast? Its strength mostly seems to come from the other cards you use with it (like Chapel and Donate)

Forbidden city: I really like it. While your opponents could benefit a lot, maybe a bit too much, the card gets its strength from differences in intent between decks.

Prisoners Dilemma: Very clever, but doesn't seem like it makes for a fun Dominion card.

Mountaineering: Very unique, using the concept of non attack interaction as a "cost" for something that's otherwise free. Discard pile based mechanics often seem too much like luck for me to really get behind this card, but it works very nicely with other +buy in the kingdom to play the card you just gained.

Artificer's shop: I don't understand why it's not "up to $4". An interesting discard for benefit.

Real Estate: Too cheap for a cantrip junker and I don't like how it varies between plays

Bedtime story: Not sure why it's a night card. I would prefer different effects to treasure gaining to try out the very interesting Journey token mechanic.

Runner up 1: Potlatch by hypercube
A very interesting and amazingly simple card. I think it will mostly be used to bridge the $5/$4 gap. It does seem like it would run into a lot of analysis paralysis, and I'm not sure why the 2nd gain is compulsory. The slowness of the card itself is made up for by how quick games using it will get.

Runner up 2: Philosopher by scott_pilgrim
Although it didn't win, this is the card I'd like to playtest most. I like the uneasy pacts it would create between players to keep cards the way they are, but it does risk getting political in 3 player games - buying a Philosopher to sabotage one other player's deck in particular. I can see players getting irritated with each other, but I'm not sure how endearing it will be. Still, a $4 cantrip gives players plenty of chances to run out the pile.

Winner: Mason's Guild by faust
I'd like to playtest it to see how strong it is and when it's worth buying, but I really like the concept behind combining cards and the -1 card token. It isn't necessarily an easy decision but other players only need to make it once. Meanwhile you have a card that has very interesting interactions with itself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on December 17, 2018, 04:28:52 pm

What about Commodore's Ancient City?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 17, 2018, 05:05:25 pm

I wasn't planning on writing up every card but I got most of them in the end.  I've updated the post with the 2 I missed - I think that's all of them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 18, 2018, 01:24:43 am

Thansk! :)

Should we make a 2-week deadline for the next competition?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 18, 2018, 01:51:46 am

Anyway, here comes the new challenge:

Create a card that utilizes an existing State or Artifact

Possibilities are: Lost in the Woods, Deluded, Envious, Miserable, Twice Miserable, Flag, Key, Treasure Chest (less likely: Horn/Lantern).

Your cards should reference the State/Artifact explicitly; it is not enough to simply make a Hexer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on December 18, 2018, 05:09:20 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fjANSIE.png)

Jolly seasons greatings, I guess.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on December 18, 2018, 07:51:30 am

(https://i.imgur.com/wi1STFt.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 18, 2018, 01:57:38 pm

With 6 cards in hand this will be more of a gift than an Attack until fairly late in the game. Of course it becomes much stronger with handsize attacks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 18, 2018, 05:19:06 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 18, 2018, 01:57:38 pm

With 6 cards in hand this will be more of a gift than an Attack until fairly late in the game. Of course it becomes much stronger with handsize attacks.

It isn't really an attack anyway because it is trivial to defend against it. Still good that it has Attack type I think.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on December 18, 2018, 05:35:00 pm

Quote from: faust on December 18, 2018, 05:19:06 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 18, 2018, 01:57:38 pm

With 6 cards in hand this will be more of a gift than an Attack until fairly late in the game. Of course it becomes much stronger with handsize attacks.

It isn't really an attack anyway because it is trivial to defend against it. Still good that it has Attack type I think.

You can also trash your own cards if you have the flag. The Attack type is strange, a player can react to it, even if is not affected (like multiple militias, but at least, in that case, is affected once)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on December 18, 2018, 08:01:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yIensfY.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 19, 2018, 05:17:20 am

Quote from: faust on December 18, 2018, 05:19:06 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 18, 2018, 01:57:38 pm

With 6 cards in hand this will be more of a gift than an Attack until fairly late in the game. Of course it becomes much stronger with handsize attacks.

It isn't really an attack anyway because it is trivial to defend against it. Still good that it has Attack type I think.

There is one official card that is remotely similar to this in terms of being potentially hurtful late in the game, Masquerade. It doesn't have the Attack type.

Quote from: Freddy10 on December 18, 2018, 05:35:00 pm

Quote from: faust on December 18, 2018, 05:19:06 pm

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 18, 2018, 01:57:38 pm

With 6 cards in hand this will be more of a gift than an Attack until fairly late in the game. Of course it becomes much stronger with handsize attacks.

It isn't really an attack anyway because it is trivial to defend against it. Still good that it has Attack type I think.

You can also trash your own cards if you have the flag. The Attack type is strange, a player can react to it, even if is not affected (like multiple militias, but at least, in that case, is affected once)

Yeah, it is totally weird to give something which is more often beneficial than harmful and, as you pointed out, often not affecting the supposedly attacked player, the Attack type.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on December 19, 2018, 05:27:08 am

Masquerade isn't an Attack cardf because it would be unclear how it should be resolved if one player blocks the attack. I do agree that Spendthrift should not be an Attack because it is very often useful, but I also think that mandatory trashing on a non-attack is poor design. My suggestion would be to just make the trashing optional.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 19, 2018, 05:54:30 am

Quote from: Asper on December 19, 2018, 05:27:08 am

Masquerade isn't an Attack cardf because it would be unclear how it should be resolved if one player blocks the attack.

Pretty simple, that dude doesn't pass a card or gets passed a card to, i.e. in a 3P game you simply resolve Masquerade as if it were a 2P game. And if both players Moat you pass a card to yourself.

Also, while you can get a better card via Masquerade while you are on the passive side of it most of the times it is neutral or bad whereas Vanguard seems to be mostly good for the Attacked player.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on December 19, 2018, 06:21:47 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 19, 2018, 05:54:30 am

Quote from: Asper on December 19, 2018, 05:27:08 am

Masquerade isn't an Attack cardf because it would be unclear how it should be resolved if one player blocks the attack.

Pretty simple, that dude doesn't pass a card or gets passed a card to, i.e. in a 3P game you simply resolve Masquerade as if it were a 2P game. And if both players Moat you pass a card to yourself.

That does not align with how the card is worded. If I block the attack, my right neighbor is still told to pass me a card. He's not told to pass my left neighbor a card. To make it work the way you describe it, the card would have to use a much more complicated wording. Those additional words would only ever matter if a straight attack-blocker was in the kingdom, and Intrigue never had such a card (and started as a standalone edition, mind you). It's so, so much simpler to just not have it be an attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 19, 2018, 06:52:02 am

Quote from: Asper on December 19, 2018, 06:21:47 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 19, 2018, 05:54:30 am

Quote from: Asper on December 19, 2018, 05:27:08 am

Masquerade isn't an Attack cardf because it would be unclear how it should be resolved if one player blocks the attack.

Pretty simple, that dude doesn't pass a card or gets passed a card to, i.e. in a 3P game you simply resolve Masquerade as if it were a 2P game. And if both players Moat you pass a card to yourself.

That does not align with how the card is worded. If I block the attack, my right neighbor is still told to pass me a card. He's not told to pass my left neighbor a card. To make it work the way you describe it, the card would have to use a much more complicated wording. Those additional words would only ever matter if a straight attack-blocker was in the kingdom, and Intrigue never had such a card (and started as a standalone edition, mind you). It's so, so much simpler to just not have it be an attack.

Sure, the wording would be a mess. I am just saying that you could commonsensically play Masquerade as an Attack card and that if Masquerade, which is often harsher than Vanguard (and led to the broken KC-Goons-Masquerade combo), isn't an Attack Vanguard, which is often a gift, shouldn't be one either.
I read the card as a partly-delayed Smithy: it always net draws 3 cards with the last card only arriving in your hand at the end of your turn. It has the upside of potentially drawing you more cards if the Flag is uncontested and the downside of gifting whomever you steal the Flag from something (the stealing itself obviously cannot be considered as Attack, otherwise Fool, Borderguard, Treasurer and Swashbuckler could be Attacks as well). This is why I don't think that it should be an Attack. Sure, it is more complex as in the later part of the game there is a little mini-game arising about whether you really want to play Vanguard anymore as you might be superthin and direly want to hang on to whatever you have. But that seems to be more like a downside attached to Flag late in the game, akin to Cathedral potentially trashing good cards late in the game, than a genuine Attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on December 19, 2018, 07:21:14 am

The idea behind the trashing on Vanguard being mandatory is to create an additional set of decisions regarding whether you want the Flag late in the game. If the trashing is optional both players will just pass the Flag back and forth every turn, which isn't too interesting.

I don't really see what the advantage of leaving the Attack type off is other than some additional similarity to Masq. Certainly there will be lots of times where one has a thin deck and the trashing will act as an attack, so I think it's better to let that get blocked by Moat etc.. Playing Pirate Ship is usually helpful to your opponent as well; that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be an Attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 19, 2018, 07:29:32 am

It just seems weird that Alice plays Vanguard, Bob trashes a card from his hand, Charles sets aside a Horse Trader and Alice takes the Flag from Bob. Bob got compensated for having lost the Flag and Charles got a gift as well although the Attack did not involve him at all. Existing Attacks are always symmetric, they affect all other players.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on December 19, 2018, 07:34:48 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 19, 2018, 07:29:32 am

It just seems weird that Alice plays Vanguard, Bob trashes a card from his hand, Charles sets aside a Horse Trader and Alice takes the Flag from Bob. Bob got compensated for having lost the Flag and Charles got a gift as well although the Attack did not involve him at all. Existing Attacks are always symmetric, they affect all other players.

Is that really all that different from Alice plays Urchin, Bob discards a card, Charles sets aside a Horse Traders?

Certainly there's some potential for politics introduced, but that's inherent to the concept of Artifacts. Playing Vanguard to attack one player is just an extension of buying a Flag Bearer to take the Flag from one player.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 19, 2018, 07:40:08 am

Quote from: hypercube on December 19, 2018, 07:34:48 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 19, 2018, 07:29:32 am

It just seems weird that Alice plays Vanguard, Bob trashes a card from his hand, Charles sets aside a Horse Trader and Alice takes the Flag from Bob. Bob got compensated for having lost the Flag and Charles got a gift as well although the Attack did not involve him at all. Existing Attacks are always symmetric, they affect all other players.

Certainly there's some potential for politics introduced, but that's inherent to the concept of Artifacts. Playing Vanguard to attack one player is just an extension of buying a Flag Bearer to take the Flag from one player.

Taking the Flag from another player via gaining/trashing Flagbearer is not an Attack. So why should taking the Flag from another player while gifting him the net effect of a cantrip trasher be considered an Attack? Sure, late in the game that can hurt just like Masquerade or Junk Dealer can hurt but this influences your play, you will trash slightly slower.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on December 19, 2018, 07:41:09 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 19, 2018, 07:40:08 am

Quote from: hypercube on December 19, 2018, 07:34:48 am

Quote from: Holunder9 on December 19, 2018, 07:29:32 am

It just seems weird that Alice plays Vanguard, Bob trashes a card from his hand, Charles sets aside a Horse Trader and Alice takes the Flag from Bob. Bob got compensated for having lost the Flag and Charles got a gift as well although the Attack did not involve him at all. Existing Attacks are always symmetric, they affect all other players.

Certainly there's some potential for politics introduced, but that's inherent to the concept of Artifacts. Playing Vanguard to attack one player is just an extension of buying a Flag Bearer to take the Flag from one player.

Taking the Flag from another player via gaining/trashing Flagbearer is not an Attack. So why should taking the Flag from another player and gifting him the net effect of a cantrip trasher be considered an Attack?

Because the cantrip trasher effect is sometimes helpful and sometimes harmful.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 19, 2018, 07:51:30 am

Quote from: hypercube on December 19, 2018, 07:41:09 am

Because the cantrip trasher effect is sometimes helpful and sometimes harmful.

I am pretty sure that Vanguard will more often be an asset than a liability (far more so than Pirate Ship which you mentioned but which can be quite nasty in some Kingdoms in multiplayer games).
Keep in mind that the "attacked" player selects, in the absence of handsize Attacks and the -1 Card token, out of 6 instead of 5 cards. That matters a lot as the card will start to become crucial (we know these moments from Upgrade, Junk Dealer and Lookout) later in the game.

It is your design so you can of course take as many liberties as you want. But I think that being a gift during a large part of the game (it is nearly as good as having a cantrip trasher in your deck) and only affecting one player disqualifies this from having the Attack type.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on December 19, 2018, 08:36:31 am

Gave up finding a picture.

Quote

Forger - Action, $4 cost.
+1 Action
Gain a Gold to your hand. If you don't have Deluded or Envious, take Envious.
-
When you trash this, gain a cheaper card from the trash to your hand.

Edit: 'different' to 'cheaper'.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on December 19, 2018, 08:36:43 am

Quote from: hypercube on December 19, 2018, 07:21:14 am

I don't really see what the advantage of leaving the Attack type off is other than some additional similarity to Masq. Certainly there will be lots of times where one has a thin deck and the trashing will act as an attack, so I think it's better to let that get blocked by Moat etc.. Playing Pirate Ship is usually helpful to your opponent as well; that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be an Attack.

Vanguard should not be an Attack, not because of the benefit\detriment paridigm, but because players will be unsure if they can take the Flag from a player who is protected by a Guardian\Lighthouse\Moat (the answer is "yes"--because it is the player's instruction to take it, not the other player's instruction to give it--but that isn't immediately apparent to a layman).

(https://i.imgur.com/2QmkvwN.jpg)

Quote

Collector
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+3 Cards. Gain a Gold. If you don't have Deluded or Envious, take Envious.

I find the similarities to Aquila's Forger (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg780397#msg780397) posted 12 seconds earlier amusing.

EDIT: Added hypercube quote for clarity. Added comment for Aquila's card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 19, 2018, 10:34:02 am

Quote from: Aquila on December 19, 2018, 08:36:31 am

Hopefully 'gain a different...' is all that's needed to prevent gaining another Forger for Watchtower-Tomb.

I think it would need to be "differently named". And then the trick would still work with 1 Forger and 1 Inherited Estate-Forger.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 04:32:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/p4ALoQm.png)

Light trasher or a semi-venture thing, plus a situational good deck cycler.  I thought it was fun to get lost in the woods when you lose your compass. 

Edited to be just treasure not treasure-fate

Edited back to how it was....haha

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 19, 2018, 06:11:05 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 04:32:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/p4ALoQm.png)

Light Trasher or a semi-venture thing, plus a situational good deck cycler.  I thought it was fun to get lost in the woods when you lose your compass.

Why does this need to be a Treasure? Could it not just be a non-terminal Action?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 06:23:22 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 19, 2018, 06:11:05 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 04:32:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/p4ALoQm.png)

Light Trasher or a semi-venture thing, plus a situational good deck cycler.  I thought it was fun to get lost in the woods when you lose your compass.

Why does this need to be a Treasure? Could it not just be a non-terminal Action?

I thought it was more balanced when the put-in-hand thing was only helpful with nights/treasures rather than being able to dig for an action.  To me it is more interesting to be played at the end of the turn whether you draw a card or trash a card.(I played with it as a night card but that didn't work out) I also like the cycling happening at the end.  Overall I guess I found it more interesting to play as a treasure.

thematically Compass seems more like a treasure anyway

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on December 19, 2018, 06:30:14 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 06:23:22 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 19, 2018, 06:11:05 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 04:32:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/p4ALoQm.png)

Light Trasher or a semi-venture thing, plus a situational good deck cycler.  I thought it was fun to get lost in the woods when you lose your compass.

Why does this need to be a Treasure? Could it not just be a non-terminal Action?

I thought it was more balanced when the put-in-hand thing was only helpful with nights/treasures rather than being able to dig for an action.  To me it is more interesting to be played at the end of the turn whether you draw a card or trash a card.(I played with it as a night card but that didn't work out) I also like the cycling happening at the end.  Overall I guess I found it more interesting to play as a treasure.

thematically Compass seems more like a treasure anyway

Why is it a Fate? Fate means it can give you a Boon.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 06:33:26 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 19, 2018, 06:30:14 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 06:23:22 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 19, 2018, 06:11:05 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 04:32:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/p4ALoQm.png)

Light Trasher or a semi-venture thing, plus a situational good deck cycler.  I thought it was fun to get lost in the woods when you lose your compass.

Why does this need to be a Treasure? Could it not just be a non-terminal Action?

I thought it was more balanced when the put-in-hand thing was only helpful with nights/treasures rather than being able to dig for an action.  To me it is more interesting to be played at the end of the turn whether you draw a card or trash a card.(I played with it as a night card but that didn't work out) I also like the cycling happening at the end.  Overall I guess I found it more interesting to play as a treasure.

thematically Compass seems more like a treasure anyway

Why is it a Fate? Fate means it can give you a Boon.

I thought lost in the woods counted.  If that's wrong I can easily change that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 20, 2018, 01:27:10 am

(https://i.imgur.com/uURiRRF.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on December 20, 2018, 01:50:28 am

Name: Voyager
Cost: $5
Types: Action
+3 Cards
Starting with the player to your left and ending with you, each player in turn may trash a card from their hand. If anyone trashed a card costing more than all other cards trashed in this way, that player takes the Flag and the Key.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holunder9 on December 20, 2018, 09:57:53 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1nqofho.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on December 21, 2018, 08:04:56 pm

Well, this challenge was very difficult. I tried to do my best.

(https://abload.de/img/pioneervillage47fpm.png)

Pioneer Village
Type: Action
Cost: $5

+1 Card
Reveal 2 cards from your hand. Set aside all revealed Action cards and play them in any order. If both cards were Action cards, take the Lantern or Horn. Each other player with at least 5 cards in their hand discards 1 card.

Treat this card’s name as Border Guard.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on December 22, 2018, 01:33:07 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/41YSqg0.jpg)

Quote

Revenant
Cost: $5
Types: Action - Attack - Duration
Until your next turn, when any other player gains a Victory card during their turn, they take Miserable.  If they already have Miserable, they flip it over to Twice Miserable.
At the start of your next turn, trash a card from your hand.  Gain a card costing exactly $3 more than it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 23, 2018, 07:30:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/v7ARt5H.jpg)

Rival City
Action - $5
+2 Actions
If another player has;
The Treasure Chest,  gain a Gold onto your deck
The Flag, +2 Cards
The Key, +2 Coffers
---
When you gain or trash this,  take the Key, Flag or Treasure Chest

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on December 25, 2018, 12:15:56 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 06:33:26 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 19, 2018, 06:30:14 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 06:23:22 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 19, 2018, 06:11:05 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 04:32:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/p4ALoQm.png)

Light Trasher or a semi-venture thing, plus a situational good deck cycler.  I thought it was fun to get lost in the woods when you lose your compass.

Why does this need to be a Treasure? Could it not just be a non-terminal Action?

I thought it was more balanced when the put-in-hand thing was only helpful with nights/treasures rather than being able to dig for an action.  To me it is more interesting to be played at the end of the turn whether you draw a card or trash a card.(I played with it as a night card but that didn't work out) I also like the cycling happening at the end.  Overall I guess I found it more interesting to play as a treasure.

thematically Compass seems more like a treasure anyway

Why is it a Fate? Fate means it can give you a Boon.

I thought lost in the woods counted.  If that's wrong I can easily change that.

I'm pretty sure the Fate type means that you need to get the Boon pile out of the box and shuffle it, so this counts as a Fate card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on December 25, 2018, 01:07:36 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on December 25, 2018, 12:15:56 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 06:33:26 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 19, 2018, 06:30:14 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 06:23:22 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 19, 2018, 06:11:05 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 04:32:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/p4ALoQm.png)

Light Trasher or a semi-venture thing, plus a situational good deck cycler.  I thought it was fun to get lost in the woods when you lose your compass.

Why does this need to be a Treasure? Could it not just be a non-terminal Action?

I thought it was more balanced when the put-in-hand thing was only helpful with nights/treasures rather than being able to dig for an action.  To me it is more interesting to be played at the end of the turn whether you draw a card or trash a card.(I played with it as a night card but that didn't work out) I also like the cycling happening at the end.  Overall I guess I found it more interesting to play as a treasure.

thematically Compass seems more like a treasure anyway

Why is it a Fate? Fate means it can give you a Boon.

I thought lost in the woods counted.  If that's wrong I can easily change that.

I'm pretty sure the Fate type means that you need to get the Boon pile out of the box and shuffle it, so this counts as a Fate card.

This card doesn’t use Boons?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on December 25, 2018, 06:17:44 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 25, 2018, 01:07:36 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on December 25, 2018, 12:15:56 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 06:33:26 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 19, 2018, 06:30:14 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 06:23:22 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 19, 2018, 06:11:05 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 04:32:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/p4ALoQm.png)

Light Trasher or a semi-venture thing, plus a situational good deck cycler.  I thought it was fun to get lost in the woods when you lose your compass.

Why does this need to be a Treasure? Could it not just be a non-terminal Action?

I thought it was more balanced when the put-in-hand thing was only helpful with nights/treasures rather than being able to dig for an action.  To me it is more interesting to be played at the end of the turn whether you draw a card or trash a card.(I played with it as a night card but that didn't work out) I also like the cycling happening at the end.  Overall I guess I found it more interesting to play as a treasure.

thematically Compass seems more like a treasure anyway

Why is it a Fate? Fate means it can give you a Boon.

I thought lost in the woods counted.  If that's wrong I can easily change that.

I'm pretty sure the Fate type means that you need to get the Boon pile out of the box and shuffle it, so this counts as a Fate card.

This card doesn’t use Boons?

It uses Lost in the Woods, which uses Boons. I'd say the card should be a Fate, as I believe the official rules state that the Fate type means that the Boons are shuffled at the start of the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on December 25, 2018, 06:24:04 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on December 25, 2018, 06:17:44 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 25, 2018, 01:07:36 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on December 25, 2018, 12:15:56 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 06:33:26 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 19, 2018, 06:30:14 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 06:23:22 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 19, 2018, 06:11:05 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 04:32:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/p4ALoQm.png)

Light Trasher or a semi-venture thing, plus a situational good deck cycler.  I thought it was fun to get lost in the woods when you lose your compass.

Why does this need to be a Treasure? Could it not just be a non-terminal Action?

I thought it was more balanced when the put-in-hand thing was only helpful with nights/treasures rather than being able to dig for an action.  To me it is more interesting to be played at the end of the turn whether you draw a card or trash a card.(I played with it as a night card but that didn't work out) I also like the cycling happening at the end.  Overall I guess I found it more interesting to play as a treasure.

thematically Compass seems more like a treasure anyway

Why is it a Fate? Fate means it can give you a Boon.

I thought lost in the woods counted.  If that's wrong I can easily change that.

I'm pretty sure the Fate type means that you need to get the Boon pile out of the box and shuffle it, so this counts as a Fate card.

This card doesn’t use Boons?

It uses Lost in the Woods, which uses Boons. I'd say the card should be a Fate, as I believe the official rules state that the Fate type means that the Boons are shuffled at the start of the game.

Ah sorry, I forgot what Lost in the Woods does! I was just thinking of the other way around, that Fool uses Boons and could get you Lost in the Woods. So I'm wrong; anything that uses Lost in the Woods should be a Fate. Sorry Chappy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on December 26, 2018, 12:06:28 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 25, 2018, 06:24:04 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on December 25, 2018, 06:17:44 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 25, 2018, 01:07:36 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on December 25, 2018, 12:15:56 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 06:33:26 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 19, 2018, 06:30:14 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 06:23:22 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on December 19, 2018, 06:11:05 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on December 19, 2018, 04:32:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/p4ALoQm.png)

Light Trasher or a semi-venture thing, plus a situational good deck cycler.  I thought it was fun to get lost in the woods when you lose your compass.

Why does this need to be a Treasure? Could it not just be a non-terminal Action?

I thought it was more balanced when the put-in-hand thing was only helpful with nights/treasures rather than being able to dig for an action.  To me it is more interesting to be played at the end of the turn whether you draw a card or trash a card.(I played with it as a night card but that didn't work out) I also like the cycling happening at the end.  Overall I guess I found it more interesting to play as a treasure.

thematically Compass seems more like a treasure anyway

Why is it a Fate? Fate means it can give you a Boon.

I thought lost in the woods counted.  If that's wrong I can easily change that.

I'm pretty sure the Fate type means that you need to get the Boon pile out of the box and shuffle it, so this counts as a Fate card.

This card doesn’t use Boons?

It uses Lost in the Woods, which uses Boons. I'd say the card should be a Fate, as I believe the official rules state that the Fate type means that the Boons are shuffled at the start of the game.

Ah sorry, I forgot what Lost in the Woods does! I was just thinking of the other way around, that Fool uses Boons and could get you Lost in the Woods. So I'm wrong; anything that uses Lost in the Woods should be a Fate. Sorry Chappy.

LOL I shouldn't have changed it.  That's okay no problem

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 26, 2018, 03:39:02 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on December 23, 2018, 07:30:41 pm

Rival City
Action - $5
+2 Actions
If another player has;
The Treasure Chest,  gain a Gold onto your deck
The Flag, +2 Cards
The Key, +2 Coffers
---
When you gain or trash this,  take the Key, Flag or Treasure Chest

Considering that this is non-Terminal, I think it's way too strong to allow this to take the Treasure Chest so much more easily than the Swashbuckler. There's almost no point in getting Swashbucklers when this is in the Kingdom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 27, 2018, 02:26:47 am

Quote from: Gubump on December 26, 2018, 03:39:02 pm

<Rival City>
Considering that this is non-Terminal, I think it's way too strong to allow this to take the Treasure Chest so much more easily than the Swashbuckler. There's almost no point in getting Swashbucklers when this is in the Kingdom.

Maybe you need draw?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 27, 2018, 03:53:23 am

Quote from: Gubump on December 26, 2018, 03:39:02 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on December 23, 2018, 07:30:41 pm

Rival City
Action - $5
+2 Actions
If another player has;
The Treasure Chest,  gain a Gold onto your deck
The Flag, +2 Cards
The Key, +2 Coffers
---
When you gain or trash this,  take the Key, Flag or Treasure Chest

Considering that this is non-Terminal, I think it's way too strong to allow this to take the Treasure Chest so much more easily than the Swashbuckler. There's almost no point in getting Swashbucklers when this is in the Kingdom.

That's just wrong. You don't usually get Swashbuckler for the Treasure Chest anyway, you get it for draw and, in the right kind of deck, economy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 27, 2018, 05:10:43 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 27, 2018, 02:26:47 am

Quote from: Gubump on December 26, 2018, 03:39:02 pm

<Rival City>
Considering that this is non-Terminal, I think it's way too strong to allow this to take the Treasure Chest so much more easily than the Swashbuckler. There's almost no point in getting Swashbucklers when this is in the Kingdom.

Maybe you need draw?

Especially if you've got a +2 Actions card without any draw of its own.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 27, 2018, 11:12:06 am

Quote from: faust on December 27, 2018, 03:53:23 am

Quote from: Gubump on December 26, 2018, 03:39:02 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on December 23, 2018, 07:30:41 pm

Rival City
Action - $5
+2 Actions
If another player has;
The Treasure Chest,  gain a Gold onto your deck
The Flag, +2 Cards
The Key, +2 Coffers
---
When you gain or trash this,  take the Key, Flag or Treasure Chest

Considering that this is non-Terminal, I think it's way too strong to allow this to take the Treasure Chest so much more easily than the Swashbuckler. There's almost no point in getting Swashbucklers when this is in the Kingdom.

That's just wrong. You don't usually get Swashbuckler for the Treasure Chest anyway, you get it for draw and, in the right kind of deck, economy.

Normally, if you have Smithy and Swashbuckler in the same set, Swashbuckler is strictly better than Smithy, so you'll almost always buy Swashbuckler over Smithy if you can. Because of the ease of getting the Treasure Chest with Rival City, if Rival City, Swashbuckler, and Smithy are all in the same set, Swashbuckler isn't as superior to Smithy (it still is, but might not be worth bridging the $4-$5 gap). Not to mention that just being handed a way to gain a Gold every turn (until somebody else takes it) is pretty OP for $5 even if Swashbuckler didn't exist.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 28, 2018, 11:05:31 pm

Opening rival city with 5/2 and taking the treasure chest gives you a Gold and a dead card before the first shuffle (you usually aren't getting 2 terminal actions with $2) - a bit like opening Skulk

If your opponent really wants the treasure chest there's usually a chance to make $5 before the 2nd shuffle.

I would like to simulate BM/Rival City/Treasure Chest

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 29, 2018, 11:27:58 am

I will accept submissions for 24 more hours and then decide on a winner.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 30, 2018, 10:56:32 am

And now, my thoughts on the submissions. I've organized cards alphabetically.

Collector (by Fragasnap): I like that it kind of works against itself, but I feel that this will be too obvious a buy in TfB engines, since this is super good if you can use the Gold.

Compass (by Chappy7): Combining a trasher with Lost in the Woods seems... odd? LitW is best in slogs when you don't mind discarding for a random benefit, and this trashes and then gives you LitW when you are already thin enough to want to get rid of your trasher... I can't imagine it will do much at that point.

Gatekeeper (by Holunder9): Holunder9 is banned and thus excluded from this contest. I will still share my thoughts on this one. I think it is an interesting way of making a "2-shot" card. I wish it didn't use Coffers and just gave a standard +3$ though.

Pioneer Village (by King Leon): I just don't think it is a good idea to try and use orn and Lantern for some other card. Also Lantern/Horn gaining is supposed to compensate you for having to discard a good card, here you get it when you reached the best-case scenario for the card anyway, which I don't like.

Revenant (by spiralstaircase): This is... quite weak? As a Remodeler, it is quite slow, and you have trouble connecting it with the right card. The "exactly $3" requirement means it doesn't even work with Gold gainers. As an attack, the worst it will do is giving your opponent -4VP, which basically amounts to playing a Distant Lands.

Rival City (by NoMoreFun): It seems like a very bad idea to get the Flag with this around, and without the Flag it's just a pretty bad Village. Of course you can use it as a way to get the Treasure Chest/Key, but that just doesn't seem terribly interesting.

Scrooge (by Asper): I like the simplicity of it, while at the same time being quite thematic. It's an interesting late-game card for an engine thanks to the +buy. This bonus also helps making sure that this isn't too good a BM card. I like it.

Spendthrift (by Commodore Chuckles): I don't think being able to take the Treasure Chest makes up for being terminal. I like that Envious is combined with the Treasure Chest, but find this a bit too weak.

Tinkerer (by Gubump): I don't think I like the concept of slapping even more benefits onto an Artifact. This card is quite swingy and on top of that I don't fully get the thematic link to the Key.

Vanguard (by hypercube): The design is very neat, though I suspect the card could be quite dominating. And in the end I think I would prefer a design that doesn't need to be labeled an attack since that creates rules confusion with whether you can take the Flag from someone blocking the attack.

Voyager (by scott_pilgrim): This is novel and interesting. I think it is a bit too much though on a draw card that will often be played multiple times on the same turn; the "bidding" should only happen once per turn.

Winner: Asper with Scrooge. Runner-up: scott_pilgrim with Voyager.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on December 31, 2018, 07:07:20 pm

Oh wow, I didn't expect that. Now I feel I should have polished that one more... Thank you!  :)

For the next contest, I tried to think of a clever challenge all day now, and I'm afraid this is the best I got:

Design a card that uses set-exclusive mechanics from two expansions.

Set-exclusive mechanics are such that only appeared in one of the expansions, so on-gain, Durations, Coffers and VP tokens would not count, while Looters and Reserves would. Using set-specific components counts: For instance, a Night card that uses the Island Mat is a legit submission.

Try to think of a name for your card that hints at the sets it comes from. Don't reuse old cards you did before.And happy new year, of course  :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on December 31, 2018, 10:06:58 pm

Here's my entry, but I reserve the right to change it.
It uses overpay, ruins  (it's a looter), and debt.

Quote

Pirate
Action-Attack-Looter, cost $4+
+ $1
Each other player gains a Ruins.
-
When you buy this you may overpay $1 for it. If you did, each other player takes 1 debt.

By the way Asper, the + $1 was inspired by Sheriff, but nothing else was.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on January 01, 2019, 12:41:58 am

Quote

Name: Crusader
Types: Action, Attack, Looter
Cost: $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
Each player (including you) gains a Ruins.

---

When you gain this, move one of your tokens (+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, or +$1) to the Ruins pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on January 01, 2019, 01:29:37 am

Quote from: Asper on December 31, 2018, 07:07:20 pm

two expansions.

Do Edicts and Feats count? :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Supernova888 on January 01, 2019, 07:02:45 am

Don't know how I missed this thread, glad there's so much support for custom creation! Here's my take:
(https://i.imgur.com/OGusIjk.png)

Edited for balance (Boon variability with card draw, and clearer Treasure benefit):
(https://i.imgur.com/PNcCBd1.png)
Thanks to faust for the feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 01, 2019, 07:38:32 am

Quote from: Supernova888 on January 01, 2019, 07:02:45 am

Don't know how I missed this thread, glad there's so much support for custom creation! Here's my take:
(https://i.imgur.com/OGusIjk.png)

It's not clear how this would work with variable $ amounts, like Bank, Scepter, Fool's Gold etc. I also think it is too strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 01, 2019, 07:53:39 am

(https://i.imgur.com/milRb0m.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 01, 2019, 08:45:55 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on January 01, 2019, 01:29:37 am

Quote from: Asper on December 31, 2018, 07:07:20 pm

two expansions.

Do Edicts and Feats count? :)

I am flattered, but I would say official expansions only. You don't want to find this thread for the first time and have no idea what's going on. It also avoids bias (in whatever direction).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on January 01, 2019, 10:51:08 am

(https://i.imgur.com/OrX5SMJ.jpg)

Quote

Cannon
Types: Action, Attack, Looter
Cost: $2P
+$3. Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand. You may trash this and a card from your hand. If you do, each other player gains 2 Ruins, putting them into their hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on January 01, 2019, 11:11:22 am

I just posted this for my wildlands thread when I noticed it worked with this contest

(https://i.imgur.com/Ieyged7.jpg)

The -1 coin token is from adventures and the embargo token from seaside.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 01, 2019, 11:23:52 am

Quote from: ClouduHieh on January 01, 2019, 11:11:22 am

I just posted this for my wildlands thread when I noticed it worked with this contest

Quote from: Asper on December 31, 2018, 07:07:20 pm

Don't reuse old cards you did before.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on January 01, 2019, 11:26:42 am

I posted this basically at the same time. if you check when I posted it on my wild lands thread it’s only a few minutes before the post on this thread. I’ve never done mosquito before anyway it’s a new card. It’s not like I posted it yesterday. Or last week or a month ago. It’s still considered a new card no one has even posted anything about it.

Besides I haven’t even been a runner up. And I don’t expect mosquito to even make me a runner up. Especially since most of you guys don’t like attack cards and cards that are like attacks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 01, 2019, 11:35:47 am

There are two reasons for why I gave that rule. The first is to keep fan card designers with a long history from having too much of an advantage over others. The second is that I'd personally prefer cards to be created with the actual contest in mind. In the end, existing cards that are more or less shoehorned into a contest tend to barely have a chance of winning anyhow (talking from personal experience).

So I'm willing to let this one slide, but at the same time I will warn you that a card created for the actual contest will have a much better chance.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 01, 2019, 01:58:37 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/lsa9z3no.png)

Silk Farmer
Type: Night
Cost: $5

Trash this or a card you have in play. Gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile.
-
When you trash this, gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on January 01, 2019, 05:26:37 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 01, 2019, 10:51:08 am

(https://i.imgur.com/OrX5SMJ.jpg)

Quote

Cannon
Types: Action, Attack, Looter
Cost: $2P
+$3. Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand. You may trash this and a card from your hand. If you do, each other player gains 2 Ruins, putting them into their hand.

Is this a deliberate reference to Dominion: Gunpowder?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on January 01, 2019, 10:12:38 pm

Hill Tribe
Action - $4
Gain a Spoils from its pile to your hand. Take your -1 Card token.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 02, 2019, 02:49:26 am

Damn Town
(https://imgur.com/3XmNtSg.png)

update (2019-01-03): changed name to witched town

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on January 02, 2019, 08:59:02 am

Quote from: herw on January 02, 2019, 02:49:26 am

Damn Town

I think you might mean "Dam town"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 02, 2019, 09:13:37 am

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on January 02, 2019, 08:59:02 am

Quote from: herw on January 02, 2019, 02:49:26 am

Damn Town

I think you might mean "Dam town"?

I am not a native speaker (german) but i looked here:
https://dict.leo.org/englisch-deutsch/damn

„damn” seems to be right for me but if it isn't common english i can use f.i. „cursed”.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on January 02, 2019, 09:36:45 am

Quote from: herw on January 02, 2019, 09:13:37 am

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on January 02, 2019, 08:59:02 am

Quote from: herw on January 02, 2019, 02:49:26 am

Damn Town

I think you might mean "Dam town"?

I am not a native speaker (german) but i looked here:
https://dict.leo.org/englisch-deutsch/damn

„damn” seems to be right for me but if it isn't common english i can use f.i. „cursed”.

Ah, you probably meant "Damned Town", like "Cursed Town". Damned is the adjectival form of damn. Damn is often times considered profanity within the English language. I highly doubt "damn" or "damned" would make it onto any official dominion card at any point.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 02, 2019, 11:30:47 am

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on January 02, 2019, 09:36:45 am

Quote from: herw on January 02, 2019, 09:13:37 am

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on January 02, 2019, 08:59:02 am

Quote from: herw on January 02, 2019, 02:49:26 am

Damn Town

I think you might mean "Dam town"?

I am not a native speaker (german) but i looked here:
https://dict.leo.org/englisch-deutsch/damn

„damn” seems to be right for me but if it isn't common english i can use f.i. „cursed”.

Ah, you probably meant "Damned Town", like "Cursed Town". Damned is the adjectival form of damn. Damn is often times considered profanity within the English language. I highly doubt "damn" or "damned" would make it onto any official dominion card at any point.

ah - ok; would be „cursed town” right?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #13: mechanics from 2 expansions
Post by: Aquila on January 02, 2019, 02:21:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3HHCYOQ.jpg)

Hopefully strong enough.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on January 02, 2019, 02:43:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3MmLgvA.jpg)

I think this one has 3 unique expansion mechanics!

Edit: changed 'Villagers' to 'Villager' per MrHiTech

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on January 02, 2019, 07:12:55 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/W1X3FDi.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on January 02, 2019, 08:30:17 pm

Quote from: Dsell on January 02, 2019, 02:43:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rquvLDD.jpg)

I think this one has 3 unique expansion mechanics!

Change to +1 Villager (no s)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #13: mechanics from 2 expansions
Post by: MrHiTech on January 02, 2019, 08:37:03 pm

Quote from: Aquila on January 02, 2019, 02:21:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3HHCYOQ.jpg)

Hopefully strong enough.

Quote from: rinkworks on September 21, 2011, 10:20:30 am

One common omission in fan cards is specifying where cards must be when you use them. If a card's effect is to "Put any number of Treasure cards on top of your deck," where do those Treasure cards come from? From your hand? From play? From your discard pile? From the supply piles? It may sound pedantic to require this to be specified explicitly, but since different cards look for things in different places, the clarity is important.

To tell you the truth, I am honestly confused. Do the cards come from play? Your hand? Both?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on January 02, 2019, 08:40:57 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on January 02, 2019, 08:30:17 pm

Quote from: Dsell on January 02, 2019, 02:43:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rquvLDD.jpg)

I think this one has 3 unique expansion mechanics!

Change to +1 Villager (no s)

Ah, good catch, thank you! (Updated in original post)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #13: mechanics from 2 expansions
Post by: Gubump on January 02, 2019, 08:57:44 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on January 02, 2019, 08:37:03 pm

Quote from: rinkworks on September 21, 2011, 10:20:30 am

One common omission in fan cards is specifying where cards must be when you use them. If a card's effect is to "Put any number of Treasure cards on top of your deck," where do those Treasure cards come from? From your hand? From play? From your discard pile? From the supply piles? It may sound pedantic to require this to be specified explicitly, but since different cards look for things in different places, the clarity is important.

To tell you the truth, I am honestly confused. Do the cards come from play? Your hand? Both?

Um, it says "when you discard them from play." I'd say it's pretty obvious which he's talking about.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: turbot_charge on January 02, 2019, 10:57:59 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/hSbq3je.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 03, 2019, 12:04:19 am

Quote from: herw on January 02, 2019, 11:30:47 am

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on January 02, 2019, 09:36:45 am

Quote from: herw on January 02, 2019, 09:13:37 am

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on January 02, 2019, 08:59:02 am

Quote from: herw on January 02, 2019, 02:49:26 am

Damn Town

I think you might mean "Dam town"?

I am not a native speaker (german) but i looked here:
https://dict.leo.org/englisch-deutsch/damn

„damn” seems to be right for me but if it isn't common english i can use f.i. „cursed”.

Ah, you probably meant "Damned Town", like "Cursed Town". Damned is the adjectival form of damn. Damn is often times considered profanity within the English language. I highly doubt "damn" or "damned" would make it onto any official dominion card at any point.

ah - ok; would be „cursed town” right?

changed to witched town:
(https://imgur.com/gtHBVHV.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on January 03, 2019, 02:40:54 am

Quote from: herw on January 03, 2019, 12:04:19 am

changed to witched town:
(https://imgur.com/gtHBVHV.png)

This is so, so much better than Familiar, for the same price. Workable concept for sure, but the balance needs to be fixed a lot.

Also I'm just not a big fan of all curses going from the trash to the supply. Lots more games become slogs as you face a literally never-ending pile of curses. Possibly fun to play, but pretty miserable to play against.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 03, 2019, 03:33:18 am

Quote from: Dsell on January 03, 2019, 02:40:54 am

Quote from: herw on January 03, 2019, 12:04:19 am

changed to witched town:
(https://imgur.com/gtHBVHV.png)

This is so, so much better than Familiar, for the same price. Workable concept for sure, but the balance needs to be fixed a lot.
[...]

Familiar (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/File:Familiar.jpg) spends Curses always when played, but Witched Town only when gained (mostly when bought; it is not an attack).
Putting trashed Curses to supply prevents a rush-strategy indeed ;) . In most cases you can use only the vanillas.
The theme ALCHEMY is difficult to expand.
The sense of Witched Town is to buy other poison cards. So it is attractive by itself and eventually other cards from ALCHEMY. You only need one Poison to start with.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Supernova888 on January 03, 2019, 04:21:39 am

Quote from: faust on January 01, 2019, 07:38:32 am

Quote from: Supernova888 on January 01, 2019, 07:02:45 am

Don't know how I missed this thread, glad there's so much support for custom creation! Here's my take:
(https://i.imgur.com/OGusIjk.png)

It's not clear how this would work with variable $ amounts, like Bank, Scepter, Fool's Gold etc. I also think it is too strong.

Ideally the production would work as if you'd played it, but I get how that's not obvious from Dominion convention. And, it would often make Bank be equal to a Copper, which is ridiculous, fair enough. And I was going to disagree with you with strength, but +3 Cards and the Field's Gift is trouble. An updated version is included in the original post. Thanks for the feedback!!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on January 03, 2019, 08:33:29 am

Quote from: herw on January 03, 2019, 12:04:19 am

changed to witched town:

"Witched" isn't really a word - we would say "Bewitched".

Sorry we keep picking you up on these - I apologise for the weirdness of our language.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 03, 2019, 08:50:17 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on January 03, 2019, 08:33:29 am

Quote from: herw on January 03, 2019, 12:04:19 am

changed to witched town:

"Witched" isn't really a word - we would say "Bewitched".

Sorry we keep picking you up on these - I apologise for the weirdness of our language.

many thanks for that :)

(https://imgur.com/rljn7aj.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on January 03, 2019, 09:18:17 am

(https://i.imgur.com/LrESCzJ.jpg)

Quote

Crocodile
Types: Night - Duration
Cost: 4 debt
Return half your debt tokens (rounding up).
Until the start of your next turn, cards cost 1 debt more.

Avoids the usual problem with cost increasers, because they don't reduce debt costs.  Is a Night card, because by the time you play them you don't mind about cost increases.  Isn't an Attack, because it's not clear how it would work with Moat, and anyway Crocodiles can swim.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on January 03, 2019, 11:09:37 am

Quote from: herw on January 03, 2019, 03:33:18 am

Quote from: Dsell on January 03, 2019, 02:40:54 am

Quote from: herw on January 03, 2019, 12:04:19 am

changed to witched town:
(https://imgur.com/gtHBVHV.png)

This is so, so much better than Familiar, for the same price. Workable concept for sure, but the balance needs to be fixed a lot.
[...]

Familiar (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/File:Familiar.jpg) spends Curses always when played, but Witched Town only when gained (mostly when bought; it is not an attack).
Putting trashed Curses to supply prevents a rush-strategy indeed ;) . In most cases you can use only the vanillas.
The theme ALCHEMY is difficult to expand.
The sense of Witched Town is to buy other poison cards. So it is attractive by itself and eventually other cards from ALCHEMY. You only need one Poison to start with.

I definitely misread that, and didn't realize it was on gain. That definitely makes it better, although a rush strategy would still be possible if there are no trashing cards on the board.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 03, 2019, 11:25:43 am

Quote from: Dsell on January 03, 2019, 11:09:37 am

Quote from: herw on January 03, 2019, 03:33:18 am

Quote from: Dsell on January 03, 2019, 02:40:54 am

Quote from: herw on January 03, 2019, 12:04:19 am

changed to Bewitched Town:
(https://imgur.com/rljn7aj.png)

This is so, so much better than Familiar, for the same price. Workable concept for sure, but the balance needs to be fixed a lot.
[...]

Familiar (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/File:Familiar.jpg) spends Curses always when played, but Witched Town only when gained (mostly when bought; it is not an attack).
Putting trashed Curses to supply prevents a rush-strategy indeed ;) . In most cases you can use only the vanillas.
The theme ALCHEMY is difficult to expand.
The sense of Witched Town is to buy other poison cards. So it is attractive by itself and eventually other cards from ALCHEMY. You only need one Poison to start with.

I definitely misread that, and didn't realize it was on gain. That definitely makes it better, although a rush strategy would still be possible if there are no trashing cards on the board.

yes and then there is a trick too: Bewitched Town is a good card for rush-strategy then too,  because ...  8)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on January 03, 2019, 12:47:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/X8pCu1v.png)

Exile is a card name I thought we'd see in Nocturne back when it came out.  It sounds like it fits the theme to me.

*Edited with better wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 03, 2019, 01:12:52 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 03, 2019, 12:47:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ycL5PST.png)

Exile is a card name I thought we'd see in Nocturne back when it came out.  It sounds like it fits the theme to me.

Not sure the "if you did" is necessary... I don't even think there's a possible way to play the card and not end up following the first instruction. You'll always have at least 1 card in play or in hand.

And even though the challenge rules specified Island Mat as a mechanic; I think it would be better without it... the Island Mat doesn't mean anything; it has no rules associated. It's as arbitrary as putting in on your Tavern Mat, or a new Exile Mat, or just setting it aside forever. And very similar to trashing it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 03, 2019, 01:14:33 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 03, 2019, 01:12:52 pm

And even though the challenge rules specified Island Mat as a mechanic; I think it would be better without it... the Island Mat doesn't mean anything; it has no rules associated. It's as arbitrary as putting in on your Tavern Mat, or a new Exile Mat, or just setting it aside forever. And very similar to trashing it.

They can't all be the best challenge ever  ;)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on January 03, 2019, 01:36:44 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 03, 2019, 01:12:52 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 03, 2019, 12:47:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ycL5PST.png)

Exile is a card name I thought we'd see in Nocturne back when it came out.  It sounds like it fits the theme to me.

Not sure the "if you did" is necessary... I don't even think there's a possible way to play the card and not end up following the first instruction. You'll always have at least 1 card in play or in hand.

And even though the challenge rules specified Island Mat as a mechanic; I think it would be better without it... the Island Mat doesn't mean anything; it has no rules associated. It's as arbitrary as putting in on your Tavern Mat, or a new Exile Mat, or just setting it aside forever. And very similar to trashing it.

Since the Island mat already exists that seemed easier than making a new mat and better than just saying "set a card aside somewhere".  Besides, Island fits thematically. I don't really care where the card goes.  Whether it says put the card on your island or put the card in your pocket, I don't really care. Island seems fine to me though.
Fortunately, even if I did get rid of the Island part, it is a Night and it has Villagers, so it still fits the challenge

As for the if you did part, yeah you're right, it can probably be left off. 

I just like the feeling of "do A for B" rather than two unrelated effects.  Maybe I should just word it like ".... your Island mat for +1 Coffers or +1 Villager"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 04, 2019, 11:33:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/tktzRxm.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 04, 2019, 12:03:09 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 04, 2019, 11:33:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/tktzRxm.png)

The wording and play mechanism can be simplified with simply "trash an Action or Treasure card you have in play". It's identical the vast majority of the time, but a lot easier to use (don't have to remember to do something later in the turn), and less wordy.

Unless Ruins are in the game; trashing an action is very unlikely to be worth it. I think this looks weak compared to Monastery (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Monastery). Although it gives you 2 Coffers for trashing a Copper, Monastery has the advantage of possibly trashing multiple in-play Coppers at once, as well as being able to trash Estates from your hand. And it only costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on January 04, 2019, 12:37:58 pm

All the talk of the Island mat having no rules associated with it reminded me of a different mat: (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Underground%20Railroad&description=Put%20your%20hand%20face%20down%20on%20your%20Native%20Village%20mat.%0A%0A%0AShuffle%20two%20cards%20from%20your%20Native%20Village%20mat%20into%20your%20deck.&type=Night&credit=Illustration%3A%20Gregg%20DeGroat&price=%242&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fimages-na.ssl-images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F61Qs%252B2oMwVL._SL1000_.jpg&color0=10&color1=0&size=0)
(https://i.imgur.com/baWX312.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 04, 2019, 01:55:00 pm

Quote from: Violet CLM on January 04, 2019, 12:37:58 pm

All the talk of the Island mat having no rules associated with it reminded me of a different mat: (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Underground%20Railroad&description=Put%20your%20hand%20face%20down%20on%20your%20Native%20Village%20mat.%0A%0A%0AShuffle%20two%20cards%20from%20your%20Native%20Village%20mat%20into%20your%20deck.&type=Night&credit=Illustration%3A%20Gregg%20DeGroat&price=%242&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fimages-na.ssl-images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F61Qs%252B2oMwVL._SL1000_.jpg&color0=10&color1=0&size=0)
(https://i.imgur.com/baWX312.png)

Not sure I like the idea of a card that functions completely differently in games that have Native Village in it vs games that don't have Native Village in it.

I mean, one could argue that most real cards function differently in games with King's Court vs games without King's Court... but this is far more explicit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on January 04, 2019, 11:37:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/h0pKcIE.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on January 04, 2019, 11:50:13 pm

Quote from: kru5h on January 04, 2019, 11:37:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/h0pKcIE.png)

Why is this a Treasure? If it's just so that it can't be drawn dead, that doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me.

Also, I think better wording for the bottom would be: "When you buy this, you may pay $1 to flip your Journey token over." It might not count as the same mechanic from Guilds then, but as it is it's already arguably not the same.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 05, 2019, 02:10:50 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 04, 2019, 12:03:09 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 04, 2019, 11:33:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/tktzRxm.png)

The wording and play mechanism can be simplified with simply "trash an Action or Treasure card you have in play". It's identical the vast majority of the time, but a lot easier to use (don't have to remember to do something later in the turn), and less wordy.

Except Duration cards exist, so Shaman would create tracking issues if it trashed those before they left play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 05, 2019, 11:08:22 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on January 04, 2019, 11:50:13 pm

Quote from: kru5h on January 04, 2019, 11:37:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/h0pKcIE.png)

Why is this a Treasure? If it's just so that it can't be drawn dead, that doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me.

Also, I think better wording for the bottom would be: "When you buy this, you may pay $1 to flip your Journey token over." It might not count as the same mechanic from Guilds then, but as it is it's already arguably not the same.

Is it possible to overpay by (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/7/7a/Potion.png)?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 05, 2019, 03:39:47 pm

Quote from: King Leon on January 05, 2019, 11:08:22 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on January 04, 2019, 11:50:13 pm

Quote from: kru5h on January 04, 2019, 11:37:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/h0pKcIE.png)

Why is this a Treasure? If it's just so that it can't be drawn dead, that doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me.

Also, I think better wording for the bottom would be: "When you buy this, you may pay $1 to flip your Journey token over." It might not count as the same mechanic from Guilds then, but as it is it's already arguably not the same.

Is it possible to overpay by (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/7/7a/Potion.png)?

Yes. You can overpay (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/7/7a/Potion.png) for Stonemason to gain two appropriate cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 06, 2019, 11:09:44 am

Quote from: Gubump on January 05, 2019, 02:10:50 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 04, 2019, 12:03:09 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 04, 2019, 11:33:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/tktzRxm.png)

The wording and play mechanism can be simplified with simply "trash an Action or Treasure card you have in play". It's identical the vast majority of the time, but a lot easier to use (don't have to remember to do something later in the turn), and less wordy.

Except Duration cards exist, so Shaman would create tracking issues if it trashed those before they left play.

Bonfire lets you trash durations you played this turn. And with Capitalism now, there's a bunch of ways to have Durations leave play the turn you played them (Mint, Mandarin, etc). And I think it would be extremely rare that someone would trash a Duration to Shaman.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 06, 2019, 12:06:01 pm

So, if I'm not mistaken, I'll have to pick a winner tomorrow? 24 hours, everyone.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 06, 2019, 12:37:00 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 06, 2019, 11:09:44 am

Quote from: Gubump on January 05, 2019, 02:10:50 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 04, 2019, 12:03:09 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 04, 2019, 11:33:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/tktzRxm.png)

The wording and play mechanism can be simplified with simply "trash an Action or Treasure card you have in play". It's identical the vast majority of the time, but a lot easier to use (don't have to remember to do something later in the turn), and less wordy.

Except Duration cards exist, so Shaman would create tracking issues if it trashed those before they left play.

Bonfire lets you trash durations you played this turn. And with Capitalism now, there's a bunch of ways to have Durations leave play the turn you played them (Mint, Mandarin, etc). And I think it would be extremely rare that someone would trash a Duration to Shaman.

Scheme doesn't let you topdeck Duration cards the turn you played them, so I'm leaving it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on January 06, 2019, 08:17:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wMHMTxR.png) (https://i.imgur.com/1a9fQrp.png)

Changed Ossuary to be +5 VP rather than -5

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on January 06, 2019, 10:27:02 pm

Quote

Woodland Path
$4 - Project
At the start of your turn, you may discard a card to receive the next boon.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 07, 2019, 02:41:00 am

Quote from: hypercube on January 06, 2019, 08:17:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4gu1wCX.png) (https://i.imgur.com/1a9fQrp.png)

I think this would be more fun if the effects of holding on to Cursed Skull and having it at the end of the game weren't both negative, but rather one positive and one negative. Also the interaction with other Artifacts is unfun here I think.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on January 07, 2019, 08:15:18 am

Quote from: faust on January 07, 2019, 02:41:00 am

Quote from: hypercube on January 06, 2019, 08:17:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4gu1wCX.png) (https://i.imgur.com/1a9fQrp.png)

I think this would be more fun if the effects of holding on to Cursed Skull and having it at the end of the game weren't both negative, but rather one positive and one negative. Also the interaction with other Artifacts is unfun here I think.

You're probably right; I'll change Ossuary to give a VP bonus rather than a penalty.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Orange on January 07, 2019, 04:24:58 pm

Quote from: hypercube on January 07, 2019, 08:15:18 am

Quote from: faust on January 07, 2019, 02:41:00 am

Quote from: hypercube on January 06, 2019, 08:17:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4gu1wCX.png) (https://i.imgur.com/1a9fQrp.png)

I think this would be more fun if the effects of holding on to Cursed Skull and having it at the end of the game weren't both negative, but rather one positive and one negative. Also the interaction with other Artifacts is unfun here I think.

You're probably right; I'll change Ossuary to give a VP bonus rather than a penalty.

Cool idea, but start player just gets 5 extra points that his opponent(s) can do nothing about?  Yes the discard hurts, but there are some decks that could probably withstand that and just keep the skull and the 5 points for the entire game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 07, 2019, 05:45:41 pm

Thank you all for bearing with me. This challenge had the problem that it was almost a puzzle, as it was very easy for ideas to become overly complex, or for them to use components in a non-meaningful way. So kudos to everybody who still made an effort to submit a streamlined, elegant card under these conditions. I hope I didn't forget anything:

Godfather: I like how the card manages for Copper, Silver and Gold to be worth exactly their amounts with the new wording. Nice! It does look a bit too strong, though. Perhaps using just coins instead of Coffers would have worked? I would have suggested to drop the Boons, but I guess my "great" challenge rules ruled out Coffers. I very much enjoy how the theme plays into this, by the way.

Trade War: One of the sleekest and most elegant submissions. It might be a bit strong, but on the other hand you'll see your new cards less often, and enough people complain about Treasures anyhow. Very neat.

Cannon: I am almost sure this is a Gunpowder joke. It doesn't really feel like it needs or wants a Potion cost, to be honest.

Mosquito: This has a lot going on. +3 Cards, put an Embargo Token on a supply pile, take you -1$ token, -3 VP. I realize I made it hard with this challenge (sorry), but I think this could lose one or more of these things. I do think there's room for interesting ideas here, though. Sadly, this also seems very weak.

Silk Farmer: A nonterminal trasher that replaces the other cards with a Spoils or can be cracked up for two Spoils... Similar to both Altar and Pillage to some degree. I like that, and I like that the Night type is used in a meaningful way.

Hill Tribe: I like this more than your original submission, but while I love how sleek this is, I'm unsure how often you will want to actually delay those Spoils. I mean, you just paid a card, do you want to pay another one to use it later (you'll have to draw it again)? Maybe the decision would be more meaningful if you just gained the Spoils and then could take your token to put it in hand?

Bewitched Town: Well, apparently I'm doing that all, after all  ;D
I do like the idea of mixing Villagers with Potions, but I don't feel this needs Ill-Gotten-Gains to be on it. Re-filling the supply avoids an IGG rush, but the Potion price already does this. And on its own, this card wouldn't run out of Curses, anyhow.

Amphitheatre: Another one that I like for how clean it is. I also really like how this plays both into the Actor and Antiquity theme. Cute! However, even if this only topdecked one card, making it topdeck itself still basically means a free +1 Action for each of your following turns, with Actions you don't need staying around. In that respect, making it topdeck just two cards seems fair already - also with two Villagers and two cards topdecked, I think the symmetry would be sweet. Admittedly, I didn't give this much consideration before looking at it closer. Nice one!

Bacchanal: Another one that combines Antique with another theme. Also sweet. The debt cost makes sense to keep you from gaining copies of itself, although of course you could have said "that is not a Bacchanal" - but it does also feel like the cost belongs on it. Like other expensive debt cards, it's also not as good early on. I'm not 100% sure it needs the Villagers thing, but it's not like it's too much text there, anyhow. Nice.

Homestead: Okay, so maybe my challange wasn't all garbage. So many nice cards here. Overpay for Villagers is a really cute and simple idea. This seems like a card you could see in regular Dominion. Only downside is that there already are two "on-gain" Villager cards in Renaissance - but of course both of them are also terminal draw (which is kinda weird, to be honest).

Leper Colony: Hum, I think this would need you to look through your deck. I guess this would eat up your Coppers really quickly, so it might be stronger than one would think at first. However, with Victory cards being excluded, I'm not sure this is all that different from just trashing the cards. Sure, there are curses and things like Gardens sometimes, but often there aren't. I do like the theme, even though it's a bit... morbid.

Crocodile: I like how the Night type here prevents you from being affected yourself, and just costing every card 1 debt more solves the issue of excluding people from the game. And Crocodiles are nocturnal aquatic animals, so that's also neat. I don't exactly enjoy the fact that the card isn't an attack, and would have suggested to implement such a thing with a Swamp-Hag-like wording instead... As a matter of fact, I did. Also, the on-play bonus is not very good. Unless you have excess buys (which this card doesn't create), you'll often be able to pay 4$ anyway, and even if you don't, you'd need to have a second Crocodile in hand when you buy this to actually remove debt before your next buy phase. Apart from that, the only way to get debt is for other players to play the Crocodile game. I do like a lot about this, but some parts seem like they could be improved.

Exile: Like Leper Colony, this sends the outcasts to an Island. Nice. This probably wants to cost 4$, though. Opening with two of these leaves you with a gret deck and lots of tokens in no time. That seems a bit automatic, to be honest. Especially as you don't necessarily need to build a real deck from that state on (unlike with Chapel), as you can Island away your Victory cards.

Shaman: I agree that this could be shortened quite a bit. "You may trash a card you have in play. If it is...". I agree that the Action choice would need to be stronger to be worth it.

Underground Railroad: This doesn't really seem worth it. Sure, you can ideally put your hand on your mat, and if you are lucky, the Victory cards stay there. But you have to get rid of at least three cards at once to make it even possible r this to turn out worthwile (unless you were unlucky before). You might have lots of cards you want to lose in hand if you draw your deck, but then your engine already is running smoothly, so this is just making you win when you already win. If I hadn't excluded Events (my bad), I probably would have suggested to do it that way, instead. It has a unique twist to it, but I can't really imagine how this should be played for good use.

Golden Egg: Yes, this is technically not following Donald's guidelines for overpay (he wanted benefits to always scale with the amount paid), but well, Donald isn't here... I do admit that I'm not a very fervid Villa lover, so the "return to your Action phase" doesn't excite me all that much. I guess being able to overpay to turn your Journey Token over is fine, but I'm afraid other cards that have been submitted convince me more.

Ossuary/Cursed Skull: I like this thematically, and I appreciate that it cuts down on the 1st player advantage. It might be a bit much to spoil somebody's 5/2 opening, though... Apart from that, I certainly like the +VP version more. Again, it might be a bit too harsh. Maybe there could be bonuses where you can hold onto your current turn at the expense of a future one, as in taking debt for buying cards or something. I do like the idea to combine Landmark and Artifact.

Woodland Path: A sweet replacement for Fool that actually is easier to set up. It might still be a bit slow to resolve, though. Imagine the same decision for every player, every turn, looking through the discards. But what am I saying, this is still much better than an official card, so congrats to you.


Winner: Dsell's Bacchanal
Runner-up: Commodore Chuckles' Homestead

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on January 07, 2019, 06:12:55 pm

Thanks!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on January 07, 2019, 08:09:03 pm

Sweet!! And I was up against some interesting competition.

My design challenge will be: Design an interactive attack card that has a meaningful chance of helping the opponent rather than hurting them.

Looking for attacks that could be interesting to play both with and against, or are weaker/riskier (but are still compelling to buy), or that introduce interesting new forms of interactivity into the game. Not so much attacks where you curse your luck if your opponent gets it first.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on January 07, 2019, 08:46:35 pm

Quote from: Asper on January 07, 2019, 05:45:41 pm

Underground Railroad: This doesn't really seem worth it. Sure, you can ideally put your hand on your mat, and if you are lucky, the Victory cards stay there. But you have to get rid of at least three cards at once to make it even possible r this to turn out worthwile (unless you were unlucky before).

This commentary is a bit confusing. You know what's in your hand at the time you play a night card, and you can look at cards on your Native Village mat at any time. There's not an element of chance.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on January 08, 2019, 12:47:00 am

(https://i.imgur.com/0laPPWr.jpg)

Discarding a card from your hand that might give you a victory token, is it worth the risk?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 08, 2019, 01:49:13 am

Quote from: ClouduHieh on January 08, 2019, 12:47:00 am

(https://i.imgur.com/0laPPWr.jpg)

Discarding a card from your hand that might give you a victory token, is it worth the risk?

sorry, terrible name and terrible graphic. Isn't it possible to find a Dominion-like picture and name?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on January 08, 2019, 02:07:05 am

Quote from: herw on January 08, 2019, 01:49:13 am

Quote from: ClouduHieh on January 08, 2019, 12:47:00 am

<Food-Eating Contest>

Discarding a card from your hand that might give you a victory token, is it worth the risk?

sorry, terrible name and terrible graphic. Isn't it possible to find a Dominion-like picture and name?

Don't post just to criticize his cardname and picture on a thread with alpha-stage fan cards. There's no point in taking trouble to get the card title and art just right when designing a card for a weekly fan card contest.

Besides, I think it's hilarious.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on January 08, 2019, 02:37:08 am

Yeah that was the best picture I could find. One clip art was good but it had the word clip art stretched across it and another one was a product. I don’t mess with those pictures. It’s just for the contest anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 08, 2019, 02:47:16 am

Quote from: ClouduHieh on January 08, 2019, 02:37:08 am

Yeah that was the best picture I could find. One clip art was good but it had the word clip art stretched across it and another one was a product. I don’t mess with those pictures. It’s just for the contest anyway.

I like the card very much; when the contest is over, i will post here a DOMINION-graphic-like version . :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 08, 2019, 02:55:41 am

Quote from: Violet CLM on January 07, 2019, 08:46:35 pm

Quote from: Asper on January 07, 2019, 05:45:41 pm

Underground Railroad: This doesn't really seem worth it. Sure, you can ideally put your hand on your mat, and if you are lucky, the Victory cards stay there. But you have to get rid of at least three cards at once to make it even possible r this to turn out worthwile (unless you were unlucky before).

This commentary is a bit confusing. You know what's in your hand at the time you play a night card, and you can look at cards on your Native Village mat at any time. There's not an element of chance.

Argh, my bad. I understood it so that the cards shuffled in were random. Don't know why... It's quite a lot better if understood correctly. My apologies.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on January 08, 2019, 03:55:05 am

Oh thanks herw. that would be cool 😎

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on January 08, 2019, 08:52:46 am

(https://i.imgur.com/xRIkHTx.jpg)

Quote

Rising Tide
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Reveal this or a card from your hand costing at least $3.
All players (including you) draw or discard cards until they have as many cards in hand as the revealed card has $ in its cost.
+2 Cards

Clarification: You draw cards up to a number, or you discard cards down to a number. You don't get to do one then the other.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 08, 2019, 04:12:32 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on January 08, 2019, 12:47:00 am

(https://i.imgur.com/0laPPWr.jpg)

Discarding a card from your hand that might give you a victory token, is it worth the risk?

I think 99% of the time you would make your opponents discard, while you keep your card in hand, which makes it sort of awkward to have it be worded as a choice. Instead you could say "each player (including you) reveals a card from their hand. [...] Each other player discards the revealed card."

But in many ways, this is just a "each other player discards a card" attack, which is bad if it is not limited. Too easy to pin opponents out of the game by leaving them with 0 cards each turn. You could make it only affect players with 4 or more cards in hand; which has an interesting side-effect of automatically winning the contest when you play 3 or more of them on a turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 08, 2019, 04:34:14 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ivsax6a0.png)

Whirlwind
Type: Event
Cost: $1
Once per turn: +1 Buy. Trash a card from your hand. + $1 per $1 it costs. Each other player discards a copy of it to draw a card (or reveals a hand without it).

So, what do we get?

• A weak copper trasher with a net cost of $2, which is maybe a slight Cutpurse/Taxman.
• A usable Ruins trasher.
• A good Estate trasher, which gives you $1, but your opponents may discard their Estates for another card.
• A free Silver burner which may or not not may harm other players.
• An Event, which can turn Actions into money. Usable to get rid of Chapel, Rats, Witch and other stuff, but it also may help your opponents.
• A swingy, but also dangerous card which can turn Actions or even Duchies in the late game into money for the last Provinces.
• A possibility to get rid of colliding Actions with a chance to destroy your opponents’ strategy.
• A Gold burner with a net gain of $2 which discards your opponent’s Gold, hopefully for a worse card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LostPhoenix on January 08, 2019, 04:43:57 pm

Quote from: King Leon on January 08, 2019, 04:34:14 pm

Whirlwind
Type: Event
Cost: $1
Once per turn: +1 Buy. Trash a card from your hand. + $1 per $1 it costs. Each other player may discard a copy of it to draw a card.

Cool event, but I don't think this fits with the Challenge restrictions; It's not an attack in any way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 08, 2019, 04:47:21 pm

Quote from: LostPhoenix on January 08, 2019, 04:43:57 pm

Quote from: King Leon on January 08, 2019, 04:34:14 pm

Whirlwind
Type: Event
Cost: $1
Once per turn: +1 Buy. Trash a card from your hand. + $1 per $1 it costs. Each other player may discard a copy of it to draw a card.

Cool event, but I don't think this fits with the Challenge restrictions; It's not an attack in any way.

Thank you, yes, I changed it a little to work like I wanted it to work. Discarding is now mandatory. You can say, it is an attacky event now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on January 08, 2019, 05:35:32 pm

I did say in the contest that it should be an attack card, and I was thinking of cards with the subtype attack. I think there is interesting design space for interactive and aggressive events, but for this contest I want to just keep it to cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 08, 2019, 06:03:44 pm

Landlord, Action - Attack, 4$
+2 Coffers
Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards one of them, drawing a card if it was a Victory card.

Edit: Changed to give +2 Coffers instead of the +3 Cards

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on January 08, 2019, 06:17:53 pm

Asper, you missed my pirate!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on January 08, 2019, 10:45:19 pm

Quote

Night-Shift Counting House
$4 Night - Attack - Duration
At the start of clean-up, set aside up to three coppers you have in play and put them in your hand at the start of next turn.
Until your next turn, when another player buys a card, they put the lowest cost card they have in play on top of their deck. If they don't have any cards in play costing less than $5, they instead gain a copper.

Will-O-Wisp is a good counter.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #14: Attack sometimes helpful
Post by: Aquila on January 09, 2019, 02:59:19 am

Quote

Jailer - Action Attack Duration, $5 cost.
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals their hand and sets aside a card that you choose. After they draw their next hand, they put it into their hand.
At the start of your next turn: +3 Cards.

Can be awkward to track as it affects their next turn and the following one. So this is a Duration to make things easier, it shows why everyone has a card set aside.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on January 09, 2019, 07:57:08 am

(https://i.imgur.com/WySouz3.png)

Bonus now stacks instead of penalty

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 09, 2019, 08:10:40 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on January 08, 2019, 06:17:53 pm

Asper, you missed my pirate!

In fact, I forgot to write something for both Pirate and Crusader. I didn't originally intend to write a text about each card, jumped to Godfather, then kept writing and writing, and ultimately changed the "I won't write about every card" to "hope I didn't forget any" because I forgot I skipped the first two. Sorry about that. So here goes:

Pirate: I feel this might be a bit too negative. The advantage it gives to yourself isn't all that impressive (perhaps +2$ would be fine), and the overpay just means foregoing a 5$ to drag down other players with you. Given that it doesn't really look like a strong card, I feel this is too high a cost for it to matter. It doesn't look overly complicated, so that's a plus.

Crusader: It seems this card is worthwile only when at least some other players haven't gained a Crusader, as otherwise you are playing a cantrip to change your and their deck in the same way. Which, on the other hand, makes gaining one of these the obvious counter. You would buy one of these, put your token on the Ruins pile, and then ideally trash-for-benefit it to get another card instead. It also irks me that the Ruins can't be evenly distributed for every player count. I do like the theme.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on January 09, 2019, 07:20:37 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/S9yfupN.jpg)

Quote

Cardinal
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+$3. Each other player may trash a non-Curse card from their hand and draw a card. Each other player who either doesn't trash a card or who trashes a Copper or Estate gains a Curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 10, 2019, 10:06:14 am

Slight tweak to my submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/0hiSD4B.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 10, 2019, 11:28:44 am

(https://i.imgur.com/WuFO20u.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on January 10, 2019, 12:29:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wG2hPSx.jpg)

It's a Fugitive with a mandatory Vault effect for the other players. Somewhat stack-able. It should be good enough to be a $5, since Fugitive is roughly a $4.5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on January 10, 2019, 06:47:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wH6iAkL.png)

No idea, how well this is going to work. Just giving it a try.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on January 10, 2019, 07:48:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ypIrRPd.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MattLee on January 12, 2019, 01:49:41 am

This was a challenge was a tricky one!

(http://i65.tinypic.com/sp7msn.png)

The idea here is to make make the worst card on the board (or at least one that works poorly with their strategy) into gained junk for the opponent. It may even be a card that works well with your strategy, so you can choose to gain it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on January 12, 2019, 07:43:48 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/PArPvo4.jpg)

Gallows
Action/Attack - $3
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player either discards down to 4 cards in hand, or gains a Copper to their hand, their choice.

It's a weak attack that only affects you once, but you could also opt for junk that boosts your next turn. The fact it can help makes it not strictly better than Village so I costed it at $3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on January 13, 2019, 12:26:28 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on January 10, 2019, 06:47:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wH6iAkL.png)

No idea, how well this is going to work. Just giving it a try.

It's a fun idea, but I don't think I'd ever buy it since people can discard estates for points. I feel like it should punish opponents for discarding victory cards

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on January 13, 2019, 03:45:53 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 13, 2019, 12:26:28 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on January 10, 2019, 06:47:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wH6iAkL.png)

No idea, how well this is going to work. Just giving it a try.

It's a fun idea, but I don't think I'd ever buy it since people can discard estates for points. I feel like it should punish opponents for discarding victory cards

As written, don't the VP chips and coffers come to the active player?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on January 13, 2019, 04:12:23 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on January 13, 2019, 03:45:53 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 13, 2019, 12:26:28 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on January 10, 2019, 06:47:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wH6iAkL.png)

No idea, how well this is going to work. Just giving it a try.

It's a fun idea, but I don't think I'd ever buy it since people can discard estates for points. I feel like it should punish opponents for discarding victory cards

As written, don't the VP chips and coffers come to the active player?

Right, only the Silver goes to the attacked player.

The idea was to give the other player(s) a choice if they help you or not. Silver can be good for them but as engines are often built around virtual money sources, too much silver might be even functioning as junk there.

For other card types as Curses and Night cards, it's simply a discard attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on January 14, 2019, 08:10:43 am

I modified Cardsharp so that the bonus stacks instead of the penalty, feels more interesting that way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on January 14, 2019, 11:16:07 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on January 13, 2019, 04:12:23 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on January 13, 2019, 03:45:53 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 13, 2019, 12:26:28 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on January 10, 2019, 06:47:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wH6iAkL.png)

No idea, how well this is going to work. Just giving it a try.

It's a fun idea, but I don't think I'd ever buy it since people can discard estates for points. I feel like it should punish opponents for discarding victory cards

As written, don't the VP chips and coffers come to the active player?

Right, only the Silver goes to the attacked player.

The idea was to give the other player(s) a choice if they help you or not. Silver can be good for them but as engines are often built around virtual money sources, too much silver might be even functioning as junk there.

For other card types as Curses and Night cards, it's simply a discard attack.

My bad, that makes a lot more sense.  I like it. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on January 14, 2019, 11:23:47 am

Really loving these submissions so far. I am planning to do judging in 8-ish hours, so get your submissions in! (There's a chance it might have to be more like 24 hours from now depending on how things shake out for me at work today.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 14, 2019, 01:11:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pG9FzdR.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on January 14, 2019, 06:13:17 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2019, 01:11:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pG9FzdR.png)

Kinda miffed that this one is so similar to mine and it already has more upvotes...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on January 14, 2019, 06:25:29 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on January 14, 2019, 06:13:17 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2019, 01:11:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pG9FzdR.png)

Kinda miffed that this one is so similar to mine and it already has more upvotes...

I liked it more because with yours, you can only trash stuff that you played. That means either 1. there will be good stuff in the trash to gain or you just trash one copper and gain nothing and 2. if you are playing multiplayer, this will hit players 3 and 4 much more than player 2, who can just gain what you trashed. (Unless you trash a copper.  Then it could hurt player 1 without hurting players 2 and 3 at all)

I still thought it was creative though

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on January 14, 2019, 06:45:44 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 14, 2019, 06:25:29 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on January 14, 2019, 06:13:17 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2019, 01:11:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pG9FzdR.png)

Kinda miffed that this one is so similar to mine and it already has more upvotes...

I liked it more because with yours, you can only trash stuff that you played. That means 1. there will be good stuff in the trash to gain or you just trash one copper and gain nothing and 2. if you are playing multiplayer, this will hit players 3 and 4 much more than player 2, who can just gain what you trashed.

I still thought it was creative though

Commodore Chuckles Pawnbroker says "a copy of a card in the trash".
I understood it such, that the card is gained from the supply, too.
So the only multiplayer implication is that the pile could be already empty.

I like both ideas, but the dark acolyte more because its beautiful simplicity as an attack version of the original remodel.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on January 14, 2019, 08:42:42 pm

Thanks to everyone who submitted! There were a lot of interesting entrants in a category that was pushing at one of the oft-criticized parts of Dominion - low interaction. Good stuff.

Food Eating Contest: Unless I'm missing something here, you would always make the opponent discard their card? Unless the winning card is the only one that's discarded, and you as the active player choose regardless. I feel like there is a really interesting nugget of an idea here, with "contests" and victory tokens as prizes, but this card isn't polished yet.

Rising Tide: I LOVE THIS NAME! A rising tide can raise all ships, but it can also flood your house. Very cool implications there. I can't really think of a card that compares to this, it's a *super* interesting concept of ebb and flow hand-management. However, I think it is too good for $4. With enough of these, some enablers, and some smart hand management, you can make everyone including yourself draw to 6 or more, then discard down to 3 later, pretty consistently. Maybe making the attack portion only happen once per turn, but even that can be abused. If there was any engine potential on the board, I see myself choosing this over militia every time. But there is something here, I would love to see this card iterated or tested.

Whirlwind: So I technically only wanted cards but I'll give some thoughts here too. :) I love the theme of this one as well, it's a turbulent action that leaves things disheveled, but it isn't a major interruption to the game. This seems really strong, I see myself trashing junk early game and cannibalizing good stuff late game all the time. But $1 just might be the right cost to pay for the privilege of doing all that. This seems really fun.

Landlord: I like this twist on the discarding attack. Discard one at max, if it's a victory card you get a nice bonus. That's cool. I'm slightly concerned that next to Militia, +2 Coffers is not strong enough when compared to $2 straight up. I am not the most experienced with coffers to make this judgement, but it seems to me like this falls on the weak side and needs a bonus. Maybe if they discard a victory card you also draw a card?

Night-Shift Counting House: This is such a weird-ass card and I love it! Another one where there are very few cards out there for me to compare it to. Scheme, but for your opponents? I love the implication of the frustrating bureaucratic red tape this Counting House puts the opponents though each turn, but it provides a real service if they can thin. This might end up actually being TOO good for opponents on a lot of boards, but if there's a real engine present on the board I'm not sure the NS Counting House would be the correct choice anyway.

Jailer: Another terrific and unique card. Their best card gets a time-out! Maybe misses the shuffle. Or gives them a really good turn - don't choose wrong. And just like it could give them a pretty great hand the turn after, yours is going to be great to with that delayed +3 cards. This is clean, thematic, and diving into interesting new design space. Great job.

Cardsharp: This is an interesting way to torture the opponent with a really nasty choice. Especially difficult if they know you *could* have more Cardsharps on the way on your turn. A part of me is inclined to say it's too powerful, because if they don't discard, it's only slightly worse than Mountebank. But if they've got junk anyway, they can mitigate the attack. If they've been junked a lot, they can really get a bonus. This card is funky to get my head around, but I think in a good way. The big downside to all this is that I could see it making games very sloggy - especially for newer players who might sacrifice practically their whole turn for that pretty shiny gold.

Cardinal: Feels strong. Slightly weaker on boards with shelters or ruinses or other cheap stuff you don't mind getting rid of. This also does get way weaker after curses run, as opponents can replace that copper with the next card in their deck. Overall, this would intimidate me on the table but I could see the balance working out. Solid card, and definitely fits the challenge well.

Hunter: This is so interesting and interactive. It makes a whole minigame of the pile! That makes it a little hard for me to envision exactly how it would play out, but I love every part of it so I'm guessing that the sum of those parts will be a very cool card. For my own clarification, are we putting literal victory tokens on the pile, and you can gain victory tokens by trashing the Hunter? (If so, that's really cool thematically too - collecting your prize.)

Criminal's Vault: This is simple and great, seems balanced, and is really interactive. I'm almost surprised that mandatory vaulting isn't already an attack in Dominion, it makes so much sense! Great design.

Vagabond: This feels pretty right on at $3. Not stackable, but very likely to either give you a nice bonus or harm the enemy decently. Can't build a deck around it, but as a night card it's not getting in the way of much either. It's a unique mini-payload option and I like it.

Pawnbroker: I like upgrading cards from play, I like upgrading cards from the trash, but I think the combination here does unfortunately make this pretty imbalanced beyond 2P. 2P is my jam tho so I'll look past it for now - I'd love to see this card in action. I can see really fun and punishing engines that involve turning my outdated engine components into tiny crises for my opponent to deal with.

Blackmailer: Another really interesting concept that creates a mini-game. I love these! Really interesting stuff happens as you acquire more of the pile too. If you are the only one with blackmailers, you can mark everything, and then as you stack these on your turn, your opponents are gonna have to discard a lot of actions. I suppose even if you're competing with others, this card is dangerous if the pile is gone and anyone is playing them in an engine.

Gallows: This is really good attack/interaction, but it doesn't feel right on a village to me. And having it cost exactly the same as Village doesn't feel quite right either, though it probably is technically the right cost. Maybe if the top-half was somehow more defensive against the bottom half I'd like it better.

Dark Acolyte: This is so intriguing because it is so obviously a remodel variant but it seems like it would play so differently. This card seems like it could either make games really slow and sloggy or sooo fast and aggressive, and I don't know what the right play would be more often. It doesn't feel quite right to have the same cost as remodel to me, but I recognize that it probably is correct. I'd be very interested to playtest this card, but I worry it would outclass remodel too much if they appeared together.

And the winner is.........JAILER! By Aquila! This card is straightforward but opens up really interesting strategic play, using an attack that's a little bit different than anything else we have out there.

Runners Up:
Rising Tide
Night-Shift Counting House
Hunter
Criminal's Vault
Dark Acolyte

Thanks again to everyone who submitted. I know this wasn't the easiest challenge but you all covered such interesting design space!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on January 14, 2019, 08:49:52 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on January 14, 2019, 06:13:17 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2019, 01:11:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pG9FzdR.png)

Kinda miffed that this one is so similar to mine and it already has more upvotes...

Tbh I like the first half of Pawnbroker (upgrading from play) better but the second half of Dark Acolyte (opponents simply gaining a copy of the trashed card) better. While both of your cards would be very interesting to playtest, I would also be very interested in seeing the results of the combined top and bottom halves.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on January 15, 2019, 01:04:32 am

There were a lot of interesting cards in this contest, so I was looking back at them while reading your comments and noticed you said Cardsharp might be too strong. It can't be too strong for $4 because it's almost strictly worse than Militia (unless you consider gaining silver to be an attack). Opponents always have the choice of discarding down to three and gaining a silver.

I never liked Wild Hunt, but I think I like Hunter. It's pretty uncommon to be able to 'fix' a disliked official card by adding an attack... Note, the attack will probably also work like Vault much of the time.

I think my favorites (besides my own) are Criminal's Vault and Dark Acolyte.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 15, 2019, 01:23:12 am

Quote from: Dsell on January 14, 2019, 08:42:42 pm

[...]
And the winner is.........JAILER! By Aquila! This card is straightforward but opens up really interesting strategic play, using an attack that's a little bit different than anything else we have out there.
[...]

congratulation
It is difficult to translate Jailer into german, because there is already Kerkermeister (Torturer) and Gefängniswärter is too boring and Scharfrichter with terrible history.

perhaps VOGT ? which sounds similar in different languages. In english there is no parallel, perhaps BAILIFF?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on January 15, 2019, 01:49:52 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on January 14, 2019, 06:45:44 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 14, 2019, 06:25:29 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on January 14, 2019, 06:13:17 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2019, 01:11:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pG9FzdR.png)

Kinda miffed that this one is so similar to mine and it already has more upvotes...

I liked it more because with yours, you can only trash stuff that you played. That means 1. there will be good stuff in the trash to gain or you just trash one copper and gain nothing and 2. if you are playing multiplayer, this will hit players 3 and 4 much more than player 2, who can just gain what you trashed.

I still thought it was creative though

Commodore Chuckles Pawnbroker says "a copy of a card in the trash".
I understood it such, that the card is gained from the supply, too.
So the only multiplayer implication is that the pile could be already empty.

I like both ideas, but the dark acolyte more because its beautiful simplicity as an attack version of the original remodel.

You're right....my bad again.  That's much better that way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on January 15, 2019, 03:04:49 am

You certainly had it hard to judge here, Dsell. Thanks!

Quote from: herw on January 15, 2019, 01:23:12 am

congratulation
It is difficult to translate Jailer into german, because there is already Kerkermeister (Torturer) and Gefängniswärter is too boring and Scharfrichter with terrible history.

perhaps VOGT ? which sounds similar in different languages. In english there is no parallel, perhaps BAILIFF?

Flicking open my English-German dictionary I see that the word jail in English is the same as the traditional English way to spell the word, "gaol". So I could've named it "gaoler". Does that help?

---

Contest #15: involve Duchies.
It can be anything you like, just have your design feature Duchies somehow.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 15, 2019, 03:41:18 am

Quote from: herw on January 15, 2019, 01:23:12 am

Quote from: Dsell on January 14, 2019, 08:42:42 pm

[...]
And the winner is.........JAILER! By Aquila! This card is straightforward but opens up really interesting strategic play, using an attack that's a little bit different than anything else we have out there.
[...]

congratulation
It is difficult to translate Jailer into german, because there is already Kerkermeister (Torturer) and Gefängniswärter is too boring and Scharfrichter with terrible history.

perhaps VOGT ? which sounds similar in different languages. In english there is no parallel, perhaps BAILIFF?

Well, here you see what the German translaters of Dominion have to deal with. Honestly though, translating Torturer to the German equivalent of Jailer because they wanted to be all nice and family friendly is something they brought onto themselves. I don't see why the English card should change because of this. There are so many languages out there, you can't really make sure none used something similar before. I think Gefängniswärter is perfectly fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 15, 2019, 03:44:54 am

About Landlord, fair point. Should have stuck with +3 Cards I guess.

Congrats, Aquila. I like your new challenge!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 15, 2019, 05:31:14 am

Quote from: Asper on January 15, 2019, 03:41:18 am

Well, here you see what the German translaters of Dominion have to deal with. Honestly though, translating Torturer to the German equivalent of Jailer because they wanted to be all nice and family friendly is something they brought onto themselves. I don't see why the English card should change because of this. There are so many languages out there, you can't really make sure none used something similar before. I think Gefängniswärter is perfectly fine.

ok - now it's difficult to find a nice picture, not too much fantasy but middle age.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on January 15, 2019, 08:10:25 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 15, 2019, 03:04:49 am

Contest #15: involve Duchies.
It can be anything you like, just have the design feature Duchies somehow.

This is my submission:

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/0/0e/Masquerade.jpg/200px-Masquerade.jpg)

Quote

Masquerade
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards
Each player with any cards in hand passes one to the next such player to their left, at once. Then you may trash a card from your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 15, 2019, 09:43:08 am

winner of contest 14: Aquila Jailer

perhaps you like to see your card in reality (only a try)

(https://imgur.com/shVdQJx.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on January 15, 2019, 03:40:48 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on January 15, 2019, 01:04:32 am

There were a lot of interesting cards in this contest, so I was looking back at them while reading your comments and noticed you said Cardsharp might be too strong. It can't be too strong for $4 because it's almost strictly worse than Militia (unless you consider gaining silver to be an attack). Opponents always have the choice of discarding down to three and gaining a silver.

I never liked Wild Hunt, but I think I like Hunter. It's pretty uncommon to be able to 'fix' a disliked official card by adding an attack... Note, the attack will probably also work like Vault much of the time.

I think my favorites (besides my own) are Criminal's Vault and Dark Acolyte.

You make such a good point about Cardsharp, and I feel dumb because I was trying to compare all of these to the most basic attacks they could possibly compare to, like Militia. I guess having so many options does make it much better for the person being attacked.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 15, 2019, 06:32:00 pm

Now that I think about it, how is Cardsharp NOT strictly worse than Militia? If you discard down to three cards in hand, it's essentially a Militia that gives your opponent a Silver, which is already strictly worse than Militia, but the opponent has more choices than just discarding down to three, so it's worse still than that.

My submission:

Quote

Investment:
$1
+2 Buys
-
When you gain this, gain a Duchy.
Treasure - $6

Couldn't find any good art for it, so no mockup. :(

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on January 16, 2019, 03:07:46 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on January 15, 2019, 08:10:25 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 15, 2019, 03:04:49 am

Contest #15: involve Duchies.
It can be anything you like, just have the design feature Duchies somehow.

This is my submission:

Masquerade

Well yeah that fits the brief... Probably the more closely involved Duchies are the better chances of winning, unless you really convince me otherwise, so Masquerade wouldn't be a likely candidate. Still, changed the brief to say "have your design..."

Quote from: herw on January 15, 2019, 09:43:08 am

winner of contest 14: Aquila Jailer

perhaps you like to see your card in reality (only a try)

(https://imgur.com/shVdQJx.png)

Ah nice, you found a good picture for it. That's what stopped me doing a mock-up. I do intend to put Jailer into one of my fan sets, but I think I'd like to do my own mock-up for it, make things in keeping with the others I've already done. Still, there is the hall of fame thread that once updated could have this card on it.
And how interested are you in accuracy? This should be an Action Attack Duration, and have +3 Cards, capitalised.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 16, 2019, 03:24:50 am

(https://i.imgur.com/hTs1MHh.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 16, 2019, 04:07:35 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 16, 2019, 03:07:46 am

[...]

Quote from: herw on January 15, 2019, 09:43:08 am

winner of contest 14: Aquila Jailer

perhaps you like to see your card in reality (only a try)

(https://imgur.com/shVdQJx.png)

Ah nice, you found a good picture for it. That's what stopped me doing a mock-up. I do intend to put Jailer into one of my fan sets, but I think I'd like to do my own mock-up for it, make things in keeping with the others I've already done. Still, there is the hall of fame thread that once updated could have this card on it.
And how interested are you in accuracy? This should be an Action Attack Duration, and have +3 Cards, capitalised.

it was only a present for you. Accuracy is very important for me. I change it and will print it in a german version.

(https://imgur.com/FGx0Uk5.png)

ciao herw

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on January 16, 2019, 05:05:58 am

Quote from: Gubump on January 15, 2019, 06:32:00 pm

Now that I think about it, how is Cardsharp NOT strictly worse than Militia? If you discard down to three cards in hand, it's essentially a Militia that gives your opponent a Silver, which is already strictly worse than Militia, but the opponent has more choices than just discarding down to three, so it's worse still than that.

Often you don't want Silver! Especially when there are handsize attacks around, they make Silver a significantly worse card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on January 16, 2019, 05:12:27 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fQYFTVj.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 16, 2019, 08:27:44 am

(https://i.imgur.com/KCLQxaF.jpg)

No idea about whether it does the trick but the point of the on-gain Haunted Woods like self-attack is to make this worse when it could potentially shine, in Alt-VP games with e.g. Duke or Silk Road.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 16, 2019, 08:33:54 am

Quote from: segura on January 16, 2019, 08:27:44 am

(https://i.imgur.com/KCLQxaF.jpg)

No idea about whether it does the trick but the point of the on-gain Haunted Woods like self-attack is to make this worse when it could potentially shine, in Alt-VP games with e.g. Duke or Silk Road.

This is pretty much just a worse Annex?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 16, 2019, 08:39:57 am

Quote from: faust on January 16, 2019, 08:33:54 am

Quote from: segura on January 16, 2019, 08:27:44 am

(https://i.imgur.com/KCLQxaF.jpg)

No idea about whether it does the trick but the point of the on-gain Haunted Woods like self-attack is to make this worse when it could potentially shine, in Alt-VP games with e.g. Duke or Silk Road.

This is pretty much just a worse Annex?

Annex gains one Duchy where Archduke can gain several Duchies. I agree that it is weak though but with cantrip green gainers it seems better to err on the safe side.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 16, 2019, 08:46:59 am

Quote from: segura on January 16, 2019, 08:39:57 am

Quote from: faust on January 16, 2019, 08:33:54 am

Quote from: segura on January 16, 2019, 08:27:44 am

(https://i.imgur.com/KCLQxaF.jpg)

No idea about whether it does the trick but the point of the on-gain Haunted Woods like self-attack is to make this worse when it could potentially shine, in Alt-VP games with e.g. Duke or Silk Road.

This is pretty much just a worse Annex?

Annex gains one Duchy where Archduke can gain several Duchies. I agree that it is weak though but with cantrip green gainers it seems better to err on the safe side.

You're right, for some reason I assumed that the Duchy would be on-gain. My mistake. No, as it is, it could be decent, especially with TfB

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on January 16, 2019, 08:55:38 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 16, 2019, 03:07:46 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on January 15, 2019, 08:10:25 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 15, 2019, 03:04:49 am

Contest #15: involve Duchies.
It can be anything you like, just have the design feature Duchies somehow.

This is my submission:

Masquerade

Well yeah that fits the brief... Probably the more closely involved Duchies are the better chances of winning, unless you really convince me otherwise, so Masquerade wouldn't be a likely candidate.

Apologies, I was attempting a joke (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFtLONl4cNc&t=21).  I'll post a proper submission as soon as I think of one.

Quote

Still, changed the brief to say "have your design..."

That seems entirely fair.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on January 16, 2019, 09:53:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/2YJZY2f.png)
It's quite boring sorry, pick someone else.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on January 16, 2019, 12:10:46 pm

My real submission.

(https://i.imgur.com/o2bA3vy.jpg)

Quote

Countess
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $4
+1 Action
+1 Buy
-
When you would gain a card, you may discard this from your hand, to instead choose one of: +$3, or trash your hand, or gain a Duchy.
(+$3 has no effect if it's not your turn.)

It's very much a cut-and-shut of other cards, but I don't think those particular pieces have been put together before.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on January 16, 2019, 09:45:51 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/U7lQ9dy.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on January 17, 2019, 05:16:25 am

(https://i.imgur.com/Kfeg607.png)

Here's my entry for this week.  A Duchy gainer, with some engine components built in, High Council gives you a choice of gaining a Duchy, a +Cards effect if you reveal a Duchy, or a Baron-like effect if you discard a Duchy.  The best options require you to line it up with a Duchy, but gaining Duchies isn't too sad either.  The effects all self-synergize too: + cards helps you draw more High Councils, Baron helps you buy more High Councils, and Duchy helps you activate the other effects.   

*edit: removed Village option

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 17, 2019, 05:34:17 am

Quote from: 4est on January 17, 2019, 05:16:25 am

(https://i.imgur.com/vWmIHzK.png)

Here's my entry for this week.  A Duchy gainer, with some engine components built in, High Council gives you a choice of gaining a Duchy, a Village effect, a +Cards effect if you reveal a Duchy, or a Baron-like effect if you discard a Duchy.  The best options require you to line it up with a Duchy, but you aren't too sad if you don't either.  The effects all self-synergize too: Village lets you play more High Councils, cards helps you draw more High Councils, Baron helps you buy more High Councils, and Duchy helps you activate the other effects.

This seems too strong and boring (it's basically a 1-card engine). I would scratch the Village option.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 17, 2019, 05:44:27 am

(https://i.imgur.com/eQulM75.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: d on January 17, 2019, 09:23:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/p4v6qnC.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 17, 2019, 09:30:15 am

Quote from: d on January 17, 2019, 09:23:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/cBC7mnm.jpg)

Trash a Duchy from where?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: d on January 17, 2019, 10:08:29 am

Trash from your hand.  It needed a nerf, rather than a higher price.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on January 17, 2019, 07:35:55 pm

Quote

Astrologer
$4 - Night - Duration
Look through your discard pile and reveal a card from it, putting the card on top of your deck. If you revealed a victory card, +1 VP and +1 Coffers.
At the start of your next turn, you may discard a card to gain a Silver or discard two cards to gain a Duchy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on January 18, 2019, 12:13:16 am

(https://i.imgur.com/l0ehlhk.png)

Lots of points for cheap, but clogs up your next hand and even your whole deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MattLee on January 18, 2019, 01:15:42 am

(https://i.imgur.com/vP8JGE3.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on January 18, 2019, 05:43:28 am

(https://i.imgur.com/adqjqKo.jpg)

Rules clarification: The replacement of starting victory cards with Duchies happens AFTER Heirlooms and Shelters are sorted out.

Thus:
Normal Game + Blight = 7 Coppers, 3 Duchies
Shelters Game + Blight = 7 Coppers, Hovel, Necropolis, Duchy
Normal Game + Shepherd + Blight = 6 Coppers, 4 Duchies
Shelters Game + Shepherd + Blight = 6 Coppers, 2 Duchies, Necropolis, Hovel

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 18, 2019, 06:35:32 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on January 18, 2019, 05:43:28 am

(https://i.imgur.com/adqjqKo.jpg)

I think this leads to strange setup behaviour: If I have multiple "replace" instructions happening at the same time, then per usual rules I may choose any order to resolve them. So in a Blight + Shepherd + Shelters game, players may end up with decks consisting of either:

- 4 Duchies, 6 Coppers
- 3 Duchies, 6 Coppers, Pasture
- 2 Duchies, 6 Coppers, Necro, Hovel
- 1 Duchy, 6 Coppers, Necro, Hovel, Pasture

I think the intention is that Blight setup happens after all other setup instructions?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on January 18, 2019, 07:23:03 am

Quote from: faust on January 18, 2019, 06:35:32 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on January 18, 2019, 05:43:28 am

(https://i.imgur.com/adqjqKo.jpg)

I think the intention is that Blight setup happens after all other setup instructions?

Correct.

I think it's all accounted for by "rules on cards override rules in the rulebook", which covers the setup of Shelters and Heirlooms

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 18, 2019, 08:31:00 am

Quote from: kru5h on January 18, 2019, 12:13:16 am

(https://i.imgur.com/l0ehlhk.png)

Lots of points for cheap, but clogs up your next hand and even your whole deck.

Kind of similar to my Meadow, except that one gains an Estate instead of putting the Duchy on your deck (and is slightly more flexible with alt-VP). Not complaining, just, uh, informing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on January 18, 2019, 10:13:59 am

Quote from: Asper on January 18, 2019, 08:31:00 am

Quote from: kru5h on January 18, 2019, 12:13:16 am

(https://i.imgur.com/l0ehlhk.png)

Lots of points for cheap, but clogs up your next hand and even your whole deck.

Kind of similar to my Meadow, except that one gains an Estate instead of putting the Duchy on your deck (and is slightly more flexible with alt-VP). Not complaining, just, uh, informing.

It's also very similar to my entry...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 18, 2019, 10:49:31 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on January 18, 2019, 07:23:03 am

Quote from: faust on January 18, 2019, 06:35:32 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on January 18, 2019, 05:43:28 am

(https://i.imgur.com/adqjqKo.jpg)

I think the intention is that Blight setup happens after all other setup instructions?

Correct.

I think it's all accounted for by "rules on cards override rules in the rulebook", which covers the setup of Shelters and Heirlooms

Yeah, although there might be some need for a ruling to go along with it; I think the most reasonable interpretation is that "Setup" instructions would affect the version of the starting deck that the rulebook says you are using. Things like Shelters and Heirlooms aren't setup instructions; they're updates to the game rules that re-define what your starting deck looks like. Blight says to change your starting deck; which means the starting deck as it is defined by the rules. Thus, in a game with Shepherd and Blight, you never have Pasture; and in a game with Shelters and Blight, you never have Overgrown Estate.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 18, 2019, 10:57:36 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 18, 2019, 10:49:31 am

Yeah, although there might be some need for a ruling to go along with it; I think the most reasonable interpretation is that "Setup" instructions would affect the version of the starting deck that the rulebook says you are using. Things like Shelters and Heirlooms aren't setup instructions; they're updates to the game rules that re-define what your starting deck looks like. Blight says to change your starting deck; which means the starting deck as it is defined by the rules. Thus, in a game with Shepherd and Blight, you never have Pasture; and in a game with Shelters and Blight, you never have Overgrown Estate.

I don't think it is clear in any way that this is the case. Consider the Heirloom rules:

Quote

If any Kingdom cards being used have a yellow banner indicating an Heirloom, players start the game with that Heirloom replacing what would normally be a Copper.

Compare to the rulebook explanation of "Setup:" on Baker:

Quote

In games using this card, each player starts the game with a Coin token.

Both use the same phrasing, thus I think both things should happen at the same time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LostPhoenix on January 18, 2019, 12:20:42 pm

Quote from: hypercube on January 18, 2019, 10:13:59 am

Quote from: Asper on January 18, 2019, 08:31:00 am

Quote from: kru5h on January 18, 2019, 12:13:16 am

(https://i.imgur.com/l0ehlhk.png)

Lots of points for cheap, but clogs up your next hand and even your whole deck.

Kind of similar to my Meadow, except that one gains an Estate instead of putting the Duchy on your deck (and is slightly more flexible with alt-VP). Not complaining, just, uh, informing.

It's also very similar to my entry...

It's not exactly the most complicated concept to come up with. I had a similar idea, but scrapped it when so many others did something similar.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 18, 2019, 12:43:02 pm

Quote from: LostPhoenix on January 18, 2019, 12:20:42 pm

Quote from: hypercube on January 18, 2019, 10:13:59 am

Quote from: Asper on January 18, 2019, 08:31:00 am

Quote from: kru5h on January 18, 2019, 12:13:16 am

Lots of points for cheap, but clogs up your next hand and even your whole deck.

Kind of similar to my Meadow, except that one gains an Estate instead of putting the Duchy on your deck (and is slightly more flexible with alt-VP). Not complaining, just, uh, informing.

It's also very similar to my entry...

It's not exactly the most complicated concept to come up with. I had a similar idea, but scrapped it when so many others did something similar.

All things are new for a while.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 18, 2019, 04:49:00 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/3f4dliit.png)

Bailiff
Type: Action
Cost: $5

+2 Cards
+1 Buy
Reveal your hand.
+ $2 per Duchy in your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on January 18, 2019, 11:59:49 pm

Quote from: hypercube on January 18, 2019, 10:13:59 am

Quote from: Asper on January 18, 2019, 08:31:00 am

Quote from: kru5h on January 18, 2019, 12:13:16 am

(https://i.imgur.com/l0ehlhk.png)

Lots of points for cheap, but clogs up your next hand and even your whole deck.

Kind of similar to my Meadow, except that one gains an Estate instead of putting the Duchy on your deck (and is slightly more flexible with alt-VP). Not complaining, just, uh, informing.

It's also very similar to my entry...

I looked at Meadow and hypercube's entry. You're both right. It's very similar to both of them.

It's based on a card idea called Jungle that I came up with 2 years ago and posted on Reddit (The thread still exists, but the card is deleted.) I don't know what else to say. Sorry?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 19, 2019, 06:31:53 am

Quote from: kru5h on January 18, 2019, 11:59:49 pm

Quote from: hypercube on January 18, 2019, 10:13:59 am

Quote from: Asper on January 18, 2019, 08:31:00 am

Quote from: kru5h on January 18, 2019, 12:13:16 am

(https://i.imgur.com/l0ehlhk.png)

Lots of points for cheap, but clogs up your next hand and even your whole deck.

Kind of similar to my Meadow, except that one gains an Estate instead of putting the Duchy on your deck (and is slightly more flexible with alt-VP). Not complaining, just, uh, informing.

It's also very similar to my entry...

I looked at Meadow and hypercube's entry. You're both right. It's very similar to both of them.

It's based on a card idea called Jungle that I came up with 2 years ago and posted on Reddit (The thread still exists, but the card is deleted.) I don't know what else to say. Sorry?

Don't worry, as LostPhoenix said, it's not exactly an overly complicated base idea to think of, and your card is different in several ways. For instance, unlike with Meadow, you can't end the game just by depleting this pile. And it's not like I submitted Meadow this round. No harm done, at least speaking for myself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on January 19, 2019, 09:43:57 am

Quote from: Asper on January 19, 2019, 06:31:53 am

Quote from: kru5h on January 18, 2019, 11:59:49 pm

Quote from: hypercube on January 18, 2019, 10:13:59 am

Quote from: Asper on January 18, 2019, 08:31:00 am

Quote from: kru5h on January 18, 2019, 12:13:16 am

(https://i.imgur.com/l0ehlhk.png)

Lots of points for cheap, but clogs up your next hand and even your whole deck.

Kind of similar to my Meadow, except that one gains an Estate instead of putting the Duchy on your deck (and is slightly more flexible with alt-VP). Not complaining, just, uh, informing.

It's also very similar to my entry...

I looked at Meadow and hypercube's entry. You're both right. It's very similar to both of them.

It's based on a card idea called Jungle that I came up with 2 years ago and posted on Reddit (The thread still exists, but the card is deleted.) I don't know what else to say. Sorry?

Don't worry, as LostPhoenix said, it's not exactly an overly complicated base idea to think of, and your card is different in several ways. For instance, unlike with Meadow, you can't end the game just by depleting this pile. And it's not like I submitted Meadow this round. No harm done, at least speaking for myself.

This idea has arguably appeared in the actual game with Sprawling Castle.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on January 19, 2019, 02:03:33 pm

Quote from: kru5h on January 18, 2019, 11:59:49 pm

I looked at Meadow and hypercube's entry. You're both right. It's very similar to both of them.

It's based on a card idea called Jungle that I came up with 2 years ago and posted on Reddit (The thread still exists, but the card is deleted.) I don't know what else to say. Sorry?

Don't worry about it -- I figured it was just an oversight, but it's kind of eerie how close they are. Mirage was my attempt to fix up this (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=114.msg778804#msg778804) RBCI into something playable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on January 21, 2019, 02:57:58 am

24 hours left

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on January 21, 2019, 09:19:50 am

(https://i.imgur.com/dagKv2g.jpg)

Quote

Pilgrim
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $4
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal 5 cards that are Actions or Treasures. Put up to 2 of them into your hand, the others on top of your deck in any order, and discard the rest. At the start of your next turn: You may reveal a hand with no Victory cards in it. If you do, gain a Duchy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 21, 2019, 11:28:57 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 21, 2019, 02:57:58 am

24 hours left

You totally missed your chance to post this image instead:

(https://d1u5p3l4wpay3k.cloudfront.net/zelda_gamepedia_en/thumb/b/ba/Finalday.png/300px-Finalday.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on January 21, 2019, 08:45:38 pm

Because time’s almost up and I’m out of ideas:

Quote

Land Grant (Event, cost $6)
+1 VP
Gain a Duchy

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on January 22, 2019, 02:12:34 am

(https://i.imgur.com/QG5dXf3.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on January 22, 2019, 02:49:16 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 22, 2019, 02:12:34 am

(https://i.imgur.com/QG5dXf3.png)

I like this idea, but I don't think it should have +buy on it, or if it does, it should cost more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on January 22, 2019, 04:49:56 am

Fingers away from keyboards, because the end is nigh.

Another good job well done, everyone. The rankings we see done on the forums and Discord show that most real cards that involve Duchies aren't very viable that often, namely Duke, Duchess and Annex. Count isn't so bad. So is a ‘high rank card’ involving Duchies possible? Whether it is or isn't, it's a design space that all your entries have covered nicely. Lots of similarities as has been observed, but that likely reflects the narrowness of the space.
So the entries. Sorry if I come across a bit boring…

Investment (gubump)
$5, Treasure $2 +buy, when gain gain Duchy.
This, Scientific Society and Jungle all follow the same premise, so all can empty 2 piles out of 3 quite quickly. Investment seems to be quite similar to IGG like this, with more point gain potential and easy Estate emptying in exchange for less consistency to get $5. Gaining it more casually, there are ups and downs to getting this whenever you would get a Duchy, and it's not the best choice for economy, same coin density as Copper. Overall, I can't say anything really excites me about this.

Scientific society (Asper)
$5, 2 cards 1 action when gain gain Duchy.
So you effectively make your Duchies cantrips with this. Quite clever how this probably can still cost $5, $6 may be safer, though this really can put pile emptying pressure on; even if not a focused rush it's never wrong to get this whenever you need Duchies. Possibly more so with 2 players where the last 2 Societies are labs. So more negative than positive influence, I fear.

Mirage (hypercube)
$5, event gain Duchy onto deck, if you do 2VP.
5VP for $5 is a great deal compared with 6VP for $8, so it could be more hotly contested than Provinces even with the slow down, but seeing that empty Duchies aren't an end condition but rather this strengthens Duchies to being an alt VP slog strategy, it should make for a welcome game changer. Simple, and either effective or too strong. Couldn't say without some testing.

Archduke (segura)
8 debt, cantrip gain Duchy, on gain hand onto deck in any order.
This is certainly meant to be late game only with the debt, that’s nice. In the right situation it's a cantrip gain a $5 so it really can pay off. The on-gain effect, being on a debt card so always accessible, can have its own timely uses so can add reason to put it into your deck, as well as add a little self anti-synergy. It's not bad at all, I quite like it.

Architect (Gazbag)
$4, gain a $4 or a Duchy.
It is actually quite interesting in being a gainer that changes role going late. But I suppose that's all, as you suggest.

Countess (spiralstaircase)
$4, Reaction, +Action +Buy, when would gain a card may discard this to instead choose one of Count bonuses.
There is something going for making a gain into a Duchy instead, and converting extra buys into other things. However, it can be a Chapel on first shuffle, that later provides economy, then later Duchies, without any of Count’s setbacks, just a need for a second copy or other +buys. It feels very strong indeed.

Cultivation (Commodore Chuckles)
Trash card from hand, gain up to a $6 that shares type. In games using this, Duchies are also Actions that can be played for +2 Actions.
Duchies make for engine pieces, and this can help assemble an engine, the estates into Necropoli and Coppers into Gold, leaving you to buy the Actions. Unlike Altar the estates can't turn into good pieces, but they retain a VP purpose. It’s possibly on the strong side, but a fun package.

High council (4est)
$5, Choose: reveal Duchy from hand for +4 Cards; discard Duchy for +Buy +$5; or gain Duchy.
It makes an early Duchy exciting, great, but can get it itself. So overall it looks rather strong, giving both big draw and big $ and buy together as well.

Marriage game (Faust)
Project, $8, at start of buy phase may discard Duchy to gain Duchy, when buy gain Duchy.
Firstly, I would definitely rethink the theme! Morals, and also how is it a project? That aside, instead of getting a Province once you set up better Duchy dancing for later. So there is some good thought involved in when to get this, unlike citadel it isn't always best as the first $8 I wouldn't think. It feels like a good design.

Birthright (d)
$7, event, trash Duchy from hand, set aside prize that Duchies Inherit.
Reusing prizes isn't a bad idea. Each player gets a unique effect on their Duchies; this can feel fun but in practice probably isn't, if one Prize stands out as strong in the game (like Princess when there are no other +buys) then everyone could rush to get Birthright getting early Duchies and it can be a bitter taste for the losers. Some of the prizes are designed to stay just at one copy, like Followers, though you do get few of them. And there are 5 prizes, so not ideal for 6 player games.

Astrologer (libraryadventurer)
Night duration, $4, reveal card from discard and onto deck, if Victory +1 VP +1 Coffers. Next turn may discard card for Silver or 2 cards for Duchy.
Gets away with infinite VP potential for also giving Coffers and Silvers. There will nearly always be something in the discard, and overall makes for a payload card that first gets silvers then can go to Duchies with small hands and Coffers. Top-decked greens are discarded next turn. Very different, lots of little uses yet makes overall sense. It's good, but lacks excitement somehow.

Jungle (kru5h)
Victory, $6, 2VP, when gain gain Duchy onto deck.
This seems to be less about pile emptying than the first two, it's entirely about greening. It can't be rushed so easily. And it's rather hard to not compare it to Mirage; the latter has no added speed pressure, but this could be better balanced, which is hard to call. It comes down to personal preference here...

Proprietor (MattLee)
Reaction, $2, discard a card, everyone draws to 6. When another player gains game ending card, may discard this for Duchy.
The on-play bit feels quite nice, you can use it for draw situationally and plays after the first won't usually give a card away. Still, the Reaction is the more relevant part to this contest, and it feels sort of tacked on; it's such a narrow window for it to work in, what if it's not in hand then? So this might be nicer as a non-terminal for this reason, you can increase your odds by safely collecting more.

Blight (NoMoreFun)
Attack, $4, +2 cards each other player with 5+ cards returns one to Supply, gains one costing at most $2 less onto deck. If don't gain a card gain Curse onto deck. Replace starting victories with Duchies.
This is an innovative way to use Duchies! Though with the Duchy pile being all but empty most of the time, this will not only induce quite significant point swings but also lengthen game time. It all feels quite a lot for $4 with 2 Cards, a must buy pretty much, which is going to get rather oppressive.

Bailiff (King Leon)
$5, +2 cards +buy, reveal hand +$2 per Duchy.
Often this reveal hand for bonus format can get too strong with repeated plays. But Duchies are a convincing target, it becomes an entire deck strategy that still needs support. Unlike High Council you need to buy up some early Duchies too, so it's probably not only rewarding in game context but also rewarding to play it right. Another good one.

Pilgrim (Fragasnap)
$4, Duration, Reveal from deck until 5 actions or treasures, put up to 2 in hand, put others back, discard rest. Next turn may reveal hand of no victories for Duchy.
This is quite a powerful draw, especially if you only have 5 other actions or treasures. Or it guarantees a Duchy next turn. Victories can be sifted through easily, so the Duchy gain is easy to take. It's quite easy to make a golden deck rotating two of these. It's doing plenty and is a fairly nice late game card that's not bad early, just...something is taking excitement away? I think it's all that revealing.

Land Grant (MrHiTech)
Event, $6, +1VP gain Duchy.
A 4VP card for $6. That's not as efficient as Provinces yet more efficient than Duchies so bang on, but it doesn't add much. Mirage makes things a bit more exciting.

Conquer (Chappy7)
Event, $2 +buy, trash Duchy to gain Province.
Budget Provinces that are a bit easier to get than paying straight $7. Maybe too easy; if you only need $5s and $2s to reach Provinces you don't have to build up much.

Shortlist: Mirage, Archduke, Cultivation, Marriage Game, Astrologer, Bailiff, Pilgrim.

Runner-up: Mirage by hypercube.
Winner: Bailiff by King Leon.

The convincing reason Bailiff gives to get Duchies early adds to the game more than the other entries, I felt. A different judge would choose a different winner I'm sure, because they're all great in their own way. Congrats!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 22, 2019, 12:24:49 pm

Thank you a lot. My card actually started as a joke to make Scout better. Then I felt, it is a great into the Duchy runs and it really is.

So, be prepared to

Contest #16: new Basic card
Design a new Basic card, which can be added to the game independently of any expansions. This may be a new Supply pile, a card for the player’s starting deck or even a totally new mechanic. In this contest, I will put my focus on creativity, novelty and originality. Good success.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on January 22, 2019, 12:25:15 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on January 22, 2019, 02:49:16 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 22, 2019, 02:12:34 am

(https://i.imgur.com/QG5dXf3.png)

I like this idea, but I don't think it should have +buy on it, or if it does, it should cost more.

You very well could be right.  My thought process was that in order for it to work, you already have to have a duchy or two clogging up your deck in order for it to work.  That is part of the price.  That being said, it still may need to cost more.  The +Buy needs to stay imo.  Otherwise, you'll have to wait until that duchy is finally in your hand, and then if there are no other +Buys, you have to choose between upgrading your Duchy or buying an engine piece.  I like the flexibility the +Buy gives so you can upgrade your Duchy almost anytime it comes up. 

I know the contest is done, but would you think 3 is a high enough cost? I still want to keep this card around in my fan card collection.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on January 22, 2019, 12:28:51 pm

Quote from: King Leon on January 22, 2019, 12:24:49 pm

Thank you a lot. My card actually started as a joke to make Scout better. Then I felt, it is a great into the Duchy runs and it really is.

So, be prepared to

Contest #16: new Basic card
Design a new Basic card, which can be added to the game independently of any expansions. This may be a new Supply pile, a card for the player’s starting deck or even a totally new mechanic. In this contest, I will put my focus on creativity, novelty and originality. Good success.

By basic card are you referring to things like Province and Copper? Things that are in the kingdom but not Kingdom cards?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 22, 2019, 12:43:32 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 22, 2019, 12:28:51 pm

By basic card are you referring to things like Province and Copper? Things that are in the kingdom but not Kingdom cards?

Totally correct. I am referring to cards like Copper, Curse, Potion, Colony or Ruins. They can be in the Supply, but this is not required. Shelters are Basic cards, but not in the Supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 22, 2019, 12:59:09 pm

Quote from: King Leon on January 22, 2019, 12:43:32 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 22, 2019, 12:28:51 pm

By basic card are you referring to things like Province and Copper? Things that are in the kingdom but not Kingdom cards?

Totally correct. I am referring to cards like Copper, Curse, Potion, Colony or Ruins. They can be in the Supply, but this is not required. Shelters are Basic cards, but not in the Supply.

Perhaps a comprehensive way of defining it could be "cards that, when used, do not count as one of the ten kingdom cards chosen for each game".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 22, 2019, 01:01:18 pm

Quote from: King Leon on January 22, 2019, 12:43:32 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 22, 2019, 12:28:51 pm

By basic card are you referring to things like Province and Copper? Things that are in the kingdom but not Kingdom cards?

Totally correct. I am referring to cards like Copper, Curse, Potion, Colony or Ruins. They can be in the Supply, but this is not required. Shelters are Basic cards, but not in the Supply.

What about Heirlooms?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 22, 2019, 01:52:57 pm

Quote from: faust on January 22, 2019, 01:01:18 pm

Quote from: King Leon on January 22, 2019, 12:43:32 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 22, 2019, 12:28:51 pm

By basic card are you referring to things like Province and Copper? Things that are in the kingdom but not Kingdom cards?

Totally correct. I am referring to cards like Copper, Curse, Potion, Colony or Ruins. They can be in the Supply, but this is not required. Shelters are Basic cards, but not in the Supply.

What about Heirlooms?

Heirlooms are no Basic cards, because they always come with another Kingdom card. Same for Spoils. There are also already 7 Heirlooms, but you only start with 7 Copper, so there is no space for an additional Heirloom. However, an eleventh starting card would be fine.

In contrast to Spoils, I consider Ruins as Basic cards, because they are obtainable, even if nobody plays a Looter.

So, I define a Basic card as a card, which is always obtainable (as long the Supply lasts) without the need of another card (other than Treasure cards, of course), either in the starting deck, in the Supply or via a new mechanic. For example, a Promissory Note card would count as new mechanic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 22, 2019, 03:13:35 pm

Quote from: King Leon on January 22, 2019, 01:52:57 pm

I consider Ruins as Basic cards, because they are obtainable, even if nobody plays a Looter.

So, I define a Basic card as a card, which is always obtainable (as long the Supply lasts) without the need of another card (other than Treasure cards, of course), either in the starting deck, in the Supply or via a new mechanic. For example, a Promissory Note card would count as new mechanic.

By your definition of "Basic cards", Ruins are not Basic cards as they are only in the Supply if Looters are in the Kingdom. Or I am confused about it.

The challenge sounds cool but I think that it either needs a more clear definition or be more lacksadasical about what counts as "Basic card".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 22, 2019, 03:37:18 pm

Quote from: segura on January 22, 2019, 03:13:35 pm

Quote from: King Leon on January 22, 2019, 01:52:57 pm

I consider Ruins as Basic cards, because they are obtainable, even if nobody plays a Looter.

So, I define a Basic card as a card, which is always obtainable (as long the Supply lasts) without the need of another card (other than Treasure cards, of course), either in the starting deck, in the Supply or via a new mechanic. For example, a Promissory Note card would count as new mechanic.

By your definition of "Basic cards", Ruins are not Basic cards as they are only in the Supply if Looters are in the Kingdom. Or I am confused about it.

The challenge sounds cool but I think that it either needs a more clear definition or be more lacksadasical about what counts as "Basic card".

You can get Ruins without playing a Looter though, which makes them significantly different from Spoils. To think of it another way, you could easily choose to simply play with Ruins in any game you want. It would be a house rule if there were no Looters, but you could still do that. If you chose to play with Spoils in a game with no Spoiler-gainers, then it would be exactly like not playing with them, because there would be no way to ever gain one.

Similarly Colony rules says you can only use Colony in games with at least one card from Prosperity (at least it did in first edition); but there's no reason you can't use Colony in any game at all.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 22, 2019, 04:04:14 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 22, 2019, 03:37:18 pm

You can get Ruins without playing a Looter though, which makes them significantly different from Spoils. To think of it another way, you could easily choose to simply play with Ruins in any game you want. It would be a house rule if there were no Looters, but you could still do that. If you chose to play with Spoils in a game with no Spoiler-gainers, then it would be exactly like not playing with them, because there would be no way to ever gain one.

Similarly Colony rules says you can only use Colony in games with at least one card from Prosperity (at least it did in first edition); but there's no reason you can't use Colony in any game at all.

Exactly this is, what I meant. Prizes are no Basic cards, because they are technically only obtainable with Tournament. Spoils depend on Bandit Camp, Marauder or Pillage: No Basic card. Zombies are an edge case, because they could also be retrieved by Graverobber or Lurker (which appeared before Nocturne) but because they are specifically designed to be a payload for Necromancer, they also disqualify for being a Basic card. Spirits are clearly not available without the corresponding Nocturne cards, so they are also no Basic cards.

Potion is definitely a Basic card, even if it is nearly worthless, if no cards with Potion costs are in the Kingdom. It has no other dependencies and can be added to every game.

Platinum, Colony, Shelters and Ruins can also technically be used in every game, even if the rules do not recommend this. They are usable without any dependencies, so I also count them as Basic cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on January 22, 2019, 04:09:05 pm

I have an idea, will post it later. Tagging the thread for now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 23, 2019, 01:28:46 am

Quote from: King Leon on January 22, 2019, 12:24:49 pm

[...]
Contest #16: new Basic card
Design a new Basic card, which can be added to the game independently of any expansions. This may be a new Supply pile, a card for the player’s starting deck or even a totally new mechanic. In this contest, I will put my focus on creativity, novelty and originality. Good success.

wow, that's a real mammoth task. I'm curious about all proposals.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on January 23, 2019, 02:04:01 am

Tarnished Cards

The Tarnished Cards replace the Curse cards in a game using a card with the subtype "Tarnisher" (or any time you want to replace the curses). There are 5 different Tarnished cards, and there are 10 of each. They are set up exactly like the Ruins pile.

Tarnished Blade Cost $0
+1 Action
Trash a card costing at least $3 from your hand to trash this card.
--
When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it into your hand.
--
Worth -1 VP
Action - Curse

Tarnished Armor Cost $0
+1 Action
Discard 2 cards to trash this card.
--
When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it into your hand.
--
Worth -1 VP
Action - Curse

Tarnished Fortune Cost $0
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Victory or Curse card. Put that card on top of your deck and discard the rest to trash this card.
--
When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it into your hand.
--
Worth -1 VP
Action - Curse

Tarnished Gift Cost $0
+1 Action
Gain a Copper to the top of your deck to trash this card.
--
When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it into your hand.
--
Worth -1 VP
Action - Curse

Tarnished Maps Cost $0
+1 Action
The player to your left looks at the top 3 cards of your deck, discards any number of them, and puts the rest back in any order. If they do, trash this card.
--
When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it into your hand.
--
Worth -1 VP
Action - Curse

I hope the intent of these cards is clear: they are Curses that can trash themselves...but the only way you can trash them is the way they tell you to. Chapel won't help you against these Curses.

Edit: clarified the wording

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 23, 2019, 03:15:37 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 22, 2019, 04:49:56 am

Scientific society (Asper)
$5, 2 cards 1 action when gain gain Duchy.
So you effectively make your Duchies cantrips with this. Quite clever how this probably can still cost $5, $6 may be safer, though this really can put pile emptying pressure on; even if not a focused rush it's never wrong to get this whenever you need Duchies. Possibly more so with 2 players where the last 2 Societies are labs. So more negative than positive influence, I fear.

I don't get what the problem is with a card that costs as much as Lab sometimes being a Lab in the end game (where a Lab doesn't help you as much anymore, anyway). Also, I'm surprised you focused solely on the Cantrip-Duchy reading, when this can also be seen as a Lab with a penalty (that can be turned into a bonus with discard- or trash-for-benefit).

Edit: I will admit that I didn't consider pile draining enough, though. That remark of yours is spot-on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 23, 2019, 03:48:03 am

I just realized that I could technically submit a variant of my Power Grid Landmark for this contest. (Technically, see end of the post)

Supporters
A bunch of Prize-like unique cards that you can choose one from when you gain a Province. Each is a cantrip with a bonus. Like, let's say:

• +1$
• Provinces cost 2$ less this turn, but not less than 0$.
• When you gain this, each other player gains a Curse.
• Lab instead of cantrip. /When you gain this, each other player draws a card.
• No effect besides cantrip, but costs 8$.
• +3 Actions instead of +1 Action.
• Discard a card. / When you would gain this, first set aside the Province you gained until the end of the game.
• +2 Buys
• When you gain this, gain a Gold.
• Warehouse instead of cantrip
• Coppers produce 1$ more this turn.
• Gain a card costing up to 4$.

While it was fun thinking these up (and they turned out slightly different than the Power Grid stuff) I'll try to think of something new for this round. If I can't think of anything else, I'll sit this one out.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 23, 2019, 05:08:35 am

Quote from: King Leon on January 22, 2019, 04:04:14 pm

Potion is definitely a Basic card, even if it is nearly worthless, if no cards with Potion costs are in the Kingdom. It has no other dependencies and can be added to every game.

Platinum, Colony, Shelters and Ruins can also technically be used in every game, even if the rules do not recommend this. They are usable without any dependencies, so I also count them as Basic cards.

I don't see how that excludes Heirlooms though. You can still use Heirlooms without the card that gives them if you want to. It's not in the rules that you can do this, but then, neither is adding Potion to a board with no Potion-costs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on January 23, 2019, 05:51:14 am

(https://i.imgur.com/jd4U9Kk.jpg)

Quote

Gruel
Cost: $0
Types: Gruel
When you gain this in your turn, + $2, +2 Actions.
When you trash this in your turn, + $2, +1 Buy.

A card you could buy, but probably wouldn't.  I'm thinking that there would be a class of cards, Orphans, who care about and cause you to add Gruel the way Looters do for Ruins.  But other cards would care too - any gainer, TFB, or source of +Buy would work with these.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on January 23, 2019, 08:38:00 am

Quote from: mail-mi on January 23, 2019, 02:04:01 am

Tarnished Blade Cost $0
+1 Action
Trash a card costing at least $3 from your hand to trash this card.
--
If this card was not in play when you trashed it, put it into your hand
--
Worth -1 VP
Action - Curse

The meaning of the italicized text is unclear. Does it mean "When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it in your hand"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on January 23, 2019, 08:51:16 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on January 23, 2019, 08:38:00 am

Quote from: mail-mi on January 23, 2019, 02:04:01 am

Tarnished Blade Cost $0
+1 Action
Trash a card costing at least $3 from your hand to trash this card.
--
If this card was not in play when you trashed it, put it into your hand
--
Worth -1 VP
Action - Curse

The meaning of the italicized text is unclear. Does it mean "When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it in your hand"?

Yes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on January 23, 2019, 12:00:56 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on January 23, 2019, 02:04:01 am

I hope the intent of these cards is clear: they are Curses that can trash themselves...but the only way you can trash them is the way they tell you to. Chapel won't help you against these Curses.

Just asking to clarify my understanding:
If failing to fulfil the trash condition while playing a Tarnished Card, I assume it stays in play normally?
Is it then intended to be possible to trash it via Improve (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Improve)?
If yes, interesting corner case synergy.
Anyway, I like the idea of having a different kind of curses.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on January 23, 2019, 12:03:04 pm

Quote from: Shard of Honor on January 23, 2019, 12:00:56 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on January 23, 2019, 02:04:01 am

I hope the intent of these cards is clear: they are Curses that can trash themselves...but the only way you can trash them is the way they tell you to. Chapel won't help you against these Curses.

Just asking to clarify my understanding:
If failing to fulfil the trash condition while playing a Tarnished Card, I assume it stays in play normally?
Is it then intended to be possible to trash it via Improve (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Improve)?
If yes, interesting corner case synergy.
Anyway, I like the idea of having a different kind of curses.

Yes, it would. So if you have no cards and play Tarnished Armor, then play improve, you would be able to trash it from play. Cool edge case.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 23, 2019, 01:03:43 pm

Quote from: faust on January 23, 2019, 05:08:35 am

Quote from: King Leon on January 22, 2019, 04:04:14 pm

Potion is definitely a Basic card, even if it is nearly worthless, if no cards with Potion costs are in the Kingdom. It has no other dependencies and can be added to every game.

Platinum, Colony, Shelters and Ruins can also technically be used in every game, even if the rules do not recommend this. They are usable without any dependencies, so I also count them as Basic cards.

I don't see how that excludes Heirlooms though. You can still use Heirlooms without the card that gives them if you want to. It's not in the rules that you can do this, but then, neither is adding Potion to a board with no Potion-costs.

The reason to exclude Heirlooms is, that we already have seven Heirlooms (but only seven starting Coppers) and  Heirlooms are made to utilize a specific Kingdom card. For example, Pasture is specifically designed for Shepherd. A starting deck manipulating card similarly to Heirlooms and Shelters would be fine, though. By the way, Potion comes in the Base Cards set, so it is an official Basic card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on January 23, 2019, 03:59:58 pm

Repairs
Action - $2
+1 Action
Choose one:
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action or Treasure, then put all revealed cards in your hand; or
Draw until you have 5 cards in hand; or
Trash a card from your hand and gain a Copper to your hand.

Rules: Add this pile to games with an Attack card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on January 23, 2019, 10:25:19 pm

The Component pile is mixed in the same way the Ruins pile is. The Mechanic type would add the pile to the supply.

(https://i.imgur.com/ACsmoMC.png)(https://i.imgur.com/QLPWXEq.png)(https://i.imgur.com/EmZ08sp.png)(https://i.imgur.com/YamSayk.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on January 23, 2019, 11:35:22 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/TuVYeSE.png)

Deed is a Shelter so it replaces one of your starting Estates, and it's a Treasure that offers a choice between a one-shot Workshop that then temporarily "blocks" that pile until it is gained or trashed, or a Copper that trashes the top card of any pile.  Like Baker or Cursed Gold, it allows for non-standard openings, and while the first option can create some turn order advantage in certain situations, the second option can help mitigate it.  Having them go to the Supply can create some interesting choices (do I buy their Deed or trash it to gain what's underneath), and their ability to pressure piles a la Salt the Earth or Lurker might make them worth keeping around in some games.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on January 24, 2019, 07:11:17 am

This is part of a fan expansion I made but haven't done a lot of testing and playing with yet.

Quote

In games using any cards from (this fan expansion), replace half of the Curse pile with Jinxes and the other half with one of Curios, Heretics, or ***. These cards are both part of the same pile and can be gained or bought in any order.

Jinxes, Curios, Heretics, and *** (one other Curse I'm not happy with) offer an option for alternative Curses that side-steps the type\name issue by removing the card named Curse from the game. Unlike the Knights\Ruins pile, and unlike split piles, the variant Curses are not in a randomized or organized pile, but a pile that offers access to its complete contents at any time. All Jinxes and Curios\Heretics\*** must be removed from the pile to count as an empty pile.
(https://i.imgur.com/J6ydrqa.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/4QYmVkI.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/7kB4WRt.jpg)

Quote

Jinx
Types: Curse, Reaction
Cost: $0
-1VP

---

When you gain a Curse, you may discard this. If you do, +2 Cards.

Quote

Curio
Types: Treasure, Curse
Cost: $2
$1, +1 Buy

---

-2VP

Quote

Heretic
Types: Action, Curse
Cost: $0
+2 Actions

---

-2VP

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Neirai the Forgiven on January 24, 2019, 09:10:53 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 24, 2019, 07:11:17 am

In games using any cards from (this fan expansion), replace half of the Curse pile with Jinxes and the other half with one of Curios, Heretics, or ***. These cards are both part of the same pile and can be gained or bought in any order.

Who decides which Curse is gained? If I play Witch, do I get to choose whether I hand out Jinxes or say, Heretics? Or does the person being Cursed make the call?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 24, 2019, 11:27:36 am

Quote from: Neirai the Forgiven on January 24, 2019, 09:10:53 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 24, 2019, 07:11:17 am

In games using any cards from (this fan expansion), replace half of the Curse pile with Jinxes and the other half with one of Curios, Heretics, or ***. These cards are both part of the same pile and can be gained or bought in any order.

Who decides which Curse is gained? If I play Witch, do I get to choose whether I hand out Jinxes or say, Heretics? Or does the person being Cursed make the call?

I'd assume the cursed person does, because they are told to gain "a Curse" (or "a Curse card", which I would argue means the same - see "an Action" vs "an Action card", each on several cards). It's actually quite similar to Prizes in that the Prize pile also has no particular order.
Exceptions would be cards like Swindler or Ambassador, obviously.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on January 24, 2019, 11:30:06 am

(https://i.imgur.com/eQpqAN4.png)

Does this fit the brief? I envision cards that give out Boats but you could also use Boat on its own, perhaps there would be a Boat randomiser that makes use Boat in addition to the 10 kingdom cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on January 24, 2019, 12:08:46 pm

Tasks
A pile of landscape cards; they all cost $2, but don't use up a buy. When you buy one, you put it in front of you; it has an Objective for you to meet, and as soon as you do, you get a Reward and put the card back in the pile. No need to shuffle the pile, players can freely look through it and pick one or more. Only one Task allowed at once.
Being landscapes, they can't enter the deck or have their costs reduced. Possibly means this idea disqualifies? These don't have to be attached to any mechanic, just include them whenever, but a type on Actions could help ensure more of the Tasks can actually be done. (In reality, I may include this idea in my Dynasties set so they would be included if there are 2 or more kingdom cards from the set selected).

8 ideas for Tasks here, probably 2 of each in the pile?

Quote

Purge
Objective: Discard 5 or more cards on your turn not during Clean-up.
Reward: draw to 6 cards in hand.

Quote

Escape
Objective: trash a card with no-one revealing a copy (when a card is trashed, players may reveal a copy from their hand).
Reward: 4VP.

Quote

Seize
Objective: gain 3 or more cards on your turn.
Reward: 2VP.

Quote

Collect
Objective: get $15 or more during your turn
Reward: 2VP.

Quote

Compete
Objective: reveal a hand of 5 or more differently named cards
Reward: 2 Coffers 2 Villagers.

Quote

Plot
Objective: at the start of your turn, guess the top card of your deck correctly (name it, then reveal the card).
Reward: +3 Cards.

Quote

Register
Objective: have 5 differently costed cards in play
Reward: + $4

Quote

Capture
Objective: start your Buy phase with 2 or more Actions left
Reward: gain a card onto your deck costing up to $5.

Just a first draft that explains the premise. Nice one-offs you can work toward sometimes, extra engine options other times.
Edit: rule of one Task at a time only, was meant to be there but forgot

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on January 24, 2019, 02:10:06 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/cv3MXEX.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/8zs6T1L.png)

These are meant to smooth out those games where a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} start is a huge advantage, or vice versa. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 24, 2019, 06:07:10 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on January 24, 2019, 11:30:06 am

(https://i.imgur.com/eQpqAN4.png)

Does this fit the brief? I envision cards that give out Boats but you could also use Boat on its own, perhaps there would be a Boat randomiser that makes use Boat in addition to the 10 kingdom cards.

I would say, this card counts as a Basic card. It only depends on other Basic cards. Also, a not-in-the-supply card with a special gain requirement and a return-to-pile mechanic would be to awkward for a regular kingdom card.

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 24, 2019, 02:10:06 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/cv3MXEX.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/8zs6T1L.png)

These are meant to smooth out those games where a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} start is a huge advantage, or vice versa.

This contest's topic is about Basic cards. Events and Landmarks are just rule changers (my subcategory of card-shaped things, because these cards change the rules, but you can never own them). For example, Delvecan be described as a new rule, which says „Silver costs $2 and does not consume a buy.“ This is pretty similar to this card.

Maybe you could change your idea to a State or a Shelter-like card, every player starts with. This would also make it easier to track, who already used that effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on January 26, 2019, 05:08:24 pm

Quote from: King Leon on January 24, 2019, 06:07:10 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on January 24, 2019, 11:30:06 am

(https://i.imgur.com/eQpqAN4.png)

Does this fit the brief? I envision cards that give out Boats but you could also use Boat on its own, perhaps there would be a Boat randomiser that makes use Boat in addition to the 10 kingdom cards.

I would say, this card counts as a Basic card. It only depends on other Basic cards. Also, a not-in-the-supply card with a special gain requirement and a return-to-pile mechanic would be to awkward for a regular kingdom card.

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 24, 2019, 02:10:06 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/cv3MXEX.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/8zs6T1L.png)

These are meant to smooth out those games where a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} start is a huge advantage, or vice versa.

This contest's topic is about Basic cards. Events and Landmarks are just rule changers (my subcategory of card-shaped things, because these cards change the rules, but you can never own them). For example, Delvecan be described as a new rule, which says „Silver costs $2 and does not consume a buy.“ This is pretty similar to this card.

Maybe you could change your idea to a State or a Shelter-like card, every player starts with. This would also make it easier to track, who already used that effect.

I would, but I don't think we can have another shelter like thing or heirloom like thing since there are already 3 and 7 respectively.  I like my idea, but I can't quite think of how to make it more of a basic card.  I'll probably just bow out and try again on the next one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on January 26, 2019, 06:53:15 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 26, 2019, 05:08:24 pm

Quote from: King Leon on January 24, 2019, 06:07:10 pm

Maybe you could change your idea to a State or a Shelter-like card, every player starts with. This would also make it easier to track, who already used that effect.

I would, but I don't think we can have another shelter like thing or heirloom like thing since there are already 3 and 7 respectively.

It kinda bugs me that people keep saying stuff like this. There's no reason we can't have more heirloom or shelter type things. If you want to play with all of the cards with heirlooms in one kingdom, just choose one or more heirlooms to exclude so that you have no more than 7 copper-replacements. How hard is that?
(Do you really want to play with cursed gold anyway?)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 26, 2019, 07:05:29 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 26, 2019, 05:08:24 pm

I would, but I don't think we can have another shelter like thing or heirloom like thing since there are already 3 and 7 respectively.  I like my idea, but I can't quite think of how to make it more of a basic card.  I'll probably just bow out and try again on the next one.

You don't have to give up. Your idea is nice, but I still have a question. Does „once per game“ mean, that only one player can use that card or each player once? In the first case, I would interpret your idea as a buyable Artifact, in the second case, each player starts with a State, which is turned over after use.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on January 26, 2019, 11:43:14 pm

Quote from: King Leon on January 26, 2019, 07:05:29 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on January 26, 2019, 05:08:24 pm

I would, but I don't think we can have another shelter like thing or heirloom like thing since there are already 3 and 7 respectively.  I like my idea, but I can't quite think of how to make it more of a basic card.  I'll probably just bow out and try again on the next one.

You don't have to give up. Your idea is nice, but I still have a question. Does „once per game“ mean, that only one player can use that card or each player once? In the first case, I would interpret your idea as a buyable Artifact, in the second case, each player starts with a State, which is turned over after use.

The idea was each player got to use each one once.  So I guess a state could work.  I thought about making it an heirloom type thing, but I don't want a weird _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} start to be possible if you get it in your hand plus 4 coppers

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 28, 2019, 01:21:44 am

Reminder, that the contest will end in about 40 hours.

Title: Re: Contest #16: new Basic card
Post by: herw on January 28, 2019, 03:40:14 am

If you like to play with Alchemy, here is an addition:

(https://imgur.com/VEUcOTL.png) (https://imgur.com/vILoYji.png)

An empty County supply pile ends the game.

You should use minimum three kingdom cards from Alchemy or Alchemy-like cards.
These two victory cards may be an addition (my favourite) to Duchy and Province or an alternative.

I know, that i come in for criticism but i try ;)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: d on January 28, 2019, 04:51:55 pm

If you enjoy both Scrabble and Dominion, then you may enjoy Currency.  Novices could find it swingy, but with experience these cards bring another dimension.

Setup: After dealing starting hands, replace the Copper supply pile with the Currency supply pile (98 cards, price $0, pays $1, Treasure-Victory-Currency)

Each Currency card has a letter.  Your objective is to collect a set of Currency cards (by the game end) to spell the name of any of the 514 Dominion cards.  Your Currency cards can be reused to spell out new card names.

The first letter of each Currency card name matches the Scrabble letter on the card: Auksinas; Baht; Colon; Dollar; Escudo; Franc; Gulden; Hryvnia etc

(https://i.imgur.com/rZD0Tax.jpg)

Scoring: Currency cards provide Victory Points are the half of the sum of the Scrabble points for the spelled card names (rounded down).

I made a spreadsheet that easily calculates your VPs (at game end) based on the letters on all of your Currency cards.  I'm not sure how to upload the spreadsheet, but more than happy to share it.  I had to rename Candlestick Maker (to Candlemaker), Black Market (to Schwarzmarkt), Skulk (to Assassin) and Piazza (to Square) since you can't spell these words using the 98 letters in Scrabble.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on January 28, 2019, 08:06:44 pm

Amusing idea, but the card names were never supposed to be a part of the game mechanics, so it doesn't work as an "orthodox" fan card, if that matters.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 29, 2019, 07:47:17 pm

And here is, what you all were waiting for:

mail-mi - Tarnished Cards - Curse replacement
This suggestion is interesting and the cards seem to be balanced at the first glance. The Fortress effect makes it more difficult to get rid of them. I really love it that each kingdom challenges you find new counters against or synergies with the individual Tarnished cards. For example, you could use Tunnels to counter Tarnished Armor or Loan to neutralize Tarnished Gift and Tarnished Blade can help you to get rid of Stewards, Sea Hags, Materpieces or other poor cards. Definitively a pile for experienced players with much potential in any kingdom.

Asper - Supporters - Bonus cantrips for gaining Provinces
Ok, this is no final submission, but man, let’s give Asper a chance nonetheless. Ok, I think, that Duchess would have gone through as a Basic card. But Duchess was a total fail, because she is a terminal. Hey, she is useful in Duchy slogs and accelerates for a 3-pile ending, but that’s all. Asper, however, came up with the idea to have cantrips as rewards for Provinces and that’s really nice. And they are a separate pile, which does not count the the game ending. This makes even larger engines possible. But - wait! Asper’s idea comes with Tournament’s first-come-first-served flavor. So, while another player is setting up a combo, you can shine with a free cantrip Coppersmith, which comes with your early Province. This makes the game much more exciting.

sprialsteircase - Gruel - junk card, gives a bonus for gaining and trashing
This card continues the idea of the never-released Confusion card in a new and charming way. Converting a Workshop into a Silver+ and if you have +Buys left, you can convert them to $1. That’s even better, if you anyway need some extra fodder for obligatory trashers like Rats, Trade Route or Forager. Because trashing also gives +Buy, you can even buy another Gruel for $1 and so on. As a Kingdom Card this would never have a chance, but as a Basic Card, it is just amazing.

NoMoreFun - Repairs - Jack of all Trades light
Often, Attack cards like Witch or Ghost Ship are so game-dominating, that other potentially interesting strategies are completely outclassed. Repairs ensures that Attack cards always come with a Jack “light”. The non-terminal draw-to-5 option seems to be too strong for a $2 card, but I assume, that costs $2 for the same reason like Chapel, to ensure, that 5/2 players are not disadvantaged to 4/3 players. While Repairs can weaken the aftereffects of Attacks, it does not really fix the problem of missing deck diversity in presence of strong attacks. Double Witch becomes just Double Witch + Repairs. Thus, this card is still just a drop in the ocean.
   
Commodore Chuckles - Components - Combinable cards
This was the first idea, I was curios about. Instead of Silvers, you can buy three components to combine them to $5 or $6 cards. This is especially nice with the extra +Buy of Poach. This keeps your deck lean and smooth. However, it is difficult to get three Components into your hand, that’s why the got their specific bonuses. Wheel draws 2 cards and makes Component line-ups much easier, Pulley helps you with buying additional Components and Pulley gives you more buying power, so that you often can buy a $4 or $5 card instead of another component or a Silver, when you trash Pulley and two other components from your hand. Spring is just poor, a Necropolis us much worse compared to the other options. But I realized that these cards are somehow not very appealing to me. I don’t like that they are mixed and that they go to the Trash after use. 4 separate piles and a replacing Spring’s +2 Action with vanilla cantrip would be better better in my opinion.

4est - Deed - Pile-blocking gainer or Supply trashing Copper
Once I had a similar idea of a pile-blocking card, but it was a single card and started on the Province pile. It was okay, but also pointlessy throttling the game. Here, we have even one card per player. 4est, however, did something new. He / She has succeeded in designing that card in manner, that it does not slow the game to much down, because it comes with an in-built-Salt-the-Earth, which may be used to get rid of other Deeds or Provinces. I also like the concept to create much more opening-possibilities. when you also play with the Dark Ages shelters, this should replace Hovel, because Overgrown Estate has more combos (for example Shepherd). Overall a very solid concept.

Fragasnap - Jinx, Curio, Heretic - Curse alternatives
Honestly, I liked the Tarnished cards more, because they are more puzzling. If good trashers are in the kingdom, Jinx and Co. don’t add much more value to the game. Giving the player the choice to select their Curse slows Attacks down. So does the Reaction card Jinx. Heretic also seems to be only rarely usable. All in all, I am not very happy with these cards. Sorry, but mail-mi did this just better.

Gazbag - Boat - one-shot Lab as reward for having Copper, Silver and Gold
That card is interesting, but it also looks a bit swingy. Copper, Silver and Gold are always available but I can’t imagine, that investment into hand management to get that special Treasure card line-up for is really worth just a one-shot Lab. The biggest problem is the big random component. Dominon should not have such moody mechanics.

Aquila - Tasks - individual quests
An unused idea with huge potential. The rules are simple and easy to understand. Tasks cost $2, only one at once. That’s it. Self-explaining. Humans like small achievements and this mini-expansion invites casual and experienced players to evaluate themselves and find creative ways to fulfill them. Each kingdom provides other possibilities and each player has the choice: Doing an easy task with a small or a hard task with a high reward.

Chappy7 - Charity and Contribution - Once-per-game events to reduce start hand advantages
As I wrote before, I interpret these Events as one-time States. Considering the focus on creativity, novelty and originality, I feel that this cards don’t add much value to the game. Baker and 4est’s Deed do this better.

herw - Principality and County - vanilla Victory cards with Potion costs
Principality and County are very simple. Vanilla victory cards with a $3 difference are a good target for Rebuild. However, Principality is too similar to Vineyard in my opinion. There is not much difference between P and $2P. (Yes, I would sometimes even pay $4P for a Vineyard, if there is no +Buy in the kingdom), because the number of Potion cards you can buy, depends on the number of potions in your deck. If you have 10 cards and one of them is a Potion, you can buy a Potion card in every two turns. More than 1 Potion increases the probability of a collosion, which can cost you the win, if you are unlucky. Potion decks utilize fast deck cycles with cards like Scrying Pool, Golem and Alchemist and like non-terminals (e.g. Familiar > Witch and University > Workshop). These cards not only cost a Potion, but also help to draw your potion more often. That means, that Potion decks usually already have a lot of Action cards. I see no really reason, why Principality should be preferred over Vineyard. The same problem for County. You can just buy a Silver or a Gold instead of the Potion to get to $8, which is even easier that to get $5P. But hey, this is your 50th post. Keep going on! Your idea is not a RBCI, but other contest participants had just more innovative ideas.

d - Currency - Scrabble crossover
This idea shifts Dominion to a complete other game. While this is an innovative and creative submission, I think this would have been better off in Challenge #6. This card has several problems with its randomness, translation issues and it also forces very long games where players try to gain as many Currency as possible and then buy all the Duchies and Estates. Solemnly I award you the extra ribbon for the most creative out-of-competition submission.

Results (Hugh it’s almost 2 am here, I have to go to bed now!)

Winner: Aquila with Tasks
Runner-up: mail-mi with Tarnished Cards

Congratulations!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on January 30, 2019, 03:21:05 am

Wow great, wasn't expecting that! Thanks, and thanks for all the careful analysis you put into everyone's entries here.
Running out of good contest ideas now... The split pile one seemed to be quite popular, perhaps let's go down this route again?

Contest #17: split pile with two different cards in it, a pure Action and a pure Night card.
And everything else I leave open to you. Try to make a fun pile that adds something new to the game. And just because one card is a Night doesn't mean I'd like to see Nocturne themed/flavoured cards, actually I'd rather not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 30, 2019, 05:20:40 am

Quote from: King Leon on January 29, 2019, 07:47:17 pm

[...]
herw - Principality and County - vanilla Victory cards with Potion costs
[...] But hey, this is your 50th post. Keep going on! Your idea is not a RBCI, but other contest participants had just more innovative ideas.
[...]

What does RBCI mean?

RBCI
Acronym   Definition
RBCI   Radio Based Combat Identification
RBCI   Robin Boundary Condition Iteration (numerical method)
RBCI   Royal Bank of Canada Investments
RBCI   Rosemary Brennan Curtin, Inc. (Boise, ID)
RBCI   Red Blood Cell Indices
RBCI   Rectenwald Brothers Construction Inc. (Cranberry Township, PA)

BTW in german Dominion Forum i have 1331 posts, more than Asper ;) which doesn't mean that i am a good designer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on January 30, 2019, 05:28:41 am

RBCI:
Really Bad Card Idea. References a thread of the same name.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 30, 2019, 06:16:45 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 30, 2019, 03:21:05 am

Contest #17: split pile with two different cards in it, a pure Action and a pure Night card.
And everything else I leave open to you. Try to make a fun pile that adds something new to the game. And just because one card is a Night doesn't mean I'd like to see Nocturne themed/flavoured cards, actually I'd rather not.

How pure should they be? Do you want that Action/Night is their only type, or is stuff like Duration/Attack/Gathering etc. allowed?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on January 30, 2019, 06:35:17 am

Quote from: faust on January 30, 2019, 06:16:45 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 30, 2019, 03:21:05 am

Contest #17: split pile with two different cards in it, a pure Action and a pure Night card.
And everything else I leave open to you. Try to make a fun pile that adds something new to the game. And just because one card is a Night doesn't mean I'd like to see Nocturne themed/flavoured cards, actually I'd rather not.

How pure should they be? Do you want that Action/Night is their only type, or is stuff like Duration/Attack/Gathering etc. allowed?

pure means the only type i think

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on January 30, 2019, 07:37:49 am

Great challenge! I particularly like split piles  :)

Dynamite is great for blowing up Estates, but not so useful for Coppers.
Dwarf is a sifter that likes digging for dark places and might get you a Gold and a nice _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} in the end, if you manage to hit him with Dynamite.

(https://i.imgur.com/HjWFJh6.png)	(https://i.imgur.com/hTwZHMC.png)
Quote Dynamite Cost: $3 - Type: Night Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.	Quote Dwarf Cost: $4 - Type: Action Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck, put all Night cards in your hand and discard the rest. When you trash this, gain a Gold.

Edit: Removed the "This is gained to your hand" clause of Dynamite.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on January 30, 2019, 07:55:45 am

Quote from: faust on January 30, 2019, 06:16:45 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 30, 2019, 03:21:05 am

Contest #17: split pile with two different cards in it, a pure Action and a pure Night card.
And everything else I leave open to you. Try to make a fun pile that adds something new to the game. And just because one card is a Night doesn't mean I'd like to see Nocturne themed/flavoured cards, actually I'd rather not.

How pure should they be? Do you want that Action/Night is their only type, or is stuff like Duration/Attack/Gathering etc. allowed?

One card is just the Action type, the other just the Night type. Mainly I wanted to avoid Action/Treasure, Action/Night or Treasure/Night cards, and this was the simplest way I could think to implement this. Shard of Honor's entry is just fine.

I'll add this as well, as with last time the two cards should have a definite synergy, but one not doing too much or the cards be too dependent on each other.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 30, 2019, 08:10:58 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on January 30, 2019, 07:37:49 am

Dynamite is great for blowing up Estates, but not so useful for Coppers.
Dwarf is a sifter that likes digging for dark places and might get you a Gold and a nice _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} in the end, if you manage to hit him with Dynamite.

I like that Dynamite can set off a chain reaction if you have multiple Estates in hand. But it seems strange thematically that you are rewarded for blowing up your Dwarves...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on January 30, 2019, 08:28:54 am

Quote from: faust on January 30, 2019, 08:10:58 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on January 30, 2019, 07:37:49 am

Dynamite is great for blowing up Estates, but not so useful for Coppers.
Dwarf is a sifter that likes digging for dark places and might get you a Gold and a nice _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} in the end, if you manage to hit him with Dynamite.

I like that Dynamite can set off a chain reaction if you have multiple Estates in hand. But it seems strange thematically that you are rewarded for blowing up your Dwarves...

Thanks! Yeah, not the best choice. I thought of the card text first and then searched for names. Maybe these dwarves are just clumsy in mining or I find a better name until the end.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 30, 2019, 09:19:35 am

Quote from: faust on January 30, 2019, 08:10:58 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on January 30, 2019, 07:37:49 am

Dynamite is great for blowing up Estates, but not so useful for Coppers.
Dwarf is a sifter that likes digging for dark places and might get you a Gold and a nice _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} in the end, if you manage to hit him with Dynamite.

I like that Dynamite can set off a chain reaction if you have multiple Estates in hand. But it seems strange thematically that you are rewarded for blowing up your Dwarves...

Thematically it's nice that Dynamite can set off a chain of Dynamites, but I'd be worried that it's too strong. If you luck into Silver, Copper, Estate, Estate, Estate on turn 3 or 4, that's just huge; and the other player doesn't have the ability to do the same thing because there's only 5 Dynamites.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on January 30, 2019, 09:26:48 am

I don't see why on a $3 opening hand you wouldn't always (aside from specific circumstances such as Shepherd) open Dynamite, trash one Estate for another Dynamite and trash the 2nd Estate for whatever $3 card you were going to get anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on January 30, 2019, 09:30:38 am

I think all those problems could be fixed if dynamite wasn't gained to your hand. Or maybe with the clause "when you buy this, gain it to your hand." That way you can only chain one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on January 30, 2019, 09:48:57 am

You all are right. Thanks for the feedback!

The chain reaction sounded fun at first glance, but is to strong and luck dependent (especially for only 5 cards in a split pile).

I'll keep it simple and remove the "gain to your hand" clause.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on January 30, 2019, 10:38:54 am

Quote from: King Leon on January 29, 2019, 07:47:17 pm

Gazbag - Boat - one-shot Lab as reward for having Copper, Silver and Gold
That card is interesting, but it also looks a bit swingy. Copper, Silver and Gold are always available but I can’t imagine, that investment into hand management to get that special Treasure card line-up for is really worth just a one-shot Lab. The biggest problem is the big random component. Dominon should not have such moody mechanics.

Aquila - Tasks - individual quests
An unused idea with huge potential. The rules are simple and easy to understand. Tasks cost $2, only one at once. That’s it. Self-explaining. Humans like small achievements and this mini-expansion invites casual and experienced players to evaluate themselves and find creative ways to fulfill them. Each kingdom provides other possibilities and each player has the choice: Doing an easy task with a small or a hard task with a high reward.

Can anyone explain to me why my design was called swingy and moody (I'm not sure what that means in this context to be honest) where as Aquila's designs, which I think are very similar in concept weren't given similar criticism? I'm not trying to take anything away from Aquila here and I don't think I deserved to win or anything, I just genuinely don't understand why I got panned so much here for such a similar concept to the winner.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on January 30, 2019, 11:53:28 am

Quote from: Gazbag on January 30, 2019, 10:38:54 am

Can anyone explain to me why my design was called swingy and moody (I'm not sure what that means in this context to be honest) where as Aquila's designs, which I think are very similar in concept weren't given similar criticism? I'm not trying to take anything away from Aquila here and I don't think I deserved to win or anything, I just genuinely don't understand why I got panned so much here for such a similar concept to the winner.

Yeah, Boats could basically be a task (not necessarily $2 cost) with objective to line up Copper, Silver and Gold in hand, reward gain a Boat. I guess fulfilling the objective can be quite swingy, or too much down to chance sometimes, and King Leon felt the reward wasn't good enough. This one 'Task' by itself he felt was bad, but the Task concept he liked? And maybe having a choice of Task to go for helps the chance factor as you can avoid the risky ones.
Certainly some of the Tasks I put up could be too chance based too often, and I'll have to refine them so they aren't.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 30, 2019, 01:25:32 pm

Nice competition. Let’s give it a try.

Bear/Bull
This pile starts the game with 5 copies of Bear on top, then 5 copies of Bull. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Bear
Type: Night
Cost: $3

+2 Actions
Return to your Action Phase.

Bull
Type: Action
Cost: $4

+1 Buy
Draw until you have 6 cards in hand.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/1qo7othh.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/rce611d6.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/s36nei2b.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on January 30, 2019, 02:06:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/9XoG7sH.png)(https://i.imgur.com/i0ynMtg.png)

5 Night Circus on top and 5 Performers below. I tried to put more effort into the theme this time and avoided Nocturne themes as requested, but don't ask me why a few performers are more expensive than an entire circus. I wanted Performers to be vanilla because I think Night Circus is a bit complicated for a split pile card, it doesn't draw so you can use Night Circuses to draw instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on January 30, 2019, 06:25:29 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on January 30, 2019, 02:06:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/9XoG7sH.png)(https://i.imgur.com/i0ynMtg.png)

5 Night Circus on top and 5 Performers below. I tried to put more effort into the theme this time and avoided Nocturne themes as requested, but don't ask me why a few performers are more expensive than an entire circus. I wanted Performers to be vanilla because I think Night Circus is a bit complicated for a split pile card, it doesn't draw so you can use Night Circuses to draw instead.

Interesting, but two things:

1. Wouldn't Night Circus have to be a Duration? And actually, even if it is a Duration choosing multiple +cards could be difficult to track.
2. I'm also worried that Night Circus would be rather weak. In the beginning you're relying on it not to be drawn with an Action card, or otherwise you have to make an unpleasant choice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on January 30, 2019, 07:14:41 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on January 30, 2019, 06:25:29 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on January 30, 2019, 02:06:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/9XoG7sH.png)(https://i.imgur.com/i0ynMtg.png)

5 Night Circus on top and 5 Performers below. I tried to put more effort into the theme this time and avoided Nocturne themes as requested, but don't ask me why a few performers are more expensive than an entire circus. I wanted Performers to be vanilla because I think Night Circus is a bit complicated for a split pile card, it doesn't draw so you can use Night Circuses to draw instead.

Interesting, but two things:

1. Wouldn't Night Circus have to be a Duration? And actually, even if it is a Duration choosing multiple +cards could be difficult to track.
2. I'm also worried that Night Circus would be rather weak. In the beginning you're relying on it not to be drawn with an Action card, or otherwise you have to make an unpleasant choice.

Yeah the rules of this challenge say it can't be a Duration so it draws at end of turn instead of the start of the next turn to try and cheat around that, I don't love it but I'd say it doesn't need to be Duration, what do others think? There aren't that many effects that are relevant in the Night phase unfortunately, especially with attacks ruled out as well.

It isn't really any different to a terminal action apart from you can open 2 Night Markets and then you don't have to worry about collision. I tried to balance the card as if it was terminal in the opening, it only costs $2 and the trashing option is pretty good but I could totally believe that I didn't go far enough, maybe it should draw 2 cards per action?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on January 30, 2019, 09:29:40 pm

Quote from: Shard of Honor on January 30, 2019, 09:48:57 am

You all are right. Thanks for the feedback!

The chain reaction sounded fun at first glance, but is to strong and luck dependent (especially for only 5 cards in a split pile).

I'll keep it simple and remove the "gain to your hand" clause.

You could also fix it by having it trash itself. And maybe add on a Potion cost or some other alternate Treasure.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on January 31, 2019, 01:34:33 am

It would be easier to track if Night Circus says: „or set the top card from yor deck aside and add it to your hand at the end of your (next) Clean-up phase“. In the unlikely case that you gain  cards in your Night phase after playing this card and trigger a reshuffle or have the -1 Card token, this behavior is slightly different, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 01, 2019, 12:29:21 am

(https://i.imgur.com/SFAnRRx.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/BPkxyei.png)

A man who runs around at night keeping the streets clean of criminals, doing a service to the other townsfolk, then is only mild mannered locksmith by day.

I borrowed Priest's effect only with villagers instead of coins.  It sounds like fun on a Smithy variant

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MattLee on February 01, 2019, 12:48:03 am

(http://i65.tinypic.com/2iqecnl.png)  (https://i.ibb.co/Xxz3PYX/11111.png)

The bit about gaining Dutchies is there to help you get VP while trying to empty 3 piles.

_____________
I updated Tax Collector, the old card was:

Quote

Tax Collector
Night - $3

+ 1 Coffers
Choose one: Trash a card you have in play, or trash an action from the supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 01, 2019, 01:17:25 am

The problem with trashers like Vigilante or Tax Collector on top is that I doubt the top 5 cards would run out on a regular basis.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 01, 2019, 08:45:54 am

(https://i.imgur.com/s6jSVQq.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/ORx3ZPR.jpg)

EDIT: After some concerns that Butlers might not run out enough, I have now made it so that it can self-gain when it whiffs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on February 01, 2019, 11:01:46 am

Quote from: King Leon on January 30, 2019, 01:25:32 pm

Bear/Bull
This pile starts the game with 5 copies of Bear on top, then 5 copies of Bull. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Bull
Type: Night
Cost: $3
+2 Actions
Return to your Action Phase.

Bear
Type: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Buy
Draw until you have 6 cards in hand.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/1qo7othh.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/rce611d6.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/s36nei2b.png)

So similar to the up and downs of the stock market, it's back and forth in your turn?
Nice thematic!

Minor thing: The names in your text and pictures do not match.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on February 01, 2019, 12:18:23 pm

Quote from: King Leon on January 30, 2019, 01:25:32 pm

Bear/Bull
This pile starts the game with 5 copies of Bear on top, then 5 copies of Bull. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

Bull
Type: Night
Cost: $3
+2 Actions
Return to your Action Phase.

Bear
Type: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Buy
Draw until you have 6 cards in hand.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/1qo7othh.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/rce611d6.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/s36nei2b.png)

hmm, i don't like jumping back into action phase. I think an important basic rule is, that there is a strict order of phases (in most cases). A horror would be to have only night cards and treasure and an endless turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 01, 2019, 06:22:31 pm

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 01, 2019, 11:01:46 am

Minor thing: The names in your text and pictures do not match.

Thank you. I fixed it.

Quote from: herw on February 01, 2019, 12:18:23 pm

hmm, i don't like jumping back into action phase. I think an important basic rule is, that there is a strict order of phases (in most cases). A horror would be to have only night cards and treasure and an endless turn.

This is nearly impossible, because the Night Phase happens before clean-up and only some weird stuff like Bonfire can move cards, you have already in play.


Secret History

Without proper support, Bear is a rather weak card. Sure, it can be useful with strong terminals like Council Room, Hunting Grounds or Tragic Hero as it can recover from terminal collision and it even allows you to draw cards, you have bought in this turn. There are only five Bears, they are not King's Courtable, Crownable or Band-of-Misfittable and as the economy goes on, you will draw more and more Victory cards. The Bonfire + Lurker combo does not work, because Bear is no Action card. Maybe a loophole with Graverobber is possible, but extremely unlikely. Before your investment pays out, you have to buy a few Bears. If no one other does, this can even ruin your deck. But when it starts to boom, you will be happy about each Bear you have invested in. That's very like the real stock market!

Bull is just Watchtower with +Buy. In a bullish market you want to buy stuff, with the money you worked hard for in the bearish market. The difference between $3 and $4 is not much, but a +Buy is so strong, that Bear is priced well, without Watchtower’s Reaction. I actually had „You may discard a card“, but this was to strong in comparison with Jack-of-all-Trades. I am very happy with this pair of cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 01, 2019, 06:47:27 pm

Night Market
Night - $2
Choose one: +1 Coffers; or gain a card onto your deck costing less than a card you gained this turn

Golden Goose
Action - $7
Gain a Gold to your hand

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on February 01, 2019, 07:06:23 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 01, 2019, 06:47:27 pm

Night Market
Night - $2
Gain a card onto your deck costing less than a card you gained this turn

Golden Goose
Action - $7
Gain a Gold to your hand

Neat idea, but I'm wondering how often the Night Markets would actually empty. There's only so many cheap cards you want usually.

And I think Golden Goose should be $6. Maybe that makes it too obvious of a choice over Gold itself, but $7 feels too expense...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 01, 2019, 07:26:00 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 01, 2019, 07:06:23 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 01, 2019, 06:47:27 pm

Night Market
Night - $2
Gain a card onto your deck costing less than a card you gained this turn

Golden Goose
Action - $7
Gain a Gold to your hand

Neat idea, but I'm wondering how often the Night Markets would actually empty. There's only so many cheap cards you want usually.

And I think Golden Goose should be $6. Maybe that makes it too obvious of a choice over Gold itself, but $7 feels too expense...

I changed Night Market to make it more universally appealing.

Golden Goose is $7 to interact with Night Market - pick one up when you gain a Province, and gain a Gold or other $6 when you buy the Golden Goose. If it's too weak for $7 I'll buff it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on February 01, 2019, 11:38:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/W5G4UEp.png)(https://i.imgur.com/BFm4PXM.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on February 02, 2019, 02:22:17 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 01, 2019, 11:38:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/W5G4UEp.png)(https://i.imgur.com/BFm4PXM.png)

Those cards seem to work against each other. One of them gets you villagers, then the other draws less actions than, say, a Smithy would. I would rather have a smithy than a ghost hunter in any deck with haunted house, anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 02, 2019, 03:34:46 am

Quote from: mail-mi on February 02, 2019, 02:22:17 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 01, 2019, 11:38:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/W5G4UEp.png)(https://i.imgur.com/BFm4PXM.png)

Those cards seem to work against each other. One of them gets you villagers, then the other draws less actions than, say, a Smithy would. I would rather have a smithy than a ghost hunter in any deck with haunted house, anyway.

Agreed. Ghost Hunter could cost $3.

I'm not even sure all the Haunted Houses would get bought out as even a single Haunted House has a decent chance of providing you all the Villagers you'll need for your engine. I usually have Villagers left over in Acting Troupe and Recruiter games.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on February 02, 2019, 08:52:54 am

(https://i.imgur.com/JeYcL45.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/0z0kVRJ.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/naJNTuA.jpg)

Quote

Dream
Types: Night
Cost: $2
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a number of Actions equal to the number of Night cards you have in play. Put the Actions on top of your deck in any order, the revealed Night cards into your hand, and discard the rest.

Quote

Interpreter
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the revealed Night cards into your hand and the rest back in any order. Reveal any number of Night cards from your hand. +1 Card per card revealed.

Dream up a longer Night phase with premonitions of your future turn. Stronger on boards with no trashing and non-Looter junking.
Interpret to scout out those Night cards and leverage what are normally stop cards into your draw engine. Even with fewer Night cards, the scouting lets you choose the card you'll draw (I mean, get 2 Dreams at least). Watch out for spammable Night cards: Interpreter will get pretty crazy around Den of Sin and Ghost Town.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on February 02, 2019, 09:19:59 am

Quote from: mail-mi on February 02, 2019, 02:22:17 am

Those cards seem to work against each other. One of them gets you villagers, then the other draws less actions than, say, a Smithy would. I would rather have a smithy than a ghost hunter in any deck with haunted house, anyway.

They do have synergy: Ghost Hunter is good at drawing Haunted Houses (because they aren't Actions) and then it can put stuff in your discard pile for Haunted House to get Villagers from. Is there an explicit anti-synergy here besides "they seem weak"?

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 02, 2019, 03:34:46 am

Agreed. Ghost Hunter could cost $3.

I'm not even sure all the Haunted Houses would get bought out as even a single Haunted House has a decent chance of providing you all the Villagers you'll need for your engine. I usually have Villagers left over in Acting Troupe and Recruiter games.

Is it possible you misread it? It says differently-named cards; in the beginning that will usually get you 1 or 2 Villagers per play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LostPhoenix on February 02, 2019, 01:30:52 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 02, 2019, 09:19:59 am

Quote from: mail-mi on February 02, 2019, 02:22:17 am

Those cards seem to work against each other. One of them gets you villagers, then the other draws less actions than, say, a Smithy would. I would rather have a smithy than a ghost hunter in any deck with haunted house, anyway.

They do have synergy: Ghost Hunter is good at drawing Haunted Houses (because they aren't Actions) and then it can put stuff in your discard pile for Haunted House to get Villagers from. Is there an explicit anti-synergy here besides "they seem weak"?

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 02, 2019, 03:34:46 am

Agreed. Ghost Hunter could cost $3.

I'm not even sure all the Haunted Houses would get bought out as even a single Haunted House has a decent chance of providing you all the Villagers you'll need for your engine. I usually have Villagers left over in Acting Troupe and Recruiter games.

Is it possible you misread it? It says differently-named cards; in the beginning that will usually get you 1 or 2 Villagers per play.

You're almost guaranteed to get at least 1 villager, and if you have any resemblance of a discard pile, you'll get 3 more. Not much later in the game it becomes a cheaper non-terminal Acting Troupe that doesn't trash itself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on February 02, 2019, 10:36:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/E3cVOc1.png) (https://i.imgur.com/edT8TWq.png)

Here's my submission this week: Campfire and Travelling Shop.  Campfire can topdeck a couple cards from your discard pile for next turn, including things you just bought or gained.  And it comes with a free $4 when you buy it--this can make them an autobuy sometimes (especially in the opening), however this helps uncover the bottom half of the pile.  [Side note: I've realized that a lot of pure non-duration Night cards aren't often super appealing in bunches (think Night Watchman, Monastery, Devil's Workshop, Exorcist), so making one the top card of a split pile is quite tricky.] 

Travelling Shop features some light terminal draw alongside a flexible discard for benefit--you can gain a copy of a dead action in your hand, you can do a Dismantle impression by discarding Golds, and you can discard Provinces to gain just about anything that isn't green.  Obviously Travelling Shop prefers discarding expensive cards, which you'll hopefully have some of by the time it's uncovered, and Campfire can conveniently topdeck the cards Travelling Shop gains. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MattLee on February 03, 2019, 12:44:35 am

Quote from: faust on February 01, 2019, 01:17:25 am

The problem with trashers like Vigilante or Tax Collector on top is that I doubt the top 5 cards would run out on a regular basis.

That's a good point. I want to keep the essence of the card, but have it worth buying even if your ultimate goal isn't emptying the pile. Thoughts?

Tax Collector
Night - $4
Choose two: +2 Coffers, or trash a card you have in play, or trash an action from the supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on February 03, 2019, 12:51:17 am

Quote from: MattLee on February 03, 2019, 12:44:35 am

Quote from: faust on February 01, 2019, 01:17:25 am

The problem with trashers like Vigilante or Tax Collector on top is that I doubt the top 5 cards would run out on a regular basis.

That's a good point. I want to keep the essence of the card, but have it worth buying even if your ultimate goal isn't emptying the pile. Thoughts?

Tax Collector
Night - $4
Choose two: +2 Coffers, or trash a card you have in play, or trash an action from the supply.

That seems very powerful. Nonterminal +2 coffers and trashing (albeit only cards in play) for $4? Compared to priest, I think this is a little too powerful. I'd make it just +1 coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 03, 2019, 02:43:01 am

Quote from: mail-mi on February 03, 2019, 12:51:17 am

Quote from: MattLee on February 03, 2019, 12:44:35 am

Quote from: faust on February 01, 2019, 01:17:25 am

The problem with trashers like Vigilante or Tax Collector on top is that I doubt the top 5 cards would run out on a regular basis.

That's a good point. I want to keep the essence of the card, but have it worth buying even if your ultimate goal isn't emptying the pile. Thoughts?

Tax Collector
Night - $4
Choose two: +2 Coffers, or trash a card you have in play, or trash an action from the supply.

That seems very powerful. Nonterminal +2 coffers and trashing (albeit only cards in play) for $4? Compared to priest, I think this is a little too powerful. I'd make it just +1 coffers.

Well, the coffers come after your buy phase, so you can't use them the same turn. That reduces the value a bit. I think it's fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 04, 2019, 01:08:53 am

Quote from: faust on February 01, 2019, 01:17:25 am

The problem with trashers like Vigilante or Tax Collector on top is that I doubt the top 5 cards would run out on a regular basis.

Do you think the pile would empty if the Locksmith was on top? That seems odd since you usually want trashers before you want draw, but maybe you'd want a Locksmith early. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 04, 2019, 01:17:54 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 04, 2019, 01:08:53 am

Quote from: faust on February 01, 2019, 01:17:25 am

The problem with trashers like Vigilante or Tax Collector on top is that I doubt the top 5 cards would run out on a regular basis.

Do you think the pile would empty if the Locksmith was on top? That seems odd since you usually want trashers before you want draw, but maybe you'd want a Locksmith early.

I think Locksmiths are more likely to run out, but I doubt that you're going to want to get more trashers by the time they are gone.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on February 04, 2019, 07:46:52 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on January 30, 2019, 07:37:49 am

Quote

Dynamite Cost: $3 - Type: Night
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.

Quote

Dwarf Cost: $4 - Type: Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck, put all Night cards in your hand and discard the rest.
When you trash this, gain a Gold.

Edit: Removed the "This is gained to your hand" clause of Dynamite.

I feel like the loss of "gained to hand" made Dynamite much more balanced, but also completely lost the fun "chain reaction" theme. Is there some way that Dynamite could interact with each other other than the obvious Dynamite, Dynamites?
Dwarf is super weak, but considering it is built to combo with Dynamite and the fact that Dynamite will pretty much always be relevant since it can trash Estates for benefit, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Quote from: faust on February 01, 2019, 08:45:54 am

Quote

Butler
Types: Night
Cost: $2
If your discard pile is empty, gain a card onto your deck costing up to $4. Otherwise, gain a Silver onto your deck.

Quote

Mansion
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Play a revealed Night or Treasure. Play a revealed Action. Put the rest on top of your deck.

Silver-flooding is usually pretty bad and makes it all the more likely that Butler becomes its worse effect. The Armory effect is great at its cost, but even then I can't imagine players digging enough of them out to ever get to Mansions.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 01, 2019, 11:38:31 pm

Quote

Haunted House
Types: Night
Cost: $2
Reveal the contents of your discard pile. +1 Villager for each differently-named card revealed.

Quote

Ghost Hunter
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Put a revealed non-Action card into your hand, then discard any of the others and put the rest back in any order.

Unless there is heavy trashing available, Ghost Hunter is probably way better than Smithy because of all the cycling 5 cards deep. That's totally fine though since it's under Haunted House and there are still reasons one would rather have Smithy.

Haunted House is way too good though. Even if it gave Villagers for differently named Actions it would still often be better than Acting Troupe (except around heavy trashing when it's hard to keep a discard pile around).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on February 04, 2019, 08:40:14 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 04, 2019, 07:46:52 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on January 30, 2019, 07:37:49 am

Quote

Dynamite Cost: $3 - Type: Night
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.

Quote

Dwarf Cost: $4 - Type: Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck, put all Night cards in your hand and discard the rest.
When you trash this, gain a Gold.

Edit: Removed the "This is gained to your hand" clause of Dynamite.

I feel like the loss of "gained to hand" made Dynamite much more balanced, but also completely lost the fun "chain reaction" theme. Is there some way that Dynamite could interact with each other other than the obvious Dynamite, Dynamites?
Dwarf is super weak, but considering it is built to combo with Dynamite and the fact that Dynamite will pretty much always be relevant since it can trash Estates for benefit, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Yeah, those Dwarves are basically only there to get trashed  ;D

I am also kind of sad on the loss of the chain reaction theme. But as there are only 5 five cards, I think it is better as it is. Especially considering games with 3 players or more.
Maybe I'll do the original version of Dynamite again as a single kingdom pile - unfortunately that idea is not suitable for this contest challenge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on February 04, 2019, 09:11:32 pm

Okay, so the consensus seems to be that Haunted House should be changed. Is this better?

(https://i.imgur.com/v96p8tV.png)(https://i.imgur.com/BFm4PXM.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on February 05, 2019, 03:17:21 am

24 hours minus a few minutes left.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on February 05, 2019, 05:50:39 am

(https://i.imgur.com/VGtOKxY.png) (https://i.imgur.com/6AXeNk2.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 05, 2019, 01:40:11 pm

Quote from: faust on February 01, 2019, 08:45:54 am

Made a last-minute edit to my entry. It should now make sure that the top card runs out a bit more often.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Sheogorath on February 06, 2019, 12:32:44 am

Quote from: hypercube on February 05, 2019, 05:50:39 am

(https://i.imgur.com/VGtOKxY.png) (https://i.imgur.com/6AXeNk2.png)

For Gravedigger: What happens to the card from the top of my deck that I am looking at if I decide to not trash it? Does it get discarded, go back on top of my deck along with a card from my hand, or into my hand and then I place a card onto my deck?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on February 06, 2019, 03:06:50 am

Time has flown, and so has the opportunity to put in entries.

This was a brief we'll unlikely see met in the real game, so well done for your creativity in your entries. Hope I can do them all justice...

Dynamite/Dwarf (Shard of Honor)
Night, $3 trash card from hand, gain card up to $1 more/Action, $4 reveal top 3 cards, Nights into hand and discard rest, when you trash this gain gold.
Dynamite can change estates into more Dynamite, so the top can empty quite quickly. Dwarf can find dynamite easily, and can be good Dynamite fodder if not played. I can see it being better as fodder, so the whole pile has a building purpose. Should be good fun, but I wonder if Dynamite couldn't also target non-Copper things in play to make it a bit more exciting, and help justify it as a Night card a bit more?

Bear/Bull (King Leon)
Night, $3 +2 Actions return to Action phase/Action, $4 +buy draw to 6.
I'll get straight to the synergy here. Bear can give you two more Actions after playing a terminal, instant CotR, so it's really strong with terminal draw. Bull being draw to X is extra strong with playing Treasures first before the Bear, and there is potential to draw things you just bought. So a bit scary power wise, though it takes some effort to pull off repeatedly.

Night Circus/Performers (Gazbag)
Night, $2 for each unused Action choose between trash card from hand and gain card up to $1 more or extra card for next hand/$5, +3 Actions + $2.
Circus can do dynamite if you have Actions left, which works well if you chose not to play Actions so they're still in hand, or Estates into circuses. This combines well with the draw so the card can both build and draw the deck but at a slow pace sensible for a $2. Performers do everything they need to do, being nice things to draw in a big hand with Circus whilst helping Circus out too. The synergy is great, though possibly Circus is either a bit too niche to reliably empty or the whole pile empties for being too good with BM (you eventually build up massive hands with multiple performers and drawing circuses played every turn). Things for playtesting.

Vigilante/Locksmith (Chappy7)
Night, $2 trash up to 2 cards from hand, each other player draws card/Action, $5 +3 Cards for rest of turn when trash card +Villager.
Locksmith has the potential to be good and fun, so that's great. It feels stronger than Recruiter? So good that it's the bottom of a split pile, but Vigilante is a very conservative top; as identified, will it empty out in not just being a pure trasher but giving cards to your opponents as well? In a way it feels like you found the picture for Vigilante and focused the pile’s design around it; you've done well there, though I find that's not the best way to go for making cards that play effectively.

Tax Collector/Earl (MattLee)
Night, $3 choose two of +2 Coffers, trash card in play or Action from supply/Action, $6 +3 Cards choose card in trash, everyone gains copy, when you trash this gain Duchy.
Tax Collector looks scary strong; trashing with Coffers is great for building an engine, together with the rush potential as you save up Coffers for Provinces whilst emptying the Supply. Hard to beat an opening of 2 of them. Earl's ability to give bad Actions out can further support the rush by disrupting the opponents’ engine or big money attempts. I'd need to see this tested to be sure, but I think this is doing quite a lot towards a single pile strategy, a bit like Rebuild in putting the whole game on a timer just by its presence. Not as oppressive probably.

Butler/Mansion (faust)
Night, $2 if discard empty gain up to $4 onto deck, otherwise Silver or Butler onto deck/Action, $4 +Action reveal top 2 from deck, play Treasure or night, play Action, put rest back (in any order).
Butler is a gainer that puts gains onto deck for next hand; to start with it's often a Silver or Butler, but sometimes you'll be able to not buy anything (keeping empty discard) and get a better deal from a top-decked $4 (or more from multiple Butlers). Mansions can help Butlers gain better things, be a village or at best a lost city with some unique uses in playing Treasures and other Nights in the Action phase. You can get an interesting run of play going with this pile, not an engine as eventually the Butlers are going to get in the Mansions’ way a bit, come up at unwanted times. Amusing flavour-wise, but it means the function of the pile is rather limited.

Night Market/Golden Goose (NoMoreFun)
Night, $2 +Coffers may gain card onto deck cheaper than one gained this turn/Action, $7 gain Gold to hand.
The main reason to get Markets early is the Coffers, by itself not much when compared to Ducat, though those Coffers can also help get something nice to top-deck. It'll get good things later, which helps with tfb or helping the deck be more resilient to the Provinces you add. Goose helps further with these uses. But overall, how contested will the pile be? It feels ignorable quite often, certainly Goose does by the time it's revealed.

Haunted House/Ghost Hunter (Commodore Chuckles)
Night, $2 reveal discard, +Villager per differently named card revealed/Action, $4 +2 Cards, reveal top 3 from deck, non-Action to hand, discard any number, rest back.
House can sometimes get a big number of Villagers, but it can't count the things played; it takes some skill and deck building strategy, or just uncontrolled shuffle luck, to pay off big. If neither Coppers nor Estates counted though, it wouldn't be something to get early so Hunter would rarely appear. The version in the original post, though, includes them, so whilst shuffle luck can still affect an early buy, more Villagers are available so as to be a good investment, possibly one House being all that's needed though. The synergy with Hunter is partly about the draw, partly about keeping the Villager supply up, so that's spot on. But I'll also have to say, negative points from the choice of theme.

Dream/Interpreter (Fragasnap)
Night, $2 reveal from deck until number of Actions revealed equals Nights in play. Nights into hand, Actions back in any order, discard rest/Action, $4 reveal top 4 from deck, Nights into hand discard rest put rest back in any order. Reveal hand, +Card per Night.
Dream can make a pure money Night deck work, having no Actions at all so as to draw all the Nights at once. That could be fun, or broken with certain things. With Actions it's a pretty good sift. Interpreter as draw will greatly benefit from other night piles, otherwise it'll be a thin scattering of Dreams it's trying to find, seeing how Dream and thus the whole pile initially favours low trashing. And sometimes the things you want to draw with Interpreter will have to be discarded with its reveal. My main snag with this pile is both parts of the pile revealing several things from deck, it'll be a long game IRL if the pile is contested.
Edited, I read Interpreter wrong. That's irony, isn't it?

Campfire/Travelling Shop (4est)
Night, $3 look through discard and put up to 2 cards from it onto deck, when you buy gain up to a $4/Action, $5 +2 Cards may discard card to gain non-Victory card costing at most same.
Campfire does the simple thing of harbinger at night, twice, so the turn's buys can go onto deck. It also lets $4s be bought for $3, quite a nice way to get the top of the pile sought after if it isn't too good a deal; this being a stop card with no payload benefit helps. Travelling Shop has definite synergy with Campfire; I feared it has unwelcome kingmaking potential, exaggerating a lucky early Province, but it does come late so the advantage won't be too much. The uses for a late non-Victory gainer are limited, but there's no denying how strong discarding a Province to it is.

Gravedigger/Lich (hypercube)
Action, $2 +Action look at top of deck, either trash it or put card from hand onto deck/Night, $5 either gain card costing up to $1 per different card in trash, or one up to $6 from trash, when you trash this put into hand.
The Action is on the top! I feel this is a better way round than the Night on top, simply because the Action phase comes first and can affect the later Night. Lich isn't as restricted in its intended purpose as some of the other Nights here are, and is nice to pick up later.
However: Donald never made an alt VP card affected by the trash, mainly because the efforts of one player trying to make it their strategy can give everyone the same advantage, so in reality nobody trashes. Similar will happen with Lich trying for Provinces, so it will mainly be either an occasional Rogue or Supply gainer. And Gravedigger on top, rather than helping Lich, I think it hinders it being revealed. It really won't take much to dissuade people getting this as such risky trashing. And again, I'll have to say negative points for choice of theme.

Shortlist: Dynamite, Bear, Night Circus, Campfire.

Winner: Night Circus/Performers by Gazbag.
Runner-up: Dynamite/Dwarf by Shard of Honor.

I feel kind of sorry that people missed reading my point on the theme of card, but overall it didn't affect the judgment much anyway. Gazbag's pile was my favourite overall with its diverse uses. And so the baton is passed!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on February 06, 2019, 03:10:50 am

Quote from: Sheogorath on February 06, 2019, 12:32:44 am

Quote from: hypercube on February 05, 2019, 05:50:39 am

(https://i.imgur.com/VGtOKxY.png) (https://i.imgur.com/6AXeNk2.png)

For Gravedigger: What happens to the card from the top of my deck that I am looking at if I decide to not trash it? Does it get discarded, go back on top of my deck along with a card from my hand, or into my hand and then I place a card onto my deck?

use the wording „reveal”. So it goes back first i think. I am using „revealing” as showing it but it stays on its place.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on February 06, 2019, 03:25:09 am

Quote from: herw on February 06, 2019, 03:10:50 am

Quote from: Sheogorath on February 06, 2019, 12:32:44 am

Quote from: hypercube on February 05, 2019, 05:50:39 am

(https://i.imgur.com/VGtOKxY.png) (https://i.imgur.com/6AXeNk2.png)

For Gravedigger: What happens to the card from the top of my deck that I am looking at if I decide to not trash it? Does it get discarded, go back on top of my deck along with a card from my hand, or into my hand and then I place a card onto my deck?

use the wording „reveal”. So it goes back first i think. I am using „revealing” as showing it but it stays on its place.

I don't think reveal and looking at behave differently here. The topdecking of a card from your hand arguably happens during the instruction to reveal or look at a card, so there's a point in saying you'd have to put the revealed/looked-at card on top of the card from your hand. Compare Outpost trashing a Rats for the timing here.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on February 06, 2019, 05:42:53 am

Yeah, sorry, Gravedigger should say to put the card you're looking at back before you put a card from your hand on your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on February 06, 2019, 08:13:34 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 06, 2019, 03:06:50 am

Bear/Bull (King Leon)
Night, $3 +2 Actions return to Action phase/Action, $4 +buy draw to 6.
I'll get straight to the synergy here. Bear can give you two more Actions after playing a terminal, instant CotR, so it's really strong with terminal draw. Bull being draw to X is extra strong with playing Treasures first before the Bear, and there is potential to draw things you just bought. So a bit scary power wise, though it takes some effort to pull off repeatedly.

I didn't think particularly hard about it because I don't like phase regression, but considering Bull will always appear under Bear, players can always dump Treasures in their Buy phases and regress to their Action phase. Bull should probably cost $6 (and maybe draw to 7).

Quote from: Aquila on February 06, 2019, 03:06:50 am

Dream/Interpreter (Fragasnap)
Night, $2 reveal from deck until number of Actions revealed equals Nights in play. Nights into hand, Actions back in any order, discard rest/Action, $4 reveal top 4 from deck, Nights into hand discard rest. Reveal hand, +Card per Night.

Woah, woah! While I admit there is probably too much text and processing-time on the cards, Interpreter puts the rest back, so that when you have only 1 Night card you get a targeted draw. I even said as much in my post. (It also doesn't reveal hand--so you can choose to leave stuff on top and it doesn't anti-synergize with Contraband--but that's not as big a deal.)
Either way, because Dream is strongest around no trashing, Interpreter in a big way exists to buff Dream in games with light trashing so that you might try to dig them out.

Quote from: Aquila on February 06, 2019, 03:06:50 am

The Action is on the top! I feel this is a better way round than the Night on top, simply because the Action phase comes first and can affect the later Night.

Most people put the Night on top because Night cards are fundamentally non-terminal. The top card either has to be non-terminal (Encampment, Patrician, Settlers) or needs some tricksy way of removing it (Gladiator) or at least a major incentive to removing it (Catapult trashing Catapult, as though Rocks are ever relevant) to make it possible to clear the top of the pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 06, 2019, 01:15:43 pm

Quote from: Asper on February 06, 2019, 03:25:09 am

I don't think reveal and looking at behave differently here.

It behaves very different. First, you have to show a revealed card to your opponents which may change their decision and second, you gain a Coffers if you reveal a Patron.

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 06, 2019, 08:13:34 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 06, 2019, 03:06:50 am

Bear/Bull (King Leon)
Night, $3 +2 Actions return to Action phase/Action, $4 +buy draw to 6.
I'll get straight to the synergy here. Bear can give you two more Actions after playing a terminal, instant CotR, so it's really strong with terminal draw. Bull being draw to X is extra strong with playing Treasures first before the Bear, and there is potential to draw things you just bought. So a bit scary power wise, though it takes some effort to pull off repeatedly.

I didn't think particularly hard about it because I don't like phase regression, but considering Bull will always appear under Bear, players can always dump Treasures in their Buy phases and regress to their Action phase. Bull should probably cost $6 (and maybe draw to 7).

In comparison to Library, Jack of all Trades and Watchtower, I feel, Bull is still expensive, but I required to increase the cost to $4, because the +Buy is so strong on a Draw-to-X card. The $3 for Bear is intended. It seems to be a very bad card next to Coin of the Realm or Fishing Village, but the synergy with Bull is so strong, that it justifies the price tag. When you buy them, they are just junk cards throttling your deck down ... until the first Bull appears. However, if you are the only player, who buys Bears, you will end up with 5 garbage cards. I loved that idea, because it accurately simulates real stock exchanges.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on February 06, 2019, 01:36:07 pm

Quote from: King Leon on February 06, 2019, 01:15:43 pm

Quote from: Asper on February 06, 2019, 03:25:09 am

I don't think reveal and looking at behave differently here.

It behaves very different. First, you have to show a revealed card to your opponents which may change their decision and second, you gain a Coffers if you reveal a Patron.

Apparently I didn't get the point across. The statement I quoted made it seem as if looking at the card did not implicitly place the card back to where it came from, if no place was specified, whereas revealing it would. But both do. There's no difference here.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on February 06, 2019, 03:16:09 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 06, 2019, 08:13:34 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 06, 2019, 03:06:50 am

Dream/Interpreter (Fragasnap)
Night, $2 reveal from deck until number of Actions revealed equals Nights in play. Nights into hand, Actions back in any order, discard rest/Action, $4 reveal top 4 from deck, Nights into hand discard rest. Reveal hand, +Card per Night.

Woah, woah! While I admit there is probably too much text and processing-time on the cards, Interpreter puts the rest back, so that when you have only 1 Night card you get a targeted draw. I even said as much in my post. (It also doesn't reveal hand--so you can choose to leave stuff on top and it doesn't anti-synergize with Contraband--but that's not as big a deal.)
Either way, because Dream is strongest around no trashing, Interpreter in a big way exists to buff Dream in games with light trashing so that you might try to dig them out.

Wow sorry, misreading things twice. This is much more sensible putting the others back on top not discarding them. I don't think this would have changed how I rated it. Post has been edited.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on February 06, 2019, 03:29:09 pm

Quote from: Aquila on February 06, 2019, 03:06:50 am

[...] but I wonder if Dynamite couldn't also target non-Copper things in play to make it a bit more exciting, and help justify it as a Night card a bit more?

Wow, thanks. Didn't expect being runner-up.
And good idea! Might be a cool addition and I don't think excluding Copper is even necessary as it only gains cards costing up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} more. Sure, there might be some cost-reducers around, but I'll count that as kingdom specific synergy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 06, 2019, 05:02:12 pm

Quote from: Aquila on February 06, 2019, 03:06:50 am

Vigilante/Locksmith (Chappy7)
In a way it feels like you found the picture for Vigilante and focused the pile’s design around it; you've done well there, though I find that's not the best way to go for making cards that play effectively.

I certainly did not do that! I usually just slap on any picture I can find on the great Google once I'm done with my card idea.  I think the problem was simply that I made a bad card.  You're definitely right about the top five possibly not emptying.  I would have redone it with something to make the pile empty faster, but I got busy and never got around to it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 07, 2019, 12:55:11 pm

Oh wow thanks for liking my card, or cards I suppose! Now for the new challenge...

Design a card for a hypothetical big 2nd edition update of any non-Base/Intrigue expansion. It would also be nice to have an explanation of what gap it fills (e.g. there's barely any draw in Prosperity) or a card that it's trying to replace (like how Bandit is a clear Thief replacement).

Title: Re: contest #19 Design a card for a hypothetical big 2nd edition update ...
Post by: herw on February 07, 2019, 02:09:22 pm

Nobody needs it, but here it is ;) :

Meager Meal

(https://imgur.com/BXiX4pl.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 07, 2019, 04:25:56 pm

Okay, let’s give it a try.

Vintage
Type: Action
Cost: $6

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck.
+ $1 per differently named card revealed. Discard any number and put the rest back in any order.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/mt8zzq7v.png)

Harvest is a horrible terminal money card and has the same problem, Adventurer had. Normally, Harvest is just terminal +$3 or +$4, which is pretty bad for a card costing $5. For this price tag you get much stronger terminals like Merchant Ship, Wharf, Patrol and Torturer. The biggest problem, however, is the discarding thing, which makes you feel bad, if your strong cards are discarded and miss the current shuffle. Vintage is a reasonable Navigator/Cartographer variant, keeping the idea of Harvest, but fixing its weaknesses. With the correct engine, you can guarantee to get a terminal +$4 and you don’t have to be afraid that your Gold is discarded. Vintage also has some synergy with other Cornucopia cards like Hunting Party and Menagerie, if you have support by villages.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on February 07, 2019, 05:48:54 pm

Quote

Mime, Action, 4$
+2$
You may trash a Treasure card from your hand. If it is a Silver, gain a Gold.
---
When you gain this, discard the top Boon, and if it doesn't give +1$, each other player receives it.
(Heirloom: Lucky Coin)

Fool replacement. I named it Mime so it can be confused with Mint and Mine.
Not sure it needs the penalty, but it was the best way I found to give it Fool's Boon aspect without it being a major pain.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 07, 2019, 06:10:33 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pONSZ5m.png)

Meant to replace Cultist.  This should eliminate the luck factor of whoever happens to get a few Cultists strung together first wins.  It should still be a good attack, but a lot more fun to play with/against. It isn't necessarily a worse card though, since it turns into a lab later in the game.  I also got rid of the on trash bonus because although it's a really cool bonus, it just doesn't need it at all.

Side note, it would be super fun to play a string of these with an empty ruins pile and then return a Ruins or two to the pile with Ambassador to (hopefully) ruin your opponents turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 08, 2019, 02:50:11 am

(https://i.imgur.com/FIIWsd5.jpg)

Privateer replaces Pirate Ship. It eliminates the need for coin tokens in Seaside. Also, instead of being an attack that often benefits your opponent, now it embraces that aspect and only benefits your opponents. But you can still profit. We also get rid of the choice in order to make gameplay faster and to prevent engines that draw your deck and play a Privateer at the end to remove a Province.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 08, 2019, 03:44:53 am

Quote from: Asper on February 07, 2019, 05:48:54 pm

Quote

Mime, Action, 4$
+2$
You may trash a Treasure card from your hand. If it is a Silver, gain a Gold.
---
When you gain this, discard the top Boon, and if it doesn't give +1$, each other player receives it.
(Heirloom: Lucky Coin)

Fool replacement. I named it Mime so it can be confused with Mint and Mine.
Not sure it needs the penalty, but it was the best way I found to give it Fool's Boon aspect without it being a major pain.

Good thing it also does something similar to Mine! Increases confusion.

It is neat that this interacts with Lucky Coin's Silver gain, but I still feel the two are somewhat at odds. Lucky Coin is best in sloggy games, and Mime is a trasher.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 08, 2019, 05:55:55 am

Sort of replaces both Pearl Diver and Lookout

Digger
Action - $2
+1 Action
+$1
Look at the bottom card of your deck. Either trash it, or put it in your hand and put a card from your hand onto the bottom of your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on February 08, 2019, 09:37:19 am

Quote from: faust on February 08, 2019, 03:44:53 am

Quote from: Asper on February 07, 2019, 05:48:54 pm

Quote

Mime, Action, 4$
+2$
You may trash a Treasure card from your hand. If it is a Silver, gain a Gold.
---
When you gain this, discard the top Boon, and if it doesn't give +1$, each other player receives it.
(Heirloom: Lucky Coin)

Fool replacement. I named it Mime so it can be confused with Mint and Mine.
Not sure it needs the penalty, but it was the best way I found to give it Fool's Boon aspect without it being a major pain.

Good thing it also does something similar to Mine! Increases confusion.

It is neat that this interacts with Lucky Coin's Silver gain, but I still feel the two are somewhat at odds. Lucky Coin is best in sloggy games, and Mime is a trasher.

My original idea was to have it do something similar to both Mine and Mint. I'll try to make it even worse... err... better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on February 08, 2019, 09:58:08 am

Edit: Changed the theme:

(https://i.imgur.com/hoCfWRN.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on February 08, 2019, 12:16:13 pm

There be no Reaction in Seaside:

(https://i.imgur.com/CPK5VC7.jpg)

This is to replace Navigator. You can discard or put back the cards you look at, and it's non-terminal in a niche, hopefully interesting kind of way; there are lots of cheap Actions in Seaside. And a complimentary reaction that might interact with too many things. Tried a few wording shortcuts to make things less wordy, but is it understandable?
Edit: Reaction discards a card rather than puts one back on deck, and on-play is down to + $1 and only putting the other cards back.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 08, 2019, 12:33:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tX3qUAW.png)
Farmer is meant to replace Harvest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on February 08, 2019, 01:30:58 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 08, 2019, 12:33:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tX3qUAW.png)
Farmer is meant to replace Harvest.

you want to replace one of Asper's cards ;) ?

(http://i.imgur.com/P3QxVGx.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on February 08, 2019, 01:45:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iqIvbCK.png)

Meant to replace Rebuild as Dark Age's TFB.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on February 08, 2019, 10:58:18 pm

Quote from: Asper on February 08, 2019, 09:58:08 am

(https://i.imgur.com/RJrCI1O.png)

Still a Fool replacement. And a Harlequin/Mime/Mine mashup. You are welcome.

AND it's sort of like Jester!

Quote from: faust on February 08, 2019, 02:50:11 am

(https://i.imgur.com/FIIWsd5.jpg)

This is very close to useless if there's no way to get more than 3 Action cards in play, generally giving you no net benefit. Lots of cards are bad when an engine isn't possible, but not as bad as this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on February 09, 2019, 12:10:33 am

(https://i.imgur.com/j11MQ5F.jpg)

Meant to replace mint in prosperity. I put coffers in the card, since there is  technically no coffers in prosperity I could change it to +1 Buy + $3. So that you could buy a Silver after you lost all your treasure cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on February 09, 2019, 05:39:59 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 08, 2019, 10:58:18 pm

Quote from: Asper on February 08, 2019, 09:58:08 am

(https://i.imgur.com/RJrCI1O.png)

Still a Fool replacement. And a Harlequin/Mime/Mine mashup. You are welcome.

AND it's sort of like Jester!

Ah yeah, Jester. That was the name. Not Harlequin  :P
I am being unconcentrated. Harlequin is only the German name of Jester, and popped up in my image search for Mime, so I didn't think about it...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on February 09, 2019, 06:02:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/B8Ph4Hw.png)

Here is my take to replace Pirate Ship (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Pirate_Ship). I hope it is different enough from Privateer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg786961#msg786961).
It also replaces the need for coin tokens and uses the big nice mat for cards instead.
As a duration, it fits nicely into Seaside.

Edit: Changed the wording to "any or all", to make clear it's possible to save cards on the mat for future turns.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: d on February 09, 2019, 09:23:41 am

(https://i.imgur.com/HA3kYJv.jpg)

Replacing Lookout, because:
1. Seaside needs a more predictable early-game trasher to deal with its two strong junkers
2. Seaside needs an alternative to buying Gold
3. The Trashing token (borrowed from Adventures) and Embargo tokens need more love
4. Countries that remove their Lookouts will have more Shipwrecks, and be Embargoed for Trashing their cargo!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on February 09, 2019, 09:37:03 am

Quote from: d on February 09, 2019, 09:23:41 am

(https://i.imgur.com/HA3kYJv.jpg)

Replacing Lookout, because:
1. Seaside needs a more predictable early-game trasher to deal with its two strong junkers
2. Seaside needs an alternative to buying Gold
3. The Trashing token (borrowed from Adventures) and Embargo tokens need more love
4. Countries that remove their Lookouts will have more Shipwrecks, and be Embargoed for Trashing their cargo!

Buying at no cost would be simply gaining.
Maybe not the best idea to fit all these features from later expansions into a hypothetical Second Edition of Seaside...

But apart from that, I love the idea to let other players place your Adventures tokens. So much interesting potential there!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on February 09, 2019, 10:03:50 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 09, 2019, 09:37:03 am

Buying at no cost would be simply gaining.

I think the intent is to trigger on-buy effects, such as the Trashing token which is on-buy not on-gain. However, I find it a very clunky workaround.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on February 09, 2019, 10:12:30 am

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on February 09, 2019, 10:03:50 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 09, 2019, 09:37:03 am

Buying at no cost would be simply gaining.

I think the intent is to trigger on-buy effects, such as the Trashing token which is on-buy not on-gain. However, I find it a very clunky workaround.

Oh sure, sorry - missed that interaction.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 09, 2019, 10:16:11 am

I feel I need to say that the intent of the contest was that cards could be printed in the expansion they're designed for, so Coffers in Prosperity or Projects in Seaside don't really fit in the spirit of the challenge as those expansions don't use those mechanics.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on February 09, 2019, 10:24:38 am

(https://i.imgur.com/afbP350.png)

Replacement for Duchess. Also gives Hinterlands a Workshop variant.

EDIT: Changed to fit more with Duchess's sifting theme.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on February 09, 2019, 10:25:27 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 09, 2019, 06:02:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/8pCYcrt.png)

Here is my take to replace Pirate Ship (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Pirate_Ship). I hope it is different enough from Privateer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg786961#msg786961).
It also replaces the need for coin tokens and uses the big nice mat for cards instead.
As a duration, it fits nicely into Seaside.

Ommited the second naming of Pirate Ship mat to save at least a few words. It should be clear.

arrgghh ;) i don't want to replace Pirat Ship; i like it very much ;)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on February 09, 2019, 10:40:52 am

Quote from: herw on February 09, 2019, 10:25:27 am

arrgghh ;) i don't want to replace Pirat Ship; i like it very much ;)

Luckily, nobody forces us to throw away those replaced cards. For instance, I still like to play with Thief (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Thief) sometimes. Especially, if there are many Treasures in the Kingdom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on February 09, 2019, 10:42:50 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 08, 2019, 12:16:13 pm

There be no Reaction in Seaside:

(https://i.imgur.com/4b344NY.jpg)

This is to replace Navigator. You can discard or put back the cards you look at, and it's non-terminal in a niche, hopefully interesting kind of way. And a complimentary reaction that might interact with too many things in Seaside. Tried a few wording shortcuts to make things less wordy, but is it understandable?

I think Lighthouse was supposed to be Seaside's "Reaction". Still, I like this. It also gives Seaside a Throne variant, which is neat. To reduce the confusion, I'd maybe replace "costing less than this" with "non-Skiff"?

I might tweak the Reaction part a bit, though. The wordiness is a problem, but it also doesn't help much against Sea Hag... and doesn't help at all against Ghost Ship!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on February 09, 2019, 11:13:47 am

With that said (I like pirate ship too) even though you can still play with the old cards like thief. Noble brigand is ten times better than thief, you can play it when you buy it, and then it can even give out coppers!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on February 09, 2019, 01:39:46 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on February 09, 2019, 11:13:47 am

With that said (I like pirate ship too) even though you can still play with the old cards like thief. Noble brigand is ten times better than thief, you can play it when you buy it, and then it can even give out coppers!

of course i play with old cards too; didn't you see my ;) ? ;)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on February 09, 2019, 04:45:35 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/uu4yMs6.png)

Annex is the dud of Empires.  It's expensive and niche, I can never remember whether I'm supposed to be picking 5 good cards or 5 bad ones, and most of the time, I only buy it with an extra buy on the last turn of the game.  Plus it looks particularly bad next to Donate. 

Campaign is my attempt to fix these issues: it's still 8 debt and gains a Duchy, but now it Schemes up to five cards, maintaining some of Annex's intent, but making it much more useful in more situations. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on February 09, 2019, 06:35:11 pm

Decided to make one last edit to my card:

(https://i.imgur.com/hoCfWRN.png)

While the new name isn't a pun, I think the theme now hits a much better sweet spot between Jester, Lucky coin, and gaining Treasures by chance. It's a shame the pic isn't great, but if we are being honest, the original wasn't much better. As Lucky Coin is the only part of Fool I care about, it seemed a good idea to make that connection feel worthwile. Cheers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 10, 2019, 03:02:34 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 08, 2019, 12:16:13 pm

There be no Reaction in Seaside:

(https://i.imgur.com/4b344NY.jpg)

This is to replace Navigator. You can discard or put back the cards you look at, and it's non-terminal in a niche, hopefully interesting kind of way. And a complimentary reaction that might interact with too many things in Seaside. Tried a few wording shortcuts to make things less wordy, but is it understandable?

You smartly prevented a mono-card-strategy but I still wonder whether this is too strong/cheap. Beyond the sifting and the Reaction this is a double Peddler and unlike Herald and Vassal it virtually never misses if you manage to put enough <$5 Actions into your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 10, 2019, 05:54:49 am

Quote from: 4est on February 09, 2019, 04:45:35 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/uu4yMs6.png)

Annex is the dud of Empires.  It's expensive and niche, I can never remember whether I'm supposed to be picking 5 good cards or 5 bad ones, and most of the time, I only buy it with an extra buy on the last turn of the game.  Plus it looks particularly bad next to Donate. 

Campaign is my attempt to fix these issues: it's still 8 debt and gains a Duchy, but now it Schemes up to five cards, maintaining some of Annex's intent, but making it much more useful in more situations.

While Annex is too weak, I think there's a good reason it is not this strong. This is just a "win more" event; as soon as you can pull your deck together, it basically guarantees that you never dud out again.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on February 10, 2019, 07:13:42 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 09, 2019, 10:42:50 am

I think Lighthouse was supposed to be Seaside's "Reaction". Still, I like this. It also gives Seaside a Throne variant, which is neat. To reduce the confusion, I'd maybe replace "costing less than this" with "non-Skiff"?

I might tweak the Reaction part a bit, though. The wordiness is a problem, but it also doesn't help much against Sea Hag... and doesn't help at all against Ghost Ship!

Cheap Actions are a thing in Seaside, so I thought I'd tie that in. Thanks for making the interactions with the attacks clear, though, I've changed the reaction to discard a card rather than put one back. It just lessens the impact of the two attacks so Lighthouse is still useful, as well as having other uses like turning Pearl Diver into Fugitive.

Quote from: segura on February 10, 2019, 03:02:34 am

You smartly prevented a mono-card-strategy but I still wonder whether this is too strong/cheap. Beyond the sifting and the Reaction this is a double Peddler and unlike Herald and Vassal it virtually never misses if you manage to put enough <$5 Actions into your deck.

Yeah, with the reaction adding a bit of value as well, and the ability to play an Action not from hand whilst knowing a bit about the top of your deck as well, it's a strong package. Knocked the +$ down to 1.

So the change looks like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/CPK5VC7.jpg)

---

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 09, 2019, 06:02:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/8pCYcrt.png)

Is this putting everything from the mat into your hand at once, or are you choosing any you like from it? If the former, there's no point in the mat at all, just set the cards aside like Haven.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on February 10, 2019, 07:20:21 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 10, 2019, 07:13:42 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 09, 2019, 06:02:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/8pCYcrt.png)

Is this putting everything from the mat into your hand at once, or are you choosing any you like from it? If the former, there's no point in the mat at all, just set the cards aside like Haven.

It let's you choose which and how many cards you like to take. "any" instead of "all". Is that correct wording wise?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on February 10, 2019, 08:22:09 am

(https://i.imgur.com/SmAhVlj.png)

Intended to replace Trader. Hinterlands doesn't need two cards that replace junk with Silver, and "would-gain" causes lots of rules headaches. My initial idea was for a card that trashes from the discard pile which you could play from your hand (like Caravan Guard) in reaction to an attack. There are timing issues with that though so I decided that giving you +1 Action on your next turn is close enough. Adding discard from hand ameliorates the swinginess factor of finding it T3 vs T4. At this point I'm left with something with lots of parallels to Horse Traders so I may as well tack on a +Buy. Once you're done trashing, it can be an even worse Ruined Market, which I think is kind of fun.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 10, 2019, 02:18:39 pm

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 10, 2019, 07:20:21 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 10, 2019, 07:13:42 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 09, 2019, 06:02:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/8pCYcrt.png)

Is this putting everything from the mat into your hand at once, or are you choosing any you like from it? If the former, there's no point in the mat at all, just set the cards aside like Haven.

It let's you choose which and how many cards you like to take. "any" instead of "all". Is that correct wording wise?

It would be clearer if it was worded "any or all."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on February 10, 2019, 04:26:52 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 10, 2019, 02:18:39 pm

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 10, 2019, 07:20:21 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 10, 2019, 07:13:42 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 09, 2019, 06:02:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/8pCYcrt.png)

Is this putting everything from the mat into your hand at once, or are you choosing any you like from it? If the former, there's no point in the mat at all, just set the cards aside like Haven.

It let's you choose which and how many cards you like to take. "any" instead of "all". Is that correct wording wise?

It would be clearer if it was worded "any or all."

Okay, changed it in the inital post (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg787171#msg787171).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on February 10, 2019, 05:19:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/s05SZRw.jpg)

Quote

Inquest
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Take the Patent. Trash a card from your hand. Put a token onto the Patent for each $1 in its cost.

(https://i.imgur.com/YVjrnBo.jpg)

Quote

Patent
Types: Artifact
At the start of your Buy phase, if there are any tokens here, +1 Coffers and remove one.

Post-facto EDIT: Improved wording by having Patent trigger at start of Buy phase, instead of start of turn. Have a bunch of words about Research and Inquest too:

Inquest and Patent are a replacement for Renaissance's Research.

• Research is a middle-of-the-road, not particularly interesting, trash-for-benefit, that wants to be Apprentice but isn't.
• Research doesn't use any mechanisms unique to Renaissance.
• Research is not a simple card.
• Research is a Duration, which is not one of Renaissance's themes, and is one of only two Duration cards in the set, requiring another set of rules! So much for being a simple expansion!

Inquest can be used to similarly tempo-trash. Since trash-for-coffers is insane, Inquest gives them to you in a trickle--and through an Artifact at that!

• Inquest provides a unique trash-for-benefit (rather than a wannabe Apprentice), as it creates a trash-for-coffers--but can also be used to control the Patent by trashing Coppers.
• Patent is an additional Artifact, adding to the four cards that use them in Renaissance, which helps them feel more at home.
• Inquest and Patent are also not very simple, but they replace something that wasn't either (after rewording, Inquest comes out to 41 words to Research's 36 words, so that's not too bad as far as "word complexity" goes).

Patent is fairly conservatively designed. One can expect Patent to receive 6 tokens per player for their 3 starting Estates, which means that in a 16 turn game (of which, only 14 can typically involve Patent), one would expect around 8 turns that don't have tokens coming off Patent.

Patent is not something you would aim specifically to build up, much like one doesn't build up Trade Route: To do so is likely to hamper yourself as you provide an equal benefit to all players. It also doesn't behave like other Trash-for-Benefits in the way that one trashes everything to Remodel\Salvager in the end-game. Because the Coffers come at a slow pace, trashing valuable stuff to Inquest (even ignoring the competitive aspects of Patent) is probably not something you would do more than once, and probably mostly because that card you are trashing has become inconvenient.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MattLee on February 11, 2019, 12:38:14 am

(http://i66.tinypic.com/291fj3m.png)

I've never enjoyed playing Salvager, and it didn't seem to fit the theme of Seaside anyways. Ransacker replaces it and would be (I think?) the first duration trasher.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 11, 2019, 01:13:50 am

Quote from: MattLee on February 11, 2019, 12:38:14 am

the first duration trasher.

Amulet?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 11, 2019, 02:58:59 am

Quote from: MattLee on February 11, 2019, 12:38:14 am

(http://i66.tinypic.com/291fj3m.png)

I've never enjoyed playing Salvager, and it didn't seem to fit the theme of Seaside anyways. Ransacker replaces it and would be (I think?) the first duration trasher.

This is too good as it will quite soon, once Estate and Copper are in the trash, become a mixture of Amulet and Merchant Ship.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 12, 2019, 05:52:53 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on February 08, 2019, 01:45:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iqIvbCK.png)

Meant to replace Rebuild as Dark Age's TFB.

Looks fun, but looks a lot like lookout.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 12, 2019, 06:06:38 pm

Quote from: faust on February 10, 2019, 05:54:49 am

Quote from: 4est on February 09, 2019, 04:45:35 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/uu4yMs6.png)

Annex is the dud of Empires.  It's expensive and niche, I can never remember whether I'm supposed to be picking 5 good cards or 5 bad ones, and most of the time, I only buy it with an extra buy on the last turn of the game.  Plus it looks particularly bad next to Donate. 

Campaign is my attempt to fix these issues: it's still 8 debt and gains a Duchy, but now it Schemes up to five cards, maintaining some of Annex's intent, but making it much more useful in more situations.

While Annex is too weak, I think there's a good reason it is not this strong. This is just a "win more" event; as soon as you can pull your deck together, it basically guarantees that you never dud out again.

My thoughts exactly.  While I definitely approve of you trying to replace Annex (Barf) This doesn't seem like it keeps the same intent. Annex only seems worth it in the rare case when you are playing an ugly slog, and you happen to have a higher than usual amount of good stuff in your discard pile, letting you get one more good turn before you get back to the other junk in your deck.  This seems more like Engine payload.

This picture is sweet BTW

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on February 12, 2019, 06:17:31 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 12, 2019, 05:52:53 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on February 08, 2019, 01:45:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iqIvbCK.png)

Meant to replace Rebuild as Dark Age's TFB.

Looks fun, but looks a lot like lookout.

That was also kind of the point: to be an upgraded lookout. One with TFB and draw rather than just straight trashing and topdecking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Dsell on February 12, 2019, 10:03:40 pm

Hey! Sorry to interject. I love following this thread and occasionally submitting when I have a good idea, but I am not on the forum all the time and sometimes fall a little behind. With the popularity of this thread, and especially as the number of contests grows, it can get a little unruly to find exactly what the current contest is/where the entries for this week start.

Is it possible to have a mod edit the first post periodically with info about the current contest, and maybe a list of all prior contests, the winning card from each, and ideally a link to the post where the cards were judged? Idk how feasible all that is, especially since the OP wasn't a mod. Perhaps moving this to a child board could help? Not sure of the best way to do this, but I think it could be really helpful!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LostPhoenix on February 12, 2019, 10:15:36 pm

Quote from: Dsell on February 12, 2019, 10:03:40 pm

Hey! Sorry to interject. I love following this thread and occasionally submitting when I have a good idea, but I am not on the forum all the time and sometimes fall a little behind. With the popularity of this thread, and especially as the number of contests grows, it can get a little unruly to find exactly what the current contest is/where the entries for this week start.

Is it possible to have a mod edit the first post periodically with info about the current contest, and maybe a list of all prior contests, the winning card from each, and ideally a link to the post where the cards were judged? Idk how feasible all that is, especially since the OP wasn't a mod. Perhaps moving this to a child board could help? Not sure of the best way to do this, but I think it could be really helpful!

The simplest solution would be to simply make a new thread for the contest each week.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on February 13, 2019, 02:37:07 am

Quote from: LostPhoenix on February 12, 2019, 10:15:36 pm

Quote from: Dsell on February 12, 2019, 10:03:40 pm

Hey! Sorry to interject. I love following this thread and occasionally submitting when I have a good idea, but I am not on the forum all the time and sometimes fall a little behind. With the popularity of this thread, and especially as the number of contests grows, it can get a little unruly to find exactly what the current contest is/where the entries for this week start.

Is it possible to have a mod edit the first post periodically with info about the current contest, and maybe a list of all prior contests, the winning card from each, and ideally a link to the post where the cards were judged? Idk how feasible all that is, especially since the OP wasn't a mod. Perhaps moving this to a child board could help? Not sure of the best way to do this, but I think it could be really helpful!

The simplest solution would be to simply make a new thread for the contest each week.

Personally, I think that a new thread is much easier to miss, and will thin out the topic even further.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest „Thread or new topic?”
Post by: herw on February 13, 2019, 09:21:28 am

Please use headings:
f.i. new contest: #20 weekly design contest (date)
and answer: Re: #20 weekly design contest (date)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 13, 2019, 11:11:58 am

Quote from: mail-mi on February 12, 2019, 06:17:31 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 12, 2019, 05:52:53 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on February 08, 2019, 01:45:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iqIvbCK.png)

Meant to replace Rebuild as Dark Age's TFB.

Looks fun, but looks a lot like lookout.

That was also kind of the point: to be an upgraded lookout. One with TFB and draw rather than just straight trashing and topdecking.

Oh, I thought you were replacing Rebuild.  Personally, I like lookout how it is, but that's just an opinion of course

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on February 13, 2019, 11:28:09 am

Quote from: Asper on February 13, 2019, 02:37:07 am

Quote from: LostPhoenix on February 12, 2019, 10:15:36 pm

Quote from: Dsell on February 12, 2019, 10:03:40 pm

Hey! Sorry to interject. I love following this thread and occasionally submitting when I have a good idea, but I am not on the forum all the time and sometimes fall a little behind. With the popularity of this thread, and especially as the number of contests grows, it can get a little unruly to find exactly what the current contest is/where the entries for this week start.

Is it possible to have a mod edit the first post periodically with info about the current contest, and maybe a list of all prior contests, the winning card from each, and ideally a link to the post where the cards were judged? Idk how feasible all that is, especially since the OP wasn't a mod. Perhaps moving this to a child board could help? Not sure of the best way to do this, but I think it could be really helpful!

The simplest solution would be to simply make a new thread for the contest each week.

Personally, I think that a new thread is much easier to miss, and will thin out the topic even further.

I agree with Phoenix. Each contest gets more than enough replies that it will sustain its own thread. And not sure what you mean by a new thread being easier to miss... how can a new thread titled something like "Weekly design contest #20" possibly be easier to miss than scrolling through the last few pages of a 27-page thread to find where a new contest began?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on February 13, 2019, 12:07:36 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 13, 2019, 11:11:58 am

Quote from: mail-mi on February 12, 2019, 06:17:31 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 12, 2019, 05:52:53 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on February 08, 2019, 01:45:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iqIvbCK.png)

Meant to replace Rebuild as Dark Age's TFB.

Looks fun, but looks a lot like lookout.

That was also kind of the point: to be an upgraded lookout. One with TFB and draw rather than just straight trashing and topdecking.

Oh, I thought you were replacing Rebuild.  Personally, I like lookout how it is, but that's just an opinion of course

I am replacing Rebuild, but I made it look like lookout. I wanted to keep the "TFB from deck" aspect of it, though now that I think about it, it might be a little weak for $5. What if I made it up to $3 more?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on February 13, 2019, 12:50:47 pm

Quote from: hypercube on February 10, 2019, 08:22:09 am

Cattle Traders
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $4
+1 Buy. Discard 2 cards. You may look through your discard pile and trash up to 2 cards from it.

---

When another player plays an Attack card, you may first set this aside from your hand. If you do, then at the start of your next turn, +1 Action and return this to your hand.

The parallels to Horse Traders are cute, but the card feels pretty awful with the mandatory 2 card discard. Being worse than Ruined Market isn't funny. I'd much rather it let you discard up to 2 cards to trash up to the same number from your discard pile. The Reaction also feels really random. Hinterlands really needs both +Buy and +Actions, but the +1 Action on Cattle Traders seems gratuitous, as opposed to Horse Traders' +1 Card which wildly strengthens its own on-play.

Quote from: mail-mi on February 08, 2019, 01:45:26 pm

Renovate
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. You may trash one to gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. Put one into your hand. Discard the rest.

Quote from: mail-mi on February 13, 2019, 12:07:36 pm

I wanted to keep the "TFB from deck" aspect of it, though now that I think about it, it might be a little weak for $5.

I get that people don't think Remodel is amazing, but guys, Remodel is bonkers. Remodel on a cantrip would be too strong to balance. This is Remodel on a Laboratory with extra sifting. It must be irreparably broken.

Quote from: GendoIkari on February 13, 2019, 11:28:09 am

Quote from: Asper on February 13, 2019, 02:37:07 am

Quote from: LostPhoenix on February 12, 2019, 10:15:36 pm

Quote from: Dsell on February 12, 2019, 10:03:40 pm

Hey! Sorry to interject. I love following this thread and occasionally submitting when I have a good idea, but I am not on the forum all the time and sometimes fall a little behind. With the popularity of this thread, and especially as the number of contests grows, it can get a little unruly to find exactly what the current contest is/where the entries for this week start.

Is it possible to have a mod edit the first post periodically with info about the current contest, and maybe a list of all prior contests, the winning card from each, and ideally a link to the post where the cards were judged? Idk how feasible all that is, especially since the OP wasn't a mod. Perhaps moving this to a child board could help? Not sure of the best way to do this, but I think it could be really helpful!

The simplest solution would be to simply make a new thread for the contest each week.

Personally, I think that a new thread is much easier to miss, and will thin out the topic even further.

I agree with Phoenix. Each contest gets more than enough replies that it will sustain its own thread. And not sure what you mean by a new thread being easier to miss... how can a new thread titled something like "Weekly design contest #20" possibly be easier to miss than scrolling through the last few pages of a 27-page thread to find where a new contest began?

While I disagree that a new thread would necessarily be easy to miss, I believe the Weekly Design Contest Thread would quickly flood the "Variants and Fan Cards" sub-forum, which would be discouraging if you wanted to post in literally anything else.

If we wanted to start posting individual threads for the Weekly Design Contest Thread, I would like to have a dedicated sub-forum for it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on February 13, 2019, 01:01:01 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 13, 2019, 12:50:47 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on February 08, 2019, 01:45:26 pm

Renovate
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Action. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. You may trash one to gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. Put one into your hand. Discard the rest.

Quote from: mail-mi on February 13, 2019, 12:07:36 pm

I wanted to keep the "TFB from deck" aspect of it, though now that I think about it, it might be a little weak for $5.

I get that people don't think Remodel is amazing, but guys, Remodel is bonkers. Remodel on a cantrip would be too strong to balance. This is Remodel on a Laboratory with extra sifting. It must be irreparably broken.

No, you only get to draw 1 card, and the TFB has to come from the top of your deck, giving you a lot less flexibility than Remodeling from your hand. I compare it more to Upgrade, which is a cantrip and has the "exactly 1" caveat, but also trashes from your hand and can trash Coppers for nothing (barring Poor House). Renovate is also a cantrip, but with extra sifting and "up to $2", but it has to be from the top of your deck. But you're right, it's probably not too weak for $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on February 13, 2019, 03:25:37 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on February 13, 2019, 11:28:09 am

Quote from: Asper on February 13, 2019, 02:37:07 am

Quote from: LostPhoenix on February 12, 2019, 10:15:36 pm

Quote from: Dsell on February 12, 2019, 10:03:40 pm

Hey! Sorry to interject. I love following this thread and occasionally submitting when I have a good idea, but I am not on the forum all the time and sometimes fall a little behind. With the popularity of this thread, and especially as the number of contests grows, it can get a little unruly to find exactly what the current contest is/where the entries for this week start.

Is it possible to have a mod edit the first post periodically with info about the current contest, and maybe a list of all prior contests, the winning card from each, and ideally a link to the post where the cards were judged? Idk how feasible all that is, especially since the OP wasn't a mod. Perhaps moving this to a child board could help? Not sure of the best way to do this, but I think it could be really helpful!

The simplest solution would be to simply make a new thread for the contest each week.

Personally, I think that a new thread is much easier to miss, and will thin out the topic even further.

I agree with Phoenix. Each contest gets more than enough replies that it will sustain its own thread. And not sure what you mean by a new thread being easier to miss... how can a new thread titled something like "Weekly design contest #20" possibly be easier to miss than scrolling through the last few pages of a 27-page thread to find where a new contest began?

This thread shows up in "New replies to your posts". New threads don't. I personally check for new threads only rather unregularly these days, though I check for replies whenever I go online. Maybe this is not how other people do it.

Apparently you can choose to get notified of new replies to a child board, so I'd be in favour of that over just spawning a new thread a week.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on February 13, 2019, 04:06:08 pm

Quote from: Asper on February 13, 2019, 03:25:37 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on February 13, 2019, 11:28:09 am

Quote from: Asper on February 13, 2019, 02:37:07 am

Quote from: LostPhoenix on February 12, 2019, 10:15:36 pm

Quote from: Dsell on February 12, 2019, 10:03:40 pm

Hey! Sorry to interject. I love following this thread and occasionally submitting when I have a good idea, but I am not on the forum all the time and sometimes fall a little behind. With the popularity of this thread, and especially as the number of contests grows, it can get a little unruly to find exactly what the current contest is/where the entries for this week start.

Is it possible to have a mod edit the first post periodically with info about the current contest, and maybe a list of all prior contests, the winning card from each, and ideally a link to the post where the cards were judged? Idk how feasible all that is, especially since the OP wasn't a mod. Perhaps moving this to a child board could help? Not sure of the best way to do this, but I think it could be really helpful!

The simplest solution would be to simply make a new thread for the contest each week.

Personally, I think that a new thread is much easier to miss, and will thin out the topic even further.

I agree with Phoenix. Each contest gets more than enough replies that it will sustain its own thread. And not sure what you mean by a new thread being easier to miss... how can a new thread titled something like "Weekly design contest #20" possibly be easier to miss than scrolling through the last few pages of a 27-page thread to find where a new contest began?

This thread shows up in "New replies to your posts". New threads don't. I personally check for new threads only rather unregularly these days, though I check for replies whenever I go online. Maybe this is not how other people do it.

Apparently you can choose to get notified of new replies to a child board, so I'd be in favour of that over just spawning a new thread a week.

I tried using "New replies to your posts" as well as "show unread posts since last visit", but I found both weren't that helpful, because they're mostly huge lists of really old threads that I just happened to post in once a very long time ago.  But I always look at which forums have the "unread posts" icon; and then either read a thread or not based on my interest in the title.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on February 13, 2019, 10:09:01 pm

Sorcerer's Stone (fairly obvious name for replacing Philosopher's Stone)
Cost: 2P
If you have no other Sorcerer's Stones in play, set aside an Elixir from the supply in front of you.
+1 coin per 2 Elixirs you have set aside (rounded up).
Setup: put 10 Elixirs out per player.

Elixir:
Cost: 0*
Type: Treasure
+0 coins.
This card is not in the supply.

Elixir is just a token card to count how much your sorcerer's stones are worth. Maybe it would be better to use actual tokens, as they take up less space, but Alchemy doesn't include tokens and I didn't think I should add any. Sorcerer's Stone is like Philosopher's Stone in that it increases in value throughout the game, but takes out the counting of the deck and discard which (for those of us who play with the physical copy) takes a ton of time. Elixir is a treasure because I didn't know what type to give it and there are alt-vp cards counting both actions and victories. I wanted to remove all possible interaction with other cards (as a token would do) but I might have missed one. It shouldn't matter because it's never in your deck until the end of the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 15, 2019, 07:53:48 am

I'll get the judging done this evening so there's probably about 8-10 hours left for any last minute entries!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 15, 2019, 08:26:06 pm

Thanks for all the great entries! I was really tired when I wrote this so please shout at me if I said anything stupid or messed something up!

Meager Meal (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg786818#msg786818) (herw)
A change for Ruins was unexpected! I'm not sure whether herw's intention was for this to replace Ruins or be used in addition to the 5 old Ruins or to replace one particular Ruin though. I am of the opinion that Ruins play too similarly to Curses so they don't really open up as much new design space as an alternate junk card could have done, the idea of a self trashing junk card seems like a promising alternative to me.

Vintage (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg786835#msg786835) (King Leon)
Harvest is an obvious choice for replacement being one of the worst cards in the game for its cost. This is very similar to Harvest and I'm not sure that at $6 is much better than Harvest was for $5.

Blackmail (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg786889#msg786889) (Chappy7)
Cultist is another super obvious candidate for removal, although for the opposite reason of Harvest. This has a similar feel as Cultist being a junker that you can potentially chain but is much less powerful. I think the problem though is that Witch is a really powerful $5 and changing the Cursing to Ruining is not that much of a downgrade so I'm fairly sure that this card is also incredibly powerful. Having said that this card is much less obnoxious than Cultist and might actually be more fun to play than Witch as after the dust settles having a deck filled with Ruins and Labs seems like a better experience than one with Moats and Curses.

Privateer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg786961#msg786961) (faust)
Pirate Ship should get the axe in a 2nd edition for sure. This seems like some kind of combination of Bishop and Pirate Ship. But if you play this for the Islanding then it also powers up your opponents Privateers for money making as well as giving them some free thinning, it seems really weak to me. Miser isn't held in particularly high regard and this seems to be worse than it in almost every way, the only real advantage is that this can remove Estates from your deck. It also has issues when you can't play many Actions.

Digger (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg786973#msg786973) (NoMoreFun)
I think both Pearl Diver and Lookout are good options to remove. I appreciate that this is trying to get the feeling of 2 cards in one, I like that if you have 2 then the first one can put a bad card on the bottom for the other.

Thimberlig (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg786985#msg786985) (Asper)
Fool might be my least favourite card in the game, although I quite enjoy Lucky Coin. I didn't like the first version of this because it used Boons and I think it's really bad that 3 out of the 7 Heirloom cards use Boons so I'm glad that Asper changed that. I guess the worry is that Lucky Coin gives a really big boost to money strategies and this card might make a boring money deck too good too often in conjunction with the Lucky Coin. I can't really know whether that is actually a problem without playing with card though.

Skiff (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg787001#msg787001) (Aquila)
I like the top part of this as a Peddler type thing, not strictly better or worse than Peddler. I suppose it would be nice to have a reaction in Seaside, although Lighthouse is Reaction-like and I feel like Seaside might have no Reactions to balance out Hinterlands having so many? Or maybe I made that up? Anyway, I'm not a huge fan of putting random Reactions on otherwise cool cards and Donald X. seems to regret a few reactions like Fools Gold and Trader so I'm not totally sold on that part.

Farmer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg787008#msg787008) (Gubump)
I quite like this, it captures the unique thing that Harvest does but isn't completely terrible. Cornucopia also doesn't actually have a real terminal draw card either so it fills a bit of a gap in the expansion. Hard to tell whether 6 is the correct number without playing any games with it but i think a drawing harvest is a nice idea.

Renovate (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg787044#msg787044) (mail-mi)
Rebuild is obviously a strongly disliked card so a good choice. As others have pointed out this seems like quite a powerful card, probably in league with Sentry and Junk Dealer and Recruiter and such. It doesn't do too well with Coppers though (unless there's any good $2s of course) and I like that it could impose some interesting decision making if you reveal 2 Coppers and a good card, as you don't really want to trash the Coppers or put them into your hand. A "turbo Renovate) strategy could prove problematic though, as look 3 cards deep should make them fairly easy to chain.

Goldsmiths (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg787154#msg787154) (ClouduHieh)
I don't know why Mint needs replacing, it's a really cool card! It has a pretty unique dynamic which I really enjoy. This card is basically just a buffed Mint for $6, which isn't particularly interesting to me. Coffers in Prosperity isn't out of the question as Prosperity comes with Coin tokens for Trade Routes and mats for VP tokens (my old version did, I'm not sure whether more recent printings still do), although i don't think prosperity should have Coffers.

Pirate Raid (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg787171#msg787171) (Shard of Honour)
This card seems very similar to Thief, but you can get the Treasures in hand next turn. It doesn't fix the Copper trashing prolem of Pirate Ship or the scaling issues with more players that Thief had so I can't say I'm a fan of this.

Shipwreck (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg787187#msg787187) (d)
This doesn't really fit the brief as Seaside doesn't have Projects or Trashing tokens so it wouldn't work in a 2nd edition Seaside set.

Distillery (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg787193#msg787193) (Commodore Chuckles)
I'd be sad to see the Duchess' baby removed from the game but Duchess is pretty awful. I like that this gives you a reason to want Duchy in your deck as it costs $5 so is nice to reveal with a distillery. I wonder whether this is actually bonkers though, with decent trashing it probably isn't too hard to make this hit a $5 pretty consistently. I think I'd also prefer it if the gain was mandatory as then it would be a bit riskier to balance it out a bit.

Campaign (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg787223#msg787223) (4est)
I feel like Annex gets more hate then it deserves to be honest. The free Duchy aspect spices up the endgame a bit and it isn't too uncommon that you don't want Province for $8 anyway due to endgame positioning. I appreciate that there isn't a Scheme Event so that's a nice effect you found and I never remember exactly what Annex does either which isn't a good sign for the card really.

Cattle Traders (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg787281#msg787281) (hypercube)
I think Trader is a decent choice, mainly due to the reaction confusion. I like the discard 2 cards and trash from the discard part. Having the +Buy on here is a bit different I suppose, this is bad when you're finished trashing but not completely useless and could still be instrumental if there's no other +Buy. I think that's pretty funny too. I'm not sure about the reaction, +1 Card is a generically beneficial thing to get but +1 Action is more situational as you actually need an Action to use it, so that doesn't strike me as the best choice for a reaction effect. There is one massive problem with this though and that's that cattle simply don't exist in Dominion (Silk Road is inconclusive) so this card needs a major thematic overhaul.

Inquest (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg787450#msg787450) (Fragasnap)
Proposing an improvement to Renaissance so soon is a ballsy move. I actually agree about the 2 Durations in Renaissance seeming off for an expansion that's trying to focus on simplicity. I think the Artifact overcomplicates this though and it seems really risky if you let your opponent steal it after you put some tokens on it. I think the way I'd do this is to have the Inquest put tokens on itself to track what it's drawing, then you can even do the fun Apprentice-like decks that Research doesn't do.

Ransacker (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg787530#msg787530) (MattLee)
This is always going to make at least $1 so it's kind of like Amulet but you get 2 out of the 3 options. It'll also upgrade to producing +$2 fairly soon too. I'm not sure you can really justify removing Salvager either, especially in Seaside with all the duds like Navigator and Pirate Ship and the cards everyone seems to hate like Lookout and Ghost Ship.

Sorcerer's Stone (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788087#msg788087) (hhelibebcnofnena)
I'm a bit surprised nobody else went for Alchemy, although actually upon reflection I'm not really. Hilosopher's Stone is of course an awful card that should be replaced. A card that slowly gets better the more you play it is a decent one, although this seems exceeding slow to me. The potion cost slows it down and you need to play 6 Stones before it can match Gold. I don't think taking an Elixir really needs the once per turn restriction either. The big issue is that Alchemy only has 150 cards in it, so if you're using 60 of those card slots for Elixirs then along with Potions eating up space that only leaves enough room for about 5 Kingdom cards or something.

The winner is...
Gubump's Farmer, when I read Farmer I thought "how didn't I think of that?" it seems like a very obvious fix while keeping true to the removed card.

Runners up: Asper's Thimberlig and Commodore Chuckles' Refinery, I liked these a lot too!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 15, 2019, 08:42:26 pm

Contest #19: Design a Throne Room variant.

Edit: If it isn't obvious why your entry could be considered a Throne Room variant, please explain why you consider it one yourself. I'll tell you if it still needs to be changed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on February 15, 2019, 10:11:24 pm

I've had this one sitting around in my Dominion: Greed expansion that I never got around to posting here...
(https://i.imgur.com/RY4hSIz.png)

Quote

Commission
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. Discard down to 5 cards in hand. You may play an Action from your hand once per card discarded.

From a standard 5-card hand, Commission is a Fugitive, but with a 6-card hand, this becomes a Throne Room, 7-cards for a King's Court, and 8-cards for even more.
It typically clinches a deck that is able to start drawing itself, but really wants to multiply your payload--somewhat atypical for a Throne Room variant, really. Discarding excess Victory cards to multiply your payload is pretty sweet.

While you can Commission Commissions, the first is always wasted on a Fugitive-Commission, so it often feels like a lot of effort compared to targeting your other Actions directly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MattLee on February 15, 2019, 11:52:48 pm

(http://i.imgur.com/GMFqbqU.jpg)

Simple enough, but I think it would be interesting deciding when to trash it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on February 16, 2019, 12:04:32 am

Quote from: Gazbag on February 15, 2019, 08:26:06 pm

There is one massive problem with this though and that's that cattle simply don't exist in Dominion

Why would they not exist? Dominion is just a medieval-ish setting right?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on February 16, 2019, 01:00:24 am

Man, I made a throne room variant a long time ago and I'm happy with it, so I don't feel like making another one. But it's not eligible for this contest because I've posted it on fds before...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MattLee on February 16, 2019, 01:15:48 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on February 16, 2019, 01:00:24 am

Man, I made a throne room variant a long time ago and I'm happy with it, so I don't feel like making another one. But it's not eligible for this contest because I've posted it on fds before...

Where does it say that? I read the rules before submiting my entry and didn't see that. I first posted my entry 2 or 3 years ago  :-\

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on February 16, 2019, 02:08:43 am

Well I think gazbag is one of the few who likes mint. I thought the contest was to replace awful cards. He should of put out a list of the cards he thought was awful. Well I guess the last contest was apples to apples. Deadly is the chosen card for this apples to apples example one player picks world war 2, another picks, bombs, another picks the Tyrannosaurus rex, and another player picks dolphins. The player in charge of this round picks dolphins just cause they love them. In apples to apples you can do that in the game. That’s why the last contest was like apples to apples. It’s kinda hard to come up with a replacement card. If you don’t have a real idea of what to replace. And if I remember correctly one threads gave prosperity as an option. Who new that mint would be one he would like. I’m mostly just disappointed that you like that one, you could of at least mentioned that was one you liked. Then it would of been invalid for your contest and I could of come up with another one.

Sigh! Apples to apples.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on February 16, 2019, 02:28:50 am

Quote from: MattLee on February 16, 2019, 01:15:48 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on February 16, 2019, 01:00:24 am

Man, I made a throne room variant a long time ago and I'm happy with it, so I don't feel like making another one. But it's not eligible for this contest because I've posted it on fds before...

Where does it say that? I read the rules before submiting my entry and didn't see that. I first posted my entry 2 or 3 years ago  :-\

I thought I remember that rule being in the OP, but I checked again and I was wrong. So I guess I'll enter my card:

Quote

Royal Heirloom
$5 Action - Duration
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an action card. Put the action card in your hand and discard the rest.
Choose an action card from your hand. Play it now and play it again at the start of your next turn.

It isn't letting me save the image from Violet's card image generator at the moment, and my old image has slightly funky wording so I'll go without an image.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on February 16, 2019, 02:35:06 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on February 16, 2019, 02:28:50 am

Quote from: MattLee on February 16, 2019, 01:15:48 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on February 16, 2019, 01:00:24 am

Man, I made a throne room variant a long time ago and I'm happy with it, so I don't feel like making another one. But it's not eligible for this contest because I've posted it on fds before...

Where does it say that? I read the rules before submiting my entry and didn't see that. I first posted my entry 2 or 3 years ago  :-\

I thought I remember that rule being in the OP, but I checked again and I was wrong. So I guess I'll enter my card:

Quote

Royal Heirloom
$5 Action - Duration
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an action card. Put the action card in your hand and discard the rest.
Choose an action card from your hand. Play it now and play it again at the start of your next turn.

It isn't letting me save the image from Violet's card image generator at the moment, and my old image has slightly funky wording so I'll go without an image.

The contest itself allows it. It was me who disallowed it for my rounds in an attempt to level the field between newbies and experienced fan card designers. That said:

(https://i.imgur.com/Gsw1F7M.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on February 16, 2019, 02:48:14 am

Quote from: ClouduHieh on February 16, 2019, 02:08:43 am

Well I think gazbag is one of the few who likes mint. I thought the contest was to replace awful cards. He should of put out a list of the cards he thought was awful. Well I guess the last contest was apples to apples. Deadly is the chosen card for this apples to apples example one player picks world war 2, another picks, bombs, another picks the Tyrannosaurus rex, and another player picks dolphins. The player in charge of this round picks dolphins just cause they love them. In apples to apples you can do that in the game. That’s why the last contest was like apples to apples. It’s kinda hard to come up with a replacement card. If you don’t have a real idea of what to replace. And if I remember correctly one threads gave prosperity as an option. Who new that mint would be one he would like. I’m mostly just disappointed that you like that one, you could of at least mentioned that was one you liked. Then it would of been invalid for your contest and I could of come up with another one.

Sigh! Apples to apples.

I'm afraid your perception does not line up with the facts.
1. Mint is not generally perceived as a badly designed card.
2. Mint is not generally unpopular.

Perhaps Mint is unpopular in your play group. That doesn't mean you can conclude it's unpopular with everyone. You are the outlier here, not Gazbag.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 16, 2019, 04:32:28 am

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ff1wvxbz.png)

Collector
Type: Action
Cost: $5

Choose one:
You may put a non-Duration Action, Night or Treasure card from your hand onto your Collector mat. Turn all cards there face-up.
or
Play a card from your Collector mat twice, setting it aside. Return it to your Collector mat face-down when you discard it from play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 16, 2019, 05:31:31 am

I think a lot has already been done with the design space of Throne Room+ for $5. So here is an attempt at a Throne Room-:

(https://i.imgur.com/D1Mr69F.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on February 16, 2019, 05:48:51 am

(https://i.imgur.com/rqHUgLb.jpg)

Can I be boring and put a card here I posted only a week or so ago? This I feel opens up the potential for fun decks, even though it's just Throne Room but a bit more flexible.

---

Quote from: King Leon on February 16, 2019, 04:32:28 am

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/6fiz8fi1.png)

Collector
Type: Action
Cost: $5

Choose one:
Put a card from your hand onto your Collector mat and turn all cards there face-up.
or
Play a face-up Treasure, Night or Action from your Collector mat twice and, if it is still in play, return it face-down.

As I read this, there's a lot of potential for tracking issues, especially Durations. Play a Hireling twice, put it back, do it sometime later, and you have to remember how many cards you're drawing each turn. Would it be better returning things face-down to the mat when they would leave play?
And this can trim the deck too... Slowly though, so it might be fine here.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 16, 2019, 06:27:15 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 16, 2019, 05:48:51 am

As I read this, there's a lot of potential for tracking issues, especially Durations. Play a Hireling twice, put it back, do it sometime later, and you have to remember how many cards you're drawing each turn. Would it be better returning things face-down to the mat when they would leave play?
And this can trim the deck too... Slowly though, so it might be fine here.

Thank you for your remarks. I tried to fix it, hoping that it is not too wordy. It is now not longer possible to „Island“ Estates and Curses and there are no tracking issues with Durations anymore.

And yes, the Duration subtype on that card is just a hack to prevent issues with collecting or necromancing Collectors. It is white and not not orange, because it actually has no Duration effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 16, 2019, 06:32:41 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 16, 2019, 12:04:32 am

Quote from: Gazbag on February 15, 2019, 08:26:06 pm

There is one massive problem with this though and that's that cattle simply don't exist in Dominion

Why would they not exist? Dominion is just a medieval-ish setting right?

More cards have Pixies in the art than cattle. Not your average medieval setting!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on February 16, 2019, 09:06:09 am

Quote from: Gazbag on February 16, 2019, 06:32:41 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 16, 2019, 12:04:32 am

Quote from: Gazbag on February 15, 2019, 08:26:06 pm

There is one massive problem with this though and that's that cattle simply don't exist in Dominion

Why would they not exist? Dominion is just a medieval-ish setting right?

More cards have Pixies in the art than cattle. Not your average medieval setting!

So it's medieval plus magic. Where does minus cows come into the equation?

Quote from: Asper on February 16, 2019, 02:48:14 am

Quote from: ClouduHieh on February 16, 2019, 02:08:43 am

Well I think gazbag is one of the few who likes mint. I thought the contest was to replace awful cards. He should of put out a list of the cards he thought was awful. Well I guess the last contest was apples to apples. Deadly is the chosen card for this apples to apples example one player picks world war 2, another picks, bombs, another picks the Tyrannosaurus rex, and another player picks dolphins. The player in charge of this round picks dolphins just cause they love them. In apples to apples you can do that in the game. That’s why the last contest was like apples to apples. It’s kinda hard to come up with a replacement card. If you don’t have a real idea of what to replace. And if I remember correctly one threads gave prosperity as an option. Who new that mint would be one he would like. I’m mostly just disappointed that you like that one, you could of at least mentioned that was one you liked. Then it would of been invalid for your contest and I could of come up with another one.

Sigh! Apples to apples.

I'm afraid your perception does not line up with the facts.
1. Mint is not generally perceived as a badly designed card.
2. Mint is not generally unpopular.

Perhaps Mint is unpopular in your play group. That doesn't mean you can conclude it's unpopular with everyone. You are the outlier here, not Gazbag.

Given other comments I've seen from you, I suspect the reason you dislike Mint is because it forces you to trash things when you buy it. That is, in fact, the main strength of the card.

Regardless, I suppose you have the right to be annoyed that other contestants knew what cards were generally perceived to be duds while you didn't. At the same time, posting an explicit list of cards to use at the beginning would have made the contest less fun, so... sorry. I guess that particular contest was geared towards people who come here a lot.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on February 16, 2019, 09:18:26 am

I think I've posted this somewhere a long long time ago, but I think I still like this idea:

Quote

Name: Parade
Cost: $5
Types: Action
Choose one: Play an action card from your hand twice, or draw until you have 6 cards in hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 16, 2019, 09:23:05 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 16, 2019, 09:06:09 am

Quote from: Gazbag on February 16, 2019, 06:32:41 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 16, 2019, 12:04:32 am

Quote from: Gazbag on February 15, 2019, 08:26:06 pm

There is one massive problem with this though and that's that cattle simply don't exist in Dominion

Why would they not exist? Dominion is just a medieval-ish setting right?

More cards have Pixies in the art than cattle. Not your average medieval setting!

So it's medieval plus magic. Where does minus cows come into the equation?

It was just a silly joke because there are very few cows shown on Dominion cards, I believe the oxen things on Silk Road are the only ones. It had no effect on how I actually judged the cards if that wasn't obvious.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 16, 2019, 09:06:09 am

Quote from: Asper on February 16, 2019, 02:48:14 am

Quote from: ClouduHieh on February 16, 2019, 02:08:43 am

Well I think gazbag is one of the few who likes mint. I thought the contest was to replace awful cards. He should of put out a list of the cards he thought was awful. Well I guess the last contest was apples to apples. Deadly is the chosen card for this apples to apples example one player picks world war 2, another picks, bombs, another picks the Tyrannosaurus rex, and another player picks dolphins. The player in charge of this round picks dolphins just cause they love them. In apples to apples you can do that in the game. That’s why the last contest was like apples to apples. It’s kinda hard to come up with a replacement card. If you don’t have a real idea of what to replace. And if I remember correctly one threads gave prosperity as an option. Who new that mint would be one he would like. I’m mostly just disappointed that you like that one, you could of at least mentioned that was one you liked. Then it would of been invalid for your contest and I could of come up with another one.

Sigh! Apples to apples.

I'm afraid your perception does not line up with the facts.
1. Mint is not generally perceived as a badly designed card.
2. Mint is not generally unpopular.

Perhaps Mint is unpopular in your play group. That doesn't mean you can conclude it's unpopular with everyone. You are the outlier here, not Gazbag.

Given other comments I've seen from you, I suspect the reason you dislike Mint is because it forces you to trash things when you buy it. That is, in fact, the main strength of the card.

Regardless, I suppose you have the right to be annoyed that other contestants knew what cards were generally perceived to be duds while you didn't. At the same time, posting an explicit list of cards to use at the beginning would have made the contest less fun, so... sorry. I guess that particular contest was geared towards people who come here a lot.

Even if I did think that Mint was a card that should be removed the card was literally just Mint with some extra things on top for $6 so wasn't the most creative entry anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on February 16, 2019, 11:27:12 am

(https://i.imgur.com/6tQcznc.jpg)

Quote

Eyre
Cost: $4
Types: Action, Duration, Victory

You may set aside a Victory card from your hand under this card.  At the start of your next turn, +1 Action, and discard all cards under this card.
-
At the end of the game, if this was in play, add up the worth of all the cards that were under this card. This is worth that amount.

It's Throne Room, but for Victory cards!  It only lasts one turn, so you have to time it well; it can be used to tip yourself over the edge, or to stop your opponent from ending the game.  If you don't, well, at least you get your Action back so you can play one again next turn.  I suppose on a board with no Villages, you might even buy it for that, but probably not.

It counts all the cards under itself in case you use Throne Room on it.  I was going to specify that it had to be a non-Eyre card, but since that Eyre wouldn't have any cards under it, you'd just end up doubling nothing, which... sure, go right ahead.

(I've just seen that "victory" should be capitalised.  I may go back and fix it at some point.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on February 16, 2019, 11:30:51 am

Quote from: Gazbag on February 15, 2019, 08:26:06 pm

There is one massive problem with this though and that's that cattle simply don't exist in Dominion (Silk Road is inconclusive) so this card needs a major thematic overhaul.

I don't appreciate Gazbag trying to discourage creativity and innovation in card design.  >:( :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #19: Design a Throne Room variant
Post by: Lurker on February 16, 2019, 12:24:17 pm

Landgravine
$5 Action
Turn your journey token over (it starts face up). Then if it's face down, +1 Card and +1 Action. If it's face up, you may play an Action card from your hand three times.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on February 16, 2019, 12:50:06 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on February 16, 2019, 11:27:12 am

(https://i.imgur.com/6tQcznc.jpg)

Quote

Eyre
Cost: $4
Types: Action, Duration, Victory

You may set aside a Victory card from your hand under this card.  At the start of your next turn, +1 Action, and discard all cards under this card.
-
At the end of the game, if this was in play, add up the worth of all the cards that were under this card. This is worth that amount.

It's Throne Room, but for Victory cards!  It only lasts one turn, so you have to time it well; it can be used to tip yourself over the edge, or to stop your opponent from ending the game.  If you don't, well, at least you get your Action back so you can play one again next turn.  I suppose on a board with no Villages, you might even buy it for that, but probably not.

It counts all the cards under itself in case you use Throne Room on it.  I was going to specify that it had to be a non-Eyre card, but since that Eyre wouldn't have any cards under it, you'd just end up doubling nothing, which... sure, go right ahead.

(I've just seen that "victory" should be capitalised.  I may go back and fix it at some point.)

I've been considering the idea of a Throne Room for Victory cards as well. The problem in the context of this contest though is that it doesn't strictly count as a Throne Room variant because it's not playing another card. Still, props for coming up with a way to make this work; this is better than the idea I had. It needs a better peripheral benefit than a delayed Ruined Village though; as it is now it's too weak.

And now I'm considering the parameters of this contest some more. Do the entries have to play a card more than once, or are cards like Vassal and Golem also allowed?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 16, 2019, 12:52:55 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 16, 2019, 12:50:06 pm

Do the entries have to play a card more than once, or are cards like Vassal and Golem also allowed?

The entries have to double or more a singular copy. I would count Eyre (although it is a bit of a stretch), but I would not count Vassal or Golem. The doubling doesn't have to be immediate, though, so I would consider Scepter a valid Throne Room variant as well.

I edited my OP to say that from now on, just explain why you consider your card a TR variant if it isn't otherwise obvious.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on February 16, 2019, 05:21:32 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 16, 2019, 12:50:06 pm

It needs a better peripheral benefit than a delayed Ruined Village though; as it is now it's too weak.

I think it's a delayed Necropolis, but yes, it is weak.  I wanted there to be something, but for a $4 card that could net you 8VP, it had to be something weak.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on February 16, 2019, 06:27:35 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/xhx929T.png)

A delayed throne room. It takes some time to travel there, but that tent hall is not as expensive as the original one built from stone.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on February 16, 2019, 09:22:14 pm

Dining Room
Type: Event
Cost: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}

The first time you play an Action card next turn, play it again afterwards.

I was going to make this a project, but then I realized that Citadel already exists...
I figured it should cost 2 because it only gets used once, whereas Throne Room gets used many times.
Alternatively, it could cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} (maybe?) and be a King's Court, but that's a different card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on February 16, 2019, 11:23:38 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on February 16, 2019, 05:21:32 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 16, 2019, 12:50:06 pm

It needs a better peripheral benefit than a delayed Ruined Village though; as it is now it's too weak.

I think it's a delayed Necropolis, but yes, it is weak.  I wanted there to be something, but for a $4 card that could net you 8VP, it had to be something weak.

I suppose it does give it a Necropolis-like effect at the start of your turn, but overall it's a delayed Ruined Village, because it uses up an action this turn and then gives it back to you next turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on February 17, 2019, 12:03:15 am

Well I definitely thought my souped up mint was better than the original, and making it cost $6 would at least keep the newbies to prosperity from making a grave first buy. As good as you all say mint is, none of you Guys would make the mistake of buying it in the first rounds. Mint is one of the few cards costing 5$ you would never buy first. But whatever.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on February 17, 2019, 12:54:10 am

looking at several fan cards there should be the contest #25: create a card with 15 text lines minimum  ;)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 17, 2019, 03:05:05 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 16, 2019, 06:27:35 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/xhx929T.png)

A delayed throne room. It takes some time to travel there, but that tent hall is not as expensive as the original one built from stone.

I'd suggest this saying "non-Duration action" because things get difficult tracking-wise. Like if I Desert Throne a Desert Throne which then thrones a Wharf - how long does the first Desert Throne stay out?

Also it may be a bit strong with terminal draw. Desert Throne - Smithy is equivalent draw-wise to 3 Enchantresses, and only takes a single Action to play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 17, 2019, 05:04:54 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on February 16, 2019, 05:21:32 pm

$4 card that could net you 8VP

If you manage to draw Eyre, a TR variant and 2 Fairgrounds respectively a Province and a Cemetery. Otherwise 8VPs seems like a pretty arbitary number given that Eyre could net you anything between 0 and 30 VPs (KC+Eyre+3 Colonies).

Quote from: faust on February 17, 2019, 03:05:05 am

I'd suggest this saying "non-Duration action" because things get difficult tracking-wise. Like if I Desert Throne a Desert Throne which then thrones a Wharf - how long does the first Desert Throne stay out?

This card does nothing that we don't know yet from Ghost(ing a Duration): if you play Desert Throne in T1, it hits a Throne which thrones a Wharf in T2, then all 3 Actions are discarded at the end of T3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on February 17, 2019, 01:34:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/WLXWqXw.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on February 17, 2019, 02:53:20 pm

Quote from: faust on February 17, 2019, 03:05:05 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 16, 2019, 06:27:35 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/xhx929T.png)

I'd suggest this saying "non-Duration action" because things get difficult tracking-wise. Like if I Desert Throne a Desert Throne which then thrones a Wharf - how long does the first Desert Throne stay out?

Also it may be a bit strong with terminal draw. Desert Throne - Smithy is equivalent draw-wise to 3 Enchantresses, and only takes a single Action to play.

Quote from: segura on February 17, 2019, 05:04:54 am

This card does nothing that we don't know yet from Ghost(ing a Duration): if you play Desert Throne in T1, it hits a Throne which thrones a Wharf in T2, then all 3 Actions are discarded at the end of T3.

Yeah, nothing new here. The throne room always stays out as long as the card it is used on.
That's why I think it is okay at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}, because it delays the benefit to the next turn (for Desert Throne - Desert Throne even for an additional turn).
As comparison, also Throne Room - Smithy is a draw of 6 cards, but right now in your current turn and both cards are immediately back in your deck for the next use.

Speaking of tracking issues. I like the idea, to get an additional benefit for trashing your throne room like in Royal Hall, but tracking gets very hard if you use it on a duration card.

Quote from: MattLee on February 15, 2019, 11:52:48 pm

(http://i.imgur.com/GMFqbqU.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on February 17, 2019, 06:43:51 pm

Aldermen
$6 - Action
You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
If you did, you may spend a Villager to play it again.
---
When you gain this, +3 Villagers.

Card Generator link. (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Aldermen&description=You%20may%20play%20an%20Action%20card%20from%20your%20hand%20twice.%0AIf%20you%20did%2C%20you%20may%20spend%20a%20Villager%20to%20play%20it%20again.%0A-%0AWhen%20you%20gain%20this%2C%20%2B3%20Villagers.&type=Action&credit=&price=%246&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.akg-images.com%2FDocs%2FAKG%2FMedia%2FTR3_WATERMARKED%2Fa%2F8%2F9%2F5%2FAKG225712.jpg&color0=0&color1=0&size=0)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on February 18, 2019, 01:39:56 pm

Quote from: segura on February 17, 2019, 05:04:54 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on February 16, 2019, 05:21:32 pm

$4 card that could net you 8VP

If you manage to draw Eyre, a TR variant and 2 Fairgrounds respectively a Province and a Cemetery. Otherwise 8VPs seems like a pretty arbitary number given that Eyre could net you anything between 0 and 30 VPs (KC+Eyre+3 Colonies).

Not so much arbitrary as wrong; I meant 6, but thinko-ed it to 8.  Yes, I’m aware it can make more with the right support, but 6 is guaranteed to be possible.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on February 18, 2019, 03:36:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Cl9aMwP.png)
Hello, please use me for ridiculous combos. (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Appeal&description=%241%0A%0A%2B1%20Buy%0AYou%20may%20return%20this%20to%20the%20Supply.%0A%0A-%0A%0AWhen%20you%20buy%20this%2C%20you%20may%20replay%20a%20Treasure%20card%20you%20have%20in%20play.&type=Treasure&credit=Illustration%3A%20follower%20of%20Hendrik%20van%20Somer&price=%241&preview=%241&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fmnprairieroots.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F08%2Fnemeth-painting-2.jpg&color0=1&color1=0&size=0)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on February 18, 2019, 09:12:40 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/d6TFIIe.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 19, 2019, 01:34:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/9Hb8Q9N.png)
Attempt 2! After an embarrassingly bad attempt, I feel better about this one, although without a ton of time it's still tricky to find a perfect balance.  It's a $4 Throne room variant.  Really good at playing cheap Action cards, including itself! Pretty bad at playing more expensive cards.

Edit: Changed the wording and added a new image

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 19, 2019, 01:49:58 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 19, 2019, 01:34:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZlCIDLK.png)

Just a slight wording change to Throne Room, but it makes some interesting differences.  This is much better if you get it in hand with just one Smithy, but significantly worse if you have it in hand with your only Grand Market.

Necropolis is bad. All non-drawing Kingdom villages do at least produce a Coin (e.g. Squire or Villa). The card could probably say, "Play any number of Action cards from your hand." and still be weaker than Village.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 19, 2019, 01:53:58 pm

Quote from: segura on February 19, 2019, 01:49:58 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 19, 2019, 01:34:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZlCIDLK.png)

Just a slight wording change to Throne Room, but it makes some interesting differences.  This is much better if you get it in hand with just one Smithy, but significantly worse if you have it in hand with your only Grand Market.

Necropolis is bad. All non-drawing Kingdom villages do at least produce a Coin (e.g. Squire or Villa). The card could probably say, "Play any number of Action cards from your hand." and still be weaker than Village.

While this isn't as bad as Necro, you are right.  I didn't think this through very well.  I'll rethink it.
The point is that you can play a draw card and then play something you drew.  I just didn't implement it correctly...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on February 19, 2019, 01:57:36 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 19, 2019, 01:53:58 pm

Quote from: segura on February 19, 2019, 01:49:58 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 19, 2019, 01:34:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZlCIDLK.png)

Just a slight wording change to Throne Room, but it makes some interesting differences.  This is much better if you get it in hand with just one Smithy, but significantly worse if you have it in hand with your only Grand Market.

Necropolis is bad. All non-drawing Kingdom villages do at least produce a Coin (e.g. Squire or Villa). The card could probably say, "Play any number of Action cards from your hand." and still be weaker than Village.

While this isn't as bad as Necro, you are right.  I didn't think this through very well.  I'll rethink it.
The point is that you can play a draw card and then play something you drew.  I just didn't implement it correctly...

How is this not as bad as Necropolis? I can't think of one possible thing that you can do with this that you can't do with Necropolis. I think this is actually strictly worse than Necropolis, because Necropolis could be used by itself with no other action cards to make Diadem better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 19, 2019, 02:09:00 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 19, 2019, 01:34:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZlCIDLK.png)

Just a slight wording change to Throne Room, but it makes some interesting differences.  This is much better if you get it in hand with just one Smithy, but significantly worse if you have it in hand with your only Grand Market.

This is strictly worse to +3 Actions, because it forces you to play an Action (Rats, Forager or Trade Route are sometimes bad), it does not combo with Diadem and you have to play the cards instantly (sometimes you want this for handsize reduction together with draw-to-X like Library or Minion, but Festival does this usually a lot better) A double Necropolis may cost $2, but $4 is too much.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 19, 2019, 02:20:42 pm

Quote from: King Leon on February 19, 2019, 02:09:00 pm

A double Necropolis may cost $2, but $4 is too much.

It is not a double Necropolis. If you play Queen's Throne to play 2 Smithies you are down to 0 Actions which is identical to playing Necropolis and 2 Smithies. And as you and GendoIkari have pointed out, due to being forced to play the Action and due to the Diadem interaction it is even worse than Necropolis.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 19, 2019, 02:29:03 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on February 19, 2019, 01:57:36 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 19, 2019, 01:53:58 pm

Quote from: segura on February 19, 2019, 01:49:58 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 19, 2019, 01:34:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZlCIDLK.png)

Just a slight wording change to Throne Room, but it makes some interesting differences.  This is much better if you get it in hand with just one Smithy, but significantly worse if you have it in hand with your only Grand Market.

Necropolis is bad. All non-drawing Kingdom villages do at least produce a Coin (e.g. Squire or Villa). The card could probably say, "Play any number of Action cards from your hand." and still be weaker than Village.

While this isn't as bad as Necro, you are right.  I didn't think this through very well.  I'll rethink it.
The point is that you can play a draw card and then play something you drew.  I just didn't implement it correctly...

How is this not as bad as Necropolis? I can't think of one possible thing that you can do with this that you can't do with Necropolis. I think this is actually strictly worse than Necropolis, because Necropolis could be used by itself with no other action cards to make Diadem better.

You right you right, I'm doing it over. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 19, 2019, 02:45:00 pm

Quote from: segura on February 19, 2019, 02:20:42 pm

Quote from: King Leon on February 19, 2019, 02:09:00 pm

A double Necropolis may cost $2, but $4 is too much.

It is not a double Necropolis. If you play Queen's Throne to play 2 Smithies you are down to 0 Actions which is identical to playing Necropolis and 2 Smithies. And as you and GendoIkari have pointed out, due to being forced to play the Action and due to the Diadem interaction it is even worse than Necropolis.

Oh yes, I now see it. It is just + 2 Actions, not + 3. I had the same thinking mistake. Interestingly Gendolkari was a little faster than me with the Diadem argument.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 19, 2019, 08:11:59 pm

Quote from: King Leon on February 19, 2019, 02:45:00 pm

Quote from: segura on February 19, 2019, 02:20:42 pm

Quote from: King Leon on February 19, 2019, 02:09:00 pm

A double Necropolis may cost $2, but $4 is too much.

It is not a double Necropolis. If you play Queen's Throne to play 2 Smithies you are down to 0 Actions which is identical to playing Necropolis and 2 Smithies. And as you and GendoIkari have pointed out, due to being forced to play the Action and due to the Diadem interaction it is even worse than Necropolis.

Oh yes, I now see it. It is just + 2 Actions, not + 3. I had the same thinking mistake. Interestingly Gendolkari was a little faster than me with the Diadem argument.

I would count it as more like a Village variant than a Throne Room variant, so it would be disqualified anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on February 20, 2019, 03:28:52 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 20, 2019, 03:24:20 am

Regent
Action - $3
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. If it's an Action play it twice, otherwise put it in your hand.

This seems better than Herald to me...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 20, 2019, 05:07:38 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 20, 2019, 03:28:52 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 20, 2019, 03:24:20 am

Regent
Action - $3
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. If it's an Action play it twice, otherwise put it in your hand.

This seems better than Herald to me...

Agreed - wasn't comparing closely enough.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 20, 2019, 05:11:02 am

Czar
Action - $5
Set aside any number of Silvers from your hand. You may reveal an Action from your hand to play it twice, plus another time for each Silver set aside; discard set aside Silvers when you discard this from play.
---
When you gain this, gain a Silver

(I posted this before, then deleted it for another entry, then decided to go with this one after all)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 20, 2019, 06:50:05 am

Iron Throne
Action - $5
Reveal the top card of your deck. If it is an Action, Treasure or Night card you may play it twice, otherwise (or if you did not play it twice) discard it.

I don't know if this is any good, the risk of not knowing what you throne could easily make up for the virtual extra card you draw. I don't think that there any rule issues concerning playing Night cards during your Action phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on February 20, 2019, 08:03:21 am

2 ideas, 1 with no name yet (if you not alawed to send in 2, just help me choose the right one:

Royal Libary
Action - $6
+2 Cards
You may play an action card from your hand twice

(less feel bad throne room when drawn without actions)

No name yet
Action - $4
Play this card as an action card you have in play

(worse: No throne room on throne room or extra actions from +1 action cards. better: Makes engines run more smoothly as it is more adaptive to the situation.

Ps. how do i get images in this text editor

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on February 20, 2019, 08:19:20 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on February 20, 2019, 08:03:21 am

2 ideas, 1 with no name yet (if you not alawed to send in 2, just help me choose the right one:

Royal Libary
Action - $6
+2 Cards
You may play an action card from your hand twice

(less feel bad throne room when drawn without actions)

No name yet
Action - $4
Play this card as an action card you have in play

(worse: No throne room on throne room or extra actions from +1 action cards. better: Makes engines run more smoothly as it is more adaptive to the situation.

Ps. how do i get images in this text editor

I don't think it is mentioned explicitly, but only one entry per challenge and person.

Royal Library seems strong to me, but a reasonable and nice idea. You could also do a draw to X bonus, if you like to highlight the Library (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Library) theme a little bit more.
You second card is less a throne room variant and more a variant of Band of Misfits (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Band_of_Misfits) or Overlord (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Overlord). Next to copying a card, the other main characteristic of a throne room is that the second play does not use an additional action.

For images, you could use for example this (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16622.0), this (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16622.msg785944#msg785944) or herw's GIMP template (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16890.0) to create them, then upload them to the image hoster of your choice and reference them here using the image tag. Just quote a previous post to see the code.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on February 20, 2019, 02:29:04 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/QTUeXCX.png)

It's a Throne Room that you actually want early.  The trashing also helps make it easier to connect with other Actions.  Not much else to say about this one, just a pretty straightforward $5 Throne Room plus.   

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on February 20, 2019, 02:39:20 pm

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 20, 2019, 03:28:52 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 20, 2019, 03:24:20 am

Regent
Action - $3
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. If it's an Action play it twice, otherwise put it in your hand.

This seems better than Herald to me...

Most of the time, yes. When they miss, it's exactly the same. But when it hits, it depends on what it hits. If it hits something that doesn't draw, then Herald leaves you with a larger handsize than this does.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 20, 2019, 04:45:32 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 19, 2019, 01:34:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/FGM93Ze.png)

Attempt 2! After an embarrassingly bad attempt, I feel better about this one, although without a ton of time it's still tricky to find a perfect balance.  It's a $4 Throne room variant.  Really good at playing cheap Action cards, including itself! Pretty bad at playing more expensive cards.

Here's my new entry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 20, 2019, 05:16:47 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 20, 2019, 04:45:32 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 19, 2019, 01:34:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/FGM93Ze.png)

Attempt 2! After an embarrassingly bad attempt, I feel better about this one, although without a ton of time it's still tricky to find a perfect balance.  It's a $4 Throne room variant.  Really good at playing cheap Action cards, including itself! Pretty bad at playing more expensive cards.

Here's my new entry.

So, for Transmute, Apothecary, Scrying Pool, University, Alchemist, Familiar, Engineer, City Quarter, Overlord and Royal Blacksmith this works the same as regular Throne Room, I guess.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MiX on February 20, 2019, 05:22:02 pm

How do you "Choose a card"? Does it stay in your hand? Can I discard it? How does that work?

Not sure if this is too good: it gains 2 coffers when played on itself but it will inevitably discard cards...maybe if there's good 4- cost cards this is all the payload you need.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 20, 2019, 05:22:27 pm

Quote from: lompeluiten on February 20, 2019, 08:03:21 am

Royal Libary
Action - $6
+2 Cards
You may play an action card from your hand twice

This seems too strong compared to Laboratory to only cost $1 more than it. Royal Library is essentially Laboratory + Throne Room.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MiX on February 20, 2019, 05:24:36 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 20, 2019, 05:22:27 pm

Quote from: lompeluiten on February 20, 2019, 08:03:21 am

Royal Libary
Action - $6
+2 Cards
You may play an action card from your hand twice

This seems too strong compared to Laboratory to only cost $1 more than it. Royal Library is essentially Laboratory + Throne Room.

This is also the best target for itself, seems like KC all over again, play it on itself and double payload while drawing all your cards beforehand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on February 20, 2019, 05:54:26 pm

I've tweaked my entry a bit. I gave it a big buff and upped the price.

(https://i.imgur.com/dHMv5HA.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on February 21, 2019, 12:36:31 am

After months of studying for, and then taking, comprehensive exams, I'm finally ready to get back into creating disappointing cards!

(https://i.imgur.com/oCRVHXil.png)

Quote

Solar
Action - $3
-
Choose one: +2 Cards; or reveal an Action card from your hand, then if no other player reveals a copy of it, play it twice.

When looking into medieval castles, I learned about the solar. It is a small private chamber for living and sleeping, possibly derived from the Latin word for "alone." That inspired this cheap Throne Room variant that only works if you alone have that Action card in your hand. If you don't have an Action or don't want to risk it, you can still make use of the Solar with the draw.

Any feedback is appreciated, of course.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 21, 2019, 01:37:01 pm

Judging in ~24 hours-ish.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 21, 2019, 06:19:05 pm

Quote from: King Leon on February 20, 2019, 05:16:47 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 20, 2019, 04:45:32 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 19, 2019, 01:34:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/FGM93Ze.png)

Attempt 2! After an embarrassingly bad attempt, I feel better about this one, although without a ton of time it's still tricky to find a perfect balance.  It's a $4 Throne room variant.  Really good at playing cheap Action cards, including itself! Pretty bad at playing more expensive cards.

Here's my new entry.

So, for Transmute, Apothecary, Scrying Pool, University, Alchemist, Familiar, Engineer, City Quarter, Overlord and Royal Blacksmith this works the same as regular Throne Room, I guess.

Yeah it would.  I'm thinking those are uncommon enough that I can get away with it, but common enough to make it fun and powerful

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 21, 2019, 06:21:32 pm

Quote from: MiX on February 20, 2019, 05:22:02 pm

How do you "Choose a card"? Does it stay in your hand? Can I discard it? How does that work?

Not sure if this is too good: it gains 2 coffers when played on itself but it will inevitably discard cards...maybe if there's good 4- cost cards this is all the payload you need.

I was looking at the wording for Throne Room.  But now that I think of it that may be the old wording...That may need fixing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 21, 2019, 06:34:46 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 19, 2019, 01:34:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/9Hb8Q9N.png)
Attempt 2! After an embarrassingly bad attempt, I feel better about this one, although without a ton of time it's still tricky to find a perfect balance.  It's a $4 Throne room variant.  Really good at playing cheap Action cards, including itself! Pretty bad at playing more expensive cards.

Edit: Changed the wording and added a new image

As pointed out by miX, the wording needed fixing.  I also found a better image to use.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on February 22, 2019, 02:30:41 am

Quote from: MiX on February 20, 2019, 05:24:36 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 20, 2019, 05:22:27 pm

Quote from: lompeluiten on February 20, 2019, 08:03:21 am

Royal Libary
Action - $6
+2 Cards
You may play an action card from your hand twice

This seems too strong compared to Laboratory to only cost $1 more than it. Royal Library is essentially Laboratory + Throne Room.

This is also the best target for itself, seems like KC all over again, play it on itself and double payload while drawing all your cards beforehand.

jeah, it kind of is. Someone said that this would be a better royal libary and when I tough about it, i agree:

Royal Libary
Action - $6
Draw until you have 6 cards in your hand.
You may play an action card from your hand twice

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on February 22, 2019, 03:18:52 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on February 22, 2019, 02:30:41 am

Quote from: MiX on February 20, 2019, 05:24:36 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 20, 2019, 05:22:27 pm

Quote from: lompeluiten on February 20, 2019, 08:03:21 am

Royal Libary
Action - $6
+2 Cards
You may play an action card from your hand twice

This seems too strong compared to Laboratory to only cost $1 more than it. Royal Library is essentially Laboratory + Throne Room.

This is also the best target for itself, seems like KC all over again, play it on itself and double payload while drawing all your cards beforehand.

jeah, it kind of is. Someone said that this would be a better royal libary and when I tough about it, i agree:

Royal Libary
Action - $6
Draw until you have 6 cards in your hand.
You may play an action card from your hand twice

(https://i.imgur.com/w2zqoaym.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on February 22, 2019, 03:45:37 am

Quote from: Tejayes on February 21, 2019, 12:36:31 am

After months of studying for, and then taking, comprehensive exams, I'm finally ready to get back into creating disappointing cards!

(https://i.imgur.com/oCRVHXil.png)

Quote

Solar
Action - $3
-
Choose one: +2 Cards; or reveal an Action card from your hand, then if no other player reveals a copy of it, play it twice.

When looking into medieval castles, I learned about the solar. It is a small private chamber for living and sleeping, possibly derived from the Latin word for "alone." That inspired this cheap Throne Room variant that only works if you alone have that Action card in your hand. If you don't have an Action or don't want to risk it, you can still make use of the Solar with the draw.

Any feedback is appreciated, of course.

I like the seccond part, but not completly. It feels REAL bad if somebody else as a copy of it. A tournament feels just a bit bad, as you still get some stuf if someone else. Maybe you can only play it once if somebody else has a copy? It supports diversity, wich is good.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 22, 2019, 03:56:06 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on February 22, 2019, 03:45:37 am

Quote from: Tejayes on February 21, 2019, 12:36:31 am

After months of studying for, and then taking, comprehensive exams, I'm finally ready to get back into creating disappointing cards!

(https://i.imgur.com/oCRVHXil.png)

Quote

Solar
Action - $3
-
Choose one: +2 Cards; or reveal an Action card from your hand, then if no other player reveals a copy of it, play it twice.

When looking into medieval castles, I learned about the solar. It is a small private chamber for living and sleeping, possibly derived from the Latin word for "alone." That inspired this cheap Throne Room variant that only works if you alone have that Action card in your hand. If you don't have an Action or don't want to risk it, you can still make use of the Solar with the draw.

Any feedback is appreciated, of course.

I like the seccond part, but not completly. It feels REAL bad if somebody else as a copy of it. A tournament feels just a bit bad, as you still get some stuf if someone else. Maybe you can only play it once if somebody else has a copy? It supports diversity, wich is good.

I think it might work better as a consolation price thing: Reveal Action, if noone has a copy play it twice, otherwise +2 cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on February 22, 2019, 11:16:36 am

Quote from: faust on February 22, 2019, 03:56:06 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on February 22, 2019, 03:45:37 am

Quote from: Tejayes on February 21, 2019, 12:36:31 am

After months of studying for, and then taking, comprehensive exams, I'm finally ready to get back into creating disappointing cards!

(https://i.imgur.com/oCRVHXil.png)

Quote

Solar
Action - $3
-
Choose one: +2 Cards; or reveal an Action card from your hand, then if no other player reveals a copy of it, play it twice.

When looking into medieval castles, I learned about the solar. It is a small private chamber for living and sleeping, possibly derived from the Latin word for "alone." That inspired this cheap Throne Room variant that only works if you alone have that Action card in your hand. If you don't have an Action or don't want to risk it, you can still make use of the Solar with the draw.

Any feedback is appreciated, of course.

I like the seccond part, but not completly. It feels REAL bad if somebody else as a copy of it. A tournament feels just a bit bad, as you still get some stuf if someone else. Maybe you can only play it once if somebody else has a copy? It supports diversity, wich is good.

I think it might work better as a consolation price thing: Reveal Action, if noone has a copy play it twice, otherwise +2 cards.

Thanks for the suggestions. In fact, my first draft of Solar was exactly like lompeluiten suggested:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ae99Fh1l.png)

Never thought of the "consolation prize" angle, though. Thanks, faust. Let's give it a look:

(https://i.imgur.com/aBvHKRcl.png)

I think I really like faust's suggestion. If there is time, I'd like to officially change my entry to this one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on February 22, 2019, 11:29:23 am

Quote from: Tejayes on February 22, 2019, 11:16:36 am

(https://i.imgur.com/aBvHKRcl.png)
I think I really like faust's suggestion. If there is time, I'd like to officially change my entry to this one.

As the contest is not rated yet, there's still time, so go for it  ;)

It could be reworded. (Only personal preference on the sentence structure.)

Quote

You may reveal an Action card from your hand.
Each other player may reveal a copy of it from their hand and if nobody does, play it twice.
Otherwise +2 Cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on February 22, 2019, 12:02:54 pm

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 22, 2019, 11:29:23 am

Quote from: Tejayes on February 22, 2019, 11:16:36 am

(https://i.imgur.com/aBvHKRcl.png)
I think I really like faust's suggestion. If there is time, I'd like to officially change my entry to this one.

As the contest is not rated yet, there's still time, so go for it  ;)

It could be reworded. (Only personal preference on the sentence structure.)

Quote

You may reveal an Action card from your hand.
Each other player may reveal a copy of it from their hand and if nobody does, play it twice.
Otherwise +2 Cards.

The issue with this wording is that it doesn't make clear that you still get the +2 Cards if you don't reveal any cards. I guess in the spirit of most Throne Room variants being complete duds if there are no other Action cards in hand, that's fine. My initial goal, however, was to make a Throne Room variant that wasn't a complete dud, but the Throning is much more difficult to pop.

Hmm, what about this?

(https://i.imgur.com/jqrq1xIl.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on February 22, 2019, 12:14:24 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on February 22, 2019, 12:02:54 pm

Solar
Types: Action
Cost: $3
You may reveal an Action card from your hand, then each other player may reveal a copy of it. If you do and no one else does, play it twice; otherwise, +2 Cards.

The biggest problem this card has are scaling and its consolation prize.

• In multiplayer games it will be much harder to trigger than in 2-player--not to mention that other players might know some Actions they can't Solar based on turn order.
  I'd recommend making it only trigger based on the player to the left, like Gladiator.
• The consolation prize idea is terminal draw. So I reveal an Action that I want to play, to get dead draw instead.
  I'd recommend either the base effect being +2 Actions or nixing the consolation prize and making it a choice between +2 Cards or play the Action once or twice based upon having the Action alone.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on February 22, 2019, 12:41:21 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 22, 2019, 12:14:24 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on February 22, 2019, 12:02:54 pm

Solar
Types: Action
Cost: $3
You may reveal an Action card from your hand, then each other player may reveal a copy of it. If you do and no one else does, play it twice; otherwise, +2 Cards.

The biggest problem this card has are scaling and its consolation prize.

• In multiplayer games it will be much harder to trigger than in 2-player--not to mention that other players might know some Actions they can't Solar based on turn order.
  I'd recommend making it only trigger based on the player to the left, like Gladiator.
• The consolation prize idea is terminal draw. So I reveal an Action that I want to play, to get dead draw instead.
  I'd recommend either the base effect being +2 Actions or nixing the consolation prize and making it a choice between +2 Cards or play the Action once or twice based upon having the Action alone.

I had considered scaling before, but didn't really act on it. This is a good fix, I must admit.

I do want to stick with +2 Cards for some possible self-combo shenanigans - play a Solar with a Solar, draw 2 cards, hopefully get a good Action, and hope that another Solar isn't revealed so you can use your second Solar to possibly double up on the new Action. Yeesh, I haven't seen the word "Solar" used that often since my environmentalist days back in the '90s.

Anyway, I'll revise my first draft (from my reply to lompeluiten) with the "player to the left" caveat:

(https://i.imgur.com/7iR0x7dl.png)

Again, thank you to everyone with these suggestions. I don't play Dominion as much as I want to, so it's good to have more experienced voices critique my cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 22, 2019, 01:51:02 pm

Why not make it a KC variant (for $5?) such that the "gamble" is really worth it? At $3 it doesn't compare very favourably to Throne Room and probably will not be often bought in a Kingdom in which both Throne Room and Solar are present.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 22, 2019, 02:19:21 pm

Commission (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788404#msg788404) by Fragasnap
Assuming my math is correct, the first Commission only discards one card, which makes Commission just a Lab minus, which makes Commission just a Lab minus in any set that doesn't contain Villages or Villagers. In other sets, however, it's kind of a Fugitive with a bonus, which bumps it up to just strong enough to cost $5. Good job on this one.

Royal Hall (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788410#msg788410) by MattLee
Unfortunately for you, it seems like everybody and their grandmother has come up with something almost identical to this.

Royal Heirloom (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788419#msg788419) by LibraryAdventurer
This is an interesting take on the "now and next turn" concept. I think it's too weak for $5, though.

Vestibule (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788420#msg788420) by Asper
Every other time you play it, it's a better Band of Misfits, but the rest of the time, it's a Throne Room. BoM is one of my favorite cards from Dark Ages, and Throne Room is one of my favorite cards from the base set, so I love this! Fantastic job as usual, Asper.

Collector (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788426#msg788426) by King Leon
Holy guacamole, this card is powerful. I think it would be worth $5 even if you limited it to just Action cards; being able to use Night and Treasure cards as well is broken.

Antechamber (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788428#msg788428) by Faust
The problem with making a minus version of a card that costs $4 or less is that the gap between $2 to $3, $3 to $4, and even $2 to $4 is actually pretty small power-wise. So as a result the minus card become either too close to the original to bother existing, or it becomes so much weaker that it's brokenly weak. This card is the latter.

Thane (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788429#msg788429) by Aquila
This is effectively a Throne Room that can search your discard pile as well as your hand, which is too strong compared to Throne Room to just cost $1 more. You don't even need to have an Action card in your hand to be able to use Thane effectively!

Parade (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788449#msg788449) by scott_pilgrim
In most cases, draw up to 6 will be worse than +2 cards, since it's generally easier to have a large handsize than it is to have a small handsize. I don't think players would choose the draw to 6 very often.

Eyre (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788465#msg788465) by spiralstaircase
It's a bit of a stretch to call this a Throne Room variant, but I guess it counts. Like others have said, the fairly low chance of high-VP return and the fact that the compensation is just a delayed Necropolis makes this way too weak.

Landgravine (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788499#msg788499) by Lurker
While Vestibule does something new and interesting half the time, Landgravine just replaces itself half the time. Not particularly exciting.

Desert Throne (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788529#msg788529) by Shard of Honor
See my comment on Antechamber.

Dining Room (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788539#msg788539) by hhelibebcnofnena
I feel like this is too much of an auto-buy in Engines that give lots of +$ (enough to buy Colonies/Provinces and still have a little $ left over) and too rare a buy otherwise.

Royal Road (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788712#msg788712) by hypercube
I think that this would be useless in sets with no source of +Buys, and too much of an optimal self-combo in sets that do have +Buy. RR-RR is awfully close to KC-Bridge, except you also get to Throne Room another two cards afterwards. (And Throne Rooming two cards will usually be better than the +3 Buys and +$3 you'd get instead if you KC-Bridge.)

Aldermen (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788810#msg788810) by ConMan
Renaissance is easily the best expansion we've had for a while, IMO. This card would fit in perfectly with the rest of the Renaissance cards. This is an incredible card.

Appeal (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788928#msg788928) by VioletCLM
Appeal feels like it'll be either completely useless or completely busted, with no in between.

Queen's Throne (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg789065#msg789065) by Chappy7
While it is technically about the same strength as a Throne Room, most of the optimal targets for Throne Rooms cost more than $4, so I feel like you'll be getting the short end of the stick most of the time.

Czar (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg789189#msg789189) by NoMoreFun
Czar is sort of a self anti-combo, since Czars need Actions to play and Silvers to become stronger, but having more Silver means that you're more likely to draw your Czars dead.

Iron Throne (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg789205#msg789205) by segura
Selecting one blind card rather than any card from your hand weakens Iron Throne way too much for allowing multiple types to make up for it. I don't even think this is as strong as Vassal.

Sanctuary (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg789294#msg789294) by 4est
Sanctuary is a pretty sweet self-synergy, since it can clean up your deck to help itself be drawn with other Action cards. It's decent.

Signet Ring (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg789359#msg789359) by Commodore Chuckles
King's Court is one of my all-time favorite Dominion cards (when I have it, of course ;).) I also love Hinterlands, which I think this would strangely fit in with very well because of its on-gain effect. Even though Appeal does it too, an on-gain Throne-Room variant has somehow never even crossed my mind, and this implements it gloriously. Next time I go home for break, I'll be sure to playtest this one with my family. :)

Royal Library (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg789729#msg789729) by lompeluiten
I don't feel like this is enough stronger than Throne Room to justify costing just one less than King's Court. Although most cards that even cost the same as KC are not nearly as good.

Solar (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg789762#msg789762) by Tejayes
I feel like if another player is mirroring you, Solar will be way too weak and whoever has it will just choose the +2 Cards each time, or nobody would even buy it; if nobody is buying the same cards as you, however, Solar just becomes a cheap Throne Room. I agree that it would've been much better with +2 Cards as a consolation prize.

Winner: Signet Ring by Commodore Chuckles

Runners Up: Aldermen by ConMan, Commission by Fragasnap, and Vestibule by Asper.

SUPER, SUPER LATE EDIT: I somehow forgot to add Commission and Vestibule as runners up. Sorry, Fragasnap and Asper.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on February 22, 2019, 04:04:56 pm

Congrats, Commodore!

I actually took Seasons (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14570.0)' Ball Room as the basis for Vestibule, so it's not as new as it could be... It's possibly slightly weaker than Ball Room, but has the advantage of not needing a new component. Thanks for the kind words :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 22, 2019, 05:18:25 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 22, 2019, 02:19:21 pm

Iron Throne (http://server3.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s3iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s3iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s3iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s3iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s3iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s3iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shqpfnfiiegbhdilb/smvtrj/p1/index.php?topic=18987.msg789205#msg789205) by segura
Selecting one blind card rather than any card from your hand weakens Iron Throne way too much for allowing multiple types to make up for it. I don't even think this is as strong as Vassal.

Yeah, it is probably Tribute-level weakish and could get away with costing $4. But the claim that is weaker than Vassal is highy dubious.
Let's be conservative and pick two weak cards on top; with a better card on top Iron Throne would become better relative to Vassal.

                           Vassal                             Iron Throne
Silver on top           +$2                               +$4
Pearl Diver on top    +1 Card +1 Action +$2      +2 Cards +2 Actions

Iron Throne is better in every instance (although there are of course situations in which you prefer a Conspirator over a Lost City).

The only situation in which Vassal is better is with green on top.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 22, 2019, 05:25:25 pm

Quote from: segura on February 22, 2019, 05:18:25 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 22, 2019, 02:19:21 pm

Iron Throne (http://server3.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s3iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s3iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s3iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s3iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s3iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s3iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shqpfnfiiegbhdilb/smvtrj/p1/index.php?topic=18987.msg789205#msg789205) by segura
Selecting one blind card rather than any card from your hand weakens Iron Throne way too much for allowing multiple types to make up for it. I don't even think this is as strong as Vassal.

Yeah, it is probably Tribute-level weakish and could get away with costing $4. But the claim that is weaker than Vassal is highy dubious.
Let's be conservative and pick two weak cards on top; with a better card on top Iron Throne would become better relative to Vassal.

                           Vassal                             Iron Throne
Silver on top           +$2                               +$4
Pearl Diver on top    +1 Card +1 Action +$2      +2 Cards +2 Actions

Iron Throne is better in every instance (although there are of course situations in which you prefer a Conspirator over a Lost City).

The only situation in which Vassal is better is with green on top.

I was thinking about it only allowing Actions for some reason (I blame being sick). It's definitely stronger than Vassal as it is currently.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on February 22, 2019, 05:48:42 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 22, 2019, 02:19:21 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 15, 2019, 10:11:24 pm

Commission
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. Discard down to 5 cards in hand. You may play an Action from your hand once per card discarded.

Assuming my math is correct, the first Commission only discards one card, which makes Commission just a Lab minus, which makes Commission just a Lab minus in any set that doesn't contain Villages or Villagers. In other sets, however, it's kind of a Fugitive with a bonus, which bumps it up to just strong enough to cost $5. Good job on this one.

You only need to increase your hand size. You can do that with splitters\villagers and terminal draw, but you can also do it with sources of non-terminal draw like Laboratory or Caravan or Stables. When you can increase your handsize, you can have this playing a card 6+ times, you just don't get it for free. It's a lot of fun.

Quote from: Gubump on February 22, 2019, 02:19:21 pm

Quote from: faust on February 16, 2019, 05:31:31 am

Antechamber
Types: Action
Cost: $2
You may play an Action from your hand. You may reveal an Antechamber from your hand to play it again. If you didn't reveal one, gain a Silver.

The problem with making a minus version of a card that costs $4 or less is that the gap between $2 to $3, $3 to $4, and even $2 to $4 is actually pretty small power-wise. So as a result the minus card become either too close to the original to bother existing, or it becomes so much weaker that it's brokenly weak. This card is the latter.

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 16, 2019, 06:27:35 pm

Desert Throne
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $3
You may set aside an Action card from your hand under this. At the start of your next turn, play it twice.

See my comment on Antechamber.

While I agree Antechamber is far too weak (playing it on a draw card, hoping to find an Antechamber, and then accidentally gaining a Silver, will feel awful. It should gain a card costing up to $3.), I think Desert Throne is a reasonable, if uninspired implementation of the Duration Throne Room.

Quote from: Gubump on February 22, 2019, 02:19:21 pm

Quote from: Aquila on February 16, 2019, 05:48:51 am

Thane
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Discard a card. Look through your discard pile. You may play an Action from it twice.

This is effectively a Throne Room that can search your discard pile as well as your hand, which is too strong compared to Throne Room to just cost $1 more. You don't even need to have an Action card in your hand to be able to use Thane effectively!

In a thinner deck it often won't have much of a discard pile to work with. If you're playing something other than an Action from hand, the discard becomes a draw-back. I think this is a pretty smartly designed card and perfectly well priced.

Quote from: Gubump on February 22, 2019, 02:19:21 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on February 20, 2019, 05:54:26 pm

Signet Ring
Type: Treasure
Cost: $5
+1 Buy. When you play this, you may discard a card for +$3.

---

When you gain this, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action card. Set it aside and then play it three times at the start of your next turn.

King's Court is one of my all-time favorite Dominion cards (when I have it, of course ;).) I also love Hinterlands, which I think this would strangely fit in with very well because of its on-gain effect. Even though Appeal does it too, an on-gain Throne-Room variant has somehow never even crossed my mind, and this implements it gloriously.

I'd like it a lot more if it top-decked the card to marry the top and bottom halves.

Quote from: Gubump on February 22, 2019, 02:19:21 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on February 22, 2019, 12:41:21 pm

Solar
Types: Action
Cost: $3
Choose one: +2 Cards; or play an Action card from your hand, then if the player to your left does not reveal a copy of it, play it again.

... I agree that it would've been much better with +2 Cards as a consolation prize.

Strongly disagree. You often need Throne Room-alikes as +Actions. Having Solar give +2 Cards when missing means that not only would you not get to play your card, but you'd draw 2 Cards dead in a deck that's likely full of Actions (as you need lots of Actions to get Solar to collide with them). This Solar lets you get a shot at those +Actions, but at least only costs 1 card when you miss.

EDIT: Expanded card details for clarity

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on February 22, 2019, 06:17:25 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 22, 2019, 05:48:42 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 22, 2019, 02:19:21 pm

Signet Ring (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg789359#msg789359) by Commodore Chuckles
King's Court is one of my all-time favorite Dominion cards (when I have it, of course ;).) I also love Hinterlands, which I think this would strangely fit in with very well because of its on-gain effect. Even though Appeal does it too, an on-gain Throne-Room variant has somehow never even crossed my mind, and this implements it gloriously.

I'd like it a lot more if it top-decked the card to marry the top and bottom halves.

The idea was to mimic the mechanics of Ghost (one of my favorite cards). If your draw pile is empty, it triggers a shuffle and then plays an Action card that was in your discard pile (could be one you discarded for the +$3, or one you bought before buying the Signet Ring).

Anyway, thank you Gubump! I'm glad you liked my card!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on February 22, 2019, 10:11:08 pm

Oh, I am late!

Quote

Tenshukaku
cost $5 - Action
You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
If you have 3 or more Tenshukaku in play (counting this), replay that card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on February 22, 2019, 11:18:24 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 22, 2019, 02:19:21 pm

Parade (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788449#msg788449) by scott_pilgrim
In most cases, draw up to 6 will be worse than +2 cards, since it's generally easier to have a large handsize than it is to have a small handsize. I don't think players would choose the draw to 6 very often.

This might be true in general, but if you start a turn with e.g. Parade-Parade, then you're drawing 3 cards; plus you might have to do that anyway, to dig for whatever action you wanted to throne. The idea is to self-synergize, but it's still not a one-card engine like Minion because it has to have things to throne in order to make actual progress. Additionally, you can do things like Parade-Parade-[non-drawing payload], draw back up to 6; or with the right support, Parade-Parade-[discard-for-benefit], draw back up.

It could totally still be a bad card, but I just thought I'd clarify the intent since it seems like you may have missed it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on February 23, 2019, 02:32:01 am

How do you guys keep track what card you are talking about.

Title: #20 weekly design contest (2-23-19)
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on February 23, 2019, 01:05:25 pm

Contest #20: Make a card with at least 2 types that have not appeared together on an official card.
Yes, I'm a sucker for weird type combinations, especially weird color combinations.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 23, 2019, 03:19:43 pm

Ok, let’s try a very unconventional idea of mine. The idea is a card making Upgrade, Remodel, Workshop and similar better as well as providing some protection against Junkers like Mountebank. At least you can use this as a Copper or just a Village variant.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/6lmqou19.png)

Poltergeist
Type: Night/Reaction
Cost: $1

+1 Villager. Put this on top of your deck.
-
When you would gain a card, you may play this from your hand. If you do, gain a card costing exactly 1 more instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on February 23, 2019, 05:06:37 pm

Because the color combination is nice and there is still relatively much design space left, I try the next Night hybrid.
Where is the Night/Treasure and the Night/Reserve?

(https://i.imgur.com/Aa41pjG.png)

Quote

Treant
Type: Night/Victory
Cost: $4

Gain a Night card.
-
Worth 1VP for every 3 Night cards you have (round down).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 23, 2019, 05:57:22 pm

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 23, 2019, 05:06:37 pm

Where is the Night/Reserve?

Guardian, Ghost Town, Ghost, Cobbler, Crypt, Den of Sin, Raider

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 23, 2019, 06:10:27 pm

Quote from: King Leon on February 23, 2019, 05:57:22 pm

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 23, 2019, 05:06:37 pm

Where is the Night/Reserve?

Guardian, Ghost Town, Ghost, Cobbler, Crypt, Den of Sin, Raider

Those are Night/Duration, not Night/Reserve.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 23, 2019, 06:27:41 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 23, 2019, 06:10:27 pm

Quote from: King Leon on February 23, 2019, 05:57:22 pm

Quote from: Shard of Honor on February 23, 2019, 05:06:37 pm

Where is the Night/Reserve?

Guardian, Ghost Town, Ghost, Cobbler, Crypt, Den of Sin, Raider

Those are Night/Duration, not Night/Reserve.

Oh sorry, misread  :-X

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 23, 2019, 06:40:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/9RzzKXl.png?1)

A powerful card but it misses the reshuffle it causes. The idea is that it's a bit of a "teacher" card - it seems like it's all upside but you'll start to notice you aren't playing the Anchor all that much.

Rules Clarification: If you don't set aside an Action, the card still stays in play and you get the +1 Buy at the start of your next turn

Edit: Changed it to +$3

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MiX on February 23, 2019, 06:43:17 pm

Interesting way to make a very strong card bad with deck-drawing engines, since you play it between drawing and buying...but what's the cost?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 23, 2019, 06:46:20 pm

Quote from: MiX on February 23, 2019, 06:43:17 pm

Interesting way to make a very strong card bad with deck-drawing engines, since you play it between drawing and buying...but what's the cost?

$5, and I changed it to only set aside Actions (otherwise it being a treasure is quite arbitrary and I don't want it to be able to pull up itself)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on February 23, 2019, 07:25:17 pm

Wasteland, Action-Victory-Looter, 4$
Gain a Ruins and play it three times.
---
Worth 1 VP per 2 differently named cards costing 0$ in your deck (round down).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on February 23, 2019, 08:17:58 pm

Evil Wizard
Cost: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
Types: Action-Attack-Looter-Doom

Reveal and discard the next Hex. Each other player chooses one: Receive the revealed Hex or gain a Ruins. If more people choose the Hex, +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. Otherwise, +2 Cards.

Edited version (leaving the old version here because I feel like it):
Cost: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}
Types: Action-Attack-Looter-Doom

Choose one: +2 Cards or +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. Reveal and discard the next Hex. Each other player chooses one: Receive the revealed Hex or gain a Ruins.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on February 23, 2019, 08:44:50 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/m8Qe7Bal.png)

Quote

Truffle Pig
Treasure-Duration - $6
-
$1
At the start of your next turn, +$2, then put this into your hand, then trash a card from your hand.

If anyone here reads the manga "Dr. Stone," that was the inspiration for this card. Keep feeding it, and it'll keep finding culinary Gold. Once you run out of feed, just eat the pig.

Any feedback is appreciated, of course.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on February 23, 2019, 11:50:00 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 23, 2019, 06:40:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/HfUlpCj.jpg)

A powerful card but it misses the reshuffle it causes. The idea is that it's a bit of a "teacher" card - it seems like it's all upside but you'll start to notice you aren't playing the Anchor all that much.

Rules Clarification: If you don't set aside an Action, the card still stays in play and you get the +1 Buy at the start of your next turn.

I like the idea, but even with the missing-the-shuffle drawback, it seems really strong for $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #20: different type combo
Post by: Aquila on February 24, 2019, 04:13:09 am

Can't get a picture for some reason, so a link (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Racecourse&description=At%20the%20start%20of%20your%20turn%2C%20you%20may%20discard%20a%20Treasure%20for%20%2B1%20Villager.%0A-%0AWhen%20scoring%2C%20-1%25%20per%20card%20you%20have%20with%20%2B%20Action%20amounts%20in%20its%20text.&type=Project%20-%20Landmark&credit=Illustration%3A%20Edward%20Benjamin%20Herberte&price=%245&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fartuk.org%2Fdownload%2Fa-horse-race-in-victoria-park-leicester-81212&color0=9&color1=16&size=1) will have to do:

Quote

Racecourse - Project Landmark, $5 cost.
At the start of your turn, you may discard a Treasure for +1 Villager.
-
When scoring, -1VP per card you have with a + Action amount in its text.

Probably a love it or hate it card.

Edit: made the link tidy. Then made a new card; the old one is in the post below.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #20: different type combo
Post by: faust on February 24, 2019, 05:59:56 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 24, 2019, 04:13:09 am

Can't get a picture for some reason, so a link (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Arboretum&description=When%20you%20trash%20a%20card%2C%20gain%20a%20card%20costing%20up%20to%20%242%20more%20than%20it.%0AWhen%20scoring%2C%20if%20you%20bought%20this%2C%20%2B4%25%20per%20set%20of%20Estate-Duchy-Province%20you%20have.&type=Project%20-%20Landmark&credit=Illustration%3A%20Elaine%20Farmer&price=%248&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.fineartamerica.com%2Fimages-medium-large%2Fred-tree-elaine-farmer.jpg&color0=9&color1=16&size=1) will have to do:

Quote

Arboretum - Project - Landmark, $8 cost.
When you trash a card, gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.
When scoring, if you bought this, +4VP per set of Estate-Duchy-Province you have.

Edit: made the link tidy.

I think there is no reason for this to have Landmark type.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 24, 2019, 09:41:07 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 23, 2019, 06:40:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/HfUlpCj.jpg)

A powerful card but it misses the reshuffle it causes. The idea is that it's a bit of a "teacher" card - it seems like it's all upside but you'll start to notice you aren't playing the Anchor all that much.

Rules Clarification: If you don't set aside an Action, the card still stays in play and you get the +1 Buy at the start of your next turn

So this is a non-terminal +$4 this turn and next turn it is similiar to, but arguably better than, +1 Card +1 Action +1 Buy.
I don't see how this being a Duration compensates for such powerful effects (massive payload plus a village) and can easily imagine Colony games in which you often prefer this over Platinum.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on February 24, 2019, 10:30:17 am

Quote from: segura on February 24, 2019, 09:41:07 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 23, 2019, 06:40:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/HfUlpCj.jpg)

A powerful card but it misses the reshuffle it causes. The idea is that it's a bit of a "teacher" card - it seems like it's all upside but you'll start to notice you aren't playing the Anchor all that much.

Rules Clarification: If you don't set aside an Action, the card still stays in play and you get the +1 Buy at the start of your next turn

So this is a non-terminal +$4 this turn and next turn it is similiar to, but arguably better than, +1 Card +1 Action +1 Buy.
I don't see how this being a Duration compensates for such powerful effects (massive payload plus a village) and can easily imagine Colony games in which you often prefer this over Platinum.

It's not just that it's a Duration; it's actually guaranteed to miss the re-shuffle, along with whatever action card you play with it. I have no idea whether that's enough to compensate for the powerful effects or not, but it's an interesting idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on February 24, 2019, 10:57:15 am

Sorry, this got a bit out of hand.

(https://i.imgur.com/YL9kH2o.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/crvEgTZ.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/HLm4o7I.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/hZtse5R.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/EL8WOk4.jpg)

Quote

Pelt
Cost: $2
Types: Treasure - Traveller
+$1. You may discard a Victory card from your hand for +1 Buy.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Promise.

Promise
Cost: $3*
Types: Treasure - Traveller
+$1.  Reveal the top card of your deck.  If it is a Treasure, play it.  Otherwise, you may discard it or put it back.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Hacksilver.

Hacksilver
Cost: $4*
Types: Treasure - Traveller
+2 Coffers
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Promissory Note.

Promissory Note
Cost: $5*
Types: Treasure - Traveller
+$2.  Draw two more cards for your next hand.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for an Interest.

Interest
Cost: $6*
Types: Treasure - Duration
Now and at the start of each of your turns: +$2, +1Buy.

Usual parentheticals apply here - four lots of "This is not in the supply" and one of "This stays in play" - but I omitted them for reasons of space and readability.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 24, 2019, 10:59:57 am

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on February 24, 2019, 10:30:17 am

Quote from: segura on February 24, 2019, 09:41:07 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 23, 2019, 06:40:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/HfUlpCj.jpg)

A powerful card but it misses the reshuffle it causes. The idea is that it's a bit of a "teacher" card - it seems like it's all upside but you'll start to notice you aren't playing the Anchor all that much.

Rules Clarification: If you don't set aside an Action, the card still stays in play and you get the +1 Buy at the start of your next turn

So this is a non-terminal +$4 this turn and next turn it is similiar to, but arguably better than, +1 Card +1 Action +1 Buy.
I don't see how this being a Duration compensates for such powerful effects (massive payload plus a village) and can easily imagine Colony games in which you often prefer this over Platinum.

It's not just that it's a Duration; it's actually guaranteed to miss the re-shuffle, along with whatever action card you play with it. I have no idea whether that's enough to compensate for the powerful effects or not, but it's an interesting idea.

That's not precise as it doesn't make any difference whether you set aside the Action card on T1 and then play it on T2 or draw into the Action card on T2 and then play it on T2. So Anchor is the only card can only be played every second turn but who cares, the card is super powerful:
If you have 2 in your deck they consistently net produce +1 Action, +1 Buy, +$4 which is nearly the same as the net production of 2 Grand Markets (+2 Buy, +4$).

I also think that this is the lower bound of its strength; even in a deck which contains many Anchors digging for an Action will usually (unless there are no good Action card in the Kingdoms) be better than +1 Card. I like this design element though, it prevents a monocard strategy (but given that this card provides payload and Actions you need to only add terminal draw to have everything you need).

In short, a card which seems to be similar in strength to Grand Market cannot cost $5. Probably necessary to reduce this to +2$, +3$ is most likely still overpowered.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on February 24, 2019, 11:00:23 am

Quote

Lost Gold
cost $5
Treasure - Duration

At the start of your next turn, gain a Gold to your hand.

Is it able to post another? If so,

Quote

Lost Silver
cost $2
Reaction - Reserve

When you gain a card, you may put this on your Tavern mat from your hand.
--------
At the start of your buy phase, you may discard this from your Tavern mat, to gain a Silver to your hand.

Title: Re: Contest #20: Unique type combination
Post by: Gubump on February 24, 2019, 02:35:33 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EY3KMPK.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on February 24, 2019, 03:50:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZWF056F.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on February 24, 2019, 04:26:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jeMygKT.jpg)

Quote

Cauldron
Types: Treasure, Attack, Doom
Cost: $4
$3. When you play this, receive a Hex. If you gain or trash a card this way, each other player gains a Curse.

Buff up your economy for important early-spikes. Give out Curses when dealing with them is worse than Coppers and the random trashing of Locusts and War (I'm sure it happens).
Some probabilities since you might want them:

• 33% of the time, you give out a curse (Greed, Locusts, Plague, and War make you gain or trash cards).
• 25% of the time, you are virtually unaffected (Fear, Haunting, and Poverty practically don't matter on the play of a Treasure).
• 42% of the time, you suffer alone for your $4-Gold (Bad Omens, Delusion, Envy, Famine, and Misery). At least Delusion won't effect your money-spike.

Title: Re: Contest #20: Unique type combination
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on February 24, 2019, 04:59:27 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 24, 2019, 02:35:33 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EY3KMPK.png)

I think this might be a bit overpowered for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}... Transmogrify costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} and has a similar call effect minus the reaction, but also the call effect is less powerful and less flexible. It might work at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 24, 2019, 05:02:37 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on February 23, 2019, 08:17:58 pm

Evil Wizard
Cost: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
Types: Action-Attack-Looter-Doom

Reveal and discard the next Hex. Each other player chooses one: Receive the revealed Hex or gain a Ruins. If more people choose the Hex, +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. Otherwise, +2 Cards.

This is ridiculously weak in comparison to Tormentor, Cultist, Witch and Torturer in my opinion. Remember, that it is strictly worse than Cultist, because your opponent can has the choice to receive a situational Hex like Plague, Famine, Fear, Haunting or Poverty instead of gaining the Ruins and you cannot chain Evil Wizards like Cultists.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on February 24, 2019, 05:11:21 pm

Quote from: King Leon on February 24, 2019, 05:02:37 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on February 23, 2019, 08:17:58 pm

Evil Wizard
Cost: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
Types: Action-Attack-Looter-Doom

Reveal and discard the next Hex. Each other player chooses one: Receive the revealed Hex or gain a Ruins. If more people choose the Hex, +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. Otherwise, +2 Cards.

This is ridiculously weak in comparison to Tormentor, Cultist, Witch and Torturer in my opinion.

My logic was that looking at Attack-Looters and Attack-Doom cards, the weakest ones tended to be _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, so since this was a combination, it should cost more. But actually I think now it should cost less, because they get to choose which effect they get and which effect you get. Maybe I should change the cost to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, and give the player the choice for their effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on February 24, 2019, 05:22:51 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 24, 2019, 04:26:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jeMygKT.jpg)

Quote

Cauldron
Types: Treasure, Attack, Doom
Cost: $4
$3. When you play this, receive a Hex. If you gain or trash a card this way, each other player gains a Curse.

Buff up your economy for important early-spikes. Give out Curses when dealing with them is worse than Coppers and the random trashing of Locusts and War (I'm sure it happens).
Some probabilities since you might want them:

• 33% of the time, you give out a curse (Greed, Locusts, Plague, and War make you gain or trash cards).
• 25% of the time, you are virtually unaffected (Fear, Haunting, and Poverty practically don't matter on the play of a Treasure).
• 42% of the time, you suffer alone for your $4-Gold (Bad Omens, Delusion, Envy, Famine, and Misery). At least Delusion won't effect your money-spike.

Even with the Hex every time you play this, it still seems pretty strong for a $4 Gold. Compare to Contraband and Cache, which are $5 Golds and come with pretty gnarly drawbacks, even with Contraband giving you the +Buy. As you mentioned yourself, one-third of the Hexes will end up Cursing your opponents, while another fourth basically won't affect you at all (and with smart play, Haunting could actually be used to your advantage).

Also, just to be clear with Envy, am I right in assuming the Envious state would take effect on the next turn because, assuming you play Cauldron during your current Buy phase, it has to wait until the start of a Buy phase to take effect?

Title: Re: Contest #20: Unique type combination
Post by: Gubump on February 24, 2019, 10:59:51 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on February 24, 2019, 04:59:27 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 24, 2019, 02:35:33 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EY3KMPK.png)

I think this might be a bit overpowered for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}... Transmogrify costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} and has a similar call effect minus the reaction, but also the call effect is less powerful and less flexible. It might work at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}, though.

Transmogrify gains to hand. Reconstruct doesn't.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on February 24, 2019, 11:22:06 pm

Right. I forgot it gained to hand. Reconstruct seems more reasonable now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 25, 2019, 02:00:55 am

Quote from: majiponi on February 24, 2019, 11:00:23 am

Quote

Lost Gold
cost $5
Treasure - Duration

At the start of your next turn, gain a Gold to your hand.

This is Bag of Gold minus the +1 Action, but + 1 Card in your next turn. I think this could even cost $6.

Quote from: spiralstaircase on February 24, 2019, 10:57:15 am

Promise
Cost: $3*
Types: Treasure - Traveller
+$1.  Reveal the top card of your deck.  If it is a Treasure, play it.  Otherwise, you may discard it or put it back.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Hacksilver.

Interest
Cost: $6*
Types: Treasure - Duration
Now and at the start of each of your turns: +$2, +1Buy.

Promise and Interest are probably overpowered, but maybe I am wrong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on February 25, 2019, 02:59:57 am

Quote from: King Leon on February 25, 2019, 02:00:55 am

Promise and Interest are probably overpowered, but maybe I am wrong.

Quite possibly.  I was assuming that it's OK for a traveller other than the initial one to be slightly overpowered for their cost, as they're harder to get, and scarcer.  And the existence of a traveller earlier in the chain which you'd like to hold onto makes getting the later ones seem like they cost more, so that's probably a balancing effect.

That said, I was more worried about Promissory Note :-)

Edit: I meant "quite possibly" they're overpowered, not "quite possibly" you're wrong :-)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 25, 2019, 03:44:07 am

(https://i.imgur.com/Nlp8AZx.jpg)

In troubling times, the Quest Giver goes to the Tavern to recruit some heroes.

As a special bonus, this has 3 types, and two of each have never appeared on the same card. It may not need the Gathering type as it does not collect VP, but I figured it makes sense.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #20: different type combo
Post by: Aquila on February 25, 2019, 04:11:55 am

Quote from: faust on February 24, 2019, 05:59:56 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 24, 2019, 04:13:09 am

Can't get a picture for some reason, so a link (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Arboretum&description=When%20you%20trash%20a%20card%2C%20gain%20a%20card%20costing%20up%20to%20%242%20more%20than%20it.%0AWhen%20scoring%2C%20if%20you%20bought%20this%2C%20%2B4%25%20per%20set%20of%20Estate-Duchy-Province%20you%20have.&type=Project%20-%20Landmark&credit=Illustration%3A%20Elaine%20Farmer&price=%248&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.fineartamerica.com%2Fimages-medium-large%2Fred-tree-elaine-farmer.jpg&color0=9&color1=16&size=1) will have to do:

Quote

Arboretum - Project - Landmark, $8 cost.
When you trash a card, gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.
When scoring, if you bought this, +4VP per set of Estate-Duchy-Province you have.

Edit: made the link tidy.

I think there is no reason for this to have Landmark type.

Because the VP comes only when you buy it and it's not passive to everyone? I've made a new, simpler card to match this:

Quote

Racecourse - Project Landmark, $5 cost.
At the start of your turn, you may discard a Treasure for +1 Villager.
-
When scoring, -1VP per card you have with a + Action amount in its text.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on February 25, 2019, 04:27:08 am

Quote from: faust on February 25, 2019, 03:44:07 am

(https://i.imgur.com/Nlp8AZx.jpg)

In troubling times, the Quest Giver goes to the Tavern to recruit some heroes.

As a special bonus, this has 3 types, and two of each have never appeared on the same card. It may not need the Gathering type as it does not collect VP, but I figured it makes sense.

Isn't this useless without trasher? How about letting itself trigger like mine, or reacting something another?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 25, 2019, 12:49:21 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on February 25, 2019, 02:59:57 am

That said, I was more worried about Promissory Note :-)

Compared to Wharf and Merchant Ship, Promissory Note is pretty average, but it does not collide and can be played more often.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 25, 2019, 02:41:11 pm

Quote from: King Leon on February 25, 2019, 12:49:21 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on February 25, 2019, 02:59:57 am

That said, I was more worried about Promissory Note :-)

Compared to Wharf and Merchant Ship, Promissory Note is pretty average, but it does not collide and can be played more often.

Promissory Note is non-terminal which makes a huge-difference; it is like Silver and Den of Sin (better as it does not stay out, worse against handsize attacks) in one card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on February 25, 2019, 03:13:53 pm

I think I want to change my submission. Maybe...

Quote

Ring, Treasure - Doom, 5$
2$
You may discard a card to put this onto your deck.
---
When you gain this, each player (including you) receives the next Hex.

Edit: argh, damn, I forgot the last winner was called Signet Ring... I liked how a ring befitted both the endless circle and the general doom... Ah well, I'll try to think of another name. Medallion? Hourglas? Wait, we already had that, too, right? Hum...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Lurker on February 26, 2019, 09:56:28 am

Here's my serious submission:

Quote

Portage, Night - Reserve, $4
Put this on your Tavern mat.
   -------------------------
At the start of your buy phase, you
may call this for +1 Buy, +$1, and
Action cards cost $1 less, but not
less than $0.

Think of it as a Quarry variant - it's useful for building but not for a greening mega-turn. This is to prevent every game from playing out like Bridge - Royal Carriage. The night type makes it non-terminal and delays its use for at least a turn, but the + buy and the ability to line them up together should be pretty powerful for acquiring a bunch of components or threatening piles.

This one is just for fun:

Quote

Sir Donald, Night - Attack - Knight, $5
Each other player reveals the top
2 cards of his deck, trashes one
of them costing from $3 to $6,
and discards the rest. If a Knight is
trashed by this, trash this card.
   ---------------------------
This is gained to your hand
(instead of your discard pile).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 26, 2019, 06:22:22 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on February 24, 2019, 05:22:51 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 24, 2019, 04:26:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jeMygKT.jpg)

Quote

Cauldron
Types: Treasure, Attack, Doom
Cost: $4
$3. When you play this, receive a Hex. If you gain or trash a card this way, each other player gains a Curse.

Buff up your economy for important early-spikes. Give out Curses when dealing with them is worse than Coppers and the random trashing of Locusts and War (I'm sure it happens).
Some probabilities since you might want them:

• 33% of the time, you give out a curse (Greed, Locusts, Plague, and War make you gain or trash cards).
• 25% of the time, you are virtually unaffected (Fear, Haunting, and Poverty practically don't matter on the play of a Treasure).
• 42% of the time, you suffer alone for your $4-Gold (Bad Omens, Delusion, Envy, Famine, and Misery). At least Delusion won't effect your money-spike.

Even with the Hex every time you play this, it still seems pretty strong for a $4 Gold. Compare to Contraband and Cache, which are $5 Golds and come with pretty gnarly drawbacks, even with Contraband giving you the +Buy. As you mentioned yourself, one-third of the Hexes will end up Cursing your opponents, while another fourth basically won't affect you at all (and with smart play, Haunting could actually be used to your advantage).

Also, just to be clear with Envy, am I right in assuming the Envious state would take effect on the next turn because, assuming you play Cauldron during your current Buy phase, it has to wait until the start of a Buy phase to take effect?

I agree with Tejayes, but I really like this idea.  Sounds fun.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on February 26, 2019, 09:38:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Kak4dc5.png)

With Dividends, you get back what you put in, literally.  A Treasure-Duration, Dividends is a Silver the turn you play it and lets you save as many or as few Treasures as you like from your hand for next turn, along with an extra Buy.  Obviously, setting aside Treasures means you're reducing your buying power this turn, but you're also keeping those stop cards out of your deck for a turn which is usually beneficial.  Like Gear or Courtyard, this can help smooth your price points, tucking away extra cash for later.  Finally, playing Treasures at the start of your turn can create some neat tricks with certain Kingdom cards. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on February 26, 2019, 11:15:55 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on February 23, 2019, 08:17:58 pm

Evil Wizard
Cost: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
Types: Action-Attack-Looter-Doom

Reveal and discard the next Hex. Each other player chooses one: Receive the revealed Hex or gain a Ruins. If more people choose the Hex, +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. Otherwise, +2 Cards.

Edited version (the old one was way too weak):
Cost: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}
Types: Action-Attack-Looter-Doom

Choose one: +2 Cards or +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. Reveal and discard the next Hex. Each other player chooses one: Receive the revealed Hex or gain a Ruins.

Is this edited version better?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 27, 2019, 02:13:44 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on February 26, 2019, 11:15:55 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on February 23, 2019, 08:17:58 pm

Evil Wizard
Cost: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
Types: Action-Attack-Looter-Doom

Reveal and discard the next Hex. Each other player chooses one: Receive the revealed Hex or gain a Ruins. If more people choose the Hex, +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. Otherwise, +2 Cards.

Edited version (the old one was way too weak):
Cost: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}
Types: Action-Attack-Looter-Doom

Choose one: +2 Cards or +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. Reveal and discard the next Hex. Each other player chooses one: Receive the revealed Hex or gain a Ruins.

Is this edited version better?

Yes, it is totally fine!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 27, 2019, 12:45:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/8U42Dy1.png) (https://i.imgur.com/OpoBINS.png)(https://i.imgur.com/IOdfkMr.png)(https://i.imgur.com/XuEbSBn.png)(https://i.imgur.com/eNul7ew.png)

Here's my Night - Traveller line.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on February 28, 2019, 07:31:45 am

Quote from: Tejayes on February 24, 2019, 05:22:51 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 24, 2019, 04:26:28 pm

Cauldron
Types: Treasure, Attack, Doom
Cost: $4
$3. When you play this, receive a Hex. If you gain or trash a card this way, each other player gains a Curse.

Even with the Hex every time you play this, it still seems pretty strong for a $4 Gold. Compare to Contraband and Cache, which are $5 Golds and come with pretty gnarly drawbacks, even with Contraband giving you the +Buy. As you mentioned yourself, one-third of the Hexes will end up Cursing your opponents, while another fourth basically won't affect you at all (and with smart play, Haunting could actually be used to your advantage).

Contraband gives you a +Buy which needs to accelerate you sufficiently that you don't care about not being able to buy something, while Cache gives you a one-time drawback of Coppers, and both are considered among the worst $5 cards in the game.  Contraband would probably only survive a second edition because naming stuff is fun.  Cauldron hits you with Hexes of random efficacy every time you play it.  The Cursing is mostly to soften the blow of how otherwise devastating War and Locusts can be.  A Cauldron without the Attack would be as bad as Cursed Gold and would probably never be bought, let alone if it cost $5.

Quote from: Tejayes on February 24, 2019, 05:22:51 pm

Also, just to be clear with Envy, am I right in assuming the Envious state would take effect on the next turn because, assuming you play Cauldron during your current Buy phase, it has to wait until the start of a Buy phase to take effect?

You are correct.  The Envious and Deluded States trigger "at the start of your Buy phase," which has already passed by the time Cauldron gives it to you.

Quote from: Tejayes on February 23, 2019, 08:44:50 pm

Truffle Pig
Cost: $6
Types: Treasure, Duration
$1. At the start of your next turn, +$2, then put this into your hand, then trash a card from your hand.

I think the repeating trashing is neat, but at a cost of $6 it might be a frustratingly swingy card. Players will miss or hit it on turns 3\4 with fairly little control.  It is certainly strong enough to cost $6, but a cost of $5 might be healthier.

Quote from: spiralstaircase on February 24, 2019, 10:57:15 am

Pelt
Cost: $2
Types: Treasure, Traveller
+$1. You may discard a Victory card from your hand for +1 Buy.

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Promise.

Promise
Cost: $3*
Types: Treasure, Traveller
+$1.  Reveal the top card of your deck.  If it is a Treasure, play it.  Otherwise, you may discard it or put it back.

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Hacksilver.

Hacksilver
Cost: $4*
Types: Treasure, Traveller
+2 Coffers

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Promissory Note.

Promissory Note
Cost: $5*
Types: Treasure, Traveller
+$2.  Draw two more cards for your next hand.

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for an Interest.

Interest
Cost: $6*
Types: Treasure, Duration
Now and at the start of each of your turns: +$2, +1 Buy.

I'd worry that whenever this is relevant, it will just be a race for 2 or 3 Interests.  Teacher and Champion both rely quite strongly on other Action cards, while Interest is a fairly static source of economy.

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 27, 2019, 12:45:10 pm

Vagabond
Types: Night, Traveller
Cost: $2
Trash a card from your hand.

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Burglar.

Burglar
Types: Night, Attack, Traveller
Cost: $3*
+1 Coffers. Gain a Treasure costing up to $4. Each other player discards a Treasure (or reveals a hand with no Treasures).

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Wanted Criminal.

Wanted Criminal
Types: Night, Attack, Traveller
Cost: $4*
Reveal a card costing up to $6 from your hand. Either each other player gains a copy of it, or you do, your choice.

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Crime Lord.

Crime Lord
Types: Night, Attack, Traveller
Cost: $5*
+3 Coffers. Each other player takes their -$1 token.

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for an Underground Market.

Underground Market
Types: Night, Duration
Cost: $6*
At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game: +1 Buy.

---

While this is in play, cards cost $1 less on your turns.

Between both Traveller lines, +Buys like +Coffers, so I like that you can get them from separate parts of their lines.  I like Underground Market more since +Buys also combo with cost reduction (though it should mention that cards can't cost less than $0).  I'm not sure that I like Vagabond or Wanted Criminal very much though.  Vagabond is a trasher that can deal with itself in largely the way Raze does, so it helps you speed up exchanging the Traveller (as opposed to Peasant which is pretty slow and Page whose Treasure Hunter and Hero actively slow you down).  Wanted Criminal can combo with Underground Market to gain Provinces, and otherwise I think is mostly a wild game accelerator since you can use it to pile multiplayer games out super easily.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 23, 2019, 06:40:15 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on February 23, 2019, 08:44:50 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on February 24, 2019, 10:57:15 am

Quote from: 4est on February 26, 2019, 09:38:54 pm

By the way, does anyone care about the Herbalist tracking issues with Duration Treasures?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 28, 2019, 07:37:23 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 28, 2019, 07:31:45 am

By the way, does anyone care about the Herbalist tracking issues with Duration Treasures?

They're already in the official game thanks to Capitalism (and before that Crown)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 28, 2019, 07:46:02 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ZyOcZcz.jpg)

Might compare too favourably with Merchant Guild and the Reaction might be too crazy with sifters. I considered the Tunnel wording but it seemed too weak.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 28, 2019, 07:59:56 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 27, 2019, 12:45:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/8U42Dy1.png) (https://i.imgur.com/OpoBINS.png)(https://i.imgur.com/IOdfkMr.png)(https://i.imgur.com/XuEbSBn.png)(https://i.imgur.com/eNul7ew.png)

Here's my Night - Traveller line.

Very great line. I do especially like Wanted Criminal (as a non-terminal gainer/junker it is a bit like a less random Jester) and Underground Market.
The Province with 2 Underground Markets and Wanted Criminal that Fragasnap mentioned can be prevented via making Wanted Criminal only work with non-Victory cards. This would come at the cost of preventing Estate junking though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 28, 2019, 05:53:07 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 28, 2019, 07:31:45 am

Wanted Criminal can combo with Underground Market to gain Provinces, and otherwise I think is mostly a wild game accelerator since you can use it to pile multiplayer games out super easily.

I tried to think of a good way to word underground Market so you can only have one in play at a time, but I decided it will be hard enough to get two into play plus have a Wanted Criminal in hand with a Province that I'd just leave it.

I don't mind Vagabond helping the traveller line go faster, in fact I wanted that. Underground Market wont be super great if you only have it for a couple turns.  I'm okay with this line going a bit faster than other lines.  These being night cards and not drawing makes it slower though, so it might end up close to the same as the peasant line. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on February 28, 2019, 05:54:23 pm

Quote from: segura on February 28, 2019, 07:46:02 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ZyOcZcz.jpg)

Might compare too favourably with Merchant Guild and the Reaction might be too crazy with sifters. I considered the Tunnel wording but it seemed too weak.

So this includes discarding it during cleanup if you didn't play it?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 28, 2019, 06:23:06 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on February 28, 2019, 05:54:23 pm

So this includes discarding it during cleanup if you didn't play it?

Yes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on March 02, 2019, 07:33:26 pm

Is judging happening soon?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on March 02, 2019, 10:02:57 pm

Judgement day arriveth in 24 hours.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MattLee on March 03, 2019, 10:31:10 am

EDIT- my original idea didn't work as intended, so I'm using this instead.

(http://i65.tinypic.com/2z8bu4k.jpg)




Old version:
$4 - Night Vendor
Treasure - Night
If its your Night phase, +1 Buy, +$3 and you may buy cards this Night phase. Otherwise, +$1

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on March 03, 2019, 11:04:50 am

Quote from: MattLee on March 03, 2019, 10:31:10 am

(https://i.ibb.co/7YXGgf5/nightvender.jpg)

Does your unspent money stick around into your night phase? If so, this doesn't work at all.

A Gold+ for $4. The only disadvantage is missing interaction with cards like Crown, Counterfeit, Bank, Black Market, Venture, Storyteller and Palace (but also Noble Brigand and Bandit’s Fort ...) Am I missing something? You can play your Treasure cards in your Buy phase, but you don't have to use the $, so it is still available in your Night Phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on March 03, 2019, 04:01:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/nFM0Za6.png)

Look, somebody had to use this combo. (https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Dream%20Dame&description=Gain%20a%20card%20costing%20between%20%243%20and%20%246.%0A%0A%0A%0AIf%20this%20is%20the%20only%20Knight%20you%20have%20in%20play%2C%20trash%20this.&type=Night%20-%20Knight&credit=Illustration%3A%20Alvin%20K.%20Gonzales&price=%245&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fpm1.narvii.com%2F6465%2F154185f9d41dfb5d1299afdb06cff5938ed46086_hq.jpg&color0=10&color1=0&size=0)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on March 03, 2019, 05:05:33 pm

Quote from: Violet CLM on March 03, 2019, 04:01:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/nFM0Za6.png)

Look, somebody had to use this combo

People keep doing this joke.  I can't help but feel flattered. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=114.msg727914#msg727914)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on March 03, 2019, 05:44:59 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/O24u62i.png) (https://i.imgur.com/HMRhXJz.png) (https://i.imgur.com/TMGELUb.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on March 03, 2019, 10:24:36 pm

Judgment day is come!

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/6lmqou19.png)

So, the top decking on play makes this really, really bad. You’re effectively reducing your next handsize by 1 each time you play a copy of this. The Reaction part lets you exchange $0 junk for more copies of it, but it’s unlikely you’d ever want more than 1 of these because of the aforementioned problem. The Night and Reaction parts also don’t really have anything to do with each other.


(https://i.imgur.com/Aa41pjG.png)

This is one of those fan alt-VP cards whose value swings wildly depending on what other cards are on the board. If this is the only Night card, then it’s hardly ever worth getting. If there’s even one other Night pile, though, suddenly a degenerate rush strategy starts looking like the best option. I’m not really excited by the idea overall.


(https://i.imgur.com/9RzzKXl.png?1)

This was an early favorite of mine. The deck-discarding is clever as it makes choosing an Action card easier while adding the disadvantage of missing the shuffle. That said, being able to choose any Action card to play for free next turn definitely seems strong. Though it gets a lot worse if you're drawing your whole deck, since it won't find an Action card to play but will still have to remain out because of the next turn +Buy. Very nice design overall.

I assume the Project-Landmark thing is a typo.

Quote from: Asper on February 23, 2019, 07:25:17 pm

Wasteland, Action-Victory-Looter, 4$
Gain a Ruins and play it three times.
---
Worth 1 VP per 2 differently named cards costing 0$ in your deck (round down).

KCing the Ruins looks fun. I guess my main problem with this is that it could get brokenly good if there's an easy way to fill your deck with Coppers.


(https://i.imgur.com/m8Qe7Bal.png)

So, it's like a Cathedral you can turn off. Overall, looks fun, and it's a nice way to make a "return to your hand" Duration work.


(https://i.imgur.com/YL9kH2o.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/crvEgTZ.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/HLm4o7I.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/hZtse5R.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/EL8WOk4.jpg)

Hmmmm, the idea of a Treasure-Traveller is funny thematically. How does a Treasure "mature" the way a Traveller does?

As for the cards themselves, they look fine, but I'm afraid they don't excite me much. They don't react with each other at all except for Promise. Promissory Note looks cool but probably poses tracking issues. It would be better as a Duration, but I can see why you didn't do that as it's always infuriating when your Travellers miss the shuffle.

(To be continued...)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on March 03, 2019, 11:07:51 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 03, 2019, 10:24:36 pm

Quote from: Asper on February 23, 2019, 07:25:17 pm

Wasteland, Action-Victory-Looter, 4$
Gain a Ruins and play it three times.
---
Worth 1 VP per 2 differently named cards costing 0$ in your deck (round down).

KCing the Ruins looks fun. I guess my main problem with this is that it could get brokenly good if there's an easy way to fill your deck with Coppers.

It looks like you missed the "differently named" part.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on March 03, 2019, 11:58:56 pm

...Continued!

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on March 03, 2019, 11:07:51 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 03, 2019, 10:24:36 pm

Quote from: Asper on February 23, 2019, 07:25:17 pm

Wasteland, Action-Victory-Looter, 4$
Gain a Ruins and play it three times.
---
Worth 1 VP per 2 differently named cards costing 0$ in your deck (round down).

KCing the Ruins looks fun. I guess my main problem with this is that it could get brokenly good if there's an easy way to fill your deck with Coppers.

It looks like you missed the "differently named" part.

Whoops, you're right. Hmmmm, now it seems a bit too similar to Fairgrounds...

Quote

Lost Silver
cost $2
Reaction - Reserve

When you gain a card, you may put this on your Tavern mat from your hand.
--------
At the start of your buy phase, you may discard this from your Tavern mat, to gain a Silver to your hand.

I'm going to assume that this is majiponi's official entry. So it's a pure Reaction - Reserve, which is interesting I guess. Gaining Silver is normally very weak but gaining it to your hand is much better. And then getting to wait until the exact moment you want it is even better than that. I assume if you have one on your mat and some in your hand, you can trigger a chain reaction and gain a bunch of Silvers? That could be neat.


(https://i.imgur.com/EY3KMPK.png)

Eek, the double line and the tiny text. Mostly, this is a less interesting Transmogrify. The most fun part of Transmogrify is gaining the card to your hand. The Reaction part has some synergy with the rest, but still feels a bit tacked on.


(https://i.imgur.com/ZWF056F.png)

You can call this in your Night phase, but I'm not sure there's enough reason that you have to play it in your Night phase. Overall, except in the rare case of draw-up-to-X this just feels like a more awkward Coin of the Realm.


(https://i.imgur.com/jeMygKT.jpg)

The Cursing condition is interesting, although it's ultimately random which probably puts a damper on the fun. A Treasure - Attack - Doom is also very close to something we already have (Idol).


(https://i.imgur.com/Nlp8AZx.jpg)

As has been pointed out, this is absolutely useless in the absence of trashing. Other than that, it looks interesting, and kudos having a card with 3 types, each of which has not appeared with the other.

Quote

Racecourse - Project Landmark, $5 cost.
At the start of your turn, you may discard a Treasure for +1 Villager.
-
When scoring, -1VP per card you have with a + Action amount in its text.

I'm not sure if this dual-type would ever exist in the game, or if Donald would just have the Landmark part be an "in games using this" clause. Regardless, this looks neat.

Quote

Ring, Treasure - Doom, 5$
2$
You may discard a card to put this onto your deck.
---
When you gain this, each player (including you) receives the next Hex.

The when-gain seems rather pointless as it happens to everyone. I also don't know why you'd ever want to put it on your deck, except maybe with Venture.

Quote

Portage, Night - Reserve, $4
Put this on your Tavern mat.
   -------------------------
At the start of your buy phase, you
may call this for +1 Buy, +$1, and
Action cards cost $1 less, but not
less than $0.

Not much to say about this one, but it's cool and I like it.


(https://i.imgur.com/Kak4dc5.png)

This looks okay, maybe a bit too similar to Gear and Haven. You can maybe do some draw-up-to-X tricks by Dividending a Dividends, but that depends heavily on what's in your next starting hand.

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on February 26, 2019, 11:15:55 pm

Evil Wizard
Cost: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}
Types: Action-Attack-Looter-Doom

Choose one: +2 Cards or +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. Reveal and discard the next Hex. Each other player chooses one: Receive the revealed Hex or gain a Ruins.

I like this, but I think I would have the bonus be +3 Cards instead, because you'll pretty much always choose +2 Cards over +$2.


(https://i.imgur.com/8U42Dy1.png) (https://i.imgur.com/OpoBINS.png)(https://i.imgur.com/IOdfkMr.png)(https://i.imgur.com/XuEbSBn.png)(https://i.imgur.com/eNul7ew.png)

Definitely another one of my favorites; the outlaw theme is super cool. It's been pointed out, though, that Wanted Criminal and Underground Market have a potentially very broken synergy, though getting 2 Underground Markets would probably take a long time.


(https://i.imgur.com/ZyOcZcz.jpg)

I like the Reaction on this a lot. It's unique, and it effectively means you can "play" it without actually playing it, which matters if you're doing Double Tactician or some other deck type that discards Nights before it can play them.


(http://i65.tinypic.com/2z8bu4k.jpg)

Simple, but a nice way to make a Treasure - Night work. I guess I'm not completely sold on the idea that it has to be a Night though, as you wouldn't take the Coffer option anyway if you were planning on spending it this turn.


(https://i.imgur.com/O24u62i.png) (https://i.imgur.com/HMRhXJz.png) (https://i.imgur.com/TMGELUb.png)

These are cool ways to combine Shelter with new types. My main complaint is that Public House doesn't feel like it has enough reason to be a Night.

---------------------------

Thanks for all your submissions!

Short list: Anchor by NoMoreFun, Truffle Pig by Tejayes, Portage by Lurker, Night-Travellers by Chappy7, Fairies by Segura, Shelters by Hypercube.

Winner: Fairies by Segura

Runner-up: Anchor by NoMoreFun

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 04, 2019, 02:17:13 am

Thanks a lot, Chuckles!

Contest #21: Design a card with the Gathering type or something similar.
It could also be something that amasses Coffers or Villagers or a landscape card.
It should feature the idea of amassing a common resource that can be grabbed by everybody, i.e. something like Sinister Plot (private resource) or Trade Route (tokens just representing the value of a variable) would not fit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #21: shared pool of collectible tokens
Post by: Aquila on March 04, 2019, 06:36:40 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1FCpHsq.jpg)

Gets tokens passively at a hopefully sensible rate, but each player gets only one chance to take them. They must time that chance well. The tokens split in half because a big pile of Coffers has issues. Maybe too cheap?

Edit: added +buy and cost to add token down to $4 or more (from $5), to be a bit more competitive earlier.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Lurker on March 04, 2019, 10:11:00 am

Quote

Tulip, Action - Victory, $4
Return this to the Supply. Take
the Coffers from the Tulip
Supply pile.
   -------------------------
Worth 1VP per Tulip in the
Supply.
   -------------------------
When you gain this, add 2
Coffers to the Tulip Supply pile.

I don't love the double line, but this should be interesting to play around. The first one is worth 7 (11 in 3+ player), the second 5, etc. for each player, but you usually don't want more than half the pile. If the other person gets a bunch you probably want some too, and hey they only cost $4. You can always return some if the Tulip market gets too saturated. You might be able to sell them for a lot!

A note on Trade route - the Trade route token is the odd token. When you gain the first one you remove "that" token and then from then on it should be clear because the coffers all come in 2s.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on March 04, 2019, 10:59:16 am

Ok, this took some work. The idea is, that you can collect gems, but each player has a different mat for that. You can only fill one column or one row each time, you buy this event and if you have leftover gems, they go to the next player.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/nfy3gxgj.png)
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/mp1392o8.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/zpbtlb90.png)
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/3kfgvqlf.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ej3m2t9q.png)

The number of available gems is limited by 6 emeralds, 8 diamonds and 11 rubies per player. Dual-type cards like Harem or Mill add two gems, of course.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on March 04, 2019, 01:09:00 pm

I personally thought that Ring's ability could be quite useful, but I'll admit that it stinks at 5$. You probably want to topdeck Silvers to get to 5$, not after you did. About the self-hexing, most Hexes won't actually hit you in your buy phase, so you usually come out on top. It would still keep it from being strictly better than Silver at 4$, so that's the cost I should have given... My original idea had you reveal two Hexes and choose one for you and one for the other players, but given the timing issue with Hexes, I felt that was going too far.

Anyhow, congrats to segura!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 04, 2019, 02:00:49 pm

Quote from: King Leon on March 04, 2019, 10:59:16 am

Ok, this took some work. The idea is, that you can collect gems, but each player has a different mat for that. You can only fill one column or one row each time, you buy this event and if you have leftover gems, they go to the next player.

I think you need to think about balancing this some more. Currently you have one mat where 3 things can be activated before greening (the first), which is way way stronger than the others (where there are 1 or 0 of such boons). Generally for the non-VP bonuses it's a problem if they require green gems because that means that you can only activate them in the late game when they are probably not that useful anymore.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on March 04, 2019, 03:38:03 pm

Quote from: King Leon on March 04, 2019, 10:59:16 am

Ok, this took some work. The idea is, that you can collect gems, but each player has a different mat for that. You can only fill one column or one row each time, you buy this event and if you have leftover gems, they go to the next player.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/nfy3gxgj.png)
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/mp1392o8.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/zpbtlb90.png)
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/3kfgvqlf.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ej3m2t9q.png)

The number of available gems is limited by 6 emeralds, 8 diamonds and 11 rubies per player. Dual-type cards like Harem or Mill add two gems, of course.

(https://imgur.com/dTlVCcd.png) :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on March 04, 2019, 04:23:00 pm

Salesman
Cost: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
Types: Action-Reaction-Gathering

+1 Card
+1 Villager
Take the Coffers from this pile.
---------------------------------
When (edit: you or) another player takes Villagers, you may set this aside from your hand, to put 1 Coffers on this pile. Return this to your hand after the resolution of the card that caused Villagers to be taken.

I see this as a sort of Peddler+, but it rewards people who pay more attention to the opponents deck. Not sure if it's good or not, but I liked the idea. I had to jump over some hurdles trying to avoid the loophole created by being able to reveal a card any number of times in response to one event.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on March 04, 2019, 06:19:49 pm

Quote from: faust on March 04, 2019, 02:00:49 pm

Quote from: King Leon on March 04, 2019, 10:59:16 am

Ok, this took some work. The idea is, that you can collect gems, but each player has a different mat for that. You can only fill one column or one row each time, you buy this event and if you have leftover gems, they go to the next player.

I think you need to think about balancing this some more. Currently you have one mat where 3 things can be activated before greening (the first), which is way way stronger than the others (where there are 1 or 0 of such boons). Generally for the non-VP bonuses it's a problem if they require green gems because that means that you can only activate them in the late game when they are probably not that useful anymore.

This is actually well balanced. The player with mat 1 has difficulties to get the Coffers and often gains the bonus Gold too late. Mat 2, on the other hand, has early access to Coffers, but usually does not get the +Buy bonus early. Mat 3 and 4 are designed to be rivals, als they share many gem combinations. While mat 3 can also well played for columns, which makes it more flexible, mat 4 is slightly stronger in the endgame.

The +Buy bonus makes it easy for you to buy an Estate, which comes with a green gem and then buy Gem Mining to grab that emerald. All options (besides of the Gold, maybe) are designed to be even useful in the endgame. You can gain a Duchy as the $5 card and Coffers can make the difference from a $7 hand to an Estate. I feel, that 5 emeralds are not difficult enough.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on March 04, 2019, 07:19:18 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on March 04, 2019, 04:23:00 pm

Salesman
Cost: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
Types: Action-Reaction-Gathering

+1 Card
+1 Villager
Take the Coffers from this pile.
---------------------------------
When another player takes Villagers, you may set this aside from your hand, to put 1 Coffers on this pile. Return this to your hand after the resolution of the card that caused Villagers to be taken.

I see this as a sort of Peddler+, but it rewards people who pay more attention to the opponents deck. Not sure if it's good or not, but I liked the idea. I had to jump over some hurdles trying to avoid the loophole created by being able to reveal a card any number of times in response to one event.

With the way this is worded now, could the person who played the card immediately take the Coffers you put on the pile? It says "When another player takes Villagers" which happens before the taking of the Coffers, so it seems they could grab them immediately after you use the Reaction.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 04, 2019, 07:52:36 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on March 04, 2019, 04:23:00 pm

Salesman
Cost: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
Types: Action-Reaction-Gathering

+1 Card
+1 Villager
Take the Coffers from this pile.
---------------------------------
When another player takes Villagers, you may set this aside from your hand, to put 1 Coffers on this pile. Return this to your hand after the resolution of the card that caused Villagers to be taken.

I see this as a sort of Peddler+, but it rewards people who pay more attention to the opponents deck. Not sure if it's good or not, but I liked the idea. I had to jump over some hurdles trying to avoid the loophole created by being able to reveal a card any number of times in response to one event.

One issue with this is that if there are no other Villager-giving cards in the Kingdom, this almost does nothing for you unless your opponent also gets some; so it's a card that neither player would want. It's bad unless your opponent already bought one, which makes it a bad idea to ever get any.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on March 04, 2019, 09:30:20 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 04, 2019, 07:52:36 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on March 04, 2019, 04:23:00 pm

Salesman
Cost: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
Types: Action-Reaction-Gathering

+1 Card
+1 Villager
Take the Coffers from this pile.
---------------------------------
When another player takes Villagers, you may set this aside from your hand, to put 1 Coffers on this pile. Return this to your hand after the resolution of the card that caused Villagers to be taken.

I see this as a sort of Peddler+, but it rewards people who pay more attention to the opponents deck. Not sure if it's good or not, but I liked the idea. I had to jump over some hurdles trying to avoid the loophole created by being able to reveal a card any number of times in response to one event.

One issue with this is that if there are no other Villager-giving cards in the Kingdom, this almost does nothing for you unless your opponent also gets some; so it's a card that neither player would want. It's bad unless your opponent already bought one, which makes it a bad idea to ever get any.

I see your point. Perhaps if it can also be activated by you taking Villagers? Or does that make it too strong?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on March 05, 2019, 02:49:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/FOC9ZcV.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on March 05, 2019, 03:06:32 pm

Where are people getting the art for their cards?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on March 05, 2019, 05:36:26 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on March 05, 2019, 03:06:32 pm

Where are people getting the art for their cards?

In my case, usually a Google Images search for the card name (or something relevant), then use the filters to try to find paintings and similar artworks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 06, 2019, 12:58:36 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on March 05, 2019, 03:06:32 pm

Where are people getting the art for their cards?

deviantart or Google images.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on March 06, 2019, 04:20:05 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on March 05, 2019, 03:06:32 pm

Where are people getting the art for their cards?

well - i like a special style of dominion pictures, more fantasy like (f.i. laboratory, alchemist, herbalist, market square, death cart f.i.).
When i find an interesting picture at fan cards, i use google to find more.

I give you an actual example:

I take underground market from chappy7:

(https://imgur.com/vw3DpdO.png)

I make a screenshot of the picture

(https://imgur.com/SlM6PxE.png)

and insert it into google images search:

(https://imgur.com/P7fWSI6.png)

and here they are:

(https://imgur.com/pHLlxIP.png)

enough similar pictures.

So i collect interesting pictures for future cards and save them (with source/website).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on March 06, 2019, 05:15:26 am

Botanist
Action/Gathering - $3
+1 Card
+$1
+1 Villager from the Botanist supply pile
---
In games using this, when you gain an Action card that isn't a Botanist, place a Coin token on the Botanist supply pile

Clarification: I checked the wiki and the tokens you put on your Villagers mat are called Coin tokens. You don't get a Villager if there aren't any on the pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on March 07, 2019, 10:23:37 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OycCu2B.png)

There's one Casino mat, shared by all the players.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on March 07, 2019, 11:11:29 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Scn31FU.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/9HcxWOs.jpg)

When Uprising is in the game, you add the Commons mat (I just used an event template because I was lazy), which makes players add an Action or a Treasure from the Supply to it at the end of each turn.  Then, any player can buy Uprising to pick up the entire Commons Mat along with a Villa effect.  Putting Coppers on the mat is always fairly safe, but better yet are the mindgames you can play--start throwing some nice cards on there and see if you can trick your opponent into picking them up with a stack of Coppers.  Or hey, maybe you want to pick up the pile yourself.  Watch out for pile-outs.   

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on March 08, 2019, 11:16:04 am

Hogwarts
cost $2
Action - Land
+1 Action
+1 Buy
+1 Coffers
Take an extra Buy phase immediately.
---
Tap: Add a colorless mana to your mana pool.
1, Tap: Add a blue mana to your mana pool.
2, Tap: Add a white or black mana to your mana pool.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on March 08, 2019, 12:25:43 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 07, 2019, 10:23:37 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OycCu2B.png)

There's one Casino mat, shared by all the players.

I like it (and I'm not a fan of Gathering cards usually), but I think it could just use the trash.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on March 08, 2019, 05:53:47 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 08, 2019, 12:25:43 pm

I like it (and I'm not a fan of Gathering cards usually), but I think it could just use the trash.

Hmmmm, good point. I'd probably have to change the name and picture, though...

Quote from: majiponi on March 08, 2019, 11:16:04 am

Hogwarts
cost $2
Action - Land
+1 Action
+1 Buy
+1 Coffers
Take an extra Buy phase immediately.
---
Tap: Add a colorless mana to your mana pool.
1, Tap: Add a blue mana to your mana pool.
2, Tap: Add a white or black mana to your mana pool.

This is going to need some context...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on March 08, 2019, 11:18:48 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 08, 2019, 05:53:47 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 08, 2019, 12:25:43 pm

I like it (and I'm not a fan of Gathering cards usually), but I think it could just use the trash.

Hmmmm, good point. I'd probably have to change the name and picture, though...

Quote from: majiponi on March 08, 2019, 11:16:04 am

Hogwarts
cost $2
Action - Land
+1 Action
+1 Buy
+1 Coffers
Take an extra Buy phase immediately.
---
Tap: Add a colorless mana to your mana pool.
1, Tap: Add a blue mana to your mana pool.
2, Tap: Add a white or black mana to your mana pool.

This is going to need some context...

Hint: This Dominion card doesn't have Gathering type, but is also a "Magic the Gathering" card. See "Wizards' School".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 09, 2019, 09:12:37 am

Quote from: majiponi on March 08, 2019, 11:16:04 am

Hogwarts
cost $2
Action - Land
+1 Action
+1 Buy
+1 Coffers
Take an extra Buy phase immediately.
---
Tap: Add a colorless mana to your mana pool.
1, Tap: Add a blue mana to your mana pool.
2, Tap: Add a white or black mana to your mana pool.

Nothing against a Magic joke but half of your card is mechanically dead (Land as type, tapping and Mana make no sense in Dominion unless you define what they are supposed to mean) and due to the interpolated Buy phase it is strictly better than Candlestick Maker.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 09, 2019, 12:52:08 pm

This one might stretch the boundaries of this contest a bit, but I already made 2 Gathering cards for this thread, so I wanted something different.

(https://i.imgur.com/5mUEIvV.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 09, 2019, 12:53:21 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on March 05, 2019, 02:49:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/FOC9ZcV.png)

This is going to be broken with Aqueduct.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on March 09, 2019, 01:58:25 pm

Quote from: faust on March 09, 2019, 12:53:21 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on March 05, 2019, 02:49:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/FOC9ZcV.png)

This is going to be broken with Aqueduct.

Hm, you're right. What about if it used coin tokens that turned into Villagers?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on March 10, 2019, 07:44:25 am

Quote

Playwright/Theater
Types: Action, Gathering
Cost: $5
This pile starts the game with 5 copies of Playwright on top, then 5 copies of Theater. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

(https://i.imgur.com/AalKiS7.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/TpzZl1n.jpg)

Quote

Playwright
Types: Action, Gathering
Cost: $5
+1 Card, +1 Action, +$1. Add 1VP to the Playwright/Theater Supply pile.

Quote

Theater
Types: Action, Gathering
Cost: $6
+1 Card, +1 Action. Gain a Duchy.

---

When you discard this from play, you may trash a Playwright you have in play. If you do, take the VP from the Playwright/Theater Supply pile.

Taking the VP is contingent upon trashing a Playwright you have in play, which is optional. Gaining a Duchy is mandatory and independent.

A $5 Peddler with VP available too conservative? I'm not so sure. As soon as you Theater a Playwright, your ability to take the VP is reduced, but the ability to accumulate them never stops: Eventually one player will be the only player with Playwrights, inevitably.

Post-facto Edit: Theater's Playwright trashing triggers on discard, to make it marginally less swingy so you don't have to draw Playwright before Theater.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on March 10, 2019, 10:56:35 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZHck8RQ.png)

Updated submission with the trashing idea. I decided that, eh, the name and picture still fit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on March 11, 2019, 01:38:54 am

Whew! After having disappeared for months and coming back this week, I have finally gone through all 61 pages and fully updated the Hall of Fame (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19239.msg777727#msg777727)!!!

Also, to make my life easier for future updates, as well as to make the hall of fame a bit less cluttered, a slight rule change: The maximum number of runners up selected for each challenge will be two. (Five runners up? Really Dsell?)

Also, someone in an earlier challenge asked about submitting multiple entries to a single contest. As you all figured out on your own, the answer is one entry per participant. I guess I'm adding that to the rules in the OP as well.

I'm really glad this took off. I designed the rules so the contest could run in my absence since I often disappear for weeks or months at a time with no warning, and you all did fabulously!

And now, back to your regularly scheduled design contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on March 11, 2019, 04:10:33 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 10, 2019, 10:56:35 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZHck8RQ.png)

Updated submission with the trashing idea. I decided that, eh, the name and picture still fit.

Suggestion: You may trash a Copper from your hand, for +2 Cards. If you don't, ...

With your latest wording, you can choose to trash but claim to have no Copper in hand even if you do. Also I suppose that cards from the trash should technically be gained?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on March 11, 2019, 04:26:00 am

Quote from: Asper on March 11, 2019, 04:10:33 am

Also I suppose that cards from the trash should technically be gained?

I like that it's "put" instead of "gain".  I understand that to mean that on-gain effects don't trigger, similar to how it works for the -1 card token.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 11, 2019, 04:36:23 am

Progress by Aquila
I like this, it is pretty straightforward with the neat "once per game" twist (which is similar to Aquila's Prospects).
Without that it would be strategically boring, you just wait until enough tokens are on the card and then take them.
Now you have to think about when you need the tokens most (early on  to get your engine running vs. late for a mega-turn), you naturally want a lot of them and you have to consider when your opponent(s) will want them.
A possible alternative that comes to mind is to make the trigger "costing 5 or more" and then do the halving.


Tulip by Lurker
The idea of a Victory card that is worth 1 per copy left in the Supply is an old one so being able to return them to the Supply for a benefit is neat.


Gem Mining by King Leon
The most creative and complex card that implies a minigame.
I understand the rationale behind limiting the slots to a row/column and the spillover (bootstraping the minigame, even if Bob did not want to go for the gems at all, if Alice gets some and B gets some remaining gems he might go for them after all) but it does not feel natural.
On the other hand the more natural "put them wherever you want" is too easy and does not lead to tricky decisions (do I really want to take 4 gems, finish the column, get a $5 but gift 2 gems to Bob?).
It is hard to judge details like the gem distribution and the bonuses without having played with the Event. If Leon or somebody else ever tries this out it will likely have to get slightly tweaked anyway given how many paramaters there are.


Salesman by hhelibebcnofnena
I like the "Villager cantrip" basis of the card. It is a bit like Patron, sometimes you might be able to save the Villager.
But the rest is bad. In order to make Salesman work you need several copies, so you will save the villagers less often and then the card still produces on average less Coffers than Baker. Ignoring player interaction, Salesman is to Baker as Native Village is to Village.
With Throne Room (variants) in the Kingdom this downside could be compensated for by the relatively more Villagers you get.


Prospector by mail-mi
Looks sound and well thought out. Quick Treasure trashing often makes you want to go for an early Gold and the Coffers help you do get there. There are also potential tricks like, while readjusting your deck in the middlegame, trashing a Silver, buying a Gold and getting a Coffers and a VP. Importantly there is no abuse potential as this does not seem like something which you can/want to do consistently.
A small detail, I wonder whether the card could get away with "when you gain a Gold".


Botanist by NoMoreFun
I like the Cultist-like idea of a "half-terminal" and the self-limitation of the card (you cannot mindlessly flood your deck with them) but I feel like the latter is too harsh. So perhaps the card is not overpowered if you get rid of the non-Botanist Action card restriction. The worst that can happen is that, ignoring player interaction for the sake of simplicity (Alice buy a Botanist but then Bob plays 2 Botanists, thus stealing "Alice's" Villager) , the card is always at least once non-terminal.


Casino by Commodore Chuckles
This is similar to Spice Merchant, with some Coin-spike or megaturn potential. Also neat in non-mirror Garden games.


Uprising/Commons by 4est
Uprising is far too good and will only lead to degenerate play. For example, why should Alice trash an Ironmonger if Bob can pick it up so cheaply for 5D and get to immediately play it. This would be like Summon but this turn instead of next.
So if nobody has an incentive to put an Action on Commons only Copper will land there. All that achieves is an auto Copper pile-out, e.g. in a 3P game after 13 turns.


Hogwarts by majiponi
I guess this is just intended to be a pun as tapping cards in Dominion makes no sense (unless you design a Duration card which does not do something at the start of the next turn but during the turn and have to somehow mark that it has already done something) and it is not explained what the Mana can be used for.


Ring of Power by faust
This does not match the parameters of the contest, a binary private variable that can be triggered by other players has nothing to do with amassing common resources. Ignoring that, the card provided neat payload for a deck-drawing engine and in Kingdoms with gainers you can gain enough Silvers or other $3s to "survive" until then. Or you gamble and rarely have a discard pile.


Playwright/Theater by Fragasnap
Non-terminal Gathering cards and especially cantrips are problematic. This is smartly mitigated via the split pile (and the high cost respectively opportunity cost in the case of the Duchy gainer; not all decks can deal with that).
The cards seem quite swingy though, whoever is able to first play Playwright and then Theater will likely get a huge pile of VPs.
On the other hand you could argue that this large amount of VPs is necessary to make players go for these expensive cards at all.


Runner-up: Gem Mining by King Leon
Winner: Progress by Aquila

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on March 11, 2019, 05:34:29 am

Great, thanks segura!
Hope this one's going to be to everyone's liking...

Contest #22: a set of 3 Shelters.
A little while ago, I randomised a game with an app, set it up, put the last pile out and everything else back in the box, then realised I forgot the Shelters. Could I be bothered to get them out? Not really, they wouldn't change much. So, see if you can make a set that would persuade me. Add a little excitement, yet don't make things too crazy and speed the game up too much.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 11, 2019, 06:26:13 am

Neat contest idea!

(https://i.imgur.com/QNNbsRu.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/faKAKjB.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/f7ebZmo.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on March 11, 2019, 09:41:53 am

Ill Gotten Treasury
cost $1 - Action - Shelter
Trash this to gain 3 Coppers into your hand.

Dry Moat
cost $1 - Reaction - Shelter
When another player plays an Attack card, you may trash this from your hand for +1 Card and to be unaffected by it.

Secret Estate
cost $1 - Victory - Shelter
When you trash this, set this aside.
---
1VP

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 11, 2019, 10:47:29 am

Quote from: majiponi on March 11, 2019, 09:41:53 am

Secret Estate
cost $1 - Victory - Shelter
When you trash this, set this aside.
---
1VP

Is this supposed to remain set aside forever? In that case, "When you trash this, +1 VP" seems more reasonable. If not, it needs to say when it is returned.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chris is me on March 11, 2019, 10:52:31 am

Will make images later. They're a bit strong but cute.

Boneyard / Action - Shelter / $1
+1 Villager

Hole / Night - Shelter / $1
Trash this. If you do, trash a card from your hand.

Dilapidated Estate / Victory - Shelter / $1
Worth 2 VP per differently named Shelter you have in your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on March 11, 2019, 10:56:36 am

(https://i.imgur.com/cO6kJc4.png) (https://i.imgur.com/0rH2wYy.png) (https://i.imgur.com/JI5VoOT.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on March 11, 2019, 10:57:57 am

Quote from: Chris is me on March 11, 2019, 10:52:31 am

Hole / Night - Shelter / $1
Trash this. If you do, trash a card from your hand.

Bomb makes a glorious return...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on March 11, 2019, 11:59:52 am

Quote from: faust on March 11, 2019, 10:47:29 am

Quote from: majiponi on March 11, 2019, 09:41:53 am

Secret Estate
cost $1 - Victory - Shelter
When you trash this, set this aside.
---
1VP

Is this supposed to remain set aside forever? In that case, "When you trash this, +1 VP" seems more reasonable. If not, it needs to say when it is returned.

Yes, +1VP is simpler, but not everyone has Prosperity or Empires. I thought letting it standalone is better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on March 11, 2019, 01:17:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Yo3bDc2.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/WhKiFAb.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Mj3SA9r.jpg)

Quote

Commons
Types: Reaction, Shelter
Cost: $1
When you gain a card, you may discard this. If you do, put the gained card into your hand.

Quote

Dowry
Types: Action, Shelter
Cost: $1
While this is in play, when you buy a card costing at least $1, +1 Buy.

---

When you discard this from play, trash this and if the total cost in coins of cards you bought this turn is...  From $0 to $9: Gain an Estate;  From $10 to $19: Gain a Duchy;  At least $20: Gain a Province.

Quote

Workhouse
Types: Victory, Shelter
Cost: $1
Worth 1VP for each differently named card costing at most $2 in your deck.

---

When you trash this, +4 Actions

Dowry gives you one-shot "infinite" buys, and then turns into a Victory card depending on the total cost of the things you buy.
Workhouse can be trashed for +Actions, but also offers Museum-styled VP for cheap-cards--including the Shelters.
Commons lets you swap out for different cards.

EDIT: Originally Commons could save trashed cards. Thinking about it, I'm not even bothered about recursive Bishop things; I'm bothered that, while it was cool with Workhouse, it was lame around Dowry. I don't like this massively weakened Commons very much, so I'll probably replace it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on March 11, 2019, 01:17:24 pm

Quote from: segura on March 11, 2019, 04:36:23 am

If Leon or somebody else ever tries this out it will likely have to get slightly tweaked anyway given how many paramaters there are.

Thank you for the great contest topic. I never mentioned it, but Leon is not my real name. The card implements one of my old game ideas, originally unrelated to Dominion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on March 11, 2019, 01:42:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zty3ctC.png)(https://i.imgur.com/cDIVX35.png)(https://i.imgur.com/drxKhkq.png)

I tried to make them shake things up a bit more than the real Shelters but not mess with the opening, although you can choose to eat Pig in the opening so I guess they do kind of mess with the opening... Old Shrine could maybe do something else as well but I didn't want to get carried away and a pure Shelter has some charm. They all give you reasons to consider not trashing them and are loosely tied with a Treasure theme.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 11, 2019, 01:43:06 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on March 11, 2019, 01:17:01 pm

Dowry gives you one-shot "infinite" buys, and then turns into a Victory card depending on the total cost of the things you buy.
Workhouse can be trashed for +Actions, but also offers Museum-styled VP for cheap-cards--including the Shelters.
Commons lets you put gained cards into your hand, or save cards you're trashing. Maybe it's the key to the others.

I think all of these are above the power level I would want for Shelters, but Commons is the worst offender. Just imagine Commons/Lurker. Or Commons/Bishop, which can reliably generate 8 VP per turn, or multiples of that with only some draw and actions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on March 11, 2019, 01:55:58 pm

Quote from: King Leon on March 11, 2019, 01:17:24 pm

I never mentioned it, but Leon is not my real name.

No worries, it's just an internet name, your majesty.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on March 11, 2019, 02:08:52 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ehrHdai.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Yj3sIJ8.png) (https://i.imgur.com/psaFM47.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on March 11, 2019, 02:57:47 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/i6qokg96.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/pv21fkf0.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/fdqsvo4h.png)

Quote

Allotments
Type: Victory - Shelter
Cost: $3

½ VP

Nothing more than free trash-to-benefit fodder. The costs of $3 become obvious in a few seconds. If you manage to keep it until the end, it also works as a tiebreaker.

Quote

Lost Place
Type: Action - Shelter
Cost: $0

Trash a card from your hand. If it is a Curse: +$2, else gain a differently named card with the same costs.

Remodeller, extremely slow Copper trasher and Curse defense in one card.

Quote

Chicken Market
Type: Action - Shelter
Cost: $0

Reveal your hand. If you have no Silver in your hand: +1 Buy.

Junk card, which actually can be useful, when it is the only +Buy card. Slightly increases the attractiveness of non-Silver openings. Double Squire loves this card, but Curse attacks are weaker because of Lost Place.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on March 11, 2019, 03:14:21 pm

Quote from: faust on March 11, 2019, 01:43:06 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on March 11, 2019, 01:17:01 pm

Dowry gives you one-shot "infinite" buys, and then turns into a Victory card depending on the total cost of the things you buy.
Workhouse can be trashed for +Actions, but also offers Museum-styled VP for cheap-cards--including the Shelters.
Commons lets you put gained cards into your hand, or save cards you're trashing. Maybe it's the key to the others.

I think all of these are above the power level I would want for Shelters, but Commons is the worst offender. Just imagine Commons/Lurker. Or Commons/Bishop, which can reliably generate 8 VP per turn, or multiples of that with only some draw and actions.

I suppose I've read the challenge differently.  It seems to me that Aquila was complaining that the Shelters seem to make very little difference to the strategy or play of any Kingdom.  These aim to make a big difference.  Hypercube's Sanctuary is a favorite of mine among those Shelters submit thus far, and probably makes the biggest difference on the average board (ignoring raw acceleration that I will cover in one moment).

While Commons is worded poorly, I've come to agreeing, not so much on its overall power, as its general dullness around Dowry. It's neat in that it lets you keep re-trashing Workhouse, but being able to re-use Dowry should be an oddity. I've nerfed it awfully to only swap out for newly gained cards, which has some tricks but not many. I'll probably swap it out for something else.

Quote from: Chris is me on March 11, 2019, 10:52:31 am

Hole
Types: Night, Shelter
Cost: $1
Trash this. If you do, trash a card from your hand.

Quote from: Doom_Shark on March 11, 2019, 02:08:52 pm

Stick
Types: Treasure, Shelter
Cost: $1
$0. You may trash this to trash a Treasure in play.

Quote from: hypercube on March 11, 2019, 10:56:36 am

Quote

Cove
Types: Action, Duration, Shelter
Cost: $1
Set aside 2 cards from your hand face down (under this). At the start of your next turn, put them into your hand.

Quote

Sanctuary
Types: Night, Shelter
Cost: $1
If you have at least $4 unspent, trash this and any number of cards from your hand.

I think players here are vastly underestimating the acceleration of trashing 2 of your worst cards on turns 1\2; Cove in the most swingy fashion because a Turn 2 Cove will be ridiculous.  Like I said, I like Sanctuary, but it should probably trigger on $5, not $4.  If you won't take my word for it, how about Donald X.'s?

Quote from: Donald X. on August 23, 2012, 03:15:40 pm

Hovel is the only one that changed. Originally it was an action you could trash by discarding your hand. It turned out that trashing it turn 1-2 usually seemed like the correct play, even if you drew it with four Coppers. So that was no good.

Quote from: King Leon on March 11, 2019, 02:57:47 pm

Quote

Allotments
Types: Victory, Shelter
Cost: $3
½VP

Quote

Lost Place
Types: Action, Shelter
Cost: $0
Trash a card from your hand. If it is a Curse: +$2, else gain a differently named card with the same costs.

Players lucking into starting with a $3 card instead of Allotments doesn't sound like a lot of fun.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 11, 2019, 03:43:10 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on March 11, 2019, 03:14:21 pm

Quote from: faust on March 11, 2019, 01:43:06 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on March 11, 2019, 01:17:01 pm

Dowry gives you one-shot "infinite" buys, and then turns into a Victory card depending on the total cost of the things you buy.
Workhouse can be trashed for +Actions, but also offers Museum-styled VP for cheap-cards--including the Shelters.
Commons lets you put gained cards into your hand, or save cards you're trashing. Maybe it's the key to the others.

I think all of these are above the power level I would want for Shelters, but Commons is the worst offender. Just imagine Commons/Lurker. Or Commons/Bishop, which can reliably generate 8 VP per turn, or multiples of that with only some draw and actions.

I suppose I've read the challenge differently.  It seems to me that Aquila was complaining that the Shelters seem to make very little difference to the strategy or play of any Kingdom.  These aim to make a big difference.  Hypercube's Sanctuary is a favorite of mine among those Shelters submit thus far, and probably makes the biggest difference on the average board (ignoring raw acceleration that I will cover in one moment).

It is possible that the challenge is intended this way. I just don't think the Shelters should influence the strategy a lot as that leads to more boring games (games with those Shelters will always favor a particular strategy, leading to less variety).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on March 11, 2019, 03:57:44 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on March 11, 2019, 03:14:21 pm

I think players here are vastly underestimating the acceleration of trashing 2 of your worst cards on turns 1\2; Cove in the most swingy fashion because a Turn 2 Cove will be ridiculous.  Like I said, I like Sanctuary, but it should probably trigger on $5, not $4.  If you won't take my word for it, how about Donald X.'s?

Quote from: Donald X. on August 23, 2012, 03:15:40 pm

Hovel is the only one that changed. Originally it was an action you could trash by discarding your hand. It turned out that trashing it turn 1-2 usually seemed like the correct play, even if you drew it with four Coppers. So that was no good.

Turn 2 Cove is good but it means you can't buy anything costing more than $2 that turn (that's why setting aside 2 cards is mandatory). Turn 1 Cove means you could get a nice Sanctuary trash so it's balanced a bit in that way. I did interpret Aquila's challenge to mean strong Shelters are encouraged, so mine are certainly strong.

Sanctuary is my attempt to fix the original version of Hovel. You can trash it in the opening but if you don't do that you can potentially get a much better trash off later. I don't think trashing the Sanctuary will be the right move in the majority of cases.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on March 11, 2019, 05:01:39 pm

Quote

Savings
$1
Action-Shelter
+$1
You may play a Savings from your hand.
------------
When you discard this from play, take 1 Debt, and then you may pay off debt.

Quote

Drought
$1
Action-Shelter
If you have an Estate set aside, then at the start of your next turn, put this into your hand.
Otherwise, gain an Estate, setting it aside.
-----------------
When you would trash this, discard it instead.

Savings is sort of a mini-Capital. You get two of these to reduce swinginess, guaranteeing either 1 on your $4 opening, or 2 on your $3 opening, or getting a $5 hand anyway. Similar to Baker's setup effect, but you have to pay it off later.

Drought is an annoyance. It is effectively removed from your deck if you can spend an action every turn. This encourages you to go for an engine. If you try to trash it with conventional means, though, it punishes you by putting it back in your deck for the next shuffle. The Estate is a tracking helper to make sure you can't remove it on your first turns.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on March 12, 2019, 01:14:24 am

(https://i.imgur.com/A5Q4oR6.png) (https://i.imgur.com/PITureZ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/n8RAdrU.png) 

Overrun Duchy gives you a benefit if you manage to hold onto it til the end game and might give you an advantage in the duchy split.

Anvil is pretty useless for you for the first few turns, but can give you some card draw in a pinch if you need it.

Allowance can change your opening. If you get it turn 1, you can change from a 4/3 to a 5/2, or a 2/5 to a 3/4. If you get it turn two you can get a happy 4/4 or a 3/5, but then turn 3 is a little bit sad.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on March 12, 2019, 02:46:04 am

Quote from: majiponi on March 11, 2019, 11:59:52 am

Quote from: faust on March 11, 2019, 10:47:29 am

Quote from: majiponi on March 11, 2019, 09:41:53 am

Secret Estate
cost $1 - Victory - Shelter
When you trash this, set this aside.
---
1VP

Is this supposed to remain set aside forever? In that case, "When you trash this, +1 VP" seems more reasonable. If not, it needs to say when it is returned.

Yes, +1VP is simpler, but not everyone has Prosperity or Empires. I thought letting it standalone is better.

??? you don't need Prosperity or Empires. As Donald said, you can use any marker, perhaps Euro-Cent? ;)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on March 12, 2019, 03:51:44 am

Quote from: herw on March 12, 2019, 02:46:04 am

Quote from: majiponi on March 11, 2019, 11:59:52 am

Quote from: faust on March 11, 2019, 10:47:29 am

Quote from: majiponi on March 11, 2019, 09:41:53 am

Secret Estate
cost $1 - Victory - Shelter
When you trash this, set this aside.
---
1VP

Is this supposed to remain set aside forever? In that case, "When you trash this, +1 VP" seems more reasonable. If not, it needs to say when it is returned.

Yes, +1VP is simpler, but not everyone has Prosperity or Empires. I thought letting it standalone is better.

??? you don't need Prosperity or Empires. As Donald said, you can use any marker, perhaps Euro-Cent? ;)

If the card were to be printed, hypothetically, the hypothetical consumer may not hypothetically have Prosperity or Empires, and may not hypothetically know what +1VP means

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on March 12, 2019, 04:13:41 am

Ore
Reaction/Shelter - $1*
When you gain a Treasure card, you may trash this to gain a copy of it

Helper
Reaction/Shelter - $1*
When you gain an Action card, you may trash this to gain a copy of it.

Homestead
Reaction/Shelter - $1*
When you gain a Victory card, you may trash this to gain a copy of it onto your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on March 13, 2019, 03:11:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/6JQIEOhl.png) (https://i.imgur.com/RzZmyZdl.png) (https://i.imgur.com/KCwWcVLl.png)

Quote

Clergy House
Night-Sanctuary - $1
-
Trash the top card from your deck.

Quote

Gingerbread House
Victory-Sanctuary - $1
-
2VP
When you trash this, gain an Estate. When something causes you to reveal this (using the word "reveal"), trash this and gain a Curse.

Quote

Hunting Tent
Treasure-Sanctuary - $1
-
When you play this, reveal the top three cards of your deck, then put them back in any order. +$1 for every Action card revealed.

The personal goal here is to create a set of shelters with some interaction with each other. I went through quite a few iterations of all three before settling on these.

• Clergy House was originally, "Trash the top two cards from your deck." Then I realized that this would be far more advantageous on Turn 1 than Turn 2, when it could actually harm you. Version 0.2 looked like, "Look at the top two cards of your deck. Trash both or put them back in any order," but this still seemed better to have on Turn 1. Edit: After looking into other comments about early trashing, I nerfed Clergy House so that it now automatically trashes your top card. It's still far more preferable to get this in Turn 1 versus Turn 2, I admit, unless you get a Turn 2 Hunting Tent.
• For Gingerbread House, I debated on whether you get the Estate when you reveal-trash this, but making it so that you only get the Estate when not revealing this got really wordy. For a while, I considered bumping it up to 3VP and not trashing when revealed, but this version stuck.
• Hunting Tent originally gave you money for revealed Coppers, but this would be far too swingy for early game play. Thus, it changed to Action cards. Turn 2 usage will make it possible to reveal a Turn 1 Action buy and get another $ out of it, so perhaps that makes it too good compared to Turn 1?

Edit 1: This set is really looking swingy, isn't it? A Turn 1 $5 buy means all three Shelters are in Turn 2, which means you use Hunting Tent to reveal and reorder your top three cards, use Clergy House to trash a Copper, and ensure that Gingerbread House doesn't get popped. Furthermore, it will guarantee a Turn 3 use of that $5 card, and if it's an Action, a 50/50 chance of getting $3 instead of $2 for Turn 2. Yeah, I should probably re-evaluate this set.

Edit 2: Any additional feedback is welcome, of course.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on March 13, 2019, 11:27:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/5yhsHax.png)(https://i.imgur.com/03LVWLz.png)(https://i.imgur.com/vxedRoS.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MeNowDealWithIt on March 14, 2019, 04:24:24 am

Quote

Foodstall
$1* Action - Duration - Shelter
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn, +1 Buy

Quote

Spire
$3* Action - Shelter
+1 Action
-
When you trash this, put it into your hand.

Quote

Clue
$1* Night - Shelter
If you've gained at least 2 cards this turn, trash this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: terminalCopper on March 14, 2019, 05:06:44 pm

Quote

Foodstall
$1* Action - Duration - Shelter
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn, +1 Buy

Wonderful! This innocent little shelter can create games with one and a half buy per turn on average, which is game-changing and new afaik.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on March 17, 2019, 05:13:22 am

This is your 24-hour call, 24 hours left to get your Shelters judgment ready!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on March 18, 2019, 06:12:27 am

And here we are.

So I was looking for some excitement; what I meant I suppose was for the Shelters to be potentially useful to the deck, unlike the ones in Dark Ages that only give Necropolis. You often want to trash Estates anyway, so the other 2 aren't that interesting. And there are quite a lot of different possibilities with the Shelter idea, yet at the same time it's very possible to make the game worse. So to see how you did...

Cave/Cabin/Hollow Tree (faust)
Cave: a situational Copper that rarely has an effect on the opening, but is a fun twist when it does work. Going late it's a bit more reliable. Making it an Action would be a bit cleaner, but could be too strong in the opening (and complete Courtier) so is wisely avoided.
Cabin: if you keep the other two cards in your deck this is a Province. Quite a powerful impetus, so if everyone's doing this decks against thin or cycling opponents that have at least one good Treasure are at a slight advantage.
Hollow Tree: puts a Treasure back onto deck, almost never itself. You can get a bit of shuffle control putting Coppers back early, besides other neat little tricks. Something you wouldn't mind coming up often in all random games.
Overall: a good start-off. Encouraging a deck to keep Hollow Tree in it is nice, whilst Cave adds a bit of player interaction. Cave might go better with a shelter that makes shuffles happen more, to get the most out of it.

Ill-gotten Treasury/Dry Moat/Secret Estate (majiponi)
Ill-gotten Treasury: trash for 3 Coppers to hand, now that's going to warp the start quite a bit with the possibility of 5/5, 4/6 or 3/7, though yes with 2 extra cards in the deck first shuffle. A bit like Banquet, so you won't always use it. Quite nice.
Dry Moat: trash to block an Attack, it's quite neat to help stop an opening Attack potentially taking other players out of the game, if it's in hand.
Secret Estate: if you trash it it still gives 1 VP. This gets you no further ahead or behind points wise (everyone's got this), just the card out the deck; so this is weaker than Overgrown Estate.
Overall: Moat and Treasury anti-synergise a bit. The main bit of excitement here in Treasury is not often very fun.

Boneyard/Hole/Dilapidated Estate (Chris is me)
Boneyard: straight 1 Villager, more reliable than Necropolis early and lets you get Villages into the deck later. Not so good late game, it likely saves a spare Action for later.
Hole: if used in the opening, it kinda makes the starter deck just 8 cards and one of your starting hands 3 cards, and you get some choice over the missing other card. Quite a big speed boost, but there are of course cases for using it later or not at all.
Dilapidated Estate: every Shelter gives 2VP if this is in deck. It's a fine choice for a Shelter mechanic. It puts a little question mark on using Hole.
Overall: almost every game is going to be about making an engine, but with a few options about how you use these Shelters to build it. The main question here is how often keeping Hole for VP is worth it, if it actually is an interesting decision.

Cove/Sanctuary/Belfry (hypercube)
Cove: puts 2 cards away for next hand, a handy effect mitigated by no draw or +Action. Drawn turn 1 and any saved Coppers can buy a $5+ that can go into the first shuffle. Drawn turn 2 and 3 cards miss the shuffle and a $3-$5 is put in. So there's a possible unfair advantage for some there.
Sanctuary: a one-off trash that ideally needs a bit of work, sweet. Cove can let this trash 2 more things, making a different boost to drawing it turn 1. You can only add a $2 in though, to balance things a bit.
Belfry: a +Villager Treasure if it's the only Treasure in play. The only reason to keep this is when a treasure-less deck is possible, or you set up dud turns with Cove, otherwise it falls with the Sanctuary.
Overall: I do like the synergy between these three, the different things they can do. Cove can speed up the first shuffle, calms down in impact later. It's just how much of a difference drawing it turn 1 or 2 will make.

Commons/Dowry/Workhouse (Fragasnap)
Commons: one non-Victory gained can be put in hand, this is strong when you can play the gain. On average not much, but occasionally great, power level feels spot on.
Dowry: a one-shot you want to pop late game, now that's a good Shelter premise in my mind. This encourages you to build up to a massive $ mega turn, or it can be more modestly used as an urgent buy during building. A question playtesting would have to answer is how often the mega turn route is dominant; too much so would be bad.
Workhouse: an interesting VP method that involves all the $2-s in the game, with +4 Actions on trash that can help save a turn, maybe the Dowry turn. Like the other varying VP Shelters here, it adds reason to keep them all. You might be moved to keep an uninteresting Commons, doesn't change Dowry but makes up here by including non Shelters.
Overall: each have good design in their own right, and have some synergy. Great, certainly exciting, the only thing is how Dowry might narrow the game a bit.

Pig/Shack/Old Shrine (Gazbag)
Pig: non-terminal buy that you can lose if you don't buy anything. Seems a shame to have to get a Copper in exchange, you lose that buy, but if the first version of Hovel had issues...
Shack: becomes a Lab with Gold in hand, nice way to make a Shelter relevant later.
Old Shrine: a sharp punishment for trashing this, each other player can gain a Gold that can activate their Shack. Doable with handsize attacks of course.
Overall: safe set to replay with, but the only excitement as such is activating Shack. Shrine detracts from this somewhat.

Empty Field/Shack/Stick (Doom_Shark)
Empty Field: changes into a $2, you really want there to be a $2 in the kingdom or possibly cost reduction, otherwise this is a Copper (or the Estate it would have been anyway).
Shack: Estate that you can make a Copper on trash. You'd lose a VP and gain a weak card, I think I prefer Overgrown Estate or an ordinary Estate.
Stick: you trash 2 cards in the opening at no loss of $, this makes things a bit too fast.
Overall: hard to say that I would use these over 3 Estates.

Allotments/Lost Place/Chicken Market (King Leon)
Allotments: cute, tiebreaker and tfb fodder go together fine.
Lost Place: Curses are made relevant to every game, which is nice. The very slow trashing hits the balance spot well, you may want to keep it or not. Softening oppressive early cursing Attacks is great. But you can also change Allotments to a $3 in the opening, speeding things up a bit for those who get them together. The randomness can be unpleasant.
Chicken Market: situational Ruined Market highly dependent on virtual $ or Gold gaining to do anything. It mitigates Lost Place changing Allotments to Silver a little bit. Some 3-card openings possible, but most likely for trashing, even with Lost Place into Copper.
Overall: it's all about Lost Place pretty much, which isn't a bad reason to use the set, just the chance of connecting to Allotments in the opening sets it back.

Savings/Savings/Drought (hhelibebcnofnena)
Savings: 2 Capitals worth $1. Opening splits can vary depending on how they divide between the turns ($7 total for both on turn 1, $8 for 1, $9 for 0), so although there's a bit of flexibility, there's potential for unpleasant random advantages.
Drought: untrashable junk. It stays out of the way if you can (Island it or) use an Action on it just before you shuffle, so the earlier it appears in the shuffle the more Actions you could need to make it work. A mild mitigation to the opening boost of the Savings later on, although it always keeps out of the first shuffle.
Overall: the start becomes heavily affected by chance, turn 3 recovery won't be much to deal with.

Overrun Duchy/Anvil/Allowance (mail-mi)
Overrun Duchy: more often than not a delayed Duchy, when you get it with a Province in hand. There's a bit of skill involved to pop it, but nothing that general good and bad play won't affect. It's alright.
Anvil: delayed Lackeys draw, the needed Action needs to be non-terminal. Cute if you can involve it in an engine.
Allowance: rather like a single Savings. The advantage of drawing it turn 2 is more modest than with the above set, but still a little setback.
Overall: individually each is mediocre, but no two are similar. There’s nice variety, and they could be a pleasant set.

Ore/Helper/Homestead (NoMoreFun)
Ore: becomes a copy of a Treasure you gain. A Silver or maybe Quarry in the opening, or a $5+ later. Nice decision-making called for.
Helper: same as Ore but for Actions. Same pleasant strategizing, and here especially the fact you can't make this a $5 in the opening is an elegant touch.
Homestead: same as Ore but for a Victory. Very often it will be saved for a Province, which can be like taking a whole extra turn so be a big speed boost. The top-deck isn't much of a slowdown considering.
Overall: Ore and Helper are great, Homestead I'm not so keen on. Some random advantages are possible too.

Clergy House/Gingerbread House/Hunting Tent (Tejayes)
Clergy House: trash top of deck, highly risky after turn 1 if not for Hunting Tent. There's a bit of random advantage for those drawing these together.
Gingerbread House: you can try to preserve the 2VP, but the Tent or other Patron triggers will eat it and the clergy or another trasher will get the leftovers Curse. I can see Tent being heavily used at the start, so it's like a more fun, two-stage Hovel.
Hunting Tent: Treasure that scales better going late...or so it seems. Having several Actions on your deck at the Buy phase isn't going to be the best of decks. That's quite funny! Yet as a sorter it's just for Clergy House most of the time because it's in the Buy phase, so suitably weak overall.
Overall: Clergy House and Tent will make deck control easier, but not so much as to warp the game. It's quite fun too.

Chieftain Hut/Copper Vein/Sweeper’s House (Commodore Chuckles)
Chieftain Hut: terminally save 2 Actions to play next turn, an effect that is distinctly useful sometimes but is suitably weak, a good Shelter.
Copper Vein: gain Copper to hand, yes it can make the opening $8 total but gets away with it by one more card in the deck. So it's sound.
Sweeper's House: discard top 2 from deck, situational yet weak like Hut so is again sound.
Overall: no real similarities, so it feels like a set pleasant to play with nice variety. Cute when one of them is useful.

Foodstall/Spire/Clue (MeNowDealWithIt)
Foodstall: non-terminal next-turn-Market Square. You play it whenever it's in hand, maybe the Buy will be useful next turn. You'd only trash it because it doesn't draw. Sort of uninteresting.
Spire: Ruined Village with Fortress effect, purely tfb fodder with its $3 cost and almost useless without any tfb cards in the game.
Clue: can trash when you gain more than 1 card in a turn. It synergizes with Foodstall, and is a nicer Hovel more suited to engine building.
Overall: safe set, but nothing here excites me that much.

If we took the sets apart and then picked 3 to go together, there would be a lot of great combos. I was almost tempted to put my favourite up, but couldn't really choose.

Shortlist: Cave, Cove, Boneyard, Commons, Overrun Duchy, Clergy House, Chieftain Hut.

Winner: Commons/Dowry/Workhouse by Fragasnap.
Runner-up: Chieftain Hut/Copper Vein/Sweeper's House by Commodore Chuckles.

Fragasnap's set of Shelters have convincing reasons to be kept, are quite replayable, don't affect the opening yet also can be justifiably trashed. Commodore's set is likely going to be safer in playtesting, but I just wasn't so excited by Copper Vein.
There are definitely good reasons to choose other sets here, or a combo from different sets, so I can see this contest coming up again in future. Congrats and well done all!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 18, 2019, 06:24:36 am

Quote from: Aquila on March 18, 2019, 06:12:27 am

Cave: a situational Copper that rarely has an effect on the opening, but is a fun twist when it does work. Going late it's a bit more reliable. Making it an Action would be a bit cleaner, but could be too strong in the opening (and complete Courtier) so is wisely avoided.

The main reason to have Cave was combating first-player advantage by the way. Not sure if that came through.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on March 18, 2019, 06:18:25 pm

Quote from: Aquila on March 18, 2019, 06:12:27 am

Fragasnap's set of Shelters have convincing reasons to be kept, are quite replayable, don't affect the opening yet also can be justifiably trashed.

Thanks for the kind words, Aquila.

Contest #23: Kingdom Card with Curses; Create a Kingdom card that can cause players to gain Curses.

• The card can be a traditional Cursing Attack (Witch)
• The card does not have to be an Attack (Embargo)
• The card does not have to give Curses to other players (Hideout)
• The card does not have to give Curses every time it is played (Giant) nor even when it is played (Ill-Gotten Gains)
• The card must imply players gaining Curses in and of itself (not Ambassador, not Black Market)
• Events (Ritual), Landmarks (Defiled Shrine), and Projects need not apply (Unless it is tied to a Kingdom card, like Tournament to Followers, or some such thing)

I think that is clear, but I will +1 any submission that fits the bill for clarity.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on March 19, 2019, 03:49:44 am

Pariah
Action - $4
Gain a card costing up to $5. Each other player may gain a curse onto their deck to gain a copy of it. (their choice)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on March 19, 2019, 09:24:30 am

Shady Witch
cost $4 - Action - Attack
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard a Treasure to trash a card from your hand.
You may discard a Treasure. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 19, 2019, 09:46:30 am

(https://i.imgur.com/MBHuF3j.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on March 19, 2019, 10:23:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YrjHDki.png)

My attempt at a dual type Curse-ish card. You can buy it and then trash it later, but the Curse-gaining makes it more of a pain to do so. Overall, you'll have to decide if the extra +Action is worth it. The type is "Dark" instead of Curse to avoid any confusion.

Title: Re: Contest #23: Gains Curses
Post by: Gubump on March 19, 2019, 11:44:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Gc01Zdf.png)

The last clause is there to prevent Blackmailer from becoming OP when the Curses run out.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on March 20, 2019, 06:32:29 am

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ndiuctja.png)
Consul
Type: Action – Attack
Cost: $5

+1 Card
Reveal card from your hand. You may trash it. Each other player may discard a copy of that card. If they don’t, they gain a Curse.

I hope, that it this is not too weak in comparison with Taxman, Witch, Masquerade and Junk Dealer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 20, 2019, 08:18:43 am

(https://i.imgur.com/yGDrmrB.jpg)

The non-mandatory trashing is the little extra, similar to Junk Dealer or Upgrade having a little extra relative to a mere cantrip trasher.
The main idea of the Attack is that you might want to junk the opponents if you have more trashing power.
To kickstart this Curses game I put the topdecking attack in there; not sure if it is too strong though.
The extra Buy is there to make everything run smoother with Potions but it could be too much.

Title: Re: Contest #23: Gains Curses
Post by: GendoIkari on March 20, 2019, 10:27:00 am

Quote from: Gubump on March 19, 2019, 11:44:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Gc01Zdf.png)

The last clause is there to prevent Blackmailer from becoming OP when the Curses run out.

The last clause isn't necessary, though could be nice to have as an italics/parenthesized reminder. By regular Dominion rules, you can always choose an option that isn't possible; see Torturer (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Torturer) after Curses have run out, or with an empty hand.

This card seems weak. It's a weaker version of Jester (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Jester), and it costs less, but it seems way weaker. Any time this hits Copper, a Victory card, or any other Junk; it is just a terminal Silver with no other benefit, which is worse than a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} card. You can't stack it to give out multiple Curses, because of the top-decked Curse. But I think it will rarely give out Curses; unless your opponent already has a strong engine that can plow through Curses, they won't choose that option, and instead the card will mostly read "+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. You may gain a copy of the top card of your opponent's deck." If you consider gaining a card very similar to your opponent trashing that same card; then this is almost a strictly weaker version of Swindler.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chris is me on March 20, 2019, 11:47:15 am

Gambit

Action - $5

+3 Cards

You may gain a Curse to your hand. If you do, +1 Action.

---

May need to play with balance a bit - this could be better as a $4 with +2 Cards, but I wanna try the 3 cards version first.

Title: Re: Contest #23: Gains Curses
Post by: Gubump on March 20, 2019, 12:11:31 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 20, 2019, 10:27:00 am

Quote from: Gubump on March 19, 2019, 11:44:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Gc01Zdf.png)

The last clause is there to prevent Blackmailer from becoming OP when the Curses run out.

The last clause isn't necessary, though could be nice to have as an italics/parenthesized reminder. By regular Dominion rules, you can always choose an option that isn't possible; see Torturer (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Torturer) after Curses have run out, or with an empty hand.

This card seems weak. It's a weaker version of Jester (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Jester), and it costs less, but it seems way weaker. Any time this hits Copper, a Victory card, or any other Junk; it is just a terminal Silver with no other benefit, which is worse than a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} card. You can't stack it to give out multiple Curses, because of the top-decked Curse. But I think it will rarely give out Curses; unless your opponent already has a strong engine that can plow through Curses, they won't choose that option, and instead the card will mostly read "+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. You may gain a copy of the top card of your opponent's deck." If you consider gaining a card very similar to your opponent trashing that same card; then this is almost a strictly weaker version of Swindler.

Do you think that bumping up its cost to $5 but making it non-terminal would balance it?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on March 20, 2019, 12:29:10 pm

Totem, Treasure - Attack, 5$
Worth 2$
+1 Buy
When you play this, each other may reveal a card you do not have a copy of in play from their hand. Those who don't gain a Curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on March 20, 2019, 05:27:42 pm

Quote

Scarecrow - Action Attack Duration, $4 cost.
Now and at the start of your next turn:
+ $1
Each other player may discard an Estate. Those who don't gain a Curse.
-
While this is in play, when another player trashes a Curse, you may draw a card then discard a card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on March 21, 2019, 04:12:20 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 19, 2019, 10:23:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YrjHDki.png)

My attempt at a dual type Curse-ish card. You can buy it and then trash it later, but the Curse-gaining makes it more of a pain to do so. Overall, you'll have to decide if the extra +Action is worth it. The type is "Dark" instead of Curse to avoid any confusion.

Hm - i don't like too many new types.I am in discussion about using purple banners too in German forum (http://forum.dominion-welt.de/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=207&start=150#p8193). I am using it for a traveller-serie with negative victory points. Donald's rule for purple banner only for curses (named curse) is not very useful.
Nevertheless you don't need a new type. It is no curse (-type) so no other curser will affect this card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on March 21, 2019, 09:05:43 am

Cursed Estate, Victory $4
1Vp
Whenever you gain this card, all other players gain a curse

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 21, 2019, 10:02:28 am

Quote from: herw on March 21, 2019, 04:12:20 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 19, 2019, 10:23:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YrjHDki.png)

My attempt at a dual type Curse-ish card. You can buy it and then trash it later, but the Curse-gaining makes it more of a pain to do so. Overall, you'll have to decide if the extra +Action is worth it. The type is "Dark" instead of Curse to avoid any confusion.

Hm - i don't like too many new types.I am in discussion about using purple banners too in German forum (http://forum.dominion-welt.de/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=207&start=150#p8193). I am using it for a traveller-serie with negative victory points. Donald's rule for purple banner only for curses (named curse) is not very useful.
Nevertheless you don't need a new type. It is no curse (-type) so no other curser will affect this card.

I almost replied with the same thing, but I'm unsure about the idea of a regular action being worth VP at the end, whether positive or negative. The VP type and the Curse type both let you know to count the VP on the cards at the end of the game. The rules simply say "Count up your _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}" at game end; so they don't say that you are counting only Victory and Curse cards. But the color at least is helpful for knowing to count it at the end.

Title: Re: Contest #23: Gains Curses
Post by: GendoIkari on March 21, 2019, 10:05:50 am

Quote from: Gubump on March 20, 2019, 12:11:31 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 20, 2019, 10:27:00 am

Quote from: Gubump on March 19, 2019, 11:44:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Gc01Zdf.png)

The last clause is there to prevent Blackmailer from becoming OP when the Curses run out.

The last clause isn't necessary, though could be nice to have as an italics/parenthesized reminder. By regular Dominion rules, you can always choose an option that isn't possible; see Torturer (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Torturer) after Curses have run out, or with an empty hand.

This card seems weak. It's a weaker version of Jester (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Jester), and it costs less, but it seems way weaker. Any time this hits Copper, a Victory card, or any other Junk; it is just a terminal Silver with no other benefit, which is worse than a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} card. You can't stack it to give out multiple Curses, because of the top-decked Curse. But I think it will rarely give out Curses; unless your opponent already has a strong engine that can plow through Curses, they won't choose that option, and instead the card will mostly read "+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. You may gain a copy of the top card of your opponent's deck." If you consider gaining a card very similar to your opponent trashing that same card; then this is almost a strictly weaker version of Swindler.

Do you think that bumping up its cost to $5 but making it non-terminal would balance it?

I think it would be better balanced. Because it's still weak when your opponent's deck is mostly Copper and Estate, you don't want one early anyway, so the cost difference won't matter as much as it would normally. As a non-terminal, it would act more like a Silver-with-a-bonus, and the bonus seems to me to be about on-par with the other Silver-with-a-bonuses at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}. I still think it is unlikely to give out Curses, as most opponents will choose to let you gain a copy most of the time instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on March 21, 2019, 10:06:37 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on March 21, 2019, 09:05:43 am

Cursed Estate, Victory $4
1Vp
Whenever you gain this card, all other players gain a curse

With Baker in the kingdom you don't want to be the player with the 5/2 split. There is a reason that Ill-gotten Gains costs $5. With Baron/Squire/Herbalist/Storeroom/Pawn/Peasant this can lead to a quick Estate run.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on March 21, 2019, 10:16:22 am

Quote from: King Leon on March 21, 2019, 10:06:37 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on March 21, 2019, 09:05:43 am

Cursed Estate, Victory $4
1Vp
Whenever you gain this card, all other players gain a curse

With Baker in the kingdom you don't want to be the player with the 5/2 split. There is a reason that Ill-gotten Gains costs $5. With Baron/Squire/Herbalist/Storeroom/Pawn/Peasant this can lead to a quick Estate run.

I dont know what the baker has to do with this?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on March 21, 2019, 10:20:46 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 21, 2019, 10:02:28 am

Quote from: herw on March 21, 2019, 04:12:20 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 19, 2019, 10:23:43 pm

My attempt at a dual type Curse-ish card. You can buy it and then trash it later, but the Curse-gaining makes it more of a pain to do so. Overall, you'll have to decide if the extra +Action is worth it. The type is "Dark" instead of Curse to avoid any confusion.

Hm - i don't like too many new types.I am in discussion about using purple banners too in German forum (http://forum.dominion-welt.de/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=207&start=150#p8193). I am using it for a traveller-serie with negative victory points. Donald's rule for purple banner only for curses (named curse) is not very useful.
Nevertheless you don't need a new type. It is no curse (-type) so no other curser will affect this card.

I almost replied with the same thing, but I'm unsure about the idea of a regular action being worth VP at the end, whether positive or negative. The VP type and the Curse type both let you know to count the VP on the cards at the end of the game. The rules simply say "Count up your _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}" at game end; so they don't say that you are counting only Victory and Curse cards. But the color at least is helpful for knowing to count it at the end.

thank you; that's my opinion too :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on March 21, 2019, 10:24:07 am

Quote from: segura on March 20, 2019, 08:18:43 am

(https://i.imgur.com/yGDrmrB.jpg)

The non-mandatory trashing is the little extra, similar to Junk Dealer or Upgrade having a little extra relative to a mere cantrip trasher.
The main idea of the Attack is that you might want to junk the opponents if you have more trashing power.
To kickstart this Curses game I put the topdecking attack in there; not sure if it is too strong though.
The extra Buy is there to make everything run smoother with Potions but it could be too much.

Why do you need potion in costs?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on March 21, 2019, 10:41:35 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on March 21, 2019, 10:16:22 am

Quote from: King Leon on March 21, 2019, 10:06:37 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on March 21, 2019, 09:05:43 am

Cursed Estate, Victory $4
1Vp
Whenever you gain this card, all other players gain a curse

With Baker in the kingdom you don't want to be the player with the 5/2 split. There is a reason that Ill-gotten Gains costs $5. With Baron/Squire/Herbalist/Storeroom/Pawn/Peasant this can lead to a quick Estate run.

I dont know what the baker has to do with this?

With Baker in the kingdom, a 4/4 opening is possible, which means two Cursed Estates.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 21, 2019, 10:58:51 am

Quote from: King Leon on March 21, 2019, 10:41:35 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on March 21, 2019, 10:16:22 am

Quote from: King Leon on March 21, 2019, 10:06:37 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on March 21, 2019, 09:05:43 am

Cursed Estate, Victory $4
1Vp
Whenever you gain this card, all other players gain a curse

With Baker in the kingdom you don't want to be the player with the 5/2 split. There is a reason that Ill-gotten Gains costs $5. With Baron/Squire/Herbalist/Storeroom/Pawn/Peasant this can lead to a quick Estate run.

I dont know what the baker has to do with this?

With Baker in the kingdom, a 4/4 opening is possible, which means two Cursed Estates.

I'm almost sure that opening two Cursed Estates is a horrible move. IGG provides reliability to hit _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, for Duchies. If you bought nothing but Cursed Estates, while your opponent played normally, you would be left with a deck that has 18 junk cards, only 7 of which are Copper, while your opponent has 8 junk cards, and whatever other normal stuff he's been doing. You'd be up by 16 points, sure, but you've only drained 1 pile; and you have absolutely no economy available to try to drain 2 more. You'd have to buy 2 Curses yourself if you want the fastest 3-pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on March 21, 2019, 12:11:57 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 19, 2019, 10:23:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YrjHDki.png)

My attempt at a dual type Curse-ish card. You can buy it and then trash it later, but the Curse-gaining makes it more of a pain to do so. Overall, you'll have to decide if the extra +Action is worth it. The type is "Dark" instead of Curse to avoid any confusion.

I agree with what the others said. Given that you never get rid of the negative VP this is worth, I think it should just say "When you gain this, each other player gets +1VP" and avoid the type weirdness completely. Obviously it won't fit the brief anymore, but it will be a better card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 21, 2019, 01:20:56 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 21, 2019, 12:11:57 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 19, 2019, 10:23:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YrjHDki.png)

My attempt at a dual type Curse-ish card. You can buy it and then trash it later, but the Curse-gaining makes it more of a pain to do so. Overall, you'll have to decide if the extra +Action is worth it. The type is "Dark" instead of Curse to avoid any confusion.

I agree with what the others said. Given that you never get rid of the negative VP this is worth, I think it should just say "When you gain this, each other player gets +1VP" and avoid the type weirdness completely. Obviously it won't fit the brief anymore, but it will be a better card.

Well you can get rid of the -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}, you just have to "trash it twice". I think in terms of mechanics and theme, it's much better to not give a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} token to other players. In terms of balance, this card does suffer from the same issue as any VP-as-a-penalty card.. which is that sometimes 1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} means nothing at all to the final score, and sometimes it means everything.

The new type seems fine; as long as it were with a broader set where the new type had actual meaning.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on March 21, 2019, 04:46:44 pm

I've already posted this earlier (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19365.0#post_woodwitch), without much feedback. As far as I know, reusing old ideas is not forbidden?
In case I have a new idea, that is suiting as well, I'll replace this post.

(https://i.imgur.com/KmMzpmG.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on March 21, 2019, 06:28:33 pm

Quote from: Shard of Honor on March 21, 2019, 04:46:44 pm

[Wood Witch]

Well, that's annoyingly close to my entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/MghZBHd.jpg)

Quote

Devil's Bargain
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card
Look at the top card of your deck.  You may put it in your hand.  If you do, +1 Action, and gain a curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 21, 2019, 06:52:30 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on March 21, 2019, 06:28:33 pm

Quote from: Shard of Honor on March 21, 2019, 04:46:44 pm

[Wood Witch]

Well, that's annoyingly close to my entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/MghZBHd.jpg)

Quote

Devil's Bargain
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card
Look at the top card of your deck.  You may put it in your hand.  If you do, +1 Action, and gain a curse.

I don’t see how they are similar at all.... Wood Witch is a cantrip that sometimes gives opponents a Curse. Devil’s Bargain is a cheap lab that self-curses as a penalty. I think Devil’s Bargain is way too weak; it’s a Ruined Library if you don’t take the Curse. Might be fine if you always got the action. Even then, probably a $2.

+1 Card
+1 Action

Look at the top card of your deck. You may gain a Curse, for +1 Card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 22, 2019, 05:55:59 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 21, 2019, 06:52:30 pm

I think Devil’s Bargain is way too weak; it’s a Ruined Library if you don’t take the Curse. Might be fine if you always got the action. Even then, probably a $2.

+1 Card
+1 Action

Look at the top card of your deck. You may gain a Curse, for +1 Card.

I agree the current version is too weak, but this makes the decision too trivial. It doesn't hurt to get it, and the decision whether to get the Curse should usually be simple, of the type Watchtower in hand? Need more trashing fodder for Forager? etc. I think making it actively hurt when you don't get the Curse makes for better design, but it needs to be stronger and it somehow needs to deal with the case where Curses have run out.

EDIT: Just saw that the original card's wording works if Curses run out, so that's good? Though it becomes a mindless pickup after Curses run out another way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on March 22, 2019, 07:11:49 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 21, 2019, 10:58:51 am

Quote from: King Leon on March 21, 2019, 10:41:35 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on March 21, 2019, 10:16:22 am

Quote from: King Leon on March 21, 2019, 10:06:37 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on March 21, 2019, 09:05:43 am

Cursed Estate, Victory $4
1Vp
Whenever you gain this card, all other players gain a curse

With Baker in the kingdom you don't want to be the player with the 5/2 split. There is a reason that Ill-gotten Gains costs $5. With Baron/Squire/Herbalist/Storeroom/Pawn/Peasant this can lead to a quick Estate run.

I dont know what the baker has to do with this?

With Baker in the kingdom, a 4/4 opening is possible, which means two Cursed Estates.

I'm almost sure that opening two Cursed Estates is a horrible move. IGG provides reliability to hit _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, for Duchies. If you bought nothing but Cursed Estates, while your opponent played normally, you would be left with a deck that has 18 junk cards, only 7 of which are Copper, while your opponent has 8 junk cards, and whatever other normal stuff he's been doing. You'd be up by 16 points, sure, but you've only drained 1 pile; and you have absolutely no economy available to try to drain 2 more. You'd have to buy 2 Curses yourself if you want the fastest 3-pile.

I tought of that. Maybe it should be more this:
Cursed Estate, Victory $4
1Vp
Whenever you gain this card, all other players gain a curse
-
Setup: this kingdompile has 10 cards

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on March 22, 2019, 07:29:11 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 21, 2019, 06:52:30 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on March 21, 2019, 06:28:33 pm

Quote from: Shard of Honor on March 21, 2019, 04:46:44 pm

[Wood Witch]

Well, that's annoyingly close to my entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/MghZBHd.jpg)

Quote

Devil's Bargain
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card
Look at the top card of your deck.  You may put it in your hand.  If you do, +1 Action, and gain a curse.

I don’t see how they are similar at all.... Wood Witch is a cantrip that sometimes gives opponents a Curse. Devil’s Bargain is a cheap lab that self-curses as a penalty. I think Devil’s Bargain is way too weak; it’s a Ruined Library if you don’t take the Curse. Might be fine if you always got the action. Even then, probably a $2.

+1 Card
+1 Action

Look at the top card of your deck. You may gain a Curse, for +1 Card.

But isn't your intention that if you pile down the curse cards, it is an Libary? I think that makes the card more interesting. Piling down the curses all by yourself is painfull, so be rewarded for that is interesting play. Deffintly if there are other curse cards in the Kingdom

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 22, 2019, 10:05:24 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on March 22, 2019, 07:11:49 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 21, 2019, 10:58:51 am

Quote from: King Leon on March 21, 2019, 10:41:35 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on March 21, 2019, 10:16:22 am

Quote from: King Leon on March 21, 2019, 10:06:37 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on March 21, 2019, 09:05:43 am

Cursed Estate, Victory $4
1Vp
Whenever you gain this card, all other players gain a curse

With Baker in the kingdom you don't want to be the player with the 5/2 split. There is a reason that Ill-gotten Gains costs $5. With Baron/Squire/Herbalist/Storeroom/Pawn/Peasant this can lead to a quick Estate run.

I dont know what the baker has to do with this?

With Baker in the kingdom, a 4/4 opening is possible, which means two Cursed Estates.

I'm almost sure that opening two Cursed Estates is a horrible move. IGG provides reliability to hit _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, for Duchies. If you bought nothing but Cursed Estates, while your opponent played normally, you would be left with a deck that has 18 junk cards, only 7 of which are Copper, while your opponent has 8 junk cards, and whatever other normal stuff he's been doing. You'd be up by 16 points, sure, but you've only drained 1 pile; and you have absolutely no economy available to try to drain 2 more. You'd have to buy 2 Curses yourself if you want the fastest 3-pile.

I tought of that. Maybe it should be more this:
Cursed Estate, Victory $4
1Vp
Whenever you gain this card, all other players gain a curse
-
Setup: this kingdompile has 10 cards

My post was only meant to show why the card isn't overpowered when you can open 4/4; I think it is actually fine as-is. Probably pretty weak; but it has some interesting uses.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 22, 2019, 10:12:13 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on March 22, 2019, 07:29:11 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 21, 2019, 06:52:30 pm

Quote from: spiralstaircase on March 21, 2019, 06:28:33 pm

Quote from: Shard of Honor on March 21, 2019, 04:46:44 pm

[Wood Witch]

Well, that's annoyingly close to my entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/MghZBHd.jpg)

Quote

Devil's Bargain
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card
Look at the top card of your deck.  You may put it in your hand.  If you do, +1 Action, and gain a curse.

I don’t see how they are similar at all.... Wood Witch is a cantrip that sometimes gives opponents a Curse. Devil’s Bargain is a cheap lab that self-curses as a penalty. I think Devil’s Bargain is way too weak; it’s a Ruined Library if you don’t take the Curse. Might be fine if you always got the action. Even then, probably a $2.

+1 Card
+1 Action

Look at the top card of your deck. You may gain a Curse, for +1 Card.

But isn't your intention that if you pile down the curse cards, it is an Libary? I think that makes the card more interesting. Piling down the curses all by yourself is painfull, so be rewarded for that is interesting play. Deffintly if there are other curse cards in the Kingdom

I assume you mean Laboratory? It might be fine to not have the Lab-effect be conditional on successfully gaining the Curse; but the problem is in games where Curses can run out in any other way, this becomes nothing but a cheaper Laboratory.

Quote from: faust on March 22, 2019, 05:55:59 am

I agree the current version is too weak, but this makes the decision too trivial. It doesn't hurt to get it, and the decision whether to get the Curse should usually be simple, of the type Watchtower in hand? Need more trashing fodder for Forager? etc. I think making it actively hurt when you don't get the Curse makes for better design, but it needs to be stronger and it somehow needs to deal with the case where Curses have run out.

EDIT: Just saw that the original card's wording works if Curses run out, so that's good? Though it becomes a mindless pickup after Curses run out another way.

I think things like Watchtower are just special combos, just like with Cache or Treasure Trove. In other cases, I think it will be something you are rarely willing to do; which makes it maybe about on par with Pearl Diver... a cantrip that's barely better than just a cantrip. But maybe it's too good when it happens to be good.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on March 22, 2019, 11:09:09 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 21, 2019, 01:20:56 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 21, 2019, 12:11:57 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 19, 2019, 10:23:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YrjHDki.png)

My attempt at a dual type Curse-ish card. You can buy it and then trash it later, but the Curse-gaining makes it more of a pain to do so. Overall, you'll have to decide if the extra +Action is worth it. The type is "Dark" instead of Curse to avoid any confusion.

I agree with what the others said. Given that you never get rid of the negative VP this is worth, I think it should just say "When you gain this, each other player gets +1VP" and avoid the type weirdness completely. Obviously it won't fit the brief anymore, but it will be a better card.

Well you can get rid of the -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}, you just have to "trash it twice". I think in terms of mechanics and theme, it's much better to not give a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} token to other players. In terms of balance, this card does suffer from the same issue as any VP-as-a-penalty card.. which is that sometimes 1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} means nothing at all to the final score, and sometimes it means everything.

The new type seems fine; as long as it were with a broader set where the new type had actual meaning.

I agree that giving other players VP tokens doesn't fit the "Dark" theme. But it doesn't have to. I think that a theme decision mustn't dictate mechanics decisions. Theme can spawn mechanic ideas, but if fixing the mechanic doesn't fit the theme anymore, you should change the theme, not go with the inferior mechanic for thematic reasons. Which is to say, I absolutely think VP tokens for other players are the better mechanic - unless you want to introduce several cards that use this type of penalty, where introducing a new non-Curse type is justifiable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spiralstaircase on March 22, 2019, 12:57:14 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 22, 2019, 10:12:13 am

I assume you mean Laboratory? It might be fine to not have the Lab-effect be conditional on successfully gaining the Curse; but the problem is in games where Curses can run out in any other way, this becomes nothing but a cheaper Laboratory.

Yes.  The intention is that it's a Lab-for-a-curse until the curses run out.  After that, yeah, it's a cheaper lab; but at that point there's a good chance that people's decks are so junked that a cheap lab isn't game-breaking, and you're a pile down so the game's starting to end anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on March 22, 2019, 02:05:34 pm

Hi! Been Lurking here for a while and finally have some cards to show!

(https://i.imgur.com/cZXYgCO.jpg)

This is supposed to be an Island variant that lets other players Island things for free... for a Curse cost. I've been wondering whether this is an Attack or not- if the negative effect is optional it can't be right?

Also just for fun, a card that could gain you all the Curses in the game at once and still might be worth buying:

(https://i.imgur.com/XJ70lxz.jpg)
(Wait, oops, this is probably ridiculously overpowered with Watchtower)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 22, 2019, 02:14:35 pm

Quote from: herw on March 21, 2019, 10:24:07 am

Quote from: segura on March 20, 2019, 08:18:43 am

(https://i.imgur.com/yGDrmrB.jpg)

The non-mandatory trashing is the little extra, similar to Junk Dealer or Upgrade having a little extra relative to a mere cantrip trasher.
The main idea of the Attack is that you might want to junk the opponents if you have more trashing power.
To kickstart this Curses game I put the topdecking attack in there; not sure if it is too strong though.
The extra Buy is there to make everything run smoother with Potions but it could be too much.

Why do you need potion in costs?

Because the card is too good for $5 and because the junking subgame would be less interesting if Scientist were easier to gain (just play a Junk Dealer game: not so hard to gain a second or even third one).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 22, 2019, 02:50:09 pm

Quote from: FlyerBeast on March 22, 2019, 02:05:34 pm

Hi! Been Lurking here for a while and finally have some cards to show!

(https://i.imgur.com/cZXYgCO.jpg)

This is supposed to be an Island variant that lets other players Island things for free... for a Curse cost. I've been wondering whether this is an Attack or not- if the negative effect is optional it can't be right?

Welcome!

You're correct, shouldn't be an attack because other players can always choose to not be affected; so they would only be affected when it is helpful to them. But I don't see when they would ever choose it... setting aside a card at the cost of gaining a Curse just has the net effect of -1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}; with no change at all to the number of junk cards in their deck. Unless the Curses have already run out; it just doesn't seem like your opponents would ever choose to do the optional effect.

It seems way weaker than Island, almost strictly so. Instead of getting to set aside an Estate, you get to trash a Curse, which is way more situational. In plenty of games with this card, Curses won't even ever be gained by anyone. So it ends up largely being an Island without the setting aside another card part.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on March 22, 2019, 05:25:56 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 22, 2019, 02:50:09 pm

Quote from: FlyerBeast on March 22, 2019, 02:05:34 pm

I don't see when they would ever choose it... setting aside a card at the cost of gaining a Curse just has the net effect of -1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}; with no change at all to the number of junk cards in their deck. Unless the Curses have already run out; it just doesn't seem like your opponents would ever choose to do the optional effect.

It seems way weaker than Island, almost strictly so. Instead of getting to set aside an Estate, you get to trash a Curse, which is way more situational. In plenty of games with this card, Curses won't even ever be gained by anyone. So it ends up largely being an Island without the setting aside another card part.

Ah, I see your point! I might be too enamoured by Island's uses for getting things out of your deck. What if, instead, it was:

(https://i.imgur.com/8xClm6n.jpg)

(Don't worry, I shan't clog up the thread with any more iterations of this, thanks for the feedback though!)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on March 23, 2019, 05:54:59 am

Quote from: spiralstaircase on March 22, 2019, 12:57:14 pm

Yes.  The intention is that it's a Lab-for-a-curse until the curses run out.  After that, yeah, it's a cheaper lab; but at that point there's a good chance that people's decks are so junked that a cheap lab isn't game-breaking, and you're a pile down so the game's starting to end anyway.

I love the idea, but it is very conditional. It needs a trasher or another curse card in the kindom. You will never play it as an engine in this condition, as this card is absolutly shit as a 1 off without any support.

If you look at cursed gold, that gives you a curse for $3. Doing that once of twice are interesting chooises in a vacuum. So you could do it more like this: "+1 action, +1 card. You may gain $2. If you do, gain a curse." Those can be interesting choises without supporting cards, and becomes absoluty fun with. And the devil promisses riches more often anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on March 23, 2019, 06:04:43 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 22, 2019, 10:05:24 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on March 22, 2019, 07:11:49 am

I tought of that. Maybe it should be more this:
Cursed Estate, Victory $4
1Vp
Whenever you gain this card, all other players gain a curse
-
Setup: this kingdompile has 10 cards

My post was only meant to show why the card isn't overpowered when you can open 4/4; I think it is actually fine as-is. Probably pretty weak; but it has some interesting uses.

(http://i.imgur.com/qqPNgYcm.png) (https://imgur.com/qqPNgYc)
Cursed Estate, Victory $4
1Vp
Whenever you gain this card, all other players gain a curse
-
Setup: this supply pile contains 10 cards

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ahyangyi on March 23, 2019, 06:30:17 am

(current version)
Taskmaster
Action
+1 Action.
Reveal the top card of your deck, then put it in your hand. If it's a curse or a victory card, +1 Card, +1 Buy, +$1; otherwise, gain a curse, and you may put it on your deck.
$2

Previous versions:

Quote

(v1)
Taskmaster
Action
+1 Action.
Reveal the top card of your deck, then put it in your hand. If it's a curse, +1 Card, +1 Buy, +$1; otherwise, gain a curse.
$2

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 23, 2019, 07:49:35 am

Quote from: ahyangyi on March 23, 2019, 06:30:17 am

Taskmaster
Action
+1 Action.
Reveal the top card of your deck, then put it in your hand. If it's a curse, +1 Card, +1 Buy, +$1; otherwise, gain a curse.
$2

Let's assume the worst case, a Kingdom with Cursers yet no trashers. Let's also assume that the Curse pile is empty at T10 which seems relatively early. In a 2P game you have 10 starting cards, 10 bought cards and 5 Curses in your deck. That's a Curse ratio of 0.2.
I seriously doubt that in this instance I would ever want a Ruined Village that becomes a Market in 1 out of 5 cases. And usually Taskmaster is worse as it junks yourself and as the Curse ratio in your deck might be lower.

Sorry, but this card is only situationally better than Ruined Village and thus borderline junk.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 23, 2019, 08:14:21 am

Quote from: segura on March 23, 2019, 07:49:35 am

Quote from: ahyangyi on March 23, 2019, 06:30:17 am

Taskmaster
Action
+1 Action.
Reveal the top card of your deck, then put it in your hand. If it's a curse, +1 Card, +1 Buy, +$1; otherwise, gain a curse.
$2

Let's assume the worst case, a Kingdom with Cursers yet no trashers. Let's also assume that the Curse pile is empty at T10 which seems relatively early. In a 2P game you have 10 starting cards, 10 bought cards and 5 Curses in your deck. That's a Curse ratio of 0.2.
I seriously doubt that in this instance I would ever want a Ruined Village that becomes a Market in 1 out of 5 cases. And usually Taskmaster is worse as it junks yourself and as the Curse ratio in your deck might be lower.

Sorry, but this card is only situationally better than Ruined Village and thus borderline junk.

You are missing that it is always a cantrip. So it does become a Market + Lab if it hits. Still relatively weak. Maybe it could gain the Curse to the top of your deck for a little self synergy?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ahyangyi on March 23, 2019, 01:16:20 pm

Indeed. Now I also think it's too weak. Adding the option of topdecking the curse should help a bit.

Maybe also make it gives the nice bonus when the revealed card is a victory card? It still doesn't feel strong when compared against Crossroads. Perhaps it should have been that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 24, 2019, 03:14:46 am

Quote from: faust on March 23, 2019, 08:14:21 am

Quote from: segura on March 23, 2019, 07:49:35 am

Quote from: ahyangyi on March 23, 2019, 06:30:17 am

Taskmaster
Action
+1 Action.
Reveal the top card of your deck, then put it in your hand. If it's a curse, +1 Card, +1 Buy, +$1; otherwise, gain a curse.
$2

Let's assume the worst case, a Kingdom with Cursers yet no trashers. Let's also assume that the Curse pile is empty at T10 which seems relatively early. In a 2P game you have 10 starting cards, 10 bought cards and 5 Curses in your deck. That's a Curse ratio of 0.2.
I seriously doubt that in this instance I would ever want a Ruined Village that becomes a Market in 1 out of 5 cases. And usually Taskmaster is worse as it junks yourself and as the Curse ratio in your deck might be lower.

Sorry, but this card is only situationally better than Ruined Village and thus borderline junk.

You are missing that it is always a cantrip. So it does become a Market + Lab if it hits. Still relatively weak. Maybe it could gain the Curse to the top of your deck for a little self synergy?

Yes, I missed that. But it is still borderline junk as it is quite often, at least before the Curses run out, a Familiar that attacks yourself. So it is not a conventional $2 cantrip with a little extra but a $2 cantrip that only becomes wortwhile once the Curse pile is empty.

I'd try a version that discards a Curse for benefit. Far less swingy and for that reason also the conventional way to approach the dubious "good Curses" thingy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Uncleeurope on March 24, 2019, 01:26:17 pm

When is the deadline for this? Been working on a card, not quite happy with it yet and wanted to fiddle with it, but if it’s cuttin’ it too close I should just go for it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ben_king on March 25, 2019, 10:02:25 am

Emissary, $4
Action - Attack
For each other player, choose one: +2 cards; or gain a Curse to your hand.
Pass each other player a card from your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 25, 2019, 10:27:11 am

Quote from: ben_king on March 25, 2019, 10:02:25 am

Emissary, $4
Action - Attack
For each other player, choose one: +2 cards; or gain a Curse to your hand.
Pass each other player a card from your hand.

This seems interesting... but probably too strong. At the start, it's an Ambassador that only returns 1 card instead of 2, but also gives +2 cards, which is huge. Once you have gotten rid of your Estates, and maybe some Coppers, it can become a Sea Hag. It's very close to strictly better than Sea Hag... of course your opponents gaining a Curse to their hand instead of on top of their deck is not as painful for them; but I think the +2 cards + Ambassador effect more than makes up for that.  I wonder if it's a good strength for a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Oh, and that analysis was only for 2 player. In 3 player, it is actually just Ambassador except with +4 cards, if you choose that option. In 4 player, it is an Ambassador that returns 3 cards instead of 2, and has +6 cards. I think it's completely broken in 4 player, even at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on March 25, 2019, 12:38:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/1BuArZ8l.png)

Quote

Cozener
Action - $3
--
+1 Buy
+$1
-
While this is in play, when you buy a Curse, gain a card costing up to $5.

"Cozener" is another word for Swindler; the idea here is that the Cozener sabotages a pricier item, then claims to be able to take the cursed object off the owners hands. Honestly, I couldn't think of a better word. Anyway, it's a somewhat different idea at the very least.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on March 25, 2019, 02:46:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/cyHFRrq.png)

Originally I was thinking that the player to your left would get to choose, but that gives him a lot of power over the 3rd or 4th player in a multiplayer game. It might still work out that way, but I decided to go with the simpler option. I have no idea about balance.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on March 25, 2019, 05:08:50 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on March 25, 2019, 02:46:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/cyHFRrq.png)

Originally I was thinking that the player to your left would get to choose, but that gives him a lot of power over the 3rd or 4th player in a multiplayer game. It might still work out that way, but I decided to go with the simpler option. I have no idea about balance.

It looks too strong. The attack option itself is about on par with Witch, which is very strong, and the other option is nothing to sneeze at, either. Note how many other 5$ gainers cost 6$ themselves or have a downside.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on March 25, 2019, 05:11:36 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on March 25, 2019, 12:38:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/1BuArZ8l.png)

Quote

Cozener
Action - $3
--
+1 Buy
+$1
-
While this is in play, when you buy a Curse, gain a card costing up to $5.

"Cozener" is another word for Swindler; the idea here is that the Cozener sabotages a pricier item, then claims to be able to take the cursed object off the owners hands. Honestly, I couldn't think of a better word. Anyway, it's a somewhat different idea at the very least.

Cozener rewards players for gaining curses, it doesn't cause players to gain curses, and the prompt was the latter. I don't think this qualifies.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Uncleeurope on March 25, 2019, 05:26:42 pm

Eh, fine:


Redeemable Ruins [Cost: 5]
Action - Victory

3 VP

+ Buy
Return a card from your hand to the supply.
________________________

When you gain this, you may gain up to 2 Curses. For each Curse gained in this way, + 1 [Coin].

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on March 25, 2019, 06:19:23 pm

Quote from: Gubump on March 25, 2019, 05:11:36 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on March 25, 2019, 12:38:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/1BuArZ8l.png)

Quote

Cozener
Action - $3
--
+1 Buy
+$1
-
While this is in play, when you buy a Curse, gain a card costing up to $5.

"Cozener" is another word for Swindler; the idea here is that the Cozener sabotages a pricier item, then claims to be able to take the cursed object off the owners hands. Honestly, I couldn't think of a better word. Anyway, it's a somewhat different idea at the very least.

Cozener rewards players for gaining curses, it doesn't cause players to gain curses, and the prompt was the latter. I don't think this qualifies.

Well, that depends on what "cause" means here. Rewarding players for gaining Curses can, technically speaking, cause them to gain them when they otherwise wouldn't.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on March 25, 2019, 08:05:38 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 25, 2019, 06:19:23 pm

Quote from: Gubump on March 25, 2019, 05:11:36 pm

Cozener rewards players for gaining curses, it doesn't cause players to gain curses, and the prompt was the latter. I don't think this qualifies.

Well, that depends on what "cause" means here. Rewarding players for gaining Curses can, technically speaking, cause them to gain them when they otherwise wouldn't.

I had hoped to avoid pedantry, but I suppose the URL should have been enough of a clue that I wouldn't manage it.  Cozener counts, for the reasons Commodore Chuckles states.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on March 19, 2019, 03:49:44 am

Pariah
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card costing up to $5. Each other player may gain a Curse onto their deck to gain a copy of it (their choice).

Pariah will likely have similar issues to other "-VP for a good effect" cards, in that the effect is very strong when you can throw away the card (or Curses), but will be practically useless otherwise.  Pariah does flip the issue on its head though, as the buyer is determining if the effect is too weak for the other players, rather than themselves.  In games where the Cursing is devastating (very fast games or games with no trashing), Pariah becomes a super-Workshop for basically free.  In other instances, Pariah's primary use will likely be a timely buy to use as a Duchy gainer.

Quote from: majiponi on March 19, 2019, 09:24:30 am

Shady Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action.  You may discard a Treasure to trash a card from your hand.  You may discard a Treasure. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.

Shady Witch is a low-tempo trasher and a low-tempo Curser that can also be used to deal with its own problem.  Putting trashing onto an Attack that gives out junk runs into a similar centralizing problem as Ambassador.  Of that centralizing I am not a huge fan.

Quote from: faust on March 19, 2019, 09:46:30 am

Demon Worshiper
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Reveal your hand. +1 Card per Copper or Curse revealed. Each other player gains a Curse from the trash.

---

While this is in play, when you gain a card, trash a Curse from the Supply.

Demon Worshiper's on-play gives players a large amount of potential draw by keeping starting Coppers and from any Curses gained.  It also gives Curses to other players from the trash, ensuring the Cursing game will never ends--as its in-play puts Curses into the trash.  The concept is quite exotic.  The big problem I have with it is the way it puts Curses into the trash.  Demon Worshiper puts 1 Curse into the trash when you gain a card, so multiplayer games will have the Curses in the trash immediately de-synched with respect to the players: Have each other player put a Curse into the trash and this would look a lot better.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 19, 2019, 10:23:43 pm

Dark Village
Types: Action, Dark
Cost: $3
-1VP.  +1 Card, +3 Actions.

---

When you trash this, gain a Curse from the Supply or trash.

Giving this a new type for the -VP is probably necessary.  Strong Cursers having another pile to drain would be bad. Dark Village avoids the "-VP for a good effect" trashing issue by having an on-trash that gives you a Curse again.  Either way, while +3 Actions is a reasonable effect I don't think it is particularly compelling for all the hoops we have to jump through to get here.

Quote from: Gubump on March 19, 2019, 11:44:16 pm

Blackmailer
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+$2. Each other player discards the top card of their deck, then chooses one: Either thy gain a Curse onto their deck; or you may gain a copy of the discarded card. (They may pick an option that isn't possible.)

Blackmailer reads a lot like a fixed Jester: Random Cursing, but with less wild gaining that ends multiplayer games.  Unfortunately, the most fun part of Jester is trying to stick together your own deck when you're gaining random cards from other players.  Blackmailer will practically never give you cards except Silvers or maybe other terminal payload.  A fixed, but less interesting Jester is ultimately something I don't really want.

Quote from: King Leon on March 20, 2019, 06:32:29 am

Consul
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Card. Reveal a card from your hand. You may trash it. Each other player may discard a copy of that card. If they don't, they gain a Curse.

Consul is a hand-Attack, Cursing-Attack that offers low-tempo trashing.  This type of Attack is often somewhat political because players might have different deck constructions, but this either hits the hand or the deck construction.  What I do take umbrage towards is Consul's tiny terminal draw, and further its hand-attack being non-mandatory make this look a frustrating card.

Quote from: segura on March 20, 2019, 08:18:43 am

Scientist
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3P
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy.  You may trash a card from your hand.  You may gain a Curse. If you do, each other player gains a Curse onto their deck.

Is this intended as a fix to Familiar?  Scientist aims to solve its problem by giving the player of it a Curse as well, but that would be super weak on its own, so it also gives the answer to its own Curses with trashing.  Unfortunately, this still carries the big problem Familiar has of its prohibitive cost--trashing junk and giving junk simultaneously and in a stacking fashion will make players missing Scientist in an even worse position than those missing Familiar.

Quote from: Chris is me on March 20, 2019, 11:47:15 am

Gambit
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards.  You may gain a Curse to your hand. If you do, +1 Action.

Definitely agree that +3 Cards, +1 Action at $5 is way more interesting than a smaller draw alternative at a lower cost.  The ability to trash the Curses will make this much, much stronger, and doubly so because the Curse comes into your hand.  With such a powerful draw and the choice behind it, I think it might come out well enough.  In some games, it will be a $5 Smithy with an ability that you only use when it is mandatory or convenient.  Others you will be able to gain a Curse in the event that you can immediately trash it.

Quote from: Asper on March 20, 2019, 12:29:10 pm

Totem
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $5
$2, +1 Buy.  When you play this, each other player may reveal a card you do not have a copy of in play from their hand. Those who don't gain a Curse.

It is always risky to put a +Buy on a Curser because players may purchase it for +Buys and, hey, there are Curses now.  Totem might be okay because it is a good source of +Buy and, until you build a large-variety deck, it is an unreliable Curser.  It is a stop-card itself whose Cursing will always be stopped by a Curse or most Victory cards.  This has a lot of great design considerations, I don't feel wholly  on its own: It is probably my number 4, but I'm only allowing two runner-ups.

Quote from: Aquila on March 20, 2019, 05:27:42 pm

Scarecrow
Types: Action, Attack, Duration
Cost: $4
Now and at the start of your next turn: +$1. Each other player may discard an Estate. Those who don't gain a Curse.

---

While this is in play, when another player trashes a Curse, you may draw a card then discard a card.

I love this in-play sifting effect.  That's super cool.  I think Scarecrow's Attack is a lose, lose-more effect since you are less likely to have Estates to discard when you gain Curses.  As likely as it is to miss on at least one of its two turns, it cannot be overstated how rapidly Scarecrow will inevitably dole out Curses in multiplayer games since you won't have the Estates to discard.  It should probably give reprieve to itself by putting Curses into players' hands and being blocked by Estates and Curses.

Quote from: lompeluiten on March 23, 2019, 06:04:43 am

Cursed Estate
Types: Victory
Cost: $4
1VP. Whenever you gain this card, all other players gain a Curse.

---

Setup: This supply pile contains 10 cards.

Cursed Estate is immensely similar to Ill-Gotten Gains, but instead of you getting a mostly-junk card, it's everyone gets a junk card.  When Cursed Estate is relevant, the game will be a fairly boring rush.  Most of the time, Cursed Estate will probably be a source of what is functionally +2VP in games without other Cursers.
I'm torn on whether this is a fixed Ill-Gotten Gains, in that an irrelevant one is at least a passable VP source, or a broken Ill-Gotten Gains, in that it cannot be used to acquire Provinces in itself. Either way, I am not enchanted.

Quote from: Shard of Honor on March 21, 2019, 04:46:44 pm

Wood Witch
Types: Action, Attack, Victory
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. Reveal the top card of your deck. If it's a Victory card, put it in your hand and each other player gains a Curse.

---

Worth 2VP if the Curse pile is empty.

Wood Witch is a non-terminal Witch if the other card it draws is a Victory card, and a cantrip otherwise.  If you can successfully drain the Curse pile, Wood Witch becomes a super Great Hall that sometimes draws 2 cards even.  The ultimate play pattern of Wood Witch is to buy as many Wood Witches as you can: You give out Curses, it becomes a better source of draw (and gives out more Curses) with more copies of itself, and it becomes a wildly worse source of draw the more Curses you have in your deck so you get to neuter other players' Wood Witches, and since you'll drain the Curse pile eventually in-so-doing, you'll already get VP from your Wood Witches assuming you can run them in your favor.
This is interesting, but has such a monolithic ideal that I can't vote for it in good conscience.

Quote from: spiralstaircase on March 21, 2019, 06:28:33 pm

Devil's Bargain
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card. Look at the top card of your deck. You may put it in your hand. If you do, +1 Action and gain a curse.

Devil's Bargain is a Laboratory if you're willing to gain a Curse, and a cantrip- otherwise.  If the Curse pile empties, then you can use Devil's Bargain as a cheap Laboratory with impunity.  This is where the discussion of "trashing an Estate is like gaining a Laboratory" is especially relevant, because if you use that analysis then you'll see that the first time you use this to gain a Curse it practically negates its own benefit--except in Devil's Bargain's case, it remains a really crappy card in itself since you have to keep gaining Curses to make it more than a cantrip-!  If it were a cantrip naturally, I would still consider it largely less interesting than Chris is me's Gambit.  I'll recommend putting +1 Action on the on-play and letting it turn into a Lost City when you gain a Curse.

Quote from: FlyerBeast on March 22, 2019, 05:25:56 pm

Enclave
Types: Action, Victory
Cost: $6
Set this and any number of cards from your hand aside. You may trash a card from your hand, and each other player may set aside up to 2 cards from their hand.  If they do, they gain a Curse to their hand and draw a card.

---

2VP

Enclave falls into the category of "bigger versions of interesting, unique cards" which I don't find very compelling.   Island is already Island, and a bigger Island doesn't necessarily interest me.

Quote from: ahyangyi on March 23, 2019, 06:30:17 am

Taskmaster
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Action. Reveal the top card of your deck, then put it in your hand. If it's a curse or a victory card, +1 Card, +1 Buy, +$1; otherwise, gain a curse, and you may put it on your deck.

Taskmaster is either a cantrip that gains a Curse, or a Market+Laboratory (unless you top-decked a Curse with your previous Taskmaster, in which case it is effectively just a Market).   This is an incredibly swingy effect.   It will probably only be bought in the late-game as a last-ditch attempt to get Provinces on the hope that once can hit Victory cards with it.

Quote from: ben_king on March 25, 2019, 10:02:25 am

Emissary
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
For each other player, choose one: +2 cards; or gain a Curse to your hand. Pass each other player a card from your hand.

Triggering per player is interesting.  In 2-player, Emissary maintains hand-size, but multiplayer Emissary starts increasing your hand-size.  It also becomes significantly more political in nature in multiplayer, since you can slow down leading players by handing them junk or speed up a losing player.  Or become an agent of chaos.  I am not a fan of such politicking.

Quote from: Tejayes on March 25, 2019, 12:38:09 pm

Cozener
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Buy, +$1

---

While this is in play, when you buy a Curse, gain a card costing up to $5.

Cozener does run into the "-VP for a good effect" problems of behavior between trashing and non-trashing games.  However it does manage a level of flexibility: In games with trashing, you can use it as a novel gainer; in games with spammable buy, you can use it to control piles; in engine games, you might be able to get 2 Cozeners into play to grab multiple cards with each Curse buy (also controlling piles).  The fact that it can gain Duchies might even prove to be a problem, as far as pile rushing goes.

Quote from: mail-mi on March 25, 2019, 02:46:15 pm

Janus
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Choose one: Gain a card costing up to $5; or +$2 and each other player gains a Curse.

Janus gives two options between economy and harming other players' buildings or an amazing gainer.  I think there is an important reason that each card that can gain $5 cards without drawback cannot gain copies of itself (or is Vampire and is totally neutered by the Bat thing).  It's kind of like the Ironworks-rush thing, but in every game.  I imagine this would be okay, but annoying at $6 (because getting to $6 for a curser is hard), and overpowered at $5.

Quote from: Uncleeurope on March 25, 2019, 05:26:42 pm

Redeemable Ruins
Types: Action, Victory
Cost: $5
3VP.  +1 Buy. Return a card from your hand to the Supply.

---

When you gain this, you may gain up to 2 Curses. For each Curse gained in this way, +$1.

Redeemable Ruins is a Ruined Market that can return Curses that can be effectively acquired as 3 Junk cards for a cost of $3.  Gaining Curses will probably never be the right move with it (Watchtower excepted) because it only reduces the cost from $5 to $4 for 2VP or $3 for 1VP--even if it can be "redeemed" with a collision.  It is strictly better than Duchy, anyway.

Show:

Quote from: Tejayes on March 25, 2019, 12:38:09 pm

Cozener
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Buy, +$1

---

While this is in play, when you buy a Curse, gain a card costing up to $5.

Place:

Quote from: Aquila on March 20, 2019, 05:27:42 pm

Scarecrow
Types: Action, Attack, Duration
Cost: $4
Now and at the start of your next turn: +$1. Each other player may discard an Estate. Those who don't gain a Curse.

---

While this is in play, when another player trashes a Curse, you may draw a card then discard a card.

Win:

Quote from: faust on March 19, 2019, 09:46:30 am

Demon Worshiper
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Reveal your hand. +1 Card per Copper or Curse revealed. Each other player gains a Curse from the trash.

---

While this is in play, when you gain a card, trash a Curse from the Supply.

In spite of my misgivings regarding its desynched cursing (something I imagine is easily patched anyway), Demon Worshiper has a unique concept that combats itself in an interesting way.
You may take the reigns when you would, faust.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on March 25, 2019, 10:30:08 pm

Wow, third place for an entry I wasn't even too sure about. That's awesome! Thank you, Fragasnap.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 26, 2019, 03:29:38 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on March 25, 2019, 08:05:38 pm

Win:

Quote from: faust on March 19, 2019, 09:46:30 am

Demon Worshiper
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Reveal your hand. +1 Card per Copper or Curse revealed. Each other player gains a Curse from the trash.

---

While this is in play, when you gain a card, trash a Curse from the Supply.

In spite of my misgivings regarding its desynched cursing (something I imagine is easily patched anyway), Demon Worshiper has a unique concept that combats itself in an interesting way.
You may take the reigns when you would, faust.

Thanks! You're right that maybe Curse trashing needs to scale with the number of players, I have thought about that. I think it might be fine the way it is, it's not like you can easily target a specific player. I guess playtesting would need to decide how much of a problem the asymmetry is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 26, 2019, 03:32:35 am

Here comes the next round:

Challenge #24: Create an Event or Project with a special cost.

Special cost here includes Potions and Debt, but also special conditions like Grand Market or variable cost like Peddler. If you have another idea to implement special cost, feel free to try it, I am going to be generous with this condition.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on March 26, 2019, 04:14:49 am

Walpurgisnacht
cost P+ - Event
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, gain 2 cards each costing the amount you overpaid.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on March 26, 2019, 04:42:07 am

Quote from: faust on March 26, 2019, 03:32:35 am

Here comes the next round:

Challenge #24: Create an Event or Project with a special cost.

Special cost here includes Potions and Debt, but also special conditions like Grand Market or variable cost like Peddler. If you have another idea to implement special cost, feel free to try it, I am going to be generous with this condition.

Do things like Quest count?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 26, 2019, 04:50:26 am

Quote from: Asper on March 26, 2019, 04:42:07 am

Quote from: faust on March 26, 2019, 03:32:35 am

Here comes the next round:

Challenge #24: Create an Event or Project with a special cost.

Special cost here includes Potions and Debt, but also special conditions like Grand Market or variable cost like Peddler. If you have another idea to implement special cost, feel free to try it, I am going to be generous with this condition.

Do things like Quest count?

I would allow Quest (it requires certain things in hand to get the benefit), but not Ritual or other things that straight up give you a penalty.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 26, 2019, 08:47:23 am

Quote from: majiponi on March 26, 2019, 04:14:49 am

Walpurgisnacht
cost P+ - Event
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, gain 2 cards each costing the amount you overpaid.

This isn't strictly better than Talisman as the latter can be triggered more than once during per turn. But it is nonetheless far too strong and requires a non-Victory and potentially a cost restriction.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on March 26, 2019, 05:02:35 pm

Corruption
Project - $2P
Directly after playing an Action, you may set aside a Treasure that isn't a Copper to play it again. Discard set aside Potions, and trash all other set aside Treasures when that Action leaves play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 26, 2019, 05:15:05 pm

Quote from: segura on March 26, 2019, 08:47:23 am

Quote from: majiponi on March 26, 2019, 04:14:49 am

Walpurgisnacht
cost P+ - Event
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, gain 2 cards each costing the amount you overpaid.

This isn't strictly better than Talisman as the latter can be triggered more than once during per turn. But it is nonetheless far too strong and requires a non-Victory and potentially a cost restriction.

The _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)} cost seems restrictive enough. In a way, it actually says "in games using this, you pay pay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)} rather than a card's regular cost to buy it. If you do, +1 buy."

Turning a Goons from _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)} is super hard to judge; but I don't think it makes it too easy to get Goons.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 26, 2019, 05:43:32 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 26, 2019, 05:15:05 pm

The _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)} cost seems restrictive enough. In a way, it actually says "in games using this, you pay pay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)} rather than a card's regular cost to buy it. If you do, +1 buy."

Turning a Goons from _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)} is super hard to judge; but I don't think it makes it too easy to get Goons.

I totally disagree. This card is probably closest to Duplicate yet Duplicate is terminal and has a cost restriction.

For good reasons no offical $4 can gain $5s and no official card can gain Provinces without any downsides as you either have to Remodel something or the direct gainer is a one-shot like Horn of Plenty.

The only way to directly gain Provinces is via cost reducers and gainers but that's basically everything you work for during the game. With this Event in the Kingdom you can just add a Potion to your deck and don't even have to work hard to add that extra Buy and so on, just throw in a Potion that, once you start to green, reads as +1 Buy +$8.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on March 26, 2019, 06:21:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/KyvjCsSl.jpg)

Quote

Education
Project - 10 Debt
-
At the start of your turn, +$2.
At the end of your Buy phase, if you have any Debt remaining, take 2 Debt.

This card is inspired by my own status as a graduate student with loans to pay off. Yep.

Any feedback on this as an actual Project is appreciated, of course, especially concerning the upfront Debt cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 26, 2019, 08:33:27 pm

Quote from: segura on March 26, 2019, 05:43:32 pm

just throw in a Potion that, once you start to green, reads as +1 Buy +$8.

This convinced me; you’re right. Maybe it would be fine with “overpay up to $6”. Or $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on March 26, 2019, 08:36:04 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/dp51z6l8.png)

Patent
Type: Event
Cost: $7*

Gain a card costing up to $5 to the top of your deck.
-
This costs $3 less per empty supply pile, but not less than $0.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on March 26, 2019, 09:19:05 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 26, 2019, 05:15:05 pm

Quote from: segura on March 26, 2019, 08:47:23 am

Quote from: majiponi on March 26, 2019, 04:14:49 am

Walpurgisnacht
cost P+ - Event
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, gain 2 cards each costing the amount you overpaid.

This isn't strictly better than Talisman as the latter can be triggered more than once during per turn. But it is nonetheless far too strong and requires a non-Victory and potentially a cost restriction.

The _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)} cost seems restrictive enough. In a way, it actually says "in games using this, you pay pay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)} rather than a card's regular cost to buy it. If you do, +1 buy."

Turning a Goons from _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)} is super hard to judge; but I don't think it makes it too easy to get Goons.

You're not turning Goons from _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)}, you're turning two Goons to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)}, or Possession cost. You still have to reach _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} to get one. Of course, if we're using Goons as an example, you may have a couple in play already, in which case we're turning the cost of two Goons into _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)}+X_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} where X is the number of Goons in play, as you could have bought one Goons and got the points instead of gaining two Goons and not getting them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 27, 2019, 02:15:33 am

(https://i.imgur.com/kwcG6jG.jpg)

The effect is that of a cantrip Cellar. Unlike the Adventure vanilla tokens not necessarily that strong in multiples but of course you still want it on the pile of which you have most copies. I think it can get away with not being restricted to Actions as sifting during your Buy or Night phase is probably not that strong anyway.
The main reason of the Debt cost is to make this available early in Kingdoms in which it is strongest, i.e. without trashers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 27, 2019, 02:19:22 am

Quote from: Tejayes on March 26, 2019, 06:21:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/KyvjCsSl.jpg)

Quote

Education
Project - 10 Debt
-
At the start of your turn, +$2.
At the end of your Buy phase, if you have any Debt remaining, take 2 Debt.

This card is inspired by my own status as a graduate student with loans to pay off. Yep.

Any feedback on this as an actual Project is appreciated, of course, especially concerning the upfront Debt cost.

That's a brilliant idea. With the mini-Capital effect while you are in Debt timing this well becomes anything but trivial.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on March 27, 2019, 03:21:54 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 26, 2019, 08:33:27 pm

Quote from: segura on March 26, 2019, 05:43:32 pm

just throw in a Potion that, once you start to green, reads as +1 Buy +$8.

This convinced me; you’re right. Maybe it would be fine with “overpay up to $6”. Or $5.

I agree that Walpurgisnacht is overpowering without any limitation. I thought letting you have an useless Potion in hand is nice, but no reason to let you gain 2 Colonies. I'll add something to stop that. What I wanted was "Yeah! I gained 2 Possessions!" kind of thing.

Quote

Walpurgisnacht
cost P+ - Event
When you buy this, you may overpay up to $6P for it. If you do, gain 2 cards each costing the amount you overpaid.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on March 27, 2019, 06:26:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/CI9AHjo.png)

Quote

Discovery
Types: Event
Cost: $2
Discard a Victory card costing at least $4. If you do, remove this from the Supply and look at 4 random Kingdom cards not in the Supply. Add one's Supply pile to the Kingdom and gain up to 2 cards from it.

A one-shot event paid for by discarding a relevant Victory card.  Everybody can get copies of the card you add, but you get 1 or 2 of them then and there, in addition to deciding which one it's going to be.  Discovery will typically be triggered later, either with extra $ and an extra buy or maybe by a trailing player who needs the weirdness to try to win.  Getting that choice between 4 cards could be relevant, too.  I suppose you could rush it turn 3\4 with Island (which is thematic, I guess) and Mill (which is simply weird).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 27, 2019, 09:42:33 am

Quote from: segura on March 27, 2019, 02:15:33 am

(https://i.imgur.com/kwcG6jG.jpg)

The effect is that of a cantrip Cellar. Unlike the Adventure vanilla tokens not necessarily that strong in multiples but of course you still want it on the pile of which you have most copies. I think it can get away with not being restricted to Actions as sifting during your Buy or Night phase is probably not that strong anyway.
The main reason of the Debt cost is to make this available early in Kingdoms in which it is strongest, i.e. without trashers.

And interesting idea for a "vanilla" token, but the event seems overpriced. I think +1 card, +1 action, and +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} are all much stronger tokens; this event should cost less than those events. It could probably be _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/21/Debt5.png/18px-Debt5.png)}. But the cheaper it gets, the less reason you have for giving it debt cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on March 27, 2019, 12:07:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/6RMesuR.jpg)
Smeltery
Types: Project
Cost: $4*
At the start of Clean-up, you may return a Treasure card to the supply and gain a treasure card costing up to $3 more than it
-
You can only buy this if you have at least 3 differently named Treasures in play
This costs extra $1 for each two Coppers in play, rounded up

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 27, 2019, 12:23:41 pm

Quote from: grep on March 27, 2019, 12:07:57 pm

Smeltery
Types: Project
Cost: $5
At the start of Clean-up, you may return a Treasure card to the supply and gain a treasure card costing up to $3 more than it
-
You can only buy this if you have at least 3 differently named Treasures in play

Where does the returned treasure come from? In hand or in play?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 27, 2019, 04:36:30 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 27, 2019, 09:42:33 am

Quote from: segura on March 27, 2019, 02:15:33 am

(https://i.imgur.com/kwcG6jG.jpg)

The effect is that of a cantrip Cellar. Unlike the Adventure vanilla tokens not necessarily that strong in multiples but of course you still want it on the pile of which you have most copies. I think it can get away with not being restricted to Actions as sifting during your Buy or Night phase is probably not that strong anyway.
The main reason of the Debt cost is to make this available early in Kingdoms in which it is strongest, i.e. without trashers.

And interesting idea for a "vanilla" token, but the event seems overpriced. I think +1 card, +1 action, and +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} are all much stronger tokens; this event should cost less than those events. It could probably be _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/21/Debt5.png/18px-Debt5.png)}. But the cheaper it gets, the less reason you have for giving it debt cost.

A cantrip Cellar would probably be too strong for $4 and slightly weak at $5. So from this perspective it is weaker than Lab/Pathfinding yet better than Peddler/Training and Village/Lost Arts*.
The decreasing benefits of playing multiple cantrip Cellars makes it weaker relatively to the other vanilla tokens.
But Debt costs make the card available when it is strongest, i.e. early on (as opposed to getting Training / Lost Arts in the middlegame).

I don't know which of these pluses and minuses weighs heavier but as _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png)} is pretty similar to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} I leave it as this price. I also think that the Adventures tokens are a bit too centralizing and don't mind if this Event is on average only bought in every second or third Kingdom.

As you pointed out, at lower costs Debt makes less sense and _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} or even _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} could be too prohibitive: in non-trasher Kingdoms you want that sifter as early as possible.

*- As Lost Arts eliminates the standard matching problem of villages and terminal draw cards (which is the very reason Village and Smithy can be cheaper than two Labs) its effect is significantly stronger than that of he corresponding vanilla card, Village, so this is where this simple comparison fails.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest #24: special cost project/event
Post by: Aquila on March 27, 2019, 05:01:30 pm

Quote

Mail Service - Project, $3+ cost.
When another player gains a card costing $5 or more, +1 Card.
-
This costs $1 more per player in the game.

Unlikely to be balanced, I just thought this was natural, like what Road Network could have been.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 27, 2019, 05:13:21 pm

Quote from: grep on March 27, 2019, 12:07:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/svYGKpr.jpg)
Smeltery
Types: Project
Cost: $5
At the start of Clean-up, you may return a Treasure card to the supply and gain a treasure card costing up to $3 more than it
-
You can only buy this if you have at least 3 differently named Treasures in play

The condition is too harsh and arguably not necessary at all.
While Mine (i.e. handgaining) might be too strong it could at least topdeck like Taxman.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 06:53:36 pm

Updated:(https://i.imgur.com/kqUo26r.png)

I think it wants to be difficult to get early so the potion fits, but maybe it doesn't have to be quite so expensive? To be honest it's probably completely broken or completely useless depending on the board.

Edit: Changed to return to supply and cost lowered.

Edit2: Debt cost now

Old version 1:(https://i.imgur.com/JBhyEIg.png)
Old version 2:(https://i.imgur.com/xVS2X6t.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on March 27, 2019, 07:04:02 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 06:53:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/JBhyEIg.png)
I think it wants to be difficult to get early so the potion fits, but maybe it doesn't have to be quite so expensive? To be honest it's probably completely broken or completely useless depending on the board.

Maybe add a condition preventing it from trashing if you can't gain one costing more (e.g. your only card played was an Expand).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on March 27, 2019, 07:11:10 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 06:53:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/JBhyEIg.png)
I think it wants to be difficult to get early so the potion fits, but maybe it doesn't have to be quite so expensive? To be honest it's probably completely broken or completely useless depending on the board.

I really like the idea. Maybe exchanging them instead of remodeling them would make it less aggressive, thinking about the three pile ending

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 07:12:08 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on March 27, 2019, 07:04:02 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 06:53:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/JBhyEIg.png)
I think it wants to be difficult to get early so the potion fits, but maybe it doesn't have to be quite so expensive? To be honest it's probably completely broken or completely useless depending on the board.

Maybe add a condition preventing it from trashing if you can't gain one costing more (e.g. your only card played was an Expand).

That's my favourite part of the card!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on March 27, 2019, 07:13:33 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/9Csa1Sm.jpg)
Research
Types: Event
Cost: 7
Once per turn: Each other player draws until they have 6 cards in hand then discards a card. Choose a card discarded this way. You may trash any number of copies of it from play and your hand, or gain a copy of it if it isn't a Victory card.
-
This costs $1 less per card discarded (by you or any other player) this turn.

An Event that gets easier to buy the more discarding Attacks (Or Moats, but shhh) you've played, but undoes their effect. I had a bit of fun coming up with an ability that antisynergises with Attacks but hopefully has a useful enough reward and some unique player interaction. Other players discarded Estates or Coppers? You can trash some junk. Discarded Actions or Treasures? You can have one. Discarded Provinces? ...Yeah, this is an early-mid-game-only Event I suppose, I'm OK with that. The 'trash from play' is pretty much only for Coppers. (An extremely untrustworthy Mint?? Good luck getting the other players to cooperate with that)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 07:24:45 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on March 27, 2019, 07:11:10 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 06:53:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/JBhyEIg.png)
I think it wants to be difficult to get early so the potion fits, but maybe it doesn't have to be quite so expensive? To be honest it's probably completely broken or completely useless depending on the board.

I really like the idea. Maybe exchanging them instead of remodeling them would make it less aggressive, thinking about the three pile ending

Yeah that's a good point! I was hoping that you'd get it late enough in the game that it isn't a problem but maybe the piles would just empty before it  bites you in the bum too much. I'll make it return to the supply so you still get the on-gain effects. I'll also make it cost $4P because i think $6P might be a little conservative.

So here's the update:
(https://i.imgur.com/xVS2X6t.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on March 27, 2019, 07:54:22 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 07:24:45 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/xVS2X6t.png)

The wording on this is very unclear. I think it's saying that during cleanup you upgrade one Action card in play (and it's not optional) but the "when" is confusing; it could be interpreted to mean that you have to upgrade all of your Action cards in play. I would reword it to something like "During cleanup, choose one Action card you have in play..."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 07:59:06 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 27, 2019, 07:54:22 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 07:24:45 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/xVS2X6t.png)

The wording on this is very unclear. I think it's saying that during cleanup you upgrade one Action card in play (and it's not optional) but the "when" is confusing; it could be interpreted to mean that you have to upgrade all of your Action cards in play. I would reword it to something like "During cleanup, choose one Action card you have in play..."

You do upgrade all actions, I don't see how this isn't clear?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on March 27, 2019, 10:23:28 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 07:24:45 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on March 27, 2019, 07:11:10 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 06:53:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/JBhyEIg.png)
I think it wants to be difficult to get early so the potion fits, but maybe it doesn't have to be quite so expensive? To be honest it's probably completely broken or completely useless depending on the board.

I really like the idea. Maybe exchanging them instead of remodeling them would make it less aggressive, thinking about the three pile ending

Yeah that's a good point! I was hoping that you'd get it late enough in the game that it isn't a problem but maybe the piles would just empty before it  bites you in the bum too much. I'll make it return to the supply so you still get the on-gain effects. I'll also make it cost $4P because i think $6P might be a little conservative.

So here's the update:
(https://i.imgur.com/xVS2X6t.png)

I'd also like to point that the anti-synergy with potion is really strong: If this is the only thing with potion in the kingdom, potion becomes a dead card after you buy this and, on the other hand, if there are other cards with potion in their cost, you probably don't want this.
Also, as you said, this project is board dependent, so I think that it should be easier to get, then, if it's broken, at least you don't have bad shuffle issues. Maybe making this a debt cost card?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on March 27, 2019, 10:34:48 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 07:59:06 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 27, 2019, 07:54:22 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 07:24:45 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/xVS2X6t.png)

The wording on this is very unclear. I think it's saying that during cleanup you upgrade one Action card in play (and it's not optional) but the "when" is confusing; it could be interpreted to mean that you have to upgrade all of your Action cards in play. I would reword it to something like "During cleanup, choose one Action card you have in play..."

You do upgrade all actions, I don't see how this isn't clear?

It just doesn't seem that good if you do it to all your actions and it's not optional. Because that means all your best cards become one-shots. Say there's no _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} Actions. Then you're now paying _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} for an Lab which is really an Experiment, when normally you can pay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} for 2 of them. Your cheaper cards get a bit better as they progress, but you still only get a few turns with them. If you want any engine to be effective, I think you need huge amounts of +buy and _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} just to keep your actions around, and if that's available in big enough quantities your deck, it's probably time to green anyway. Maybe I'm missing something, but that's just how it seems to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on March 27, 2019, 11:01:37 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on March 27, 2019, 10:34:48 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 07:59:06 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 27, 2019, 07:54:22 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 07:24:45 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/xVS2X6t.png)

The wording on this is very unclear. I think it's saying that during cleanup you upgrade one Action card in play (and it's not optional) but the "when" is confusing; it could be interpreted to mean that you have to upgrade all of your Action cards in play. I would reword it to something like "During cleanup, choose one Action card you have in play..."

You do upgrade all actions, I don't see how this isn't clear?

It just doesn't seem that good if you do it to all your actions and it's not optional. Because that means all your best cards become one-shots. Say there's no _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} Actions. Then you're now paying _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} for an Lab which is really an Experiment, when normally you can pay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} for 2 of them. Your cheaper cards get a bit better as they progress, but you still only get a few turns with them. If you want any engine to be effective, I think you need huge amounts of +buy and _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} just to keep your actions around, and if that's available in big enough quantities your deck, it's probably time to green anyway. Maybe I'm missing something, but that's just how it seems to me.

Yes, that's exactly why I was confused. If you have to upgrade everything then I'm not sure it's ever worth buying. Even if the board is particularly favorable, you're gonna be running out of cards real fast. And most of the time the board won't be particularly favorable, due to price gaps and other things.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Erick648 on March 28, 2019, 12:33:53 am

Quote from: segura on March 27, 2019, 04:36:30 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 27, 2019, 09:42:33 am

Quote from: segura on March 27, 2019, 02:15:33 am

(https://i.imgur.com/kwcG6jG.jpg)

The effect is that of a cantrip Cellar. Unlike the Adventure vanilla tokens not necessarily that strong in multiples but of course you still want it on the pile of which you have most copies. I think it can get away with not being restricted to Actions as sifting during your Buy or Night phase is probably not that strong anyway.
The main reason of the Debt cost is to make this available early in Kingdoms in which it is strongest, i.e. without trashers.

And interesting idea for a "vanilla" token, but the event seems overpriced. I think +1 card, +1 action, and +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} are all much stronger tokens; this event should cost less than those events. It could probably be _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/21/Debt5.png/18px-Debt5.png)}. But the cheaper it gets, the less reason you have for giving it debt cost.

A cantrip Cellar would probably be too strong for $4 and slightly weak at $5. So from this perspective it is weaker than Lab/Pathfinding yet better than Peddler/Training and Village/Lost Arts*.
The decreasing benefits of playing multiple cantrip Cellars makes it weaker relatively to the other vanilla tokens.
But Debt costs make the card available when it is strongest, i.e. early on (as opposed to getting Training / Lost Arts in the middlegame).

I don't know which of these pluses and minuses weighs heavier but as _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png)} is pretty similar to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} I leave it as this price. I also think that the Adventures tokens are a bit too centralizing and don't mind if this Event is on average only bought in every second or third Kingdom.

As you pointed out, at lower costs Debt makes less sense and _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} or even _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} could be too prohibitive: in non-trasher Kingdoms you want that sifter as early as possible.

*- As Lost Arts eliminates the standard matching problem of villages and terminal draw cards (which is the very reason Village and Smithy can be cheaper than two Labs) its effect is significantly stronger than that of he corresponding vanilla card, Village, so this is where this simple comparison fails.

Interestingly, I've had an identical event that I've been using for the past couple years that costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.  It seems to work okay.  Not a star, but still worth considering, with the potential to be very useful in the right deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on March 28, 2019, 09:08:27 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on March 27, 2019, 10:34:48 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 07:59:06 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 27, 2019, 07:54:22 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 07:24:45 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/xVS2X6t.png)

The wording on this is very unclear. I think it's saying that during cleanup you upgrade one Action card in play (and it's not optional) but the "when" is confusing; it could be interpreted to mean that you have to upgrade all of your Action cards in play. I would reword it to something like "During cleanup, choose one Action card you have in play..."

You do upgrade all actions, I don't see how this isn't clear?

It just doesn't seem that good if you do it to all your actions and it's not optional. Because that means all your best cards become one-shots. Say there's no _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} Actions. Then you're now paying _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} for an Lab which is really an Experiment, when normally you can pay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} for 2 of them. Your cheaper cards get a bit better as they progress, but you still only get a few turns with them. If you want any engine to be effective, I think you need huge amounts of +buy and _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} just to keep your actions around, and if that's available in big enough quantities your deck, it's probably time to green anyway. Maybe I'm missing something, but that's just how it seems to me.

I just thought it was a cool idea, personally I'm fine with a landscape being a bit situational.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 28, 2019, 01:04:18 pm

The problem is that the Project is expensive yet only useful for a few turns. Once you are out of villages your engine collapses.
That is not situational but pretty much always the case.
Even in the best case scenario, i.e. no price gaps, decent $2s and $3s, it is only four turns until that Patrician kamikazes himself.

I think that due to the expensive price this Project could get away with being non-mandatory. While it is mandatory you have no control at all. Another option is to not restrict the gained cards to Actions, then all those $5s could at least Upgrade themselves into Gold.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on March 28, 2019, 01:45:12 pm

Darn. The two ideas I had for this round ended up as a simple trash-for-benefit Event and a Project with an ongoing condition, respectively. I don't want to submit my old stuff, so apparently I'll sit back and watch. It's a cool challenge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on March 28, 2019, 03:20:39 pm

Quote from: segura on March 27, 2019, 05:13:21 pm

Quote from: grep on March 27, 2019, 12:07:57 pm

Smeltery
Types: Project
Cost: $5*
At the start of Clean-up, you may return a Treasure card to the supply and gain a treasure card costing up to $3 more than it
-
You can only buy this if you have at least 3 differently named Treasures in play

The condition is too harsh and arguably not necessary at all.
While Mine (i.e. handgaining) might be too strong it could at least topdeck like Taxman.

Oh I've missed in play in the description
Upgrading on cleanup does not consume an action and does not reduce the buying power (Mine is also giving extra $1, but you cannot play it every turn)
The cost is deliberately high, to avoid early buying of a cantrip copper trasher. Oh, I have an idea - instead penalize for coppers in play

---

(https://i.imgur.com/yTDi6EI.jpg)
Smeltery
Types: Project
Cost: $4*
At the start of Clean-up, you may return a Treasure card in play to the supply and gain a treasure card costing up to $3 more than it
-
This costs extra $1 for each two Coppers in play, rounded up

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on March 28, 2019, 06:47:02 pm

Quote from: segura on March 28, 2019, 01:04:18 pm

The problem is that the Project is expensive yet only useful for a few turns. Once you are out of villages your engine collapses.
That is not situational but pretty much always the case.
Even in the best case scenario, i.e. no price gaps, decent $2s and $3s, it is only four turns until that Patrician kamikazes himself.

I think that due to the expensive price this Project could get away with being non-mandatory. While it is mandatory you have no control at all. Another option is to not restrict the gained cards to Actions, then all those $5s could at least Upgrade themselves into Gold.

Is it a problem though? Why do you have to be playing an engine? It seems much more interesting to me than a lot of the official projects that you just buy when you have enough money because they're so potent and then they do their thing and there isn't much decision making involved. I like the board evaluation and forward planning skills you need to get the most value out of it, making it stronger doesn't necessarily make it more interesting. Maybe the price could be lower but I don't believe these contests should be judged too harshly on cost as it's impossible to know if the price is right without extensive playtesting, which isn't viable in this contest.

Quote from: Asper on March 28, 2019, 01:45:12 pm

Darn. The two ideas I had for this round ended up as a simple trash-for-benefit Event and a Project with an ongoing condition, respectively. I don't want to submit my old stuff, so apparently I'll sit back and watch. It's a cool challenge.

Why not just go for one? I'm sure people would like to see what you came up with  :).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on March 28, 2019, 07:23:33 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/RfANmTN.png)

Turn everything into Debt cost! Want to open Goons, go ahead! Want to start with Grand Market? Sure, why not!

I have no idea how broken this is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 29, 2019, 02:37:03 am

Quote from: Gazbag on March 28, 2019, 06:47:02 pm

Quote from: segura on March 28, 2019, 01:04:18 pm

The problem is that the Project is expensive yet only useful for a few turns. Once you are out of villages your engine collapses.
That is not situational but pretty much always the case.
Even in the best case scenario, i.e. no price gaps, decent $2s and $3s, it is only four turns until that Patrician kamikazes himself.

I think that due to the expensive price this Project could get away with being non-mandatory. While it is mandatory you have no control at all. Another option is to not restrict the gained cards to Actions, then all those $5s could at least Upgrade themselves into Gold.

Is it a problem though? Why do you have to be playing an engine?

Because it is no worthwhile to spend two Buys on a project and endure a dead card in your deck for something that does not have much of an impact if you only have a few Action cards in your deck. Upgrade or Improve are cheaper and much betetr suited for such decks.

Quote from: Gazbag on March 28, 2019, 06:47:02 pm

It seems much more interesting to me than a lot of the official projects that you just buy when you have enough money because they're so potent and then they do their thing and there isn't much decision making involved.

I totally disagree with the notion that Projects are so good that you can always auto-Buy them.
Canal is dubious without extra Buys (or virtual extra Buys in the form of gainers), Innovation is highly Kingdom-dependent, Crop Rotation and Road Network are hard to time and arguably not worthwhile if you have easier access to drawpower, Exploration is extremely tricky (I once had a Kingdom with Exploration, Cursed Gold and Trade and a 4/5 opening and nearly missed the combination), Silos is a powerful sifter but you forsake a $4 and Cathedral can blow up in your face in Kingdoms without gainers.
Interestingly the latter shares quite some similarities with your Project in terms of the potential forced (non-Upgrading once your are beyond $5) trashing of cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on March 29, 2019, 05:55:09 am

Quote from: Gazbag on March 28, 2019, 06:47:02 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 28, 2019, 01:45:12 pm

Darn. The two ideas I had for this round ended up as a simple trash-for-benefit Event and a Project with an ongoing condition, respectively. I don't want to submit my old stuff, so apparently I'll sit back and watch. It's a cool challenge.

Why not just go for one? I'm sure people would like to see what you came up with  :).

Ah sorry, my bad, the problem is that they mutated to not fit the brief anymore. One cares about a card in your hand, but now it's only because it remodels it, and for the Project I shifted the special cost to be applied each time the ability is used. I had an Event version of it that fits, but it messes up the opening. If I think of a fix that works with the contest, I'll post it. Thanks :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on March 29, 2019, 04:28:28 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 29, 2019, 05:55:09 am

Quote from: Gazbag on March 28, 2019, 06:47:02 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 28, 2019, 01:45:12 pm

Darn. The two ideas I had for this round ended up as a simple trash-for-benefit Event and a Project with an ongoing condition, respectively. I don't want to submit my old stuff, so apparently I'll sit back and watch. It's a cool challenge.

Why not just go for one? I'm sure people would like to see what you came up with  :).

Ah sorry, my bad, the problem is that they mutated to not fit the brief anymore. One cares about a card in your hand, but now it's only because it remodels it, and for the Project I shifted the special cost to be applied each time the ability is used. I had an Event version of it that fits, but it messes up the opening. If I think of a fix that works with the contest, I'll post it. Thanks :)

Oh I can't read misunderstood what you said, sorry!

Quote from: segura on March 29, 2019, 02:37:03 am

Quote from: Gazbag on March 28, 2019, 06:47:02 pm

Quote from: segura on March 28, 2019, 01:04:18 pm

The problem is that the Project is expensive yet only useful for a few turns. Once you are out of villages your engine collapses.
That is not situational but pretty much always the case.
Even in the best case scenario, i.e. no price gaps, decent $2s and $3s, it is only four turns until that Patrician kamikazes himself.

I think that due to the expensive price this Project could get away with being non-mandatory. While it is mandatory you have no control at all. Another option is to not restrict the gained cards to Actions, then all those $5s could at least Upgrade themselves into Gold.

Is it a problem though? Why do you have to be playing an engine?

Because it is no worthwhile to spend two Buys on a project and endure a dead card in your deck for something that does not have much of an impact if you only have a few Action cards in your deck. Upgrade or Improve are cheaper and much betetr suited for such decks.

Quote from: Gazbag on March 28, 2019, 06:47:02 pm

It seems much more interesting to me than a lot of the official projects that you just buy when you have enough money because they're so potent and then they do their thing and there isn't much decision making involved.

I totally disagree with the notion that Projects are so good that you can always auto-Buy them.
Canal is dubious without extra Buys (or virtual extra Buys in the form of gainers), Innovation is highly Kingdom-dependent, Crop Rotation and Road Network are hard to time and arguably not worthwhile if you have easier access to drawpower, Exploration is extremely tricky (I once had a Kingdom with Exploration, Cursed Gold and Trade and a 4/5 opening and nearly missed the combination), Silos is a powerful sifter but you forsake a $4 and Cathedral can blow up in your face in Kingdoms without gainers.
Interestingly the latter shares quite some similarities with your Project in terms of the potential forced (non-Upgrading once your are beyond $5) trashing of cards.

I appreciate that you're trying to help me make the card better and increase my chance of winning, but you have to understand that the whole point of this design was to be a risky Project that threatens to eat through your Actions. The first draft was a Champion-like Project that trashed some Actions every turn, I don't remember the details. I didn't like that very much so I settled on this upgrading thing instead. I can totally believe that a card that upgrades only one per turn or is optional is stronger and maybe even more enjoyable for most people, but at that point it's no longer my design and is not the direction I want this to go in. Feel free to post something like that as your own entry to the contest, you'll probably win and that'll show me!

This discussion has made me think a lot more about this Project though and even goldfish a few quick games, which I found fascinating. I do think a Debt cost would be more appropriate than Potion now. The Potion was an attempt to slow it down when it chewed through supply piles but as it doesn't do that anymore and it's probably unwise to open with, I think Debt is probably better. So here's the new version, 6D seems okay as a starting point to me.

(https://i.imgur.com/kqUo26r.png)


Oh and I said a lot of Projects not all Projects.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on March 29, 2019, 07:18:15 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 29, 2019, 04:28:28 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 29, 2019, 05:55:09 am

Quote from: Gazbag on March 28, 2019, 06:47:02 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 28, 2019, 01:45:12 pm

Darn. The two ideas I had for this round ended up as a simple trash-for-benefit Event and a Project with an ongoing condition, respectively. I don't want to submit my old stuff, so apparently I'll sit back and watch. It's a cool challenge.

Why not just go for one? I'm sure people would like to see what you came up with  :).

Ah sorry, my bad, the problem is that they mutated to not fit the brief anymore. One cares about a card in your hand, but now it's only because it remodels it, and for the Project I shifted the special cost to be applied each time the ability is used. I had an Event version of it that fits, but it messes up the opening. If I think of a fix that works with the contest, I'll post it. Thanks :)

Oh I can't read misunderstood what you said, sorry!

No worries, I wasn't very clear. For reference, here's the Project I ended up with.
(https://i.imgur.com/SHj1fu0.png)
Originally I wanted it to be an Event that costed 5$ and allowed you to spend an Action to gain a 5$ card onto your deck, but that messed openings up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on March 30, 2019, 06:40:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/aW4VbxR.png)

An attempt at an easier-to-use but harder-to-buy Prince. It will usually take longer to build up to a point where it's affordable and you can only buy it once, but you don't have to fiddle around with it in your deck and there's no $4 or less restriction. I changed the original Prince text so that it wouldn't be as wordy, but I think it still works. It specifies non-Duration, and if the card leaves the play area then it just loses track of it.

Edit: Added a "but not less than $0" clause, an obvious oversight on my part. Also, I know it should have the * next to the price but that screwed up the formatting to the point of unreadability.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on March 31, 2019, 10:37:24 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 30, 2019, 06:40:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ezJhK94.png)

An attempt at an easier-to-use but harder-to-buy Prince. It will usually take longer to build up to a point where it's affordable and you can only buy it once, but you don't have to fiddle around with it in your deck and there's no $4 or less restriction. I changed the original Prince text so that it wouldn't be as wordy, but I think it still works. It specifies non-Duration, and if the card leaves the play area then it just loses track of it.

Losing track doesn't mean the card can't be played anymore, but as that only plays a role for one-shots and the Project can only be triggered once per game, I suppose it's half so bad.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on March 31, 2019, 01:22:20 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 31, 2019, 10:37:24 am

Losing track doesn't mean the card can't be played anymore, but as that only plays a role for one-shots and the Project can only be triggered once per game, I suppose it's half so bad.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on March 31, 2019, 01:32:50 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 31, 2019, 01:22:20 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 31, 2019, 10:37:24 am

Losing track doesn't mean the card can't be played anymore, but as that only plays a role for one-shots and the Project can only be triggered once per game, I suppose it's half so bad.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

You say that if the card leaves the play area that means the Project "just loses track" of it. While that's true, it does nothing. The card will still be played each turn, set aside or not. And my remark was that this only matters for one-shots (or to be more precise, cards that remove themselves from play), so it doesn't come up too often.

So, lose track does nothing and I don't see why you mention it, but it should still be fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on March 31, 2019, 06:01:48 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 31, 2019, 01:32:50 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 31, 2019, 01:22:20 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 31, 2019, 10:37:24 am

Losing track doesn't mean the card can't be played anymore, but as that only plays a role for one-shots and the Project can only be triggered once per game, I suppose it's half so bad.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

You say that if the card leaves the play area that means the Project "just loses track" of it. While that's true, it does nothing. The card will still be played each turn, set aside or not. And my remark was that this only matters for one-shots (or to be more precise, cards that remove themselves from play), so it doesn't come up too often.

So, lose track does nothing and I don't see why you mention it, but it should still be fine.

I guess I don't understand how the lose-track rule works then. I thought if the card leaves the play area, then it doesn't know where it is anymore and so can't do anything with it. How is this different from, e.g. Procession and Island? If what you're saying is true, then why can't Procession find Island and trash it?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on March 31, 2019, 06:18:04 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 31, 2019, 06:01:48 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 31, 2019, 01:32:50 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 31, 2019, 01:22:20 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 31, 2019, 10:37:24 am

Losing track doesn't mean the card can't be played anymore, but as that only plays a role for one-shots and the Project can only be triggered once per game, I suppose it's half so bad.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

You say that if the card leaves the play area that means the Project "just loses track" of it. While that's true, it does nothing. The card will still be played each turn, set aside or not. And my remark was that this only matters for one-shots (or to be more precise, cards that remove themselves from play), so it doesn't come up too often.

So, lose track does nothing and I don't see why you mention it, but it should still be fine.

I guess I don't understand how the lose-track rule works then. I thought if the card leaves the play area, then it doesn't know where it is anymore and so can't do anything with it. How is this different from, e.g. Procession and Island? If what you're saying is true, then why can't Procession find Island and trash it?

Because trashing is only successful if the card is indeed moved to the trash, whereas playing a card TRIES moving it (into play), but doesn't depend on it. This has been this way since, uh, Throne Room and Feast?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Lurker on March 31, 2019, 08:26:48 pm

Quote

Observatory, Project, $3*
During your Action phase, Silvers are also Actions which give +2 Cards, +1 Actions instead of +2$.
   -------------------------
You can't buy this if you have any Treasures in play.

This is inspired by one of the Project outtakes which turned Silvers into Peddlers. I think attaching the no-Treasure cost should make going for it a nontrivial decision. It gets crazy with those fast silver gainers, but not in a way that ruins many kingdoms.

Edit: Changed from Lost City to Lab effect to make it less centralizing

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on April 01, 2019, 03:45:54 am

Royal Taxation  0*
Event
To buy this event, discard 4 victory cards
Gain a gold

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on April 01, 2019, 04:18:54 am

24 hours left for submissions!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on April 01, 2019, 04:45:50 am

Quote from: Asper on March 31, 2019, 06:18:04 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 31, 2019, 06:01:48 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 31, 2019, 01:32:50 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 31, 2019, 01:22:20 pm

Quote from: Asper on March 31, 2019, 10:37:24 am

Losing track doesn't mean the card can't be played anymore, but as that only plays a role for one-shots and the Project can only be triggered once per game, I suppose it's half so bad.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

You say that if the card leaves the play area that means the Project "just loses track" of it. While that's true, it does nothing. The card will still be played each turn, set aside or not. And my remark was that this only matters for one-shots (or to be more precise, cards that remove themselves from play), so it doesn't come up too often.

So, lose track does nothing and I don't see why you mention it, but it should still be fine.

I guess I don't understand how the lose-track rule works then. I thought if the card leaves the play area, then it doesn't know where it is anymore and so can't do anything with it. How is this different from, e.g. Procession and Island? If what you're saying is true, then why can't Procession find Island and trash it?

Because trashing is only successful if the card is indeed moved to the trash, whereas playing a card TRIES moving it (into play), but doesn't depend on it. This has been this way since, uh, Throne Room and Feast?

To further elaborate, lose-track only keeps a card from being moved, not from knowing what it does. Trashing depends on moving a card, playing doesn't.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 01, 2019, 08:27:49 am

Quote from: Lurker on March 31, 2019, 08:26:48 pm

Quote

Observatory, Project, $3*
During your Action phase, Silvers are also Actions which give +2 Cards, +2 Actions instead of +2$.
   -------------------------
You can't buy this if you have any Treasures in play.

This is inspired by one of the Project outtakes which turned Silvers into Peddlers. I think attaching the no-Treasure cost should make going for it a nontrivial decision. It gets crazy with those fast silver gainers, but not in a way that ruins many kingdoms.

It looks the idea behind the Buy restriction is to nerf the card such that you only get it later in the game. That is sound but the problem I see is that this very Buy restriction is too harsh, i.e. in some Kingdoms Observatory is not available, while the effect is far too strong.
Once you bought Observatory, an ordinary gainer like Ironworks becomes a non-terminal Copper that can gain a card which is stronger than Lost City.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on April 01, 2019, 12:17:04 pm

Quote from: lompeluiten on April 01, 2019, 03:45:54 am

Royal Taxation  0*
Event
To buy this event, discard 4 victory cards
Gain a gold

I think the wording would need to be:

Quote

Royal Taxation, Event, 0$
Reveal and discard up to 4 Victory cards from your hand. If you discarded 4, gain a Gold.

It seems similar to but worse than Quest and its name is a bit redundant with Tax', though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Lurker on April 01, 2019, 02:03:17 pm

Quote from: segura on April 01, 2019, 08:27:49 am

Quote from: Lurker on March 31, 2019, 08:26:48 pm

Quote

Observatory, Project, $3*
During your Action phase, Silvers are also Actions which give +2 Cards, +2 Actions instead of +2$.
   -------------------------
You can't buy this if you have any Treasures in play.

This is inspired by one of the Project outtakes which turned Silvers into Peddlers. I think attaching the no-Treasure cost should make going for it a nontrivial decision. It gets crazy with those fast silver gainers, but not in a way that ruins many kingdoms.

It looks the idea behind the Buy restriction is to nerf the card such that you only get it later in the game. That is sound but the problem I see is that this very Buy restriction is too harsh, i.e. in some Kingdoms Observatory is not available, while the effect is far too strong.
Once you bought Observatory, an ordinary gainer like Ironworks becomes a non-terminal Copper that can gain a card which is stronger than Lost City.

Thanks for the feedback! It is true that some kingdoms this is unavailable, which I think is somewhat similar to Capitalism or Tomb. Since it's a landscape card I'm not as concerned about that, but it's a consideration.

It may be too strong right now. I figured the Lost City effect would make the project worth going for, while not making the kingdom too boring otherwise. The project essentially costs $3 plus however much treasure you have in your hand since you can't spend them this turn. Do you think it would be more interesting and balanced if effect was Lab instead of Lost City?

Incidentally, the cost restriction was also meant to make gaining early silvers self-defeating.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 01, 2019, 02:55:51 pm

Quote from: Lurker on April 01, 2019, 02:03:17 pm

Do you think it would be more interesting and balanced if effect was Lab instead of Lost City?

The problem I see is that Silver becomes too universal, it does 3 things so all you need in addition is something that provides an extra Buy to build a Silver-mono engine that can gain 2 or even 3 Provinces per turn.
Sure, you have to do something before you get there, thin, get a gainer, get 3 virtuals Coin together to buy the Project. But afterwards it is IMO too simple.

That's of course no issue if you like other centralizing cards like Sauna/Avanto that also do more than an average card does.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on April 01, 2019, 04:01:08 pm

Quote from: Asper on April 01, 2019, 12:17:04 pm

Quote from: lompeluiten on April 01, 2019, 03:45:54 am

Royal Taxation  0*
Event
To buy this event, discard 4 victory cards
Gain a gold

I think the wording would need to be:

Quote

Royal Taxation, Event, 0$
Reveal and discard up to 4 Victory cards from your hand. If you discarded 4, gain a Gold.

It seems similar to but worse than Quest and its name is a bit redundant with Tax', though.

jeah did not have much inspiration. didt play a lot with the event yet.You are right with the wording, tough!

Royal Taxation, Event, 0$
Reveal and discard up to 4 Victory cards from your hand. If you discarded 4, gain a Gold.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on April 02, 2019, 10:59:21 am

Sorry, I know I'm running a bit late.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on March 26, 2019, 05:02:35 pm

Corruption
Project - $2P

Directly after playing an Action, you may set aside a Treasure that isn't a Copper to play it again. Discard set aside Potions, and trash all other set aside Treasures when that Action leaves play.

I think "make Potions do stuff" is a good direction to take this challenge. This Royal-Carriagification seems pretty fun. I dislike having two exceptional clauses on the card, but that is minor. More problematic is the interaction with Treasure gainers. This + JOAT can instapile Silvers. This + Sculptor can instapile Potions and Silvers for virtually infinite Villagers. The concept seems fun, but is currently broken and needs tweaking.

Quote from: Tejayes on March 26, 2019, 06:21:23 pm

Education
Project - 10D

At the start of your turn, +$2.
At the end of your Buy phase, if you have any Debt remaining, take 2 Debt.

Neat design. It cancels its profit until you fully pay it off. Most of the time that probably takes 2 turns, and afterwards you start making profit. The interaction with other debt costs is mildly inconvenient - Education + Capital doesn't work, no wonder our universities are full of Communists! It's hard for me to tell how good this will be, it may need cost tweaking, but I think the design definitely works.

Quote from: King Leon on March 26, 2019, 08:36:04 pm

Patent
Event - $7*

Gain a card costing up to $5 to the top of your deck.
-
This costs $3 less per empty supply pile, but not less than $0.

With no piles empty, this is like Travelling Fair + $5 cost. As more piles empty, it gets cheaper and the topdecking becomes more of a penalty. I think that is pretty neat. One worry are those games where one pile drains quickly and then you can gain $5s for $4, it would need some testing to see how fun that is.

Quote from: segura on March 27, 2019, 02:15:33 am

Pirate Training
Event - 8D

Move your Sifting token to a Kingdom supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you first get: discard any number of cards, then draw that many.)

I think if token Events were done today, they would be Projects, then you don't really need the token. Anyway, the problem with this for me is that it attaches a decision to playing a card that most of the time you won't care all that much about. It's like a Scrying-Poolification. That increases playtime for not enough benefit I think. Also I don't feel like the debt cost adds all that much to the card.

Quote from: majiponi on March 27, 2019, 03:21:54 am

Walpurgisnacht
Event - $P+

When you buy this, you may overpay up to $6P for it. If you do, gain 2 cards each costing the amount you overpaid.

Potions to Charms! I feel like something could have been done with that theme. Anyway this is a nice enough way to make Potions useful. I just would prefer if it copied Charm's differently named condition rather than give a price limit. The way it is, gaining 2 copies of a strong card with this can still be overpowered.

Quote from: Fragasnap on March 27, 2019, 06:26:56 am

Discovery
Types: Event
Cost: $2
Discard a Victory card costing at least $4. If you do, remove this from the Supply and look at 4 random Kingdom cards not in the Supply. Add one's Supply pile to the Kingdom and gain up to 2 cards from it.

This is a very compelling idea. But as with many novel ideas, I think tweaking it to make it work is difficult. This could be too swingy if one player rushes for it, I think it should at least give everyone an option to use it somehow. I also think that the special cost is somewhat random and does not tie in mechanically. Maybe require that you need to discard a card from an empty supply pile instead?

Quote from: Gazbag on March 27, 2019, 06:53:36 pm

Bioengineering
Project - 6D

During cleanup, when you would discard an Action card on play, instead return it to the supply and gain an Action card costing exactly $1 more.

This is another one of those with an intriguing idea that I think is not quite fully realized yet. I like the idea of a massive game-warping Project, but this is not it; I think its main use right now is cute pileout tricks where you buy it to end the game. I find it hard to imagine a board where it is viable to buy this when there is more than one other turn to play. I think it either needs to be less punishing or offer a stronger benefit.

Quote from: FlyerBeast on March 27, 2019, 07:13:33 pm

Research
Event - $7

Once per turn: Each other player draws until they have 6 cards in hand then discards a card. Choose a card discarded this way. You may trash any number of copies of it from play and your hand, or gain a copy of it if it isn't a Victory card.
-
This costs $1 less per card discarded (by you or any other player) this turn.

I like that this gives you some interesting player interaction. It creates an uncomfortable dynamic in multiplayer though, the first player to discard something is under pressure to discard good stuff and the last player has all the info to know if they can safely discard junk. It creates asymmetry where player 1 gets to trash all of their junk cards of a type and then player two can never trash them because player 1 does not have them to discard. Finally the price fluctuates too wildly; a single Minion play can drop this all the way to $0.

Quote from: grep on March 27, 2019, 12:07:57 pm

Smeltery
Project - $4*

At the start of Clean-up, you may return a Treasure card to the supply and gain a treasure card costing up to $3 more than it
-
This costs extra $1 for each two Coppers in play, rounded up

As pointed out, this needs clarification of where the exchanged Treausre comes from. I'm going to assume from play as otherwise it's really weak. I read through Project outtakes before this and there is a similar cut Project; according to Donald it makes the game too muhc about base treasures. I think something like this will always walk the line of making things boring or being irrelevant.

Quote from: mail-mi on March 28, 2019, 07:23:33 pm

Commonwealth
Event - 2D

Gain a non-Victory card costing up to $6. Take D equal to its cost in $.

Such a natural idea. So probably broken. I don't think it will lead to very fun games, those high-cost cards have that cost for a reason. Plus there is no real reason for this to have debt cost itself, so it's not quite in the spirit of this challenge.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on March 30, 2019, 06:40:23 pm

Democracy
Project - $16*

When you buy this, set aside a non-Duration Action card from your hand. At the start of your turn, play it, then set it aside again.
-
This costs $1 less for each differently costed card you have in play, but not less than $0.

Does it need "but not less than $0"? I suppose you could have a Black Market game with lots of Potion/Debt costs in the Black Market. Anyway... it has been pointed out that this would replay the card even if it leaves play. That is a bit of a problem with something like Pillage, but could probably be fixed. I think this overall works, but is kind of similar to Citadel. Also the cost change seems kind of random and not very impactful; since this was the core of this challenge, I need to subtract points for that.

Quote from: Lurker on March 31, 2019, 08:26:48 pm

Observatory
Project - $3*

During your Action phase, Silvers are also Actions which give +2 Cards, +1 Actions instead of +2$.
   -------------------------
You can't buy this if you have any Treasures in play.

I see this has changed from Lost Cities to Labs. That is probably for the best. I still don't think Lab is the best choice of effect here, it is just good in basically any deck, I think I would prefer something more situational, maybe terminal so you have to manage your Silvers. I'm also not sure about the cost, there are plenty of kingdom cards that give +$3 or more and with those, it is pretty easy to buy. I think it might be better just having a normal, but high, cost, or maybe have it cost $2 more per Silver in play or something.

Quote from: lompeluiten on April 01, 2019, 04:01:08 pm

Royal Taxation
Event - $0

Reveal and discard up to 4 Victory cards from your hand. If you discarded 4, gain a Gold.

This is just a worse Quest, and Quest isn't a particularly good Event.

Winner: Education by Tejayes
Runner-up: Patent by King Leon

Special Creativity award: Discovery by Fragasnap

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on April 02, 2019, 04:18:24 pm

Quote from: faust on April 02, 2019, 10:59:21 am

Quote from: mail-mi on March 28, 2019, 07:23:33 pm

Commonwealth
Event - 2D

Gain a non-Victory card costing up to $6. Take D equal to its cost in $.

Such a natural idea. So probably broken. I don't think it will lead to very fun games, those high-cost cards have that cost for a reason. Plus there is no real reason for this to have debt cost itself, so it's not quite in the spirit of this challenge.

The debt cost is there to simulate an increase in cost to get a good card now. So a $6 Goons becomes 8D Goons, or a $5 Cultist becomes a 7D cultist. But you're right it's most likely broken.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 02, 2019, 05:52:24 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on April 02, 2019, 04:18:24 pm

Quote from: faust on April 02, 2019, 10:59:21 am

Quote from: mail-mi on March 28, 2019, 07:23:33 pm

Commonwealth
Event - 2D

Gain a non-Victory card costing up to $6. Take D equal to its cost in $.

Such a natural idea. So probably broken. I don't think it will lead to very fun games, those high-cost cards have that cost for a reason. Plus there is no real reason for this to have debt cost itself, so it's not quite in the spirit of this challenge.

The debt cost is there to simulate an increase in cost to get a good card now. So a $6 Goons becomes 8D Goons, or a $5 Cultist becomes a 7D cultist. But you're right it's most likely broken.

You just have to retro-engineer Overlord, Royal Blacksmith and City Quarter to find out, i.e. convert their costs into Coin costs. That is obviously not perfectly possible but they all look roughly like $6s to me.

So it seems like +2D thingy is not totally off. +3D would definitely be too much.

Overlord emulates nearly all Actions so you gotta pay 1D more for the flexibility than you would have to pay if you directly bought that Sentry or Witch. So I don't see how this is broken, looks actually pretty well balanced to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on April 02, 2019, 08:15:09 pm

Thank you so much for the win, faust! Always a good idea to go for an Education.

Challenge #25: Silver Anniversary!

It's the 25th Weekly Design Contest, and the 25th Anniversary is traditionally called the Silver Anniversary. Therefore, design a card-shaped object (Kingdom card or sideways card) that concerns Silvers. Gaining them, trashing them, getting powers from them, losing powers from them, getting points from them, losing points from them, eating them, whatever!

Edit: I originally posted the "I'd Buy That for $1" Challenge (design a $1 card), but after realizing the Silver connection to #25, I had to change the challenge. My apologies to anyone who started working on the $1 card; if I ever win again, I promise that will be the challenge next time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on April 02, 2019, 10:28:32 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on April 02, 2019, 08:15:09 pm

eating them, whatever!

Okay, I have to go for this (will also post this in RBCI):

Oxidation (Landmark)
This game, whenever you would trash a Copper or Silver card, eat it instead*. If you did, you become protected from the starve to death rule.

*All games of Dominion you play in the future will be played without any cards you ate.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on April 02, 2019, 11:59:21 pm

Sterling Village
Action/Silver - $3
+$1
+2 Actions
Discard the top card of your deck. If it's a Silver, put it in your hand.
--
Effects that apply to Silver apply to this card

Rules clarification: Any effects that refer to Silver refer to both cards with the name "Silver" and cards with the type "Silver". For example you can gain a Sterling Village when you buy a Delve, they count for Feodum, you get +$1 if you play a Sterling Village after playing a Merchant, etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on April 03, 2019, 12:48:36 am

Quote from: mail-mi on April 02, 2019, 04:18:24 pm

Quote from: faust on April 02, 2019, 10:59:21 am

Quote from: mail-mi on March 28, 2019, 07:23:33 pm

Commonwealth
Event - 2D

Gain a non-Victory card costing up to $6. Take D equal to its cost in $.

Such a natural idea. So probably broken. I don't think it will lead to very fun games, those high-cost cards have that cost for a reason. Plus there is no real reason for this to have debt cost itself, so it's not quite in the spirit of this challenge.

The debt cost is there to simulate an increase in cost to get a good card now. So a $6 Goons becomes 8D Goons, or a $5 Cultist becomes a 7D cultist. But you're right it's most likely broken.

I know but it might as well be $2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silvern on April 03, 2019, 02:42:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/eyVlKOdm.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on April 03, 2019, 05:43:47 am

Iwami Mine
cost $5 - Treasure - Victory
Gain a Silver to your hand.
You may put it onto your Iwami Mat.
---
Worth 1vp per 2 Silvers you have on your Iwami Mat (rounded down).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 03, 2019, 12:42:03 pm

I accept the challenge and tried to create a card which utilizes Silver and costs $1. It’s variant of Skulk and Nomad Camp and I hope, you enjoy this card.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/1l6jf1xk.png)

Gift
Type: Action
Cost: $1

+1 Buy
-
When you gain this, gain a Silver. If it is not your first turn, set it aside. If you did, add it to your hand at the start of your next turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GreyEK on April 03, 2019, 01:47:30 pm

I'm not sure this needs the 'If it's not your first turn' clause.  It's not super broken without it, pretty comparable to other early spiking cards, and it's pretty tough to see buying it often, with the main use case looking like picking up a treasure payload quickly when you're fully trashed, or if this is the only buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 03, 2019, 03:50:52 pm

Quote from: GreyEK on April 03, 2019, 01:47:30 pm

I'm not sure this needs the 'If it's not your first turn' clause.  It's not super broken without it, pretty comparable to other early spiking cards, and it's pretty tough to see buying it often, with the main use case looking like picking up a treasure payload quickly when you're fully trashed, or if this is the only buy.

It needs to have that clause, because players who start 3/4 or 2/5 would have a huge advantage in having $6 in turn 2, which is insane. Baker is not as broken, because 5/3 is also not as bad and you could even save the Coffers for later.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 03, 2019, 04:17:56 pm

Quote from: King Leon on April 03, 2019, 12:42:03 pm

I accept the challenge and tried to create a card which utilizes Silver and costs $1. It’s a Skulk variant and I hope, you enjoy this card.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/1l6jf1xk.png)

Gift
Type: Action
Cost: $1

+1 Buy
-
When you gain this, gain a Silver. If it is not your first turn, set it aside. If you did, add it to your hand at the start of your next turn.

In general I like it but there could be undesired endgame shenanigans, i.e. you can transfer a Buy and a Coin into 2 Coins for the next turn which could too easily set up a megaturn. As an extreme case, with one cost reducer in play and 5 Buys to spare you can generate an extra 10 Coins next turn. So endgame play could resolve too much around Gift in Kingdoms that support a megaturn, amplifying that whole thing (too) much.
It is of course a matter of taste, if that is a desired sidegoal it is of course fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on April 03, 2019, 05:10:53 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/T4Pp4W8.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on April 03, 2019, 05:49:28 pm

Huh, this is another one where I have a fitting card lying around in my vault... So, what could be something new...

Quote

Day-taler, Action, 3$
+3 Cards
Discard a card. If it is a Silver: +1 Action

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 03, 2019, 06:01:55 pm

Quote from: segura on April 03, 2019, 04:17:56 pm

Quote from: King Leon on April 03, 2019, 12:42:03 pm

I accept the challenge and tried to create a card which utilizes Silver and costs $1. It’s a Skulk variant and I hope, you enjoy this card.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/1l6jf1xk.png)

Gift
Type: Action
Cost: $1

+1 Buy
-
When you gain this, gain a Silver. If it is not your first turn, set it aside. If you did, add it to your hand at the start of your next turn.

In general I like it but there could be undesired endgame shenanigans, i.e. you can transfer a Buy and a Coin into 2 Coins for the next turn which could too easily set up a megaturn. As an extreme case, with one cost reducer in play and 5 Buys to spare you can generate an extra 10 Coins next turn. So endgame play could resolve too much around Gift in Kingdoms that support a megaturn, amplifying that whole thing (too) much.
It is of course a matter of taste, if that is a desired sidegoal it is of course fine.

I noted that endgame may be problematic, but the Gift pile is limited by 10 cards and you cannot use the Silver in the same turn, you gained Gift. Even if you are able to buy five Gifts in a turn, that is just a +$10 in the next turn. If you don't get any +Buy in your next hand (which is even very likely, because you used your +Buys in the last turn to buy all those Gifts), you may be able to buy a Colony, but also end up with a lot of Ruined Markets, while your new Silvers miss a shuffle. Meanwhile, your opponent goes for a three-pile ending.

If you are already running an engine with +Buy and Cost reducers (e. g. Capitalism+Bridge), there are a lot more other possibilities for megaturns, e. g. the innocent looking, but powerful Native Village.

And, of course, there are already other cards with delayed penalties like Borrow or Summoned Death Cart.

Fun Fact: Summoning a Stonemason overpaying by one and later using it to convert Estates to two Gifts is a rather interesting combo, but it seems to be still balanced.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on April 03, 2019, 06:18:53 pm

Quote from: King Leon on April 03, 2019, 06:01:55 pm

Fun Fact: Summoning a Stonemason overpaying by one and later using it to convert Estates to two Gifts is a rather interesting combo, but it seems to be still balanced.

Um, you can't overpay for it if you Summon it?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on April 03, 2019, 07:04:12 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on April 03, 2019, 05:10:53 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/T4Pp4W8.jpg)

Just a phrasing nitpick:

There are three or four "If" clauses here. It is unclear which one the "Otherwise" refers to. I assume, based on the fact that it is an Action card as well as a Night card, that it refers to "If it is your Night phase". If so, then I think you should change the "otherwise" to "If it is your Action phase". If I did not have that context, I would just assume it referred to the previous "If", which is probably incorrect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on April 03, 2019, 09:03:42 pm

Well if remember werewolf only had otherwise and that was after night phase. I can add otherwise if it’s your Action phase gain 2 silvers putting one on your deck. But werewolf did not have Action phase in its wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GreyEK on April 03, 2019, 09:19:24 pm

Quote from: King Leon on April 03, 2019, 03:50:52 pm

Quote from: GreyEK on April 03, 2019, 01:47:30 pm

I'm not sure this needs the 'If it's not your first turn' clause.  It's not super broken without it, pretty comparable to other early spiking cards, and it's pretty tough to see buying it often, with the main use case looking like picking up a treasure payload quickly when you're fully trashed, or if this is the only buy.

It needs to have that clause, because players who start 3/4 or 2/5 would have a huge advantage in having $6 in turn 2, which is insane. Baker is not as broken, because 5/3 is also not as bad and you could even save the Coffers for later.

$6 turn 2 is not insane at all, since usually you're just buying a 5-cost with it.  The only really strong card that this would matter on would be Goons, (or maybe like Inhertiance with Borrow/Save/Baker) Buying a gold T2 off of this ends up with an opening comparable to Gold-Silver-Ruined Market, which in the general case is even worse than double Silver.

The endgame stuff is certainly also potentially useful, but seems certainly more towards the cool if you can make it work side rather than towards the broken side, particularly in an engine style deck, where the silver goes to hand but you still have the extra card in your deck to balance the overdraw.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on April 03, 2019, 09:34:44 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on April 03, 2019, 09:03:42 pm

Well if remember werewolf only had otherwise and that was after night phase. I can add otherwise if it’s your Action phase gain 2 silvers putting one on your deck. But werewolf did not have Action phase in its wording.

Werewolf did only have 'otherwise', but it also had only one 'if'. Your card had multiple 'if's, which is the reason I think it should specify which 'if' the 'otherwise' was talking about. The other option is to have the Action phase effect first, so that there is only one 'if' before the 'otherwise'. You don't have to change it, I just think it's clearer if you do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on April 03, 2019, 09:45:09 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on April 03, 2019, 09:38:09 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on April 03, 2019, 05:10:53 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/T4Pp4W8.jpg)

Gaining a Silver to your hand seems pointless here, because it's your Night phase so you won't be able to play.

Overall, the card looks extremely weak. Getting it opens you up to the Cursing attack, so you won't want it unless you're really desperate for Silvers for some reason.

As I said previously, I think the wording here is too confusing. I'm pretty sure what ClouduHieh means is that if you play it in your action phase you get the silvers (so gaining to hand does something), and if you play it at night you get the (possible) attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on April 03, 2019, 09:51:14 pm

I'm seeing at least two ambiguities here:

1. "Otherwise" could refer to any one of the 3 "if" clauses that precede it. Normally you'd assume that it would refer to the "if" directly before it, but that's not the meaning you wanted.

2. Does "if they don't" refer to having Night cards in hand or gaining a Curse?

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on April 03, 2019, 09:45:09 pm

As I said previously, I think the wording here is too confusing. I'm pretty sure what ClouduHieh means is that if you play it in your action phase you get the silvers (so gaining to hand does something), and if you play it at night you get the (possible) attack.

Yes, I realized that, which is why I deleted that post.

I still think the card is pretty weak, though. Gaining Silver to hand terminally just isn't very good, and the Cursing is a particularly good reason not to get it at all.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on April 04, 2019, 12:40:40 am

I just entered this into the contest because it’s all about silver, yeah it might be weak so what. It’s about silver, not gold. Otherwise gaining a gold would be better but your using a silver bullet as the silver bullet fires you lose a silver or you get more silver to essentially fire your silver bullet against things that go bump in the night like a werewolf. The name and and the effect are good enough for me. It doesn’t have to be perfect for a contest unless you can guarantee that if it’s perfect it win for sure or be a runner up for sure. Otherwise it doesn’t matter it’s just for this contest.

I’m never going to play with it. So it doesn’t need to be perfect. The only criticism I’ll take is the one who put this contest challenge together. I just thought the name was cool.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on April 04, 2019, 01:09:18 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on April 03, 2019, 09:34:44 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on April 03, 2019, 09:03:42 pm

Well if remember werewolf only had otherwise and that was after night phase. I can add otherwise if it’s your Action phase gain 2 silvers putting one on your deck. But werewolf did not have Action phase in its wording.

Werewolf did only have 'otherwise', but it also had only one 'if'. Your card had multiple 'if's, which is the reason I think it should specify which 'if' the 'otherwise' was talking about. The other option is to have the Action phase effect first, so that there is only one 'if' before the 'otherwise'. You don't have to change it, I just think it's clearer if you do.

For what it's worth, Crown does not have an "otherwise" wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on April 04, 2019, 03:36:44 am

I have an idea....

Silverbank $4
action
+1 action
Show up to 4 silvers from your hand. +1 card per Silver shown.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on April 04, 2019, 05:28:36 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on April 04, 2019, 03:36:44 am

I have an idea....

Silverbank $4
action
+1 action
Show up to 4 silvers from your hand. +1 card per Silver shown.

This is pretty weak. Sure, it's nonterminal, but apart from that it's worse than Coppersmith. For instance, it is limited to at most +4$, and unlike with Coppers, you don't start with Silvers in your deck. Of course Silvers are better than Coppers, but you forego buying something else instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on April 04, 2019, 06:49:47 am

(https://i.imgur.com/BFOidAl.jpg)

Quote

Trade Agreement
Treasure - $3

$3
+2 Buys
You may exchange a Silver in play for a Trade Agreement. If you didn't, exchange this for a Copper.

Would you be interested in a Trade Agreement with England?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 04, 2019, 07:19:34 am

Quote from: Asper on April 04, 2019, 05:28:36 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on April 04, 2019, 03:36:44 am

I have an idea....

Silverbank $4
action
+1 action
Show up to 4 silvers from your hand. +1 card per Silver shown.

This is pretty weak. Sure, it's nonterminal, but apart from that it's worse than Coppersmith. For instance, it is limited to at most +4$, and unlike with Coppers, you don't start with Silvers in your deck. Of course Silvers are better than Coppers, but you forego buying something else instead.

It doesn't produce Coins but draws.
I agree that it seems weak but like Shepherd it could be great "support draw", i.e. when you have something else in your deck that draws this might be pretty decent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on April 04, 2019, 08:04:07 am

Quote from: segura on April 04, 2019, 07:19:34 am

Quote from: Asper on April 04, 2019, 05:28:36 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on April 04, 2019, 03:36:44 am

I have an idea....

Silverbank $4
action
+1 action
Show up to 4 silvers from your hand. +1 card per Silver shown.

This is pretty weak. Sure, it's nonterminal, but apart from that it's worse than Coppersmith. For instance, it is limited to at most +4$, and unlike with Coppers, you don't start with Silvers in your deck. Of course Silvers are better than Coppers, but you forego buying something else instead.

It doesn't produce Coins but draws.
I agree that it seems weak but like Shepherd it could be great "support draw", i.e. when you have something else in your deck that draws this might be pretty decent.

Oh wow, sorry, I completely misread it, then. That's quite a bit better, but on the other hand I wonder wether a deck that's as full with Silver wouldn't be better off with a terminal draw card like e.g. Smithy. Of course you can also use it in an engine deck, but if your engine can reliably draw this and at least two Silvers, it's probably going fairly smoothly anyhow. So now that you win, you win more, and before, it does very little to get you there (mainly hoping for lucky draws).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Lurker on April 04, 2019, 10:19:52 am

Quote

Trash a card from your
hand. If it is a Silver, gain a
card costing up to $6.
-
When you gain this, gain a
Silver onto your deck.

A limited remodel variant in the vein of Dismantle. Might be a nice opener for picking up another $4 or $5 and add an early silver without buying it. And hey, that Silver is useful!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 04, 2019, 03:00:29 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on April 03, 2019, 06:18:53 pm

Quote from: King Leon on April 03, 2019, 06:01:55 pm

Fun Fact: Summoning a Stonemason overpaying by one and later using it to convert Estates to two Gifts is a rather interesting combo, but it seems to be still balanced.

Um, you can't overpay for it if you Summon it?

Oh, you are right. Thank you.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on April 04, 2019, 03:52:19 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/54BkcEv.png)

I like making cards that are likely broken, it seems. Get +$2 for every one of your turns, but can your engine survive the silver gains? Seems pretty good for Big Money, especially in helping it not stall out in the endgame.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on April 04, 2019, 11:01:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/65ZMjBK.png)

Title: Re: Contest #25: Involve Silvers
Post by: Gubump on April 05, 2019, 02:29:44 am

(https://i.imgur.com/GorIVRH.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on April 05, 2019, 03:05:12 am

Quote from: Asper on April 04, 2019, 08:04:07 am

Quote from: segura on April 04, 2019, 07:19:34 am

Quote from: Asper on April 04, 2019, 05:28:36 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on April 04, 2019, 03:36:44 am

I have an idea....

Silverbank $4
action
+1 action
Show up to 4 silvers from your hand. +1 card per Silver shown.

This is pretty weak. Sure, it's nonterminal, but apart from that it's worse than Coppersmith. For instance, it is limited to at most +4$, and unlike with Coppers, you don't start with Silvers in your deck. Of course Silvers are better than Coppers, but you forego buying something else instead.

It doesn't produce Coins but draws.
I agree that it seems weak but like Shepherd it could be great "support draw", i.e. when you have something else in your deck that draws this might be pretty decent.

Oh wow, sorry, I completely misread it, then. That's quite a bit better, but on the other hand I wonder wether a deck that's as full with Silver wouldn't be better off with a terminal draw card like e.g. Smithy. Of course you can also use it in an engine deck, but if your engine can reliably draw this and at least two Silvers, it's probably going fairly smoothly anyhow. So now that you win, you win more, and before, it does very little to get you there (mainly hoping for lucky draws).

With this amount of delicate balance it makes quite an interesting card, without being that strong. Thinking about dropping it to 3?

Title: Re: Contest #25: Involve Silvers
Post by: lompeluiten on April 05, 2019, 03:05:41 am

Quote from: Gubump on April 05, 2019, 02:29:44 am

(https://i.imgur.com/GorIVRH.png)

FUCKING GREAT! This is what silvers need!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on April 05, 2019, 03:49:39 am

(https://i.imgur.com/d5feVsn.jpg)

Not a very good name, possibly too weak.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on April 05, 2019, 06:22:30 am

(https://i.imgur.com/EPH9OHi.png)

I also tried to create a $1 card that involves Silver.
Not sure if it is weak enough...

Edit: Costs now $2 instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on April 05, 2019, 06:40:49 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on April 05, 2019, 06:22:30 am

I also tried to create a 1$ card that involves Silver.
Not sure if it is weak enough...

I think the card is fine, but it does not need to cost $1. There are two cases where you buy it: In the opening for trashing (where you'll have at least $2), or mid-late game for extra buys, where - if you are going to need extra buys, you probably have more to spend than $1. I think the card is fine, but it costs $1 just for the sake of costing $1.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Shard of Honor on April 05, 2019, 08:42:59 am

Quote from: faust on April 05, 2019, 06:40:49 am

Quote from: Shard of Honor on April 05, 2019, 06:22:30 am

I also tried to create a $1 card that involves Silver.
Not sure if it is weak enough...

I think the card is fine, but it does not need to cost $1. There are two cases where you buy it: In the opening for trashing (where you'll have at least $2), or mid-late game for extra buys, where - if you are going to need extra buys, you probably have more to spend than $1. I think the card is fine, but it costs $1 just for the sake of costing $1.

You are right. It probably works the same at $2. So just pricing it at $1 for the sake of being special is rather pointless.
Kept the card as it is and only rised the price.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 05, 2019, 12:33:26 pm

Quote from: Aquila on April 05, 2019, 03:49:39 am

(https://i.imgur.com/d5feVsn.jpg)

Not a very good name, possibly too weak.

I think Harbor might be a good name for this one. Its power level seems fine to me, although you could add a setup rule that causes a number of Silvers equal to the player count to start in the trash just to speed it up a little.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 05, 2019, 01:54:52 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/MAFXo8b.png)

It's kinda lame.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 05, 2019, 02:54:16 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on April 04, 2019, 11:01:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/65ZMjBK.png)

Jesus! This is very strong. I hope, the $5 price tag is not too low.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: stechafle on April 06, 2019, 07:43:01 am

Cathedral Town
+2 Actions
+$1
You may trash a Silver from your hand for +2VP.
$3 Action

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 06, 2019, 10:40:37 am

Quote from: King Leon on April 05, 2019, 02:54:16 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on April 04, 2019, 11:01:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/65ZMjBK.png)

Jesus! This is very strong. I hope, the $5 price tag is not too low.

It seems vaguely comparable to Seer to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 06, 2019, 06:54:48 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on April 06, 2019, 10:40:37 am

Quote from: King Leon on April 05, 2019, 02:54:16 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on April 04, 2019, 11:01:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/65ZMjBK.png)

Jesus! This is very strong. I hope, the $5 price tag is not too low.

It seems vaguely comparable to Seer to me.

Without a cost reducer, Seer cannot draw other Seers, Gold or  Provinces (Fun Fact: Scout can do this), but Magnets can draw them all, including other Magnets. With support by Artificer, Secret Passage, City Gate, Mandarin, Count, The Moon’s Gift, Buerocrat, Taxman or Courtyard, it allows very strong engines.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 06, 2019, 07:44:58 pm

Quote from: King Leon on April 06, 2019, 06:54:48 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on April 06, 2019, 10:40:37 am

Quote from: King Leon on April 05, 2019, 02:54:16 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on April 04, 2019, 11:01:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/65ZMjBK.png)

Jesus! This is very strong. I hope, the $5 price tag is not too low.

It seems vaguely comparable to Seer to me.

Without a cost reducer, Seer cannot draw other Seers, Gold or  Provinces (Fun Fact: Scout can do this), but Magnets can draw them all, including other Magnets. With support by Artificer, Secret Passage, City Gate, Mandarin, Count, The Moon’s Gift, Buerocrat, Taxman or Courtyard, it allows very strong engines.

Seer gives +1 card so it can certainly draw those cards. Magnets needs a Silver within the top 3 cards which is pretty difficult to have consistently so I imagine it draws fewer cards than Seer on average.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on April 07, 2019, 02:51:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fugKEYb.png)

It's a budget Smithy.  It will be great if you can keep the silvers out of the way. Hopefully not too good.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 07, 2019, 07:49:20 am

(https://i.imgur.com/shiCof8.jpg)

A Silver gainer or alternatively something slightly better (Stables-like Treasure sifting, drawing an extra card plus topdecking one) than a Working Village.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 11:52:44 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 07, 2019, 02:51:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fugKEYb.png)

It's a budget Smithy.  It will be great if you can keep the silvers out of the way. Hopefully not too good.

This card is... incredibly weak. As the Fan Card Creation Guide says, the difference between $3 and $4 is negligible, so this card is far too weak to only cost $1 more than Smithy, with both an on-play and an on-gain drawback. Heck, I'd give it +4 Cards instead of 3 and price it the same.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on April 07, 2019, 11:56:30 am

Quote from: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 11:52:44 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 07, 2019, 02:51:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fugKEYb.png)

It's a budget Smithy.  It will be great if you can keep the silvers out of the way. Hopefully not too good.

This card is... incredibly weak. As the Fan Card Creation Guide says, the difference between $3 and $4 is negligible, so this card is far too weak to only cost $1 more than Smithy, with both an on-play and an on-gain drawback. Heck, I'd give it +4 Cards instead of 3 and price it the same.

It doesn't have an on-gain drawback, it has an on-gain attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 04:45:07 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on April 07, 2019, 11:56:30 am

Quote from: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 11:52:44 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 07, 2019, 02:51:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fugKEYb.png)

It's a budget Smithy.  It will be great if you can keep the silvers out of the way. Hopefully not too good.

This card is... incredibly weak. As the Fan Card Creation Guide says, the difference between $3 and $4 is negligible, so this card is far too weak to only cost $1 more than Smithy, with both an on-play and an on-gain drawback. Heck, I'd give it +4 Cards instead of 3 and price it the same.

It doesn't have an on-gain drawback, it has an on-gain attack.

Wouldn't players WANT to gain Silvers onto their deck? It's only an attack if other players are going for Silver Workers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on April 07, 2019, 04:47:26 pm

(https://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/my-pathfinder-setting-stuff/character-classes/MadScientist.png?attredirects=0)

Quote

Mad Scientist
$5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand costing at least $2. If you do, +2 Cards. Otherwise, gain a Silver.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on April 07, 2019, 05:33:57 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 04:45:07 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on April 07, 2019, 11:56:30 am

Quote from: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 11:52:44 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 07, 2019, 02:51:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fugKEYb.png)

It's a budget Smithy.  It will be great if you can keep the silvers out of the way. Hopefully not too good.

This card is... incredibly weak. As the Fan Card Creation Guide says, the difference between $3 and $4 is negligible, so this card is far too weak to only cost $1 more than Smithy, with both an on-play and an on-gain drawback. Heck, I'd give it +4 Cards instead of 3 and price it the same.

It doesn't have an on-gain drawback, it has an on-gain attack.

Wouldn't players WANT to gain Silvers onto their deck? It's only an attack if other players are going for Silver Workers.

Ignore Awaclus. He thinks he's funny.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 05:37:49 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 07, 2019, 04:47:26 pm

(https://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/my-pathfinder-setting-stuff/character-classes/MadScientist.png?attredirects=0)

Quote

Mad Scientist
$5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card costing at least $2. If you do, +2 Cards. Otherwise, gain a Silver.

Trash a card... from where? Your hand, I assume?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 07, 2019, 05:51:13 pm

Quote from: Asper on April 07, 2019, 05:33:57 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 04:45:07 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on April 07, 2019, 11:56:30 am

Quote from: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 11:52:44 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 07, 2019, 02:51:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fugKEYb.png)

It's a budget Smithy.  It will be great if you can keep the silvers out of the way. Hopefully not too good.

This card is... incredibly weak. As the Fan Card Creation Guide says, the difference between $3 and $4 is negligible, so this card is far too weak to only cost $1 more than Smithy, with both an on-play and an on-gain drawback. Heck, I'd give it +4 Cards instead of 3 and price it the same.

It doesn't have an on-gain drawback, it has an on-gain attack.

Wouldn't players WANT to gain Silvers onto their deck? It's only an attack if other players are going for Silver Workers.

Ignore Awaclus. He thinks he's funny.

I mean topdecking Silvers could totally mess up an engine, Silvers that also make your Silver Workers stink... It's way more of an attack than Embassy ever is at least.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on April 07, 2019, 06:51:53 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 05:37:49 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 07, 2019, 04:47:26 pm

Quote

Mad Scientist
$5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card costing at least $2. If you do, +2 Cards. Otherwise, gain a Silver.

Trash a card... from where? Your hand, I assume?

Yes, it should say from your hand. Forgot to include that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 06:57:54 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 07, 2019, 06:51:53 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 05:37:49 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 07, 2019, 04:47:26 pm

Quote

Mad Scientist
$5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card costing at least $2. If you do, +2 Cards. Otherwise, gain a Silver.

Trash a card... from where? Your hand, I assume?

Yes, it should say from your hand. Forgot to include that.

Also, what happened to the image?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on April 07, 2019, 07:43:58 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 06:57:54 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 07, 2019, 06:51:53 pm

Quote

Mad Scientist
$5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand costing at least $2. If you do, +2 Cards. Otherwise, gain a Silver.

...Yes, it should say from your hand. Forgot to include that.

Also, what happened to the card image?

Uh... nothing. It's still in my post. just thought It'd be nicer to take less space by not including it in the nested quotes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: wittyhowlard on April 07, 2019, 10:32:55 pm

Couldn't decide between one or the other to submit as they're similar but each have their unique uses. If I'm forced to pick one let me know!

EDIT: I'm submitting Refinery (second card)

Also, how do I shrink the images? (Aka it's my first time posting, thanks :) )

(https://t.imgur.com/pIM3AUg.jpg)

or

(https://t.imgur.com/68tBqJI.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on April 07, 2019, 11:06:25 pm

Yes, you have to pick one and only one to be your official submission.

It's unclear what "if you did" refers to in the first version.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: wittyhowlard on April 07, 2019, 11:16:46 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on April 07, 2019, 11:06:25 pm

Yes, you have to pick one and only one to be your official submission.

It's unclear what "if you did" refers to in the first version.

"If you did" should only be for trashing two silvers.

I'm going to stick with the Refinery anyways as I think that's an interesting opening card. Wondering if it should cost a dollar or two higher though as gaining a silver to hand has a baseline with Trading Post (which costs $5). That said, you can only do this three times and afterwards it only turns into a terminal sifter.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 08, 2019, 12:30:54 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 07, 2019, 07:43:58 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 06:57:54 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 07, 2019, 06:51:53 pm

Quote

Mad Scientist
$5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand costing at least $2. If you do, +2 Cards. Otherwise, gain a Silver.

...Yes, it should say from your hand. Forgot to include that.

Also, what happened to the card image?

Uh... nothing. It's still in my post. just thought It'd be nicer to take less space by not including it in the nested quotes.

There's no image on my screen when I look at your post.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on April 08, 2019, 06:50:48 am

Quote from: Gazbag on April 07, 2019, 05:51:13 pm

Quote from: Asper on April 07, 2019, 05:33:57 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 04:45:07 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on April 07, 2019, 11:56:30 am

Quote from: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 11:52:44 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 07, 2019, 02:51:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fugKEYb.png)

It's a budget Smithy.  It will be great if you can keep the silvers out of the way. Hopefully not too good.

This card is... incredibly weak. As the Fan Card Creation Guide says, the difference between $3 and $4 is negligible, so this card is far too weak to only cost $1 more than Smithy, with both an on-play and an on-gain drawback. Heck, I'd give it +4 Cards instead of 3 and price it the same.

It doesn't have an on-gain drawback, it has an on-gain attack.

Wouldn't players WANT to gain Silvers onto their deck? It's only an attack if other players are going for Silver Workers.

Ignore Awaclus. He thinks he's funny.

I mean topdecking Silvers could totally mess up an engine, Silvers that also make your Silver Workers stink... It's way more of an attack than Embassy ever is at least.

Hum, okay, those are points I can get behind. I think the solution should be to either make gaining optional (make sure it's never an attack) or make sure it always feels like an attack, by changing it slightly. This way it's a weird in-between thing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on April 08, 2019, 02:05:33 pm

Quote from: Asper on April 08, 2019, 06:50:48 am

Quote from: Gazbag on April 07, 2019, 05:51:13 pm

Quote from: Asper on April 07, 2019, 05:33:57 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 04:45:07 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on April 07, 2019, 11:56:30 am

Quote from: Gubump on April 07, 2019, 11:52:44 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 07, 2019, 02:51:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fugKEYb.png)

It's a budget Smithy.  It will be great if you can keep the silvers out of the way. Hopefully not too good.

This card is... incredibly weak. As the Fan Card Creation Guide says, the difference between $3 and $4 is negligible, so this card is far too weak to only cost $1 more than Smithy, with both an on-play and an on-gain drawback. Heck, I'd give it +4 Cards instead of 3 and price it the same.

It doesn't have an on-gain drawback, it has an on-gain attack.

Wouldn't players WANT to gain Silvers onto their deck? It's only an attack if other players are going for Silver Workers.

Ignore Awaclus. He thinks he's funny.

I mean topdecking Silvers could totally mess up an engine, Silvers that also make your Silver Workers stink... It's way more of an attack than Embassy ever is at least.

Hum, okay, those are points I can get behind. I think the solution should be to either make gaining optional (make sure it's never an attack) or make sure it always feels like an attack, by changing it slightly. This way it's a weird in-between thing.

It was definitely meant to be more of an attack.  If your opponent is using silver worker for draw, obviously having silver hurts.  If they aren't, then your silver workers are likely to just be $3 Smithies.

I see your point about the difference between $3 and $4 though.  It won't matter often (of course it will matter sometimes, like with hermit or when you have exactly $3 extra)
I don't hate the idea of this drawing 4 cards either.  But I'd rather make a card that is on the weakish side which makes you find smart times to use it than a card that is usually very strong. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 08, 2019, 02:23:27 pm

It is a good card and I like that the on-gain Silver thing is sometimes good and sometimes bad for the other players:

Silver Worker vs Silver worker - attack
Silver Worker vs BM - gift
Silver Worker vs other engine - more likely to be an attack

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on April 09, 2019, 11:13:07 am

Decided to push my submission a bit in power to make it a 5$. Still not terribly exciting, and possibly favors Big Money too much.

(https://i.imgur.com/YNMSFwV.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on April 09, 2019, 01:59:53 pm

I'll be judging sometime in the next 12 hours. Hopefully that's enough time for those who wish to submit or tweak your entries.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on April 09, 2019, 04:49:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/AolgXtR.jpg)

Building Society
Cost:$5
Types: Action-Treasure

If it's your Action phase, +1 Card, +1 Action and + $1.
When you play this, it's worth $1 per Silver you have in play.

A building society is, I suppose, a small Bank. It's an experiment with the idea of having an Action-Treasure, something I don't think I've seen before. Here, you can either play it as cantrip money or wait to the end of your turn to get more out of it, provided you can get enough Silvers into your hand some other way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on April 09, 2019, 05:26:12 pm

Quote from: FlyerBeast on April 09, 2019, 04:49:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/AolgXtR.jpg)

Building Society
Cost:$5
Types: Action-Treasure

If it's your Action phase, +1 Card, +1 Action and + $1.
When you play this, it's worth $1 per Silver you have in play.

A building society is, I suppose, a small Bank. It's an experiment with the idea of having an Action-Treasure, something I don't think I've seen before. Here, you can either play it as cantrip money or wait to the end of your turn to get more out of it, provided you can get enough Silvers into your hand some other way.

According to this current wording, it's worth $1 per silver regardless of if you play it in your action phase or not. That shouldn't matter too much except in the case of Black Market and Storyteller. Is that intentional?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on April 09, 2019, 06:17:26 pm

Quote from: FlyerBeast on April 09, 2019, 04:49:54 pm

It's an experiment with the idea of having an Action-Treasure, something I don't think I've seen before.

You mean besides Crown?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on April 09, 2019, 06:20:38 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on April 09, 2019, 05:26:12 pm

Quote from: FlyerBeast on April 09, 2019, 04:49:54 pm

Building Society
Cost:$5
Types: Action-Treasure

If it's your Action phase, +1 Card, +1 Action and + $1.
When you play this, it's worth $1 per Silver you have in play.

A building society is, I suppose, a small Bank. It's an experiment with the idea of having an Action-Treasure, something I don't think I've seen before. Here, you can either play it as cantrip money or wait to the end of your turn to get more out of it, provided you can get enough Silvers into your hand some other way.

According to this current wording, it's worth $1 per silver regardless of if you play it in your action phase or not. That shouldn't matter too much except in the case of Black Market and Storyteller. Is that intentional?

Absolutely! I'm imagining a couple of interesting things being possible if you're able to play Treasures any way that's unusual. It might synergise nicely with Villa too...

EDIT: Ah, I forgot about Crown. I suppose the difference is that it does very different things depending on the phase. I'm still up for seeing more of that type of card though!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on April 09, 2019, 06:29:11 pm

Quote from: FlyerBeast on April 09, 2019, 04:49:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/AolgXtR.jpg)

Building Society
Cost:$5
Types: Action-Treasure

If it's your Action phase, +1 Card, +1 Action and + $1.
When you play this, it's worth $1 per Silver you have in play.

A building society is, I suppose, a small Bank. It's an experiment with the idea of having an Action-Treasure, something I don't think I've seen before. Here, you can either play it as cantrip money or wait to the end of your turn to get more out of it, provided you can get enough Silvers into your hand some other way.

I suggest to make this say "+1$ per Silver in play" first, and then have the Action part. "Worth" sounds like it was something different, perhaps even ineffective if played as an Action, but several cards imply the words actually mean the same.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on April 09, 2019, 06:48:41 pm

Quote from: Asper on April 09, 2019, 06:29:11 pm

Quote from: FlyerBeast on April 09, 2019, 04:49:54 pm

Building Society
Cost:$5
Types: Action-Treasure

If it's your Action phase, +1 Card, +1 Action and + $1.
When you play this, it's worth $1 per Silver you have in play.

A building society is, I suppose, a small Bank. It's an experiment with the idea of having an Action-Treasure, something I don't think I've seen before. Here, you can either play it as cantrip money or wait to the end of your turn to get more out of it, provided you can get enough Silvers into your hand some other way.

I suggest to make this say "+1$ per Silver in play" first, and then have the Action part. "Worth" sounds like it was something different, perhaps even ineffective if played as an Action, but several cards imply the words actually mean the same.

I was just going off the wording from Bank but I think I see your point. So, new version of the card (far more elegant looking):

(https://i.imgur.com/a946zdM.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: crlundy on April 09, 2019, 09:06:45 pm

Here's my submission, the Silver Miner. He could strike it rich off the top of your deck, or just find one in the Supply; he'll get you a Silver one way or another, he's no slacker. It started out as a wackier concept, but morphed into a Menagerie variant. I'm not totally happy with it, but I could revisit it some day.

(https://i.imgur.com/dsdfuBq.png)

Quote

Silver Miner - Action, $3
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck and put it into your hand. If it's a Silver, +2 Cards. Otherwise, gain a Silver.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on April 10, 2019, 12:48:15 am

Alrighty then! Here are my remarks on each entry. Yes, you will notice a lot of discussion about theming (how the name matches the mechanics, or vice versa) because I'm a sucker for good theming.

==

Quote

Oxidation (Landmark)
This game, whenever you would trash a Copper or Silver card, eat it instead*. If you did, you become protected from the starve to death rule.

Okay, yes, it’s a joke card-shaped object, but it gave me a laugh. You get a silver star for that, hhelibebcnofnena.

Quote

Sterling Village
Action/Silver - $3
+$1
+2 Actions
Discard the top card of your deck. If it's a Silver, put it in your hand.
--
Effects that apply to Silver apply to this card

I like that it interacts with other cards that interact with Silver. Whether it’s as good as Fishing Village or not remains to be seen, but I like that you went in a different direction, NoMoreFun. As a theme nerd, I’m not sure if a Sterling Village is actually a thing outside of naming a retirement home.

Quote

Paul Revere
Action - $5
+3 Cards
-
While this is in play, whenever you play a Silver, +1 Buy, +$1

Very strong Big Money card, as it basically turns Silvers into Counterfeits (minus the blocking). Okay enough with the right engine that still allows Silvers, but I think it might be far too strong for Big Money, silvern. Also, I’m not a fan of naming a card after a real person.

Quote

Iwami Mine
cost $5 - Treasure - Victory
Gain a Silver to your hand.
You may put it onto your Iwami Mat.
---
Worth 1vp per 2 Silvers you have on your Iwami Mat (rounded down).

Again, majiponi, naming something after a real, unique place is not my favorite in terms of theming. I do like that you got me to learn about Iwami-ginzan, though. The wording is a bit clunky, but the idea is different. I would be interested to see how viable this is as an alt-VP strategy. Apart from a few cases (getting just enough to nab a crucial Province, for example), I don’t see keeping the Silver as viable as just building your Iwami score, especially considering that you need a good engine to play the Iwami Mines and get enough to make the whole process worth it.

Quote

Gift
Type: Action
Cost: $1

+1 Buy
-
When you gain this, gain a Silver. If it is not your first turn, set it aside. If you did, add it to your hand at the start of your next turn.

Thanks for attempting my discarded challenge idea as well, King Leon. You get a silver star! And honestly, I like cards that result in endgame shenanigans. It gives the game a special, evil flavor. Mwahahaha! It works as a $1 card, in my opinion, as it is basically just a Ruined Market with a Merchant-Ship-esque on-gain effect. I’m okay with the first-turn clause just out of principle. Theme-wise, you get the Silver Gift when you get it, but then you’re left with a mostly useless box. Unless you have a cat.

Quote

Silver Bullets
Action-Night-Attack - $4
If it’s your Night phase, you may trash a Silver in play. If you did, then each other player reveals their hand. If they have any Night cards in hand, they gain a Curse. If they don’t, they discard down to 4 cards in hand. Otherwise, gain 2 Silvers, putting one into your hand.

I do really like the theme, especially if Werewolf is in play. Shoot the bullet, or get two more? Gotta admit, I’m a sucker for effects that really fit the name. The wording, though? Clunky, clunky, clunky. I get that you can play it as an Action to get the two Silvers with one in hand or play it at Night without trashing a Silver to effectively just gain two Silvers. Would be interesting in a Feodum/Gardens game, but it also makes itself susceptible to Cursing. Good attempt, ClouduHieh; just a little too situational overall.

Quote

Silverbank $4
action
+1 action
Show up to 4 silvers from your hand. +1 card per Silver shown.

A nice simple card from lompeluiten. Editing nitpick: it should be “Reveal up to 4 Silvers…” rather than “Show.” It is similar to Shepherd, but you don’t discard the Silvers. It has potential. I do not like the name, though, as it evokes Bank and thus explains the effect confusion from earlier.

Quote

Trade Agreement
Treasure - $3
$3
+2 Buys
You may exchange a Silver in play for a Trade Agreement. If you didn’t, exchange this for a Copper.

Ooooh! I like this, faust. Super-powered when compared to Silver, but without Silver, it becomes a worthless Copper. I can see it as a good card for the early game, assuming there are good expensive cards or a good array of cheap cards that you want early. Then, you just need to get rid of the Copper this will inevitably become. In all honestly, though, I see it being used more often as a one-shot Super Gold, so I’m not sure how often the Silver effect will be used or even necessary. But yeah, the theme is perfect.

Quote

Silver Mine
Project - $6
At the start of your turn, gain a Silver to your hand and discard a Card.

Another simple card, courtesy of mail-mi. Again, the name isn’t the greatest, but it works. The effect would be pretty nice in Big Money or Feodum/Gardens. I don’t see this as a great engine Project without some good trash-for-benefit mixed in. To paraphrase Columbia, “It’s okay!”

Quote

Magnet
Action - $5
+1 Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If one is a Silver, put them all into your hand. Otherwise, put one into your hand and put the rest back in any order.

Jarring image notwithstanding, this is an interesting entry from Commodore Chuckles. It can either be an overpowered Laboratory or a cantrip with a choice. It would be very interesting to see how much Silver in the deck would be needed to optimize Magnet’s capabilities in an engine. It mostly fits the name, other than that Silver is non-magnetic. Hard to imagine a better name, though…

Quote

Marketplace
Project - $4
When you play a Silver, +1 Buy.

And Gubump delivers a simple yet solid project that rivals Fair. While the latter gives you an extra Buy every turn, Marketplace can deliver more Buys with the presence of Silvers. Whether a lot of Silvers and thus Buys are necessary can be very board-dependent. I just don’t know if it’s distinct enough from Fair to justify a victory in this challenge, to be honest.

Quote

Trading Quarter
Action - $5
+1 Buy
Choose one: trash a Silver from your hand for +4 Cards; or gain a Silver from the trash to your hand for +$2.

With some villages in play, and assuming there are Silvers in hand/trash to make it work, I could see this as a fun card. I’m with Gubump that a Silver in the Trash per player would be a good addition. Trading Quarter isn’t the worst name, but I like Harbor, too. Either way, Aquila, good work.

Quote

Pioneer
Action - $2
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may trash a card from your hand. Otherwise, trash this and gain a Silver.

While certainly not as powerful as Chapel, a non-terminal trasher that can trash itself for a Silver is not bad at all. Certainly better as a $2 than a $1, Shard of Honor. Not sure about the theming, in all honestly, but it’s not terrible.

Quote

Barn
Action - $4
Choose one: You may discard a Copper from your hand for +3 Cards; or a Silver for +4 Cards; or a Gold for +5 Cards.

Put your golden hay into the Barn and get a workhorse out. Okay enough. It’s not lame at all, Gazbag. It’s honestly a decent Smithy variant that works best with Silver, if you ask me. A good BM card for sure, but may not be optimal for all engines.

Quote

Cathedral Town
+2 Actions
+$1
You may trash a Silver from your hand for +2VP.
$3 Action

A different take on the vanilla effects from Sterling Village, stechafle instead has you trade a Silver for some points. Honestly, though, this effect won’t be all that great until the endgame when points are more important than Silvers. Until then, it’s a non-Duration Fishing Village. The name works overall, anyway.

Quote

Silver Worker
+3 Cards
Reveal your hand. Discard a card per Silver revealed this way.
-
When you gain this, each other play gains a Silver onto their deck.

The gimped Smithy effect is decent enough, Chappy7. However, the on-gain effect seems very interesting, indeed. It can help sometimes, but for mirror Silver Workers and tight engines, it can often be a decent attack. The effects are nicely cohesive. I just think the name does not fit. Why would a Silver Worker be hurt by their own Silver? Too bad Werewolf is already taken; Wererat, maybe?

Quote

Silversmith
Action - $3
You may discard a Silver. If you do, +3 Cards, +2 Actions, +1 Buy and put a card from your hand onto your deck. If you don’t, gain a Silver.

“If you don’t” should just be “otherwise.” The effect is okay, if a little overwrought. Surprised it took this long for someone to claim the name “Silversmith,” segura. It works with the mechanics, I think.

Quote

Mad Scientist
$5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand costing at least $2. If you do, +2 Cards. Otherwise, gain a Silver.

A good way to get rid of those Estates early on, or it can at least give you fuel for later uses. Mad Scientist is such a perfect name, too, as it relates to Laboratory but the madness can force you to trash or gain Silver. I like it, LibraryAdventurer.

Quote

Refinery
Action - $3
+2 Cards
Discard two cards. You may trash two Coppers in your discard pile. If you did, gain a Silver to your hand.

A specialized Trading Post variant like this could have some early game use, especially with the discard effect. However, once your Coppers are gone, this is a pretty poor card. Smelter may have more uses later in the game, at least. Both themes are good, though. As for shrinking, when you put in the image code, add “width=200” or some similar number after the “img” in the first set of brackets (no quotes, of course, and make sure there’s a space between “img” and “width”). You don’t need to do anything to the /img tag. Does that make sense? Anyway, welcome to the contest, wittyhowlard!

Quote

Day-Taler
Action - $5
+3 Cards
You may discard a Silver for +1 Card, +1 Action

A Smithy you can pay extra to effectively make it non-terminal. I like the choice aspect, and whether it favors BM too much? I personally have to see it to believe it. The name is perhaps a little too neologistic, but overall, it’s a good card, Asper.

Quote

Building Society
Action-Treasure - $5
When you play this, +$1 per Silver you have in play, and if it’s your Action phase, +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1.

Nice work with the rewording, FlyerBeast. It’s a Peddler variant that could be really something with Storyteller, Villa, etc. With the right boards, it could be a rather powerful card. For most games, it’s just a Peddler that can be played as a Treasure with Silvers in play. Decent theming.

Quote

Silver Miner
Action - $3
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck and put it into your hand. If it’s a Silver, +2 Cards. Otherwise, gain a Silver.

A very fine entry to end the contest, crlundy. Either it’s a Menagerie or a Silver-gaining cantrip. The name works well enough with the mechanics, too, and I like your story for it. Not much else to say, really.

--

This is a very difficult decision, but I’m basing it on all aspects of the entry: mechanics, wording, pricing, naming/theming, image use (when available), creativity, and how well it utilizes the challenge of involving Silvers.

WINNER: Silver Worker by Chappy7! Theming issues aside, I like how all three major mechanics of the card work together, especially with the Silver challenge.

RUNNER-UP: Trade Agreement by faust. I was so close to giving this the win, but my misgivings about the Silver-exchange kept it out of the win.

If your card's name is bold, that means I really liked it overall, so consider yourself an honorable mention.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on April 10, 2019, 02:33:56 am

Quote from: Tejayes on April 10, 2019, 12:48:15 am

Alrighty then! Here are my remarks on each entry. Yes, you will notice a lot of discussion about theming (how the name matches the mechanics, or vice versa) because I'm a sucker for good theming.

==

Quote

Oxidation (Landmark)
This game, whenever you would trash a Copper or Silver card, eat it instead*. If you did, you become protected from the starve to death rule.

Okay, yes, it’s a joke card-shaped object, but it gave me a laugh. You get a silver star for that, hhelibebcnofnena.

Quote

Sterling Village
Action/Silver - $3
+$1
+2 Actions
Discard the top card of your deck. If it's a Silver, put it in your hand.
--
Effects that apply to Silver apply to this card

I like that it interacts with other cards that interact with Silver. Whether it’s as good as Fishing Village or not remains to be seen, but I like that you went in a different direction, NoMoreFun. As a theme nerd, I’m not sure if a Sterling Village is actually a thing outside of naming a retirement home.

Quote

Paul Revere
Action - $5
+3 Cards
-
While this is in play, whenever you play a Silver, +1 Buy, +$1

Very strong Big Money card, as it basically turns Silvers into Counterfeits (minus the blocking). Okay enough with the right engine that still allows Silvers, but I think it might be far too strong for Big Money, silvern. Also, I’m not a fan of naming a card after a real person.

Quote

Iwami Mine
cost $5 - Treasure - Victory
Gain a Silver to your hand.
You may put it onto your Iwami Mat.
---
Worth 1vp per 2 Silvers you have on your Iwami Mat (rounded down).

Again, majiponi, naming something after a real, unique place is not my favorite in terms of theming. I do like that you got me to learn about Iwami-ginzan, though. The wording is a bit clunky, but the idea is different. I would be interested to see how viable this is as an alt-VP strategy. Apart from a few cases (getting just enough to nab a crucial Province, for example), I don’t see keeping the Silver as viable as just building your Iwami score, especially considering that you need a good engine to play the Iwami Mines and get enough to make the whole process worth it.

Quote

Gift
Type: Action
Cost: $1

+1 Buy
-
When you gain this, gain a Silver. If it is not your first turn, set it aside. If you did, add it to your hand at the start of your next turn.

Thanks for attempting my discarded challenge idea as well, King Leon. You get a silver star! And honestly, I like cards that result in endgame shenanigans. It gives the game a special, evil flavor. Mwahahaha! It works as a $1 card, in my opinion, as it is basically just a Ruined Market with a Merchant-Ship-esque on-gain effect. I’m okay with the first-turn clause just out of principle. Theme-wise, you get the Silver Gift when you get it, but then you’re left with a mostly useless box. Unless you have a cat.

Quote

Silver Bullets
Action-Night-Attack - $4
If it’s your Night phase, you may trash a Silver in play. If you did, then each other player reveals their hand. If they have any Night cards in hand, they gain a Curse. If they don’t, they discard down to 4 cards in hand. Otherwise, gain 2 Silvers, putting one into your hand.

I do really like the theme, especially if Werewolf is in play. Shoot the bullet, or get two more? Gotta admit, I’m a sucker for effects that really fit the name. The wording, though? Clunky, clunky, clunky. I get that you can play it as an Action to get the two Silvers with one in hand or play it at Night without trashing a Silver to effectively just gain two Silvers. Would be interesting in a Feodum/Gardens game, but it also makes itself susceptible to Cursing. Good attempt, ClouduHieh; just a little too situational overall.

Quote

Silverbank $4
action
+1 action
Show up to 4 silvers from your hand. +1 card per Silver shown.

A nice simple card from lompeluiten. Editing nitpick: it should be “Reveal up to 4 Silvers…” rather than “Show.” It is similar to Shepherd, but you don’t discard the Silvers. It has potential. I do not like the name, though, as it evokes Bank and thus explains the effect confusion from earlier.

Quote

Trade Agreement
Treasure - $3
$3
+2 Buys
You may exchange a Silver in play for a Trade Agreement. If you didn’t, exchange this for a Copper.

Ooooh! I like this, faust. Super-powered when compared to Silver, but without Silver, it becomes a worthless Copper. I can see it as a good card for the early game, assuming there are good expensive cards or a good array of cheap cards that you want early. Then, you just need to get rid of the Copper this will inevitably become. In all honestly, though, I see it being used more often as a one-shot Super Gold, so I’m not sure how often the Silver effect will be used or even necessary. But yeah, the theme is perfect.

Quote

Silver Mine
Project - $6
At the start of your turn, gain a Silver to your hand and discard a Card.

Another simple card, courtesy of mail-mi. Again, the name isn’t the greatest, but it works. The effect would be pretty nice in Big Money or Feodum/Gardens. I don’t see this as a great engine Project without some good trash-for-benefit mixed in. To paraphrase Columbia, “It’s okay!”

Quote

Magnet
Action - $5
+1 Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If one is a Silver, put them all into your hand. Otherwise, put one into your hand and put the rest back in any order.

Jarring image notwithstanding, this is an interesting entry from Commodore Chuckles. It can either be an overpowered Laboratory or a cantrip with a choice. It would be very interesting to see how much Silver in the deck would be needed to optimize Magnet’s capabilities in an engine. It mostly fits the name, other than that Silver is non-magnetic. Hard to imagine a better name, though…

Quote

Marketplace
Project - $4
When you play a Silver, +1 Buy.

And Gubump delivers a simple yet solid project that rivals Fair. While the latter gives you an extra Buy every turn, Marketplace can deliver more Buys with the presence of Silvers. Whether a lot of Silvers and thus Buys are necessary can be very board-dependent. I just don’t know if it’s distinct enough from Fair to justify a victory in this challenge, to be honest.

Quote

Trading Quarter
Action - $5
+1 Buy
Choose one: trash a Silver from your hand for +4 Cards; or gain a Silver from the trash to your hand for +$2.

With some villages in play, and assuming there are Silvers in hand/trash to make it work, I could see this as a fun card. I’m with Gubump that a Silver in the Trash per player would be a good addition. Trading Quarter isn’t the worst name, but I like Harbor, too. Either way, Aquila, good work.

Quote

Pioneer
Action - $2
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may trash a card from your hand. Otherwise, trash this and gain a Silver.

While certainly not as powerful as Chapel, a non-terminal trasher that can trash itself for a Silver is not bad at all. Certainly better as a $2 than a $1, Shard of Honor. Not sure about the theming, in all honestly, but it’s not terrible.

Quote

Barn
Action - $4
Choose one: You may discard a Copper from your hand for +3 Cards; or a Silver for +4 Cards; or a Gold for +5 Cards.

Put your golden hay into the Barn and get a workhorse out. Okay enough. It’s not lame at all, Gazbag. It’s honestly a decent Smithy variant that works best with Silver, if you ask me. A good BM card for sure, but may not be optimal for all engines.

Quote

Cathedral Town
+2 Actions
+$1
You may trash a Silver from your hand for +2VP.
$3 Action

A different take on the vanilla effects from Sterling Village, stechafle instead has you trade a Silver for some points. Honestly, though, this effect won’t be all that great until the endgame when points are more important than Silvers. Until then, it’s a non-Duration Fishing Village. The name works overall, anyway.

Quote

Silver Worker
+3 Cards
Reveal your hand. Discard a card per Silver revealed this way.
-
When you gain this, each other play gains a Silver onto their deck.

The gimped Smithy effect is decent enough, Chappy7. However, the on-gain effect seems very interesting, indeed. It can help sometimes, but for mirror Silver Workers and tight engines, it can often be a decent attack. The effects are nicely cohesive. I just think the name does not fit. Why would a Silver Worker be hurt by their own Silver? Too bad Werewolf is already taken; Wererat, maybe?

Quote

Silversmith
Action - $3
You may discard a Silver. If you do, +3 Cards, +2 Actions, +1 Buy and put a card from your hand onto your deck. If you don’t, gain a Silver.

“If you don’t” should just be “otherwise.” The effect is okay, if a little overwrought. Surprised it took this long for someone to claim the name “Silversmith,” segura. It works with the mechanics, I think.

Quote

Mad Scientist
$5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand costing at least $2. If you do, +2 Cards. Otherwise, gain a Silver.

A good way to get rid of those Estates early on, or it can at least give you fuel for later uses. Mad Scientist is such a perfect name, too, as it relates to Laboratory but the madness can force you to trash or gain Silver. I like it, LibraryAdventurer.

Quote

Refinery
Action - $3
+2 Cards
Discard two cards. You may trash two Coppers in your discard pile. If you did, gain a Silver to your hand.

A specialized Trading Post variant like this could have some early game use, especially with the discard effect. However, once your Coppers are gone, this is a pretty poor card. Smelter may have more uses later in the game, at least. Both themes are good, though. As for shrinking, when you put in the image code, add “width=200” or some similar number after the “img” in the first set of brackets (no quotes, of course, and make sure there’s a space between “img” and “width”). You don’t need to do anything to the /img tag. Does that make sense? Anyway, welcome to the contest, wittyhowlard!

Quote

Day-Taler
Action - $5
+3 Cards
You may discard a Silver for +1 Card, +1 Action

A Smithy you can pay extra to effectively make it non-terminal. I like the choice aspect, and whether it favors BM too much? I personally have to see it to believe it. The name is perhaps a little too neologistic, but overall, it’s a good card, Asper.

Quote

Building Society
Action-Treasure - $5
When you play this, +$1 per Silver you have in play, and if it’s your Action phase, +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1.

Nice work with the rewording, FlyerBeast. It’s a Peddler variant that could be really something with Storyteller, Villa, etc. With the right boards, it could be a rather powerful card. For most games, it’s just a Peddler that can be played as a Treasure with Silvers in play. Decent theming.

Quote

Silver Miner
Action - $3
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck and put it into your hand. If it’s a Silver, +2 Cards. Otherwise, gain a Silver.

A very fine entry to end the contest, crlundy. Either it’s a Menagerie or a Silver-gaining cantrip. The name works well enough with the mechanics, too, and I like your story for it. Not much else to say, really.

--

This is a very difficult decision, but I’m basing it on all aspects of the entry: mechanics, wording, pricing, naming/theming, image use (when available), creativity, and how well it utilizes the challenge of involving Silvers.

WINNER: Silver Worker by Chappy7! Theming issues aside, I like how all three major mechanics of the card work together, especially with the Silver challenge.

RUNNER-UP: Trade Agreement by faust. I was so close to giving this the win, but my misgivings about the Silver-exchange kept it out of the win.

If your card's name is bold, that means I really liked it overall, so consider yourself an honorable mention.

Thanks! The new challenge will be posted soon

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on April 10, 2019, 02:50:20 am

Challenge #26: The One-Shot

Design a card, not a card shaped thing, that has a one-shot on-play ability.  Examples include Mining Village, Embargo, and Feast (if it was still around).  I would also count Spoils and Madman if they were supply piles.  I wouldn't count Prince, Hireling, Inheritance, or Projects, since they have continuing effects.  If it is something like Mining Village which has an optional one-shot, the one-shot ability needs to be tempting enough to make interesting decisions; or if it has a mandatory one-shot, like Embargo, Spoils, and Experiment, it needs to be worth buying in the first place.

If I didn't explain very well, ask me questions and I'll get back to you ASAP. Ready go!

I'll upvote the entries that fit the challenge

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 10, 2019, 04:53:21 am

(https://i.imgur.com/4cWqogh.jpg)

The one-shot could be too weak / attritional and the normal ability could be too similar to Merchant Guild (but unlike Merchant Guild it does not provide you the ability to gain more than one card).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on April 10, 2019, 06:12:45 am

The one-shot does not need to trash itself, right? Here is a somewhat wacky idea:
(https://i.imgur.com/LhcCL4V.jpg)

Quote

Imitate
Action - $7*
Gain a copy of a card you have in play. You may put this onto a Kingdom supply pile.
-
While this is in the supply, it costs $1 less for every two cards in its pile, but not less than $0.

Clarification: When this is on a supply pile of another kingdom card, it acts the same as if it were the top card of a split pile. You can put this on empty piles, and they will no longer be considered empty.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: RTT on April 10, 2019, 06:45:13 am

(https://i.imgur.com/CMIIPGm.jpg)

I tried to create a worthwhile feast replacement. this can gain you a 5$ card and trash an estate with it. our you can trash a copper to gain another upcycle or a silver. Even in the lategame you can trash your 5$ card or Gold into a Province.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on April 10, 2019, 08:38:36 am

Just a question, would passing the card around satisfy the challenge conditions?
(https://i.imgur.com/UCrOqP8.jpg)

If I have time to do an actual submission, and it is allowed, I'd probably look into this design space a bit more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Lurker on April 10, 2019, 10:19:39 am

Edit: This submission doesn't count, so I'll think of another. Thanks for the feedback!

Quote

Pilgrimage City, Action, $3+
+1 Card
+1 Action
-
When you buy this, you may
overpay for it to set it aside. At
the start of your next turn, play it
once for each $1 you overpaid.
(Use tokens to track overpay)

I'm stretching the brief a bit far, please let me know if it's too far. The effect of the card is a one-shot, but it does stick around doing almost nothing in your deck thereafter.

I'm moving some word complexity to the rule book with the parenthetical. I hope it's clear, for example, if you overpay by $5 you put 5 coin tokens on it so that next turn you remember how much you paid.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on April 10, 2019, 11:35:59 am

Quote from: faust on April 10, 2019, 06:12:45 am

The one-shot does not need to trash itself, right?

Right.  It could return to the supply, it could get set aside for the rest of the game, or whatever else people come up with. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on April 10, 2019, 11:37:34 am

Quote from: faust on April 10, 2019, 06:12:45 am

The one-shot does not need to trash itself, right? Here is a somewhat wacky idea:
(https://i.imgur.com/LhcCL4V.jpg)

Quote

Imitate
Action - $7*
Gain a copy of a card you have in play. You may put this onto a Kingdom supply pile.
-
While this is in the supply, it costs $1 less for every two cards in its pile, but not less than $0.

Clarification: When this is on a supply pile of another kingdom card, it acts the same as if it were the top card of a split pile. You can put this on empty piles, and they will no longer be considered empty.

So this starts as a $2 right? Just want to make sure I understand it correctly

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on April 10, 2019, 11:39:18 am

Quote from: Asper on April 10, 2019, 08:38:36 am

Just a question, would passing the card around satisfy the challenge conditions?
(https://i.imgur.com/UCrOqP8.jpg)

If I have time to do an actual submission, and it is allowed, I'd probably look into this design space a bit more.

Hmmm.  Interesting.  I think this does count!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on April 10, 2019, 11:42:53 am

Quote from: Lurker on April 10, 2019, 10:19:39 am

Quote

Pilgrimage City, Action, $3+
+1 Card
+1 Action
-
When you buy this, you may
overpay for it to set it aside. At
the start of your next turn, play it
once for each $1 you overpaid.
(Use tokens to track overpay)

I'm stretching the brief a bit far, please let me know if it's too far. The effect of the card is a one-shot, but it does stick around doing almost nothing in your deck thereafter.

I'm moving some word complexity to the rule book with the parenthetical. I hope it's clear, for example, if you overpay by $5 you put 5 coin tokens on it so that next turn you remember how much you paid.

What I had in mind wasn't exactly an on-buy effect, more of an on-play sort of thing.  I didn't think to specify that though, so that 's my bad. I'll edit my original post.  Although I think this is really clever, I think it doesn't quite fit the spirit of the challenge. 

FWIW I like the card a lot. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on April 10, 2019, 12:15:08 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 10, 2019, 11:37:34 am

So this starts as a $2 right? Just want to make sure I understand it correctly

Yes, that's the idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #26: one-shot
Post by: Aquila on April 10, 2019, 12:39:06 pm

My submission:

Quote

Graduate - Action, $4 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
The next time you gain a non-Victory card this turn, trash this to gain a copy of it. At Clean-up, if you didn't gain such a card during the turn, +1 Coffers.

---

This is my former submission.
(https://i.imgur.com/Q4XCF7D.jpg)

Quote

Antique - Treasure, $2* cost.
+1 Buy
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0. When you discard this from play, return it to the Supply.
-
This can't cost less than $2. When you buy this, +1 Buy.

The more you collect of these before playing them, the better payout. I worry that it creates too much pressure on games, and players are forced to keep hold of some to prevent somebody getting too many at once. Possibly I'll make it so there's only 8 in the pile to help.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 10, 2019, 01:35:56 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/6NPR8Ih.png)

I thought it was too strong for $4 but too weak for $5, so I added the drawback to make it more balanced.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 10, 2019, 01:46:52 pm

Moneychanger
Type: Action
Cost: $2

+1 Card
+1 Action
+ $1
Return this to the Supply.
-
When you gain this the first time in your turn, +1 Buy

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/e3vmnxck.png)

The kingdom card pile has the regular number of 10 copies.

My idea is pretty similar to overpay for Coffers. However, this one has some twist. Like real Coffers you can save the Moneychanger for later, but it may not be always available. On the other hand, it is combinable with Throne Room variants or cards which interact with Actions. Starting with 2 Moneychangers and one Vassal is pretty good and regardless, whether you start with 5/2 or 4/3, you can always do this opening.

There are also some tricks. If there is no +Buy in the kingdom, you can turn your workshop to a Ruined Market, which may be useful, if you have $10 or more in your hand. Moneychangers also help you to get to $10. So this synergy could see some usage.

Fun fact: When I created this card, I was not aware of Experiment, which is similar, but more expensive, usually stronger and has a less flexible on-gain effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: wittyhowlard on April 10, 2019, 05:31:32 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on April 10, 2019, 12:48:15 am

Alrighty then! Here are my remarks on each entry. Yes, you will notice a lot of discussion about theming (how the name matches the mechanics, or vice versa) because I'm a sucker for good theming.

==

Quote

Refinery
Action - $3
+2 Cards
Discard two cards. You may trash two Coppers in your discard pile. If you did, gain a Silver to your hand.

A specialized Trading Post variant like this could have some early game use, especially with the discard effect. However, once your Coppers are gone, this is a pretty poor card. Smelter may have more uses later in the game, at least. Both themes are good, though. As for shrinking, when you put in the image code, add “width=200” or some similar number after the “img” in the first set of brackets (no quotes, of course, and make sure there’s a space between “img” and “width”). You don’t need to do anything to the /img tag. Does that make sense? Anyway, welcome to the contest, wittyhowlard!

Thank you for the welcome and the feedback Tejayes! Also for the tips on how to make the cards more normal sized :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Lurker on April 10, 2019, 05:52:18 pm

Quote

Bomb, Action, $2
+1 Action
Trash this. If you do, trash
your hand and draw until you
have 5 cards in your hand.

This is a new Chapel. It's more awkward at trashing but because you still get to have your turn it's more... explosive!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on April 10, 2019, 06:33:50 pm

Here's a card from my set Dominion: Greed that I hadn't gotten around to posting.
(https://i.imgur.com/qcENR6a.jpg)

Quote

War Flag
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $6
$3. When you play this, either trash this or discard a Treasure, then each other player discards a card for each coin in its cost, and then draws until they have 3 cards in hand.

---

In games using this, when you buy a card costing $5 or more, trash a card you have in play.

*The number of cards that players discard are equal to the cost of the Treasure you discard or the War Flag if you trash it. Yes, that means that players discard 6 cards when you trash War Flag with no boundary (and then draw until they have 3 cards in hand).
Discard a Silver to make it a Copper-Legionary.
Discard a Gold or War Flag for an amazing Minion-style Attack, even though it effectively doesn't generate $.
Discard a Copper when it misses to keep it around. (Inter-set combo with Architect (https://i.imgur.com/FZxjDIf.png) that gives Copper a cost of $1.)
Use it as a one-shot Gold with an amazing Attack--but do think about the cards you trash when you buy it because of that In-Games-Using-This effect. Using it as a one-shot sort of turns it into a sort of on-buy tempo-trasher, really...

That milling Attack is stupidly powerful, which is why its In-Games-Using-This effect aids in improving your deck early (so early War Flags aren't as devastating), but the fact that the on-buy trashing is mandatory creates many interesting considerations as you proceed: Fast trashing will inevitably have you cannibalize yourself too fast, since you're losing a card for every $5+ buy; you still need to figure something to do about your Estates, so some tempo-trashers might be worth buying to rid yourself of that pesky starting green; the free tempo-trashing provided by every $5 card makes power situational cards better since it is so easy to justify throwing them out later; and greening breaks you down faster since you start throwing away your cheaper economy bits as you buy Provinces.

EDIT: Attempt to clarify wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on April 10, 2019, 11:49:24 pm

Quote from: Lurker on April 10, 2019, 05:52:18 pm

Quote

Bomb, Action, $2
+1 Action
Trash this. If you do, trash
your hand and draw until you
have 5 cards in your hand.

This is a new Chapel. It's more awkward at trashing but because you still get to have your turn it's more... explosive!

I like it. Thematically it would be cooler if the effects were "when you trash" effects but that may cause problems.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on April 11, 2019, 12:44:12 am

Quote from: Lurker on April 10, 2019, 05:52:18 pm

Quote

Bomb, Action, $2
+1 Action
Trash this. If you do, trash
your hand and draw until you
have 5 cards in your hand.

This is a new Chapel. It's more awkward at trashing but because you still get to have your turn it's more... explosive!

I like it, but maybe it could only trash one card, and have a cost in some other currency...?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on April 11, 2019, 12:47:03 am

Quote from: King Leon on April 10, 2019, 01:46:52 pm

The "Return this to the Moneychanger pile." instead of "Return this to its pile." is intentional, in the case, this starts in the Black Market deck. It loses track, when there is no Moneychanger pile. A cheap $2 Peddler for you. An empty Moneychanger pile is in fact a Moneychanger pile with zero cards, however.

This is unnecessary; see Encampment.

I don't really think this needs to have 20 copies. It does return to the supply after all.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on April 11, 2019, 07:28:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/7yLBlbp.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 11, 2019, 07:54:02 am

It is very expensive but even at $5P a triple Lab is too good. I mean, DXV has tested a double Lab at Debt costs and it was too crazy so a triple Lab without any drawbacks probably always is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: TMDaines on April 11, 2019, 08:04:46 am

Just getting into Dominion in recent months and not necessarily familiar with all the cards in recent sets, but this thread looked fun.

This may be considered a bit dull, but I do like Mining Village as a design of a card. Trashing this has the same value in that you can gain a card costing 2, but you don't need a +1 Buy and so lose any flexibility.

(https://i.imgur.com/toCCmE9m.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 11, 2019, 08:13:09 am

I think that this will have an even narrower use than Mining Village. Like Mining Village you will only trash it when you (estimate that you) play it for the last time whereas Mining Village can also be used early on to spike.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on April 11, 2019, 12:57:44 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on April 10, 2019, 07:59:00 pm

Bargain
Action/Reaction - $1
Trash a card from your hand.Gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.
---
When you gain a card,  you may return this to the supply from your hand to exchange it for a card costing up to $1 more than it. Put it onto your deck during your buy phase and into your hand otherwise.

Remember, the challenge says to make a card "that has a one-shot on-play ability" This reaction wouldn't qualify

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on April 11, 2019, 01:01:02 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 10, 2019, 06:33:50 pm

Here's a card from my set Dominion: Greed that I hadn't gotten around to posting.
(https://i.imgur.com/qXucaYG.jpg)

Quote

War Flag
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $6
$3. When you play this, trash this or discard a Treasure and each other player discards a card for each coin in its cost, and then draws until they have 3 cards in hand.

---

In games using this, when you buy a card costing $5 or more, trash a card you have in play.

*The number of cards that players discard are equal to the cost of the Treasure you discard or the War Flag if you trash it. Yes, that means that players discard 6 cards when you trash War Flag with no boundary (and then draw until they have 3 cards in hand).
Discard a Silver to make it a Copper-Legionary.
Discard a Gold or War Flag for an amazing Minion-style Attack, even though it effectively doesn't generate $.
Discard a Copper when it misses to keep it around. (Inter-set combo with Architect (https://i.imgur.com/FZxjDIf.png) that gives Copper a cost of $1.)
Use it as a one-shot Gold with an amazing Attack--but do think about the cards you trash when you buy it because of that In-Games-Using-This effect. Using it as a one-shot sort of turns it into a sort of on-buy tempo-trasher, really...

That milling Attack is stupidly powerful, which is why its In-Games-Using-This effect aids in improving your deck early (so early War Flags aren't as devastating), but the fact that the on-buy trashing is mandatory creates many interesting considerations as you proceed: Fast trashing will inevitably have you cannibalize yourself too fast, since you're losing a card for every $5+ buy; you still need to figure something to do about your Estates, so some tempo-trashers might be worth buying to rid yourself of that pesky starting green; the free tempo-trashing provided by every $5 card makes power situational cards better since it is so easy to justify throwing them out later; and greening breaks you down faster since you start throwing away your cheaper economy bits as you buy Provinces.

This feels a lot like Death Cart, which is to say that this isn't exactly a one-shot ability.  You can (and probably want to) avoid trashing this by discarding treasures when you play it. You can still access the same ability without losing the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on April 11, 2019, 02:11:24 pm

A sequence of one-shot cards: effectively Traveller for Treasures, but in reverse order.

Diamond (Treasure-Jewel) [$7]
$4
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Ruby.

Ruby (Treasure-Jewel) [$5*]
$3
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Pearl.
(This is not in the Supply)

Pearl (Treasure-Jewel) [$2*]
$2
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for an Emerald.
(This is not in the Supply)

Emerald (Treasure-Jewel) [$0*]
$1
+1 Buy
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a card costing up to $2.
(This is not in the Supply)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on April 11, 2019, 06:28:44 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/t8myEfq.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on April 11, 2019, 09:15:43 pm

Stock Shortage
cost $2 - Action
+$2
---
When you discard this from play, trash this and add <2> to a Supply pile. (When a player buys a card, they take the <> from its pile.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 12, 2019, 02:54:54 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on April 11, 2019, 02:11:24 pm

A sequence of one-shot cards: effectively Traveller for Treasures, but in reverse order.

Diamond (Treasure-Jewel) [$7]
$4
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Ruby.

Ruby (Treasure-Jewel) [$5*]
$3
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Pearl.
(This is not in the Supply)

Pearl (Treasure-Jewel) [$2*]
$2
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for an Emerald.
(This is not in the Supply)

Emerald (Treasure-Jewel) [$0*]
$1
+1 Buy
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a card costing up to $2.
(This is not in the Supply)

Herbalist and Mandarin like these cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on April 12, 2019, 05:04:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/QmCp106.png)

Decided to try the "one-shot" vein a little bit differently. It's a piece of junk that can provide some nice benefit on-buy and can trash itself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on April 12, 2019, 05:40:06 am

Quote from: mail-mi on April 12, 2019, 05:04:55 am

Decided to try the "one-shot" vein a little bit differently. It's a piece of junk that can provide some nice benefit on-buy and can trash itself.

It seems a bit pointless for a card with Debt cost to provide +1 buy on-buy. You're only going to use that if you can pay off the debt. And the +buy is the main reason to have it on-buy and not on play, right?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MiX on April 12, 2019, 05:58:52 am

Quote from: faust on April 12, 2019, 05:40:06 am

Quote from: mail-mi on April 12, 2019, 05:04:55 am

Decided to try the "one-shot" vein a little bit differently. It's a piece of junk that can provide some nice benefit on-buy and can trash itself.

It seems a bit pointless for a card with Debt cost to provide +1 buy on-buy. You're only going to use that if you can pay off the debt. And the +buy is the main reason to have it on-buy and not on play, right?

There's 2 scenarios where you buy this card: you have 4 surplus money and you want to turn it into coffers and villagers; or you have a dud turn and you just want some coffers and villagers while taking some debt. So, in a way, although debt and +buy seem to cancel out, they buff the card in both of its usages. Also debt means you can't just use it for TfB.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on April 12, 2019, 11:19:00 am

Quote from: MiX on April 12, 2019, 05:58:52 am

Quote from: faust on April 12, 2019, 05:40:06 am

Quote from: mail-mi on April 12, 2019, 05:04:55 am

Decided to try the "one-shot" vein a little bit differently. It's a piece of junk that can provide some nice benefit on-buy and can trash itself.

It seems a bit pointless for a card with Debt cost to provide +1 buy on-buy. You're only going to use that if you can pay off the debt. And the +buy is the main reason to have it on-buy and not on play, right?

There's 2 scenarios where you buy this card: you have 4 surplus money and you want to turn it into coffers and villagers; or you have a dud turn and you just want some coffers and villagers while taking some debt. So, in a way, although debt and +buy seem to cancel out, they buff the card in both of its usages. Also debt means you can't just use it for TfB.

Exactly what MiX said.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 12, 2019, 01:15:33 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/mzJWuJD.png)

This might be a little over the top but the idea is there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on April 12, 2019, 10:01:09 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 11, 2019, 01:01:02 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 10, 2019, 06:33:50 pm

War Flag
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $6
$3. When you play this, trash this or discard a Treasure and each other player discards a card for each coin in its cost, and then draws until they have 3 cards in hand.

---

In games using this, when you buy a card costing $5 or more, trash a card you have in play.

This feels a lot like Death Cart, which is to say that this isn't exactly a one-shot ability.  You can (and probably want to) avoid trashing this by discarding treasures when you play it. You can still access the same ability without losing the card.

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 10, 2019, 02:50:20 am

Examples include Mining Village...

If Mining Village, a Village that you can trash for economy, would count for the contest, how does War Flag, a variable Attack that you can trash for economy, not count for the contest?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on April 12, 2019, 10:26:07 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on April 11, 2019, 02:11:24 pm

A sequence of one-shot cards: effectively Traveller for Treasures, but in reverse order.

Diamond (Treasure-Jewel) [$7]
$4
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Ruby.

Ruby (Treasure-Jewel) [$5*]
$3
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Pearl.
(This is not in the Supply)

Pearl (Treasure-Jewel) [$2*]
$2
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for an Emerald.
(This is not in the Supply)

Emerald (Treasure-Jewel) [$0*]
$1
+1 Buy
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a card costing up to $2.
(This is not in the Supply)

Considering that these are Treasures, I think you would be safe to just exchange them on play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on April 12, 2019, 11:24:25 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 12, 2019, 10:01:09 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 11, 2019, 01:01:02 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 10, 2019, 06:33:50 pm

War Flag
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $6
$3. When you play this, trash this or discard a Treasure and each other player discards a card for each coin in its cost, and then draws until they have 3 cards in hand.

---

In games using this, when you buy a card costing $5 or more, trash a card you have in play.

This feels a lot like Death Cart, which is to say that this isn't exactly a one-shot ability.  You can (and probably want to) avoid trashing this by discarding treasures when you play it. You can still access the same ability without losing the card.

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 10, 2019, 02:50:20 am

Examples include Mining Village...

If Mining Village, a Village that you can trash for economy, would count for the contest, how does War Flag, a variable Attack that you can trash for economy, not count for the contest?

Because Trashing this isn't exclusively what gives you the benefit.  Ideally, you'll be discarding treasure for the benefit.  When I say a one shot, I mean you can blow it up to get something that you otherwise can't get.  You have one shot at that benefit.  This card gives you several opportunities to have the same benefit over and over, rather than giving you one shot at it. Does that make sense? As I thought of this challenge I was worried it would be hard to explain. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 13, 2019, 02:36:26 am

Quote from: Asper on April 12, 2019, 10:26:07 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on April 11, 2019, 02:11:24 pm

A sequence of one-shot cards: effectively Traveller for Treasures, but in reverse order.

Diamond (Treasure-Jewel) [$7]
$4
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Ruby.

Ruby (Treasure-Jewel) [$5*]
$3
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Pearl.
(This is not in the Supply)

Pearl (Treasure-Jewel) [$2*]
$2
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for an Emerald.
(This is not in the Supply)

Emerald (Treasure-Jewel) [$0*]
$1
+1 Buy
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a card costing up to $2.
(This is not in the Supply)

Considering that these are Treasures, I think you would be safe to just exchange them on play.

This changes the interaction behavior with Bank, Mint, Mandarin, Herbalist, Monastery and other cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on April 13, 2019, 05:48:14 am

Fireworks
Action - $3
Trash this
---
When you trash this, +2 Cards,  and trash 2 cards from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly the sum of those trashed cards' costs in coins.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on April 13, 2019, 06:32:37 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 12, 2019, 11:24:25 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 12, 2019, 10:01:09 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 11, 2019, 01:01:02 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 10, 2019, 06:33:50 pm

War Flag
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $6
$3. When you play this, trash this or discard a Treasure and each other player discards a card for each coin in its cost, and then draws until they have 3 cards in hand.

---

In games using this, when you buy a card costing $5 or more, trash a card you have in play.

This feels a lot like Death Cart, which is to say that this isn't exactly a one-shot ability.  You can (and probably want to) avoid trashing this by discarding treasures when you play it. You can still access the same ability without losing the card.

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 10, 2019, 02:50:20 am

Examples include Mining Village...

If Mining Village, a Village that you can trash for economy, would count for the contest, how does War Flag, a variable Attack that you can trash for economy, not count for the contest?

Because Trashing this isn't exclusively what gives you the benefit.  Ideally, you'll be discarding treasure for the benefit.  When I say a one shot, I mean you can blow it up to get something that you otherwise can't get.  You have one shot at that benefit.  This card gives you several opportunities to have the same benefit over and over, rather than giving you one shot at it. Does that make sense? As I thought of this challenge I was worried it would be hard to explain.

There is no way to get $3 from War Flag without trashing it (because discarding Treasures effectively reduces the $ it produces), in much the same way that there is no way to get the +$2 from Mining Village without trashing it.
The repeatable benefit of War Flag is an Attack that effectively costs $ to run. The one-shot is getting the $ and the Attack without paying for it otherwise.

I think you are undervaluing the ability to trash War Flag early to hamper other players' turns before you can build a consistent Gold-discarding deck. Even trashing a War Flag that you want to keep (when it misses a good Treasure) and rebuying War Flag is not a moot point because of its in-games-using-this effect. Because buying Victory card dismantles your deck, leveraging the War Flags you previously used for consistent Attacking for inconsistent economy is not to be ignored.

Would the following count?

Quote

Drunkard
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Cards. You may trash this. If you do, +2 Cards.

It's a repeatable draw benefit that can be a bigger draw benefit once.
That's the same thing, conceptually.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on April 13, 2019, 09:17:20 am

Quote

War Flag
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $6
$3. When you play this, trash this or discard a Treasure and each other player discards a card for each coin in its cost, and then draws until they have 3 cards in hand.

---

In games using this, when you buy a card costing $5 or more, trash a card you have in play.

As worded, it's unclear that the attack is supposed to be triggered by trashing War Flag. A wording that would make it clear would have to be something like this:

Quote

When you play this, trash this or discard a Treasure, then each other player discards a card for each coin in trashed or discarded card's cost and draws to 3 cards in hand.

Personally I see it fitting the brief, but, eh, if a judge thinks that it doesn't fit the guidelines, chances are you are better off submitting something else than arguing about it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 13, 2019, 02:49:11 pm

Quote from: faust on April 11, 2019, 12:47:03 am

Quote from: King Leon on April 10, 2019, 01:46:52 pm

The "Return this to the Moneychanger pile." instead of "Return this to its pile." is intentional, in the case, this starts in the Black Market deck. It loses track, when there is no Moneychanger pile. A cheap $2 Peddler for you. An empty Moneychanger pile is in fact a Moneychanger pile with zero cards, however.

This is unnecessary; see Encampment.

I don't really think this needs to have 20 copies. It does return to the supply after all.

Thank you. I changed the first, but made it 12 copies, because you can gain two in a turn, similar to Port.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MiX on April 13, 2019, 02:51:53 pm

Quote from: King Leon on April 13, 2019, 02:49:11 pm

Quote from: faust on April 11, 2019, 12:47:03 am

Quote from: King Leon on April 10, 2019, 01:46:52 pm

The "Return this to the Moneychanger pile." instead of "Return this to its pile." is intentional, in the case, this starts in the Black Market deck. It loses track, when there is no Moneychanger pile. A cheap $2 Peddler for you. An empty Moneychanger pile is in fact a Moneychanger pile with zero cards, however.

This is unnecessary; see Encampment.

I don't really think this needs to have 20 copies. It does return to the supply after all.

Thank you. I changed the first, but made it 12 copies, because you can gain two in a turn, similar to Port.

Seems more similar to Experiment.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 13, 2019, 03:53:50 pm

Quote from: MiX on April 13, 2019, 02:51:53 pm

Quote from: King Leon on April 13, 2019, 02:49:11 pm

Quote from: faust on April 11, 2019, 12:47:03 am

Quote from: King Leon on April 10, 2019, 01:46:52 pm

The "Return this to the Moneychanger pile." instead of "Return this to its pile." is intentional, in the case, this starts in the Black Market deck. It loses track, when there is no Moneychanger pile. A cheap $2 Peddler for you. An empty Moneychanger pile is in fact a Moneychanger pile with zero cards, however.

This is unnecessary; see Encampment.

I don't really think this needs to have 20 copies. It does return to the supply after all.

Thank you. I changed the first, but made it 12 copies, because you can gain two in a turn, similar to Port.

Seems more similar to Experiment.

You are right. I really forgot that this card exists. It is similar, but not the same! So, I am fine with 10 cards to match Experiment.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on April 13, 2019, 04:41:32 pm

Quote from: King Leon on April 13, 2019, 02:36:26 am

Quote from: Asper on April 12, 2019, 10:26:07 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on April 11, 2019, 02:11:24 pm

A sequence of one-shot cards: effectively Traveller for Treasures, but in reverse order.

Diamond (Treasure-Jewel) [$7]
$4
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Ruby.

Ruby (Treasure-Jewel) [$5*]
$3
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Pearl.
(This is not in the Supply)

Pearl (Treasure-Jewel) [$2*]
$2
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for an Emerald.
(This is not in the Supply)

Emerald (Treasure-Jewel) [$0*]
$1
+1 Buy
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a card costing up to $2.
(This is not in the Supply)

Considering that these are Treasures, I think you would be safe to just exchange them on play.

This changes the interaction behavior with Bank, Mint, Mandarin, Herbalist, Monastery and other cards.

I think my original wording makes the card(s) slightly more interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 13, 2019, 05:10:44 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on April 13, 2019, 04:41:32 pm

Quote from: King Leon on April 13, 2019, 02:36:26 am

Quote from: Asper on April 12, 2019, 10:26:07 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on April 11, 2019, 02:11:24 pm

A sequence of one-shot cards: effectively Traveller for Treasures, but in reverse order.

Diamond (Treasure-Jewel) _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}
$4
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Ruby.

Ruby (Treasure-Jewel) _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/86/Coin5star.png/16px-Coin5star.png)}
$3
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a Pearl.
(This is not in the Supply)

Pearl (Treasure-Jewel) [$2*]
$2
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for an Emerald.
(This is not in the Supply)

Emerald (Treasure-Jewel) _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/ae/Coin0star.png/16px-Coin0star.png)}
$1
+1 Buy
---
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a card costing up to $2.
(This is not in the Supply)

Considering that these are Treasures, I think you would be safe to just exchange them on play.

This changes the interaction behavior with Bank, Mint, Mandarin, Herbalist, Monastery and other cards.

I think my original wording makes the card(s) slightly more interesting.

The issue is that unlike the official Travellers these are mandatory to exchange, which could lead to a lot of accidental "cheating" when people inevitably forget to exchange after they've done their buying. I think these should follow the lead of Vampire and Bats and exchange on play. Generally you should go for the best/easiest gameplay over worrying about how things interact with a handful of other cards, you get other interactions like Storyteller or Venture opened up if you exchange on play anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on April 14, 2019, 12:43:07 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 13, 2019, 06:32:37 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 12, 2019, 11:24:25 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 12, 2019, 10:01:09 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 11, 2019, 01:01:02 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 10, 2019, 06:33:50 pm

War Flag
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $6
$3. When you play this, trash this or discard a Treasure and each other player discards a card for each coin in its cost, and then draws until they have 3 cards in hand.

---

In games using this, when you buy a card costing $5 or more, trash a card you have in play.

This feels a lot like Death Cart, which is to say that this isn't exactly a one-shot ability.  You can (and probably want to) avoid trashing this by discarding treasures when you play it. You can still access the same ability without losing the card.

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 10, 2019, 02:50:20 am

Examples include Mining Village...

If Mining Village, a Village that you can trash for economy, would count for the contest, how does War Flag, a variable Attack that you can trash for economy, not count for the contest?

Because Trashing this isn't exclusively what gives you the benefit.  Ideally, you'll be discarding treasure for the benefit.  When I say a one shot, I mean you can blow it up to get something that you otherwise can't get.  You have one shot at that benefit.  This card gives you several opportunities to have the same benefit over and over, rather than giving you one shot at it. Does that make sense? As I thought of this challenge I was worried it would be hard to explain.

There is no way to get $3 from War Flag without trashing it (because discarding Treasures effectively reduces the $ it produces), in much the same way that there is no way to get the +$2 from Mining Village without trashing it.
The repeatable benefit of War Flag is an Attack that effectively costs $ to run. The one-shot is getting the $ and the Attack without paying for it otherwise.

I think you are undervaluing the ability to trash War Flag early to hamper other players' turns before you can build a consistent Gold-discarding deck. Even trashing a War Flag that you want to keep (when it misses a good Treasure) and rebuying War Flag is not a moot point because of its in-games-using-this effect. Because buying Victory card dismantles your deck, leveraging the War Flags you previously used for consistent Attacking for inconsistent economy is not to be ignored.

Would the following count?

Quote

Drunkard
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Cards. You may trash this. If you do, +2 Cards.

It's a repeatable draw benefit that can be a bigger draw benefit once.
That's the same thing, conceptually.

Technically, you could discard Horn of Plenty and still get $3 from it, but that's just an edge case. I see what you're saying, but to me it still doesn't seem like a one-shot, and yes, that drunkard card does seem like one.  Maybe I'm wrong, but this isn't a perfect contest or anything.  Sorry. You get the $3 every time you play it, which can be multiple times.  You can use the attack multiple times. Sometimes the $3 is undone by the treasure you discard, but that doesn't mean you didn't get $3 from War Flag.

If I'm not mistaken, if you chose the option to trash War Flag, you don't attack your opponents, right? It says either trash this, or discard a treasure and attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Udzu on April 14, 2019, 05:45:50 am

A split pile. Hope that's ok?

(http://tinyimg.io/i/dLG7RmC.jpg) (http://tinyimg.io/i/gQgZYWU.jpg) (http://tinyimg.io/i/UfMkIN7.jpg)

Quote

Tax Inspector ($2 Action)
+1 Buy
+1 Coffers
Set this aside. At the start of Clean-up, put it on a Supply pile that doesn't have a Tax Inspector on top.
(It must then be gained or bought before any cards below it.)

Raiders ($5 Action-Attack)
+ $3
Each other player discard down to 3 cards in their hand.
You may pay a Coffers. If you do, at the start of Clean-up gain a Gold. Otherwise, return this to the Supply.

The interesting mechanic is obviously Tax Inspector. Covering a pile doesn't just delay buying from it but can also block card effects: e.g. a Curser won't work if the Curse pile is covered. Carefully timed, it could also delay the game end. The +2 Coffers is hopefully a decent enough one-shot effect for the price; the +1 Buy helps in buying any annoyingly placed Tax Inspectors. The split pile stops there being too many Tax Inspectors on the board, and gives an extra incentive to buy them, as does the Raiders' Coffers dependency.

Tax Inspector returns at start of clean-up to allow you to buy cards first; Raiders gains a Gold then to allow you to clear the Gold pile from any Tax Inspectors. Playing a BoM or Overlord as a Tax Inspector can result in those cards at the top of piles, and bypasses the at-most-one-on-top restriction, but given these are expensive I expect that's ok (though it might be fun to put an Overlord on top of the last Province).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on April 14, 2019, 08:34:48 am

Mountain Chappel $2 (could't think of a better name)
Trash this card and any number of cards in your hand




Chappel is goooood! This is a varient that is worse in some situations (as an opener, you do not keep it for the second and third shuffle still burning coppers and estates) and better in others (as part of an engine)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on April 14, 2019, 10:08:53 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 10, 2019, 06:33:50 pm

War Flag
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $6
$3. When you play this, trash this or discard a Treasure and each other player discards a card for each coin in its cost, and then draws until they have 3 cards in hand.

---

In games using this, when you buy a card costing $5 or more, trash a card you have in play.

Quote from: Chappy7 on April 14, 2019, 12:43:07 am

If I'm not mistaken, if you chose the option to trash War Flag, you don't attack your opponents, right? It says either trash this, or discard a treasure and attack.

That is not correct.

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 10, 2019, 06:33:50 pm

Use it as a one-shot Gold with an amazing Attack

It would be written as a "choose one" if you were choosing between: trash the War Flag; or discard a Treasure for the Attack.

EDIT
To clarify, I agree with Asper that due to limitations of space on the card, the wording may not be absolutely clear that discarding or trashing both invoke the Attack; if, however, the Attack was contingent on one of the two choices, then a "choose one" wording would be obviously preferred.
I've made an edit to attempt to improve the issue, but there isn't a lot of space to play with.

Quote

War Flag
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $6
$3. When you play this, either trash this or discard a Treasure, then each other player discards a card for each coin in its cost, and then draws until they have 3 cards in hand.

---

In games using this, when you buy a card costing $5 or more, trash a card you have in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on April 14, 2019, 12:08:58 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 14, 2019, 10:08:53 am

It would be written as a "choose one" if you were choosing between: trash the War Flag; or discard a Treasure for the Attack.

Arguable. Not only do you give two choices which card to use, you also do something else with each, which sets them apart further. Given this, using a grammar structure that by default points to the last noun is all but clear.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: wittyhowlard on April 14, 2019, 12:15:08 pm

Instigators is a powerful attack, but like in any instigation-situation you need not one, not two, but three to really make a statement! That's why the card is priced at $2; while a +1 card, +1 action card is usually priced at $0, the +1 buy allows multiple copies of Instigators to be picked up and adds to the utility of the card once they're all gone from the supply. 

(https://i.imgur.com/rxNvpxil.jpg)

Quote

Instigators
Action - $2
+1 card
+1 action
+1 buy
If there are two or more copies of Instigators in play (not counting this one), trash this and each other player gains a curse and a copper.

Absent any shenanigans from Ball or Summon, you're unlikely to trigger the attack until turn 5/6, which is different from a Mountebank. Also, the fact that you have to trash a copy for the attack means that it's not underpriced IMO.

I hope this counts as a one-shot, on-play trash ability. Happy to submit another idea otherwise :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 14, 2019, 04:37:28 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on April 14, 2019, 12:15:08 pm

while a +1 card, +1 action card is usually priced at $0

There is no cantrip which costs less than $2.

Quote from: wittyhowlard on April 14, 2019, 12:15:08 pm

the +1 buy allows multiple copies of Instigators to be picked up and adds to the utility of the card once they're all gone from the supply.

I think that Market Square without the Reaction would be too good at $2.
You probably cannot fix this via making your card more expensive though as it would probably be too weak at $3; the ability seems less useful and more situational than that of Market Square. But I might overestimate the matching problem and underestimate the Mountebank-style attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: wittyhowlard on April 14, 2019, 07:55:48 pm

Quote from: segura on April 14, 2019, 04:37:28 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on April 14, 2019, 12:15:08 pm

while a +1 card, +1 action card is usually priced at $0

There is no cantrip which costs less than $2.

Yes there is no cantrip card costing less than $2. I based my assessment on Rinkwork's guide on fan cards here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=699.0

Quote from: rinkworks on September 21, 2011, 10:19:35 am

• +1 Card

As implied earlier, the value of +1 Card can only be assessed if you know if the card is terminal or non-terminal. With at least +1 Action, each additional +Card is ridiculously powerful. +1 Card, +1 Action is probably balanced at $0,

Quote from: segura on April 14, 2019, 04:37:28 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on April 14, 2019, 12:15:08 pm

the +1 buy allows multiple copies of Instigators to be picked up and adds to the utility of the card once they're all gone from the supply.

I think that Market Square without the Reaction would be too good at $2.
You probably cannot fix this via making your card more expensive though as it would probably be too weak at $3; the ability seems less useful and more situational than that of Market Square. But I might overestimate the matching problem and underestimate the Mountebank-style attack.

I would put Market Square without the reaction as equivalent to Hamlet at $2. Yes, for Hamlet you need to discard a card to get the + Buy, but you can also discard a card to get the + Action, which can be valuable and something Market Square cannot do. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on April 16, 2019, 01:23:37 pm

I'd like to change my submission, Antique has issues as it is. No time to make a picture.

Quote

Graduate - Action, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
+ $1
The next time you gain a non-Victory card this turn, trash this to gain a copy of it.

Becomes a copy of the next card you gain, giving a little to making that gain better. Or if you get it while purely greening it stays a peddler. If this doesn't qualify...my bad.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 16, 2019, 01:45:02 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on April 14, 2019, 07:55:48 pm

Quote from: segura on April 14, 2019, 04:37:28 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on April 14, 2019, 12:15:08 pm

while a +1 card, +1 action card is usually priced at $0

There is no cantrip which costs less than $2.

Yes there is no cantrip card costing less than $2. I based my assessment on Rinkwork's guide on fan cards here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=699.0

Quote from: rinkworks on September 21, 2011, 10:19:35 am

• +1 Card

As implied earlier, the value of +1 Card can only be assessed if you know if the card is terminal or non-terminal. With at least +1 Action, each additional +Card is ridiculously powerful. +1 Card, +1 Action is probably balanced at $0,

Quote from: segura on April 14, 2019, 04:37:28 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on April 14, 2019, 12:15:08 pm

the +1 buy allows multiple copies of Instigators to be picked up and adds to the utility of the card once they're all gone from the supply.

I think that Market Square without the Reaction would be too good at $2.
You probably cannot fix this via making your card more expensive though as it would probably be too weak at $3; the ability seems less useful and more situational than that of Market Square. But I might overestimate the matching problem and underestimate the Mountebank-style attack.

I would put Market Square without the reaction as equivalent to Hamlet at $2. Yes, for Hamlet you need to discard a card to get the + Buy, but you can also discard a card to get the + Action, which can be valuable and something Market Square cannot do.

Non-reaction Market Square at $2 might be okay power level wise but it has the other issue that its pile is way too easy to empty. It would probably be okay as the top of a split pile or something put a pile of 10 is so easy to empty. Also people buy non-reaction Market square for $3 all the time anyway when there's no trashing on the board, it's still low opportunity cost +Buy.

I'm pretty sure instigators has this issue too though, especially given that it specifically wants you to gain multiple copies of it and it drains the Curse pile too so you're getting really close to 2 piles already there. Unlike Market Square it doesn't need any outside assistance from other cards to get its extra effect so I'm pretty sure $3 would be the appropriate cost, although if I were the judge I wouldn't really mark it down for the cost if I liked the idea of it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 16, 2019, 04:26:23 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on April 14, 2019, 12:15:08 pm

Instigators is a powerful attack, but like in any instigation-situation you need not one, not two, but three to really make a statement! That's why the card is priced at $2; while a +1 card, +1 action card is usually priced at $0, the +1 buy allows multiple copies of Instigators to be picked up and adds to the utility of the card once they're all gone from the supply. 

(https://i.imgur.com/rxNvpxil.jpg)

Quote

Instigators
Action - $2
+1 card
+1 action
+1 buy
If there are two or more copies of Instigators in play (not counting this one), trash this and each other player gains a curse and a copper.

Absent any shenanigans from Ball or Summon, you're unlikely to trigger the attack until turn 5/6, which is different from a Mountebank. Also, the fact that you have to trash a copy for the attack means that it's not underpriced IMO.

I hope this counts as a one-shot, on-play trash ability. Happy to submit another idea otherwise :)

Recommend changing the wording to "three or more (counting this)". It is already in play when you are following the instructions, so it's awkward having a parenthetical to tell you to not count the way you normally would/should.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 16, 2019, 04:32:02 pm

Quote from: Aquila on April 16, 2019, 01:23:37 pm

I'd like to change my submission, Antique has issues as it is. No time to make a picture.

Quote

Graduate - Action, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
+ $1
The next time you gain a non-Victory card this turn, trash this to gain a copy of it.

Becomes a copy of the next card you gain, giving a little to making that gain better. Or if you get it while purely greening it stays a peddler. If this doesn't qualify...my bad.

This seems stronger than Peddler, not weaker. Unless is has a restriction on what actions it can gain.

It might be balanced at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} with the trashing+gaining optional, which should still qualify for the contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 16, 2019, 05:01:13 pm

Quote from: Aquila on April 16, 2019, 01:23:37 pm

I'd like to change my submission, Antique has issues as it is. No time to make a picture.

Quote

Graduate - Action, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
+ $1
The next time you gain a non-Victory card this turn, trash this to gain a copy of it.

Becomes a copy of the next card you gain, giving a little to making that gain better. Or if you get it while purely greening it stays a peddler. If this doesn't qualify...my bad.

I think, you really underestimate the strength of this card. This effect is usually much more powerful than Feast and Duplicate.

The biggest problem is that you can gain $5 cards and its Peddler effect even helps you to reach $5 AND to chain multiple copies of Graduate, as their trash effect is processed at the next gain. It has also the potential to Salt the Earth its own pile very quickly, whenever you have only $3 or $4. I really doubt that this card would work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 16, 2019, 06:05:17 pm

I don't want to argue with the points made that this card is better than Peddler, it definitely is.
Let's just also keep in mind the downsides: this hurts when there are cards of which you want just one copy. One way to nerf the card would be to always trash it, i.e. also in turns when you don't gain anything or only green. In this case it might be balanced at $4 or $5 (could also be "in-between" though). Without the nerf this looks better than Artificer (yeah, it is a one-shot but Artificer is still the best comparison and has to do a lot of work to gain $5s).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on April 16, 2019, 11:53:57 pm

Might as well go for something nutty...

(https://i.imgur.com/LcEmakdl.png)

Quote

Jubilee
Action - 8D
-
Trash this. Gain a Gold, a Duchy, an Action costing up to $4, and a Curse onto your deck.

Planning an awesome Jubilee takes some time, and you'll most likely go into Debt because of it. However, it will certainly be a wonderful, colorful time, and you'll certainly attract some big money, a positive reputation, and maybe even some new citizens to add to your workforce. And most likely a giant hangover that you'll be cursing the next day.

Yeah, I have absolutely no idea how much this should cost, as I haven't had a chance to playtest it. On the one hand, you are gaining a Gold and an Action that you'll be able to use really soon. And you are also gaining a Duchy. However, that Duchy is going on top of your deck as well, along with a nasty Curse. I just put it at 8D for now and will see what everyone else thinks.

Oh, and I just realized: the order in which the cards go onto your deck are the same order in which they are gained, so the Gold goes on first, then the Duchy, then the Action, then the Curse on very top. I should probably reword this to make the order clear (along with the fact that all four cards are gained onto deck).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on April 17, 2019, 03:11:12 am

Quote from: King Leon on April 16, 2019, 05:01:13 pm

Quote from: Aquila on April 16, 2019, 01:23:37 pm

I'd like to change my submission, Antique has issues as it is. No time to make a picture.

Quote

Graduate - Action, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
+ $1
The next time you gain a non-Victory card this turn, trash this to gain a copy of it.

Becomes a copy of the next card you gain, giving a little to making that gain better. Or if you get it while purely greening it stays a peddler. If this doesn't qualify...my bad.

I think, you really underestimate the strength of this card. This effect is usually much more powerful than Feast and Duplicate.

The biggest problem is that you can gain $5 cards and its Peddler effect even helps you to reach $5 AND to chain multiple copies of Graduate, as their trash effect is processed at the next gain. It has also the potential to Salt the Earth its own pile very quickly, whenever you have only $3 or $4. I really doubt that this card would work.

Thanks to all the feedback, here's a quick attempt at a fix:

Quote

Graduate - Action, $4 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
The next time you gain a non-Victory card this turn, trash this to gain a copy of it. At Clean-up, if you didn't gain such a card during the turn, +1 Coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 17, 2019, 02:10:32 pm

Quote from: Aquila on April 17, 2019, 03:11:12 am

Thanks to all the feedback, here's a quick attempt at a fix:

Quote

Graduate - Action, $4 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
The next time you gain a non-Victory card this turn, trash this to gain a copy of it. At Clean-up, if you didn't gain such a card during the turn, +1 Coffers.

Now it is a situational Feast/Baker. Not totally broken and $4 seems to be totally fair compared with Ironworks. I wonder, how Graduate/Silver against Feast/Silver plays. While the Feast player is guaranteed to be able to get a $5 card, the Graduate player has a tiny probability to miss $5, but has also much better deck cycling.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on April 18, 2019, 12:04:45 am

Judging will happen in about 24 hours. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on April 18, 2019, 04:33:03 am

(https://i.imgur.com/R7rsrZH.gif)

Boggart
Cost: $3
Types: Action-Duration
+ $1
At the start of your next turn, choose:  + $4, or trash this.
-
-3%

I'm not sure if this entirely counts for the contest, being an optional one-shot (or two-shot, I suppose) but I'm quite happy with this. You can get a load of money, but of course it's a powerful Curse. If you sacrifice the money you can get rid of it though... but you could buy a Province with only two of these! But two Boggarts would cancel out half the value of it! etc.
And yes, if you Throne Room it you can get both the benefit and trash it... and if you King's Court it you can instantly afford a Province and then trash it... but I hope it's balanced because you can only do that once because it is a one-shot.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chris is me on April 18, 2019, 07:10:08 am

Carve - $4

Trash this or a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

--

When you trash this, +1 Action.

----------

"It's better than Feast!" - not quite, shut up. "It's worse than Remake!" - not quite either, and don't we want most cards in between those two?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 18, 2019, 08:01:40 am

Quote from: FlyerBeast on April 18, 2019, 04:33:03 am

(https://i.imgur.com/R7rsrZH.gif)

Boggart
Cost: $3
Types: Action-Duration
+ $1
At the start of your next turn, choose:  + $4, or trash this.
-
-3%

There is some risk of missing the game end but until then this is stronger than Merchant Ship. So I would consider a price of $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on April 18, 2019, 08:57:01 am

Quote from: Chris is me on April 18, 2019, 07:10:08 am

Carve - $4

Trash this or a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

--

When you trash this, +1 Action.

----------

"It's better than Feast!" - not quite, shut up. "It's worse than Remake!" - not quite either, and don't we want most cards in between those two?

Would be clearer if it said "than the trashed card" as currently it is not quite clear what "it" refers to. It's also unclear what happens if you throne this, trash it the first time and on the second play choose to trash it again.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 18, 2019, 10:04:55 am

Quote from: faust on April 18, 2019, 08:57:01 am

Quote from: Chris is me on April 18, 2019, 07:10:08 am

Carve - $4

Trash this or a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

--

When you trash this, +1 Action.

----------

"It's better than Feast!" - not quite, shut up. "It's worse than Remake!" - not quite either, and don't we want most cards in between those two?

Would be clearer if it said "than the trashed card" as currently it is not quite clear what "it" refers to. It's also unclear what happens if you throne this, trash it the first time and on the second play choose to trash it again.

You can't choose to trash this a second time if you throne it, similar to how it works with Raze.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: singletee on April 18, 2019, 10:29:25 am

Quote from: Gazbag on April 18, 2019, 10:04:55 am

Quote from: faust on April 18, 2019, 08:57:01 am

Quote from: Chris is me on April 18, 2019, 07:10:08 am

Carve - $4

Trash this or a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

--

When you trash this, +1 Action.

----------

"It's better than Feast!" - not quite, shut up. "It's worse than Remake!" - not quite either, and don't we want most cards in between those two?

Would be clearer if it said "than the trashed card" as currently it is not quite clear what "it" refers to. It's also unclear what happens if you throne this, trash it the first time and on the second play choose to trash it again.

You can't choose to trash this a second time if you throne it, similar to how it works with Raze.

Sure you can. You then look through 0 cards, choose one to put in your hand, and fail to do that.

In the case of Carve, you would trash nothing and then gain nothing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 18, 2019, 10:59:06 am

Quote from: singletee on April 18, 2019, 10:29:25 am

Quote from: Gazbag on April 18, 2019, 10:04:55 am

Quote from: faust on April 18, 2019, 08:57:01 am

Quote from: Chris is me on April 18, 2019, 07:10:08 am

Carve - $4

Trash this or a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

--

When you trash this, +1 Action.

----------

"It's better than Feast!" - not quite, shut up. "It's worse than Remake!" - not quite either, and don't we want most cards in between those two?

Would be clearer if it said "than the trashed card" as currently it is not quite clear what "it" refers to. It's also unclear what happens if you throne this, trash it the first time and on the second play choose to trash it again.

You can't choose to trash this a second time if you throne it, similar to how it works with Raze.

Sure you can. You then look through 0 cards, choose one to put in your hand, and fail to do that.

In the case of Carve, you would trash nothing and then gain nothing.

I've definitely lost games in my dominion career because I didn't think that's how that worked.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 18, 2019, 11:04:58 am

Quote from: Chris is me on April 18, 2019, 07:10:08 am

Carve - $4

Trash this or a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

--

When you trash this, +1 Action.

----------

"It's better than Feast!" - not quite, shut up. "It's worse than Remake!" - not quite either, and don't we want most cards in between those two?

While this clearly does stuff that Remake can't do, it's hard to see how this isn't strictly better than Feast. The only thing you can do with Feast that you can't do with this is to trash it to gain a card costing less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, and it's a super-rare edge case that you would do that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on April 18, 2019, 12:46:21 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 18, 2019, 11:04:58 am

Quote from: Chris is me on April 18, 2019, 07:10:08 am

Carve - $4

Trash this or a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

--

When you trash this, +1 Action.

----------

"It's better than Feast!" - not quite, shut up. "It's worse than Remake!" - not quite either, and don't we want most cards in between those two?

While this clearly does stuff that Remake can't do, it's hard to see how this isn't strictly better than Feast. The only thing you can do with Feast that you can't do with this is to trash it to gain a card costing less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, and it's a super-rare edge case that you would do that.

How about if it didn't allow gaining Victory cards?

Btw I'm out for this round, I couldn't think of something clever. Kudos to everyone who could.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 18, 2019, 02:22:36 pm

Quote from: Asper on April 18, 2019, 12:46:21 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 18, 2019, 11:04:58 am

Quote from: Chris is me on April 18, 2019, 07:10:08 am

Carve - $4

Trash this or a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

--

When you trash this, +1 Action.

----------

"It's better than Feast!" - not quite, shut up. "It's worse than Remake!" - not quite either, and don't we want most cards in between those two?

While this clearly does stuff that Remake can't do, it's hard to see how this isn't strictly better than Feast. The only thing you can do with Feast that you can't do with this is to trash it to gain a card costing less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, and it's a super-rare edge case that you would do that.

How about if it didn't allow gaining Victory cards?

Btw I'm out for this round, I couldn't think of something clever. Kudos to everyone who could.

Does it matter if a card is strictly better than one of the removed cards if it's a fun and balanced card in its own right? I guess it's up to the judge?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 18, 2019, 02:26:39 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on April 18, 2019, 02:22:36 pm

Quote from: Asper on April 18, 2019, 12:46:21 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 18, 2019, 11:04:58 am

Quote from: Chris is me on April 18, 2019, 07:10:08 am

Carve - $4

Trash this or a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

--

When you trash this, +1 Action.

----------

"It's better than Feast!" - not quite, shut up. "It's worse than Remake!" - not quite either, and don't we want most cards in between those two?

While this clearly does stuff that Remake can't do, it's hard to see how this isn't strictly better than Feast. The only thing you can do with Feast that you can't do with this is to trash it to gain a card costing less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, and it's a super-rare edge case that you would do that.

How about if it didn't allow gaining Victory cards?

Btw I'm out for this round, I couldn't think of something clever. Kudos to everyone who could.

Does it matter if a card is strictly better than one of the removed cards if it's a fun and balanced card in its own right? I guess it's up to the judge?

I mean, there's no actual rules for fan cards, but a general design principle that Donald has always stuck to is that no card is ever strictly better than another card. A card not being in second edition doesn't change that. So people are free to make strictly better fan cards all they want; but I think it's worth pointing out as a point of feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on April 18, 2019, 03:45:44 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 18, 2019, 02:26:39 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on April 18, 2019, 02:22:36 pm

Quote from: Asper on April 18, 2019, 12:46:21 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 18, 2019, 11:04:58 am

Quote from: Chris is me on April 18, 2019, 07:10:08 am

Carve - $4

Trash this or a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

--

When you trash this, +1 Action.

----------

"It's better than Feast!" - not quite, shut up. "It's worse than Remake!" - not quite either, and don't we want most cards in between those two?

While this clearly does stuff that Remake can't do, it's hard to see how this isn't strictly better than Feast. The only thing you can do with Feast that you can't do with this is to trash it to gain a card costing less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, and it's a super-rare edge case that you would do that.

How about if it didn't allow gaining Victory cards?

Btw I'm out for this round, I couldn't think of something clever. Kudos to everyone who could.

Does it matter if a card is strictly better than one of the removed cards if it's a fun and balanced card in its own right? I guess it's up to the judge?

I mean, there's no actual rules for fan cards, but a general design principle that Donald has always stuck to is that no card is ever strictly better than another card. A card not being in second edition doesn't change that. So people are free to make strictly better fan cards all they want; but I think it's worth pointing out as a point of feedback.

To be fair, the card is not thronable, which is the typical use case for Feast.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 18, 2019, 04:08:18 pm

Quote from: faust on April 18, 2019, 03:45:44 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 18, 2019, 02:26:39 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on April 18, 2019, 02:22:36 pm

Quote from: Asper on April 18, 2019, 12:46:21 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 18, 2019, 11:04:58 am

Quote from: Chris is me on April 18, 2019, 07:10:08 am

Carve - $4

Trash this or a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

--

When you trash this, +1 Action.

----------

"It's better than Feast!" - not quite, shut up. "It's worse than Remake!" - not quite either, and don't we want most cards in between those two?

While this clearly does stuff that Remake can't do, it's hard to see how this isn't strictly better than Feast. The only thing you can do with Feast that you can't do with this is to trash it to gain a card costing less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, and it's a super-rare edge case that you would do that.

How about if it didn't allow gaining Victory cards?

Btw I'm out for this round, I couldn't think of something clever. Kudos to everyone who could.

Does it matter if a card is strictly better than one of the removed cards if it's a fun and balanced card in its own right? I guess it's up to the judge?

I mean, there's no actual rules for fan cards, but a general design principle that Donald has always stuck to is that no card is ever strictly better than another card. A card not being in second edition doesn't change that. So people are free to make strictly better fan cards all they want; but I think it's worth pointing out as a point of feedback.

To be fair, the card is not thronable, which is the typical use case for Feast.

Well I don't know if the wording is actually completely clear, but it seems throneable to me. It would depend on what "it" means when you choose to trash itself... when you choose to trash another card, "it" means "the trashed card". If you choose to trash itself, "it" probably means "this card", which means that the second time you play it, you fail to trash it, but still gain a card costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} more; a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 18, 2019, 04:28:27 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 18, 2019, 02:26:39 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on April 18, 2019, 02:22:36 pm

Quote from: Asper on April 18, 2019, 12:46:21 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 18, 2019, 11:04:58 am

Quote from: Chris is me on April 18, 2019, 07:10:08 am

Carve - $4

Trash this or a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

--

When you trash this, +1 Action.

----------

"It's better than Feast!" - not quite, shut up. "It's worse than Remake!" - not quite either, and don't we want most cards in between those two?

While this clearly does stuff that Remake can't do, it's hard to see how this isn't strictly better than Feast. The only thing you can do with Feast that you can't do with this is to trash it to gain a card costing less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, and it's a super-rare edge case that you would do that.

How about if it didn't allow gaining Victory cards?

Btw I'm out for this round, I couldn't think of something clever. Kudos to everyone who could.

Does it matter if a card is strictly better than one of the removed cards if it's a fun and balanced card in its own right? I guess it's up to the judge?

I mean, there's no actual rules for fan cards, but a general design principle that Donald has always stuck to is that no card is ever strictly better than another card. A card not being in second edition doesn't change that. So people are free to make strictly better fan cards all they want; but I think it's worth pointing out as a point of feedback.

Right but for the purposes of making entries for this contest do people absolutely hate it if something is strictly better than a removed card? Do people not care at all? Do people not mind so much but prefer if it isn't? I'm just interested in people's opinions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 18, 2019, 04:33:37 pm

I am with GendoIkari on this. Woodcutter has been removed but it still sets a benchmark for Woodcutter variants. And Feast has not been removed because it was too weak but because it did not add enough to the game. Changeling is its spiritual successor and much more interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on April 19, 2019, 01:52:22 am

First of all, I don’t have time to write something up about each entry, which makes me sad.  I love it when people do that! But I’ve had a crazy week with a new baby and fianls and work, and it just didn’t work out for me, so I apologize.
Good job on the entries! These were fun.  The top 3 for me are:
Tied for 3rd are Upcycle by RTT and Fireworks by NoMoreFun.  Dominion: Gunpowder has made a comeback, and it is glorious.  These cards seem like good openers, and a lot of fun to work with later in the game.  I thought they were creative and fun, although they are quite similar.
In 2nd is Offering by Gazbag.  It’s a bit wacky, but it is super fun and creative.  I’ll be honest, it’s hard to tell if it would be too good, not good enough, or just right, but I love the idea.

And First is Jubilee by Tejayes! I’ll be honest, I don’t think this is a power card, but it will have its niche.  This card will make for some interesting decisions.  It is hard to judge its power level, but the idea is awesome, and I think it really fits the one-shot theme.

Again, I'm really sorry if I didn't mention your card(s), which is a lot of you.  I really enjoyed many of them, even the ones I didn't mention specifically.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Udzu on April 19, 2019, 03:39:55 am

Quote from: segura on April 18, 2019, 04:33:37 pm

I am with GendoIkari on this. Woodcutter has been removed but it still sets a benchmark for Woodcutter variants. And Feast has not been removed because it was too weak but because it did not add enough to the game. Changeling is its spiritual successor and much more interesting.

Feast may not have been removed because it was too weak, but it could easily have been. Its last qvist rankings ranked it as the third weakest $4 card, ahead only of thief and scout!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 19, 2019, 05:45:51 am

Quote from: Udzu on April 19, 2019, 03:39:55 am

Quote from: segura on April 18, 2019, 04:33:37 pm

I am with GendoIkari on this. Woodcutter has been removed but it still sets a benchmark for Woodcutter variants. And Feast has not been removed because it was too weak but because it did not add enough to the game. Changeling is its spiritual successor and much more interesting.

Feast may not have been removed because it was too weak, but it could easily have been. Its last qvist rankings ranked it as the third weakest $4 card, ahead only of thief and scout!

Sure, it is a niche card as the board in which you want to open with a $4 and don't want to open Silver/Silver to gain a $5 after the first shuffle are rare. It is probably not a big thing to make a Feast variant nonterminal or whatever.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on April 19, 2019, 09:18:52 am

Wow, a second win so soon? Thank you so much, Chappy7! And congrats on the new baby!

Challenge #27: I'd Buy That for $1!

Told you I'd bring it back. Simply enough, create a Kingdom card that costs exactly $1. No Debt, no Potions, no Overpay, no cost-varying mechanisms. Give Poor House some company on Cheap Street.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #27: $1 cost
Post by: Aquila on April 19, 2019, 11:03:33 am

Quote

Layman - Action, $1 cost.
+1 Card per card you have in play costing $2 or less.

It would be so tiny and hard to see I made it bigger.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on April 19, 2019, 07:20:53 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on April 19, 2019, 09:18:52 am

Wow, a second win so soon? Thank you so much, Chappy7! And congrats on the new baby!

Challenge #27: I'd Buy That for $1!

Told you I'd bring it back. Simply enough, create a Kingdom card that costs exactly $1. No Debt, no Potions, no Overpay, no cost-varying mechanisms. Give Poor House some company on Cheap Street.

Curious Spectators
cost $1 - Action
+1 Action per a card you have in play (counting this).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on April 19, 2019, 11:05:49 pm

Resubmitting a card that didn't quite fit the previous challenge

Bargain
Action/Reaction - $1
Trash a card from your hand, and gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.
---
When you gain a card, you may return this to the supply from your hand to exchange that card for a card costing up to $1 more than it. Put it onto your deck in your buy phase,  and into your hand otherwise.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on April 19, 2019, 11:14:11 pm

This isn't my actual entry, but this and your previous contest make me wonder if this would be worth $1:

Digger
Action - $1
Gain a Silver.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 20, 2019, 04:28:08 am

Challenge accepted. Because I cannot submit Gift (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg797092#msg797092) again, I came up with a new idea. It’s in fact a Candlestick Maker variant with protection against handsize attacks, but without the +Buy, slower and missing some reshuffles (which sometimes can be even an advantage, depending on the engine).

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/pc3d7442.png)

Nest Egg
Type: Action - Reserve - Reaction
Cost: $1

+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
-
At the start of your turn, you may call this for + $1.
-
When another player plays an Attack card, you may first play this from your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 20, 2019, 08:06:00 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fUw3hZi.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 20, 2019, 08:15:41 am

Quote from: King Leon on April 20, 2019, 04:28:08 am

Challenge accepted. Because I cannot submit Gift (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg797092#msg797092) again, I came up with a new idea. It’s in fact a Candlestick Maker variant with protection against handsize attacks, but without the +Buy, slower and missing some reshuffles (which sometimes can be even an advantage, depending on the engine).

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/pc3d7442.png)

Nest Egg
Type: Action - Reserve - Reaction
Cost: $1

+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
-
At the start of your turn, you may call this for + $1.
-
When another player plays an Attack card, you may first play this from your hand.

With TR variants you can make a Necropolis out of it. It is also decent with draw-to-X. Otherwise it looks like a worse Copper. Well, not precisely, it is better than Copper as you can keep it out of your deck so you can e.g. imagine a Kingdom with Upgrade and Nest Egg in which you will Upgrade your Coppers, play your Nest Eggs and only call them to spike or for the last turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on April 20, 2019, 08:51:01 am

Alright, I'm going to submit my old stuff from now on. Having something in store and having to think of another idea when I already got something has turned from a challenge to an annoying limitation.

(http://i.imgur.com/RUWOqwJ.jpg)

Not that this is my best card ever, but whatever.

Title: Re: Contest #27: $1-cost card
Post by: Gubump on April 20, 2019, 03:49:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sILSnJc.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: wittyhowlard on April 20, 2019, 08:26:48 pm

Lacking some much needed Buys on your board? Well worry no more with the topdecking Scraps of Cloth, which keeps mysteriously finding itself back into your hand! Get that shopping spree you always wanted with this (otherwise worthless) treasure.

(https://i.imgur.com/pmUML0Q.jpg)

Title: Re: Contest #27: $1-cost card
Post by: King Leon on April 21, 2019, 03:38:21 am

Quote from: Gubump on April 20, 2019, 03:49:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sILSnJc.png)

This is actually a pretty good nonterminal Ambassador variant with an immense start player advantage.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on April 21, 2019, 04:17:27 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on April 19, 2019, 11:14:11 pm

This isn't my actual entry, but this and your previous contest make me wonder if this would be worth $1:

Digger
Action - $1
Gain a Silver.

Squire is "Gain a Silver", and +$1, and a whole bunch of other options if you don't necessarily want that Silver, plus an on trash bonus, for $2. You could probably make Digger stronger and it would still be ok at the $1 price point.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 21, 2019, 06:56:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/A1QaSF2.png)

I couldn't think of a good name, so this one doesn't make much sense sorry. Gaining anything without a cost restriction might be a bit much for a $1 but Lurker can get away with it and this is a one shot and seems like it needs more support than Lurker. It fits last weeks theme too, do I get extra points? Oh but so do Aspers and sort of Gubumps never mind.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silvern on April 21, 2019, 11:00:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ynmHjqJm.png)

Cottages are quite humble, but gather a few of em together and, hey, maybe you've almost got a quaint little village or... Town of the Year, or something!
And they are quirky enough to be fun (remaking your junk has never been more habitable....now it's a junk-cottage, and you have extra cash for some reason.) and very cheap.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 22, 2019, 04:22:56 am

I like this a lot but with cost reduction you can empty the entire pile at no cost (even without cost reduction you could argue that 3 or 4 Cottages are better than 1 village in a thin enough deck). So perhaps the on-gain Buy option has to go.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 22, 2019, 04:47:28 am

Quote from: segura on April 22, 2019, 04:22:56 am

I like this a lot but with cost reduction you can empty the entire pile at no cost (even without cost reduction you could argue that 3 or 4 Cottages are better than 1 village in a thin enough deck). So perhaps the on-gain Buy option has to go.

I can also imagine some possible loops involving Ambassador, Procession and Lurker.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on April 22, 2019, 05:42:31 am

(https://i.imgur.com/bUkDuSM.jpg)

Quote

Field
Action - $1

+1 Buy
Trash a non-Duration card you have in play costing $5 or more. Gain a card costing up to $1 per differently costed card you have in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Sheogorath on April 22, 2019, 01:15:17 pm

Quote from: segura on April 22, 2019, 04:22:56 am

I like this a lot but with cost reduction you can empty the entire pile at no cost (even without cost reduction you could argue that 3 or 4 Cottages are better than 1 village in a thin enough deck). So perhaps the on-gain Buy option has to go.

Perhaps add a Messenger-esque clause?
When this is the first Cottage you gained this turn, choose one: ...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Udzu on April 22, 2019, 03:28:30 pm

(http://tinyimg.io/i/1jpg3Nt.jpeg)

Quote

Lucky Penny ($1 Treasure-Reaction)
$1
-------
When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand and either: discard it to instead gain a card costing $1 more; or trash it to instead gain a card costing $2 more.

The $1 cost also makes this particularly self-synergetic in the presence of Cursers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on April 22, 2019, 03:37:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OY5XAxE.jpg)

I for one thought they should of made more cards like poor house.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 22, 2019, 04:57:13 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on April 22, 2019, 03:37:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OY5XAxE.jpg)

I for one thought they should of made more cards like poor house.

The Journey token always had effects with similar strength. I don't know whether using it the Journey token on a $1 cost card is a good idea. A delayed village, which activates Ranger or Giant and can trim your deck down, is rather strong. But trashing two cards is a pretty weak effect for flipping the Journey token. Amulet is overall more interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 22, 2019, 05:18:37 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on April 22, 2019, 03:37:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OY5XAxE.jpg)

I for one thought they should of made more cards like poor house.

This card tells an amazing story, it's genius.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Erick648 on April 22, 2019, 07:34:38 pm

Iron Fist
(https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/?title=Iron%20Fist&description=When%20you%20buy%20a%20card%2C%20you%20may%20discard%20this%20from%20your%20hand.%20%20If%20you%20do%2C%20if%20the%20bought%20card%20is%20an...%0A%0AAction%20card%2C%20%2B1%20Villager%0ATreasure%20card%2C%20%2B1%20Coffers%0AVictory%20card%2C%20set%20aside%20the%20top%20card%20of%20your%20deck%2C%20putting%20it%20into%20your%20hand%20at%20the%20end%20of%20the%20turn&type=Reaction&credit=&price=%241&preview=&type2=&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.seekingalpha.com%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F3%2F6165571_14576464673744_rId10.jpg&color0=3&color1=0&size=0)$1 - Reaction
When you buy a card, you may discard this from your hand.  If you do, if the bought card is an...
Action card, +1 Villager
Treasure card, +1 Coffers
Victory card, set aside the top card of your deck, putting it into your hand at the end of the turn

Clarification: If you use this to react to buying a Victory card when your draw deck and discard pile are empty, you discard this first, then when trying to set aside the top card of your deck, you shuffle your discard pile (which only contains Iron Fist barring other interactions) into a new deck, and set aside the top card of that new deck (i.e., the Iron Fist you just discarded).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on April 23, 2019, 02:22:32 am

(https://i.imgur.com/a2bsevG.png)

A Copper that turns into a Buy whenever you need it. The + Buy doesn't work on the turn you play it, though, so be wary of when you're using them.

Also, sad that the art I found isn't working.

Edit: The art works now!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: belugawhale on April 23, 2019, 04:56:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/pVqqK4R.png)

Very simple idea, can be used as a cantrip but can also stock up villagers for later turns.

Edit: resized the image since it posted at full size

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on April 23, 2019, 01:14:12 pm

CHALLENGE #27 - I'D BUY THAT FOR $1 SUBMISSION:

(https://i.imgur.com/ltXQV2i.jpg)

NOTE: This is a 20 card Action Supply Pile.

[UPDATE_v0.2] Can no longer gain Investment cards (credit: Gazbag); gained card must cost exactly the amount of Investments trashed (credit: mail-mi).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 23, 2019, 05:14:20 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on April 23, 2019, 01:14:12 pm

CHALLENGE #27 - I'D BUY THAT FOR $1 SUBMISSION:

(https://i.imgur.com/dNWZ6cU.jpg)

NOTE: This is a 20 card Action Supply Pile.

I think this shouldn't be able to gain Investments because it makes it super easy to deplete the pile, even with 20 in the supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on April 23, 2019, 05:58:43 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on April 23, 2019, 05:14:20 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on April 23, 2019, 01:14:12 pm

CHALLENGE #27 - I'D BUY THAT FOR $1 SUBMISSION:

(https://i.imgur.com/dNWZ6cU.jpg)

NOTE: This is a 20 card Action Supply Pile.

I think this shouldn't be able to gain Investments because it makes it super easy to deplete the pile, even with 20 in the supply.

Maybe it could say, "If you have at least 2 Investments in play, you may trash...." That way it can't gain 1s or 0s.  Unless that ruins what you wanted...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on April 23, 2019, 10:57:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/1FsIdY3.png)

Sort of a Rats-Bomb hybrid. This pile also has 20 cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on April 25, 2019, 06:28:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/XRceA8V.gif)

Seneschal
Cost: $1
Type: Action
+ $1
You may trash an Estate from your hand for +1%.
-
Setup: Each player starts with one extra Estate
(Not from the Supply).

One of those cards that aims to mess up openings, and not in necessarily a pleasant way! You could open with a 1/5 split, but fortunately, there's a virtual Copper you can afford that'll take those Estates away at no disadvantage! It must have a bit of a weird interaction with Baron, probably mostly beneificially?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on April 25, 2019, 06:32:42 am

Quote from: FlyerBeast on April 25, 2019, 06:28:26 am

One of those cards that aims to mess up openings, and not in necessarily a pleasant way!

Particularly in a destructive way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 25, 2019, 01:38:54 pm

Quote from: FlyerBeast on April 25, 2019, 06:28:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/XRceA8V.gif)

Seneschal
Cost: $1
Type: Action
+ $1
You may trash an Estate from your hand for +1%.
-
Setup: Each player starts with one extra Estate
(Not from the Supply).

One of those cards that aims to mess up openings, and not in necessarily a pleasant way! You could open with a 1/5 split, but fortunately, there's a virtual Copper you can afford that'll take those Estates away at no disadvantage! It must have a bit of a weird interaction with Baron, probably mostly beneificially?

Finally, a use for 2 of the 10 extra Estates that the base game comes with!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on April 25, 2019, 04:01:28 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 25, 2019, 01:38:54 pm

Finally, a use for 2 of the 10 extra Estates that the base game comes with!

Although 2 player is much better, it is sometimes difficult in my house to get a 2-player game of anything going without someone else feeling excluded. On another note, does the base game still come with those randomizer cards for the base cards, or was that just a 1E thing? Those are definitely extra no matter how you play the game. Hmm, I wonder whether I should put the Province pile out this game, or just leave it in the box...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on April 26, 2019, 06:44:52 pm

I'm giving a 24-ish hour warning. I will announce results at 6pm forum default time on Saturday, April 27.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on April 27, 2019, 02:02:45 am

Quote from: Gazbag on April 23, 2019, 05:14:20 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on April 23, 2019, 01:14:12 pm

CHALLENGE #27 - I'D BUY THAT FOR $1 SUBMISSION:

(https://i.imgur.com/dNWZ6cU.jpg)

NOTE: This is a 20 card Action Supply Pile.

I think this shouldn't be able to gain Investments because it makes it super easy to deplete the pile, even with 20 in the supply.

In addition to the above, I think it should say "exactly" instead of "up to." It would be more interesting strategy-wise.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 27, 2019, 07:21:04 am

Quote from: mail-mi on April 27, 2019, 02:02:45 am

Quote from: Gazbag on April 23, 2019, 05:14:20 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on April 23, 2019, 01:14:12 pm

CHALLENGE #27 - I'D BUY THAT FOR $1 SUBMISSION:

(https://i.imgur.com/dNWZ6cU.jpg)

NOTE: This is a 20 card Action Supply Pile.

I think this shouldn't be able to gain Investments because it makes it super easy to deplete the pile, even with 20 in the supply.

In addition to the above, I think it should say "exactly" instead of "up to." It would be more interesting strategy-wise.

I don't see how this would matter often. The only instance I can come up with in which you want to trash 6 Investments to gain a $5 (instead of trashing 5 to gain a $5 a bit earlier, right after having palyed the 5th Investment) is in a Kingdom with Tomb.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on April 27, 2019, 01:49:26 pm

Thank you everyone for the comments! Investment has never been playtested so it's nice to get feedback on it.

Quote from: Gazbag on April 23, 2019, 05:14:20 pm

I think this shouldn't be able to gain Investments because it makes it super easy to deplete the pile, even with 20 in the supply.

I threw in the self-gaining, pile-driving mechanic because (1) it fit well with the card's $1 cost theme and (2) it seemed like a good way to deny Investments to opponents who were mindlessly buying Investments. Neither are really great reasons for such a design choice and I'm sure a single playtest will confirm that this indeed does not work.

Quote from: mail-mi on April 27, 2019, 02:02:45 am

Quote from: Gazbag on April 23, 2019, 05:14:20 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on April 23, 2019, 01:14:12 pm

CHALLENGE #27 - I'D BUY THAT FOR $1 SUBMISSION:

(https://i.imgur.com/dNWZ6cU.jpg)

NOTE: This is a 20 card Action Supply Pile.

I think this shouldn't be able to gain Investments because it makes it super easy to deplete the pile, even with 20 in the supply.

In addition to the above, I think it should say "exactly" instead of "up to." It would be more interesting strategy-wise.

Agreed. I think this is could be a great solution to some of the cards current problems. To get the most out of Investments you'd need to be able to reliably draw your deck. This forces players to balance building their engine with actually getting Investments. The other Kingdom cards will greatly change how to go about that. A concern with exact gaining is it could make Investments to unwieldy outside of engine play and not even be worth the $1 cost and Buy. Should be fine though.

Thanks again for the feedback. I've updated the original post (v0.2), but here is the update as well:

(https://i.imgur.com/ltXQV2i.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on April 27, 2019, 08:16:03 pm

CHALLENGE #27 - COMMENTARY & RESULTS

Forgive me for being a little later than announced. Like last time, if your card's name is bold, you were on my short list. Good luck!

---

Quote from: Aquila

Layman
Action - $1
-
+1 Card per card you have in play costing $2 or less.

Can we assume that this card is included when played? If so, then this works nicely as a $1. Fits the theme nicely; one layman is effectively useless, but a congregation of peers strengthens him. By itself, it’s just a Ruined Library; with one other cheapo in play, it’s just a Moat. If one can get a good amount of cheapos in play, however, Layman’s power could be very strong indeed (especially with Black Market, Storyteller, etc.). Of course, at that time, there may not be enough cards left in the deck to really make it worthwhile. I like the idea, though.

Quote from: majiponi

Curious Spectators
Action - $1
-
+1 Action per card you have in play (counting this).

A different take on Aquila’s idea. Actions vs. Cards, and counts all cards vs. just cheapos. At the start of the turn, this is either a Ruined Village or a Necropolis. The better your engine, though, the more this becomes an Action-churning machine. Theme-wise, the more going on, the more Spectators you get. Overall, I really like this; it feels like a $1 card that can be strong but never overpowering, but often a good addition to your deck if you have an extra Buy and extra $.

Quote from: NoMoreFun

Bargain
Action/Reaction - $1
-
Trash a card from your hand, and gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.
-
When you gain a card, you may return this to the Supply from your hand to exchange that card for a card costing up to $1 more than it. Put in onto your deck in your buy phase, and into you hand otherwise.

A cheap Remodel variant with a Reaction basically treating this as a one-shot Copper to gain a more expensive card, and to put it in your hand/on your deck right away. Good for Actions and Treasures, not so hot for Victory cards. Bargaining Coppers would most likely yield more Bargains, which could have its use. That said, this is a very wordy card. It does a lot, that’s true, but there must be a way to tersify this.

Quote from: King Leon

Nest-Egg
Action-Reserve-Reaction - $1
-
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
At the start of your turn, you may call this for +$1.
-
When another player plays an Attack card, you may first play this from your hand.

A little bit of Candlestick Maker, a little bit of Caravan Guard. Saving a Nest-Egg can be a good defense from unruly Militias or greedy Goons. Mostly, though, it’ll just be used for spikes as segura said. It’s a fine $1 card.

Quote from: segura

Street
Action - $1
-
Reveal the top card of your deck and put it into your hand. If it’s an Action card, +1 Action.
Turn your Journey token over (it starts face up). If it’s face up, +1 Action.

Goes from Ruined Library to cantrip to Village depending on the card drawn and whether this is a even-timed play of Street. Theme-wise, a Street is only partly a village; with plenty of denizens in tow and on more active days, a Street can be busy enough to count as a Village on its own. Not the biggest fan of a wimpy effect requiring the Journey token. Nice idea, though.

Quote from: Asper

Alley
Action - $1
-
+3 Cards
Return this to the Supply.

I have absolutely no qualms with submitting cards posted elsewhere. I prefer making something new to exercise your creativity, but I digress. Anyway, the Alley is a one-shot Smithy. Get your seedy work done, then get out of there. On decent engine boards, this would be a good buy with an extra $1. An oldie, but a goodie.

Quote from: Gubump

Pendant
Treasure - $1
-
$2
When you play this, put it and a card from your hand into the discard pile of the player to your left.

I reworded this to make it more grammatically correct. I hope you don’t mind. Anyway, a one-shot Silver with an Ambassador effect. Without a good card to grief your opponent, you’re basically giving them a nice card (or even two). It’s an unblockable attack, but then the opponent gets it. I see a lot of back and forth with this that honestly makes me wonder whether it’s worth it. Do Pendants really get passed around that much, anyway?

Quote from: wittyhowlard

Scraps of Cloth
Treasure - $1
-
$0
+1 Buy
-
When you discard this from play, you may put this on top of your deck.

An interesting way to take a useless pile of rags and turn it into a reusable shopping bag capable of holding more buys. Finding the right time to buy Scraps of Cloth will be a challenge; if you already have an extra buy to use, do you really need these Scraps? You will also need a decent engine to make up for consistent having only 4 non-Scraps in hand, but hopefully the Scraps can help you get those pieces. This has potential, and I like the creativity.

Quote from: Gazbag

Weather Vane
Night - $1
-
Return this to the Supply. Reveal the top card of your deck. If it’s an…
Action card, gain a Treasure.
Treasure card, gain a Night.
Night card, gain an Action.

Yeah, there needs to be a better name for this. Secret Deal, perhaps? Anyway, it’s useless with Victory cards, and early on will mostly only gain you more copies of this, usually. Once you can reveal Actions and Nights, this can become very strong, even for a one-shot. It’ll take some finesse to make it work in your favor all the time, though, so I think it works.

Quote from: silvern

Cottage
Action - $1
-
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play another Cottage from your hand.
-
When you gain this, choose one: +1 Card; or +1 Action; or +1 Buy; or +$1.

Two Cottages in hand basically becomes a Village, while more will crank up the Actions. +1 Buy on gain can be rather nutty, as you can buy a lot of Cottages in one turn. I think this may be a little overpowered at $1. I’d take out the “play another Cottage” effect because the on-gain effect by itself makes this interesting.

Quote from: faust

Field
Action - $1
-
+1 Buy
Trash a non-Duration card you have in play costing $5 or more. Gain a card costing up to $1 per differently costed card you have in play.

Sowing a bunch of inexpensive cards will prove fruitful, but grains that grow too tall will be harvested first. An interesting drawback to this card, though a good engine board will make this reliable for gaining Provinces, perhaps. It’s very interesting, for sure.

Quote from: Udzu

Lucky Penny
Treasure/Reaction - $1
-
$1
-
When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand and either discard it to instead gain a card costing $1 more, or trash it to instead gain a card costing $2 more.

Either this is a Copper you can basically play when you gain a card outside of your Buy phase, or it’s a one-shot Silver for any gain. As you said, it can be a decent Curser/Junker counter. I’m not a fan of the name being so close to Lucky Coin, but otherwise, I like this.

Quote from: ClouduHieh

Outhouse
Action/Duration - $1
-
Flip your Journey token (it starts face up). If it’s face up, trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
At the start of your next turn, +1 Action, +$1

Similar to Fishing Village, but with a weak trashing effect instead. While it fits the theming well, that’s kind of weak for a Journey token effect, even if the card is a $1 wonder. Much like the Silver contest, the theming is great, but the mechanics need tweaking.

Quote from: Erick648

Iron Fist
Reaction - $1
-
When you buy a card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, if the bought card is an…
Action card, +1 Villager
Treasure card, +1 Coffers
Victory card, set aside the top card of your deck, putting it into your hand at the end of the turn.

A pure Reaction for $1 seems fitting. It basically adds a relevant bonus effect when you buy a card, which isn’t terrible. The theme, though… I don’t get it. How is absolute rule related to this effect?

Quote from: mail-mi

Loose Change
Treasure/Reserve - $1
-
$1
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
At the start of your Buy phase, you may call this, for +1 Buy.

It’s Coin of the Realm, but it gives you a Buy instead of two Actions. Again, the theming isn’t exactly fitting, but Coin of the Realm isn’t any better, so whatever. A fine entry.

Quote from: belugawhale

Actor
Action - $1
-
+1 Card
+1 Villager

Sometimes, it’s the simplest cards that can prove to be the most creative and beautiful. If you need the action right away, then yes, it’s just a cantrip. If not, though, you can save that Action for later. The theme works as it alludes to Acting Troupe. The art you chose is bizarre, to say the least, but other than that, this is a wonderful $1 card.

Quote from: Kudasai

Investment
Action - $1
-
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash all Investments you have in play (including this) to gain a non-Investment card costing exactly $1 per Investment you trashed.

Sort of like a variant of Coffers, really. With a spare buy and $ to spend, pick up an Investment, build them up, then trade them off for a good card. Getting this really only makes sense in that situation, though (apart from Upgrade/Remake and the like). Theming works great, of course. On boards without decent sources of +Buy or trash-for-gains, this would probably be ignored. I can see its use, though.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles

Yeast
Action - $1
-
+1 Action
Choose one: gain a Yeast; or trash this and a card from your hand.

Sure, a non-terminal trasher can be useful, but I wonder if this is swift enough to be worthwhile, especially if you use Yeast to gain more Yeast. How much should you let your bread rise before you bake it? It’s a good theme, just not the most exciting mechanic.

Quote from: FlyerBeast

Seneschal
Action - $1
-
+$1
You may trash an Estate from your hand for +1VP.
-
Setup: Each player starts with one extra Estate (not from the Supply).

The effect itself seems doable by itself for a $1 card – not too powerful by itself, but can be an option for boards without better trashers. The Setup rule, however, I just do not care for. For multiplayer games IRL, getting those extra Estates could be an issue (resolvable by packing six Estates in with Seneschal). As well, it’s possible to get a rather lame 2-4 opener while your opponent gets 3-4 or even 2-5. Themewise, it seems like something a Seneschal would do as the steward of the house. Still, I’d dump the Setup rule.

---

My top two were clear pretty much from the get-go: Scraps of Cloth by wittyhowlard and Actor by belugawhale. In the end, though, one card really fulfilled the theme of "I'd Buy That for $1." And that card is...

WINNER: ACTOR by belugawhale!
RUNNER-UP: Scraps of Cloth by wittyhowlard.

Congratulations on winning with your very first entry in these weekly contests, belugawhale! As I said, sometimes it's the simplest cards that make the biggest impact. I cannot wait to see your challenge. And thanks to everyone who participated!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: belugawhale on April 29, 2019, 01:51:49 am

Thanks for the warm welcome, Tejayes!

Contest #28 - Design a new card type (e.g. Gathering, Shelter, Night, Knights, etc.)

Hope this one's not too open-ended.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Udzu on April 29, 2019, 03:08:14 am

Presumably people should also design some example cards/piles with that type? If so, is there a limit (upper or lower) on how many to include?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #28: new type
Post by: Aquila on April 29, 2019, 04:20:42 am

Well, if again you don't mind a submission of an idea I've posted on the forum already...

The Kin type

(https://i.imgur.com/AEC75cs.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/AEC75cs.jpg)
There are some example Kin cards below. Select one for a game and you put these two markers under different non-Victory, non-Kin piles. The cards in them also get the Kin type. The 'original Kins', the ones below, then refer to all the Kins in the game (themselves and the marked ones) to achieve different interactions and effects in every game.

(https://i.imgur.com/V70Arfw.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/DrMs5tm.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/khyV9Y5.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/Soldccs.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/f9VMTI2.jpg)

Banner likes the marked Kins to be very collectible.
Mead Hall is affected entirely by the other Kins; it gets 2 of them from the Supply and plays them together, as a one-shot. (Edit: this should also exclude non-Victory Kins so you can't play Banners.)
Pillar lets one of the Kin piles empty out without contributing to game end, and uses the borrowed time to get VP.
Piper helps get an engine of Kins going; alternate Kin plays with Pipers to chain them together with one Action.
Secret Keeper discourages players from getting the Kins, adding a 1VP disadvantage to them. But if you do collect them, the Keeper can unlock their secret and become a power card.

I'd recommend using up to 2 'original Kins' so there isn't too much to take in. Everything's in turquoise to be easy to see.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MeNowDealWithIt on April 29, 2019, 01:11:51 pm

Duration cards are orange because they need to be distinguished from other cards during the cleanup phase. I feel like "In games using this" clauses should be better distinguished in the same way. There is precedent for creating a new type for a function that already exists: Lost in the Woods behaves exactly like an artifact.

The Automatic Type
The stuff below the line happens if the card is in the supply. Now let's do some crazy stuff with it!


Sterling
$3 Action - Automatic
+2 cards
-
When you gain a silver, gain a Sterling.


Megachurch
$4 Action - Automatic
Trash any number of cards from your hand
-
When you trash a card without using a Megachurch, put it into your hand.


Nomadic Tribe
$4 Action - Automatic
+2 cards
+2 actions
+1 buy
Put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck.
-
Cards cost $1 more. At the start of your turn, +$2


Royal Coppersmith
$6 Action - Automatic
+1 buy
Reveal your hand. +1$ per copper revealed
-
At the start of your turn, gain a copper to your hand, then you may trash a card from your hand.


Underground Witch
$5 Action - Automatic
+1 card
+1 action
+1 buy
Each other player gains a curse
-
The curse pile starts with 10 extra curses. When you gain a victory card, gain a curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 29, 2019, 05:55:11 pm

Megachurch does not specify from where the Megachurch is supposed to come. Gain to hand?
Nomadic Tribe seemed pretty degenerate. Note that Inn could be a $4 without the on-gain effect and topdecking is far worse than discarding.
Underground Witch is better than Familiar and thus far too strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on April 29, 2019, 06:22:10 pm

Work Type (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=&description=-1%20Work-%0AWhen%20you%20work%20this%2C%20&type=Work&credit=&creator=&price=&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=Work-&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=&c0.0=1.5&c0.1=0.7&c0.2=0.5&color1=0&size=0)
Work cards remain in play each Clean-Up until they have been worked sufficiently as indicated by the Work card. During Clean-Up, a card with "-3 Work-" on it is only discarded if it has been worked 3 times.
During your Action phase whenever you could play an Action, if you have any Work cards in play that have not met their Work count, you may "Work" that card by spending a +action and placing a Work token onto the card. You may work any number of work cards as much as you want in a turn (so long as you have +actions to spend and the card can take more work). Work tokens remain on the card until is discarded during a Clean-Up phase.

(https://i.imgur.com/GNvINHr.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/AlM81uu.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/yZRftkp.jpg)

Quote

Builders
Types: Action, Work
Cost: $2
+$2.

---

-2 Work- When you work this, +1 Buy.

Quote

Heir
Types: Action, Victory, Work
Cost: $4
+4 Cards. Reveal your hand and discard the revealed Victory cards.

---

-3 Work- Worth 1VP per work token here.

Quote

Metropolis
Types: Action, Work
Cost: $5
While this is in play at the start of your turn: +1 Action.

---

-1 Work- When you work this, reveal your hand. +1 Card per differently named card revealed.

Builder is like a Woodcutter, but you need to spend +actions for the +Buy.  It could provide early economy and then sit out of your deck until you need the +Buys if you wanted.
Heir is a powerful draw that requires you to spend 3 extra +actions to get it back into your deck.  Or just use it as a one-shot and put +actions into it for up to 2VP (an Heir with 3 Work tokens on it will be discarded the Clean-Up before the game ends and is therefore worth 0VP).
Metropolis can sit in play like a cross between Hireling and Barracks.  Pop that +action now for a draw with a bunch of variety.  Pop it later for a game-finishing turn.

Fundamentally, these are similar to Reserve cards. Their ability to be triggered multiple times, and the fact that they remain in play makes them more flexible and provides different effects, considerations, and combos. Oh, and you have to spend Actions to work them instead of having different calling conditions, doodleduh.

EDIT: Clarifications.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 29, 2019, 06:44:57 pm

Quote from: segura on April 29, 2019, 05:55:11 pm

Megachurch does not specify from where the Megachurch is supposed to come. Gain to hand?

"When you trash a card without using a Megachurch, put it into your hand." "It" refers to the card you trashed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on April 29, 2019, 08:15:32 pm

Type: Princess

Marriage
cost $6P - Event
Once per game: Put your Marriage token onto this. Gain a Princess from the Princess pile.

The Princesses are six differently-named unique cards that are not in the supply, but can be gained by buying Marriage.

Princess Sunny
cost $6P - Action - Princess - Duration
At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game: +3 Cards +2 Cards
(This is not in Supply. This stays in play.)

Princess Starsapphire
cost $6P - Action - Princess - Duration
At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game: +2 Buys
---
While this is in play, during your turns, cards (everywhere) costs $2 less (but not less than $0).
(This is not in Supply. This stays in play.)

Princess Luna
cost $6P - Victory - Princess
Worth 2vp per an Estate you have.
---
When you gain this, gain up to 5 Estates.
(This is not in Supply.)

Princess Alice
cost $6P - Action - Princess - Duration
At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game: you may discard your hand for +5 Cards.
(This is not in Supply. This stays in play.)

Princess Lily
cost $6P - Princess - Duration
When you gain this, put this in play, and take 1 extra turn per a Marriage token on Marriage.
(This is not in Supply. This stays in play.)

Princess Bell
cost $6P - Action - Princess - Duration
At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game: Look through your discard pile and put one into your hand.
(This is not in Supply. This stays in play.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 29, 2019, 08:59:16 pm

They look pretty imbalanced. +3 Cards is better than a Mountain Village effect. And the mulligan/Guide effect of Alice is extremely weak in comparison.
The general idea is good though and the Potion cost makes it less automatic than Citadel.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on April 29, 2019, 10:57:31 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 29, 2019, 06:22:10 pm

During your Action phase when you could play an Action, if you have any Work cards in play that have not met their Work count, you may "Work" that card by spending a +action and placing a Work token onto the card.

To clarify, can you only work each card once per turn?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on April 29, 2019, 11:05:50 pm

Do new types similar to projects, events and landmarks work for this contest?

Cause I have types similar to those (biomes)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on April 30, 2019, 08:33:15 pm

Contest #28 - Design a new card type - Entry:

Series cards:
Cards with the Series type are to be used in a Dominion series. A series is multiple games of Dominion (usually 3-7 games) played in a row, where points are added after each game and the player with the most points at the end of the series is the winner.

2 Series cards are added per game in the series. (Example: A series with 3 games will have 6 Series cards added.) These cards are in their own Series card area and are independent of each game (i.e. these piles are not cleaned up at the end of a game). 2 Series cards are added from the Series card area to each game after the game setup. All Series cards are visible throughout the series, but only Series cards added to the game can be gained. Some Series cards care about how a player is performing in the series, so having the cards visible helps with a players overall series strategy.

This does not encompass the full rules for Dominion series play, but it is hopefully enough to understand the following cards. :)

Sample Cards:
(https://i.imgur.com/vPn7Sr9.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/INJpCbx.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/3JzbSX0.jpg)

Note: I totally took the name/artwork for Scribe from Asper! I'll likely rename it later.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on April 30, 2019, 08:38:08 pm

Quote from: MeNowDealWithIt on April 29, 2019, 01:11:51 pm

Duration cards are orange because they need to be distinguished from other cards during the cleanup phase. I feel like "In games using this" clauses should be better distinguished in the same way. There is precedent for creating a new type for a function that already exists: Lost in the Woods behaves exactly like an artifact.

The Automatic Type
The stuff below the line happens if the card is in the supply. Now let's do some crazy stuff with it!

I had a similar idea, but I was focusing purely on negative effects to players while that Supply pile still had cards. Giving them a 'Monster' type seemed appropriate. Cool to see another player going for this. Good luck!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 30, 2019, 09:25:20 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on April 30, 2019, 08:33:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4KQvkZD.jpg)

Do you have to get in last place to have "lost the last game this series," or is losing just not getting first?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on April 30, 2019, 09:52:26 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 30, 2019, 09:25:20 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on April 30, 2019, 08:33:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4KQvkZD.jpg)

Do you have to get in last place to have "lost the last game this series," or is losing just not getting first?

Correct, losing is not getting first. So in a 3 player game, the players who got 2nd and 3rd place would get the reduced price on Escort the next game. If all players tied then nobody would get the reduced price the next game. If Escort is chosen to be in the first game of the series, then technically no players lost the last game as there was no last game and thus no reduced price for anyone.

I'm not quite happy with that last bit, but it would be tedious to add extra text just to address it. Thanks for the question!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 30, 2019, 10:03:08 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on April 30, 2019, 09:52:26 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 30, 2019, 09:25:20 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on April 30, 2019, 08:33:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4KQvkZD.jpg)

Do you have to get in last place to have "lost the last game this series," or is losing just not getting first?

Correct, losing is not getting first. So in a 3 player game, the players who got 2nd and 3rd place would get the reduced price on Escort the next game. If all players tied then nobody would get the reduced price the next game. If Escort is chosen to be in the first game of the series, then technically no players lost the last game as there was no last game and thus no reduced price for anyone.

I'm not quite happy with that last bit, but it would be tedious to add extra text just to address it. Thanks for the question!

I think that it would be clearer if it said "if you did not win the last game this series" instead (also, just grammatically, it should say "this costs 1 debt less" rather than "this cost 1 debt less").

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 01, 2019, 01:53:11 am

Quote from: Gubump on April 30, 2019, 10:03:08 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on April 30, 2019, 09:52:26 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 30, 2019, 09:25:20 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on April 30, 2019, 08:33:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4KQvkZD.jpg)

Do you have to get in last place to have "lost the last game this series," or is losing just not getting first?

Correct, losing is not getting first. So in a 3 player game, the players who got 2nd and 3rd place would get the reduced price on Escort the next game. If all players tied then nobody would get the reduced price the next game. If Escort is chosen to be in the first game of the series, then technically no players lost the last game as there was no last game and thus no reduced price for anyone.

I'm not quite happy with that last bit, but it would be tedious to add extra text just to address it. Thanks for the question!

I think that it would be clearer if it said "if you did not win the last game this series" instead (also, just grammatically, it should say "this costs 1 debt less" rather than "this cost 1 debt less").

Agreed. This will be slightly more clear and inline with how other Dominion cards are worded. Thanks for the feedback!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on May 02, 2019, 07:25:17 am

Fame Cards

When one or more Fame cards are in the kingdom, each player gets their own Fame mat. Fame mats track a number of "Feats" you can achieve during the game, and Fame cards become better the more of those you achieved. Whenever you achive a Feat, e.g. gain a Gold, you cover up the Feat on the board with a coin token. However, to achieve a Feat, not only must you fulfill the Feat's condition, but at the time you do, the Feat must be either one from the bottom row, or reachable by an arrow coming from an already achieved Feat (sort of like a skill tree).

Still not entirely sure about that "draw your deck" Feat, suggestions are welcome.

(https://i.imgur.com/WQ59u3D.jpg)

Here are some Fame cards:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZpcFlx6.png) (https://i.imgur.com/IMH0qWF.png) (https://i.imgur.com/7LvcRoA.png) (https://i.imgur.com/meJRQy4.png) (https://i.imgur.com/3lnybCk.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MeNowDealWithIt on May 02, 2019, 10:31:01 am

Quote from: Asper on May 02, 2019, 07:25:17 am

Adventure Seeker
$5 Action - Fame
+$1 per feat you achieved

I feel like this should have +1 buy on it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Asper on May 02, 2019, 10:53:44 am

Quote from: MeNowDealWithIt on May 02, 2019, 10:31:01 am

Quote from: Asper on May 02, 2019, 07:25:17 am

Adventure Seeker
$5 Action - Fame
+$1 per feat you achieved

I feel like this should have +1 buy on it.

Yeah, probably. It had for the longest time. In fact, it has in my thread. When I came up with Impostor, I moved the buy from here to there to help that one out a bit. But I admit, it's not the greatest reason to make a card weaker. On the other hand, it can generate up to +$5 on every board, which isn't exactly bad, is it? Here's an alt version I considered posting before sticking with the vanillaish one:
(https://i.imgur.com/1tQHwqz.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on May 02, 2019, 06:46:10 pm

Quote from: Asper on May 02, 2019, 07:25:17 am

Fame Cards

(https://i.imgur.com/WQ59u3D.jpg)

This idea is awesome!
IMO the top feat should be something different.  It is pretty likely that by the time you are that high on your feat tree, you'll be buying a province regardless.  Maybe that's what you want, and time is the real obstacle, not deciding whether it is worth it or not.  If so, please ignore me. But I think it would be more interesting if you had to decide between doing something good for your feat cards or doing something good for the rest of the game.  Buying a Province will probably be a no brainer.

What if it was something like "Bought a curse" or "Gained two Coppers" or "Ended your turn without buying a card"?

Title: Re: Contest #28: New card type
Post by: Gubump on May 02, 2019, 08:25:21 pm

New card type: Queue

The entirety of each player’s Queue pile is face down except for the topmost card, and you can only look at the topmost card of a given queue pile. During the appropriate phase, you may play the top card of your Queue pile (this costs an Action during your Action phase). Unless stated otherwise, cards played this way are discarded as normal at end of turn. Each player starts with a Borough, Royal Library, and Marketplace shuffled into their Queue piles.

You only use the Queue pile mechanic when at least one card in the Kingdom has the Queue type.

The "base" Queue cards:

(https://i.imgur.com/SHQpGGP.png) (https://i.imgur.com/rIIUfr1.png) (https://i.imgur.com/IjoVRVh.png)

Some Kingdom Queue cards:

(https://i.imgur.com/S6gF2Hn.png) (https://i.imgur.com/mfljD7U.png) (https://i.imgur.com/gy0ic8v.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 02, 2019, 11:24:29 pm

How would the "put it on the bottom" cards work with Scheme?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 02, 2019, 11:41:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 02, 2019, 11:24:29 pm

How would the "put it on the bottom" cards work with Scheme?

I would imagine that, as the wording currently is, since both effects have the same trigger, you get to choose which effect happens first. Since both effects involve moving the card, the other effect then loses track. Therefore, Scheme can still work (except on Maid, because its trigger is different).

If Gubump wants them to not work with Scheme, then the wording should be "when you would discard this from play". I don't know what the intention is, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 03, 2019, 04:31:41 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 02, 2019, 11:41:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 02, 2019, 11:24:29 pm

How would the "put it on the bottom" cards work with Scheme?

I would imagine that, as the wording currently is, since both effects have the same trigger, you get to choose which effect happens first. Since both effects involve moving the card, the other effect then loses track. Therefore, Scheme can still work (except on Maid, because its trigger is different).

If Gubump wants them to not work with Scheme, then the wording should be "when you would discard this from play". I don't know what the intention is, though.

Your understanding is correct.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 03, 2019, 12:28:04 pm

The Queue type is quite interesting. One thing to keep in mind is to always mentally add +1 Card as you do not have to draw into the cards in your Queue pile.

Henchman could be implemented like Hireling, with the difference being that it provides +2 Actions and +1 Buy one turn earlier, i.e. on play.
Maid seems too weak, it is barely better than Bridge/Sacred Groove and you have to go through all the junk cards in your Queue pile to make it work.
Student seems better, if you don't want to dig through your Queue pile it is at least a one-shot (instead of a two shot).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 03, 2019, 12:37:28 pm

Quote from: Asper on May 02, 2019, 07:25:17 am

Fame Cards

When one or more Fame cards are in the kingdom, each player gets their own Fame mat. Fame mats track a number of "Feats" you can achieve during the game, and Fame cards become better the more of those you achieved. Whenever you achive a Feat, e.g. gain a Gold, you cover up the Feat on the board with a coin token. However, to achieve a Feat, not only must you fulfill the Feat's condition, but at the time you do, the Feat must be either one from the bottom row, or reachable by an arrow coming from an already achieved Feat (sort of like a skill tree).

Love the idea. But I feel like some cards should care about more than just how many feats you achieved, if you want to have the feats be a "tree" with a set order. If "Gain a Province" doesn't count as any better than "Gain a Duchy", then why bother restricting when you can do it? It's already harder to gain a Province early anyway. If you had a card that said "if you have achieved the Gain a Province Feat, then ..." then it would make it so that the top feat is something you feel rewarded for having worked towards, instead of it just being 1 additional Feat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 03, 2019, 12:45:13 pm

Quote from: Asper on May 02, 2019, 07:25:17 am

Fame Cards

When one or more Fame cards are in the kingdom, each player gets their own Fame mat. Fame mats track a number of "Feats" you can achieve during the game, and Fame cards become better the more of those you achieved. Whenever you achive a Feat, e.g. gain a Gold, you cover up the Feat on the board with a coin token. However, to achieve a Feat, not onlym ust they fulfill the Feat's condition, but at the time they did so, the Feat must be either one from the bottom row, or reachable by an arrow coming from an already achieved Feat (sort of like a skill tree).

Still not entirely sure about that "draw your deck" Feat, suggestions are welcome.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that one of the Feats is board dependant but it does feel kind of off in some way with only one being like that. The only thing I could think of to replace it was something Magic Lampy, counting non-duplicate cards in play, not sure what exact numbers could be appropriate.

I'm not sure I like that you can achieve the other Feats before you pick up a Fame card. It seems kind of cheesy that you can achieve the other 5 Feats and then only bother to pick up the Fame card when it's already really strong, but maybe I'm underestimating how much you have to go out of your way to get those Feats. It would seem more natural to me to have the Fame board be inverted so there's only the "Gained a Fame" feat on the bottom row, but I'm sure you've thought much more about this than I have and there's a good reason behind it being the way that it is.

Pawn Shop seems like it might be broken to me? Once you get to 5 feats it lets you discard 3 cards to gain a Province and it seems to enable the Duchy and Gold gaining feats pretty well itself. Actually it also kind of enables the $2 feat too because you should be able to discard some things and be left with $2 without missing out on too much. I guess I just think that a card that can gain Provinces without having to combo with any other cards is not a good idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 03, 2019, 12:52:45 pm

I really like Gazbag's inverted tree idea. You could also have abilities depend on having reached a specific level, rather than having feats referred to by name.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on May 04, 2019, 04:20:05 am

Quote from: Gazbag on May 03, 2019, 12:45:13 pm

Quote from: Asper on May 02, 2019, 07:25:17 am

Fame Cards

When one or more Fame cards are in the kingdom, each player gets their own Fame mat. Fame mats track a number of "Feats" you can achieve during the game, and Fame cards become better the more of those you achieved. Whenever you achive a Feat, e.g. gain a Gold, you cover up the Feat on the board with a coin token. However, to achieve a Feat, not onlym ust they fulfill the Feat's condition, but at the time they did so, the Feat must be either one from the bottom row, or reachable by an arrow coming from an already achieved Feat (sort of like a skill tree).

Still not entirely sure about that "draw your deck" Feat, suggestions are welcome.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that one of the Feats is board dependant but it does feel kind of off in some way with only one being like that. The only thing I could think of to replace it was something Magic Lampy, counting non-duplicate cards in play, not sure what exact numbers could be appropriate.

I'm not sure I like that you can achieve the other Feats before you pick up a Fame card. It seems kind of cheesy that you can achieve the other 5 Feats and then only bother to pick up the Fame card when it's already really strong, but maybe I'm underestimating how much you have to go out of your way to get those Feats. It would seem more natural to me to have the Fame board be inverted so there's only the "Gained a Fame" feat on the bottom row, but I'm sure you've thought much more about this than I have and there's a good reason behind it being the way that it is.

Pawn Shop seems like it might be broken to me? Once you get to 5 feats it lets you discard 3 cards to gain a Province and it seems to enable the Duchy and Gold gaining feats pretty well itself. Actually it also kind of enables the $2 feat too because you should be able to discard some things and be left with $2 without missing out on too much. I guess I just think that a card that can gain Provinces without having to combo with any other cards is not a good idea.

I have played a game (http://forum.dominion-welt.de/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=90&start=590#p8348) with Headhunter, Adventure Seeker (german version: +1 buy) and Hall of Fame and it was brisk and very interesting. You have to buy Head Hunter early.
look (https://postimg.cc/7fVhQ8K8)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on May 05, 2019, 05:06:46 am

Decrees
Decrees are similar to Landmarks, but they are only valid for one round. Before each regular turn of the first player, a new decree is revealed, which is valid until the next regular turn of that player. Extra turns from cards like Possession, Outpost, Mission and Fleet do not count as regular turns. In each game 10 decrees are randomly selected. The pile has the same shuffle rules like the player’s decks.

Here are some examples:
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/1.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/2.png)
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/3.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/4.png)
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/5.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/6.png)

I know, the wording of Coronation should be just: „Each player gains a Copper. Put the Decree deck into its discard pile.“, but it comes from an earlier version, where this was the only card, which could reshuffle the Decree deck.

And here is a bonus card (not strictly better than Zombie Spy):
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/pyu807uy.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: belugawhale on May 07, 2019, 02:27:10 am

24 hour warning before judging

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on May 07, 2019, 06:42:37 pm

I might as well join in...

Morning Cards

Nocturne gave us the Night, a new phase with cards to be played after the Buy phase. Now, I introduce its logical opposite, the Morning phase. This phase takes place before the Action phase, but after any Duration effects take place. This means that you must have the Morning card in your hand at the start of your turn (or through a Duration draw effect) if you wish to play it. That will make playing these cards more difficult, so I tried to make the effects rather powerful as a result.

Much like Night cards, Morning cards require no Actions or other resources to play. Their main effect is to make certain effects throughout the rest of your turn more powerful. For the most part, these empowering effects will activate when you play the Morning card itself.

EDIT: In order to make them less swingy and less dead-when-drawn-during-turn, Morning cards now have a universal effect in which when you discard a Morning card from your hand during your Cleanup phase, you may reveal it and put it on top of your deck. I won't add this to the card text because then the cards would be too wordy. As long as it's a Morning card, you can do this.

Card Examples:

(https://i.imgur.com/oGAcG5Ml.png) (https://i.imgur.com/W0jQ6eYl.png) (https://i.imgur.com/NS3mYDSl.png) (https://i.imgur.com/vFhXRBIl.png) (https://i.imgur.com/tfvxmG0l.png)

Quote

Mudlarks
Morning - $2
--
You may trash a card from your hand.
-
While this is in play, whenever you trash a card, +1 Card.

"Mudlark" is a slang term for garbage man, and as this was the best "old timey" artwork I could find for anything similar, I went with it. Anyway, the mudlarks take a little of your garbage, which they can use for their own benefit. If you have more garbage later, they'll swing by again.

Quote

Telescope
Morning - $3
--
Look at the top 4 cards of your deck. Put one back and discard the rest.
-
While this is in play, whenever you discard a card from your hand or your deck, you may put it on top of your deck.

(Oops, I should have said "Other than during Cleanup" for the in-play effect. Pretend it's there)
Your trusty Telescope can see what's coming in or going out and help you prepare for it accordingly. I worry it's too much like Cartographer for its price, but as it's only playable in the Morning and doesn't allow you to chain them as well as Carto (plus you're forced to keep at least one card), I kept it at $3.

Quote

Clock Tower
Morning - $4
--
+1 Action
-
While this is in play, whenever you have at least two Actions remaining after playing a card, draw up to five cards in hand.

(Oops again, this should say "before your Buy phase" so that it's not completely busted. Also, the draw-up-to-5 takes place after resolving the effects of the card.)
The bell in the Clock Tower rings early in the morning, waking up the eager townsfolk to get them to work. By itself, it's effectively a Village. The Kingdom will also need the right cards to keep your Actions high and hand-size low enough, but if that happens, the Clock Tower will become a vital engine component.

Quote

Fishmonger
Morning - $5
--
+1 Buy
+$1
-
While this is in play, whenever you play an Action card with +$ amounts in its text, +$1.

Similar to his kith the Herbalist, the gone-but-not-forgotten Woodcutter, etc., the Fishmonger gives his highness an extra Buy and some money through his wares. However, this fellow's fishy fare is known to energize the Kingdom's other money-makers. Peddler variants especially will use the fish to become stinking rich. *sniff sniff* Or maybe they're just stinking...

Quote

Mushroom Hunt
Morning - $6
--
Gain a Gold to your hand.
-
While this is in play, whenever you gain a Victory card, you may gain a Treasure costing less than it.

One experienced at the art of the Mushroom Hunt can easily find a delicacy worth its weight in Gold right away. Plus, the more land she is able to hunt on, the more tasty treasures she can accrue. Of course, she also knows when not to hunt, as to not pick up anything poisonous (like a Copper).

-

I may fix the wordings later, if I have time (in other words, nope).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 07, 2019, 07:37:26 pm

Yikes! Morning cards are a really good idea. Can't comment on any potential balance issues, but these all feel like a good addition to the Dominion universe.

Great type name to counter the Night type as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on May 07, 2019, 07:48:42 pm

So...
Toll Cards

Ever wished games would just last that little bit longer? Think you could get the edge on your opponent if you had just one more turn? These cards are meant to give the ending of the game a bit more drama, if it needed it. They sit outside of the Supply until placed on top of supply piles (One type each for Treasures, Actions and Victory cards, each with a different way to place them there) and serve to make the cards people really want just out of reach, until someone buys one and get its negative effect.

The regrettably wordy "While in the Supply, if the card under this costs less than $x, this costs equal to it" bit at the end of their text means that if you cover the Estates with one, it'll cost $2 to get out of the way (into your deck) but if you cover the Provinces with one, it'll only cost $6 to clear. And yes, Salt The Earth and Lurker deal with some of these nuisances instantly, no problem.

(https://i.imgur.com/yRlQrJ6.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/ebAMJFY.jpg)

Quote

Road
$5 Action
--
+3 Cards
Put a Toll Booth card on top of an Action supply pile that doesn't have one, and if you did, trash this.

Roads can lead you places, and in this case they're places that'll cost you. If you've managed to play enough of these to cover every Action supply pile, hey, you don't lose it.

Quote

Toll Booth
$5* Action-Toll
--
+1 Action
+ $1
-
When you gain this, look at the top 4 cards of your deck and discard all the Treasures other than Copper, putting the rest back in any order. While in the Supply, if the card under this costs less than $5, this costs equal to it.

A bit of a rubbish Action once you have it, but I didn't want it to do nothing, it's not a Curse...

(https://i.imgur.com/mUUjQU7.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/XrsXSGw.jpg)

Quote

Fortify
$5 Event
--
Put a Portcullis card on top of each Treasure supply pile that doesn't have one.
If you placed 3 or more cards, +3 Coffers.

I suppose this is also worth buying if you get really inconsistent amounts of coin each turn, to turn the excess one turn into Coffers for the next...

Quote

Portcullis
$5* Treasure-Toll
--
$2
-
When you buy this, trash a Treasure other than Copper you have in play and gain a cheaper Treasure. While in the Supply, if the card under this costs less than $5, this costs equal to it.

Bummer! A reverse Mine? And you have to inflict it on yourself!? If you want you can trash a Gold to get rid of another one at least.

(https://i.imgur.com/4oJpWLe.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/11l6ZHl.jpg)

Quote

Gatehouse
$6 Action-Treasure
--
Put a Wayside Inn card on top of every Victory supply pile that doesn't have one.
-
This is always gained onto your deck. This is worth 2 VP per Toll card in the Supply at the end of the game.

The gaining-onto-your-deck is just to ensure it could be worth the buying risk on your penultimate turn. It pays to buy these as late as possible, too, so no-one else can get rid of the rest of the Toll cards...

Quote

Wayside Inn
$6* Victory-Toll
--
1 VP
-
When you gain this, return an Action card you have in play to the Supply. While in the Supply, if the card under this costs less than $6, this costs equal to it.

The endgame's gonna get weird when you're sacrificing Action cards just to be able to end the game. Hope you built a deck that can withstand it! They return to the supply just in case that might, at a pinch, prevent a three-pile ending.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 07, 2019, 10:31:27 pm

Traitor cards are cards that your opponents can play from your hand during their turn. They would ideally have different backs similar to Stash. When an opponent plays one of your Traitors, the Traitor is set on the table and then put back in your hand during their Cleanup phase. You play the Traitors in your Action phase, and you may play any number of Traitors from any number of opponents' hands in a single phase. You may look at a Traitor from your opponents' hand and then choose not to play it.

(https://i.imgur.com/vfFTUL8.png)(https://i.imgur.com/HB4qtwN.png)(https://i.imgur.com/QcbKSEF.png)(https://i.imgur.com/F8SxkJZ.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 08, 2019, 03:33:09 am

Quote from: Tejayes on May 07, 2019, 06:42:37 pm

I might as well join in...

Morning Cards

I like the idea but the concept is fairly anti-engine-y and could be too swingy. Take e.g. Fishmonger, it is a nice payload card but in the situations in which it shines it could easily be dead more than half of the time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on May 08, 2019, 06:38:32 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fK2Pqgo_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

(https://i.imgur.com/sqnfEf2_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)


(https://i.imgur.com/0dyHMW1_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on May 08, 2019, 06:55:24 am

My activities aren’t actions, so technically you could play more than one in a turn, however most of the time you’ll end up trashing them, or in chess s case giving the player to your left a bunch of victory tokens. I did it this way mostly for the theme. Also there will only be 5 to buy or gain. And 2 activities will be added to the supply in much the same way, events, landmarks ect. Would be. Since they are smaller and additional piles they will not count towards the empty piles to end the game. But make no mistake they are in the supply.

I had other activities so I’ll just post a separate thread for my activities if you guys like em. This contest is I’m sure almost over anyway. 3 of them should suffice to give you a feel for the idea I had for this contest.

All the activities will cost at least $6. And yes I know there’s a word missing in riddle (your) deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 08, 2019, 09:09:43 am

Last minute entry: Depletion cards

Depletion cards can be depleted (putting one of your depletion tokens on its pile) for an additional benefit but then become weaker in some way. Some cards can replenish themselves after being depleted.

Sample cards:
(https://i.imgur.com/6oqsjCA.png)(https://i.imgur.com/n7VOWde.png)(https://i.imgur.com/5SWNuKN.png)
Deposits should say "In games using this" in its below the line text, the idea is you choose between having access to the action or upgrading a Silver for free. I'm rushing this so apologies for the sloppiness.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on May 08, 2019, 12:12:38 pm

Quote from: segura on May 08, 2019, 03:33:09 am

Quote from: Tejayes on May 07, 2019, 06:42:37 pm

I might as well join in...

Morning Cards

I like the idea but the concept is fairly anti-engine-y and could be too swingy. Take e.g. Fishmonger, it is a nice payload card but in the situations in which it shines it could easily be dead more than half of the time.

Very much true, segura. I had hoped to offset the often-deadness of Morning cards by making the effects potentially very powerful. Perhaps I would need to power them up further, or have some sort of mechanic that would make it easier to get Morning cards on top of your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 08, 2019, 12:39:07 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 08, 2019, 09:09:43 am

Last minute entry: Depletion cards

Depletion cards can be depleted (putting one of your depletion tokens on its pile) for an additional benefit but then become weaker in some way. Some cards can replenish themselves after being depleted.

The name is throwing me off, because it makes me think that it has something to do with trashing a card from the supply pile, or caring about if the pile is empty. Maybe something like "tagged"? Either way, I think you'd want "you" in the text in some way, because "if this isn't depleted" isn't clear if it means that you personally have a token on it, or if anyone does. So you could have "if you have tagged this", or "if you have depleted this" vs "if anyone has depleted this."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on May 08, 2019, 03:43:26 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on May 08, 2019, 12:12:38 pm

Quote from: segura on May 08, 2019, 03:33:09 am

Quote from: Tejayes on May 07, 2019, 06:42:37 pm

I might as well join in...

Morning Cards

I like the idea but the concept is fairly anti-engine-y and could be too swingy. Take e.g. Fishmonger, it is a nice payload card but in the situations in which it shines it could easily be dead more than half of the time.

Very much true, segura. I had hoped to offset the often-deadness of Morning cards by making the effects potentially very powerful. Perhaps I would need to power them up further, or have some sort of mechanic that would make it easier to get Morning cards on top of your deck.

I don't think powering them up more is the right answer.  Then they will be very swingy.  Either dead, or super powerful.  Your other idea sounds better to me.  Self-scheming could work, or making some of them durations would work, or even an on-buy topdecking effect.  Then they'd at least work once.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Tejayes on May 08, 2019, 07:18:15 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on May 08, 2019, 03:43:26 pm

Quote from: Tejayes on May 08, 2019, 12:12:38 pm

Quote from: segura on May 08, 2019, 03:33:09 am

Quote from: Tejayes on May 07, 2019, 06:42:37 pm

I might as well join in...

Morning Cards

I like the idea but the concept is fairly anti-engine-y and could be too swingy. Take e.g. Fishmonger, it is a nice payload card but in the situations in which it shines it could easily be dead more than half of the time.

Very much true, segura. I had hoped to offset the often-deadness of Morning cards by making the effects potentially very powerful. Perhaps I would need to power them up further, or have some sort of mechanic that would make it easier to get Morning cards on top of your deck.

I don't think powering them up more is the right answer.  Then they will be very swingy.  Either dead, or super powerful.  Your other idea sounds better to me.  Self-scheming could work, or making some of them durations would work, or even an on-buy topdecking effect.  Then they'd at least work once.

I decided to add the self-scheming effect to all Morning cards, and made this change to my original post. All Morning cards have this effect, so no need to put it on the cards themselves (otherwise, they'd be far too wordy).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: belugawhale on May 09, 2019, 11:52:52 am

Sorry about the delay in judging, I will try to respond by this evening (14 hours from now).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 10, 2019, 06:34:12 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on May 08, 2019, 06:38:32 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fK2Pqgo_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

(https://i.imgur.com/sqnfEf2_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)


(https://i.imgur.com/0dyHMW1_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

How does Falconer work? Chess and Riddle are Treasure and Night but Falconer is just an Activity-Attack, when can you play it?

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 08, 2019, 12:39:07 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 08, 2019, 09:09:43 am

Last minute entry: Depletion cards

Depletion cards can be depleted (putting one of your depletion tokens on its pile) for an additional benefit but then become weaker in some way. Some cards can replenish themselves after being depleted.

The name is throwing me off, because it makes me think that it has something to do with trashing a card from the supply pile, or caring about if the pile is empty. Maybe something like "tagged"? Either way, I think you'd want "you" in the text in some way, because "if this isn't depleted" isn't clear if it means that you personally have a token on it, or if anyone does. So you could have "if you have tagged this", or "if you have depleted this" vs "if anyone has depleted this."

I rushed these out because I thought judging was imminent so I didn't think about this kind of thing too much, so this kind of feedback is much appreciated. I personally don't feel like depleted is a "loaded" term in dominion and I think it's quite flavourful too, what do other people think? I decided to move all of the text into the rule book basically and just use the word depleted on the cards, but I didn't really write a rule book entry to go with them so hopefully it'd be better if there was one? I see it as kind of a "+1 Coffers" vs "Take a Coin token" thing, if I decide to do anything further with these I'll definitely try and improve the wording though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on May 10, 2019, 07:19:17 pm

Well on the card it says at the start of your turn. All my activities except certain ones like chess for instance can be played at the start of the turn. Before any action is played, sorta like how when you play dominion online and you multiple things you can do before you play your first action. Like call the rat catcher from the tavern mat, and then I’ll get my +2 cards from my enchantress, now I’ll pick a card from my archive, oh and now I’ll play falconer from my hand. Now my Action phase begins.

Meaning since it’s not an action it can only be played at the start of your turn, the start of your turn is in other effects in dominion, this is basically the same thing, the only difference is if it’s in your hand before action phase begins, which means certain existing cards will work well with my activity cards, I have other activity cards I just submitted only 3 for the contest, depending how there received here I’ll create a new thread for them.

Oh and of course if falconer was drawn into your hand after your first action, then of course you can’t play it, so despite it being a powerful attack, the amount of times you’ll be able to play it should keep it in line.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on May 10, 2019, 07:26:15 pm

Hasn't he decided the winner yet? Maybe Ms. (or Mr.) wittyhowlard needs to prepare the next challenge after next Sunday... (I just can't wait posting.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 10, 2019, 07:37:30 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on May 10, 2019, 07:19:17 pm

Well on the card it says at the start of your turn. All my activities except certain ones like chess for instance can be played at the start of the turn. Before any action is played, sorta like how when you play dominion online and you multiple things you can do before you play your first action. Like call the rat catcher from the tavern mat, and then I’ll get my +2 cards from my enchantress, now I’ll pick a card from my archive, oh and now I’ll play falconer from my hand. Now my Action phase begins.

Meaning since it’s not an action it can only be played at the start of your turn, the start of your turn is in other effects in dominion, this is basically the same thing, the only difference is if it’s in your hand before action phase begins, which means certain existing cards will work well with my activity cards, I have other activity cards I just submitted only 3 for the contest, depending how there received here I’ll create a new thread for them.

Oh and of course if falconer was drawn into your hand after your first action, then of course you can’t play it, so despite it being a powerful attack, the amount of times you’ll be able to play it should keep it in line.

So if Activities are played at the start of your turn why can't Chess be played at the start of your turn? Nothing on the card says it can't.  If Falconer can only be played at the start of your turn because of the text on the card then is Activity just the setup part? This is all very very confusing to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on May 10, 2019, 08:40:50 pm

True it doesn’t and it doesn’t need to the treasure and night one let you play them, at the beginning of the game or during one of those phases making it easier to play those cards, falconer doesn’t allow it to be played later, like the other 2. Chess is awesome because if you draw it during your action phase you’ll still be able to play chess at night, same with riddle, however if you decide to play it at the beginning of your turn you won’t get the treasure part of the effect and if you played it earlier and didn’t have enough for province then wouldn’t be able to play another activity without obviously a risk. So it’s recommended you play riddle as a treasure. (Besides a riddle is sopose to be a little confusing otherwise it wouldn’t be much of a riddle that’s why I did that on purpose) Riddles are really hard to solve, so if you manage solve it you get a huge reward. Also if you played cards like cartographer before riddle was played it would be a little easier to solve it which is another reason why it’s 5 out of 7. With a good action in play it will make riddle a little easier to pull off.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 10, 2019, 09:08:07 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on May 10, 2019, 08:40:50 pm

Chess is awesome because if you draw it during your action phase you’ll still be able to play chess at night, same with riddle, however if you decide to play it at the beginning of your turn you won’t get the treasure part of the effect and if you played it earlier and didn’t have enough for province then wouldn’t be able to play another activity without obviously a risk. So it’s recommended you play riddle as a treasure.

I don't quite understand this. If you play a Silver, you get +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}, no matter when you play it. You might be playing it during your action phase, because of Black Market or Storyteller. You might be playing it at the start of your turn, like an Activity card, thanks to Prince or Summon combined with Black Market. Either way, Silver always gives +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} when played. Similarly, Riddle would always give +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} when played, whether it were played during your buy phase or at the start of your turn.

I think you're missing some rules explanation to go along with your cards... from just your posts, it's not clear what the "Activity" type means. You have said that it means that it can be played at the start of your turn, but in both the case of Chess and Riddle, I don't see any reason why you would want to play it at the start of your turn rather than during the Night or Buy phases respectively. Making the type "Activity" doesn't seem to actually do anything there.

Take a look at the Morning Cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg799704#msg799704) idea posted above. This adds cards that can be played at the start of your turn, similar to your Activity idea. You need to clarify whether Activity cards get played before or after "at the start of your turn" effects like Durations, similar to how the Morning cards posts specifies that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on May 10, 2019, 09:33:52 pm

It doesn’t say on the night cards this can only be played during your night phase does it, no just in a rule book, plus I’d dont think I’ve gotten extra treasure playing storyteller in dominion online before, I played silvers and didn’t get extra treasure just cards.

So if I go with activity for reals I’ll just make a rule book for em. This idea was mostly just for the contest. If it’s too confusing then ignore it, this is just for the contest.

Which seems to me if the judge is too busy to come to a decision, the one who started this thread should be allowed to judge, cause I just want to move on to the next contest. It’s not like I’m going to win anyways.

The activity cards weren’t originally meant to be played just at the beginning of the game, that wasn’t the point of them, the point was they would do something pretty cool or unique, but no one cares about that. I just wanted to come up with a new concept to dominion with some cool effects, that’s what this contest was sopose to be about, not wether when the card can be played, it’s a fan card it doesn’t have to be perfect.

At least give the judge a time limit: so we can move on. Unless you guys want to stay on this contest for another week.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 10, 2019, 10:49:19 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on May 10, 2019, 09:33:52 pm

It doesn’t say on the night cards this can only be played during your night phase does it, no just in a rule book,

Right, I'm not saying that it needs to be on the cards. But you didn't provide any rules when you posted the cards; it was only in a later post that you mentioned the "play at the start of your turn" thing; and there were still some things not clear about how it works.

Quote

plus I’d dont think I’ve gotten extra treasure playing storyteller in dominion online before, I played silvers and didn’t get extra treasure just cards.

Storyteller makes you spend all of your _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}, and then gives you cards for each _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} spent. So when you play the Silver, you get +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}, which then turns into drawing 2 cards. The point is that the big _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} on the Silver still works even if you aren't playing it in your buy phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on May 11, 2019, 12:11:02 am

Yeah but it doesn’t give you +2 treasure for it. It gives you Cards instead, I’m saying playing riddle won’t give you treasure before the buy phase exactly like storyteller won’t give treasure cards money either.

But I sopose riddle can still give you +1 Card for storyteller.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: belugawhale on May 11, 2019, 02:46:40 am

Challenge #28 - Commentary and Results

I am terribly sorry about the delay in judging. I definitely bit off more than I could chew, so to speak.

Shortlisted card types are bolded.

---

Quote from: Aquila on April 29, 2019, 04:20:42 am

The Kin Type

When you add a Kin pile to the Kingdom, put the 2 Kin Markers under random other non-Victory, non-Kin kingdom piles. This game, cards from those piles are also Kins.

The idea of modifying card types is cute and adds replayability. Nice mix of card categories, ranging from alt-vp to village variant. One gripe I have is how difficult it is to balance the cards due to the amount of variability in which cards become Kins.

Quote from: MeNowDealWithIt on April 29, 2019, 01:11:51 pm

The Automatic Type

Duration cards are orange because they need to be distinguished from other cards during the cleanup phase. I feel like "In games using this" clauses should be better distinguished in the same way. There is precedent for creating a new type for a function that already exists: Lost in the Woods behaves exactly like an artifact.
The stuff below the line happens if the card is in the supply. Now let's do some crazy stuff with it!

I like the ideas and mechanics in the cards, especially Nomadic Tribe, which makes +Buy give diminishing returns. However, I feel like the Automatic type is overly broad and could be represented in ways easier to remember. I would prefer a physical, distinct card similar to a Landmark to remind me of the changed rule instead of a blurb under a line in the card.

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 29, 2019, 06:22:10 pm

The Work Type

Work cards remain in play each Clean-Up until they have been worked sufficiently as indicated by the Work card. During Clean-Up, a card with "-3 Work-" on it is only discarded if it has been worked 3 times.
During your Action phase whenever you could play an Action, if you have any Work cards in play that have not met their Work count, you may "Work" that card by spending a +action and placing a Work token onto the card. You may work any number of work cards as much as you want in a turn (so long as you have +actions to spend and the card can take more work). Work tokens remain on the card until is discarded during a Clean-Up phase.

A neat concept with similarities to Reserve cards and overpay with Actions. The work mechanic adds an interesting decision on where to spend Actions, and the ability to have them pseudo-trash themselves until they are needed, or worked to get their on-play effect again (à la Wine Merchant) makes them very flexible.

Quote from: majiponi on April 29, 2019, 08:15:32 pm

The Princess Type

The Princesses are six differently-named unique cards that are not in the supply, but can be gained by buying Marriage ($6P).

The Princess cards are a set of cards with high opportunity cost (more than a Province), but very powerful effects. The idea is thematic, but very swingy.
My greatest fear with these cards is racing to collide $6P to gain one, similar to colliding Tournament with Province to gain a Prize, but even more pronounced. On a board with no +Buy, whichever player gains Princess Starsapphire might decide the game. On the other hand, there are other Princesses such as Princess Luna and Princess Lily that are more endgame-oriented. One variation might be to have Princesses with different costs, to introduce the decision of getting a Princess early for earlygame benefit but missing out on a more powerful benefit lategame.

Quote from: Kudasai on April 30, 2019, 08:33:15 pm

Series Cards

Cards with the Series type are to be used in a Dominion series. A series is multiple games of Dominion (usually 3-7 games) played in a row, where points are added after each game and the player with the most points at the end of the series is the winner.

The idea of cards that transcend the boundary between games is a cool concept. I like how Escort introduces negative feedback into the game, and how Scribe makes your deck weaker this game to boost your deck next game, but Scribe might snowball too hard since it carries into the starting deck of each game in the series. Also, I think the scoring mechanic might need tweaking, since it adds a new dynamic, trying to maximize the point difference between you and your opponent, which might not be fun. Definitely a card type more suited to serious Dominion players than the average casual boardgamer.

Quote from: Asper on May 02, 2019, 07:25:17 am

Fame Cards

When one or more Fame cards are in the kingdom, each player gets their own Fame mat. Fame mats track a number of "Feats" you can achieve during the game, and Fame cards become better the more of those you achieved. Whenever you achive a Feat, e.g. gain a Gold, you cover up the Feat on the board with a coin token. However, to achieve a Feat, not only must you fulfill the Feat's condition, but at the time you do, the Feat must be either one from the bottom row, or reachable by an arrow coming from an already achieved Feat (sort of like a skill tree).

I like how everyone has their own "achievements" to work towards, and the decisions involved in choosing whether and what order to go for them to boost Fame cards or to go a more traditional route. I like Pawn Shop, an interesting variant of Artificer that gets more powerful as Feats are earned. One potential issue I see is in balancing Feat mats (assuming everyone starts with a different one).

Quote from: Gubump on May 02, 2019, 08:25:21 pm

The Queue Type

The entirety of each player’s Queue pile is face down except for the topmost card, and you can only look at the topmost card of a given queue pile. During the appropriate phase, you may play the top card of your Queue pile (this costs an Action during your Action phase). Unless stated otherwise, cards played this way are discarded as normal at end of turn. Each player starts with a Borough, Royal Library, and Marketplace shuffled into their Queue piles.

The Queue deck functions almost like a second deck, from which only one card is drawn each turn. This will reward careful deck tracking, as cards in the Queue deck do not change order (for the most part). I like how these cards first enter the deck as an Action, before entering the Queue for their main effect. The theme could use some work though.

Quote from: King Leon on May 05, 2019, 05:06:46 am

Decrees

Decrees are similar to Landmarks, but they are only valid for one round. Before each regular turn of the first player, a new decree is revealed, which is valid until the next regular turn of that player. Extra turns from cards like Possession, Outpost, Mission and Fleet do not count as regular turns. In each game 10 decrees are randomly selected. The pile has the same shuffle rules like the player’s decks.

I like how the effect of Decrees are applied roughly evenly to all players due to everyone sharing its effect. Tithes seems very brutal in multiplayer games, especially in the opening. There is a nice variety of effects, good, bad, and in between. Decrees might make first player advantage more pronounced due to them getting an extra effect.

Quote from: Tejayes on May 07, 2019, 06:42:37 pm

Morning Cards

Nocturne gave us the Night, a new phase with cards to be played after the Buy phase. Now, I introduce its logical opposite, the Morning phase. This phase takes place before the Action phase, but after any Duration effects take place. This means that you must have the Morning card in your hand at the start of your turn (or through a Duration draw effect) if you wish to play it. That will make playing these cards more difficult, so I tried to make the effects rather powerful as a result.

A nice counterpart to the Night type. Since these give ongoing effects, and are designed to be stronger, playing these in multiples seems to be either quite strong (Mudlark engine?) or almost pointless (Mudlark engine?). Regardless, a solid idea with interesting interactions with existing cards, such as Clock Tower's synergy with disappearing money. Brownie points for the flavour text.

Quote from: FlyerBeast on May 07, 2019, 07:48:42 pm

Toll Cards

Ever wished games would just last that little bit longer? Think you could get the edge on your opponent if you had just one more turn? These cards are meant to give the ending of the game a bit more drama, if it needed it. They sit outside of the Supply until placed on top of supply piles (One type each for Treasures, Actions and Victory cards, each with a different way to place them there) and serve to make the cards people really want just out of reach, until someone buys one and get its negative effect.

An interesting concept with similarities to Embargo and Tax. Road seems unbalanced, being an engine component that snowballs. Force your opponent to waste money and a buy on an expensive copper if they want a key card. The cards aren't my idea of fun, but the different ways of stalling the game are interesting.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 07, 2019, 10:31:27 pm

Traitor Cards

Traitor cards are cards that your opponents can play from your hand during their turn. They would ideally have different backs similar to Stash. When an opponent plays one of your Traitors, the Traitor is set on the table and then put back in your hand during their Cleanup phase. You play the Traitors in your Action phase, and you may play any number of Traitors from any number of opponents' hands in a single phase. You may look at a Traitor from your opponents' hand and then choose not to play it.

I really like this idea, being able to get a good effect but letting your opponent get some benefit from it too. There is a good variety of different effects here, a powerful effect with the opponent getting a lesser effect for free, and a powerful attack that counters itself. The only issue I see with this idea is in the physical implementation, since a unique back also allows you to see if it is the top card (or more with a messy draw pile).

Quote from: ClouduHieh on May 08, 2019, 06:38:32 am

Activity Cards

My understanding of the theme here is that Activities are strong cards with different play conditions, where playing more than one has a negative effect? All three seem quite luck-dependent, Falconer possibly trashing opponents' engine components (though offset by discarding it from your starting hand), and the other two depending on the state of top of deck. There are some interesting ideas in the cards, but too swingy for my taste.

Quote from: Gazbag on May 08, 2019, 09:09:43 am

Depletion cards

Depletion cards can be depleted (putting one of your depletion tokens on its pile) for an additional benefit but then become weaker in some way. Some cards can replenish themselves after being depleted.

The decisions involved in when to deplete the cards (potentially for the rest of the game) are interesting. Factory is a good source of economy with the choice of boosting the early game in exchange for not being able to use its +Buy for the rest of the game. I think the concept is good, being able to replenish depleted cards on play might be too similar to how the Journey token works though.

---

It was quite difficult to choose which card type I liked the most. Ultimately, I based my decision on how it changed the game of Dominion, added interesting decisions to gameplay, and how thematic it was.

Runner-up: Work Cards by Fragasnap. I thought that the new choices on where to spend Actions was neat, and the different ways to do so (as a payment, investment, or simply alternate effect) made this a top choice.

WINNER: Traitor Cards by Commodore Chuckles. I really liked the idea of opponents being able to steal some of the benefit from your cards, and adds interesting player interaction to Dominion. Definitely a unique concept, and very thematic too.

Thanks for all of the interesting card types and cards, and again, I deeply apologize for delaying this contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 11, 2019, 03:05:32 am

Quote from: ClouduHieh on May 11, 2019, 12:11:02 am

Yeah but it doesn’t give you +2 treasure for it. It gives you Cards instead, I’m saying playing riddle won’t give you treasure before the buy phase exactly like storyteller won’t give treasure cards money either.

But I sopose riddle can still give you +1 Card for storyteller.

This is simply not correct. It does give you +2 treasure (the proper term is coin, not treasure though). Then after it gives you +2 coins, you spend those coins. No, you don’t still have them in your buy phase to purchase cards with. But you did still get it, and you spent it. Black Market may be a clearer example, because it doesn’t make you spend any coin you have. So if you play Black Market, then play Silver, you get the coin from the Silver. Riddle should be exactly the same as Silver in this way; unless you specified “if it’s your buy phase” before the +$1.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 11, 2019, 10:51:19 pm

Thank you very much, belugawhale!

Challenge #29: Make a Traveler Line
Judging will be based on creativity, balance, theme, and interactions between the Traveler stages.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 11, 2019, 11:56:19 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 11, 2019, 10:51:19 pm

Thank you very much, belugawhale!

Challenge #29: Make a Traveler Line
Judging will be based on creativity, balance, theme, and interactions between the Traveler stages.

I've been waiting for someone with the guts to make a Traveller challenge. Better put away the whole day for judging! ;P

Any restrictions? Amount of cards in the line etcetera?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on May 11, 2019, 11:58:43 pm

Hi! I have a few questions! The submissions are handled in-thread, right? I simply make a post with my submission?

For the particular "story" my traveller line tells, it would be nearly impossible to find art that lines up (you know, with the same person in each of these scenarios). Would it be worth it to mock up cards with image art potentially missing? Would I be penalized if I simply submitted each card as raw formatted text?

Thank you for the Challenge, the constrains inspired me!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 12, 2019, 12:19:25 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on May 11, 2019, 11:58:43 pm

Hi! I have a few questions! The submissions are handled in-thread, right? I simply make a post with my submission?

For the particular "story" my traveller line tells, it would be nearly impossible to find art that lines up (you know, with the same person in each of these scenarios). Would it be worth it to mock up cards with image art potentially missing? Would I be penalized if I simply submitted each card as raw formatted text?

Thank you for the Challenge, the constrains inspired me!

Submissions are handled in-thread. You will not be penalized if you submit the card as text.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 12, 2019, 09:04:28 am

Quote from: Kudasai on May 11, 2019, 11:56:19 pm

Any restrictions? Amount of cards in the line etcetera?

I think for now I'll just say there have to be at least 5 cards and they have to increase in price and power. I'll handle any other exceptions as they pop up.

Quote from: anordinaryman on May 11, 2019, 11:58:43 pm

For the particular "story" my traveller line tells, it would be nearly impossible to find art that lines up (you know, with the same person in each of these scenarios). Would it be worth it to mock up cards with image art potentially missing? Would I be penalized if I simply submitted each card as raw formatted text?

Actually, this is a good point; I didn't consider that the official Travelers all show the same person. All of the submissions will have this "problem" I guess.

I personally would prefer mockups without art instead of just text. Seeing the whole card makes it easier to visualize how it plays.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on May 12, 2019, 10:51:01 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 12, 2019, 09:04:28 am

I personally would prefer mockups without art instead of just text. Seeing the whole card makes it easier to visualize how it plays.

Thank you, making mockups was very helpful for me! It turns out that some of my cards had far too much text when I started to put them in card format.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on May 12, 2019, 11:49:11 am

NEET
cost $2, Action - Traveller
Trash a card from your hand, then gain a card with the same cost.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Bankrupt.

Bankrupt
cost $3*, Action - Traveller
+2 Cards
Trash a card from your hand, then gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Imposter.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Imposter
cost $4*, Action - Attack - Traveller
+3 Cards
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand trashes a Treasure from their hand (or reveals they can't).
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Realtor.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Realtor
cost $5*, Action - Traveller
+2 Cards
Trash a card from your hand.
Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Gravekeeper.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Gravekeeper
cost $6*, Action - Duration
At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game: you may gain a Silver to your hand.
-
While this is in play, when you trash a card, +1vp.
(This stays in play. This is not in the Supply.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on May 12, 2019, 07:09:50 pm

(https://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/my-pathfinder-setting-stuff/character-classes/Mimbleseeker.jpg?attredirects=0) (https://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/my-pathfinder-setting-stuff/character-classes/Mimble_Scout.jpg?attredirects=0) (https://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/my-pathfinder-setting-stuff/character-classes/Mimble_Camp.jpg?attredirects=0)
(https://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/my-pathfinder-setting-stuff/character-classes/Mimble_Teacher.jpg?attredirects=0) (https://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/my-pathfinder-setting-stuff/character-classes/MimblegablaizerALT.jpg?attredirects=0)

Quote

Mimbleseeker
$2 Action - Traveller
Gain a silver. You pay put a card from your hand on top of your deck. If you do, +$2.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Mimble Scout.

Quote

Mimble Scout
$3 Action - Traveller
+$1.
Name a card. Reveal the top four cards of your deck. Put all victory cards and one copy of the named card into your hand. Put the rest back in any order.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Mimble Camp.

Quote

Mimble Camp
$4 Action - Traveller
+2 Actions.
Discard any number of cards. +1 Card per card discarded.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Mimble Trainer.

Quote

Mimble Trainer
$5 Action - Duration - Traveller
Now and at the start of next turn: Reveal and discard any number of victory cards. +$1 and +1 Card for each card you discarded this way.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Mimblegablaizer.

Quote

Mimblegablaizer
$6 Action
Choose a traveller in the in the Mimbleseeker line or an action card costing up to $4. Put your +1 card token on that card. Then play this as the chosen card. This is that card until it leaves play.

I have a couple different versions of the final card and had trouble deciding which one to use. The original one had "Play this twice as if it were..." instead of using the +card token.

Backstory: The mimbleseekers are an organization who seeks out and recruits mimbles, who are people with extraordinary powers, to fight against the agents of the six beasts who cause all the evil in the world. Once in about 50 years, a mimblegablaizer is born. A mimblegablaizer is an especially powerful mimble who alone can defeat the six beasts themselves.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on May 13, 2019, 02:38:04 am

Theme: An outcast in the woods finds something shiny - There's silver and gold in them there hills! Now it's up to him to figure out what to do next - how to best go about maximising the value of this source of treasure.

Outcast
Action/Traveller - $2
Gain a Silver. Look through your discard pile and put a card from it onto your deck.
---
When you discard this from play, you may exchange this for a Digger

Digger
Action/Traveller - $3
+$1
The first time you play a Silver this turn, gain up to 3 silvers from the Trash, or a Gold
---
When you discard this from play, you may exchange this for a Town Crier

Town Crier
Action/Traveller - $4
+2 Actions
You may trash a Treasure from your hand for +1 Card for each $1 it costs. If you don't, +1 Card.
---
When you discard this from play, you may exchange this for a Camper :)

Camper
Action/Traveller - $5
+2 Cards
Gain, to your hand, a treasure from the Trash, or a Silver
---
When you discard this from play, you may exchange this for a Gold Rush

Gold Rush
Action/Duration - $6
For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn you may trash a Gold from your hand for to gain 3 Silvers, and Silver from your hand to gain an Action card. Put any cards gained this way into your hand.

Rules clarifications:
* The Gold gained by Digger is from the supply, but Silvers must be from the trash. Similarly the Silver option of Camper is from the supply.
* The 2 gain events from Gold Rush happen in sequence, so you can turn a Gold into 3 silvers in your hand, then turn one of those Silvers into an Action card. Additional gains from Gold Rush (eg gaining a Gold through gaining a Skulk) are to the supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 13, 2019, 11:21:29 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 13, 2019, 02:38:04 am

Gold Rush
Action/Duration - $6
For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn you may exchange a Gold for 2 Silvers, and a Silver for an Action card. Put any cards gained this way into your hand.

A couple wording notes... I assume that you mean to exchange a Gold from your hand, but this needs to be specified; official cards that refer to exchanging are already referring to a specific copy of a specific card; not just "a" card. Also, exchanging doesn't cause you to gain, so the last sentence doesn't work as you want. Perhaps...

"For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn you may trash a Gold from your hand, to gain a Silver and an Action card to your hand."

I think this has mostly the same functionality; except without the ability to gain 2 Silvers instead of a Silver and an Action... but how often would you choose the 2 Silvers option?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 13, 2019, 11:37:28 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 13, 2019, 11:21:29 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 13, 2019, 02:38:04 am

Gold Rush
Action/Duration - $6
For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn you may exchange a Gold for 2 Silvers, and a Silver for an Action card. Put any cards gained this way into your hand.

A couple wording notes... I assume that you mean to exchange a Gold from your hand, but this needs to be specified; official cards that refer to exchanging are already referring to a specific copy of a specific card; not just "a" card. Also, exchanging doesn't cause you to gain, so the last sentence doesn't work as you want. Perhaps...

"For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn you may trash a Gold from your hand, to gain a Silver and an Action card to your hand."

I think this has mostly the same functionality; except without the ability to gain 2 Silvers instead of a Silver and an Action... but how often would you choose the 2 Silvers option?

As Gold Rush is worded currently, there also aren't any cards gained this way. Exchanging doesn't "gain" anything, according to the rules.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 13, 2019, 11:51:20 am

Quote from: Gubump on May 13, 2019, 11:37:28 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 13, 2019, 11:21:29 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 13, 2019, 02:38:04 am

Gold Rush
Action/Duration - $6
For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn you may exchange a Gold for 2 Silvers, and a Silver for an Action card. Put any cards gained this way into your hand.

A couple wording notes... I assume that you mean to exchange a Gold from your hand, but this needs to be specified; official cards that refer to exchanging are already referring to a specific copy of a specific card; not just "a" card. Also, exchanging doesn't cause you to gain, so the last sentence doesn't work as you want. Perhaps...

"For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn you may trash a Gold from your hand, to gain a Silver and an Action card to your hand."

I think this has mostly the same functionality; except without the ability to gain 2 Silvers instead of a Silver and an Action... but how often would you choose the 2 Silvers option?

As Gold Rush is worded currently, there also aren't any cards gained this way. Exchanging doesn't "gain" anything, according to the rules.

I said that...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 13, 2019, 02:17:46 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 13, 2019, 11:51:20 am

Quote from: Gubump on May 13, 2019, 11:37:28 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 13, 2019, 11:21:29 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 13, 2019, 02:38:04 am

Gold Rush
Action/Duration - $6
For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn you may exchange a Gold for 2 Silvers, and a Silver for an Action card. Put any cards gained this way into your hand.

A couple wording notes... I assume that you mean to exchange a Gold from your hand, but this needs to be specified; official cards that refer to exchanging are already referring to a specific copy of a specific card; not just "a" card. Also, exchanging doesn't cause you to gain, so the last sentence doesn't work as you want. Perhaps...

"For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn you may trash a Gold from your hand, to gain a Silver and an Action card to your hand."

I think this has mostly the same functionality; except without the ability to gain 2 Silvers instead of a Silver and an Action... but how often would you choose the 2 Silvers option?

As Gold Rush is worded currently, there also aren't any cards gained this way. Exchanging doesn't "gain" anything, according to the rules.

I said that...

So you did. I can't read, apparently.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on May 13, 2019, 06:54:32 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/t07ehas4.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/342t7dvi.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/r71h09ci.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/gl9tzzds.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/rusvcoi5.png)

Here is a set of travelers that have several synergies and are mostly reactions, each card enables you to use the reactions for some other card in the line. In this way I approached it more as a 5-way split pile, than a traveller. You probably want cards at all levels of the upgrade.

 The two Current traveller lines have a way for you to play all of them non-terminally if you get to the last traveller which is powerful game-changing payload. These travelers start off non-terminal, but the last step isn't so game-changing. The point of this traveller line is they assist other cards engines, rather than being one all in itself. That’s why the cards are not named after people, but the periphery locations and events that the same person is going through. That’s also why 3/5 are reactions with another "reacting" to trashing, reactions being an effect due to outside forces rather than the card's "action" itself. So, that’s another level of theme.

On one level of theme is the story is someone (or people) escaping religious persecution. So the crusades happen, they escape via sympathetic parties “underground rail road”* , bribe who they must, cross the boarder, and finally make a new settlement where they are safe from persecution. In an ideal world, the art could depict the same family going through these events.

Every card has a name that points to similar cards with similar effects, this is the final level of theme.
Crusade -> religious motif for trashing
Underground Rail Road -> could literally be a tunnel (the reaction), and it conjures up cellar/warehouse/etc sifters.
Bribery -> mountebank.
Border Crossing has 2 or 3 option like Boarder Guard, with a reaction like Border Village. In the picture, ideally there’d be a market just across the border, the market effect you sometimes get.
Settlement is a superior settlers.

One goal was to make it less of a no-brainer to upgrade each time. In boards where Crusade is the only trasher, you may never upgrade them! Or Perhaps you stop at Underground rail road, so you can Crusade them for a one-shot lurker. Be careful, once all the Underground Rail Roads are destroyed, there’s no more upgrading past that. I won’t go into the other thoughts but safe to say these cards have a lot of synergies with themselves.

I'm pretty happy with this set, I am less thrilled with how lengthy the text on the cards is. A good half of each card goes to explaining the traveller exchanges, I think these cards would be a lot simpler if Dominion had a shorthand like " ⇨ Underground Railroad." I don't think the cards are terribly complicated, although, I admit they look to be so on first glance.

*I am taking historical liberties. The term refers to the system of people who helped African Americans escape slavery-- there was never an actual rail road. it was a metaphor so I’m back-applying that metaphor to crusade times. There have often been helpers in times of genocide, and that's what this refers to.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on May 13, 2019, 06:56:23 pm

In case this is easier to read, I can post them as raw text:

Crusade
Cost: $2
Type: Action - Reaction - Traveller
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand.
-
When something causes you to reveal this (using the word "reveal"), gain a Crusade.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for an Underground Railroad.

Underground Railroad
Cost: $3*
Type: Action - Traveller
+3 Cards +1 Action. Discard a card per card you have in play.
-
When you trash this, gain a card costing up to $6.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Bribery.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Bribery
Cost: $4*
Type: Action - Traveller
+1 Card +1 Action
Each other player may discard a Copper. If they don't, they gain a Copper.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Border Crossing.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Border Crossing
Cost: $5*
Type: Action - Reaction - Traveller
+1 Action. Reveal 2 or 3 cards from your deck. Put one into your hand and the rest back in any order. If all the revealed cards are unique, +$1 +1 Buy.
-
When you discard this other than from cleanup, you may gain a cheaper card.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Settlement.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Settlement
Cost: $6*
Type: Action - Reaction
+1 card +1 action. Discard the top card of your deck. Reveal a card from your discard pile and put it into your hand.
-
When any player plays an Attack card, you may play this from your hand. If you do, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}
(This is not in the Supply.)


Thank you to hhelibebcnofnena for some helpful clarification questions and a card type fix he let me know about.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on May 13, 2019, 07:47:55 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 13, 2019, 02:38:04 am

Town Crier
Action - $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may trash a Treasure from your hand for an additional +1 Card for each $1 it costs
---
When you trash this from play, gain a Gold Rush

Needs Bonfire or Improve?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 13, 2019, 07:57:00 pm

"When you trash this" (Underground Railroad) shouldn't make something a Reaction. Catacombs, Cultist, and Rats (just to name a few) have this wording, and none of them are Reactions. Also, for Settlement, do you mean "you may play this, and get +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}" -instead of its effect, or -in addition to its effect?

Other than that, this line looks really cool to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on May 13, 2019, 08:04:53 pm

Here’s my 2 cents or 5 cents anyway.

(https://i.imgur.com/7YiztNT_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

(https://i.imgur.com/wTox9D1_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

(https://i.imgur.com/4qPtdDS_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

(https://i.imgur.com/hY1itAi_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

(https://i.imgur.com/8fb2TBh_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on May 13, 2019, 10:03:49 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 13, 2019, 07:57:00 pm

"When you trash this" (Underground Railroad) shouldn't make something a Reaction. Catacombs, Cultist, and Rats (just to name a few) have this wording, and none of them are Reactions. Also, for Settlement, do you mean "you may play this, and get +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}" -instead of its effect, or -in addition to its effect?

Other than that, this line looks really cool to me.

Ah yes, good catch, thank you! This is a remnants from when all 5 were reactions, then I changed them slightly... I will make those edits, thank you!. Settlement is meant to gain VP in addition to its normal on play, which has some interesting edge case potentials (Settlement lets you discard a Border Crossing to gain an estate during your opponent's last turn) but since it's a lab it's mostly a similar effect as simply playing it on your turn. It was the most elegant way to track the +vp without "losing" the hand increase by 1 effect, and without allowing you to stack the same +vp multiple times before your next turn.

There were three other options:
1. Discard the card and lose the +card effect. However, then all the sudden +1vp is not all the time worth it for sacrificing your hand-size increaser. I want it to be an automatic choice, you don't want someone to say "wait I want to think about whether I want to react to this," You want the choice to be automatic to not slow down the game! If you make the effect stronger to make the choice automatic, then it's probably too strong. I did play around with +2VP at first but realized that was way too much.
2. Discard the card but still get the +2 cards. Well, this allows infinite loops. If your deck/discard is empty you can get an infinite VP with just one Settlement. If you make the Discard happen after the +2 cards, well, now you can get an infinite loop with Two Settlements in hand.
3. The other option was to get the +1vp and "set it aside and return it to the start of your hand," which solves the problem handedly, but I find the whole "setting aside" not a very elegant solution. Where do I set it aside? And I think the slight corner cases you get from playing it are interesting. So, that's why I have you play a card. It also allows it to act as a Village on your turn. The cards are mainly good at sifting and slightly increasing hand size. But they can also give extra gains in the right situations (revealing Crusades or Discarding Boarder Crossings) and act as a village (playing a Settlement on your turn as a reaction after playing a bribery).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on May 13, 2019, 11:35:55 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 13, 2019, 11:21:29 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 13, 2019, 02:38:04 am

Gold Rush
Action/Duration - $6
For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn you may exchange a Gold for 2 Silvers, and a Silver for an Action card. Put any cards gained this way into your hand.

A couple wording notes... I assume that you mean to exchange a Gold from your hand, but this needs to be specified; official cards that refer to exchanging are already referring to a specific copy of a specific card; not just "a" card. Also, exchanging doesn't cause you to gain, so the last sentence doesn't work as you want. Perhaps...

"For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn you may trash a Gold from your hand, to gain a Silver and an Action card to your hand."

I think this has mostly the same functionality; except without the ability to gain 2 Silvers instead of a Silver and an Action... but how often would you choose the 2 Silvers option?

The 2 Silvers option gives you $1 if you don't have the capacity/ability to play an Action. Interesting suggestion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 14, 2019, 09:01:18 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 13, 2019, 11:35:55 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 13, 2019, 11:21:29 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 13, 2019, 02:38:04 am

Gold Rush
Action/Duration - $6
For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn you may exchange a Gold for 2 Silvers, and a Silver for an Action card. Put any cards gained this way into your hand.

A couple wording notes... I assume that you mean to exchange a Gold from your hand, but this needs to be specified; official cards that refer to exchanging are already referring to a specific copy of a specific card; not just "a" card. Also, exchanging doesn't cause you to gain, so the last sentence doesn't work as you want. Perhaps...

"For the rest of the game, at the start of your turn you may trash a Gold from your hand, to gain a Silver and an Action card to your hand."

I think this has mostly the same functionality; except without the ability to gain 2 Silvers instead of a Silver and an Action... but how often would you choose the 2 Silvers option?

The 2 Silvers option gives you $1 if you don't have the capacity/ability to play an Action. Interesting suggestion.

I just figured that in the vast majority of cases, there is going to be at least one action card in the supply (considering cost is not limited) that is going to be better than a Silver in your hand. Sure, it's possible that the entire Kingdom is terminal actions, but in that case this traveller line is probably not a great strategy anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on May 14, 2019, 11:20:38 am

(https://i.imgur.com/pyfESyY.png) (https://i.imgur.com/ZxZEgpY.png) (https://i.imgur.com/QpntwNL.png) (https://i.imgur.com/lH0ZWEu.png) (https://i.imgur.com/WmxfDGE.png)

Here's my Empires-inspired Traveller line, yes they are all buildings which don't exactly travel, but hey, maybe you're visiting them or building them or something?  Anyway. 

The theme here is VP tokens of course, as all interact with them in some way.  One of my goals was to make each Traveller in the line something that you might consider keeping rather than always exchanging right away as with some of the official Travellers (I'm looking at you, Fugitive).  Another goal was to create some interactions between the cards themselves as well. 

Cottage provides +Buy which interacts very subtly with the final card in the line.  Abbey trashes and can mitigate the Cursing from Hospital, which itself adds some interesting player interaction.  City Hall turns your VP tokens back into +Cards and is the only Village in the set, perhaps allowing you to play all these terminal Travellers.  And finally, Manor is an almost Province that Islands itself and acts as a permanent Groundskeeper (also it's a pretty orange green). 


*Edit: Forgot to include "(This is not in the Supply)" on Abbey, Hospital, City Hall, and Manor.  I may add these later if I have time.  Also these are all in the normal Traveller quantities: 10 Cottages, 5 Abbeys, 5 Hospitals, 5 City Halls, and 5 Manors. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on May 14, 2019, 12:05:52 pm

Fur Trader is pretty cool, it turns your travelers into great halls, which you know is fine. What’s interesting is you really want TWO fur traders, which is an interesting difference from the existing traveler lines. But then you’ve upgraded two travelers into no longer being travelers. I’m not sure whether this antisynergy makes it too weak, but it certainly makes it interesting. Wait just realized the gold gives +buy, you’ll want that anyway regardless even if you don’t load up on travelers for vp. Cool idea!

Manor is also interesting, I wonder about its strength. In the line itself I have a way to fully upgrade multiple travelers, (theres trashing, cycling, and a village)  I don’t know if I would ever buy a province . 1vp is a small price to pay for a self-islanding province and it let’s me green early. Once I get 3 in play, I could just buy estates. I wouldn’t ever need to build economy. I’d love to see simulations but I imagine buying cottages every turn, trashing holding onto abbeys for a bit, while getting an early city hall for cycling and village, then continuing to drain the pile and upgrade fully, seems like a great single-pile strategy. Granted, it seems like a *fun* monolithic strategy, and there’s a lot of tactics on when to upgrade and how to not be over-terminal (a vanilla village actually makes this strategy less interesting and easier).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 14, 2019, 02:02:29 pm

Infantryman
$3 Action-Attack-Traveller
+1 Coffers per Infantryman in play.
Each other player may discard a card.
If they don't, they gain a Copper to their hand.
----------------
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for an Archer.

Archer
$4 Action-Reaction-Traveller
Reveal a card from your hand. For each type it has, trash a card from your hand.
----------------
When another player plays an Attack card, you may first reveal this from your hand, to be unaffected by it.
----------------
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Cavalry.

Cavalry
$5 Action-Reserve-Traveller
+2 Cards
You may put this on your Tavern mat.
----------------
When another player plays an Attack card, you may call this for +2 Cards.
----------------
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Mauler.

Mauler
$6 Action-Attack-Looter-Traveller
Each other player trashes an Action card from their hand (or reveals they can't).
If they did, they gain a Ruins to their hand.
Choose one of the trashed cards. +1 Coffers per _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} it costs.
----------------
When this is trashed, trash the card that caused it.
----------------
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a General.

General
$7 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}
----------------
While this is in play, when another player gains or discards a card, they put it onto their deck instead.
When you play an Attack, +1 Action.



With this set I aimed for some internal interactions and for strong cards on the lower levels such that you have to think about more than just whether you want 1 or 2 Disciples that go along with that Teacher.

Most of these cards are probably too wordy and the double lines are also not something I appreciate.

I hope that Mauler's "kill the attacker" wording is clear. It might make sense to play with a larger Ruins pile in order to prevent Mauler's attack from becoming to nasty or play with something like: "In games using this, when a Ruins is trashed, return it to the Ruins pile."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on May 14, 2019, 02:33:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/O3l3kxs.png) (https://i.imgur.com/lzTB7IE.png) (https://i.imgur.com/xXHTJ7X.png) (https://i.imgur.com/UAjjWtq.png) (https://i.imgur.com/YErbAGA.png)

The Treasure Traveller line.  You follow the life of a coin from being lost and nearly useless, to being part of an incredibly valuable collection.  Each card has some sort of requirement before they can "Travel".  These requirements are meant to make it more interesting and difficult, but not swingy like Sauna or Urchin. They are all 100% doable every time (except for the requirement on Coin Purse, but that should be doable 99% of the time), but they may be slightly inconvenient.
You have to wait an extra turn to get to Vintage Coin Collection.  That's meant to show time passing as the collection ages. It also makes it so going for Inherited coin collections as a major source or VP likely won't work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 14, 2019, 04:23:16 pm

CHALLENGE #29 TRAVELLER LINE SUBMISSION:

Here is my go at a from scratch Traveller Line. I'm sure there are some balancing issues and the line might not play 100% as intended, but I think it's mostly in the right place. Any feedback is always appreciated, but please keep in mind that the power level of a Traveller card generally does not correspond to its cost. That is definitely the case with this line. Lastly, the 3rd card in the line (Captive) requires 4 new Artifacts so I'll start with those. Don't worry, they are simple!

Artifacts: (1 of each)
(https://i.imgur.com/08SPpsB.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/XBBXn5j.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/4msVvZt.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/rVszMch.jpg)

Cards: (Commoner-10 cards; Worshipper-5 cards; Captive-5 cards; Martyr-5 cards; Matriarch-5 cards)
(https://i.imgur.com/2lQaKtV.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/jV2mavG.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/PAIxcXc.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/p44iget.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/LYW27qb.jpg)

Thanks for looking!

Quote

Artifacts:
Trade Ship: At the end of your turn, +1 Coffers.

Crane: At the end of your turn, +1 Villager.

Sigil: At the end of your turn, +1 VP.

Reliquary: At the start of your turn, trash a card from your hand and gain a Copper to your hand.

Cards:
Commoner: +1 Card, +1 Action, Discard up to 2 cards from the top of your deck | When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Worshiper.

Worshiper: +1 Action, +$2, Receive special terms (+1 Card, +1VP, etc) from each Artifact a player has | When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Captive.

Captive: +3 cards, +1 Buy | When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Martyr. If you do, take the Trade Ship, the Crane, the Sigil, or the Reliquary.

Martyr: You may return this to its pile to draw until you have all cards from your deck and discard pile in hand. Either way, do this twice: Trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it to your hand | When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Matriarch.

Matriarch: For the rest of the game, players can't take Artifacts you have and your Treasures make $1 more per Artifact you have.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on May 14, 2019, 04:32:31 pm

Wow, beaten to posting a Treasure-Traveller idea! At least mine're the only Treasure-Travellers that are also food!

(https://i.imgur.com/PNAlJIf.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/zFrsJDB.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/I0D5PW1.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/1eIarb5.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/c2CWWur.jpg)

I hope you find the line quite flavourful ;)

Quote

Morsel
$2 Treasure-Traveller
--
$1
+2 Buys
-
When you gain this, each player (including you) gets +1 Coffers. When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for an Aperitif.

That's a heck of a discouragement from buying this! Hope it turns out to be worth it...

Quote

Aperitif
$3* Treasure-Attack-Traveller
--
When you play this, you may trash this, to gain a Gold to your hand. Otherwise, +$2 and each player (including you) gains a Copper.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Meal.

I'm a sucker for mixing up types so here's a Treasure-Attack with some self-junking.

Quote

Meal
$4* Treasure-Traveller
--
+1 Buy
When you play this,
+$2 per Buy you have.
(Including the +1 Buy from this)
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Dessert, or two Morsels.

A Buy-Diadem. Plus, you can loop around in this traveller line! And... aha, that's what the +2 Buys on the Morsels are for!

Quote

Dessert
$5* Treasure-Traveller
--
+3 Coffers
Gain a card costing up to $5. Put a card you have in play on top of your deck.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Toast.

I had to have an actual Feast-like effect in one of these cards, obviously. The topdecking might force you to slow down some of your Travelling?

Quote

Toast
$6* Treasure-Duration
--
For the rest of the game, when you play a Traveller, +1 Buy, +$2 and +1VP. During each clean-up phase, if you played one or more Travellers this turn, trash a card instead of discarding it.
(This stays in play. This is not in the Supply.)

I might have gone a bit far in the trashing 'downside' for this, but I'd imagine that by the seventh shuffle you'd have given yourself enough junk that this could be helpful for streamlining your deck (plus, the Buy this card gives you could be useful for buying extra Coppers to trash)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on May 14, 2019, 09:19:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/atZ7QxP.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Wve7RAF.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/eJAB3He.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/FjZScqj.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/MfAXOnn.jpg)

Quote

Deacon
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $3
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a Silver.

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for an Archbishop.

Quote

Archbishop
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $4*
+$2. Gain a Duchy. Each other player may gain an Estate.

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Cardinal or an Iconoclast.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Iconoclast
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5*
+3 Cards, +1 Action. Each other player gains a Curse.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Cardinal
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $5*
+3 Cards. You may trash 2 cards from your hand and gain a card equal to their total cost in coins, putting it into your hand. If the total cost of the trashed cards in coins is at least $5, exchange this for a Saint or return this to the Cardinal pile if you can't.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Saint
Types: Action, Duration, Victory
Cost: $6
For the rest of the game, when you gain a card, you may set a card from your hand aside with this face down.

---

Worth 3VP for each differently named card set aside with this.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Deacon finishes the circle of simple effects. Page and Peasant cumulatively offer all the vanilla effects, so Deacon gives the next most simple.
Archbishop is a kind of sideways Bishop. It gives more $ and more VP and everyone can optionally join in, but it slows players down instead of speeding them up. Stop here and drain the Duchy pile into your deck or take the next step into either Iconoclast or Cardinal.
Iconoclast is a Cursing Super Laboratory. Of course, you've guaranteed gaining one Duchy by getting here, so one part of that draw is kind of a wash, but now you can force Curses onto others while getting big draw consistency.
Cardinal is a Smithy with an optional 2-card-Forge-to-hand. If you Forge anything of value (like, hey, that Duchy you have and don't want), your Cardinal must ascend to Saint (or retire if all the Saints are gone). It's probably more benefit than drawback, but you do have to Forge something to get the Saint: It's not a given.
Saint gives you a way to respond to all the gaining happening in this line. Set aside your Duchy. Set aside Iconoclast's Curses. Grab an Estate from someone else trying to drain the Duchy pile so you get to set aside a card. Set aside that Estate later. Because it sets aside from hand face down, there's no way to know exactly how much other players' Saints are worth. If you get multiple Saints, each gets to set aside in response to a single gain, too, so that's nice.

I'm not a big fan of Travellers generally, so I don't know how much I like this line. Any outside perspectives are welcome.

EDIT 1: Tried to do something cute with the formatting which didn't work. Added some musings on the cards.
EDIT 2: Made the effects of Iconoclast and Saint bigger. It seemed like going for them might be too rarely worth the effort because Saint's VP ceiling was so low unless you really take yourself apart and Iconoclast's draw at +2 Cards was such a wash with Archbishop's forced Duchy gain.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 14, 2019, 09:19:42 pm

Quote from: FlyerBeast on May 14, 2019, 04:32:31 pm

Wow, beaten to posting a Treasure-Traveller idea! At least mine're the only Treasure-Travellers that are also food!

(https://i.imgur.com/PNAlJIf.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/zFrsJDB.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/I0D5PW1.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/1eIarb5.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/c2CWWur.jpg)

I hope you find the line quite flavourful ;)

Quote

Morsel
$2 Treasure-Traveller
--
$1
+2 Buys
-
When you gain this, each player (including you) gets +1 Coffers. When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for an Aperitif.

That's a heck of a discouragement from buying this! Hope it turns out to be worth it...

Quote

Aperitif
$3* Treasure-Attack-Traveller
--
When you play this, you may trash this, to gain a Gold to your hand. Otherwise, +$2 and each player (including you) gains a Copper.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Meal.

I'm a sucker for mixing up types so here's a Treasure-Attack with some self-junking.

Quote

Meal
$4* Treasure-Traveller
--
+1 Buy
When you play this,
+$2 per Buy you have.
(Including the +1 Buy from this)
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Dessert, or two Morsels.

A Buy-Diadem. Plus, you can loop around in this traveller line! And... aha, that's what the +2 Buys on the Morsels are for!

Quote

Dessert
$5* Treasure-Traveller
--
+3 Coffers
Gain a card costing up to $5. Put a card you have in play on top of your deck.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Toast.

I had to have an actual Feast-like effect in one of these cards, obviously. The topdecking might force you to slow down some of your Travelling?

Quote

Toast
$6* Treasure-Duration
--
For the rest of the game, when you play a Traveller, +1 Buy, +$2 and +1VP. During each clean-up phase, if you played one or more Travellers this turn, trash a card instead of discarding it.
(This stays in play. This is not in the Supply.)

I might have gone a bit far in the trashing 'downside' for this, but I'd imagine that by the seventh shuffle you'd have given yourself enough junk that this could be helpful for streamlining your deck (plus, the Buy this card gives you could be useful for buying extra Coppers to trash)

Very interesting cards and Traveller combos.

Morsel - I do enjoy the decision a player has to make about when to start this line and give their opponents a free Coffers token. That Coffers will mean different things at different stages of the game; early game probably seeing the most benefit. Of course (get it... course!?) those Coffers may be more beneficial to the player that has extra Buys to use them with.

Morsel/Meal Combo- Cool combo potential with Morsel. I wonder if it's too strong though. One Morsel/Meal combination makes $9 Coin and 4 Buys (including your starting Buy). For 2 Morsels/Meal it's $14 Coin and 6 Buys. With Coffers laying around it wouldn't be that hard to hit 1 Province and 2 Provinces respectively. I think this will end games a lot faster than people can get a Toast thing going.

Dessert - I can tell you from experience that +3 Coffers is very strong, even on a terminal Action. Enough so that it almost on its own justifies the all powerful, fourth, Traveller line spot. Adding the ability to gain a $5 cost makes it bonkers strong. The top decking from play is also a very good ability on it's own.

Toast - I like the trashing effect. If it's there to punish players, I don't think the game will ever last long enough to get to that point.

Again, this is a very interesting line. I just think a closer look needs to be taken on a few of these cards. Thanks for sharing!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on May 14, 2019, 10:10:51 pm

Quote from: segura on May 14, 2019, 02:02:29 pm

Mauler
$6 Action-Attack-Traveller
Each other player trashes an Action card from their hand (or reveals they can't).
If they did, they gain a Ruins to their hand.
Choose one of the trashed cards. +1 Coffers per _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} it costs.
----------------
When this is trashed, trash the card that caused it.
----------------
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a General.

You need to have the looter type: ruins only come out if there is a Looter. You might actually have to put Looter on the in-the-supply traveller, or you might put it here. Types matter since your cards care about the number of types.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on May 14, 2019, 10:45:57 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on May 14, 2019, 04:23:16 pm

Any feedback is always appreciated, but please keep in mind that the power level of a Traveller card generally does not correspond to its cost.

Not including the final upgrade for each traveller line, I'd say most of the cards are balanced at their "cost." if they were in the supply:
Page -- this would never be bought without it being a traveller. So, this is not priced right.
Treasure Hunter -- looks like costing about 3 works, potentially 2 would work. You might need to slap a +buy on this one to make it work as a 3. The price is close to being right.
Warrior -- This is balanced at 4, but being a traveller makes people tend to upgrade past it, and the final card offers a solution to the incessant trashing. So, if it were in the supply, there might have to be some mechanisms here to prevent the ease of playing a bunch, especially early (other action-trashers are all 5s for this reason). But I'd say it's definitely more than a 3 and less than a 5. The price is at least pretty close to being right.
Hero -- this is a pretty classic 5+. It's similar to Explorer, almost strictly better, but not quite. Think of it like forager/trade route. It would be priced at a 5 in the supply and I wouldn't complain. maybe a 6 because of the added gain any treasure flexibility. But looks good as is. Hm, on second thought I think a 6 would best. Still, pretty close to the right price.

Peasant -- This is totally priced right, it's a weaker herbalist, but still stronger than a 1. If Herbalist didn't exist, I'd be happy with this as a 2 and buy it without it being a traveller.
Soldier -- Similar to Gladiator, it's a +2 with a possible +3 (in this case, more) if a condition is met. It's about the right cost. 4 might work, but it's definitely a 3 or 4. I'd say 3 is actually the right cost for this if it were in the supply by itself.
Fugitive -- compare to ware house, forum, Inn. 4 again seems about right.
Disciple -- this I am less sure about. I think to be in the supply it would need an anti-self-gaining clause (which is covered right now by it not being in the supply). It could potentially cost 6. 5 might work.

So, almost all of the power levels of current travelers correspond very well to their cost. The notable exceptions being the end of the line, which I don't think would be easily balanced in the supply at any cost (Champion even more so) at all.

---

As far as feedback, I think actually using some of those cost analysis (especially for the beginning of the line) could help. Some of them seem oddly priced. I get that it's a 4 so people can't, under normal circumstances, double up on the traveller line T1 T2. But why don't you want that to happen? Could you redesign it such that it would be fine to double up T1 T2?
Personally, I am weary of things that say "other players can't do this." Getting rid of choices/strategies makes the game less fun. Matriarch preventing the stealing of artifacts rules out one of the whole fun mechanics of artifacts, stealing it back and forth!
I don't like that getting to Matriarch a few turns before someone could irrevocably change the tide of the game (they get a few artifacts and they are lost forever).
I do think that the four artifacts you included are quite interesting! To be honest, Reliquary seems really under whelming. Trade a card for a copper? This only helps with estates and curses... so it's unlikely to be helpful but it hits every turn. Seems more like a self-hex. Or perhaps that's the point, do you want to have that to power up your matriarch? Ah, I see now. That's pretty cool!!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 14, 2019, 11:29:50 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on May 14, 2019, 10:45:57 pm

Page -- this would never be bought without it being a traveller. So, this is not priced right.
Peasant -- This is totally priced right, it's a weaker herbalist, but still stronger than a 1. If Herbalist didn't exist, I'd be happy with this as a 2 and buy it without it being a traveller.

Compare both to Pawn (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Pawn). They both only work as travellers. I agree with the rest of your advice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 15, 2019, 02:52:31 am

Thanks for the feedback. Again, I can only answer to what I intend the cards to do and not what they actually will do. That can't be determined without playing many games with these.

Quote from: anordinaryman on May 14, 2019, 10:45:57 pm

As far as feedback, I think actually using some of those cost analysis (especially for the beginning of the line) could help. Some of them seem oddly priced. I get that it's a 4 so people can't, under normal circumstances, double up on the traveller line T1 T2. But why don't you want that to happen? Could you redesign it such that it would be fine to double up T1 T2?

Mainly I don't want players to be able to gain two of these before the first shuffle because some of these cards can scale into very, very powerful cards. Making Commoner $4 will slow it down hopefully enough to where a player not playing with this line might be able to compete.

Quote from: anordinaryman on May 14, 2019, 10:45:57 pm

Personally, I am weary of things that say "other players can't do this." Getting rid of choices/strategies makes the game less fun. Matriarch preventing the stealing of artifacts rules out one of the whole fun mechanics of artifacts, stealing it back and forth!
I don't like that getting to Matriarch a few turns before someone could irrevocably change the tide of the game (they get a few artifacts and they are lost forever).

Matriarch does eliminate the taking of Artifacts, but I don't think players will generally go straight for Matriarch, thus ensuring the majority of the game will see Artifacts playing as normal. Here's my thinking on it. Exchanging Martyr for Matriarch signals to all other players to try and take your Artifacts before you can get your Matriarch into play. Without good engine support and maybe a few Captives to ensure you actually have the Artifacts when you play Matriarch, your opponents will have a fairly big window to take your Artifacts and then Matriarch literally just takes an Action and does nothing. If you get an Artifact further into the game it will be yours forever, but that is a very inefficient way of going about it.

Even if a player manages to lock down an Artifact or two, Worshiper can still allow you to get the benefits of other player's Artifacts. One Worshiper won't match actually having the Artifact (on account of it being a stop card), but 2 or more is a different matter. If you can manage the hindered draw and draw your Worshipers every turn, than 2 Worshipers is twice as good as having the actual Artifact. So good I'm betting Worshiper needs a nerf. Something like knocking the coin production down from $2 to $1.

Quote from: anordinaryman on May 14, 2019, 10:45:57 pm

I do think that the four artifacts you included are quite interesting! To be honest, Reliquary seems really under whelming. Trade a card for a copper? This only helps with estates and curses... so it's unlikely to be helpful but it hits every turn. Seems more like a self-hex. Or perhaps that's the point, do you want to have that to power up your matriarch? Ah, I see now. That's pretty cool!!

Reliquary is most often going to be the worst of the 4 Artifacts early game, but late game if a player is going all the way for Matriarch it should become the best.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on May 15, 2019, 11:55:28 pm

anordinaryman if you like fur trader, it’s from my snowline thread, on my snowline thread I have another traveler line. But since I can only submit one traveler line I went with the one I liked the most.

Title: Mythical Creatures
Post by: herw on May 16, 2019, 12:53:17 am

Mythical Creatures are travellers with a new traveller's line:

(https://imgur.com/nBX8oT6.png)

From lowest traveller Puck you can change to Wood Gnome or Mountain Troll - your decision.
But the main point is the last card Dryads. It is a traveller too, but it changes back! So you can jump to any lower traveller and get the card into your hand at once. So its power is the combination of dryads (+1 card +2 actions) AND the new traveller. If there is a foreign traveller's line in play you can jump into it too!

I have tested in play and it is very tricky.
So here is the line:

(https://imgur.com/KvlSch3.png)

(https://imgur.com/y6Axbzm.png) (https://imgur.com/B5Tnewo.png)

(https://imgur.com/RU4xHUI.png)

(https://imgur.com/wGXrhyP.png)

(https://imgur.com/AKCBRyh.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on May 16, 2019, 03:16:40 am

(https://i.imgur.com/BtzwTG3.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/VT3WsV3.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Rp4qbbe.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/89hCpEM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/UKhYi9p.jpg)

Focused on flavour this time. Going to see if the cards can speak for themselves...
Edit: changes to Errand Runner, Quester and Victim.

Title: Re: Mythical Creatures
Post by: Kudasai on May 16, 2019, 03:28:23 am

Quote from: herw on May 16, 2019, 12:53:17 am

(https://imgur.com/TmZV0ng.png)

Really interesting Traveller Line! Dryads shouldn't have a line separating the text since everything should happen when played. As it is currently worded you only get +1 Card and +2 Actions when played.

Thanks for sharing!

Title: Re: Mythical Creatures
Post by: herw on May 16, 2019, 03:51:23 am

Quote from: Kudasai on May 16, 2019, 03:28:23 am

Quote from: herw on May 16, 2019, 12:53:17 am

(https://imgur.com/TmZV0ng.png)

Really interesting Traveller Line! Dryads shouldn't have a line separating the text since everything should happen when played. As it is currently worded you only get +1 Card and +2 Actions when played.

Thanks for sharing!

ah yes - thanks for clarifying - have changed
(https://imgur.com/AKCBRyh.png)
I have printed with german text and i always played it in this way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on May 16, 2019, 06:24:57 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on May 14, 2019, 09:19:42 pm

Very interesting cards and Traveller combos.

Morsel - I do enjoy the decision a player has to make about when to start this line and give their opponents a free Coffers token. That Coffers will mean different things at different stages of the game; early game probably seeing the most benefit. Of course (get it... course!?) those Coffers may be more beneficial to the player that has extra Buys to use them with.

Morsel/Meal Combo- Cool combo potential with Morsel. I wonder if it's too strong though. One Morsel/Meal combination makes $9 Coin and 4 Buys (including your starting Buy). For 2 Morsels/Meal it's $14 Coin and 6 Buys. With Coffers laying around it wouldn't be that hard to hit 1 Province and 2 Provinces respectively. I think this will end games a lot faster than people can get a Toast thing going.

Dessert - I can tell you from experience that +3 Coffers is very strong, even on a terminal Action. Enough so that it almost on its own justifies the all powerful, fourth, Traveller line spot. Adding the ability to gain a $5 cost makes it bonkers strong. The top decking from play is also a very good ability on it's own.

Toast - I like the trashing effect. If it's there to punish players, I don't think the game will ever last long enough to get to that point.

Again, this is a very interesting line. I just think a closer look needs to be taken on a few of these cards. Thanks for sharing!

Thanks for the kind feedback! I've reworked those cards a bit, mostly to make them less powerful. So, here's the set with the changed ones in:

(https://i.imgur.com/PNAlJIf.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/zFrsJDB.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/BuXivO9.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/LBO898a.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/c2CWWur.jpg)

And these are the changed texts:

Quote

Meal
$4* Treasure-Traveller
--
+1 Buy
When you play this,
+$1 per Buy you have.
(Including the +1 Buy from this)
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Dessert, or two Morsels.

I just reduced the +$2 per Buy to +$1. Just +$1 for a $4-cost card seemed bad to me at first but I'd say it's balanced alongside Miser etc? One play of this and a Morsel will still get you $5 though so it's still pretty strong.

Quote

Dessert
$5* Treasure-Traveller
--
Choose one: +2 Coffers and put a card costing up to $5 you have in play on top of your deck; or gain a card costing up to $5 and exchange this for a cheaper Traveller, putting it into your discard pile.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Toast.

Though it's a lot wordier now, it's more similar to Feast (And therefore, I hope, balanced at $5) in that it 'trashes' itself back a stage or two. I might be too enamoured by the card-from-play-topdecking though so I nerfed it and kept it as a choice. 3 Coffers is an awful lot now I think of it, so that's been reduced. I had to clumsily say 'put it into your discard' instead of 'discarding it' because otherwise if you exchanged it for a Meal you could exchange it straight back into a Dessert again.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 16, 2019, 06:45:47 pm

Quote from: FlyerBeast on May 16, 2019, 06:24:57 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on May 14, 2019, 09:19:42 pm

Very interesting cards and Traveller combos.

Morsel - I do enjoy the decision a player has to make about when to start this line and give their opponents a free Coffers token. That Coffers will mean different things at different stages of the game; early game probably seeing the most benefit. Of course (get it... course!?) those Coffers may be more beneficial to the player that has extra Buys to use them with.

Morsel/Meal Combo- Cool combo potential with Morsel. I wonder if it's too strong though. One Morsel/Meal combination makes $9 Coin and 4 Buys (including your starting Buy). For 2 Morsels/Meal it's $14 Coin and 6 Buys. With Coffers laying around it wouldn't be that hard to hit 1 Province and 2 Provinces respectively. I think this will end games a lot faster than people can get a Toast thing going.

Dessert - I can tell you from experience that +3 Coffers is very strong, even on a terminal Action. Enough so that it almost on its own justifies the all powerful, fourth, Traveller line spot. Adding the ability to gain a $5 cost makes it bonkers strong. The top decking from play is also a very good ability on it's own.

Toast - I like the trashing effect. If it's there to punish players, I don't think the game will ever last long enough to get to that point.

Again, this is a very interesting line. I just think a closer look needs to be taken on a few of these cards. Thanks for sharing!

Thanks for the kind feedback! I've reworked those cards a bit, mostly to make them less powerful. So, here's the set with the changed ones in:

(https://i.imgur.com/PNAlJIf.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/zFrsJDB.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/BuXivO9.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/LBO898a.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/c2CWWur.jpg)

And these are the changed texts:

Quote

Meal
$4* Treasure-Traveller
--
+1 Buy
When you play this,
+$1 per Buy you have.
(Including the +1 Buy from this)
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Dessert, or two Morsels.

I just reduced the +$2 per Buy to +$1. Just +$1 for a $4-cost card seemed bad to me at first but I'd say it's balanced alongside Miser etc? One play of this and a Morsel will still get you $5 though so it's still pretty strong.

Quote

Dessert
$5* Treasure-Traveller
--
Choose one: +2 Coffers and put a card costing up to $5 you have in play on top of your deck; or gain a card costing up to $5 and exchange this for a cheaper Traveller, putting it into your discard pile.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Toast.

Though it's a lot wordier now, it's more similar to Feast (And therefore, I hope, balanced at $5) in that it 'trashes' itself back a stage or two. I might be too enamoured by the card-from-play-topdecking though so I nerfed it and kept it as a choice. 3 Coffers is an awful lot now I think of it, so that's been reduced. I had to clumsily say 'put it into your discard' instead of 'discarding it' because otherwise if you exchanged it for a Meal you could exchange it straight back into a Dessert again.

At first glance these seem like some nice adjustments. Of course (there I go again!) Travellers are always going to be hard to get just right.

Meal - I guess there are no hard rules for Travellers, but the two official lines seems to have their middle-$4's slightly stronger than an actual $4 cost. Fugitive is about a $4.5 (too strong at $4 and too weak at $5). I can't say the same for Warrior, but I'm sure it's power level is similar. Anyways, Meal is a Treasure and gives +$2 and +1 Buy no matter what and can add +$1 to each other +1 Buy without using the buy. This still seems strong on its own, but considering the Aperitif self-Copper junking and junking from other players, lining this all up could be a nightmare. Perhaps this is where Toast comes in a shines!

I really like that now 2 Morsels and 1 Meal equals $8 Coin and +6 Buys. This seems to equate really well to 3 Fool's Golds which equals $9.

Dessert - Certainly has a lot of text, but it all seems straightforward. You can get rid of "putting it into your discard pile" as exchanged cards automatically go into your discard.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 16, 2019, 07:03:30 pm

Quote from: Aquila on May 16, 2019, 03:16:40 am

(https://i.imgur.com/2cCK2yO.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/r7y8Y3x.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/DV6EO78.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/89hCpEM.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/UKhYi9p.jpg)

Focused on flavour this time. Going to see if the cards can speak for themselves...

I've been hoping and waiting patiently for your submission. You certainly always put a lot of care into your cards and seeing your take on the infamous Traveller line is exciting.

At first glance, the first three cards seem very under powered. This is not a criticism, but just an observation.
Errand Runner - Great draw for a 2 cost, but this might force a lot of unwanted reshuffles, which can lead to Traveller line delays.
Quester - Nice Gold gainer, but lining up those 2 Estates for the Gold could be tough.
Victim - Maybe the funniest card I've seen on the forums! Very brutal though to the person playing it.

So, I already mentioned these seems under powered, but it all seems to be a means to an end as the 4th and 5th cards are just killer.

Avenger - With all that discarding from the 1st through the 3rd cards, Avenger should never be without a discard pile to draw from. This is just great draw. I do worry that without good Village support, jumping through all those hoops to get here won't be worth it. Maybe this needs a +1 Action on it? I realize Tag Teaming Questers can give +2 Actions, but this seems a bit unreliable.
Tag Team - Very strong, as it should be.

Well, I'm running out of time typing this, so my conclusion will have to be brief: It seems like a player who rushes through this line is going to be brutalized and so far behind by the time they get to cards 4 and 5 that they may not catch back up. So perhaps the winning strategy is to build your deck first so you can best handle 1-3? Out of time! i"ll write more later.

Thanks for sharing!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 17, 2019, 02:32:29 am

Here's a line that cares about trashing. It also has a cute little theme of running through basic types.

(https://i.imgur.com/oLsMOX7.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/7rqp4nh.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/mJQNVnn.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/zaxBm47.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/EJQnA1o.jpg)

Quote

Strange Scroll
Treasure/Traveller - $2

Trash a card you have in play. If it cost $1 or more, +$2.
-
When you trash this, you may exchange it for an Arcanist.

Quote

Arcanist
Action/Traveller - $3*

+3 Cards
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card, trash it.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Forgotten Path.
(This is not in the supply.)

Quote

Forgotten Path
Reaction/Traveller - $4*

When you trash a non-Victory card, you may reveal this from your hand, to exchange it for a card that shares a type ad costs up to $1 more from the supply or a pile of this Traveller line.
(This is not in the supply.)

Quote

Totem
Night/Traveller - $5*

Trash a copy of a card that you have in play from the supply. If you did, and there was no copy of it in the trash, +3 Villagers.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for an Ancient Ruin.
(This is not in the supply.)

Quote

Ancient Ruin
Victory - $6*

Worth 1 VP for every 2 differently named cards in the trash (rounded down).
(This is not in the supply.)

Card quantities are 10 Strange Scrolls, 5 of each of Arcanist, Forgotten path, Totem, and 2 per player of Ancient Ruin.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on May 17, 2019, 10:13:38 am

Quote from: Kudasai on May 16, 2019, 07:03:30 pm

I've been hoping and waiting patiently for your submission. You certainly always put a lot of care into your cards and seeing your take on the infamous Traveller line is exciting.

At first glance, the first three cards seem very under powered. This is not a criticism, but just an observation.
Errand Runner - Great draw for a 2 cost, but this might force a lot of unwanted reshuffles, which can lead to Traveller line delays.
Quester - Nice Gold gainer, but lining up those 2 Estates for the Gold could be tough.
Victim - Maybe the funniest card I've seen on the forums! Very brutal though to the person playing it.

So, I already mentioned these seems under powered, but it all seems to be a means to an end as the 4th and 5th cards are just killer.

Avenger - With all that discarding from the 1st through the 3rd cards, Avenger should never be without a discard pile to draw from. This is just great draw. I do worry that without good Village support, jumping through all those hoops to get here won't be worth it. Maybe this needs a +1 Action on it? I realize Tag Teaming Questers can give +2 Actions, but this seems a bit unreliable.
Tag Team - Very strong, as it should be.

Well, I'm running out of time typing this, so my conclusion will have to be brief: It seems like a player who rushes through this line is going to be brutalized and so far behind by the time they get to cards 4 and 5 that they may not catch back up. So perhaps the winning strategy is to build your deck first so you can best handle 1-3? Out of time! i"ll write more later.

Thanks for sharing!

Well thanks for all of this! I see a few changes that can be made...

(https://i.imgur.com/Rp4qbbe.jpg)
Victim can be more exciting going up to +$3, an Action Silver- was never ~$4.5 was it? He's got to damage you somehow, he's been inflicted on one of his quests, and you can work around the discard in several ways for good enough payload.

But of course this is way too similar to Quester...
(https://i.imgur.com/VT3WsV3.jpg)
...so I've changed it to looking for a pair from the deck. He's still got to gain a Gold, for the link to Quest.

That's heavy cycling with Errand Runner as well, so finally:
(https://i.imgur.com/BtzwTG3.jpg)
All I can see it being is Action copper, that's all it needs. If a Traveller line can do everything, there's a risk that it becomes the sole game strategy sometimes. There are 9 other piles it should potentially benefit from. Avenger might be too much draw to sit together with these payload options?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 17, 2019, 12:26:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/GkFikkg.png)(https://i.imgur.com/8eBi57O.png)(https://i.imgur.com/ytGYnUP.png)(https://i.imgur.com/xVwGAgw.png)(https://i.imgur.com/LZZkmso.png)

I might have spent too long on the art and not long enough on the cards this time...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 17, 2019, 01:52:38 pm

First Mate looks crazy. Discard a Gold and a Province, draw 14 cards.
Apprentice does at least come with a cost, you have to trash the good card.

Title: Re: Mythical Creatures
Post by: Kudasai on May 17, 2019, 01:54:50 pm

Quote from: herw on May 16, 2019, 12:53:17 am

(https://imgur.com/KvlSch3.png)

I just noticed the inverted arrow on Dryads. Very nice touch. What if Puck got a similar treatment? Something like this?

(https://i.imgur.com/YrcXXoN.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 17, 2019, 02:10:28 pm

Quote from: segura on May 17, 2019, 01:52:38 pm

First Mate looks crazy. Discard a Gold and a Province, draw 14 cards.
Apprentice does at least come with a cost, you have to trash the good card.

Probably, but I thought that was the whole point of travellers. I'd still take Disciple over it, whatever that means.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 17, 2019, 03:09:05 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 17, 2019, 02:10:28 pm

Quote from: segura on May 17, 2019, 01:52:38 pm

First Mate looks crazy. Discard a Gold and a Province, draw 14 cards.
Apprentice does at least come with a cost, you have to trash the good card.

Probably, but I thought that was the whole point of travellers. I'd still take Disciple over it, whatever that means.

The official Travellers are strong and often centralizing but not totally overpowered. Even if you use First Mate midgame to e.g. discard 3 Silvers (you can do better, this seems like the lower end of its strength) it would still be Discard 3 cards. + 9 Cards and thus stronger than any official terminal draw.
Great anywhere, you can use it in an engine but you could also just play with money and two First Mates. Disciple on the other hand is only good if the Kingdom has engine potential.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 17, 2019, 05:03:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/WPOssR1.png) (https://i.imgur.com/f7Sihpt.png) (https://i.imgur.com/2EO6caW.png) (https://i.imgur.com/eM6jAnR.png) (https://i.imgur.com/J5kOjWh.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 17, 2019, 05:31:33 pm

Quote from: segura on May 17, 2019, 03:09:05 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 17, 2019, 02:10:28 pm

Quote from: segura on May 17, 2019, 01:52:38 pm

First Mate looks crazy. Discard a Gold and a Province, draw 14 cards.
Apprentice does at least come with a cost, you have to trash the good card.

Probably, but I thought that was the whole point of travellers. I'd still take Disciple over it, whatever that means.

The official Travellers are strong and often centralizing but not totally overpowered. Even if you use First Mate midgame to e.g. discard 3 Silvers (you can do better, this seems like the lower end of its strength) it would still be Discard 3 cards. + 9 Cards and thus stronger than any official terminal draw.
Great anywhere, you can use it in an engine but you could also just play with money and two First Mates. Disciple on the other hand is only good if the Kingdom has engine potential.

Okay my first reply didn't really address any issues, sorry about that.

Bit of a tangent but the official travellers are totally overpowered, by my definition of overpowered at least. In all my years of playing dominion I don't remember a Peasant kingdom with no engine potential- you could construct one of course but realistically it's so just rare. Peasant just kind of does everything you need with very little support.

I'm pretty sure 2 First Mates money is awful, it takes ages to get there- you're probably getting your first one around turn 10 or so in a big money game (I'm assuming that there's no non-Swab trashing and we're buying Silvers and such) and that should be over halfway through the game if both players went for a sensible money strategy. Not to mention Cabin Boy will be next to useless so your early turns won't be great, meaning you'll have less expensive cards to discard to First Mate. You'll probably trash 2 Estates with Swabbies, but then you still have 7 Coppers so First Mates dudding doesn't seem like it'll be too rare. If you choose to trash 2 Copper instead then you're crippling your early buying power even more... I just don't see it.

In an engine it draws a bunch of cards in a sort of unreliable way, is that really that crazy considering you're probably going to have like 1-2 of them and you'll need some other draw sources to be reliable anyway? It's "just" terminal draw so you're still going to need other things which I tired to exclude from the traveller line to capitalise on it. Not to mention that maybe you don't want to draw too many cards because you need to get +Actions from Captain.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is over the top and broken, but I don't think it's nearly as clear cut and obvious as you make it out to be. I don't think you're taking the context into account enough, this isn't a card you can just add to your deck whenever you want. I do think it should probably be non-Victory because discarding provinces is a bit lame.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on May 17, 2019, 05:42:31 pm

Quote from: segura on May 17, 2019, 03:09:05 pm

Even if you use First Mate midgame to e.g. discard 3 Silvers (you can do better, this seems like the lower end of its strength) it would still be Discard 3 cards. + 9 Cards and thus stronger than any official terminal draw.

Disciple plays an Action card from your hand twice and permanently gains another copy of it for free. This is roughly the effect of a $6 terminal Action (and just the effect, not the terminality) tacked onto one of the strongest $4 antiterminals. Or, in other terms, as long as you can draw your deck and you have the +actions to play your newly gained card, stronger than King's Court (and thus stronger than any other official Throne variant).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on May 17, 2019, 07:12:04 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 17, 2019, 12:26:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/GkFikkg.png)(https://i.imgur.com/8eBi57O.png)(https://i.imgur.com/ytGYnUP.png)(https://i.imgur.com/xVwGAgw.png)(https://i.imgur.com/LZZkmso.png)

I might have spent too long on the art and not long enough on the cards this time...

These should totally win just for the art.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 18, 2019, 06:52:20 am

Quote from: Gazbag on May 17, 2019, 05:31:33 pm

Okay my first reply didn't really address any issues, sorry about that.

Bit of a tangent but the official travellers are totally overpowered, by my definition of overpowered at least. n all my years of playing dominion I don't remember a Peasant kingdom with no engine potential- you could construct one of course but realistically it's so just rare. Peasant just kind of does everything you need with very little support.

My experience differs, there are Kingdoms in which Peasant is bad as the Kingdom does not provide any engine potential. E.g. if Pearl Diver is the only non-terminal Action and there are no gainers or extra Buys, I seriously doubt that going hard on making these Pearl Divers into Labs is automatically the dominant strategy.
And Page is on average a weaker line anyway. If Warrior is the only draw in the Kingdom going for 2-3 Warriors and Champion is of course fine but not overpowered.

Independent of how the official cards are, I don't think that fan cards should be overpowered. If somebody did something broken like Cultist or Rebuild, well, that would be a bad card.

Quote

In an engine it draws a bunch of cards in a sort of unreliable way, is that really that crazy considering you're probably going to have like 1-2 of them and you'll need some other draw sources to be reliable anyway?

I have played engines with 2 Hunting Grounds as well as with 2 Royal Blacksmiths. And First Mate is likely to draw double the amount of cards either of these two most powerful official terminal draw cards do draw.

A pretty straightforward nerf of First Mate, that would lose none of its flavour, would be two cards. It would still be a powerful sifter/drawer. Even the seemingly worst case, just discarding 2 Silvers for 6 cards, is good. It is the same net net effect as Hunting Grounds with the extra benefit of sifting through the stuff which you want to draw at last.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 18, 2019, 12:49:15 pm

Quote from: segura on May 18, 2019, 06:52:20 am

if Pearl Diver is the only non-terminal Action and there are no gainers or extra Buys

It's literally impossible for this to be the case if Peasant is on the board.

Peasant automatically makes any board into an engine board; the only exceptions are deliberately contrived boards with mostly Kingdom Treasures.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 18, 2019, 04:41:22 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 18, 2019, 12:49:15 pm

Quote from: segura on May 18, 2019, 06:52:20 am

if Pearl Diver is the only non-terminal Action and there are no gainers or extra Buys

It's literally impossible for this to be the case if Peasant is on the board.

Peasant automatically makes any board into an engine board; the only exceptions are deliberately contrived boards with mostly Kingdom Treasures.

Yeah, non-engine isn't really the kind of board where Peasant is bad, it's boards with super fast strategies that outpace Peasant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 18, 2019, 05:29:19 pm

Quote from: Aquila on May 17, 2019, 10:13:38 am

(https://i.imgur.com/Rp4qbbe.jpg)
Victim can be more exciting going up to +$3, an Action Silver- was never ~$4.5 was it? He's got to damage you somehow, he's been inflicted on one of his quests, and you can work around the discard in several ways for good enough payload.

But of course this is way too similar to Quester...
(https://i.imgur.com/VT3WsV3.jpg)
...so I've changed it to looking for a pair from the deck. He's still got to gain a Gold, for the link to Quest.

That's heavy cycling with Errand Runner as well, so finally:
(https://i.imgur.com/BtzwTG3.jpg)
All I can see it being is Action copper, that's all it needs. If a Traveller line can do everything, there's a risk that it becomes the sole game strategy sometimes. There are 9 other piles it should potentially benefit from. Avenger might be too much draw to sit together with these payload options?

Victim: Certainly feels much more worth the effort now. At it's worst you should have no problem hitting $5 with 1 Victim and 2 Coppers. At its best... well that's hard to determine, but I'm sure you can do a lot of cools things with this. Seems like a good T3 slot.

Quester: Gives some nice cycling power. At first glace it seems strong, but with all the Traveller cards (which you'll likely only have one copy of for awhile) and the anti-self synergy of gaining Golds (which you'll also likely only have one copy of for awhile), this probably works fine.

Errand Runner: Weak as it should be, but now with good synergy with Victim.

What I mainly like now is that all give +1 Action and make getting +2 Actions from Tag Team much more likely.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on May 19, 2019, 07:47:44 am

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ud6q2017.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/4pv3wpn4.png)
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/v6xdiz22.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/a8wjx59e.png)
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/z7p7o6jq.png)

Each player has their own Traveller token, but a card counts as a Traveller card, when any player’s Traveller token is on its pile, regardless of the owner of that token. Bugler can only gain Travellers from the supply (obviously).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 20, 2019, 02:42:18 pm

Is it about that time to travel to the next Weekly Challenge?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 20, 2019, 09:31:03 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on May 20, 2019, 02:42:18 pm

Is it about that time to travel to the next Weekly Challenge?

Based on when this challenge was given, we're two days overdue.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 20, 2019, 10:37:10 pm

Yes, sorry about that, I've been occupied with other things. I'm writing up the final judging post right now; I'll give 24 hours for any additional entries.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 21, 2019, 11:43:19 pm

Thank you for all of your entries. Making a Traveler line takes a lot of work, and I appreciate the effort you all have put into these.

majiponi’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg800484#msg800484)

So this line has a trashing theme. Gravekeeper has an interesting interaction with the others, not only because you get +1VP for trashing but because you can gain a Silver to your hand and then Remodel it. As for the others, Bankrupt looks very strong, as it’s very similar to Masquerade, one of the strongest 3s. Imposter, meanwhile, looks very weak; it will mostly help your opponents like Pirate Ship does.

LibraryAdventurer’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg800493#msg800493)

These have some neat interactions. Individually they look weak, but together they have some nice engine potential. The main problem I see is that they rely heavily on Victory cards to function optimally. This is also true of Shepherd, but Shepherd gives you an additional reason to gain Estates and an extra Victory card at the beginning. I fear Mimblescout and his friends will run into the same problem regular Scout did.

NoMoreFun’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg800496#msg800496)

The interactions with Treasures are nice, but to me some of these look too swingy. Getting an early Gold from colliding your first Digger with a Silver could easily be the whole game. The same thing with colliding your first Town Crier with a Gold. Gold Rush somewhat mitigates this by staying in play, but it still gives you a bonkers benefit for drawing the right hand that could snowball rapidly.

anordinaryman’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg800550#msg800550)

These are very nice. I like that they each give you a reason to keep them around instead of immediately upgrading them. Crusade is a good trasher, Underground Railroad is amazing draw in the beginning with the downside that you’ll mostly be drawing junk, and Bribery is a strong Attack. The weak link is Border Crossing, which has little reason to be retained, although it offers an interesting choice nonetheless. My main complaint is that Bribery is too spammable. Playing a bunch of them at once will be very nasty, and getting a bunch won’t be too hard as Crusade can gain copies of itself.

ClouduHieh’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg800562#msg800562)

I assume Fur Trader is supposed to be worth 2 VP for every Traveler YOU HAVE? That’s an interesting idea, but the other cards in the line don’t really interact with each other.

4est’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg800631#msg800631)

Another good one. Cottage is a nice and simple starting card, though the cheapness and the +Buy might make just spamming these a viable strategy, especially if there’s something like King’s Court. Abbey is maybe OP as well. Hospital is a cool attack. City Hall is really cool, I love that you got the idea of losing VP chips for benefit to work. Manor looks okay, it opens up the interesting strategy of buying a bunch of cheap Victory cards for VP and then trashing them immediately with Abbey.

segura’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg800652#msg800652)

Archer has the swinginess problem; getting to trash 3 cards by immediately colliding this with another Traveler from this line will often be game-deciding. Mauler is way too good, even for a $6 Traveler. The attack is horrifically brutal and getting 3 or even 4 Coffers will be common. Really don’t like the infinite Attacks clause on General; even disregarding Mauler that will be painful on a lot of boards. Having said all that, I do like Infantryman and Cavalry.

Chappy7’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg800654#msg800654)

I love the theme as well as the fact that you have to do a bit more to advance to the next level. Unfortunately, these hardly interact with each other, which is something I’d really prefer to see in a Traveler line.

Kudasai’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg800662#msg800662)

I’m sort of feeling that this line isn’t interesting enough for how complicated it is. The idea of adding an Artifact to a Traveler line is good, but I think just one Artifact for the Travelers to interact with might be good enough. I definitely don’t like that Matriarch locks in the Artifacts. Travelers missing the shuffle can already screw you over real bad; this just increases the problem. The official cards have Tournament, but that involves more strategy than this (and Tournament is still widely hated).

FlyerBeast’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg800971#msg800971)

Another Traveler-Treasure with an amusing theme. Meal is great, and interacts well with Morsel. Morsel itself looks good except it seems too obviously better than Peasant; would it be more interesting if it gave $0? Dessert looks very interesting. Toast looks good.

Fragasnap’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg800702#msg800702)

Well, this line will have junk being gained and trashed like crazy, that’s for sure! I feel that Iconoclast is a bit too easy to get for how insanely strong it is, and that Saint maybe makes things a bit too easy.

herw’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg800870#msg800870)

Dryads is really neat; one of the more creative ideas I’ve seen here, although I’m kind of wondering why you would bother promoting a Traveler in the first place if you plan on going back to it. Mountain Troll looks cool. The others are pretty similar to existing cards and don’t excite me much, but I do like that Mesuline is another way to make a Grand Market that’s hard to get.

Aquila’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg800873#msg800873)

Quester looks pretty swingy; I say this mostly because it’s a Traveler so you won’t necessarily keep it around very long and also because you’ll probably play it pretty early when collisions like this are very random. I love Victim, and Avenger works well with it. Tag Team looks neat.

faust’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg800987#msg800987)

Really like the idea of traveling through the basic types; a pure Reaction-Traveler is one of the more creative ideas I’ve seen here. And if I’m reading it right, you exchange some other card to get to the next stage, instead of Forgotten Path? That’s certainly interesting. This line overall looks like something you might not necessarily want to go for, which is good; it makes the decision more interesting.

Gazbag’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801008#msg801008)

I agree that First Mate looks crazy, and not just because he doesn’t seem to be wearing anything under that coat. I’d limit it to discarding 2 cards at most. These cards overall are very creative in and of themselves. Unfortunately, they lack any synergy with each other beyond just generally caring about Action cards.

Gubump’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801034#msg801034)

The meta-ness is cool. My main concern is that these are too strong; Concubine and Consort in particular get nuts with Queen in play, and from what I can tell, Queens can stack!

King Leon’s entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801089#msg801089)

More cool Meta stuff, and the Traveler Token looks cool. My main complaint is that absent other Travelers these will all be very weak when you’re first going through the line to get the Paladin.

---------------------------

Short list: anordinaryman, 4est, FlyerBeast, Aquila, Faust

It was very close between those five, but the winner based on elegance, balance, theme and interactions is 4est, with FlyerBeast as the runner-up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on May 21, 2019, 11:58:34 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 21, 2019, 11:43:19 pm

[...]
herw’s entry:

Dryads is really neat; one of the more creative ideas I’ve seen here, although I’m kind of wondering why you would bother promoting a Traveler in the first place if you plan on going back to it. Mountain Troll looks cool. The others are pretty similar to existing cards and don’t excite me much, but I do like that Mesuline is another way to make a Grand Market that’s hard to get.
[...]

The trick is not to go back to the first traveller but to Franfeluche or Melusine directly. So Dryads/Franfeluche or Dryads/Melusine are really one card!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 12:11:12 am

Quote from: herw on May 21, 2019, 11:58:34 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 21, 2019, 11:43:19 pm

[...]
herw’s entry:

Dryads is really neat; one of the more creative ideas I’ve seen here, although I’m kind of wondering why you would bother promoting a Traveler in the first place if you plan on going back to it. Mountain Troll looks cool. The others are pretty similar to existing cards and don’t excite me much, but I do like that Mesuline is another way to make a Grand Market that’s hard to get.
[...]

The trick is not to go back to the first traveller but to Franfeluche or Melusine directly. So Dryads/Franfeluche or Dryads/Melusine are really one card!

I know that. I'm wondering why you would bother promoting either of those to Dryads if you're just going to go back to them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on May 22, 2019, 12:12:13 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 12:11:12 am

Quote from: herw on May 21, 2019, 11:58:34 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 21, 2019, 11:43:19 pm

[...]
herw’s entry:

Dryads is really neat; one of the more creative ideas I’ve seen here, although I’m kind of wondering why you would bother promoting a Traveler in the first place if you plan on going back to it. Mountain Troll looks cool. The others are pretty similar to existing cards and don’t excite me much, but I do like that Mesuline is another way to make a Grand Market that’s hard to get.
[...]

The trick is not to go back to the first traveller but to Franfeluche or Melusine directly. So Dryads/Franfeluche or Dryads/Melusine are really one card!

I know that. I'm wondering why you would bother promoting either of those to Dryads if you're just going to go back to them.

Because it's a lost city on play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on May 22, 2019, 12:22:58 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 12:11:12 am

Quote from: herw on May 21, 2019, 11:58:34 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 21, 2019, 11:43:19 pm

[...]
herw’s entry:

Dryads is really neat; one of the more creative ideas I’ve seen here, although I’m kind of wondering why you would bother promoting a Traveler in the first place if you plan on going back to it. Mountain Troll looks cool. The others are pretty similar to existing cards and don’t excite me much, but I do like that Mesuline is another way to make a Grand Market that’s hard to get.
[...]

The trick is not to go back to the first traveller but to Franfeluche or Melusine directly. So Dryads/Franfeluche or Dryads/Melusine are really one card!

I know that. I'm wondering why you would bother promoting either of those to Dryads if you're just going to go back to them.

because you have a powerful line with dryads:
dryads/Fanfreluche -> Melusine -> dryads/xxx or dryads/Melusine -> dryads/Melusine ... your choice or with a second traveller line too; i have tested with much fun.
There is another traveller's line next days (see my thread).
The idea is, that the last traveller isn't a static card.

Nevertheless it was fun to create a line.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 22, 2019, 03:21:33 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 21, 2019, 11:43:19 pm

Mauler is way too good, even for a $6 Traveler. The attack is horrifically brutal and getting 3 or even 4 Coffers will be common. Really don’t like the infinite Attacks clause on General; even disregarding Mauler that will be painful on a lot of boards.

You seem to have missed the "multiplayer brake", i.e. that a second Mauler hit is neutral (as it swaps a Ruins for a Ruins), as well as that Mauler and Archer defend against these potentially strong Mauler attacks (plus, money as an obvious defense).
I don't see the problem of General making Attacks non-terminal (that it buffs discard/junk Attacks into Ghost Ships/ Sea Hags is far stronger). It is a splitter, so what? Champion and Teacher can make far more cards non-terminal. You can always keep some Archers around to defend at once, respectively after the fact to deal with the incoming Coppers/Ruins.

Quote from: herw on May 22, 2019, 12:22:58 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 12:11:12 am

Quote from: herw on May 21, 2019, 11:58:34 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 21, 2019, 11:43:19 pm

[...]
herw’s entry:

Dryads is really neat; one of the more creative ideas I’ve seen here, although I’m kind of wondering why you would bother promoting a Traveler in the first place if you plan on going back to it. Mountain Troll looks cool. The others are pretty similar to existing cards and don’t excite me much, but I do like that Mesuline is another way to make a Grand Market that’s hard to get.
[...]

The trick is not to go back to the first traveller but to Franfeluche or Melusine directly. So Dryads/Franfeluche or Dryads/Melusine are really one card!

I know that. I'm wondering why you would bother promoting either of those to Dryads if you're just going to go back to them.

because you have a powerful line with dryads:
dryads/Fanfreluche -> Melusine -> dryads/xxx or dryads/Melusine -> dryads/Melusine ... your choice or with a second traveller line too; i have tested with much fun.
There is another traveller's line next days (see my thread).
The idea is, that the last traveller isn't a static card.

Nevertheless it was fun to create a line.

It is pretty vanilla but a cool line and at the first glance probably quite well balanced which is not easy to do with Travellers. And the switching from Dryad to Hero/Disciple in Page/Peasant Kingdoms is plain brilliant. Makes you probably stare at the board for some minutes before you can decide via which route you want to go to Champion/Teacher.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on May 22, 2019, 07:33:00 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 21, 2019, 11:43:19 pm

FlyerBeast as the runner-up.

I'm honoured, Commodore, thanks! Last week certainly was an interesting contest, lots of card interactions to think about at once. Looking forward to the next one!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on May 22, 2019, 11:22:22 am

Thanks Commodore Chuckles! Here is this week's challenge:

Challenge #30: Design a Debt card (or card-shaped thing)

Acceptable submissions may have a Debt cost (such as Overlord, Engineer, or Triumph), may somehow cause you or other players to take Debt (such as Capital, Tax, or Mountain Pass), or may otherwise interact with Debt in whatever unique ways you can think of. Judging will be based on ingenuity, balance, and creative/appropriate use of the Debt mechanic (e.g. for a Debt-cost card, there should be a compelling reason for your card to cost Debt and not $). Have fun!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 22, 2019, 03:32:12 pm

Ok. Here is my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/QL0U1z5.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Replacing my Scoundrels submission with a simpler card using the debt mechanic:

Monoculture version #4:
(https://imgur.com/9rjQBlD.png)

*Changed the text, added "After Clean-Up..."

Previous entry
Scoundrels:
(https://i.imgur.com/TTXHa9R.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 22, 2019, 04:21:12 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Scoundrels:
(https://i.imgur.com/TTXHa9R.png)

What does "+$2 for each other player on their next turn" mean?
Also, this should probably be an attack (it also doesn't need a line break).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 22, 2019, 04:35:16 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 22, 2019, 04:21:12 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Scoundrels:
(https://i.imgur.com/TTXHa9R.png)

What does "+$2 for each other player on their next turn" mean?
Also, this should probably be an attack (it also doesn't need a line break).

I agree the wording isn't correct/ideal, but I think I understood the intention without an issue. Should probably be:

"While this is in play, at the start of each other player's turn, they get +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}."

The problem is, it's weird to have a duration-effect that depends on your choice; you have to remember on opponent's turns if you chose that option or not. I don't know if there's a good way to do that.


Also, welcome to the forum!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:49:36 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 22, 2019, 04:35:16 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 22, 2019, 04:21:12 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Scoundrels:
(https://i.imgur.com/TTXHa9R.png)

What does "+$2 for each other player on their next turn" mean?
Also, this should probably be an attack (it also doesn't need a line break).

I agree the wording isn't correct/ideal, but I think I understood the intention without an issue. Should probably be:

"While this is in play, at the start of each other player's turn, they get +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}."

The problem is, it's weird to have a duration-effect that depends on your choice; you have to remember on opponent's turns if you chose that option or not. I don't know if there's a good way to do that.


Also, welcome to the forum!

Thanks for the advice! I see the issue.. Well I'm going to change my entry to a simpler card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #30: debt
Post by: Aquila on May 22, 2019, 05:09:56 pm

I've gone in with the creative use approach:
(https://i.imgur.com/S3Wvb5o.jpg)

It makes use of debt carrying over to your next turn.
It's a tricky thing to use, either a high skill card or a mess.
Edit: new Action version.

---

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:49:36 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 22, 2019, 04:35:16 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 22, 2019, 04:21:12 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Scoundrels:
(https://i.imgur.com/TTXHa9R.png)

What does "+$2 for each other player on their next turn" mean?
Also, this should probably be an attack (it also doesn't need a line break).

I agree the wording isn't correct/ideal, but I think I understood the intention without an issue. Should probably be:

"While this is in play, at the start of each other player's turn, they get +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}."

The problem is, it's weird to have a duration-effect that depends on your choice; you have to remember on opponent's turns if you chose that option or not. I don't know if there's a good way to do that.


Also, welcome to the forum!

Thanks for the advice! I see the issue.. Well I'm going to change my entry to a simpler card.

I'll add a note on balance you can keep in mind as well. You could open 2 of these, they're non-terminal so no fear of colliding them or adding more later, and they'd seriously shut down the opponents if you chose the debt option each time. Surely too influential and makes a slog of every game they'd appear in.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #30: debt
Post by: Gubump on May 22, 2019, 06:12:29 pm

Quote from: Aquila on May 22, 2019, 05:09:56 pm

I've gone in with the creative use approach:
(https://i.imgur.com/fJUQDMW.jpg)

Technically, there's no rule saying that Duration effects stop if they leave play; You can use Improve on a Duration card and still get its next-turn(s) effect, for example. Recompense should say "At the start of each of your turns that this remains in play:"

Title: Re: Contest #30: Design a card involving debt
Post by: Gubump on May 22, 2019, 06:15:59 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Hu0V2XR.png)

EDIT: It now specifies that this occurs after cost-reduction, so cards like Bridge and Highway can still reduce cards' costs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 22, 2019, 06:32:41 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 22, 2019, 06:15:59 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/GC43t7I.png)

My intent is that cost reducers like Bridge and Highway still work to reduce the debt cost of all cards except those that normally cost debt. Should I specify that on this card itself?

As worded, one could just as validly conclude that cost-reducers still work, or not. It all depends on which effect you apply first. So yes, needs a way of clarifying that (and I don't know the best wording).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on May 22, 2019, 06:51:04 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/cbonl128.png)

Blueprints
Type: Action
Cost: <7>

+1 Card
+1 Action
If you have no <>, you may gain a card costing up to $5. If you do: take <1>.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 07:16:07 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Monoculture:
(https://imgur.com/jSJRqkE.png)

I don't think this should have the Debt icons at the top corners. The top corners are only for how much the Treasure is worth.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 22, 2019, 07:26:59 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 07:16:07 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Monoculture:
(https://imgur.com/jSJRqkE.png)

I don't think this should have the Debt icons at the top corners. The top corners are only for how much the Treasure is worth.

Given the format for all official Treasures so far, it should also say "when you play this, take <1> per differently named card in play." I'm not sure why Treasures need to specify that, but all official cards do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 22, 2019, 09:05:20 pm

Quote

Insurance
Project
Cost: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png)}
When you buy this, put a token on this. At the start of your turn, if you have no debt, +2 Cards, and remove your token from this. If you have a token on this, take debt equal to half the debt you currently have, rounded up.

I couldn't really think of a better name for this. Insurance doesn't entirely work, but whatever.
This project might be too strong, but the idea is that it costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png)} on the surface, and I would be willing to change it if anybody has any better suggestions. +2 Cards was really just a placeholder, my main idea was the debt cost with interest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on May 22, 2019, 09:07:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/8tZMSRQ_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)


(https://i.imgur.com/fCjD8ct_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

This is a split pile with hostage on top.

Their fixed it -3 should even it out.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 22, 2019, 10:07:53 pm

Hostage seems pretty overpowered. The only two _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} Cursers in the official game are Sea Hag, which gives the person who played it no benefit, and Young Witch, which has a built-in cheap counter which is available from the beginning of the game and a weak additional benefit.

Hostage has a strong additional benefit (same as Witch), also gives out Debt, is immune to Reactions, and its built-in counter is expensive and probably not available until the Curses are gone anyway. -1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} is not enough to make up for its strength.

Non-Hostage related, Ransom should be a Reaction (see Tunnel).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 23, 2019, 01:55:11 am

CHALLENGE #30 SUBMISSION:

My last submission was said to be complicated and uninteresting. I guess I'll try uncomplicated and uninteresting this time.

Draw Bridge is essentially a very strong Double Highway as its cost reduction can effect 2 cards instead of 1. A card this strong probably can't be balanced with a Coin cost, so I've made this one a Debt cost. It's still a very strong card, but now it can't help gain itself very well and it's on play effects are next to worthless when you have debt. Players will need to time when their decks can reliably and quickly pay off their debt which also goes well with the overall timing theme of 8-cost Debt cards.

(https://i.imgur.com/636EtK7.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 09:42:34 am

Quote from: Kudasai on May 23, 2019, 01:55:11 am

CHALLENGE #30 SUBMISSION:

My last submission was said to be complicated and uninteresting. I guess I'll try uncomplicated and uninteresting this time.

(https://i.imgur.com/636EtK7.jpg)

At first I didn't like this, because hey it's just a slightly buffed Highway. But then I realized that it's own cost reduction can't help you get more of them, which gives it a really good reason to have a Debt cost. I like it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on May 23, 2019, 10:07:22 am

Prophet
Edict (LastFootnote's idea)
Setup: Each player may take <1>. If they do, they put all starting cards into their hand, and put 5 cards onto their deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on May 23, 2019, 01:09:25 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 07:16:07 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Monoculture:
(https://imgur.com/jSJRqkE.png)

I don't think this should have the Debt icons at the top corners. The top corners are only for how much the Treasure is worth.

I don't think, this even needs Debt. Poor House has negative money, which would work here as well.

$5
When you play this,
+1 Buy
-$1 per differently named card in play. (You can't go below $0.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 01:15:40 pm

Quote from: King Leon on May 23, 2019, 01:09:25 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 07:16:07 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Monoculture:
(https://imgur.com/jSJRqkE.png)

I don't think this should have the Debt icons at the top corners. The top corners are only for how much the Treasure is worth.

I don't think, this even needs Debt. Poor House has negative money, which would work here as well.

$5
When you play this,
+1 Buy
-$1 per differently named card in play. (You can't go below $0.)

Debt can make you lose more money than you have. Your wording can't.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2019, 02:18:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 07:16:07 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Monoculture:
(https://imgur.com/jSJRqkE.png)

I don't think this should have the Debt icons at the top corners. The top corners are only for how much the Treasure is worth.

I disagree. Potion features a Potion on the top so what we actually see on the top is what a Treasure card produces.
This very card produces 5 Coins as well as a variable amount of Debt so it is not bad to show all parts of production on the top (unlike with Capital you also get the Debt immediately).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on May 23, 2019, 02:27:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3TfNzbz.jpg?1)

A cheap lab variant that really hurts your payload. You can draw your deck for a cost!

Title: Challenge #30: Design a Debt card (or card-shaped thing)
Post by: herw on May 23, 2019, 02:31:42 pm

Tollkeeper

(https://imgur.com/8WKxqQn.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on May 23, 2019, 02:44:34 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 01:15:40 pm

Quote from: King Leon on May 23, 2019, 01:09:25 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 07:16:07 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Monoculture:
(https://imgur.com/jSJRqkE.png)

I don't think this should have the Debt icons at the top corners. The top corners are only for how much the Treasure is worth.

I don't think, this even needs Debt. Poor House has negative money, which would work here as well.

$5
When you play this,
+1 Buy
-$1 per differently named card in play. (You can't go below $0.)

Debt can make you lose more money than you have. Your wording can't.

It does not require it. You would never play a Monoculture, if it gives you more debt than money (unless you are forced to do so because of Venture) and the +Buy is worthless as you can't buy anything, as long you have debt. You also never would play Poor House with more than three Treasure cards in your hand (edge cases: draw to X, Conspirator).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 23, 2019, 02:56:15 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 02:18:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 07:16:07 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Monoculture:
(https://imgur.com/jSJRqkE.png)

I don't think this should have the Debt icons at the top corners. The top corners are only for how much the Treasure is worth.

I disagree. Potion features a Potion on the top so what we actually see on the top is what a Treasure card produces.
This very card produces 5 Coins as well as a variable amount of Debt so it is not bad to show all parts of production on the top (unlike with Capital you also get the Debt immediately).

But why does Ducat not say +1 Coffers in the corners then?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2019, 03:03:18 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 23, 2019, 02:56:15 pm

But why does Ducat not say +1 Coffers in the corners then?

As there is no icon for Coffers?
I am not arguing that the Debt up there is necessary, important or matching the way the official cards do it. All I am saying is that it is OK as a reminder that the very card you play also produces Debt.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2019, 03:31:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/B4Xg0yD.jpg)

If it is too strong, buy instead of gain is an obvious nerf. Note that this could be beneficial during your turn (when you spend less than you total) but also hurt you (when you have $10 and want to buy 2 $5s but are unable to due to the Debt that you incur between the two Buys)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Frolouch on May 23, 2019, 03:33:55 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 23, 2019, 02:56:15 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 02:18:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 07:16:07 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Monoculture:
(https://imgur.com/jSJRqkE.png)

I don't think this should have the Debt icons at the top corners. The top corners are only for how much the Treasure is worth.

I disagree. Potion features a Potion on the top so what we actually see on the top is what a Treasure card produces.
This very card produces 5 Coins as well as a variable amount of Debt so it is not bad to show all parts of production on the top (unlike with Capital you also get the Debt immediately).

But why does Ducat not say +1 Coffers in the corners then?

Debt and coffers are tokens, not treasures. So it made sense to remove the ? Debt on the top. The card submission has been updated with clearer language and a different cost:
(https://imgur.com/YgIhhlS.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2019, 03:36:59 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 23, 2019, 03:33:55 pm

Debt and coffers are tokens, not treasures. So it made sense to remove the ? Debt on the top. The card submission has been updated with clearer language and a different cost:
(https://imgur.com/YgIhhlS.png)

Looks like a more expensive and weaker version of Capital now. I'd cut the Potion cost, it works against the anti-variety idea of the card (Potion is one extra, different card in your deck).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 23, 2019, 03:37:33 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 03:03:18 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 23, 2019, 02:56:15 pm

But why does Ducat not say +1 Coffers in the corners then?

As there is no icon for Coffers?
I am not arguing that the Debt up there is necessary, important or matching the way the official cards do it. All I am saying is that it is OK as a reminder that the very card you play also produces Debt.

It still looks pretty good to me
(https://i.imgur.com/WDV6l4u.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 03:54:51 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 03:31:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/As4bim3.jpg)

If it is too strong, buy instead of gain is an obvious nerf. Note that this could be beneficial during your turn (when you spend less than you total) but also hurt you (when you have $10 and want to buy 2 $5s but are unable to due to the Debt that you incur between the two Buys)

I think the +1 Coffers effect is problematic. There's a reason that cards like Smuggler and Treasure Hunter only give you benefits based on ONE other player's turn, not everyone's. This effect scales badly with player count.

Here's my idea of how to fix it:

"Until your next turn, when any player (including you) gains a card, they take <1>. At the start of your next turn, take Coffers equal to the greatest number of cards any one player gained since your last turn." Something like that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2019, 04:10:37 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 03:54:51 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 03:31:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/As4bim3.jpg)

If it is too strong, buy instead of gain is an obvious nerf. Note that this could be beneficial during your turn (when you spend less than you total) but also hurt you (when you have $10 and want to buy 2 $5s but are unable to due to the Debt that you incur between the two Buys)

I think the +1 Coffers effect is problematic. There's a reason that cards like Smuggler and Treasure Hunter only give you benefits based on ONE other player's turn, not everyone's. This effect scales badly with player count.

Here's my idea of how to fix it:

"Until your next turn, when any player (including you) gains a card, they take <1>. At the start of your next turn, take Coffers equal to the greatest number of cards any one player gained since your last turn." Something like that.

I am very well aware that the benefits of this card depend on the player count. Just like Pirate Ship, Jester and Noble Brigand (ironically all not particularly powerful Attacks). Ambassador is the most funky one. It is a net trasher in 2P, a "distributor" in 3P games and a net junker in 4P games.
I don't consider any of these cards to be broken just because their strength scales with player count.

About your idea, seems messy to track. Buy instead of gain is likely a simpler nerf.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 04:40:45 pm

I don't get what you mean about Ambassador scaling; if you consider giving out 3 junk cards instead of 1 junk card scaling, then Witch, and all Cursers, would be considered to be scaling; more powerful with more players. But that's not how it works.

Whether the total amount of junk Ambassador gives your opponents is more or less than the total number of junk it trashes for you is irrelevant. It always trashes (up to) 2 cards, and gives out 1 junk to each opponent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2019, 04:54:01 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 04:40:45 pm

I don't get what you mean about Ambassador scaling

Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that all players do play Ambassador at the same frequency and are always able to trash 2 cards.

In a 2P game you trash 2 via your own Ambassador and get 1 via the one of your opponent. Net trash 1.
In a 3P game you trash 2 and get 2 via the ones of your opponents. Net effect of 0.
In a 4P game you trash 2 and get 3 via the ones of your opponents. Net junk 1.

This makes Ambassador arguably the most player count sensitive card, it literally changes its core behaviour from a net trasher to a net junker! If you play a Kingdom with 2P you can easily use Ambassador as trasher whereas in the very same Kingdom with 4P you have to either rely on another trasher or, if there are no other trashers, Ambassador does not reduce but amplifies the junk.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 04:56:44 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 04:10:37 pm

I am very well aware that the benefits of this card depend on the player count. Just like Pirate Ship, Jester and Noble Brigand (ironically all not particularly powerful Attacks). Ambassador is the most funky one. It is a net trasher in 2P, a "distributor" in 3P games and a net junker in 4P games.
I don't consider any of these cards to be broken just because their strength scales with player count.

Pirate Ship doesn't scale with player count to the same degree as Revenant. The only way it scales is that it's more likely to "hit" with more players; Revenant's effect stacks for each hit. Revenant is like if Pirate Ship got a coin token for every Treasure trashed instead of just one if it trashed any, and then got + $1 per Coin token on your Pirate Ship mat after the attack. Except it's even better, because their Coffers instead of $, and Coffers are strictly better.

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 04:54:01 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 04:40:45 pm

I don't get what you mean about Ambassador scaling

Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that all players do play Ambassador at the same frequency and are always able to trash 2 cards.

In a 2P game you trash 2 via your own Ambassador and get 1 via the one of your opponent. Net trash 1.
In a 3P game you trash 2 and get 2 via the ones of your opponents. Net effect of 0.
In a 4P game you trash 2 and get 3 via the ones of your opponents. Net junk 1.

This makes Ambassador arguably the most player count sensitive card, it literally changes its core behaviour from a net trasher to a net junker! If you play a Kingdom with 2P you can easily use Ambassador as trasher whereas in the very same Kingdom with 4P you have to either rely on another trasher or, if there are no other trashers, Ambassador does not reduce but amplifies the junk.

Your scenario assumes that every single player has an Ambassador, which is unlikely and requires more Ambassadors to be taken from the Supply. Sure, Ambassador could be said, based on your example, to scale with the player count, but it scales with the number of copies shared by players, not just player count. Revenant, however, scales with player count alone.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:08:14 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 04:56:44 pm

Pirate Ship doesn't scale with player count to the same degree as Revenant. The only way it scales is that it's more likely to "hit" with more players; Revenant's effect stacks for each hit. Revenant is like if Pirate Ship got a coin token for every Treasure trashed instead of just one if it trashed any.

And? In a 2P game Revenant could easily yield just 1 Coffers. Not a particularly huge benefit which is why I do not worry about the multiplayer case.

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 04:56:44 pm

Your scenario assumes that every single player has an Ambassador, which is unlikely

Not getting Ambassadors is unlikely. Unlike you I do not implicitly assume irrational players.
Pretty weird to argue like this just in order to deny that many Dominion cards scale with player count. You also want to deny that one Jester can theoretically gain you 3 $5s or that one Noble Brigand can theoretically gain you 3 Golds in a 4P game?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 05:10:01 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:01:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 04:56:44 pm

Pirate Ship doesn't scale with player count to the same degree as Revenant. The only way it scales is that it's more likely to "hit" with more players; Revenant's effect stacks for each hit. Revenant is like if Pirate Ship got a coin token for every Treasure trashed instead of just one if it trashed any.

And? In a 2P game Revenant could easily yield just 1 Coffers. Not a particularly huge benefit which is why I do not worry about the multiplayer case

That's only if your opponent doesn't buy anything, and it would be very rare for them to do that just to avoid 1 measly debt. In 2P games, it will usually yield 2 Coffers. In a 3P game, it suddenly gives +3 Coffers, and has an attack along with it. For just $5. Revenant is balanced ONLY in 2 player games.

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:01:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 04:56:44 pm

Your scenario assumes that every single player has an Ambassador

True that, I did indeed implicitly assume rational play.

Sorry, I should have specified. Your scenario assumes that every player has an Ambassador AND plays them EXACTLY the same number of times. That's very unlikely, even if Ambassador is SO great that not buying them in every possible set is irrational, which is itself an irrational assumption. No card is good in absolutely every possible deck. Also, I guess Witch must also scale with players according to you. After all, if 2 players play one, it results in a net 1 Curse for everybody, and if 4 players play one, it results in a net 3 Curses for everybody. I'll give you Noble Brigand and Jester, but arguing that Ambassador scales with player count is just stupid.

The thing about Noble Brigand and Jester is that sure, their potential strength increases with player count, but the chances of gaining more cards decreases with each card gained; you might consistently gain one powerful card in a 4 player game, but you're pretty unlikely to gain 3 Golds with either of those. Your Revenant, on the other hand, is just as likely to gain +4 Coffers in a 4P game as it is to get +2 in a 2P game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:17:42 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 05:10:01 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:01:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 04:56:44 pm

Pirate Ship doesn't scale with player count to the same degree as Revenant. The only way it scales is that it's more likely to "hit" with more players; Revenant's effect stacks for each hit. Revenant is like if Pirate Ship got a coin token for every Treasure trashed instead of just one if it trashed any.

And? In a 2P game Revenant could easily yield just 1 Coffers. Not a particularly huge benefit which is why I do not worry about the multiplayer case

In 2P games, it will usually yield 2 Coffers.

You cannot conveniently ignore that you only get the second Coffer after you bought a card and that it comes with Debt. As I already pointed out, that can be an asset as well as a liability.

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 04:56:44 pm

Also, I guess Witch must also scale with players according to you. After all, if 2 players play one, it results in a net 1 Curse for everybody, and if 4 players play one, it results in a net 3 Curses for everybody.

Yep, that's how it is, junking attacks are stronger in multiplayer games. Just play some yourself to get a feel for it.

Quote

I'll give you Noble Brigand and Jester, but arguing that Ambassador scales with player count is just stupid.

Thanks for the insult. I think I am done here. The simple maths/counting speaks for itself and I have no interest in chatting about Dominion with rude people.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:18:00 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 04:54:01 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 04:40:45 pm

I don't get what you mean about Ambassador scaling

Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that all players do play Ambassador at the same frequency and are always able to trash 2 cards.

In a 2P game you trash 2 via your own Ambassador and get 1 via the one of your opponent. Net trash 1.
In a 3P game you trash 2 and get 2 via the ones of your opponents. Net effect of 0.
In a 4P game you trash 2 and get 3 via the ones of your opponents. Net junk 1.

This makes Ambassador arguably the most player count sensitive card, it literally changes its core behaviour from a net trasher to a net junker! If you play a Kingdom with 2P you can easily use Ambassador as trasher whereas in the very same Kingdom with 4P you have to either rely on another trasher or, if there are no other trashers, Ambassador does not reduce but amplifies the junk.

I see what you're saying; but that applies to all attacks in the game, especially cursers. Witches hurt your deck more if you are getting 3 Curses per turn rather than 1. So while it can be said that the attack hurts your deck more; it doesn't make it's effect when you buy it stronger.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 05:20:31 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:17:42 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 05:10:01 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:01:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 04:56:44 pm

Pirate Ship doesn't scale with player count to the same degree as Revenant. The only way it scales is that it's more likely to "hit" with more players; Revenant's effect stacks for each hit. Revenant is like if Pirate Ship got a coin token for every Treasure trashed instead of just one if it trashed any.

And? In a 2P game Revenant could easily yield just 1 Coffers. Not a particularly huge benefit which is why I do not worry about the multiplayer case

In 2P games, it will usually yield 2 Coffers.

You cannot conveniently ignore that you only get the second Coffer after you bought a card and that it comes with Debt. As I already pointed out, that can be an asset as well as a liability.

Um, as worded, you buy a card and get +1 Coffers, then somebody ELSE buys a card...and you get +1 Coffers, hence why I said 2 Coffers in 2P games and 4 Coffers in 4P games. If you intended that you only get Coffers when YOU gain a card, that's not what the wording says at all.

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:17:42 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 04:56:44 pm

Also, I guess Witch must also scale with players according to you. After all, if 2 players play one, it results in a net 1 Curse for everybody, and if 4 players play one, it results in a net 3 Curses for everybody.

Yep, that's how it is, junking attacks are stronger in multiplayer games. Just play some yourself to get a feel for it.

Quote

I'll give you Noble Brigand and Jester, but arguing that Ambassador scales with player count is just stupid.

Thanks for the insult. I think I am done here. The simple maths/counting speaks for itself and I have no interest in chatting about Dominion with rude people.

Still assumes that everybody plays the attack the exact same number of times. That doesn't make each individual copy of Witch stronger; it results in more junk because there are more of them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:25:11 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:18:00 pm

I see what you're saying; but that applies to all attacks in the game, especially cursers. Witches hurt your deck more if you are getting 3 Curses per turn rather than 1. So while it can be said that the attack hurts your deck more; it doesn't make it's effect when you buy it stronger.

I don't think that it applies to all attacks. Stuff that does not stack like handsize attacks are decreasing in strength in multiplayer. In a 2P game your Militia will always hit whereas in a 3P game it might hit only one opponent.

The general point is that some Attacks scale with player count. In a 2P game you might be able to skip a junker whereas in a 3P game you cannot do so in the very same Kingdom. Gee, a lot of stuff in Dominion scales with player count. City becomes less ignorable and in general, all Action cards become more scarce. The mirror image of that is that a money strategy becomes on average stronger in multiplayer. 4P games are in my experience no fun as it is near impossible to build an engine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:27:02 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 05:20:31 pm

Um, as worded, you buy a card and get +1 Coffers, then somebody ELSE buys a card.

Nope. As the card is a Night-Duration, it is the other way around.
Vampire is the only way to gain a card during your Night phase and if I nerf it to buy instead of gain, there is no way to buy a card during your Night phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:28:54 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:23:14 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:18:00 pm

I see what you're saying; but that applies to all attacks in the game, especially cursers. Witches hurt your deck more if you are getting 3 Curses per turn rather than 1. So while it can be said that the attack hurts your deck more; it doesn't make it's effect when you buy it stronger.

I don't think that it applies to all attacks. Stuff that do not stack like handsize attacks are decreasing in strength in multiplayer. In a 2P game your Militia will always hit whereas in a 3P game it might hit only one opponent.

In a 4 player Militia game, you (and all players) are more likely to start your turn with only 3 cards than in a 2 player game. So Militia generally does scale in the same way Witch does.

Quote

The general point is that some Attacks scale with player count. In a 2P game you might be able to skip a junker whereas in a 3P game you cannot do so in the very same Kingdom. Gee, a lot of stuff in Dominion scales with player count. City is les ignorable and in general, all Action cards become more scarce. The mirror image of that is that a money strategy becomes on average stronger in multiplayer.

I think this issue here is just that we're using different ideas of "card strength". Witch hurts your deck more in a 4 player game than a 2 player game, yes. But when people generally talk about "card strength", they talk about it in terms of how strong it is for you to buy one (especially compared to buying something else instead). In this way, Witch doesn't become stronger. How likely it is that Witch is a good card to buy shouldn't change in 4 player compared to 2 player, because the net effect of playing one is still exactly the same for you (you draw 2 cards, and your deck has 1 less junk card than your opponents' decks).  It's just that Witch will have a bigger impact on the game as a whole, because it is getting played more often. But this is true of every card no matter what. Silvers will generate more total _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} in a 4 player game than a 2 player game. Smithy will draw more total cards. Etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:37:57 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:28:54 pm

In this way, Witch doesn't become stronger.

I disagree. If everybody plays Witch at the same frequency you get double the amount of Curses in a 3P game than in a 2P game. So Witch does become stronger (and so do potential defenses against it, like trashers).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 23, 2019, 05:38:54 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 09:42:34 am

Quote from: Kudasai on May 23, 2019, 01:55:11 am

CHALLENGE #30 SUBMISSION:

My last submission was said to be complicated and uninteresting. I guess I'll try uncomplicated and uninteresting this time.

(https://i.imgur.com/636EtK7.jpg)

At first I didn't like this, because hey it's just a slightly buffed Highway. But then I realized that it's own cost reduction can't help you get more of them, which gives it a really good reason to have a Debt cost. I like it.

I appreciate that. Highway with an extra Buy may seem like a slight buff, but it essentially turns it into a Double Highway. A very strong card that possibly can't be balanced with a Coin cost, but the Debt cost may work. I should run a few quick test to make sure, but I think this is balanced.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:39:07 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:34:20 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:28:54 pm

In this way, Witch doesn't become stronger.

I disagree. Junkers are rarely ignorable but sometimes they are. In this very situation in which you ignore a junker in a 2P game you would perhaps not do the same in a 4P game as the junk pool is larger. So not getting that Marauder in a 2P game might be fine, you can only get a max. of 10 Ruins. But in a 4P game, if you are the only player without a Marauder, you could end up with 40 Ruins.

This isn't correct, because all the other opponents are getting some of that junk as well. Just look at the math in a game where your opponent buys Witch and you don't:

2 player game: You end up with 10 Curses, your opponent ends up with 0.
3 player game, 1 opponent buys Witch, the other doesn't: You end up with 10 Curses, so does the other opponent.
3 player game, both opponents buy Witch: You end up with 10 Curses, each opponent ends up with 5.

The point is that each time a Witch is played in 3 player games, 2 Curses are given out (from the pool of 20). So you can't end up with all 20, or even more than 10, unless some players are using cards like Moat also.

In fact it's much worse in a 2 player game; where you have 10 Curse cards more than your opponent. In a 3 player game, if both opponents buy Witches, you only end up with 5 Curses more than your opponents.

4 player math works out the same way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 05:40:05 pm

Let me put it this way, Segura:

In a 2P game, the most likely outcome is +1 Coffers and your opponent gets 1 debt. I would rather buy Scout.

In a 4P game, on the other hand, the most likely outcome is +3 Coffers and your opponents each get 1 debt. A +3 Coffers Night card alone is something I would buy for $8.

In other words, Revenant is a must-buy if you have 4P, balanced if you have 3P, and Scout tier with 2P. Sure, a lot of official cards scale a bit with player count, but not nearly to the same degree; even the official cards that do scale with player count are balanced at their cost regardless of player count. This argument is less about whether cards should scale or not and more about the degree to which a card should be allowed to scale.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:41:20 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:39:07 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:34:20 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:28:54 pm

In this way, Witch doesn't become stronger.

I disagree. Junkers are rarely ignorable but sometimes they are. In this very situation in which you ignore a junker in a 2P game you would perhaps not do the same in a 4P game as the junk pool is larger. So not getting that Marauder in a 2P game might be fine, you can only get a max. of 10 Ruins. But in a 4P game, if you are the only player without a Marauder, you could end up with 40 Ruins.

This isn't correct, because all the other opponents are getting some of that junk as well. Just look at the math in a game where your opponent buys Witch and you don't:

2 player game: You end up with 10 Curses, your opponent ends up with 0.
3 player game, 1 opponent buys Witch, the other doesn't: You end up with 10 Curses, so does the other opponent.
3 player game, both opponents buy Witch: You end up with 10 Curses, each opponent ends up with 5.

The point is that each time a Witch is played in 3 player games, 2 Curses are given out (from the pool of 20). So you can't end up with all 20, or even more than 10, unless some players are using cards like Moat also.

In fact it's much worse in a 2 player game; where you have 10 Curse cards more than your opponent. In a 3 player game, if both opponents buy Witches, you only end up with 5 Curses more than your opponents.

4 player math works out the same way.

True that, I was wrong. But the junking frequency still increases (doubles from a 2P to a 3P game) which is why junkers (as well as trashers and some Reactions) become stronger with an increasing number of players.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:41:59 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 05:40:05 pm

Let me put it this way, Segura:

In a 2P game, the most likely outcome is +1 Coffers and your opponent gets 1 debt. I would rather buy Scout.

In a 4P game, on the other hand, the most likely outcome is +3 Coffers and your opponents each get 1 debt. +3 Coffers alone is something I would buy for $8.

In other words, Revenant is a must-buy if you have 4P, balanced if you have 3P, and Scout tier with 2P. Sure, a lot of official cards scale a bit with player count, but not nearly to the same degree; the official cards that do scale with player count are balanced at their cost regardless of player count. This argument is less about whether cards should scale or not and more about the degree to which a card should be allowed to scale.

I agree about the player balance issues, but I don't think that +3 Coffers on your next turn, as a Duration, is that powerful for a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}. The Coffers being delayed a turn matters a lot; as well as the card just staying out more because of Duration.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 23, 2019, 05:42:17 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 03:31:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/As4bim3.jpg)

This will get cleaned up at the end of the last opponent's turn because it doesn't do anything during your next turn. I don't know whether that's intentional or not. (I'm pretty sure this is how Durations work but someone can shout at me if I'm wrong.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:45:26 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 23, 2019, 05:42:17 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 03:31:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/As4bim3.jpg)

This will get cleaned up at the end of the last opponent's turn because it doesn't do anything during your next turn. I don't know whether that's intentional or not. (I'm pretty sure this is how Durations work but someone can shout at me if I'm wrong.)

Hmm, yes, I believe the rulings on Coin of the Realm called on a Caravan Guard tell us that all players discard in-play cards during all cleanup phases, not only during their own cleanup phase. It should rarely matter at all. In fact, even if it did stay in play, it would never cause you to get a coffer and a debt from your own gains (unless you gain with Vampire after playing this).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 05:47:01 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:41:59 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 05:40:05 pm

Let me put it this way, Segura:

In a 2P game, the most likely outcome is +1 Coffers and your opponent gets 1 debt. I would rather buy Scout.

In a 4P game, on the other hand, the most likely outcome is +3 Coffers and your opponents each get 1 debt. +3 Coffers alone is something I would buy for $8.

In other words, Revenant is a must-buy if you have 4P, balanced if you have 3P, and Scout tier with 2P. Sure, a lot of official cards scale a bit with player count, but not nearly to the same degree; the official cards that do scale with player count are balanced at their cost regardless of player count. This argument is less about whether cards should scale or not and more about the degree to which a card should be allowed to scale.

I agree about the player balance issues, but I don't think that +3 Coffers on your next turn, as a Duration, is that powerful for a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}. The Coffers being delayed a turn matters a lot; as well as the card just staying out more because of Duration.

Fair, but you get to use the Coffers whenever you want, and you don't even have to use all of them at the same time. It's like having a Gold that's delayed by one turn but doesn't take any space in your hand afterwards and can be used whenever. Except even better.

I don't think delaying an effect by one turn is that bad a drawback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:47:39 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:41:20 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:39:07 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:34:20 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:28:54 pm

In this way, Witch doesn't become stronger.

I disagree. Junkers are rarely ignorable but sometimes they are. In this very situation in which you ignore a junker in a 2P game you would perhaps not do the same in a 4P game as the junk pool is larger. So not getting that Marauder in a 2P game might be fine, you can only get a max. of 10 Ruins. But in a 4P game, if you are the only player without a Marauder, you could end up with 40 Ruins.

This isn't correct, because all the other opponents are getting some of that junk as well. Just look at the math in a game where your opponent buys Witch and you don't:

2 player game: You end up with 10 Curses, your opponent ends up with 0.
3 player game, 1 opponent buys Witch, the other doesn't: You end up with 10 Curses, so does the other opponent.
3 player game, both opponents buy Witch: You end up with 10 Curses, each opponent ends up with 5.

The point is that each time a Witch is played in 3 player games, 2 Curses are given out (from the pool of 20). So you can't end up with all 20, or even more than 10, unless some players are using cards like Moat also.

In fact it's much worse in a 2 player game; where you have 10 Curse cards more than your opponent. In a 3 player game, if both opponents buy Witches, you only end up with 5 Curses more than your opponents.

4 player math works out the same way.

True that, I was wrong. But the junking frequency still increases (doubles from a 2P to a 3P game) which is why junkers (as well as trashers and some Reactions) become stronger with an increasing number of players.

But again, you're using stronger to mean "does more total stuff in the game". Your personal copy of Witch isn't stronger. The collective copies of Witch that all players have are stronger. You don't have a better reason to buy Witch over another card in 4 player than 2 player.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 05:50:44 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:47:39 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:41:20 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:39:07 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:34:20 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:28:54 pm

In this way, Witch doesn't become stronger.

I disagree. Junkers are rarely ignorable but sometimes they are. In this very situation in which you ignore a junker in a 2P game you would perhaps not do the same in a 4P game as the junk pool is larger. So not getting that Marauder in a 2P game might be fine, you can only get a max. of 10 Ruins. But in a 4P game, if you are the only player without a Marauder, you could end up with 40 Ruins.

This isn't correct, because all the other opponents are getting some of that junk as well. Just look at the math in a game where your opponent buys Witch and you don't:

2 player game: You end up with 10 Curses, your opponent ends up with 0.
3 player game, 1 opponent buys Witch, the other doesn't: You end up with 10 Curses, so does the other opponent.
3 player game, both opponents buy Witch: You end up with 10 Curses, each opponent ends up with 5.

The point is that each time a Witch is played in 3 player games, 2 Curses are given out (from the pool of 20). So you can't end up with all 20, or even more than 10, unless some players are using cards like Moat also.

In fact it's much worse in a 2 player game; where you have 10 Curse cards more than your opponent. In a 3 player game, if both opponents buy Witches, you only end up with 5 Curses more than your opponents.

4 player math works out the same way.

True that, I was wrong. But the junking frequency still increases (doubles from a 2P to a 3P game) which is why junkers (as well as trashers and some Reactions) become stronger with an increasing number of players.

But again, you're using stronger to mean "does more total stuff in the game". Your personal copy of Witch isn't stronger. The collective copies of Witch that all players have are stronger. You don't have a better reason to buy Witch over another card in 4 player than 2 player.

I agree with the first three sentences, but not that last one. In a 2 or 3 player game, I can usually trash my Curses faster than I gain them. In games with more players, I feel more inclined to do unto others before they can do unto me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:53:01 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:47:39 pm

But again, you're using stronger to mean "does more total stuff in the game". Your personal copy of Witch isn't stronger. The collective copies of Witch that all players have are stronger. You don't have a better reason to buy Witch over another card in 4 player than 2 player.

Dominion is not multiplayer solitaire, the Supply and the decks of the opponents matter as much as your own deck. So if the frequency of incoming junk is double as high in a 3P than in a 2P game it seems obvious that the very thing that causes this havoc is also stronger and that the very thing that helps you deal with that very problem, like a trasher or a Moat variant, also increase in strength relative to the 2P case.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 06:01:08 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:53:01 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:47:39 pm

But again, you're using stronger to mean "does more total stuff in the game". Your personal copy of Witch isn't stronger. The collective copies of Witch that all players have are stronger. You don't have a better reason to buy Witch over another card in 4 player than 2 player.

Dominion is not multiplayer solitaire, the Supply and the decks of the opponents matter as much as your own deck. So if the frequency of incoming junk is double as high in a 3P than in a 2P game it seems obvious that the very thing that causes this havoc is also stronger and that the very thing that helps you deal with that very problem, like a trasher or a Moat variant, also increase in strength relative to the 2P case.

I think this is a good argument that trashing is stronger in a 3 player game with Witch than a 2 player game with Witch. But the net effect of buying a Witch yourself is still actually less in 3 players... if you don't buy a Witch, you end up with 10 Curses. If you do buy a Witch, you end up with about 7. It's only 3 extra, and your opponents only end up with 2 fewer each.

In a 2 player game, the difference between buying Witch or not is whether you want Curses to be split 10-0, or 5-5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2019, 06:10:59 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 06:01:08 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:53:01 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:47:39 pm

But again, you're using stronger to mean "does more total stuff in the game". Your personal copy of Witch isn't stronger. The collective copies of Witch that all players have are stronger. You don't have a better reason to buy Witch over another card in 4 player than 2 player.

Dominion is not multiplayer solitaire, the Supply and the decks of the opponents matter as much as your own deck. So if the frequency of incoming junk is double as high in a 3P than in a 2P game it seems obvious that the very thing that causes this havoc is also stronger and that the very thing that helps you deal with that very problem, like a trasher or a Moat variant, also increase in strength relative to the 2P case.

I think this is a good argument that trashing is stronger in a 3 player game with Witch than a 2 player game with Witch. But the net effect of buying a Witch yourself is still actually less in 3 players... if you don't buy a Witch, you end up with 10 Curses. If you do buy a Witch, you end up with about 7. It's only 3 extra, and your opponents only end up with 2 fewer each.

In a 2 player game, the difference between buying Witch or not is whether you want Curses to be split 10-0, or 5-5.

That's too static, you cannot ignore time. The very fact that 3 instead of 2 player are "fighting" about getting most out of that junk pool, the very fact that you get double the amount of Curses in the same time in a 3P than in a 2P game means that everybody rushes towards junkers (imagine, or play, for the sake of simplicity a Kingdom without trashers) even more so than in a 2P game.

Of course you can argue that junkers and trasher are often enough already super-powerful so them becoming a bit better in a 3P game is quantitatively negligible. But the few 4P junk fest experiences I went through did not feel negligible, the higher junking frequency changed the entire evaluation of the Kingdom.

The higher junking frequency is also why Cultist is so strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 06:11:36 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 06:01:08 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:53:01 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:47:39 pm

But again, you're using stronger to mean "does more total stuff in the game". Your personal copy of Witch isn't stronger. The collective copies of Witch that all players have are stronger. You don't have a better reason to buy Witch over another card in 4 player than 2 player.

Dominion is not multiplayer solitaire, the Supply and the decks of the opponents matter as much as your own deck. So if the frequency of incoming junk is double as high in a 3P than in a 2P game it seems obvious that the very thing that causes this havoc is also stronger and that the very thing that helps you deal with that very problem, like a trasher or a Moat variant, also increase in strength relative to the 2P case.

I think this is a good argument that trashing is stronger in a 3 player game with Witch than a 2 player game with Witch. But the net effect of buying a Witch yourself is still actually less in 3 players... if you don't buy a Witch, you end up with 10 Curses. If you do buy a Witch, you end up with about 7. It's only 3 extra, and your opponents only end up with 2 fewer each.

In a 2 player game, the difference between buying Witch or not is whether you want Curses to be split 10-0, or 5-5.

While I still think that Segura's card is bad design, I'm starting to see his side of this argument. Let's say you don't buy a Witch and everybody else does. In a 3P game, since there are two sources of Curses, the Curses will run out and you'll get 10 Curses twice as quickly as in a 2P game. Because of this, it's more important to buy a Witch earlier if you want to avoid getting 10 Curses. So in a way, with more players, the net effect of buying a Witch is made more impactful in some ways and less impactful in others with the number of players. One could argue either way whether an individual Witch is stronger or weaker with more players.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 06:25:00 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 06:11:36 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 06:01:08 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 05:53:01 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:47:39 pm

But again, you're using stronger to mean "does more total stuff in the game". Your personal copy of Witch isn't stronger. The collective copies of Witch that all players have are stronger. You don't have a better reason to buy Witch over another card in 4 player than 2 player.

Dominion is not multiplayer solitaire, the Supply and the decks of the opponents matter as much as your own deck. So if the frequency of incoming junk is double as high in a 3P than in a 2P game it seems obvious that the very thing that causes this havoc is also stronger and that the very thing that helps you deal with that very problem, like a trasher or a Moat variant, also increase in strength relative to the 2P case.

I think this is a good argument that trashing is stronger in a 3 player game with Witch than a 2 player game with Witch. But the net effect of buying a Witch yourself is still actually less in 3 players... if you don't buy a Witch, you end up with 10 Curses. If you do buy a Witch, you end up with about 7. It's only 3 extra, and your opponents only end up with 2 fewer each.

In a 2 player game, the difference between buying Witch or not is whether you want Curses to be split 10-0, or 5-5.

While I still think that Segura's card is bad design, I'm starting to see his side of this argument. Let's say you don't buy a Witch and everybody else does. In a 3P game, since there are two sources of Curses, the Curses will run out and you'll get 10 Curses twice as quickly as in a 2P game. Because of this, it's more important to buy a Witch earlier if you want to avoid getting 10 Curses. So in a way, with more players, the net effect of buying a Witch is made more impactful in some ways and less impactful in others with the number of players. One could argue either way whether an individual Witch is stronger or weaker with more players.

You will get the Curses faster whether you buy a Witch or not. You can’t change that. The only thing you can change is the total number; and that number can be changed a lot more in 2 player. A 10-0 Curse split is huge, and you’ll lose. A 10-5-5 Curse split is not as big of a deal; and even if you buy Witch it only changes to 7-7-6; a smaller change.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 23, 2019, 06:26:32 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 23, 2019, 05:45:26 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 23, 2019, 05:42:17 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 03:31:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/As4bim3.jpg)

This will get cleaned up at the end of the last opponent's turn because it doesn't do anything during your next turn. I don't know whether that's intentional or not. (I'm pretty sure this is how Durations work but someone can shout at me if I'm wrong.)

Hmm, yes, I believe the rulings on Coin of the Realm called on a Caravan Guard tell us that all players discard in-play cards during all cleanup phases, not only during their own cleanup phase. It should rarely matter at all. In fact, even if it did stay in play, it would never cause you to get a coffer and a debt from your own gains (unless you gain with Vampire after playing this).

On the contrary, it matters a great deal. If it's discarded before your turn starts you can play it every turn instead of every other turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: boggreaux on May 23, 2019, 06:29:33 pm

Updated Submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/rS4I0Ql.png)

change log:
Replaced When you draw this card from your deck, trash it and gain a Will-O'-Wisp

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 06:35:41 pm

Quote from: boggreaux on May 23, 2019, 06:29:33 pm

Hello,
here is my card submission:
(https://imgur.com/1v43FsH.png)
thanks! :D

Isn't "from your deck" redundant? Where else would you draw cards from?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: boggreaux on May 23, 2019, 06:54:00 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 06:35:41 pm

Quote from: boggreaux on May 23, 2019, 06:29:33 pm

Hello,
here is my card submission:
(https://imgur.com/1v43FsH.png)
thanks! :D

Isn't "from your deck" redundant? Where else would you draw cards from?

If you're able to retrieve the card from the discard pile, you don't have to trash it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 06:54:44 pm

Quote from: boggreaux on May 23, 2019, 06:54:00 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 06:35:41 pm

Quote from: boggreaux on May 23, 2019, 06:29:33 pm

Hello,
here is my card submission:
(https://imgur.com/1v43FsH.png)
thanks! :D

Isn't "from your deck" redundant? Where else would you draw cards from?

If you're able to retrieve the card from the discard pile, you don't have to trash it.

That's not drawing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 23, 2019, 08:25:24 pm

Quote from: boggreaux on May 23, 2019, 06:29:33 pm

Updated Submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/rS4I0Ql.png)

change log:
Replaced When you draw this card from your deck, trash it and gain a Will-O'-Wisp

This would work online, but not IRL. People are bad at remembering effects that hurt them. I consistently forget when I have debt when playing IRL, and only remember because my opponents remember. There needs to be something to keep you honest, because your opponents can't see what you draw.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 08:35:14 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 23, 2019, 08:25:24 pm

Quote from: boggreaux on May 23, 2019, 06:29:33 pm

Updated Submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/rS4I0Ql.png)

change log:
Replaced When you draw this card from your deck, trash it and gain a Will-O'-Wisp

This would work online, but not IRL. People are bad at remembering effects that hurt them. I consistently forget when I have debt when playing IRL, and only remember because my opponents remember. There needs to be something to keep you honest, because your opponents can't see what you draw.

I agree with the second part, but it should be easy to remember. Its color stands out and you do it immediately when you draw it. Debt doesn't trigger immediately. I fully agree with the no honesty issue, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 23, 2019, 10:02:30 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 08:35:14 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 23, 2019, 08:25:24 pm

Quote from: boggreaux on May 23, 2019, 06:29:33 pm

Updated Submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/rS4I0Ql.png)

change log:
Replaced When you draw this card from your deck, trash it and gain a Will-O'-Wisp

This would work online, but not IRL. People are bad at remembering effects that hurt them. I consistently forget when I have debt when playing IRL, and only remember because my opponents remember. There needs to be something to keep you honest, because your opponents can't see what you draw.

I agree with the second part, but it should be easy to remember. Its color stands out and you do it immediately when you draw it. Debt doesn't trigger immediately. I fully agree with the no honesty issue, though.

Never doubt the ability of humans to forget. It's pretty impressive. Just because something is easy to remember doesn't mean people will remember it all the time. When was the last time you walked into a room and forgotten why? I'd be very impressed if anyone here could truthfully say it was more than two months ago.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on May 23, 2019, 11:18:56 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 23, 2019, 03:33:55 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 23, 2019, 02:56:15 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 02:18:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 07:16:07 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Monoculture:
(https://imgur.com/jSJRqkE.png)

I don't think this should have the Debt icons at the top corners. The top corners are only for how much the Treasure is worth.

I disagree. Potion features a Potion on the top so what we actually see on the top is what a Treasure card produces.
This very card produces 5 Coins as well as a variable amount of Debt so it is not bad to show all parts of production on the top (unlike with Capital you also get the Debt immediately).

But why does Ducat not say +1 Coffers in the corners then?

Debt and coffers are tokens, not treasures. So it made sense to remove the ? Debt on the top. The card submission has been updated with clearer language and a different cost:
(https://imgur.com/YgIhhlS.png)

This won't work properly.This only counts Durations or a copy of this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 23, 2019, 11:39:57 pm

Quote from: majiponi on May 23, 2019, 11:18:56 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 23, 2019, 03:33:55 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 23, 2019, 02:56:15 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 02:18:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 07:16:07 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Monoculture:
(https://imgur.com/jSJRqkE.png)

I don't think this should have the Debt icons at the top corners. The top corners are only for how much the Treasure is worth.

I disagree. Potion features a Potion on the top so what we actually see on the top is what a Treasure card produces.
This very card produces 5 Coins as well as a variable amount of Debt so it is not bad to show all parts of production on the top (unlike with Capital you also get the Debt immediately).

But why does Ducat not say +1 Coffers in the corners then?

Debt and coffers are tokens, not treasures. So it made sense to remove the ? Debt on the top. The card submission has been updated with clearer language and a different cost:
(https://imgur.com/YgIhhlS.png)

This won't work properly.This only counts Durations or a copy of this.

The check should happen "At the end of your Buy phase" or "At the start of your Clean-up". The latter if you want to count Night cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on May 24, 2019, 12:34:29 am

I receive the impression, that some cards are a joint project, which is not the sense of this challenge? Shouldn't be the discussion after judgement?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 24, 2019, 12:39:37 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 23, 2019, 10:02:30 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 23, 2019, 08:35:14 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 23, 2019, 08:25:24 pm

Quote from: boggreaux on May 23, 2019, 06:29:33 pm

Updated Submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/rS4I0Ql.png)

change log:
Replaced When you draw this card from your deck, trash it and gain a Will-O'-Wisp

This would work online, but not IRL. People are bad at remembering effects that hurt them. I consistently forget when I have debt when playing IRL, and only remember because my opponents remember. There needs to be something to keep you honest, because your opponents can't see what you draw.

I agree with the second part, but it should be easy to remember. Its color stands out and you do it immediately when you draw it. Debt doesn't trigger immediately. I fully agree with the no honesty issue, though.

Never doubt the ability of humans to forget. It's pretty impressive. Just because something is easy to remember doesn't mean people will remember it all the time. When was the last time you walked into a room and forgotten why? I'd be very impressed if anyone here could truthfully say it was more than two months ago.

This would be more like forgetting what you were doing even if you had a bright neon sign right in front of you telling you what you came in to the room for.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 24, 2019, 12:43:42 am

Quote from: Kudasai on May 23, 2019, 11:39:57 pm

Quote from: majiponi on May 23, 2019, 11:18:56 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 23, 2019, 03:33:55 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 23, 2019, 02:56:15 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 02:18:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 07:16:07 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Monoculture:
(https://imgur.com/jSJRqkE.png)

I don't think this should have the Debt icons at the top corners. The top corners are only for how much the Treasure is worth.

I disagree. Potion features a Potion on the top so what we actually see on the top is what a Treasure card produces.
This very card produces 5 Coins as well as a variable amount of Debt so it is not bad to show all parts of production on the top (unlike with Capital you also get the Debt immediately).

But why does Ducat not say +1 Coffers in the corners then?

Debt and coffers are tokens, not treasures. So it made sense to remove the ? Debt on the top. The card submission has been updated with clearer language and a different cost:
(https://imgur.com/YgIhhlS.png)

This won't work properly.This only counts Durations or a copy of this.

The check should happen "At the end of your Buy phase" or "At the start of your Clean-up". The latter if you want to count Night cards.

Option 1: Cards are discarded from play in any order. You discard Monoculture last so that only Monocultures are in play when you discard it from play.

Option 2: Cards are discarded from play all at once. Since these discards are all concurrent, you resolve discarding each card in any order... effectively the same as option 1.

You want Walled Village wording: "At the start of Clean-up, take <1> per differently named card you have in play, and then you may pay off <>."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on May 24, 2019, 01:24:43 am

(https://i.imgur.com/e9n7wfJ.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on May 24, 2019, 02:06:46 am

Quote from: boggreaux on May 23, 2019, 06:29:33 pm

Updated Submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/rS4I0Ql.png)

change log:
Replaced When you draw this card from your deck, trash it and gain a Will-O'-Wisp

This is actually abusable with Envoy, Wishing Well or Mystic. It is also very harmful in multiplayer. For example, if you are player 4, you start turn 2 with 3 Curses (You can still buy  Flashing Lights in most cases, though.)

With Travelling Fair or Poach the first player advantage drastically increases.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 24, 2019, 02:13:54 am

Quote from: boggreaux on May 23, 2019, 06:29:33 pm

Updated Submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/rS4I0Ql.png)

change log:
Replaced When you draw this card from your deck, trash it and gain a Will-O'-Wisp

If you want this to be able to hand out more than 10 Curses in multiplayer, you could use exchange instead of trash.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 24, 2019, 02:18:46 am

Quote from: Gazbag on May 23, 2019, 05:42:17 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 03:31:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/As4bim3.jpg)

This will get cleaned up at the end of the last opponent's turn because it doesn't do anything during your next turn. I don't know whether that's intentional or not. (I'm pretty sure this is how Durations work but someone can shout at me if I'm wrong.)

Yeah, "until your next turn" is ambiguous. I guess I should reword it into "until the end of your next turn", then it gets discarded normally.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on May 24, 2019, 02:36:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/m2NtuNG.png)

Here's my attempt at a balanced debt attack that won't leave anyone swimming in debt.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 24, 2019, 02:42:35 am

(https://i.imgur.com/TiXsYqC.png)

Quote

Banker
Action - $2

Play a non-Duration Action card costing up to $6 from the supply, leaving it there. Take debt equal to its cost in coin.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 24, 2019, 02:46:08 am

Quote from: mail-mi on May 24, 2019, 02:36:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/m2NtuNG.png)

Here's my attempt at a balanced debt attack that won't leave anyone swimming in debt.

So do cards costing $0 cost 1D when this is in play, or not? I.e., is the "1D more" tied to the "1$ less"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 24, 2019, 09:16:37 am

Quote from: herw on May 24, 2019, 12:34:29 am

I receive the impression, that some cards are a joint project, which is not the sense of this challenge? Shouldn't be the discussion after judgement?

Technically it's a competition, but I think people aren't really as focused on winning as they are on creating cool cards and seeing other people's cool cards. Sure, you could do that in other places, but having a challenge to meet might help give some inspiration.

Quote from: segura on May 24, 2019, 02:13:54 am

If you want this to be able to hand out more than 10 Curses in multiplayer, you could use exchange instead of trash.

The Curse supply pile only has 10 Curses for 2 players, 20 for 3, and 30 for 4, which is the exact amount Flashing Lights will hand out. Same with IGG, as IGG's Cursing is on-gain. So that won't be an issue. It's just a question of whether or not you want the Flashing Lights pile to run out with the Curses.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 24, 2019, 01:24:43 am

Condos
Action <4>
+1 Card
+2 Actions
- <4>

Clarification: - <4> means you remove up to 4 debt

Capital says "take <6>", not "+<6>". I don't see why removing debt should be different. "Remove up to <4>" seems perfectly fine to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 24, 2019, 09:35:02 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 24, 2019, 09:16:37 am

Quote from: herw on May 24, 2019, 12:34:29 am

I receive the impression, that some cards are a joint project, which is not the sense of this challenge? Shouldn't be the discussion after judgement?

Technically it's a competition, but I think people aren't really as focused on winning as they are on creating cool cards and seeing other people's cool cards. Sure, you could do that in other places, but having a challenge to meet might help give some inspiration.

The rules in the first post specifically say that discussing entries is permitted.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 24, 2019, 09:47:33 am

Quote from: boggreaux on May 23, 2019, 06:29:33 pm

Updated Submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/rS4I0Ql.png)

change log:
Replaced When you draw this card from your deck, trash it and gain a Will-O'-Wisp

I think it is a better than IGG. While IGG can lead to some quick piling and self-Copper-spamming to keep you afloat economy-wise, most decks prefer cantrips to a Copper-(gainers) and this card is also far cheaper than IGG.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 24, 2019, 10:01:52 am

Quote from: segura on May 24, 2019, 09:47:33 am

Quote from: boggreaux on May 23, 2019, 06:29:33 pm

Updated Submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/rS4I0Ql.png)

change log:
Replaced When you draw this card from your deck, trash it and gain a Will-O'-Wisp

I think it is a better than IGG. While IGG can lead to some quick piling and self-Copper-spamming to keep you afloat economy-wise, most decks prefer cantrips to a Copper-(gainers) and this card is also far cheaper than IGG.

Also, IGG doesn't topdeck the Curses.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Frolouch on May 24, 2019, 02:38:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 24, 2019, 12:43:42 am

Quote from: Kudasai on May 23, 2019, 11:39:57 pm

Quote from: majiponi on May 23, 2019, 11:18:56 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 23, 2019, 03:33:55 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 23, 2019, 02:56:15 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2019, 02:18:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 22, 2019, 07:16:07 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 22, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Monoculture:
(https://imgur.com/jSJRqkE.png)

I don't think this should have the Debt icons at the top corners. The top corners are only for how much the Treasure is worth.

I disagree. Potion features a Potion on the top so what we actually see on the top is what a Treasure card produces.
This very card produces 5 Coins as well as a variable amount of Debt so it is not bad to show all parts of production on the top (unlike with Capital you also get the Debt immediately).

But why does Ducat not say +1 Coffers in the corners then?

Debt and coffers are tokens, not treasures. So it made sense to remove the ? Debt on the top. The card submission has been updated with clearer language and a different cost:
(https://imgur.com/YgIhhlS.png)

This won't work properly.This only counts Durations or a copy of this.

The check should happen "At the end of your Buy phase" or "At the start of your Clean-up". The latter if you want to count Night cards.

Option 1: Cards are discarded from play in any order. You discard Monoculture last so that only Monocultures are in play when you discard it from play.

Option 2: Cards are discarded from play all at once. Since these discards are all concurrent, you resolve discarding each card in any order... effectively the same as option 1.

You want Walled Village wording: "At the start of Clean-up, take <1> per differently named card you have in play, and then you may pay off <>."

Appreciate the input. I've updated the text to make the effect clearer. I think this is how I initially intended it. I'm still keeping the potion, because I enjoy what it does thematically, and I think it would be too powerful if it was just a coin cost.
(https://imgur.com/9rjQBlD.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #30: debt
Post by: Aquila on May 24, 2019, 03:24:25 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 22, 2019, 06:12:29 pm

Quote from: Aquila on May 22, 2019, 05:09:56 pm

I've gone in with the creative use approach:
(https://i.imgur.com/fJUQDMW.jpg)

Technically, there's no rule saying that Duration effects stop if they leave play; You can use Improve on a Duration card and still get its next-turn(s) effect, for example. Recompense should say "At the start of each of your turns that this remains in play:"

Yes, thanks for this. I redid the card to be simpler (he says):
(https://i.imgur.com/S3Wvb5o.jpg)
An Action that can be added to next turn's hand if you keep debt around. You might do it as a way to build up. Costs debt itself now so it can't gain copies of itself, but there's also buying them to keep hold of your Recompenses.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #30: debt
Post by: Gubump on May 24, 2019, 03:56:34 pm

Quote from: Aquila on May 24, 2019, 03:24:25 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 22, 2019, 06:12:29 pm

Quote from: Aquila on May 22, 2019, 05:09:56 pm

I've gone in with the creative use approach:
(https://i.imgur.com/fJUQDMW.jpg)

Technically, there's no rule saying that Duration effects stop if they leave play; You can use Improve on a Duration card and still get its next-turn(s) effect, for example. Recompense should say "At the start of each of your turns that this remains in play:"

Yes, thanks for this. I redid the card to be simpler (he says):
(https://i.imgur.com/S3Wvb5o.jpg)
An Action that can be added to next turn's hand if you keep debt around. You might do it as a way to build up. Costs debt itself now so it can't gain copies of itself, but there's also buying them to keep hold of your Recompenses.

Problem is, now it's way, way weaker, since it takes an Action each turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on May 24, 2019, 03:58:24 pm

Quote from: faust on May 24, 2019, 02:46:08 am

Quote from: mail-mi on May 24, 2019, 02:36:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/m2NtuNG.png)

Here's my attempt at a balanced debt attack that won't leave anyone swimming in debt.

So do cards costing $0 cost 1D when this is in play, or not? I.e., is the "1D more" tied to the "1$ less"?

Yes,  after playing a Broker, coppers and curses cost 1D. So if you play too many Brokers all the cheap stuff will start to get expensive.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on May 24, 2019, 04:04:50 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 24, 2019, 09:35:02 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 24, 2019, 09:16:37 am

Quote from: herw on May 24, 2019, 12:34:29 am

I receive the impression, that some cards are a joint project, which is not the sense of this challenge? Shouldn't be the discussion after judgement?

Technically it's a competition, but I think people aren't really as focused on winning as they are on creating cool cards and seeing other people's cool cards. Sure, you could do that in other places, but having a challenge to meet might help give some inspiration.

The rules in the first post specifically say that discussing entries is permitted.

maybe, but it is boring to see that every next hour there is a change. Isn't it possible to think about a card 1 day? I am scrolling and scrolling and only see the same card in another variation.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 24, 2019, 04:08:46 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/bWocWMs.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 25, 2019, 07:19:42 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1rvZyHl.png)

It's trying to be like a Kingdom card Disciple. Debt cost prevents it from gaining copies of itself and because the gaining is conditional upon playing an Action it shouldn't be too good early to have a debt cost. I imagine it's still very strong but I don't think that has to be bad thing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 25, 2019, 10:19:08 am

Quote from: faust on May 24, 2019, 02:42:35 am

(https://i.imgur.com/TiXsYqC.png)

Quote

Banker
Action - $2

Play a non-Duration Action card costing up to $6 from the supply, leaving it there. Take debt equal to its cost in coin.

I like the idea, but the penalty seems too harsh. Paying the full price for a card is usually only worth it if you play it more than once. Maybe "Take debt equal to half its cost in coin, rounded up"? And then maybe you could raise the price of the card itself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 25, 2019, 04:18:57 pm

Quote from: herw on May 24, 2019, 04:04:50 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 24, 2019, 09:35:02 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 24, 2019, 09:16:37 am

Quote from: herw on May 24, 2019, 12:34:29 am

I receive the impression, that some cards are a joint project, which is not the sense of this challenge? Shouldn't be the discussion after judgement?

Technically it's a competition, but I think people aren't really as focused on winning as they are on creating cool cards and seeing other people's cool cards. Sure, you could do that in other places, but having a challenge to meet might help give some inspiration.

The rules in the first post specifically say that discussing entries is permitted.

maybe, but it is boring to see that every next hour there is a change. Isn't it possible to think about a card 1 day? I am scrolling and scrolling and only see the same card in another variation.

I certainly see your argument. It can be hard to track updates when there are so many updates flying around. But ultimately I think the major benefit of these contests are to inject new ideas into Dominion. A big part of that is analyzing other peoples cards to make sure the submitted content is as good as it can be. So yes, it's probably not fair to the individual person who got their card right the first time, but I think the community benefits greatly from the conversations and tweaks that come from them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 25, 2019, 04:28:29 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 25, 2019, 07:19:42 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1rvZyHl.png)

It's trying to be like a Kingdom card Disciple. Debt cost prevents it from gaining copies of itself and because the gaining is conditional upon playing an Action it shouldn't be too good early to have a debt cost. I imagine it's still very strong but I don't think that has to be bad thing.

A Disciple-esque card certainly seems like a good fit for an 8 Debt cost card. I worry though that Royal Academy is much more strong.

Mainly because the timing window you have to hit on Disciple is a lot smaller and the cost of getting it wrong is much more severe. You need to have the correct saturation of Action Supply cards (and really high cost cards to make it worth it) by the time you hit Disciple. If you don't, you probably end up playing it dead anyways just to get to Teacher. This can be tough if you've got a lot of non-Supply Traveler cards floating around. An issue Royal Academy won't have to deal with.

Secondly, Royal Academy allows you to play a card twice and gain a DIFFERENT card if you do. A small difference, but I think this is a huge buff.

I could be wrong, but I thought I'd at least share my concerns. Any thoughts?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 25, 2019, 04:48:33 pm

Quote from: majiponi on May 23, 2019, 10:07:22 am

Prophet
Edict (LastFootnote's idea)
Setup: Each player may take <1>. If they do, they put all starting cards into their hand, and put 5 cards onto their deck.

Interesting idea. I'm sure we all know how frustrating it is to get the wrong opening hands on the wrong board. I'm not sure if reducing your initial buy power by $1 will always be worth the opening hands you want, but perhaps.

Seems like the most logical opening hands you could force are:
$1-$5 (If you had $4-$3 and wanted a $5 cost)
$3-$3 (If you had $5-$2 and wanted two $3 cost)

I just wonder if there's some wording that would allow your combined, initial, buy power to remain at $7. Like having the debt only hit you after your 2nd turn, etc. Maybe that's not a direction you want to go with this though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on May 25, 2019, 05:02:15 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on May 25, 2019, 04:28:29 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 25, 2019, 07:19:42 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1rvZyHl.png)

It's trying to be like a Kingdom card Disciple. Debt cost prevents it from gaining copies of itself and because the gaining is conditional upon playing an Action it shouldn't be too good early to have a debt cost. I imagine it's still very strong but I don't think that has to be bad thing.

A Disciple-esque card certainly seems like a good fit for an 8 Debt cost card. I worry though that Royal Academy is much more strong.

Mainly because the timing window you have to hit on Disciple is a lot smaller and the cost of getting it wrong is much more severe. You need to have the correct saturation of Action Supply cards (and really high cost cards to make it worth it) by the time you hit Disciple. If you don't, you probably end up playing it dead anyways just to get to Teacher. This can be tough if you've got a lot of non-Supply Traveler cards floating around. An issue Royal Academy won't have to deal with.

Secondly, Royal Academy allows you to play a card twice and gain a DIFFERENT card if you do. A small difference, but I think this is a huge buff.

I could be wrong, but I thought I'd at least share my concerns. Any thoughts?

Gaining $5 cards is pretty strong. That is the reason that my suggestion, Blueprints, only gives you one gain per turn. Royal Academy is very similar, but you actually can play multiple instances of it in one turn. In contrast to University (and Blueprints) you must have another Action card in your hand to get the gain, which is a huge drawback. I like both cards, Gazbag’s and mine. They are similar at the first glance, but come with a different twist.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 25, 2019, 06:26:51 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on May 25, 2019, 04:28:29 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 25, 2019, 07:19:42 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1rvZyHl.png)

It's trying to be like a Kingdom card Disciple. Debt cost prevents it from gaining copies of itself and because the gaining is conditional upon playing an Action it shouldn't be too good early to have a debt cost. I imagine it's still very strong but I don't think that has to be bad thing.

A Disciple-esque card certainly seems like a good fit for an 8 Debt cost card. I worry though that Royal Academy is much more strong.

Mainly because the timing window you have to hit on Disciple is a lot smaller and the cost of getting it wrong is much more severe. You need to have the correct saturation of Action Supply cards (and really high cost cards to make it worth it) by the time you hit Disciple. If you don't, you probably end up playing it dead anyways just to get to Teacher. This can be tough if you've got a lot of non-Supply Traveler cards floating around. An issue Royal Academy won't have to deal with.

Secondly, Royal Academy allows you to play a card twice and gain a DIFFERENT card if you do. A small difference, but I think this is a huge buff.

I could be wrong, but I thought I'd at least share my concerns. Any thoughts?

I think that Royal Academy's power is in the ballpark of Kings Court, it seems very powerful to me.
Aside from some random Disciple strategy stuff that I probably shouldn't get into here I don't really disagree with what you're saying, once it's in your deck Royal Academy is better than Disciple unless you're playing a $6+ (or Debt or potion or whatever) cost and would like another copy of that. But the whole Traveller line thing means that Disciple has a wildly different opportunity cost and even has the ability to become Teacher so Royal Academy being mostly better doesn't necessarily matter. I think the question should be more whether Royal Academy is too crazy even at 8 debt rather than how it stacks up against Disciple and I do think there's a pretty high chance that it is very crazy at 8 debt.

The nerf I'd go with would be to change it to: Play an Action card from your hand twice, if it cost $5 or less gain a copy of it. That way it'd be even more Disciple-esque so we can get the experience of Disciple without having to travel.
 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on May 25, 2019, 06:33:38 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on May 25, 2019, 04:48:33 pm

Quote from: majiponi on May 23, 2019, 10:07:22 am

Prophet
Edict (LastFootnote's idea)
Setup: Each player may take <1>. If they do, they put all starting cards into their hand, and put 5 cards onto their deck.

Interesting idea. I'm sure we all know how frustrating it is to get the wrong opening hands on the wrong board. I'm not sure if reducing your initial buy power by $1 will always be worth the opening hands you want, but perhaps.

Seems like the most logical opening hands you could force are:
$1-$5 (If you had $4-$3 and wanted a $5 cost)
$3-$3 (If you had $5-$2 and wanted two $3 cost)

I just wonder if there's some wording that would allow your combined, initial, buy power to remain at $7. Like having the debt only hit you after your 2nd turn, etc. Maybe that's not a direction you want to go with this though.

I tried taking debts after T2, but that was too easy to forget. This version is simpler and still gives a choice to have $7.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 25, 2019, 11:27:21 pm

Quote from: majiponi on May 25, 2019, 06:33:38 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on May 25, 2019, 04:48:33 pm

Quote from: majiponi on May 23, 2019, 10:07:22 am

Prophet
Edict (LastFootnote's idea)
Setup: Each player may take <1>. If they do, they put all starting cards into their hand, and put 5 cards onto their deck.

Interesting idea. I'm sure we all know how frustrating it is to get the wrong opening hands on the wrong board. I'm not sure if reducing your initial buy power by $1 will always be worth the opening hands you want, but perhaps.

Seems like the most logical opening hands you could force are:
$1-$5 (If you had $4-$3 and wanted a $5 cost)
$3-$3 (If you had $5-$2 and wanted two $3 cost)

I just wonder if there's some wording that would allow your combined, initial, buy power to remain at $7. Like having the debt only hit you after your 2nd turn, etc. Maybe that's not a direction you want to go with this though.

I tried taking debts after T2, but that was too easy to forget. This version is simpler and still gives a choice to have $7.

What about putting a debt token under your deck? Then when you reshuffle you'll remember to take it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 26, 2019, 04:52:14 am

Quote from: Gazbag on May 25, 2019, 06:26:51 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on May 25, 2019, 04:28:29 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 25, 2019, 07:19:42 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1rvZyHl.png)

It's trying to be like a Kingdom card Disciple. Debt cost prevents it from gaining copies of itself and because the gaining is conditional upon playing an Action it shouldn't be too good early to have a debt cost. I imagine it's still very strong but I don't think that has to be bad thing.

A Disciple-esque card certainly seems like a good fit for an 8 Debt cost card. I worry though that Royal Academy is much more strong.

Mainly because the timing window you have to hit on Disciple is a lot smaller and the cost of getting it wrong is much more severe. You need to have the correct saturation of Action Supply cards (and really high cost cards to make it worth it) by the time you hit Disciple. If you don't, you probably end up playing it dead anyways just to get to Teacher. This can be tough if you've got a lot of non-Supply Traveler cards floating around. An issue Royal Academy won't have to deal with.

Secondly, Royal Academy allows you to play a card twice and gain a DIFFERENT card if you do. A small difference, but I think this is a huge buff.

I could be wrong, but I thought I'd at least share my concerns. Any thoughts?

I think that Royal Academy's power is in the ballpark of Kings Court, it seems very powerful to me.

At a cost of $7 or $8 it might be OK. D8 is roughly similar to a $6 so an Artisan that Thrones is obviously too cheap at D8.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 26, 2019, 10:48:54 pm

I figured I would give an image for my entry. Also I changed the wording a bit to make it more consistent with e.g. Sinister Plot.

(https://i.postimg.cc/5tNfJMYP/Insurance.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 27, 2019, 05:41:02 am

Quote from: segura on May 26, 2019, 04:52:14 am

Quote from: Gazbag on May 25, 2019, 06:26:51 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on May 25, 2019, 04:28:29 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 25, 2019, 07:19:42 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1rvZyHl.png)

It's trying to be like a Kingdom card Disciple. Debt cost prevents it from gaining copies of itself and because the gaining is conditional upon playing an Action it shouldn't be too good early to have a debt cost. I imagine it's still very strong but I don't think that has to be bad thing.

A Disciple-esque card certainly seems like a good fit for an 8 Debt cost card. I worry though that Royal Academy is much more strong.

Mainly because the timing window you have to hit on Disciple is a lot smaller and the cost of getting it wrong is much more severe. You need to have the correct saturation of Action Supply cards (and really high cost cards to make it worth it) by the time you hit Disciple. If you don't, you probably end up playing it dead anyways just to get to Teacher. This can be tough if you've got a lot of non-Supply Traveler cards floating around. An issue Royal Academy won't have to deal with.

Secondly, Royal Academy allows you to play a card twice and gain a DIFFERENT card if you do. A small difference, but I think this is a huge buff.

I could be wrong, but I thought I'd at least share my concerns. Any thoughts?

I think that Royal Academy's power is in the ballpark of Kings Court, it seems very powerful to me.

At a cost of $7 or $8 it might be OK. D8 is roughly similar to a $6 so an Artisan that Thrones is obviously too cheap at D8.

I don't think this is true at all. Artisan for example doesn't work at 8D because you'd just open with it every time where as I am of the belief that King's Court would be a generally better experience if it cost 8D. The costs don't simply convert like that, Dominion is way more complicated than that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 27, 2019, 11:32:55 am

KC at Debt cost is an interesting idea. It would make the gaining less swingy but it would also make it easier to play (like with Pathfinding or Citadel, the trade-off between spiking early and building your engine is in my opinion quite interesting).
But D8 is too cheap, D9 or D10 are better.

I agree that snowballing cards like Artisan would not be appropriate at Debt cost. But Overlord is a card with Debt cost that is often purchased in the opening and a comparison with Band of Misfits reveals that, if the card were priced at an ordinary cost, it would cost $6 ($7 seems too much).
Royal Blacksmith is also fairly similar to Hunting Grounds so the comparison between D8 and $6 seems to be sound.
Note that I am not arguing that the different types of cost are equivalent, of course they are not. It is just a heuristic that can be useful when comparing cards of different cost categories.

Back to your card, precisely because it costs D8 yet is far better than a $6 it is too cheap. It is ultimately a risk management thing but TR variants can arguably be purchased after the first shuffle (with Shelters in the Kingdom you could even open Royal Academy) so you could argue that it is not that different from Artisan which, as you rightly said, would be crazy at D8.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on May 27, 2019, 06:49:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/IiZs7uC.jpg)
Not sure about the price, maybe $3? The idea was, at the beginning, inspired by Asper's road: you may play it again by paying something. You take the debt after taking the first 2 cards, so you can skip it you already have the cards that you want.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 27, 2019, 07:01:50 pm

Quote from: segura on May 27, 2019, 11:32:55 am

KC at Debt cost is an interesting idea. It would make the gaining less swingy but it would also make it easier to play (like with Pathfinding or Citadel, the trade-off between spiking early and building your engine is in my opinion quite interesting).
But D8 is too cheap, D9 or D10 are better.

I agree that snowballing cards like Artisan would not be appropriate at Debt cost. But Overlord is a card with Debt cost that is often purchased in the opening and a comparison with Band of Misfits reveals that, if the card were priced at an ordinary cost, it would cost $6 ($7 seems too much).
Royal Blacksmith is also fairly similar to Hunting Grounds so the comparison between D8 and $6 seems to be sound.
Note that I am not arguing that the different types of cost are equivalent, of course they are not. It is just a heuristic that can be useful when comparing cards of different cost categories.

Back to your card, precisely because it costs D8 yet is far better than a $6 it is too cheap. It is ultimately a risk management thing but TR variants can arguably be purchased after the first shuffle (with Shelters in the Kingdom you could even open Royal Academy) so you could argue that it is not that different from Artisan which, as you rightly said, would be crazy at D8.

But Annex would have to cost at least $6 and that stinks at 8Debt! Overlord doesn't work at $6 because when you hit $6 you're often buying a $5 anyway so if Overlord costs $6 then there's less of a decision there and that's pretty boring. Oh and City Quarter is far better than any $6 as far as I'm concerned, that thing is messed up.

Anyway having said all that, I decided to change it to this because it's closer to the original intent of the card, is more terse, and is weaker too. So probably a good change all around.
(https://i.imgur.com/bWkebFR.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 28, 2019, 02:37:46 am

This is a virtually identical to Disciple and probably OKish (there are numerous good reasons for why Disciple has been implemented as a non-Supply card) as a a Kingdom card.

There might be some terminals which you want a copy of in a Peasant Kingdom due to Teacher yet don't necessarily want to copy in other cases. So this is one dimension in which this is weaker than Disciple (no Teacher around) which one has to keep in mind.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on May 28, 2019, 12:31:44 pm

Less than 24 hours left in this week's contest!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on May 28, 2019, 01:24:57 pm

For what it's worth, I think Disciple is substantially stronger than KC as an effect. As long as you throne a card whose pile isn't empty, you effectively get three plays of that card if you can draw into it and have an extra action, which you can have in the late mid to late game pretty easily most of the time, and then you permanently have a free copy of that card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 28, 2019, 01:37:00 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on May 28, 2019, 01:24:57 pm

For what it's worth, I think Disciple is substantially stronger than KC as an effect. As long as you throne a card whose pile isn't empty, you effectively get three plays of that card if you can draw into it and have an extra action, which you can have in the late mid to late game pretty easily most of the time, and then you permanently have a free copy of that card.

I would disagree, because you can KC a KC. Discipling a Disciple is not any better than playing 2 Disciples separately. It may be more powerful with only one copy, but with KC you definitely want more than that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 02:57:37 pm

Hi all, this is my first attempt at creating a custom card, so all comments are welcome!

Students "study" other actions and are then able to perform those actions for the rest of the game.

(https://i.imgur.com/pOrtQ4Y.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 - initial
v0.2 - added concept of playing only face up cards and turning over more expensive cards; also improved wording on the "on buy" section
v0.3 - changed "turn over until end of turn" to "turn face down until this card is discarded" and added "other than Student" as modifier to the set aside cards
v0.4 - added icon and image

FAQ / Secret History:

At first, I had it put Student tokens on Supply piles, but that didn't didn't work well with Spilt Piles (or Knight or Knights).

I wasn't sure of cost, because it really could be almost anything (since it's cost affects how many debt tokens you need to take to "study" a new action). So I could also see it as a $4.

Was also unsure if "studying" should be on buy or on gain. (if you only gain this, it's a stop card, which could also make it interesting to use with some attacks like Ambassador).

Lastly, the intent was that these cards are not part of your deck at the end of the game. This works differently that Inheritance, so I'd be curious to hear opinions on that (and if they do count, should I also limit them to non-Victory?)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 28, 2019, 03:09:35 pm

Nearly (BoM cannot immitate cards whose Supply piles are empty) strictly worse than Band of Misfits.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on May 28, 2019, 03:13:30 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 28, 2019, 01:37:00 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on May 28, 2019, 01:24:57 pm

For what it's worth, I think Disciple is substantially stronger than KC as an effect. As long as you throne a card whose pile isn't empty, you effectively get three plays of that card if you can draw into it and have an extra action, which you can have in the late mid to late game pretty easily most of the time, and then you permanently have a free copy of that card.

I would disagree, because you can KC a KC.

You can also Disciple a KC and it's stronger than KCing KC. The argument you want to be making here is that you can KC a Disciple.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 03:20:39 pm

Quote from: segura on May 28, 2019, 03:09:35 pm

Nearly (BoM cannot immitate cards whose Supply piles are empty) strictly worse than Band of Misfits.

Maybe my phrasing wasn't clear - when you take the debt tokens, students can "study" more expensive cards, i.e. take 1 Debt, "study" an action that costs 5, take 2 Debt, "study" an action that costs 6, etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 28, 2019, 03:21:20 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on May 28, 2019, 03:13:30 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 28, 2019, 01:37:00 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on May 28, 2019, 01:24:57 pm

For what it's worth, I think Disciple is substantially stronger than KC as an effect. As long as you throne a card whose pile isn't empty, you effectively get three plays of that card if you can draw into it and have an extra action, which you can have in the late mid to late game pretty easily most of the time, and then you permanently have a free copy of that card.

I would disagree, because you can KC a KC.

You can also Disciple a KC and it's stronger than KCing KC. The argument you want to be making here is that you can KC a Disciple.

Again, Disciples are better for single (or maybe even double) copies. Each individual KC is better when you have many, though. The same can't be said (quite as much) for Disciple.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 28, 2019, 03:24:33 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 03:20:39 pm

Quote from: segura on May 28, 2019, 03:09:35 pm

Nearly (BoM cannot immitate cards whose Supply piles are empty) strictly worse than Band of Misfits.

Maybe my phrasing wasn't clear - when you take the debt tokens, students can "study" more expensive cards, i.e. take 1 Debt, "study" an action that costs 5, take 2 Debt, "study" an action that costs 6, etc.

"that costs up to $4 plus $1 per D you took" is the wording you want then.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 03:36:48 pm

Quote from: segura on May 28, 2019, 03:24:33 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 03:20:39 pm

Quote from: segura on May 28, 2019, 03:09:35 pm

Nearly (BoM cannot immitate cards whose Supply piles are empty) strictly worse than Band of Misfits.

Maybe my phrasing wasn't clear - when you take the debt tokens, students can "study" more expensive cards, i.e. take 1 Debt, "study" an action that costs 5, take 2 Debt, "study" an action that costs 6, etc.

"that costs up to $4 plus $1 per D you took" is the wording you want then.

I had considered that, but didn't want to hard code the cost, due to Highway / Bridge, etc. If you played two highways first, I still wanted you to have to take 3 debt to get a KC. (maybe that doesn't need to be a consideration?)

I struggled quite a while with the phrasing, so am open to suggestions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 28, 2019, 03:43:05 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 02:57:37 pm

Hi all, this is my first attempt at creating a custom card, so all comments are welcome!

Students "study" other actions and are then able to perform those actions for the rest of the game.

(https://i.imgur.com/8Ldj4Wz.png)

FAQ / Secret History:

At first, I had it put Student tokens on Supply piles, but didn't that didn't work well with Spilt Piles (or Knight or Knights).

I wasn't sure of cost, because it really could be almost anything (since it's cost affects how many debt tokens you need to take to "study" a new action). So I could also see it as a $4.

Was also unsure if "studying" should be on buy or on gain. (if you only gain this, it's a stop card, which could also make it interesting to use with some attacks like Ambassador).

Lastly, the intent was that these cards are not part of your deck at the end of the game. This works differently that Inheritance, so I'd be curious to hear opinions on that (and if they do count, should I also limit them to non-Victory?)

P.S. Where do you all get your images for the cards? I would love to add a public domain student to it. Thanks!

I think the biggest problem is the big power difference when it is in a Kingdom with cards that cost more than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} vs when in a Kingdom without such cards. When King's Court or Grand Market are in the kingdom, it feels like this would be overpowered... for taking _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png)} just once; you can now buy King's Courts and/or Grand Markets for just _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}. But in a Kingdom where _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} is the most expensive action card (which I think is most Kingdoms), then this is generally just a worse Band of Misfits

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 28, 2019, 04:21:43 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 03:36:48 pm

Quote from: segura on May 28, 2019, 03:24:33 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 03:20:39 pm

Quote from: segura on May 28, 2019, 03:09:35 pm

Nearly (BoM cannot immitate cards whose Supply piles are empty) strictly worse than Band of Misfits.

Maybe my phrasing wasn't clear - when you take the debt tokens, students can "study" more expensive cards, i.e. take 1 Debt, "study" an action that costs 5, take 2 Debt, "study" an action that costs 6, etc.

"that costs up to $4 plus $1 per D you took" is the wording you want then.

I had considered that, but didn't want to hard code the cost, due to Highway / Bridge, etc. If you played two highways first, I still wanted you to have to take 3 debt to get a KC. (maybe that doesn't need to be a consideration?)

I struggled quite a while with the phrasing, so am open to suggestions.

"that costs less than this plus $1 per D you took" then. You definitely have to reference Coin costs, otherwise the wording is unclear.
As GenodIkari said, this card is not in the Goldilocks zone: either it is weaker than Band of Misfits or it is a cheap/easy way to get a $6+ Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 04:30:02 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 28, 2019, 03:43:05 pm

I think the biggest problem is the big power difference when it is in a Kingdom with cards that cost more than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} vs when in a Kingdom without such cards. When King's Court or Grand Market are in the kingdom, it feels like this would be overpowered... for taking _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png)} just once; you can now buy King's Courts and/or Grand Markets for just _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}. But in a Kingdom where _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} is the most expensive action card (which I think is most Kingdoms), then this is generally just a worse Band of Misfits

OK, I see the overpowering for KC. I'm still not sure about being that much worse than Band of Misfits since it can also play as cards that are $5, but the fact that you need to buy at least 2 for it be useful in that context is problematic.

The goal was to have a card that pays debt to "study" what it can do. I'll keep trying to think of ways to balance this out some. I have a few hours. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 28, 2019, 04:31:19 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 28, 2019, 03:43:05 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 02:57:37 pm

Hi all, this is my first attempt at creating a custom card, so all comments are welcome!

Students "study" other actions and are then able to perform those actions for the rest of the game.

(https://i.imgur.com/8Ldj4Wz.png)

FAQ / Secret History:

At first, I had it put Student tokens on Supply piles, but didn't that didn't work well with Spilt Piles (or Knight or Knights).

I wasn't sure of cost, because it really could be almost anything (since it's cost affects how many debt tokens you need to take to "study" a new action). So I could also see it as a $4.

Was also unsure if "studying" should be on buy or on gain. (if you only gain this, it's a stop card, which could also make it interesting to use with some attacks like Ambassador).

Lastly, the intent was that these cards are not part of your deck at the end of the game. This works differently that Inheritance, so I'd be curious to hear opinions on that (and if they do count, should I also limit them to non-Victory?)

P.S. Where do you all get your images for the cards? I would love to add a public domain student to it. Thanks!

I think the biggest problem is the big power difference when it is in a Kingdom with cards that cost more than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} vs when in a Kingdom without such cards. When King's Court or Grand Market are in the kingdom, it feels like this would be overpowered... for taking _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png)} just once; you can now buy King's Courts and/or Grand Markets for just _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}. But in a Kingdom where _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} is the most expensive action card (which I think is most Kingdoms), then this is generally just a worse Band of Misfits

I don't think this is strictly worse than BoM (even in kingdoms where the most expensive card is $5). BoM lets you play $4 cards. That's a bad deal ($5 for a $4 card) if it wasn't for the ability to choose which one on the fly. The advantage of BoM is the choice it allows you. Here, it will take longer to get the choices advantage, but it will be from a better pool of cards. Instead of having the power to choose from a bunch of weak $4 and $3 cards, with 3 buys of this you'll have 3 cards that can play (for example) as a wharf, witch or lost city (depending on what you need). Also, as stated above, this works on piles that run out, so this could be used to great effect to get even more than 10 cities (and have the choice advantage to boot). Compare this to BoM board with only 1 village where the BoM can copy the village for a short time before the pile runs out and BoM suddenly isn't as strong as it was.

My worry is the exact opposite. Going for this card might be a necessity, since if your opponent gets all 10, he now has 10 cards that can play as anything on the board. This can be compared to overlord which can do the same thing (in most boards with only 5 or less cost cards), but cost 8 (debt) rather than 6 ($5+1 debt). In addition, winning this split can be much more decisive; if I have only 1 overlord it's just as powerful as each of my opponent's overlords, whereas my 1 student is going to be much less powerful than my opponents 9 students.

A couple of side suggestions:
1) to prevent infinite loops of playing student as a student, you should prevent student playing as a student (or prevent putting a student on your student mat). (As an aside, with a ferry and a BoM you will have an infinite loop. Turning the cards over like necromancer would fix the BoM loop and the Student loop).
2) You should probably say the number of tokens in $ (I can't take 8 debt and put an overlord on my student mat).
3)I would also suggest making the on-buy ability optional, but that's more of a preference thing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 04:50:55 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 28, 2019, 04:31:19 pm

A couple of side suggestions:
1) to prevent infinite loops of playing student as a student, you should prevent student playing as a student (or prevent putting a student on your student mat). (As an aside, with a ferry and a BoM you will have an infinite loop. Turning the cards over like necromancer would fix the BoM loop and the Student loop).

In addition to solving the infinite loop issue, this would also address GendoIkari's issue as you now wouldn't be able to have the first student "study" KC, and then all later students be $5 KCs, since you would have to turn it over on use. (you could have multiple Students "study" KC, though)

Quote from: naitchman on May 28, 2019, 04:31:19 pm

2) You should probably say the number of tokens in $ (I can't take 8 debt and put an overlord on my student mat).

Right, and is solved by the wording suggested by segura.

Quote from: naitchman on May 28, 2019, 04:31:19 pm

3)I would also suggest making the on-buy ability optional, but that's more of a preference thing.

Sure, no harm adding a "you may".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 28, 2019, 04:54:00 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 28, 2019, 04:31:19 pm

3)I would also suggest making the on-buy ability optional, but that's more of a preference thing.

You can always choose to take 0 _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png)}; in which case you would get a card costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} or less on your mat. Why would you ever choose to not do that if it were optional?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 05:14:35 pm

Great feedback all! Here is v0.2:

(https://i.imgur.com/cQYwZ7s.png)

Note, I decided for now to only turn over the more expensive cards ("graduate courses"?) and see how that looks.

Also based on GendoIkari's followup point, and the fact that it is already wordy, did not add the "you may".

Better?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 05:28:29 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 05:14:35 pm

Note, I decided for now to only turn over the more expensive cards ("graduate courses"?) and see how that looks.

Am realizing now that this does not solve the infinite loop issues...

So should it just turn over all cards* or is there a better way to handle that.

(*) one issue with turning over all cards, is that if you buy 2 students and gain a third, playing the third would be useless). While I liked the idea of someone using Ambassador to give you your first useless Student, the counter to that was to just buy one yourself. That counter would now not work. Unless, of course change it to "on gain".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 28, 2019, 05:37:17 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 05:28:29 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 05:14:35 pm

Note, I decided for now to only turn over the more expensive cards ("graduate courses"?) and see how that looks.

Am realizing now that this does not solve the infinite loop issues...

So should it just turn over all cards* or is there a better way to handle that.

(*) one issue with turning over all cards, is that if you buy 2 students and gain a third, playing the third would be useless). While I liked the idea of someone using Ambassador to give you your first useless Student, the counter to that was to just buy one yourself. That counter would now not work. Unless, of course change it to "on gain".

Just say "Set aside an Action card other than Student from the supply".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 08:04:32 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 28, 2019, 05:37:17 pm

Just say "Set aside an Action card other than Student from the supply".

OK, updated that way.

I also changed the turn face down to be until its Student is discarded, so that you couldn't use GendoIkari's idea above with Hireling (buy the first Student, pay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/c/c6/Debt2.png/18px-Debt2.png)}, and then effectively buy cheap hirelings for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png))

Even more wordy now... I wonder if it could work similarly as Prince, instead:
"Play a card from your Student mat, setting it aside again when you discard it from play."

But then we would have the gained students issue, again...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 09:35:18 pm

Hi, any advice on where I can find art to add to the card? (everyone else always has amazing images added to theirs)

Thanks in advance!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 28, 2019, 09:37:38 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 09:35:18 pm

Hi, any advice on where I can find art to add to the card? (everyone else always has amazing images added to theirs)

Thanks in advance!

I think a lot of people just find stuff on google images. Not sure though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 28, 2019, 09:44:23 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 28, 2019, 09:37:38 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on May 28, 2019, 09:35:18 pm

Hi, any advice on where I can find art to add to the card? (everyone else always has amazing images added to theirs)

Thanks in advance!

I think a lot of people just find stuff on google images. Not sure though.

That's where I find mine. I usually just search "[cardname] deviantart," and find something that I like.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 28, 2019, 10:53:00 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 28, 2019, 04:54:00 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 28, 2019, 04:31:19 pm

3)I would also suggest making the on-buy ability optional, but that's more of a preference thing.

You can always choose to take 0 _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png)}; in which case you would get a card costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} or less on your mat. Why would you ever choose to not do that if it were optional?

If you already had all cards that 4 or less on your mat and you don't want to bring the game closer to an ending. (especially true if there's few cards that are 4 or less).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 29, 2019, 01:54:28 am

Quote from: scolapasta

Lastly, the intent was that these cards are not part of your deck at the end of the game. This works differently that Inheritance, so I'd be curious to hear opinions on that (and if they do count, should I also limit them to non-Victory?)

The general consensus is that they do count towards your deck at the end of the game. Although I don't believe this has always been the case and a good argument can be made that they do not in fact count at the end of the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on May 29, 2019, 09:18:09 am

Challenge #30: Design a Debt card (or card-shaped thing): Commentary & Results

Thank you everyone for the submissions, there were a lot of fun ideas!  OPs are hyperlinked, shortlisted entries are bolded.

---

Lender by naitchman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801532#msg801532)
A Smithy that lets you draw an extra card for 1 Debt or pay off 1 Debt before your Buy phase.  The ability to remove Debt synergizes nicely with the card’s effects and cost (and other Debt cards as well).  In the early game, it’s uncommon for the extra card to be worth that much more than the Debt it costs, but later these become cheap Hunting Grounds that can help pay for themselves.  The Vault effect comes at a steep cost, but players may be able to mitigate this with Lenders of their own. 

Monoculture by Frolouch (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801535#msg801535)
Hopefully, this is the final version of the like thirty I think I saw.  The variety theme is nice, though the potion cost feels a bit strange—I get that it’s there to prevent people from being able to basically open Platinum, but I wonder if costing $6 might be a better solution.  I also worry this may play too similarly to Capital.

Recompense by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801544#msg801544)
An interesting Remodel variant with a nice gain-and-play feature.  The wording for adding it to your next hand doesn’t feel quite right—I think there should be set-aside language in there somewhere, though it opens up strategies where you avoid paying off debt to keep using it.  The <6> cost feels a bit high, especially since it gives you more Debt each time you play it.

Grant by Gubump (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801557#msg801557)
I believe Donald X. has mentioned a similar card that he tested before settling on Capital.  The non-Victory clause helps prevent Grant from being too strong as a finisher, but the effect still allows for some unique plays.  I don’t love the cost reduction wording, but I can’t think of anything better.  <6> also feels just slightly too expensive. 

Blueprints by King Leon (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801561#msg801561)
A cantrip $5 gainer with clever use of Debt to keep its gains to usually one per turn.  Simple and straightforward, I like it. 

Hostage/Ransom by ClouduHieh (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801574#msg801574)
As others have already pointed out, Hostage’s attack is way stronger than Witch and costs less.  I’ve never been a fan of just slapping negative VP on an OP card in hopes of balancing it, as even -3 VP here isn’t enough to dissuade someone from opening this in every game it’s in.  Ransom is expensive and will be revealed far too late to have any hopes of stopping Hostage’s onslaught.

Draw Bridge by Kudasai (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801595#msg801595)
Cute naming puns aside, the Highway plus Buy for Debt actually feels surprisingly balanced.  The fact that its cost reduction can’t help gain more copies is what makes this card so interesting.  Playing with Draw Bridge as your payload will feel like playing with City Quarter as your only Village or Draw—there’s not really a lot of ways to easily get a bunch of them quickly or cheaply, so you have to be even more strategic about when you get them and how you plan to pay for them.  Nice one!

Prophet by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801644#msg801644)
Essentially this allows players to guarantee a $1/$5 opening or a $3/$3 opening in case you absolutely must open Mountebank or Sentry or Double Ambassador or something.  I’m not sure how often choosing to buy this or not would make for interesting choices, and it doesn’t affect the game beyond the opening.

Classroom by pubby (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801708#msg801708)
A cheap Lab that gives you Debt, similar to Asper’s Scientist.  The Debt cost means Workshop variants can’t gain it, which I don’t love, but it otherwise seems mostly balanced.

Tollkeeper by herw (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801710#msg801710)
It’s Tax but as a card!  The non-terminal Coffers are solid payload and the Tax effect works a bit like Embargo, coming before you buy cards, which is always a bit awkward.  As with Tax, the dream of hitting the cards your opponent wants but never the ones you want is usually far from reality since you often end up kicking yourself as you buy the card you just Taxed earlier. 

Revenant by segura (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801723#msg801723)
Ignoring the heated debates over how attacks scale with player count, the inconsistency Revenant’s benefits and attack make this one a hard sell for me, though I quite like the idea here.  Sometimes it nets you just one or two Coffers and doesn’t hurt your opponents at all (and can potentially hurt you instead as segura mentioned), while other times it can be a windfall of Coffers.  Also, the fact that you are affected by both other players’ Revenant’s and your own also seems to stack poorly, even just in two-player.

Flashing Lights by boggreaux (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801822#msg801822)
A one-shot Sea Hag that turns into Wisps later—it’s an interesting concept, however there are several problems.  First, this needs Sea Hag’s discard the top card wording to prevent multiples from leaving large stacks of Curses on the deck.  Secondly, I worry this will lead to degenerate IGG-like slogs, though at least the Wisps will help you cycle through the junk.  And finally, the Debt cost feels out of place here—it antisynergizes with Wisps and doesn’t seem to really add anything otherwise. 

Planned City by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801852#msg801852)
Another take Debt for +Cards, I like that when you don’t need the draw, these can help pay off the Debt from other Planned Cities.  Fairly simple and straightforward, my only concern is that <4> might a bit cheap for what are essentially Lost Cities much of the time.  I like it for the most part though.

Broker by mail-mi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801856#msg801856)
The ideas here are great, but I think the attack might be a bit too harsh.  Even without getting hit twice for the Militia attack, getting <2> is like two Cutpurses which is pretty brutal, especially in the early game.  Perhaps <1> might be better here—then it would be more similar to taking the -$1 token and still allows for multiples to Militia.  The Debt-Bridge effect is creative, allowing to hit price points you couldn’t usually, though at the cost of making cheap things (and Debt cards) more expensive if you play too many.  Very neat.

Banker by faust (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801857#msg801857)
It’s a unique take on a cheap Band of Misfits variant, but I agree with Commodore Chuckles that the Debt penalty is too harsh.  There are very few cards I’d be willing to pay full price for to play once in most situations, which makes Banker a tough sell in many kingdoms.  Halving the Debt penalty might be better, or perhaps a static amount like <2> or <3>. 

Mortgage by Commodore Chuckles (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801877#msg801877)
Wow, there are some crazy numbers on this card!  The 20 VP of course is alluring, but man, that Debt hurts.  The Treasure ability that lets you buy cards while in Debt is cool and makes for some tough decisions of when to buy cards and when to just bite the bullet and make your payments.  My biggest worry here is that this card may lead to some unfun strategies of just buying them one by one and then paying off Debt, while ignoring most other VP sources.  20 VP is a bonkers amount of points and as long as you have a plan to be out of Debt before the game ends, it’s hard to think of boards where you wouldn’t just always go for these.  Tricky to say though without playing it but it’s certainly a bold idea!  If nothing else, this card wins the Most Thematic award as it’s a way too real reminder of my own actual mortgage.

Coachman by Freddy10 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802084#msg802084)
Another take Debt for +Cards.  This one is the simplest of the bunch, and I think I actually like the $2 price point rather that $3.  It’s nice that it can just be Moat when you don’t need a Hunting Grounds. Very clean and straightforward design.   

Insurance by hhelibebcnofnena (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802038#msg802038)
The wording here is very confusing—please help me understand how this is supposed to work.  If it’s supposed to be a one-shot, it’s a one-time +2 Cards for <8> or possibly a lot more, something nobody would ever buy.  If it’s not one-shot and the +2 Cards is supposed to be every turn or something, that’s better, a sort of Hireling variant, though I still don’t like the “interest” penalty.  Your mention of Sinister Plot makes me assume it’s closer to the latter, but the current wording definitely isn’t right. 

Royal Academy by Gazbag (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802085#msg802085)
I slightly preferred the first version of this card personally, but I still like this version too.  It is a very powerful card to be sure, but as with many of the official <8> cards, it’s not good to open with and it can’t really help you get more of them.  Tying the gaining to the throning like Disciple is key, and while the two cards are indeed very similar, having this one as a Kingdom card will make it play very differently from the Traveller version.

Student by scolapasta (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802138#msg802138)
I like the concept of Student a lot—a Band of Misfits that slowly gets better and better, but it seems like the amount of text it takes to get this to work might not be worth it.  It seems relatively balanced in its current state, but I can’t imagine trying to remember all the exact wording on the cards while playing with it—“When do I turn cards over again?  How much Debt do I need to take again?”  Also, the Debt interaction also feels somewhat forced here—it works but it isn’t clear that it’s the best way to accomplish what it’s trying to accomplish.  Overpay or something else might be simpler.  It would be interesting to see a revamped version with less tortured wording that somehow retains a similar idea. 

---

Runner Up: Blueprints by King Leon

WINNER: Draw Bridge by Kudasai


Congrats to Kudasai and thanks again everyone for participating!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 29, 2019, 06:41:05 pm

CHALLENGE #31 - FEELING VULNERABLE

Design a Duration card that creates some sort of vulnerability to you while it is in play. I'll leave the term "vulnerability" mostly up to your interpretation, but you can think of it along the lines of the following:

(1) Something that alters the game in a way that might not help you or may help your opponents
(2) Something that effects you negatively
(3) Something that effects your opponents positively

I think the power level of the card can be above average compared to it's cost. How much stronger will depend on the vulnerability part. A word of caution though, very strong on-play cards with a very strong counter vulnerability will likely just end up being swingy and may not score well.

No Travelers please, but everything else is fair game! You can do Split piles and cards that gain from the non-Supply so long as there is no more than 2 cards per submission and one of them is a Duration with the vulnerability part.

I will do my best to judge on creativity, uniqueness, how the on-play and vulnerability interact directly or indirectly, and balance. Less so on balance as no official cards exist that implement this.

I'm being intentionally vague on what a "vulnerability" is, but if more clarification or examples are needed please ask. I want to provide enough information so everyone gets the challenge, but not enough to spoil potential card ideas.

Lastly, I'm going to make this a 6-day turn around as I can only really judge on Tuesdays. So judging will start around 12:00PM on Tue June 4th (PDT / GMT-7). I'll give everyone the standard 24 hours heads up though.

Good luck and I can't wait to see what everyone comes up with!

Title: Re: Contest #31: Design a Duration card that creates a vulnerability to yourself
Post by: Gubump on May 29, 2019, 07:14:44 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/2gWGTwI.png)

Coincidentally, my prompt would have also involved Durations if I won the previous contest.

EDIT: This is no longer my submission. My submission is now General (on the next page).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 29, 2019, 10:34:54 pm

This is no longer my submission (Due to it being changed to a project). I'm leaving this up so reading through the thread doesn't get confusing. (My submission is now Grand Tour; see later)
(https://i.imgur.com/K6YnIeN.png)
A couple of things:
1) Thematically nobody wants to give you charity if they know you have money of your own. :)
2) The "if this card is in play" part is important so the effect doesn't continue after you trash it.
3) Also you can't counterfeit or crown this since the second time you play it, it will trash itself.
4) Not sure if the pricing is correct. I'm open to hear other people's opinions. I'm trying to find cards to compare this to. Closest I can find is Treasury ( it's kind of like +$1 for rest of the game with victory card caveat), though obviously losing the ability to play money is a big consideration.
5) A couple places I could see this working: double tactician, poor house, engines that don't have good enough draw to deal with treasures anyway, rush strategies.

6) I wanted Kudasai's verdict on this. Does this count as a vulnerability? You aren't really restricted per se, but playing treasures defeats the purpose of this card. So in effect, it's a duration that (kind of) prevents you from playing treasures.

Note: This card has been updated
1) so it only works on subsequent turns
2) only works for the 1st buy phase each turn (to prevent piledriving villas)
3) Has while in play effect to get rid of tracking issues

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 29, 2019, 10:47:00 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 29, 2019, 10:34:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/RM5eJ3y.png)

Being able to simply forgo playing Treasures and buy a $4-cost every single turn until you do play a Treasure (and still having +$4 the turn you do) is WAY too powerful for just $5, especially since it's non-terminal. It also still allows you to play Treasures the same turn as it since you can simply play the Charity last. I would buy it over Platinum most of the time. I would price it at $9 or $10.

Charity also lets you buy the Villa pile in one turn as worded, since it would give you $4 at the start of every extra Buy phase that Villa gives you (after its extra Action phase).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 29, 2019, 10:50:32 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 29, 2019, 10:47:00 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 29, 2019, 10:34:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/RM5eJ3y.png)

Being able to simply forgo playing Treasures and buy a $4-cost every single turn until you do play a Treasure (and still having +$4 the turn you do) is WAY too powerful for just $5, especially since it's non-terminal.

That sounds pretty similar to alms which doesn't require you to buy a card.

Quote from: Gubump on May 29, 2019, 10:47:00 pm

It also still allows you to play Treasures the same turn as it since you can simply play the Charity last. I would buy it over Platinum most of the time. I would price it at $9 or $10.

Right after I uploaded it I had a similar thought, so I already changed it. I still don't think it's better than platinum anyway since it can only be used once that way. definitely not $9 or $10.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 29, 2019, 11:01:11 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 29, 2019, 10:50:32 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 29, 2019, 10:47:00 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 29, 2019, 10:34:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/RM5eJ3y.png)

Being able to simply forgo playing Treasures and buy a $4-cost every single turn until you do play a Treasure (and still having +$4 the turn you do) is WAY too powerful for just $5, especially since it's non-terminal.

That sounds pretty similar to alms which doesn't require you to buy a card.

Quote from: Gubump on May 29, 2019, 10:47:00 pm

It also still allows you to play Treasures the same turn as it since you can simply play the Charity last. I would buy it over Platinum most of the time. I would price it at $9 or $10.

Right after I uploaded it I had a similar thought, so I already changed it. I still don't think it's better than platinum anyway since it can only be used once that way. definitely not $9 or $10.

Alms does still take a Buy. Buying Events still takes a Buy. I still think it should probably cost $6, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 29, 2019, 11:02:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 29, 2019, 10:47:00 pm

Charity also lets you buy the Villa pile in one turn as worded, since it would give you $4 at the start of every extra Buy phase that Villa gives you (after its extra Action phase).

Fair point. Forgot about villa. I'm going to fix that.

Quote

Alms does still take a Buy. Buying Events still takes a Buy. I still think it should probably cost $6, though.

So does buying a card for the $4 that charity gives you. Charity requires you to buy a $5 card then start gaining $4 cards; with alms you can start gaining $4 cards right away. I still don't see why this is stronger than alms.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 29, 2019, 11:04:03 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 29, 2019, 11:02:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 29, 2019, 10:47:00 pm

Charity also lets you buy the Villa pile in one turn as worded, since it would give you $4 at the start of every extra Buy phase that Villa gives you (after its extra Action phase).

Fair point. Forgot about villa. I'm going to fix that.

I would recommend this wording:
"At the start of your first Buy phase of each turn that this remains in play:"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 29, 2019, 11:44:15 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 29, 2019, 11:04:03 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 29, 2019, 11:02:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 29, 2019, 10:47:00 pm

Charity also lets you buy the Villa pile in one turn as worded, since it would give you $4 at the start of every extra Buy phase that Villa gives you (after its extra Action phase).

Fair point. Forgot about villa. I'm going to fix that.

I would recommend this wording:
"At the start of your first Buy phase of each turn that this remains in play:"

Why does it have to activate at the start of the buy phase? There's only two situations I can think of where it matters (Storyteller and Black Market).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 29, 2019, 11:55:28 pm

Charity is intended to stay out and work in a deck that doesn't use treasures. I doubt using it as a one shot is as good as some people are implying.
1) If you're using a one shot for coin it's usually to reach a specific thresh hold fast. If that thresh hold is $5, well that's just stupid. You bought the charity for $5 so you could reach $5? Obviously it would have to be a $6+ card. There aren't a high proportion of those cards so this wouldn't come up so often. When it does, it may be worthwhile to one shot this card (grand market, kings court); you still have to pass up permanently having a $5 card, which are usually strong and may be able to help you reach that thresh hold anyway.
2) You might say that you're using it for a one shot $4 with +buy (maybe from market square, it doesn't matter).  You'd still have to be buying at least one card that cost $6+ with those buys or it wouldn't make sense, and if you're buying $6+ cards we revert back to point #1. If you're only buying cards that are $5 or less, than you could have bought a $5 card outright instead of charity and then you would've been able to buy the other cards you wanted with $4 less (for instance, if you wanted to buy a two $5 cards with your charity, you could have bought one of them instead of charity and then you'd have $6 this turn instead of $10; enough to buy the other card you wanted). It's kind of like when new players are confused that gold costs $6 ("Why would I pay $6 for $3?). They're right, if you didn't get to play the gold over and over again. So why would you pay $5 for $4? Other than reaching a thresh hold (or some edge cases) it wouldn't make sense.
3) The best comparisons for virtual coin one shots are pixie, mining village and Wine Merchant. Mining village is a non-terminal one shot that gives you $2. But it's obviously better than that since it draws 1 card and is not just non terminal but is a village. In addition you don't have to one shot it if you don't want to and it still plays as a village. So a non terminal one shot for +$2 should clearly cost less than 4. Pixie is an even better comparison. It's a non terminal one shot that (could) give you +$2 (Field's gift or Forest's gift). It also draws and will give you +2 actions or +2 buys. And it only costs $2. Charity on the other hand is a $4 one shot that works on the turn after you play it and costs $5. If a one shot $2 should cost <$2 I don't think this is too cheap at $5. Wine Merchant (if never called) is a terminal one shot $4 the turn you play it with a + buy (you can also call if you need to later). Charity is a non terminal one shot $4 the turn after you play it (with no +buy). Seems like a fair trade off to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 12:07:34 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 29, 2019, 11:44:15 pm

Why does it have to activate at the start of the buy phase? There's only two situations I can think of where it matters (Storyteller and Black Market).

It's a matter of preference. To me, it feels like treasures should work in the buy phase, not the action phase (excluding text under the line, usually actions work in action phase and treasures work in the buy phase). Also, I felt I didn't want it to work with storyteller or black market. The idea is you get a big bonus of $4 but you have to use it in the buy phase and you don't get to use any treasures. Not being able to use black market or storyteller seems like it should be part of the trade-off.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 12:12:01 am

This is a nitpick, but the word "buy" in "buy phase" should be capitalized.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on May 30, 2019, 12:47:29 am

Quote from: naitchman on May 29, 2019, 10:34:54 pm

6) I wanted Kudasai's verdict on this. Does this count as a vulnerability? You aren't really restricted per se, but playing treasures defeats the purpose of this card. So in effect, it's a duration that (kind of) prevents you from playing treasures.

Yes, this satisfies my vague definition of vulnerable. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 30, 2019, 02:36:19 am

Quote from: naitchman on May 29, 2019, 10:34:54 pm

Here is my tentative submission (pending approval).
(https://i.imgur.com/z0y1Q67.png)

I like the idea but given that you can only buy one copy of it in a Kingdom with enough virtual money, I think that it is strategically a bit too straightforward.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on May 30, 2019, 02:55:42 am

Quote from: naitchman on May 29, 2019, 10:34:54 pm

Here is my tentative submission (pending approval).
(https://i.imgur.com/z0y1Q67.png)

Black Market does not count as Buy phase and also comes with virtual money, which is a very powerful combination.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 30, 2019, 06:02:32 am

Charity is going to have serious tracking issues if it is removed from play (via trashing or Mandarin) and then played again.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 30, 2019, 06:45:53 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ED6GW02.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MeNowDealWithIt on May 30, 2019, 08:25:58 am

Motherly Witch
5$ Action - Attack - Duration
Each other player gains a curse.
Now and at the start of your next turn, +2 cards
--
While this is in play, when another player plays an attack card, gain a copper.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 10:41:19 am

Quote from: faust on May 30, 2019, 06:02:32 am

Charity is going to have serious tracking issues if it is removed from play (via trashing or Mandarin) and then played again.

Interesting point. It says "if this is in play". I wonder if it would fall under a lose trackish type of rule since it's no longer the "same" card when played the 2nd time (since charity lost track of itself). I think I'll just fix it by saying, "While this card is in play" rather than "if this card is in play".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 10:43:51 am

Quote from: segura on May 30, 2019, 02:36:19 am

I like the idea but given that you can only buy one copy of it in a Kingdom with enough virtual money, I think that it is strategically a bit too straightforward.

It works pretty similar to a project (which you can also only buy one copy of). It has less to do with how you'd play this one card, but more to do with how you'd structure your deck around it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 11:31:08 am

Quote from: Gazbag on May 30, 2019, 06:45:53 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ED6GW02.png)

Considering that it's only one card that gives your opponents Coffers when they gain it, I don't think the drawback is big enough to price this the same as a Remodel when it's way better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 30, 2019, 12:32:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/l7t4M8c.jpg)

The idea to discard a Duration at the start of the next turn, instead of the end, seems interesting. No idea about whether this makes the card too good though. One way to nerf (?) it is conditioning the discard bonus for the other play on the type of the discarded card (e.g. Action - Villager, Treasure - Coffers, Victory - +1 Card) but that would lead to too much text.

The Potion cost is mainly there to make non-mirror play more likely.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 30, 2019, 12:38:45 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 10:43:51 am

Quote from: segura on May 30, 2019, 02:36:19 am

I like the idea but given that you can only buy one copy of it in a Kingdom with enough virtual money, I think that it is strategically a bit too straightforward.

It works pretty similar to a project (which you can also only buy one copy of). It has less to do with how you'd play this one card, but more to do with how you'd structure your deck around it.

As a sidenote, ignoring that it would then not match the parameters of the contest anymore, wouldn't it make more sense as a Project?

Charity
Cost: $6
Project
At the start of your turn: + _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}
When you play a Treasure, remove your cube from this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 01:37:52 pm

Quote from: segura on May 30, 2019, 12:38:45 pm

As a sidenote, ignoring that it would then not match the parameters of the contest anymore, wouldn't it make more sense as a Project?

You're right. It does look much cleaner like this.
(https://i.imgur.com/eWWQqf7.png)
I'll work on a new submission.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on May 30, 2019, 03:22:39 pm

Privateer (Action-Duration) [$5]

Now and at the start of your next turn, +$3.
---
While this in play, when an opponent gains
VP and you have more than 3 cards in your
hand, discard a card.


When I say "gains VP", I mean "gains a VP token" or "gains a Victory card".

This might force opponents to buy a VP card earlier than they want to. Or, maybe they have cards that can gain VP tokens to defend against this...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 30, 2019, 03:48:21 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 01:37:52 pm

Quote from: segura on May 30, 2019, 12:38:45 pm

As a sidenote, ignoring that it would then not match the parameters of the contest anymore, wouldn't it make more sense as a Project?

You're right. It does look much cleaner like this.
(https://i.imgur.com/0SFV2gl.png)
I'll work on a new submission.

So with the right combination of weird stuff*, you could play a treasure while you have _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}, in which case the question is whether or not the -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} sends you to negative _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} (in which case you'll soon be getting _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} back and end up at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)} anyway; or whether it cannot go below _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}, in which case you could do weird stuff to end up with _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} from this on the same turn that you lost your cube.

*You have an action/treasure you can play at the start of turn (Prince, Summon, Ghost); and choose to do that before resolving the +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 04:08:07 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 30, 2019, 03:48:21 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 01:37:52 pm

Quote from: segura on May 30, 2019, 12:38:45 pm

As a sidenote, ignoring that it would then not match the parameters of the contest anymore, wouldn't it make more sense as a Project?

You're right. It does look much cleaner like this.
(https://i.imgur.com/0SFV2gl.png)
I'll work on a new submission.

So with the right combination of weird stuff*, you could play a treasure while you have _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}, in which case the question is whether or not the -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} sends you to negative _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} (in which case you'll soon be getting _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} back and end up at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)} anyway; or whether it cannot go below _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}, in which case you could do weird stuff to end up with _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} from this on the same turn that you lost your cube.

*You have an action/treasure you can play at the start of turn (Prince, Summon, Ghost); and choose to do that before resolving the +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

Another case: You play Storyteller and play no Treasures. The _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} you have (_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} from Charity and _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} from Storyteller) are gone afterwards. You play a Copper during your Buy phase. You now have negative _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 30, 2019, 04:29:59 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 04:08:07 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 30, 2019, 03:48:21 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 01:37:52 pm

Quote from: segura on May 30, 2019, 12:38:45 pm

As a sidenote, ignoring that it would then not match the parameters of the contest anymore, wouldn't it make more sense as a Project?

You're right. It does look much cleaner like this.
(https://i.imgur.com/0SFV2gl.png)
I'll work on a new submission.

So with the right combination of weird stuff*, you could play a treasure while you have _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}, in which case the question is whether or not the -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} sends you to negative _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} (in which case you'll soon be getting _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} back and end up at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)} anyway; or whether it cannot go below _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}, in which case you could do weird stuff to end up with _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} from this on the same turn that you lost your cube.

*You have an action/treasure you can play at the start of turn (Prince, Summon, Ghost); and choose to do that before resolving the +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

Another case: You play Storyteller and play no Treasures. The _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} you have (_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} from Charity and _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} from Storyteller) are gone afterwards. You play a Copper during your Buy phase. You now have negative _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}.

Or just buy a Villa and then play your first treasure of the turn in your next buy phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 05:27:48 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/fknw13HJ/Rope-Bridge.png)

This may need some tweaking; not sure if it's balanced, so I'd appreciate your thoughts. I really liked the idea of a Bridge that applies to everyone. I thought of calling it a Suspension Bridge, because when you play it, it's kind of suspenseful, but they weren't invented yet in the middle ages, so I went with Rope Bridge, as it's an earlier form of suspension bridges.

My thoughts on whether it's balanced: It gives you the benefit for two turns, like Bridge Troll. However, it helps the other players instead of attacking them. In terms of the additional benefit, I'm really not sure, because +2 Cards seems stronger than +1 Buy, but it's less self-synergizing, and you only get it for one of your two turns. I also tried comparing this to Den of Sin but nothing really came from that. Bridge Troll seems like its closest relative, and there's too much of a difference between them for me to be able to tell what a good cost is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 30, 2019, 06:00:45 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 11:31:08 am

Quote from: Gazbag on May 30, 2019, 06:45:53 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ED6GW02.png)

Considering that it's only one card that gives your opponents Coffers when they gain it, I don't think the drawback is big enough to price this the same as a Remodel when it's way better.

I don't know, I think Remodel is probably better than this on average to be honest. This is better if you draw it turn 3 (although if your opponent gets the Coffers I'm not so sure it is), but if you draw it turn 4 and it misses the shuffle you might have rather had a Remodel. I also think your opponent is going to get the Coffers the majority of the time because the card you gain is going to cost $4 or less and will also be something they'll be interested in gaining too if you're gaining it (unless one of you is going for a really weird strategy). Getting a free Coffers in the first shuffle is huge!

Later on the game you can't do gain and play with this, which is probably where Remodel is at its best and depending on what you're doing your opponent might even be able to get multiple free Coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 06:01:11 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 05:27:48 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/fknw13HJ/Rope-Bridge.png)

This may need some tweaking; not sure if it's balanced, so I'd appreciate your thoughts. I really liked the idea of a Bridge that applies to everyone. I thought of calling it a Suspension Bridge, because when you play it, it's kind of suspenseful, but they weren't invented yet in the middle ages, so I went with Rope Bridge, as it's an earlier form of suspension bridges.

My thoughts on whether it's balanced: It gives you the benefit for two turns, like Bridge Troll. However, it helps the other players instead of attacking them. In terms of the additional benefit, I'm really not sure, because +2 Cards seems stronger than +1 Buy, but it's less self-synergizing, and you only get it for one of your two turns. I also tried comparing this to Den of Sin but nothing really came from that. Bridge Troll seems like its closest relative, and there's too much of a difference between them for me to be able to tell what a good cost is.

I think it should clarify "while this is in play, including during other players' turns, cards cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less, but not less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}." I assumed it was only during your turn (thus not qualifying for this contest) until I read your explanation.

Also, I definitely think that it should cost less than Bridge. The lack of +1 Buy and the fact that it's effectively a Highway for your opponents hinders its power quite a bit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 06:08:36 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 06:01:11 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 05:27:48 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/fknw13HJ/Rope-Bridge.png)

This may need some tweaking; not sure if it's balanced, so I'd appreciate your thoughts. I really liked the idea of a Bridge that applies to everyone. I thought of calling it a Suspension Bridge, because when you play it, it's kind of suspenseful, but they weren't invented yet in the middle ages, so I went with Rope Bridge, as it's an earlier form of suspension bridges.

My thoughts on whether it's balanced: It gives you the benefit for two turns, like Bridge Troll. However, it helps the other players instead of attacking them. In terms of the additional benefit, I'm really not sure, because +2 Cards seems stronger than +1 Buy, but it's less self-synergizing, and you only get it for one of your two turns. I also tried comparing this to Den of Sin but nothing really came from that. Bridge Troll seems like its closest relative, and there's too much of a difference between them for me to be able to tell what a good cost is.

I think it should clarify "while this is in play, including during other players' turns, cards cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less, but not less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}." I assumed it was only during your turn (thus not qualifying for this contest) until I read your explanation.

Also, I definitely think that it should cost less than Bridge. The lack of +1 Buy and the fact that it's effectively a Highway for your opponents hinders its power quite a bit.

Good point. I'll update the wording. Should it go down to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}? Should it become non-terminal? Any other ideas?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 06:21:59 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 06:08:36 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 06:01:11 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 05:27:48 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/fknw13HJ/Rope-Bridge.png)

This may need some tweaking; not sure if it's balanced, so I'd appreciate your thoughts. I really liked the idea of a Bridge that applies to everyone. I thought of calling it a Suspension Bridge, because when you play it, it's kind of suspenseful, but they weren't invented yet in the middle ages, so I went with Rope Bridge, as it's an earlier form of suspension bridges.

My thoughts on whether it's balanced: It gives you the benefit for two turns, like Bridge Troll. However, it helps the other players instead of attacking them. In terms of the additional benefit, I'm really not sure, because +2 Cards seems stronger than +1 Buy, but it's less self-synergizing, and you only get it for one of your two turns. I also tried comparing this to Den of Sin but nothing really came from that. Bridge Troll seems like its closest relative, and there's too much of a difference between them for me to be able to tell what a good cost is.

I think it should clarify "while this is in play, including during other players' turns, cards cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less, but not less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}." I assumed it was only during your turn (thus not qualifying for this contest) until I read your explanation.

Also, I definitely think that it should cost less than Bridge. The lack of +1 Buy and the fact that it's effectively a Highway for your opponents hinders its power quite a bit.

Good point. I'll update the wording. Should it go down to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}? Should it become non-terminal? Any other ideas?

EDIT: Scratch what I said before. I think it should give +1 Buy now, 2 cards next turn, and remain at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 30, 2019, 06:27:27 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 06:08:36 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 06:01:11 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 05:27:48 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/fknw13HJ/Rope-Bridge.png)

This may need some tweaking; not sure if it's balanced, so I'd appreciate your thoughts. I really liked the idea of a Bridge that applies to everyone. I thought of calling it a Suspension Bridge, because when you play it, it's kind of suspenseful, but they weren't invented yet in the middle ages, so I went with Rope Bridge, as it's an earlier form of suspension bridges.

My thoughts on whether it's balanced: It gives you the benefit for two turns, like Bridge Troll. However, it helps the other players instead of attacking them. In terms of the additional benefit, I'm really not sure, because +2 Cards seems stronger than +1 Buy, but it's less self-synergizing, and you only get it for one of your two turns. I also tried comparing this to Den of Sin but nothing really came from that. Bridge Troll seems like its closest relative, and there's too much of a difference between them for me to be able to tell what a good cost is.

I think it should clarify "while this is in play, including during other players' turns, cards cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less, but not less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}." I assumed it was only during your turn (thus not qualifying for this contest) until I read your explanation.

Also, I definitely think that it should cost less than Bridge. The lack of +1 Buy and the fact that it's effectively a Highway for your opponents hinders its power quite a bit.

Good point. I'll update the wording. Should it go down to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}? Should it become non-terminal? Any other ideas?

I really do think it should give +Buy. +Buy enormously increases the benefit of the cost reduction for you vs. your opponents, which I think is interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 06:33:33 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 30, 2019, 06:27:27 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 06:08:36 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 06:01:11 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 05:27:48 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/fknw13HJ/Rope-Bridge.png)

This may need some tweaking; not sure if it's balanced, so I'd appreciate your thoughts. I really liked the idea of a Bridge that applies to everyone. I thought of calling it a Suspension Bridge, because when you play it, it's kind of suspenseful, but they weren't invented yet in the middle ages, so I went with Rope Bridge, as it's an earlier form of suspension bridges.

My thoughts on whether it's balanced: It gives you the benefit for two turns, like Bridge Troll. However, it helps the other players instead of attacking them. In terms of the additional benefit, I'm really not sure, because +2 Cards seems stronger than +1 Buy, but it's less self-synergizing, and you only get it for one of your two turns. I also tried comparing this to Den of Sin but nothing really came from that. Bridge Troll seems like its closest relative, and there's too much of a difference between them for me to be able to tell what a good cost is.

I think it should clarify "while this is in play, including during other players' turns, cards cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less, but not less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)}." I assumed it was only during your turn (thus not qualifying for this contest) until I read your explanation.

Also, I definitely think that it should cost less than Bridge. The lack of +1 Buy and the fact that it's effectively a Highway for your opponents hinders its power quite a bit.

Good point. I'll update the wording. Should it go down to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}? Should it become non-terminal? Any other ideas?

I really do think it should give +Buy. +Buy enormously increases the benefit of the cost reduction for you vs. your opponents, which I think is interesting.

Agreed. He should separate the Buy and the 2 cards (i.e. give them on different turns), though, if he wants it to stay at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

Title: Re: Contest #31: Design a Duration card that creates a vulnerability to yourself
Post by: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 07:05:19 pm

I decided my first entry was super-boring, so here's my new entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/oPWcMJA.png)

A card that lets you Throne Room a card from your hand now and Throne it again next turn, but only if nobody else gains a copy of it before your next turn. If anybody does gain that card in the meantime, the card is lost. Are you going to play the risky way and General your good cards, or play it safe and General weak-ish cards that nobody else wants?

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Changed pseudo-discarding to pseudo-trashing.
v1.2: Fixed tracking issues by adding a non-Duration condition to setting aside.
v1.3: Removed an unnecessary set aside condition and changed pseudo-trashing to actual trashing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 08:05:20 pm

Thanks for your feedback! Added +1 Buy when you play it.

(https://i.postimg.cc/tR1QZQNJ/Rope-Bridge-2.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 08:11:52 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 08:05:20 pm

Thanks for your feedback! Added +1 Buy when you play it. Gubump, when you said scratch what you said before, I assume you meant the wording change? Should I still add a parenthetical about other people's turns, or is it good this way?

(https://i.postimg.cc/cHmtyt69/Rope-Bridge-1.png)

Sorry, I should have left what I previously said in that comment. "What I said before" was about making it non-terminal. You should still add a parenthetical about other people's turns.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on May 30, 2019, 08:21:07 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/2gcjeqhj.png)

Lich
Type: Action - Attack - Duration
Cost: $5

Each other player gains a Curse.
At the start of your next turn: +$3
-
While this is in play, when you gain a card, put that card onto your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 30, 2019, 08:25:00 pm

Thank you Kudasai for this interesting challenge!

(https://i.imgur.com/Bqjnf8h.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 08:26:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 07:05:19 pm

I decided my first entry was super-boring, so here's my new entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/78Rl2aB.png)

A card that lets you Throne Room a card from your hand now and Throne it again next turn, but only if nobody else gains a copy of it before your next turn. If anybody does gain that card in the meantime, the card is lost. Are you going to play the risky way and General your good cards, or play it safe and General weak-ish cards that nobody else wants?

Note: It says "put the set aside card into the trash" instead of "trash the set aside card" so that it won't be OP with on-trash effects.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Changed pseudo-discarding to pseudo-trashing.
v1.2: Fixed tracking issues by adding a non-Duration condition to setting aside.

First off, I think you can just trash the card. There's few enough on-trash effects that it won't make any difference most of the time. And it's okay if it's a more powerful card and plays a little differently in the occasional kingdom; it's not like the official cards always play the same way.

Secondly, you only need the non-Duration condition; the other condition is covered by lose-track and is pretty wordy for something already covered in the rule book.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 08:31:42 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 08:11:52 pm

Sorry, I should have left what I previously said in that comment. "What I said before" was about making it non-terminal. You should still add a parenthetical about other people's turns.

Okay, added that in my previous post. There's no functional change so I'm not re-posting it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 30, 2019, 08:38:00 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 08:26:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 07:05:19 pm

I decided my first entry was super-boring, so here's my new entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/78Rl2aB.png)

A card that lets you Throne Room a card from your hand now and Throne it again next turn, but only if nobody else gains a copy of it before your next turn. If anybody does gain that card in the meantime, the card is lost. Are you going to play the risky way and General your good cards, or play it safe and General weak-ish cards that nobody else wants?

Note: It says "put the set aside card into the trash" instead of "trash the set aside card" so that it won't be OP with on-trash effects.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Changed pseudo-discarding to pseudo-trashing.
v1.2: Fixed tracking issues by adding a non-Duration condition to setting aside.

First off, I think you can just trash the card. There's few enough on-trash effects that it won't make any difference most of the time. And it's okay if it's a more powerful card and plays a little differently in the occasional kingdom; it's not like the official cards always play the same way.

Secondly, you only need the non-Duration condition; the other condition is covered by lose-track and is pretty wordy for something already covered in the rule book.

I agree. Though, for what it's worth, being able to put Fortress in the trash is kind of cool.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 08:44:06 pm

Quote from: King Leon on May 30, 2019, 08:21:07 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/2gcjeqhj.png)

Lich
Type: Action - Attack - Duration
Cost: $5

Each other player gains a Curse.
At the start of your next turn: +$3
-
While this is in play, when you gain a card, put that card onto your deck.

For a second I was like, what's so bad about putting gained cards on your deck? Then I realized it topdecks the curses you gain. Nice.  :)
I'm wondering if this should follow sea hag's idea of discarding the top card (or at least giving you the option) so you don't get pinned.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 08:44:27 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 30, 2019, 08:38:00 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 08:26:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 07:05:19 pm

I decided my first entry was super-boring, so here's my new entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/78Rl2aB.png)

A card that lets you Throne Room a card from your hand now and Throne it again next turn, but only if nobody else gains a copy of it before your next turn. If anybody does gain that card in the meantime, the card is lost. Are you going to play the risky way and General your good cards, or play it safe and General weak-ish cards that nobody else wants?

Note: It says "put the set aside card into the trash" instead of "trash the set aside card" so that it won't be OP with on-trash effects.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Changed pseudo-discarding to pseudo-trashing.
v1.2: Fixed tracking issues by adding a non-Duration condition to setting aside.

First off, I think you can just trash the card. There's few enough on-trash effects that it won't make any difference most of the time. And it's okay if it's a more powerful card and plays a little differently in the occasional kingdom; it's not like the official cards always play the same way.

Secondly, you only need the non-Duration condition; the other condition is covered by lose-track and is pretty wordy for something already covered in the rule book.

I agree. Though, for what it's worth, being able to put Fortress in the trash is kind of cool.

Okay, I applied the suggested changes in my original post. Although Fortress was the main reason for pseudo-trashing; it's now a no-brainer to just General a Fortress. Procession has the same problem, though, so that should be fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 08:50:50 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 30, 2019, 08:25:00 pm

Thank you Kudasai for this interesting challenge!

(https://i.imgur.com/Bqjnf8h.png)

Problem: Players would have to remember whether they Moated Inspector when it was played, or had a Lighthouse in play when Inspector was played, for an entire round. This is because Moat and Lighthouse both say "when another player plays an Attack," and next-turn effects are not playing an Attack; setting them up is.

Swamp Hag and Haunted Woods have the same problem, but they're easier to remember because they affect players on their own turn, rather than waiting a whole round to take effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 08:59:12 pm

Okay this is my submission (for now) (this card has been updated)
(https://i.imgur.com/nTCjEz4.png)
Seeing as my original idea was anti-treasures, I figured this one should be anti-villages.
Here are some notes:
1) I made this a night so it wouldn't (largely) affect the turn you play it.
2) It's action, not action card.
3) resetting your actions to 1 means that you now have 1 action regardless of how many you had before that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 09:05:42 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 08:59:12 pm

Okay this is my submission (for now)
(https://i.imgur.com/61yWYpr.png)
Seeing as my original idea was anti-treasures, I figured this one should be anti-villages.
Here are some notes:
1) I made this a night so it wouldn't (largely) affect the turn you play it.
2) It's action, not action card.
3) If you go to your cleanup and you're in the middle of playing a card, it stops and you don't get any of the other benefits (for instance, you don't get a spoils if you play bandit camp). I figure since the case is never dealt with in the real dominion, I can make my own rules for it.

I think the penalty on this is way too harsh. Especially as someone who likes their engines, I don't think I would ever buy a Grand Tour as it is currently.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 09:31:44 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 09:05:42 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 08:59:12 pm

Okay this is my submission (for now)
(https://i.imgur.com/61yWYpr.png)
Seeing as my original idea was anti-treasures, I figured this one should be anti-villages.
Here are some notes:
1) I made this a night so it wouldn't (largely) affect the turn you play it.
2) It's action, not action card.
3) If you go to your cleanup and you're in the middle of playing a card, it stops and you don't get any of the other benefits (for instance, you don't get a spoils if you play bandit camp). I figure since the case is never dealt with in the real dominion, I can make my own rules for it.

I think the penalty on this is way too harsh. Especially as someone who likes their engines, I don't think I would ever buy a Grand Tour as it is currently.

Agreed. Either it needs changing or a drastic cost reduction as it's only really useful in big money and the very rare case of an engine without terminals.

If you intend to keep the card as it currently is anyway (possibly by reducing the cost):
1) I would say "unused Actions" like Diadem.
2) In response to your note 3, switching phases in the middle of a card resolution is, in fact, dealt with in Dominion. If you play Ironworks in your Buy phase through Capitalism or Scepter, and gain Villa, it causes you to switch phases in the middle of resolving Ironworks. But you still get to finish resolving it and get +1 Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 09:49:06 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 09:31:44 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 09:05:42 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 08:59:12 pm

Okay this is my submission (for now)
(https://i.imgur.com/61yWYpr.png)
Seeing as my original idea was anti-treasures, I figured this one should be anti-villages.
Here are some notes:
1) I made this a night so it wouldn't (largely) affect the turn you play it.
2) It's action, not action card.
3) If you go to your cleanup and you're in the middle of playing a card, it stops and you don't get any of the other benefits (for instance, you don't get a spoils if you play bandit camp). I figure since the case is never dealt with in the real dominion, I can make my own rules for it.

I think the penalty on this is way too harsh. Especially as someone who likes their engines, I don't think I would ever buy a Grand Tour as it is currently.

Agreed. Either it needs changing or a drastic cost reduction as it's only really useful in big money and the very rare case of an engine without terminals.

Devil's advocate here, but you could run an engine off of Grand Tour and Villagers. The only ways to really reliably do that are with Patron and Recruiter, though. And Recruiter doesn't actually work that well since you'd probably be trashing your engine components with it eventually.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 10:01:05 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 09:49:06 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 09:31:44 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 09:05:42 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 08:59:12 pm

Okay this is my submission (for now)
(https://i.imgur.com/61yWYpr.png)
Seeing as my original idea was anti-treasures, I figured this one should be anti-villages.
Here are some notes:
1) I made this a night so it wouldn't (largely) affect the turn you play it.
2) It's action, not action card.
3) If you go to your cleanup and you're in the middle of playing a card, it stops and you don't get any of the other benefits (for instance, you don't get a spoils if you play bandit camp). I figure since the case is never dealt with in the real dominion, I can make my own rules for it.

I think the penalty on this is way too harsh. Especially as someone who likes their engines, I don't think I would ever buy a Grand Tour as it is currently.

Agreed. Either it needs changing or a drastic cost reduction as it's only really useful in big money and the very rare case of an engine without terminals.

Devil's advocate here, but you could run an engine off of Grand Tour and Villagers. The only ways to really reliably do that are with Patron and Recruiter, though. And Recruiter doesn't actually work that well since you'd probably be trashing your engine components with it eventually.

Patron doesn't work without a TR variant, because it only get you one Villager per play. Acting Troupe could work. My point (actually your point from earlier too) still stands that it's a rare engine that can run w/o villages.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 11:02:16 pm

I've updated the card to deal with some of the issues
(https://i.imgur.com/nTCjEz4.png)

1) There's no switching phases, and you can at least play villages now. You can basically only play 1 terminal (excluding villagers, coin of the realm, throne room variants, or other shtick).
2) The fact that your extra turn is weakened is not as big as you're making it out to be. Outpost and Mission also have restrictions because extra turns are a big deal (If i can double province each turn, getting an extra turn unconditionally would be like a card that gave you 2 provinces). I could say that I would never buy outposts in big money and I would only buy it in engines with great trashing (or with guide or minion); that's the point! It's not always supposed to be a viable card, it depends on the board. It's also supposed to make your extra turn harder, or else getting the extra turn would be a no-brainer (extra turns are powerful, especially at the end). Mission costs $4 for a single extra turn that you can't buy cards. What's the point of having an extra turn if you can't buy cards? Plenty if you're creative enough; you can trash cards, cycle through your deck, upgrade travellers, gain coffers, gain villagers, gain victory tokens, or gain cards. You might not buy it with big money, or with an engine that can't do much of those things above, but you will buy it in the cases where it is helpful. In this case you get an extra turn where you can only play one terminal. Is that worth it? depends on what your non-terminals can do. I think there's plenty of situations where I would buy a Grand Tour at it's price point (especially since you only buy one of them).
3) There are plenty of engines that could run without villages; scrying pool, throne room variants, villagers, coin of the realm, labs/alchemists, Cantrip decks (like Grand Market), single card engines (minion or governor). Also, like you said this would work with big money.
4) I'm thinking the price would have problems if $4 or less. Opening with it would be very powerful, since in the beginning, nobody has too many terminals and extra turns in the beginning are great when you're trying to build your deck. Then, if you don't need it you could trash it or leave it in your deck if you have to.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 11:08:51 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 11:02:16 pm

2) The fact that your extra turn is weakened is not as big as you're making it out to be.

Okay, fair point. I just reread your note 1. I guess it hadn't fully registered the first time, nor had the black background; I was reading it as an Action card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 11:10:50 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 11:08:51 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 11:02:16 pm

2) The fact that your extra turn is weakened is not as big as you're making it out to be.

Okay, fair point. I just reread your note 1. I guess it hadn't fully registered the first time, nor had the black background; I was reading it as an Action card.

LOL ;D
I kinda see where you're coming from now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 30, 2019, 11:16:22 pm

Quote from: Gubump on May 30, 2019, 08:50:50 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 30, 2019, 08:25:00 pm

Thank you Kudasai for this interesting challenge!

(https://i.imgur.com/Bqjnf8h.png)

Problem: Players would have to remember whether they Moated Inspector when it was played, or had a Lighthouse in play when Inspector was played, for an entire round. This is because Moat and Lighthouse both say "when another player plays an Attack," and next-turn effects are not playing an Attack; setting them up is.

Swamp Hag and Haunted Woods have the same problem, but they're easier to remember because they affect players on their own turn, rather than waiting a whole round to take effect.

Now that I think about it, I don't know if they'd still be affected by the while-in-play part if they blocked the attacked when it was first played. Hmmmm, this is getting complicated, I might have to scrap this idea...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 11:22:42 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 11:10:50 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 30, 2019, 11:08:51 pm

Quote from: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 11:02:16 pm

2) The fact that your extra turn is weakened is not as big as you're making it out to be.

Okay, fair point. I just reread your note 1. I guess it hadn't fully registered the first time, nor had the black background; I was reading it as an Action card.

LOL ;D
I kinda see where you're coming from now.

Yeah, I'm honestly not sure how I missed that. One would think that a reversal of text and background colors wouldn't be that easy to miss. Apparently it's still possible.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 31, 2019, 02:31:22 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 30, 2019, 08:25:00 pm

Thank you Kudasai for this interesting challenge!

(https://i.imgur.com/Bqjnf8h.png)

I think that this is a bit too good. It provides the same draw as Enchantress but the Pillage Attack is stronger than that of Enchantress. Drawing one extra card and then having to discard your only village in hand is worse than not drawing an extra card and being able to play a terminal as cantrip.
Only in a well-thinned deck with enough cantrips do the Attacks become similar in strength.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on May 31, 2019, 02:31:47 am

Quote from: segura on May 31, 2019, 02:28:36 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 30, 2019, 08:25:00 pm

Thank you Kudasai for this interesting challenge!

(https://i.imgur.com/Bqjnf8h.png)

I think that this is a bit too good. It provides the same draw as Enchantress but the Pillage Attack is stronger than that of Enchantress. Having to discard your only village in hand is worse than being able to play a terminal as cantrip.

Considering pillage is $5 and a one-shot, Inspector would probably be good, if a bit weak, at $5. You could maybe add a vanilla +$1 or something on-play to make up for it a little bit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on May 31, 2019, 02:43:55 am

I posted this elsewhere a while ago, and I think it qualifies for this competition:

(https://i.imgur.com/z2yqhIA.png)

I considered making it $2D3, but due to its stacking potential I decided to keep it at $3D3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on May 31, 2019, 03:25:53 am

Quote from: naitchman on May 30, 2019, 08:44:06 pm

Quote from: King Leon on May 30, 2019, 08:21:07 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/2gcjeqhj.png)

Lich
Type: Action - Attack - Duration
Cost: $5

Each other player gains a Curse.
At the start of your next turn: +$3
-
While this is in play, when you gain a card, put that card onto your deck.

For a second I was like, what's so bad about putting gained cards on your deck? Then I realized it topdecks the curses you gain. Nice.  :)
I'm wondering if this should follow sea hag's idea of discarding the top card (or at least giving you the option) so you don't get pinned.

Lich is terminal (unlike Familiar) and has no kind of drawing/sifting (like Witch or Young Witch). It also misses some shuffles and topdecks cards. This makes it a very slow curser. I don't think, it needs the Sea Hag rule. In multiplayer this card could hit more, but the effect is still equal per player.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on May 31, 2019, 04:34:25 am

Politician
Action/Duration - $4*
+3 Cards
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn, +1 Buy if this card hasn't left play. In your next turn's Clean Up phase, trash this when you discard it from play.
---
While this is in play, this card may be bought for half price (rounded up)


A oneshot but you can buy it back for cheap before it goes. You even get an extra buy to buy it back with. But watch out; your opponents can buy it off you.

Rules clarification:
* You can buy your own Politician from yourself in either turn, or anyone can buy the Politician in between your turns.
* If you somehow "buy" it during clean up, buying it does not count as discarding it from play.
* When you play the card, as far as it's concerned it's going to do something next turn - trash itself during clean up. The card doesn't "know" it might not be able to do that (similar to playing a Caravan when your deck is less than 5 cards). Thus it stays in play (the circular logic surrounding the "if it's in play" +buy is irrelevant).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 31, 2019, 04:54:28 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 31, 2019, 04:34:25 am

Politician
Action/Duration - $4*
+3 Cards
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn, if this card is in play, +1 Buy. Trash this when you discard it from play during Clean Up.
---
While this is in play, this card may be bought for half price (rounded up)

This runs into a fun little self-referentiality issue. It only does something on the next turn if it stays in play, and it only stays in play if it does something on the next turn. I would just remove the "if this card is in play" condition, it doesn't seem to do much.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 31, 2019, 04:34:25 am

* You can buy your own Politician from yourself in either turn, or anyone can buy the Politician in between your turns. If you somehow "buy" it during clean up, buying it does not count as discarding it from play. Not quite sure how it interacts with Scheme (not a rules expert) but I would want it to trash the card even if you choose to top deck it.

That won't work, but you could just let it trash itself at the start of your turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on May 31, 2019, 05:11:23 am

This has been quite a tough challenge. How do you make yourself vulnerable in a way that doesn't scale badly with more players? And if you do big bonus for you, smaller bonus for them, how do you do that in an interesting way whilst justifying the duration type? (Bishop and Council Room keep coming to mind.)

So the safest solution I can see is self infliction:
(https://i.imgur.com/UsrZJBG.jpg)

This may be too good with silvers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Abel_K on May 31, 2019, 08:29:13 am

Clever !!! seems to give very sympathetic developpements ...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 31, 2019, 10:31:22 am

Quote from: King Leon on May 31, 2019, 03:25:53 am

Lich is nonterminal (unlike Familiar) and has no kind of drawing/sifting (like Witch or Young Witch). It also misses some shuffles and topdecks cards. This makes it a very slow curser. I don't think, it needs the Sea Hag rule. In multiplayer this card could hit more, but the effect is still equal per player.

FTFY.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on May 31, 2019, 10:34:19 am

Quote from: faust on May 31, 2019, 04:54:28 am

I would just remove the "if this card is in play" condition, it doesn't seem to do much.

I had it there to avoid tracking issues for a card that's designed around leaving play. I've removed it but I might put it back if I can figure out a way to avoid the duration rules issue.

Edit: Changed the wording around the trash during clean up as something that's definitely happening (as far as the card is concerned)

The rules comparison would be Caravan when it doesn't have anything to draw on the next turn - it still stays in play even if the thing that should happen next turn might not happen.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 31, 2019, 11:31:21 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 31, 2019, 04:34:25 am

Politician
Action/Duration - $4*
+3 Cards
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn, +1 Buy if this card hasn't left play. In your next turn's Clean Up phase, trash this when you discard it from play.
---
While this is in play, this card may be bought for half price (rounded up)


A oneshot but you can buy it back for cheap before it goes. You even get an extra buy to buy it back with. But watch out; your opponents can buy it off you.

Rules clarification:
* You can buy your own Politician from yourself in either turn, or anyone can buy the Politician in between your turns.
* If you somehow "buy" it during clean up, buying it does not count as discarding it from play.
* When you play the card, as far as it's concerned it's going to do something next turn - trash itself during clean up. The card doesn't "know" it might not be able to do that (similar to playing a Caravan when your deck is less than 5 cards). Thus it stays in play (the circular logic surrounding the "if it's in play" +buy is irrelevant).

Even with the clarifications, I don't think it's clear how "buying" the card works. Is buying a card that's in play the same thing as buying a card that's in the supply? As in, during your buy phase, if you have enough money, you can spend that money, gain the card, and put it in your discard pile?

Maybe intentional with a card called "Politician", but this seems to have issues with 3-4 player; because the next person in turn order gets the chance to buy the card, but no other players do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on May 31, 2019, 11:47:20 am

Quote from: mail-mi on May 31, 2019, 02:43:55 am

I posted this elsewhere a while ago, and I think it qualifies for this competition:

(https://i.imgur.com/z2yqhIA.png)

I considered making it $2D3, but due to its stacking potential I decided to keep it at $3D3.

Does "a while ago" mean 6 days ago (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19700.msg801886#msg801886)? I'd call that "recently". Then again, I've heard "the other day" used to mean "two years ago" before. Vague terminology is interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 31, 2019, 12:25:26 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 31, 2019, 11:47:20 am

Does "a while ago" mean 6 days ago (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19700.msg801886#msg801886)? I'd call that "recently". Then again, I've heard "the other day" used to mean "two years ago" before. Vague terminology is interesting.

I've been meaning to respond to this for some time now, but am only finally now getting around to it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on May 31, 2019, 02:18:09 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on May 31, 2019, 11:47:20 am

Quote from: mail-mi on May 31, 2019, 02:43:55 am

I posted this elsewhere a while ago, and I think it qualifies for this competition:

(https://i.imgur.com/z2yqhIA.png)

I considered making it $2D3, but due to its stacking potential I decided to keep it at $3D3.

Does "a while ago" mean 6 days ago (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19700.msg801886#msg801886)? I'd call that "recently". Then again, I've heard "the other day" used to mean "two years ago" before. Vague terminology is interesting.

6 days ago is "a while" when compared to 10 seconds ago, and is "very recently" when compared to 10 years ago. It all depends on your perspective.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 31, 2019, 03:45:54 pm

You find a mysterious chest. What luck! After carefully opening it, you'll get some Gold, but you may have also triggered a trap!:

(https://i.imgur.com/SlyNGZO.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 - not posted (*)
v0.2 - initial

(*) I chose not to post v0.1 - It had +1 Action and you received a Boon instead of $3 at the start of your next turn (cost was only $2). But two things changed my mind quickly:
• This quote, from another thread: "The important thing is, most cards that do Boons either give you some other benefit you’re really playing it for..." http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18109.msg740687#msg740687
• By receiving the 2nd Boon, it guaranteed the other player would get a Hex if they played one, which didn't seem right; you shouldn't know at the time of playing, if you will be hurt by it or not.

Secret History:
It adds more wording, but having you set aside hexes makes sure you're not super hexed in multi player games; in fact, it's better for you, as you now can choose the less harmful Hex.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ThetaSigma12 on May 31, 2019, 04:15:36 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on May 31, 2019, 02:18:09 pm

6 days ago is "a while" when compared to 10 seconds ago, and is "very recently" when compared to 10 years ago. It all depends on your perspective.

It’s moderate-sized when compared to time periods of roughly the same length, and a little short when compared to time periods just a little longer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 31, 2019, 07:39:47 pm

Okay, here's my new entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/YKoN0MO.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Frolouch on May 31, 2019, 09:03:33 pm

Here's my wacky card.
6 card types  :o
(https://imgur.com/0T2nSDZ.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on May 31, 2019, 09:33:23 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 31, 2019, 09:03:33 pm

Here's my wacky card.
6 card types  :o
(https://imgur.com/0T2nSDZ.png)

A Hexing Village is going to be too nasty. Hexes stack, and Villages, after all, are cards you want to play a lot of, and can easily play a lot of. This is also going to have a swinginess problem because of the massive reward you get next turn. Also, I don't think this needs to have the Reaction type.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on May 31, 2019, 09:35:07 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zCTt2PK_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)


Here’s my two cents

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on May 31, 2019, 09:38:06 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 31, 2019, 09:03:33 pm

Here's my wacky card.
6 card types  :o
(https://imgur.com/0T2nSDZ.png)

This card is totally broken in comparsion to other terminal Gold+ with the $5 price tag like Harvest, Merchant Ship, Treasurer or Sacred Grove.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on May 31, 2019, 10:21:33 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 31, 2019, 09:03:33 pm

Here's my wacky card.
6 card types  :o
(https://imgur.com/0T2nSDZ.png)

Not only is this far too strong, as others have said, but there is no rule saying that Durations have to stay in play to get their next turn effect; they only stay in play for tracking purposes and so that you can't stack the same one multiple times. As worded, you still get the next turn bonus even if the card is removed from play, and as a result, that effect is a GOOD thing, making it even more overpowered.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on May 31, 2019, 11:54:16 pm

Copper Pixie
cost $2 - Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn:
gain up to 2 Coppers to hand.
---
While this is in play, during another player's turn, when you would gain a card, instead gain a Copper.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 01, 2019, 02:37:35 am

Quote from: majiponi on May 31, 2019, 11:54:16 pm

Copper Pixie
cost $2 - Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn:
gain up to 2 Coppers to hand.
---
While this is in play, during another player's turn, when you would gain a card, instead gain a Copper.

Considering that 90% of the time, you'd be gaining worse cards during other player's turns, this seems like a benefit and not a vulnerability.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 01, 2019, 03:41:44 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 01, 2019, 02:37:35 am

Quote from: majiponi on May 31, 2019, 11:54:16 pm

Copper Pixie
cost $2 - Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn:
gain up to 2 Coppers to hand.
---
While this is in play, during another player's turn, when you would gain a card, instead gain a Copper.

Considering that 90% of the time, you'd be gaining worse cards during other player's turns, this seems like a benefit and not a vulnerability.

I think that's the point of the card: a Trader-like defense against junking Attacks at the cost of a Beggar-like on-play effect.
While I think that the quasi-Reaction is interesting, I also think that the card is too weak.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 01, 2019, 03:44:45 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on May 31, 2019, 09:33:23 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on May 31, 2019, 09:03:33 pm

Here's my wacky card.
6 card types  :o
(https://imgur.com/0T2nSDZ.png)

A Hexing Village is going to be too nasty. Hexes stack, and Villages, after all, are cards you want to play a lot of, and can easily play a lot of. This is also going to have a swinginess problem because of the massive reward you get next turn. Also, I don't think this needs to have the Reaction type.

Given that Hexes are relatively weak Attacks, you could argue that a $5 card could get away with the normal design rule of  "don't do cantrip Attacks (unless it is weak like Urchin or hard to get like Familiar)". I agree that the next turn effect is too much on top of that and in and of itself also too strong and too swingy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 01, 2019, 04:00:57 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ro9IoUU.png)

Quote

Conjurer
$5 - Action/Duration/Doom

Gain an Action card costing up to $5. Receive the top Hex. You may set both aside. If you did, at the start of your next turn, play the Action and discard the Hex.
-
While this is in play, when another player gains a copy of the set aside card, receive the set aside Hex (leaving it there).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on June 01, 2019, 09:45:58 am

Quote from: segura on June 01, 2019, 03:41:44 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 01, 2019, 02:37:35 am

Quote from: majiponi on May 31, 2019, 11:54:16 pm

Copper Pixie
cost $2 - Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn:
gain up to 2 Coppers to hand.
---
While this is in play, during another player's turn, when you would gain a card, instead gain a Copper.

Considering that 90% of the time, you'd be gaining worse cards during other player's turns, this seems like a benefit and not a vulnerability.

I think that's the point of the card: a Trader-like defense against junking Attacks at the cost of a Beggar-like on-play effect.
While I think that the quasi-Reaction is interesting, I also think that the card is too weak.

This is a 2-cost Merchant Ship. I thought gaining Copper when other player plays a Governer is nice vulnerability while most of the time I gain a Copper instead of a Curse, but yes, this seems weak now. Maybe up to 3 works.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on June 01, 2019, 10:14:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/oL3Ixez.png)

Here's my entry. Trade Pact is similar to Masquerade (without passing) the turn you play it, and then gains a Silver to your hand on your next turn.  While it's in play, when an opponent trashes a card, you have to as well.  This is of course potentially beneficial in the early, but eventually you may be forced to trash something good.  The Silver gaining can mitigate your losses, while also providing trash targets later (both for "defense" or "attack").  $4 might be too cheap, but it also felt a bit weak at $5 since you only get the Masquerade effect every other turn.  Feedback is appreciated!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on June 02, 2019, 07:06:40 am

Quote from: segura on June 01, 2019, 03:41:44 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 01, 2019, 02:37:35 am

Quote from: majiponi on May 31, 2019, 11:54:16 pm

Copper Pixie
cost $2 - Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn:
gain up to 2 Coppers to hand.
---
While this is in play, during another player's turn, when you would gain a card, instead gain a Copper.

Considering that 90% of the time, you'd be gaining worse cards during other player's turns, this seems like a benefit and not a vulnerability.

I think that's the point of the card: a Trader-like defense against junking Attacks at the cost of a Beggar-like on-play effect.
While I think that the quasi-Reaction is interesting, I also think that the card is too weak.

This seems pretty much just better than Beggar in any situation you'd want Beggar though, so I wouldn't say it's too weak. It's just really niche, I think it's good to have some cards like that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 02, 2019, 12:52:37 pm

In Garden games this is probably slightly worse than Beggar. Gaining 1 Copper more is compensated by this being a Duration and, more importantly, the Reaction leading to a net gain of 2 fewer cards.
Beggar's Reaction also seems better on average. There are far more situations in which you want 2 Silvers than exchange a Ruins/Curse for a Copper.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 02, 2019, 01:13:17 pm

Quote from: majiponi on June 01, 2019, 09:45:58 am

Quote from: segura on June 01, 2019, 03:41:44 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 01, 2019, 02:37:35 am

Quote from: majiponi on May 31, 2019, 11:54:16 pm

Copper Pixie
cost $2 - Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn:
gain up to 2 Coppers to hand.
---
While this is in play, during another player's turn, when you would gain a card, instead gain a Copper.

Considering that 90% of the time, you'd be gaining worse cards during other player's turns, this seems like a benefit and not a vulnerability.

I think that's the point of the card: a Trader-like defense against junking Attacks at the cost of a Beggar-like on-play effect.
While I think that the quasi-Reaction is interesting, I also think that the card is too weak.

This is a 2-cost Merchant Ship. I thought gaining Copper when other player plays a Governer is nice vulnerability while most of the time I gain a Copper instead of a Curse, but yes, this seems weak now. Maybe up to 3 works.

My point is that most of the time, it's not a vulnerability. I think it has to be a vulnerability most of the time to fit the prompt (or at least more often than extremely rarely). There are very, very few times the while-in-play effect is NOT a benefit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 02, 2019, 01:20:10 pm

Quote from: segura on June 01, 2019, 03:41:44 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 01, 2019, 02:37:35 am

Quote from: majiponi on May 31, 2019, 11:54:16 pm

Copper Pixie
cost $2 - Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn:
gain up to 2 Coppers to hand.
---
While this is in play, during another player's turn, when you would gain a card, instead gain a Copper.

Considering that 90% of the time, you'd be gaining worse cards during other player's turns, this seems like a benefit and not a vulnerability.

I think that's the point of the card: a Trader-like defense against junking Attacks at the cost of a Beggar-like on-play effect.
While I think that the quasi-Reaction is interesting, I also think that the card is too weak.

Which makes it not a vulnerability, which was the prompt.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 02, 2019, 02:08:24 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 02, 2019, 01:13:17 pm

There are very, very few times the while-in-play effect is NOT a benefit.

The notion that self-junking yourself with FOUR coppers is most of the times beneficial is utterly ludicrous. There is no way to support any kind of engine play with that. All that a Copper-thick deck can achieve is Gardens (Duchy/Duke is unlikely) and perhaps provide economy in a Kingdom with junkers and no trashers. The likelihood of such Kingdoms occuring is extremely small.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on June 02, 2019, 04:24:39 pm

Quote from: segura on June 02, 2019, 12:52:37 pm

In Garden games this is probably slightly worse than Beggar. Gaining 1 Copper more is compensated by this being a Duration and, more importantly, the Reaction leading to a net gain of 2 fewer cards.
Beggar's Reaction also seems better on average. There are far more situations in which you want 2 Silvers than exchange a Ruins/Curse for a Copper.

I think Beggar(Copper Pixie)-Gardens is where this is the best right? You rarely shuffle because your deck is really fat so being a Duration has little downside. Splitting the Coppers over 2 turns also probably makes you hit $4 slightly more often than the more spiky Beggar money, although hitting $4 in Beggar-Gardens isn't a problem so I doubt that matters much. Gaining 1 more Copper per play there is huge though. Also with Beggar you have to choose between reacting or playing it, where as Copper Pixie does both. I think I can count the games I've seen someone actually react a Beggar on my fingers and I've been playing since before Dark Ages came out anyway, the below the line parts of both seem pretty irrelevant to be honest.

Eh all this is pretty pointless really, my point was just that this is really similar to an existing (admittedly weak) card so writing it off as too weak is odd to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 02, 2019, 07:46:26 pm

Quote from: segura on June 02, 2019, 02:08:24 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 02, 2019, 01:13:17 pm

There are very, very few times the while-in-play effect is NOT a benefit.

The notion that self-junking yourself with FOUR coppers is most of the times beneficial is utterly ludicrous. There is no way to support any kind of engine play with that. All that a Copper-thick deck can achieve is Gardens (Duchy/Duke is unlikely) and perhaps provide economy in a Kingdom with junkers and no trashers. The likelihood of such Kingdoms occuring is extremely small.

That's the when-played effect.  Gubump was referring to the while-in-play effect, which is the replacement of cards gained on other players turns with Copper. Usually the card you would be replacing is a Curse, and replacing Curses with Coppers is a benefit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 03, 2019, 01:47:44 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 02, 2019, 07:46:26 pm

That's the when-played effect.  Gubump was referring to the while-in-play effect, which is the replacement of cards gained on other players turns with Copper. Usually the card you would be replacing is a Curse, and replacing Curses with Coppers is a benefit.

Nope. He argued that the card has no downside which is simply wrong as self-junking yourself with 4 Coppers is most of the times a huge downside.
The Trade-like defense is always good, although weaker than Trader, whereas the on-play effect is nearly always bad.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 03, 2019, 02:00:20 am

Quote from: Gazbag on June 02, 2019, 04:24:39 pm

I think I can count the games I've seen someone actually react a Beggar on my fingers and I've been playing since before Dark Ages came out anyway, the below the line parts of both seem pretty irrelevant to be honest.

Different experience for me. The Reaction is far more useful than the on-play effect which isn't surprising as 2 Silvers are nearly always superior to 3 hand-gained Coppers. Gardens, Monastery and Guildhall Kingdoms with trashers are the only situations which come to mind in which you might want to play Beggar.
2 Silvers on the other hand are useful in a zillion of situations and the topdecked Silver defends against nasty trashing attacks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 03, 2019, 02:17:07 am

Quote from: segura on June 03, 2019, 01:47:44 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 02, 2019, 07:46:26 pm

That's the when-played effect.  Gubump was referring to the while-in-play effect, which is the replacement of cards gained on other players turns with Copper. Usually the card you would be replacing is a Curse, and replacing Curses with Coppers is a benefit.

Nope. He argued that the card has no downside which is simply wrong as self-junking yourself with 4 Coppers is most of the times a huge downside.
The Trade-like defense is always good, although weaker than Trader, whereas the on-play effect is nearly always bad.

I never said or even implied that. I specifically said that the while-in-play effect was positive and not negative. The prompt was to "design a Duration card that creates some sort of vulnerability to you while it is in play." WHILE it is in play, not its immediate effect. I don't appreciate the strawman argument you seem to be using.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 03, 2019, 03:06:08 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 03, 2019, 02:17:07 am

Quote from: segura on June 03, 2019, 01:47:44 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 02, 2019, 07:46:26 pm

That's the when-played effect.  Gubump was referring to the while-in-play effect, which is the replacement of cards gained on other players turns with Copper. Usually the card you would be replacing is a Curse, and replacing Curses with Coppers is a benefit.

Nope. He argued that the card has no downside which is simply wrong as self-junking yourself with 4 Coppers is most of the times a huge downside.
The Trade-like defense is always good, although weaker than Trader, whereas the on-play effect is nearly always bad.

I never said or even implied that. I specifically said that the while-in-play effect was positive and not negative. The prompt was to "design a Duration card that creates some sort of vulnerability to you while it is in play." WHILE it is in play, not its immediate effect. I don't appreciate the strawman argument you seem to be using.

My mistake, I thought you refered to the copper self-junking being good.

I totally did not keep this trivial detail about the parameters of this contest in mind, all I remembered was "Duration with some liability". He can speak for himself but I seriously doubt that Kudasai minds the inversion, i.e. a liability on play but a neat thing while in play, given that this is pretty creative and harder to do then the other way around.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on June 03, 2019, 06:53:46 am

Quote from: segura on June 03, 2019, 02:00:20 am

Quote from: Gazbag on June 02, 2019, 04:24:39 pm

I think I can count the games I've seen someone actually react a Beggar on my fingers and I've been playing since before Dark Ages came out anyway, the below the line parts of both seem pretty irrelevant to be honest.

Different experience for me. The Reaction is far more useful than the on-play effect which isn't surprising as 2 Silvers are nearly always superior to 3 hand-gained Coppers. Gardens, Monastery and Guildhall Kingdoms with trashers are the only situations which come to mind in which you might want to play Beggar.
2 Silvers on the other hand are useful in a zillion of situations and the topdecked Silver defends against nasty trashing attacks.

Guildhall-Beggar doesn't need trashers, it just kind of buys Provinces until they empty, quickly. You can also use Beggar to gain fodder for things like Forager, or Altar or Mercenary or whatever thing that does something unique in the kingdom but needs fodder to trash.

The Beggar reaction is probably relevant with Knights sometimes, but that's about it really none of the other junking attacks are really very good. Basically for Beggars reaction to be good you need an attack in the kingdom (obviously) and you need to be getting attacked often enough that you can reliably trigger the reaction, which basically only happens in engine games and you need gaining 2 Silvers to be good enough that it's worth adding a dead card to your deck, which is rarely the case in an engine. So you really need the stars to align to have that reaction be relevant.

Quote from: 4est on June 01, 2019, 10:14:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/oL3Ixez.png)

Here's my entry. Trade Pact is similar to Masquerade (without passing) the turn you play it, and then gains a Silver to your hand on your next turn.  While it's in play, when an opponent trashes a card, you have to as well.  This is of course potentially beneficial in the early, but eventually you may be forced to trash something good.  The Silver gaining can mitigate your losses, while also providing trash targets later (both for "defense" or "attack").  $4 might be too cheap, but it also felt a bit weak at $5 since you only get the Masquerade effect every other turn.  Feedback is appreciated!

I doubt you'll realistically ever be forced to trash something good with this, you usually just stop playing your trasher when you run out of cards to trash.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 03, 2019, 07:39:39 am

Quote from: Gazbag on June 03, 2019, 06:53:46 am

So you really need the stars to align to have that reaction be relevant.

True that. The situation in which Attacks are in the Kingdom and you want 2 Silvers occur infinitely more frequently than the rare situations in which you want to handgain 3 Coppers.
As you seemingly disagree with Silver generally being better than Copper, feel free to point out other situations than Guildhall and Gardens in which you actually want to play Beggar.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 03, 2019, 02:46:09 pm

I think I'll need to bump up the judging yet again, but it looks like the submissions have mostly stopped coming in. So...

Judging will occur in roughly 6-9 hours!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on June 03, 2019, 04:43:53 pm

I hope I'm on time.

Quote

Collector
$3 - Action
Draw 4 cards
The player who has the possessed doll discards two cards.
Take the possessed doll.

Possesed doll is a ln artifact that does nothing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 03, 2019, 05:04:14 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on June 03, 2019, 04:43:53 pm

I hope I'm on time.

Quote

Collector
$3 - Action
Draw 4 cards
The player who has the possessed doll discards two cards.
Take the possessed doll.

Possesed doll is a ln artifact that does nothing.

This isn't a Duration...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on June 03, 2019, 05:09:44 pm

Quote from: segura on June 03, 2019, 07:39:39 am

Quote from: Gazbag on June 03, 2019, 06:53:46 am

So you really need the stars to align to have that reaction be relevant.

True that. The situation in which Attacks are in the Kingdom and you want 2 Silvers occur infinitely more frequently than the rare situations in which you want to handgain 3 Coppers.
As you seemingly disagree with Silver generally being better than Copper, feel free to point out other situations than Guildhall and Gardens in which you actually want to play Beggar.

Oh dear, if that's what you thought I meant I mustn't have been being very clear, sorry!

Beggar can be okay any time there's a card with a unique effect in the kingdom which needs to trash things to fuel it. Mercenary, Forager and Altar are 3 examples of things like this from Dark Ages alone. It doesn't happen very often, but sometimes you just need to gain cards and getting 3 cards straight to hand is not the worst way to do that at all.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on June 03, 2019, 05:25:53 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 03, 2019, 05:04:14 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on June 03, 2019, 04:43:53 pm

I hope I'm on time.

Quote

Collector
$3 - Action
Draw 4 cards
The player who has the possessed doll discards two cards.
Take the possessed doll.

Possesed doll is a ln artifact that does nothing.

This isn't a Duration...

Oh... Thanks. I thought i fixed a problem i had with my idea, but now it is not valid for the contests. Just ignore it

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 01:06:45 am

CHALLENGE #31 - FEELING VULNERABLE - COMMENTARY AND RESULTS

I appreciate everyone's entries. This was a tough challenge this week, but these were all great submissions. I really appreciate the effort! Anyways, on to the commentary.

Repurpose - Gazbag:
Well this is classic Gazbag right here. Balanced and touching on just about everything I was hoping from this challenge: a mildly strong effect and an appropriate vulnerability that seems to fit just right. Your set aside cards will generally be within reach of all other players so this will probably hand out a lot of Coffers to your opponents, but the strength of getting the gained card next turn along with a 6 card hand should not be underrated. Assuming those two things equal out (and I have no idea if they do) getting real value out of this card will depend on players not dishing out too many tokens.

Motherly Witch - MeNowDealWithIt:
Boy I am not the person to judge Attack cards, but I do think this looks balanced. The on-play effect is certainly strong enough that you probably can't afford to avoid it, but the real challenge likely comes from determining how many of these you can manage and that determination will rely a lot on the other Kingdom cards. I also really like that this may be a rare Curser that is skippable the first few shuffles. Not rushing it and losing the Motherly Witch split may cost you the Curse split as well, but you still have potential to make that up with advanced Copper attacking.

Novice - segura:
Ahh the ole' quest to make Double Lab balanced. The discarding at the start of your next turn is a nice touch, but I wonder if it's needed here. This seems to come down to choosing between the strong and reliable draw of Novice or building an overdraw engine from $5 cost components to get the Coffers bonus. I think this could work, but maybe without my burdensome Duration requirement. The Potion does help distinguish the two. If you grab a Potion you're not likely to hit $5 anytime soon.

Privateer - mandioca15:
The overall packaging of this feels good. Will likely force games into early greening though and that's not everyone's cup of tea. Sometimes it's mine though!
The double Gold might be too strong at $5 with this vulnerability, but it's hard to say without testing.

General - Gubump:
Throne Room on steroids! At first this seems utterly broken, but I think there's a lot going on that can reign it in. What I like most is how this redefines the game in a way where rushing down a pile is no longer that optimal strategy. Doing so leaves those cards without any copies in the Supply wide open for double throning. I do think something like this should cost around $7+ just so players can't load up on them while waiting for piles to empty.

Rope Bridge - hhelibebcnofnena:
Another bridge that draws! Didn't that win one of these contest lately? This is a nice clean design with a lot of strategy potential. You certainly need to keep track of how many Rope Bridges are out there. Being a Duration will help keep track of how many Rope Bridges could potentially be played between your turns. Could be really fun, but I worry all of that tracking could be tedious.

Lich - King Leon:
A Swamp Hag that always curses is quite nice. The vulnerability cleverly can be a bonus, but also hurts you. Very interesting, but I worry about the ability to topdeck any amount of curses onto someones deck. Very unlikely in a 2 player game, but more so with 3+ players.

Grand Tour - naitchman:
I gotta say I just really like how this card came together. It got some criticism there for being a Big Money enabler (and it surely is), but I think there are enough ways to beat BM Grand Tour that this kind of works. Villager tokens and mass Market-esque type strategies come to mind. Really cool card, but it does need to cost around $8.

Credit - mail-mi:
I recall some good discussion occurring "some time ago" about this card. I also recall saying I couldn't accurately judge if it was good or not and now I find it here before me for this Weekly Design Contest. Bold move mail-mi! Well I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. I certainly like the idea of turning debt into a benefit. Mission is doing a bit of the same thing and that works well, so who is to say this can't work.

Politician - NoMoreFun:
Interesting concept. Reminds me of Experiment in the way that this could end up being a one-shot.

Rally Point - Aquila:
Just a great card. Easy to understand, but probably a bit tougher to master. Quad-Den of Sin all at the cost of those all important $5 cost cards. I think you're correct though, this will make Silvers too good. Perhaps this could be balanced around $8. I wanted to play test this one, but didn't have the time, so I can only speculate. Nice entry though.

Mystical Chest - scolapasta:
Really interesting, but the Hex accumulation is a positive and not a negative. Certainly works as a card, but it tends to lean away from the scope of this contest. With that said I can't score this well, but I do think it's a great card and would like to try it out sometime.

Bookstore - Commodore Chuckles:
I like how this solves the issue of scaling player counts with the draw up to 6 cards in hand clause. I still think this could be brutal with large player games though. You'll likely have all your good cards skipped early game, but perhaps this works mid to late game with a thin enough deck. Could potentially be tedious to play having to reveal your hand constantly, but hey that could be a good thing. It'll keep players engaged when it's not their turn (a probable I encounter with my player group)!

Village Idiot - Frolouch:
That's a lot of card types. Certainly a game to be played with Courtier! Probably too swingy to work well though.

Messenger Bird - ClouduHieh:
A solid well rounded card, but since it's bonus to other players isn't contingent on anything they do, it doesn't quite need the Duration effect and thus doesn't really fit this competition. I think it make a great card though. Just something more along the lines of Councilrooms wording.

Copper Pixie - majiponi:
A fine $2 cost card (and those are hard to make), but I think Begger already fills this role well enough. I also think 3 Coppers in hand now instead of $2 now and $2 later is more versatile beyond Garden games. It makes hitting the $6 and $7 price points a bit easier and for less Coppers gained.

Conjurer - faust:
Really cool looking card. I like that you can play it safe by not playing the Action next turn. I really like the feel of this card, but my big hang up is the use of Hexes (and really it's an issue with Hexes and not your card design). Specifically that most Hexes don't stack making the vulnerability on this a bit weak, but when you do get a stacking Hex you likely can't risk all of that punishment. I think the mechanics on this are excellent, but maybe handing out Boons to opponents instead self-hexing is the way to go here. I think it would also be helpful to know what Hex (or Boon) you're dealing with before you choose which card to gain.

Trade Pact - 4est:
The addition of the Silver gaining is a nice touch, but beyond that this feels very similar to Masquerade.


Well going into this I had some clear favorites and I was pretty sure who I was going to give this to, but after writing all these reviews up I've changed my mind completely. Of my 3 absolute favorites: Grand Tour, General and Rally Point I've decided to choose none of them. These are all great designs, but the pricing was off just enough that I didn't think it would be fair to those who hit it closer to home.

So it in the end it came down to Motherly Witch and Novice. Both are great designs and implement my vague description of "vulnerability" very well. Ultimately though I think Motherly Witch is a slightly cleaner design so that will be my choice for this weeks winner. I wish I could elaborate more on my decision, but I've got to wrap this up. I really appreciate everyone's entries. They really were all great designs, but unfortunately we can only have one winner a week.

Congrats MeNowDealWithIt!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 04, 2019, 01:18:27 am

Quote from: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 01:06:45 am

Well going into this I had some clear favorites and I was pretty sure who I was going to give this to, but after writing all these reviews up I've changed my mind completely. Of my 3 absolute favorites: Grand Tour, General and Rally Point I've decided to choose none of them. These are all great designs, but the pricing was off just enough that I didn't think it would be fair to those who hit it closer to home.

How is giving the win to a card you don't like as much fair? Seeing you call my card one of your absolute favorites yet making it barely even an honorable mention makes me feel cheated. I even feel slighted for Aquila and naitchman's sakes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 04, 2019, 02:04:53 am

Quote from: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 01:06:45 am

Mystical Chest - scolapasta:

Quote from: scolapasta on May 31, 2019, 03:45:54 pm

Receive a Boon. At the start of your next turn, +$3 and receive one of the set aside Hexes, discarding the rest.
-
While this is in play, when another player receives a Boon, set aside a Hex face down (under this).

Really interesting, but the Hex accumulation is a positive and not a negative. Certainly works as a card, but it tends to lean away from the scope of this contest. With that said I can't score this well, but I do think it's a great card and would like to try it out sometime.

My original draft had you receive the Hex immediately when another player received a Boon, but I wanted / needed to scale both for multiplayer games and for multiple boons from just the one opponent. So I switched to the idea of setting aside and receiving one at the start of your turn, not realizing that might steer me out of the challenge on a technicality.

Though I'd argue that technically it does still fit - the vulnerability is set up during the "while in play", even though its effect isn't felt until the start of your next turn, i.e. "(1) Something that alters the game in a way that might not help you or may help your opponents". And choosing the least harmful of the several Hexes is getting Hexed!

Regardless, congratulations to MeNowDealWithIt and great entries from everyone!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 04:56:24 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 04, 2019, 02:04:53 am

Quote from: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 01:06:45 am

Mystical Chest - scolapasta:

Quote from: scolapasta on May 31, 2019, 03:45:54 pm

Receive a Boon. At the start of your next turn, +$3 and receive one of the set aside Hexes, discarding the rest.
-
While this is in play, when another player receives a Boon, set aside a Hex face down (under this).

Really interesting, but the Hex accumulation is a positive and not a negative. Certainly works as a card, but it tends to lean away from the scope of this contest. With that said I can't score this well, but I do think it's a great card and would like to try it out sometime.

My original draft had you receive the Hex immediately when another player received a Boon, but I wanted / needed to scale both for multiplayer games and for multiple boons from just the one opponent. So I switched to the idea of setting aside and receiving one at the start of your turn, not realizing that might steer me out of the challenge on a technicality.

Though I'd argue that technically it does still fit - the vulnerability is set up during the "while in play", even though its effect isn't felt until the start of your next turn, i.e. "(1) Something that alters the game in a way that might not help you or may help your opponents". And choosing the least harmful of the several Hexes is getting Hexed!

Regardless, congratulations to MeNowDealWithIt and great entries from everyone!

Yeah, I think a lot of good card ideas on here were victim to my obscure contest rules. Sorry! Can't wait to see what you come up with this next challenge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 05:19:34 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 04, 2019, 01:18:27 am

Quote from: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 01:06:45 am

Well going into this I had some clear favorites and I was pretty sure who I was going to give this to, but after writing all these reviews up I've changed my mind completely. Of my 3 absolute favorites: Grand Tour, General and Rally Point I've decided to choose none of them. These are all great designs, but the pricing was off just enough that I didn't think it would be fair to those who hit it closer to home.

How is giving the win to a card you don't like as much fair? Seeing you call my card one of your absolute favorites yet making it barely even an honorable mention makes me feel cheated. I even feel slighted for Aquila and naitchman's sakes.

Fair question. The short answer is it came down to balance. I liked your card more, but I believe it is way under priced. And I should be clear I really like Motherly Witch, just not as much as yours. Again though, I feel it was priced correctly at $5 and yours I believe is in the $7-$8 range.

Really though my outlined judging criteria was focused more on what the card is doing and not if I personally liked it or not. I tried to be as impartial as I could when judging. I have a personal biased towards engine components like your card and not Attack cards like Motherly Witch, but in the end it came down to "creativity, uniqueness, how the on-play and vulnerability interact directly or indirectly, and balance". This may seem counter intuitive to how we should judge, but really my hope is more people judge in this fashion. Otherwise, we potentially end up with the same types of cards over and over.

And let me explicitly state for the record that the order of my judging was:
(1) MeNowDealWithIt with Motherly Witch - Winner
(2) segura with Novice - Runner-up
(3) Gubump with General - Honorable Mention
(4) naitchman with Grand Tour - Honorable Mention
(5) Aquila with Rally Point - Honorable Mention

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on June 04, 2019, 05:20:12 am

Quote from: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 04:56:24 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 04, 2019, 02:04:53 am

Quote from: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 01:06:45 am

Mystical Chest - scolapasta:

Quote from: scolapasta on May 31, 2019, 03:45:54 pm

Receive a Boon. At the start of your next turn, +$3 and receive one of the set aside Hexes, discarding the rest.
-
While this is in play, when another player receives a Boon, set aside a Hex face down (under this).

Really interesting, but the Hex accumulation is a positive and not a negative. Certainly works as a card, but it tends to lean away from the scope of this contest. With that said I can't score this well, but I do think it's a great card and would like to try it out sometime.

My original draft had you receive the Hex immediately when another player received a Boon, but I wanted / needed to scale both for multiplayer games and for multiple boons from just the one opponent. So I switched to the idea of setting aside and receiving one at the start of your turn, not realizing that might steer me out of the challenge on a technicality.

Though I'd argue that technically it does still fit - the vulnerability is set up during the "while in play", even though its effect isn't felt until the start of your next turn, i.e. "(1) Something that alters the game in a way that might not help you or may help your opponents". And choosing the least harmful of the several Hexes is getting Hexed!

Regardless, congratulations to MeNowDealWithIt and great entries from everyone!

Yeah, I think a lot of good card ideas on here were victim to my obscure contest rules. Sorry! Can't wait to see what you come up with this next challenge.

I don't know, it seems kind of like saying that Margrave isn't an attack because beyond the first it helps your opponent. An opponent still has to receive a Boon for you to be hexed, I thought it fit the rules well as far as I understood them!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 05:29:05 am

Quote from: Gazbag on June 04, 2019, 05:20:12 am

Quote from: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 04:56:24 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 04, 2019, 02:04:53 am

Quote from: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 01:06:45 am

Mystical Chest - scolapasta:

Quote from: scolapasta on May 31, 2019, 03:45:54 pm

Receive a Boon. At the start of your next turn, +$3 and receive one of the set aside Hexes, discarding the rest.
-
While this is in play, when another player receives a Boon, set aside a Hex face down (under this).

Really interesting, but the Hex accumulation is a positive and not a negative. Certainly works as a card, but it tends to lean away from the scope of this contest. With that said I can't score this well, but I do think it's a great card and would like to try it out sometime.

My original draft had you receive the Hex immediately when another player received a Boon, but I wanted / needed to scale both for multiplayer games and for multiple boons from just the one opponent. So I switched to the idea of setting aside and receiving one at the start of your turn, not realizing that might steer me out of the challenge on a technicality.

Though I'd argue that technically it does still fit - the vulnerability is set up during the "while in play", even though its effect isn't felt until the start of your next turn, i.e. "(1) Something that alters the game in a way that might not help you or may help your opponents". And choosing the least harmful of the several Hexes is getting Hexed!

Regardless, congratulations to MeNowDealWithIt and great entries from everyone!

Yeah, I think a lot of good card ideas on here were victim to my obscure contest rules. Sorry! Can't wait to see what you come up with this next challenge.

I don't know, it seems kind of like saying that Margrave isn't an attack because beyond the first it helps your opponent. An opponent still has to receive a Boon for you to be hexed, I thought it fit the rules well as far as I understood them!

I see both of your points. It clearly is within the rules of the competition, but the outcome would still have been the same. All good cards, but there can only be one winner and I still think Motherly Witch was the best choice (but not by a lot). scolapasta, knowing you would have lost anyways is not likely any consolation, but I thought you should still know. :|

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 04, 2019, 10:06:06 am

Quote from: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 05:19:34 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 04, 2019, 01:18:27 am

Quote from: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 01:06:45 am

Well going into this I had some clear favorites and I was pretty sure who I was going to give this to, but after writing all these reviews up I've changed my mind completely. Of my 3 absolute favorites: Grand Tour, General and Rally Point I've decided to choose none of them. These are all great designs, but the pricing was off just enough that I didn't think it would be fair to those who hit it closer to home.

How is giving the win to a card you don't like as much fair? Seeing you call my card one of your absolute favorites yet making it barely even an honorable mention makes me feel cheated. I even feel slighted for Aquila and naitchman's sakes.

Fair question. The short answer is it came down to balance. I liked your card more, but I believe it is way under priced. And I should be clear I really like Motherly Witch, just not as much as yours. Again though, I feel it was priced correctly at $5 and yours I believe is in the $7-$8 range.

The reason you said General was OP was because of empty piles, which seems pretty arbitrary. Especially since raising its price would make it more likely for piles to be empty (or make them closer to empty) by the time you got a General.

Quote from: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 01:06:45 am

Well going into this I had some clear favorites and I was pretty sure who I was going to give this to, but after writing all these reviews up I've changed my mind completely. Of my 3 absolute favorites: Grand Tour, General and Rally Point I've decided to choose none of them.

This statement in particular says to me "hey guys, I really like your cards, but I'm going to throw your ideas out the window and instead give the victory to some other random person because of a criteria I made up just now."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 04, 2019, 10:23:07 am

Seriously dude, stop endlessly whining about not having won. The point of these contests is not to win but come up with cool cards, see other people do the same and analyze cards together.
Kudasai has been incredibly nice to everybody (he even offered another poster to host this last contest!) and analyzed all cards pretty well.

Calling the poster, MeNowDealWithIt, who has won this week's contest with a sound and interesting card a "random person" is pretty rude.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 04, 2019, 10:41:50 am

Quote from: segura on June 04, 2019, 10:23:07 am

Seriously dude, stop endlessly whining about not having won. The point of these contests is not to win but come up with cool cards, see other people do the same and analyze cards together.
Kudasai has been incredibly nice to everybody (he even offered another poster to host this last contest!) and analyzed all cards pretty well.

Calling the poster, MeNowDealWithIt, who has won this week's contest with a sound and interesting card a "random person" is pretty rude.

Sorry, I wasn't intending to be rude to MeNowDealWithIt. I'm not mad about losing either -- I've lost almost all of these contests, that's not my problem. I'm just upset by the judging criteria being different from literally every previous contest. Especially since the only reason was because he deemed my playtested card unbalanced for an arbitrary reason. I suppose I should have mentioned it being playtested. And like I said, he made up that criterion on the spot, after we had already submitted all our entries. I know that isn't what he intended with what he said, but the way he said what I quoted in my previous post feels like it's just rubbing our otherwise-victories in my, naitchman, and Aquila's faces. I would have rather not known that I was close.

Oh well, congratulations anyway, MeNowDealWithIt.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 04, 2019, 11:15:14 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 04, 2019, 10:41:50 am

Especially since the only reason was because he deemed my playtested card unbalanced for an arbitrary reason.

Price is not an arbitrary criterion. Some folks don't mind mispriced cards, some do.

The notion that a card (which has not been posted outside of this contest and went through several changes while this very contest has run) has been playtested is highly dubious.
The natural assumption of anybody is that what we see here are rough ideas and not polished cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 04, 2019, 11:15:32 am

Quote from: segura on June 04, 2019, 11:13:13 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 04, 2019, 10:41:50 am

Especially since the only reason was because he deemed my playtested card unbalanced for an arbitrary reason.

Price is not an arbitrary criterion. Some folks don't mind mispriced cards, some do.

The notion that a card which has not been posted outside of this contest and went through several changes while thsi very contest has run is highly dubious.

It was playtested after the latest change. So not very playtested, but it didn't seem OP. And the reason I call the reason for it being OP arbitrary is because the reason he gave was because of empty piles, which in my experience happen pretty rarely for something to balance a card around.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on June 04, 2019, 11:25:36 am

I mean lets face it, judging is way less fun and more stressful than designing a card anyway so I'm usually pretty happy to not win!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 04, 2019, 11:46:05 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 04, 2019, 10:06:06 am

because of a criteria I made up just now."

Without getting too involved, I have to point out that he listed his criteria in his initial contest rules post, and it was the same criteria he re-listed a couple posts ago. Balance was one of those criteria.

His point was that he was trying to give the award to the card that he felt was objectively overall the "best" card, which can be different than "personal favorite". It's like me saying that personally I enjoy the movie The Golden Child more than Apocalypse Now, but also acknowledging that Apocalypse now is objectively the better film. It's the difference between personal preference, and objective criteria.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 04, 2019, 12:28:52 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 04, 2019, 11:46:05 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 04, 2019, 10:06:06 am

because of a criteria I made up just now."

Without getting too involved, I have to point out that he listed his criteria in his initial contest rules post, and it was the same criteria he re-listed a couple posts ago. Balance was one of those criteria.

His point was that he was trying to give the award to the card that he felt was objectively overall the "best" card, which can be different than "personal favorite". It's like me saying that personally I enjoy the movie The Golden Child more than Apocalypse Now, but also acknowledging that Apocalypse now is objectively the better film. It's the difference between personal preference, and objective criteria.

Looking back at his OP, I can see that he did say that. What you've said makes his criteria make a lot more sense now. Thanks. Sorry to anybody I offended.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 04, 2019, 12:33:52 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 05:29:05 am

I see both of your points. It clearly is within the rules of the competition, but the outcome would still have been the same. All good cards, but there can only be one winner and I still think Motherly Witch was the best choice (but not by a lot). scolapasta, knowing you would have lost anyways is not likely any consolation, but I thought you should still know. :|

Actually, knowing that it should not have been disqualified does make me happy. I never expected to win as it's only my second custom card and I know that Boons and Hexes are not everyone's favorites, but I had hoped to maybe score an honorable mention this week, as I thought it was a creative way to have a Doom - Fate card (of which there aren't any official).

(Plus the theme! "You find a mysterious chest. What luck! After carefully opening it, you'll get some Gold, but you may have also triggered a trap!")

I've always wanted to come up with custom cards, but have struggled on where to start. Having the weekly design content to focus my ideas on a specific concept is fantastic! And to get feedback on top of that?? Wonderful!

I also want to give a thanks to Kudasai this week, and all the judges in general. It's easy to observe and selectively comment on some of the cards as they are submitted, but to have to review them all, provide constructive feedback, and then pick the best among several great candidates? 👏

Onto this week's competition!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 04, 2019, 02:21:43 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 04, 2019, 12:33:52 pm

Onto this week's competition!

I get a feeling MeNowDealWithIt still hasn't found out he's won. He might not even know that the judging was early. Hope he checks the forum soon. I'm itching for another challenge.

P.S. Thanks for the honorable mention, Kudasai

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on June 04, 2019, 04:12:14 pm

Now that doesn’t make sense about the last challenge he said my messenger bird didn’t quite fit the duration effect and yet I based it off of cargo ship which is a duration also even though there are cards that give out +1 card to each other player mine was a little better for instance lost city and soothsayer both let the other player draw cards however if militia was played they would lose all those extra cards anyway. With my messenger birds duration effect they wouldn’t lose the extra card also if outpost was played they would get an extra card on that turn as well. So I don’t get why mine didn’t quite work as a duration?

Which is quite a lot stuff you wouldn’t be able to do unless it was a duration card. I just want to clarify why mine doesn’t work as a duration card.

(https://i.imgur.com/zCTt2PK_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

If outpost was with this card in a game it would be a very interesting game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 04, 2019, 04:44:04 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on June 04, 2019, 04:12:14 pm

Now that doesn’t make sense about the last challenge he said my messenger bird didn’t quite fit the duration effect and yet I based it off of cargo ship which is a duration also even though there are cards that give out +1 card to each other player mine was a little better for instance lost city and soothsayer both let the other player draw cards however if militia was played they would lose all those extra cards anyway. With my messenger birds duration effect they wouldn’t lose the extra card also if outpost was played they would get an extra card on that turn as well. So I don’t get why mine didn’t quite work as a duration?

Which is quite a lot stuff you wouldn’t be able to do unless it was a duration card. I just want to clarify why mine doesn’t work as a duration card.

(https://i.imgur.com/zCTt2PK_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

If outpost was with this card in a game it would be a very interesting game.

I believe what he means is that instead of having a line and the whole "while this is in play" part, the card could simply say "Each other player draws a card" instead. It would be the same thing most of the time... yes, it would be different if you also played an Outpost, or a Militia, on the same turn. But most of the time it's the same thing.

So this isn't creating a vulnerability for you while it is in play... it is simply giving your opponents a bonus, one that you know exactly what it is when you play the card. A vulnerability for the purposes of this contest is something that gives your opponents a window of opportunity where they can do something to take advantage of it. With Messenger Bird, your opponents don't or can't do anything to take advantage of it; it just automatically happens.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 04, 2019, 05:14:06 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 04, 2019, 04:44:04 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on June 04, 2019, 04:12:14 pm

Now that doesn’t make sense about the last challenge he said my messenger bird didn’t quite fit the duration effect and yet I based it off of cargo ship which is a duration also even though there are cards that give out +1 card to each other player mine was a little better for instance lost city and soothsayer both let the other player draw cards however if militia was played they would lose all those extra cards anyway. With my messenger birds duration effect they wouldn’t lose the extra card also if outpost was played they would get an extra card on that turn as well. So I don’t get why mine didn’t quite work as a duration?

Which is quite a lot stuff you wouldn’t be able to do unless it was a duration card. I just want to clarify why mine doesn’t work as a duration card.

(https://i.imgur.com/zCTt2PK_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

If outpost was with this card in a game it would be a very interesting game.

I believe what he means is that instead of having a line and the whole "while this is in play" part, the card could simply say "Each other player draws a card" instead. It would be the same thing most of the time... yes, it would be different if you also played an Outpost, or a Militia, on the same turn. But most of the time it's the same thing.

So this isn't creating a vulnerability for you while it is in play... it is simply giving your opponents a bonus, one that you know exactly what it is when you play the card. A vulnerability for the purposes of this contest is something that gives your opponents a window of opportunity where they can do something to take advantage of it. With Messenger Bird, your opponents don't or can't do anything to take advantage of it; it just automatically happens.

Are you in public relations or something? Are you for hire!? :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on June 04, 2019, 07:05:49 pm

Ah okay now I understand. Thanks gendo Ikari

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 05, 2019, 12:33:13 am

Just some minor feedback for future judges -- please include links to the entries when judging comes around. It's a pain in the @ss to look back and find every entry to know what you're talking about, especially when some people don't have easy-to-spot, fancy mockups for their cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 05, 2019, 09:33:16 am

So should we set a time today at which if MeNowDealWithIt doesn't start the next challenge, Segura will take over as judge?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 05, 2019, 10:15:23 am

Is 48 hours after the post announcing the winner a reasonable amount of time? That would be tomorrow at 1:06 AM my time zone (EDT or UTC-4). Or is that too generous? Should it be 36 hours?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 05, 2019, 10:34:00 am

Because this week's judging was a bit earlier than normal, I think time needs to be allowed to account for that. The last challenge was posted a week ago from today, so I think today is when the "extra time" clock should be started, not when the results were announced a couple days ago. So maybe 24 hours from this evening, giving exactly 8 days from when the last one was started?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 05, 2019, 10:37:47 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 05, 2019, 10:34:00 am

Because this week's judging was a bit earlier than normal, I think time needs to be allowed to account for that. The last challenge was posted a week ago from today, so I think today is when the "extra time" clock should be started, not when the results were announced a couple days ago. So maybe 24 hours from this evening, giving exactly 8 days from when the last one was started?

But then again it was stated in the original post that the contest would end on Tuesday at Noon, meaning the clock has already started (and is almost done).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on June 05, 2019, 01:22:23 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 05, 2019, 12:33:13 am

Just some minor feedback for future judges -- please include links to the entries when judging comes around. It's a pain in the @ss to look back and find every entry to know what you're talking about, especially when some people don't have easy-to-spot, fancy mockups for their cards.

I'm guessing I'm not the only one, but I don't know how to link to the entries.  I don't speak computer. I haz the dumb when it comes to tech

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 05, 2019, 01:49:58 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on June 05, 2019, 01:22:23 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 05, 2019, 12:33:13 am

Just some minor feedback for future judges -- please include links to the entries when judging comes around. It's a pain in the @ss to look back and find every entry to know what you're talking about, especially when some people don't have easy-to-spot, fancy mockups for their cards.

I'm guessing I'm not the only one, but I don't know how to link to the entries.  I don't speak computer. I haz the dumb when it comes to tech

This is something I figured out the other day, actually.
[ url=<insert url for what you want to link to here>]<insert text for the link>[ /url]
To find the url of an entry, go to where that entry is located, and click the link at the top of the message where it says "Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread" (for example. It will say whatever the thread name is.) Then copy whatever is in your url bar (I don't know what it's called).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 05, 2019, 02:00:13 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on June 05, 2019, 01:22:23 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 05, 2019, 12:33:13 am

Just some minor feedback for future judges -- please include links to the entries when judging comes around. It's a pain in the @ss to look back and find every entry to know what you're talking about, especially when some people don't have easy-to-spot, fancy mockups for their cards.

I'm guessing I'm not the only one, but I don't know how to link to the entries.  I don't speak computer. I haz the dumb when it comes to tech

Just right click the title of an individual post and "Copy Link Address".
Then add:

Code: [Select]

[url=http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802863#msg802863]This is a link to your post[/url]
That will look like this:
This is a link to your post (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802863#msg802863)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MeNowDealWithIt on June 05, 2019, 04:57:11 pm

Sorry for the late reply starting the new chain; Didn't think I'd actually win.

Challenge #32: Make me skip chapel!

Basically, in a kingdom with the card (-shaped object) you design for this contest, and chapel, make it frequently a viable strategy never to buy a chapel.

Printed things that do this that come to mind include (but might not be limited to) Donate, Cathedral, Gardens, Philo-stone, and Fountain. Entries will be judged based on:
* How likely they are to make me skip chapel (You usually buy Chapel even when Gardens is on the board.)
* How much they don't completely break the game (You obv skip chapel in a game with a $2 Event that says "Gain the province pile")
* How much I personally like them (duh)

I'll try to judge on Monday, June 10.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 05, 2019, 05:23:02 pm

Something something
____________________________
In games using this cards cannot be trashed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 05, 2019, 05:35:04 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/59XM9xR1/Church-v1-0.png)

The idea behind this was to add a penalty for trashing too much. However, games w/o trashing aren't usually quite as fun, so I also wanted to include a built-in way to trash that avoided the penalty. Probably changes the game a lot more than the already-existing Landmarks, but I figure that anything that makes Chapel skippable on a regular basis would have to be.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on June 05, 2019, 05:42:35 pm

Hoard House - Landmark


The first time you trash a card from your hand, remove your Hoarder token from here.
When scoring, if your Hoarder token is on this, 18vp.
-
Setup: Each player starts with their Hoarder token on this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 05, 2019, 06:21:50 pm

Quote from: MeNowDealWithIt on June 05, 2019, 04:57:11 pm

Sorry for the late reply starting the new chain; Didn't think I'd actually win.

Challenge #32: Make me skip chapel!

Basically, in a kingdom with the card (-shaped object) you design for this contest, and chapel, make it frequently a viable strategy never to buy a chapel.

Printed things that do this that come to mind include (but might not be limited to) Donate, Cathedral, Gardens, Philo-stone, and Fountain. Entries will be judged based on:
* How likely they are to make me skip chapel (You usually buy Chapel even when Gardens is on the board.)
* How much they don't completely break the game (You obv skip chapel in a game with a $2 Event that says "Gain the province pile")
* How much I personally like them (duh)

I'll try to judge on Monday, June 10.

Interesting. I almost did a very similar challenge this last week. Very exciting!

How do you feel about cards that counter Chapel? Specifically a card that only has strength when other players trash (or in this case have Chapel), but is otherwise weak. So it would likely make you skip Chapel if other players ended up not skipping Chapel.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on June 05, 2019, 07:38:37 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/IIXW8cc.png)

Yes, it's mathy. So are actual taxes. :P
If you didn't get the point, this is supposed to encourage you to keep the average cost of cards in your deck low. I struggled with finding a way to encourage a deck of cheap cards that usually matters but isn't too brutal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 05, 2019, 07:41:23 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 05, 2019, 07:38:37 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/IIXW8cc.png)

That's a very interesting concept. It wouldn't work quite as well IRL, but as an online only card, I think it would lead to some interesting new strategies.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on June 05, 2019, 10:24:53 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/a64PVWW_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)


(https://i.imgur.com/URAiERk_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on June 05, 2019, 10:53:18 pm

Quote from: ClouduHieh on June 05, 2019, 10:24:53 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/UDXxBTX_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)


(https://i.imgur.com/7wHjYie_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Is not the effect the opposite? You want to trim your deck to play as many bulls as possible in order to bury your opponents  in piles of dung and after that trash as many cards as possible to lower their points

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 05, 2019, 11:30:27 pm

Small wording change suggestion for Pile of Dung:

When this is trashed you trash this, put it back into your hand.

Small change, but it would make it consistent with Fortress.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on June 05, 2019, 11:35:29 pm

Well people will think twice before buying chapel, for awhile at least. The player with the least amount of dung piles will still think twice about buying chapel.

I thought the point of the contest was to make a card that would make players avoid chapel. With a pile of dung you will avoid buying chapel. With a pile of dung in the game players players will probably think keeping their coppers and estates is better than a huge minus score. In a 4 player game let’s say 30 cards are in the trash that’s the exact of opposite of a province, if that’s the case all players will probably have a minus score at the end of game. So all players will avoid trashing cards and if that’s the case, then that’s the real point of this card. No minus score from a pile of dung means no buying chapel and no trashing cards. Which I thought was the point of this contest in the first place.

Make a card that makes buying chapel a bad idea.

And fixed pile of dungs wording

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 06, 2019, 01:54:00 am

Quote from: ClouduHieh on June 05, 2019, 10:24:53 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/a64PVWW_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)


(https://i.imgur.com/7wHjYie_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

I don't know if this is on your end as well, but I only see Pile of Dung. The other is just a "the image you are requesting does not exist or is no longer available" message.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on June 06, 2019, 02:06:37 am

let me know if bull isn’t their I think I just fixed it. Although I don’t know for sure cause I saw the original bull just fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 06, 2019, 02:36:51 am

Quote from: ClouduHieh on June 06, 2019, 02:06:37 am

let me know if bull isn’t their I think I just fixed it. Although I don’t know for sure cause I saw the original bull just fine.

It is fixed now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on June 06, 2019, 02:38:19 am

(https://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/my-pathfinder-setting-stuff/character-classes/SchoolhouseCard.jpg)

Quote

Schoolhouse
$4 - Action - Victory
Put up to 2 cards costing $2 or less from your hand onto your Schoolhouse mat.
-
Worth 1VP per 5 cards on your Schoolhouse mat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 06, 2019, 03:07:12 am

(https://i.imgur.com/kOLoff9.png)

Trench
Landmark
When scoring, -1 VP per card you have below 40.

The opposite of Wall.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #32: make Chapel bad
Post by: Aquila on June 06, 2019, 04:43:35 am

(https://i.imgur.com/yYjP00Y.jpg)
Landmarks all involve VP, so when you want to add a rule to the game that doesn't involve VP the simplest thing is a new type. Asper did some of these and called them Edicts, (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0) so I've followed suit here. Not the best of names, I know.

You can still do trashing with this, but make it slow and careful so you can build up as well.
Edit: that's the name Landfill Tax that might be bad, not Edict.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 06, 2019, 08:02:13 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 05, 2019, 07:38:37 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/IIXW8cc.png)

Yes, it's mathy. So are actual taxes. :P
If you didn't get the point, this is supposed to encourage you to keep the average cost of cards in your deck low. I struggled with finding a way to encourage a deck of cheap cards that usually matters but isn't too brutal.

I like the idea very much but you have to scale up the variable somehow, multiply it with something or whatever.
Something like -2/-3 vs -6/-7 is just a VP spread of 4. That's precisely identical to winning a '6VP per player' Landmark split by one (8VP vs. 4 VP) and just the third of winning the Province split by one.
This is not enough to make you not thin and run a deck with cheap cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on June 06, 2019, 10:26:57 am

Co-cathedral
$1 Event
Once per turn: +1 buy and you may trash a card from your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 06, 2019, 11:52:11 am

(https://i.imgur.com/AibRQJA.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 06, 2019, 12:01:43 pm

Here's my current submission (this card has been updated):
(https://i.imgur.com/bUHfjJf.png)
A couple of notes
1) The setting aside happens in the same way as possesion; you don't get the card back until after cleanup, meaning you will not be able to draw them.
2) The setting aside happens on all turns including your opponents (or between turns for donate), but putting it into your discard pile (or trash) happens at the end of your turn only.
3) This will work if you trash cards on your opponents turn via knights, swindler, saboteur, bishop, etc. (as far as who counts as the trashers owner; follow the already established rules).
4) Each player has their own set aside area; this is not one communal pool. In other words, your not gaining cards you're opponent trashed.
5) This can be used to get trash for benefit without actually trashing.
6) This excludes cards trashed from the supply,or else salt the earth can become way too crazy sometimes.
7) Taking a cue from Aquila, I made this an edict.

Updates:
1) This now happens after you trash rather than when you trash. thus any "when you trash" abilities happen before this. If the card is no longer in the trash Regret has lost track of it. This was mainly to make it so someone couldn't posses you and then trash your cards (choosing to use Regret's ability first), set them aside, and then put the good ones in the trash. As a result, you now cannot set aside your fortress with this.
2) changed "not from the supply" to other than from the supply" to more clearly indicate trashing a card directly from the supply.
3) You now put your cards back at the end of every turn (including other player's). This is to make it a little less swingy. it used to be if your opponent knights you twice, then on your turn if you play a steward, you get to trash 2 cards (instead of what would be effectively 1 in a game like this) and get your 2 cards back. Now, if your opponent knights you twice, you trash 1 and keep 1. You obviously don't have control over what happens on your opponents turns so I think this is better. Technically cards trashed from donate will get put back at the end of your next opponent's turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 06, 2019, 12:31:49 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 06, 2019, 12:01:43 pm

Here's my current submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/NwSwWvA.png)
A couple of notes
1) The setting aside happens in the same way as possesion; you don't get the card back until after cleanup, meaning you will not be able to draw them.
2) The setting aside happens on all turns including your opponents (or between turns for donate), but putting it into your discard pile (or trash) happens at the end of your turn only.
3) This will work if you trash cards on your opponents turn via knights, swindler, saboteur, bishop, etc. (as far as who counts as the trashers owner; follow the already established rules).
4) Each player has their own set aside area; this is not one communal pool. In other words, you're not gaining cards you're opponent trashed.
5) This can be used to get trash for benefit without actually trashing.
6) This excludes cards trashed from the supply,or else salt the earth can become way too crazy sometimes.
7) Taking a cue from Aquila, I made this an edict.

I assume the "not from the supply" is just to avoid weird Lurker interactions? It could also be read as "you only set it aside if it doesn't have a supply pile". I would change the wording, assuming my interpretation is correct, to "when you trash a card from your hand", to avoid ambiguity.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 06, 2019, 12:42:36 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 06, 2019, 12:31:49 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 06, 2019, 12:01:43 pm

Here's my current submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/NwSwWvA.png)
A couple of notes
1) The setting aside happens in the same way as possesion; you don't get the card back until after cleanup, meaning you will not be able to draw them.
2) The setting aside happens on all turns including your opponents (or between turns for donate), but putting it into your discard pile (or trash) happens at the end of your turn only.
3) This will work if you trash cards on your opponents turn via knights, swindler, saboteur, bishop, etc. (as far as who counts as the trashers owner; follow the already established rules).
4) Each player has their own set aside area; this is not one communal pool. In other words, you're not gaining cards you're opponent trashed.
5) This can be used to get trash for benefit without actually trashing.
6) This excludes cards trashed from the supply,or else salt the earth can become way too crazy sometimes.
7) Taking a cue from Aquila, I made this an edict.

I assume the "not from the supply" is just to avoid weird Lurker interactions? It could also be read as "you only set it aside if it doesn't have a supply pile". I would change the wording, assuming my interpretation is correct, to "when you trash a card from your hand", to avoid ambiguity.

I want to keep cards trashed not from your hand, like knights and swindler.

Technically the word "from" would exclude your interpertation. "From" usually denotes where the card was when the thing happened/ happens (discard a card from your hand means to discard a card in your hand, not a card that you originally gained from your hand). If I meant to exclude cards that have a supply pile, I probably would have written "a card not in the supply", like BoM. I don't know; do you have a better wording that only excludes cards trashed from the supply but not from your deck or discard pile, without being too wordy. What about, "when you trash a card other than from the supply"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 06, 2019, 01:25:09 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 06, 2019, 12:42:36 pm

"when you trash a card other than from the supply"?

This seems good to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 06, 2019, 01:31:04 pm

Quote from: MeNowDealWithIt on June 05, 2019, 04:57:11 pm

Challenge #32: Make me skip chapel!

Basically, in a kingdom with the card (-shaped object) you design for this contest, and chapel, make it frequently a viable strategy never to buy a chapel.

Printed things that do this that come to mind include (but might not be limited to) Donate, Cathedral, Gardens, Philo-stone, and Fountain. Entries will be judged based on:
* How likely they are to make me skip chapel (You usually buy Chapel even when Gardens is on the board.)
* How much they don't completely break the game (You obv skip chapel in a game with a $2 Event that says "Gain the province pile")
* How much I personally like them (duh)

I'll try to judge on Monday, June 10.

Just thought I'd share my thoughts on the wording of this weeks challenge. The contest is to make MeNowDealWithIt likely want to skip Chapel, not not skip Chapel. I think there is a big difference here. No entry is going to be able to make Chapel completely nonviable without violating the 2nd part of this contest, "don't completely break the game".

I believe all of our entry's are going to work with Chapel in some form or another, because Chapel is kind of designed to work on any board in some way. It's just a matter of who can get the closest to the edge without trashing the game in a sense.

Great stuff already by the way!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 06, 2019, 01:46:57 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 06, 2019, 01:31:04 pm

No entry is going to be able to make Chapel completely nonviable without violating the 2nd part of this contest, "don't completely break the game".

What about Donate? I feel like if it didn't exist, and someone submitted it as an entry for this challenge, people would accuse it of completely breaking the game. And maybe it does completely break the game.. at least in the same way that Chapel completely broke the game in the base set. As in, games that have that card available force you to play differently because it's available.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 06, 2019, 02:12:40 pm

Regret, Hoard House and Landfill Tax are useless when there is no trasher in the game. I think, the card should be also usable without Chapel in the game (even Moat is usable without attacks and Tunnel without discarders gives at least some victory points).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 06, 2019, 02:44:14 pm

And here comes my submission. (The separate post is intended, because this one is unrelated to the previous.)

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/mwzmh6k1.png)

Dowser
Type: Action
Cost: $4*

+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the ones costing $2 or less into your hand. Discard the rest.
-
During your Action phase, this costs $2 less, but not less than $0.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 06, 2019, 02:47:25 pm

Quote from: King Leon on June 06, 2019, 02:12:40 pm

Regret, Hoard House and Landfill Tax are useless when there is no trasher in the game. I think, the card should be also usable without Chapel in the game (even Moat is usable without attacks and Tunnel without discarders gives at least some victory points).

I was thinking about this. In the end I tried to keep the text count low. At the end of the day there is precedence for cards that only make an impact if trashing is available (Rats, Tomb, Sewers). In general I agree with your idea; you should avoid making cards that need specific kingdom conditions without supplying that condition from the card itself (example: Old Witch. It allows others to trash curses from their hand. What if there's no cursers? Don't worry it's a curser too). I just think exceptions should be made for conditions which are very common (+buy, trashing, villages, +actions, +$, etc.) especially for sideways cards (worse case scenario, they don't have an impact and you can just pretend they're not there)

A good example would be conspirator; it's only really worth it if you can play 2 actions before it, otherwise you should just buy silver. What if there are no +actions in the kingdom? Possible but highly unlikely. Another one would be Labyrinth. What if there's no +buy and no gainers? Again, not likely.

I agree that the card shouldn't just focus on chapel; all the cards you mentioned, however, have an impact on trashers in general.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 06, 2019, 03:05:08 pm

Vestry (Action-Duration) [$3]

+1 Card
+1 Action

Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Buy.
---
While this is in play, when an opponent trashes one or more cards, you may trash up to two cards from your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 06, 2019, 03:07:30 pm

Newb question: I can't figure out how to post images in this forum. I always think submissions look better when they appear in card form...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 06, 2019, 03:14:52 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 06, 2019, 03:07:30 pm

Newb question: I can't figure out how to post images in this forum. I always think submissions look better when they appear in card form...

Use the following code:

Code: [Select]

[img width=300]http://the.url.to/your/picture.png[/img]
You can upload pictures at several web pages, for example imgur.com or abload.de.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 06, 2019, 03:21:48 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 06, 2019, 03:07:30 pm

Newb question: I can't figure out how to post images in this forum. I always think submissions look better when they appear in card form...

you can make the cards here (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 06, 2019, 03:25:06 pm

Quote from: King Leon on June 06, 2019, 02:44:14 pm

And here comes my submission. (The separate post is intended, because this one is unrelated to the previous.)

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/mwzmh6k1.png)

Dowser
Type: Action
Cost: $4*

+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the ones costing $2 or less into your hand. Discard the rest.
-
During your Action phase, this costs $2 less, but not less than $0.

This looks like scout but actually a reasonable buy  ;D

Still this seems close to apothecary and for (relatively) less $. It loses the +1 card but gets the ability to draw itself from the top. It also draws estates/shelters (and other 2 cost cards) things you start with. You could probably win by just buying these and 1 copper and then piledriving provinces.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 06, 2019, 03:29:07 pm

Quote from: King Leon on June 06, 2019, 02:44:14 pm

Dowser
Type: Action
Cost: $4*

+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the ones costing $2 or less into your hand. Discard the rest.
-
During your Action phase, this costs $2 less, but not less than $0.

That is completely broken unless you find a way to make it impossible to buy in the opening.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 06, 2019, 04:09:34 pm

I noted, that opening Dowser + Fool’s Gold is totally broken and this was the best Inheritance target ever. So there is the updated, defused version:

Dowser
Type: Action
Cost: <8>

+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the Coppers, Estates, Shelters, Heirlooms and Dowsers into your hand. Discard the rest.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/cea32q1d.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 06, 2019, 04:28:55 pm

Quote from: King Leon on June 06, 2019, 04:09:34 pm

I noted, that opening Dowser + Fool’s Gold is totally broken and this was the best Inheritance target ever. So there is the updated, defused version:

Dowser
Type: Action
Cost: <8>

+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the Coppers, Estates, Shelters, Heirlooms and Dowsers into your hand. Discard the rest.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/cea32q1d.png)

It's still broken. You can still open with it, and in the early game, it's effectively +4 Cards +1 Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 05:04:24 pm

First, we had Coffers, tokens that you "spend" in your Buy Phase; then Villagers introduced tokens "spent" during your Action phase. Now let's welcome: Worshippers, a new type of token that you can "spend" during your Clean up phase:

(https://i.imgur.com/U13KIJD.png)

Quote

At the start of your Clean-up phase, remove tokens from here: for each token removed, you may trash a card from your hand or one you have in play.

Benefits of Worshippers compared to just trashing a card:

• you can play a Copper (or other card) on the same turn that you trash it
• you can hold on to the trashing if you don't have anything current to trash
• the corollary to that is you can stock up on Worshippers as a defense to gaining Junk
• a trasher like Apse Chapel can effectively trash itself, when you're done with it

---

Entry for the challenge:

Apse Chapel, a Chapel variant

(https://i.imgur.com/j99lNLV.png)

[NOTE: I've moved the other cards that demonstrated the mechanic to a different thread: scolapasta's cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19722.0). Feel free to join us there for discussion on these and other cards and/or if you have any ideas for new cards that use Worshippers.]


Changelog:
v0.1 Worshippers, Apse Chapel - initial
v0.2 Worshippers - changed wording to "At the start of your Clean-up phase" to be more clear

FAQ:
At the start of your Clean-up phase means before you discard any cards.

Secret History:
• I considered having Worshippers trash from just your hand or just in play. But I think I prefer trashing either, as long as I balance out the cost on cards that give you Worshippers.
• I keep trying Apse chapel as +3 Worshippers (for $3?), then decide that's too good, and then revert back to +2 Worshippers (for $2).

---

I hope this mechanic is interesting, feedback is very welcome. Thanks!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 06, 2019, 05:37:29 pm

Quote from: King Leon on June 06, 2019, 04:09:34 pm

I noted, that opening Dowser + Fool’s Gold is totally broken and this was the best Inheritance target ever. So there is the updated, defused version:

Dowser
Type: Action
Cost: <8>

+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the Coppers, Estates, Shelters, Heirlooms and Dowsers into your hand. Discard the rest.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/cea32q1d.png)

It might still be broken, but at the least I would remove Shelters and Heirlooms from the list. That's 2 extra things to have to list for a situation that should very rarely matter. It's fine if the card is simply weaker in Shelters or Heirlooms games.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 06, 2019, 05:46:34 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 05:04:24 pm

My entry is very much a WORK IN PROGRESS. But I want to post the mechanic and first 3 cards, in case the idea needs significant re-work. FEEDBACK IS VERY WELCOME!

---

First, we had Coffers, tokens used in your Buy Phase; then Villagers, tokens used your Action phase. Now we have, Worshippers, a new type of token that you can use during your Clean up phase:

(https://i.imgur.com/cuK51Lj.png)

Quote

During your Clean up phrase, you may remove tokens from here: for each token removed, you may trash a card instead of discarding it

*Phase, not phrase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 05:58:37 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 06, 2019, 05:46:34 pm

*Phase, not phrase.

Thanks, fixed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chris is me on June 06, 2019, 06:02:17 pm

Action - $4

+2 Cards
+1 Buy

----

When you gain or trash this, you may trash a card from your hand.

---


Basically Chapel is skippable when tempo is super important (think like a rush to a megaturn) and when you can trash while doing other things. Easiest way to do this would be Masquerade, Remake, etc. but those all already exist; "draw and trash" and "trash and gain" respectively.

Opening this / Silver gives you phenomenal odds of hitting $5 (need the sombrero to miss it). You can buy more copies to thin more, and if you have too many you can trash one with the other and still trash another card. For a board with lots of Highways or Bridge Trolls or other hyper explosive payload, you can probably skip Chapel.

With trashing, +2 Cards terminal draw is better than its given credit for, and of course the +Buy makes it easier to buy more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 06, 2019, 06:04:18 pm

Made an update to my card (see original post for explanation)
(https://i.imgur.com/bUHfjJf.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 06, 2019, 06:06:52 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 06, 2019, 01:46:57 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 06, 2019, 01:31:04 pm

No entry is going to be able to make Chapel completely nonviable without violating the 2nd part of this contest, "don't completely break the game".

What about Donate? I feel like if it didn't exist, and someone submitted it as an entry for this challenge, people would accuse it of completely breaking the game. And maybe it does completely break the game.. at least in the same way that Chapel completely broke the game in the base set. As in, games that have that card available force you to play differently because it's available.

Good point. Barring things that offer superior trashing to Chapel and things that alter trashing within the game, I stand by my original statement. But, I do enjoy being proved wrong. Can anyone think of any such official things?

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 05:04:24 pm

My entry is very much a WORK IN PROGRESS. But I want to post the mechanic and first 3 cards, in case the idea needs significant re-work. FEEDBACK IS VERY WELCOME!

---

First, we had Coffers, tokens used in your Buy Phase; then Villagers, tokens used your Action phase. Now we have, Worshippers, a new type of token that you can use during your Clean up phase:

(https://i.imgur.com/LC4PnPL.png)

Quote

During your Clean up phase, you may remove tokens from here: for each token removed, you may trash a card instead of discarding it

And a few simple cards that implement this new mechanic, Apse Chapel, Archbishop, Parish:

(https://i.imgur.com/j99lNLV.png)(https://i.imgur.com/nSFHkv9.png)(https://i.imgur.com/DMja8HD.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 Worshippers, Apse Chapel, Archbishop, Parish - initial

FAQ:
If you put cards in your hand during your Clean-up phase, they still then get discarded. e.g if you use a Worshipper on Fortress, you would trash it, put it in your hand, then discard it.*

(*) if this doesn't seem intuitive, I could change the rule to "At the start of your Clean-up phase, before you discard anything, remove tokens from here: for each token removed, you may trash a card from your hand or from play." The current wording feels simpler.

Secret History:
• Once I got the idea for the new token, my first idea was a Chapel variant. I then tried to think of names with religious connotations: Archbishop should obviously be a "Grand" Bishop, and Parish a Victory card.
• I considered having Worshippers trash from just your hand or just in play. But I think I prefer trashing either, as long as I balance out the cost on cards that give you Worshippers.
• For Parish, I wanted (still want!) something more creative (VPs based on Worshippers?).
• I have a couple of other names for cards that are not variants of existing cards; currently working on what they'll do and will add them soon.


Whether or not this will make you want to skip Chapel, would depend on which of these cards are in your Kingdom. For that, Apse Chapel is clearly the best option.

If the mechanic is interesting, please provide feedback on any tweaks that could be made to the the individual cards. Thanks!

Really cool concept. I was tinkering with something similar, but I was going more for general discarding (during and not during the Clean-up phase). It never  felt balanced though. Tokens seem like a great solution! Do you think having these work with discarding during any phase would work? Make those meh Oasis' into super-charged Junk Dealers!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 07:04:07 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 06, 2019, 06:06:52 pm

Really cool concept. I was tinkering with something similar, but I was going more for general discarding (during and not during the Clean-up phase). It never  felt balanced though. Tokens seem like a great solution! Do you think having these work with discarding during any phase would work? Make those meh Oasis' into super-charged Junk Dealers!

Thanks.
It could possibly work during other phases, but I liked the idea of one token for phase (at least until I introduce "Shoppers" :).

And I think it would break one of the other cards I'll be adding shortly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 07:24:23 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 07:04:07 pm

And I think it would break one of the other cards I'll be adding shortly.

Here's the first version of that card:

(https://i.imgur.com/jeJLUJm.png)

(if you could play Worshippers whenever you discarded, then you would be able to play Worshippers in your Action phase, trash cards, and get back that Worshippers with this)

Is (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) balanced for this? or would (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) be better?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 06, 2019, 07:35:06 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 07:24:23 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 07:04:07 pm

And I think it would break one of the other cards I'll be adding shortly.

Here's the first version of that card:

(https://i.imgur.com/jeJLUJm.png)

(if you could play Worshippers whenever you discarded, then you would be able to play Worshippers in your Action phase, trash cards, and get back that Worshippers with this)

Is (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) balanced for this? or would (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) be better?

This card is pretty useless, because it requires you to already have a trasher. Why would you want to have two different trashers in your deck?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 07:43:57 pm

Quote from: King Leon on June 06, 2019, 07:35:06 pm

This card is pretty useless, because it requires you to already have a trasher. Why would you want to have two different trashers in your deck?

Yes, it requires another trasher, but so does the card it was modeled after: Sewers (hence Undercroft, being underneath a church).

Sewers, being a Project, is better in that it plays every turn and is not part of your deck; this, on the other hand, allows you first to play the card (so get +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) before you trash that copper), and can be saved for another turn instead.

Those differences are why I was wondering if it is fine at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) or better at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png).

I could also have it trash a card first and raise the price.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on June 06, 2019, 08:17:02 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 05:04:24 pm

(*) if this doesn't seem intuitive, I could change the rule to "At the start of your Clean-up phase, before you discard anything, remove tokens from here: for each token removed, you may trash a card from your hand or from play." The current wording feels simpler.

I feel that this wording would be necessary. "Trash a card" is ambiguous; no official card says this without specifying the "from".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 10:37:19 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 06, 2019, 08:17:02 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 05:04:24 pm

(*) if this doesn't seem intuitive, I could change the rule to "At the start of your Clean-up phase, before you discard anything, remove tokens from here: for each token removed, you may trash a card from your hand or from play." The current wording feels simpler.

I feel that this wording would be necessary. "Trash a card" is ambiguous; no official card says this without specifying the "from".

Do you think the "before you discard anything" is necessary? Or is that implied by the "start of your Clean-up phase"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 06, 2019, 10:44:01 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 10:37:19 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 06, 2019, 08:17:02 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 05:04:24 pm

(*) if this doesn't seem intuitive, I could change the rule to "At the start of your Clean-up phase, before you discard anything, remove tokens from here: for each token removed, you may trash a card from your hand or from play." The current wording feels simpler.

I feel that this wording would be necessary. "Trash a card" is ambiguous; no official card says this without specifying the "from".

Do you think the "before you discard anything" is necessary? Or is that implied by the "start of your Clean-up phase"?

It's implied.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 07, 2019, 12:01:24 am

Quote from: Chris is me on June 06, 2019, 06:02:17 pm

Action - $4

+2 Cards
+1 Buy

----

When you gain or trash this, you may trash a card from your hand.

---


Basically Chapel is skippable when tempo is super important (think like a rush to a megaturn) and when you can trash while doing other things. Easiest way to do this would be Masquerade, Remake, etc. but those all already exist; "draw and trash" and "trash and gain" respectively.

Opening this / Silver gives you phenomenal odds of hitting $5 (need the sombrero to miss it). You can buy more copies to thin more, and if you have too many you can trash one with the other and still trash another card. For a board with lots of Highways or Bridge Trolls or other hyper explosive payload, you can probably skip Chapel.

With trashing, +2 Cards terminal draw is better than its given credit for, and of course the +Buy makes it easier to buy more.

Since you don't seem to have a name for it, I suggest Cloister.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 07, 2019, 12:59:48 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 10:37:19 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 06, 2019, 08:17:02 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 05:04:24 pm

(*) if this doesn't seem intuitive, I could change the rule to "At the start of your Clean-up phase, before you discard anything, remove tokens from here: for each token removed, you may trash a card from your hand or from play." The current wording feels simpler.

I feel that this wording would be necessary. "Trash a card" is ambiguous; no official card says this without specifying the "from".

Do you think the "before you discard anything" is necessary? Or is that implied by the "start of your Clean-up phase"?

If you want to prevent confusion, you can use "at the end of your Buy phase" as it is more or less the same window as the start of Clean-up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 07, 2019, 01:02:55 am

Quote from: King Leon on June 06, 2019, 02:44:14 pm

And here comes my submission. (The separate post is intended, because this one is unrelated to the previous.)

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/mwzmh6k1.png)

Dowser
Type: Action
Cost: $4*

+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the ones costing $2 or less into your hand. Discard the rest.
-
During your Action phase, this costs $2 less, but not less than $0.

I'd stick with the original version as the self-synergy is neat but add a clause that makes the pile appear after the first shuffle. Might feel a a bit wonky and two horizontal lines are never visually nice but I think that it is the most simple solution that prevents a scripted opening.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 07, 2019, 01:30:40 am

(https://i.imgur.com/UiNz0sl.png)

The inverse of Tomb and thus a bit lame.
It also inverts the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} you get via cards that trash from the Supply like Lurker.
Tomb makes trashing attacks weaker whereas this is neutral about them.
1 _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} per card might not be enough to prevent you from thinning, hence the 2 _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on June 07, 2019, 05:54:53 am

(https://i.imgur.com/9UNXsVP.png)
I'm not super happy with this to be honest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 07, 2019, 11:12:30 am

Quote from: segura on June 07, 2019, 12:59:48 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 10:37:19 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 06, 2019, 08:17:02 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 05:04:24 pm

(*) if this doesn't seem intuitive, I could change the rule to "At the start of your Clean-up phase, before you discard anything, remove tokens from here: for each token removed, you may trash a card from your hand or from play." The current wording feels simpler.

I feel that this wording would be necessary. "Trash a card" is ambiguous; no official card says this without specifying the "from".

Do you think the "before you discard anything" is necessary? Or is that implied by the "start of your Clean-up phase"?

If you want to prevent confusion, you can use "at the end of your Buy phase" as it is more or less the same window as the start of Clean-up.

Not with night.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 07, 2019, 11:15:05 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 07, 2019, 11:12:30 am

Quote from: segura on June 07, 2019, 12:59:48 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 10:37:19 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 06, 2019, 08:17:02 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 05:04:24 pm

(*) if this doesn't seem intuitive, I could change the rule to "At the start of your Clean-up phase, before you discard anything, remove tokens from here: for each token removed, you may trash a card from your hand or from play." The current wording feels simpler.

I feel that this wording would be necessary. "Trash a card" is ambiguous; no official card says this without specifying the "from".

Do you think the "before you discard anything" is necessary? Or is that implied by the "start of your Clean-up phase"?

If you want to prevent confusion, you can use "at the end of your Buy phase" as it is more or less the same window as the start of Clean-up.

Not with night.

I don't think "at the start of cleanup" is ambiguous at all. First edition Scheme used it; and it seems obvious that you can't discard any cards for cleanup until after "start of cleanup" has passed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 07, 2019, 11:23:05 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 07, 2019, 11:12:30 am

Quote from: segura on June 07, 2019, 12:59:48 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 10:37:19 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 06, 2019, 08:17:02 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 05:04:24 pm

(*) if this doesn't seem intuitive, I could change the rule to "At the start of your Clean-up phase, before you discard anything, remove tokens from here: for each token removed, you may trash a card from your hand or from play." The current wording feels simpler.

I feel that this wording would be necessary. "Trash a card" is ambiguous; no official card says this without specifying the "from".

Do you think the "before you discard anything" is necessary? Or is that implied by the "start of your Clean-up phase"?

If you want to prevent confusion, you can use "at the end of your Buy phase" as it is more or less the same window as the start of Clean-up.

Not with night.

This only matters for Undercroft. If you want to be able to use the Worshippers you gained via Undercroft in that very turn I'd make more sense to do Undercroft as Treasure.
The phrase "during Clean-up" is anything but clear. Before you discard everything or after you drew a new hand makes sense. But what if you use a Worshipper to trash a card while drawing a new hand? Will you draw a substitute card for that or not?
I think that one should not do timing windows in the Clean-up if it is avoidable (Scheme obviously cannot work any other way). Normally the next player is starting their turn while you are cleaning up. So better put that decision at the end of the Buy phase, like Wine Merchant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 07, 2019, 11:28:32 am

Quote from: segura on June 07, 2019, 11:23:05 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 07, 2019, 11:12:30 am

Quote from: segura on June 07, 2019, 12:59:48 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 10:37:19 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 06, 2019, 08:17:02 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 06, 2019, 05:04:24 pm

(*) if this doesn't seem intuitive, I could change the rule to "At the start of your Clean-up phase, before you discard anything, remove tokens from here: for each token removed, you may trash a card from your hand or from play." The current wording feels simpler.

I feel that this wording would be necessary. "Trash a card" is ambiguous; no official card says this without specifying the "from".

Do you think the "before you discard anything" is necessary? Or is that implied by the "start of your Clean-up phase"?

If you want to prevent confusion, you can use "at the end of your Buy phase" as it is more or less the same window as the start of Clean-up.

Not with night.

This only matters for Undercroft. If you want to be able to use the Worshippers you gained via Undercroft in that very turn I'd make more sense to do Undercroft as Treasure.
The phrase "during Clean-up" is anything but clear. Before you discard everything or after you drew a new hand makes sense. But what if you use a Worshipper to trash a card while drawing a new hand? Will you draw a substitute card for that or not?
I think that one should not do timing windows in the Clean-up if it is avoidable (Scheme obviously cannot work any other way). Normally the next player is starting their turn while you are cleaning up. So better put that decision at the end of the Buy phase, like Wine Merchant.

The possible wording that let you trash a card from your hand went with "at the start of cleanup". The possible wording that was "during cleanup" didn't let you trash a card from your hand, it only let you trash a card instead of discarding it. It was never suggested to let you trash a card from your hand "during cleanup".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 07, 2019, 11:34:26 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 07, 2019, 11:28:32 am

The possible wording that let you trash a card from your hand went with "at the start of cleanup". The possible wording that was "during cleanup" didn't let you trash a card from your hand, it only let you trash a card instead of discarding it. It was never suggested to let you trash a card from your hand "during cleanup".

On the one hand it is my mistake that I did not notice this detail, on the other hand such confusion arises naturally when you do stuff in the Clean-up phase.
Hence my suggestion to put the window at a moment where no such rule confusions could arise, like the end of the Buy phase. Or, Ratcatcher style, at the start of the turn if one wants a nerfed version of Worshippers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 07, 2019, 12:23:46 pm

I think "at the start of cleanup" is probably the best way to go with this one. It doesn't seem ambiguous at all to me, any more than "at the start of your turn".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 07, 2019, 12:34:19 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 07, 2019, 12:23:46 pm

I think "at the start of cleanup" is probably the best way to go with this one. It doesn't seem ambiguous at all to me, any more than "at the start of your turn".

Agreed. Am updating it shortly, plus making changes (some small, some big) to the other cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 07, 2019, 03:09:47 pm

OK, based on feedback and some of my own deliberations, I've updated my initial post. Here are the changes, so you don't have to go find it, plus some background reasoning:

---

(https://i.imgur.com/U13KIJD.png)

Quote

At the start of your Clean-up phase, remove tokens from here: for each token removed, you may trash a card from your hand or one you have in play.

Worshippers: changed the rule (and the mat) to "At the start of your Clean-up phase" because that seemed more clear to everyone. It felt important to keep it after the Night phase for Undercroft (which got rebranded as Cloister).

---

Before I show the updated cards, I will say, I am very happy with the mechanic and the general idea behind each of the cards. That said, it's hard for me to really know how valuable the difference between a Worshipper and just trashing a card is.

The benefits are:
• you can play a Copper (or other card) on the same turn that you trash it
• you can hold on to the trashing if you don't have anything current to trash
• the corollary to that is you can stock up on Worshippers as a defense to gaining Junk
• a trasher like Apse Chapel can effectively trash itself, when you're done with it

So while I can tweak things here and there, to get a real understanding requires some extensive play testing. Here's hoping my guesses are reasonable.

---

The updated cards:

(https://i.imgur.com/j99lNLV.png)(https://i.imgur.com/dlLbVs1.png)(https://i.imgur.com/T3SgIZ9.png)(https://i.imgur.com/wY1Vc5s.png)

Apse Chapel: No change. I keep going back and forth on whether this should be +2 or +3 Worshippers. While I think +3 has a better chance of locking in the "skip Chapel" vote, it feels too strong. But as I said above, this can only really be figured out with some real play testing. In lieu of that, please let me know: is +2 Worshippers enough for you to consider skipping Chapel? Or does it need +3? (and if so, what should I price it at?)

Parish: the original was just boring and really just a token Victory card (no pun intended). This new version is more interesting (and thematically better - the more Worshippers you have, the more valuable your Parishes), but it could also well be broken. If so, help me fix it! (higher cost? more worshippers per VP? or is the idea generally broken?)

Cloister (formerly Undercroft): a good point was made that it requires another trasher, so I solved it by having it trash as an Action. Thematically, Undercroft didn't seem to work anymore but I had been working separately on a Cloister, and this seemed to fit - you go to the Cloister during the day to meditate (i.e. trash cards), or clandestinely meet at night to gather future Worshippers. I considering pricing this at $3, enabling a double Cloister open, but $4 seemed more balanced.

Archbishop: Small change. I was incorrectly comparing to Bishop at $5. When I realized it was only $4, this needed to be a little stronger, in order to qualify as "Grand".

---

As always, feedback is very welcome. Coming up with a new mechanic and several representative cards was a big swing for me, so I hope it's OK that I'm asking / discussing a lot. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 07, 2019, 04:31:05 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 07, 2019, 03:09:47 pm

Because of tracking issues, Worshippers should specifically disallow in-play Duration cards. "...for each token removed, you may trash a card from your hand or a non-Duration card you have in play."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on June 07, 2019, 09:35:56 pm

Okay, I've changed Income Tax to make it easier to calculate and have more of an effect.

(https://i.imgur.com/ppVB47R.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on June 08, 2019, 10:10:06 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 07, 2019, 03:09:47 pm

As always, feedback is very welcome. Coming up with a new mechanic and several representative cards was a big swing for me, so I hope it's OK that I'm asking / discussing a lot. :)

I think it'd be a good idea to start a separate thread for these cards and then maybe choose one to submit for this contest? I think we should stick to one card per person unless the specific challenge allows more so that the number of cards doesn't become too overwhelming for the judge. Plus this way people could continue to discuss these after this challenge is over.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on June 08, 2019, 11:08:53 am

Poor Land
cost <6> - Victory
Worth 1vp per 3 Coppers you have (rounded down).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 08, 2019, 01:47:48 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 07, 2019, 04:31:05 pm

Because of tracking issues, Worshippers should specifically disallow in-play Duration cards. "...for each token removed, you may trash a card from your hand or a non-Duration card you have in play."

I modeled after Bonfire, which does not include the non-Duration cards. In a bgg thread (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1367747/hireling-and-champion-duration-if-losttrashed-play), Donald wrote:

Quote

I didn't think of using Bonfire to cause tracking issues. It wasn't anything anyone ever did. I probably still wouldn't say "non-Duration" or something on Bonfire; again, making a card more complex for an exotic situation.

So for now, I'm happy leaving it in this simpler (and also more flexible) way. (From that thread, Procession, for example, leads to similar tracking issues)

---

Quote from: Gazbag on June 08, 2019, 10:10:06 am

I think it'd be a good idea to start a separate thread for these cards and then maybe choose one to submit for this contest? I think we should stick to one card per person unless the specific challenge allows more so that the number of cards doesn't become too overwhelming for the judge. Plus this way people could continue to discuss these after this challenge is over.

Starting a separate thread sounds like a good idea - I can do that [UPDATE: thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19722.0) added]. Note that in my previous edit to the initial post, I had added this blurb:

Quote

My official entry for the contest is Apse Chapel, while the other cards can provide support for some strategies (e.g. Parish prefers Apse Chapel to Chapel for end game VPs) and are here to help demonstrate the mechanic.

So that's the card I expect to be judged for the challenge. Should I remove the other cards from the post or leave them in their current support / demonstration role?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 08, 2019, 04:54:25 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/2xhCRXp.png)

Quote

Prayer
$4 - Action

Exchange this for a copy of a non-Victory card in the trash.

---

When you buy this, return it to the supply, and trash a card from the supply.

---

In games using this, when you trash a card, gain a Prayer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 08, 2019, 05:55:06 pm

CHALLENGE #32 - MAKE YOU SKIP CHAPEL SUBMISSION

Well this was a challenge indeed. Besting the quintessential broken card without being broken itself. Here's what I've come up with.

(https://i.imgur.com/E3VKHSI.jpg)

The idea is that this hits decks without Coppers and big engine decks with multiple gains a lot harder than any other type of deck, both of which are hallmark traits of Chapel decks. This is just a guess, but my hope is a non-Chapel deck can expect 6-12 more in VP tokens from Blasphemer versus a Chapel deck. Blasphemer itself also works well with trashing down, but at a much slower pace than Chapel as you'll likely want to keep some Coppers to not overshoot the pricepoints of cards.

Changes:
[v0.2] Cost from $6 to $5; now only cares about player to your left.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 09, 2019, 07:32:19 am

My card submission Dowser gets another update. It is now a 5/5 split pile with a nasty Peddler variant which wants you to keep your Coppers. And it also makes it easier to draw further Dowsers, even if you have to discard a Victory card for this.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/jol67grr.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/1hlxzeuq.png)

Pendulum
Type: Action
Cost: $2

+1 Card
+1 Action
Discard a card. If it’s a Treasure card: +$2.

Dowser
Type: Action
Cost: $4

+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put the ones costing between $0 and $2 into your hand. Put the rest back on top in any order.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 09, 2019, 10:44:34 am

There's two major ways to make you consider skipping chapel. Either make you not want to trash your cards (gardens, fountain, many of the submissions so far add penalties to trashing), or give a trasher that is strong enough that makes you not want chapel (donate, cathedral). I decided to go for the latter:

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/wjwrsya4.png)

Chapel is very strong trashing but is weak since it provides no way to simultaneously build your deck. So, this card provides both! It's essentially a one-shot mega-copper trasher + remodeler that hands out debts based on how much of an upgrade/remodel/expansion you are doing. You can get burdened with debt, so you need to have a plan to get out of debt with the cards you gain, which makes it kingdom dependent. Sometimes you can get it instead of chapel, sometimes treasures are the only economy you want and Tithings won't work so well.

Clarifying examples:

• From a hand of 3 coppers, I play 2 and buy and play this card. I trash both coppers in play and the copper in my hand. I would take 2 debt and gain an embargo. Each other player chooses to gain 0, 1, or 2 coppers to hand.
• If my hand is 3 coppers and 3 estates, I could play 3 coppers, trashing them when I buy this, and turn an estate into a duchy. I would take 3 debt and each other player choose to gain 0, 1, 2, or 3 coppers to hand.
• If you have no coppers in play, you trash a card and gain a card costing exactly the same amount. You could turn a chapel into a pearl diver, for $1 by buying this card.

The debt is what makes this only conditionally better than chapel. If there are good economy 4 and 5 costs that help you repay your debt, you're going to trash early and hard. If there aren't, you won't have as good of a way of handling the debt, and chapel (or even bonfire) might be better. That is why I forbid the treasure gaining. Otherwise 3/4 is always very powerful with turning an estate into a gold second turn and paying off the debt. The other player copper gaining cause is to weaken this a tad bit (so bonfire becomes more competitive with this) and to smoothen out the difference between 3/4 openings and 4/3. (The 3/4 player can pay off all their tithings debt on second turn and still do tithings again while the 4/3 player can't as much. The copper gaining lets both players have a 4/4 opening). This could have been an event, but then I had the annoying "take debt at the end of your turn" to prevent instant pay-off, and I did not like that. So, it became a one-shot night to easily deal with the debt problem.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 09, 2019, 03:31:05 pm

Quote from: King Leon on June 09, 2019, 07:32:19 am

My card submission Dowser gets another update. It is now a 5/5 split pile with a nasty Peddler variant which wants you to keep your Coppers. And it also makes it easier to draw further Dowsers, even if you have to discard a Victory card for this.

I feel like Pendulum is easily stronger than Oasis. Other than that, the design looks good now, but I am not sure they still fit the challenge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 09, 2019, 04:29:48 pm

Quote from: faust on June 09, 2019, 03:31:05 pm

Quote from: King Leon on June 09, 2019, 07:32:19 am

My card submission Dowser gets another update. It is now a 5/5 split pile with a nasty Peddler variant which wants you to keep your Coppers. And it also makes it easier to draw further Dowsers, even if you have to discard a Victory card for this.

I feel like Pendulum is easily stronger than Oasis. Other than that, the design looks good now, but I am not sure they still fit the challenge.

It fits the challenge because it tries to make you skip trashing in general. You want a high-treasure density deck to make your pendulums fire, so it makes some sense to keep coppers around and skip Chapel. At least, that seems like the point here.

Each activated pendulum makes the next one you have in hand more difficult to activate, so it's weaker than it seems. You don't want too many. Oddly enough the fact that there are only 5 of them makes them stronger. I agree the cost of 2 is too low for Pendulum.

Dowser wants you to keep your estates and coppers, thus avoiding chapel. I really love the 2 cost of pendulum for Dowser. It's less elegant but I wonder if a 3-cost Pendulum with a Dowser that specifically calls out "0-2 cost or a Pendulum" would be better. I am unsure.

Dowser is strong enough to make you want to skip trashing, but it comes after 5 gains from the pile because it's a split-pile. That addressed the concerns of it being too strong in the first shuffle. I wonder what it would look like with 10 3 or 4 cost Pendulums that each had a "you may trash this to gain a Dowser" and Dowser is self-drawing (it could cost 2) and not in the supply. There could even be some conditions for triggering the Dowser gain ala urchin/mercernary. This would delay the Dowsers a bit so they aren't over-powered, which was some of the feedback it got the first time around.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 09, 2019, 05:05:07 pm

Quote from: faust on June 09, 2019, 03:31:05 pm

I feel like Pendulum is easily stronger than Oasis.

It is more the other way around. Oasis is even useful with Victory cards like Estate, Province and most notable: Tunnel. Pendulum is more like a weaker Merchant. I wanted to have a $2 card and there are only 5 of it. Buying a Silver gives you more reliability than buying Pendulum. If you want to go for Dowser, Pendulum is in fact slightly better than Silver, but if you plan to go the Chapel way, Pendulum is a horrible card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on June 09, 2019, 05:11:00 pm

Quote from: King Leon on June 09, 2019, 05:05:07 pm

Quote from: faust on June 09, 2019, 03:31:05 pm

I feel like Pendulum is easily stronger than Oasis.

It is more the other way around. Oasis is even useful with Victory cards like Estate, Province and most notable: Tunnel. Pendulum is more like a weaker Merchant. I wanted to have a $2 card and there are only 5 of it. Buying a Silver gives you more reliability than buying Pendulum. If you want to go for Dowser, Pendulum is in fact slightly better than Silver, but if you plan to go the Chapel way, Pendulum is a horrible card.

Oasis is a Peddler if it connects with an Estate, Merchant is a Peddler if it connects with a Silver, Pendulum is a Peddler if it connects with a Copper. It takes a while before you have more Silvers or Estates than you do Coppers. Granted, one Silver is good enough even when you have multiple Merchants, but that doesn't stop Pendulum from being substantially easier to connect than Oasis and Oasis still being a stronger card than Merchant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 09, 2019, 05:19:59 pm

Talking about pricing: There is a reason that some cards like Chapel, Fool’s Gold, Border Guard, Peasant, Page and Moat come with the $2 price tag. If those cards costed $3, the player who starts 4-3 would have a big advantage over the 5-2 player. Keeping the ironic fact in mind, that Chapel is the second-best $2 card, I feel this is alright to let both cards compete.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 09, 2019, 06:02:21 pm

Thank you for your feedback. I had the idea with a not-in-Supply Dowser earlier, but it did not work really well to balance another card against it. I first tried to remove the +1 Action from Dowser and add a $4 Village, which turns into a $2 not-in-Supply terminal Dowser. That was a bad idea.

Now I tried to give Pendulum another nerf. You have to play a Copper, which makes reusing the same Copper in a golden deck setup impossible. Also, the draw now happens after playing the Copper and only if you play a Copper. This makes it slightly harder to connect Pendulum with Copper and effectively converts it into a Ruined Village (instead of an Estate/Silver sifter), if you have no Copper in your hand. Dowser stays as it is.

Pendulum
Type: Action
Cost: $2

+1 Action
You may play a Copper from your hand. If you do: +1 Card +$1

Clarification: You first play the Copper and get its +$1 (or more, if you have Coppersmith in play). Then you draw a card and get an additional +$1.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/qvnatc12.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on June 09, 2019, 11:34:35 pm

Quote from: King Leon on June 09, 2019, 05:19:59 pm

Talking about pricing: There is a reason that some cards like Chapel, Fool’s Gold, Border Guard, Peasant, Page and Moat come with the $2 price tag. If those cards costed $3, the player who starts 4-3 would have a big advantage over the 5-2 player. Keeping the ironic fact in mind, that Chapel is the second-best $2 card, I feel this is alright to let both cards compete.

I'm pretty sure Border Guard and Moat are $2 because that's what they're actually worth.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 10, 2019, 03:31:35 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 09, 2019, 11:34:35 pm

Quote from: King Leon on June 09, 2019, 05:19:59 pm

Talking about pricing: There is a reason that some cards like Chapel, Fool’s Gold, Border Guard, Peasant, Page and Moat come with the $2 price tag. If those cards costed $3, the player who starts 4-3 would have a big advantage over the 5-2 player. Keeping the ironic fact in mind, that Chapel is the second-best $2 card, I feel this is alright to let both cards compete.

I'm pretty sure Border Guard and Moat are $2 because that's what they're actually worth.

Moat is a crucial card, when strong attacks like Sea Hag are in the kingdom. I agree, that it is much worse without attacks, but still worth $2 and even playable in Big Money. Border Guard is in fact a Lab variant, especially if you have many Victory cards (Gardens/Vineyard deck) or if you have many terminal Action cards. Getting Horn first, is a huge advantage, so the $2 price ensures, that everyone can get one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on June 10, 2019, 08:58:40 am

Quote from: King Leon on June 10, 2019, 03:31:35 am

Moat is a crucial card, when strong attacks like Sea Hag are in the kingdom. I agree, that it is much worse without attacks, but still worth $2 and even playable in Big Money. Border Guard is in fact a Lab variant, especially if you have many Victory cards (Gardens/Vineyard deck) or if you have many terminal Action cards. Getting Horn first, is a huge advantage, so the $2 price ensures, that everyone can get one.

I'm not convinced that protecting yourself from a junking attack by spending your turns clogging up your deck with Moats is "crucial", it kind of reminds me of installing Avast antivirus to protect yourself from adware and spyware, only to have it spy on what you're doing and show you ads accordingly. Sea Hag isn't even that strong of a card in the first place. Sure, Moat/Big Money is better than BMU but I doubt it has ever been the best strategy in any kingdom. There's a reason why it's a bottom third $2 in the Qvist rankings.

Scout is also a Lab variant if you have many Victory cards, where "many" = half of your deck. Coincidentally, Border Guard also needs half of your deck to be Victory cards or other useless cards for it to be a "Lab variant", but even then it obviously isn't a Lab variant because the card goes into your discard pile and therefore gets shuffled back into your deck when you reshuffle. If you have so many terminal Action cards that you need Border Guard to shift through them, why did you even buy all those terminals in the first place? Oh right, to protect you against Sea Hag, I almost forgot. As with any other Artifact, getting Horn first is weaker than stealing it from your opponent, and you can't get it on your first reshuffle anyway so in that regard, it doesn't matter if you can open Border Guard or not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 10, 2019, 04:05:55 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 08, 2019, 01:47:48 pm

Should I remove the other cards from the post or leave them in their current support / demonstration role?

Answering my own question, but I went ahead and removed them from the initial post, so that only Worshipper tokens, as the new mechanic, and Apse Chapel are there.

(the other cards were moved to: scolapasta's cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19722.0). Feel free to join us there for discussion on them and other cards and/or if you have any ideas for new cards that use Worshippers)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: wittyhowlard on June 10, 2019, 05:02:07 pm

Here's my submission to a Chapel competitor - Sustainable Living! Why bother with Chapelling cards when you could feel just as sanctimonious by reusing your pork rinds, reducing your taxes on the peasants, recycling your cycles; you get the idea...

Basically this card is both an early- and endgame card. The debt part allows this event to be more powerful than Bonfire and encourages early trashing. But the endgame is where this card shines as it will disrupt the usual province/duchy dance tempo. Sure, $20 is expensive to buy two provinces, but trashing $20 worth and gaining the last two in the pile? That could be a gamechanger.

Naturally, drawers and strategic gainers such a Artisan can help you reach that $20 in your hand. And how can you reduce your opponents' chances of hitting $20? Discard attacks and junkers hurt more than regular games.

(https://imgur.com/sdWrAI8m.jpg) (https://imgur.com/sdWrAI8)

Sustainable Living -
Event - $3 2D
-
(Once per turn)
Trash up to five cards in your hand. If their total cost is $20 or more, gain two provinces.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 10, 2019, 05:24:57 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 10, 2019, 05:02:07 pm

Here's my submission to a Chapel competitor - Sustainable Living! Why bother with Chapelling cards when you could feel just as sanctimonious by reusing your pork rinds, reducing your taxes on the peasants, recycling your cycles; you get the idea...

Basically this card is both an early- and endgame card. The debt part allows this event to be more powerful than Bonfire and encourages early trashing. But the endgame is where this card shines as it will disrupt the usual province/duchy dance tempo. Sure, $20 is expensive to buy two provinces, but trashing $20 worth and gaining the last two in the pile? That could be a gamechanger.

Naturally, drawers and strategic gainers such a Artisan can help you reach that $20 in your hand. And how can you reduce your opponents' chances of hitting $20? Discard attacks and junkers hurt more than regular games.

(https://imgur.com/sdWrAI8m.jpg) (https://imgur.com/sdWrAI8)

Sustainable Living -
Event - $3 2D
-
(Once per turn)
Trash up to five cards in your hand. If their total cost is $20 or more, gain two provinces.

I would argue that this would make Chapel even more desirable. Chapel will let you get cheap cards out of your deck more easily than this, since it's cheaper and you only need to buy it once. (Not to mention that you can't trash your Coppers if you need to play them to use the trasher.) Chapel can quickly remove the cheap cards from your deck so you can more easily use this event to gain Provinces quickly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: wittyhowlard on June 10, 2019, 05:34:37 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 10, 2019, 05:24:57 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 10, 2019, 05:02:07 pm

(https://imgur.com/sdWrAI8m.jpg) (https://imgur.com/sdWrAI8)

Sustainable Living -
Event - $3 2D
-
(Once per turn)
Trash up to five cards in your hand. If their total cost is $20 or more, gain two provinces.

I would argue that this would make Chapel even more desirable. Chapel will let you get cheap cards out of your deck more easily than this, since it's cheaper and you only need to buy it once. (Not to mention that you can't trash your Coppers if you need to play them to use the trasher.) Chapel can quickly remove the cheap cards from your deck so you can more easily use this event to gain Provinces quickly.

That's a fair point since Chapel helps you convert from low-cost to high-cost average cards. One particular use case I was thinking this is in a 4/3 opening where you buy a useful $4 card, then use Sustainable Living in the $3 turn on the two estates. By T3 you've already gotten rid of most of your estates, a leg up over Chapel.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MeNowDealWithIt on June 10, 2019, 08:44:47 pm

Thanks for y'all's submissions. The final deadline for new entries will be Noon on June 11 Eastern Time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on June 10, 2019, 08:48:21 pm

Reflection
Event - $8
Trash any number of Coppers from your hand. +3VP per Copper trashed this way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 10, 2019, 09:03:08 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on June 10, 2019, 08:48:21 pm

Reflection
Event - $10
Trash any number of Coppers from your hand. +3VP per Copper trashed this way.

I think it's going to be pretty rare to be able to trash any Coppers with this, unless you're either drawing your deck or in a Platinum/Colony game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 11, 2019, 02:20:12 am

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 10, 2019, 05:34:37 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 10, 2019, 05:24:57 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 10, 2019, 05:02:07 pm

(https://imgur.com/sdWrAI8m.jpg) (http://server2.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/saeryv/p2/sdWrAI8)

Sustainable Living -
Event - $3 2D
-
(Once per turn)
Trash up to five cards in your hand. If their total cost is $20 or more, gain two provinces.

I would argue that this would make Chapel even more desirable. Chapel will let you get cheap cards out of your deck more easily than this, since it's cheaper and you only need to buy it once. (Not to mention that you can't trash your Coppers if you need to play them to use the trasher.) Chapel can quickly remove the cheap cards from your deck so you can more easily use this event to gain Provinces quickly.

That's a fair point since Chapel helps you convert from low-cost to high-cost average cards. One particular use case I was thinking this is in a 4/3 opening where you buy a useful $4 card, then use Sustainable Living in the $3 turn on the two estates. By T3 you've already gotten rid of most of your estates, a leg up over Chapel.

Indeed. It is basically a more expensive Bonfire for Estates and given how often one opens Bonfire, even in Kingdoms with trashers, this will often get bought.
Not sure whether it can compete with Chapel though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on June 11, 2019, 09:07:08 am

Not too inspired really, so here is a simple draw that is better with a bunch of <$4 cards in your deck.
(https://i.imgur.com/zP7mTkI.jpg)

Quote

Colliery
Types: Action
Cost: $6
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal 2 cards costing at least $5. Discard one and put the rest into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on June 11, 2019, 11:06:50 am

Foreman
$5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a treasure or action from your discard, if you do, trash it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 11, 2019, 03:50:50 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 11, 2019, 09:07:08 am

Not too inspired really, so here is a simple draw that is better with a bunch of <$4 cards in your deck.
(https://i.imgur.com/zP7mTkI.jpg)

Quote

Colliery
Types: Action
Cost: $6
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal 2 cards costing at least $5. Discard one and put the rest into your hand.

This draws almost your entire deck, if you go for alt VP like Gardens or have a cost reducer like Highway. I don't like this card.

Quote from: artless on June 11, 2019, 11:06:50 am

Foreman
$5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a treasure or action from your discard, if you do, trash it.

This is much better than Junk Dealer, even when it cannot trash Estates. A cost of $6 would be more appropriate.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 11, 2019, 04:40:19 pm

So, when's the judging?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 11, 2019, 04:59:34 pm

Quote from: King Leon on June 11, 2019, 03:50:50 pm

Quote from: artless on June 11, 2019, 11:06:50 am

Foreman
$5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a treasure or action from your discard, if you do, trash it.

This is much better than Junk Dealer, even when it cannot trash Estates. A cost of $6 would be more appropriate.

I'm not sure about that. Sometimes you'll draw it when your discard pile is empty; or is just missing Coppers. Especially early on; when your discard pile is empty on almost half of the turns.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MeNowDealWithIt on June 11, 2019, 07:20:43 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 11, 2019, 04:40:19 pm

So, when's the judging?

Now!

GendoIkari   Something Something   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802874#msg802874

I mean, you skip chapel when it's on the board, but it makes the game less interesting and breaks the game by conflicting with other cards (How does Remodel work with this on the board?). Points for being snarky though, I guess.

hhelibebcnofnena   Church   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802875#msg802875

This does significantly and targetedly nerf chapel. As broken as Donate and Cathedral, but without as much effect on the game; Donate fundamentally changes the game into a puzzle, and whether to skip Cathedral in favor of longevity can be an interesting decision.

Chappy7   Hoard House   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802876#msg802876

Gives you a sizeable point bonus if you don't trash. The versatility of a thin deck IMO makes one unlikely to pursue a bonus even as large as this one, as it also kills trash for benefit.

ClouduHieh   Bull+Pile of Dung   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802882#msg802882

Yeah no, you buy Chapel with Bull on the board in order to play it more. Gaining copper from the trash to hand makes this a minor TD+BM enabler, and an attack that's only directed at VP is kinda interesting.

LibraryAdventurer   Schoolhouse   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802891#msg802891

Interesting decision whether to go for this or Chapel, though I still feel like Chapel usually wins. Feels like an Island variant.

mail-mi   Trench   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802892#msg802892

Feels like perhaps the penalty needs to be steeper; avoiding trashing your starting cards nets you 10 points by the end of the game. Probably not worth it.

Aquila   Landfill Tax   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802893#msg802893

Nerfs trashing in a more creative way than losing VP. Fun idea.

Awaclus   Co-Cathedral   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802904#msg802904

Effectively opening with 2 Labs and a Silver feels nuts, but not as in-your-face game-warping as donate. It might actually be a good way to introduce newer players to trashing.

Gubump   Exchequer   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802909#msg802909

I like the effect, but the price is too high to be useful, especially as a chapel-deterrent.

naitchman   Regret   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802910#msg802910

I expect to buy Chapel on boards with this as frequently as I buy Steward. Also makes trash for benefit insane if you do trash more than once per turn, which actually sounds really fun to try to pull off; Butcher a province into a province and play a forager to just gain the province.

mandioca15   Vestry   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802929#msg802929

I still get chapel with Vestry on the board. I probably open with both and hope to trash 6 cards after the first shuffle, which adds more swinginess. +buy now and at start of turn is a neat effect.

scolapasta   Apse Chapel   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802942#msg802942

The Worshipper tokens are clever. I don't think gaining a $4 is usually worth the opportunity cost of trashing an extra 2 cards. The benefit of Apse Chapel, of course, is that you can guarantee you hit the exact card you want (You don't need to lament about not trashing estates because you drew your Chapel with 4 coppers). Definitely an interesting card.

Chris is me   (Unnamed)   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802950#msg802950

Bonus points for describing why it makes you want to skip Chapel, though I'm not sure your reasoning's that compelling; I buy chapel on Highway, Bridge, etc. decks so that I can play those cards more frequently. I really like the design though.

segura   Mausoleum   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802972#msg802972

It's hoard house, but a sliding scale rather than all-or-nothing. I don't think 20 points is enough to outmatch a well-trashed deck though.

Gazbag   Abbey   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802977#msg802977

Feels worse than Recruiter, but Recruiter's a really good card so I'll give it some slack. Regardless, it's not very exciting.

Commodore Chuckles   Income Tax   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803032#msg803032

Ooh! Wanting a deck with cheap cards is not a reason to skip chapel that I'd thought about, but it totally makes sense. Unfortunately, 9 points isn't enough of a swing to make me skip chapel.

majiponi   Poor Land   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803054#msg803054

Feodum but not! Too expensive for a default 2 points, though.

faust   Prayer   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803066#msg803066

You don't buy chapel with this on the board, and it doesn't kill trash for benefit, but I'm not sure how I would use it in a deck. Like, I buy one, trash a goons from the supply, then I trashed a card so I gain the prayer, then later I play the prayer for the goons, but my opponent has time to pick up the goons before me? It's hard to wrap my head around, probably moreso than any printed card.

Kudasai   Blasphemer   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803075#msg803075

I feel like the interactive part doesn't really make you want to skip chapel to avoid giving the opponent VP, and you don't always trash all of your coppers in chapel decks because you sometimes need the extra economy. I like the idea of that trigger for the interaction though.

anordinaryman   Tithings   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803134#msg803134

Similarly complex to Faust's Prayer card, which I guess is a big possibility with fan cards. Nevertheless, It provides a good alternative to chapel, especially on boards with cheap +buy.

King Leon   Dowser+Pendulum   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803156#msg803156 http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803117#msg803117

I'm gonna imagine King Leon's thought process as he was creating this pile. "Hmm... I like Commodore Chuckles' income tax's idea of rewarding a deck with cheap cards, but rather than giving out points, I'll instead make it easier to draw.  But opening with a card that can draw 4 coppers is way overpowered, so I'll make it cost debt! Wait, that makes it wordier if I want it to always draw a kingdom card. I can put it under a split pile! Yeah!"

wittyhowlard   Sustainable Living   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803289#msg803289

You don't skip chapel with Forge on the board, so you don't skip chapel with this on the board. And I'm having a hard time thinking of a situation where I'd want to trash a bunch of cards with a combined cost of at least 20 to gain 2 provinces.

NoMoreFun   Reflection   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803296#msg803296

I still think trashing down is worth more than a bunch of VP. I could see myself skipping chapel for this on a tactician board, maybe.

Fragasnap   Coilliery   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803305#msg803305

It's no secret by now that I like rewarding a cheap deck at this point. However, this seems a bit too powerful; unbounded draw works with Scrying Pool because it's kinda hard to fill your deck with actions. It's much easier, on the other hand, to fill your deck with <$5 cards.

artless   Foreman   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803308#msg803308

You buy Chapel even with Junk Dealer on the board, so you buy Chapel with this on the board. This also seems much worse than Junk Dealer; I'd rarely trash an action card for a village effect, and that option is not worth the inability to trash estates, let alone the swinginess added by preventing trashing from hand.

Aaaand, that's everyone.

Winner: Dowser and Pendulum by King Leon

Runner Up: Apse Chapel by scolapasta

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 11, 2019, 08:31:16 pm

Quote from: MeNowDealWithIt on June 11, 2019, 07:20:43 pm

scolapasta   Apse Chapel   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802942#msg802942

The Worshipper tokens are clever. I don't think gaining a $4 is usually worth the opportunity cost of trashing an extra 2 cards. The benefit of Apse Chapel, of course, is that you can guarantee you hit the exact card you want (You don't need to lament about not trashing estates because you drew your Chapel with 4 coppers). Definitely an

Definitely an??

Yay for Runner-up - and congratulations to the winner, King Leon! This week felt like an especially tough one to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 11, 2019, 10:52:17 pm

Congrats to King Leon. Thanks for the judging MeNowDealWithIt.

Quote from: MeNowDealWithIt on June 11, 2019, 07:20:43 pm

naitchman   Regret   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802910#msg802910

I expect to buy Chapel on boards with this as frequently as I buy Steward.

For the record, Donald X. said they tried chapel that only trashed 3 cards and it was too slow. steward can at least pivot to a $2 or +2 cards in the late game. A card that just allowed you to trash 2 cards would be way too slow. Chapel with regret would be even worse because you sacrifice your whole turn to trash 2 cards (you can't even use the other 2 cards in your hand). That was the idea. I kind of agree with your other point; it would be fun, but crazy. This was a hard challenge!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 12, 2019, 03:34:19 am

Quote from: MeNowDealWithIt on June 11, 2019, 07:20:43 pm

Commodore Chuckles   Income Tax   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803032#msg803032

Ooh! Wanting a deck with cheap cards is not a reason to skip chapel that I'd thought about, but it totally makes sense. Unfortunately, 9 points isn't enough of a swing to make me skip chapel.

No idea where you pull the 9 points from. This is a dynamic matter, hard to evaluate and incredibly board-dependent. Estates and Duchies yields the same VPs, so a Silk Road or Gardens game is likely favouring whomever does not thin his deck.

You might want to look at the conventional BM benchmarks: while thinning and junking are very important in Dominion, a significant VP spread changes that maths. I have lost quite some Fountain games because I overvalued thinning.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 12, 2019, 08:30:52 am

Quote from: MeNowDealWithIt on June 11, 2019, 07:20:43 pm

Winner: Dowser and Pendulum by King Leon

Runner Up: Apse Chapel by scolapasta

While both of these are certainly fine concepts, I doubt either is likely to make you skip Chapel. Dowser just comes too late, and there are not enough of them that you could run your deck on them. Apse Chapel is just... I'd rather trash 4 Coppers than 2 Estates. And the effective flexibility of Worshippers is limited as you'll want to use them the same shuffle, so if you draw it on T4, it's only Steward-level trashing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 12, 2019, 08:51:45 am

Quote from: segura on June 12, 2019, 03:34:19 am

No idea where you pull the 9 points from. This is a dynamic matter, hard to evaluate and incredibly board-dependent. Estates and Duchies yields the same VPs, so a Silk Road or Gardens game is likely favouring whomever does not thin his deck.

I'm guessing his logic is this:
Points for not Chapelling starting 10 cards with income tax on board: 13 points (10 for income tax 3 for estates)
Points for Chapelling starting 10 cards with income tax on board: 1 (for income tax because chapel itself is worth 1 point, and you usually don't get rid of it)

So there's a 12 point difference between going for chapel and not, 3 for estates and 9 for income tax. So basically income tax gives you a 9 point penalty for going for chapel, and he's saying this is not enough of a deterrent for him in most boards (not surprising since neither was trench). Yes, in some games he might forego chapel (like with gardens) but in most games he wouldn't.

IMO, there's more to this than just a loss of 9 points. provinces and the cards that help get you provinces (gold, $5 action cards) are worth -1, so going for provinces is not going to net you nearly as much as in a normal game. Scooping up cheap cards (estates and 2 other piles) especially with +buy seems viable and in that case, chapel isn't necessary because you don't need high $ density. Just to compare: if your opponent uses chapel, gets all 8 provinces (likely will take more than 20 turns) that's 40 minus his higher cost cards + his lower cost cards. He could easily be at 40 or less. If you don't chapel and buy 8 estates and 12 other cheap cards, you'd be at 41 (30 for income tax, 11 for estates). If you opponent can't get all the provinces himself (especially true in some BM strategies) 3 piling cheap cards would really work in your favor.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 12, 2019, 10:51:18 am

Quote from: naitchman on June 12, 2019, 08:51:45 am

Quote from: segura on June 12, 2019, 03:34:19 am

No idea where you pull the 9 points from. This is a dynamic matter, hard to evaluate and incredibly board-dependent. Estates and Duchies yields the same VPs, so a Silk Road or Gardens game is likely favouring whomever does not thin his deck.

I'm guessing his logic is this:
Points for not Chapelling starting 10 cards with income tax on board: 13 points (10 for income tax 3 for estates)
Points for Chapelling starting 10 cards with income tax on board: 1 (for income tax because chapel itself is worth 1 point, and you usually don't get rid of it)

So there's a 12 point difference between going for chapel and not, 3 for estates and 9 for income tax. So basically income tax gives you a 9 point penalty for going for chapel, and he's saying this is not enough of a deterrent for him in most boards (not surprising since neither was trench). Yes, in some games he might forego chapel (like with gardens) but in most games he wouldn't.

IMO, there's more to this than just a loss of 9 points. provinces and the cards that help get you provinces (gold, $5 action cards) are worth -1, so going for provinces is not going to net you nearly as much as in a normal game. Scooping up cheap cards (estates and 2 other piles) especially with +buy seems viable and in that case, chapel isn't necessary because you don't need high $ density. Just to compare: if your opponent uses chapel, gets all 8 provinces (likely will take more than 20 turns) that's 40 minus his higher cost cards + his lower cost cards. He could easily be at 40 or less. If you don't chapel and buy 8 estates and 12 other cheap cards, you'd be at 41 (30 for income tax, 11 for estates). If you opponent can't get all the provinces himself (especially true in some BM strategies) 3 piling cheap cards would really work in your favor.

Yeah, as I said it is a dynamic thing and thus just comparing the difference between trashing and not trashing your starting hand is a totally inappropriate. As you rightly pointed out, when each card is a Mill, piling on cheap cards becomes an actual strategy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 12, 2019, 11:16:02 am

Quote from: MeNowDealWithIt on June 11, 2019, 07:20:43 pm

GendoIkari   Something Something   http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg802874#msg802874

I mean, you skip chapel when it's on the board, but it makes the game less interesting and breaks the game by conflicting with other cards (How does Remodel work with this on the board?). Points for being snarky though, I guess.

lol I wasn't intending to actually make an entry; it was just a joking way to really make you skip Chapel. Also, "something something" wasn't the card name, it was a stand-in for the on-play effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 12, 2019, 02:34:10 pm

Thank you @MeNowDealWithIt for that great challenge. I really did not think to have any chance with my submission. It actually started as a RBCI to fix Scout. Eventually the idea fit well into the theme and some fine-tuning and the community feedback helped to make this decent split pile possible. Okay, enough meanderings. Let’s come up with the next one:

Challenge #33: Just react!
Create a pure Reaction card.

I know, this sounds rather easy, but I feel, this will be one of the hardest challenges so far. Most Reaction cards even feature a small benefit to avoid them to be dead cards in some kingdoms without their triggers. For example, Moat is a terminal draw, not even bad in Big Money; Market Square is a cantrip +Buy and Tunnel gives a decent amount of victory points.

Questions to be answered in this challenge are: How can a pure Reaction card work independently from the rest of the kingdom, while keeping interesting synergy and interaction effects with some of the kingdom cards? Which triggers (beside from the existing ones) can be exploited from Reaction cards? How to make sure that a Reaction card is never (or not always) a dead card?

We have seen some novel concepts in contest #1, #3 and #20, but I am excited to see new possibilities. So new, surprising and unprecedented ideas get some bonus points. Keep in mind, that Reaction cards cannot be played by regular ways and when they do have an effect which causes them to be played, this does not consume an Action. When your Reaction card has a reveal-this-when effect, ensure that there are no loopholes, where revealing the same card over and over again gives you an endless amount of resources. Also avoid discard-this-from-your-hand in combination with draw effects, for the same reason.

I am looking forward for your submissions!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 12, 2019, 02:55:38 pm

Just for clarification, are you just saying a reaction without the main types (action, treasure, victory, night) but it could be a reaction-looter or reaction-attack, or that it is a pure reaction with no other types, no exceptions?

Also a formatting Q to the public: What do you do when you have no on play effect but you have a reaction/ while in play effect? Do you make a line with nothing above it and write your reaction part underneath? Or do you just skip the line? Or do you write above the line "This card cannot be played" or something like that?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 12, 2019, 03:18:33 pm

A very simple idea; one that I think may have even been discussed many years ago. Also, basically my first fan card ever.

(https://i.imgur.com/JecOjLa.png)

Acts a lot like Gold. But neither strictly better nor strictly worse. It can protect you from junking attacks, and it combos well with Remodel and Workshop variants. But the "exactly" bit makes it tricky; 3 Silvers and a Gold can get you a Province; not so with 3 Silvers and a Buried Loot. Same with wanting to buy a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} cost card with _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} and a Gold vs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} and a Buried Loot.

*Edit* Oops; that doesn't work like I wanted... revisiting that part....

Originally it was a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} cost that acted like a Silver instead. Making it into a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} Gold variant makes it so that it's a less clear decision to buy (is this better than the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} you could buy instead). And the math might not actually work out, but it "feels" like the "exactly" bit is more of a restriction with _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} more than it is with _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} more.

Also, if this version is a bit too good; it can cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)} instead. The Silver version would be too weak for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} and be a better-than-silver at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} if it were _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 12, 2019, 03:20:46 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 12, 2019, 02:55:38 pm

Also a formatting Q to the public: What do you do when you have no on play effect but you have a reaction/ while in play effect? Do you make a line with nothing above it and write your reaction part underneath? Or do you just skip the line? Or do you write above the line "This card cannot be played" or something like that?

I think Hovel (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Hovel) answers that question. No line.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 12, 2019, 03:28:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ihdMlpc.png)

A simple gainer that is similar to Smugglers and Duplicate. It has the advantage of being non-terminal and the disadvantage of having to be in your hand to work (whereas you can draw into Smugglers respectively Duplicate can chill in the tavern).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 12, 2019, 03:28:56 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 12, 2019, 03:18:33 pm

A very simple idea; one that I think may have even been discussed many years ago. Also, basically my first fan card ever.

(https://i.imgur.com/JecOjLa.png)

Acts a lot like Gold. But neither strictly better nor strictly worse. It can protect you from junking attacks, and it combos well with Remodel and Workshop variants. But the "exactly" bit makes it tricky; 3 Silvers and a Gold can get you a Province; not so with 3 Silvers and a Buried Loot. Same with wanting to buy a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} cost card with _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} and a Gold vs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} and a Buried Loot.

You can get a Province with 3 Silvers and a Buried Loot; just buy a Duchy and react with Buried Loot to gain a Province instead of a Duchy. You don't have to spend all of your money. Similarly, to get a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}-cost with _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} and a Buried Loot, just buy an Estate and react with Buried Loot.

The only situation in which Buried Loot is not strictly better than a Gold is when you want a card that costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}, _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}, or _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. I think Buried Loot has to cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 12, 2019, 03:33:13 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 12, 2019, 03:28:56 pm

You can get a Province with 3 Silvers and a Buried Loot; just buy a Duchy and react with Buried Loot to gain a Province instead of a Duchy. You don't have to spend all of your money. Similarly, to get a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}-cost with _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} and a Buried Loot, just buy an Estate and react with Buried Loot.

The only situation in which Buried Loot is not strictly better than a Gold is when you want a card that costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}, _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}, or _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. I think Buried Loot has to cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}.

Ugh, oops.

Yeah I could just make it cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}. Or think of some other drawback or restriction....

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 12, 2019, 03:34:16 pm

There are many engine pieces which cost $4. Usually you want to gain them via gainers but it is not unheard of to use a Gold while buying Ironmongers or Mining Villages.
Also, no Counterfeit, no Venture and no Ironworks-style interaction.

I agree that it seems on average better than Gold but but so is Spices.
If Spices can get away with being nearly always preferable to Gold while costing $5, Buried Loot can easily get away with costing $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 12, 2019, 03:35:45 pm

Quote from: segura on June 12, 2019, 03:34:16 pm

There are many engine pieces which cost $4. Usually you want to gain them via gainers but it is not unheard of to use a Gold while buying Ironmongers or Mining Villages.
Also, no Counterfeit, no Venture and no Ironworks-style interaction.

I agree that it seems on average better than Gold but but so is Spices.
If Spices can get away with being nearly always preferable to Gold while costing $5, Buried Loot can easily get away with costing $6.

Right, I actually meant to talk about how simply not being a Treasure gives it disadvantages over Gold; but then forgot to include that in my post.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 12, 2019, 03:40:24 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/CxqkRJGV/Science-Fair.png)

I figure it's basically just a Reaction version of Lab, so it should cost 5. It's not identical, though. There are situations where it's worse and situations where it's better.

Version 2: added "at the start of your next clean-up phase" to prevent secret chamber loops.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 12, 2019, 03:42:14 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 12, 2019, 03:40:24 pm

I will post an image and name later, but for now:

Cost: 5

When you draw this, you may reveal this and set it aside. If you do, +2 Cards and return this to your hand.

I figure it's basically just a Reaction version of Lab, so it should cost 5. It's not identical, though. There are situations where it's worse and situations where it's better.

"When you draw this" triggers have been discussed before; the issue is accountability... by the time you have drawn it; it's in your hand, mixed with the other cards. How do you show if it was a card you just drew, or one that was always in your hand? Also, when is it worse than Lab?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 12, 2019, 03:45:05 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 12, 2019, 03:35:45 pm

Right, I actually meant to talk about how simply not being a Treasure gives it disadvantages over Gold; but then forgot to include that in my post.

Another difference with Gold is that it would only trigger on gain effects on the gained card, rather than on buy (though, interestingly, it would trigger the on buy of the cheaper card).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 12, 2019, 03:45:51 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 12, 2019, 03:45:05 pm

Another difference with Gold is that it would only trigger on gain effects on the gained card, rather than on buy (though, interestingly, it would trigger the on buy of the cheaper card).

That's something I hadn't thought of; especially interesting with overpay.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 12, 2019, 03:49:09 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 12, 2019, 03:42:14 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 12, 2019, 03:40:24 pm

I will post an image and name later, but for now:

Cost: 5

When you draw this, you may reveal this and set it aside. If you do, +2 Cards and return this to your hand.

I figure it's basically just a Reaction version of Lab, so it should cost 5. It's not identical, though. There are situations where it's worse and situations where it's better.

"When you draw this" triggers have been discussed before; the issue is accountability... by the time you have drawn it; it's in your hand, mixed with the other cards. How do you show if it was a card you just drew, or one that was always in your hand? Also, when is it worse than Lab?

It is often worse than Laboratory: as it has no standard type, you cannot gain it via University, there are again no Ironworks-style interactions, no interaction with the Vassal/Herald/Scrying Pool/Ghost/Golem family and so on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 12, 2019, 03:50:34 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 12, 2019, 03:42:14 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 12, 2019, 03:40:24 pm

I will post an image and name later, but for now:

Cost: 5

When you draw this, you may reveal this and set it aside. If you do, +2 Cards and return this to your hand.

I figure it's basically just a Reaction version of Lab, so it should cost 5. It's not identical, though. There are situations where it's worse and situations where it's better.

"When you draw this" triggers have been discussed before; the issue is accountability... by the time you have drawn it; it's in your hand, mixed with the other cards. How do you show if it was a card you just drew, or one that was always in your hand? Also, when is it worse than Lab?

It can't be Throned, and it makes Militia-like attacks hit you harder if the reaction was one of the initial 5 cards you drew for the next turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 12, 2019, 03:51:19 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 12, 2019, 02:55:38 pm

Just for clarification, are you just saying a reaction without the main types (action, treasure, victory, night) but it could be a reaction-looter or reaction-attack, or that it is a pure reaction with no other types, no exceptions?

Also a formatting Q to the public: What do you do when you have no on play effect but you have a reaction/ while in play effect? Do you make a line with nothing above it and write your reaction part underneath? Or do you just skip the line? Or do you write above the line "This card cannot be played" or something like that?

I mean a pure Reaction card. Hovel and Tunnel are almost pure Reaction cards. The Attack type makes no sense for Reaction cards and not all attacks come from Attack cards. For example, Ill-gotten Gain has an offensive on-gain effect, but is no Attack card.

You don't need a vertical line, if you only have a Reaction. See Hovel for reference. You may need a vertical line if you have when-in-play, during-cleanup or similar effects.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 12, 2019, 05:07:25 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 12, 2019, 03:40:24 pm

I will post an image and name later, but for now:

Cost: 5

When you draw this, you may reveal this and set it aside. If you do, +2 Cards and return this to your hand.

I figure it's basically just a Reaction version of Lab, so it should cost 5. It's not identical, though. There are situations where it's worse and situations where it's better.

This can also create an infinite loop with secret chamber:
Opponent plays attack
Reveal secret chamber
Draw Lab-reaction (+ 2 cards)
topdeck lab-reaction and some other card
reveal secret chamber again
Repeat

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 12, 2019, 05:10:11 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 12, 2019, 03:42:14 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 12, 2019, 03:40:24 pm

I will post an image and name later, but for now:

Cost: 5

When you draw this, you may reveal this and set it aside. If you do, +2 Cards and return this to your hand.

I figure it's basically just a Reaction version of Lab, so it should cost 5. It's not identical, though. There are situations where it's worse and situations where it's better.

"When you draw this" triggers have been discussed before; the issue is accountability... by the time you have drawn it; it's in your hand, mixed with the other cards. How do you show if it was a card you just drew, or one that was always in your hand? Also, when is it worse than Lab?

I feel that other people have done a good idea addressing your second question. For your first question: maybe it could have a different back, like Stash?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on June 12, 2019, 06:01:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/DHjuybd.jpg)

Just a simple way to get some $$$$ into your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 12, 2019, 06:59:23 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 12, 2019, 05:10:11 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 12, 2019, 03:42:14 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 12, 2019, 03:40:24 pm

I will post an image and name later, but for now:

Cost: 5

When you draw this, you may reveal this and set it aside. If you do, +2 Cards and return this to your hand.

I figure it's basically just a Reaction version of Lab, so it should cost 5. It's not identical, though. There are situations where it's worse and situations where it's better.

"When you draw this" triggers have been discussed before; the issue is accountability... by the time you have drawn it; it's in your hand, mixed with the other cards. How do you show if it was a card you just drew, or one that was always in your hand? Also, when is it worse than Lab?

I feel that other people have done a good idea addressing your second question. For your first question: maybe it could have a different back, like Stash?

You could make the reveal a specific moment in time like at the start of your turn. This would make it considerably weaker, but I think in an interesting way. You'd also need some Horse Traders like wording so you set it aside to avoid multiple reveals.

EDIT: I meant to say drawing during your Clean-up might be a good window to have this, not the start of your turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on June 12, 2019, 09:34:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/AiMRmZ2_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 12, 2019, 09:36:30 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 12, 2019, 05:07:25 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 12, 2019, 03:40:24 pm

I will post an image and name later, but for now:

Cost: 5

When you draw this, you may reveal this and set it aside. If you do, +2 Cards and return this to your hand.

I figure it's basically just a Reaction version of Lab, so it should cost 5. It's not identical, though. There are situations where it's worse and situations where it's better.

This can also create an infinite loop with secret chamber:
Opponent plays attack
Reveal secret chamber
Draw Lab-reaction (+ 2 cards)
topdeck lab-reaction and some other card
reveal secret chamber again
Repeat

Hmm. I missed that. What if I said "return this to your hand at the start of your next clean-up phase"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on June 12, 2019, 10:33:30 pm

It seems that everyone is designing around "when someone gains something" (to ensure triggering).
Here comes something different.

Sentinel
Reaction $3

When another player gains a victory card, you may discard this from your hand and draw a card.
---
During your buy phase, if this is in your discard, cards cost 1 less, but no less than 0.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on June 12, 2019, 11:08:02 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YiOIcha.jpg)

Quote

Design
Types: Reaction
Cost: P
At the start of any player's Clean-Up, if that player played 1 or fewer Actions this turn, you may trash this from your hand. If you do, gain a card costing up to $5P.

---

When you buy this, +1 Buy.

EDIT: Wording. Also doesn't care about Caravan Guards that other players use.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 12, 2019, 11:28:07 pm

Quote from: artless on June 12, 2019, 10:33:30 pm

It seems that everyone is designing around "when someone gains something" (to ensure triggering).
Here comes something different.

Sentinel
Reaction $3

When another player gains a victory card, you may discard this from your hand and draw a card.
---
During your buy phase, if this is in your discard, cards cost 1 less, but no less than 0.

You aren't allowed to look through your discard pile, so there would be no way to track this.

Title: Re: Contest #33: Pure Reaction card
Post by: Gubump on June 13, 2019, 12:28:36 am

(https://i.imgur.com/PXKOmSO.png)

Clarification: The 2nd reaction is worded the way it is to clarify that you can gain an Action card, Blockade it onto your deck, and then put the Blockade onto that Action's pile.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Added Gold + Silver gaining as an incentive to put Blockades onto Action piles.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 13, 2019, 03:06:04 am

Foundry (Reaction) [$4]

When an opponent gains a card, you may trash this from your hand to gain two cheaper cards.

When do you cash this in? The threat of using it might cause some interesting decisions for everyone else...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 13, 2019, 03:14:34 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 13, 2019, 03:06:04 am

Foundry (Reaction) [$4]

When an opponent gains a card, you may trash this from your hand to gain two cheaper cards.

When do you cash this in? The threat of using it might cause some interesting decisions for everyone else...

Nobody will be prevented from gaining cards just because the opponent might be able to gain 2 Silvers.
This is more expensive than Engineer yet on average weaker (has to be in hand, can only gain $3s and its only advantage is that it is non-terminal).

Title: Re: Contest #33: Pure Reaction card
Post by: segura on June 13, 2019, 03:19:58 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 13, 2019, 12:28:36 am

(https://i.imgur.com/rvPsDbV.png)

Clarification: The 2nd reaction is worded the way it is so that you can gain an Action card, Blockade it onto your deck, and then put the Blockade onto that Action's pile.

I like this a lot, a great take on the "hot potatoe" card.
I just worry a b it about bootstrapping the whole thing: you have to pay $4 (or forsake a Workshop variant gain) and once draw into the card to get the whole thing going and nobody might have an incentive to do so (as the pile-blocking might also hurt you).

Perhaps put one Blockade on a random Action Supply pile during setup?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 13, 2019, 03:30:24 am

I meant cheaper relative to the card the opponent gained, not Foundry itself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 13, 2019, 03:44:51 am

(https://i.imgur.com/gszfN80.jpg)

Quote

Leasehold
$3 - Reaction

When you take a token, you may set this aside from your hand. If you did, take 2 more tokens of the same type, and at the end of your turn, discard this.
-
When you gain this, +1VP.

Clarification: If you get VP tokens, this gives you more VP tokens. Coffers give more Coffers, and Villagers give more Villagers. If you really want to, you can also use this to get more Debt. Doesn't work with Pirate Ship because you don't take the tokens there, you just put them on your mat.

EDIT: Updated to clarify wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 13, 2019, 03:50:13 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 12, 2019, 11:08:02 pm

Quote

Design
Types: Reaction
Cost: P
At the start of each Clean-Up, if 1 or fewer Actions were played this turn, you may trash this from your hand and gain a card costing up to $5P.

---

When you buy this, +1 Buy.

I think this should be a Treasure.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 13, 2019, 04:11:58 am

(https://imgur.com/PFWP3n8.png)

Remote Village
On your turn, when you have 0 Actions left (Actions, not Action Cards), you may put this in play, for +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1
(This is not an Action Card)
$4 - Reaction


Wanted to go for something a little different. Since it doesn't have the action type, you can't play it normally. It's a village that only works after you play a terminal. Also you can play it during your Buy or Night phase, which is fun.

Not sure if this should be $3 or $4. I put it at $4 for now because it's basically a worse Bazaar, but can be really nice with terminal draw. Much worse in a kingdom without many terminals or Champion, though.

v1.1: Changed the wording so it is more recognizable as a Reaction card, not an Action-Reaction card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on June 13, 2019, 05:11:50 am

(https://i.imgur.com/VB4WlcY.jpg)

Two uses that link together. Draw this during Clean-up, and just before you finish your turn you can discard down to a minimum of 3 cards from your next hand and get a Villager for each one (you can of course discard this in the same way, just discard it last).

During your Action phase, just after resolving an Action, you can put this onto your deck for a Coffers. If you play drawing cards, you're converting one of those draws into a Coffers (which you can repeat with a follow-up draw card). Or if you're done drawing, it's going into your Clean-up draw for Villagers.

Is this worth $4 or $5...? I've gone safe with $5 for now.
Edit: 'from hand' terms added, thanks Faust 2 posts down.
Edit 2: made the discard for Villagers just down to 3 cards, felt too much potential.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on June 13, 2019, 05:46:56 am

Replica
cost $2 - Reaction
When you gain a card costing up to $6, you may trash this from your hand to gain a copy of that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 13, 2019, 07:48:25 am

Every Reaction that does not specify "from your hand" should be immediately disqualified!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on June 13, 2019, 08:09:41 am

(https://i.imgur.com/pledOBN.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 13, 2019, 09:20:00 am

Quote from: hypercube on June 13, 2019, 08:09:41 am

(https://i.imgur.com/GfZtpTT.png)

I don't know, this + Workshop can drain the pile instantly. In general I feel that gaining to your hand is super strong. Also it should clarify that "if you did" refers to the putting the gained card into your hand, not the revealing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on June 13, 2019, 09:40:35 am

Quote from: faust on June 13, 2019, 09:20:00 am

Quote from: hypercube on June 13, 2019, 08:09:41 am

(https://i.imgur.com/GfZtpTT.png)

I don't know, this + Workshop can drain the pile instantly. In general I feel that gaining to your hand is super strong. Also it should clarify that "if you did" refers to the putting the gained card into your hand, not the revealing.

You're probably right, it should be strong enough without the bottom part. I'll take it off.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on June 13, 2019, 10:24:50 am

(https://i.imgur.com/Zo3tiqG.png)

Here's my entry.  Illusionist's reaction is a sort of a self-Enchantress, turning any Action you play into a terminal Library effect.  Without +Actions, it can turn a weaker Action into some nice draw, and with +Actions, it's possible to piece together a Draw-to-X engine where you can choose which cards are your draw.  Illusionist is weakened by the facts that it's a dead card if you have no Actions to play, and pairing it with Actions you actually want to Illude isn't always easy.

Title: Re: Contest #33: Pure Reaction card
Post by: Gubump on June 13, 2019, 11:48:43 am

Quote from: segura on June 13, 2019, 03:19:58 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 13, 2019, 12:28:36 am

(https://i.imgur.com/rvPsDbV.png)

Clarification: The 2nd reaction is worded the way it is so that you can gain an Action card, Blockade it onto your deck, and then put the Blockade onto that Action's pile.

I like this a lot, a great take on the "hot potatoe" card.
I just worry a b it about bootstrapping the whole thing: you have to pay $4 (or forsake a Workshop variant gain) and once draw into the card to get the whole thing going and nobody might have an incentive to do so (as the pile-blocking might also hurt you).

Perhaps put one Blockade on a random Action Supply pile during setup?

Blockade v1.1 now gains you a Gold and a Silver if you do the second reaction, giving you an incentive to do so.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 13, 2019, 12:34:45 pm

Here is my submission (Card has been updated)
(https://i.imgur.com/hbEtgOZ.png)

Notes:
1) You may select any card in play (actions, treasures, night). You may also select duration cards from other players play area.
2) If you select an opponent's inherited estate this will play as your type of inherited estate at the beginning of your next turn. If you didn't buy inheritance, it will have no effect when played.

Rationale for price:
I'm comparing this to throne room/crown, and not BoM because it plays more like them. Ignoring it's ability to react on your opponents' cleanup phases (we'll get back to that later), it doesn't look as good as a crown. They both allow you to play itself as a card you already own without taking up an action.
Pros of copy over TR/crown
1) Can play as a night card (or treasure card in the case of throne room)
2) Can't draw dead
3) If you get crown late in your turn with no good targets, it stinks.
4) Can use multiple copies to play as the same 1 action card you have (e.g. you can use multiple of these to play trusty steed)
5) More useful for while-in-play effects

Cons of copy over TR/ crown
1) Takes effect next turn (which severely limits the number of times you can play it, and it also will miss the reshuffle)
2) dead card the turn you get it
3) Doesn't work as well with cards that trash themselves

I think this has use as a BoM variant in games without good draw. If you don't draw that much, you're much more likely to get to use it's reaction on your opponent's turn (thus getting the benefit quicker and not causing it to miss the reshuffle) which will usually allow you to use it as something worthwhile.

What do you guys think of the price?

Update: After enough people saying it, I've upped the price to $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 13, 2019, 01:10:13 pm

This isn't a TR variant. TR plays twice, which is a huge difference in the case of Actions over a mere copy.

So BoM/Overlord is the appropriate comparison. This is better than BoM as it can also copy more cards: Treasures, Nights, Actions that cost more than $4, Actions whose piles are empty.
This is worse than BoM as, like a Duration, it stays out for one turn and as you are less flexible, having to commit yourself before your turn.

Looks overpowered at $4 but probably too weak at $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: math on June 13, 2019, 02:11:43 pm

I think another good comparison is Royal Carriage; both let you replay a card, and they both have uses even when you don't draw them with good cards to play.  This is a Royal Carriage that can't be called on your cards in the same turn, but that can be called on your opponent's cards and can hit Treasure/Night cards.  The fact that this card is essentially a Duration is the only downside compared to Throne Room. (As a side note, it should probably have the Duration type since it stays out until your next turn no matter when you play it; compare with Caravan Guard, which also gets better if you can use it on your opponent's turns.)

Given that being able to double Treasures was enough to make Crown cost $5, even though you almost always use it for actions, Copy should probably cost $5 as well.  It would probably be weaker than Crown or Royal Carriage at $5, but Scepter is a Throne variant that's severely limited but still has uses, and I think this card would be similar.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 13, 2019, 03:43:24 pm

Quote from: segura on June 13, 2019, 01:10:13 pm

This isn't a TR variant. TR plays twice, which is a huge difference in the case of Actions over a mere copy.

So BoM/Overlord is the appropriate comparison. This is better than BoM as it can also copy more cards: Treasures, Nights, Actions that cost more than $4, Actions whose piles are empty.
This is worse than BoM as, like a Duration, it stays out for one turn and as you are less flexible, having to commit yourself before your turn.

Looks overpowered at $4 but probably too weak at $5.

You're missing that you're picking a card already played; so it will get played a total of twice. Throne Room is actually a Band of Misfits variant... Throne Room could also read "+1 action. Play this as if it were an card in your hand". It would mostly play the same. Basically, Throne Room acts like another copy of any action card you draw it with, with an extra +1 action tacked on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 13, 2019, 03:46:45 pm

Quote from: segura on June 13, 2019, 01:10:13 pm

This isn't a TR variant. TR plays twice, which is a huge difference in the case of Actions over a mere copy.

So BoM/Overlord is the appropriate comparison.

I disagree. TR + smithy (for example) is the same as playing TR as a smithy with a +action tacked onto it and then playing your smithy like you normally would.
If you're not using this reaction on your opponenet's turn (which unless you have bad draw won't happen often, as I said), this is like playing a Crown (that can also be used on night cards) that gets its second play next turn.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said TR variant in the last point. In that case you're right. If you use it with bad draw, then it will play more like BoM since you'd reveal it on your opponent's turns more. I'll change that.

The overall idea is like this:
If you reveal it on an opponent's turn it's more powerful (it doesn't have a delayed effect) and plays more like BoM (Choose a card and play it as that card).
If you reveal it on your turn it's weaker (it has a delayed effect, despite the fact that it can be used on treasures and night) and plays more like a delayed TR.

It can work in a drawing engine but it is going to have drawbacks over TR. Being able to play TR every turn is huge (especially with power cards like Grand Market, or Level 3 City, etc). You also don't have as much flexibility as with TR since you don't know what you'll need next turn.

In a game without good draw (BM or alt VP) it's going to work much better as I said before. You will be revealing this more on your opponent's turn in this game, but I will add the drawback that this can only play as cards your opponent played which might not be what you need. This can't just play as any card on the board.

I've thought about it and I really can't view pricing this at $5. I would rarely take this over a royal carriage or a crown.

In response to math, it shouldn't be a duration. It doesn't stay in play, it gets set aside. Just like prince is not a duration. besides it doesn't get a delayed effect when played, only when it is revealed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 13, 2019, 03:48:49 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 13, 2019, 03:43:24 pm

You're missing that you're picking a card already played; so it will get played a total of twice. Throne Room is actually a Band of Misfits variant... Throne Room could also read "+1 action. Play this as if it were an card in your hand". It would mostly play the same. Basically, Throne Room acts like another copy of any action card you draw it with, with an extra +1 action tacked on.

Holy smokes.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I wrote something so similar it's uncanny. I swear I was writing before you posted. LOL

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on June 13, 2019, 04:23:43 pm

Quote from: faust on June 13, 2019, 03:50:13 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 12, 2019, 11:08:02 pm

Design
Types: Reaction
Cost: P
At the start of each Clean-Up, if 1 or fewer Actions were played this turn, you may trash this from your hand and gain a card costing up to $5P.

---

When you buy this, +1 Buy.

I think this should be a Treasure.

I must confess that I don't follow your logic train.
Design can be trashed in response to any turn in which 1 or no Actions were played. You can trigger it yourself by not playing Actions or take advantage of another player's turn misfiring (or using an action-lite strategy). How could a Treasure approximate that effect?

Quote from: faust on June 13, 2019, 03:44:51 am

Leasehold
Types: Reaction
Cost: $3
When you take a token, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, take 2 tokens of the same type, and at the end of your turn, discard this.

---

When you gain this, +1VP.

I am a little confused. Do you mean for this to gain 2 more tokens, or 2 tokens total? If I Leasehold a Leasehold, do I get +3VP (+1VP from the gain and +2VP from the Reaction)? Surely I can use 2 or more Leaseholds simultaneously to increase the effect, right? (The ability to trigger all your Leaseholds simultaneously will make Leasehold a huge deal on heavy engine boards where the potentiality of Leasehold becomes 10+45*Leasehold's effect.) If so, I would word this as "take 2 more tokens of the same type", for clarity. Assuming that is the case, I worry that Leaseholds are functionally Victory cards that don't split evenly. I appreciate how it functions with the oft pointless Setup Landmarks, though.

Quote from: naitchman on June 13, 2019, 03:46:45 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 13, 2019, 12:34:45 pm

Copy
Types: Reaction
Cost: $4
At the start of any payer's Clean-Up phase, you may set this aside from your hand and select a card in play. If you do, then at the start of your next turn, play this as if it were the selected card. This is that card until it leaves play.

I've thought about it and I really can't view pricing this at $5. I would rarely take this over a royal carriage or a crown.

The big difference is that if you target a Smithy (or any draw, really) with Copy, you get to draw cards and still have +Actions left, as opposed to other "Throne Room" variants which don't leave you with +Actions. I'd recommend a cost of $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 13, 2019, 04:30:07 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 13, 2019, 04:23:43 pm

Quote from: faust on June 13, 2019, 03:50:13 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 12, 2019, 11:08:02 pm

Design
Types: Reaction
Cost: P
At the start of each Clean-Up, if 1 or fewer Actions were played this turn, you may trash this from your hand and gain a card costing up to $5P.

---

When you buy this, +1 Buy.

I think this should be a Treasure.

I must confess that I don't follow your logic train.
Design can be trashed in response to any turn in which 1 or no Actions were played. You can trigger it yourself by not playing Actions or take advantage of another player's turn misfiring (or using an action-lite strategy). How could a Treasure approximate that effect?

I don't think the wording on Design is clear enough. I assumed that it only worked on your turn. I (and probably faust) didn't realize it worked on other player's turns.

I would recommend something along the lines of "At the start of any player's Clean-up phase, if that player played 1 or fewer Actions during their turn..."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 13, 2019, 04:32:40 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 12, 2019, 03:40:24 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/CxqkRJGV/Science-Fair.png)

I figure it's basically just a Reaction version of Lab, so it should cost 5. It's not identical, though. There are situations where it's worse and situations where it's better.

Version 2: added "at the start of your next clean-up phase" to prevent secret chamber loops.

Added an image

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 13, 2019, 05:24:32 pm

[THIS IS NO LONGER MY ENTRY FOR THIS WEEK'S CHALLENGE. NEW ENTRY IS RETRIEVER (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803718#msg803718)]

Tough challenge this week.

Rather than come up with a card that would competes with other cards you may prefer to buy, I decided to try something a little different: a 0 card cost, that doesn't do much (and in fact, will sometimes get in the way), but still might be worth an extra buy.

Rabbits are a one shot "throne room" for tokens.

[Note: it gives +1 card before repeating the effect of the token, in order to also work better with my entry from last week: Worshippers (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19722.msg803062#msg803062). Feel free to ignore them when evaluating (or not)]

(https://i.imgur.com/CK4Vgl5.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 - initial

FAQ:
• Recommended to use only with Kingdoms having at least one card that gives tokens.
• When you trash Rabbits, you repeat the effect of the token, e.g. if you removed a Villager from it's mat, you would get +1 Action (in addition to the Action you got from removing the Villager).

Secret History:
I'm considering making this a base card and having the FAQ say something like, "In games that use Villagers or Coffers [or Worshippers], add this as a base card X% of the time."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 13, 2019, 05:57:40 pm

I have a question. Can we do a pure reaction card that wouldn't need the type reaction?

Certain "reaction" conditions (on-gain, on-buy, on-trash) do not add the type of "reaction" to the card. Would it be permissible to make a card that only uses those conditions instead of the other reaction-conditions (when an attack is played, when a province is purchased, when this is discarded, etc) that normally add the "reaction" type?

Such a card would technically need no type, but the reaction type would be helpful to remind you, hey this thing does things when you gain it and buy it, etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on June 13, 2019, 06:08:41 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 13, 2019, 05:57:40 pm

I have a question. Can we do a pure reaction card that wouldn't need the type reaction?

Certain "reaction" conditions (on-gain, on-buy, on-trash) do not add the type of "reaction" to the card. Would it be permissible to make a card that only uses those conditions instead of the other reaction-conditions (when an attack is played, when a province is purchased, when this is discarded, etc) that normally add the "reaction" type?

Such a card would technically need no type, but the reaction type would be helpful to remind you, hey this thing does things when you gain it and buy it, etc.

Well, the only thing the Reaction type ever does is it colors the card blue. Mechanically, none of the existing Reactions would have to be Reactions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 13, 2019, 07:24:49 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 13, 2019, 05:24:32 pm

Tough challenge this week.

Rather than come up with a card that would competes with other cards you may prefer to buy, I decided to try something a little different: a 0 card cost, that doesn't do much (and in fact, will sometimes get in the way), but still might be worth an extra buy.

Rabbits are a one shot "throne room" for tokens.

[Note: it gives +1 card before repeating the effect of the token, in order to also work better with my entry from last week: Worshippers (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19722.msg803062#msg803062). Feel free to ignore them when evaluating (or not)]

(https://i.imgur.com/CK4Vgl5.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 - initial

FAQ:
• Recommended to use only with Kingdoms having at least one card that gives tokens.
• When you trash Rabbits, you repeat the effect of the token, e.g. if you removed a Villager from it's mat, you would get +1 Action (in addition to the Action you got from removing the Villager).

Secret History:
I'm considering making this a base card and having the FAQ say something like, "In games that use Villagers or Coffers [or Worshippers], add this as a base card X% of the time."

Frankly, it's not worded very well. I know what it means due to what you've said outside of the card, but when I first looked at it, I thought "repeat what effect?" It should say "and repeat the token's effect."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 13, 2019, 07:29:33 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 13, 2019, 04:23:43 pm

The big difference is that if you target a Smithy (or any draw, really) with Copy, you get to draw cards and still have +Actions left, as opposed to other "Throne Room" variants which don't leave you with +Actions. I'd recommend a cost of $5.

I'm not sure what you mean.

That'd be like getting a haunted woods over a smithy when your opponent has a champion because you'll get the cards on a turn you didn't use up your action. Sure there are edge cases where it helps, but in general, getting things now is better than getting things later.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on June 13, 2019, 10:48:12 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on June 13, 2019, 06:08:41 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 13, 2019, 05:57:40 pm

I have a question. Can we do a pure reaction card that wouldn't need the type reaction?

Certain "reaction" conditions (on-gain, on-buy, on-trash) do not add the type of "reaction" to the card. Would it be permissible to make a card that only uses those conditions instead of the other reaction-conditions (when an attack is played, when a province is purchased, when this is discarded, etc) that normally add the "reaction" type?

Such a card would technically need no type, but the reaction type would be helpful to remind you, hey this thing does things when you gain it and buy it, etc.

Well, the only thing the Reaction type ever does is it colors the card blue. Mechanically, none of the existing Reactions would have to be Reactions.

I sort of disagree. The Reaction type is necessary if the reaction is to something completely unrelated to the card itself; e.g. "when an Attack card is played", "when you gain a card". The Reaction type lets you know that it can do something during a phase when cards normally can't do anything.

The way it's officially used is inconsistent, though, because it's also used when the card reacts to certain things that happen to itself ("when you discard this", "when something reveals this") but not other things ("when you gain this", "when you trash this").

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 14, 2019, 01:55:17 am

Quote from: naitchman on June 13, 2019, 03:46:45 pm

If you reveal it on an opponent's turn it's more powerful (it doesn't have a delayed effect) and plays more like BoM (Choose a card and play it as that card).

Yeah and unlike with BoM and Overlord there is no cost restriction. You could play this as copy of anything: Platinum, Fortune, Prince, City Quarters, Goons, Kings's Court, you name it.
Which is why $4 is likely to be too cheap.

Quote from: naitchman on June 13, 2019, 03:46:45 pm

In response to math, it shouldn't be a duration. It doesn't stay in play, it gets set aside. Just like prince is not a duration. besides it doesn't get a delayed effect when played, only when it is revealed.

Sure, if you want to get hyper-technical it is not necessary and you could always avoid the Duration type.
Here it makes a lot of sense though. It is not like that type was introduced for mere fun back in the days but to remind players visualls not to clean up some cards.
Furthermore it is helpful in gauging the strength of cards. When you see something orange, you immediately associate it all the downsides of Durations.

Quote from: naitchman on June 13, 2019, 07:29:33 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 13, 2019, 04:23:43 pm

The big difference is that if you target a Smithy (or any draw, really) with Copy, you get to draw cards and still have +Actions left, as opposed to other "Throne Room" variants which don't leave you with +Actions. I'd recommend a cost of $5.

I'm not sure what you mean.

That'd be like getting a haunted woods over a smithy when your opponent has a champion because you'll get the cards on a turn you didn't use up your action. Sure there are edge cases where it helps, but in general, getting things now is better than getting things later.

If Smithy draws into any TR variant except for Ghost that card is dead.
If Smithy draws into Copy, you can Copy Smithy which makes that very Copy behave like a non-terminal Haunted Woods without the Attack.

Never being dead is pretty huge. Even in decks with a decent Action density, TR fails often enough.

About Durations always sucking, I disagree that you always want stuff now instead of later. Delayed terminal draw is one of the things that can be as good or even better than immediate terminal draw for consistency reasons. Delayed Actions are also pretty useful. I'd often take Fishing Village over "+3 Actions +2 Coins".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 14, 2019, 02:01:28 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 13, 2019, 04:23:43 pm

Quote from: faust on June 13, 2019, 03:50:13 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 12, 2019, 11:08:02 pm

Design
Types: Reaction
Cost: P
At the start of each Clean-Up, if 1 or fewer Actions were played this turn, you may trash this from your hand and gain a card costing up to $5P.

---

When you buy this, +1 Buy.

I think this should be a Treasure.

I must confess that I don't follow your logic train.
Design can be trashed in response to any turn in which 1 or no Actions were played. You can trigger it yourself by not playing Actions or take advantage of another player's turn misfiring (or using an action-lite strategy). How could a Treasure approximate that effect?

Yeah I missed that this works on any player's clean-up. Nevermind then.

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 13, 2019, 04:23:43 pm

Quote from: faust on June 13, 2019, 03:44:51 am

Leasehold
Types: Reaction
Cost: $3
When you take a token, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, take 2 tokens of the same type, and at the end of your turn, discard this.

---

When you gain this, +1VP.

I am a little confused. Do you mean for this to gain 2 more tokens, or 2 tokens total? If I Leasehold a Leasehold, do I get +3VP (+1VP from the gain and +2VP from the Reaction)? Surely I can use 2 or more Leaseholds simultaneously to increase the effect, right? (The ability to trigger all your Leaseholds simultaneously will make Leasehold a huge deal on heavy engine boards where the potentiality of Leasehold becomes 10+45*Leasehold's effect.) If so, I would word this as "take 2 more tokens of the same type", for clarity. Assuming that is the case, I worry that Leaseholds are functionally Victory cards that don't split evenly. I appreciate how it functions with the oft pointless Setup Landmarks, though.

Yes, it's supposed to be 2 extra. I'm not too worried about this as a Victory pile, mostly because you can only activate Leaseholds once per turn, so your greening would have to be super slow to reap the benefits, and that runs counter to a heavy engine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 14, 2019, 02:25:24 am

NOTE: Convert has been modified to be slightly weakened. Check out the edit on the next page

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/9531gnox.png)

Well, it seems like I accidentally made something that would have been good for the previous contemplate skipping chapel contest. This sort of acts like an event by giving you the on-buy effect. It's a decent trasher, amazing at trashing the starting estates, but you can't trash the cards you had in play to buy it, and it's stuck in your deck as a dead card. Except it isn't a dead card-- if you can trash it, it turns it to something really special! How do you trash it? You could buy another convert. Whatever this religion is, it's spreading! Be careful, if you had terminal actions in hand, you'll have to lose those in the difficult conversion process. And if you started to collected provinces, well, adding another convert is going to really hurt.

One thing I like is that Convert is the great equalizer between openings. No matter your opening, you could open Convert/Convert and after shuffle 1 have 2 converts and 4 coppers. Not so bad. Buy a third convert hoping to trash both your converts and start building up is a fun way to start the game.

This trashes before the first shuffle. So, there's comparisons to bonfire. Well, as a trasher, bonfire gives you flexibility with the ability to trash cards in play and the ability to decide which ones to trash. You can play a bunch of money to buy some cards and then trash them later. However, Convert forces you to not play your treasures in order to trash them, so it effectively costs at least 1 more for every copper you want to trash. Also, Convert has no flexibility, it always trashes your entire hand. So, while at first it seems like you might always buy convert over bonfire, as soon as the game reaches mid or end-game, you're probably buying bonfire instead to clean things up. Similar to the fast trasher, chapel, The cost of $2 is necessary to make sure both players can open it. If it cost $3, 5/2 would be really brutal as you could only buy a 2-cost card and trash 2 coppers. While the 3/4 player could trash all their estates. The trashing would be a lot worse if it cost more, so then the price wouldn't fit as well. So, it's kinda like chapel in that it's very strong for its price. But it's the right price for it.

The first clause is on buy and not on gain because a clever opponent could ambassador you into trashing your hand on their turn. Not good.

I welcome positive/negative feedback on this. The only question I had was whether to make the gain up to $4 instead, as the power might fit a little better. But I think I enjoy the power and spike of being able to get the good Kingdom Cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 14, 2019, 03:36:09 am

Quote from: mail-mi on June 13, 2019, 04:11:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/SLgXGLS.png)

Remote Village
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
----------------
On your turn, when you have 0 actions, you may reveal then play this from your hand.
$4 - Reaction


Wanted to go for something a little different. Since it doesn't have the action type, you can't play it normally. It's a village that only works after you play a terminal. Also you can play it during your Buy or Night phase, which is fun.

Not sure if this should be $3 or $4. I put it at $4 for now because it's basically a worse Bazaar, but can be really nice with terminal draw. Much worse in a kingdom without many terminals or Champion, though.

Added an image.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 14, 2019, 03:52:16 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 14, 2019, 02:25:24 am

One thing I like is that Convert is the great equalizer between openings. No matter your opening, you could open Convert/Convert and after shuffle 1 have 2 converts and 4 coppers. Not so bad. Buy a third convert hoping to trash both your converts and start building up is a fun way to start the game.

It's only at surface level equalizing though. After you've opened double Convert (which will be the right might on a vast majority of boards, there is a 33% chance that you'll only have 1 Convert in you next hand, which will put you at a significant disadvantage compared to a player who gets to trash both their Converts. Not to mention that there is a major problem with 4 players: Only two people will be able to buy 3 Converts.

I think it's too strong, and it will always play the same (Donate is also super strong, but the question of when to buy it and whether to get 1 or 2 make it interesting to play). Also technically it's not a Reaction, because when-buy and when-trash effects don't turn cards into reactions. It would be a no-type card.

EDIT: I see you addressed the "does not need to be a reaction" question before.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 14, 2019, 11:19:24 am

Quote from: faust on June 14, 2019, 03:52:16 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 14, 2019, 02:25:24 am

One thing I like is that Convert is the great equalizer between openings. No matter your opening, you could open Convert/Convert and after shuffle 1 have 2 converts and 4 coppers. Not so bad. Buy a third convert hoping to trash both your converts and start building up is a fun way to start the game.

It's only at surface level equalizing though. After you've opened double Convert (which will be the right might on a vast majority of boards, there is a 33% chance that you'll only have 1 Convert in you next hand, which will put you at a significant disadvantage compared to a player who gets to trash both their Converts. Not to mention that there is a major problem with 4 players: Only two people will be able to buy 3 Converts.

I think it's too strong, and it will always play the same (Donate is also super strong, but the question of when to buy it and whether to get 1 or 2 make it interesting to play). Also technically it's not a Reaction, because when-buy and when-trash effects don't turn cards into reactions. It would be a no-type card.

EDIT: I see you addressed the "does not need to be a reaction" question before.

Thanks for the feedback.

I'm not sure if "too powerful" is necessarily un-interesting. You almost always open with Chapel. You would almost always open with this. Chapel is interesting. However, I think you're right, making a double-convert opening *always* the best I don't like. I want to make it more of an interesting choice, do I open double convert or convert/$5.

I'm wondering if you think I could minimize the gain on trash ability to be less powerful. Things I also played with "gain a treasure." or "gain a card costing up to 4." I'm wondering if those would be better. I had another idea to make the on-trash give some benefit to other players like draw a card, or gain a copy of the card you gained, or gain a card that costs less than the one you gained. Or perhaps you could gain debt when you trash it.

The 4-player critique is a really helpful one! I definitely hadn't considered that, since I am way biased to 2 player games. Thank you very much. Do you think it would justify making more than 10 cards in the pile? 12 is a magic number that divides evenly between 2, 3 ,and 4 players.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 14, 2019, 12:47:45 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 13, 2019, 07:24:49 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 13, 2019, 05:24:32 pm

Tough challenge this week.

Rather than come up with a card that would competes with other cards you may prefer to buy, I decided to try something a little different: a 0 card cost, that doesn't do much (and in fact, will sometimes get in the way), but still might be worth an extra buy.

Rabbits are a one shot "throne room" for tokens.

[Note: it gives +1 card before repeating the effect of the token, in order to also work better with my entry from last week: Worshippers (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19722.msg803062#msg803062). Feel free to ignore them when evaluating (or not)]

(https://i.imgur.com/CK4Vgl5.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 - initial

FAQ:
• Recommended to use only with Kingdoms having at least one card that gives tokens.
• When you trash Rabbits, you repeat the effect of the token, e.g. if you removed a Villager from it's mat, you would get +1 Action (in addition to the Action you got from removing the Villager).

Secret History:
I'm considering making this a base card and having the FAQ say something like, "In games that use Villagers or Coffers [or Worshippers], add this as a base card X% of the time."

Frankly, it's not worded very well. I know what it means due to what you've said outside of the card, but when I first looked at it, I thought "repeat what effect?" It should say "and repeat the token's effect."

Fair enough. I played around with several versions of the text (your suggestion being one of them) and hoped this one with fewer words would be clear enough. Obviously not, so I'll change for the next version.

Aside from the text, though any thoughts on the concept?

It's purposefully designed to be a card that doesn't do much, but could work well with cards that plan your next turn (hence the top decking).

Is this a card you would consider using an extra buy on sometimes or is it just a dud and I should scrap the concept completely?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 14, 2019, 02:52:26 pm

Quote from: segura on June 14, 2019, 01:55:17 am

Yeah and unlike with BoM and Overlord there is no cost restriction. You could play this as copy of anything: Platinum, Fortune, Prince, City Quarters, Goons, Kings's Court, you name it.
Which is why $4 is likely to be too cheap.

Not necessarily a proof; TR also doesn't have any cost restrictions. (BTW Prince and fortune wouldn't work; Prince will not be in play by cleanup, and fortune is useless if played at the start of your turn). Regardless I decided to change the price.

Quote from: segura on June 14, 2019, 01:55:17 am

Sure, if you want to get hyper-technical it is not necessary and you could always avoid the Duration type.
Here it makes a lot of sense though. It is not like that type was introduced for mere fun back in the days but to remind players visually not to clean up some cards.
Furthermore it is helpful in gauging the strength of cards. When you see something orange, you immediately associate it all the downsides of Durations.

You don't need the visual reminder not to cleanup; it gets set aside at cleanup and played your very next turn. You never have a cleanup of yours (besides the one you play it in) between when it leaves your hand and when it should get cleaned up. I don't think I should make it a duration just to help people gauge its strength, especially because sometimes it plays immediately and sometimes it does not.

You're supposed to be hyper-technical when designing cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 14, 2019, 03:20:41 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 14, 2019, 02:52:26 pm

Quote from: segura on June 14, 2019, 01:55:17 am

Yeah and unlike with BoM and Overlord there is no cost restriction. You could play this as copy of anything: Platinum, Fortune, Prince, City Quarters, Goons, Kings's Court, you name it.
Which is why $4 is likely to be too cheap.

Not necessarily a proof; TR also doesn't have any cost restrictions. (BTW Prince and fortune wouldn't work; Prince will not be in play by cleanup, and fortune is useless if played at the start of your turn). Regardless I decided to change the price.

Technically, Fortune could be useful if you have other start of play abilities. For example, you have the Key, and you have Summoned a (bridge discounted, and journey token enabled) Giant, that's $6 that Fortune could double.

(for fun, an even crazier possibility: if you had played 3 bridges / highways, etc,  Summoning KC and then KC-ing the Giant, plus the key, gives $12 to double)

These, of course, are edge cases. :)

Quote from: naitchman on June 14, 2019, 02:52:26 pm

Quote from: segura on June 14, 2019, 01:55:17 am

Sure, if you want to get hyper-technical it is not necessary and you could always avoid the Duration type.
Here it makes a lot of sense though. It is not like that type was introduced for mere fun back in the days but to remind players visually not to clean up some cards.
Furthermore it is helpful in gauging the strength of cards. When you see something orange, you immediately associate it all the downsides of Durations.

You don't need the visual reminder not to cleanup; it gets set aside at cleanup and played your very next turn. You never have a cleanup of yours (besides the one you play it in) between when it leaves your hand and when it should get cleaned up. I don't think I should make it a duration just to help people gauge its strength, especially because sometimes it plays immediately and sometimes it does not.

You're supposed to be hyper-technical when designing cards.

FWIW, I agree with this not being a Duration.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 14, 2019, 04:52:28 pm

Does anyone know if there are any ordering rules for Reactions like Fool's Gold that multiple people can React with at the same time? For instance, in a 3 player game, Player_01 can buy a Province and both Player_02 and Player_03 can react with Fool's Gold to topdeck a Gold. But what if there is only one Gold left. Who gets it? Player_02 because they are the next player? Or whoever reacted first? The former seems most likely, but I cannot find any rules on this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 14, 2019, 05:07:26 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 14, 2019, 04:52:28 pm

Does anyone know if there are any ordering rules for Reactions like Fool's Gold that multiple people can React with at the same time? For instance, in a 3 player game, Player_01 can buy a Province and both Player_02 and Player_03 can react with Fool's Gold to topdeck a Gold. But what if there is only one Gold left. Who gets it? Player_02 because they are the next player? Or whoever reacted first? The former seems most likely, but I cannot find any rules on this.

The wiki (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Turn#Turn_order) states (emphasis mine):

Whenever an effect happens to more than one player, or multiple effects involving different players try to resolve at the same time, they are resolved in turn order, starting with the player whose turn it is (or the player who last took a turn). This is important particularly with regards to gaining cards: for example, if a player plays Witch, and there's only one Curse left, only the player next in turn order gains a Curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 14, 2019, 05:08:32 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 14, 2019, 04:52:28 pm

Does anyone know if there are any ordering rules for Reactions like Fool's Gold that multiple people can React with at the same time? For instance, in a 3 player game, Player_01 can buy a Province and both Player_02 and Player_03 can react with Fool's Gold to topdeck a Gold. But what if there is only one Gold left. Who gets it? Player_02 because they are the next player? Or whoever reacted first? The former seems most likely, but I cannot find any rules on this.

It's in turn order. It is governed by the general rule that says that any time anything happens to multiple people, it happens in turn order, starting with the current player. So technically what happens is that player_01 buys a Province. Then player_02 either trashes Fool's Gold or passes. Then player_03 either trashes Fool's Gold or passes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on June 14, 2019, 06:28:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sr4biuT.png)

Attempt at a Throne Room for Victory cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on June 14, 2019, 06:41:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/r9jWvHC.png)

I liked the idea of having a pure reaction having a nice on-gain effect that it can also trigger again somehow with the reaction part, almost like a two-shot Event. It just reacts to playing a card because I thought given you need a bunch of unique cards in play anyway for it to be good adding another condition on top of that wasn't appropriate. There's also a thing where reacting in your Action phase might let you draw into the card you gain on the same turn, but waiting until your Buy phase means you can play more uniques and gain something more expensive. It only gains Actions because being able to gain Provinces for $4 is probably silly and it obviously can't gain itself because then you could drain the pile.

It's called Fruit Basket because it's reminiscent of Horn of Plenty and a horn of plenty is just a fancy fruit basket.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 14, 2019, 08:39:26 pm

Quote from: faust on June 13, 2019, 07:48:25 am

Every Reaction that does not specify "from your hand" should be immediately disqualified!

This depends on the whole card text. For example the term "discard" defaults to "from your hand" like "gain" defaults to "from the Supply" if not specified otherwise.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 15, 2019, 04:34:05 am

Quote from: naitchman on June 14, 2019, 02:52:26 pm

Quote from: segura on June 14, 2019, 01:55:17 am

Sure, if you want to get hyper-technical it is not necessary and you could always avoid the Duration type.
Here it makes a lot of sense though. It is not like that type was introduced for mere fun back in the days but to remind players visually not to clean up some cards.
Furthermore it is helpful in gauging the strength of cards. When you see something orange, you immediately associate it all the downsides of Durations.

You don't need the visual reminder not to cleanup; it gets set aside at cleanup and played your very next turn. You never have a cleanup of yours (besides the one you play it in) between when it leaves your hand and when it should get cleaned up. I don't think I should make it a duration just to help people gauge its strength, especially because sometimes it plays immediately and sometimes it does not.

You're supposed to be hyper-technical when designing cards.

My point is that you could phrase any official Duration card such that you it would not require the Duration type. It would be technically correct but not particular practical. Visual stuff in games like icons and colours exists to make game data easier to read than a mere block of text.

I am not a rules expert but as far as I know only Durations can remain in your play area between turns (respectively Durations in combination with TR variants) with Prince being the only exception. And Prince isn't really the best example for a clear design (not a critique of the card, I like it and there unlikely to be a much better way to word it but for many players it takes some time to get their head around).

In other words, ordinary players associate orange stuff with "remaining in your play area" and unless you play with Dominion experts who know all rules and FAQs by hear, such visual reminders are incredibly useful.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 15, 2019, 01:27:43 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 14, 2019, 06:28:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sr4biuT.png)

Attempt at a Throne Room for Victory cards.

Really Cool concept! I feel like there's some ambiguities on what to do with alt victory cards. If you do gardens, you have to count the size of your deck at that time? Distant Lands would be worth 0? Have you thought about different ways of dealing with that (Like OR 1vp for every 2$ it costs...)?

I think it's stronger than it looks. In many ways it's a much stronger Island. In deck-drawing engines, the end-game focusing on provinces, you would almost never buy duchies. In fact, buying 2 of them could be better than 1 province since you only have to line up one before the end of the game to get all those VP back and if you line up 2, well you got a lot more VP. I'm thinking this could potentially cost 6, especially if you add some clause to deal with non-standard victory cards.

But yeah, really cool card and idea! And it really fits best as a pure-reaction card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 15, 2019, 01:28:46 pm

Quote from: segura on June 15, 2019, 04:34:05 am

Quote from: naitchman on June 14, 2019, 02:52:26 pm

Quote from: segura on June 14, 2019, 01:55:17 am

Sure, if you want to get hyper-technical it is not necessary and you could always avoid the Duration type.
Here it makes a lot of sense though. It is not like that type was introduced for mere fun back in the days but to remind players visually not to clean up some cards.
Furthermore it is helpful in gauging the strength of cards. When you see something orange, you immediately associate it all the downsides of Durations.

You don't need the visual reminder not to cleanup; it gets set aside at cleanup and played your very next turn. You never have a cleanup of yours (besides the one you play it in) between when it leaves your hand and when it should get cleaned up. I don't think I should make it a duration just to help people gauge its strength, especially because sometimes it plays immediately and sometimes it does not.

You're supposed to be hyper-technical when designing cards.

My point is that you could phrase any official Duration card such that you it would not require the Duration type. It would be technically correct but not particular practical. Visual stuff in games like icons and colours exists to make game data easier to read than a mere block of text.

I am not a rules expert but as far as I know only Durations can remain in your play area between turns (respectively Durations in combination with TR variants) with Prince being the only exception. And Prince isn't really the best example for a clear design (not a critique of the card, I like it and there unlikely to be a much better way to word it but for many players it takes some time to get their head around).

In other words, ordinary players associate orange stuff with "remaining in your play area" and unless you play with Dominion experts who know all rules and FAQs by hear, such visual reminders are incredibly useful.

Right but the problem is that it doesn't remain in your play area. It doesn't follow the actual rules set for Duration cards, which is that they are only cleaned up when they are done doing something. It doesn't get cleaned up because it isn't in play. You don't clean up set-aside cards, only cards in play. I don't think it makes sense within the rules to make it a Duration, because it will never actually be in play with that type (unless it is copying another Duration card).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 15, 2019, 02:39:54 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 15, 2019, 01:27:43 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 14, 2019, 06:28:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sr4biuT.png)

Attempt at a Throne Room for Victory cards.

Really Cool concept! I feel like there's some ambiguities on what to do with alt victory cards. If you do gardens, you have to count the size of your deck at that time? Distant Lands would be worth 0? Have you thought about different ways of dealing with that (Like OR 1vp for every 2$ it costs...)?

I think it's stronger than it looks. In many ways it's a much stronger Island. In deck-drawing engines, the end-game focusing on provinces, you would almost never buy duchies. In fact, buying 2 of them could be better than 1 province since you only have to line up one before the end of the game to get all those VP back and if you line up 2, well you got a lot more VP. I'm thinking this could potentially cost 6, especially if you add some clause to deal with non-standard victory cards.

But yeah, really cool card and idea! And it really fits best as a pure-reaction card.

Also a big fan of this one. My wording suggestions would be to say either of the following:

(1) "When you gain a Victory card not worth scaling {VP}". "Scaling VP" is about the closest official lingo I could find in the Dominion manual.
(2) "When you gain a Basic Victory card". More straightforward, but eliminates interactions with a few Kingdom Victory cards that don't have scaling VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on June 15, 2019, 09:52:48 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 15, 2019, 02:39:54 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 15, 2019, 01:27:43 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 14, 2019, 06:28:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sr4biuT.png)

Attempt at a Throne Room for Victory cards.

Really Cool concept! I feel like there's some ambiguities on what to do with alt victory cards. If you do gardens, you have to count the size of your deck at that time? Distant Lands would be worth 0? Have you thought about different ways of dealing with that (Like OR 1vp for every 2$ it costs...)?

I think it's stronger than it looks. In many ways it's a much stronger Island. In deck-drawing engines, the end-game focusing on provinces, you would almost never buy duchies. In fact, buying 2 of them could be better than 1 province since you only have to line up one before the end of the game to get all those VP back and if you line up 2, well you got a lot more VP. I'm thinking this could potentially cost 6, especially if you add some clause to deal with non-standard victory cards.

But yeah, really cool card and idea! And it really fits best as a pure-reaction card.

Also a big fan of this one. My wording suggestions would be to say either of the following:

(1) "When you gain a Victory card not worth scaling {VP}". "Scaling VP" is about the closest official lingo I could find in the Dominion manual.
(2) "When you gain a Basic Victory card". More straightforward, but eliminates interactions with a few Kingdom Victory cards that don't have scaling VP.

The idea was that it gives you VP based on what the Victory card is worth the moment you gain it, so yes, for Gardens you would count the size of your deck, and so on, and yes, Distant Lands would not get you any VP. This is what I was trying to get across with the wording "for each VP it is worth in your deck" - that is, how much it's worth at this very moment within the context of being in your deck. I do think it's more interesting if it works for any Victory card. Then again, for something like Silk Road it's going to be really ugly if you don't know off the top of your head how many Victory cards you have. You'd have to do something like look through both your deck and discard pile, then reshuffle your deck. I'll probably change it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on June 16, 2019, 04:16:16 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 15, 2019, 09:52:48 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 15, 2019, 02:39:54 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 15, 2019, 01:27:43 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 14, 2019, 06:28:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sr4biuT.png)

Attempt at a Throne Room for Victory cards.

Really Cool concept! I feel like there's some ambiguities on what to do with alt victory cards. If you do gardens, you have to count the size of your deck at that time? Distant Lands would be worth 0? Have you thought about different ways of dealing with that (Like OR 1vp for every 2$ it costs...)?

I think it's stronger than it looks. In many ways it's a much stronger Island. In deck-drawing engines, the end-game focusing on provinces, you would almost never buy duchies. In fact, buying 2 of them could be better than 1 province since you only have to line up one before the end of the game to get all those VP back and if you line up 2, well you got a lot more VP. I'm thinking this could potentially cost 6, especially if you add some clause to deal with non-standard victory cards.

But yeah, really cool card and idea! And it really fits best as a pure-reaction card.

Also a big fan of this one. My wording suggestions would be to say either of the following:

(1) "When you gain a Victory card not worth scaling {VP}". "Scaling VP" is about the closest official lingo I could find in the Dominion manual.
(2) "When you gain a Basic Victory card". More straightforward, but eliminates interactions with a few Kingdom Victory cards that don't have scaling VP.

The idea was that it gives you VP based on what the Victory card is worth the moment you gain it, so yes, for Gardens you would count the size of your deck, and so on, and yes, Distant Lands would not get you any VP. This is what I was trying to get across with the wording "for each VP it is worth in your deck" - that is, how much it's worth at this very moment within the context of being in your deck. I do think it's more interesting if it works for any Victory card. Then again, for something like Silk Road it's going to be really ugly if you don't know off the top of your head how many Victory cards you have. You'd have to do something like look through both your deck and discard pile, then reshuffle your deck. I'll probably change it.

How about "gain another, setting aside"? It has less confusion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 16, 2019, 10:44:25 am

Quote from: majiponi on June 16, 2019, 04:16:16 am

How about "gain another, setting aside"? It has less confusion.

Seems good. Another option that’s a bit crazier... “set this aside with the gained card. This becomes a copy of that card”.

Stronger because it keeps both VP out of your deck. Maybe even strong enough to give it a $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 16, 2019, 10:53:46 am

These alternate wording suggestions reveal that the card is actually just a Duplicate with the downsides of being one-shot, having to be in your hand at the right time, and only working on Victory cards. But with the upside of not having a price limit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on June 16, 2019, 11:49:03 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 16, 2019, 10:53:46 am

These alternate wording suggestions reveal that the card is actually just a Duplicate with the downsides of being one-shot, having to be in your hand at the right time, and only working on Victory cards. But with the upside of not having a price limit.

Right, I didn't go with "gain a copy of it" because it's too similar to something that already exists. It would also have the important side effect of draining piles, which I think goes against the spirit of the idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 16, 2019, 11:55:46 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 16, 2019, 10:53:46 am

These alternate wording suggestions reveal that the card is actually just a Duplicate with the downsides of being one-shot, having to be in your hand at the right time, and only working on Victory cards. But with the upside of not having a price limit.

The original version has absolutely nothing to do with Duplicate at all as it yields VPs and even the "copy a green card" wouldn't have: non-terminal, no Reserve, no price restriction, one-shot ... that's far too many differences to rationalize a comparison with a Workshop/Smugglers variant like Duplicate.

The only card which Chuckles' card is remotely similar to is Distant Lands. It has the advantage of being non-terminal and potentially producing more than 4VPs and the disadvantage of having to be in your hand when you green. This is why it is likely to be better than Distant Lands in an engine. You can go for overdrawing, try to get some Royal Acquisitions into your deck and only buy a Province once your gain drawers / gain Royal Acquisitions potential seems to have reached its limit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 16, 2019, 02:15:51 pm

CHALLENGE #33 - JUST REACT SUBMISSION:

Pretty straightforward card that reacts to gaining Victory cards. Reacting with it during another players turn is quite hard, but very powerful when you do as the gained card goes into your hand and is ready to be played your next turn. This is almost Wish level good. Reacting with it during your turn is much easier to pull off, but in general you won't be able to use the card right away. Keep in mind if this reacts to you buying something during your Buy phase you likely won't be able to play the gained card even though it's in your hand. There are exceptions to this like Night cards and Villa, etc.

(https://i.imgur.com/m2dMcEK.jpg)

Anyways, I really wanted a card that reacted to something other than gaining, but things weren't really clicking. Kudos to those who came up with stuff along those lines!

Quote

Frontier - Reaction - Cost: $4
When any player (including you) gains an Victory card, you may trash this from your hand to gain a non-Frontier card costing up to $2 more than this to your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 16, 2019, 02:26:18 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 13, 2019, 04:11:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/SLgXGLS.png)

Remote Village
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
----------------
On your turn, when you have 0 actions, you may reveal then play this from your hand.
$4 - Reaction


Wanted to go for something a little different. Since it doesn't have the action type, you can't play it normally. It's a village that only works after you play a terminal. Also you can play it during your Buy or Night phase, which is fun.

Not sure if this should be $3 or $4. I put it at $4 for now because it's basically a worse Bazaar, but can be really nice with terminal draw. Much worse in a kingdom without many terminals or Champion, though.

Big fan of this one, but I think it needs to cost at least $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 16, 2019, 03:35:18 pm

CHALLENGE #33 - JUST REACT SUBMISSION:
EDIT: this is not the final submission, there is an update to the on-trash posted later in this thread

I have made some changes to Convert. Also, convert is meant to be the noun version of convert, not the verb.

There are 12 copies of Convert in the Supply, instead of 10.
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/9wzc1o74.png)

Summary of changes:
- I wanted to make it less of a no-brainer to always open double Convert. So, I weakened the on-gain significantly down. There are now more interesting questions... how many coppers can you afford to trash if you buy two. Do you want to be left with 4 coppers? That means it can be a while until you can get a 5-cost.
- I changed the trashing to happen on gain. This allows for synergy with itself (trash a Convert with upgrade, then gain a Convert to trash your hand) and more flexibility. The "may" clause prevents opponents from trashing your hand with ambassador.

Getting stuck with a Convert isn't so great anymore. I think that Smithy/Silver opening, and *then* trying for a mega-convert turn where you trash a lot more cards, might work in a lot of scenarios, rather than opening double Convert. There are more than 10 cards to allow you to delay Convert while still getting the opportunity to buy them later without them running out. It also lets 4 players all get 3 Converts.

And now I'm including my original thoughts that still apply

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 14, 2019, 02:25:24 am

Well, it seems like I accidentally made something that would have been good for the previous contemplate skipping chapel contest. This sort of acts like an event by giving you the on-buy effect. It's a decent trasher, amazing at trashing the starting estates, but you can't trash the cards you had in play to buy it, and it's stuck in your deck as a dead card. Except it isn't a dead card-- if you can trash it, it turns it to something really special! How do you trash it? You could buy another convert. Whatever this religion is, it's spreading! Be careful, if you had terminal actions in hand, you'll have to lose those in the difficult conversion process. And if you started to collected provinces, well, adding another convert is going to really hurt.

One thing I like is that Convert is the great equalizer between openings. No matter your opening, you could open Convert/Convert and after shuffle 1 have 2 converts and 4 coppers. Not so bad. Buy a third convert hoping to trash both your converts and start building up is a fun way to start the game.

This trashes before the first shuffle. So, there's comparisons to bonfire. Well, as a trasher, bonfire gives you flexibility with the ability to trash cards in play and the ability to decide which ones to trash. You can play a bunch of money to buy some cards and then trash them later. However, Convert forces you to not play your treasures in order to trash them, so it effectively costs at least 1 more for every copper you want to trash. Also, Convert has no flexibility, it always trashes your entire hand. So, while at first it seems like you might always buy convert over bonfire, as soon as the game reaches mid or end-game, you're probably buying bonfire instead to clean things up. Similar to the fast trasher, chapel, The cost of $2 is necessary to make sure both players can open it. If it cost $3, 5/2 would be really brutal as you could only buy a 2-cost card and trash 2 coppers. While the 3/4 player could trash all their estates. The trashing would be a lot worse if it cost more, so then the price wouldn't fit as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 16, 2019, 05:18:33 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 16, 2019, 02:26:18 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 13, 2019, 04:11:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/SLgXGLS.png)

Remote Village
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
----------------
On your turn, when you have 0 actions, you may reveal then play this from your hand.
$4 - Reaction


Wanted to go for something a little different. Since it doesn't have the action type, you can't play it normally. It's a village that only works after you play a terminal. Also you can play it during your Buy or Night phase, which is fun.

Not sure if this should be $3 or $4. I put it at $4 for now because it's basically a worse Bazaar, but can be really nice with terminal draw. Much worse in a kingdom without many terminals or Champion, though.

Big fan of this one, but I think it needs to cost at least $5.

How does it compare to Bazaar then? I think it's significantly weaker, because you have to have a terminal in hand in order to play it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 16, 2019, 05:51:33 pm

I like this Reaction, but I feel it (or the general idea of a village that can't bd drawn dead) would fit better as an Action - Reaction.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 16, 2019, 06:15:44 pm

So, I've decided to change my entry. I still think there's some potential for Rabbits (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803503#msg803503) so I'll eventually post in my own thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19722.0) to get more feedback. But I came up with something I like better for the contest.

It's still in the "not too strong but something to consider getting when you have +1 Buy" category.

---

Retriever

(https://i.imgur.com/eiYxSJC.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 - initial
v0.2 - fixed wording so card is not actually useless
v0.3 - fixed wording (again) to enable multiple Retrievers retrieving multiple discards

FAQ
• If you discard multiple cards (e.g. in reaction to Cellar), you can set aside multiple Retrievers to put that number of discarded cards into your hand.
• If you set aside Retriever during an opponent's turn (e.g. in reaction to Rabble), it is discarded during that opponent's turn.

---

Retriever can be useful to you both during your turns (e.g. When you discard with something like Cellar or Oasis) and other player's turn (e.g. when they attack with Rabble or other cards discard from your deck). Though they won't help with discarding from hand Attacks like Militia or Torturer.

I'm not sure if it's too strong for $0, I also considered $1 or $2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 16, 2019, 06:22:38 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 16, 2019, 05:18:33 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 16, 2019, 02:26:18 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 13, 2019, 04:11:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/SLgXGLS.png)

Remote Village
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
----------------
On your turn, when you have 0 actions, you may reveal then play this from your hand.
$4 - Reaction


Wanted to go for something a little different. Since it doesn't have the action type, you can't play it normally. It's a village that only works after you play a terminal. Also you can play it during your Buy or Night phase, which is fun.

Not sure if this should be $3 or $4. I put it at $4 for now because it's basically a worse Bazaar, but can be really nice with terminal draw. Much worse in a kingdom without many terminals or Champion, though.

Big fan of this one, but I think it needs to cost at least $5.

How does it compare to Bazaar then? I think it's significantly weaker, because you have to have a terminal in hand in order to play it.

Oops. I keep thinking this is an Action - Reaction. Anyone else having this problem?

So yes, this is probably fine at $4 as a pure Reaction. I'm even more intrigued with this card now by the way!

Have you considered an alternative wording that would remove the line and possibly any confusion that it is a pure Reaction? Something like:

"Directly after you finish playing an Action card, if you have no Actions, you may put this in play for +1 Card, +1 Action and +$1."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 16, 2019, 06:36:31 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 16, 2019, 06:22:38 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 16, 2019, 05:18:33 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 16, 2019, 02:26:18 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 13, 2019, 04:11:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/SLgXGLS.png)

Remote Village
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
----------------
On your turn, when you have 0 actions, you may reveal then play this from your hand.
$4 - Reaction


Wanted to go for something a little different. Since it doesn't have the action type, you can't play it normally. It's a village that only works after you play a terminal. Also you can play it during your Buy or Night phase, which is fun.

Not sure if this should be $3 or $4. I put it at $4 for now because it's basically a worse Bazaar, but can be really nice with terminal draw. Much worse in a kingdom without many terminals or Champion, though.

Big fan of this one, but I think it needs to cost at least $5.

How does it compare to Bazaar then? I think it's significantly weaker, because you have to have a terminal in hand in order to play it.

Oops. I keep thinking this is an Action - Reaction. Anyone else having this problem?

So yes, this is probably fine at $4 as a pure Reaction. I'm even more intrigued with this card now by the way!

Have you considered an alternative wording that would remove the line and possibly any confusion that it is a pure Reaction? Something like:

"Directly after you finish playing an Action card, if you have no Actions, you may put this in play for +1 Card, +1 Action and +$1."

The dividing line definitely gives it the look* of an Action-Reaction (which, as I posted, could be a more interesting card).

(*) I just noticed the reaction background color - nice! I just changed mine as to that.

For just a reaction, I prefer Kudasai's alternative wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 16, 2019, 07:38:23 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 16, 2019, 06:15:44 pm

So, I've decided to change my entry. I still think there's some potential for Rabbits (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803503#msg803503) so I'll eventually post in my own thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19722.0) to get more feedback. But I came up with something I like better for the contest.

It's still in the "not too strong but something to consider getting when you have +1 Buy" category.

Retriever

(https://i.imgur.com/78hjdGj.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 - initial

Retriever can be useful to you both during your turns (e.g. When you discard with something like Cellar or Oasis) and other player's turn (e.g. when they attack with Rabble or other cards discard from your deck). Though they won't help with discarding from hand Attacks like Militia or Torturer.

I'm not sure if it's too strong for $0, I also considered $1 or $2.

Just realized the wording here doesn't work - you would discard a card, then discard Retriever, losing track of the initial discard, making Retriever as worded useless.

v0.2, with fixed wording:

(https://i.imgur.com/OQVXJz2.png)

Also, my examples of Cellar or Oasis are not nearly as useful as I first thought. When cards discard other cards from your hand, reacting with Retriever usually* results in the same effect as if you just discarded Retriever.

(*) an example edge case is if you have 2 Cellars, a Tunnel, and a Retriever in your hand

The good news is that there are still plenty of cards that discard during your turn from the top of the deck, for example, Hunting Party, and other cards where you "discard the rest".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 17, 2019, 02:13:31 am

Quote from: Kudasai on June 16, 2019, 06:22:38 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 16, 2019, 05:18:33 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 16, 2019, 02:26:18 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 13, 2019, 04:11:58 am

Remote Village
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
----------------
On your turn, when you have 0 actions, you may reveal then play this from your hand.
$4 - Reaction


Wanted to go for something a little different. Since it doesn't have the action type, you can't play it normally. It's a village that only works after you play a terminal. Also you can play it during your Buy or Night phase, which is fun.

Not sure if this should be $3 or $4. I put it at $4 for now because it's basically a worse Bazaar, but can be really nice with terminal draw. Much worse in a kingdom without many terminals or Champion, though.

Big fan of this one, but I think it needs to cost at least $5.

How does it compare to Bazaar then? I think it's significantly weaker, because you have to have a terminal in hand in order to play it.

Oops. I keep thinking this is an Action - Reaction. Anyone else having this problem?

So yes, this is probably fine at $4 as a pure Reaction. I'm even more intrigued with this card now by the way!

Have you considered an alternative wording that would remove the line and possibly any confusion that it is a pure Reaction? Something like:

"Directly after you finish playing an Action card, if you have no Actions, you may put this in play for +1 Card, +1 Action and +$1."

I like that alternate wording a lot better, it makes it more clear that you can't just play it during your action phase. Here's the updated card:

(https://i.imgur.com/PFWP3n8.png)

Quote from: scolapasta on June 16, 2019, 06:36:31 pm

The dividing line definitely gives it the look* of an Action-Reaction (which, as I posted, could be a more interesting card).

(*) I just noticed the reaction background color - nice! I just changed mine as to that.

For just a reaction, I prefer Kudasai's alternative wording.

Yeah the alternate wording is definitely better. I feel it's a little more interesting as a pure Reaction, because then it's not as powerful and you have to be a little more tactful in how many you buy. If you start with a hand of 3 Remote Villages, you can't do anything with them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 17, 2019, 05:40:06 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 16, 2019, 07:38:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OQVXJz2.png)

Also, my examples of Cellar or Oasis were incorrect. When cards discard other cards from your hand, you would just choose to discard Retriever.

The good news is that there are still plenty of cards that discard during your turn from the top of the deck, for example, Hunting Party, and other cards where you "discard the rest".

This card makes me think of rule questions... like when you discard multiple cards from your hand (Cellar/Warehouse-style), do you do that one at a time or all at once? If the latter, I am unclear on whether you could react to a multiple discard with 2 Retrievers to get 2 cards or if in that case lose-track would apply for the cards that aren't on top of your discard pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 17, 2019, 05:46:45 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 16, 2019, 03:35:18 pm

Do you want to be left with 4 coppers? That means it can be a while until you can get a 5-cost.

The timeline is like this: open Convert/Convert, T3 trash Converts for 2 Silver (this only has a 2/3 chance of happening), T4 have 2*Silver, 3*Copper, Convert, guaranteed to hit $5. So it really doesn't take that long. I think it's better to weaken it like this, but I think double Convert is still the best play most of the time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on June 17, 2019, 09:18:55 am

Insurance
Reaction - $2
Directly after any player finishes playing an Action card, if you have fewer than 5 cards in your hand, you may reveal or discard this from your hand to draw until you have 5 cards in your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 17, 2019, 09:22:53 am

Quote from: faust on June 17, 2019, 05:40:06 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 16, 2019, 07:38:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OQVXJz2.png)

Also, my examples of Cellar or Oasis were incorrect. When cards discard other cards from your hand, you would just choose to discard Retriever.

The good news is that there are still plenty of cards that discard during your turn from the top of the deck, for example, Hunting Party, and other cards where you "discard the rest".

This card makes me think of rule questions... like when you discard multiple cards from your hand (Cellar/Warehouse-style), do you do that one at a time or all at once? If the latter, I am unclear on whether you could react to a multiple discard with 2 Retrievers to get 2 cards or if in that case lose-track would apply for the cards that aren't on top of your discard pile.

It's all at once; this has always mattered in terms of giving your opponent info; they only get to see the card you choose to put on top of your discard.

So yes, Lose Track should apply. It seems similar to Tunnel, which already requires you to reveal a card that is lost tack of if you discard multiple Tunnels, but Tunnel's reaction doesn't require you to actually move it; only to reveal it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 17, 2019, 10:51:58 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 17, 2019, 09:22:53 am

Quote from: faust on June 17, 2019, 05:40:06 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 16, 2019, 07:38:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OQVXJz2.png)

Also, my examples of Cellar or Oasis were incorrect. When cards discard other cards from your hand, you would just choose to discard Retriever.

The good news is that there are still plenty of cards that discard during your turn from the top of the deck, for example, Hunting Party, and other cards where you "discard the rest".

This card makes me think of rule questions... like when you discard multiple cards from your hand (Cellar/Warehouse-style), do you do that one at a time or all at once? If the latter, I am unclear on whether you could react to a multiple discard with 2 Retrievers to get 2 cards or if in that case lose-track would apply for the cards that aren't on top of your discard pile.

It's all at once; this has always mattered in terms of giving your opponent info; they only get to see the card you choose to put on top of your discard.

So yes, Lose Track should apply. It seems similar to Tunnel, which already requires you to reveal a card that is lost tack of if you discard multiple Tunnels, but Tunnel's reaction doesn't require you to actually move it; only to reveal it.

Very good points! Seems like two potential issues:

1. Retriever gets discarded on top of the discards and you would lose track of anything below.
2. Discards for cards like Cellar are all at once.

The first can definitely be solved by another rewording: if you first set Retriever aside and discard at a later point (Clean-up, for example), then it won't immediately cover anything up.

Would this also handle the 2nd case, since you would have moved the top card from the discard into your hand?

In other words:
You Discard two cards, A and B, putting A on top B on top of discard pile.
Set aside 1st Retriever, move A to your hand (revealing B now on top of discard pile).
Set aside 2nd Retriever, move B to your hand.

Is that correct? Or are you not able to "recover" track of B after it gets covered up? I'm pretty sure I've read some similar examples somewhere, so I'll look and see if I can find any precedent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 17, 2019, 10:56:22 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 17, 2019, 10:51:58 am

Is that correct? Or are you not able to "recover" track of B after it gets covered up? I'm pretty sure I've read some similar examples somewhere, so I'll look and see if I can find any precedent.

I am pretty sure you aren't allowed to "recover" track. The canonical example is Watchtower + Border Village. Gain Border Village. Resolve its on-gain to gain Duchy. React with Watchtower to put Duchy on top of deck. You are not allowed to now also react with Watchtower to put Border Village on deck, because Border Village has been lost track of. It was covered up at a point in time, it doesn't matter that it's not covered up any more.

(In that case you could just resolve the on-gain in a different order to first put Border Village on hand and then gain Duchy if you wanted).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 17, 2019, 11:24:23 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 17, 2019, 10:56:22 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 17, 2019, 10:51:58 am

Is that correct? Or are you not able to "recover" track of B after it gets covered up? I'm pretty sure I've read some similar examples somewhere, so I'll look and see if I can find any precedent.

I am pretty sure you aren't allowed to "recover" track. The canonical example is Watchtower + Border Village. Gain Border Village. Resolve its on-gain to gain Duchy. React with Watchtower to put Duchy on top of deck. You are not allowed to now also react with Watchtower to put Border Village on deck, because Border Village has been lost track of. It was covered up at a point in time, it doesn't matter that it's not covered up any more.

(In that case you could just resolve the on-gain in a different order to first put Border Village on hand and then gain Duchy if you wanted).

Great example, that case makes sense. So "recover track" is not allowed.

However, that is in cases where the gains are separate actions. With discarding all at once, I'm still unsure if lose track applies. Please bear with me. and a couple of potential examples :)

1. When you clean-up, I've also interpreted that as everything being discarded all at once. But then you'd only be able to Scheme one card, no? Or is my interpretation incorrect?

2. I feel like Faithful Hound is the closest example (where Faithful Hound retrieves itself, instead of another card). With this interpretation, if you reveal two Faithful Hounds to a Cellar, you would only be able to set one aside. I hoped to find an official ruling on this, but have not yet.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 17, 2019, 11:34:12 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 17, 2019, 11:24:23 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 17, 2019, 10:56:22 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 17, 2019, 10:51:58 am

Is that correct? Or are you not able to "recover" track of B after it gets covered up? I'm pretty sure I've read some similar examples somewhere, so I'll look and see if I can find any precedent.

I am pretty sure you aren't allowed to "recover" track. The canonical example is Watchtower + Border Village. Gain Border Village. Resolve its on-gain to gain Duchy. React with Watchtower to put Duchy on top of deck. You are not allowed to now also react with Watchtower to put Border Village on deck, because Border Village has been lost track of. It was covered up at a point in time, it doesn't matter that it's not covered up any more.

(In that case you could just resolve the on-gain in a different order to first put Border Village on hand and then gain Duchy if you wanted).

Great example, that case makes sense. So "recover track" is not allowed.

However, that is in cases where the gains are separate actions. With discarding all at once, I'm still unsure if lose track applies. Please bear with me. and a couple of potential examples :)

1. When you clean-up, I've also interpreted that as everything being discarded all at once. But then you'd only be able to Scheme one card, no? Or is my interpretation incorrect?

2. I feel like Faithful Hound is the closest example (where Faithful Hound retrieves itself, instead of another card). With this interpretation, if you reveal two Faithful Hounds to a Cellar, you would only be able to set one aside. I hoped to find an official ruling on this, but have not yet.

Hmm, I think that both Scheme and Faithful Hound imply that Retriever would work. Perhaps the reason this works here is that no effect started tracking the discarded cards until after they were already covered up. Effects start tracking at a certain point, and Lose Track applies when a card is moved (or covered up; because covered up is a type of moving; moving from the top of the discard pile to no longer the top of the discard pile).

In the case of discarding multiple cards at once; the second-to-top card in your discard pile was always the second-to-top card of your discard pile from the time that an effect started caring about it. It didn't go from being top-of-discard to no longer top-of-discard. So Lose Track won't apply. Instead, the effect is expecting the card to be second-from-top of discard, and that is in fact where it is; so it can be moved.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 17, 2019, 12:55:42 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 17, 2019, 11:34:12 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 17, 2019, 11:24:23 am

1. When you clean-up, I've also interpreted that as everything being discarded all at once. But then you'd only be able to Scheme one card, no? Or is my interpretation incorrect?

2. I feel like Faithful Hound is the closest example (where Faithful Hound retrieves itself, instead of another card). With this interpretation, if you reveal two Faithful Hounds to a Cellar, you would only be able to set one aside. I hoped to find an official ruling on this, but have not yet.

Hmm, I think that both Scheme and Faithful Hound imply that Retriever would work. Perhaps the reason this works here is that no effect started tracking the discarded cards until after they were already covered up. Effects start tracking at a certain point, and Lose Track applies when a card is moved (or covered up; because covered up is a type of moving; moving from the top of the discard pile to no longer the top of the discard pile).

In the case of discarding multiple cards at once; the second-to-top card in your discard pile was always the second-to-top card of your discard pile from the time that an effect started caring about it. It didn't go from being top-of-discard to no longer top-of-discard. So Lose Track won't apply. Instead, the effect is expecting the card to be second-from-top of discard, and that is in fact where it is; so it can be moved.

Right, so lose track doesn't come into play, because the card neither moves nor is covered up* after it's discarded.

(*) with latest and greatest wording, v0.3

(https://i.imgur.com/eiYxSJC.png)

And it's corresponding FAQ:

FAQ
• If you discard multiple cards (e.g. in reaction to Cellar), you can set aside multiple Retrievers to put that number of discarded cards into your hand.
• If you set aside Retriever during an opponent's turn (e.g. in reaction to Rabble), it is discarded during that opponent's turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Frolouch on June 17, 2019, 02:13:04 pm

Here's my pure reaction card - with two choices.

(https://imgur.com/N0dpxSY.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 17, 2019, 02:23:09 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on June 17, 2019, 02:13:04 pm

Here's my pure reaction card - with two choices.

(https://imgur.com/N0dpxSY.png)

Having just gone through this with my Retriever (albeit on discard instead of gain), this needs to be reworded for the 2nd part.

As it stands:
1. You gain a card X, putting it on your discard pile.
2. You discard Secret Cove.
3. You try to put card X into your hand, but it has been covered by Secret Cove (lose track rule).

Also, you don't need "Choose one:" - it can just has two separate triggers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 17, 2019, 02:38:18 pm

Quote from: Frolouch on June 17, 2019, 02:13:04 pm

Here's my pure reaction card - with two choices.

(https://imgur.com/N0dpxSY.png)

The "Choose one" bit doesn't really make sense, because there's never a time when you are choosing which of the 2 options to do. Rather, when you gain a card, you can choose to react or not. And when an opponent plays an attack, you can choose to react or not. But you can never just choose one of those 2 options.

As for the functionality, it sounds like it's just a much weaker version of Watchtower. The second reaction is a strictly weaker version of Watchtower's reaction; both because you can't trash the incoming card and because you have to discard Secret Cove to do it; so you can't use it on multiple cards in the same turn. The first reaction seems very weak; a conditional one-shot that gains a Gold... even if it discarded instead of trashing itself that wouldn't be a strong effect.

And on top of that; Watchtower has an on-play ability and costs less.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: wittyhowlard on June 17, 2019, 09:45:57 pm

Quick question - does a Reaction-Duration card not qualify? I have an idea, but could always use it another time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: wittyhowlard on June 17, 2019, 10:19:47 pm

EDIT: The card below has been modified. I've replaced the below with the new image, and there's also a new post

Never mind - thought of another idea. I dislike boards with limited or no trashing, so this is another entry to help out what that, especially in the opening rounds. This also pays homage to overpaying, an oft-neglected mechanic but one of my favourites in the game.

(https://imgur.com/lRheTI9.jpg)

Tithe
Reaction - $1
When you buy any Action card in the supply, you may overpay for it. If you do, discard this card from your hand. Trash two cards from your hand for each $1 you overpaid by.
-
When you buy this, +1 buy and put this into your hand.


Not sure what the power level is like, but I liken it to a Bonfire, except the Reaction takes up space in your deck until you get rid of it later. I also see this as a quasi-Villa of trashing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on June 17, 2019, 10:36:08 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 17, 2019, 10:19:47 pm

(https://imgur.com/TJNGHLl.jpg)

Tithe
Reaction - $1
When you buy any Action card in the supply, you may overpay for it. If you do, discard this card from your hand. Trash two cards from your hand for each $1 you overpaid by.
-
When you buy this, +1 buy and put this into your hand.

The discarding should be before the overpaying. Otherwise there's no accountability.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on June 17, 2019, 10:47:50 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/xw4CuQh.png)

Changed it so it only works for non-variable VP. Most of the time you'll just be using it on Provinces anyway. And it works for Colonies, so that's interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 18, 2019, 12:15:16 pm

It is a slight nerf and I guess it also makes the card more smooth.

Gardens is something you could do via card counting but for Feodum, Silk Road and Vineyard you'd have to reveal your hand, deck and discard pile and then count everything. That's cumbersome and you'd then need some extra rule about how you do it. One way would be to reveal your hand, discard your deck and then reveal your discard pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: wittyhowlard on June 18, 2019, 03:56:55 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 17, 2019, 10:36:08 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 17, 2019, 10:19:47 pm

(https://imgur.com/TJNGHLl.jpg)

Tithe
Reaction - $1
When you buy any Action card in the supply, you may overpay for it. If you do, discard this card from your hand. Trash two cards from your hand for each $1 you overpaid by.
-
When you buy this, +1 buy and put this into your hand.

The discarding should be before the overpaying. Otherwise there's no accountability.

I think that's only necessary when you get a benefit from overpaying. In this case, without Tithe there's no benefit to players for overpaying for actions (absent any other overpay cards in the Kingdom).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 18, 2019, 04:38:19 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 18, 2019, 03:56:55 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 17, 2019, 10:36:08 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 17, 2019, 10:19:47 pm

(https://imgur.com/TJNGHLl.jpg)

Tithe
Reaction - $1
When you buy any Action card in the supply, you may overpay for it. If you do, discard this card from your hand. Trash two cards from your hand for each $1 you overpaid by.
-
When you buy this, +1 buy and put this into your hand.

The discarding should be before the overpaying. Otherwise there's no accountability.

I think that's only necessary when you get a benefit from overpaying. In this case, without Tithe there's no benefit to players for overpaying for actions (absent any other overpay cards in the Kingdom).

I'm not clear what you mean... without Tithe, you wouldn't be allowed to overpay for a card. So when you buy a card, you should have to discard (or at least reveal) Tithe in order to be allowed to overpay for it. Then you would get the benefit for overpaying. As worded, it just says you are allowed to overpay, but it doesn't say what's actually allowing you to do that. Presumably, you want having Tithe in hand to be the thing that allows it.

Also, it's not clear how this will work with overpay cards. If you buy Doctor and overpay by 2, can you get both the Tithe benefit and the Doctor benefit?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 18, 2019, 04:55:31 pm

Kind reminder, that the current contest will end tomorrow (June 20, 00:00 UTC+0).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 19, 2019, 01:38:41 pm

Final update.
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/2mal6y6s.png)
There are 12 copies of Convert in the Supply

-now you have to think more carefully about how many coppers you trash, if you trash all the way down to 4, you won’t be able to afford a 5 for some time, especially since the cards you gain won't be able to produce $.
-now there is the really complex and interesting decision about how many coppers to trash, and there's many more situations in which you would delay buying Converts.

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 16, 2019, 03:35:18 pm

CHALLENGE #33 - JUST REACT SUBMISSION:

I have made some changes to Convert. Also, convert is meant to be the noun version of convert, not the verb.

There are 12 copies of Convert in the Supply, instead of 10.
Summary of changes:
- I wanted to make it less of a no-brainer to always open double Convert. So, I weakened the on-gain significantly down. There are now more interesting questions... how many coppers can you afford to trash if you buy two. Do you want to be left with 4 coppers? That means it can be a while until you can get a 5-cost.
- I changed the trashing to happen on gain. This allows for synergy with itself (trash a Convert with upgrade, then gain a Convert to trash your hand) and more flexibility. The "may" clause prevents opponents from trashing your hand with ambassador.

Getting stuck with a Convert isn't so great anymore. I think that Smithy/Silver opening, and *then* trying for a mega-convert turn where you trash a lot more cards, might work in a lot of scenarios, rather than opening double Convert. There are more than 10 cards to allow you to delay Convert while still getting the opportunity to buy them later without them running out. It also lets 4 players all get 3 Converts.

And now I'm including my original thoughts that still apply

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 14, 2019, 02:25:24 am

Well, it seems like I accidentally made something that would have been good for the previous contemplate skipping chapel contest. This sort of acts like an event by giving you the on-buy effect. It's a decent trasher, amazing at trashing the starting estates, but you can't trash the cards you had in play to buy it, and it's stuck in your deck as a dead card. Except it isn't a dead card-- if you can trash it, it turns it to something really special! How do you trash it? You could buy another convert. Whatever this religion is, it's spreading! Be careful, if you had terminal actions in hand, you'll have to lose those in the difficult conversion process. And if you started to collected provinces, well, adding another convert is going to really hurt.

One thing I like is that Convert is the great equalizer between openings. No matter your opening, you could open Convert/Convert and after shuffle 1 have 2 converts and 4 coppers. Not so bad. Buy a third convert hoping to trash both your converts and start building up is a fun way to start the game.

This trashes before the first shuffle. So, there's comparisons to bonfire. Well, as a trasher, bonfire gives you flexibility with the ability to trash cards in play and the ability to decide which ones to trash. You can play a bunch of money to buy some cards and then trash them later. However, Convert forces you to not play your treasures in order to trash them, so it effectively costs at least 1 more for every copper you want to trash. Also, Convert has no flexibility, it always trashes your entire hand. So, while at first it seems like you might always buy convert over bonfire, as soon as the game reaches mid or end-game, you're probably buying bonfire instead to clean things up. Similar to the fast trasher, chapel, The cost of $2 is necessary to make sure both players can open it. If it cost $3, 5/2 would be really brutal as you could only buy a 2-cost card and trash 2 coppers. While the 3/4 player could trash all their estates. The trashing would be a lot worse if it cost more, so then the price wouldn't fit as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: wittyhowlard on June 19, 2019, 03:26:25 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 18, 2019, 04:38:19 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 18, 2019, 03:56:55 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 17, 2019, 10:36:08 pm

The discarding should be before the overpaying. Otherwise there's no accountability.

I think that's only necessary when you get a benefit from overpaying. In this case, without Tithe there's no benefit to players for overpaying for actions (absent any other overpay cards in the Kingdom).

I'm not clear what you mean... without Tithe, you wouldn't be allowed to overpay for a card. So when you buy a card, you should have to discard (or at least reveal) Tithe in order to be allowed to overpay for it. Then you would get the benefit for overpaying. As worded, it just says you are allowed to overpay, but it doesn't say what's actually allowing you to do that. Presumably, you want having Tithe in hand to be the thing that allows it.

Also, it's not clear how this will work with overpay cards. If you buy Doctor and overpay by 2, can you get both the Tithe benefit and the Doctor benefit?

Thanks for the feedback. You're right, you can only overpay if the cards say so. I've simplified my submission and removed the overpay mechanic, I think this is a lot better.

(https://imgur.com/lRheTI9.jpg)

Tithe
Reaction - $1
When you buy any Action card in the supply, you may discard this from your hand. Trash a card from your hand for each $1 the Action cost.
-
When you buy this, +1 buy and put this into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 19, 2019, 03:44:30 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 19, 2019, 03:26:25 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 18, 2019, 04:38:19 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 18, 2019, 03:56:55 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 17, 2019, 10:36:08 pm

The discarding should be before the overpaying. Otherwise there's no accountability.

I think that's only necessary when you get a benefit from overpaying. In this case, without Tithe there's no benefit to players for overpaying for actions (absent any other overpay cards in the Kingdom).

I'm not clear what you mean... without Tithe, you wouldn't be allowed to overpay for a card. So when you buy a card, you should have to discard (or at least reveal) Tithe in order to be allowed to overpay for it. Then you would get the benefit for overpaying. As worded, it just says you are allowed to overpay, but it doesn't say what's actually allowing you to do that. Presumably, you want having Tithe in hand to be the thing that allows it.

Also, it's not clear how this will work with overpay cards. If you buy Doctor and overpay by 2, can you get both the Tithe benefit and the Doctor benefit?

Thanks for the feedback. You're right, you can only overpay if the cards say so. I've simplified my submission and removed the overpay mechanic, I think this is a lot better.

(https://imgur.com/lRheTI9.jpg)

Tithe
Reaction - $1
When you buy any Action card in the supply, you may discard this from your hand. Trash a card from your hand for each $1 the Action cost.
-
When you buy this, +1 buy and put this into your hand.

You could still get the overpay effect by saying “when you buy an Action card, you may reveal them discard this from your hand. Trash a card per $1 left you have unspent.” It makes it a little more powerful too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on June 19, 2019, 08:30:50 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 19, 2019, 03:26:25 pm

(https://imgur.com/lRheTI9.jpg)

Tithe
Reaction - $1
When you buy any Action card in the supply, you may discard this from your hand. Trash a card from your hand for each $1 the Action cost.
-
When you buy this, +1 buy and put this into your hand.

This pile can empty instantly. Donald X. Considers this a bad thing when designing cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 19, 2019, 10:38:49 pm

Quote from: kru5h on June 19, 2019, 08:30:50 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 19, 2019, 03:26:25 pm

(https://imgur.com/lRheTI9.jpg)

Tithe
Reaction - $1
When you buy any Action card in the supply, you may discard this from your hand. Trash a card from your hand for each $1 the Action cost.
-
When you buy this, +1 buy and put this into your hand.

This pile can empty instantly. Donald X. Considers this a bad thing when designing cards.

How? Forum can do the same thing, albeit with more _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} required to get multiple.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 19, 2019, 10:59:48 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 19, 2019, 10:38:49 pm

Quote from: kru5h on June 19, 2019, 08:30:50 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 19, 2019, 03:26:25 pm

(https://imgur.com/lRheTI9.jpg)

Tithe
Reaction - $1
When you buy any Action card in the supply, you may discard this from your hand. Trash a card from your hand for each $1 the Action cost.
-
When you buy this, +1 buy and put this into your hand.

This pile can empty instantly. Donald X. Considers this a bad thing when designing cards.

How? Forum can do the same thing, albeit with more _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} required to get multiple.

It's much easier with this. Having a single cost-reducer in play is much more common than having 5. Along the same lines, having $10 is much easier than having $50.

Besides, technically you can do this with any card. It's possible to have 10 buys on a turn. It's just a question of how easy it is. A card which costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} and doesn't cost a buy makes it much easier than every other card in the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 20, 2019, 12:06:04 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 19, 2019, 10:59:48 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 19, 2019, 10:38:49 pm

Quote from: kru5h on June 19, 2019, 08:30:50 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 19, 2019, 03:26:25 pm

(https://imgur.com/lRheTI9.jpg)

Tithe
Reaction - $1
When you buy any Action card in the supply, you may discard this from your hand. Trash a card from your hand for each $1 the Action cost.
-
When you buy this, +1 buy and put this into your hand.

This pile can empty instantly. Donald X. Considers this a bad thing when designing cards.

How? Forum can do the same thing, albeit with more _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} required to get multiple.

It's much easier with this. Having a single cost-reducer in play is much more common than having 5. Along the same lines, having $10 is much easier than having $50.

Besides, technically you can do this with any card. It's possible to have 10 buys on a turn. It's just a question of how easy it is. A card which costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} and doesn't cost a buy makes it much easier than every other card in the game.

I understand why you attached the +buy. It seems too weak to cost an entire buy. Because the secret in card design is that buys are precious resource, often more precious of a resource than $ is. Especially early on. And you want to buy this card early on because it's a trasher, but it seems too weak to be worth it to cost a buy. Thus you always attach it with a +buy. I recommend the following changes:

- "When you gain a card, you may discard this from your hand to trash a card from your hand for each 1$ the card costs." (I believe that when you buy a card, and then you gain it, so this would have the same abilities as before but now you can do it with gainers as well)
- "When this is your first buy in a turn, +1 buy" (prevents easy pile out. Notice how I take the wording from Messenger)
- You may add a  "This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile)." Similiar to Nocturne's night cards, if you want. I think you might get rid of this gain to hand idea though, it doesn't seem super necessary to me.

I don't understand why you restricted it to only action cards, and why you restricted it to only buys.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 21, 2019, 09:18:27 am

So is the judging today?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 21, 2019, 11:14:37 am

Quote from: naitchman on June 21, 2019, 09:18:27 am

So is the judging today?

Yes, please give me some time. There are 24 entries this time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 21, 2019, 12:00:45 pm

No problem, didn't mean to rush you. Looking forward to it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 21, 2019, 01:02:36 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 21, 2019, 09:18:27 am

So is the judging today?

Disqualify! ;P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 21, 2019, 02:42:35 pm

(This took me over three hours. Phew!)

Buried Loot (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803385#msg803385) by GendoIkari
$6: Instead gaining a card, discard to gain a card costing exactly $3 more

This is often better than Gold. For example, it converts Curses to Silver and is protected against Noble Brigand. Because there is always the $3 gap between Silver and Gold or Duchy and Province, it is rare to pull the blank. It has some interesting interaction with on-buy effects and overpay cards, but it is too similar to Gold, that it is not worth the kingdom slot.

Aristocrat (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803387#msg803387) by segura
$4: Discard to gain a copy of a card costing up to $6 gained by any player

An interesting Smugglers variant (especially in multiplayer games), which may be broken at the end of the game, when Duchies or Gardens are attractive targets. It should say non-Victory card, I think.

Science Fair (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803392#msg803392) by hhelibebcnofnena
$5: On-draw lab

Like GendoIkari said, this is difficult to verify. You can put cards into your hand without drawing them (for example with Native Village or Envoy). In fact this would require you to draw each card one by one to avoid a complete chaos. Unlike the normal lab, this cannot be drawn dead. On the other hand, this is slightly weaker with draw-to-X, cannot be Throne Roomed etc. Because it is still too similar to Lab, I cannot let this win.

Economist (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803414#msg803414) by Chappy7
$4: Discard to gain a Treasure card when any player gains a card costing $5 or more

This is an interesting one. You first decrease your money density in the hope to get Gold / Platinum later. Simple, but very nice.

Firth Guild (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803426#msg803426) by ClouduHieh
$4: Discard to attack to get 2 Coffers and attacker gets 1 Debt. Discard when another player gains a victory card to gain a cheaper card

Unfortunately I have to disqualify this, because of a possible Secret Chamber loop. It is also too political and may lead players to completely avoid buying Attack cards. Please do not be mad at me, I would recommend to read the Dominion Fan Card Creation Guide (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=699.0) to avoid common pitfalls.

Sentinel (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803428#msg803428) by artless
$3: Discard to draw a card when another player gains a Victory card. Works as Buy-phase-only Bridge from your discard pile.

It is impossible to keep track of this card. The problem is, that you are not allowed to look through your discard pile unless a card allows you to do so.

Design (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803429#msg803429) by Fragasnap
P: When a player plays 1 or less actions, trash for a card costing up to $5P (On buy: +1 Buy)

This is also a nice one, especially in 2 player games, it encourages players to play engine strategies. The Potion cost is ingenious, as it prevents you from buying too many of these and also allows you to gain other Potion cards. Alchemy is an Action-card intensive set, so this fits perfectly.

Blockade (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803433#msg803433) by Gubump
$4: Put on top of a pile. When you gain an Action card and use this effect, gain a Gold and a Silver.

This feels similar to an early version of Embargo. A non-terminal one-shot which gains a Gold and a Silver and blocks a pile is not bad, but there were more interesting submissions.

Foundry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803437#msg803437) by mandioca15
$4: Trash to gain two cheaper cards, when another player gains a card.

A non-terminal Feast, which can gain two $5 Action cards, Duchies or Golds is too powerful.

Leasehold (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803442#msg803442) by faust
$3: Triples tokens. Comes with +1 VP

An interesting Estate variant. Even if you decide to trash it later, it keeps the Victory Point. Probably too strong with Groundskeeper, Plunder, Bishop and similar cards.

Remote Village (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803744#msg803744) by mail-mi
$4: Bazaar, which can only be played after terminals

Remote Village is a Bazaar, but only if you have played a terminal Action before. Unlike Throne Room you actually can play it after the Action card, so it is very useful together with Terminal drawers. However, I'm worried that this could be a dead card in some kingdoms. Overall, not a bad card, but it did not make the cut.

Converter (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803446#msg803446) by Aquila
$5: Discard cards for Villagers, convert +Cards to +Coffers

This works well with draw-to-X cards, but Fishing Village does this much better. Interestingly it does not turn Faithful Hounds into Labs. I don’t know where the $5 price tag comes from, but this is normally not worth its money.

Replica (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803447#msg803447) by majiponi
$2: Trash to duplicate a card costing up to $6.

A non-terminal Duplicate, which has to be trashed from your hand instead of being discarded from your Tavern mat. Unlike Feast it can only gain a duplicate of another card you just gain. Because it also reduces your buying power, it is hard to get $6 early. It can be very frustrating if your opponent Silver+Replica and draws Silver, 3xCopper, Replica in turn 3.

Lodestone (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803452#msg803452) by hypercube
$4: Like Watchtower, but into your hand

Unfortunately, this can empty the Ironworks pile. It also need much support depending on the kingdom. While the idea sounds promising, this just does not seem to work in practise.

Illusionist (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803469#msg803469) by 4est
$2: Convert any Action card into simple Library

This works well with Ruins and also see Synergy with Vineyards and Tunnel. Interestingly. Starting Chapel + Illusionist is not as bad, because the Illusionist can convert the Chapel in something more useful. it also helps you to get engine parts, but only if you have enough +Actions, because the big drawback is that this is terminal. Usually Jack-of-all-Trades or Smithy are the better terminal drawers.

Copy (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803484#msg803484) by naitchman
$5: Copies a card another player has in play

Unlike Band of Misfits this is unterminal, cannot be drawn dead and not limited to cards costing up to $4. The big disadvantage is, that the card is played at the start of your next turn, which makes it less flexible and does not work well with cards like Library, for example. In the most cases, you want to copy Gold or sometimes an interesting Action card. Definitively one of the better cards in the contest.

Convert (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg804190#msg804190) by anordinaryman
$2: On-gain: You may trash your hand. On-trash: Gain an Action card without +$ costing up to $4.

This card even does not require the Reaction type. It can be in fact type-less. It is very hard to judge this card. So, it would also fit into the last contest as a Chapel replacement. There are some similarities with Trade or Donate, but this one is more flexible. I can imagine starting Convert/Village_Variant and later buying another Convert to convert the first Convert to an Engine part. The $2 is too cheap in my opinion, because a lucky 5/2 player can gain a $5 card and get rid of three Estates. It would be also interesting to see if an asymmetric game with a player who goes for Convert and another player who does not, works at all. (Asymmetric Chapel games are possible, but hard to win as the non-chapel player.)

Fruit Basket (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803572#msg803572) by Gazbag
$4: On-buy Horn of Plenty which can trash itself for another Horn of Plenty effect. Can only gain Action cards
This is harder to pull of than Engineer, but can also reward you with $5 or higher cards. This is usually a late buy to get the missing parts of your engine and requires some preparation and unlike Horn of Plenty or Artificer this one gains only two cards. This card has an astonishing strategic depth, but the more simple cards are also promising. There can be only one winner.

Frontier (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803701#msg803701) by Kudasai
$4: Trash to gain a card costing $2 more, card when any player gains a Victory card
Fool’s Gold can this better (and this is only Fool’s Gold's secondary effect). Even Feast is more usable as you can play it much earlier, if you want a guaranteed $5 card.

Retriever (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803826#msg803826) by scolapasta
$0: Discard substitute

I was actually looking forward to seeing cards which can be useful in most kingdoms. This one is often pretty useless. While this is a novel idea, other cards were more interesting.

Secret Cove (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803854#msg803854) by Frolouch
$4: Trash to gain a Gold onto your deck, when another player plays an Attack card; or discard to topdeck a gained card

The first effect is okay, but either discourages players from buying attacks at all or is even contra-productive when your opponent plays a Thief variant. Another dead card instead of a Silver in turn 3 or 4 is pretty bad and will normally cost you the game. The second effect is much weaker than Watchtower. You don't want this card for $4 in your deck.

Tithe (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg804194#msg804194) by wittyhowlard
$1: Discard when you buy an Action card to trash X cards from your hand (X is the cost of the Action card). On buy: +1 Buy and this goes into your hand

Overpaying an Action by 1 to exchange your Estates or Coppers with a dead card is interesting. However, you could abuse the on-buy clause and empty the pile to end the game earlier. That is not healthy for the game.

Royal Acquisition (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg803971#msg803971) by Commodore Chuckles
$5: Trash from your hand to double a fixed-VP Victory card

As name and effects intends, this seems to be a card in the Throne Room family. But in fact this is Distant Lands, but with some subtle differences. For instance, there is no interaction with cards which like Victory or Action cards and it is harder to gain a Province with only four usable cards in your hand. Distand Lands gives fix 4 VP. Royal Acquisition can provide you 6 or even 10 VP, but it is often only another Duchy in case of emergency. Distant Lands is less swingy and already fulfils that role pretty well and I don’t see a reason for having another „conditional Victory card“, particularly as 10 VP are perhaps a little too much.

TL;DR
Winner: Economist by Chappy7
Runner-up: Design by Fragasnap

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 21, 2019, 04:11:47 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on June 12, 2019, 06:01:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/DHjuybd.jpg)

Just a simple way to get some $$$$ into your deck.

Yes, a nice card indeed, but I think you missed an opportunity for a Hero themed card here. Like "Calculating Hero" maybe? Congrats though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on June 22, 2019, 02:32:13 am

I just come up with a new idea, but it's too late.

Spare Part
$3 Reaction
When you play an action card, you may reveal this and attach it to that action, to increase all numbers printed on it by 1.
When attached action is no longer in play, put this into your discard.

Example:
Market becomes +2 Cards, +2 Actions, +2 Buys, +2$ (+3 of each kind if you play two engines)
Militia becomes +3 coin, each oppoent discard down to 4.
King's Court can't be buffed by Steam Engine. (Because it reads three times, not 3)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 22, 2019, 04:39:39 pm

Should we have Fragasnap be the new host if Chappy7 doesn't respond soon?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 22, 2019, 11:33:26 pm

I think 48 hours after the winner is declared would be a good time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 23, 2019, 05:19:34 pm

Fragasnap, if you're there, I think you can start the next contest. (King Leon you might want to name a 3rd place if he doesn't respond).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 23, 2019, 07:23:01 pm

There's always last week's runner up, if we need!  8)

(Mostly kidding, not sure if I'm actually ready to judge any of these yet)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on June 23, 2019, 08:31:55 pm

I worry because it looks like Chappy7 is most active Monday through Wednesday, so it feels unfair to grab the judge's seat just because it happened to be judged on a slightly off time frame. Though I actually like reviewing and judging the cards, so perhaps I am projecting.
I'll post a challenge, but in honor of Chappy7's victory, please don't post any entrants until at least Monday evening. If Chappy7 would like to post a challenge instead, I will remove this.

Create a card that is at least one of Action, Treasure, Reaction, or Night with no fixed or conditional Vanilla++ effects.

• Vanilla++ effects are: +Cards, +Actions, +Buys, +$, +Potion, +VP, +Coffers, and +Villagers.
• "Drawing cards" per a condition and putting cards into your hand can be likened to +Cards, but is fine (like Watchtower and Envoy).
• Playing other cards is often likened to +Actions, but is fine (like Throne Room)
• Treasures that produce $ count as Vanilla++ effects and will be disqualified (Counterfeit produces $1 and would be disqualified, Horn of Plenty produces $0 and would not be)
• Being a Victory card is fine, but it still must have an Action\Treasure\Reaction\Night effect (like Island and Tunnel).
• On-gain\on-buy effects that confer Vanilla++ effects still disqualify the card.
• If you are making a card that is modified by other random cards (like Young Witch, Black Market, or Band of Misfits), it is fine that the other random cards might have Vanilla++ effects.
• Fate cards that use random Boons are fine.
• Use of Artifacts is fine, but they still must confer no Vanilla++ effects.
• If you are making a Split pile or Traveller, every card involved must have no Vanilla++ effects.
• A card with "Choose X" options still must have no Vanilla++ effects (Steward, Count, and Charm would be disqualified)
• A Vanilla++ effect that scales on a condition may be used (like Philosopher's Stone, or Harvest)

Oh yeah, before I forget

• An effect that is identical in every way to a Vanilla++ effect but just worded differently to be pedantic will disqualify the card.

(https://i.imgur.com/1LbFDA8.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on June 23, 2019, 08:36:05 pm

Wouldn't trashing a card from your hand be vanilla, or is that allowed?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 24, 2019, 01:01:26 am

Does "If X, vanilla effect" disqualify a card?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on June 24, 2019, 01:16:18 am

Is the +$ of philosopher's stone considered vanilla?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 24, 2019, 03:56:50 am

If creating a victory card, would it be disqualified if it gave vanilla VP? (Like would Island or Tunnel be disqualified)?

Interesting challenge!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 24, 2019, 12:30:36 pm

A few answers, based on my interpretation of the contest. I'm pretty sure that I got these ones right, but Fragasnap should feel free to correct me. I have no idea about the p-stone question, though. I can see arguments both ways.

Quote from: kru5h on June 23, 2019, 08:36:05 pm

Wouldn't trashing a card from your hand be vanilla, or is that allowed?

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 23, 2019, 08:31:55 pm

Vanilla++ effects are: +Cards, +Actions, +Buys, +$, +Potion, +VP, +Coffers, and +Villagers.

I assume that "vanilla++" means a vanilla effect that gives +x Somethings, which is why "trash a card" isn't there.

Quote from: faust on June 24, 2019, 01:01:26 am

Does "If X, vanilla effect" disqualify a card?

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 23, 2019, 08:31:55 pm

• On-gain\on-buy effects that confer Vanilla++ effects still disqualify the card.
• A card with "Choose X" options still must have no Vanilla++ effects (Steward, Count, and Charm would be disqualified)

I feel that his can probably be extrapolated to "if x" clauses too. And any other clause.

Quote from: mail-mi on June 24, 2019, 03:56:50 am

If creating a victory card, would it be disqualified if it gave vanilla VP? (Like would Island or Tunnel be disqualified)?

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 23, 2019, 08:31:55 pm

Being a Victory card is fine, but it still must have an Action\Treasure\Reaction\Night effect (like Island and Tunnel).

That one is answered directly in the post, even giving the same examples.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 24, 2019, 01:50:15 pm

Hopefully this qualifies:

Emissary (Action) [$5]

Draw until you have 8 cards in your hand. Put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 24, 2019, 03:02:15 pm

Does +$1/card per _____ count? (like vault, harvest, crossroads etc.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on June 24, 2019, 03:59:50 pm

Sorry I took so long! I had a busy weekend.  I'm glad you went ahead without me

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on June 24, 2019, 04:24:34 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 21, 2019, 04:11:47 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on June 12, 2019, 06:01:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/DHjuybd.jpg)

Just a simple way to get some $$$$ into your deck.

Yes, a nice card indeed, but I think you missed an opportunity for a Hero themed card here. Like "Calculating Hero" maybe? Congrats though.

Good point.  Maybe "Wealthy Hero"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on June 24, 2019, 04:59:51 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on June 24, 2019, 03:59:50 pm

Sorry I took so long! I had a busy weekend.  I'm glad you went ahead without me

Happy to continue with your blessing.

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 24, 2019, 12:30:36 pm

A few answers, based on my interpretation of the contest.

hhelibebcofnena is correct on each count attempted.

Quote from: mail-mi on June 24, 2019, 03:56:50 am

If creating a victory card, would it be disqualified if it gave vanilla VP? (Like would Island or Tunnel be disqualified)?

For additional clarity: Island and Tunnel qualify for the challenge because they have an Action and Reaction effect respectively that do not have any Vanilla++ effects. Nobles and Harem do not because Nobles is an Action with Vanilla++ effects and Harem is simply worth $2. The way in which a Victory card is worth VP is irrelevant.

Quote from: naitchman on June 24, 2019, 03:02:15 pm

Does +$1/card per _____ count? (like vault, harvest, crossroads etc.)

I think this covers the Philosopher's Stone issue as well and is better worded as: "Does a Vanilla++ that scales based upon a condition qualify for the challenge?"
Thinking about it, Watchtower's draw is a draw which scales from 0 to 6 based upon your hand size, so I think I have to say that Harvest and Philosopher's Stone count (Vault doesn't because it has +2 Cards and the first Crossroads gives +3 Actions, but the scaling would be fine).
I've updated the requirements to match this revelation.

I will +1 entries for clarity.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #34: no vanilla playable card
Post by: Aquila on June 24, 2019, 05:06:37 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/WHUn4N5.jpg)

Donald explored Night remodeling quite a bit but nothing came through. I explored the area as well and came to this sort of two-card Night Forge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 24, 2019, 05:08:24 pm

Ok. Looks like we're going with fragasnap's contest. Here's my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/jLCsDj4.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/PL5KpQH.png)

It's a BoM variant (again, I know) that has specific cards it plays. These cards are not part of the supply, so the only way to play them would be through Crime Lord, and you'll always be able to play Crime Lord as them (unlike BoM when the pile depletes), but there's only 3. Will it be worth it? Depends on the 3 Underlings cards and depends on the kingdom.

(Update: Changed wording to clarify that 3 kingdom cards come from unused cards)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on June 24, 2019, 05:52:27 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 24, 2019, 05:08:24 pm

Ok. Looks like we're going with fragasnap's contest. Here's my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/1mYhHV6.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/LPs8WXM.png)

It's a BoM variant (again, I know) that has specific cards it plays. These cards are not part of the supply, so the only way to play them would be through Crime Lord, and you'll always be able to play Crime Lord as them (unlike BoM when the pile depletes), but there's only 3. Will it be worth it? Depends on the 3 Underlings cards and depends on the kingdom.

My idea was pretty similar, but with a pile like black market made with $5 cards (reveal top 3 cards, play as one of them). I thougt that at $4 it will be ok, because of the random effect. I really like the flavor of the mat, btw.

Title: Re: Contest #34: No Vanilla Bonuses
Post by: Gubump on June 24, 2019, 06:25:25 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/66wXqR2.png)

Is it okay that I came up with this half a month ago? Or should I submit something brand new? This has been mildly playtested (only 3 or 4 different sets though, so barely), if that influences things.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 24, 2019, 08:11:57 pm

Sanctuary
Type: Action – Reaction
Cost: $5

Look at the top 4 cards of your deck. Put up to 3 into your hand. Discard the rest.
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may reveal this to gain a Silver to your hand.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/9d12xd1l.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 24, 2019, 08:26:37 pm

Quote from: King Leon on June 24, 2019, 08:11:57 pm

Sanctuary
Type: Action – Reaction
Cost: $5

Look at the top 4 cards of your deck. Put up to 2 into your hand. Discard the rest.
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may gain a Silver into your hand.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/60a8ua2u.png)

The normal language Dominion uses is "gain a Silver to your hand." For example, Artisan.

Not sure if a conditional +2 cards +$2 is worth 5. Especially since it is only a +2 the first one you buy. And it requires you to not be able to play a 5-card cost to get the silver gain. I do love the self-synergy, it's pretty interesting!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 24, 2019, 08:37:13 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 24, 2019, 08:26:37 pm

Quote from: King Leon on June 24, 2019, 08:11:57 pm

Sanctuary
Type: Action – Reaction
Cost: $5

Look at the top 4 cards of your deck. Put up to 2 into your hand. Discard the rest.
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may gain a Silver into your hand.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/60a8ua2u.png)

The normal language Dominion uses is "gain a Silver to your hand." For example, Artisan.

Not sure if a conditional +2 cards +$2 is worth 5. Especially since it is only a +2 the first one you buy. And it requires you to not be able to play a 5-card cost to get the silver gain. I do love the self-synergy, it's pretty interesting!

Best 2 of 4 is around the same strength as a Smithy in my opinion. Because of that and the self-synergy, I'd say it would be worth _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}. It might be on the weak side, but they can't all be the best _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 24, 2019, 08:40:54 pm

THIS IS OUT OF DATE SUBMISSION. SEE NEWEST VERSION ON PAGE 104

CHALLENGE #34 - No Vanilla Bonuses Submission:

Quote

Consul
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left chooses an action card costing more than it for you to gain and play.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/q2rfvuzv.png)

Seems like I only submit cards that involve some sort of trashing! My favorite interaction cards are ones like Contraband, Advisor, and Envoy. So, here is a sorta upgrade variant in that vein! I will say this card nicely has some cool synergy with alt-cost cards without having to spell them out, and I like that. You can get your opponent to consul you into upgrading an engineer into a fortune if those are the only debt-cost cards on board. You can always turn your golds into possessions. Good advice! Of course, watch out, your opponent might consul you to bring in more consuls and force you to trash something in your hand you don't want to, like a card that no action card that costs more!

Of course the losing track rule can make you not be able to play the card. I'm open to any feedback. I wasn't sure exactly the best way to phrase "gain and play."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 24, 2019, 08:42:39 pm

CHALLENGE #34 - NO VANILLA SUBMISSION:

(https://i.imgur.com/NQ4El9Q.jpg)

I'm not sure if it's clear, but the condition for gaining a Wish is not gaining 2 Spoils. Even if you only gain one Spoils due to that pile running out, you still gain a Wish.

Quote

When you play this, gain 2 Spoils from the Spoils pile to your hand. If you can't, gain a Wish from the Wish pile.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setup: Only add 2 Spoils per player to the Spoils pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on June 24, 2019, 08:47:32 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 24, 2019, 08:42:39 pm

CHALLENGE #34 - NO VANILLA SUBMISSION:

(https://i.imgur.com/dMvQzRA.jpg)

I'm not sure if it's clear, but the condition for gaining a Wish is not gaining 2 Spoils. Even if you only gain one Spoils due to that pile running out, you still gain a Wish.

Quote

When you play this, gain 2 Spoils from the Spoils pile to your hand. If you can't, gain a Wish from the Wish pile.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setup: Only add 2 Spoils per player to the Spoils pile.

How does it work with other Spoils cards? Does the restriction on Spoils number still apply?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 24, 2019, 09:08:49 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 24, 2019, 08:42:39 pm

CHALLENGE #34 - NO VANILLA SUBMISSION:

(https://i.imgur.com/dMvQzRA.jpg)

I'm not sure if it's clear, but the condition for gaining a Wish is not gaining 2 Spoils. Even if you only gain one Spoils due to that pile running out, you still gain a Wish.

Quote

When you play this, gain 2 Spoils from the Spoils pile to your hand. If you can't, gain a Wish from the Wish pile.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setup: Only add 2 Spoils per player to the Spoils pile.

This seems extremely weak for its cost. It can either effectively produce _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} immediately, gain two one-shot Golds that you could save for later, or gain a Wish, which later returns itself to the Supply for an on-demand _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}-cost. All 3 options are terrible for a card that costs a literal fortune.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 24, 2019, 09:09:57 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 24, 2019, 08:40:54 pm

CHALLENGE #34 - No Vanilla Bonuses Submission:

Quote

Consul
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left chooses an action card costing more than it for you to gain and play.

Seems like I only submit cards that involve some sort of trashing! My favorite interaction cards are ones like Contraband, Advisor, and Envoy. So, here is a sorta upgrade variant in that vein! I will say this card nicely has some cool synergy with alt-cost cards without having to spell them out, and I like that. You can get your opponent to consul you into upgrading an engineer into a fortune if those are the only debt-cost cards on board. You can always turn your golds into possessions. Good advice! Of course, watch out, your opponent might consul you to bring in more consuls and force you to trash something in your hand you don't want to, like a card that no action card that costs more!

Of course the losing track rule can make you not be able to play the card. I'm open to any feedback. I wasn't sure exactly the best way to phrase "gain and play."

Fortune is a Treasure, so you they wouldn't be able to choose it.

I'd also be concerned for lots of pedantic type issues:
• choosing a card not in the game
• choosing a card not in the Supply (e.g. Madman)
• choosing a card from the middle of a pile (e.g. Knights, Spilt Piles, etc)
• gain is usually to discard, so you're playing from there, but some cards gain to other locations

So, a possible rewording that hopefully covers all this might be:

Quote

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left names a visible Action card from a Supply pile costing more than it. Gain it to your hand, then play it.

Alternatively, if you don't like "visible", you could opt for "from the top of a non-empty Supply pile".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 24, 2019, 09:10:54 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 24, 2019, 08:40:54 pm

CHALLENGE #34 - No Vanilla Bonuses Submission:

Quote

Consul
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left chooses an action card costing more than it for you to gain and play.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/q2rfvuzv.png)

Seems like I only submit cards that involve some sort of trashing! My favorite interaction cards are ones like Contraband, Advisor, and Envoy. So, here is a sorta upgrade variant in that vein! I will say this card nicely has some cool synergy with alt-cost cards without having to spell them out, and I like that. You can get your opponent to consul you into upgrading an engineer into a fortune if those are the only debt-cost cards on board. You can always turn your golds into possessions. Good advice! Of course, watch out, your opponent might consul you to bring in more consuls and force you to trash something in your hand you don't want to, like a card that no action card that costs more!

Of course the losing track rule can make you not be able to play the card. I'm open to any feedback. I wasn't sure exactly the best way to phrase "gain and play."

This is the kind of card that could work sometimes, but often will be trouble. There are just so many cards that can hurt this. An opponent that just keeps giving you terminal actions costing $5 is a likely scenario. In addition there are plenty of cards that you only really want a 1 or 2 of (outpost, trading post, mint), not to mention cards that can really screw with your current turn (tacticion,  trading post, storyteller)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on June 24, 2019, 09:16:50 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 24, 2019, 08:40:54 pm

CHALLENGE #34 - No Vanilla Bonuses Submission:

Quote

Consul
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left chooses an action card costing more than it for you to gain and play.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/q2rfvuzv.png)

Seems like I only submit cards that involve some sort of trashing! My favorite interaction cards are ones like Contraband, Advisor, and Envoy. So, here is a sorta upgrade variant in that vein! I will say this card nicely has some cool synergy with alt-cost cards without having to spell them out, and I like that. You can get your opponent to consul you into upgrading an engineer into a fortune if those are the only debt-cost cards on board. You can always turn your golds into possessions. Good advice! Of course, watch out, your opponent might consul you to bring in more consuls and force you to trash something in your hand you don't want to, like a card that no action card that costs more!

Of course the losing track rule can make you not be able to play the card. I'm open to any feedback. I wasn't sure exactly the best way to phrase "gain and play."

You could use set aside wording like Summon and Innovation to handle lose track situations. The lose track rule doesn't make you unable to play the card, it only stops you from moving it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 24, 2019, 09:27:04 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 24, 2019, 09:09:57 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 24, 2019, 08:40:54 pm

CHALLENGE #34 - No Vanilla Bonuses Submission:

Quote

Consul
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left chooses an action card costing more than it for you to gain and play.

Seems like I only submit cards that involve some sort of trashing! My favorite interaction cards are ones like Contraband, Advisor, and Envoy. So, here is a sorta upgrade variant in that vein! I will say this card nicely has some cool synergy with alt-cost cards without having to spell them out, and I like that. You can get your opponent to consul you into upgrading an engineer into a fortune if those are the only debt-cost cards on board. You can always turn your golds into possessions. Good advice! Of course, watch out, your opponent might consul you to bring in more consuls and force you to trash something in your hand you don't want to, like a card that no action card that costs more!

Of course the losing track rule can make you not be able to play the card. I'm open to any feedback. I wasn't sure exactly the best way to phrase "gain and play."

Fortune is a Treasure, so you they wouldn't be able to choose it.

I'd also be concerned for lots of pedantic type issues:
• choosing a card not in the game
• choosing a card not in the Supply (e.g. Madman)
• choosing a card from the middle of a pile (e.g. Knights, Spilt Piles, etc)
• gain is usually to discard, so you're playing from there, but some cards gain to other locations

So, a possible rewording that hopefully covers all this might be:

Quote

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left names a visible Action card from a Supply pile costing more than it. Gain it to your hand, then play it.

Alternatively, if you don't like "visible", you could opt for "from the top of a non-empty Supply pile".

I don't think you need the "visible" part. BoM only specifies from the Supply, but you can't choose Crumbling Castle when Humble Castle is on top, or Sir Martin when covered by other Knights. Only the top card is "in the Supply."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 24, 2019, 09:35:23 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 24, 2019, 09:08:49 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 24, 2019, 08:42:39 pm

CHALLENGE #34 - NO VANILLA SUBMISSION:

(https://i.imgur.com/dMvQzRA.jpg)

I'm not sure if it's clear, but the condition for gaining a Wish is not gaining 2 Spoils. Even if you only gain one Spoils due to that pile running out, you still gain a Wish.

Quote

When you play this, gain 2 Spoils from the Spoils pile to your hand. If you can't, gain a Wish from the Wish pile.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setup: Only add 2 Spoils per player to the Spoils pile.

This seems extremely weak for its cost. It can either effectively produce _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} immediately, gain two one-shot Golds that you could save for later, or gain a Wish, which later returns itself to the Supply for an on-demand _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}-cost. All 3 options are terrible for a card that costs a literal fortune.

Hmmm. I'm trying to figure out what this should cost. Like you said it has the option of producing $6 which makes it strictly better than platinum. The other options should give it a small bump in price. Keep in mind, unlike with fortune you could buy multiples of these and use them effectively (play 2 spoils, play dragon egg, repeat).

One of the problems is this card can be overkill in many games. At least all platinum games have colonies too which makes getting that extra coin important. Fortune comes with a +buy which is important if you're gonna have a load of $. You have to forego a province for each DE you get which then begs the Q if it's really worth it in the long run if provinces are your real goal (in non colony games at least). A +buy would definitely help this. Maybe also, instead of gaining a wish get the benefit right away (gain a card costing up to $6) but then only make it if you gain no spoils (or else you can gain spoil and gold which is better than 2 spoils).

It would need to be playtested but I wouldn't be surprised if with a +buy this could be priced right as it is (or maybe a little less debt). Keep in mind that this could be bought right away unlike with fortune (which has gladiators on top) and can be used multiple times each turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 24, 2019, 09:41:16 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 24, 2019, 09:27:04 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 24, 2019, 09:09:57 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 24, 2019, 08:40:54 pm

CHALLENGE #34 - No Vanilla Bonuses Submission:

Quote

Consul
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left chooses an action card costing more than it for you to gain and play.

Seems like I only submit cards that involve some sort of trashing! My favorite interaction cards are ones like Contraband, Advisor, and Envoy. So, here is a sorta upgrade variant in that vein! I will say this card nicely has some cool synergy with alt-cost cards without having to spell them out, and I like that. You can get your opponent to consul you into upgrading an engineer into a fortune if those are the only debt-cost cards on board. You can always turn your golds into possessions. Good advice! Of course, watch out, your opponent might consul you to bring in more consuls and force you to trash something in your hand you don't want to, like a card that no action card that costs more!

Of course the losing track rule can make you not be able to play the card. I'm open to any feedback. I wasn't sure exactly the best way to phrase "gain and play."

Fortune is a Treasure, so you they wouldn't be able to choose it.

I'd also be concerned for lots of pedantic type issues:
• choosing a card not in the game
• choosing a card not in the Supply (e.g. Madman)
• choosing a card from the middle of a pile (e.g. Knights, Spilt Piles, etc)
• gain is usually to discard, so you're playing from there, but some cards gain to other locations

So, a possible rewording that hopefully covers all this might be:

Quote

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left names a visible Action card from a Supply pile costing more than it. Gain it to your hand, then play it.

Alternatively, if you don't like "visible", you could opt for "from the top of a non-empty Supply pile".

I don't think you need the "visible" part. BoM only specifies from the Supply, but you can't choose Crumbling Castle when Humble Castle is on top, or Sir Martin when covered by other Knights. Only the top card is "in the Supply."

OK, that's right. Found this in the wiki (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Supply#Cards_that_emulate_a_card_in_the_Supply):

Quote

For this reason, although the entirety of any Supply pile is physically part of the Supply, only the top card of any pile is considered to be "in the Supply".

So updated suggestion is:

Quote

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left names an Action card from the Supply costing more than it. Gain the named card to your hand, then play it.

(I also changed one of the "it"s to avoid confusion)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 24, 2019, 09:54:54 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 24, 2019, 09:35:23 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 24, 2019, 09:08:49 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 24, 2019, 08:42:39 pm

CHALLENGE #34 - NO VANILLA SUBMISSION:

(https://i.imgur.com/dMvQzRA.jpg)

I'm not sure if it's clear, but the condition for gaining a Wish is not gaining 2 Spoils. Even if you only gain one Spoils due to that pile running out, you still gain a Wish.

Quote

When you play this, gain 2 Spoils from the Spoils pile to your hand. If you can't, gain a Wish from the Wish pile.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setup: Only add 2 Spoils per player to the Spoils pile.

This seems extremely weak for its cost. It can either effectively produce _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} immediately, gain two one-shot Golds that you could save for later, or gain a Wish, which later returns itself to the Supply for an on-demand _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}-cost. All 3 options are terrible for a card that costs a literal fortune.

Hmmm. I'm trying to figure out what this should cost. Like you said it has the option of producing $6 which makes it strictly better than platinum. The other options should give it a small bump in price. Keep in mind, unlike with fortune you could buy multiples of these and use them effectively (play 2 spoils, play dragon egg, repeat).

One of the problems is this card can be overkill in many games. At least all platinum games have colonies too which makes getting that extra coin important. Fortune comes with a +buy which is important if you're gonna have a load of $. You have to forego a province for each DE you get which then begs the Q if it's really worth it in the long run if provinces are your real goal (in non colony games at least). A +buy would definitely help this. Maybe also, instead of gaining a wish get the benefit right away (gain a card costing up to $6) but then only make it if you gain no spoils (or else you can gain spoil and gold which is better than 2 spoils).

It would need to be playtested but I wouldn't be surprised if with a +buy this could be priced right as it is (or maybe a little less debt). Keep in mind that this could be bought right away unlike with fortune (which has gladiators on top) and can be used multiple times each turn.

Adding +1 Buy and +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} to Platinum still wouldn't justify pricing it at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png)}, even with the other options (especially since that's by far the best option). Not to mention that its best option also only stacks up to N times (N being player count) at best, whereas Platinum stacks up to as many Platinums as you have (which is at most 12, instead of at most 6). _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/90/Debt4.png/18px-Debt4.png)} would be a reasonable price, though (although that's with the Buy; without the Buy I'd price it at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png)}). As it is currently, it makes Scout look good, IMO.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on June 24, 2019, 10:24:54 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on June 24, 2019, 08:47:32 pm

How does it work with other Spoils cards? Does the restriction on Spoils number still apply?

The restriction on Spoils would still apply. This may weaken other Spoils based cards, but should give Dragon Egg a boast as it allows you to get to Wishes easier.

Quote from: naitchman on June 24, 2019, 09:35:23 pm

One of the problems is this card can be overkill in many games. At least all platinum games have colonies too which makes getting that extra coin important. Fortune comes with a +buy which is important if you're gonna have a load of $. You have to forego a province for each DE you get which then begs the Q if it's really worth it in the long run if provinces are your real goal (in non colony games at least). A +buy would definitely help this. Maybe also, instead of gaining a wish get the benefit right away (gain a card costing up to $6) but then only make it if you gain no spoils (or else you can gain spoil and gold which is better than 2 spoils).

It would need to be playtested but I wouldn't be surprised if with a +buy this could be priced right as it is (or maybe a little less debt). Keep in mind that this could be bought right away unlike with fortune (which has gladiators on top) and can be used multiple times each turn.

This could be the case, but the Wish gaining should also help with speeding up engine building or for gaining Duchies later to catch back up.

Quote from: Gubump on June 24, 2019, 09:54:54 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 24, 2019, 09:35:23 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 24, 2019, 09:08:49 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 24, 2019, 08:42:39 pm

CHALLENGE #34 - NO VANILLA SUBMISSION:

(https://i.imgur.com/dMvQzRA.jpg)

I'm not sure if it's clear, but the condition for gaining a Wish is not gaining 2 Spoils. Even if you only gain one Spoils due to that pile running out, you still gain a Wish.

Quote

When you play this, gain 2 Spoils from the Spoils pile to your hand. If you can't, gain a Wish from the Wish pile.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setup: Only add 2 Spoils per player to the Spoils pile.

This seems extremely weak for its cost. It can either effectively produce _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} immediately, gain two one-shot Golds that you could save for later, or gain a Wish, which later returns itself to the Supply for an on-demand _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}-cost. All 3 options are terrible for a card that costs a literal fortune.

Hmmm. I'm trying to figure out what this should cost. Like you said it has the option of producing $6 which makes it strictly better than platinum. The other options should give it a small bump in price. Keep in mind, unlike with fortune you could buy multiples of these and use them effectively (play 2 spoils, play dragon egg, repeat).

One of the problems is this card can be overkill in many games. At least all platinum games have colonies too which makes getting that extra coin important. Fortune comes with a +buy which is important if you're gonna have a load of $. You have to forego a province for each DE you get which then begs the Q if it's really worth it in the long run if provinces are your real goal (in non colony games at least). A +buy would definitely help this. Maybe also, instead of gaining a wish get the benefit right away (gain a card costing up to $6) but then only make it if you gain no spoils (or else you can gain spoil and gold which is better than 2 spoils).

It would need to be playtested but I wouldn't be surprised if with a +buy this could be priced right as it is (or maybe a little less debt). Keep in mind that this could be bought right away unlike with fortune (which has gladiators on top) and can be used multiple times each turn.

Adding +1 Buy and +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} to Platinum still wouldn't justify pricing it at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png)}, even with the other options (especially since that's by far the best option). Not to mention that its best option also only stacks up to N times (N being player count) at best, whereas Platinum stacks up to as many Platinums as you have (which is at most 12, instead of at most 6). _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/90/Debt4.png/18px-Debt4.png)} would be a reasonable price, though (although that's with the Buy; without the Buy I'd price it at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png)}). As it is currently, it makes Scout look good, IMO.

Yeah, $8/8D is too high of a cost. I just started there to be on the safe side, but I think I can get away with starting testing at $8/4D. If this were to be a pure coin cost I'd put it at about $11. I don't know what that equates to with $8 coin and some tacked on debt.

Anyways, I appreciate all the feedback so far. You've both given me some stuff to think on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 24, 2019, 10:37:20 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 24, 2019, 10:24:54 pm

Yeah, $8/8D is too high of a cost. I just started there to be on the safe side, but I think I can get away with starting testing at $8/4D. If this were to be a pure coin cost I'd put it at about $11. I don't know what that equates to with $8 coin and some tacked on debt.

Anyways, I appreciate all the feedback so far. You've both given me some stuff to think on.

_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/df/Coin11.png/16px-Coin11.png)} is actually the same price I would have suggested without debt involved. I think that generally _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/90/Debt4.png/18px-Debt4.png)} is equivalent to around $3.5 (based on Engineer) and _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png)} is equivalent to somewhere in the range of $6.5 to $7, regardless of how many _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} are also in its cost. So I think _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/90/Debt4.png/18px-Debt4.png)} is equivalent to around _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/df/Coin11.png/16px-Coin11.png)} or $11.5-ish.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 25, 2019, 02:15:29 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 24, 2019, 08:40:54 pm

CHALLENGE #34 - No Vanilla Bonuses Submission:

Quote

Consul
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left chooses an action card costing more than it for you to gain and play.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/q2rfvuzv.png)

You probably want to add "other than Consul".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on June 25, 2019, 02:44:56 am

Rowdy Library
Action - $5
Draw until you have 6 cards in your hand, skipping up to 2 Action Cards you choose to; set those aside. Afterwards, play the set aside Action Cards in any order.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on June 25, 2019, 02:56:33 am

Quote from: Chappy7 on June 24, 2019, 04:24:34 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on June 21, 2019, 04:11:47 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on June 12, 2019, 06:01:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/DHjuybd.jpg)

Just a simple way to get some $$$$ into your deck.

Yes, a nice card indeed, but I think you missed an opportunity for a Hero themed card here. Like "Calculating Hero" maybe? Congrats though.

Good point.  Maybe "Wealthy Hero"

"Fortune Seeker"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 25, 2019, 09:37:52 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 24, 2019, 09:54:54 pm

Not to mention that its best option also only stacks up to N times (N being player count) at best, whereas Platinum stacks up to as many Platinums as you have (which is at most 12, instead of at most 6).

Like I said in my original post, there's no limit on how many DE you can play on your turn (assuming there are at least 2 spoils in the supply or in your hand). You can keep reusing the same spoils:
with a hand of 5 DE

Play DE (get 2 spoils)
Play 2 spoils (return them to supply)
Play DE (get 2 spoils back)
Play 2 spoils (return them to supply)
Play DE (get 2 spoils back)
Play 2 spoils (return them to supply)
Play DE (get 2 spoils back)
Play 2 spoils (return them to supply)
Play DE (get 2 spoils back)
Play 2 spoils (return them to supply)

In retrospect, I guess it's obvious why there's no +buy (wouldn't qualify for the contest  ;))

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 25, 2019, 11:03:46 am

Quote from: naitchman on June 25, 2019, 09:37:52 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 24, 2019, 09:54:54 pm

Not to mention that its best option also only stacks up to N times (N being player count) at best, whereas Platinum stacks up to as many Platinums as you have (which is at most 12, instead of at most 6).

Like I said in my original post, there's no limit on how many DE you can play on your turn (assuming there are at least 2 spoils in the supply or in your hand). You can keep reusing the same spoils:
with a hand of 5 DE

Play DE (get 2 spoils)
Play 2 spoils (return them to supply)
Play DE (get 2 spoils back)
Play 2 spoils (return them to supply)
Play DE (get 2 spoils back)
Play 2 spoils (return them to supply)
Play DE (get 2 spoils back)
Play 2 spoils (return them to supply)
Play DE (get 2 spoils back)
Play 2 spoils (return them to supply)

In retrospect, I guess it's obvious why there's no +buy (wouldn't qualify for the contest  ;))

Oh, yep, you're right. Sorry, brainfart.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on June 25, 2019, 11:17:41 am

(https://i.imgur.com/04v7yNW.png)

My last entry was wordier than I usually like and did seem to be marked down for being complex, so I've tried to keep it simpler this time.

The main worry is that it doesn't play very differently from Expand because you're usually gaining differently typed cards with Expand anyway (Estate to $5 Action, $5 Action to Province and such). It could maybe get away with being $5 if the restriction ends up being more restrictive than I thought.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 12:36:08 pm

Here's my entry. part of a set i'm working on that emphasizes non-attack player interaction.
Gossip - Action-Duration - $3
Until the end of your next turn, Villagers can be removed from Villagers mats during their owner's Action phase for +1 Action each or +1 Card each. This card affects all players.


link to card creator image bc i can't remember how to resize images using phpbb syntax (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=Gossip&description=Until%20the%20end%20of%20your%20next%20turn%2C%20Villagers%20can%20be%20removed%20from%20Villagers%20mats%20during%20their%20owner%27s%20Action%20phase%20for%20%2B1%20Action%20each%20or%20%2B1%20Card%20each.%20%0AThis%20card%20affects%20all%20players.&type=Action%20-%20Duration&credit=&creator=v01%20-%20spineflu&price=%243&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=4&color1=0&size=0)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 25, 2019, 12:45:44 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 12:36:08 pm

Here's my entry. part of a set i'm working on that emphasizes non-attack player interaction.
Gossip - Action-Duration - $3
Until the end of your next turn, Villagers can be removed from Villagers mats during their owner's Action phase for +1 Action each or +1 Card each. This card affects all players.


link to card creator image bc i can't remember how to resize images using phpbb syntax (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=Gossip&description=Until%20the%20end%20of%20your%20next%20turn%2C%20Villagers%20can%20be%20removed%20from%20Villagers%20mats%20during%20their%20owner%27s%20Action%20phase%20for%20%2B1%20Action%20each%20or%20%2B1%20Card%20each.%20%0AThis%20card%20affects%20all%20players.&type=Action%20-%20Duration&credit=&creator=v01%20-%20spineflu&price=%243&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=4&color1=0&size=0)

This helps your opponents more than it helps you because they didn't have to play it or buy it. The only reason you'd buy it is if you were the only one obtaining Villagers, which is very unlikely.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 25, 2019, 12:47:02 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 12:36:08 pm

Here's my entry. part of a set i'm working on that emphasizes non-attack player interaction.
Gossip - Action-Duration - $3
Until the end of your next turn, Villagers can be removed from Villagers mats during their owner's Action phase for +1 Action each or +1 Card each. This card affects all players.


link to card creator image bc i can't remember how to resize images using phpbb syntax (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=Gossip&description=Until%20the%20end%20of%20your%20next%20turn%2C%20Villagers%20can%20be%20removed%20from%20Villagers%20mats%20during%20their%20owner%27s%20Action%20phase%20for%20%2B1%20Action%20each%20or%20%2B1%20Card%20each.%20%0AThis%20card%20affects%20all%20players.&type=Action%20-%20Duration&credit=&creator=v01%20-%20spineflu&price=%243&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=4&color1=0&size=0)

I think this might get disqualified as the +1 Action / +1 Card would count as "Conditional Vanilla++ effects".

For images just use width attribute:

Code: [Select]

[img width=200]Image_URL[/img]


Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 25, 2019, 01:55:45 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 12:36:08 pm

Here's my entry. part of a set i'm working on that emphasizes non-attack player interaction.
Gossip - Action-Duration - $3
Until the end of your next turn, Villagers can be removed from Villagers mats during their owner's Action phase for +1 Action each or +1 Card each. This card affects all players.


link to card creator image bc i can't remember how to resize images using phpbb syntax (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=Gossip&description=Until%20the%20end%20of%20your%20next%20turn%2C%20Villagers%20can%20be%20removed%20from%20Villagers%20mats%20during%20their%20owner%27s%20Action%20phase%20for%20%2B1%20Action%20each%20or%20%2B1%20Card%20each.%20%0AThis%20card%20affects%20all%20players.&type=Action%20-%20Duration&credit=&creator=v01%20-%20spineflu&price=%243&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=4&color1=0&size=0)

With a card like this, you should allow some way for villagers to come into play. Otherwise if there's no way to get villagers (which is pretty likely with the current sets) this will be a completely useless card. I also agree with Gubump's critique. The solution would be to give +2 villagers or something along those lines. Of course, it wouldn't work with the contest then.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 25, 2019, 01:58:14 pm

Here's my entry for this week's challenge:

Cabal

(https://i.imgur.com/UgnRN9H.png)

Changelog
v0.1 - initial
v0.2 - can now top deck without restriction, simpler wording

---

Cabal is a TR variant that can't be drawn dead. It can also TR Night cards.


[UPDATE: the below only applies to the v0.1 wording, which had you reveal a hand with no Cabals in order to top deck]

But this current wording doesn't seem too difficult and creates some interesting side effects:
• you can't top deck multiple Cabals
• you may sometimes have a difficult decision when you have a Night card that don't want to play (either once or twice), e.g. Changeling.
• lastly, I'm considering creating several cards that care about revealing (ala Patron) so this may help with that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 02:49:25 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 25, 2019, 12:47:02 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 12:36:08 pm

...

I think this might get disqualified as the +1 Action / +1 Card would count as "Conditional Vanilla++ effects".

For images just use width attribute:

Code: [Select]

[img width=200]Image_URL[/img]


thanks - it's literally been ... seven years? eight? since i used a phpbbs. social media hasn't been kind to my markdown skills.

and re: disqualification: i'd hope not. the card itself doesn't give cards, actions, or villagers, it just changes how other existing components interact.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 25, 2019, 05:00:12 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 02:49:25 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 25, 2019, 12:47:02 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 12:36:08 pm

...

I think this might get disqualified as the +1 Action / +1 Card would count as "Conditional Vanilla++ effects".

For images just use width attribute:

Code: [Select]

[img width=200]Image_URL[/img]


thanks - it's literally been ... seven years? eight? since i used a phpbbs. social media hasn't been kind to my markdown skills.

and re: disqualification: i'd hope not. the card itself doesn't give cards, actions, or villagers, it just changes how other existing components interact.

True. The rules allow for making a card that is modified by other random cards, but don't specify about making a card that modifies other cards (or in this case, tokens).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 25, 2019, 06:16:31 pm

Sanctuary got an update. It now gives you up to three out of four cards. This buff is not as big at it seems (because this is a terminal action and still sifts 4 cards), but this makes it more playable in Big Money. I rather wanted to have a mediocre card (like Patrol and Oracle) instead of a bad one (like Harvest and Adventurer). Note, that the gained Silver makes this eventually slower than Hunting Grounds.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/r053vjjm.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 25, 2019, 06:42:14 pm

Quote from: King Leon on June 25, 2019, 06:16:31 pm

Sanctuary got an update. It now gives you up to three out of four cards. This buff is not as big at it seems (because this is a terminal action and still sifts 4 cards), but this makes it more playable in Big Money. I rather wanted to have a mediocre card (like Patrol and Oracle) instead of a bad one (like Harvest and Adventurer). Note, that the gained Silver makes this eventually slower than Hunting Grounds.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/r053vjjm.png)

It should say "...you may reveal it to gain a Silver to your hand." See Tunnel. This is because if you discard multiple cards, such as with Cellar, only the one on top is visible to the other players.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 06:57:15 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 25, 2019, 12:45:44 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 12:36:08 pm

Here's my entry. part of a set i'm working on that emphasizes non-attack player interaction.
Gossip - Action-Duration - $3
Until the end of your next turn, Villagers can be removed from Villagers mats during their owner's Action phase for +1 Action each or +1 Card each. This card affects all players.


link to card creator image bc i can't remember how to resize images using phpbb syntax (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=Gossip&description=Until%20the%20end%20of%20your%20next%20turn%2C%20Villagers%20can%20be%20removed%20from%20Villagers%20mats%20during%20their%20owner%27s%20Action%20phase%20for%20%2B1%20Action%20each%20or%20%2B1%20Card%20each.%20%0AThis%20card%20affects%20all%20players.&type=Action%20-%20Duration&credit=&creator=v01%20-%20spineflu&price=%243&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=4&color1=0&size=0)

This helps your opponents more than it helps you because they didn't have to play it or buy it. The only reason you'd buy it is if you were the only one obtaining Villagers, which is very unlikely.

kinda - you get the bonus during your current turn and your next turn, which balances it out a bit imo

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 25, 2019, 08:29:05 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 06:57:15 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 25, 2019, 12:45:44 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 12:36:08 pm

Here's my entry. part of a set i'm working on that emphasizes non-attack player interaction.
Gossip - Action-Duration - $3
Until the end of your next turn, Villagers can be removed from Villagers mats during their owner's Action phase for +1 Action each or +1 Card each. This card affects all players.


link to card creator image bc i can't remember how to resize images using phpbb syntax (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=Gossip&description=Until%20the%20end%20of%20your%20next%20turn%2C%20Villagers%20can%20be%20removed%20from%20Villagers%20mats%20during%20their%20owner%27s%20Action%20phase%20for%20%2B1%20Action%20each%20or%20%2B1%20Card%20each.%20%0AThis%20card%20affects%20all%20players.&type=Action%20-%20Duration&credit=&creator=v01%20-%20spineflu&price=%243&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=4&color1=0&size=0)

This helps your opponents more than it helps you because they didn't have to play it or buy it. The only reason you'd buy it is if you were the only one obtaining Villagers, which is very unlikely.

kinda - you get the bonus during your current turn and your next turn, which balances it out a bit imo

Ah, I misread it as only affecting your current turn. That makes it a bit more balanced, but it still has the issue naitchman pointed out-it's completely useless without a source of Villagers, and giving it +Villagers to fix that issue would disqualify it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on June 25, 2019, 09:32:36 pm

My entry:

Bookstore
(https://i.imgur.com/wrK6UEs.png)

Edit: Oops. Forgot the "reveal your hand" part.

Edit2:

Bookstore v2
(https://i.imgur.com/ftOmcP1.png)

Edit3: Changed cost to 5.

Bookstore v3
(https://i.imgur.com/3Y36SZy.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 10:02:56 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 25, 2019, 08:29:05 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 06:57:15 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 25, 2019, 12:45:44 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 12:36:08 pm

Here's my entry. part of a set i'm working on that emphasizes non-attack player interaction.
Gossip - Action-Duration - $3
Until the end of your next turn, Villagers can be removed from Villagers mats during their owner's Action phase for +1 Action each or +1 Card each. This card affects all players.


link to card creator image bc i can't remember how to resize images using phpbb syntax (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=Gossip&description=Until%20the%20end%20of%20your%20next%20turn%2C%20Villagers%20can%20be%20removed%20from%20Villagers%20mats%20during%20their%20owner%27s%20Action%20phase%20for%20%2B1%20Action%20each%20or%20%2B1%20Card%20each.%20%0AThis%20card%20affects%20all%20players.&type=Action%20-%20Duration&credit=&creator=v01%20-%20spineflu&price=%243&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=4&color1=0&size=0)

This helps your opponents more than it helps you because they didn't have to play it or buy it. The only reason you'd buy it is if you were the only one obtaining Villagers, which is very unlikely.

kinda - you get the bonus during your current turn and your next turn, which balances it out a bit imo

Ah, I misread it as only affecting your current turn. That makes it a bit more balanced, but it still has the issue naitchman pointed out-it's completely useless without a source of Villagers, and giving it +Villagers to fix that issue would disqualify it.

yeah thats fine - its a card whose utility depends on its kingdom, same as Moat when theres no attacks, or a lone potion-cost card in an otherwise potionless kingdom. Its there to make the games where it does fit more interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 25, 2019, 10:15:37 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 10:02:56 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 25, 2019, 08:29:05 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 06:57:15 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 25, 2019, 12:45:44 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 12:36:08 pm

Here's my entry. part of a set i'm working on that emphasizes non-attack player interaction.
Gossip - Action-Duration - $3
Until the end of your next turn, Villagers can be removed from Villagers mats during their owner's Action phase for +1 Action each or +1 Card each. This card affects all players.


link to card creator image bc i can't remember how to resize images using phpbb syntax (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=Gossip&description=Until%20the%20end%20of%20your%20next%20turn%2C%20Villagers%20can%20be%20removed%20from%20Villagers%20mats%20during%20their%20owner%27s%20Action%20phase%20for%20%2B1%20Action%20each%20or%20%2B1%20Card%20each.%20%0AThis%20card%20affects%20all%20players.&type=Action%20-%20Duration&credit=&creator=v01%20-%20spineflu&price=%243&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=4&color1=0&size=0)

This helps your opponents more than it helps you because they didn't have to play it or buy it. The only reason you'd buy it is if you were the only one obtaining Villagers, which is very unlikely.

kinda - you get the bonus during your current turn and your next turn, which balances it out a bit imo

Ah, I misread it as only affecting your current turn. That makes it a bit more balanced, but it still has the issue naitchman pointed out-it's completely useless without a source of Villagers, and giving it +Villagers to fix that issue would disqualify it.

yeah thats fine - its a card whose utility depends on its kingdom, same as Moat when theres no attacks, or a lone potion-cost card in an otherwise potionless kingdom. Its there to make the games where it does fit more interesting.

Except that both of those do SOMETHING at least. You might buy a lone potion-cost card if it's good enough, and Moat still gives you 2 cards. Gossip does literally NOTHING if none of the just 8 sources of Villagers are being used.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 25, 2019, 10:18:39 pm

Quote from: kru5h on June 25, 2019, 09:32:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ftOmcP1.png)

That seems way too powerful, especially in the late game. I would've priced that at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on June 25, 2019, 11:09:45 pm

I agree with you, but I tried it with $6 and it looks so plain. There's no logical reason for it, but makes the card look better.

Just kidding.

I'll probably change it to $5.

Let's analyze it:

Cards cost more money for 2 reasons: To prevent you from getting them too early, or to prevent you from getting too many of them too fast.

I'm not worried about players getting this card too early. If you could start your deck with it, it would draw your deck, then you would discard down to a Copper and an Estate (Barring Shelters/Heirlooms.) It only gradually improves as the game goes on.

I'm not worried about players getting too many of them because they don't stack very well. Once you've drawn to 10 cards, you probably already have most of the variety of your deck. Playing an additional one will probably only net you 2 or so more cards at best.

But yes, late game, the first one you play every turn is very powerful. After that, it's so-so.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 25, 2019, 11:34:41 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 25, 2019, 05:00:12 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 02:49:25 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 25, 2019, 12:47:02 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 12:36:08 pm

...

I think this might get disqualified as the +1 Action / +1 Card would count as "Conditional Vanilla++ effects".

For images just use width attribute:

Code: [Select]

[img width=200]Image_URL[/img]


thanks - it's literally been ... seven years? eight? since i used a phpbbs. social media hasn't been kind to my markdown skills.

and re: disqualification: i'd hope not. the card itself doesn't give cards, actions, or villagers, it just changes how other existing components interact.

True. The rules allow for making a card that is modified by other random cards, but don't specify about making a card that modifies other cards (or in this case, tokens).

Note that you didn't get the Fragasnap +1, so it seems as if this would, in fact, get disqualified. (unless they just missed it)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 26, 2019, 04:22:51 am

Here's a variant on Adventurer/Counting House that will hopefully be more useful than either of them.

(https://i.imgur.com/L8FZ5Le.jpg)

EDIT: New version now is no longer restricted to Treasures, and isn't terrible when you have an empty discard. Also I thought I could drop the price. Now it's more of a Mountain Village/Oracle mashup, I suppose.

Quote

Polymath
$3 - Action

If you don't have Deluded or Envious, take Envious.
Do this twice: Choose one: Put your deck into your discard, or look through your discard pile and reveal a card costing up to $6 from it, and put it into your hand.

Old version:

Quote from: v1

Polymath
$4 - Action

If you don't have Deluded or Envious, take Envious. Look through your discard pile and reveal up to 2 Treasures costing up to $6 from it, and put them into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on June 26, 2019, 06:15:06 am

Quote from: faust on June 26, 2019, 04:22:51 am

Here's a variant on Adventurer/Counting House that will hopefully be more useful than either of them.

(https://i.imgur.com/U6UEDm8.jpg)

Quote

Polymath
$5 - Action

If you don't have Deluded or Envious, take Envious. Look through your discard pile and reveal up to 2 Treasures costing up to $6 from it, and put them into your hand.

What are you envisioning is the use for this card? The only case I can think of where it's worth buying is Fool's Gold in a weak kingdom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 26, 2019, 07:19:07 am

Quote from: Awaclus on June 26, 2019, 06:15:06 am

What are you envisioning is the use for this card? The only case I can think of where it's worth buying is Fool's Gold in a weak kingdom.

Kingdom treasures mostly? Or fishing for Potions. Possibly TfB. Now I think it will need to put your deck into your discard pile or something to not be terrible. Also of course it combos with Capitalism.

I'll think of some improvement. You're right that it's still too weak.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on June 26, 2019, 08:15:39 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 25, 2019, 12:47:02 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 12:36:08 pm

Gossip - Action-Duration - $3
Until the end of your next turn, Villagers can be removed from Villagers mats during their owner's Action phase for +1 Action each or +1 Card each. This card affects all players.

I think this might get disqualified as the +1 Action / +1 Card would count as "Conditional Vanilla++ effects".

If a card read "While this is in play, when you play an Action, +1 Card," I would disqualify it, so modifying tokens to give additional Vanilla++ benefits must disqualify Gossip.
If it gave a non-Vanilla++ effect (or some kind of scaling effect) for consuming tokens (or any other trigger) then it would be fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 26, 2019, 09:00:34 am

Quote from: faust on June 26, 2019, 07:19:07 am

Quote from: Awaclus on June 26, 2019, 06:15:06 am

What are you envisioning is the use for this card? The only case I can think of where it's worth buying is Fool's Gold in a weak kingdom.

Kingdom treasures mostly? Or fishing for Potions. Possibly TfB. Now I think it will need to put your deck into your discard pile or something to not be terrible. Also of course it combos with Capitalism.

I'll think of some improvement. You're right that it's still too weak.

Make the card itself a treasure? Then there is *always* a Kingdom treasure with this. Because it only looks through discard pile, it's a lot weaker than it otherwise would be. It might make it too much stronger than you want (self-combo and now non-terminal), but I think the idea works a lot better with this self-synergy. Of course, you would have to sacrifice the ability to fish treasure for t4b if you make this change.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 26, 2019, 09:10:22 am

Quote from: King Leon on June 25, 2019, 02:15:29 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 24, 2019, 08:40:54 pm

CHALLENGE #34 - No Vanilla Bonuses Submission:

Quote

Consul
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left chooses an action card costing more than it for you to gain and play.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/q2rfvuzv.png)

You probably want to add "other than Consul".

Why? Part of the risk/fun for me is that your opponent could turn the rest of your hand into consuls. Do you consider this too much of a weakness? Is the pile-driving potential too not-Dominion-y? This got heavily up-voted, so can you or anyone who up-voted it help me understand? There's a perspective I'm not seeing.

 It is intended that Consuls aren't so bad for you to gain since they cost 4 -- you can consul a consul into a 5-cost card. I have another solution in mind, but I wanted to understand what the problem is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 26, 2019, 09:31:52 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 26, 2019, 08:15:39 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 25, 2019, 12:47:02 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2019, 12:36:08 pm

Gossip - Action-Duration - $3
Until the end of your next turn, Villagers can be removed from Villagers mats during their owner's Action phase for +1 Action each or +1 Card each. This card affects all players.

I think this might get disqualified as the +1 Action / +1 Card would count as "Conditional Vanilla++ effects".

If a card read "While this is in play, when you play an Action, +1 Card," I would disqualify it, so modifying tokens to give additional Vanilla++ benefits must disqualify Gossip.
If it gave a non-Vanilla++ effect (or some kind of scaling effect) for consuming tokens (or any other trigger) then it would be fine.

fair enough.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on June 26, 2019, 09:59:37 am

(https://i.imgur.com/p4dqih6.png)

Here's my entry.  Smelter is an odd trash for benefit card that offers a choice of either a Salvager/Beggar effect (trash a card, gain a bunch of Coppers to your hand) or a Forge-like gaining effect that works only on Coppers.  Early game, it's nice for turning clumps of Coppers into Silvers or engine parts, or occasionally for trashing Estates to hit a certain price point.  Later, the two options can work more closely in tandem (especially if you're able to play multiples per turn) for trashing expensive cards into Coppers and then the Coppers into Provinces.  Also be alert: Smelters can empty the Copper pile very quickly if you're not careful. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 26, 2019, 11:38:46 am

Quote from: 4est on June 26, 2019, 09:59:37 am

(https://i.imgur.com/p4dqih6.png)

Here's my entry.  Smelter is an odd trash for benefit card that offers a choice of either a Salvager/Beggar effect (trash a card, gain a bunch of Coppers to your hand) or a Forge-like gaining effect that works only on Coppers.  Early game, it's nice for turning clumps of Coppers into Silvers or engine parts, or occasionally for trashing Estates to hit a certain price point.  Later, the two options can work more closely in tandem (especially if you're able to play multiples per turn) for trashing expensive cards into Coppers and then the Coppers into Provinces.  Also be alert: Smelters can empty the Copper pile very quickly if you're not careful.

This is an amazingly designed card. It is very simple to understand since the two effects are basically mirrors of each other. Having a weak forge and a weak salvager with self-synergy and combined into one card... I just love this card. I very much could see this card existing in a Dominion expansion. Nice work!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 26, 2019, 04:10:10 pm

Quote from: 4est on June 26, 2019, 09:59:37 am

(https://i.imgur.com/p4dqih6.png)

Here's my entry.  Smelter is an odd trash for benefit card that offers a choice of either a Salvager/Beggar effect (trash a card, gain a bunch of Coppers to your hand) or a Forge-like gaining effect that works only on Coppers.  Early game, it's nice for turning clumps of Coppers into Silvers or engine parts, or occasionally for trashing Estates to hit a certain price point.  Later, the two options can work more closely in tandem (especially if you're able to play multiples per turn) for trashing expensive cards into Coppers and then the Coppers into Provinces.  Also be alert: Smelters can empty the Copper pile very quickly if you're not careful.

I have a hard time seeing the usefulness of this card.

At its price point it's not really an early game card, and even if you do get a 2/5 split, you could easily get unlucky and get Smelter-C-C-E-E or something like that on turn 3.

The ability to trash is necessary early on and by the time you can get it (turn 5-6) your deck has too many non coppers that make this ability less useful. Besides you only start with 7 coppers so how much can you use this (yes I know of it's other ability, I'll get to that in a second)?

It's other ability is gaining coppers which you usually don't want to do (beggar is usually not a great card unless there's some alt VP strat or something like that). Salvager would seem better. Not only is it cheaper, but it doesn't flood your deck with coppers.

Using the abilities together is not so great either. If you throne room a smelter (or play 2) to trash a card and then gain a card from all those coppers, you get an effect that is not as good as a single play of salvager (if you salvage a $4 card with $2 silvers in hand, you can buy a province or 2 $4 cards. If you Smelt a $4 card with 2 silvers in hand and then smelt again you get 2 $4 cards. You could get a province but then you'd have to keep the copper).

I think the price needs to come down probably to $3 (at least to $4 so you can open with it).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 26, 2019, 04:28:17 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 25, 2019, 01:58:14 pm

Here's my entry for this week's challenge:

Cabal

(https://i.imgur.com/wBSNUsu.png)

Cabal is a TR variant that can't be drawn dead. It can also TR Night cards.

I am considering a simpler Night clause:
"You may play a Night card from your hand twice or put this on top of your deck."

But this current wording doesn't seem too difficult and creates some interesting side effects:
• you can't top deck multiple Cabals
• you may sometimes have a difficult decision when you have a Night card that don't want to play (either once or twice), e.g. Changeling.
• lastly, I'm considering creating several cards that care about revealing (ala Patron) so this may help with that.

I'm comparing this to Royal Carriage.

Besides technical ways in which they TR (RC can't TR self trashers, you can use multiple RC on a single action card) here are the important differences that I see:

Pros of Cabal
1) Can TR night cards- The caveat is that there aren't many night cards (15), and some of them aren't good TR targets (Guardian, Raider).
2) Can TR itself- This is very helpful if you are low on actions

Cons of Cabal
1) Can only save 1 for future turns (unlike RC which has no limit on how many can be on your tavern)
2) When you save it for future turns, it takes up a space in your next hand- You only draw 4 new cards (besides Cabal), whereas with RC you draw 5 new cards

Absent of its ability to TR night cards, Cabal is a TR that can save itself in a weaker way than RC. It would obviously be TR<Cabal<RC. It would have to be more than $4 (because it's better than TR) but it couldn't be $5 (because it's weaker than RC). The Q is whether the ability to TR night cards pushes it up to $5. It doesn't really seem like it unless there's a night heavy kingdom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 26, 2019, 04:43:48 pm

Quote from: faust on June 26, 2019, 04:22:51 am

Here's a variant on Adventurer/Counting House that will hopefully be more useful than either of them.

(https://i.imgur.com/U6UEDm8.jpg)

Quote

Polymath
$5 - Action

If you don't have Deluded or Envious, take Envious. Look through your discard pile and reveal up to 2 Treasures costing up to $6 from it, and put them into your hand.

(I'm assuming BTW that when you say "costing up to $6" you mean "each costing up to $6" not a total of $6 between the 2 of them)

Even assuming you add the discard your deck part, this is going to have similar problems to adventurer. Take the following scenarios:

There are not any kingdom treasures:
This is a really bad buy here. At best it's a terminal +$2, if you have golds or silvers in hand it can be negative $.

You're playing an engine and there are kingdom treasures:
This is a terminal that draws 2 cards. Also, since it only draws treasures, absent of capitalism or crown, it will only give you cards that don't help your engine continue. This is usually not what you want with an engine.

You're playing BM and there are kingdom treasures:
This is the most promising but still has problems. Keep in mind that most kingdom treasures that cost less than $6 only produce $2. This means this will net you $4. However, If you're playing BM, you'll likely have silver and gold which will cut away from that $4 gain. You could try to go for a deck with kingdom treasures (like idol) and polymaths but I think this could probably be beat with a simple BM smithy or some other BM enabler.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on June 26, 2019, 05:08:29 pm

The point of Polymath really seems to be kingdom treasures with special effects but those treasure are just not even close to a high enough percentage of to cardpool for this to work with full random card selection.

It needs to be a split pile that guarantees the special effect works like Sauna/Gladiator/Catapult etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 26, 2019, 05:27:49 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 26, 2019, 04:10:10 pm

Quote from: 4est on June 26, 2019, 09:59:37 am

(https://i.imgur.com/p4dqih6.png)

Here's my entry.  Smelter is an odd trash for benefit card that offers a choice of either a Salvager/Beggar effect (trash a card, gain a bunch of Coppers to your hand) or a Forge-like gaining effect that works only on Coppers.  Early game, it's nice for turning clumps of Coppers into Silvers or engine parts, or occasionally for trashing Estates to hit a certain price point.  Later, the two options can work more closely in tandem (especially if you're able to play multiples per turn) for trashing expensive cards into Coppers and then the Coppers into Provinces.  Also be alert: Smelters can empty the Copper pile very quickly if you're not careful.

I have a hard time seeing the usefulness of this card.

At its price point it's not really an early game card, and even if you do get a 2/5 split, you could easily get unlucky and get Smelter-C-C-E-E or something like that on turn 3.

The ability to trash is necessary early on and by the time you can get it (turn 5-6) your deck has too many non coppers that make this ability less useful. Besides you only start with 7 coppers so how much can you use this (yes I know of it's other ability, I'll get to that in a second)?

It's other ability is gaining coppers which you usually don't want to do (beggar is usually not a great card unless there's some alt VP strat or something like that). Salvager would seem better. Not only is it cheaper, but it doesn't flood your deck with coppers.

Using the abilities together is not so great either. If you throne room a smelter (or play 2) to trash a card and then gain a card from all those coppers, you get an effect that is not as good as a single play of salvager (if you salvage a $4 card with $2 silvers in hand, you can buy a province or 2 $4 cards. If you Smelt a $4 card with 2 silvers in hand and then smelt again you get 2 $4 cards. You could get a province but then you'd have to keep the copper).

I think the price needs to come down probably to $3 (at least to $4 so you can open with it).

I disagree. If you build a draw engine a bit first, the ability to turn 4 coppers into a 4 cost (or 5 coppers into a 5 cost) is incredibly strong. This is far too strong at a $3. I think the mass-trashing and flexibility means this belongs as a 5-cost. To make it stronger a +buy could be attached (this makes some sense you can buy coppers with the +buy) or some sort of (you main gain a copper to hand), but I would buy this card for 5 for sure. I might treat it like a cheaper forge, and I think that sort of delayed-mass-trashing is better implemented by this card than forge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on June 26, 2019, 06:36:39 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pzNNhB6.png)

Behold, a card that out-Golems Golem! Plays 3 Action cards instead of just 2... at the cost of first discarding everything. Well, at least you won't have to worry about the Djinns becoming useless if you've drawn your deck...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 26, 2019, 08:24:00 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 26, 2019, 04:28:17 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 25, 2019, 01:58:14 pm

Here's my entry for this week's challenge:

Cabal

(https://i.imgur.com/wBSNUsu.png)

Cabal is a TR variant that can't be drawn dead. It can also TR Night cards.

I am considering a simpler Night clause:
"You may play a Night card from your hand twice or put this on top of your deck."

But this current wording doesn't seem too difficult and creates some interesting side effects:
• you can't top deck multiple Cabals
• you may sometimes have a difficult decision when you have a Night card that don't want to play (either once or twice), e.g. Changeling.
• lastly, I'm considering creating several cards that care about revealing (ala Patron) so this may help with that.

I'm comparing this to Royal Carriage.

Besides technical ways in which they TR (RC can't TR self trashers, you can use multiple RC on a single action card) here are the important differences that I see:

Pros of Cabal
1) Can TR night cards- The caveat is that there aren't many night cards (15), and some of them aren't good TR targets (Guardian, Raider).
2) Can TR itself- This is very helpful if you are low on actions

Cons of Cabal
1) Can only save 1 for future turns (unlike RC which has no limit on how many can be on your tavern)
2) When you save it for future turns, it takes up a space in your next hand- You only draw 4 new cards (besides Cabal), whereas with RC you draw 5 new cards

Absent of its ability to TR night cards, Cabal is a TR that can save itself in a weaker way than RC. It would obviously be TR<Cabal<RC. It would have to be more than $4 (because it's better than TR) but it couldn't be $5 (because it's weaker than RC). The Q is whether the ability to TR night cards pushes it up to $5. It doesn't really seem like it unless there's a night heavy kingdom.

Good Analysis. A few points:
1. One other pro to Cabal is that it can't be drawn dead. If you Smithy RC, you'll have to wait until the next shuffle to (possibly) play it.
2. I get that one RC is likely stronger than Cabal. But I think there's room for both. Some kingdoms will have one, some the other, and it's only when they are in the same Kingdom that it's a potential issue.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 26, 2019, 09:40:13 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 26, 2019, 08:24:00 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 26, 2019, 04:28:17 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 25, 2019, 01:58:14 pm

Here's my entry for this week's challenge:

Cabal

(https://i.imgur.com/wBSNUsu.png)

Cabal is a TR variant that can't be drawn dead. It can also TR Night cards.

I am considering a simpler Night clause:
"You may play a Night card from your hand twice or put this on top of your deck."

But this current wording doesn't seem too difficult and creates some interesting side effects:
• you can't top deck multiple Cabals
• you may sometimes have a difficult decision when you have a Night card that don't want to play (either once or twice), e.g. Changeling.
• lastly, I'm considering creating several cards that care about revealing (ala Patron) so this may help with that.

I'm comparing this to Royal Carriage.

Besides technical ways in which they TR (RC can't TR self trashers, you can use multiple RC on a single action card) here are the important differences that I see:

Pros of Cabal
1) Can TR night cards- The caveat is that there aren't many night cards (15), and some of them aren't good TR targets (Guardian, Raider).
2) Can TR itself- This is very helpful if you are low on actions

Cons of Cabal
1) Can only save 1 for future turns (unlike RC which has no limit on how many can be on your tavern)
2) When you save it for future turns, it takes up a space in your next hand- You only draw 4 new cards (besides Cabal), whereas with RC you draw 5 new cards

Absent of its ability to TR night cards, Cabal is a TR that can save itself in a weaker way than RC. It would obviously be TR<Cabal<RC. It would have to be more than $4 (because it's better than TR) but it couldn't be $5 (because it's weaker than RC). The Q is whether the ability to TR night cards pushes it up to $5. It doesn't really seem like it unless there's a night heavy kingdom.

Good Analysis. A few points:
1. One other pro to Cabal is that it can't be drawn dead. If you Smithy RC, you'll have to wait until the next shuffle to (possibly) play it.
2. I get that one RC is likely stronger than Cabal. But I think there's room for both. Some kingdoms will have one, some the other, and it's only when they are in the same Kingdom that it's a potential issue.

1. You're absolutely right. I actually thought of that before writing my post and then forgot to include it.

2. Fair point (especially when adding in the pro of never being drawn dead).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 26, 2019, 10:38:52 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 26, 2019, 09:40:13 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 26, 2019, 08:24:00 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 26, 2019, 04:28:17 pm

I'm comparing this to Royal Carriage.

Besides technical ways in which they TR (RC can't TR self trashers, you can use multiple RC on a single action card) here are the important differences that I see:

Pros of Cabal
1) Can TR night cards- The caveat is that there aren't many night cards (15), and some of them aren't good TR targets (Guardian, Raider).
2) Can TR itself- This is very helpful if you are low on actions

Cons of Cabal
1) Can only save 1 for future turns (unlike RC which has no limit on how many can be on your tavern)
2) When you save it for future turns, it takes up a space in your next hand- You only draw 4 new cards (besides Cabal), whereas with RC you draw 5 new cards

Absent of its ability to TR night cards, Cabal is a TR that can save itself in a weaker way than RC. It would obviously be TR<Cabal<RC. It would have to be more than $4 (because it's better than TR) but it couldn't be $5 (because it's weaker than RC). The Q is whether the ability to TR night cards pushes it up to $5. It doesn't really seem like it unless there's a night heavy kingdom.

Good Analysis. A few points:
1. One other pro to Cabal is that it can't be drawn dead. If you Smithy RC, you'll have to wait until the next shuffle to (possibly) play it.
2. I get that one RC is likely stronger than Cabal. But I think there's room for both. Some kingdoms will have one, some the other, and it's only when they are in the same Kingdom that it's a potential issue.

1. You're absolutely right. I actually thought of that before writing my post and then forgot to include it.

2. Fair point (especially when adding in the pro of never being drawn dead).

One other point I want to make. I don't even think the Kingdom needs to be Night intensive. With just one Night card, the Night TR ability could be enough to make it worthwhile.

Cabal originally began as a cheaper TR just for Night cards, until I said "DUH" and realized that was useless on a Kingdom with just 1 Night card (you could just buy a 2nd copy of the Night card, since they are non terminal).

However, now Cabal offers you the ability to effectively get that 2nd Night card but transform into a TR when you don't want that.

For example, rather than get Two Vampires, you can get Vampire and Cabal. And once it's a bat, you've got options: if you have more than 3 cards to trash, you can still double bat with Cabal, but now, you don't have to. If you only have 1 or 2 cards to trash, save Cabal for your next turn.

Or Cabal and Changeling (use it mostly as a regular TR, until you have a desire to double Changeling (and you get to keep the Cabal after).

Even with Raider as the only night, using it occasionally as a +$6 next turn seems pretty powerful.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 26, 2019, 11:27:41 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 26, 2019, 08:24:00 pm

1. One other pro to Cabal is that it can't be drawn dead.

Yes it can. You can only topdeck one per turn, so if you draw multiple Cabals with no other Night cards, all but one of them was drawn dead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 27, 2019, 12:30:22 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 26, 2019, 11:27:41 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 26, 2019, 08:24:00 pm

1. One other pro to Cabal is that it can't be drawn dead.

Yes it can. You can only topdeck one per turn, so if you draw multiple Cabals with no other Night cards, all but one of them was drawn dead.

True. I was thinking of the case where you only one Cabal, that it couldn't be drawn dead.

Interestingly, if you had 3 of them, you would be able to top deck 2 of them. (of course, outside of other effects, top decking two Cabals means you'd only draw three other cards)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 27, 2019, 01:56:41 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 27, 2019, 12:30:22 am

Quote from: Gubump on June 26, 2019, 11:27:41 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 26, 2019, 08:24:00 pm

1. One other pro to Cabal is that it can't be drawn dead.

Yes it can. You can only topdeck one per turn, so if you draw multiple Cabals with no other Night cards, all but one of them was drawn dead.

True. I was thinking of the case where you only one Cabal, that it couldn't be drawn dead.

Interestingly, if you had 3 of them, you would be able to top deck 2 of them. (of course, outside of other effects, top decking two Cabals means you'd only draw three other cards)

Yeah, I just realized that what I said about all but one of them being drawn dead is wrong. You can actually always topdeck all but the first one played if you get multiple. My point that one can get drawn dead still stands, of course.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 27, 2019, 02:14:52 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 26, 2019, 06:36:39 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pzNNhB6.png)

Behold, a card that out-Golems Golem! Plays 3 Action cards instead of just 2... at the cost of first discarding everything. Well, at least you won't have to worry about the Djinns becoming useless if you've drawn your deck...

Djinns can play Golems and Golems can play Djinns, which creates very chaotic situations. This is also broken with draw-to-X .

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: math on June 27, 2019, 03:53:58 am

Quote from: King Leon on June 27, 2019, 02:14:52 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 26, 2019, 06:36:39 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pzNNhB6.png)

Behold, a card that out-Golems Golem! Plays 3 Action cards instead of just 2... at the cost of first discarding everything. Well, at least you won't have to worry about the Djinns becoming useless if you've drawn your deck...

Djinns can play Golems and Golems can play Djinns, which creates very chaotic situations. This is also broken with draw-to-X .

I don't think it is a problem for a card to be broken with draw-to-X (see Black Market and Villa).  Also, if you hit two different draw-to-X cards one is probably wasted, and if you hit none you'd better hope you have some other draw among the three cards.

The alternating Golems and Djinns are definitely chaotic, but that's a two-card combo that will rarely come up, and other than being mandatory it isn't really more complicated than Golem into King's Court playing another Golem into another King's Court.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on June 27, 2019, 11:07:49 am

Returned Adventurer
cost $5 - Action
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand, and discard the rest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 27, 2019, 03:26:43 pm

Quote from: majiponi on June 27, 2019, 11:07:49 am

Returned Adventurer
cost $5 - Action
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand, and discard the rest.

Cool idea but strictly worse than Embassy. I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type and consider a price of $4 or consider another buff.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 27, 2019, 03:44:17 pm

Quote from: segura on June 27, 2019, 03:26:43 pm

Quote from: majiponi on June 27, 2019, 11:07:49 am

Returned Adventurer
cost $5 - Action
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand, and discard the rest.

Cool idea but strictly worse than Embassy. I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type and consider a price of $4 or consider another buff.

That would be strictly better than Adventurer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Titandrake on June 27, 2019, 04:11:31 pm

Quote from: 4est on June 26, 2019, 09:59:37 am

(https://i.imgur.com/p4dqih6.png)

Here's my entry.  Smelter is an odd trash for benefit card that offers a choice of either a Salvager/Beggar effect (trash a card, gain a bunch of Coppers to your hand) or a Forge-like gaining effect that works only on Coppers.  Early game, it's nice for turning clumps of Coppers into Silvers or engine parts, or occasionally for trashing Estates to hit a certain price point.  Later, the two options can work more closely in tandem (especially if you're able to play multiples per turn) for trashing expensive cards into Coppers and then the Coppers into Provinces.  Also be alert: Smelters can empty the Copper pile very quickly if you're not careful.

I'm sure this was unintentional, but this is actually the exact same design as one of the winners of the Mini-Set Design Contest rinkworks hosted back in 2012 (excluding the cost).

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3382.msg71526#msg71526

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 27, 2019, 05:01:24 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 27, 2019, 03:44:17 pm

Quote from: segura on June 27, 2019, 03:26:43 pm

Quote from: majiponi on June 27, 2019, 11:07:49 am

Returned Adventurer
cost $5 - Action
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand, and discard the rest.

Cool idea but strictly worse than Embassy. I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type and consider a price of $4 or consider another buff.

That would be strictly better than Adventurer.

And? Adventurer is a) removed and is b) underpowered like Mandarin, i.e. it sucks at any price.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 27, 2019, 05:07:30 pm

Quote from: segura on June 27, 2019, 05:01:24 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 27, 2019, 03:44:17 pm

Quote from: segura on June 27, 2019, 03:26:43 pm

Quote from: majiponi on June 27, 2019, 11:07:49 am

Returned Adventurer
cost $5 - Action
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand, and discard the rest.

Cool idea but strictly worse than Embassy. I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type and consider a price of $4 or consider another buff.

That would be strictly better than Adventurer.

And? Adventurer is a) removed and is b) underpowered like Mandarin, i.e. it sucks at any price.

Even though it's small, the fact that Embassy gives your opponents a Silver on-gain is intended to act as a drawback; which means that Returned Adventurer having a strictly worse effect for the same price is ok. Though I agree it's probably much weaker than Embassy.

Removed or not; no official second edition cards are strictly stronger or weaker than first edition cards. Even if it's a really minor drawback (like hey, maybe your opponents gain a Silver when you gain it!), I think it should have something to prevent it from being strictly stronger than Adventurer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silvern on June 27, 2019, 05:27:15 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 24, 2019, 05:08:24 pm

Ok. Looks like we're going with fragasnap's contest. Here's my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/1mYhHV6.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/LPs8WXM.png)

It's a BoM variant (again, I know) that has specific cards it plays. These cards are not part of the supply, so the only way to play them would be through Crime Lord, and you'll always be able to play Crime Lord as them (unlike BoM when the pile depletes), but there's only 3. Will it be worth it? Depends on the 3 Underlings cards and depends on the kingdom.

Beat ya to it!

Quote from: silvern on August 16, 2018, 05:38:39 pm

Band of Misfits, except made up of even MORE misfits than the other Band-of-misfits
$5                    Action
Play this as if it were one of the set aside cards on the BOMEMUOEMMTTOBOM mat. This is that card until it leaves play.
----
Setup: add 3 action cards not used in this kingdom, each costing $4, to the BOMEMUOEMMTTOBOM mat.


(I actually don't think this would be a horrible idea or anything, but it's still a funny one to me)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 27, 2019, 05:27:49 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 27, 2019, 05:07:30 pm

Quote from: segura on June 27, 2019, 05:01:24 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 27, 2019, 03:44:17 pm

Quote from: segura on June 27, 2019, 03:26:43 pm

Quote from: majiponi on June 27, 2019, 11:07:49 am

Returned Adventurer
cost $5 - Action
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand, and discard the rest.

Cool idea but strictly worse than Embassy. I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type and consider a price of $4 or consider another buff.

That would be strictly better than Adventurer.

And? Adventurer is a) removed and is b) underpowered like Mandarin, i.e. it sucks at any price.

Even though it's small, the fact that Embassy gives your opponents a Silver on-gain is intended to act as a drawback; which means that Returned Adventurer having a strictly worse effect for the same price is ok. Though I agree it's probably much weaker than Embassy.

Removed or not; no official second edition cards are strictly stronger or weaker than first edition cards. Even if it's a really minor drawback (like hey, maybe your opponents gain a Silver when you gain it!), I think it should have something to prevent it from being strictly stronger than Adventurer.

I faintly remember that LFN argued that Adventurer could cost $2. Sounds right given that in an engine it is worse than Moat.
Using a mispriced, underpowered, removed card as benchmark for fan cards leads to mispriced fan cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 27, 2019, 05:31:18 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 27, 2019, 05:07:30 pm

Quote from: segura on June 27, 2019, 05:01:24 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 27, 2019, 03:44:17 pm

Quote from: segura on June 27, 2019, 03:26:43 pm

Quote from: majiponi on June 27, 2019, 11:07:49 am

Returned Adventurer
cost $5 - Action
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand, and discard the rest.

Cool idea but strictly worse than Embassy. I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type and consider a price of $4 or consider another buff.

That would be strictly better than Adventurer.

And? Adventurer is a) removed and is b) underpowered like Mandarin, i.e. it sucks at any price.

Even though it's small, the fact that Embassy gives your opponents a Silver on-gain is intended to act as a drawback; which means that Returned Adventurer having a strictly worse effect for the same price is ok. Though I agree it's probably much weaker than Embassy.

Removed or not; no official second edition cards are strictly stronger or weaker than first edition cards. Even if it's a really minor drawback (like hey, maybe your opponents gain a Silver when you gain it!), I think it should have something to prevent it from being strictly stronger than Adventurer.

Technically, it is not strictly better. If you have 5 victory cards on the top of your deck, adventurer is better since it continues to search. I know that's small but that's enough to make it not strictly better. It's pretty much better but not strictly better, and pretty much better is okay when it comes to universally agreed mispriced cards (Noble brigand is pretty much better than Thief, miser is pretty much better than pirate ship).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 27, 2019, 05:37:32 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 27, 2019, 05:31:18 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 27, 2019, 05:07:30 pm

Quote from: segura on June 27, 2019, 05:01:24 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 27, 2019, 03:44:17 pm

Quote from: segura on June 27, 2019, 03:26:43 pm

Quote from: majiponi on June 27, 2019, 11:07:49 am

Returned Adventurer
cost $5 - Action
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand, and discard the rest.

Cool idea but strictly worse than Embassy. I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type and consider a price of $4 or consider another buff.

That would be strictly better than Adventurer.

And? Adventurer is a) removed and is b) underpowered like Mandarin, i.e. it sucks at any price.

Even though it's small, the fact that Embassy gives your opponents a Silver on-gain is intended to act as a drawback; which means that Returned Adventurer having a strictly worse effect for the same price is ok. Though I agree it's probably much weaker than Embassy.

Removed or not; no official second edition cards are strictly stronger or weaker than first edition cards. Even if it's a really minor drawback (like hey, maybe your opponents gain a Silver when you gain it!), I think it should have something to prevent it from being strictly stronger than Adventurer.

Technically, it is not strictly better. If you have 5 victory cards on the top of your deck, adventurer is better since it continues to search. I know that's small but that's enough to make it not strictly better. It's pretty much better but not strictly better, and pretty much better is okay (Noble brigand is pretty much better than Thief).

The strictly better was to the suggested modification of "I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type", not the original.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 27, 2019, 05:39:15 pm

Quote from: silvern on June 27, 2019, 05:27:15 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 24, 2019, 05:08:24 pm

Ok. Looks like we're going with fragasnap's contest. Here's my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/1mYhHV6.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/LPs8WXM.png)

It's a BoM variant (again, I know) that has specific cards it plays. These cards are not part of the supply, so the only way to play them would be through Crime Lord, and you'll always be able to play Crime Lord as them (unlike BoM when the pile depletes), but there's only 3. Will it be worth it? Depends on the 3 Underlings cards and depends on the kingdom.

Beat ya to it!

Quote from: silvern on August 16, 2018, 05:38:39 pm

Band of Misfits, except made up of even MORE misfits than the other Band-of-misfits
$5                    Action
Play this as if it were one of the set aside cards on the BOMEMUOEMMTTOBOM mat. This is that card until it leaves play.
----
Setup: add 3 action cards not used in this kingdom, each costing $4, to the BOMEMUOEMMTTOBOM mat.


(I actually don't think this would be a horrible idea or anything, but it's still a funny one to me)

HA! I give my word that I thought of this card independently. It's pretty similar, with the exception that I allow $3 cards on the Underlings Mat. Funny that it's in RBCI, like you said it would be fine, it only just has a funny Mat name.

(This kind of reminds me of South Park's "Simpsons Did It" episode)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 27, 2019, 05:41:30 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 27, 2019, 05:37:32 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 27, 2019, 05:31:18 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 27, 2019, 05:07:30 pm

Quote from: segura on June 27, 2019, 05:01:24 pm

Quote from: Gubump on June 27, 2019, 03:44:17 pm

Quote from: segura on June 27, 2019, 03:26:43 pm

Quote from: majiponi on June 27, 2019, 11:07:49 am

Returned Adventurer
cost $5 - Action
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand, and discard the rest.

Cool idea but strictly worse than Embassy. I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type and consider a price of $4 or consider another buff.

That would be strictly better than Adventurer.

And? Adventurer is a) removed and is b) underpowered like Mandarin, i.e. it sucks at any price.

Even though it's small, the fact that Embassy gives your opponents a Silver on-gain is intended to act as a drawback; which means that Returned Adventurer having a strictly worse effect for the same price is ok. Though I agree it's probably much weaker than Embassy.

Removed or not; no official second edition cards are strictly stronger or weaker than first edition cards. Even if it's a really minor drawback (like hey, maybe your opponents gain a Silver when you gain it!), I think it should have something to prevent it from being strictly stronger than Adventurer.

Technically, it is not strictly better. If you have 5 victory cards on the top of your deck, adventurer is better since it continues to search. I know that's small but that's enough to make it not strictly better. It's pretty much better but not strictly better, and pretty much better is okay (Noble brigand is pretty much better than Thief).

The strictly better was to the suggested modification of "I'd make the card dig for 2 cards of the named type", not the original.

Oops you're right. Still I think what Segura said is right. Using mispriced cards as a benchmark is a bad idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 27, 2019, 06:02:33 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/2f0XuuG.png)

Sanctuary
Action - $6
Trash any number of cards from your hand. Gain a non-Victory card costing up to $5 minus $1 per card you trashed (but not less than $0).

Here's my card. Good for trashing and gaining. If you only trash one card, it's strictly worse than Altar, but Sanctuary can trash a lot more and can be used once you're out of trash fodder.

Version 2: Updated the wording and made it non-Victory gaining to prevent easy double duchies in the endgame.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on June 27, 2019, 06:09:49 pm

I think it needs to be either 5$ or 7$.  Altar is ok at 6$ because it trashes one at a time so it's a little less swingy for only one player to get it.  This is pretty nuts if only one player hits the 6$ to get it only, they can trash 3 cards and gain a pawn or something, that's about as close as it gets to unequal access Chapel.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 27, 2019, 06:28:39 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on June 27, 2019, 06:09:49 pm

I think it needs to be either 5$ or 7$.  Altar is ok at 6$ because it trashes one at a time so it's a little less swingy for only one player to get it.  This is pretty nuts if only one player hits the 6$ to get it only, they can trash 3 cards and gain a pawn or something, that's about as close as it gets to unequal access Chapel.

I was considering $5, but I’m not sure if it’s okay that Sanctuary could then gain copies of itself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on June 27, 2019, 06:54:14 pm

I mental mistepped that you'd have to trash at least one.  I think you need to remove the ability to trash 0 even if it stays at 6$, really, it's probably a little too versatile for your remake variant to start slamming double Duchy turns in greening phase no matter what tier of purchase it happened at.  Even altar requires you to lose a copper the turn you gain a Duchy which goes a long way to making it not a double duchy turn.

I think it's probably fine at 7$ as written.  Forge-copper-copper-copper-estate is a little better than
Sanctuary-copper-copper-copper-estate but greening phase Sanctuary-copper-Silver-Silver-Province is a lot better than what Forge offers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 27, 2019, 08:04:31 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on June 27, 2019, 06:54:14 pm

I mental mistepped that you'd have to trash at least one.  I think you need to remove the ability to trash 0 even if it stays at 6$, really, it's probably a little too versatile for your remake variant to start slamming double Duchy turns in greening phase no matter what tier of purchase it happened at.  Even altar requires you to lose a copper the turn you gain a Duchy which goes a long way to making it not a double duchy turn.

I think it's probably fine at 7$ as written.  Forge-copper-copper-copper-estate is a little better than
Sanctuary-copper-copper-copper-estate but greening phase Sanctuary-copper-Silver-Silver-Province is a lot better than what Forge offers.

I think without being able to trash 0 it would be okay at $5. Then it can't ever gain Duchies or good actions. But then in most cases it's just a Chapel that junks you too. So maybe putting it at $7 would be better--I like that it's still pretty useful in the late game. I think I'll go with the version at $7

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 27, 2019, 08:05:51 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on June 27, 2019, 06:54:14 pm

I mental mistepped that you'd have to trash at least one.  I think you need to remove the ability to trash 0 even if it stays at 6$, really, it's probably a little too versatile for your remake variant to start slamming double Duchy turns in greening phase no matter what tier of purchase it happened at.  Even altar requires you to lose a copper the turn you gain a Duchy which goes a long way to making it not a double duchy turn.

I think it's probably fine at 7$ as written.  Forge-copper-copper-copper-estate is a little better than
Sanctuary-copper-copper-copper-estate but greening phase Sanctuary-copper-Silver-Silver-Province is a lot better than what Forge offers.

Maybe just restrict to non-victory cards.

Also you could just say gain a card costing $5 minus $1 per card you trashed but not less than $0. It would be a little less wordy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 27, 2019, 08:08:42 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 27, 2019, 08:05:51 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on June 27, 2019, 06:54:14 pm

I mental mistepped that you'd have to trash at least one.  I think you need to remove the ability to trash 0 even if it stays at 6$, really, it's probably a little too versatile for your remake variant to start slamming double Duchy turns in greening phase no matter what tier of purchase it happened at.  Even altar requires you to lose a copper the turn you gain a Duchy which goes a long way to making it not a double duchy turn.

I think it's probably fine at 7$ as written.  Forge-copper-copper-copper-estate is a little better than
Sanctuary-copper-copper-copper-estate but greening phase Sanctuary-copper-Silver-Silver-Province is a lot better than what Forge offers.

Maybe just restrict to non-victory cards.

Also you could just say gain a card costing $5 minus $1 per card you trashed but not less than $0. It would be a little less wordy.

I like this a lot. Then you can't use it for Duchy gaining.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on June 27, 2019, 08:16:20 pm

Quote from: Titandrake on June 27, 2019, 04:11:31 pm

Quote from: 4est on June 26, 2019, 09:59:37 am

(https://i.imgur.com/p4dqih6.png)

Here's my entry.  Smelter is an odd trash for benefit card that offers a choice of either a Salvager/Beggar effect (trash a card, gain a bunch of Coppers to your hand) or a Forge-like gaining effect that works only on Coppers.  Early game, it's nice for turning clumps of Coppers into Silvers or engine parts, or occasionally for trashing Estates to hit a certain price point.  Later, the two options can work more closely in tandem (especially if you're able to play multiples per turn) for trashing expensive cards into Coppers and then the Coppers into Provinces.  Also be alert: Smelters can empty the Copper pile very quickly if you're not careful.

I'm sure this was unintentional, but this is actually the exact same design as one of the winners of the Mini-Set Design Contest rinkworks hosted back in 2012 (excluding the cost).

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3382.msg71526#msg71526

Nice catch, Titandrake, I guess it turns out nothing is ever new.

I had a hard time figuring out what this card should cost, and went with $5 as the mass early trashing and gaining felt slightly too strong for the opening, but I could definitely be wrong here. $3 feels too cheap, but perhaps a cheaper, more openable version would play more fairly overall. Funny to see that this card idea has been well received in the past.

I appreciate the upvotes and feedback, and I'd be happy to bow out of this week's challenge if need be, given the repeat idea. I'll leave it to Fragasnap.

Cheers!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on June 27, 2019, 09:52:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/HlNySeb.png)

Updated version. Now it only works on cards costing $5, so it's nerfed and it can't play Golems. Golem can play it, but the chaining ends after that. I made it cost 5 Debt instead so that it can't play itself, and Debt actually works pretty well with the card overall because it's not something you want in the very beginning. Also, now you can discard any of the revealed Actions instead of playing them, so you can avoid any undesired effects, particularly trashing. Golem already has this problem, but it's 10 times worse with a reduced handsize, so I think it's better to give this option.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 27, 2019, 11:20:32 pm

CHALLENGE #34 - No Vanilla Bonuses Submission: (Updated / final version)
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/d4kwp6qd.png)

Quote

Consul
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left names a more expensive Action card in the Supply.
Choose one: gain and then play the named card; or gain a silver.

 My favorite interaction cards are ones like Contraband, Advisor, and Envoy. So, here is a sorta upgrade variant in that vein! I will say this card nicely has some cool synergy with alt-cost cards without having to spell them out, and I like that. You can get your opponent to consul you into upgrading an engineer into an overlord -- not bad! You can always turn your golds into possessions (and transmutes if there are no other potion cards). Good advice! Of course, if you don't like your opponent's advice, you can always take the silver, but that doesn't go to your hand and is a pretty weak upgrade.

If you ignore the fun opponent part of this card, it's trash a card, gain a silver. Not the most inspiring on its own, but is definitely useful as a mediocre upgrader. The fun part, and the way to make the most of this card, is trashing the right cards and building a flexible enough deck, that you want the action cards your opponent gives you. And if your deck can't handle too many terminals, you can turn them into silvers, something that's often useful in decks that can't handle many terminals (exceptions being a minion deck with no villages ... that deck does not want too many silvers, it would rather have candlestick makers. Which your Consul can help you turn your coppers into!).

I have updated this to address the issue of your opponent giving you too many terminals. The way I originally I had this card in my own files attached a village effect to it and gained the card to hand, but I like the theming of a forced play. But the forced play does open up some issues, so I modified this so you always have a decent fallback -- silver. Silver is fine because there is always an action card costing 1 more than it -- Consul!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 27, 2019, 11:32:00 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 27, 2019, 06:02:33 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/2f0XuuG.png)

Sanctuary
Action - $6
Trash any number of cards from your hand. Gain a non-Victory card costing up to $5 minus $1 per card you trashed (but not less than $0).

Here's my card. Good for trashing and gaining. If you only trash one card, it's strictly worse than Altar, but Sanctuary can trash a lot more and can be used once you're out of trash fodder.

Version 2: Updated the wording and made it non-Victory gaining to prevent easy double duchies in the endgame.

Maybe it's the mathematician in me being too pedantic, but I think this new wording doesn't work.

I would simplify first, i,e if I trashed 6 cards, I would read this as "Gain a non-Victory card costing up to -$1 (but not less than $0)" and think I couldn't gain a card since I can't gain anything that both costs up to -$1 and not less than $0.

Maybe use Poor House's wording: "(You can't go below $0.)"? Still doesn't work exactly, but it's better.

Like I said, probably too pedantic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: math on June 28, 2019, 12:32:14 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 27, 2019, 11:32:00 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 27, 2019, 06:02:33 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/2f0XuuG.png)

Sanctuary
Action - $6
Trash any number of cards from your hand. Gain a non-Victory card costing up to $5 minus $1 per card you trashed (but not less than $0).

Here's my card. Good for trashing and gaining. If you only trash one card, it's strictly worse than Altar, but Sanctuary can trash a lot more and can be used once you're out of trash fodder.

Version 2: Updated the wording and made it non-Victory gaining to prevent easy double duchies in the endgame.

Maybe it's the mathematician in me being too pedantic, but I think this new wording doesn't work.

I would simply first, i,e if I trashed 6 cards, I would read this as "Gain a non-Victory card costing up to -$1 (but not less than $0)" and think I couldn't gain a card since I can't gain anything that both costs up to -$1 and not less than $0.

Maybe use Poor House's wording: "(You can't go below $0.)"? Still doesn't work exactly, but it's better.

Like I said, probably too pedantic.

I think the wording is fine; even if you want to be pedantic, you could easily read the "not less than $0" part as a modifier on the cost, not a prohibition on gaining cards costing less than $0.  That reading puts mental parentheses around "costing up to ($5 minus $1 per card you trashed (but not less than $0))", which is both an acceptably pedantic way to read it and the normal, non-pedantic way that it was intended.

Mentioning "going below $0" would be more confusing for me, since the card doesn't give you money or take away any money, and that wording would seem to be saying something about your coin total rather than the cost of the gained card.

Ultimately all these would just be clarified in the FAQ, and most people would assume the correct play and not need to check the rulebook.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 28, 2019, 03:27:25 am

Quote from: faust on June 26, 2019, 04:22:51 am

Polymath
$3 - Action

If you don't have Deluded or Envious, take Envious.
Do this twice: Choose one: Put your deck into your discard, or look through your discard pile and reveal a card costing up to $6 from it, and put it into your hand.

Updated version of Polymath to make it more useful.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 28, 2019, 04:00:19 am

Quote from: faust on June 28, 2019, 03:27:25 am

Quote from: faust on June 26, 2019, 04:22:51 am

Polymath
$3 - Action

If you don't have Deluded or Envious, take Envious.
Do this twice: Choose one: Put your deck into your discard, or look through your discard pile and reveal a card costing up to $6 from it, and put it into your hand.

Updated version of Polymath to make it more useful.

As this is not limited to drawing Treasures anymore, Envious and the cost limitation seem out of place. It also nerfs the card too much, i.e. targetdraw 2 cards (best case scenario) plus -x Coins seems pretty weak.
I'd also buff the card further: if you have no discard simply draw like Mountain Village.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 28, 2019, 05:51:51 am

Quote from: segura on June 28, 2019, 04:00:19 am

Quote from: faust on June 28, 2019, 03:27:25 am

Quote from: faust on June 26, 2019, 04:22:51 am

Polymath
$3 - Action

If you don't have Deluded or Envious, take Envious.
Do this twice: Choose one: Put your deck into your discard, or look through your discard pile and reveal a card costing up to $6 from it, and put it into your hand.

Updated version of Polymath to make it more useful.

As this is not limited to drawing Treasures anymore, Envious and the cost limitation seem out of place. It also nerfs the card too much, i.e. targetdraw 2 cards (best case scenario) plus -x Coins seems pretty weak.
I'd also buff the card further: if you have no discard simply draw like Mountain Village.

Ah, but simple draw would be a vanilla effect. Also then it is too easy to use, I prefer stuff that makes you work a bit to use it. I think the Envious nerf still has its place as otherwise it's strong and boring in money games. I may drop the price restriction though, that is unnecessarily complicated.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on June 28, 2019, 06:13:54 am

Everyone is submitting weird things.
So do I.

---

Broker
$4 Action
Reveal cards from the Black Market deck until you reveal two action cards. Play one of the revealed action cards. Put the rest on the bottom of the Black Market deck in any order.
When that card leaves play, put it on the bottom of the Black Market deck.
Setup: Make a Black Market deck out of different unused Kingdom cards.

---

Edit:
Reveal 3 cards -> Reveal 2 actions
Renamed into Broker

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 28, 2019, 09:47:05 am

Quote from: artless on June 28, 2019, 06:13:54 am

Discovery
$4 Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of the Black Market deck. You may play one of the revealed cards. Put the rest on the bottom of the Black Market deck in any order.
When that card leaves play, put it on the bottom of the Black Market deck.
Setup: Make a Black Market deck out of different unused Kingdom cards.

Ignoring whether this is balanced and should perhaps cost $5, it is far more practical than Black Market as you do not have to exchange the randomizer for the Kingdom card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 28, 2019, 10:23:06 am

Quote from: artless on June 28, 2019, 06:13:54 am

Discovery
$4 Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of the Black Market deck. You may play one of the revealed cards. Put the rest on the bottom of the Black Market deck in any order.
When that card leaves play, put it on the bottom of the Black Market deck.
Setup: Make a Black Market deck out of different unused Kingdom cards.

I'd make it a setup rule to not put Durations in the Black Market deck. Also there is a certain amount of weirdness with being able to "play" pure Victory cards with this.

The card is weird in that its power level kind of depends on the size of the BM deck, way more than BM itself. With only 20 cards in there, you're shuffling like every 6-7 plays, that gives you a decent amount of control. With 200 cards, it plays random all the way through.

I think the pricing is probably fine, it is like Bard with higher variance. Bard is most of the time a ~$4.5 on play, and that is also roughly the average value of a card from the BM deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: wittyhowlard on June 28, 2019, 02:13:37 pm

No Attack submissions yet! Guess I'll have to make one:

A handsize attack and a curser for $3? What a bargain! Only problem is, you have to also discard something out of your hand to curse others. And it can't be that old moldy Estate that's just sitting around in your deck - it has to be at least a pawn or peasant if someone else discarded a copper. And you don't get any benefits out of playing the action so you better hope your curser activates...

(https://i.imgur.com/5dtEXgo.png)

Intimidate
Action - Attack - $3
Each other player with at least four cards in hand discards a card. You may then discard a non-victory card from your hand that costs at least $2 more than one of the discarded cards. If you did, each other player gains a curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on June 28, 2019, 06:09:41 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on June 24, 2019, 05:52:27 pm

Quote from: naitchman on June 24, 2019, 05:08:24 pm

Ok. Looks like we're going with fragasnap's contest. Here's my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/1mYhHV6.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/LPs8WXM.png)

It's a BoM variant (again, I know) that has specific cards it plays. These cards are not part of the supply, so the only way to play them would be through Crime Lord, and you'll always be able to play Crime Lord as them (unlike BoM when the pile depletes), but there's only 3. Will it be worth it? Depends on the 3 Underlings cards and depends on the kingdom.

My idea was pretty similar, but with a pile like black market made with $5 cards (reveal top 3 cards, play as one of them). I thougt that at $4 it will be ok, because of the random effect. I really like the flavor of the mat, btw.

Quote from: artless on June 28, 2019, 06:13:54 am

Discovery
$4 Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of the Black Market deck. You may play one of the revealed cards. Put the rest on the bottom of the Black Market deck in any order.
When that card leaves play, put it on the bottom of the Black Market deck.
Setup: Make a Black Market deck out of different unused Kingdom cards.

It seems that it is a pretty common idea xD

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 28, 2019, 08:09:12 pm

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 28, 2019, 02:13:37 pm

No Attack submissions yet! Guess I'll have to make one:

A handsize attack and a curser for $3? What a bargain! Only problem is, you have to also discard something out of your hand to curse others. And it can't be that old moldy Estate that's just sitting around in your deck - it has to be at least a pawn or peasant if someone else discarded a copper. And you don't get any benefits out of playing the action so you better hope your curser activates...

(https://i.imgur.com/5dtEXgo.png)

Intimidate
Action - Attack - $3
Each other player with at least four cards in hand discards a card. You may then discard a non-victory card from your hand that costs at least $2 more than one of the discarded cards. If you did, each other player gains a curse.

I might be happy to have an attack card that gave Intimidates to my opponent in the beginning of the game. It's a terminal dead card with a weak attack and in order to curse me they will often have to discard a silver or better card? Often it's a very weak urchin. If there's no trashing on board, then the curse will really come in handy, but if there's no trashing on board, the discard hurts you probably a lot more and might not be worth cursing your opponents. I feel that I would always buy sea hag over this, and I would almost always buy militia over this.

This is a card that only really works if you have an over-drawing engine. Which I think is an interesting space for cards to be in, helping a slow to build engine finally come back in late-mid-game. I appreciate that design-space. I am wondering if there is any way to make this card more useful in the mid-game or even early game. +1 buy is a good way to make sure a card is always useful in mid-game, but doesn't fit the theme of this card, *and* violates the contest rules. I think you could attach a villager to this perhaps -- on gain?. You could probably even experiment this and have it come with a second intimidate (which has synergy because you can discard the second intimidate to give curses out).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 29, 2019, 06:19:22 pm

Quote from: math on June 28, 2019, 12:32:14 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 27, 2019, 11:32:00 pm

Maybe it's the mathematician in me being too pedantic, but I think this new wording doesn't work.

I would simply first, i,e if I trashed 6 cards, I would read this as "Gain a non-Victory card costing up to -$1 (but not less than $0)" and think I couldn't gain a card since I can't gain anything that both costs up to -$1 and not less than $0.

Maybe use Poor House's wording: "(You can't go below $0.)"? Still doesn't work exactly, but it's better.

Like I said, probably too pedantic.

I think the wording is fine; even if you want to be pedantic, you could easily read the "not less than $0" part as a modifier on the cost, not a prohibition on gaining cards costing less than $0.  That reading puts mental parentheses around "costing up to ($5 minus $1 per card you trashed (but not less than $0))", which is both an acceptably pedantic way to read it and the normal, non-pedantic way that it was intended.

Mentioning "going below $0" would be more confusing for me, since the card doesn't give you money or take away any money, and that wording would seem to be saying something about your coin total rather than the cost of the gained card.

Ultimately all these would just be clarified in the FAQ, and most people would assume the correct play and not need to check the rulebook.

OK, sure, with the parenthesis I see how it can be read that way. And I agree, you don't actually need them; just explain in FAQ is enough.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 29, 2019, 06:22:57 pm

I've decided make a minor update to Cabal, making it a little stronger (and with simpler wording):

(https://i.imgur.com/UgnRN9H.png)

Now, it is never drawn dead (though you may still be wary of putting more than 1 on top of your deck) and you can still put it on top when you have another Night card you don't want to play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on June 30, 2019, 06:14:57 pm

Sanctuary got a wording erratum. It was missing a reveal clause.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/9d12xd1l.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on June 30, 2019, 10:26:32 pm

When does the contest end?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 01, 2019, 01:17:48 am

(https://i.imgur.com/RXk2Ti9.png)

A buffed version would be without discarding, i.e.: Reveal your hand. For each Victory card revealed, gain a Spoils from its pile.
Probably mainly useful early on, with alt-VP or in an overdrawing engine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 01, 2019, 06:11:34 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 24, 2019, 01:50:15 pm

Emissary
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Draw until you have 8 cards in your hand. Put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck.

I don't feel like this one poses any especially interesting considerations in comparison to most draw-to-X cards. It is likely perfectly serviceable at its cost, but this one is not going to turn heads.

Quote from: Aquila on June 24, 2019, 05:06:37 pm

Tinker
Types: Night
Cost: $5
Look through your discard pile. Trash a card from it. If you did, trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing exactly the sum of the two trashed cards.

Because Tinker is a Night card, one can (practically) always Tinker up a buy that turn. Discard-playing effects are surprisingly absent from Nocturne. This offers a fairly neat way to combine the $ of Treasures into a tempo-trasher. I do worry a bit about lucky second-shuffle Estate+Estate Tinkers, but that's really the nature of the beast. More disconcerting though is the ability for Tinker to trash the Supply to nothing with Coppers\Curses around. It might want to limit itself to trashing cards with costs associated to then.

Quote from: naitchman on June 24, 2019, 05:08:24 pm

Crime Lord
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Play this as if it were a card on the Underlings Mat. This is that card until it leaves play.

---

Setup: Put 3 random Kingdom Action cards costing $3 or $4 on the Underlings Mat.

Quite a bit more interesting than Band of Misfits: Rather than giving simple flexibility, it gives unique flexibility in access to some $3 and $4 cards that cannot be used otherwise. It will be immensely Kingdom dependent, which is the nature of the beast.  The thing that prevents me from loving it is my inherent leeriness of cards that introduce a great number of additional cards to the game, and there is not even a guarantee of the complexity added by Crime Lord.

Quote from: Gubump on June 24, 2019, 06:25:25 pm

Royal Library
Types: Action
Cost: $7
Name a card. Reveal youor hand and discard all copies of the named card. Draw until you have 7 cards in hand, revealing the drawn cards and skipping any copies of the named card; set those aside, discarding them afterwards.

I do like Journeyman. The ability to mill all of your Coppers probably makes this pretty strong. It's even strong in multiples so you can drop all the other cards upon which your deck would otherwise be choking. A worthy $7 card, I'm sure. Would definitely be up there, but it is not quite as exciting as I'd prefer.

Quote from: King Leon on June 24, 2019, 08:11:57 pm

Sanctuary
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $5
Look at the top 4 cards of your deck. Put up to 3 into your hand. Discard the rest.

---

When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may reveal this to gain a Silver to your hand.

While I do think Silver flooding is fairly underrated, Sanctuary looks like a pretty slow Smithy variant. The ability to draw the best 3 of 4 I don't think is quite a strong enough buff to climb up to $5, and that Reaction is specifically triggered by choosing to turn your $5 purchase into a Silver instead. On most boards, that ability will simply not be very valuable for a Smithy-variant, because Smithy-variants usually want to draw your deck. It would probably be more interesting taking a Workshop effect into its Reaction instead of a Silver-gainer.

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 27, 2019, 11:20:32 pm

Consul
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left names a more expensive Action card in the Supply. Choose one: Gain and then play the named card; or gain a Silver.

The original Consul offered no choice, one had to gain and play the chosen action. This created a possible loop in which the player to your left could force you to trash cards from your hand until you trashed a card costing at least $4 (so that Consul was no longer a valid target) or the Consul pile was empty. In an earlier portion of the game, a deck with the Consul pile in it is probably in pretty decent shape since it can Consul Consuls into $5+ Actions (and you presumably only acquired Consul because there is a good source of +Action on the board), but in the late game, forcing the player's hand in trashing multiple cards or even forcibly piling out the game would probably not be very much fun, so disarming the Consul-chain is probably the right move. I don't believe I like this particular solution, though. Gaining Silver to a large extent solves the question Consul otherwise faces of the player to your left forcing terminal actions into your deck and makes the consideration less interesting.
Ultimately though, Consul is a very interesting card to think about. I like this kind of board dependence. I imagine Consul will be ridiculous on boards with cheap +Action and possibly risky otherwise. It is able to possibly force less useful Actions into prominence and I admire it for that attempt (which I think the Silver gaining again reduces the possibility for that to occur. Why gain an unwanted Fortune Teller when you can gain a Silver?).

Quote from: Kudasai on June 24, 2019, 08:42:39 pm

Dragon Egg
Types: Treasure
Cost: $8<4>
When you play this, gain 2 Spoils from the Spoils pile to your hand. If you can't, gain a Wish from the Wish pile.

---

Setup: Only add 2 Spoils per player to the Spoils pile.

I don't think the rules work this way. The other piles simply "exist" and the fact that a card tells you to gain cards from its pile implies nothing of the setup or inclusion of that card into the game. If a card told you to "exchange this for an Action" you could presumably choose an Action-type card that exists in Dominion to exchange. I'll set that aside for the moment though to talk about Dragon Egg as intended regardless.
I'm frankly uncertain why this puts 2 Spoils per player into the pile. If letting another player have Wishes is a bad idea, it will be significantly harder to get through the Spoils pile in 3-player games than in 2-player, because you have to absorb more stop-card Spoils (or get more Dragon Egg plays in a turn). The only way the limitation makes sense to me is to make it coherent around Bandit Camp, Marauder, and Pillage.
A singular Dragon Egg provides a ridiculous +$6 economy. Any Province game would end long before a player could set up to gain Wishes, and there is no way one could realistically absorb and hold the Spoils to force Dragon Eggs to generate Wishes instead of $. Such a venture would become even more futile in multiplayer games.
I think if you want this card to work, it needs to put only one of the gained Spoils into your hand. You could also use the setup to put Spoils into the Trash and then pull them out with Dragon's Egg, which would make the setup more sensible and the Wish-gaining thing more likely (as the Spoils will eventually run out).

Quote from: NoMoreFun on June 25, 2019, 02:44:56 am

Rowdy Library
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Draw until you have 6 cards in your hand, skipping up to 2 Action Cards you choose to; set those aside. Afterwards, play the set aside Action Cards in any order.

The thing that is especially clever about Rowdy Library is the way you absolutely must weave other Actions into it. Much like most Draw-to-X cards, Rowdy Library is awful with itself and needs ways to reduce your handsize to make it work. When it hits (from a standard hand), it is a staggering +4 Cards, +2 Actions with inconsistent Action playing. It seems to me this will be one of those cards that wildly favors random deck-order, because its ideal lets it weave hand-reduction with yet more Rowdy Libraries that will turn immediately awful if Rowdy Libraries hit too many of each other.

Quote from: Gazbag on June 25, 2019, 11:17:41 am

Repurpose
Types: Action
Cost: $6
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than it, that doesn't share a type with it.

Self-criticism that this will play so similarly to Expand is completely warranted. Transmogrify is in fact interesting in the way it often trashes Actions into yet more Actions: Most Remodel variants want to trash Victory->Action and Treasure\Action->Victory, so enforcing that limitation is hardly enough to allow such a large cost increase. Honestly, requiring it to only gain cards that share a type would be a more pressing limitation.

Quote from: scolapasta on June 25, 2019, 01:58:14 pm

Cabal
Types: Action, Night
Cost: $5
If it's your Night phase, choose one: play a Night card from your hand twice; or put this on top of your deck. Otherwise, you may play an Action card from your hand twice.

While this is a sensible Night card, I can see why the game doesn't have a Throne Room for Night cards: There are simply so few Night cards that have especially interesting considerations introduced by doubling them, especially at a cost of $5 where it is generally competing with other Night cards (except Ghost). The majority of games, this will mostly be a consideration of how it will function without other Night cards, in which case its closest comparison is Royal Carriage in how it offers greater consistency than the average Throne Room. Unfortunately, I don't think that being unable to be drawn dead is enough of an improvement to compete. If you want a Throne Room for Night cards, I think that Action\Night Throne Room variant is a dead end. You need to offer some other benefit so that doubling itself is an option, and then dropping its price so that it can combo better with those Night cards.

Quote from: kru5h on June 25, 2019, 09:32:36 pm

Bookstore
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Draw until you have 10 cards in hand. Reveal your hand. Keep one copy of each differently named card and discard the rest.

10 cards is a lot of cards. Losing all the duplicates could be a big cost. Sort of like Menagerie, this one is fairly difficult to visualize. I think it could be really fun if it worked. The numbers might need tweaking, but the base idea is very different than most draw-to-X.

Quote from: faust on June 26, 2019, 04:22:51 am

Polymath
Types: Action
Cost: $3
If you don't have Deluded or Envious, take Envious. Do this twice: Choose one: Put your deck into your discard; or look through your discard pile and reveal a card costing up to $6 from it, and put it into your hand.

While this can be compared to Mountain Village, there is often stuff in your discard pile you don't want, while this is guaranteed to get a particular card if you need it. Its limitations have all kind of piled up though in its design: It has Envious to keep you from dully pulling Golds from your discard; it has a cost limitation to keep you from pulling Platinum; and it has a "do this twice" and a "choose one" which looks pretty messy. This all makes the card kind of a trip to read. I like the concept, but I think all the work to get what is frankly a fairly situational draw effect that will often slow the game down in shuffling might not be worth the effort. I'd aim to make the card itself bigger and simpler: A cost of $5 would do a lot to reduce the number of mid-turn shuffles, and a bigger draw would make it read even more differently than Mountain Village. A cost limiter of "less than this" without involving a state would likely be sufficient.

Quote from: 4est on June 26, 2019, 09:59:37 am

Smelter
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Choose one: Trash a card from your hand and gain a Copper to your hand per $1 it cost; or trash any number of Coppers from your hand and gain a card costing exactly $1 per Copper your trashed.

The dream is drawing a bunch of Coppers and trashing them with Smelter before later trashing a high cost card for a bunch of $ to end the game. It makes it look at lot like Forge canoodling with Salvager. I think a cost of $3 or $4 would make Smelter intensely frustrating, because a Smelter\CCCE turn will be significantly worse than a Smelter\CCCC turn. Even a cost of $5 might be bad just because of how good opening with Smelter is.
I think a cost of $6 is likely ideal, but it does start looking an awful lot like Forge as we increase its price, so I'm not sure. I worry how many of those games will be lost by one player getting a $5\$2 split in comparison to the others with Smelter around. You don't just get 4 fewer junk cards with a good turn 3 draw, you get 4 fewer junk cards and a $4-card into your deck.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on June 27, 2019, 09:52:16 pm

Djinn
Types: Action
Cost: <5>
Discard your hand. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 3 Action cards costing $5 or less. Discard the other cards and any of the 3 Action cards, then play the rest in any order.

Sort of similarly to Golem, I'm having a hard time imagining exactly what kind of deck wants Djinn in it. Losing 4 cards of a typical hand for 3 random Action plays seems like it will only ever be "not worth it" or "game-breaking." Anything that reads +$3 immediately breaks the game. Draw-to-X is probably pretty silly. It doesn't play nice with pretty much anything else because having nothing but 3 random Actions won't leave you with enough to manage much. I think this needs a more lenient expense than losing your hand (and a matching greater cost than a mere <5>).

Quote from: majiponi on June 27, 2019, 11:07:49 am

Returned Adventurer
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Name a type. Reveal 5 cards from your deck. Put 2 cards with that type into your hand. Discard the rest.

This draw looks pretty weak. The idea is mostly that you can target draw better Actions than you would get grabbing the first two and mill 5 cards regardless, which makes it pretty useful in the early game while you try to get your deck in order. Its similarities to Embassy are not to be missed. It draws at most 2 cards and discards at least 3 from 5 random cards instead of giving you your choice of 7 of 10 (the on-gain which can be helpful or harmful aside). That is such a huge loss, that I'd guess a cost of $4 would be more than reasonable for the bonus milling this gives.

Quote from: mail-mi on June 27, 2019, 06:02:33 pm

Sanctuary
Types: Action
Cost: $6
Trash any number of cards from your hand. Gain a non-Victory card costing up to $5 minus $1 per card you trashed (but not less than $0).

Sanctuary is Forge in reverse: Rather than gaining a card based on the total cost of cards you do trash, it gains a card based on the number of cards you don't.  Your gut reaction to prevent Sanctuary from falling into range of gaining itself is good, but I'm not sure that's sufficient: A mass trasher like this one is likely set to swing a lot of games at a cost of $6 (other the other mass-trasher Smelter at least can only trash Coppers).

Quote from: artless on June 28, 2019, 06:13:54 am

Broker
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Reveal cards from the Black Market deck until you reveal two action cards. Play one of the revealed action cards. Put the rest on the bottom of the Black Market deck in any order. When that card leaves play, put it on the bottom of the Black Market deck.

---

Setup: Make a Black Market deck out of different unused Kingdom cards.

Broker takes Band of Misfits to another level, adopting all the problems of Black Market. I find cards like this that are randomly terminal are immensely frustrating. I don't think Broker would be inherently broken, because a single random play of a $5+ card is not going to decide the game (though hitting a strong trasher with an opening Broker would be game-deciding), but this appeals much less than the similar Crime Lord.

Quote from: wittyhowlard on June 28, 2019, 02:13:37 pm

Intimidate
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
Each other player with at least four cards in hand discards a card. You may then discard a non-victory card from your hand that costs at least $2 more than one of the discarded cards. If you did, each other player gains a curse.

I do love Attacks. Unfortunately, I think you underestimate the sheer cost of the Attack you've built here. Each other player discards cards asynchronously, and then you can discard something with greater value to possibly junk other players, but you're necessarily discarding something useful if you are able to Curse players. At a minimum, you're down a $3-purchase, a $2-purchase maybe, 2 cards, and 1 +action. That is super expensive, especially because you need to choose to play Intimidate in a hand with another $2+ purchase that you still haven't played (which might often be an Action with which you're simply hoping to be able to hit players). That is ignoring the political implications of the card due to that asynchronous discard.

Quote from: segura on July 01, 2019, 01:17:48 am

Loot
Types: Treasure
Cost: $1
Any number of times: You may discard a Victory card to gain a Spoils from its pile.

This seems like a very swingy opener and not all too desireable otherwise. The chance of getting multiple one-shot Golds versus 1 is a huge difference in players' economies. It might balance out with Spoils going on to prevent Loot from finding Estates again. I don't think this would be good enough to skip Estate trashing, but it is probably quite good in Kingdoms without trashing--and then I worry if the early Estate\Looter collisions will be too swingy to balance out.


Show: kru5h's Bookstore

Quote from: kru5h on June 25, 2019, 09:32:36 pm

Bookstore
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Draw until you have 10 cards in hand. Reveal your hand. Keep one copy of each differently named card and discard the rest.

Place: naitchman's Crime Lord

Quote from: naitchman on June 24, 2019, 05:08:24 pm

Crime Lord
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Play this as if it were a card on the Underlings Mat. This is that card until it leaves play.

---

Setup: Put 3 random Kingdom Action cards costing $3 or $4 on the Underlings Mat.

Win: anordinaryman's Consul

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 27, 2019, 11:20:32 pm

Consul
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left names a more expensive Action card in the Supply. Choose one: Gain and then play the named card; or gain a Silver.

While I would prefer a different out for the Consul-chain than this Silver gaining option, Consul has a fascinating and board dependent concept that encourages players to get the most of out some otherwise less valuable Actions.

You may post the next challenge when you would, anordinaryman.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 01, 2019, 07:58:41 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 01, 2019, 06:11:34 pm

Discard-playing effects are surprisingly absent from Nocturne.

I think Ghost covers this territory pretty well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 01, 2019, 10:06:20 pm

Hm, I wonder if it would be too strong to make Sanctuary cost $5 and worth 1VP. Then it gets around the “gaining itself” problem without having to say “non-victory and non-Sanctuary.”

Anyway congrats anordinaryman!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 02, 2019, 10:35:52 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 01, 2019, 06:11:34 pm

Win: anordinaryman's Consul

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 27, 2019, 11:20:32 pm

Consul
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left names a more expensive Action card in the Supply. Choose one: Gain and then play the named card; or gain a Silver.

While I would prefer a different out for the Consul-chain than this Silver gaining option, Consul has a fascinating and board dependent concept that encourages players to get the most of out some otherwise less valuable Actions.

You may post the next challenge when you would, anordinaryman.

Wow, I’m honored and humbled to have my card selected! Thank you very much for the EXTREMELY detailed and helpful feedback. I agree with you, the silver is a little bit too much of a freebie. In the original conception of the card, I had attached +2 actions, but then I think it’s balanced at 5 instead, which makes the card much worse since you can no longer trash it for fives. I am now thinking a better solution is a +1 action on play. I may also need to provide a way to gain villagers to deal with the terminals in deck... perhaps gain 1 or 2 villagers on trash (and/or gain). Thoughts? The idea is to make consuls better in consul decks so opponents are less likely to give them all to you.

Also, I have the idea for the context, I will post it tonight (in less than 12 hours). As a preview: the contest will involve inspecting different expansions and fitting a specific type of card-shaped-thing to that expansion’s themes (emphasizing the newer expansions). Full rules and details to follow.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 02, 2019, 06:57:03 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 02, 2019, 10:35:52 am

I agree with you, the silver is a little bit too much of a freebie. In the original conception of the card, I had attached +2 actions, but then I think it’s balanced at 5 instead, which makes the card much worse since you can no longer trash it for fives. I am now thinking a better solution is a +1 action on play. I may also need to provide a way to gain villagers to deal with the terminals in deck... perhaps gain 1 or 2 villagers on trash (and/or gain). Thoughts? The idea is to make consuls better in consul decks so opponents are less likely to give them all to you.

I think you are trying too hard to make Consul relevant in every Kingdom. Consul is a situational trash for benefit card, and it is fine if there are Kingdoms where it is useless. The ability to turn Estates and Coppers into the weakest (likely terminal) Action the Kingdom has is inherently a Kingdom-dependent effect, and that's fine. The problem to worry about is Consul being used to gain more Consuls. Right now, you're trying to patch more concepts onto Consul to fix the problem by making Consul a better target for itself, when I think stripping away will be simpler.
The only sensible option here is to explicitly prohibit the left player from choosing Consul. Substituting the gain is too easy an out (or renders the point of the card moot, depending on the gain) or making the trash\gain\play optional will leave Consul typically worst Action on the board (because I don't know that enough Kingdoms can provide enough time for a Consul->Consul->$5-Action step-through).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 03, 2019, 01:54:08 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 02, 2019, 10:35:52 am

Also, I have the idea for the context, I will post it tonight (in less than 12 hours).

Time elapsed since: 15 hours, 18 minutes. *Nudge, nudge*

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 03, 2019, 08:54:21 am

CHALLENGE #35 - A Thematic Curser

I'd like to call attention to a particular line in the wiki article on curser wiki article (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Curser (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Curser)):

Quote

It can be argued that the main curser from each early expansion closely represents the expansion's theme

(bold emphasis is mine). One of my favorite parts of the early expansions (up to Hinterlands) was how the curser really tied the themes and motifs of that expansion together. Mountebank is a great example since it follows both of Prosperity’s themes: Treasures, and Big-ness (7-cost cards, Colonies, in Mountebanks's cases a big curser that gives out 2 pieces of junk). I also how players can be protected against it to limit its power. Familiar also fits both themes: action-chains and Potions (which is a brilliant mechanic to prevent easily over-loading on it. Again, this limits its power). Both of these cursers really belong in the expansion they are in, and they both bring the entire expansion together.

For this challenge, I am hoping you to pick an expansion, and design a curser for it that *really* fits that expansion. Ideally, if the expansion has multiple themes/motifs, your curser should involve at least 2 of those themes. You may pick ANY existing expansion, even early ones. You may even pick the “expansion” of promotional cards. I think in promotional cards there are some subtle motifs. For example, swinginess and oddness that doesn’t normally fit in Dominion (black market, stash) and also self-synergy (Sauna/Avanta and Governor both have self-synergy). You are welcome to pick some of the more minor themes of an expansion, for example, Intrigue also has a minor self-synergy motif (Nobles uses both choices to build a +cards/+action draw engine on its own, and Minion uses both choices to have a full-engine of $ and draw and minor attack.)

When you submit your entry, please describe which expansion it belongs in. It would be helpful to me for you to describe why it fits so well in that expansion. You may choose to consider Cornucopia and Guilds as separate expansions or as one expansion. Let me know in the submission what you are doing.

Of course you can use mechanics that were introduced in previous expansions, but pay attention to the expansions themes. It would be un-fitting to use an on-buy mechanic in Renaissance, which strove to be a simple expansion and only uses on-gains. Having both in one set makes the set more complicated and goes against the theme.

Entries will be judged on how well they fit into that expansion, how interesting they are, how fair/fun they are, and how simple they are. Roughly in that order.

A curser does not need to be an attack card. (e.g. Ill Gotten Gains) You may design a card-shaped thing (events, states, artifacts, etc) that acts as a curser.

Please make the submission using a card image, so I can see how the text fits on a card. You don't need to find an image. You can use this to help make the card images: (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 03, 2019, 11:42:14 am

Interesting Contest. Would cards that allow people to get curses but don't directly give people curses be okay (embargo, swamp hag)?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 03, 2019, 01:23:26 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 03, 2019, 11:42:14 am

Interesting Contest. Would cards that allow people to get curses but don't directly give people curses be okay (embargo, swamp hag)?

Yes! But I wouldn’t count something that only involves curses as a penalty to balance a strong card such as cursed gold or something similar to cursed village.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 03, 2019, 01:57:20 pm

Coven

(https://i.imgur.com/t2qUkPt.png)

Change log:
v0.1 - initial
v0.2 - changed to make your cards into Cursers

---

Theme: Adventures
• Events
• Card-shaped things that put player specific tokens on piles

Secret History:
This started out as a "cursed" token that hurt everyone equally; but to be more in line with the other Adventurers tokens (putting them on a card makes that card better for you than for other players), it is now a "cursing token" that changes your cards from that pile into cursers.

---

Thematically (and not meaning mechanics, but meaning relating to concept of a "Coven"), having this work on play seemed to fit best, i.e a Witch allows you to Curse a player when you play a card (Witch), but get a gathering of Witches together to place that same power on another card.

[the below applies to v0.1 of Coven]

I started out having it only curse other players and unlimited tokens (1 per player) per pile. But that didn't scale well in a 3-4 player game: if you were the only player following a particular strategy, all your opponents placing curse tokens on a pile would "pile" up on you (hehe). So then I limited to only 1 Cursing token per pile. The problem now, of course, it could be too big advantage to whoever bought it first. So now it curses everyone.

I'm not really sure if it works, but I like its simplicity.

I'm thinking it would either make a player buy more of a variety of cards*, so they could skip playing the cards from a cursed pile, or they would need TfB in order to get rid of them. Or Watchtower.

* it definitely hurts engines that expect playing multiples copies of a card

And it may still not work great in a 4 player game, as you could have 4 cursed piles (i.e. it may just slow the game down way too much)

One thing that could make it interesting in a 2 player game, is the sense of (I'm not sure how to express it) give and take. i.e. you don't buy this too early, as you want to wait and see what your opponent is doing, and then you also want to do something different from them, but they may switch gears once they see what you are doing.

Please let me know if you think it could be tweaked to make it better (should it cost different?) or just scrapped completely.

(I also am not sure how much time I'll have this (USA) holiday weekend, so wanted to at least get something in early for feedback)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 03, 2019, 03:04:18 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 03, 2019, 01:57:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/t2qUkPt.png)

I would call it a Cursed token rather than Cursing. Cursing makes it sound like it gives other players curses rather than cursing yourself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 03, 2019, 03:27:02 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 03, 2019, 03:04:18 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 03, 2019, 01:57:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/t2qUkPt.png)

I would call it a Cursed token rather than Cursing. Cursing makes it sound like it gives other players curses rather than cursing yourself.

It does give other players curses though... I mean it can curse yourself also, but you'd be putting it on an action that your opponents are playing more than you.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 03, 2019, 03:38:48 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 03, 2019, 03:27:02 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 03, 2019, 03:04:18 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 03, 2019, 01:57:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/t2qUkPt.png)

I would call it a Cursed token rather than Cursing. Cursing makes it sound like it gives other players curses rather than cursing yourself.

It does give other players curses though... I mean it can curse yourself also, but you'd be putting it on an action that your opponents are playing more than you.

But also cursed sounds cooler.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 03:44:45 pm

I'll take a stab at making a promo curser.
Here's Heretic. Super swingy alt-vp that allows you to do an absurd thing like get all the curses and use them instead of money.

(https://i.imgur.com/qDTu7Gq.png)

Card text is :

Quote

While this card is in play, Curses gain the type "Treasure" and have the ability +$2.
Choose one or both:
• Gain a Curse to your hand.
• Each other player gains a Curse.
-
At the end of the game, if you have the most Curses, 2%

you'd clearly want enough of them to make them actually worth VP to offset the curses you take on.

Alternatively, you can just curse everyone else, and/or yourself!

Also ties into the promo's subtheme of "generally large/strange choices" (Governor, Envoy (for the player on yr left), Prince and Stash also exhibit a similar "large" decision space, Black Market exhibiting "strange" decision space).

Thematically, its named "Heretic" because it involves having a large pile of junk, and "religious"-themed cards are generally de-junking trash cards.

edit: fixed image link, added thematic rationale

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 03, 2019, 04:22:34 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/xch069ed.png)

Potemkin Village
Cost: $4

+1 Card
Discard 1 card. If it’s a Victory card: +1 Card and each other player gains a Curse, otherwise: +2 Actions
-
1 VP
-
When you gain this, gain an Estate.

You are very proud about the opulent fortifications surrounding your small kingdom. But in the big world outside there must be great leaders. After a long and burdensome journey, you reach a magnificent village, which must belong to a great leader. At least you think it is a great leader and you think it is a magnificent village. In fact it is just another small village at the border of just another small kingdom and you realize, that this is just the begin of your long and burdensome journey.

This is a Victory card, which comes with a Victory card, in a set which has nice interaction with Victory cards. If you discard a one, this is a Witch and if you don’t, this is a worse Village. Well, this card sounds very desirable at the first glance. A curser for $4 which already comes with 2 VP!? How it this even possible??? I mean, Nobles costs $6, but ... Stop! As the card’s name implies*, it seems to look perfect, but actually this is just a façade threatening to crumble in an extremely fast game, where piles are drained very quickly. In fact this card performs very poorly without the correct assistance.

Fortunately, Hinterlands comes with a lot support for this card. Silk Road and Crossroads love decks with many Victory cards. Trader gives you Silvers instead of Estates and Cartographer sifts through your Estates. Potemkin Village is also a nice Tunnel enabler and unlike Young Witch its cursing effect cannot be stopped by the Bane card. You can also buy a Border Village, which comes with a Potemkin Village, which comes with an Estate. Scheme helps you to hold your Potemkin Villages back when you have no Victory card in your hand. And in a pinch, the Hamlet effect is acceptable in a Margrave or Embassy engine. Potemkin village fulfils the following themes of the Hinterland expansion: on-gain effect, Victory card interaction, discarding cards.

*) A Potemkin village is the illusion of a wealthy village with impressive buildings. Those buildings often only have a renovated front or are shells without interior. The card’s image shows Pyongyang for obvious reasons.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 04:28:30 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 03, 2019, 04:22:34 pm

Potemkin Village
Cost: $4

+1 Card
Discard 1 card. If it’s a Victory card: +1 Card and each other player gains a Curse, otherwise: +2 Actions
-
1 VP
-
When you gain this, gain an Estate.

You are very proud about the opulent fortifications surrounding your small kingdom. But in the big world outside there must be great leaders. After a long and burdensome journey, you reach a magnificent village, which must belong to a great leader. At least you think it is a great leader and you think it is a magnificent village. In fact it is just another small village at the border of just another small kingdom and you realize, that this is just the begin of your long and burdensome journey.

This is a Victory card, which comes with a Victory card, in a set which has nice interaction with Victory cards. If you discard a Victory card, this is a Witch, if you don’t this is a worse Village. Well, this card sounds very desirable at the first glance. A curser for $4 which already comes with 2 VP!? How it this even possible??? I mean, nobles costs $6, but ... Stop! As the card’s name implies*, it seems to look perfect, but actually this is just a façade threatening to crumble in an extremely fast game, where piles are drained very quickly. In fact this card performs very poorly without the correct assistance.

Fortunately, Hinterlands comes with a lot support for this card. Silk Road and Crossroads love decks with many Victory cards. Trader gives you Silvers instead of Estates and Cartographer sifts through your Estates. Potemkin Village is also a nice Tunnel enabler and unlike Young Witch its cursing effect cannot be stopped by the bane card. You can also buy a Border Village, which comes with a Potemkin Village, which comes with an Estate. And in a pinch, the Hamlet effect is acceptable Margrave or Embassy engine.

*) A Potemkin village is the illusion of a wealthy village with impressive buildings. Those buildings often only have a renovated front or are shells without interior. The card’s image shows Pyongyang for obvious reasons.

doesn't the name of your card itself kinda break theme/canon tho? these are named after some russian guy from the late 18th century iirc

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 03, 2019, 04:37:14 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 04:28:30 pm

doesn't the name of your card itself kinda break theme/canon tho? these are named after some russian guy from the late 18th century iirc

Why should it break canon? The themes of Hinterlands are trading, roads and foreign cultures. Mandarin is also a direct reference to imperial China and the German names of the cards Walled Village and Church are Carcassonne (only in the Hans im Glück version, it is now Befestigtes Dorf) and Schweriner Dom, which are both references to real world cities.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 04:48:22 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 03, 2019, 04:37:14 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 04:28:30 pm

doesn't the name of your card itself kinda break theme/canon tho? these are named after some russian guy from the late 18th century iirc

Why should it break canon? The themes of Hinterlands are trading, roads and foreign cultures. Mandarin is also a direct reference to imperial China and the German names of the cards Walled Village and Church are Carcassonne (only in the Hans im Glück version, it is now Befestigtes Dorf) and Schweriner Dom, which are both references to real world cities.

cos timeline-wise, your card happens like 200 years minimum after literally all the other sets?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 03, 2019, 05:12:27 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 04:48:22 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 03, 2019, 04:37:14 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 04:28:30 pm

doesn't the name of your card itself kinda break theme/canon tho? these are named after some russian guy from the late 18th century iirc

Why should it break canon? The themes of Hinterlands are trading, roads and foreign cultures. Mandarin is also a direct reference to imperial China and the German names of the cards Walled Village and Church are Carcassonne (only in the Hans im Glück version, it is now Befestigtes Dorf) and Schweriner Dom, which are both references to real world cities.

cos timeline-wise, your card happens like 200 years minimum after literally all the other sets?

Here is an alternative draft artwork, if you feel this fits more theme-wise. But I like Potemkin Village more and it actually fits into Hinterland’s theme.
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/cs3ziypd.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on July 03, 2019, 05:19:36 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 04:48:22 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 03, 2019, 04:37:14 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 04:28:30 pm

doesn't the name of your card itself kinda break theme/canon tho? these are named after some russian guy from the late 18th century iirc

Why should it break canon? The themes of Hinterlands are trading, roads and foreign cultures. Mandarin is also a direct reference to imperial China and the German names of the cards Walled Village and Church are Carcassonne (only in the Hans im Glück version, it is now Befestigtes Dorf) and Schweriner Dom, which are both references to real world cities.

cos timeline-wise, your card happens like 200 years minimum after literally all the other sets?

Renaissance happens like 800 years minimum after literally Empires.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 03, 2019, 05:20:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4K6KM7O.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Spfi4lz.jpg)

Quote

Chronicler
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Each player (including you) may reveal a Curse from their hand for +1 Villager and to take the Tome. Each other player gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.

Quote

Tome
Types: Artifact
At the start of your Buy phase, you may discard a Curse for +1 Coffers.

Chronicler is a Renaissance-themed Curser using Villagers, Coffers, and an Artifact. Everyone can get Villagers by revealing a Curse. The last player in turn order to reveal a Curse gets the Tome (because turn order applies. If everyone reveals a Curse, each player, starting with the current turn's player, takes the Tome). Then everyone else gets a Curse straight to their hand.
If someone can think of a better wording to make turn-order clearer for taking the Tome, let me know.

It can act as a splitter if you have Curses in your deck. The Tome lets you use 1 Curse for a Coffers each turn, but you can only get it by having a Curse when other players don't. The fact that Chronicler is non-terminal is neat, but will act against you if you actually double-Curse by giving the player to your right the Tome (until the Curse pile is emptied, anyway).
The Curse going to hand is also neat because players third or later in turn order are very likely to reveal a Curse to a turn 3 or 4 Chronicler, counterbalancing the typical first-player advantage in a way. You might not get to keep the Tome, though. Tome could just circle forever without ever triggering.

EDIT: Shift from a Guilds theme to a Renaissance theme. Previously could give Coffers to other players, but that risks speeding up multiplayer games from multiple coffers spawning between turns. Villagers are less volatile and the Artifact keeps a similar idea without ballooning the number of Coffers that appear with more players.
Original:
Sorceress | Types: Action, Attack | Cost: $3
+$1. Name a card. Each player (including you) may reveal a copy of the named card from their hand. Each player who does gets +1 Coffers. Each player who doesn't gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 03, 2019, 05:22:41 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on July 03, 2019, 05:19:36 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 04:48:22 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 03, 2019, 04:37:14 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 04:28:30 pm

doesn't the name of your card itself kinda break theme/canon tho? these are named after some russian guy from the late 18th century iirc

Why should it break canon? The themes of Hinterlands are trading, roads and foreign cultures. Mandarin is also a direct reference to imperial China and the German names of the cards Walled Village and Church are Carcassonne (only in the Hans im Glück version, it is now Befestigtes Dorf) and Schweriner Dom, which are both references to real world cities.

cos timeline-wise, your card happens like 200 years minimum after literally all the other sets?

Renaissance happens like 800 years minimum after literally Empires.

Dominion does not happen in our timeline. It’s a parallel universe. Or maybe Dominion plays in the same universe like Temporum, who knows?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 03, 2019, 05:24:20 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 03, 2019, 03:38:48 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 03, 2019, 03:27:02 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 03, 2019, 03:04:18 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 03, 2019, 01:57:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/t2qUkPt.png)

I would call it a Cursed token rather than Cursing. Cursing makes it sound like it gives other players curses rather than cursing yourself.

It does give other players curses though... I mean it can curse yourself also, but you'd be putting it on an action that your opponents are playing more than you.

But also cursed sounds cooler.

I agree Cursed sounds better and I think more accurate. The pile itself is cursed. Cursing works better if the token allowed you to do the cursing when you played the card (which could be a variant, if this way is too un-fun, though would have to be priced higher for sure).

I'll make this change for v0.2.

Other changes / tweaks I'm considering if it's too strong or slows games down too much:
• Adding "once per turn" for the token's effect: "Once per turn, when any player plays a card from that pile, they first gain a curse."
• Gain the curse to your hand, so you can plan to deal with it immediately.

For now, though I still like this version.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #35: curser to fit expansion
Post by: Aquila on July 03, 2019, 05:33:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/uTeAbWq.jpg)
This one's for Adventures, of course. A Reserve curser that points toward giving big flocks out later game. It's got self emptying like Magpie to help influence timing, but won't work unless you gain a Province to avoid pointing to 3-pile rushes.
Something doesn't quite feel right about it...but here's the first draft for now.

Edit: new version that doesn't gain copies of itself and instead has Oasis as an option.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 03, 2019, 06:08:24 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 03, 2019, 05:20:16 pm

If I submit this to an earlier round, can I still?

Yes as long as you didn’t win or get runner-up. However (without reading your card), I worry that a previously-designed card might not completely thematically fit an expansion, which is the first and largest judging criteria. Again, haven’t read your particular card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 03, 2019, 07:54:52 pm

Ok. Here's something I thought up right now. I'll probably tweak it a little. Update: This card had undergone a couple of changes. Now I've made a new card. See that Here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805190#msg805190)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZfuvlPK.png)
Seeing as there are no cursers in Dark Ages, I made Undead Witch for it. It's a witch that never dies. It's a curser that can keep giving curses to people when they trash them. It also allows you to trash your own curses to make sure that curses can even end up in the trash.

Dark Ages theme is cards that care about the trash. This is a trasher (for curses only) and a card that gains cards from the trash.

Thoughts?

Update1: You now get to trash curses and give out curses.
Update2: This card had undergone a couple of changes. Now I've made a new card. See that Here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805190#msg805190)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 03, 2019, 08:01:24 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 03:44:45 pm

I'll take a stab at making a promo curser.
Here's Heretic. Super swingy alt-vp that allows you to do an absurd thing like get all the curses and use them instead of money.

(https://i.imgur.com/qDTu7Gq.png)

Card text is :

Quote

While this card is in play, Curses gain the type "Treasure" and have the ability +$2.
Choose one or both:
• Gain a Curse to your hand.
• Each other player gains a Curse.
-
At the end of the game, if you have the most Curses, 2%

you'd clearly want enough of them to make them actually worth VP to offset the curses you take on.

Alternatively, you can just curse everyone else, and/or yourself!

Also ties into the promo's subtheme of "generally large/strange choices" (Governor, Envoy (for the player on yr left), Prince and Stash also exhibit a similar "large" decision space, Black Market exhibiting "strange" decision space).

edit: fixed image link

The while in play effect should probably be below a line.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 03, 2019, 08:07:27 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 03, 2019, 05:20:16 pm

If I submit this to an earlier round, can I still?
(https://i.imgur.com/lTHWpKM.jpg)

Quote

Sorceress
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+$1. Name a card. Each player (including you) may reveal a copy of the named card from their hand. Each player who does gets +1 Coffers. Each player who doesn't gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.

Sorceress is a Guilds-themed Curser that kinda hits everybody. Anyone who can show a named card (Guilds sub-theme) gets 1 Coffers (Guilds main theme), even the player of it. Anyone who can't gains a Curse straight to hand. I'm still surprised there's no official card that gives other players Coffers.

Early you could hit Estates or your other opener for +Coffers and giving a Curse, but the Curse that you give will make it more likely that they can immediately benefit from the Curse by using Sorceress with it.
Later you can use greater variety and deck-drawing capacity to hand out Curses and get Coffers fairly reliably.
You could also name a card that doesn't exist to give out Curses and deal with yours immediately.

This seems a bit swingy. If I name a card and my opponent doesn't have it (something that will be reliant on luck) he gets a curse (which is -1 point and clogs his deck); if he does have it, not only does he not get a curse, but he gets a coffer. Considering that people consider Hexes swingy because some effects (all of which are pretty much negative) are not as powerful as others at certain times, a positive/negative effect would qualify as swingy too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on July 03, 2019, 10:31:58 pm

My entry:

Warlock
(https://i.imgur.com/G6Sdy4j.png)

This is a Dark Ages card. Its two themes are trashing, and interacting with the trash.

If multiple players discard a Warlock from their hand, they gain in turn order.

Not often do you see an Attack/Reaction card. This card does a few interesting things. At first it just trashes and gives Curses. But, if you decide to trash a Curse, somebody can reveal Warlock to return the Curse to the Supply. Then there are more Curses to give out. Sometimes you only want to trash one card, so this makes you trash good cards sometimes to get rid of those nasty Curses. That's good, it forces good cards into the trash so other people can gain copies and increase the interaction. Since players will be gaining extra copies of things, that will speed the game up. That's good, since the Curses not ever emptying prevents some three-pile endings and we don't want the game to last forever. Finally, there are some interesting interactions with a few other cards. Does somebody want to Remodel a Gold to gain a Province? Well, you can gain that Gold. Somebody trash a card with Lurker? Well, you can either gain it or put it back in the Supply. One money short of a Province this turn? Gain a trashed Copper to your hand.

Warlock v2:
(https://i.imgur.com/fsoTYLx.png)
There are some problems with it. What happens if you reveal this when a Fortress is trashed? Does it go to the Supply or to your hand? What happens with Noble Brigand? It says that you gain the trashed treasures. Do you gain them, or do they return to the Supply?

Warlock v3:
(https://i.imgur.com/U92lvr2.png)
Much simpler. Double Cursing can be quite powerful, but you have to trash an Action card to do it. This could be quite powerful with Rats, but you have to wait until there are actually Curses in the Trash before you can double Curse people, so that nerfs that Strategy a bit so that you can't immediately double Curse people. If you could always get Curses from the trash (Like Naitchman's version), it would just be a slog forever. This ensures that the game eventually cleans up unless you keep trashing action cards. Even then, people are trashing 2 and gaining 2 until the Curses run out. Then you're just trashing 2 and gaining 1 Curse, so it will still clean up.

Warlock v4
(https://i.imgur.com/7vIJYvL.png)

I changed "Trash up to 2 cards from your hand" to "Trash up to 2 differently named cards from your hand."

1) This was simply too powerful. It was a must-buy. Especially with junking in the game. All players were forced to buy it.
2) There's no reason to double Curse somebody if they can simply double-trash it. This slows down the trashing so that the Cursing is a bit more effective.

Warlock v5
(https://i.imgur.com/UUixrff.png)
This might be too powerful. We'll see.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 03, 2019, 10:59:25 pm

For Renaissance, if for some reason that wasn't obvious.

(https://i.imgur.com/LfX75sC.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 04, 2019, 12:06:31 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 03:44:45 pm

I'll take a stab at making a promo curser.
Here's Heretic. Super swingy alt-vp that allows you to do an absurd thing like get all the curses and use them instead of money.

Card text is :

Quote

While this card is in play, Curses gain the type "Treasure" and have the ability +$2.
Choose one or both:
• Gain a Curse to your hand.
• Each other player gains a Curse.
-
At the end of the game, if you have the most Curses, 2VP

This could actually also be an Intrigue curser, it is a Hybrid and has choices.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 04, 2019, 03:43:26 am

Alright, here's my attempt at a Traveller Cursor:

(https://i.imgur.com/SmbBNgC.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Y5UkChn.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/zUHHHQA.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/T8YpHmX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/6wDSbeI.png)

Quote

Child Action - Traveller - $2
Trash a card from your hand.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Trainee.

Quote

Trainee Action - Traveller - $3*
Gain a non-Traveller card costing up to $3. You may put it on top of your deck.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
(This is not in the Supply)

Quote

Sorcerer’s Apprentice Action - Traveller - $4*
Put a non-Reserve card from your hand onto your Tavern mat. If it is a...
...Action card, gain a card costing up to $5
...Treasure card, +$2, +1 Buy
...Victory or Curse card, +1 Card, +1 Action
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Sorcerer.
(This is not in the Supply)

Quote

Sorcerer Action - Attack - Traveller - $5*
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on top of their deck.
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. You may trash one. Put the revealed Treasures into your hand, put the revealed Actions back in any order, and discard the rest.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Master.
(This is not in the Supply)

Quote

Master Action - Attack - $6*
+$1
You may put your +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, or +1 Buy token on the Master pile. (When you play a Master, you first get that bonus).
Each other player gains 2 Curses. For each Curse they didn’t gain, they gain a Copper instead.
(This is not in the Supply)

The Traveller that keeps on travelling! This is Adventures, obviously, with the following themes:
- Traveller
- Reserve Mat
- Tokens

I'm not sure if this is balanced at all or not. The main idea is that the Master continually gets better until it becomes a junking Grand Market (However, it takes you quite a while to get to that point). The other cards in the line can help you defend against other players' Masters by trashing (or pseudo-trashing) junk or drawing Coppers off the top of your deck. This line also has micro-themes of gaining and trashing.

I'm open to feedback on any of these cards. I put the most thought into Child and Master, and the rest I just kind of made up on the fly. Half of me feels like it's too weak, and the other half of me feels like it's too strong.

Edit: Master should say “Master pile” for the tokens, not Sorcerer pile. I changed it in the text but can’t change it on the image right now.

I'm also absolutely not married to the names. If anyone has any better ideas I'm completely open.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on July 04, 2019, 04:15:47 am

Quote from: kru5h on July 03, 2019, 10:31:58 pm

My entry:

Warlock
(https://i.imgur.com/G6Sdy4j.png)

This confused me when I first read it. I took returning 'it' to the Supply and gaining a copy of 'it' to be Warlock itself. Would saying 'the card' or 'that card' be more correct? Also, when a player trashes a non-Supply card...

Quote from: mail-mi on July 04, 2019, 03:43:26 am

Alright, here's my attempt at a Traveller Cursor:
...
(https://i.imgur.com/6wDSbeI.png)

Quote

Master Action - Attack - $6*
+$1
You may put your +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, or +1 Buy token on the Sorcerer pile. (When you play a Sorcerer, you first get that bonus).
Each other player gains 2 Curses. For each Curse they didn’t gain, they gain a Copper instead.
(This is not in the Supply)

...
The main idea is that the Master continually gets better until it becomes a junking Grand Market (However, it takes you quite a while to get to that point).

The tokens are going on the sorcerer pile, master isn't getting stronger.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 04, 2019, 04:16:57 am

Oh, whoops, Master had originally been Sorcerer, and I forgot to change that when I changed the name.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #35: curser to fit expansion
Post by: spineflu on July 04, 2019, 07:26:02 am

Quote from: Aquila on July 03, 2019, 05:33:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pwuOaVS.jpg)
This one's for Adventures, of course. A Reserve curser that points toward giving big flocks out later game. It's got self emptying like Magpie to help influence timing, but won't work unless you gain a Province to avoid pointing to 3-pile rushes.
Something doesn't quite feel right about it...but here's the first draft for now.

is a group of ravens still a murder? because this would straight up murder decks in flocks. i love it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 04, 2019, 10:02:00 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 04, 2019, 03:43:26 am

Quote

Sorcerer’s Apprentice Action - Traveller - $4*
Put a non-Reserve card from your hand onto your Tavern mat. If it is a...
...Action card, gain a card costing up to $5
...Treasure card, +$2, +1 Buy
...Victory or Curse card, +1 Card, +1 Action
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Sorcerer.
(This is not in the Supply)

Why doesn't it just trash the card? Is it just so that it can interact with the Tavern Mat? There's no way to get it back right? The only way I can see this being different from trashing is with Miser.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on July 04, 2019, 11:11:44 am

Greedy Witch
cost $2+ - Action - Attack
+$2
Use a coin token so that each other player gains a Curse.
---
When you buy this, if you didn't use a coin token, you may overpay for this. For each $1 you overpaid, take a coin token.

Guilds. Coin token and overpay.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 04, 2019, 11:28:30 am

Quote from: scolapasta on July 03, 2019, 01:57:20 pm

Coven
Types: Event
Cost: $6
Move your Cursing token to an Action Supply pile with no other Cursing token on it. (When any player plays a card from that pile, they first gain a Curse.)

The immediate and obvious problem of Coven is how often it will push big-money strategies to the forefront, because one can always avoid Coven completely by having no Action cards. You could possibly have it move the Cursing token to a Supply pile costing at least $2 (to exclude Coppers).

Quote from: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 03:44:45 pm

Heretic
Types: Action, Attack, Victory
Cost: $5
While this card is in play, Curses gain the type "Treasure" and have the ability +$2. Choose one or both: Gain a Curse to your hand; or each other player gains a Curse.

---

At the end of the game, if you have the most Curses, 2VP

If I play multiple Heretics, is it intended that Curses will continue to stack types (even if it is more Treasure types)? Do you intend the Curse to only ever produce $2, even if you play multiple Heretics? I'm not even sure how it would work. Are ties friendly (as in, multiple players each with the most Curses each get 2VP from their Heretics)? I'd assume so since Keep is friendly, but it has a clause for that.
I'm not sure I would like this very much due to the way the VP will play out so differently in multiplayer games. If giving Curses out is ideal then they split normally, but if its ability is ever relevant (though I'm not sure if it will ever be good enough to take Curses yourself), then the Curse split turns weird.

Quote from: King Leon on July 03, 2019, 04:22:34 pm

Potemkin Village
Types: Action, Attack, Victory
Cost: $4
+1 Card. Discard 1 card. If it’s a Victory card: +1 Card and each other player gains a Curse, otherwise: +2 Actions.

---

1VP

---

When you gain this, gain an Estate.

Atop anything else, the two dividing lines make this card look very ugly and read strangely. It will probably be fine. I might worry that if a player begins to fall behind in Cursing they will be put even further behind by the Curses which do not cause Potemkin Village to give out Curses.

Quote from: Aquila on July 03, 2019, 05:33:18 pm

Raven
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. you may gain a Raven. If you didn't, put this on your Tavern mat.

---

When you gain a Province, you may discard this from your Tavern mat. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.

I'm not a big fan of the "cantrip that auto-piles itself." I think Port and Magpie are already pretty bad and they don't even pile themselves as quickly as Raven will. This will split strangely in multiplayer games versus 2-player games. In 2-player games it would not be all too strange to give a player 4 or even 5 Curses with your first Province. In 3-player games you will be the lucky one to give 4 Curses. I think losing the Raven split would be an immediate death sentence in most 2-player games: Receiving 6+ Curses in response to another player gaining 1 Province will probably prevent you from doing anything else the rest of the game.

Quote from: naitchman on July 03, 2019, 07:54:52 pm

Undead Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Choose one: Each other player gains a Curse; or each other player gains a Curse from the trash; or trash up to 2 Curses from your hand.

In multiplayer games, I worry that the Cursing from the trash will give an uneven number of Curses when it doesn't want to. I'd just have Undead Witch's on-play put all the Curses in the trash back into the Supply and then dole them out normally. Regardless, this looks pretty weak at a cost of $5 without any benefit attached to it except for the unending Cursing. I might want some small value attached to it. Even +$1.

Quote from: kru5h on July 03, 2019, 10:31:58 pm

Warlock
Types: Action, Attack, Reaction
Cost: $5
Trash 2 cards from your hand. Each other player gains a Curse.

---

When a player trashes a card, you may reveal this from your hand to return the trashed card to the Supply. Then you may discard this, to gain a copy of the trashed card to your hand.

The wording of the Reaction is confusing, so I hope you don't mind that I expanded it above. I think the ability to duplicate Provinces for yourself with multiple Warlocks is something to be wary of.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 03, 2019, 10:59:25 pm

Living Statue
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $4
$1, +1 Villager. When you play this, if you have 3 or more Villagers, each other player gains a Curse.

This one is pretty clever. Around other Villager producing cards you could get the Curses coming out faster (especially the inter-set combo with Sculptor). Most of the existing cards make Villagers difficult to access though, so I would worry that Living Statue is too strong as a splitter compared to other Villager-producing cards, and then suddenly there are a bunch of Curses in the game.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 04, 2019, 02:38:54 am

Rent Seeker
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +1 Coffers. If you have at least 3 Coffers tokens, each other player gains a Curse. If they did, they get +1 Coffers

You need an image to apply for the contest.
Either way, a terminal +1 Card is super awkward. I wouldn't recommend it.

Quote from: mail-mi on July 04, 2019, 03:43:26 am

Quote

Child
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $2
Trash a card from your hand.

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Trainee.

Quote

Trainee
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $3*
Gain a non-Traveller card costing up to $3. You may put it on top of your deck.

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
(This is not in the Supply)

Quote

Sorcerer’s Apprentice
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $4*
Put a non-Reserve card from your hand onto your Tavern mat. If it is a... ...Action card, gain a card costing up to $5. ...Treasure card, +$2, +1 Buy. ...Victory or Curse card, +1 Card, +1 Action

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Sorcerer.
(This is not in the Supply)

Quote

Sorcerer
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $5*
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on top of their deck. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. You may trash one. Put the revealed Treasures into your hand, put the revealed Actions back in any order, and discard the rest.

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Master.
(This is not in the Supply)

Quote

Master
Types: Action
Cost: $6*
+$1
You may put your +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, or +1 Buy token on the Master pile. (When you play a Master, you first get that bonus). Each other player gains 2 Curses. For each Curse they didn’t gain, they gain a Copper instead.
(This is not in the Supply)

I think raw "trash a card" is also too good on the first level of a Traveller: It speeds up your deck and makes it easier to continue the Traveller line. If you want Master, I see little reason you wouldn't open with 4 (or more) Child cards considering it gives so much tempo towards what your deck is trying to do.
Also Sorcerer's Apprentice's ability to tuck Victory cards away forever is trying to slip under the radar here. That effect is pretty ridiculous. I think it should not be able to put Victory cards away, let alone giving a benefit for doing so.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 04, 2019, 10:02:00 am

Why doesn't [Sorcerer's Apprentice] just trash the card? Is it just so that it can interact with the Tavern Mat? There's no way to get it back right? The only way I can see this being different from trashing is with Miser.

A Victory or Curse card on your Tavern mat is still a part of your deck and will influence your score. Actions and Treasures typically won't matter, but the wording would become more complex if you treated them differently. Maybe the semantic complexity (players wondering what cards sitting on their Tavern mat are doing) would be worth alleviating with word complexity.

Quote from: majiponi on July 04, 2019, 11:11:44 am

Greedy Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $2+
+$2. Use a coin token so that each other player gains a Curse.

---

When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, take a Coin token.

You need an image to apply for the contest.
Overpaying for Coffers is an issue fraught with huge problems. You can functionally set aside coins to buy Provinces very, very fast. I'd steer clear of the concept of overpaying for Coffers.

Quote from: naitchman on July 03, 2019, 08:07:27 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 03, 2019, 05:20:16 pm

Sorceress
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+$1. Name a card. Each player (including you) may reveal a copy of the named card from their hand. Each player who does gets +1 Coffers. Each player who doesn't gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.

This seems a bit swingy. If I name a card and my opponent doesn't have it (something that will be reliant on luck) he gets a curse (which is -1 point and clogs his deck); if he does have it, not only does he not get a curse, but he gets a coffer. Considering that people consider Hexes swingy because some effects (all of which are pretty much negative) are not as powerful as others at certain times, a positive/negative effect would qualify as swingy too.

I think this is a fair characterization, but is somewhat sidestepping the inherently swingy nature of Curse-centered games. If you have Curses, you have more stop cards, which means the random order of your deck becomes more important.
The original version had no "name a card", always triggering off of Curses (which makes it less Guildsy) and the Cursing was unconditional. Do you suppose making the Cursing unconditional to other players (and therefore increasing the cost to $4) be a major improvement? To do that, I'd probably need to change the "name a card" thing to ensure that it still involves opportunity for other players to get Coffers, but that can be approximated.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 04, 2019, 11:46:40 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 04, 2019, 02:38:54 am

Rent Seeker
Action/Attack - $3
+1 Card
+1 Coffers
If you have at least 3 Coffers tokens, each other player gains a Curse. If they did, they get +1 Coffers

1. You have to mention which expansion this is supposed to go with. Is it Guilds or Renaissance?
2. You also need to have an image for the card (not necessarily with art).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 04, 2019, 12:21:14 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 04, 2019, 11:28:30 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 03:44:45 pm

Heretic
Types: Action, Attack, Victory
Cost: $5
While this card is in play, Curses gain the type "Treasure" and have the ability +$2. Choose one or both: Gain a Curse to your hand; or each other player gains a Curse.

---

At the end of the game, if you have the most Curses, 2VP

If I play multiple Heretics, is it intended that Curses will continue to stack types (even if it is more Treasure types)? Do you intend the Curse to only ever produce $2, even if you play multiple Heretics? I'm not even sure how it would work. Are ties friendly (as in, multiple players each with the most Curses each get 2VP from their Heretics)? I'd assume so since Keep is friendly, but it has a clause for that.
I'm not sure I would like this very much due to the way the VP will play out so differently in multiplayer games. If giving Curses out is ideal then they split normally, but if its ability is ever relevant (though I'm not sure if it will ever be good enough to take Curses yourself), then the Curse split turns weird.

the intent is that curses become functionally equivalent to silvers and that the most cursed player ends up gaining 2vp/heretic; ties are friendly (which you're right, does need to be specified). The double treasure thing you specified when multiples are played i don't think matters (i'm operating under the assumption that card types are a Set - no duplicates - but even if I'm wrong with that i still don't think it matters in this case bc there's no limit to the number of treasures you can play during your buy phase).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on July 04, 2019, 12:30:00 pm

Quote from: kru5h on July 03, 2019, 10:31:58 pm

My entry:

Warlock
(https://i.imgur.com/G6Sdy4j.png)

This is a Dark Ages card. Its two themes are trashing, and interacting with the trash.

If multiple players discard a Warlock from their hand, they gain in turn order.

Not often do you see an Attack/Reaction card. This card does a few interesting things. At first it just trashes and gives Curses. But, if you decide to trash a Curse, somebody can reveal Warlock to return the Curse to the Supply. Then there are more Curses to give out. Sometimes you only want to trash one card, so this makes you trash good cards sometimes to get rid of those nasty Curses. That's good, it forces good cards into the trash so other people can gain copies and increase the interaction. Since players will be gaining extra copies of things, that will speed the game up. That's good, since the Curses not ever emptying prevents some three-pile endings and we don't want the game to last forever. Finally, there are some interesting interactions with a few other cards. Does somebody want to Remodel a Gold to gain a Province? Well, you can gain that Gold. Somebody trash a card with Lurker? Well, you can either gain it or put it back in the Supply. One money short of a Province this turn? Gain a trashed Copper to your hand.

The last instance of "it" needs to be "that card" because the most recent noun is "this", so as written it lets you gain lots of Warlocks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 04, 2019, 01:23:55 pm

Quote from: majiponi on July 04, 2019, 11:11:44 am

Greedy Witch
cost $2+ - Action - Attack
+$2
Use a coin token so that each other player gains a Curse.
---
When you buy this, if you didn't use a coin token, you may overpay for this. For each $1 you overpaid, take a coin token.

Guilds. Coin token and overpay.

Why "if you didn't use a coin token"? I don't see how this makes any difference. Wouldn't eliminating that clause only add the ability to spend x coin tokens to get x coin tokens back? It wouldn't ever help you to do that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 01:46:25 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 03, 2019, 01:57:20 pm

Coven

(https://i.imgur.com/t2qUkPt.png)

I just had an idea (you can take it or leave it). What if there was a single cursed token that was shared by all players. Buying the event would move it to the pile of your liking. This would mean in 4 player games it wouldn't get too crazy with 4 cursed tokens.

Also, it would appear you have a typo on the card (playa)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on July 04, 2019, 02:03:43 pm

I took all the advice on this thread and changed Warlock.

Warlock v2:
(https://i.imgur.com/fsoTYLx.png)

Changed "it" to "that card" in most places. Put a restriction to $6 gains so you can't gain provinces.

I also had to get rid of "to your hand." If you could gain a card to your hand, you could potentially trash Mining Village for +$2, Warlock it back to your hand, then play Mining Village again to get the Warlock back into your hand for an infinite loop of money.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 02:34:03 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 04, 2019, 11:28:30 am

Quote from: Aquila on July 03, 2019, 05:33:18 pm

Raven
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. you may gain a Raven. If you didn't, put this on your Tavern mat.

---

When you gain a Province, you may discard this from your Tavern mat. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.

I'm not a big fan of the "cantrip that auto-piles itself." I think Port and Magpie are already pretty bad and they don't even pile themselves as quickly as Raven will. This will split strangely in multiplayer games versus 2-player games. In 2-player games it would not be all too strange to give a player 4 or even 5 Curses with your first Province. In 3-player games you will be the lucky one to give 4 Curses. I think losing the Raven split would be an immediate death sentence in most 2-player games: Receiving 6+ Curses in response to another player gaining 1 Province will probably prevent you from doing anything else the rest of the game.

I agree with this assessment. This is the kind of card that gives a big 1st player advantage. Not only are you more likely to win the raven split because you are 1 turn ahead, but if you can get a province 1st, your opponent might have trouble getting a province himself with all those curses letting you get another province and give him the rest of the curses. At this point, you pretty much won the game. You just can't ignore ravens anytime they're out.

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 04, 2019, 11:28:30 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 03, 2019, 07:54:52 pm

Undead Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Choose one: Each other player gains a Curse; or each other player gains a Curse from the trash; or trash up to 2 Curses from your hand.

In multiplayer games, I worry that the Cursing from the trash will give an uneven number of Curses when it doesn't want to. I'd just have Undead Witch's on-play put all the Curses in the trash back into the Supply and then dole them out normally. Regardless, this looks pretty weak at a cost of $5 without any benefit attached to it except for the unending Cursing. I might want some small value attached to it. Even +$1.

Thanks for the feedback. Both points are valid. I think I'll change the wording so that you can curse from the supply or the trash for each player so it doesn't have this wonkiness.
I was thinking about the lack of benefit when I uploaded this (though the trashing is technically a benefit). I obviously can't add +2 cards, or this will be strictly better than witch and +actions doesn't seem right since non-terminal cursers are very strong. Obviously, the ability to give out curses from the trash is strong so I can't give it too much. I could do +$1. I was also considering raising the number of curses you could trash to 3; what if you got to trash one card unconditionally and then choose cursing or trashing another 2 curses? It would allow this to act a little more like an ambassador (at least in a 2p game). I think I'll make a couple different versions and see which one works best.

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 04, 2019, 11:28:30 am

Quote from: kru5h on July 03, 2019, 10:31:58 pm

Warlock
Types: Action, Attack, Reaction
Cost: $5
Trash 2 cards from your hand. Each other player gains a Curse.

---

When a player trashes a card, you may reveal this from your hand to return the trashed card to the Supply. Then you may discard this, to gain a copy of the trashed card to your hand.

The wording of the Reaction is confusing, so I hope you don't mind that I expanded it above. I think the ability to duplicate Provinces for yourself with multiple Warlocks is something to be wary of.

Adding a simple "if you do" could fix this

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 04, 2019, 11:28:30 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 04, 2019, 03:43:26 am

Quote

Child
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $2
Trash a card from your hand.

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Trainee.

Quote

Trainee
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $3*
Gain a non-Traveller card costing up to $3. You may put it on top of your deck.

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
(This is not in the Supply)

Quote

Sorcerer’s Apprentice
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $4*
Put a non-Reserve card from your hand onto your Tavern mat. If it is a... ...Action card, gain a card costing up to $5. ...Treasure card, +$2, +1 Buy. ...Victory or Curse card, +1 Card, +1 Action

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Sorcerer.
(This is not in the Supply)

Quote

Sorcerer
Types: Action, Traveller
Cost: $5*
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on top of their deck. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. You may trash one. Put the revealed Treasures into your hand, put the revealed Actions back in any order, and discard the rest.

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Master.
(This is not in the Supply)

Quote

Master
Types: Action
Cost: $6*
+$1
You may put your +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1, or +1 Buy token on the Master pile. (When you play a Master, you first get that bonus). Each other player gains 2 Curses. For each Curse they didn’t gain, they gain a Copper instead.
(This is not in the Supply)

I think raw "trash a card" is also too good on the first level of a Traveller: It speeds up your deck and makes it easier to continue the Traveller line. If you want Master, I see little reason you wouldn't open with 4 (or more) Child cards considering it gives so much tempo towards what your deck is trying to do.
Also Sorcerer's Apprentice's ability to tuck Victory cards away forever is trying to slip under the radar here. That effect is pretty ridiculous. I think it should not be able to put Victory cards away, let alone giving a benefit for doing so.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 04, 2019, 10:02:00 am

Why doesn't [Sorcerer's Apprentice] just trash the card? Is it just so that it can interact with the Tavern Mat? There's no way to get it back right? The only way I can see this being different from trashing is with Miser.

A Victory or Curse card on your Tavern mat is still a part of your deck and will influence your score. Actions and Treasures typically won't matter, but the wording would become more complex if you treated them differently. Maybe the semantic complexity (players wondering what cards sitting on their Tavern mat are doing) would be worth alleviating with word complexity.

Usually the card at the end of a traveler line has to be powerful (note the current ones Teacher and Champion) and be powerful even if you only have one because getting more is a lot of work. Master just doesn't seem worth it. At best, you get all your tokens on master and now it's a grand market; you probably only have a few of these anyway and it's very likely it's late in the game by the time this happens. The fact that it double curses is cool, but considering all the different cards in this line give you some way to trash or remove cards from your deck and that this would be very late in the game by the time this happens, it doesn't really seem worth it to go for a master. Sorcerer's apprentice on the other hand is a cantrip card that lets you tuck away victory cards and doesn't tuck away itself (like island). It would seem worth going down this line and stopping at sorcerer's apprentice (maybe getting a sorcerer if need be). I agree with fragasnap, this probably should be tweaked.

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 04, 2019, 11:28:30 am

Quote from: majiponi on July 04, 2019, 11:11:44 am

Greedy Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $2+
+$2. Use a coin token so that each other player gains a Curse.

---

When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, take a Coin token.

You need an image to apply for the contest.
Overpaying for Coffers is an issue fraught with huge problems. You can functionally set aside coins to buy Provinces very, very fast. I'd steer clear of the concept of overpaying for Coffers.

You should probably fix up the wording
Put a coin token back in the supply; if you do, each other player gains a Curse.

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 04, 2019, 11:28:30 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 03, 2019, 08:07:27 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 03, 2019, 05:20:16 pm

Sorceress
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+$1. Name a card. Each player (including you) may reveal a copy of the named card from their hand. Each player who does gets +1 Coffers. Each player who doesn't gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.

This seems a bit swingy. If I name a card and my opponent doesn't have it (something that will be reliant on luck) he gets a curse (which is -1 point and clogs his deck); if he does have it, not only does he not get a curse, but he gets a coffer. Considering that people consider Hexes swingy because some effects (all of which are pretty much negative) are not as powerful as others at certain times, a positive/negative effect would qualify as swingy too.

I think this is a fair characterization, but is somewhat sidestepping the inherently swingy nature of Curse-centered games. If you have Curses, you have more stop cards, which means the random order of your deck becomes more important.
The original version had no "name a card", always triggering off of Curses (which makes it less Guildsy) and the Cursing was unconditional. Do you suppose making the Cursing unconditional to other players (and therefore increasing the cost to $4) be a major improvement? To do that, I'd probably need to change the "name a card" thing to ensure that it still involves opportunity for other players to get Coffers, but that can be approximated.

I'm not really sure what your proposal is. Do you mean give each other player a curse and a coffer? That woud definitely be less swingy, and needs to cost $4-$5 (it would also be the only $4 unconditional curser that also gives a benefit if you priced it at $4). You could also allow for naming a card but not give coffers out; either the player gets the curse or doesn't (like a bane card), though I guess that loses the guilds theme even more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 02:59:55 pm

I'm putting a couple different versions of undead witch out that do give you some bonus. Which one do you think works the best?
(https://i.imgur.com/cyuPTvX.png)(https://i.imgur.com/m1ZyjIz.png)(https://i.imgur.com/awDqmUe.png)(https://i.imgur.com/ZfuvlPK.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 04, 2019, 03:12:27 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 02:59:55 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZfuvlPK.png)

I like this one the best.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 04, 2019, 04:39:20 pm

Submission for Renaissance.

(https://i.imgur.com/ucu7AkY.png)

I guess I came up with this because I like it when junking happens later in the game. First I wanted to do it on-buy but on-gain seems more fun as funky things can happen e.g. with Ambassador, Replace and Farmland.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 04, 2019, 04:53:58 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 02:34:03 pm

Also Sorcerer's Apprentice's ability to tuck Victory cards away forever is trying to slip under the radar here. That effect is pretty ridiculous. I think it should not be able to put Victory cards away, let alone giving a benefit for doing so.

Seems pretty good at the first glance but the fact that this draws after having Tavern-ized the Victory card matters quite a bit (although not as much as the matching problem of ordinary villages & Smithy variants vs. non-drawing villages like Festival/Villa/Conclave & Smithy variants as Sorcerer's Apprentice features other options besides setting aside green).
This is counterbalanced by the ability to always set aside Treasures at near Moneylender like strength and IMO this is the real issue. Without this ability, Sorcerer's Apprentice would be far more risky in non-alt-VP middlegames.

So I'd either keep it as a card that is similar to Sacrifice but change the bonus of setting aside green or I'd do a card that can only set aside green and purple, e.g.
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may put a Victory or Curse card from your hand onto your Tavern mat for [mild bonus].

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on July 04, 2019, 05:20:29 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 02:34:03 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 04, 2019, 11:28:30 am

Quote from: Aquila on July 03, 2019, 05:33:18 pm

Raven
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. you may gain a Raven. If you didn't, put this on your Tavern mat.

---

When you gain a Province, you may discard this from your Tavern mat. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.

I'm not a big fan of the "cantrip that auto-piles itself." I think Port and Magpie are already pretty bad and they don't even pile themselves as quickly as Raven will. This will split strangely in multiplayer games versus 2-player games. In 2-player games it would not be all too strange to give a player 4 or even 5 Curses with your first Province. In 3-player games you will be the lucky one to give 4 Curses. I think losing the Raven split would be an immediate death sentence in most 2-player games: Receiving 6+ Curses in response to another player gaining 1 Province will probably prevent you from doing anything else the rest of the game.

I agree with this assessment. This is the kind of card that gives a big 1st player advantage. Not only are you more likely to win the raven split because you are 1 turn ahead, but if you can get a province 1st, your opponent might have trouble getting a province himself with all those curses letting you get another province and give him the rest of the curses. At this point, you pretty much won the game. You just can't ignore ravens anytime they're out.

Yes, this is describing the uneasy feelings I had, thanks to you both. A revision:

(https://i.imgur.com/uTeAbWq.jpg)
More work involved to collect them, having a straight Oasis option instead of gain another raven so the Adventures tokens could sit nicely on their pile. Though if you get a Province on the same turn you put these on your tavern mat, they're Familiars... Does this make them cost $5, and if so would Peddler be fair instead of oasis?

---

Quote from: segura on July 04, 2019, 04:39:20 pm

Submission for Renaissance.

(https://i.imgur.com/ucu7AkY.png)

Would this make a slog of every game by hammering the Estates? A higher price seems much safer so decks build towards bigger greens.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 04, 2019, 05:29:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/X77vU7h.png)

Adventures, obviously. Not sure if this counts, you can always buy a Curse to trigger the effect.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Reduced cost from _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} and can only be called during your turn.
v1.2: Returned cost to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} and Curses all players whose turn it isn't (which may or may not include you). Restored ability to call it during your turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 04, 2019, 05:36:18 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 04, 2019, 05:29:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/DWA7Cd0.png)

If the ramifications of multiple players calling Totems is too confusing, I'll change it to only be callable on your turn and lower the price.

I think you'll have to do this. As it is this is one of those inadvisable Attack deflectors that makes everyone ignore Attack piles altogether. And yes the ramifications of multiplayer are a can of worms. Alice plays a Curser, Bob and Carol both call a Totem. The order in which they call seems to matter: if Bob calls his first, then does the Curse he just deflected get deflected back on him when Carol calls hers? And when Carol calls hers, it's actual in response to two Curses: the one from Alice and the one Bob deflected. Does she have to immediately call another Totem if she wants to deflect the second Curse?

Quote from: Aquila on July 04, 2019, 05:20:29 pm

Quote from: segura on July 04, 2019, 04:39:20 pm

Submission for Renaissance.

(https://i.imgur.com/ucu7AkY.png)

Would this make a slog of every game by hammering the Estates? A higher price seems much safer so decks build towards bigger greens.

I was thinking the same thing. I like the idea, but it needs to be more expensive.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 04, 2019, 05:37:04 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 04, 2019, 05:36:18 pm

Quote from: Aquila on July 04, 2019, 05:20:29 pm

Quote from: segura on July 04, 2019, 04:39:20 pm

Submission for Renaissance.

(https://i.imgur.com/ucu7AkY.png)

Would this make a slog of every game by hammering the Estates? A higher price seems much safer so decks build towards bigger greens.

I was thinking the same thing. I like the idea, but it needs to be more expensive.

Or just limit it to non-Action, non-Estate Victory cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 04, 2019, 05:53:52 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 04, 2019, 11:28:30 am

splitter

No, not the forbidden word!

Also, for a minute I thought your post was the judging.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on July 04, 2019, 05:58:18 pm

If there is no trashing, then buying the Estates is the same as skipping a 3-4$ buy to take VP from baths.  2 VP advantage generated over the opponent, no overall change in deck quality.  People usually do not rush baths.  If you are playing big money and your opponent is trying to line up Festivals against Smithies you've broken the symmetry a little bit but if we've generated a game where people played engine vs. big money that's definitely a custom card creation accomplishment, not a failure, in today's engine mirror universe.

When trashing is available, buying Estates should be even worse because it feels better to trash a Curse than it does to trash an Estate.  Trash for benefit is unlikely to make enough difference.

So yeah I think the rush criticism fails on its face by comparison to Baths.  It empties one more pile than Baths does but buying two of the curses yourself after you skipped a 4$ buy to unlock these Baths at all doesn't sound like a threatening strategy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on July 04, 2019, 06:20:14 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on July 04, 2019, 05:58:18 pm

If there is no trashing, then buying the Estates is the same as skipping a 3-4$ buy to take VP from baths.  2 VP advantage generated over the opponent, no overall change in deck quality.  People usually do not rush baths.  If you are playing big money and your opponent is trying to line up Festivals against Smithies you've broken the symmetry a little bit but if we've generated a game where people played engine vs. big money that's definitely a custom card creation accomplishment, not a failure, in today's engine mirror universe.

When trashing is available, buying Estates should be even worse because it feels better to trash a Curse than it does to trash an Estate.  Trash for benefit is unlikely to make enough difference.

So yeah I think the rush criticism fails on its face by comparison to Baths.  It empties one more pile than Baths does but buying two of the curses yourself after you skipped a 4$ buy to unlock these Baths at all doesn't sound like a threatening strategy.

 

Baths doesn't empty 2 supply piles though. It's the pile emptying that makes this dangerous.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on July 04, 2019, 06:32:22 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 04, 2019, 01:23:55 pm

Quote from: majiponi on July 04, 2019, 11:11:44 am

Greedy Witch
cost $2+ - Action - Attack
+$2
Use a coin token so that each other player gains a Curse.
---
When you buy this, if you didn't use a coin token, you may overpay for this. For each $1 you overpaid, take a coin token.

Guilds. Coin token and overpay.

Why "if you didn't use a coin token"? I don't see how this makes any difference. Wouldn't eliminating that clause only add the ability to spend x coin tokens to get x coin tokens back? It wouldn't ever help you to do that.

I worried 5-2 opening, but yes, you are right. This only prevents buying GW while another is in play. But limiting overpay for coin tokens is needed, too. Fmm...
Oh, I didn't say "coffers". So this coin token is like a pirate ship's one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 08:05:31 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 04, 2019, 03:12:27 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 02:59:55 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZfuvlPK.png)

I like this one the best.

Ok. I think I like that one too. I'll update my submission to that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 05, 2019, 02:11:01 am

Quote from: Aquila on July 04, 2019, 05:20:29 pm

Would this make a slog of every game by hammering the Estates? A higher price seems much safer so decks build towards bigger greens.

Naturally Parade will rarely be bought at any price if other Cursers are present, they are simply quicker.
But in the situations in which there are tricks, like e.g. using Farmland to gain a Province hand out 2 Curses, one player might go for Parade instead of the other Curser. This interesting possibility would be undone at a Project price of $5.

Quote from: Gazbag on July 04, 2019, 06:20:14 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on July 04, 2019, 05:58:18 pm

If there is no trashing, then buying the Estates is the same as skipping a 3-4$ buy to take VP from baths.  2 VP advantage generated over the opponent, no overall change in deck quality.  People usually do not rush baths.  If you are playing big money and your opponent is trying to line up Festivals against Smithies you've broken the symmetry a little bit but if we've generated a game where people played engine vs. big money that's definitely a custom card creation accomplishment, not a failure, in today's engine mirror universe.

When trashing is available, buying Estates should be even worse because it feels better to trash a Curse than it does to trash an Estate.  Trash for benefit is unlikely to make enough difference.

So yeah I think the rush criticism fails on its face by comparison to Baths.  It empties one more pile than Baths does but buying two of the curses yourself after you skipped a 4$ buy to unlock these Baths at all doesn't sound like a threatening strategy.

 

Baths doesn't empty 2 supply piles though. It's the pile emptying that makes this dangerous.

I don't see how a junky deck full of Estates (and Curses if the "buy Estate to distribute Curses" strategy is mirrored) is quickly ably to empty a third pile (except for Mapgies). Even if you gain the Estates via a Workshop variant, it will take quite some time.
And, as popsofctown has mentioned, tempo kind of matters. In a 2P game you need 9-10 (10 if you open 3-4) turns to empty Estates and Curses while having achieved a VP spread of 16 (and as already mentioned, a gainer will not speed this up significantly). In the meantime the other player had the opportunity to do something constructive.

We have evidence of this kind of thing: Followers mainly hurts due to the discarding, and not due the VP spread (you nearly always want to trash the Estate). And Followers doesn't cost a buy to gain the Estate. This is pretty basic, Curses suck mainly because they are dead cards. That they also provide -1VP is less relevant.
Also IGG. The key difference to IGG, which also empties two piles, is that IGG provides economy which often suffices to empty Duchies.

So yeah, I am pretty sure that the Estate rush rarely works which is why one could formalize the idea also as a general rule that does not have to be unlocked, i.e. put it on a Kingdom (Victory) card via a "in games using this" wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 05, 2019, 02:56:02 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 08:05:31 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 04, 2019, 03:12:27 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 02:59:55 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZfuvlPK.png)

I like this one the best.

Ok. I think I like that one too. I'll update my submission to that.

I'd consider a price of $4. At first play it is worse than Sea Hag and "trash 2, junk 1" is similar to Ambassador.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 05, 2019, 11:59:25 am

Quote from: segura on July 05, 2019, 02:56:02 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 08:05:31 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 04, 2019, 03:12:27 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 02:59:55 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZfuvlPK.png)

I like this one the best.

Ok. I think I like that one too. I'll update my submission to that.

I'd consider a price of $4. At first play it is worse than Sea Hag and "trash 2, junk 1" is similar to Ambassador.

Now that I think about it, Undead Witch is actually in a way worse than Ambassador since the trashing and junking are limited to Curses. The only way it's better is that you don't have to trash a Curse to give them out.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on July 05, 2019, 12:33:17 pm

Quote from: segura on July 05, 2019, 02:11:01 am

Quote from: Aquila on July 04, 2019, 05:20:29 pm

Would this make a slog of every game by hammering the Estates? A higher price seems much safer so decks build towards bigger greens.

Naturally Parade will rarely be bought at any price if other Cursers are present, they are simply quicker.
But in the situations in which there are tricks, like e.g. using Farmland to gain a Province hand out 2 Curses, one player might go for Parade instead of the other Curser. This interesting possibility would be undone at a Project price of $5.

Quote from: Gazbag on July 04, 2019, 06:20:14 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on July 04, 2019, 05:58:18 pm

If there is no trashing, then buying the Estates is the same as skipping a 3-4$ buy to take VP from baths.  2 VP advantage generated over the opponent, no overall change in deck quality.  People usually do not rush baths.  If you are playing big money and your opponent is trying to line up Festivals against Smithies you've broken the symmetry a little bit but if we've generated a game where people played engine vs. big money that's definitely a custom card creation accomplishment, not a failure, in today's engine mirror universe.

When trashing is available, buying Estates should be even worse because it feels better to trash a Curse than it does to trash an Estate.  Trash for benefit is unlikely to make enough difference.

So yeah I think the rush criticism fails on its face by comparison to Baths.  It empties one more pile than Baths does but buying two of the curses yourself after you skipped a 4$ buy to unlock these Baths at all doesn't sound like a threatening strategy.

 

Baths doesn't empty 2 supply piles though. It's the pile emptying that makes this dangerous.

I don't see how a junky deck full of Estates (and Curses if the "buy Estate to distribute Curses" strategy is mirrored) is quickly ably to empty a third pile (except for Mapgies). Even if you gain the Estates via a Workshop variant, it will take quite some time.
And, as popsofctown has mentioned, tempo kind of matters. In a 2P game you need 9-10 (10 if you open 3-4) turns to empty Estates and Curses while having achieved a VP spread of 16 (and as already mentioned, a gainer will not speed this up significantly). In the meantime the other player had the opportunity to do something constructive.

We have evidence of this kind of thing: Followers mainly hurts due to the discarding, and not due the VP spread (you nearly always want to trash the Estate). And Followers doesn't cost a buy to gain the Estate. This is pretty basic, Curses suck mainly because they are dead cards. That they also provide -1VP is less relevant.
Also IGG. The key difference to IGG, which also empties two piles, is that IGG provides economy which often suffices to empty Duchies.

So yeah, I am pretty sure that the Estate rush rarely works which is why one could formalize the idea also as a general rule that does not have to be unlocked, i.e. put it on a Kingdom (Victory) card via a "in games using this" wording.

I wasn't really talking about that kind of rush. I just think being able to spend $2 and a Buy to deplete 2 piles is a very dangerous effect that'll probably lead to many very fast 3 piles, usually in engines.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 05, 2019, 01:32:35 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 05, 2019, 11:59:25 am

Now that I think about it, Undead Witch is actually in a way worse than Ambassador since the trashing and junking are limited to Curses. The only way it's better is that you don't have to trash a Curse to give them out.

Ambassador requires you to have the Curses on your hand. Undead Witch generates them herself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 05, 2019, 01:54:57 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 05, 2019, 11:59:25 am

Quote from: segura on July 05, 2019, 02:56:02 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 08:05:31 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 04, 2019, 03:12:27 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 02:59:55 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZfuvlPK.png)

I like this one the best.

Ok. I think I like that one too. I'll update my submission to that.

I'd consider a price of $4. At first play it is worse than Sea Hag and "trash 2, junk 1" is similar to Ambassador.

Now that I think about it, Undead Witch is actually in a way worse than Ambassador since the trashing and junking are limited to Curses. The only way it's better is that you don't have to trash a Curse to give them out.

I was going to say that myself. Hmmm... looks like it's back to the drawing board.
Possible things to change
Increase number of curses you can trash (maybe have no limit)
topdeck the gained curse (like sea hag)
Give some other benefit (+$)

In response to king leon: That is true but ambassador is a much more effective trasher and it can work with cards like copper and estate. It's very likely you'll have at least one of those in your hand. (Not to mention the less common case where you use it to give your opponent(s) a province and end the game).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 05, 2019, 02:29:33 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 05, 2019, 01:32:35 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 05, 2019, 11:59:25 am

Now that I think about it, Undead Witch is actually in a way worse than Ambassador since the trashing and junking are limited to Curses. The only way it's better is that you don't have to trash a Curse to give them out.

Ambassador requires you to have the Curses on your hand. Undead Witch generates them herself.

True, though also true that Ambassador comes with 10 junk cards to give out, 3 which are worse than the other 7.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 05, 2019, 02:33:24 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 05, 2019, 01:32:35 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 05, 2019, 11:59:25 am

Now that I think about it, Undead Witch is actually in a way worse than Ambassador since the trashing and junking are limited to Curses. The only way it's better is that you don't have to trash a Curse to give them out.

Ambassador requires you to have the Curses on your hand. Undead Witch generates them herself.

I said that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 05, 2019, 02:34:52 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 05, 2019, 01:54:57 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 05, 2019, 11:59:25 am

Quote from: segura on July 05, 2019, 02:56:02 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 08:05:31 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 04, 2019, 03:12:27 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 02:59:55 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZfuvlPK.png)

I like this one the best.

Ok. I think I like that one too. I'll update my submission to that.

I'd consider a price of $4. At first play it is worse than Sea Hag and "trash 2, junk 1" is similar to Ambassador.

Now that I think about it, Undead Witch is actually in a way worse than Ambassador since the trashing and junking are limited to Curses. The only way it's better is that you don't have to trash a Curse to give them out.

I was going to say that myself. Hmmm... looks like it's back to the drawing board.
Possible things to change
Increase number of curses you can trash (maybe have no limit)
topdeck the gained curse (like sea hag)
Give some other benefit (+$)

In response to king leon: That is true but ambassador is a much more effective trasher and it can work with cards like copper and estate. It's very likely you'll have at least one of those in your hand. (Not to mention the less common case where you use it to give your opponent(s) a province and end the game).

I think you could get away with making it give +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}. +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} would make it compare too favorably to Witch at the cost of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on July 05, 2019, 03:04:54 pm

My submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/wvLyvlSm.png)

This card is obviously Intrigue themed. It is better than witch when there are curses, but completely dead when the pile is empty. The name choice refers to extra mobility, which is represented by the extra choices it has.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 05, 2019, 06:12:55 pm

Okay so here's what I got.
(https://i.imgur.com/EFnDezC.png)

Just changed trashing curses to trashing any cards. I think this takes care of a couple things

1) It makes it always possible for curses to end up in trash so gaining curses from the trash is always possible
2) It keeps with Dark Ages theme of trashing
3) You always get a benefit besides the attack
4) It's no longer worse than sea hag if you don't have curses in hand
5) it's better now compared to ambassador because you can trash anything and you can trash 2 different cards. Also UW will always give out a curse (provided there's one in the supply, trash, or your hand which is very likely). You can also trash cards you wouldn't want your opponent to gain (flag bearer, silk merchant). Consider the following comparisons
    a) Amb-Co-Co vs UW-Co-Co = Both trash/ return 2 coppers but UW gives out a curse compared to a Copper
    b) Amb-E-E vs UW-E-E = Both trash/ return 2 Estates but UW gives out a curse compared to an Estate
    c) Amb-Cu-Cu vs UW-Cu-Cu = Pretty much the same
    d) Amb and two different cards vs UW and two different cards= This is where UW really shines since you can trash 2 cards as opposed to 1 and your opponent will (in most cases) get a curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on July 05, 2019, 06:17:29 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 05, 2019, 06:12:55 pm

Okay so here's what I got.
(https://i.imgur.com/EFnDezC.png)

Just changed trashing curses to trashing any cards. I think this takes care of a couple things

1) It makes it always possible for curses to end up in trash so gaining curses from the trash is always possible
2) It keeps with Dark Ages theme of trashing
3) You always get a benefit besides the attack
4) It's no longer worse than sea hag if you don't have curses in hand
5) it's better now compared to ambassador because you can trash anything and you can trash 2 different cards. Also UW will always give out a curse (provided there's one in the supply, trash, or your hand which is very likely). You can also trash cards you wouldn't want your opponent to gain (flag bearer, silk merchant). Consider the following comparisons
    a) Amb-Co-Co vs UW-Co-Co = Both trash/ return 2 coppers but UW gives out a curse compared to a Copper
    b) Amb-E-E vs UW-E-E = Both trash/ return 2 Estates but UW gives out a curse compared to an Estate
    c) Amb-Cu-Cu vs UW-Cu-Cu = Pretty much the same
    d) Amb and two different cards vs UW and two different cards= This is where UW really shines since you can trash 2 cards as opposed to 1 and your opponent will (in most cases) get a curse.

With every iteration, your card keeps getting more and more similar to my Warlock.

They both trash two cards, both Curse, and both deal with Curses from the trash.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 06, 2019, 01:53:06 am

So I decided to scrap the Traveler line completely. There were too many problems and Master wasn't nearly strong enough to qualify as the last step of a Traveller chain. I'm still going with an Adventures cursor, and here he is:

(https://i.imgur.com/txUXhOx.png)

Quote

Sorcerer
Action - Reserve - Attack $5
+1 Action
+1 Buy
+ $1
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on top of their deck.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
At the start of your turn, if you haven't called any other Sorcerers this turn, you may call this, and each other player gains a Curse.

Still Adventures, and the 2 themes are Tokens and Reserve Mats. I think attacking from the Reserve mat is a unique niche that would be nice to cover. What do you think?

Also, how do I get the +$1 to be bold like the +1 Action or +1 Buy on Shard of Honor's card creator? When I try "+$1", it makes the $1 huge like it's a treasure, and when I try "+ $1" it doesn't make it bigger like the +1 Action or +1 Buy. And "+ $ 1" doesn't work at all, and neither does "+1 $". Help?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 06, 2019, 02:11:53 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 06, 2019, 01:53:06 am

(https://i.imgur.com/txUXhOx.png)

Quote

Sorcerer
Action - Reserve - Attack $5
+1 Action
+1 Buy
+ $1
Each other player puts their -1 Card token on top of their deck.
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
At the start of your turn, if you haven't called any other Sorcerers this turn, you may call this, and each other player gains a Curse.

As worded, having each other player gain a Curse isn't conditional on calling a Sorcerer. It needs to say "...you may call this. If you do, each other player gains a Curse."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on July 06, 2019, 03:56:26 am

I'm changing my entry again.

Here's Warlock v2:
(https://i.imgur.com/fsoTYLx.png)
There are some problems with it. What happens if you reveal this when a Fortress is trashed? Does it go to the Supply or to your hand? What happens with Noble Brigand? It says that you gain the trashed treasures. Do you gain them, or do they return to the Supply?

Warlock v3:
(https://i.imgur.com/U92lvr2.png)
Much simpler. Double Cursing can be quite powerful, but you have to trash an Action card to do it. This could be quite powerful with Rats, but you have to wait until there are actually Curses in the Trash before you can double Curse people, so that nerfs that Strategy a bit so that you can't immediately double Curse people. If you could always get Curses from the trash (Like Naitchman's version), it would just be a slog forever. This ensures that the game eventually cleans up unless you keep trashing action cards. Even then, people are trashing 2 and gaining 2 until the Curses run out. Then you're just trashing 2 and gaining 1 Curse, so it will still clean up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 06, 2019, 06:13:09 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 04, 2019, 05:53:52 pm

Also, for a minute I thought your post was the judging.

Sorry for that. I'm trying to comment on everyone's cards because I was feeling a little frustrated by a lack of input some weeks and for some cards. Best way to solve that problem is to create the input myself. I like commenting anyway.

Quote from: Aquila on July 04, 2019, 05:20:29 pm

Raven
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. Choose one: Discard a card for +$1; or put this on your Tavern mat.

---

When you gain a Province, you may discard this from your Tavern mat. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.

This looks like a fine fit for Adventures, even if it loses the animal-that-gains-more-animals theme. I think a cost of $5 would make this very bad. You already need to get 1 stop card in order to give other players 1+ stop cards. A $5 card would have a much harder time getting to that 3+ Cursing range that I think makes Raven exciting (when acquiring it is difficult).

Quote from: naitchman on July 05, 2019, 06:12:55 pm

Undead Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Trash up to 2 cards from your hand. Each other player gains a Curse from the Supply or trash (your choice).

Frankly, I'm not sure why you're so fixated on ensuring Curses end up in the trash. Players typically want to put them there anyway, and the junking+engine cards that exist are typically so game-dominant as it is (Ambassador trashes+junks, Torturer draws+junks). Kingdoms with no trashing would make Undead Witch a normal curser, so you might want to put some Spoils, an on-trash, or some other trash-caring effect on it to make it more Dark-agesy.

Quote from: kru5h on July 06, 2019, 03:56:26 am

There are some problems with it. What happens if you reveal this when a Fortress is trashed? Does it go to the Supply or to your hand? What happens with Noble Brigand? It says that you gain the trashed treasures. Do you gain them, or do they return to the Supply?

Fortress goes where the current turn's player chooses because there are two effects triggering simultaneously (consider resolving Duration cards at the "start of your next turn"). Noble Brigand looks in the trash for the Treasure, but has lost track because Warlock has already moved it.

Quote from: kru5h on July 06, 2019, 03:56:26 am

Warlock
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Trash up to 2 cards from your hand. If you trashed any Action cards, each other player gains a Curse from the trash.
Either way, each other player gains a Curse.

As a matter of semantic follow-through, I'd recommend writing it as I've restructured above: List everything the player does, and then everything the other players do (unless that order matters).
This new Warlock is clever in a bunch of ways. It gives more reason to throw away your Necropolis in Dark Ages games. It will be dominant on most boards due to the importance both of fast-trashing and Cursing. The small inherent buff to situational cards given by these cards that can trash Actions for a benefit is always appreciated. The Curse-from-trash is likely to be seldom with this version, though. Maybe consider putting an on-trash effect on Warlock.

Quote from: Gubump on July 04, 2019, 05:29:21 pm

Totem
Types: Treasure, Reserve
Cost: $5
$2. When you play this, put it on your Tavern mat.

---

When you would gain a Curse, you may call this. If you do, each player whose turn it isn't gains a Curse instead.

Being third or fourth player in Totem games sounds frustrating because one player's Curse-gain results in you getting all the Curses because you're one turn behind and haven't gotten to put your Totems onto your mat yet. It's cute otherwise. The exchange of a +Buy for the Cursing effect is neat.

Quote from: segura on July 04, 2019, 04:39:20 pm

Parade
Types: Project
Cost: $4
When you gain a Victory card, each other player gains a Curse.

The theme is bad here. A Parade should do something for me like Procession. Dominion's not about theme though, so I'll set that aside.
I don't suspect that this will do much to games overall except push games with $4 Victory cards towards rush games. Otherwise this always creates a 1-for-1 stop card effect which awkwardly runs out of steam in multiplayer games.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on July 05, 2019, 03:04:54 pm

Mountain Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
If the Curse pile isn't empty, choose one: +2 Cards; +2 Actions; +2 Buys; or +$2. Each other player gains a Curse.

Providing +Actions and +Buys on a powerful Attack is often a bad idea, but the fact that this can only provide those benefits while the temporary Attack persists is an interesting concept. The card becoming totally dead might be overly frustrating when Cursing games can normally be frustrating. I'd have to play with it some.

Quote from: mail-mi on July 06, 2019, 01:53:06 am

Sorcerer
Types: Action, Reserve, Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Action, +1 Buy, +$1. Each other player puts their -1 Card token on top of their deck. Put this on your Tavern mat.

---

At the start of your turn, if you haven't called any other Sorcerers this turn, you may call this, and each other player gains a Curse.

A Cursing anti-cantrip. It probably feels bad that you can't block the Curse with Attack-protectors when this card is an Attack otherwise (and getting around that would be clumsy). I am always leery of a card providing +Buys with an important Attack. You'll buy it for the +Buy and end up with Curses by accident.

Quote from: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 02:34:03 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 04, 2019, 11:28:30 am

...

I'm not really sure what your proposal is. Do you mean give each other player a curse and a coffer? That woud definitely be less swingy, and needs to cost $4-$5 (it would also be the only $4 unconditional curser that also gives a benefit if you priced it at $4). You could also allow for naming a card but not give coffers out; either the player gets the curse or doesn't (like a bane card), though I guess that loses the guilds theme even more.

Quote

Sorceress (Guilds v2)
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Coffers. Each other player gains a Curse, putting it into their hand. Reveal the top card of your deck. Discard it or put it back. Either way, each other player may reveal a copy of it from their hand for +1 Coffers.

You get +Coffers and everyone else gets a Curse to hand, but they also get a chance to get the same Coffers by having a card you reveal (revealing the top card of your deck being an approximation of "naming a card," but ensures that the benefit is a little less swingy because you will likely reveal Coppers early and Curses later (without trashing)) (also, fun-fun, draw your deck and no one gets anything because you have no card to reveal).
Maybe +Coffers out-of-turn is a lost concept for accelerating 4-player games too much. Perhaps trading up to Renaissance for the less-volatile Villagers and dropping the "name a card" thing would be better

Quote

Sorceress (Renaissance)
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Each player (including you) may reveal a Curse from their hand for +1 Villager. Each other player gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on July 06, 2019, 09:53:08 am

(https://i.imgur.com/b2jkT9v.png)

For Seaside of course. I ended up designing a card for every expansion (some much more successfully than others) and this was my favourite. I like trying to get more uses in for the mats and tokens in Seaside and this doesn't seem too messed up with Native Village? I think it's okay that this puts face-up cards on your mat?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on July 06, 2019, 10:20:40 am

For Renaissance:

Dunner
$5 Action - Attack

+2 Coffers
Each other player loses either a Villager or a Coffer, their choice.
Each other player who doesn’t gains a Curse.
---
Set up: Each player gets +1 Villager

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 06, 2019, 02:12:29 pm

Quote from: artless on July 06, 2019, 10:20:40 am

For Renaissance:

Dunner
$5 Action - Attack

+2 coffers
Each opponent chooses one:
-1 villager; -1 coffer; gain a curse.
---
Set up: Each player gets +1 villager

(You can't choose -1 villager if you don't have any villager)

You can always choose an option you can’t do (see torturer). I would reword it like this:

Each other player who has any Villagers or Coffers loses either a Villager or a Coffers, their choice.
Each other player who doesn’t gains a Curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on July 06, 2019, 08:01:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/5WqvXTU.png)

Deleted my previous entry. This card is for Guilds.

Edit: Just noticed the similarity to the card above it in the thread. I'll leave this up for now. I came up with it as it clicked in my head there'd be an elegant way to combine 3 ideas that have been floating around Guilds for a while (Coin Token attack, giving out Coin tokens as a non-attack interaction, and overpay for coin tokens).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 06, 2019, 08:58:47 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on July 06, 2019, 09:53:08 am

(https://i.imgur.com/b2jkT9v.png)

For Seaside of course. I ended up designing a card for every expansion (some much more successfully than others) and this was my favourite. I like trying to get more uses in for the mats and tokens in Seaside and this doesn't seem too messed up with Native Village? I think it's okay that this puts face-up cards on your mat?

The problem I have with this is that it's a completely different card in games that also have Native Village vs games that don't. In a game that doesn't have Native Village, if your opponent isn't also buying Island Warrios, then "gain a Curse to their Native Village mat" is basically another way of saying "+1 _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}". So this feels much more like a Monument variant most of the time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 06, 2019, 09:00:19 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 06, 2019, 02:12:29 pm

Quote from: artless on July 06, 2019, 10:20:40 am

For Renaissance:

Dunner
$5 Action - Attack

+2 coffers
Each opponent chooses one:
-1 villager; -1 coffer; gain a curse.
---
Set up: Each player gets +1 villager

(You can't choose -1 villager if you don't have any villager)

You can always choose an option you can’t do (see torturer). I would reword it like this:

Each other player who has any Villagers or Coffers loses either a Villager or a Coffers, their choice.
Each other player who doesn’t gains a Curse.

You don't need the "who has any Villagers or Coffers" part. The rest works fine and the same without it.

Each other player loses either a Villager or a Coffers, their choice.
Each other player who doesn’t gains a Curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on July 06, 2019, 10:42:58 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 06, 2019, 09:00:19 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 06, 2019, 02:12:29 pm

Quote from: artless on July 06, 2019, 10:20:40 am

For Renaissance:

Dunner
$5 Action - Attack

+2 coffers
Each opponent chooses one:
-1 villager; -1 coffer; gain a curse.
---
Set up: Each player gets +1 villager

(You can't choose -1 villager if you don't have any villager)

You can always choose an option you can’t do (see torturer). I would reword it like this:

Each other player who has any Villagers or Coffers loses either a Villager or a Coffers, their choice.
Each other player who doesn’t gains a Curse.

You don't need the "who has any Villagers or Coffers" part. The rest works fine and the same without it.

Each other player loses either a Villager or a Coffers, their choice.
Each other player who doesn’t gains a Curse.

Thanks.
Edited.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 06, 2019, 11:51:08 pm

Quote from: kru5h on July 05, 2019, 06:17:29 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 05, 2019, 06:12:55 pm

Okay so here's what I got.
(https://i.imgur.com/EFnDezC.png)

Just changed trashing curses to trashing any cards. I think this takes care of a couple things

1) It makes it always possible for curses to end up in trash so gaining curses from the trash is always possible
2) It keeps with Dark Ages theme of trashing
3) You always get a benefit besides the attack
4) It's no longer worse than sea hag if you don't have curses in hand
5) it's better now compared to ambassador because you can trash anything and you can trash 2 different cards. Also UW will always give out a curse (provided there's one in the supply, trash, or your hand which is very likely). You can also trash cards you wouldn't want your opponent to gain (flag bearer, silk merchant). Consider the following comparisons
    a) Amb-Co-Co vs UW-Co-Co = Both trash/ return 2 coppers but UW gives out a curse compared to a Copper
    b) Amb-E-E vs UW-E-E = Both trash/ return 2 Estates but UW gives out a curse compared to an Estate
    c) Amb-Cu-Cu vs UW-Cu-Cu = Pretty much the same
    d) Amb and two different cards vs UW and two different cards= This is where UW really shines since you can trash 2 cards as opposed to 1 and your opponent will (in most cases) get a curse.

With every iteration, your card keeps getting more and more similar to my Warlock.

They both trash two cards, both Curse, and both deal with Curses from the trash.

1) To be fair I posted Undead Witch before you posted Warlock
2) At the time you posted this, Warlock didn't give curses from the trash
3) The fact that they both curse shouldn't be surprising at all considering the nature of this contest
4) The fact that they both trash 2 cards is still not that surprising since we both chose Dark Ages as our theme
5) I read the other cards but I don't commit them to memory. Now that you point it out, they are similar, but I definitely did not steal any ideas off of Warlock.

As an aside, the fact that UW causes a slog is not terrible. It wouldn't be the only card.

That being said this version may not be the final iteration (that's why I didn't change the original post).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on July 07, 2019, 12:06:14 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 06, 2019, 11:51:08 pm

Quote from: kru5h on July 05, 2019, 06:17:29 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 05, 2019, 06:12:55 pm

Okay so here's what I got.
(https://i.imgur.com/EFnDezC.png)

Just changed trashing curses to trashing any cards. I think this takes care of a couple things

1) It makes it always possible for curses to end up in trash so gaining curses from the trash is always possible
2) It keeps with Dark Ages theme of trashing
3) You always get a benefit besides the attack
4) It's no longer worse than sea hag if you don't have curses in hand
5) it's better now compared to ambassador because you can trash anything and you can trash 2 different cards. Also UW will always give out a curse (provided there's one in the supply, trash, or your hand which is very likely). You can also trash cards you wouldn't want your opponent to gain (flag bearer, silk merchant). Consider the following comparisons
    a) Amb-Co-Co vs UW-Co-Co = Both trash/ return 2 coppers but UW gives out a curse compared to a Copper
    b) Amb-E-E vs UW-E-E = Both trash/ return 2 Estates but UW gives out a curse compared to an Estate
    c) Amb-Cu-Cu vs UW-Cu-Cu = Pretty much the same
    d) Amb and two different cards vs UW and two different cards= This is where UW really shines since you can trash 2 cards as opposed to 1 and your opponent will (in most cases) get a curse.

With every iteration, your card keeps getting more and more similar to my Warlock.

They both trash two cards, both Curse, and both deal with Curses from the trash.

1) To be fair I posted Undead Witch before you posted Warlock
2) At the time you posted this, Warlock didn't give curses from the trash
3) The fact that they both curse shouldn't be surprising at all considering the nature of this contest
4) The fact that they both trash 2 cards is still not that surprising since we both chose Dark Ages as our theme
5) I read the other cards but I don't commit them to memory. Now that you point it out, they are similar, but I definitely did not steal any ideas off of Warlock.

As an aside, the fact that UW causes a slog is not terrible. It wouldn't be the only card.

That being said this version may not be the final iteration (that's why I didn't change the original post).

I don't think you were copying, obviously. I just think it's annoying for both of us that out entries are so similar. Also, you're supposed to keep a change log in your original post so we can see all of your changes at once. Right now you only show your final version in your original post and it makes it look like I'm copying you since you posted first. Please edit back in your developments and story along the way so that people can see how our cards evolved separately at a glance.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on July 07, 2019, 06:48:09 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 06, 2019, 08:58:47 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on July 06, 2019, 09:53:08 am

(https://i.imgur.com/b2jkT9v.png)

For Seaside of course. I ended up designing a card for every expansion (some much more successfully than others) and this was my favourite. I like trying to get more uses in for the mats and tokens in Seaside and this doesn't seem too messed up with Native Village? I think it's okay that this puts face-up cards on your mat?

The problem I have with this is that it's a completely different card in games that also have Native Village vs games that don't. In a game that doesn't have Native Village, if your opponent isn't also buying Island Warrios, then "gain a Curse to their Native Village mat" is basically another way of saying "+1 _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}". So this feels much more like a Monument variant most of the time.

The way I see it is that it's just like the Journey token cards, or Butcher with Coffers cards. Pilgrimage especially plays very differently if Ranger or Giant are in the kingdom, and personally I think that's pretty cool! I tried to make it so that Native Village and Island Warriors aren't completely broken when they're in the same kingdom and I think I did an okay job there? Native Village makes it easier to pick up the Golds, but you're also probably adding Curses to your deck then too so it should balance out somewhat. It seems more like a subjective thing that you don't like rather than an objective problem with the design to me.

Yes whether the Curses ever actually get shuffled into your opponent's deck is entirely their decision,  even if your opponent has their own Island Warrior/Native Village they don't have to pick up. I was trying to do a different spin on what a "Curser" is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 07, 2019, 07:50:13 am

Quote from: Gazbag on July 05, 2019, 12:33:17 pm

I wasn't really talking about that kind of rush. I just think being able to spend $2 and a Buy to deplete 2 piles is a very dangerous effect that'll probably lead to many very fast 3 piles, usually in engines.

Not really. If there is an issue with Parade, it is due to an Estate/Gardens/Silk Road rush.

Building up an engine that yields several Buys (and, supposing for the sake of simplicity a non-mirror game in which the opponent simply plays money, can deal with the incoming green) takes time.

16 Coins and 8 Buys lead to a VP spread of 16 and 2 empty piles if one does the Estate thingy.
16 Coins and 2 Buys lead to a VP spread of 12 if one goes for Provinces.

So all those extra Buys provide only moderately more VPs and moderately more (Buys always provide some) pile control. Hard for me to see the supposed brokenness.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 07, 2019, 01:04:20 pm

Quote from: kru5h on July 07, 2019, 12:06:14 am

I don't think you were copying, obviously. I just think it's annoying for both of us that out entries are so similar. Also, you're supposed to keep a change log in your original post so we can see all of your changes at once. Right now you only show your final version in your original post and it makes it look like I'm copying you since you posted first. Please edit back in your developments and story along the way so that people can see how our cards evolved separately at a glance.

I guess I agree with the fact that it's annoying our cards our similar. I think you are one of a few that I've seen who keeps an entire log of all the different iterations. I just put new changes under "Updates" which keeps the original post concise (people can see the exact wording of the older card from all the comments on it, and I usually specify what changed in the comments).

With that said, I decided to make some key changes to Undead Witch for the following 2 reasons
1) I generally don't like cards that you have to buy if they're in the kingdom. UW is a card that you have to go for if it's there. For most cursers it's board dependent whether you have to buy them; if there's weak trashing, you have to buy them to be competitive in the cursing race. If there's strong enough trashing you can ignore them and just trash the curses as they come in. If you don't go for UW, you'll get all the curses. Even if you have good trashing, your opponent can give them right back to you.
2) I think the trashing part synergizes too much with the cursing from the trash. Part of what cards interesting is how they vary with strength depending on the kingdom. Considering that trashing is common enough, I don't need to add trashing to UW. The strength will obviously be different depending if there's trashing or not. Also, along the lines of the first point, since the trashing and cursing from the trash are in one card, it's much easier to use it, meaning it will always come into play. If you have to trash with a different card (say steward), then play UW, the game changes alot. You would need to get steward, a curse, and an UW in your hand for this to be effective; If you just had UW (without the trashing part) you couldn't curse, and if you just had steward and trashed your curse, your opponent could give it back to you. Getting these cards together restricts the cases which this could be effective.

To address these points, I've added 2 changes:
1) If you do curse from the trash, you trash it for a new card. This means you can only curse from the trash once. This takes care of point #1.
2) You don't get to trash 2 cards anymore. Instead you get +$1. This takes care of point #2 above
(Also I change the name to Vengeful Witch, since it didn't make sense for an Undead Witch to turn into a Dead Witch)

With that out of the way here is the new card:
(https://i.imgur.com/tgcXDfk.png)(https://i.imgur.com/ciku2P9.png)
This witch is vengeful and is looking to make sure you're cursed if it's the last thing she does. Indeed it is the last thing she does. But even from beyond the grave, there's a destructive power about her.

1) I gave a bonus of +$1 seeing that +$2 would make this too strong compared to witch (can curse from the trash once and gets rid of itself when it outlives its usefulness)
2) In games without trashing, this would play a little weaker than a Witch.
3) In games with some trashing, every vengeful witch can curse once from the trash. This means the cursing race will eventually end and it won't go back and forth. It also means that you don't have to get a vengeful witch if there's strong enough trashing. After you trash the VW for a Dead Witch, you also have an additional card that can help deal with curses you have, making this card not a complete slog.
4) Note that while both these cards trash, they both need another trasher for them to actually trash.
5) This is still a Dark Ages Theme: VW curses from the trash, DW trashes cards, and it's a card that turns into another card (like hermit and urchin).

Update: I have relented on point #1 and made it +$2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 07, 2019, 01:31:55 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 07, 2019, 01:04:20 pm

2) In games without trashing, this would play a little weaker than a Witch.

+$1 instead of +2 Cards is more than just a little weaker...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 07, 2019, 02:41:28 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 07, 2019, 01:31:55 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 07, 2019, 01:04:20 pm

2) In games without trashing, this would play a little weaker than a Witch.

+$1 instead of +2 Cards is more than just a little weaker...

Yeah.
It would kind of depend on the rest of the board and your money density. If you have villages, witches can keep the chain going, but without them, you risk drawing other witches dead.

Regardless of how much weaker it is, it has to be weaker than a witch (absent trashing) or it would not be fairly priced compared to witch. Giving it a weakness absent trashing and a strength with trashing is good.

If you have any ideas of what could be a more appropriate benefit then +$1, feel free to post them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: math on July 07, 2019, 05:13:30 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 07, 2019, 02:41:28 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 07, 2019, 01:31:55 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 07, 2019, 01:04:20 pm

2) In games without trashing, this would play a little weaker than a Witch.

+$1 instead of +2 Cards is more than just a little weaker...

Yeah.
It would kind of depend on the rest of the board and your money density. If you have villages, witches can keep the chain going, but without them, you risk drawing other witches dead.

Regardless of how much weaker it is, it has to be weaker than a witch (absent trashing) or it would not be fairly priced compared to witch. Giving it a weakness absent trashing and a strength with trashing is good.

If you have any ideas of what could be a more appropriate benefit then +$1, feel free to post them.

I think +$2 would actually be fine.  It might be a little stronger than Witch, but not by much, and I think it would be worse than Mountebank.  It gives out less junk initially, even if it can actually empty the Curses.  +$ fits well with it being a payload card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on July 07, 2019, 07:09:45 pm

I'm slightly changing Warlock.

Warlock v4
(https://i.imgur.com/7vIJYvL.png)

I changed "Trash up to 2 cards from your hand" to "Trash up to 2 differently named cards from your hand."

1) This was simply too powerful. It was a must-buy. Especially with junking in the game. All players were forced to buy it.
2) There's no reason to double Curse somebody if they can simply double-trash it. This slows down the trashing so that the Cursing is a bit more effective.

Edit: Fixed typo.

Edit2:

Warlock v5
(https://i.imgur.com/UUixrff.png)
This might be too powerful. We'll see.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 08, 2019, 02:03:16 pm

Quote from: kru5h on July 07, 2019, 12:06:14 am

(https://i.imgur.com/tgcXDfk.png)

Can you clarify whether you make the choice individually for each player, or whether you choose trash or supply and then it applies to all players in turn order? When do you make the choice? Right now it is ambiguous. I am not trying to provide feedback before judging, but I do need to understand the card to judge it correctly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 08, 2019, 03:18:26 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 08, 2019, 02:03:16 pm

Quote from: kru5h on July 07, 2019, 12:06:14 am

(https://i.imgur.com/tgcXDfk.png)

Can you clarify whether you make the choice individually for each player, or whether you choose trash or supply and then it applies to all players in turn order? When do you make the choice? Right now it is ambiguous. I am not trying to provide feedback before judging, but I do need to understand the card to judge it correctly.

Similar to Spy and Oracle, you make the choice individually for each player. Based on precedent, I believe this is the correct way to write this. If it has been one choice for all players it would have been "Choose one: Each other player gains a Curse, or each other player gains a curse from the trash".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 08, 2019, 08:48:05 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on July 06, 2019, 09:53:08 am

Island Warrior
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Gain a Gold to your Native Village mat; or put all cards from your mat into your hand. Each other player gains a Curse to their Native Village mat.

I think this will have huge turn order issues around the fact that Gold flooding is inconsistent and thus not particularly great. Assuming this is relevant, after 5-plays apiece to empty the Curse pile in a 2-player game, players will have $15 waiting on their Native Village mat. If +Buys are available, Player-1 will get to cash in +$15 (or +$12, if that's all that is needed) first, quite possibly to end the game and never have to deal with the Curses anyway.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 06, 2019, 08:01:01 pm

Landlord
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3+
+$2. Each other player with Coffers puts one of their Coffers tokens onto the Landlord pile. If they didn't, they gain a Curse and +1 Coffers.

---

When you buy this, you may overpay. For each $1 you overpay, +1 Coffers from the Landlord pile.

Landlord generates Coffers, but for others--and it does so particularly to take them from players to fuel its overpay. It's a fair number of hoops to jump through to be able to justify overpay for Coffers, but it looks like it could work. I mostly wonder if the cost of $3 is too low--especially in multiplayer games where the overpay-Coffers can pile up more easily.

Quote from: naitchman on July 07, 2019, 01:04:20 pm

Quote

Vengeful Witch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player gains a Curse from the supply or trash (your choice. If any player gained a Curse from the trash this way, trash this card and gain a Dead Witch from the Dead Witch pile.

Quote

Dead Witch
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. You may trash a card from your hand. (This is not in the supply)

Most Cursing cards run out of steam and become super weak cards, but Vengeful Witch has an ability to throw itself away once the Curse pile is otherwise empty. The Dead Witch thing likely makes Vengeful Witch no less mandatory in Kingdoms with trashing, though. The real question is if throwing Vengeful Witch away early will ever be worth the trouble.
I might consider making gaining Dead Witch an on-trash effect, for fun.

Quote from: kru5h on July 07, 2019, 07:09:45 pm

Warlock
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Trash up to 2 differently named cards from your hand. Each other player gains a Curse. If you trashed any Action cards, each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand and gains a Curse from the trash.

I do believe trashing Cursers will inevitably be overpowered. I am personally fine with that. I think finding the Actions to trash with this will be fun enough.

I've decided to update my card wholesale into a Renaissance themed Curser with an Artifact. I'd appreciate feedback, if you have any.

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 03, 2019, 05:20:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4K6KM7O.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Spfi4lz.jpg)

Quote

Chronicler
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Each player (including you) may reveal a Curse from their hand for +1 Villager and to take the Tome. Each other player gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.

Quote

Tome
Types: Artifact
At the start of your Buy phase, you may discard a Curse for +1 Coffers.

Chronicler is a Renaissance-themed Curser using Villagers, Coffers, and an Artifact. Everyone can get Villagers by revealing a Curse. The last player in turn order to reveal a Curse gets the Tome (because turn order applies. If everyone reveals a Curse, each player, starting with the current turn's player, takes the Tome). Then everyone else gets a Curse straight to their hand.
If someone can think of a better wording to make turn-order clearer for taking the Tome, let me know.

It can act as a splitter if you have Curses in your deck. The Tome lets you use 1 Curse for a Coffers each turn, but you can only get it by having a Curse when other players don't. The fact that Chronicler is non-terminal is neat, but will act against you if you actually double-Curse by giving the player to your right the Tome (until the Curse pile is emptied, anyway).
The Curse going to hand is also neat because players third or later in turn order are very likely to reveal a Curse to a turn 3 or 4 Chronicler, counterbalancing the typical first-player advantage in a way. You might not get to keep the Tome, though. Tome could just circle forever without ever triggering.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 08, 2019, 11:33:54 pm

Hi all, back from the long weekend! As I suspected, I wasn't able to post any, but have been following along and we have some great cards this week!

I've also had a plenty of time to think how I can improve Coven.

Quote from: scolapasta on July 03, 2019, 01:57:20 pm

Coven
Types: Event
Cost: $6
Move your Cursed token to an Action Supply pile with no other Cursed token on it. (When any player plays a card from that pile, they first gain a Curse.)

The feedback I've gotten so far really helped frame my thoughts (thanks!):

Quote from: naitchman on July 04, 2019, 01:46:25 pm

I just had an idea (you can take it or leave it). What if there was a single cursed token that was shared by all players. Buying the event would move it to the pile of your liking. This would mean in 4 player games it wouldn't get too crazy with 4 cursed tokens.

Also, it would appear you have a typo on the card (playa)

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 04, 2019, 11:28:30 am

The immediate and obvious problem of Coven is how often it will push big-money strategies to the forefront, because one can always avoid Coven completely by having no Action cards. You could possibly have it move the Cursing token to a Supply pile costing at least $2 (to exclude Coppers).

I really liked Naitchman's method of posting several different versions, so I hope no one minds, but I'm going to post several different versions I've been considering. Since no one else has done an Adventures' "place token on a pile" Event, these will be a more varied; if that's an issue, let me know and I can move this to my dedicated thread.

The way I see it there are basically 4 general options here:
• Cursed token - curse a player when they play a card (Cursed Gold variant; the current version)
• Cursed token - curse a player when they buy or gain or a card (Embargo variant)
• Cursing token - curse other players when you buy or gain a card (Ill gotten gains variant)
• Cursing token - curse other players when you play a card (Witch variant)

---

One of the issues with the Cursed token is the difference between 2 and 4 player games; ideally the token would only work on other players, which is fine in two player games, but not really fair in 4 (the first player to play a token on a pile affects 3 others players; the second player's token on the pile, only one - the first player). Like I said in my original post I got around that by affecting all players, but I don't love that. Also having 4 piles that are cursed is a lot.

naitchman's idea of a single Cursed token could work, but it'd be less on theme (since Adventure tokens are per player). I'm already having it be a little different in that the token's effect affect everyone.

The second issue is Fragasnap's point that big money gets pushed to the forefront. I think this can be helped by slowing down the cursing. So the first variant is that: only the first card you play is cursed. (another idea I had to slow it down is to use the Journey token to make it curse every other play; or even combine both, so it curses every other turn that you play the cursed card).

(Fragasnap's suggestion of moving the token to a Supply pile costing at least $2 is also good, but I still think might still be too much of a slog compared to just once per turn)

(https://i.imgur.com/mM3rxWS.png)

---

The second variant is the Embargo variant. Since embargo already exists, I tried making this different by being on gain. That, and the fact that you don't have to wait to place the token, of course, makes it stronger (though that is balanced some by only being Action Supply piles).

(https://i.imgur.com/FdoimND.png)

---

Overall, I am now leaning towards switching this to a Cursing token. That seems to fit better with the "this token helps only you" theme of the other Adventures tokens.

Variant 3 is therefore the ill gotten gains variant. I made it on buy instead of on gain so I could price it low enough to buy early.

(https://i.imgur.com/ctXiWUr.png)

---

The last, the Witch variant, is obviously the strongest. If it worked always and you could convert any cantrip into a Familiar: :o. Fortunately, it also can be slowed down to only once a turn. I decided to also weaken a little more by limiting to non attacks.

(https://i.imgur.com/OK9eeLr.png)

---

I do have one bonus variant - of the last type, but it's a little different by being one-shot. It also doesn't make the card into an Attack, so it can't be reacted to.

(https://i.imgur.com/bigHwOB.png)

---

So if you've made it this far, thanks for bearing with all my thinking. Please let me know what you think - which one generally do you like best? I'll decide on one, make some final tweaks, if necessary, and update my original post before contest end.
 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 09, 2019, 12:22:10 am

Quote from: scolapasta on July 08, 2019, 11:33:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ctXiWUr.png)

I like this one the best.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 09, 2019, 01:43:01 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 08, 2019, 11:33:54 pm

I'll decide on one, make some final tweaks, if necessary, and update my original post before contest end.

You can edit the original if you want, but it will make it easier for me if you also make a new post. I would really appreciate that!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 09, 2019, 02:10:11 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 09, 2019, 01:43:01 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 08, 2019, 11:33:54 pm

I'll decide on one, make some final tweaks, if necessary, and update my original post before contest end.

You can edit the original if you want, but it will make it easier for me if you also make a new post. I would really appreciate that!

Definitely. I'll always do both, just to avoid any confusion.

How much time left for us to make our final decisions?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 09, 2019, 04:14:02 pm

In the spirit of this being a *weekly* contest:

Submissions close In 24 hours.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on July 10, 2019, 12:44:51 am

(https://i.imgur.com/43l4Rpa.png)(https://i.imgur.com/tOIG94C.png)

For Renaissance.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 10, 2019, 11:16:33 am

Quote from: Gubump on July 09, 2019, 12:22:10 am

Quote from: scolapasta on July 08, 2019, 11:33:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ctXiWUr.png)

I like this one the best.

The problem with this version is that it gives an advantage to the first player. The first player can curse others before their first shuffle, but can't be cursed before his first shuffle. A curse in the first shuffle can hurt alot.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 10, 2019, 11:27:08 am

Quote from: pubby on July 10, 2019, 12:44:51 am

(https://i.imgur.com/43l4Rpa.png)(https://i.imgur.com/tOIG94C.png)

For Renaissance.

Even without holy land this seems a bit cheap at $4. If a curser costs $4, it means you can always open with one. The only cursers that cost $4 are young witch, which has a built in defense, and sea hag, which gives no benefit. These weaknesses can counterbalance their cheap costs. Crusade on the other hand curses and has a reasonable benefit with no drawback. Add in Holy Land and it makes it even better, because at least you can utilize the junk you're getting.

I think getting rid of the +buy (something that's not so easy to use early game, which is when you want to curse) and raising it to $5 would probably be better. (Even though this would not be a great $5 card without the artifact, the fact that you're fighting over an artifact can artificially increase the price, like flag bearer)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 10, 2019, 11:53:59 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 10, 2019, 11:16:33 am

Quote from: Gubump on July 09, 2019, 12:22:10 am

Quote from: scolapasta on July 08, 2019, 11:33:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ctXiWUr.png)

I like this one the best.

The problem with this version is that it gives an advantage to the first player. The first player can curse others before their first shuffle, but can't be cursed before his first shuffle. A curse in the first shuffle can hurt alot.

That's a good point. Possible fix could be to make it cost $5 (which of course would still benefit the first player is they drew 5/2) or maybe even $6 (may be worth switching to on gain then).

Any thoughts on the last two?

Thematically (and not meaning mechanics, but meaning relating to concept of a "Coven"), I prefer the ones that work on play more. i.e a Witch allows you to Curse a player when you play a card (Witch), but get a gathering of Witches together to do the same thing but in a stronger way.

I think I'm favoring the last one, because it's a cheap way of giving a curse, hopefully on your next turn, if you can plan it well. In a 2 player game, a regular witch costs 5 and will typically hand out 5 curses (assuming your opponent also bought a witch). This coven would cost you 10 to hand out 5 curses, but:
1) it doesn't have to be attached to a terminal play
2) by costing 2, you can spread out the purchase more easily
3) it can't be defended

I'm sure I'm missing something though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on July 10, 2019, 03:31:45 pm

CHALLENGE #35 - THEMATIC CURSER SUBMISSION

A card that curses with overpay based on the Guilds set. An idea I've wanted to try for some time now, but have always been weary of due to how swingy it could be. Opening it could be painful for your opponents, but the on-play liability of Annexation is hopefully enough to mitigate this. An overpay of $2 (total cost $4) adds one Curse, but it essentially adds one draw opportunity for your opponent if you play Annnexation and one dead card in your deck if you don't. So the real power is when you can overpay $4 (total cost $6) and up and get a net, negative impact on your opponent.

(https://i.imgur.com/sVvDpHs.jpg)

Quote

+1 Card
+1 Action
Each other player may discard a Victory or Curse card to draw a card.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $2 you overpaid, +1VP and each other player gains a Curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 10, 2019, 04:00:18 pm

OK, so this is the version I'm going with for the challenge:

(https://i.imgur.com/OK9eeLr.png)

In the end I decided to go with the Witch variant, due to in fitting the "Coven" concept best. I'm hopeful the once per turn slows it down enough to make games with it fun.

(I was very close to the 2 cost one -shot but thematically, none of the other Adventures "token on piles" Events do that, so this one seemed to fit better)
 
After the challenge, I'll probably revisit the discussion in my dedicated thread, as I'd love to get this just right (and I do think there's room for a player specific "cursing" token).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 10, 2019, 04:30:34 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 10, 2019, 04:00:18 pm

Coven
Types: Event
Cost: $6
Move your Cursing token to a non-Attack Action Supply pile. (Once per turn, when you play a card from that pile, that card is also an Attack and each other player first gains a Curse.)

I wanted to say that this Attack transformation has the most potential, but I think the "non-Attack" portion will not change the card. The Adventures-tokens usually get tossed onto whatever spam-friendly card you happen to need a bunch of in your deck, which not many Attack type cards are Adventures-token targets. A more meaningful change would definitely be to make it only apply to Attack cards or to implement some type of Seaway limitation so you can only put it on expensive cards.

Quote from: pubby on July 10, 2019, 12:44:51 am

Quote

Crusade
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Buy, +1 Coffers. Each other player gains a Curse.

---

When you buy this, take the Holy Land.

Quote

Holy Land
Types: Artifact
When you gain a Curse, you may trash it. If you did, gain a Copper.

I think I agree with naitchman that a $4-Curser needs some kind of notable drawback to it to make it harder to justify using. The +Buy Crusade grants is itself a fairly rare resource, let alone the money-smoothing potential of +Coffers. I suppose the on-play power of Crusade is largely attempting to counterbalance the raw strength of Holy Land, which likely puts the first player to buy Crusade in a very bad position; but that echoes Flag Bearer to such an extent that it kills a lot of the interest of the card.

Quote from: Kudasai on July 10, 2019, 03:31:45 pm

Annexation
Types: Action
Cost: $2+
+1 Card, +1 Action. Each other player may discard a Victory or Curse card to draw a card.

---

When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $2 you overpaid, +1VP and each other player gains a Curse.

Guilds doesn't have VP tokens. Even if it did, this probably shouldn't have them. As long as Curses remain, Annexation with VP tokens is significantly better than Province at $8 (functionally 6VP in the form of 3VP that don't get in my way and -3VP in ~3 stop cards for the other players), let alone if you get $10+ to buy it. This would absolutely be strong enough without the VP tokens.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 10, 2019, 05:02:20 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 10, 2019, 04:30:34 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 10, 2019, 04:00:18 pm

Coven
Types: Event
Cost: $6
Move your Cursing token to a non-Attack Action Supply pile. (Once per turn, when you play a card from that pile, that card is also an Attack and each other player first gains a Curse.)

I wanted to say that this Attack transformation has the most potential, but I think the "non-Attack" portion will not change the card. The Adventures-tokens usually get tossed onto whatever spam-friendly card you happen to need a bunch of in your deck, which not many Attack type cards are Adventures-token targets. A more meaningful change would definitely be to make it only apply to Attack cards or to implement some type of Seaway limitation so you can only put it on expensive cards.

I had considered having cost restrictions (on any of the variants, actually), but preferred to try without due to the fact that I was already at 3 lines of text on the card. If I need to do for balance I could see adding it (especially since it would remove text if it allows me to remove things like "non-Attack" or "Once per turn".)

About the non attacks, my other reason for that was to avoid any possible confusion of what does it mean to add the attack type to an already attack card (I had different wording originally). With the current wording of "is also an attack" - which is similar to Capitalism - I think there is no confusion.

(though I did also consider for this version not adding the attack type, with the concept being that the Coven would be producing a curser so strong it could not be blocked - I used that in the $2 one-shot instead, but could see moving that to here, maybe)

I still like that it avoids supercharging an attack, but you are probably right, that people probably wouldn't move it to those piles anyway.

We're past the 24 hour cut off now, so I'll leave it as is, but would appreciate if you want to continue brainstorming in my dedicated thread when I post it there after the contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 11, 2019, 12:42:43 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 10, 2019, 04:30:34 pm

Guilds doesn't have VP tokens. Even if it did, this probably shouldn't have them. As long as Curses remain, Annexation with VP tokens is significantly better than Province at $8 (functionally 6VP in the form of 3VP that don't get in my way and -3VP in ~3 stop cards for the other players), let alone if you get $10+ to buy it. This would absolutely be strong enough without the VP tokens.

The Curses aren't automatically dead as the opponents can sift through them if you play Annexation. They can also sift through their Provinces.
This is nearly as good as a Fugitive (a $4.5) for the opponents which is why I disagree with your claim that the card would be overpowered even without the VP tokens.
It is probably too good but without the VP tokens it would be extremely weak in Kingdoms with other Cursers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 11, 2019, 12:55:48 am

I was really impressed with all the amazing ideas y'all came up with! You really made me see the sets in a new way and it's way cool. All of these card submissions were great. I am now providing my detailed thoughts on every submission:

Quote from: spineflu on July 03, 2019, 03:44:45 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/qDTu7Gq.png)

This definitely fits as a promo. Making curses a benefit is the type of anti-Dominion stuff that will probably never belong in a main-line expansion. I think there's a stronger reason for that—most cards are based on the assumption that curses are bad. I think turning them into -1vp silvers makes a lot of the cursers no longer playable. Witch becomes: “+2 cards, each other player gains a silver.” Well, it doesn't always, you have to play a heretic. But it's the threat of that which I worry would prevent players from buying witch in the first place. Any game that has *some curser* and Heretic would be less interesting than a game with only *that curser*. It reminds me of how some fans make reaction cards that hurt the player playing an attack – that's a bad design choice because it creates a threat that prevents players from buying attack cards. That's how I feel about the general ability of making curses beneficial. So I have a problem with the central concept of this card.
Specifically, this card has a lot of clever details: it costs 5 which means it's hard to get, and you have to have one in play to turn your curses into silver. Which means you want a lot of Heretics so you can always get one in play – but having a lot of heretics is bad for your deck, every one other than the first is just some weak VP.  Lots of clever design here!

Quote from: King Leon on July 03, 2019, 04:22:34 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/xch069ed.png)

Congrats on making a curser that wraps up so many of the themes/motifs of Hinterlands! On-gain effect, discards, Victory card interaction. It has a very natural synergy with Tunnel. Good work! The on-gain effect works well with this card, since the estate synergises with the attack. It also makes excellent use of a +1 card effect since you almost always have the choice to turn it into a Village. Another contest I had in mind was making a “+1 card” work, and well, you totally did it! There's a lot to like about this card, but I do wonder about the price. If you discard a useless victory card (say, estate) this card is essentially witch. If you buy Potemkin Villages, you probably have estates to discard (or at the very least, other Potemkin Villages). But this comes with a +1vp and an estate. To me it seems like this becomes a Witch too often to cost 5, especially considering you have a village effect (it's slightly worse – but only slight, most of the time you discard a curse or copper you didn't want anyway and it's just a village) as a choice, I think, because of its flexibility and the fact it gives a victory point, that this is slightly too strong to be a 4. Well, there is the fact that when you buy one of these it clogs you deck slightly... which slows down the ability to curse people. Hm. Certainly this is a very interesting curser. The double-line is confusing and makes me feel it wouldn't be printed in Hinterlands. I know this card is super emblematic of Hinterlands, I wonder if you were free of this restriction what you could do with this design? Would the card be better or worse by giving a victory token instead of an estate with it. Things to think about! This is in the top 5

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 03, 2019, 05:20:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/lTHWpKM.jpg)

This card uses both the “name a card” and the coffers themes from guilds. So it fits as a curser decently well.  This card works best if you have cards your opponents don't. The best way to ensure that is to increase your hand size. I think this card's vanilla benefit needs to increase your hand-size to make this a better card. Perhaps draw up to 6 cards if you don't want it to be too similar to Witch's +2, but +2 cards would probably be fine. You would definitely increase the pricing for the card if you made this change, but I think it's worth it. A swingy curser is semi-problematic. A cheap-swingy curser is even more problematic. So I think the card would be better if it were more powerful and more expensive. I give you props to an attack card that sometimes provides benefits, I just think the whole card really is asking to be designed with some sort of hand-size increase. Also, you may not be aware but this card can become a little bit political. Player 1 reveals they're only copy of X that Player 3 has. On Player 2's turn do they reveal X with sorceress to purposely target Player 1? It's very subtle, but know that Donald X. designed very few dominion cards with  politics, so for that reason this card fits less into guilds. I do really like the concept a lot!

Quote from: kru5h on July 03, 2019, 10:31:58 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/UUixrff.png)

This card fits Dark ages very well, it trashes and interacts with the trash. This card is specifically more powerful with other Dark ages cards, I think that makes it even more emblematic of the set.Dark ages supplies actions you might want to trash (ruins and necropolis). Neat synergy! I think you did a real good job making the trashing have to be 2 differently named cards – I do believe you had previously underestimated how good trashing 2 cards is. The “differently named” aspect is also strengthened due to shelters all having different names. Warlock really does belong in Dark ages. It's a fine curser. I worry that the secondary attack feels just a little mean – gaining 2 curses and discarding can have a little bit of a demoralizing feel to it and it feels out of scope to the card. I'd consider limiting the discarding to forcing players to discard curses – it keeps the card more on theme (all about curses), and it hurts because it prevents them from using warlock to trash the curses. 2 curses doesn't hurt too much if they get to trash one their next turn. Just a thought. Another thought, this card is really ripe for an on-trash benefit. It's a card that likes to trash actions. So make the card an action that likes to be trashed. This kind of cool self-synergy is in many of the best designed Dominion cards. This is in the top 5

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 03, 2019, 10:59:25 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/LfX75sC.png)

Uses Renaissance themes of villagers and also counting the number of tokens you have (Swashbuckler). Good use of a subtle motif in your design! This card definitely does fit in Renaissance. I think, however, that treasures that produce only 1$ are a little bit awkward. Also, a treasure that produces villagers is awkward. This card freely gives you villagers, where it's worth noting that the other cards do so in more interesting ways, either only giving villagers on gain or forcing you to trash a card, or forcing you to gain a weaker card. (Which reminds me, this card actually helps Sculptor a bunch since it's a kingdom treasure costing up to 4, which makes it fit the set even more. Nice work!) These are all interesting/hard decisions since villagers give you so much more flexibility. I think using this card as +villagers to an action would make this card better. It could even be +1 card +1villager (perhaps a discard to draw a card or something to give it a little more power). Also, villagers are a natural thing to stockpile, so you may be gaining 3 villagers just for the benefit of having 3 villagers.  If you had attached the cursing to coffers, there seems to be the more interesting decision of whether to spend the coffers instead. Not using villagers isn't fun, you don't get to play your action! Not using coffers means you still get to buy a cheaper card, and that's still fun. Also, coffers attach themselves to a treasure more easily.

Quote from: majiponi on July 04, 2019, 11:11:44 am

Greedy Witch
cost $2+ - Action - Attack
+$2
Use a coin token so that each other player gains a Curse.
---
When you buy this, if you didn't use a coin token, you may overpay for this. For each $1 you overpaid, take a coin token.

Guilds. Coin token and overpay.

This is phrased incorrectly. Taking inspiration from Butcher it should be “You may remove a token from your Coffers, if you do, each other player gains a Curse.” Right now it is ambiguous whether using the token still gives you +1$ that turn.
To me “if you didn't use a coin token” is a confusing restriction that doesn't belong in guilds. And it's ambiguous. Didn't use a coin token *when?* I think you mean to add a “this turn.” Which is a good way of limiting the ability of over-pay for coffers. Also, you should be calling coin tokens “coffers.” There's a few issues in the phrasing that makes this card not fit in the expansion.
I do like the idea of reinterpreting coffers as cursing material. It's certainly interesting. But this card is underpriced. +2 money with the ability to curse is pretty significant, and with the overpay mechanic you present a pretty easy way to gain coffers. Plus, with candlestick maker, Plaza, Baker, and Butcher, odds are you have at least 1 other coffer producer in the game. I just think the cursing will be two easy and too cheap. Cheap cursers prevent problems—there's a reason why sea hag has no benefit and basically turns into a curse itself when the curses are out.
I think to make this better you should make the card itself generate coffers rather than give the over-pay  mechanic. Something like: “Choose one: +1 coffers; or, +2$ and you may remove a token from your Coffers, if you do, each other player gains a curse.”

Quote from: segura on July 04, 2019, 04:39:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ucu7AkY.png)

First I wanted to do it on-buy but on-gain seems more fun...

It's a good thing you stuck with on-gain. Renaissance was about simplicity, and all the cards in renaissance use on-gain not on-buy. It would be more complicated to introduce another concept, so this card fits Renaissance much better using an on gain. This card is a very simple extension of an attack artifact, this 100% fits the bill as a renaissance trasher. I do think this card is not nearly as powerful as a lot of people were worried it was. If you spend all your buys on estates, well, you have a terrible deck and need to deplete a third pile. If it turns the game into a weird slog where everyone's deck sucks, well, those types of games are not usually fun because you buy terminal actions but you don't have an engine and your terminals collide so you can't play them and that's frustrating. Or you spend turn after turn just missing the price point you were going for and that's frustrating. Good thing Renaissance has baked in the solution to those frustrating games – coffers and villagers! So I think this card fits super well into renaissance. Plus, there's always the option to ignore it until it's province time, and it has a definite use there, as well. This is in the top 5

Quote from: Aquila on July 04, 2019, 05:20:29 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/uTeAbWq.jpg)

This card only uses one of the themes of Adventures: the Tavern mat.

I really think it's a shame you departed from the original idea of Ravens gaining Ravens. The cool part about this card is you really want to gather a bunch of Ravens for devastating effect. However, buying is such a high expense. The best solution is to make Ravens be able to gain themselves (and it follows the animals gaining themselves motif and fits in Adventures better). Otherwise if you're first to buy a bunch of Ravens, well then you need to attach some benefit to them. The benefit you attached is very docile and boring, Poachers are helpful buys that most decks want anyway. The choice to buy Ravens becomes less, “I want to struggle with this card into a cool mechanic of cursing my opponent” and more “I just need more poachers in my deck.”
Everyone was right, the fact that Ravens had a choice to instantly gain a Raven was too strong. I have a few ideas, you can make the gaining conditional (one idea, similar to magpie, if the top card is an action, gain a Raven, otherwise, no benefit. This actually works well with the few cards that let you gain extra actions – Port, Messenger). Another idea is to change the discarding so that every 2 Ravens you discard your opponent gains a curse. Or limit how many ravens you can discard per turn.
I really love the concept here, and I hope you iterate on it and figure out a way to make Raven's self-gaining. It's a brilliant idea.

Quote from: Gubump on July 04, 2019, 05:29:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/X77vU7h.png)

This card has a fundamental confusion, in that it is masked as a defense card, when it isn't at all. If I read it briefly I think, oh yes I protect myself when someone curses me... but it doesn't work. You play a witch, I call a Totem, thinking I'm safe. I follow the instructions “each player who turn it isn't...” oh dang, that includes me-- I gain a curse! If you like this concept. I recommend you find a way to express the card more clearly as a curser that triggers on your own turn. “When you gain a curse on your own turn...” would do wonders for clarity.  There's a good synergy with Messenger where you can curse your opponents twice with one messenger buy. And messneger gives you a +buy to buy more curses... nice! I just think that it's a little underwhelming, without artificer present, you're wasting a stronger gainer or remodeler or spending a buy to curse your opponents. And the temporary silver isn't very strong. I think this would be better balanced as a +$2 then +$3.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on July 05, 2019, 03:04:54 pm

My submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/wvLyvlSm.png)

This uses choices, which makes it Intrigue-y, but for this contest, I was hoping for cursers that were really emblematic of the set. Since choices do appear in many of the sets, I feel that you would need to have an interaction with victory cards in order to make this submission be able to win this contest. That being said, I think this is a good card with a really cool concept. I do think you're underestimating how quickly this card gets useless.  In a typical game with witch, at least half of the game the curses are gone. I think the 4 choices aren't super strong – it's not like you can build an engine out of +2 cards and +2 action cards, and +$2 is pretty weak. I really do love this concept though! I would recommend you play around with the particular choices – I think you could make it +1buy +2money, or +3 cards, or +3 actions as the three choices and this card would still be balanced at a 5 since it becomes useless after 5 plays (assuming each player gets one.)

Quote from: mail-mi on July 06, 2019, 01:53:06 am

(https://i.imgur.com/txUXhOx.png)
 

This uses the tokens and Tavern mat from Adventures, so it certainly fits in this set. I also really like the clever design of making a non-terminal curser work. In addition, the -1 Card tokens don't stack, so it's fine to play multiple a turn. I do think attaching a +buy to a curser is a bad precedent—it's one that Donald X. has entirely avoided (Skulk is a semi-exception). There's a lot of reasons for this: +buys are so important you buy the card often for the +buy. (Non-terminal +buys doubly so), so you end up with less interesting choices to buy the attack since it covers so many bases at once.  I think this card would be better without the +buy. It also doesn't really stack with the rest of the card – it only gives you 1$, so it doesn't promote needing several buys. And it doesn't relate or defend in anyway against the attack. It seems like a random benefit tacked onto the card. I think giving more $ would be appropriate, or perhaps giving the card a mild cellar/cycling effect (this plays nicely with the curses and works badly with the -1 card token – in both cases it fits very well). The concept is sound, if you play around with the vanilla bonuses I think this can be even better.

Quote from: Gazbag on July 06, 2019, 09:53:08 am

(https://i.imgur.com/b2jkT9v.png)

For Seaside of course. I ended up designing a card for every expansion (some much more successfully than others) and this was my favourite. I like trying to get more uses in for the mats and tokens in Seaside and this doesn't seem too messed up with Native Village? I think it's okay that this puts face-up cards on your mat?

This card uses the Native Village mat, but more importantly, it investigates the design-space central to Seaside of ~tHe FuTuRe~. The reason why seaside has a top of deck motif is because the top of your deck is the source of your next turn... the future. The reason why Island exists is because it has a place for points in the future. So, Island Warrior, by tucking curses into other player's matts does affect the future score, even if they never play a Native Village or Island Warrior card. I love the design of this card! However; there are a few issues with the pricing. First off, compare it to Soothsayer and you see it's not significantly weaker enough to be a whole price point lower. Soothsayer gives a +1 card which is a very strong benefit when it curses. Island Warrior provides no benefit to its opponents yet will probably end up with the same effect (in games with Island Warriors, people will dump their mat to their hand to get golds). If you look into the other motifs of Seaside, you'll see conditional gold gaining (Explorer, Treasure Map). I think that avenue is the key to improving this card. If the gold gain was conditional on something, then the price point of 4 could actually work. Something to think about! This is in the top 5

Quote from: artless on July 06, 2019, 10:20:40 am

Dunner
$5 Action - Attack

+2 Coffers
Each other player loses either a Villager or a Coffer, their choice.
Each other player who doesn’t gains a Curse.
---
Set up: Each player gets +1 Villager

This fits into renaissance by using coffers and villagers, nice! I also really like the set up as a nice way to change games like Baker does, *and* this card provides a use of the villagers – protection against Dunner! Nice work! However, “Set up” is a new concept, and I think complicates the Renaissance expansion, whose goal was simplicity. In addition, “loses a” is not the right way to phrase it. Check out Butcher-- it should be something like each other player chooses to “removes a token from their Coffers or Villagers...” I also like how this card defends against itself with +2 coffers. When I made a proof of concept for this contest, having a +2 coffers curser was my first idea, and then I noticed there's already a +2 coffers attack in Renaissance. Therefore, Dunner seems a little repetitive in the set. I like the design of this, but I can't imagine that this would have been put into Renaissance because of these issues.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 06, 2019, 08:01:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/5WqvXTU.png)

This brilliantly fits into guilds by using coffers and overpay. I'm really impressed by how you made overpay for coffers work and you also made a coffers attack work by providing coffers and a curse if they don't have any. And, this is a cheap curser that makes sense, if you buy only one, it's essentially a curse every-other-time you play it, which fits great as a cheap curser. The only feedback I have for this is I think it the card would be more interesting if you let your opponents choose whether to gain a curse or lose a coffer; HOWEVER, this would be a new mechanic for guild (the word “choose” does not appear in Guilds), and so I think you made the right choice for this context. The other thing to think about is pricing silver at a bonus at 3. Then again, costing it 4 would make the over-pay less practical. And I think the bonus of +2$ is the right one for this, it's a card about money. Yeah, every single part of this card fits very well.
There's some cool synergy with itself, the more landlords you overpay for, the more you are protected against the cursers. I think that in a Guilds game, this card is not very likely to curse opponents, but I'm fine with that.
The landlord pile solves all the issues I had with Greedy Witch's overpay for coffers by limiting the coffers directly, and by giving your opponents a chance to spend the coffers before offering to you in the landlord pile. This is in the top 5

Quote from: naitchman on July 07, 2019, 01:04:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tgcXDfk.png)(https://i.imgur.com/ciku2P9.png)

This card does great fitting into Dark ages by combining two of its themes. Nice work! I do like the idea of doing one final trash of a curse. It's interesting to me that a Dead Witch could be better than a Vengeful Witch, especially in a Kingdom with weak trashing. Well, a Kingdom with no trashing it's for sure better, but there's no way to gain the Dead Witch if there is no trashing. I don't like the fact that you have a “transforming” card that might never be able to transform. I would recommend you adding this “setup: place 1 curse per player in the trash.”  Or perhaps, “when you buy this, trash a curse from the supply.” Now each player has the interesting choice, *when* do they want to kill their witch. And if one player removes all the curses from the supply, as soon as they use a dead witch to trash one, other players can now kill their witches. It is a really brilliant synergy how a Dead Witch actually can help kill other witches. I do like this card a lot; However, there is one big flaw in your card. It's very political. If there are no curses in the trash, you can choose for some players to gain a curse from the trash and for others to actually gain a curse from the Supply (or vice cersa if there are no curses in the supply). Donald X. has specifically designed attack cards that can't single out a single person, and this card has a big loophole here. So, because of that, it doesn't belong in any of the expansions. There is no easy way I can discover around this without removing the choice of whether to kill your own Witch. I do think this card is great and has some potential, so I encourage you to look into these issues (or, perhaps ignore them if you don't think they are issues. It's just my opinion!)

Quote from: pubby on July 10, 2019, 12:44:51 am

(https://i.imgur.com/43l4Rpa.png)(https://i.imgur.com/tOIG94C.png)

This uses artifacts and coffers, and thus really fits into Renaissance! I think The Holy Land is a really interesting artifact—it's not nearly as powerful as it seems, but it's still good.
I've already mentioned in other feedback how I feel about +buys attached to cursers. The fact that this is cheap is yet another strike against this card, it has too much going for it. I've talked about this in other feedback, but the strongest Dominion cards relate to themselves in interesting ways. Right now your vanilla bonuses have nothing to do with cursing or The Holy Land. I think you should let the vanilla bonuses somehow relate to the artifact. For example, a copper trasher would be great. “You may trash a copper, if you do +1 coffers” could be good enough to price this at a 4 and it would connect with Holy Land a lot more. You can try some sort of Mining variant. Also, calling this crusade means there should probably be trashing attached to this.

Quote from: Kudasai on July 10, 2019, 03:31:45 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sVvDpHs.jpg)

This card is disqualified from the contest because it uses +VP. There are no vp Tokens in Guilds. It doesn't fit in Prosperity or Empires though because it has over pay. So this card isn't emblematic of any one expansion. I really like this mechanic: you overpay for the card to get all the benefit, and then the card provides a slight benefit to your opponents after that. That's a pretty intersting mechanic. I think this card will pretty much only be bought at 6, and it makes it pretty powerful. It curses instantly as opposed to on-play. I think this actually poses some serious problems. On 5/2 with Baker you can give each opponent 2 curses before the first shuffle. Very often multiple players can get 6 before their second shuffle and give out 2 curses then. This is something that makes me uneasy, but I have no idea how to solve this problem. I do want to point out that the top-part has a nice synergy with giving out curses. To be honest, If you had omitted the +VP from this card, there were still other Guilds-oriented cards that fit the set better than this.

Quote from: scolapasta on July 10, 2019, 04:00:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OK9eeLr.png)

Coven makes use of both Events and tokens, which makes it fit Adventures very well. I had written up previous notes from the original Coven and I like the direction you're moving towards. One of my suggestions was limiting it to “once per turn” and I think this is a good way of operating. At 6 this has a very high opportunity cost. You have to skip a buy to purchase this, and then it only curses once per turn afterward. So, I think this is weaker than it seems. I think I would never buy Coven when there was another curser on the table. Either the curser costs 5 and provides me some decent benefit besides cursing so I would prefer this in my deck to buying Coven and having nothing in my deck, OR the curser is cheap and I can curse my opponents much faster than I could saving up 6$ to buy Coven. So I think this needs to be stronger to be more useful. Or, I think you could price it at 5 and/or you could not limit it to what cards you can put it on. I do think you made the right choice by having it change the card to be an attack card so reaction cards are boosted a bit. That's a good bit of design there.


Final Results:
Potemkin Village is just mis-priced enough, and the double line is very awkward, so that's why it isn't winning. Warlock could have been stronger by relating the discard attack to the rest of the card and/or by giving it an on-benefit trash.

I really love Island Warrior and it was super close to winning, but I also think it is mis-priced a bit, and there was a huge opportunity for it to be conditional gold-gaining instead, and if it was, it could have have won this context.

Parade has a truly wonderful simplicity. I'm almost surprised this isn't already a card in Renaissance.
Landlord makes a wonderful use of the coffers mat and has such great synergy with itself.

This is very hard for me to pick, it's honestly a toss-up between these two. We're going with...

Winner: Parade by segura. Some people's objections of it being too powerful are not considering the power of Parade viewed with other Renaissance cards, which don't include any Kingdom Victory Cards. And a card like hideout means buying an estate is actually probably worse since it takes two hideouts to trash it. The more you like at this card, the more it fits perfectly as the curser in Renaissance. Excellent work!

Runner up: Landlord by NoMoreFun

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on July 11, 2019, 01:17:13 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 10, 2019, 04:30:34 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on July 10, 2019, 03:31:45 pm

Annexation
Types: Action
Cost: $2+
+1 Card, +1 Action. Each other player may discard a Victory or Curse card to draw a card.

---

When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $2 you overpaid, +1VP and each other player gains a Curse.

Guilds doesn't have VP tokens. Even if it did, this probably shouldn't have them. As long as Curses remain, Annexation with VP tokens is significantly better than Province at $8 (functionally 6VP in the form of 3VP that don't get in my way and -3VP in ~3 stop cards for the other players), let alone if you get $10+ to buy it. This would absolutely be strong enough without the VP tokens.

My original idea was to have it also be a Victory card that is worth 1VP. This makes paying $8 for it give a 4 point swing (3 Curses + 1VP), which makes it conflict less with Province buying. Adding the Victory type also allows players to discard Annexations when another player plays Annexation, but this could be problematic. So I'll likely try something like simply getting +1VP on buy (no scaling).

Anyways, thanks to you a Segura for the feedback. And congrats Segura! That is a pretty neat Artifact!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 11, 2019, 05:22:39 am

Thanks, anordinaryman!

The new contest is about doing a non-conventional junker, i.e. it should not distribute Curses or Ruins unconditionally. You could do a Copper junker or come up with a new type of junk. Landscape cards are also OK.
Examples among official cards that would be good are Ambassador and Jester. Mountebank is also OK but something like Young Witch would be a bit borderline (lacking the third, Copper-junking option of Mountebank).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 11, 2019, 07:03:32 am

Quote from: segura on July 11, 2019, 05:22:39 am

Thanks, anordinaryman!

The new contest is about doing a non-conventional junker, i.e. it should not distribute Curses or Ruins unconditionally. You could do a Copper junker or come up with a new type of junk. Landscape cards are also OK.
Examples among official cards that would be good are Ambassador and Jester. Mountebank is also OK but something like Young Witch would be a bit borderline (lacking the third, Copper-junking option of Mountebank).

I think this is generally an interesting challenge, but maybe we shouldn't do two junking contests in a row?

EDIT: I do have an idea for this, so I don't mind, but others may have run out of inspiration for junking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 11, 2019, 07:20:30 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 11, 2019, 12:55:48 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 03, 2019, 05:20:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/lTHWpKM.jpg)

I probably agree with most of what you said. So much so that I withdrew this entry and replaced it with Chronicler (a fact I posted here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805221#msg805221) and edited my original post (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg804974#msg804974)), which you didn't look at.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 11, 2019, 08:22:07 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 11, 2019, 07:20:30 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 11, 2019, 12:55:48 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 03, 2019, 05:20:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/lTHWpKM.jpg)

I probably agree with most of what you said. So much so that I withdrew this entry and replaced it with Chronicler (a fact I posted here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805221#msg805221) and edited my original post (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg804974#msg804974)), which you didn't look at.

Yikes!!! I think I missed it because the entire card was quoted so I skipped past it assuming it was one someone else posted outside a quote and I had already reciewed... I’m really sorry to miss your card. I was so worried I would mess up somehow, and I did :(
Would you want me to apply the same effort feedback to that new card and tell you my thoughts on it? Again, my deepest apologies for messing up.

I missed the original edit because I started writing up feedback earlier then contest end and simply rewrote feedback whenever I noticed a card change. This is completely my fault, I’m sorry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 11, 2019, 10:01:05 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 11, 2019, 08:22:07 am

Would you want me to apply the same effort feedback to that new card and tell you my thoughts on it?

Only if you want to.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on July 11, 2019, 10:02:33 am

Quote from: segura on July 11, 2019, 05:22:39 am

Thanks, anordinaryman!

The new contest is about doing a non-conventional junker, i.e. it should not distribute Curses or Ruins unconditionally. You could do a Copper junker or come up with a new type of junk. Landscape cards are also OK.
Examples among official cards that would be good are Ambassador and Jester. Mountebank is also OK but something like Young Witch would be a bit borderline (lacking the third, Copper-junking option of Mountebank).

Does self-junking count as non-conventional (probably ruins)? What about something like IGG?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 11, 2019, 11:03:00 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on July 11, 2019, 10:02:33 am

Quote from: segura on July 11, 2019, 05:22:39 am

Thanks, anordinaryman!

The new contest is about doing a non-conventional junker, i.e. it should not distribute Curses or Ruins unconditionally. You could do a Copper junker or come up with a new type of junk. Landscape cards are also OK.
Examples among official cards that would be good are Ambassador and Jester. Mountebank is also OK but something like Young Witch would be a bit borderline (lacking the third, Copper-junking option of Mountebank).

Does self-junking count as non-conventional (probably ruins)? What about something like IGG?

If IGG works, I could just reuse one of my Coven versions! :)

(just kidding, of course)

Other cards I'd wonder about in that same vein are Embargo or even Torturer, since it's a choice. (my guess is Embargo would be, bot Torturer wouldn't)

Since there is a subjective fine line in what qualifies, would you be willing to do something similar to what Fragasnap did with the no vanilla bonus challenge and +1 submissions that qualify? (or otherwise just let us know if something doesn't)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 11, 2019, 11:45:53 am

Self-junking as a straightforward nerf/downside like with Cursed Gold is not in the spirit of the contest whereas a card that would sometimes junk the opponents and sometimes you would. Junkin on-gain or on-buy or conditional upon the presence of a token are fine whereas a choice-junker like Torturer would be rather borderline.

I don't want to make the parameters too tight, if you have a good idea just roll with it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on July 11, 2019, 11:58:04 am

Roll with an idea I will, whether it's good is another matter:

(https://i.imgur.com/2G30Afb.jpg)
Edit: added 'choice as you' to the end for less ambiguity. You choose one of the options, everybody does it (unless blocked)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on July 11, 2019, 12:07:54 pm

Can we submit cards we've worked on before? I never finished working on my Plague Doctor/Plague cards and they would be perfect for this contest. I have never submitted them to design contests before.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 11, 2019, 12:47:32 pm

Quote from: kru5h on July 11, 2019, 12:07:54 pm

Can we submit cards we've worked on before? I never finished working on my Plague Doctor/Plague cards and they would be perfect for this contest. I have never submitted them to design contests before.

Sure, as I said I don't want any tight rules.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 11, 2019, 01:31:55 pm

Quote from: segura on July 11, 2019, 12:47:32 pm

Quote from: kru5h on July 11, 2019, 12:07:54 pm

Can we submit cards we've worked on before? I never finished working on my Plague Doctor/Plague cards and they would be perfect for this contest. I have never submitted them to design contests before.

Sure, as I said I don't want any tight rules.

Are we allowed to submit cards we’ve previously submitted, but haven’t won?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 11, 2019, 02:12:13 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 11, 2019, 01:31:55 pm

Quote from: segura on July 11, 2019, 12:47:32 pm

Quote from: kru5h on July 11, 2019, 12:07:54 pm

Can we submit cards we've worked on before? I never finished working on my Plague Doctor/Plague cards and they would be perfect for this contest. I have never submitted them to design contests before.

Sure, as I said I don't want any tight rules.

Are we allowed to submit cards we’ve previously submitted, but haven’t won?

I think we should establish a base rule for all challenges and any individual challenge can of course specify something different.

Something like:

Unless otherwise specified, cards that have been entered in previous challenges that did not win or get runner up* can be entered again.

* basically, allow cards that don't make it into the hall of fame thread (though that thread is becoming outdated)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 11, 2019, 02:38:04 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 11, 2019, 01:31:55 pm

Quote from: segura on July 11, 2019, 12:47:32 pm

Quote from: kru5h on July 11, 2019, 12:07:54 pm

Can we submit cards we've worked on before? I never finished working on my Plague Doctor/Plague cards and they would be perfect for this contest. I have never submitted them to design contests before.

Sure, as I said I don't want any tight rules.

Are we allowed to submit cards we’ve previously submitted, but haven’t won?

Sure.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on July 11, 2019, 03:35:22 pm

Shyster (Action-Attack) [$5]

+$2
Reveal a card from your hand. For each copy they have in their hand, each other player gains 1 debt and a Copper.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 11, 2019, 04:56:09 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 11, 2019, 03:35:22 pm

Shyster (Action-Attack) [$5]

+$2
Reveal a card from your hand. For each copy they have in their hand, each other player gains 1 debt and a Copper.

A couple of wording suggestions, for accountability and "take debt" which is what official cards use:
"Each other player reveals their hand. For each copy they reveal, they take 1 Debt and gain a Copper."

This could be very harsh. If you can get this early and catch an opponent with 4 coppers in their hand, they'd get +4 Debt and gain 4 Coppers. That seems like way too much junking from one play. (and imagine if you TRed this)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on July 11, 2019, 04:58:06 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/TCdQglI.png)
A tricky card. It can hand out out tons of junk and generate tons of virtual coin, but you need the right kingdom to do so. It can become a liability when you start greening and have provinces in hand, but sometimes it's worth playing it then.

edit: I'm going with scott pilgrim's suggestion that it should be the player to your right, not left, but am much too tired to redo the image.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 11, 2019, 06:11:37 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 11, 2019, 03:35:22 pm

Shyster (Action-Attack) [$5]

+$2
Reveal a card from your hand. For each copy they have in their hand, each other player gains 1 debt and a Copper.

Idea: “each player with exactly 5 cards in hand takes 1D and gains a Copper to their hand if they have a copy of it in their hand.” The debt and the copper cancel each other out, which is cute. Then it could probably cost $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 11, 2019, 06:45:13 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/68anockp.png)
Consulate
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $4
+ $1
Gain a card costing less than this to your hand. Each other player discards the top card of their deck and gains a copy of the card you have gained to the top of their deck.

(Reaction cards like Moat can only be revealed before you make your choice, so you could pick Silver, when your opponent reveals a Moat. If the card you have gained loses track (e. g. with Trader) or is the last copy in the Supply, your opponents don't gain any card, but still discard the top card of their deck.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 11, 2019, 09:54:59 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 11, 2019, 06:45:13 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/tavmvcyk.png)
Consulate
Type: Action - Attack
Cost: $4
+ $1
Gain a card costing less than this to your hand. Each other player discards the top card of their deck and gains a copy of the card you have gained.

(Reaction cards like Moat can only be revealed before you make your choice, so you could pick Silver, when your opponent reveals a Moat. If the card you have gained loses track (e. g. with Trader) or is the last copy in the Supply, your opponents don't gain any card, but still discard the top card of their deck.)

What's the point of discarding the top card of the deck?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 11, 2019, 10:48:56 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/DVmzqbe.png)(https://i.imgur.com/h6iHbkv.png)(https://i.imgur.com/DvnEfSU.png)(https://i.imgur.com/Z3fChTd.png)(https://i.imgur.com/wqENJOZ.png)(https://i.imgur.com/KQlgWKj.png)

My entry, with a new type of junk, Damage cards. Damage cards are like Ruins, but they are not in the Supply and each have their own separate pile instead of being one mixed pile, so your opponent can choose which one they want to gain. They are, essentially, downgraded versions of existing card archetypes. So if one of your Villages is trashed, hey, you can at least gain a crummy version of it, effectively "downgrading" your Village instead of losing it. You can pick another Damage card to gain if you want to, of course. If the Damage cards themselves get hit, they get downgraded further to Ruins.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 12, 2019, 01:44:48 am

Quote from: naitchman

What's the point of discarding the top card of the deck?

Sorry, i forgot to the top of their deck. (Sea Hag effect, avoids to clog the hand with all Curses / Estates, especially in multiplayer games.)

The main targets of Consulate are Estate, Curse, Copper and Silver, obviously.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 12, 2019, 03:30:21 am

Alright, here's my entry:

Tarnished Cards

The Tarnished Cards replace the Curse cards in a game using a card with the subtype "Tarnisher" (or any time you want to replace the curses). There are 5 different Tarnished cards, and there are 10 of each. They are set up exactly like the Ruins pile.

Tarnished Blade Cost $0
+1 Action
Trash a card costing at least $3 from your hand to trash this card.
--
When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it into your hand.
--
Worth -1 VP
Action - Curse

Tarnished Armor Cost $0
+1 Action
Discard 2 cards to trash this card.
--
When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it into your hand.
--
Worth -1 VP
Action - Curse

Tarnished Fortune Cost $0
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Victory or Curse card. Put that card on top of your deck and discard the rest to trash this card.
--
When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it into your hand.
--
Worth -1 VP
Action - Curse

Tarnished Gift Cost $0
+1 Action
Gain a Copper to the top of your deck to trash this card.
--
When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it into your hand.
--
Worth -1 VP
Action - Curse

Tarnished Maps Cost $0
+1 Action
The player to your left looks at the top 3 cards of your deck, discards any number of them, and puts the rest back in any order. If they do, trash this card.
--
When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it into your hand.
--
Worth -1 VP
Action - Curse

And here’s an example of a Tarnisher card:

Corrosion Cost $5
+2 Coffers
Set this card aside.
--
When another copy of Corrosion comes into play, discard this, and each other player gains a Curse.
Action - Attack - Tarnisher

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on July 12, 2019, 05:27:10 am

Red Tide
Event - $5
Gain a card costing up to $4 onto your deck. Put a Barnacle from the Barnacle pile onto an Action supply pile of your choice.

Barnacle
Action - $1*
Place this on top of an Action supply pile of your choice.
-
When you buy this, +1 Buy

(There are 10 Barnacles, and you can't buy/gain the card below a Barnacle. You must first buy the Barnacle on top)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chappy7 on July 12, 2019, 11:20:18 am

Quote from: pubby on July 11, 2019, 04:58:06 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/TCdQglI.png)
A tricky card. It can hand out out tons of junk and generate tons of virtual coin, but you need the right kingdom to do so. It can become a liability when you start greening and have provinces in hand, but sometimes it's worth playing it then.

Interesting card!  I'm worried that this could be frustrating in 3+ player games.  Imagine a 4 player game, and the player to the left picks Goons from your hand so they can gain the last Goons from the supply.  Now you get +$5, that player gets a Goons, and the other two players are screwed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 12, 2019, 12:33:40 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 12, 2019, 05:27:10 am

Red Tide
Event - $5
Gain a card costing up to $4 onto your deck. Put a Barnacle from its pile onto an Action supply pile of your choice.

Barnacle
Action - $1
Place this on top of an Action supply pile of your choice.
-
When you gain this, +1 Buy

(There are 10 Barnacles, and you can't buy/gain the card below a Barnacle)

Can you buy Barnacles? I assume not and this is a "dependent" pile (for set up purposes). If so, you should add: "This is not in the Supply."

How would this look if when you played Red Tide, the Barnacle went on the pile from which you gained a card?

I'm not suggesting this for balance reasons (which is why I'm not sure if this idea is even worth it), just for thematic reasons and to make the Barnacle effect be different if you play Red Tide vs Barnacle.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 12, 2019, 01:33:07 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 11, 2019, 10:01:05 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 11, 2019, 08:22:07 am

Would you want me to apply the same effort feedback to that new card and tell you my thoughts on it?

Only if you want to.

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 03, 2019, 05:20:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4K6KM7O.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Spfi4lz.jpg)

Quote

Chronicler
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Each player (including you) may reveal a Curse from their hand for +1 Villager and to take the Tome. Each other player gains a Curse, putting it into their hand.

Quote

Tome
Types: Artifact
At the start of your Buy phase, you may discard a Curse for +1 Coffers.

Okay! I really appreciated the feedback you have given, so here are my thoughts on Chronicler/Tome. One thing about attacks that affect everyone, you often make the attack structured such that the person who played the card is most likely to benefit from it. For example, masquerade has you draw 2 cards such that you are more likely to have a bad card to give to your opponents. This card doesn't have any such benefit, there is no card drawing in order to make sure you have a curse to discard, and the first player has to go first because of turn order, so they have the least chance of actually keeping the Tome.

The card has some clever designs in it to make a cheap non-terminal curser weaker(each person gets a villager for sure if you play multiple), but that isn't enough of a dissuasion. If my opponent kept the tome for the whole game, I wouldn't mind as long as I fed tons of curses their way. The tome at best turns one into a slightly better copper -- it still clogs their deck way down. Having a ton of villagers doesn't really help them if they can't even go through their deck.

I really like the idea of Tome and having an artifact that passes around so much and sort of counter-balances normal turn-order balancing. I think this card would probably be better overall if you made the card more likely to have a better effect for the person playing it (if you don't want card drawing, you could do card sifting.), and perhaps strengthen it to make it cost 5 -- right now it's not convincing that the central mechanics of this card (gaining curses to hand and the tome) belong to a cheap curser.

But this is all very interesting and I really love the idea! Would be cool to work on it. Again, these are just my opinions!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 12, 2019, 06:22:26 pm

Ok, This is definitely not the final version but I'm gonna put this here for comments. This idea was a devil's workshop but an attack. Update: This is no longer my submission. The new submission is  here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805524#msg805524)

(https://i.imgur.com/jhqd0FV.png)

I think I should add a benefit for the user of the card, not sure what to do (maybe  a +coffer). Any suggestions welcome. I want to keep it at $4 (with the benefit) if possible, but if not the price can change. I'd prefer not to make it a duration if possible.

Just some notes:
Pros
1) Can continue junking after curses run out
2) Is non terminal
3) cannot be drawn dead
4) cost $4 (so it can always be opened with)

Cons
1) Can only junk once per turn (including other junkers you have, like witch), not including its swindler attack
2) Gets worse the more times you play it
3) Gives no benefit (working on that)

Update: This is no longer my submission. The new submission is  here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805524#msg805524)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on July 12, 2019, 11:54:00 pm

Quote from: Chappy7 on July 12, 2019, 11:20:18 am

Quote from: pubby on July 11, 2019, 04:58:06 pm

A tricky card. It can hand out out tons of junk and generate tons of virtual coin, but you need the right kingdom to do so. It can become a liability when you start greening and have provinces in hand, but sometimes it's worth playing it then.

Interesting card!  I'm worried that this could be frustrating in 3+ player games.  Imagine a 4 player game, and the player to the left picks Goons from your hand so they can gain the last Goons from the supply.  Now you get +$5, that player gets a Goons, and the other two players are screwed.

Could that particular issue be fixed by saying the player to your right, instead of the player to your left?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on July 13, 2019, 01:12:22 am

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on July 12, 2019, 11:54:00 pm

Could that particular issue be fixed by saying the player to your right, instead of the player to your left?

That's a really clever idea! It fixes the problem mostly. I guess there's still a situation when one player gets junk and the others don't, but that's uncommon and not so bad.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 13, 2019, 09:22:44 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 12, 2019, 06:22:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jhqd0FV.png)

Will definitely need rewording. The way it's worded now, you gain the Curse/Copper, not them.

As for the idea itself, I admit I'm not particularly enamored with it. The vast majority of the time there will be no other junkers, so it will just be the same as measuring the number of Satanic Rituals you've played this turn. If the attack were based on the number of cards you gained this turn, that could be a lot more interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 13, 2019, 09:37:21 am

This is a card from my Dominion: Greed fan set (which heavily features "In games using this" effects) that I have yet to re-submit. Special thanks to ThetaSigma12 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16227.msg727321#msg727321) for re-theming this card.
(https://i.imgur.com/mUA2hEv.jpg)

Quote

Brazen Bull
Types: Treasure, Attack
Cost: $5
$2. When you play this, each other player may reveal 3 cards from their hand that are Actions or Curses. If they don't, they gain a Curse.

---

In games using this, Curses are worth -1VP per Treasure costing at least $5 in your deck instead.

Other players can reveal any combination of cards that are Actions or Curses (such as 2 Actions and 1 Curse): They don’t have to all be of one type or the other.  The revealed cards stay in the player’s hand.  Remember that Brazen Bull is not an Action itself, so it cannot be revealed when another player plays a Brazen Bull.
In games with Brazen Bull in the Supply, Curses are not worth -1VP and instead are worth -1VP for each Treasure costing $5 or more in your deck (such as Brazen Bulls or Golds).  A deck with no Treasures costing $5 or more in it will have Curses that are worth 0VP.

Brazen Bull is a powerful Curser, but owning them both makes Curses worse for you and makes you more likely to be affected by Brazen Bulls.  Buy Brazen Bulls if you think you can bury other players (and they might return the favor), or try to out-build it by trashing your starting Coppers\Estates and adding Actions to your deck quickly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 13, 2019, 12:21:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3lRYBRM.png)

Quote

Gremlin
$5 - Action/Attack/Doom

You may trash this, to move the Jinxed token to an Action supply pile. If you didn't, +2 cards, and each other player gains a card from the Jinxed pile.
-
Setup: Add an Kingdom Action pile costing up to $2 to the supply and put the Jinxed token on it. When a player plays a card from the Jinxed pile, they first receive the next Hex.

A way to use kingdom piles as junk. You can also use it as an expensive one-shot attack on your opponent's engine in a non-mirror. Of coure, instead of using tokens, you could use the randomizer or just an embargo token or something like that.

Title: Re: Contest #36: Unconventional Junker
Post by: Gubump on July 13, 2019, 01:07:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/BhAxdvb.png)

I guess I'll resubmit Totem with anordinaryman's feedback taken into account.

Version History:
Submitted to contest #35 (Thematic curser):
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Reduced cost from to and can only be called during your turn.
v1.2: Returned cost to and Curses all players whose turn it isn't (which may or may not include you). Restored ability to call it during your turn.
Submitted to contest #36 (Unconventional junker, current contest):
v1.3: Simplified call effect, increased produced _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}, and added self-cursing on-play.
v1.4: Removed self-cursing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 13, 2019, 01:26:50 pm

Quote from: faust on July 13, 2019, 12:21:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3lRYBRM.png)

Quote

Gremlin
$5 - Action/Attack/Doom

You may trash this, to move the Jinxed token to an Action supply pile. If you didn't, +2 cards, and each other player gains a card from the Jinxed pile.
-
Setup: Add an Kingdom Action pile costing up to $2 to the supply and put the Jinxed token on it. When a player plays a card from the Jinxed pile, they first receive the next Hex.

A way to use kingdom piles as junk. You can also use it as an expensive one-shot attack on your opponent's engine in a non-mirror. Of coure, instead of using tokens, you could use the randomizer or just an embargo token or something like that.

This is gonna make for really long, slow turns if you put the Jinxed token on something non-terminal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 13, 2019, 04:37:35 pm

I decided to try a card that junks itself.

Stockpile is a cheap Gold, but after you use it a couple of times, it's empty and worth $0. Luckily, it can "restock" itself, but at the cost of a Curse.

(https://i.imgur.com/oLxO7wi.png)

Changelog:
0.1 Stockpile, Restock - initial
0.2 Stockpile - can now "restock" itself (Restock card removed)

---

Secret History:

I went through several iterations to get to this "initial" version. First it was just a one treasure card, earning tokens via overpay - it started weak and tokens made it stronger; or you could remove tokens to make it weak again, but with a strong one time bonus. But the text got very tiny, so I tried a split pile. It was not clear to me, however, if it was ever worth buying the 2nd card to trigger the bonus. So it came back to one card again, until I realized I could reverse the token effect - start strong and get weaker. I first tried that with a dependent card to restock it, until I realized how silly that was, and it could just have the option to restock itself.

---

Questions:

• The main questions I have are all about the numbers: is the cost right? is giving a Gold effective? (I tried +$2 at a cost of $2, but usually you do have $3 and would just get the silver.) Does working twice before being spent seem like the right amount of times?

[this question applied to v0.1]
• Should restock provide some positive when you call it to provide some incentive over just trashing stockpiles? (originally, Stockpile was worth $1 when it spent, but I changed it to $0 to further encourage usage of Restock.

[this question applied to v0.1; v0.2 just uses the Coin tokens]
• Is there a better name than "Spent token"? I did think about just using the Coin tokens, since that's what I'll probably do in practice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on July 13, 2019, 08:16:32 pm

My entry.

The number of Plagues = number of Curses or Ruins.

Plague/Plague Doctor
(https://i.imgur.com/5YYFkFG.png)(https://i.imgur.com/fNHTQYh.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 13, 2019, 11:54:59 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 13, 2019, 01:26:50 pm

Quote from: faust on July 13, 2019, 12:21:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3lRYBRM.png)

Quote

Gremlin
$5 - Action/Attack/Doom

You may trash this, to move the Jinxed token to an Action supply pile. If you didn't, +2 cards, and each other player gains a card from the Jinxed pile.
-
Setup: Add an Kingdom Action pile costing up to $2 to the supply and put the Jinxed token on it. When a player plays a card from the Jinxed pile, they first receive the next Hex.

A way to use kingdom piles as junk. You can also use it as an expensive one-shot attack on your opponent's engine in a non-mirror. Of coure, instead of using tokens, you could use the randomizer or just an embargo token or something like that.

This is gonna make for really long, slow turns if you put the Jinxed token on something non-terminal.

Only if a player decides that playing all those $2 cards is worth all the Hexes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 14, 2019, 06:31:54 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/w8btj6gf.png)
Edit: There is an updated version of this card a few posts down -- the only change was to specify that the card is trashed from your hand. Thank you Gubump.


Silver isn't a junk card... right? Well, the gift of silver is similar to how other Dominion cards of a political nature (Advisor, Envoy, Ambassador) seem to benefit other players but actually end up hurting them. Diplomatic Gift gives a Silver, but it turns Silvers into a copper. This is a junker conditional on one of these being in play.

This is a duration and terminal card, so it's harder to keep them in play the whole time. In a two player game you need to have at least two in your deck in order to pull this off, so it's tricky. However, in 3+ player games, there might always be a Diplomatic Gift in play. It could be theoretically possible to be locked out of the game if silvers only produce 1. That's why this card must cost 4 (more affordable) and itself provide the solution to this junk silver madness --  it gives players the ability to afford expensive cards (like gold) by turning your silvers into +3 (when you trash them).

I imagine games with Diplomatic Gift and no cheap money giving action cards are quite interesting. Luckily those games won't be slogs since every game with Diplomatic Gift comes with an affordable Trash For Benefit for those pesky silvers.

Definitely open to feedback on this one!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 14, 2019, 06:41:34 pm

Quote from: kru5h on July 13, 2019, 08:16:32 pm

My entry.

The number of Plagues = number of Curses or Ruins.

Plague/Plague Doctor
(https://i.imgur.com/5YYFkFG.png)(https://i.imgur.com/fNHTQYh.png)

This is certainly a decision for you, but I worry about the run-away effect this has. Someone who gets unlucky and early on reveals a Plague to the Plague Doctor will now have more Plagues and be more likely to reveal those each time. It snowballs in a negative way. I think a lot of the core principles of Dominion circumvents snow-balling*. I do really like the concept of a specific curse being worse when the curser is played. Also, having the Plague Doctor slow down its plays by gaining a silver is good design. One way you could deal with this is Plague could discard down to 3 cards in hand when revealed, rather than gain an extra Plague when revealed.

*Provinces normally don't benefit you unlike in other games where winning points gives you a benefit. In addition, since you have a whole deck, if you have bad cards one hand, you won't have those same bad cards the next hand. Subtle stuff like that. Of course, some aspect of snow-balling does happen naturally in any resource-based game, but Dominion does a good job of minimizing it when it can.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 14, 2019, 08:16:37 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 14, 2019, 06:31:54 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/w8btj6gf.png)

It has to specify where the trashed card comes from. I assume from your hand?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 14, 2019, 11:41:43 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 14, 2019, 08:16:37 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 14, 2019, 06:31:54 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/w8btj6gf.png)

It has to specify where the trashed card comes from. I assume from your hand?

Oh dang! Yes! I totally missed that! Thank you!

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/csmdcj8p.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on July 15, 2019, 02:20:42 am

Cockroach
cost $1 - Action
+1 Action
If the Cockroach pile is empty, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, gain a Cockroach.
---
Setup: Each player gains a Cockroach.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 15, 2019, 10:36:32 am

Quote from: majiponi on July 15, 2019, 02:20:42 am

Cockroach
cost $1 - Action
+1 Action
If the Cockroach pile is empty, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, gain a Cockroach.
---
Setup: Each player gains a Cockroach.

i hate that this could lead to a $3/$3 opening ( 3 copper, 2 estates / 3 copper, 1 estate, 1 cockroach / 1 copper remaining in deck)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 15, 2019, 12:57:49 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 15, 2019, 10:36:32 am

Quote from: majiponi on July 15, 2019, 02:20:42 am

Cockroach
cost $1 - Action
+1 Action
If the Cockroach pile is empty, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, gain a Cockroach.
---
Setup: Each player gains a Cockroach.

i hate that this could lead to a $3/$3 opening ( 3 copper, 2 estates / 3 copper, 1 estate, 1 cockroach / 1 copper remaining in deck)

Replacing an estate with a cockroach would probably help this

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 15, 2019, 01:10:52 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 13, 2019, 09:22:44 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 12, 2019, 06:22:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jhqd0FV.png)

Will definitely need rewording. The way it's worded now, you gain the Curse/Copper, not them.

As for the idea itself, I admit I'm not particularly enamored with it. The vast majority of the time there will be no other junkers, so it will just be the same as measuring the number of Satanic Rituals you've played this turn. If the attack were based on the number of cards you gained this turn, that could be a lot more interesting.

Thanks for the feedback. I think you're right. it kind of seems arbitrary measuring how many cards your opponents gain when most of the time it's 0 (before any SR are played). It doesn't seem worth it to make this card lose so much of its power just because I played a witch this turn. I think I should just rephrase it to be based on how many SR you have in play. It would also mean I have a little more flexibility what would happen on the first and 2nd play (it doesn't need to make opponents gain cards). I think this idea has potential, but I'm gonna put it aside for now. It would really need to be tested.

So instead I am putting out this idea for a card. The idea was to make a less swingy swindler.
(https://i.imgur.com/l6nzOyP.png)

This is kind of somewhere between swindler and militia. It gives you $2 and only decreases your opponent's handsize by 1 (regardless of their handsize), but you can keep going until they're down to 3. It also allows them to choose which card to trash so this becomes more powerful if you play 2 per turn (if you only play 1, they'll mostly trash estates in the beginning, and provinces in the end game). It also eventually hits a limit where your opponent is trashing the stuff you junked them with. It's a little worse than swindler in that your opponent chooses the card to trash, but it also forces them to discard cards as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on July 15, 2019, 08:08:44 pm

Cockroach: Imagine games where both players open cockroach/cockroach, do nothing but play cockroach, and end the game on estate-curse-cockroach piles.

Charlatan: Fun idea but it's going to whiff way too often on victory cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 15, 2019, 09:42:25 pm

Quote from: pubby on July 15, 2019, 08:08:44 pm

Cockroach: Imagine games where both players open cockroach/cockroach, do nothing but play cockroach, and end the game on estate-curse-cockroach piles.

Charlatan: Fun idea but it's going to whiff way too often on victory cards.

that's true in the beginning and all the way at the end. That also assumes people aren't trashing their estates. Mid-game, your estates are more diluted.

Besides, there's also the discarding part.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 15, 2019, 10:23:36 pm

Quote from: majiponi on July 15, 2019, 02:20:42 am

Cockroach
cost $1 - Action
+1 Action
If the Cockroach pile is empty, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, gain a Cockroach.
---
Setup: Each player gains a Cockroach.

I would *never* play the Cockroach. I'd treat it like a curse in my deck. I'd be very happy if my opponent played it. They would collected all 10 Cockroaches in the supply (or the remaining 8, whatever it is). They are dead in their deck and it's like they are cursing themselves every shuffle. It's only after those plays can they start cursing me. Ultimately, we both end up with the same number of dead cards in our deck. However, my opponent got their curses early on, and had a harder time building their deck, while I had 8-10 shuffles to build my deck stronger and better and am in a much better position to handle those 10 curses. That difference is *way* worth -10vp. This isn't even counting games with trashing, where by the time I am getting cursed, I've largely trashed down my deck and I can handle all the curses easily.

You could strengthen this card by lowering the number of cockroaches in the supply, but I think that will be less fun. If you make it stronger though, it's a cheap non-terminal curser which is not a fun concept.

I think you could improve this idea by linking this to a split pile with a card that cares about cockroaches. Or, have cockroaches not be in the supply (so there can be like, 5 of them), and have a card that gains you a cockroach on buy or something.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on July 15, 2019, 11:09:54 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 15, 2019, 10:23:36 pm

Quote from: majiponi on July 15, 2019, 02:20:42 am

Cockroach
cost $1 - Action
+1 Action
If the Cockroach pile is empty, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, gain a Cockroach.
---
Setup: Each player gains a Cockroach.

I would *never* play the Cockroach. I'd treat it like a curse in my deck. I'd be very happy if my opponent played it. They would collected all 10 Cockroaches in the supply (or the remaining 8, whatever it is). They are dead in their deck and it's like they are cursing themselves every shuffle. It's only after those plays can they start cursing me. Ultimately, we both end up with the same number of dead cards in our deck. However, my opponent got their curses early on, and had a harder time building their deck, while I had 8-10 shuffles to build my deck stronger and better and am in a much better position to handle those 10 curses. That difference is *way* worth -10vp. This isn't even counting games with trashing, where by the time I am getting cursed, I've largely trashed down my deck and I can handle all the curses easily.

You could strengthen this card by lowering the number of cockroaches in the supply, but I think that will be less fun. If you make it stronger though, it's a cheap non-terminal curser which is not a fun concept.

I think you could improve this idea by linking this to a split pile with a card that cares about cockroaches. Or, have cockroaches not be in the supply (so there can be like, 5 of them), and have a card that gains you a cockroach on buy or something.

Oh, I forgot to say "gain after their first draw". The Cockroach pile has 10-4=6 cards. Maybe giving 2 Curses or Curse and Copper leads you play it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on July 16, 2019, 02:45:38 am

CHALLENGE #36 - NON-CONVENTIONAL JUNKER SUBMISSION:

A lab cheap Lab variant that can leave you open for counter attacks.

(https://i.imgur.com/bDWk80i.jpg)

Quote

+1 Action
You may turn your Journey token over. Then if it's face down, +2 Cards. If it's face up, +1 Card.
Each other player with a face down Journey token gains a Ruins.
Cost: $4 Action - Attack - Looter

This is purely a conceptual idea. Potential problems with Ruins distribution, but that can likely be countered with proper play. A lab at $4 may still be too good even with the chance of gaining Ruins thrown in. Especially if you can reach a sort of critical mass of Lancers where you can always get your Journey token flipped back into the up state. But for that to work you need to spend a lot of $4 cost buys on something that only has an effect around mid game. Sort of like Sauna in a way.

Also probably broken levels of good with other Journey token cards, but there are only three others things that care about that so I'm ultimately okay with that.

Thanks for looking!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: math on July 16, 2019, 06:31:22 am

Quote from: Kudasai on July 16, 2019, 02:45:38 am

CHALLENGE #36 - NON-CONVENTIONAL JUNKER SUBMISSION:

A lab cheap Lab variant that can leave you open for counter attacks.

(https://i.imgur.com/bDWk80i.jpg)

Quote

+1 Action
You may turn your Journey token over. Then if it's face down, +2 Cards. If it's face up, +1 Card.
Each other player with a face down Journey token gains a Ruins.
Cost: $4 Action - Attack - Looter

This is purely a conceptual idea. Potential problems with Ruins distribution, but that can likely be countered with proper play. A lab at $4 may still be too good even with the chance of gaining Ruins thrown in. Especially if you can reach a sort of critical mass of Lancers where you can always get your Journey token flipped back into the up state. But for that to work you need to spend a lot of $4 cost buys on something that only has an effect around mid game. Sort of like Sauna in a way.

Also probably broken levels of good with other Journey token cards, but there are only three others things that care about that so I'm ultimately okay with that.

Thanks for looking!

I'm not a fan of having a bonus for a facedown Journey token that the faceup side doesn't have.  One thing the existing three have in common is that the faceup token is always better, and this card breaks that and feels weird as a result.  Maybe it could have its own token?  It could also flip the token every time but be cheaper, and/or move the +2 Cards to the faceup side.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 16, 2019, 09:47:08 am

Quote from: math on July 16, 2019, 06:31:22 am

Quote from: Kudasai on July 16, 2019, 02:45:38 am

CHALLENGE #36 - NON-CONVENTIONAL JUNKER SUBMISSION:

A lab cheap Lab variant that can leave you open for counter attacks.

(https://i.imgur.com/bDWk80i.jpg)

Quote

+1 Action
You may turn your Journey token over. Then if it's face down, +2 Cards. If it's face up, +1 Card.
Each other player with a face down Journey token gains a Ruins.
Cost: $4 Action - Attack - Looter

This is purely a conceptual idea. Potential problems with Ruins distribution, but that can likely be countered with proper play. A lab at $4 may still be too good even with the chance of gaining Ruins thrown in. Especially if you can reach a sort of critical mass of Lancers where you can always get your Journey token flipped back into the up state. But for that to work you need to spend a lot of $4 cost buys on something that only has an effect around mid game. Sort of like Sauna in a way.

Also probably broken levels of good with other Journey token cards, but there are only three others things that care about that so I'm ultimately okay with that.

Thanks for looking!

I'm not a fan of having a bonus for a facedown Journey token that the faceup side doesn't have.  One thing the existing three have in common is that the faceup token is always better, and this card breaks that and feels weird as a result.  Maybe it could have its own token?  It could also flip the token every time but be cheaper, and/or move the +2 Cards to the faceup side.

I agree. Can you just switch the terms (+2 cards for face up, +1 card for face down)? This might even be more interesting if you get ruins for face down journey token because then you have to decide whether you want to leave yourself open to attack or you want to set your next turn up.

About the attack,  it feels too swingy. If my journey token is face up and you play 8 lancers (which is easy since it's a cantrip), I get no ruins, but if it's face down, I get 8 ruins. I could see situations where this could be very frustrating. Imagine my journey token is face up and I only have one lancer in my hand. If I play the lancer, there could be a game changing difference in whether I get another Lancer or not. What if you flipped your opponents journey token when you have a successful ruins attack?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on July 16, 2019, 01:02:25 pm

Quote from: math on July 16, 2019, 06:31:22 am

I'm not a fan of having a bonus for a facedown Journey token that the faceup side doesn't have.  One thing the existing three have in common is that the faceup token is always better, and this card breaks that and feels weird as a result.  Maybe it could have its own token?  It could also flip the token every time but be cheaper, and/or move the +2 Cards to the faceup side.

I also don't feel good about flipping the standard for the Journey token, but I settled on this mainly because I don't want the Ruins gaining to correlate with the default Journey token state (the up state). If it did, Lancers would end up giving out a lot of early Ruins and the only counter would be for opponents to buy Lancers themselves or other Journey token flippers. A completely new token with two states would certainly solve all of this, but it seems weird to me to make a whole new mechanic when the Journey token mechanically speaking works perfect.

Quote from: naitchman on July 16, 2019, 09:47:08 am

About the attack,  it feels too swingy. If my journey token is face up and you play 8 lancers (which is easy since it's a cantrip), I get no ruins, but if it's face down, I get 8 ruins. I could see situations where this could be very frustrating. Imagine my journey token is face up and I only have one lancer in my hand. If I play the lancer, there could be a game changing difference in whether I get another Lancer or not. What if you flipped your opponents journey token when you have a successful ruins attack?

This certainly could be an issue, but currently this is exactly the kind of game play I'm looking for out of Lancers. I want taking the +2 Cards to be risky. If you can't reliably find another Lancer to flip your token back, maybe the risk isn't worth it. Especially if your opponent ended up with 8 Lancers and you're looking at 8 potential Ruin gains.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 16, 2019, 02:11:18 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on July 16, 2019, 01:02:25 pm

Quote from: math on July 16, 2019, 06:31:22 am

I'm not a fan of having a bonus for a facedown Journey token that the faceup side doesn't have.  One thing the existing three have in common is that the faceup token is always better, and this card breaks that and feels weird as a result.  Maybe it could have its own token?  It could also flip the token every time but be cheaper, and/or move the +2 Cards to the faceup side.

I also don't feel good about flipping the standard for the Journey token, but I settled on this mainly because I don't want the Ruins gaining to correlate with the default Journey token state (the up state). If it did, Lancers would end up giving out a lot of early Ruins and the only counter would be for opponents to buy Lancers themselves or other Journey token flippers. A completely new token with two states would certainly solve all of this, but it seems weird to me to make a whole new mechanic when the Journey token mechanically speaking works perfect.

Quote from: naitchman on July 16, 2019, 09:47:08 am

About the attack,  it feels too swingy. If my journey token is face up and you play 8 lancers (which is easy since it's a cantrip), I get no ruins, but if it's face down, I get 8 ruins. I could see situations where this could be very frustrating. Imagine my journey token is face up and I only have one lancer in my hand. If I play the lancer, there could be a game changing difference in whether I get another Lancer or not. What if you flipped your opponents journey token when you have a successful ruins attack?

This certainly could be an issue, but currently this is exactly the kind of game play I'm looking for out of Lancers. I want taking the +2 Cards to be risky. If you can't reliably find another Lancer to flip your token back, maybe the risk isn't worth it. Especially if your opponent ended up with 8 Lancers and you're looking at 8 potential Ruin gains.

The problem is even if you manage risk pretty well, randomness does happen. Even if you construct your deck well with 10 labs, you can still dud. Normally this means one ruined turn. This card could mean an entire ruined game. That’s not fun. A solution could be to add another requirement that the player of lancers has to have their journey token faceup to give ruins. I think this makes the card better. In a 2 player game you’ll be able to punish with 2-3 ruins rather than 4-6. A half lab is priced decently at 4, it’s not nearly as strong as you’re considering it is. It’s similar to caravan in its strength. The drawback doesn’t have to be devestating.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 16, 2019, 03:21:45 pm

I wasn't gonna enter this week because I forgot about it but then i saw there was still like two days left in the contest so here I am, with my Potion remodel + Potion overpay junker.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZB5Hkyj.png)

card text:
Metamorphosis • $3+ • Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to [Potion] more than the trashed card.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each [Potion] you overpay, each other player gains a Copper.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 16, 2019, 03:35:07 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 16, 2019, 03:21:45 pm

I wasn't gonna enter this week because I forgot about it but then i saw there was still like two days left in the contest so here I am, with my Potion remodel + Potion overpay junker.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZB5Hkyj.png)

card text:
Metamorphosis • $3+ • Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to [Potion] more than the trashed card.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each [Potion] you overpay, each other player gains a Copper.

This is useless without other potion cards. The top just says “trash a card and gain a card costing up to the same amount” while the bottom only junks if I’ve already junked myself with useless potions. I’m not sure how to fix it. Maybe make it cost potion and overpay with coins? The top part would still be pretty bad though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 16, 2019, 03:46:39 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 16, 2019, 03:35:07 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 16, 2019, 03:21:45 pm

I wasn't gonna enter this week because I forgot about it but then i saw there was still like two days left in the contest so here I am, with my Potion remodel + Potion overpay junker.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZB5Hkyj.png)

card text:
Metamorphosis • $3+ • Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to [Potion] more than the trashed card.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each [Potion] you overpay, each other player gains a Copper.

This is useless without other potion cards. The top just says “trash a card and gain a card costing up to the same amount” while the bottom only junks if I’ve already junked myself with useless potions. I’m not sure how to fix it. Maybe make it cost potion and overpay with coins? The top part would still be pretty bad though.

how about don't play it without other potion cards? it's rare that there'd be only one in a "good" kingdom setup anyway.

Like... yall need a breather - not every card is good in a random kingdom. Let there be weirdness and edgecases. That's how you make a fun game. Yall wanted an unconventional junker. This is not a conventional junker. It's gonna have setups where it's underpowered / not worthwhile. Those aren't its interesting cases - its interesting cases are the ones where its a contender.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: math on July 16, 2019, 03:57:33 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 16, 2019, 03:46:39 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 16, 2019, 03:35:07 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 16, 2019, 03:21:45 pm

I wasn't gonna enter this week because I forgot about it but then i saw there was still like two days left in the contest so here I am, with my Potion remodel + Potion overpay junker.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZB5Hkyj.png)

card text:
Metamorphosis • $3+ • Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to [Potion] more than the trashed card.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each [Potion] you overpay, each other player gains a Copper.

This is useless without other potion cards. The top just says “trash a card and gain a card costing up to the same amount” while the bottom only junks if I’ve already junked myself with useless potions. I’m not sure how to fix it. Maybe make it cost potion and overpay with coins? The top part would still be pretty bad though.

how about don't play it without other potion cards? it's rare that there'd be only one in a "good" kingdom setup anyway.

Like... yall need a breather - not every card is good in a random kingdom. Let there be weirdness and edgecases. That's how you make a fun game. Yall wanted an unconventional junker. This is not a conventional junker. It's gonna have setups where it's underpowered / not worthwhile. Those aren't its interesting cases - its interesting cases are the ones where its a contender.

Having a card that is completely useless in some kingdoms is a design flaw.  It's the reason why Donald X cut a card that was "+$2, return this to your hand" - it was almost useless without villages (I forget its cost, but it was at least $3).  It's the reason why every card that gains or plays a card from the trash also has a way to put good cards into the trash (Graverobber, Rogue, Lurker, Necromancer).  It's also the reason why every Reaction card has an effect that might be useful even if there is no opportunity to use the reaction, such as Moat for +2 Cards without attacks and Tunnel for 2 VP with no way to discard it.

I strongly suggest changing this to have a positive effect even in games without other Potion-cost cards.  A different above-the-line effect that interacts with Potions would be one possibility, something like Apothecary or Alchemist.  That would prevent the Potion you bought from being a dead card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 16, 2019, 04:37:46 pm

Quote from: math on July 16, 2019, 03:57:33 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 16, 2019, 03:46:39 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 16, 2019, 03:35:07 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 16, 2019, 03:21:45 pm

I wasn't gonna enter this week because I forgot about it but then i saw there was still like two days left in the contest so here I am, with my Potion remodel + Potion overpay junker.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZB5Hkyj.png)

card text:
Metamorphosis • $3+ • Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to [Potion] more than the trashed card.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each [Potion] you overpay, each other player gains a Copper.

This is useless without other potion cards. The top just says “trash a card and gain a card costing up to the same amount” while the bottom only junks if I’ve already junked myself with useless potions. I’m not sure how to fix it. Maybe make it cost potion and overpay with coins? The top part would still be pretty bad though.

how about don't play it without other potion cards? it's rare that there'd be only one in a "good" kingdom setup anyway.

Like... yall need a breather - not every card is good in a random kingdom. Let there be weirdness and edgecases. That's how you make a fun game. Yall wanted an unconventional junker. This is not a conventional junker. It's gonna have setups where it's underpowered / not worthwhile. Those aren't its interesting cases - its interesting cases are the ones where its a contender.

Having a card that is completely useless in some kingdoms is a design flaw.  It's the reason why Donald X cut a card that was "+$2, return this to your hand" - it was almost useless without villages (I forget its cost, but it was at least $3).  It's the reason why every card that gains or plays a card from the trash also has a way to put good cards into the trash (Graverobber, Rogue, Lurker, Necromancer).  It's also the reason why every Reaction card has an effect that might be useful even if there is no opportunity to use the reaction, such as Moat for +2 Cards without attacks and Tunnel for 2 VP with no way to discard it.

I strongly suggest changing this to have a positive effect even in games without other Potion-cost cards.  A different above-the-line effect that interacts with Potions would be one possibility, something like Apothecary or Alchemist.  That would prevent the Potion you bought from being a dead card.

Honestly I prefer a different Donald X anecdote (https://www.reddit.com/r/dominion/comments/a0m1wl/what_happens_if_i_have_no_cards/eaiqhzn/). It's fine - it's gonna be worthless in a bunch of kingdoms. It's also going to be an interesting card for both top and bottom in a bunch of kingdoms. Make your own version if you're unhappy with it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 16, 2019, 06:10:15 pm

Dude, chill, we’re just trying to help you make a good card. Sorry if my comment caused offense.

There are a total of 10 potion cards in the entirety of Dominion. The odds of this appearing in another set with even just one potion card are pretty bad. Now if you like it that’s totally fine, but this is a contest where the goal is to create a well-designed, fun, and usable-in-most-games card.

And take the games without potion cost cards. I have to buy a potion whose only use is overpaying for this card. Then I buy this card, and the top is not very good because there aren’t any other potion cost cards in the kingdom, and each other player gets a copper. They’re left with one not-very-useful card, while I have 2. And there’s no way to overcome those numbers. If I buy another one and overpay, they  have 2 not-very-useful cards and I have 3. I end up junking myself more than junking them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: math on July 16, 2019, 06:32:07 pm

I also apologize if my comment caused offense.  It was rather forceful, and maybe it was too much.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on July 17, 2019, 03:14:10 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 16, 2019, 06:10:15 pm

And take the games without potion cost cards. I have to buy a potion whose only use is overpaying for this card.

You only include Potion in kingdoms that have a Potion cost card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 17, 2019, 11:59:02 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 17, 2019, 03:14:10 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 16, 2019, 06:10:15 pm

And take the games without potion cost cards. I have to buy a potion whose only use is overpaying for this card.

You only include Potion in kingdoms that have a Potion cost card.

Right, this seems like the bigger issue... this card doesn't add Potion to the Supply. So it's not just that it's weak without Potion-cost cards in the Kingdom, it's that it can't do basically anything. The overpay just doesn't work because there's no way to generation a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 17, 2019, 01:15:42 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 13, 2019, 04:37:35 pm

I decided to try a card that junks itself.

Stockpile is a cheap Gold, but after you use it a couple of times, it's empty and worth $0. Luckily, it comes with a Restock, which allows you to replenish it, but at the cost of a Curse.

(https://i.imgur.com/OPBsXqb.png)(https://i.imgur.com/y72WxDy.png)

Changelog:
0.1 Stockpile, Restock - initial

---

Secret History:

I went through several iterations to get to this "initial" version. First it was just a one treasure card, earning tokens via overpay - it started weak and tokens made it stronger; or you could remove tokens to make it weak again, but with a strong one time bonus. But the text got very tiny, so I tried a split pile. It was not clear to me, however, if it was ever worth buying the 2nd card to trigger the bonus. So it came back to one card again, until I realized I could reverse the token effect - start strong and get weaker. That allowed me to add the dependent card since now you get it for free and you have more incentive to do it.

---

Questions:

• The main questions I have are all about the numbers: is the cost right? is giving a Gold effective? (I tried +$2 at a cost of $2, but usually you do have $3 and would just get the silver.) Does working twice before being spent seem like the right amount of times?

• Should restock provide some positive when you call it to provide some incentive over just trashing stockpiles? (originally, Stockpile was worth $1 when it spent, but I changed it to $0 to further encourage usage of Restock.

• Is there a better name than "Spent token"? I did think about just using the Coin tokens, since that's what I'll probably do in practice.

• Just a comment, but I'm hoping to find better images that work with each other. Finding even these was harder than previous searches.

If you read the secret history, you saw that this has gone from 1 pile to a split pile, back to 1, and then to 2. Well, it's now back to 1 pile! :)

I was bothered by the fact that Restock did nothing other than "restock" the stockpile and was trying to figure out something else to give it, when I had a DUH! moment and of course, it's not even needed. Stockpile itself can provide itself the restock option.

(https://i.imgur.com/NKGDm7f.png)

I also decided to try a version that removes instead of adds the tokens (since that's more intuitive). This one is ends up being stronger, so I'm not sure if enough to up the cost (especially as part of my design choice was to have the opportunity to get a pseudo-Gold before your first shuffle.

Note that you only get the initial tokens on buy - gaining them gets you empty Stockpiles.

(https://i.imgur.com/oLxO7wi.png)

Thoughts?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 17, 2019, 05:17:01 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 12, 2019, 01:33:07 pm

I think this card would probably be better overall if you made the card more likely to have a better effect for the person playing it (if you don't want card drawing, you could do card sifting.), and perhaps strengthen it to make it cost 5 -- right now it's not convincing that the central mechanics of this card (gaining curses to hand and the tome) belong to a cheap curser.

I believe I disagree with this general design philosophy you are displaying (and throughout your judging post). It seems to me you are looking at cards that have problems baked into them and considering them poorly designed for that reason: I think cards that have inherent problems are the best designed cards because you have to look elsewhere in the Kingdom to solve them.
The least interesting cards in Dominion right now I believe primarily derive from trying to take an interesting idea (Masquerade's pass a card, Ambassador's give a card to other players, Possession's control another player's turn, Cultist's play-each-other thing, Rebuild's step-up Victory cards) and tacking so many effects onto them to make them work that they end up monopolizing the board in a boring fashion. The best cards are cards that result in big problems a priori of the Kingdom (Chapel's deck destruction at the cost of pacing, Highway's cost-reduction without the buys to help it, Library's powerful draw without the way to productively reduce hand-size, Remodel's powerful trashing that needs good targets, etc.). Two of the cards I chose as best in my judgment were Bookstore and Consul, each of which have big strategy problems without considering the Kingdom.
It is certainly possible for the problems to be too big to overcome reasonably (Contraband is an excellent example), but I do not agree that Chronicler's problem is too big. Cursers tend to need bigger problems because junking is so inherently powerful. That is fine if you don't agree, of course.

Quote from: Aquila on July 11, 2019, 11:58:04 am

Hypocrite
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+$2. Choose one: Discard down to 3 cards in hand; or gain Coppers to your hand until you have 5 cards in hand. Each other player does the same choice as you.

I'm having a hard time envisioning literally ever wanting to trigger this. I could manage it by using two Hypocrites, which could put 2 Coppers into other players' decks, but that would often put 3 Coppers into my deck unless I go even further to discard down and then draw back up before hitting with the Copper-junking. I suppose it's trying to deal with the generally problematic nature of Copper-junking, but being so niche as to be useless in 90% of Kingdoms is no good.

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 11, 2019, 03:35:22 pm

Shyster
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Reveal a card from your hand. For each copy they have in their hand, each other player gains 1 debt and a Copper.

This has a pretty awful positive feedback loop. If you're hit with a few Shysters (which often occur at once as a player later in turn order), it will typically reveal Coppers to flood Coppers. Quickly, players will be stuck with 4 or 5 Coppers per turn producing debt that completely cancel them out. The Coppers also pile really fast with this in 4-player. Copper junking needs to be approached a little more carefully than this.

Quote from: pubby on July 11, 2019, 04:58:06 pm

Bellwether
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Buy. Reveal your hand. The player to your right picks a card from it. +$1 per $1 it costs up to $5. Each other player gains a copy of that card.

I think this may as well read as "+1 Buy. Each other player gains a Copper" in your average game. That's a pretty weak $5 card.

Quote from: King Leon on July 11, 2019, 06:45:13 pm

Consulate
Type: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+$1. Gain a card costing less than this to your hand. Each other player discards the top card of their deck and gains a copy of the card you have gained to the top of their deck.

I imagine Silver-flooding with this will typically be fairly good considering how much better it is for the player to get a Silver in hand than the other players to get a stop card on top of their deck. This might also have piling issues in multiplayer if that gut-reaction proves false (because it junks out the Curse pile then the Estate pile pretty fast).

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 11, 2019, 10:48:56 pm

Quote

Arson
Types: Action, Attack, Looter
Cost: $4
+$2. Each other player reveals the top card of their deck. If it costs $6 or less, they trash it, and gain a Ruins if it costs $1 or less and a Damage from one of the Damage piles otherwise.

Quote

Damaged Laboratory
Types: Action, Damage
Cost: $1
If the number of cards you have in play is odd, +2 Cards. Otherwise, +1 Card, +1 Action.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Damaged Village
Types: Action, Damage
Cost: $1
+2 Actions.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Damaged Workshop
Types: Action, Damage
Cost: $1
Choose one: +1 Action and +1 Buy; or gain a card costing up to $3 from the Supply or one of the Damage piles.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Tarnished Silver
Types: Treasure, Damage
Cost: $1
Worth $2 if you have at least 3 Action cards in play, $1 otherwise.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Damaged Estate
Types: Victory, Damage
Cost: $1
Worth 1VP if you have 3 or more Estates.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Possibly interesting conceptually, though I think adding only Arson for all the Damage cards is not worth the complexity--especially along side it also being a Looter: I'd want additional cards that use Damage cards. Maybe give Arson a type similar to Looter?

Quote from: mail-mi on July 12, 2019, 03:30:21 am

Tarnished Cards: The Tarnished Cards replace the Curse cards in a game using a card with the subtype "Tarnisher" (or any time you want to replace the curses). There are 5 different Tarnished cards, and there are 10 of each. They are set up exactly like the Ruins pile.

Quote

Tarnished Blade
Types: Action, Curse
Cost: $0
+1 Action. Trash a card costing at least $3 from your hand to trash this card.

---

When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it into your hand.

---

-1VP

Quote

Tarnished Armor
Types: Action, Curse
Cost: $0
+1 Action. Discard 2 cards to trash this card.

---

When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it into your hand.

---

-1VP

Quote

Tarnished Fortune
Types: Action, Curse
Cost: $0
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a Victory or Curse card. Put that card on top of your deck and discard the rest to trash this card.

---

When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it into your hand.

---

-1VP

Quote

Tarnished Gift
Types: Action, Curse
Cost: $0
+1 Action. Gain a Copper to the top of your deck to trash this card.

---

When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it into your hand.

---

-1VP

Quote

Tarnished Maps
Types: Action, Curse
Cost: $0
+1 Action. The player to your left looks at the top 3 cards of your deck, discards any number of them, and puts the rest back in any order. If they do, trash this card.

---

When you trash this, if it was not in play, put it into your hand.

---

-1VP

Quote

Corrosion
Types: Action, Attack, Tarnisher
Cost: $5
+2 Coffers. Set this card aside.

---

When another copy of Corrosion comes into play, discard this, and each other player gains a Curse.

Is Tarnished Fortune supposed to be an Action or a Treasure?
I'm still not a fan of the Tarnished cards. It takes Curses that are normally a big deal and makes them an even bigger deal because you can't trash them normally. It is also wildly swingy in a way that Ruins are not. Tarnished Blade is particularly difficult to trash in comparison to others.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 12, 2019, 05:27:10 am

Quote

Red Tide
Types: Event
Cost: $5
Gain a card costing up to $4 onto your deck. Put a Barnacle from its pile onto an Action supply pile of your choice.

Quote

Barnacle
Types: Action
Cost: $1
Place this on top of an Action supply pile of your choice.

---

When you gain this, +1 Buy

This seems like a more resource intensive and frustrating version of Tax.

Quote from: faust on July 13, 2019, 12:21:24 pm

Gremlin
Types: Action, Attack, Doom
Cost: $5
You may trash this, to move the Jinxed token to an Action supply pile. If you didn't, +2 cards, and each other player gains a card from the Jinxed pile.

---

Setup: Add an Kingdom Action pile costing up to $2 to the supply and put the Jinxed token on it. When a player plays a card from the Jinxed pile, they first receive the next Hex.

Regardless of game speed, because Gremlin can move the Jinxed token, not only is no Action safe (encouraging playing boring and swingy money-centric strategies), but multiplayer games are doomed to a wildly "quick" (Hex resolution aside) finish as the game will be so easy to pile out.

Quote from: Gubump on July 13, 2019, 01:07:32 pm

Totem
Types: Treasure, Reserve
Cost: $5
$3. When you play this, gain a Curse and put this on your Tavern mat.

---

When you would gain a Curse during your turn, you may call this. If you do, each other player gains a Curse instead.

I disagree with anordinaryman on this. Totem having the problem "how do I gain a Curse" is an interesting consideration. This Totem is an unblockable Curser that requires you to gain a Curse first (after which you will continue to alternate the two Totems on your Tavern mat).

Quote from: scolapasta on July 17, 2019, 01:15:42 pm

Stockpile
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4
When you play this, choose one: Remove a Coin token from your Stockpile mat for +$3; or gain a Curse to put 2 Coin tokens on your Stockpile mat.

---

When yo ubuy this, put 2 Coin tokens on your Stockpile mat.

A marked improvement over the version that also self-junked you with Restock cards. Getting 2 +$3 for a Curse is probably not enough though, I'd go with 3 Coin tokens for gaining a Curse (but still 2 for buying a Stockpile). I'm mostly worried about play patterns that could possibly trick players into buying Stockpiles to refill Stockpiles.

Quote from: kru5h on July 13, 2019, 08:16:32 pm

Quote

Plague Doctor
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Gain a Silver to your hand. Each other player reveals their hand and gains a Plague.

Quote

Plague
Types: Reaction
Cost: $0
When something causes you to revela this (using the word "reveal"), gain a Plague.

Jester ranks among my least favorite cards, as its strength is fundamentally based upon its first play: If it hits a Victory card, you not only gain a Curse, but you now have a Curse which makes it easier to gain more. Plague Doctor\Plague has this problem but even worse.

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 14, 2019, 11:41:43 pm

Diplomatic Gift
Types: Action, Attack, Duration
Cost: $4
Each other player gains a Silver. Now and at the start of your next turn: You may trash a Treasure card from your hand for +$1 per $1 it costs.

---

While this is in play, Silver only produces $1.

This is a trasher\junker and thus will have a similar centralizing effect to Ambassador. Even more, possibly, considering the Silvers in your deck are so bad except as Diplomatic Gift fodder, meaning the best response to Diplomatic Gift is more Diplomatic Gift. The concept is also somewhat troubling in that the in-play effect hits yourself twice, but that likely won't matter because it will be ideal to have Diplomatic Gift in play 100% of the time (across players, that will probably occur regardless).

Quote from: majiponi on July 15, 2019, 02:20:42 am

Cockroach
Types: Action
Cost: $1
+1 Action. If the Cockroach pile is empty, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, gain a Cockroach.

---

Setup: Each player gains a Cockroach.

In most circumstances, this will be a junk card you just have to have in your deck. Any other effect would be an attempt to out-race the other players in a Cockroach\Estate\Curse three-pile, which I can't imagine ever being fun.

Quote from: naitchman on July 15, 2019, 01:10:52 pm

Charlatan
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+$2. Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand trashes a card from their hand and gains a card with the same cost that you choose.

Even allowing for its reduced efficacy around Estates and Provinces, I believe that the hand reduction this implies will make the Attack strong enough to cost $5. It also would be given slightly more time and thus be mildly less swingy at such a cost.

Quote from: Kudasai on July 16, 2019, 02:45:38 am

Lancers
Types: Action, Attack, Looter
Cost: $4
+1 Action. You may turn your Journey token over. Then if it's face down, +2 Cards. If it's face up, +1 Card. Each other player with a face down Journey token gains a Ruins.

This might be plenty good between its junking and draw if the Journey token flipping was mandatory. As is, if your deck is even mildly stabilized, this is a $4 Laboratory+, except the last which becomes a cantrip. I currently find the trigger for the junking to be somewhat troubling, as an unlucky turn may imply gaining the Ruins pile. Flipping other players' tokens in some way might be worth considering.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 17, 2019, 05:45:16 pm

I am gonna be able to go over the cards in about 18h so if you have any further ideas, please try to post them until then.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on July 17, 2019, 05:59:31 pm

Thank you for the feedback, Fragasnap. Based on that, I will modify the wording as follows:

Shyster (Action-Attack) [$5]

+$2

Reveal a card costing more than $0 from your hand. For each copy they have in their hand, every other player takes 1 Debt and gains a Copper.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on July 17, 2019, 06:22:12 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EPNf4ei.png)

Busy week for me so this is just a reject from last week's contest (for Hinterlands even though it uses Renaissance wording so didn't really work for that expansion). It isn't very difficult to trigger (just buy a card) so it perhaps doesn't fit into this contest in spirit. I felt like it'll be pretty swingy in games where you can chain a few of these as the first player to do it will probably hand out the majority of the curses, but it's at least a little bit interesting? And maybe Workshop for $5 is bad enough that getting a bunch is a bad idea...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 17, 2019, 06:24:12 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 17, 2019, 05:17:01 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 11, 2019, 10:48:56 pm

Quote

Arson
Types: Action, Attack, Looter
Cost: $4
+$2. Each other player reveals the top card of their deck. If it costs $6 or less, they trash it, and gain a Ruins if it costs $1 or less and a Damage from one of the Damage piles.

Quote

Damaged Laboratory
Types: Action, Damage
Cost: $1
If the number of cards you have in play is odd, +2 Cards. Otherwise, +1 Card, +1 Action.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Damaged Village
Types: Action, Damage
Cost: $1
+2 Actions.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Damaged Workshop
Types: Action, Damage
Cost: $1
Choose one: +1 Action and +1 Buy; or gain a card costing up to $3 from the Supply or one of the Damage piles.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Tarnished Silver
Types: Treasure, Damage
Cost: $1
Worth $2 if you have at least 3 Action cards in play, $1 otherwise.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Damaged Estate
Types: Victory, Damage
Cost: $1
Worth 1VP if you have 3 or more Estates.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Possibly interesting conceptually, though I think adding only Arson for all the Damage cards is not worth the complexity--especially along side it also being a Looter: I'd want additional cards that use Damage cards. Maybe give Arson a type similar to Looter?

The Damage cards are not in the supply, so there does not need to be a special type like Looter to interact with them. Think of them as like the Spirit cards; there's no reason there couldn't be other cards that also gain Damages, but at the same time, there's no reason to submit an additional card to this contest (and that might break the rules anyway).

Also, your rendition of Arson's text is missing the "otherwise" at the end. You only gain a Damage if the trashed card costs between $2 and $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 17, 2019, 07:26:43 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on July 17, 2019, 06:22:12 pm

Racketeer
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
Gain a card costing up to $4. For the rest of the turn, when you gain a card, each other player gains a Curse.

This one is powerful and clever.  It can multi-Curse either by layering it with other card gainers or simply building a deck that buys many cards.  I'm not totally sure I'd count it as a "conditional junker," if only because buying a card is something you normally do, but I guess it technically counts.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 17, 2019, 06:24:12 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 17, 2019, 05:17:01 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 11, 2019, 10:48:56 pm

...

Possibly interesting conceptually, though I think adding only Arson for all the Damage cards is not worth the complexity--especially along side it also being a Looter: I'd want additional cards that use Damage cards. Maybe give Arson a type similar to Looter?

The Damage cards are not in the supply, so there does not need to be a special type like Looter to interact with them. Think of them as like the Spirit cards; there's no reason there couldn't be other cards that also gain Damages, but at the same time, there's no reason to submit an additional card to this contest (and that might break the rules anyway).

Also, your rendition of Arson's text is missing the "otherwise" at the end. You only gain a Damage if the trashed card costs between $2 and $6.

My apologies.  I don't like the wording of Arson and considered a recommendation otherwise, and then botched the wording when I tried to put it back.  It is fixed in my post for reference's sake.  The current wording is awkward because of the organization of clauses.  It would be more clear if it was built as a list.

Quote

Arson
Types: Action, Attack, Looter
Cost: $4
+$2. Each other player reveals the top card of their deck and if it costs... From $2 to $6: Trashes it and gains a Damage from its pile. $1 or less: Trashes it and gains a Ruins.

I understand that it doesn't need another type because Damage cards are not part of the Supply, but I stand by putting both Damage and Ruins onto one card being a complexity overload.  It might not even be a good idea to have a junk pile that could theoretically run out and not push the game towards completion.  The Spirits are all things that you typically want to have in your deck, remember, so them piling is not necessarily such a drag to the pace of the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 17, 2019, 08:43:00 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 17, 2019, 05:17:01 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 13, 2019, 01:07:32 pm

Totem
Types: Treasure, Reserve
Cost: $5
$3. When you play this, gain a Curse and put this on your Tavern mat.

---

When you would gain a Curse during your turn, you may call this. If you do, each other player gains a Curse instead.

I disagree with anordinaryman on this. Totem having the problem "how do I gain a Curse" is an interesting consideration. This Totem is an unblockable Curser that requires you to gain a Curse first (after which you will continue to alternate the two Totems on your Tavern mat).

The self-cursing was my idea, but I think you're right and that overpowers it. I have now removed that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 17, 2019, 09:52:11 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 17, 2019, 05:17:01 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 17, 2019, 01:15:42 pm

Stockpile
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4
When you play this, choose one: Remove a Coin token from your Stockpile mat for +$3; or gain a Curse to put 2 Coin tokens on your Stockpile mat.

---

When you buy this, put 2 Coin tokens on your Stockpile mat.

A marked improvement over the version that also self-junked you with Restock cards. Getting 2 +$3 for a Curse is probably not enough though, I'd go with 3 Coin tokens for gaining a Curse (but still 2 for buying a Stockpile). I'm mostly worried about play patterns that could possibly trick players into buying Stockpiles to refill Stockpiles.

I guess I thought of the buying Stockpiles to refill Stockpiles as an interesting aspect to manage. (for example, it's worth doing if you have Remodel where you Tfb the extra Stockpile). Similar to how you have to strategically manage Rats.

I'm not against changing the numbers, of course, but would love to understand better the reasoning for it.

When I was first deciding, I compared this with Cursed Gold (though of course you can't buy more of those).


One Stockpile gives you either +$6 over two turns; or $12 and 1 curse over 5 turns (and so on).

Cursed Gold, you get +$6 and 2 curses over 2 turns; or $15 and 5 curses over 5 turns.

That seemed to me reasonable as a comparison (if not stronger).

If I do need to improve it some, what if the number of tokens gotten from gaining a curse was based on how many stockpiles in play. (e.g. gain a curse to put 2 Coin tokens per Stockpile in play on your Stockpile mat).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on July 17, 2019, 11:16:28 pm

I finally came up with an idea to brush up my idea, but it's too late.

Quote

Scarab
cost $1 - Action - Attack
+2 Actions
If the Scarab pile is empty, each other player gains a Copper. Otherwise, gain a Scarab.
Setup: Each player may exchange a Estate to a Scarab.

Village Junker! Self Multiplication! Cheap! No worry for 3-pile end!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 18, 2019, 10:12:17 am

Thanks for the numerous submissions, despite my slightly repetitive challenge!
This was very difficult as there were so many great cards. Favourites are bolded.



Hypocrite by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805366#msg805366)
Although 'attacking everybody including yourself' is novel, it has a classical feel. A clean design and a clear favourite.
The Copper junking can be quite nasty when you play with few Treasures which is more likely in a Kingdom with trashers which again limits the nastiness of the Copper-junking.
What you obviously aim for is something like Village, Village, Hypocrite-Militia, Hypocrite-Copperjunker, trash your Coppers. Seems near impossible in 2P but in 3P that double Attack can be smeared over 2 turns: Alice plays Hypocrite-Militia, Bob plays some draw and then Hypocrite-Copperjunker, Charlie will suffer.


Bellwether by pubby (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805376#msg805376)
Cool idea but unsound implementation.
This is either a Copper/Curse junker, a Woodcutter Estate junker or a payload card that gains cards for the opponents.
All junking options are relatively weak (and come with the additional problem that you lack control as an opponent makes the choice) while the gaining option is nearly as good for the opponents as for you (unless you managed to play all your Actions, then e.g. gaining a Silver is relatively weak compared to +3 +1 Buy).
The main issue is that once you green, Bellwether becomes unplayable (so why did you buy it in the first place instead of Woodcutter?). This could be fixed via reducing the upper limit of Coin generation while creating the new problem of Province rushing (Alice play Bellwether, Bob reveals Province, Bob and Charlie gain a Province, Alice uses the 8 Coins and the Buy to buy a Province).


Consulate by King Leon (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805379#msg805379)
Perhaps I am missing something but this looks too weak.
Suppose you gain a Curse to hand and are able to trash it during the same turn. Then this is better than Sea Hag (one more Coin).
Suppose you gain a Curse to hand and are unable to trash it during the same turn. Then this is worse than Fortune Teller (one less Coin).
Suppose you gain a Copper to hand and don't trash it. Then this is like a terminal Silver that comes with a downside for everybody.
Gaining $3s to hand seems OK but not that brilliant (unless you are able to pull off tricks familar from Messenger like Humble Castle).
Making the card a terminal Silver would be one way to potentially fix it.


Arson/Damages by Commodore Chuckles (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805382#msg805382)
We know the downgrading idea from Saboteur and Swindler and this looks like a fun combination of a trashing/junking attack. A definite favourite.
At 4 this looks at the first glance pretty strong. But if you open with this, at first play Arson is nearly always worse than Swindler: If you hit Copper, they gain a Ruins instead of a Curse and if you hit Estate, they get something better instead of another Estate.
I like that the Damages are not random such that you can pick whatever weakish engine piece you need. You can even imagine a Kingdom without any extra Buys in which you don't mind the first Arson hits that gift you Damaged Workshops.
The power level varies: Damaged Laboratory looks pretty strong whereas Damaged Estates is weak (but in a Shepherd game ...). But as you can always choose, this is no issue.

Corrosion/Tarnished by mail-mi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805385#msg805385)
The variability of the Curse substitutes is too low for my taste but the flexibility of the design (you could e.g. play with them in Kingdoms without Corrosion to nerf Cursers slightly) is neat.
I don't have much too say, this is simply a good design. The Tarnished cards are on average slightly nerfed Curses and Corrosion is sound. On a sidenote, for practical reasons I'd make Corrosion a Reserve card (although 4 types are always visually crammed). A card on the Tavern mat is easier to track than a card in set-aside-nirvana.


Red Tide/Barnacle by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805386#msg805386)
This is a great implementation of the 'block pile' idea but Red Tide is a bit too weak.
What can I say, Barnacle is just lovely. It is clean and you immediately get it (gotta pay $1 more, get a junk card that you can get rid off).
But Red Tide is probably too weak. Armory is not the greatest gainer, you'd rather have Ironworks or Devil's Workshop, and the other two $5 Workshop variants, i.e. Cobbler and Sculptor, always gain to hand. The pile-blocking can of course be used strategically, e.g. if you know that the opponent(s) are in dire need of a village, but it can also be neutral if they don't buy Barnacle and gain what they need via Red Tide.


Brazen Bull by Fragasnap (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805461#msg805461)
Weird card with a negative self-synergy.
So it a Treasure-Curser that you can defend against via playing an engine.
Power-level seems roughly OK but in the opening and early middlegame it will often hit and being nonterminal is pretty strong.
A 5/2 opening is likely even more game-deciding than Mountebank whose "defense option" is likely easier to trigger.
Curse being a dead card matters usually more than negative VPs and while I like the variable, negative VPs, I am no fan of the quick, early, non-terminal cursing.


Gremlin by faust (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805467#msg805467)
A beautiful design with a potential nice nice minigame in non-mirrors about making a crucial engine piece a self-Hexer.
I love above all that this card creates new junk via just one token (instead of 30 new cards) and that, depending on what $2 card is Jinxed, play will vary a lot over Kingdoms (which isn't something one can say about all junkers).
Some folks who commented minded the Hexaganza but hey, nobody forces you to play 7 Hamlets in a row. That's the point of the card. If the Jinxed card is a cantrip, will you really play every card? Tricky decision.


Totem by Gubump (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805468#msg805468)
An interesting shot at a card with a very unusual cursing condition that suffers from making the 'deflect the attack' type of issue that is a big no for Reaction cards.
If Totem is in the Kingdom, nobody would ever gain another Curser. So all this does is to convert gainers or +1 Buy into cursing.
The economy is pretty strong, even if Totem misses a shuffle. But one has to keep in mind that this becomes dead once the Cursers are out.
I preferred the first version that always curses yourself, even though that suffered from being too scripted (in a 2P game, gain 2 Totems, first is a Cursed Gold, if Curses are distributed symmetrically you will play them a total of 7 times).


Plague Doctor/Plague by kru5h (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805480#msg805480)
Soothsayer and Patron had a love child.
This looks pretty strong. Sure, nobody loves Silver but the hand-gaining can be nearly as good as Soothsayer's Gold while the opponent doesn't draw a card but can be rather junked again.
I like that the Silvers act as defense against Plague Doctor but like Soothsayer, the Treasure gaining can hurt strategically.


Diplomatic Gift by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805497#msg805497)
A very clean design that magically pulls off junkifying Silver, trashing and (quasi-)junking.


Charlatan by naitchman (http://hhttp://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805524#msg805524)
A straightforward Swindler-Militia mixture.
Now you got a reason to stick with those Estates. After Charlatan has hit often enough and the Estate pile is empty, you might find Hamlets and can unleash the blue dogs from your former home.
This looks sound and it reduces the randomness of Swindler. But I think that in 2P games (in 3P games, chances are higher that a second Charlatan is played such that one opponent is down to 3) I'd more often than not prefer Swindler or Militia over this.


Lancers by Kudasai (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805554#msg805554)
A balanced cantrip junker (already a bit of a design miracle to pull that off) that requires precise or non-mirror play to defend against.
The obvious question is whether this is good enough in a non-mirror. On the one hand, nonterminal draw for less than $5 is always in high demand. On the other hand, a semi-Lab for $4 is a bit weaker than Caravan.
But there is also a meta/strategy benefit if the opponents forsake Lancers: you are safe from the junking attack and can play Lancers more freely, i.e. without worrying about whether the Journey token is up or not.
Basically this card has these two built-in defenses: don't get Lancers and be safe, or get enough Lancers to make the Journey token be up more often. This implies sometimes having to decide to not play the last Lancer in hand and this very agonizing decision looks very appealing to me.


Metamorphosis by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805575#msg805575)
This is too Kingdom-dependent, on average too weak and the on-buy junking is borderline pointless. It is a challenge about junking so that junking should be slightly more central.
Without Potion cards the only constructive thing this does is to convert Curses/Ruins into Coppers and Estates into stuff like blue dogs.
Suppose it is an Alchemist Kingdom. You'd rather buy Alchemist immediately instead of a stop card that can remodel Silvers into Alchemists.
Suppose it is a Scrying Pool Kingdom. Then being able to Remodel those Estates into Scrying Pools is quite sweet.
Suppose it is a Vineyard Kingdom. Then you definitely want this and you'll get the Potion earlier than you would otherwise.
This is no Counting House, this is no subtle card that require skill to find combos in which it works. It rather advertises bluntly that it is only good with one of the 4 cheap Potion cards.


Stockpile by scolapasta (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805605#msg805605)
Self-cursing to nerf a card wasn't the idea of the challenge but this is a great implementation of a "reloadable" Gold.
In my opinion the latest version is the best. The second version does on average yield as much as Silver while gaining a Curse at third play. This seems pretty bad but averages aren't everything; if you open Stockpile you have a near fail-safe chance (Stockpile,Copper,Estate,Estate,Estate) to hit $5 after the first shuffle.
And the third version comes with a pyramid-scheme like reloading which we know from Lackeys.


Shyster by mandioca15 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805617#msg805617)
While the first version was broken, this can easily be too weak. Early on your will reveal Estates but e.g. in a mirror engine you got the best chances to hit if you reveal a village. But as Shyster doesn't draw, you want to play it last.


Racketeer by Gazbag (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805618#msg805618)
A Workshop-Curser, simple and good.
Playing with 2 Racketeers has a high opportunity cost and gainers always partially substitute extra Buys. But I nonetheless think that this might often enough Curse twice per turn.
That's why I'd consider making it a Copper junker. If it is too weak one can exchange the lines, such that this is basically guaranteed to junk 2 Coppers. That could be too strong though.
So yeah, the card already has a classical feel and I think that after some playtesting and perhaps some twitching it will become (or will turn out to already be) balanced and fun.


Scarab by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805630#msg805630)
This is simply bad. There is a reason Magpies and Rats are cantrips.
You will sometimes keep your Necro and you can build a draw engine with Squire and Villa. But Squire+Smithy is like Peddler+Lab whereas Scarab+Smithy is just a Lab. In other words, villages that don't draw need a little extra to become decent.
You could argue that the "animal-style-procreation" thingy suffices as little extra but I have serious doubts. In a 2P games, Bob could simply not play along and those 10 Scarabs will hurt Alice far earlier and harsher than those 10 Curses will hurt Bob.



Runner-up: Lancers by Kudasai
Winner: Gremlin by faust

PS: I don't know whether it is mere coincidence but both of these cards imply having to make agonizing decisions. That's not always the case in Dominion, the focus is often more on what to gain than what to play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 18, 2019, 10:31:17 am

Quote from: segura on July 18, 2019, 10:12:17 am

Totem by Gubump (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805468#msg805468)
An interesting shot at a card with a very unusual cursing condition that suffers from making the 'deflect the attack' type of issue that is a big no for Reaction cards.
If Totem is in the Kingdom, nobody would ever gain another Curser. So all this does is to convert gainers or +1 Buy into cursing.

"When you would gain a curse during your turn." It doesn't deflect, you're intended to have to Curse yourself, to prevent it from being too strong compared to Gold. (Although tbh, I didn't even like my own submission. I'm not very good at making attacks/junkers.)

I'd also like to point out that Gremlin only requires the Jinxed token to start on a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}-cost. You can move it to any Action pile, including Gremlin itself.

Anyway, congrats, faust! My issues with it aside, Gremlin was my personal favorite, too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 18, 2019, 11:50:22 am

Quote from: segura on July 18, 2019, 10:12:17 am

Stockpile by scolapasta (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805575#msg805575)
Self-cursing to nerf a card wasn't the idea of the challenge but this is a great implementation of a "reloadable" Gold.
In my opinion the latest version is the best. The second version does on average yield as much as Silver while gaining a Curse at third play. This seems pretty bad but averages aren't everything; if you open Stockpile you have a near fail-safe chance (Stockpile,Copper,Estate,Estate,Estate) to hit $5 after the first shuffle.
And the third version comes with a pyramid-scheme like reloading which we know from Lackeys.

Quote from: segura on July 11, 2019, 11:45:53 am

Self-junking as a straightforward nerf/downside like with Cursed Gold is not in the spirit of the contest whereas a card that would sometimes junk the opponents and sometimes you would. Junkin on-gain or on-buy or conditional upon the presence of a token are fine whereas a choice-junker like Torturer would be rather borderline.

I don't want to make the parameters too tight, if you have a good idea just roll with it.

D'oh! I misread this initial "rule" as only straightforward junking / nerfing was not in the spirit, so thought this would qualify since it was conditional self junking. Reading it again, I can see why it's not what was meant - self junking would be ok if there was also some sort of opponent junking.

(on the other hand, it did get some positive votes, so maybe I wasn't the only one who misread... :)

Oh well, I'm glad the card got decent reviews, and I can at least plan to use again in a future, more appropriate, challenge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 18, 2019, 01:52:16 pm

Quote from: segura on July 18, 2019, 10:12:17 am

Consulate by King Leon (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805379#msg805379)
Perhaps I am missing something but this looks too weak.
Suppose you gain a Curse to hand and are able to trash it during the same turn. Then this is better than Sea Hag (one more Coin).
Suppose you gain a Curse to hand and are unable to trash it during the same turn. Then this is worse than Fortune Teller (one less Coin).
Suppose you gain a Copper to hand and don't trash it. Then this is like a terminal Silver that comes with a downside for everybody.
Gaining $3s to hand seems OK but not that brilliant (unless you are able to pull off tricks familar from Messenger like Humble Castle).
Making the card a terminal Silver would be one way to potentially fix it.

This card is actually a terminal Gold if you gain Silver to the hand. I tried +$1 +1 Action and +$2, but both variants were too strong.
Also a terminal Silver which "Sea Hag"s a Copper would be too strong, if it costed $3. So $4 is the correct price.

Quote from: segura on July 18, 2019, 10:12:17 am

Runner-up: Lancers by Kudasai
Winner: Gremlin by faust

Anyway, congratulations to faust, Kudasai and all other participants.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 18, 2019, 04:45:12 pm

Thanks for choosing Gremlin!

I think it could still use some tweaking that I didn't get around to. Maybe I'll revisit it soon.

Anyways, for now, there should be a new challenge. Here it goes: Design a card or card-shaped object that comes with an existing Heirloom.

So the card should include the Heirloom in the normal way, replacing a starting Copper. Of course there should be some mechanical reason for having it come with the Heirloom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: math on July 18, 2019, 04:55:31 pm

Quote from: faust on July 18, 2019, 04:45:12 pm

Thanks for choosing Gremlin!

I think it could still use some tweaking that I didn't get around to. Maybe I'll revisit it soon.

Anyways, for now, there should be a new challenge. Here it goes: Design a card or card-shaped object that comes with an existing Heirloom.

So the card should include the Heirloom in the normal way, replacing a starting Copper. Of course there should be some mechanical reason for having it come with the Heirloom.

Clarification: this is about designing a new card but pairing it with an Heirloom that is already in the game?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 18, 2019, 04:56:35 pm

Quote from: math on July 18, 2019, 04:55:31 pm

Quote from: faust on July 18, 2019, 04:45:12 pm

Thanks for choosing Gremlin!

I think it could still use some tweaking that I didn't get around to. Maybe I'll revisit it soon.

Anyways, for now, there should be a new challenge. Here it goes: Design a card or card-shaped object that comes with an existing Heirloom.

So the card should include the Heirloom in the normal way, replacing a starting Copper. Of course there should be some mechanical reason for having it come with the Heirloom.

Clarification: this is about designing a new card but pairing it with an Heirloom that is already in the game?

Yes, exactly. It is not intended that you create new Heirlooms.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 18, 2019, 06:10:14 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d34c8ecba53c15dd66bc61b/6732866785f251748691e28cc34881c0/meadow_v2.png)

Meadow
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Heirloom: Goat

You may gain a Meadow. If you didn’t: +1 Card +1 Action
-
When you trash this, +3 Coffers

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 18, 2019, 07:48:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ef8pHRu.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 18, 2019, 10:06:51 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 18, 2019, 07:48:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ef8pHRu.png)

This is way too strong. Even if it was terminal, it would still compare favorably to Witch.

Title: Re: Contest #37: Use existing Heirloom
Post by: Gubump on July 18, 2019, 10:19:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/dnJ87QB.png)

EDIT: Changed my submission.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 18, 2019, 10:41:26 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 18, 2019, 10:06:51 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 18, 2019, 07:48:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ef8pHRu.png)

This is way too strong. Even if it was terminal, it would still compare favorably to Witch.

Even taking Goat into account?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 18, 2019, 11:02:36 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 18, 2019, 10:41:26 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 18, 2019, 10:06:51 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 18, 2019, 07:48:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ef8pHRu.png)

This is way too strong. Even if it was terminal, it would still compare favorably to Witch.

Even taking Goat into account?

If Chupacabra and Witch were both in the same set, Chupacabra would outclass Witch. So yes. Cards that grant Heirlooms have to be at least somewhat balanced with or without their Heirloom. Nobody in their right mind would ever buy any other junking Attack with Chupacabra in the Kingdom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 19, 2019, 03:18:47 am

(https://i.imgur.com/Cp0Wv1s.png)

Quote

Kelpie
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may discard any number of Curses for +$1 each.
----
When you gain a Curse, you may reveal then discard this from your hand, to return up to 2 cards from your hand to the supply

I wanted to make a card that actually worked with Cursed Gold instead of against it. So, a card that can make Cursed Gold's curse gaining somewhat useful, and also gives you a buy with which to spend that $3.

I wanted to make the top powerful enough to make this worth $5, but then I realized that in a game with Cursed Gold, everyone can open $5 anyway. So I think it's weak enough for $4. Maybe too weak? Not sure.

Edit: Changed the top and modified the reaction to prevent revealing the reaction multiple times.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on July 19, 2019, 04:07:27 am

(https://i.imgur.com/KtpNsCu.jpg)

This being non-terminal scares me a little into thinking it should cost $5, but it would feel weak there. The presence of any draw card could make building with this too fast...
And tracking the trashes you've done should be OK?

Edit: from 'choose' to 'name' a card, thanks to discussion further down this page

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 19, 2019, 09:46:49 am

Quote from: Aquila on July 19, 2019, 04:07:27 am

(https://i.imgur.com/XdjwnjL.jpg)

This being non-terminal scares me a little into thinking it should cost $5, but it would feel weak there. The presence of any draw card could make building with this too fast...
And tracking the trashes you've done should be OK?

This feels like it got swinginess to it.

Goat, Silver, and 3 Modelers can get you 3 $5 cards. Copper, Silver, and 3 Modelers means your modelers are dead. Like you said, with an engine, this is easy to exploit (draw your deck trash a $4 card and every modeler is a non terminal gain a non-victory card costing up to $6.)

I personally don't like tracking things like cards I trashed, but I don't see why it would be any different than remembering what cards your opponent gained on his turn (smugglers) or how many cards he gained (treasure hunter), so I think it's fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 19, 2019, 09:52:03 am

Quote from: Gubump on July 18, 2019, 11:02:36 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 18, 2019, 10:41:26 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 18, 2019, 10:06:51 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 18, 2019, 07:48:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ef8pHRu.png)

This is way too strong. Even if it was terminal, it would still compare favorably to Witch.

Even taking Goat into account?

If Chupacabra and Witch were both in the same set, Chupacabra would outclass Witch.

I don't know. Assuming that we talk about a potential terminal version of Chupacabra, well, +2 Coffers seems on average slightly better than +2 Cards to me. Which says very little. If Witch is the only draw in the Kingdom, you'd rather have Witch.

Quote

So yes. Cards that grant Heirlooms have to be at least somewhat balanced with or without their Heirloom.

Shepherd disagrees with that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 19, 2019, 11:04:29 am

So I made a coupla things and wanna chat pros + cons for each

Gambler

Revision A - ezmode slots (https://i.imgur.com/BksViPo.png) Pros: pays out nearly every time - still a miss if you hit on like. durations that are mixed action-durations and night-durations can do a lot of roles, although none reliably gravitates towards +$1 +1 Buy due to Lucky Coin probably a better buy elsewhere

Revision C - hard mode slots (https://i.imgur.com/qxEw9Gn.png) imgur ate revision b but it's fine, it wasn't that different than this one Usually just a terminal silver with some pretty mediocre cycling With Lucky coin, gravitates towards being a high $ card probably underpriced when there's any thinning to tamp down the noise in the deck

Revision D - blackjack woodcutter (https://i.imgur.com/zVlIJec.png) con: math. and setting up a deck to get to $7 (altho this being $4 + free silvers from LC being $3 helps) pro: better cycling even on misses pro: always at least a woodcutter and/or chancellor probably the quickest of the lot to play

Revision F - roulette upgrade (https://i.imgur.com/f69tVQe.png) What happened to revision E? it looked too much like "revision C" at everything but max resolution. pro: probably most useful - remodel those Curses directly into Provinces! con: turns will take forever con: clumsy wording - help? maybe add coin tokens to the card and then it's sort of Butcheresque? pro: Lucky Coin gives you trashing fodder so you don't have to start from $0 with a Copper every time con: only limit to guesses is number of cards in deck - probably shouldn't allow for a Curse -> Colony upgrade

---

My entry is revision D but talk through these with me, change my mind.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 19, 2019, 11:42:14 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 18, 2019, 07:48:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ef8pHRu.png)

Some people might take issue with a Night card giving Coffers, since Coffers didn't exist in Nocturne. I'm not one of those people, but it's something to consider.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on July 19, 2019, 03:39:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/XKUHAI1.png)

Here is my entry for this week: Silversmith, which uses Lucky Coin.  The on-play is the same as Silk Merchant, with some light terminal draw and +Buy, and then the bottom essentially lets you Counterfeit any or all Silvers you play this turn (doubling them at the cost of trashing them).  Early on, you can trash one of your opening Silvers to spike a critical price point, and then later you can aim to trash a bunch of Silvers for a big payout in the endgame.  Lucky Coin conveniently provides some consistent fodder.

*Edit: Corrected wording to match Counterfeit's play-twice-and-trash language.  Also corrected card name's spelling.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 19, 2019, 03:54:42 pm

Quote from: 4est on July 19, 2019, 03:39:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/qA8Iyy9.png)

Here is my entry for this week: Silver Smith, which uses Lucky Coin.  The on-play is the same as Silk Merchant, with some light terminal draw and +Buy, and then the bottom essentially lets you Counterfeit any or all Silvers you play this turn (doubling them at the cost of trashing them).  Early on, you can trash one of your opening Silvers to spike a critical price point, and then later you can aim to trash a bunch of Silvers for a big payout in the endgame.  Lucky Coin conveniently provides some consistent fodder.

Recommend wording update... "While this is in play, when you play a Silver, you may play it again. If you do, trash it." It avoids the weirdness of playing something from the trash (even though playing it from the trash does work fine).

I'm guessing this is super strong... even without Lucky Coin there to feed you extra Silver, Silver is often something you'd rather trash after playing once; and getting an extra _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} out of it is just icing on the cake.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 19, 2019, 04:09:29 pm

Collector can upgrade played cards into better cards. By allowing you to set aside cards you already have one copy of in play, it also makes activating its heirloom, Magic Lamp, easier.

(https://i.imgur.com/fAvlPhJ.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 - initial
v0.2 - move trashing to start of clean up; remove option to directly gain
v0.3 - move trashing (again) to end of turn (after draw)

---

Secret History:

Inspired by Magic Lamp, I started with setting aside cards for which you already had a copy in play.  It was too weak that way, and also simpler to just let you set aside any card. Trashing first happened when you play, then moved to start of clean up (to allow for treasures and night cards), and then moved again to end of turn (in order to have a minor penalty for setting aside, that set aside cards may miss a shuffle).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 19, 2019, 05:11:10 pm

Quote from: Aquila on July 19, 2019, 04:07:27 am

(https://i.imgur.com/XdjwnjL.jpg)

This being non-terminal scares me a little into thinking it should cost $5, but it would feel weak there. The presence of any draw card could make building with this too fast...
And tracking the trashes you've done should be OK?

The trash is an unordered multiset. As soon a card is added to the trash, you lose track of it. The game mechanics have no way to find out, which instance of card you have trashed and how much it costed when you trashed it. This also has issues with Rogue, Lurker, Graverobber and Possession.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 19, 2019, 05:17:44 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 19, 2019, 05:11:10 pm

Quote from: Aquila on July 19, 2019, 04:07:27 am

(https://i.imgur.com/XdjwnjL.jpg)

This being non-terminal scares me a little into thinking it should cost $5, but it would feel weak there. The presence of any draw card could make building with this too fast...
And tracking the trashes you've done should be OK?

The trash is an unordered multiset. As soon a card is added to the trash, you lose track of it. The game mechanics have no way to find out, which instance of card you have trashed and how much it costed when you trashed it. This also has issues with Rogue, Lurker, Graverobber and Possession.

I'm not sure what you mean here... there's no need "track" things in the sense that Dominion uses that word. In Dominion, "tracking" only matters if you need to move a card. This is tracking in the more general sense of simply remembering past events. And Dominion does that plenty, see Smuggler and Treasure Hunter. The people actually playing the cards are the ones that have to do this sort of tracking. My and my opponent both know and agree that I trashed a Silver this turn, so we can get the cost of Silver and use that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 19, 2019, 06:03:17 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 19, 2019, 05:17:44 pm

I'm not sure what you mean here... there's no need "track" things in the sense that Dominion uses that word. In Dominion, "tracking" only matters if you need to move a card. This is tracking in the more general sense of simply remembering past events. And Dominion does that plenty, see Smuggler and Treasure Hunter. The people actually playing the cards are the ones that have to do this sort of tracking. My and my opponent both know and agree that I trashed a Silver this turn, so we can get the cost of Silver and use that.

Treasure Hunter only refers to the number of gained cards, while Smugglers give you a copy of a card, your opponent gained. There is no way to identify a certain instance of a card in the trash, though. Modeller instructs you to choose a card that you have trashed this turn, which is impossible. Maybe either changing the world "Choose" to "Name" or just switching this to a Reaction card is what you want.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 19, 2019, 06:40:09 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 19, 2019, 05:11:10 pm

Quote from: Aquila on July 19, 2019, 04:07:27 am

(https://i.imgur.com/XdjwnjL.jpg)

This being non-terminal scares me a little into thinking it should cost $5, but it would feel weak there. The presence of any draw card could make building with this too fast...
And tracking the trashes you've done should be OK?

The trash is an unordered multiset. As soon a card is added to the trash, you lose track of it. The game mechanics have no way to find out, which instance of card you have trashed and how much it costed when you trashed it. This also has issues with Rogue, Lurker, Graverobber and Possession.

Huh? There is no mechanical issue at all. This card works precisely like Smugglers, i.e. you have to remember what you gained/trashed. And it is actually on a practical level simpler to memorize/handle than Smuggler as you can put all the cards you have trashed this turn onto a slightly different place than the trash (and after your Night phase, you move them onto the trash heap).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 19, 2019, 07:51:41 pm

New entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/MeVrzNp.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: math on July 20, 2019, 12:36:29 am

Here is my submission.

(https://i.imgur.com/pBBo3Ad.png)

Manor - $5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
If this is the first time you played a Manor this turn, you may trash a card from your hand.
---------------------
When you gain this, gain another Manor (that doesn't come with another).
Heirloom: Haunted Mirror.

Any card that is paired with Haunted Mirror should have a way to trash the Mirror.  Manor is a cantrip that trashes the first time you play it in a turn, and it also comes with a second copy.  If you draw them together, you might be able to trash the Haunted Mirror and discard the second copy for a Ghost.  Even if you can't do that, the second one is still a cantrip so it isn't completely dead.

Version 2.0: Edited to make the trashing optional.  Original:
(https://i.imgur.com/NlyNJfC.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 20, 2019, 12:54:35 am

Quote from: segura on July 19, 2019, 06:40:09 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 19, 2019, 05:11:10 pm

Quote from: Aquila on July 19, 2019, 04:07:27 am

(https://i.imgur.com/XdjwnjL.jpg)

This being non-terminal scares me a little into thinking it should cost $5, but it would feel weak there. The presence of any draw card could make building with this too fast...
And tracking the trashes you've done should be OK?

The trash is an unordered multiset. As soon a card is added to the trash, you lose track of it. The game mechanics have no way to find out, which instance of card you have trashed and how much it costed when you trashed it. This also has issues with Rogue, Lurker, Graverobber and Possession.

Huh? There is no mechanical issue at all. This card works precisely like Smugglers, i.e. you have to remember what you gained/trashed. And it is actually on a practical level simpler to memorize/handle than Smuggler as you can put all the cards you have trashed this turn onto a slightly different place than the trash (and after your Night phase, you move them onto the trash heap).

So, what about the following case? You bought a card from the Black Market, trashed it, gained it back with Lurker and then masqueraded it to another player and then summon Modeller. There is no pile for the card from the Black Market and it is hard to keep track of the card. Maybe I am thinking too complicated or I have another understanding of the lose-track rule. Modeller explicitly requires to keep track of all card trashed in your turn, which would be a new mechanic. This is not bad, but it may have the mentioned issues.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on July 20, 2019, 03:12:14 am

Goblin
cost $4 - Action
+$2
In this turn, cards cost $1 less per a card you bought, but not less than $2.
Heirloom: Poach

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 20, 2019, 03:41:42 am

Quote from: King Leon on July 20, 2019, 12:54:35 am

Quote from: segura on July 19, 2019, 06:40:09 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 19, 2019, 05:11:10 pm

Quote from: Aquila on July 19, 2019, 04:07:27 am

(https://i.imgur.com/XdjwnjL.jpg)

This being non-terminal scares me a little into thinking it should cost $5, but it would feel weak there. The presence of any draw card could make building with this too fast...
And tracking the trashes you've done should be OK?

The trash is an unordered multiset. As soon a card is added to the trash, you lose track of it. The game mechanics have no way to find out, which instance of card you have trashed and how much it costed when you trashed it. This also has issues with Rogue, Lurker, Graverobber and Possession.

Huh? There is no mechanical issue at all. This card works precisely like Smugglers, i.e. you have to remember what you gained/trashed. And it is actually on a practical level simpler to memorize/handle than Smuggler as you can put all the cards you have trashed this turn onto a slightly different place than the trash (and after your Night phase, you move them onto the trash heap).

So, what about the following case? You bought a card from the Black Market, trashed it, gained it back with Lurker and then masqueraded it to another player and then summon Modeller. There is no pile for the card from the Black Market and it is hard to keep track of the card. Maybe I am thinking too complicated or I have another understanding of the lose-track rule. Modeller explicitly requires to keep track of all card trashed in your turn, which would be a new mechanic. This is not bad, but it may have the mentioned issues.

You are misunderstanding /misusing the lose track rule. The lose track rule can only prevent a card from being moved. It cannot prevent anything else, such as finding out information about a card. You are correct that you may be able to physically find the card that you trashed, but that’s ok, there is no need to physically find it. You just have to have remembered what card you trashed, and how much it costs. The game can require players to remember things, it's ok if you can’t physically locate the card. You can choose it without seeing or finding it.

However, your edge case does make me think of a different edge case... you trash a Band of Misfits, then player Lurker to gain it back. Then you draw some cards, making you shuffle. Then play a Band of Misfits as something. Play Modeller, choosing Band of Misfits. You now need to know what it cost. If it’s still somewhere in your deck, it cost $5. If it’s the one you played, it costs less.

So yeah, “name a card” could be a fix to that, because if you name Band of Misfits, that has a specific fixed cost in Dominion of $5; and that remains true even if there are no visible Band of Misfit cards to be found to check the price.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 20, 2019, 04:01:13 am

Quote from: majiponi on July 20, 2019, 03:12:14 am

Goblin
cost $4 - Action
+$2
In this turn, cards cost $1 less per a card you bought, but not less than $2.
Heirloom: Poach

This wording is a little funky. Does this mean that Copper and Curse cost 2 while this is in play?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 20, 2019, 04:55:07 am

Quote from: King Leon on July 20, 2019, 12:54:35 am

Modeller explicitly requires to keep track of all card trashed in your turn, which would be a new mechanic.

No, it does not. This has nothing at all with tracking in the mechanical sense. You simply gotta remember the Coin value of all the cards you trashed.
It is literally the same as Smugglers, the presence of a cards forces you to remembering stuff and that isn't a new, complicated mechanic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on July 20, 2019, 05:30:02 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 20, 2019, 04:01:13 am

Quote from: majiponi on July 20, 2019, 03:12:14 am

Goblin
cost $4 - Action
+$2
In this turn, cards cost $1 less per a card you bought, but not less than $2.
Heirloom: Poach

This wording is a little funky. Does this mean that Copper and Curse cost 2 while this is in play?

Oh, I didn't mean so, but that is interesting, too. What I wanted was not letting you buy Coppers to reduce Province cost to $0. Maybe I should say "cards cost $1 less per a card you bought, which cost at least $1, but not less than $0." But this is too wordy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on July 20, 2019, 06:45:55 am

Quote from: segura on July 20, 2019, 04:55:07 am

Quote from: King Leon on July 20, 2019, 12:54:35 am

Modeller explicitly requires to keep track of all card trashed in your turn, which would be a new mechanic.

No, it does not. This has nothing at all with tracking in the mechanical sense. You simply gotta remember the Coin value of all the cards you trashed.
It is literally the same as Smugglers, the presence of a cards forces you to remembering stuff and that isn't a new, complicated mechanic.

I agree that 'name a card' is simpler and cleaner as this discussion has mentioned, so I've changed it now. Thanks all.

---

Never played Nocturne but here are a few observations:

Quote

Meadow - $2 cost, choose two of +card, +action, gain meadow. When you trash this +3 Coffers. Heirloom: goat.

3 Coffers each trash feels like quite a lot of income from potentially a single investment of $2, and we know the problem of big Coffers accumulation from Renaissance. 2 Coffers maybe?

Quote

Kelpie - $4 cost, +action +buy may discard curse for +2 cards. When you gain curse may reveal this to return 2 cards from hand to supply. Heirloom: cursed gold.

Why choose return to supply over trashing here? To reuse Curses? If there are no attacks giving them out it further limits the usability of your cursed gold. The reveal from hand to do this does allow multiple returns from one curse gain, which might be too strong thinning; though forcing two each time limits things a little.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 20, 2019, 10:42:20 am

Quote from: Aquila on July 20, 2019, 06:45:55 am

Quote from: segura on July 20, 2019, 04:55:07 am

Quote from: King Leon on July 20, 2019, 12:54:35 am

Modeller explicitly requires to keep track of all card trashed in your turn, which would be a new mechanic.

No, it does not. This has nothing at all with tracking in the mechanical sense. You simply gotta remember the Coin value of all the cards you trashed.
It is literally the same as Smugglers, the presence of a cards forces you to remembering stuff and that isn't a new, complicated mechanic.

I agree that 'name a card' is simpler and cleaner as this discussion has mentioned, so I've changed it now. Thanks all.

---

Never played Nocturne but here are a few observations:

Quote

Meadow - $2 cost, choose two of +card, +action, gain meadow. When you trash this +3 Coffers. Heirloom: goat.

3 Coffers each trash feels like quite a lot of income from potentially a single investment of $2, and we know the problem of big Coffers accumulation from Renaissance. 2 Coffers maybe?

Quote

Kelpie - $4 cost, +action +buy may discard curse for +2 cards. When you gain curse may reveal this to return 2 cards from hand to supply. Heirloom: cursed gold.

Why choose return to supply over trashing here? To reuse Curses? If there are no attacks giving them out it further limits the usability of your cursed gold. The reveal from hand to do this does allow multiple returns from one curse gain, which might be too strong thinning; though forcing two each time limits things a little.

Oh, you’re right. I’ll have to do Horse traders’ “reveal and set this aside” dealio. And yes the returning to the supply is is meant to make this worse at getting rid of Curses than coppers or estates. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 20, 2019, 10:52:19 am

Quote from: math on July 20, 2019, 12:36:29 am

Manor - $5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
If this is the first time you played a Manor this turn, trash a card from your hand.
---------------------
When you gain this, gain another Manor (that doesn't come with another).
Heirloom: Haunted Mirror.

Potential problem: Ghost does not play well with forced trashers. I think this is the reason it was paired with a trashing Victory card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: math on July 20, 2019, 01:07:08 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 20, 2019, 10:52:19 am

Quote from: math on July 20, 2019, 12:36:29 am

Manor - $5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
If this is the first time you played a Manor this turn, trash a card from your hand.
---------------------
When you gain this, gain another Manor (that doesn't come with another).
Heirloom: Haunted Mirror.

Potential problem: Ghost does not play well with forced trashers. I think this is the reason it was paired with a trashing Victory card.

Thank you for pointing that out.  It might not be a big deal since it would only trash once when played with Ghost, but I went ahead and made the trashing optional anyway - it doesn't change that much.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 20, 2019, 02:52:54 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 17, 2019, 05:17:01 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 12, 2019, 01:33:07 pm

I think this card would probably be better overall if you made the card more likely to have a better effect for the person playing it (if you don't want card drawing, you could do card sifting.), and perhaps strengthen it to make it cost 5 -- right now it's not convincing that the central mechanics of this card (gaining curses to hand and the tome) belong to a cheap curser.

I believe I disagree with this general design philosophy you are displaying (and throughout your judging post). It seems to me you are looking at cards that have problems baked into them and considering them poorly designed for that reason: I think cards that have inherent problems are the best designed cards because you have to look elsewhere in the Kingdom to solve them.
The least interesting cards in Dominion right now I believe primarily derive from trying to take an interesting idea (Masquerade's pass a card, Ambassador's give a card to other players, Possession's control another player's turn, Cultist's play-each-other thing, Rebuild's step-up Victory cards) and tacking so many effects onto them to make them work that they end up monopolizing the board in a boring fashion. The best cards are cards that result in big problems a priori of the Kingdom (Chapel's deck destruction at the cost of pacing, Highway's cost-reduction without the buys to help it, Library's powerful draw without the way to productively reduce hand-size, Remodel's powerful trashing that needs good targets, etc.). Two of the cards I chose as best in my judgment were Bookstore and Consul, each of which have big strategy problems without considering the Kingdom.
It is certainly possible for the problems to be too big to overcome reasonably (Contraband is an excellent example), but I do not agree that Chronicler's problem is too big. Cursers tend to need bigger problems because junking is so inherently powerful. That is fine if you don't agree, of course.

What's weird is I think we actually agree a lot more than it seems. When I read your sentence I wanted to explain what cards design I like and a ton of the examples you gave were the same examples I'd give. To me I also don't like when one card solves all of it's problems -- Margrave is a good example of a card with too much going for it. I like it when cards are about single topics such that they naturally effect themselves. On the flip side, Margrave's attack is well designed: it is not an attack the second time it's a benefit to the opponent, so that reacts with itself. That's what I mean by single-concept cards that naturally have synergy or anti-synergy with itself.

My opinion was that I really loved the concept of the tome and cursing and I think there's a separate concept of "cheap cursers" and I thought it would be better if you focused on one of those concepts. Of course, that's totally opinion. I still would really love to see what you did with Tome and curses to hand without the concept of "cheap curser" also.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 20, 2019, 03:03:13 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 18, 2019, 06:10:14 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/c6dslgwg.png)

Meadow
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Heirloom: Goat

Choose two different:
+1 Card; +1 Action; or gain a Meadow.
-
When you trash this, +3 Coffers

To me this is a very powerful card. The ability to terminally always gain more copies of itself to feed to your goat is spectacular and strong. And they *never* Hurt your deck you can always turn them into a cantrip. I think it needs to be priced much higher and I would rethink the "never hurt your deck" aspect of these, because buying them gaining them becomes a non-brainer. You just wait until your goat lines up. It becomes a lot more of an interesting decision if they are terminal or at least not can-trippable. You could turn the top part to simply "you may gain a Meadow." Then each one you gain clogs your deck and is probably better priced at 2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 20, 2019, 03:55:54 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 20, 2019, 03:03:13 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 18, 2019, 06:10:14 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/c6dslgwg.png)

Meadow
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Heirloom: Goat

Choose two different:
+1 Card; +1 Action; or gain a Meadow.
-
When you trash this, +3 Coffers

To me this is a very powerful card. The ability to terminally always gain more copies of itself to feed to your goat is spectacular and strong. And they *never* Hurt your deck you can always turn them into a cantrip. I think it needs to be priced much higher and I would rethink the "never hurt your deck" aspect of these, because buying them gaining them becomes a non-brainer. You just wait until your goat lines up. It becomes a lot more of an interesting decision if they are terminal or at least not can-trippable. You could turn the top part to simply "you may gain a Meadow." Then each one you gain clogs your deck and is probably better priced at 2.

Squire and Pawn were my inspiration for this card. Squire cannot be used as a cantrip (which may hurt your deck), but it also comes with +2 Buys, whereas Pawn can be used as a cantrip or "half" Woodcutter on demand. Meadow is not as powerful as it seems at the first glance. There are only three different options: Cantrip or non-terminal self-gaining or terminal self-gaining with +1 Card (very useful in big money or with stuff like Exorcist or Sauna).

Most trashers (including Goat) require to have Meadow it in your hand to trash it, which makes it much weaker (you could have a Silver instead, which can be gained by Squire, coincidentally). If this cost $3, it would be broken with trash-for-benefit cards like Salvager or Apprentice and useless without stronger trashers. The $2 also avoids trashing Meadow with Knights, Giant and Rogue. Rats cost $4, but may "hurt your deck", because their trashing is mandatory, which weakens their self-gaining effect. Magpie is a self-gaining cantrip and also "never hurts your deck", and is often better than a Peddler in a money-heavy deck. I tested this card and $2 seemed to be fine. Think about other $2 cards, which are powerful like Chapel, Fool’s Gold, Raze or Pixie (which also comes with Goat). There are only 10 Meadows and the pile is mowed very fast. I needed +3 Coffers instead of +$3, to be compatible with trashers like Farmlands or opponent’s Bishops. Having 2 Silvers usually has the same economical effect than Goat + Meadow, with the difference, that the Silver does not vanish or the same effect as Copper + Spoils to be more accurate.

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 20, 2019, 03:41:42 am

However, your edge case does make me think of a different edge case... you trash a Band of Misfits, then player Lurker to gain it back. Then you draw some cards, making you shuffle. Then play a Band of Misfits as something. Play Modeller, choosing Band of Misfits. You now need to know what it cost. If it’s still somewhere in your deck, it cost $5. If it’s the one you played, it costs less.

So yeah, “name a card” could be a fix to that, because if you name Band of Misfits, that has a specific fixed cost in Dominion of $5; and that remains true even if there are no visible Band of Misfit cards to be found to check the price.

When BoM leaves play, it turns back into a BoM. So, if you trash it, it leaves play and costs $2. But you are right. If Modeller refers to an instance of a card and you shuffle your deck, it is not possible anymore to detect, which instance of BoM was the one you had trashed. Because BoM uses "This is that card until it leaves play." and not "gains the abilities and types of that card", this causes more problems.

I also realized that Summon does not work for Night cards. Sorry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 20, 2019, 04:17:34 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 19, 2019, 04:09:29 pm

Collector can either add cheap cards to its collection or upgrade played cards into better cards. By allowing you to set aside cards you already have one copy of in play, it also makes activating its heirloom, Magic Lamp, easier.

(https://i.imgur.com/pv87Bjp.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 - initial

---

Secret History:

Inspired by Magic Lamp, I started with setting aside cards for which you already had a copy in play.  It was too weak that way, and also simpler to just let you set aside any card.

Any suggestions on how to improve Collector? I'm not especially happy with it.

The trashing only works on Actions (barring having played exceptions like BM, Storyteller, and Villa) which isn't great. Additionally the setting aside is meant to help activate Magic Lamp, but otherwise doesn't do anything; aside from Highway and other "while this is in play" cards, there's no reason not to set aside.

Some ideas, I had:
• delay the trashing to cleanup, so it could also work on treasures, but the wording seemed klunky
• also allow trash from hand
• for the setting aside issue, I could change when it "returns" to some other time. Its current wording is so duration cards could still work, but maybe I'll need to add non Duration
• also set aside Collector, so you have reason to choose which you set aside (and also allows subsequent Collectors to upgrade the previous one)
• do something other than trash for set aside cards (put on deck? play again?, etc)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on July 20, 2019, 05:41:07 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 20, 2019, 04:17:34 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 19, 2019, 04:09:29 pm

Collector can either add cheap cards to its collection or upgrade played cards into better cards. By allowing you to set aside cards you already have one copy of in play, it also makes activating its heirloom, Magic Lamp, easier.

(https://i.imgur.com/pv87Bjp.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 - initial

---

Secret History:

Inspired by Magic Lamp, I started with setting aside cards for which you already had a copy in play.  It was too weak that way, and also simpler to just let you set aside any card.

Any suggestions on how to improve Collector? I'm not especially happy with it.

The trashing only works on Actions (barring having played exceptions like BM, Storyteller, and Villa) which isn't great. Additionally the setting aside is meant to help activate Magic Lamp, but otherwise doesn't do anything; aside from Highway and other "while this is in play" cards, there's no reason not to set aside.

Some ideas, I had:
• delay the trashing to cleanup, so it could also work on treasures, but the wording seemed klunky
• also allow trash from hand
• for the setting aside issue, I could change when it "returns" to some other time. Its current wording is so duration cards could still work, but maybe I'll need to add non Duration
• also set aside Collector, so you have reason to choose which you set aside
• do something other than trash for set aside cards (put on deck? play again?, etc)

I'd take a look at the wording for "Improve". I think you can clean a lot of this up if you follow its text. On that note, these two cards are doing a lot of the same stuff.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on July 20, 2019, 07:26:40 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/PXAP57F.png)

Drawbridge
Night/Duration - $4
From the top of your deck, set-aside (face down) a card, plus another card per unused Buy. At the start of your next turn, put the set-aside cards into your hand.
-
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 20, 2019, 11:45:24 pm

I just had an idea. Could we set up a post, or something else, where everyone can add a link to their submission? This would make judging a lot easier. If you want to change your submission, you replace the previous link with a new one, which avoids a lot of confusion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on July 21, 2019, 06:06:21 am

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/04XIOcbl.png)

Is activating the Magic Lamp too hard? Make it smaller! Shrunken Lamp is much easier to activate, but yields a smaller amount of Wishes. In addition to that, downsizing your Lamp takes an entire buy that cannot be done when you hit $2 in a 5/2 opening.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 21, 2019, 09:51:29 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 20, 2019, 11:45:24 pm

I just had an idea. Could we set up a post, or something else, where everyone can add a link to their submission? This would make judging a lot easier. If you want to change your submission, you replace the previous link with a new one, which avoids a lot of confusion.

I once mentioned that. We need some kind of database like this one for Agricola cards: http://playagricola.com/Agricola/Cards/index.php This would make it a lot easier to judge fan cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 21, 2019, 02:01:55 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 21, 2019, 09:51:29 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 20, 2019, 11:45:24 pm

I just had an idea. Could we set up a post, or something else, where everyone can add a link to their submission? This would make judging a lot easier. If you want to change your submission, you replace the previous link with a new one, which avoids a lot of confusion.

I once mentioned that. We need some kind of database like this one for Agricola cards: http://playagricola.com/Agricola/Cards/index.php This would make it a lot easier to judge fan cards.

Is it possible to make a post that anyone can edit? If not we would need something like a Google Doc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 21, 2019, 04:12:11 pm

Maybe a Trello (https://trello.com/) board would be an idea.

Title: Re: Contest #37: Use existing Heirloom
Post by: Kudasai on July 21, 2019, 04:23:13 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 18, 2019, 10:19:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/9bPonQY.png)

Could be quite fun trying to get your pastures top-decked. Compares quite well to Crop Rotation. Maybe too well given starting decks will have 4 Victory cards and this is $5 versus $6. I personally think it might be too good.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 21, 2019, 04:23:53 pm

I prepared a Trello board here: https://trello.com/b/QSNxkOHZ/dominion-strategy-weekly-design-contest

Invitation link: https://trello.com/invite/b/QSNxkOHZ/c7aa68db7d65301eb0f65784e261bbd1/dominion-strategy-weekly-design-contest

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on July 21, 2019, 05:26:03 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 19, 2019, 11:04:29 am

So I made a coupla things and wanna chat pros + cons for each

Gambler

Revision A - ezmode slots (https://i.imgur.com/BksViPo.png) Pros: pays out nearly every time - still a miss if you hit on like. durations that are mixed action-durations and night-durations can do a lot of roles, although none reliably gravitates towards +$1 +1 Buy due to Lucky Coin probably a better buy elsewhere

Revision C - hard mode slots (https://i.imgur.com/qxEw9Gn.png) imgur ate revision b but it's fine, it wasn't that different than this one Usually just a terminal silver with some pretty mediocre cycling With Lucky coin, gravitates towards being a high $ card probably underpriced when there's any thinning to tamp down the noise in the deck

Revision D - blackjack woodcutter (https://i.imgur.com/zVlIJec.png) con: math. and setting up a deck to get to $7 (altho this being $4 + free silvers from LC being $3 helps) pro: better cycling even on misses pro: always at least a woodcutter and/or chancellor probably the quickest of the lot to play

Revision F - roulette upgrade (https://i.imgur.com/f69tVQe.png) What happened to revision E? it looked too much like "revision C" at everything but max resolution. pro: probably most useful - remodel those Curses directly into Provinces! con: turns will take forever con: clumsy wording - help? maybe add coin tokens to the card and then it's sort of Butcheresque? pro: Lucky Coin gives you trashing fodder so you don't have to start from $0 with a Copper every time con: only limit to guesses is number of cards in deck - probably shouldn't allow for a Curse -> Colony upgrade

---

My entry is revision D but talk through these with me, change my mind.

A - I think this is way too wonky to be viable. With Lucky Coin this will mostly hit Treasures giving a meager +1 Buy and +$1 and that's if it procs at all.

C - The ability to play this until your deck runs out is really interesting, but could lead to swingy games. Could function as a way to set aside Victory cards, but then Gamblers become dead cards since you don't want to play them and put your green back into your deck. Would be quite hard to do, but powerful enough that it could be worth trying. Also, I don't think you need to specify that set aside cards are not in play.

D - Another interesting one. Really makes use of Lucky Coin's Silver gaining and the price of $4. Another one that could be swingy. The gambling aspect of drawing one or two cards seems fun.

F - This needs some text to address what happens to the revealed a card. Currently you reveal it and put it back, setting you up to perfectly name it the next time. If you can name it correctly the first time you can name it correctly 1,000,000 times if you wished! Even with that fixed, not having a cap on this could make it swingy. (Sorry I keep using that critique!)

Overall, some very interesting ideas. I think version D utilizes Lucky Coin the best and has some cool gameplay mechanics. I just recommend toning down the successful proc reward.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on July 21, 2019, 05:40:20 pm

CHALLENGE #37 - CREATE A CARD WITH AN EXISTING HEIRLOOM - SUBMISSION

I did a lot of baseline testing for this years ago and it really can put out a lot of VP on the right board, but the amount of kingdoms that worked well with it was limited. The big issue is you end up not playing most of your Coppers to ensure your Action/Treasure amounts are equal. This makes for some fun but tough game play decisions. Do you play out all your Treasure to maximize your coin, or take the extra VP? Ultimately it was a lot of fun and seemed balanced, but was not often useful enough.

Then it dawned on me that Lucky Coin might be a great fix! Silver flooding greatly increases your options for getting a good baseline, mix of coin and VP during your turns. Smart and thoughtful play should still prevail though.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZZ8SE4q.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 21, 2019, 05:51:31 pm

I have now added all cards for Challenge #37 to the Trello board (https://trello.com/b/QSNxkOHZ/dominion-strategy-weekly-design-contest). Everybody may add, modify and comment cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 21, 2019, 08:11:15 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 20, 2019, 03:03:13 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 18, 2019, 06:10:14 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/c6dslgwg.png)

Meadow
Type: Action
Cost: $2
Heirloom: Goat

Choose two different:
+1 Card; +1 Action; or gain a Meadow.
-
When you trash this, +3 Coffers

To me this is a very powerful card. The ability to terminally always gain more copies of itself to feed to your goat is spectacular and strong. And they *never* Hurt your deck you can always turn them into a cantrip. I think it needs to be priced much higher and I would rethink the "never hurt your deck" aspect of these, because buying them gaining them becomes a non-brainer. You just wait until your goat lines up. It becomes a lot more of an interesting decision if they are terminal or at least not can-trippable. You could turn the top part to simply "you may gain a Meadow." Then each one you gain clogs your deck and is probably better priced at 2.

I think you're overestimating the value. There are only 10 of these. To get one, you have to use a buy and $2, or use up an action (play meadow for +1 card, gain a meadow), or use up a card (play meadow for +1 action, gain a meadow). You then have to trash it, which means another waste of a card space. All this for 3 coffers. Not so crazy. Besides, since you only need to buy one, making it cost more would actually make it more powerful with TfB.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 21, 2019, 08:15:07 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on July 21, 2019, 06:06:21 am

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/04XIOcbl.png)

Is activating the Magic Lamp too hard? Make it smaller! Shrunken Lamp is much easier to activate, but yields a smaller amount of Wishes. In addition to that, downsizing your Lamp takes an entire buy that cannot be done when you hit $2 in a 5/2 opening.

Not necessary, but perhaps you'd want to consider making trashing the lamp for wishes optional, in case you want to try for the full 3 wishes in a future turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 21, 2019, 08:29:08 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on July 21, 2019, 05:40:20 pm

CHALLENGE #37 - CREATE A CARD WITH AN EXISTING HEIRLOOM - SUBMISSION

I did a lot of baseline testing for this years ago and it really can put out a lot of VP on the right board, but the amount of kingdoms that worked well with it was limited. The big issue is you end up not playing most of your Coppers to ensure your Action/Treasure amounts are equal. This makes for some fun but tough game play decisions. Do you play out all your Treasure to maximize your coin, or take the extra VP? Ultimately it was a lot of fun and seemed balanced, but was not often useful enough.

Then it dawned on me that Lucky Coin might be a great fix! Silver flooding greatly increases your options for getting a good baseline, mix of coin and VP during your turns. Smart and thoughtful play should still prevail though.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZZ8SE4q.jpg)

Feels a bit too strong. Since it's not an action or treasure, you can play any number of these (which is easy since it's non-terminal). Not too hard to have your actions and treasure and actions balanced since you could always hold back a treasure if necessary . With a well built engine, it wouldn't be crazy to get 6 actions and 6 treasures (in some cases even more) and then play 4 of these for 24 points. This could easily allow for endless games, since victory cards are going to slow down your ability to get more points per turn, and it might not be worth it buy more actions or treasures if your deck can't afford them to keep your point engine going.

All the cards that give point tokens push the game to finish by either making you gain cards, or making you trash cards, which puts a cap on how long it can go on for. The only exceptions are monument, which is terminal and only gives a single point which makes it hard (though not impossible) to win only on monument, chariot race, which doesn't always give you points, plunder, of which there only 5 of which are available late in the game (and can be covered by encampment) and again only give 1 point (and since it's a treasure can't be TR of KC), and wedding, which costs too much to just use it for points.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 21, 2019, 10:30:16 pm

I have a general idea of what I want so I made 2 versions to see what people say.
1. (https://i.imgur.com/VL0Qm2t.png)  2.(https://i.imgur.com/4Ap9siQ.png)

Notes on the general idea:
This is supposed to be similar to island (if it wasn't obvious). Unlike Island it can be used multiple times, since it doesn't have to put itself on the island mat. To balance that strength, it can only be used on victory cards. It's important to keep in mind that there aren't so many ways to get victory cards out of your deck, while still retaining their vp; it's a pretty useful ability. Most of the cases that exist are relatively limited (island can only be used once, distant lands can only be used on itself, native village can do it but it's not so easy).
The heirloom is pasture. This means there's an extra victory card to use tropical island on. In addition, it makes it more worthwhile to island your estates, since each one is worth 2vp rather than 1vp.

Notes on version 1:
In my opinion, this is the stronger of the two. I think it might be a bit too strong. The +2 cards synergizes with it's other ability since you have a greater chance to have a victory card to tuck away. It also can work well in BM (which can choke on Victory cards) as well as engines (giving you draw plus pseudo trashing).

Notes on version 2:
This is relatively close to island; it gives 2vp, and allows you to island cards or itself. Unlike island you can only put away victory cards, but you don't have to put tropical island on the island mat, allowing you to use it over and over again without having to buy more islands. However, like island, you can put it on the island mat if you no longer want it in your deck. I'm thinking about removing the victory card requirement and allowing you to just island any card.

Thoughts?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 22, 2019, 02:31:40 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 19, 2019, 03:18:47 am

(https://i.imgur.com/Cp0Wv1s.png)

So I realized that the top of Kelpie is worse than Market Square, so I decided to make it a little better. Also, the bottom now has the correct wording to avoid multiple reveals.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 22, 2019, 02:34:20 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 21, 2019, 08:29:08 pm

wedding, which costs too much to just use it for points.

Well, Wedding will eventually run out the golds, which does lead toward the end of the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 22, 2019, 08:12:37 am

(https://i.imgur.com/rMp8YBb.jpg)

Quote

Friar
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Trash a card from your hand. If it costs at least $3, gain a Duchy and an Estate. Otherwise, gain 2 Estates.
Heirloom: Pasture

Shepherd makes the Estate split matter with its Pasture buffing the VP of Estates while simultaneously providing a strong source of sifting and draw, but it doesn't offer a way to acquire said Estates.
Friar similarly gives Pasture, making the Estates possibly important, but provides no way to deal with the bloat of Estates, instead offering a way to gain them. This speed of gaining Estates might make gaining Friars too late a problem, but you can still get Duchies, at least.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 22, 2019, 09:14:25 am

Quote from: Kudasai on July 21, 2019, 05:26:03 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 19, 2019, 11:04:29 am

So I made a coupla things and wanna chat pros + cons for each

Gambler

Revision A - ezmode slots ...

Revision C - hard mode slots (https://i.imgur.com/qxEw9Gn.png) imgur ate revision b but it's fine, it wasn't that different than this one Usually just a terminal silver with some pretty mediocre cycling With Lucky coin, gravitates towards being a high $ card probably underpriced when there's any thinning to tamp down the noise in the deck

Revision D - blackjack woodcutter (https://i.imgur.com/zVlIJec.png) con: math. and setting up a deck to get to $7 (altho this being $4 + free silvers from LC being $3 helps) pro: better cycling even on misses pro: always at least a woodcutter and/or chancellor probably the quickest of the lot to play

Revision F - roulette upgrade (https://i.imgur.com/f69tVQe.png) What happened to revision E? it looked too much like "revision C" at everything but max resolution. pro: probably most useful - remodel those Curses directly into Provinces! con: turns will take forever con: clumsy wording - help? maybe add coin tokens to the card and then it's sort of Butcheresque? pro: Lucky Coin gives you trashing fodder so you don't have to start from $0 with a Copper every time con: only limit to guesses is number of cards in deck - probably shouldn't allow for a Curse -> Colony upgrade

---

My entry is revision D but talk through these with me, change my mind.

A - I think this is way too wonky to be viable. With Lucky Coin this will mostly hit Treasures giving a meager +1 Buy and +$1 and that's if it procs at all.

C - The ability to play this until your deck runs out is really interesting, but could lead to swingy games. Could function as a way to set aside Victory cards, but then Gamblers become dead cards since you don't want to play them and put your green back into your deck. Would be quite hard to do, but powerful enough that it could be worth trying. Also, I don't think you need to specify that set aside cards are not in play.

@ C : I mean, you can't do the set-aside trick - the Gambler either plays itself again (moving every revealed card to a temporary "we've done this one already" pile) or discards everything in the "we've done this one already" pile. I don't think there's any cards that can interrupt this loop. You absolutely could abuse the lucky coin's silver / buy excessive coppers / thin everything else out so it always hits a bunch on treasure but yeah, too swingy really.

Quote from: Kudasai on July 21, 2019, 05:26:03 pm

D - Another interesting one. Really makes use of Lucky Coin's Silver gaining and the price of $4. Another one that could be swingy. The gambling aspect of drawing one or two cards seems fun.

F - This needs some text to address what happens to the revealed a card. Currently you reveal it and put it back, setting you up to perfectly name it the next time. If you can name it correctly the first time you can name it correctly 1,000,000 times if you wished! Even with that fixed, not having a cap on this could make it swingy. (Sorry I keep using that critique!)

@F: There's text - the last line - that says to discard all cards revealed by this card. Again, I don't think you can interrupt the loop on this card. Could probably move that up to the end of ¶2 with an "Otherwise" clause, make that less confusing.
 

Quote from: Kudasai on July 21, 2019, 05:26:03 pm

Overall, some very interesting ideas. I think version D utilizes Lucky Coin the best and has some cool gameplay mechanics. I just recommend toning down the successful proc reward.

you think so? I think $5 is kind of a reasonable payout - $3 definitely isn't worth it, $4 is a "maybe" to my lizard brain but $5 gets peoples attention and gets them thinking "how can I set this up?" without being "the only game in town".

(also what is proc?)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on July 22, 2019, 12:39:35 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 21, 2019, 08:15:07 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on July 21, 2019, 06:06:21 am

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/04XIOcbl.png)

Is activating the Magic Lamp too hard? Make it smaller! Shrunken Lamp is much easier to activate, but yields a smaller amount of Wishes. In addition to that, downsizing your Lamp takes an entire buy that cannot be done when you hit $2 in a 5/2 opening.

Not necessary, but perhaps you'd want to consider making trashing the lamp for wishes optional, in case you want to try for the full 3 wishes in a future turn.

The idea is that a shrunken lamp loses the ability to provide 3 Wishes. If you do want to get 3 Wishes out of your lamp, just don't buy this Project.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 22, 2019, 12:53:50 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on July 22, 2019, 12:39:35 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 21, 2019, 08:15:07 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on July 21, 2019, 06:06:21 am

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/04XIOcbl.png)

Is activating the Magic Lamp too hard? Make it smaller! Shrunken Lamp is much easier to activate, but yields a smaller amount of Wishes. In addition to that, downsizing your Lamp takes an entire buy that cannot be done when you hit $2 in a 5/2 opening.

Not necessary, but perhaps you'd want to consider making trashing the lamp for wishes optional, in case you want to try for the full 3 wishes in a future turn.

The idea is that a shrunken lamp loses the ability to provide 3 Wishes. If you do want to get 3 Wishes out of your lamp, just don't buy this Project.

Yeah and even if the card allowed it; it seems like it would always be a terrible idea strategically to purchase Shrunken Lamp in any situation where you think you might activate it for the full 3 Wishes... you've thrown away a buy and the money for nothing.

It feels a little weird to have a project that only does something once; Projects generally have an ongoing benefit (discarding weird edge cases where you could get 2 Magic Lamps).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 22, 2019, 03:19:06 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 22, 2019, 02:34:20 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 21, 2019, 08:29:08 pm

wedding, which costs too much to just use it for points.

Well, Wedding will eventually run out the golds, which does lead toward the end of the game.

True. But it could continue to be bought after the golds run out and still give points. So it's not contingent on gaining cards, that's why I included it in the exceptions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 22, 2019, 03:37:39 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 22, 2019, 03:19:06 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 22, 2019, 02:34:20 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 21, 2019, 08:29:08 pm

wedding, which costs too much to just use it for points.

Well, Wedding will eventually run out the golds, which does lead toward the end of the game.

True. But it could continue to be bought after the golds run out and still give points. So it's not contingent on gaining cards, that's why I included it in the exceptions.

You are right good sir

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 22, 2019, 03:40:46 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 22, 2019, 03:19:06 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 22, 2019, 02:34:20 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 21, 2019, 08:29:08 pm

wedding, which costs too much to just use it for points.

Well, Wedding will eventually run out the golds, which does lead toward the end of the game.

True. But it could continue to be bought after the golds run out and still give points. So it's not contingent on gaining cards, that's why I included it in the exceptions.

For Monument, simply giving you +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} is considered enough to "lead toward the end of the game", because it gives you money to buy stuff. I think Wedding giving you Golds counts the same; it's not that it can run out the Gold pile; it's that it puts _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} in your deck which lets you eventually buy Provinces.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 22, 2019, 04:22:55 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 20, 2019, 07:26:40 pm

Drawbridge
Night/Duration - $3
From your deck, set aside (face down) a card, plus an additional card for each unused Buy you have. At the start of your next turn, put the set aside cards in your hand.
-
This is gained to your hand instead of your discard pile
Heirloom: Pouch

i like the interplay between "leave buys on the table this turn for a bigger turn next turn" but if you run like...the Market pile with this in your deck, you could have every turn be a Tactician.

Plus, consider like, using multiples of them - you leave two buys on the table and get... 4? 6? 8?! cards on your next turn.

Also you may want to revise the wording on the "From your deck, set aside (face down) a card" lead-in to "... (face down) the top card,..." so it's less ambiguous as to whether you could go through and pull out all the Stashes from your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on July 22, 2019, 05:26:30 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 22, 2019, 04:22:55 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 20, 2019, 07:26:40 pm

Drawbridge
Night/Duration - $3
From your deck, set aside (face down) a card, plus an additional card for each unused Buy you have. At the start of your next turn, put the set aside cards in your hand.
-
This is gained to your hand instead of your discard pile
Heirloom: Pouch

i like the interplay between "leave buys on the table this turn for a bigger turn next turn" but if you run like...the Market pile with this in your deck, you could have every turn be a Tactician.

Plus, consider like, using multiples of them - you leave two buys on the table and get... 4? 6? 8?! cards on your next turn.

Also you may want to revise the wording on the "From your deck, set aside (face down) a card" lead-in to "... (face down) the top card,..." so it's less ambiguous as to whether you could go through and pull out all the Stashes from your deck.

There are limits to how much you can draw as they have to be set aside at the end of the turn, so you can't reliably draw your deck every turn with Drawbridges. You also can't set aside Drawbridges that will be cleaned up this turn with other Drawbridges.

It's more a card that can be set up around for a megaturn or just one good hand than I put in the free card (even if you have zero buys) so it wouldn't be junk on the turns when it isn't set up well.

It will combo incredibly well with some cards, similar to Rats. The best it can possibly do however is drawing your deck - a great outcome but compared to Bridge (instantly winning the game) or Merchant Guild (setting you up for the rest of the game), it's modest.

I also wanted it to be a relevant consideration on boards where the only +buy you get is the Pouch, including working with Workshop variants. On turns you get the Pouch, it is an Expedition that will occasionally deliver for you later on (in fact I'm going to bump the cost up to $4 just so it isn't strictly better than Expedition.)

The "from your deck" wording is straight from Research (just moved around a bit).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on July 22, 2019, 06:30:13 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 21, 2019, 08:29:08 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on July 21, 2019, 05:40:20 pm

CHALLENGE #37 - CREATE A CARD WITH AN EXISTING HEIRLOOM - SUBMISSION

I did a lot of baseline testing for this years ago and it really can put out a lot of VP on the right board, but the amount of kingdoms that worked well with it was limited. The big issue is you end up not playing most of your Coppers to ensure your Action/Treasure amounts are equal. This makes for some fun but tough game play decisions. Do you play out all your Treasure to maximize your coin, or take the extra VP? Ultimately it was a lot of fun and seemed balanced, but was not often useful enough.

Then it dawned on me that Lucky Coin might be a great fix! Silver flooding greatly increases your options for getting a good baseline, mix of coin and VP during your turns. Smart and thoughtful play should still prevail though.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZZ8SE4q.jpg)

Feels a bit too strong. Since it's not an action or treasure, you can play any number of these (which is easy since it's non-terminal). Not too hard to have your actions and treasure and actions balanced since you could always hold back a treasure if necessary . With a well built engine, it wouldn't be crazy to get 6 actions and 6 treasures (in some cases even more) and then play 4 of these for 24 points. This could easily allow for endless games, since victory cards are going to slow down your ability to get more points per turn, and it might not be worth it buy more actions or treasures if your deck can't afford them to keep your point engine going.

All the cards that give point tokens push the game to finish by either making you gain cards, or making you trash cards, which puts a cap on how long it can go on for. The only exceptions are monument, which is terminal and only gives a single point which makes it hard (though not impossible) to win only on monument, chariot race, which doesn't always give you points, plunder, of which there only 5 of which are available late in the game (and can be covered by encampment) and again only give 1 point (and since it's a treasure can't be TR of KC), and wedding, which costs too much to just use it for points.

Could be. If I can recall all my baseline testing from years ago, Liminal Arch averaged about 7-8VP with (1) cards that enable Action/Treasure balance and (2) early Liminal Arch purchases. This may seem strong, but a lot of things have to align to get these numbers and you have to build your deck in a way that is very susceptible to duding.

Simply not playing all of your Treasures is the easiest way to get your Action/Treasure balance, but you're generally harming your hand to achieve this. Players who can both play all of their cards in hand and get the A/T balance should prevail. Other than that, getting a proper A/T balance is quite hard and is probaby a lot harder to achieve than people think. Most decks are mostly Actions. If Treasures are needed for payload they are usually inttoduced late game.

As for leading towards an end game, Liminal Arch requires you to buy Actions and Treasures to work. Generally a lot of them to get good VP amounts. Particularly cantrips and such kind of cards that your deck can handle a lot of. I.e. card piles that can easily empty and lead to a game's end.

These are my conclusions from about 10-20 baseline tests. All it takes though is for one actual game to prove this all wrong. ;)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on July 22, 2019, 06:34:13 pm

Quote from: spineflu

(also what is proc?)

Proc as in to make an occurance or event happen. In this case satisfying the condition to proc the +$3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on July 22, 2019, 09:22:38 pm

Quote from: Kudasai

F - I read this you repeat the naming part for each correct guess. If this is the case, the loop continues before anything gets discarded, which would allow infinite correct guesses beyond the first correct guess.

Either way this needs some word changes. If the whole card repeats then you'd attempt the gain a card costing $1 after each loop.

Specifically and unfortunately I think this needs to be a big run-on sentence:

"Name a type (Action, Attack, etc.), then reveal the top card of your deck and if it has the named type, discard it and do this again."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 22, 2019, 09:42:56 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on July 22, 2019, 06:30:13 pm

As for leading towards an end game, Liminal Arch requires you to buy Actions and Treasures to work. Generally a lot of them to get good VP amounts. Particularly cantrips and such kind of cards that your deck can handle a lot of. I.e. card piles that can easily empty and lead to a game's end.

Yes, the best idea would be to buy more cantrips (and treasures to balance the cantrips), but there might not always be cantrips to buy. Suppose you have 5 alchemists, a potion, 4 coppers, and 5 LA's. If there are no more non terminals in the supply, your best move would be to forego buying any more cards so as not to upset your balance. You would be able to get 25vp a turn, guaranteed. This is an extreme case, but in general, if there's only terminals, you might just want to stop buying cards and milk you LA's for vp.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 22, 2019, 09:53:07 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 22, 2019, 03:40:46 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 22, 2019, 03:19:06 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 22, 2019, 02:34:20 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 21, 2019, 08:29:08 pm

wedding, which costs too much to just use it for points.

Well, Wedding will eventually run out the golds, which does lead toward the end of the game.

True. But it could continue to be bought after the golds run out and still give points. So it's not contingent on gaining cards, that's why I included it in the exceptions.

For Monument, simply giving you +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} is considered enough to "lead toward the end of the game", because it gives you money to buy stuff. I think Wedding giving you Golds counts the same; it's not that it can run out the Gold pile; it's that it puts _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} in your deck which lets you eventually buy Provinces.

Buying stuff is optional. It's not just the money that's the important part (though it does slightly push you toward game end). It's the low point gain for a non terminal. If monument gave 5vp and +$2, this would easily lead to a stalemate where each player is trying to play as many monuments as possible each turn. If they split these monuments 5-5, then adding card to their deck can just make it harder to play 5 monuments a turn.

As an aside, I did a play a game where I abused monuments for insane vp. I was playing double tactician with a deck of only 10 cards (not including tactician in play); 3 kc, 5 monuments, tactician and steward.
kc-kc-kc-m-m-m-m-m-t (discard steward) for 15 vp each turn. I bought and trashed the other monuments to make sure my opponent couldn't copy me, but if he had bought them before me, it could have gone on forever. Notice that here monument essentially gave 3vp and the fact that it was terminal didn't matter as much since there was a kc chain. The only reason I ended up buying cards was to finish the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on July 22, 2019, 10:32:42 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 22, 2019, 09:42:56 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on July 22, 2019, 06:30:13 pm

As for leading towards an end game, Liminal Arch requires you to buy Actions and Treasures to work. Generally a lot of them to get good VP amounts. Particularly cantrips and such kind of cards that your deck can handle a lot of. I.e. card piles that can easily empty and lead to a game's end.

Yes, the best idea would be to buy more cantrips (and treasures to balance the cantrips), but there might not always be cantrips to buy. Suppose you have 5 alchemists, a potion, 4 coppers, and 5 LA's. If there are no more non terminals in the supply, your best move would be to forego buying any more cards so as not to upset your balance. You would be able to get 25vp a turn, guaranteed. This is an extreme case, but in general, if there's only terminals, you might just want to stop buying cards and milk you LA's for vp.

This is indeed an extreme case, which would take time to setup. My hope is that another player could end the game before this gets moving. Will that actually happen? Unsure. Should edge cases like this be considered for balancing purposes? Also unsure.

But I guess your real point is when both players go for this it makes a never ending game. I wonder if anything can be learned from Fairgrounds/Black Market games. Those can go on forever and sure do get old. I certainly don't want that for Liminal Arch.

[Add] Do you think the addition of Lucky Coin does anything to progress the game?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 23, 2019, 01:53:20 am

In regards to the current discussion, I wonder how it would be if you made it more powerful, but a one-shot. Like, 2 or 3 VP per pair and trash it. Then you can’t have endless gains and it becomes more of a niche card, but it would have the same idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 23, 2019, 09:07:44 am

Quote from: Kudasai on July 22, 2019, 09:22:38 pm

Quote from: Kudasai

F - I read this you repeat the naming part for each correct guess. If this is the case, the loop continues before anything gets discarded, which would allow infinite correct guesses beyond the first correct guess.

Either way this needs some word changes. If the whole card repeats then you'd attempt the gain a card costing $1 after each loop.

Specifically and unfortunately I think this needs to be a big run-on sentence:

"Name a type (Action, Attack, etc.), then reveal the top card of your deck and if it has the named type, discard it and do this again."

Discarding it at that point would let you do the loop indefinitely because you'd reshuffle when you hit deck's end.

Maybe like:
Trash a card from your hand.
Name a card type (Action, Treasure, etc) and reveal the top card of your deck. If the revealed card is the named type, set the revealed card aside and do this again (you can do this any number of times, provided you keep guessing correctly with card types). If the revealed card is not the named type, or you cannot reveal a card from your deck, discard all cards revealed and/or set aside by this card.
Gain a card costing up to $1 per correct guess more than the card you trashed.

Still a mouthful but kinda moot since its not the card i'm entering.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 23, 2019, 11:12:33 am

Night Worker
Type: Night
Cost: $5
Heirloom: Pouch

For each card you have gained this turn, if it is...
an Action card, +1 Villager
a Treasure card, +1 Coffers
a Victory card, +1 VP
———————————————————————————
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).


The hand-gaining is a bit gimmicky, I felt that the card was too good for $4 and needed a slight buff for $5.
Pouch is obviously there to ensure that you can always gain 2 cards per turn, even in Kingdoms without gainers or extra Buys.

The last option might at first look too similar to Groundskeeper. But as this doesn't draw, it is far less spammable than Groundskeeper. I also don't know whether it will play too similar to Academy/Guildhall but hope that the difference between a Project and a card does suffice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on July 23, 2019, 11:15:55 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 23, 2019, 09:07:44 am

Quote from: Kudasai on July 22, 2019, 09:22:38 pm

Quote from: Kudasai

F - I read this you repeat the naming part for each correct guess. If this is the case, the loop continues before anything gets discarded, which would allow infinite correct guesses beyond the first correct guess.

Either way this needs some word changes. If the whole card repeats then you'd attempt the gain a card costing $1 after each loop.

Specifically and unfortunately I think this needs to be a big run-on sentence:

"Name a type (Action, Attack, etc.), then reveal the top card of your deck and if it has the named type, discard it and do this again."

Discarding it at that point would let you do the loop indefinitely because you'd reshuffle when you hit deck's end.

Maybe like:
Trash a card from your hand.
Name a card type (Action, Treasure, etc) and reveal the top card of your deck. If the revealed card is the named type, set the revealed card aside and do this again (you can do this any number of times, provided you keep guessing correctly with card types). If the revealed card is not the named type, or you cannot reveal a card from your deck, discard all cards revealed and/or set aside by this card.
Gain a card costing up to $1 per correct guess more than the card you trashed.

Still a mouthful but kinda moot since its not the card i'm entering.

This certainly stops potential infinite loops, but I didn't have much of an issue with that. My concern was that after each correct guess the card would go back on top of your deck. It simply revealed the card, but didn't discard it (much like Mystic). After the first correct guess, players could then always know what the top card was and thus could continue to correctly guess the type. Coupled with gaining a card per correct guess meant a player could really gain any card they wanted.

But yes, a moot point now. Very interesting card idea though. Would like to see it fleshed out more outside of the Design Contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 23, 2019, 11:29:17 am

Quote from: Aquila on July 20, 2019, 06:45:55 am

Quote

Meadow - $2 cost, choose two of +card, +action, gain meadow. When you trash this +3 Coffers. Heirloom: goat.

3 Coffers each trash feels like quite a lot of income from potentially a single investment of $2, and we know the problem of big Coffers accumulation from Renaissance. 2 Coffers maybe?

In my opinion the Coffers are not the problem of the card, it likely needs to yield 3 instead of 2 to be worthwhile. But the self-gaining plus the cantrip option likely do make the card too strong. You can imagine Peddler/Conspirator/Goldem Kingdoms where you play this a few times for self-gaining just in order to have a few cantrips in your deck.
I suggest to cut one, i.e. make this just a cantrip or self-gainer on play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 23, 2019, 03:06:18 pm

Thank you for all your feedback. I decided to give Meadow a nerf.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d34c8ecba53c15dd66bc61b/6732866785f251748691e28cc34881c0/meadow_v2.png)

Heirloom: Goat

You may gain a Meadow. If you didn’t: +1 Card +1 Action
-
When you trash this, +3 Coffers

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 23, 2019, 03:42:07 pm

For flavor, I wonder if it would be more thematic to have meadow be an animal, like Rabbit, due to the self-gaining trick?

Edit: I guess goats don’t eat rabbits though

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 23, 2019, 08:05:27 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 23, 2019, 03:42:07 pm

For flavor, I wonder if it would be more thematic to have meadow be an animal, like Rabbit, due to the self-gaining trick?

Edit: I guess goats don’t eat rabbits though

The meadow grows and Goat mows.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 23, 2019, 11:00:23 pm

Okay here is what I am going with. Changed it a bit so it allows any card to be sent to island mat.
(https://i.imgur.com/SwNdHGU.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 24, 2019, 09:28:00 pm

There wasn't any 24 hour warning. Just wanted to check, does the contest end tomorrow?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 24, 2019, 11:40:10 pm

I have an entry but I’ve been procrastinating making the card until I get a 24 hour warning, I hope we still get a 24 hour warning.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on July 25, 2019, 12:38:21 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 24, 2019, 09:28:00 pm

There wasn't any 24 hour warning. Just wanted to check, does the contest end tomorrow?

About 16 hours from now will be 7 days from when the challenge was issued. That's all I know.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 25, 2019, 01:49:41 am

Judgment Day is almost upon us.

I'll be asleep by the time the 7 days run out, so you are going to have 24 hours from now for further submissions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on July 25, 2019, 06:58:49 am

Construct
Event: $3
Until the end of this turn, when you buy a card costing $3 to $6, gain a copy of it.

Heirloom: Pouch

The synergy is straightforward: this event requires + buy, while pouch provides it.
I like big endgame plays, so it is not limited to non-victory card.
Cost restriction is necessary.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 25, 2019, 10:28:33 am

Quote from: artless on July 25, 2019, 06:58:49 am

Construct
Event: $3
Until the end of this turn, when you buy a card, gain a copy of it.

Heirloom: Pouch

The synergy is straightforward: this event requires + buy, while pouch provides it.
I like big endgame plays, so it is not limited to non-victory card.

This would be fine if it were restricted to non-Victory cards. Without this restriction it is too strong. You only need to hit $11 (instead of $16) and 2 Buys to gain 2 Provinces respectively $19 (instead of $32) and 3 Buys to gain 4 Provinces.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on July 25, 2019, 11:03:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/LA82ZLF.png)

I personally was never bothered by counting your deck with Philosophers Stone (although it's been years since I've actually played one) but I'd understand if this gets marked down for that. You should be able to count once and then keep track pretty easily anyway. Goat helps with keeping the deck small and you can also draw cards to reduce deck size, but then maybe you don't need the extra card so much! The effect is simple because deck counting is probably one of the more taxing mechanics a card can have, don't want things to become too confusing. I haven't been feeling particularly creative this week, I'll blame the heat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 25, 2019, 11:36:57 am

Quote from: Gazbag on July 25, 2019, 11:03:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/LA82ZLF.png)

I personally was never bothered by counting your deck with Philosophers Stone (although it's been years since I've actually played one) but I'd understand if this gets marked down for that. You should be able to count once and then keep track pretty easily anyway. Goat helps with keeping the deck small and you can also draw cards to reduce deck size, but then maybe you don't need the extra card so much! The effect is simple because deck counting is probably one of the more taxing mechanics a card can have, don't want things to become too confusing. I haven't been feeling particularly creative this week, I'll blame the heat.

Agreed on counting decks - and in this case especially, you can stop once you get to 11, so shouldn't be too bad.

Title: Re: Contest #37: Use existing Heirloom
Post by: Gubump on July 25, 2019, 11:57:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/dnJ87QB.png)

My previous submission was lame, so I've changed it to this. Changed in my OP as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 25, 2019, 11:59:32 am

Quote from: Gubump on July 25, 2019, 11:57:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/LraceL4.png)

My previous submission was lame, so I've changed it to this. Changed in my OP as well.

There's already an official Landmark called Museum. Seems like the name could be related to Merchant, of course.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 25, 2019, 02:10:29 pm

OK, here's v0.2 of Collector. Still not in love with it, but now trashing happens at start of cleanup. So it's similar to improve (thanks, Kudasai), but:
• gives +1 Action, instead of +$2 (which works better for Magic Lamp)
• requires you to trash, once you've set aside a card
• can be used on treasure or Night

I changed the "up to" to "exactly" so that it can be useful to trash your Coppers, if nothing else

What I want is to still figure out a clever way to limit the setting side some. (I considered something like "during your buy phase, when you play a Treasure, you may set Aside an action card you have in play; this of course would eliminate the third bullet point).

(https://i.imgur.com/VSz6rfS.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 25, 2019, 03:59:22 pm

Quote from: segura on July 25, 2019, 10:28:33 am

Quote from: artless on July 25, 2019, 06:58:49 am

Construct
Event: $3
Until the end of this turn, when you buy a card, gain a copy of it.

Heirloom: Pouch

The synergy is straightforward: this event requires + buy, while pouch provides it.
I like big endgame plays, so it is not limited to non-victory card.

This would be fine if it were restricted to non-Victory cards. Without this restriction it is too strong. You only need to hit $11 (instead of $16) and 2 Buys to gain 2 Provinces respectively $19 (instead of $32) and 3 Buys to gain 4 Provinces.

even with a victory card restriction this can be OP. Anytime I would buy 2 of any card $4 or more, I'm getting a good deal. Keep in mind that there's no limit on how many of these you can buy so this with 3 buys and $13 you can get 4 $5 cards. Technically if it were just $5 or $6 cards it would be ok (even though it's a good deal, everyone can get it equally just like delve), but if there are potion cost cards or very expensive cards like overlord, city quarter, prince, or king's court this can be way too strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 25, 2019, 05:11:38 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 25, 2019, 03:59:22 pm

Quote from: segura on July 25, 2019, 10:28:33 am

Quote from: artless on July 25, 2019, 06:58:49 am

Construct
Event: $3
Until the end of this turn, when you buy a card, gain a copy of it.

Heirloom: Pouch

The synergy is straightforward: this event requires + buy, while pouch provides it.
I like big endgame plays, so it is not limited to non-victory card.

This would be fine if it were restricted to non-Victory cards. Without this restriction it is too strong. You only need to hit $11 (instead of $16) and 2 Buys to gain 2 Provinces respectively $19 (instead of $32) and 3 Buys to gain 4 Provinces.

even with a victory card restriction this can be OP. Anytime I would buy 2 of any card $4 or more, I'm getting a good deal. Keep in mind that there's no limit on how many of these you can buy so this with 3 buys and $13 you can get 4 $5 cards.

4 Buys, the Event is "terminal". I would not worry about this though. Sure, with $13 you might otherwise buy a Province and a $5 instead of still building up further but it is not as crazy as with Provinces.

Quote

Technically if it were just $5 or $6 cards it would be ok (even though it's a good deal, everyone can get it equally just like delve), but if there are potion cost cards or very expensive cards like overlord, city quarter, prince, or king's court this can be way too strong.

Good point so a cost limitation is probably best.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 25, 2019, 07:03:17 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 25, 2019, 02:10:29 pm

OK, here's v0.2 of Collector. Still not in love with it, but now trashing happens at start of cleanup. So it's similar to improve (thanks, Kudasai), but:
• gives +1 Action, instead of +$2 (which works better for Magic Lamp)
• requires you to trash, once you've set aside a card
• can be used on treasure or Night

I changed the "up to" to "exactly" so that it can be useful to trash your Coppers, if nothing else

What I want is to still figure out a clever way to limit the setting side some. (I considered something like "during your buy phase, when you play a Treasure, you may set Aside an action card you have in play; this of course would eliminate the third bullet point).

(https://i.imgur.com/VSz6rfS.png)

OK, I think I figured out a reasonable penalty for setting aside; possibly missing the next shuffle.

You now discard the remaining set aside cards *after* you draw your next hand. Also, since now cards get discarded instead of being put back in play, the setting aside is restricted to non Duration cards.

This also puts a little more separation between it and Improve.

(https://i.imgur.com/fAvlPhJ.png)

(I've updated both my initial post and the Trello board)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on July 25, 2019, 08:17:36 pm

Quote from: segura on July 25, 2019, 05:11:38 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 25, 2019, 03:59:22 pm

Quote from: segura on July 25, 2019, 10:28:33 am

Quote from: artless on July 25, 2019, 06:58:49 am

Construct
Event: $3
Until the end of this turn, when you buy a card, gain a copy of it.

Heirloom: Pouch

The synergy is straightforward: this event requires + buy, while pouch provides it.
I like big endgame plays, so it is not limited to non-victory card.

This would be fine if it were restricted to non-Victory cards. Without this restriction it is too strong. You only need to hit $11 (instead of $16) and 2 Buys to gain 2 Provinces respectively $19 (instead of $32) and 3 Buys to gain 4 Provinces.

even with a victory card restriction this can be OP. Anytime I would buy 2 of any card $4 or more, I'm getting a good deal. Keep in mind that there's no limit on how many of these you can buy so this with 3 buys and $13 you can get 4 $5 cards.

4 Buys, the Event is "terminal". I would not worry about this though. Sure, with $13 you might otherwise buy a Province and a $5 instead of still building up further but it is not as crazy as with Provinces.

Quote

Technically if it were just $5 or $6 cards it would be ok (even though it's a good deal, everyone can get it equally just like delve), but if there are potion cost cards or very expensive cards like overlord, city quarter, prince, or king's court this can be way too strong.

Good point so a cost limitation is probably best.

Overlord is a big problem.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 25, 2019, 11:56:56 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/mcrm5gva.png)

Lucky Coin needs a card that goes with it that gets more love than Fool. So here's a card that has a use for all those silvers. It simply converts those silvers into coffers, nice! And when you're done with Lucky Coin you can scrap those too.But what do you do with those coffers? Well, here's a card that I believe finally balances the pay for buys mechanic. Since cards all cost 1$ more, you have to pay 1$ extra for each buy (unless you're in the endgame and want victory cards). Where do you get that extra $? Perhaps coffers from a previous play of Metal Scrapper! I believe this card balances the pay for buys mechanic (it's pretty similar to traveling fair but works as a card instead of an event) by making you sacrifice a 2-cost action or better card. It sort of creates its own buy tokens! It simultaneously provides a pretty motivating reason to increase the cost of cards, which has some nice synergy with other trash for benefits (like allowing Catapult to attack with estates).

Though it looks similar, this is a lot worse at trashing your starting 10 cards than Catapult is. You can't trash estates with it, and trashing coppers doesn't attack your opponents. However, it makes up with its flexibility in converting silvers into coffers for help in the mid to late game. If you're clever, you can play two metal scrappers to increase the cost of coppers and then trash a third to get coffers. This seems like a lot of work just to get 2 coffers out of three coppers, well, I can't make all your decisions for you. I can only point out some of the interesting ways this card combos with itself.

There's a lot of ways to change this card. I had a bunch of variants: I could allow it to trash victory cards but not giving a bonus for trashing victory cards (felt more complicated to add a double condition), I could allow it to trash victory cards but only giving bonuses for trashing cards costing 3 or more (I then preventing it from getting benefits from 2-cost action cards and I wanted that), or I could allow it to trash victory cards and get the benefit (more powerful than I wanted this card to be). Ultimately you can see the decision I went with, but I welcome any feedback for this card, even after judging is over. Thank you!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 26, 2019, 12:17:34 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 25, 2019, 11:56:56 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/mcrm5gva.png)

Lucky Coin needs a card that goes with it that gets more love than Fool. So here's a card that has a use for all those silvers. It simply converts those silvers into coffers, nice! And when you're done with Lucky Coin you can scrap those too.But what do you do with those coffers? Well, here's a card that I believe finally balances the pay for buys mechanic. Since cards all cost 1$ more, you have to pay 1$ extra for each buy (unless you're in the endgame and want victory cards). Where do you get that extra $? Perhaps coffers from a previous play of Metal Scrapper! I believe this card balances the pay for buys mechanic (it's pretty similar to traveling fair but works as a card instead of an event) by making you sacrifice a 2-cost action or better card. It sort of creates its own buy tokens! It simultaneously provides a pretty motivating reason to increase the cost of cards, which has some nice synergy with other trash for benefits (like allowing Catapult to attack with estates).

Though it looks similar, this is a lot worse at trashing your starting 10 cards than Catapult is. You can't trash estates with it, and trashing coppers doesn't attack your opponents. However, it makes up with its flexibility in converting silvers into coffers for help in the mid to late game. If you're clever, you can play two metal scrappers to increase the cost of coppers and then trash a third to get coffers. This seems like a lot of work just to get 2 coffers out of three coppers, well, I can't make all your decisions for you. I can only point out some of the interesting ways this card combos with itself.

There's a lot of ways to change this card. I had a bunch of variants: I could allow it to trash victory cards but not giving a bonus for trashing victory cards (felt more complicated to add a double condition), I could allow it to trash victory cards but only giving bonuses for trashing cards costing 3 or more (I then preventing it from getting benefits from 2-cost action cards and I wanted that), or I could allow it to trash victory cards and get the benefit (more powerful than I wanted this card to be). Ultimately you can see the decision I went with, but I welcome any feedback for this card, even after judging is over. Thank you!

One quick question: not sure what you mean by " It simultaneously provides a pretty motivating reason to increase the cost of cards, which has some nice synergy with other trash for benefits (like allowing Catapult to attack with estates)”?

Estates would still only cost $2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 26, 2019, 03:03:47 am

Thank you for all the submissions! As usual, you produced a lot of interesting ideas, and deciding was hard. I will go through the cards in alphabetical order.

Breeder (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805707#msg805707) by Commodore Chuckles

Quote

Breeder
$4 - Action
Heirloom: Pasture

+1 Action
Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. If one has a type that the other does not, put them both into your hand. Otherwise, put one in your hand and the other back.

I am not sure why this was paired with Pasture. It makes it weaker than it would be otherwise, and this is already a kind of weak card. It also doesn't really give an incentive to keep Estates around.

City Farm (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg806095#msg806095) by Gazbag

Quote

City Farm
$5 - Action
Heirloom: Goat

+1 Card
+2 Actions
Count your deck and discard pile. If there are 10 or fewer cards total between them, +1 Card.

I like that this gives extra draw that's hard to use. There is an interesting push-pull mechanic where the more easily you can activate this, the less likely you need it. It may be a bit too powerful in the early/mid game as with Goat, it takes a while for your deck to grow.

Collector (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805698#msg805698) by scolapasta

Quote

Collector
$4 - Action
Heirloom: Magic Lamp

+1 Action
At the end of your turn (after drawing), trash a card you set aside with Collector and gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it. Discard the rest.
-
While this is in play, when you play a non-Duration card, you may set it aside.

I feel like this is just a more complicated version of Improve? It is a bit more flexible, but on the other hand the on-play effect is weaker. Also this does not ensure that 6 different cards can be play in a turn, which I think a card that has Magic Lamp as its Heirloom should.

Construct (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg806083#msg806083) by artless

Quote

Construct
$3 - Event
Heirloom: Pouch

Until the end of this turn, when you buy a card costing $3 to $6, gain a copy of it.

This is like a more straightforward version of Talisman/Stonemason. I think it will too often be automatic and not create interesting decisions.

Drawbridge (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805743#msg805743) by NoMoreFun

Quote

Drawbridge
Night/Duration - $4
Heirloom: Pouch

From the top of your deck, set-aside (face down) a card, plus another card per unused Buy. At the start of your next turn, put the set-aside cards into your hand.
-
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).

This has a fairly broad range in terms of how useful it will be... there are cards that give you abundant buy (Workers' Village) and other times it's harder to come buy. This is somewhat offset by the fact that when you have lots of buys, you likely won't have a lot of cards left in your draw pile. That makes it feel overall more balanced. My only concern is that it might be too strong to just be able to set aside this turn's buys in a deck-drawing engine.

Friar (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805856#msg805856) by Fragasnap

Quote

Friar
$2 - Action
Heirloom: Pasture

Trash a card from your hand. If it costs at least $3, gain a Duchy and an Estate. Otherwise, gain 2 Estates.

I have a hard time judging the usefulness of this. Feels like there is a very small window near the endgame when you would prefer this over nothing and over Estate. I'm not sure it has enough of an impact to make Pasture matter.

Gallery  (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805678#msg805678)by Gubump

Quote

Gallery
$8 -  Project
Heirloom: Lucky Coin

During your turn, when you play a Silver, +1$

This is pretty expensive compared to Training. I think a lot of the time, you'd prefer a Province, as with lots of Silvers in your deck, you're already in good shape for buying Provinces. It may hav a place for when you struggle to hit $8 due to discard attacks, but then again, when you struggle to hit $8, you'll have a hard time buying this.

Gambler (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805692#msg805692) by spineflu

Quote

Gambler
$4 - Action
Heirloom: Lucky Coin

+1 Buy
+2$

When you play this, reveal the top two cards of your deck. If the revealed cards cost less than $7 total, reveal either 1 or 2 more cards. If all the revealed cards cost exactly $7 total, +3$ and trash a card revealed this way. Otherwise, put your deck into your discard pile. Discard all cards revealed by this card.

First of all I think all costs should specify  "in coins" to make this not be completely pointless with Debt/Potions. It#s a bit too random for my taste, I wish there was more you could do to influence the outcome rather than just deciding 1 vs 2 extra cards. You could also cut down on text by just saying "Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Reveal up to 2 more cards. If all..." Finally, I'm not sure what the putting your deck in your discard does for this, it just seems unnecessarily complicated.

Goblin (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805718#msg805718) by majiponi

Quote

Goblin
$4 - Action
Heirloom: Poach

+$2
This turn, cards cost $1 less per a card you bought, but not less than $2.

I think it has been pointed out that this interacts weirdsly with cards costing less than $0. It also interacts weirdly with other cost-reducers. While generally I think pairing cost reducers with Puch is smart, I wish this just had the standard "not less than $0".

Kelpie  (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805684#msg805684)by mail-mi

Quote

Kelpie
$4 -  Action/Reaction
Heirloom: Cursed Gold

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may discard any number of Curses for +$1 each.
----
When you gain a Curse, you may reveal then discard this from your hand, to return up to 2 cards from your hand to the supply

I think this is a very nice fit for Cursed Gold. Usually cards that do things with Curses are problematic since you have to add a mechainic that makes you want to gain Curses without them being super strong. But here, Cursed Gold already takes care of this. The extra Buy is nice for Cursed Gold's extra cash. It's also good that the reaction, while still usable when you are attacked with a Curser, it quite costly then so it doesn't discourage going for those attacks too much.

Liminal Arch (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805817#msg805817) by Kudasai

Quote

Liminal Arch
$6 - Night/Victory
Heirloom: Lucky Coin

If the number of Actions and the number of Treasures you have in play are the same, +1 VP per Action/Treasure pair you have in play.
-
2 VP

I really like the concept here, but I think you want to have a way for this to move the game towards ending. Could be making to play effect on-gain, or draining some other pile, or it trashing something that you played in order to work.

Manor (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805715#msg805715) by math

Quote

Manor
$5 - Action
Heirloom: Haunted Mirror

+1 Card
+1 Action
If this is the first time you played a Manor this turn, you may trash a card from your hand.
-
When you gain this, gain another Manor (that doesn't come with another).

Feels a bit swingy; when you collide them in a shuffle, that will be a setback. You could trash Hautned Mirror on a collision, offsetting this somewhat, but you need to have it in hand (and Gost isn't so strong that this is always a good thing). Other than that the design is neat and simple.

Meadow  (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805664#msg805664)by King Leon

Quote

Meadow
$2 -  Action
Heirloom: Goat

You may gain a Meadow. If you didn’t: +1 Card +1 Action
-
When you trash this, +3 Coffers

I like having the on-trash effect paired with Goat, but I think this is too automatic. When you have $2, it's never bad to get this, and often it's going to be pretty useful. I think this want to be either more expensive or not a cantrip.

Metal Scrapper (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg806135#msg806135) by anordinaryman

Quote

Metal Scrapper
$3 - Action
Heirloom: Lucky Coin

+1$
Trash a non-Victory card from your hand. If it costs $2 or more, choose one: +2 Coffers, or +2 buys and this turn, non-Victory cards (everywhere) cost $1 more.

Comparing this trash Silver for benefit effect to something like Catapult, it's a bit underwhelming. Not sure I'd want the get additional Silvers just for this. Also, the cost increase is a wonky mechanic with some rules confusion and since it's not central to this card, I would prefer if it wasn't there.

Modeller (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805685#msg805685) by Aquila

Quote

Modeller
$4 - Night
Heirloom: Goat

Name a card you've trashed a copy of this turn. Gain a non-Victory card costing up to $2 more than it.

Fun little Workshop/Remodel variant. I like it. Not sure how much it is hurt by not being able to gain Provinces, but that's probably a good move as with that, it would definitely be too strong.

Night Worker (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805943#msg805943) by segura

Quote

Night Worker
$5 - Night
Heirloom: Pouch

For each card you have gained this turn, if it is...
an Action card, +1 Villager
a Treasure card, +1 Coffers
a Victory card, +1 VP
-
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).

Passing up an Iron theme, huh? I'm not sure this needed to have Pouch to be interesting. The most useful option a lot of the time is going to be the Villagers, and I feel that it's a bit too good here? Like 2 of those should solve all your problems in a decent engine. Also being a Night card it's odd that it does not provide a benefit for gained Night cards.

Shrunken Lamp (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805750#msg805750) by grrgrrgrr

Quote

Shrunken Lamp
$3 - Project
Heirloom: Magic Lamp

When you play Magic Lamp, if there are at least 4 cards you have exactly one copy of in play, trash it. If you do, gain 2 Wishes from the Wish pile. (you no longer gain 3 Wishes)

I don't quite like that ths solely revolves around an Heirloom, and my least favorite Heirloom at that. I also don't like that this effectively harms you if you do manage to line up 6 uniques after buying it.

Silversmith (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805696#msg805696) by 4est

Quote

Silversmith
$4 - Action
Heirloom: Lucky Coin

+2 Cards
+1 Buy
-
While this is in play, when you play a Silver, you may play it again. If you do, trash it.

Basically turning Silvers into super-Spoils. I think it's going to be too strong, especially with other mid-turn Silver gainers. Maybe try it at $5?

Tropical Island (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805989#msg805989) by naitchman

Quote

Tropical Island
$5 - Action/Victory
Heirloom: Pasture

You may put this or a card from you hand onto your Island mat.

I don't think this needs Pasture at all. Also I think there's a good reason Island is hard to use as otherwise greening would be too easy. I'm not a fan of this one, sorry.

My final verdict is:

Runners-up: City Farm by Gazbag, Modeller by Aquila, Drawbridge by NoMoreFun
Winner: Kelpie by mail-mi

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 26, 2019, 04:46:20 am

Thanks for the win faust!

So I have no idea what number challenge this is, but it's a basic one: Create a Village.

The only rule is that the card must itself provide some source of extra actions. So Throne Room variants and Lost Arts wouldn't count, but Barracks would. Also cards that give Villagers wouldn’t count unless the card also gave some source of extra actions. I will comment on submissions that don't count (I'm bad at remembering to +1 things).

I'll be on vacation at this time next week, so the deadline will likely be in slightly longer than 1 week (I get back Saturday).

Submissions will be judged on originality, creativity, balance, and fun.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 26, 2019, 05:01:46 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 26, 2019, 04:46:20 am

So Throne Room variants and Lost Arts wouldn't count, but Academy would.

Not sure what your distinction is here; Academy doesn't provice Actions by itself, it requires that there are Action cards to be gained.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 26, 2019, 05:07:51 am

Quote from: faust on July 26, 2019, 05:01:46 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 26, 2019, 04:46:20 am

So Throne Room variants and Lost Arts wouldn't count, but Academy would.

Not sure what your distinction is here; Academy doesn't provice Actions by itself, it requires that there are Action cards to be gained.

Ah, shoot, I got those mixed up, that should be Barracks, not Academy. I’ll go fix that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #38: Village
Post by: Aquila on July 26, 2019, 05:44:20 am

(https://i.imgur.com/t9eIWTq.jpg)

I was literally just toying with this idea before the contest was posted, that's why I'm in so quick. This Village needs an immediate neighbour played after it to be worthwhile. What said neighbour is affects what vanilla you get. You resolve the card, and add an extra 1 to all +card, buy and $ amounts as you get them; so if you play standard Village, you get +2 Cards +2 Actions. Market will be +2 Cards +1 Action +2 Buys +$2. Vault will be +3 Cards, +$1 per card discarded, then another +$1 if you discarded any cards (you got a +$ amount, then added 1 on; you don't add 1 to the number on the instructions). Hireling isn't giving you anything as you resolve it, so no extra bonuses.
Didn't seem sensible to add +Actions on. +Villagers similarly. Could do Coffers, but keeping simple for now. No set has Coffers and VP in it yet.
Trying to be a skill Village liking precise lining up.

Edit: made the vanilla gain be on the next Action played 'from hand' (lets throning and playing these from other places be meaningful) and added VP to the possible vanilla.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 10:07:22 am

(https://i.imgur.com/qMTunot.png)

Priced at $4 so everyone can open with it if they want to / so no one is priced out of it before their first reshuffle. In pretty much every configuration it's worse than Market or Festival also which makes the $4 price point seem right.

Edit: revised version:
(https://i.imgur.com/iv8onfF.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 26, 2019, 10:11:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 10:07:22 am

Priced at $4 so everyone can open with it if they want to / so no one is priced out of it before their first reshuffle. In pretty much every configuration it's worse than Market or Festival also which makes the $4 price point seem right.

It is pretty much strictly better than Poacher though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 10:16:45 am

Quote from: faust on July 26, 2019, 10:11:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 10:07:22 am

Priced at $4 so everyone can open with it if they want to / so no one is priced out of it before their first reshuffle. In pretty much every configuration it's worse than Market or Festival also which makes the $4 price point seem right.

It is pretty much strictly better than Poacher though.

tbh i think poacher's overpriced given the penalty. still, good point. worth changing the card, do you think?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 26, 2019, 10:55:28 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 10:16:45 am

Quote from: faust on July 26, 2019, 10:11:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 10:07:22 am

Priced at $4 so everyone can open with it if they want to / so no one is priced out of it before their first reshuffle. In pretty much every configuration it's worse than Market or Festival also which makes the $4 price point seem right.

It is pretty much strictly better than Poacher though.

tbh i think poacher's overpriced given the penalty. still, good point. worth changing the card, do you think?

It's not just that it's strictly better than Poacher, it's strictly better than Peddler at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} also. It's Village any time you need a Village, Market Square if you need that, one of the few cards in the game that allows you to get +2 buys, also just a Silver if you need that... I'm pretty sure it's at least powerful enough to need to be _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 11:46:20 am

EDIT: here's the prompt if you're looking for it (from p116):

Quote from: mail-mi on July 26, 2019, 04:46:20 am

Thanks for the win faust!

So I have no idea what number challenge this is, but it's a basic one: Create a Village.

The only rule is that the card must itself provide some source of extra actions. So Throne Room variants and Lost Arts wouldn't count, but Barracks would. Also cards that give Villagers wouldn’t count unless the card also gave some source of extra actions. I will comment on submissions that don't count (I'm bad at remembering to +1 things).

I'll be on vacation at this time next week, so the deadline will likely be in slightly longer than 1 week (I get back Saturday).

Submissions will be judged on originality, creativity, balance, and fun.

---

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 26, 2019, 10:55:28 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 10:16:45 am

Quote from: faust on July 26, 2019, 10:11:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 10:07:22 am

Priced at $4 so everyone can open with it if they want to / so no one is priced out of it before their first reshuffle. In pretty much every configuration it's worse than Market or Festival also which makes the $4 price point seem right.

It is pretty much strictly better than Poacher though.

tbh i think poacher's overpriced given the penalty. still, good point. worth changing the card, do you think?

It's not just that it's strictly better than Poacher, it's strictly better than Peddler at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} also. It's Village any time you need a Village, Market Square if you need that, one of the few cards in the game that allows you to get +2 buys, also just a Silver if you need that... I'm pretty sure it's at least powerful enough to need to be _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Alright so I had this at $5 originally but I figured if you open 5/2 but your opponent doesn't, it's going to give the 5/2 player an unfair advantage, right? $4 is probably underpriced but gets rid of the 5/2 player problem

$5 is also overpriced for a couple of the configurations:
• +1 Card +2 Actions
• +1 Card +$2
• +1 Action +$2


What would yall think about bumping it up to $6 and having the first choice be "choose two, the choices can be the same"?
That way you can have it be a money lab if you need that for some reason, or a market/festival, but it's out of reach of the 5/2 player, or also you can do weird shit like have it be +4 actions and you just stock up on terminals, for some reason. Then its mostly up against gold but has some solid modularity to play well in whatever deck.

edit: sorry for bumping this whole deal to a new page.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 26, 2019, 12:01:06 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 11:46:20 am

Alright so I had this at $5 originally but I figured if you open 5/2 but your opponent doesn't, it's going to give the 5/2 player an unfair advantage, right? $4 is probably underpriced but gets rid of the 5/2 player problem

You could use that argument to say that every powerful _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} card should actually cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} instead...

Quote

$5 is also overpriced for a couple of the configurations:
• +1 Card +2 Actions
• +1 Card +$2
• +1 Action +$2

Well yes, if a card gives a lot different options, then it has to cost more than what any of those options by themselves would cost. If it has even one option that's worth _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, then it's too powerful for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} because it has other options also. So if you want it to cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, every option has to be too weak for a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Quote

What would yall think about bumping it up to $6 and having the first choice be "choose two, the choices can be the same"?
That way you can have it be a money lab if you need that for some reason, or a market/festival, but it's out of reach of the 5/2 player, or also you can do weird shit like have it be +4 actions and you just stock up on terminals, for some reason. Then its mostly up against gold but has some solid modularity to play well in whatever deck.

Pretty sure this would be too strong for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}... _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} is generally not that much more expensive than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, other than the difference of whether a lucky 5/2 player can open with it. If both sets were "choose 2", you could make a Lost City, an activated Conspirator (Grand Market without the Buy), a Market, a Lab-with-money...

I think a flat-out "+2 cards, +1 action, +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}" would be balanced at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} probably, your card would be way strictly better than that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 26, 2019, 01:06:00 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 26, 2019, 12:01:06 pm

I think a flat-out "+2 cards, +1 action, +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}" would be balanced at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} probably, your card would be way strictly better than that.

Balanced but boring. You do often buy a Lab (variant) when you hit $6 anyway.

These hyperflexible vanilla cards, often better than Lab (which is already a very flexible card that is good in most Kingdoms and only potentially outclassed by Village-Smithy-combo-draw), are sometimes proposed and I don't think that they are good in any way. Whatever the board lacks, they provide: be it draw, Buys, or Peddler-style economy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 26, 2019, 01:13:49 pm

Quote from: faust on July 26, 2019, 03:03:47 am

Tropical Island (http://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s4iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s4iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s4iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shqpfnfiiegbhdilb/smvtrj/p1/index.php?topic=18987.msg805989#msg805989) by naitchman

Quote

Tropical Island
$5 - Action/Victory
Heirloom: Pasture

You may put this or a card from you hand onto your Island mat.

I don't think this needs Pasture at all. Also I think there's a good reason Island is hard to use as otherwise greening would be too easy. I'm not a fan of this one, sorry.

I don't think so. It provides draw power similar to Hireling, i.e. it is dead on play and thus takes time to pay off. Hireling increases your draw power by 1 per turn, Tropical Island increases your draw power by 1 per shuffle after each shuffle, conditional upon you having stuff to set aside.

Most of us don't mind crazy, overpowered, overdrawing engines so it is nice to have a card which can create virtual draw power in money or alt-VP decks. I don't think that it needs the VPs or self setting aside; getting rid of that woud be a sensible way to nerf the card while still keeping its main idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 26, 2019, 01:30:44 pm

Here's my entry for this week:

Developing Village

An attempt at overpay for villagers.

It works as either a simple cantrip, or if you can "develop" the card you reveal, a Village (but possibly stronger, since you get to choose a card from he Supply).

(plus with the overpay, you can use those Villagers to sometimes have it be a Village even if you don't trash)


(https://i.imgur.com/GHxbgI5.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 - originally posted on my thread
v0.2 - initial post in challenge thread
v0.3 - fixed wording, increased cost, overpay benefit

---

Secret History:

Developing Village is overpay for Villagers, with some DNA from both Develop and Village. The first version did not give the extra action or card, but allowed you to gain a copy of the trashed card

---

Questions:

Main question is, what do you think about the overpay for Villagers? When I first designed this card, that is what I was trying to achieve, but it's not actually needed for this challenge, so I could consider removing it.

My idea was to have the villagers be attached to a card that isn't a quite a village, so that you would sometimes need to use the villagers (if you reveal a copper or a province, for example, and have 2 more terminals), but often not (which is why it's at least a cantrip and sometimes even a village). 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 26, 2019, 02:36:11 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 26, 2019, 01:30:44 pm

Here's my entry for this week:

Developing Village

An attempt at overpay for villagers.

It works as either a simple cantrip, or if you can "develop" the card you reveal, a Village (but possibly stronger, since you get to choose a card from he Supply).

(plus with the overpay, you can use those Villagers to sometimes have it be a Village even if you don't trash)


(https://i.imgur.com/5l9zY88.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 - originally posted on my thread
v0.2 - initial post in challenge thread

---

Secret History:

Developing Village is overpay for Villagers, with some DNA from both Develop and Village. The first version did not give the extra action or card, but allowed you to gain a copy of the trashed card

Wording nitpick; "overpay" should have "When you buy this, you may overpay for it".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 26, 2019, 02:45:54 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 26, 2019, 02:36:11 pm

Wording nitpick; "overpay" should have "When you buy this, you may overpay for it".

Sure; I'll make this change in the inevitable v0.3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 26, 2019, 03:35:51 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 26, 2019, 01:30:44 pm

Here's my entry for this week:

Developing Village

An attempt at overpay for villagers.

It works as either a simple cantrip, or if you can "develop" the card you reveal, a Village (but possibly stronger, since you get to choose a card from he Supply).

(plus with the overpay, you can use those Villagers to sometimes have it be a Village even if you don't trash)


(https://i.imgur.com/5l9zY88.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 - originally posted on my thread
v0.2 - initial post in challenge thread

---

Secret History:

Developing Village is overpay for Villagers, with some DNA from both Develop and Village. The first version did not give the extra action or card, but allowed you to gain a copy of the trashed card

Does the +1 card mean you draw the revealed card or the next card? I would change the wording to make it clearer. If you draw the revealed card, just say “put the revealed card into your hand,” and if you want to draw the next card, say “discard the revealed card and +1 card”

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 26, 2019, 03:56:29 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 26, 2019, 03:35:51 pm

Does the +1 card mean you draw the revealed card or the next card? I would change the wording to make it clearer. If you draw the revealed card, just say “put the revealed card into your hand,” and if you want to draw the next card, say “discard the revealed card and +1 card”

The intention is to draw the revealed card. It's either a cantrip, or a village where you've "developed" the card into something else.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on July 26, 2019, 05:50:07 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 26, 2019, 03:35:51 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 26, 2019, 01:30:44 pm

Here's my entry for this week:

Developing Village

An attempt at overpay for villagers.

It works as either a simple cantrip, or if you can "develop" the card you reveal, a Village (but possibly stronger, since you get to choose a card from he Supply).

(plus with the overpay, you can use those Villagers to sometimes have it be a Village even if you don't trash)


(https://i.imgur.com/5l9zY88.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 - originally posted on my thread
v0.2 - initial post in challenge thread

---

Secret History:

Developing Village is overpay for Villagers, with some DNA from both Develop and Village. The first version did not give the extra action or card, but allowed you to gain a copy of the trashed card

Does the +1 card mean you draw the revealed card or the next card? I would change the wording to make it clearer. If you draw the revealed card, just say “put the revealed card into your hand,” and if you want to draw the next card, say “discard the revealed card and +1 card”

ITT we criticize official cards!
Ironmonger uses scolaposta's choice of brevity over clarity.  A board with Ironmonger, Harem, and a more eloquent Developing Village would have all of these extra words with the same risk of a card being played different from the intention.  Increased risk, actually, the words on Developing Village would suggest that perhaps Ironmonger should work differently!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 26, 2019, 06:22:37 pm

You’re right, Ironmonger does say it like Developing Village does. My bad.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on July 26, 2019, 06:28:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Nj6vOET.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 26, 2019, 06:46:48 pm

Quote from: pubby on July 26, 2019, 06:28:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Nj6vOET.png)

Can probably cost $4; and might be weak then too... I guess it’s good in the same situations that Mission is good; but if you plan to buy cards; you basically can’t afford to be playing these.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 26, 2019, 06:49:19 pm

WITHDRAWN

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/i93v0qmt.png)

Parish
Type: Action/Reserve
Cost: $5

+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
Directly after you finish playing an Action card, you may call this for +2 Actions.


Remarks
This card is obviously designed for engines with strong terminal draw (like Council Room, Hunting Grounds or Patrol). Unlike Bustling Village it is available from the beginning and you can save the +2 Actions in the case when your terminal draw does not collide with further Action cards. It started as +1 Card +1 Action +2 Villagers, but this was a way to strong, even for $5. Then I tried a Duration (cantrip this turn, +2 Actions next turn), which was too swingy and weak, because it often gave you the additional Actions, when you did not need them. I wanted something that gives you the possibility to get the +Actions now or later. So it became a Reserve card, a cantrip, which plays a Necropolis after any Action card. In contrast to Royal Carriage, it even gives you Actions when you play a terminal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 26, 2019, 07:53:32 pm

This is a simplification of a similar card I have in Dominion: Greed.
(https://i.imgur.com/qb7MhyK.jpg)

Quote

Prophet
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. You may trash or discard a non-Victory card from your hand. +Actions equal to its cost in coins.

---

When you trash this, you may gain an Action costing exactly $5, putting it into your hand.

A sort of Lost City variant, I guess. Discard poorly timed stop cards for big +Actions. Use the gratuitous number of +Actions to tempo-trash Coppers. Trash Prophets later to transform your deck. Hopefully have some use for those +4 Actions when you Prophet a Prophet.

This started as an attempt to make trash-for-benefit:+actions work. It didn't work well. It tempo-trashed Estates and then was ignored.
Being able to discard cards as well was good, but it turns out that the world's best Estate trasher that can also discard Provinces for +8 Actions is pretty silly. I could fix it by disallowing either Estates or Provinces, but it works pretty well when it can't touch either. There's a lot you can do when all those cards in your deck can be discarded for +Actions.

Title: Re: Contest #38: Design a Village
Post by: Gubump on July 26, 2019, 08:16:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/nUp5v3s.png)

A mildly playtested card from a fan expansion I'm working on.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Simplified wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on July 26, 2019, 08:48:20 pm

(Updated with the Gubump's suggestions)

(https://i.imgur.com/A5XmdC0.png)
Donjon
$4 Action/Victory
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard a Victory card for +1 Card and +1 Action
1VP

I think, it should be priced similar to Mill. Boost for the initial economy, and probably good at endgame; self-synergy intended.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 26, 2019, 09:06:21 pm

Quote from: grep on July 26, 2019, 08:48:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4zMYJ1H.png)
Donjon
$4 Action/Victory
+1 Action
+1 Card
You may discard a Victory card. If you do, +1 Action, +1 Card
1VP

I think, it should be priced similar to Mill. Boost for the initial economy, and probably good at endgame; self-synergy intended.

1. Cards come before Actions.
2. Needs a dividing line between the Action and the Victory, like Mill.
3. The proper wording in 2nd edition is "You may discard a Victory card for +1 Card and +1 Action."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on July 26, 2019, 09:51:11 pm

Prior Entry (withdrawn)


Merchant's Village
Action - $3
+2 Actions
+$1
You may reveal a Silver from your hand for +1 Card

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on July 26, 2019, 10:54:24 pm

CHALLENGE #38 - CREATE A VILLAGE - SUBMISSION:

Can make a good amount of coin, but takes a bit to get to that point (at least 2 Metropolis' at $6 each). "+1 Card and +3 Actions" is arguably a really good $4 cost, but very weak at $6. Situations may exist where grabbing one of these validates the cost (an absence of other Villages etc), but this really shines with big engine play.

(https://i.imgur.com/tXPGXQD.jpg)

Quote from: Kudasai

+1 Card
+3 Actions
+$1 per card you've played (including this) after the previous Metropolis played this turn.

Changes:
v0.2 - Cost reduced from $8 to $6, Buy removed, and gives +$1 per card played in between Metropolis plays.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on July 26, 2019, 11:40:22 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/8YBWy7d.png)

Here's my submission this week.  Brewery is an old card I worked on a while back, when I was first getting into Dominion.  It's a weird hand-discarder that provides payload and some sifting, sort of like a non-attack Minion that does both things.  Letting you keep your best cards before discarding helps you plan out your turn a bit more.  Like Minion, Brewery appreciates +$ Actions and doesn't play quite as well with Treasure payload.  Multiples are nice for sprinkling throughout your turn, but you'll want more than just Breweries as you can't keep more than one in your hand after playing your first, since you have to discard at least one card.  Cheers!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 27, 2019, 01:18:44 am

Quote from: Kudasai on July 26, 2019, 10:54:24 pm

CHALLENGE #38 - CREATE A VILLAGE - SUBMISSION:

Wanted to try and make an $8 cost village. Can make a butt-load of coin, but takes a lot to get to that point (at least 2 Metropolis' at $8 each). Probably not worth going for on fast boards, but this is the dilemma of all $8 cost cards (Prince, Fortune, etc). I likely don't have the values correct so any insight would be appreciated! Thanks for looking.

(https://i.imgur.com/iJdxvRR.jpg)

Quote from: Kudasai

+1 Card
+3 Actions
+1 Buy
+$2 per card you've played (including this) after the previous Metropolis you played this turn.

While I think this is great in Platinum/Colony games, it kinda sucks that it's really overpriced until you get two of them, especially since you're passing up two Provinces if it isn't a Plat/Col game. It would be a lot nicer if the first one you bought in the game came with a second (for example, "the first time you gain this in a game, gain another Metropolis"), or at least some other benefit. (Heck, you could just make the first one each game per player cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} instead.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on July 27, 2019, 02:16:14 am

Quote from: scolapasta on July 26, 2019, 01:30:44 pm

Here's my entry for this week:

Developing Village

An attempt at overpay for villagers.

It works as either a simple cantrip, or if you can "develop" the card you reveal, a Village (but possibly stronger, since you get to choose a card from he Supply).

(plus with the overpay, you can use those Villagers to sometimes have it be a Village even if you don't trash)


(https://i.imgur.com/5l9zY88.png)

Changelog:
v0.1 - originally posted on my thread
v0.2 - initial post in challenge thread

---

Secret History:

Developing Village is overpay for Villagers, with some DNA from both Develop and Village. The first version did not give the extra action or card, but allowed you to gain a copy of the trashed card

---

Questions:

Main question is, what do you think about the overpay for Villagers? When I first designed this card, that is what I was trying to achieve, but it's not actually needed for this challenge, so I could consider removing it.

My idea was to have the villagers be attached to a card that isn't a quite a village, so that you would sometimes need to use the villagers (if you reveal a copper or a province, for example, and have 2 more terminals), but often not (which is why it's at least a cantrip and sometimes even a village).

I meant to comment on this card back when you posted it to your personal, card page, but I didn't have the time. Anyways, great looking card! This touches on an aspect of Dominion I wish I saw more with the official cards: the ability to switch your cards and thus your strategies during your turn. I like the very novel way this goes about it as well. Being able to switch a card from your hand would be very strong, so doing it blind from the top of your deck seems like a nice compromise.
 
Thoughts:
(1) I'd absolutely remove the overpay. It's neat, but doesn't really add anything. Especially now that it can act as a Village when played.
(2) The issue of fast pile depletion was brought up on your page and I have to agree that it is indeed an issue. Maybe this is something you like, but it could end games pretty fast. If you wanted to change it you could make it an exchange clause instead of trashing. It would function about the same. Example:

"Reveal the top card of your deck. You may exchange it for a differently named card with the same cost to your hand. If you do, +1 Action. If you don't, +1 Card."
(3) Even without the overpay I think this is a bit underpriced. Without the ability to be a village this could probably get away with being $2, but with that addition it probably needs to be $3 or $4. Not a big difference, but it would force players to be a little more thoughtful about diving on this pile. I guess upping the price could actually make this stronger though. Like if it were $3 it could be changed into Silvers on the fly. If it were $5 (for some reason) it could be a great Duchy gainer.

Anyways, really cool card. I'd like to try it sometime!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:08:17 am

(https://i.imgur.com/rtaBIq9.png)

A Tribute/Courtier kind of thing. The wording is a bit unclear, to clarify I mean that types can get counted several times.
So when you do e.g. reveal 3 Coppers, it is a terminal Gold and when you do e.g. reveal a Smithy, Market Square and a Silver, it is:
+2 Actions
+ _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}
Trash a card from your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 27, 2019, 03:30:14 am

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:08:17 am

A Tribute/Courtier kind of thing. The wording is a bit unclear, to clarify I mean that types can get counted several times.
So when you do e.g. reveal 3 Coppers, it is a terminal Gold and when you do e.g. reveal a Smithy, Market Square and a Silver, it is:
+2 Actions
+ _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}
Trash a card from your hand.

This should be a Looter and an Attack. Which makes the self-combo a bit strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:36:23 am

Quote from: faust on July 27, 2019, 03:30:14 am

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:08:17 am

A Tribute/Courtier kind of thing. The wording is a bit unclear, to clarify I mean that types can get counted several times.
So when you do e.g. reveal 3 Coppers, it is a terminal Gold and when you do e.g. reveal a Smithy, Market Square and a Silver, it is:
+2 Actions
+ _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}
Trash a card from your hand.

This should be a Looter and an Attack. Which makes the self-combo a bit strong.

That's precisely why it does not have those types. Strictly speaking it is technically "wrong" but as you pointed out, it is necessary for balance reasons.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 27, 2019, 03:45:04 am

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:36:23 am

Quote from: faust on July 27, 2019, 03:30:14 am

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:08:17 am

A Tribute/Courtier kind of thing. The wording is a bit unclear, to clarify I mean that types can get counted several times.
So when you do e.g. reveal 3 Coppers, it is a terminal Gold and when you do e.g. reveal a Smithy, Market Square and a Silver, it is:
+2 Actions
+ _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}
Trash a card from your hand.

This should be a Looter and an Attack. Which makes the self-combo a bit strong.

That's precisely why it does not have those types. Strictly speaking it is technically "wrong" but as you pointed out, it is necessary for balance reasons.

Well, but without the Looter type, there are no Ruins in the supply, so the attack part does nothing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:55:15 am

That's obviously not the intention so the card could come with a FAQ that says, as there is no space on the card:
"In games using this, Ruins are in the Supply."

Another way would be counteraction instead of amplification, i.e. make Actions the trigger for trashing (and don't do anything with the Reaction trigger at all or something else).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on July 27, 2019, 05:01:17 am

Mercantile Village (Action) [$4]

+1 Card
+1 Action

Reveal your hand. For each Treasure in your hand, +1 Villager.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 27, 2019, 06:47:28 am

Quote from: grep on July 26, 2019, 08:48:20 pm

(Updated with the Gubump's suggestions)

(https://i.imgur.com/A5XmdC0.png)
Donjon
$4 Action/Victory
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard a Victory card for +1 Card and +1 Action
1VP

I think, it should be priced similar to Mill. Boost for the initial economy, and probably good at endgame; self-synergy intended.

I agree. Mill is similar to Oasis/Secret Cave so without the 1VP it would probably be a $3. And this is roughly similar (better as you can discard non-dual-type green, worse as it can misfire) to Village.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on July 27, 2019, 07:39:27 am

Slave Merchant
cost $2 - Action
+2 Actions
+1 Buy
+$1
You may play a Treasure.
You may buy a card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 27, 2019, 09:32:07 am

Quote from: faust on July 26, 2019, 03:03:47 am

Breeder (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805707#msg805707) by Commodore Chuckles

Quote

Breeder
$4 - Action
Heirloom: Pasture

+1 Action
Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. If one has a type that the other does not, put them both into your hand. Otherwise, put one in your hand and the other back.

I am not sure why this was paired with Pasture. It makes it weaker than it would be otherwise, and this is already a kind of weak card. It also doesn't really give an incentive to keep Estates around.

Pasture makes it stronger, not weaker. If you reveal 2 Coppers, you can't put them both in your hand, but if you reveal a Copper and a Pasture, you can. Same thing for Estates: If you reveal a Copper and an Estate, you put them both in your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 27, 2019, 10:30:43 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 27, 2019, 05:01:17 am

Mercantile Village (Action) _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}

+1 Card
+1 Action

Reveal your hand. For each Treasure in your hand, +1 Villager.

Quote from: mail-mi on July 26, 2019, 04:46:20 am

The card must itself provide some source of extra actions.

Your Mercantile Village only gives +1 Action itself, so I don't think this counts. It's also way too easy to get an abundance of Villagers with just one. I.e. it's way too strong for just _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 27, 2019, 11:53:53 am

Quote from: Gubump on July 27, 2019, 10:30:43 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 27, 2019, 05:01:17 am

Mercantile Village (Action) _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}

+1 Card
+1 Action

Reveal your hand. For each Treasure in your hand, +1 Villager.

Quote from: mail-mi on July 26, 2019, 04:46:20 am

The card must itself provide some source of extra actions.

Your Mercantile Village only gives +1 Action itself, so I don't think this counts. It's also way too easy to get an abundance of Villagers with just one. I.e. it's way too strong for just _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

He’s right, it doesn’t count.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on July 27, 2019, 12:55:52 pm

Very well then - will change my entry to this.

Slum Village (Action - Reaction) [$4]

+1 Card
+2 Actions

———

When an opponent trashes a card, you may discard this from your hand, to gain a copy of that card from the Supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on July 27, 2019, 03:41:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iCSEXRkm.png)

Quote

Theatre (Action, $4)
This card has the same types and abilities as the card on the Theatre mat, but gives an additional +1 Action when played.
---
Setup: Put a $2 costing Action that gives +1 Action unconditionally onto the tavern mat.

The idea is that this card reads identically to the card on the Theatre mat, but with "+1 Action" being replaced by "+2 Actions". With "unconditionally", I mean that cards like Pawn and Squire are not eligible. It is kinda tricky to phrase properly.

EDIT: Changed the wording to avoid compatibility issues. This is the original version:
(https://i.imgur.com/9Ifllqcm.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 27, 2019, 04:42:23 pm

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:08:17 am

(https://i.imgur.com/rtaBIq9.png)

A Tribute/Courtier kind of thing. The wording is a bit unclear, to clarify I mean that types can get counted several times.
So when you do e.g. reveal 3 Coppers, it is a terminal Gold and when you do e.g. reveal a Smithy, Market Square and a Silver, it is:
+2 Actions
+ _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}
Trash a card from your hand.

I would drop the +1 VP for the Curse, because this could cause an endless stall situation where players can accumulate an infinite number of Victory points.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 27, 2019, 04:58:27 pm

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:55:15 am

That's obviously not the intention so the card could come with a FAQ that says, as there is no space on the card:
"In games using this, Ruins are in the Supply."

Another way would be counteraction instead of amplification, i.e. make Actions the trigger for trashing (and don't do anything with the Reaction trigger at all or something else).

To allow it to be a Looter and Attack, without being overpowered, what if it counted only 1 type per card? Something like:
"Choose one type from each card, and per type chosen:"

This means you would get exactly 3 things, but when cards are multi-typed you can select what you want most.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 27, 2019, 05:09:57 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 26, 2019, 06:22:37 pm

You’re right, Ironmonger does say it like Developing Village does. My bad.

I think it was a fine suggestion, though I'll likely keep the more brief +1 Card, since Ironmonger does have something similar.

That said, Developing Village could use "place the revealed card into your hand", while Ironmonger would need many more words since you in its case you can discard the revealed card, i.e. +1 Card is shorthand for one of two options.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 27, 2019, 05:28:28 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on July 27, 2019, 02:16:14 am

Quote from: scolapasta on July 26, 2019, 01:30:44 pm

Developing Village

I meant to comment on this card back when you posted it to your personal, card page, but I didn't have the time. Anyways, great looking card! This touches on an aspect of Dominion I wish I saw more with the official cards: the ability to switch your cards and thus your strategies during your turn. I like the very novel way this goes about it as well. Being able to switch a card from your hand would be very strong, so doing it blind from the top of your deck seems like a nice compromise.
 
Thoughts:
(1) I'd absolutely remove the overpay. It's neat, but doesn't really add anything. Especially now that it can act as a Village when played.
(2) The issue of fast pile depletion was brought up on your page and I have to agree that it is indeed an issue. Maybe this is something you like, but it could end games pretty fast. If you wanted to change it you could make it an exchange clause instead of trashing. It would function about the same. Example:

"Reveal the top card of your deck. You may exchange it for a differently named card with the same cost to your hand. If you do, +1 Action. If you don't, +1 Card."
(3) Even without the overpay I think this is a bit underpriced. Without the ability to be a village this could probably get away with being $2, but with that addition it probably needs to be $3 or $4. Not a big difference, but it would force players to be a little more thoughtful about diving on this pile. I guess upping the price could actually make this stronger though. Like if it were $3 it could be changed into Silvers on the fly. If it were $5 (for some reason) it could be a great Duchy gainer.

Anyways, really cool card. I'd like to try it sometime!

Thanks! Good feedback!

1. You're likely right, though the idea was that there will often be enough cases were you don't want to trash your card, and the overpay is a little bit of insurance so that you can still have it play as a village for a limited # of those turns. e.g. you reveal a Copper, clearly don't want a Curse, or you reveal a province. I almost want to have a poll, "should this card have overpay or not"? and see if anyone thinks it may be valid. :)

2. Sure. That discussion was for the first version of the card, where you a) could trash the card for a copy of itself and b) you didn't get +1 card if you didn't trash. So you would almost always trash, since for example, if you revealed a copper, trashing and gaining a copper to your hand was definitely better than keeping the copper on top of your deck. Only in some cases, e.g. an empty pile, you don't want to deplete the Provinces, etc, would you ever opt not to trash.

I was hopeful that this 2nd version actually mitigated that as you won't be trashing / gaining every time you play.

3. My thought was for $2, you could use it to "develop" your starting estates into these. And also to keep the price a little lower, so you would want to overpay for a Villager or 2. If I do end up dropping the overpay, it could make sense to up it to 3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 27, 2019, 05:31:41 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 27, 2019, 04:58:27 pm

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:55:15 am

That's obviously not the intention so the card could come with a FAQ that says, as there is no space on the card:
"In games using this, Ruins are in the Supply."

Another way would be counteraction instead of amplification, i.e. make Actions the trigger for trashing (and don't do anything with the Reaction trigger at all or something else).

To allow it to be a Looter and Attack, without being overpowered, what if it counted only 1 type per card? Something like:
"Choose one type from each card, and per type chosen:"

This means you would get exactly 3 things, but when cards are multi-typed you can select what you want most.

Oh and I think the word you're looking for the name of this card is "forlorn". :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on July 27, 2019, 05:49:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Hy5RBOC.png)

Quote

Hillside City
Action: $5
+1 Card
+2 Action
if you have an even number of cards in your hand: +1 Card

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on July 28, 2019, 03:40:16 am

Quote from: Gubump on July 26, 2019, 08:16:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EmWRbAd.png)

A mildly playtested card from a fan expansion I'm working on.

Note: If you don't play any non-Night cards during your next turn, Bookkeeper stays in play. Bookkeeper will be discarded during the Cleanup phase of the turn in which you play a non-Night card.

This one can be phrased a LOT more easily. Do something like this:

Quote

Bookkeeper
Night/Duration, $5
The first time you play a card next turn, if it is an...
...Action: +1 Card, +2 Actions
...Treasure: +1 Buy, +2$
---
This is gained to your hand (instead of discard pile)

The card itself looks like a fairly decent Ghost Town upgrade. Sounds a bit weak for a $5 cost though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on July 28, 2019, 04:23:57 am

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:55:15 am

That's obviously not the intention so the card could come with a FAQ that says, as there is no space on the card:
"In games using this, Ruins are in the Supply."

Another way would be counteraction instead of amplification, i.e. make Actions the trigger for trashing (and don't do anything with the Reaction trigger at all or something else).

If measures like this are necessary, you should just not involve Ruins on this one. In fact, just make it not having any special interaction with Attacks and Reactions. It makes the card unnecessarily convoluted for something that occurs sparsely.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 28, 2019, 05:55:42 am

Would this be a valid entry?

(https://i.imgur.com/NN7Xzpi.png)

Quote

Madrasa
$4 - Action

+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action. You may discard each revealed card, to play an Action from you hand. Put the revealed Action card in your hand. Discard the remaining cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 28, 2019, 09:57:27 am

Quote from: faust on July 28, 2019, 05:55:42 am

Would this be a valid entry?

(https://i.imgur.com/NN7Xzpi.png)

Quote

Madrasa
$4 - Action

+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action. You may discard each revealed card, to play an Action from you hand. Put the revealed Action card in your hand. Discard the remaining cards.

I don’t think so, because he said the card itself must provide the +actions. This only acts like a village when you have other action cards in your hand.

The wording seems convoluted... why not just +2 actions instead of +1 Action; you may play an action card from your hand?

Is the actual effect of this card the same as Farming Village but for action cards only instead of action and treasure?

Also, as worded, if you discard “each revealed card”; that includes the action card. So you discard it and then you put it in your hand?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 28, 2019, 10:49:48 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on July 28, 2019, 03:40:16 am

This one can be phrased a LOT more easily. Do something like this:

Quote

Bookkeeper
Night/Duration, $5
The first time you play a card next turn, if it is an...
...Action: +1 Card, +2 Actions
...Treasure: +1 Buy, +2$
---
This is gained to your hand (instead of discard pile)

The card itself looks like a fairly decent Ghost Town upgrade. Sounds a bit weak for a $5 cost though.

1. That doesn't function the same. Read my note.
2. Like I said, it's been playtested, and it's been worth _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} in every game with it so far.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 28, 2019, 11:02:03 am

Quote from: faust on July 28, 2019, 05:55:42 am

Would this be a valid entry?

(https://i.imgur.com/NN7Xzpi.png)

Quote

Madrasa
$4 - Action

+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action. You may discard each revealed card, to play an Action from you hand. Put the revealed Action card in your hand. Discard the remaining cards.

No, for the same reason Throne room isn’t valid. You could just say “you may discard each revealed card, for +1 action.” It works slightly differently, but it’s pretty similar.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 28, 2019, 11:09:07 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 28, 2019, 11:02:03 am

No, for the same reason Throne room isn’t valid. You could just say “you may discard each revealed card, for +1 action.” It works slightly differently, but it’s pretty similar.

That was my original idea, but it's a tracking nightmare.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 28, 2019, 11:11:32 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 28, 2019, 09:57:27 am

The wording seems convoluted... why not just +2 actions instead of +1 Action; you may play an action card from your hand?

Is the actual effect of this card the same as Farming Village but for action cards only instead of action and treasure?

Also, as worded, if you discard “each revealed card”; that includes the action card. So you discard it and then you put it in your hand?

The idea is that each card you reveal until you reveal the Action gives you +1 action. I think the wording still needs some optimization. But if it won't be permitted anyway then I might as well abandon it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 28, 2019, 11:25:53 am

Quote from: faust on July 28, 2019, 11:11:32 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 28, 2019, 09:57:27 am

The wording seems convoluted... why not just +2 actions instead of +1 Action; you may play an action card from your hand?

Is the actual effect of this card the same as Farming Village but for action cards only instead of action and treasure?

Also, as worded, if you discard “each revealed card”; that includes the action card. So you discard it and then you put it in your hand?

The idea is that each card you reveal until you reveal the Action gives you +1 action. I think the wording still needs some optimization. But if it won't be permitted anyway then I might as well abandon it.

Ahh.. yeah I see; but couldn’t tell from the wording. Could be “you may discard any number of revealed cards; for +1 action each.” Though it’s  still not clear about how to handle it if you discard the final card; the action card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on July 28, 2019, 01:24:39 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 28, 2019, 10:49:48 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on July 28, 2019, 03:40:16 am

This one can be phrased a LOT more easily. Do something like this:

Quote

Bookkeeper
Night/Duration, $5
The first time you play a card next turn, if it is an...
...Action: +1 Card, +2 Actions
...Treasure: +1 Buy, +2$
---
This is gained to your hand (instead of discard pile)

The card itself looks like a fairly decent Ghost Town upgrade. Sounds a bit weak for a $5 cost though.

1. That doesn't function the same. Read my note.
2. Like I said, it's been playtested, and it's been worth _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} in every game with it so far.

I would not make it more convoluted to cover cases where you forego playing Actions AND treasures during a turn (which basically doesn't occur untill the end). But hey, it's your submission. (and I can certainly believe this being worth $5)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 28, 2019, 01:29:55 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 28, 2019, 11:25:53 am

Quote from: faust on July 28, 2019, 11:11:32 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 28, 2019, 09:57:27 am

The wording seems convoluted... why not just +2 actions instead of +1 Action; you may play an action card from your hand?

Is the actual effect of this card the same as Farming Village but for action cards only instead of action and treasure?

Also, as worded, if you discard “each revealed card”; that includes the action card. So you discard it and then you put it in your hand?

The idea is that each card you reveal until you reveal the Action gives you +1 action. I think the wording still needs some optimization. But if it won't be permitted anyway then I might as well abandon it.

Ahh.. yeah I see; but couldn’t tell from the wording. Could be “you may discard any number of revealed cards; for +1 action each.” Though it’s  still not clear about how to handle it if you discard the final card; the action card.

What about Venture like wording:

"Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action. Discard the other cards for +1 Action each. Put that Action in your hand."

or Adventurer like (slight change, card goes in hand before discard):

"Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action card. Put the Action card into your hand and discard the other revealed cards for +1 Action each."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 28, 2019, 02:58:00 pm

Alright, here's my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/zEI46vB.png)

(Each player gets 2 ally tokens)

Going for a conclave like card, but in the opposite direction. Conclave encourages diversity, alliance discourages diversity. Absent of other villages, an alliance engine will only be able to support 2 different types of terminals (technically 3 if you only have 1 copy of the 3rd type).

Update: This card is no longer my submission due to it not qualifying.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 28, 2019, 03:42:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zTQsaZ3.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 28, 2019, 07:00:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 28, 2019, 03:42:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zTQsaZ3.png)

Neat, but maybe too strong when while-in-play stuff is available; such as Goons or Highway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 28, 2019, 07:23:45 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on July 28, 2019, 01:24:39 pm

Quote from: Gubump on July 28, 2019, 10:49:48 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on July 28, 2019, 03:40:16 am

This one can be phrased a LOT more easily. Do something like this:

Quote

Bookkeeper
Night/Duration, $5
The first time you play a card next turn, if it is an...
...Action: +1 Card, +2 Actions
...Treasure: +1 Buy, +2$
---
This is gained to your hand (instead of discard pile)

The card itself looks like a fairly decent Ghost Town upgrade. Sounds a bit weak for a $5 cost though.

1. That doesn't function the same. Read my note.
2. Like I said, it's been playtested, and it's been worth _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} in every game with it so far.

I would not make it more convoluted to cover cases where you forego playing Actions AND treasures during a turn (which basically doesn't occur untill the end). But hey, it's your submission. (and I can certainly believe this being worth $5)

You're right. I've changed it to your suggestion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on July 28, 2019, 11:40:46 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 27, 2019, 12:55:52 pm

Very well then - will change my entry to this.

Slum Village (Action - Reaction) [$4]

+1 Card
+2 Actions

———

When an opponent trashes a card, you may discard this from your hand, to gain a copy of that card from the Supply.

I think it needs cost limitation. When I play Swindler to trash your Colony, we (not including you) discard 3 Slum Village to pile out Colony and you cannot gain another. Isn't it ridiculous and too swingy?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 29, 2019, 02:45:09 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 28, 2019, 02:58:00 pm

Alright, here's my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/zEI46vB.png)

(Each player gets 2 ally tokens)

Going for a conclave like card, but in the opposite direction. Conclave encourages diversity, alliance discourages diversity. Absent of other villages, an alliance engine will only be able to support 2 different types of terminals (technically 3 if you only have 1 copy of the 3rd type).

Do Ally tokens work for both players and can you move tokens you opponent has placed?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: RTT on July 29, 2019, 03:10:17 am

(https://i.imgur.com/15WUKMk.png)

here is my submission. thematic because new villagers are born over night :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on July 29, 2019, 11:29:37 am

Here comes a "half village".

(https://i.imgur.com/RsnyXQd.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 29, 2019, 12:31:47 pm

Quote from: grep on July 26, 2019, 08:48:20 pm

(Updated with the Gubump's suggestions)

(https://i.imgur.com/A5XmdC0.png)
Donjon
$4 Action/Victory
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard a Victory card for +1 Card and +1 Action
1VP

I think, it should be priced similar to Mill. Boost for the initial economy, and probably good at endgame; self-synergy intended.

Nitpick here. The colors should be switched (white on top, green on bottom).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 29, 2019, 12:48:22 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 29, 2019, 02:45:09 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 28, 2019, 02:58:00 pm

Alright, here's my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/zEI46vB.png)

(Each player gets 2 ally tokens)

Going for a conclave like card, but in the opposite direction. Conclave encourages diversity, alliance discourages diversity. Absent of other villages, an alliance engine will only be able to support 2 different types of terminals (technically 3 if you only have 1 copy of the 3rd type).

Do Ally tokens work for both players and can you move tokens you opponent has placed?

Tokens are your own thing, you can only move yours and they're ally cards only for you. I think I need to change some wording on this card to make it more clear, thank you. But now that I look at some other cards that were nixed, I get a feeling this card may not count since it doesn't give +2 actions.

Mail-mi, Judgement?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 29, 2019, 01:00:04 pm

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:08:17 am

(https://i.imgur.com/rtaBIq9.png)

A Tribute/Courtier kind of thing. The wording is a bit unclear, to clarify I mean that types can get counted several times.
So when you do e.g. reveal 3 Coppers, it is a terminal Gold and when you do e.g. reveal a Smithy, Market Square and a Silver, it is:
+2 Actions
+ _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}
Trash a card from your hand.

You can just make it a looter (in order for ruins to be in the supply) but not an attack.

From the wiki:
"There are no special rules relating to Attack cards; they are simply a useful label to have so that other cards (mostly Reactions) can refer to them."

In this case, it is better not to have the label on it so you can just leave it out. It is definitely a legal move (see masquerade and possession).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 29, 2019, 01:03:14 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 28, 2019, 07:00:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 28, 2019, 03:42:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zTQsaZ3.png)

Neat, but maybe too strong when while-in-play stuff is available; such as Goons or Highway.

This is probably true. I have 2 suggestions to fix that:

1) Instead of saying, "you may ignore its instructions", you can say, "you may ignore its text". There's no precedent for this though.
2) +1 card, +2 actions, you may set aside an action card from your hand for +1 card, +2 actions. At the start of cleanup, put the set aside card into your discard pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 29, 2019, 01:20:53 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 29, 2019, 12:48:22 pm

Quote from: King Leon on July 29, 2019, 02:45:09 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 28, 2019, 02:58:00 pm

Alright, here's my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/zEI46vB.png)

(Each player gets 2 ally tokens)

Going for a conclave like card, but in the opposite direction. Conclave encourages diversity, alliance discourages diversity. Absent of other villages, an alliance engine will only be able to support 2 different types of terminals (technically 3 if you only have 1 copy of the 3rd type).

Do Ally tokens work for both players and can you move tokens you opponent has placed?

Tokens are your own thing, you can only move yours and they're ally cards only for you. I think I need to change some wording on this card to make it more clear, thank you. But now that I look at some other cards that were nixed, I get a feeling this card may not count since it doesn't give +2 actions.

Mail-mi, Judgement?

No, sorry, it wouldn’t count for the same reason Throne Room doesn’t.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on July 29, 2019, 03:56:51 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 29, 2019, 01:03:14 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 28, 2019, 07:00:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 28, 2019, 03:42:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zTQsaZ3.png)

Neat, but maybe too strong when while-in-play stuff is available; such as Goons or Highway.

This is probably true. I have 2 suggestions to fix that:

1) Instead of saying, "you may ignore its instructions", you can say, "you may ignore its text". There's no precedent for this though.
2) +1 card, +2 actions, you may set aside an action card from your hand for +1 card, +2 actions. At the start of cleanup, put the set aside card into your discard pile.

Its safe to simplify it to "reveal an action card, discard it, +1 card +2 Actions".  Because remember even if you reshuffle it in and redraw it and play it, you didn't play it the first time, so it's not like some kind of Dangerous Card that risks letting someone play bridge and discard it from play and play it again later too many times.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 29, 2019, 04:44:39 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on July 29, 2019, 03:56:51 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 29, 2019, 01:03:14 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 28, 2019, 07:00:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 28, 2019, 03:42:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zTQsaZ3.png)

Neat, but maybe too strong when while-in-play stuff is available; such as Goons or Highway.

This is probably true. I have 2 suggestions to fix that:

1) Instead of saying, "you may ignore its instructions", you can say, "you may ignore its text". There's no precedent for this though.
2) +1 card, +2 actions, you may set aside an action card from your hand for +1 card, +2 actions. At the start of cleanup, put the set aside card into your discard pile.

Its safe to simplify it to "reveal an action card, discard it, +1 card +2 Actions".  Because remember even if you reshuffle it in and redraw it and play it, you didn't play it the first time, so it's not like some kind of Dangerous Card that risks letting someone play bridge and discard it from play and play it again later too many times.

it's not necessarily a problem of infinite loops, it just becomes a much stronger card the way you're phrasing it. If you can reliably draw your deck, you're not giving anything up by discarding a card (since it's better than a cantrip) and sprawling village can become +1 card +4 actions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on July 29, 2019, 04:48:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/MmsqVDn.png)

Let's see how long I can keep up this conditional Lost City streak! At first you only needed 3 unused actions but that felt too easy to achieve, especially in games with other villages. It's pretty difficult to get the draw if it's the only village, and you need to play 2 more just to make up for the non-drawing ones but I think that's fine for a $2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 29, 2019, 07:04:00 pm

Ok here is my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/unCvWoc.png)

Kind of similar to poacher, it's a lost city, then a village, then a necropolis. I felt it couldn't really compete with lost city at $5, so I made it $4 ($3 felt too strong considering it won't become a necropolis in many games).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 29, 2019, 07:14:43 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 29, 2019, 01:03:14 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 28, 2019, 07:00:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 28, 2019, 03:42:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zTQsaZ3.png)

Neat, but maybe too strong when while-in-play stuff is available; such as Goons or Highway.

This is probably true. I have 2 suggestions to fix that:

1) Instead of saying, "you may ignore its instructions", you can say, "you may ignore its text". There's no precedent for this though.
2) +1 card, +2 actions, you may set aside an action card from your hand for +1 card, +2 actions. At the start of cleanup, put the set aside card into your discard pile.

Honestly I don't think this is a problem. There aren't that many "while in play" cards, and the effects on them are:

-Lighthouse's one becomes useless
-Herbalist's one sucks anyway
-Highway is a cantrip, so the effect is like Lost Arts on a single card - not broken
-Groundskeeper, see above
-Bridge Troll becomes exactly the same as Highway
-Princess becomes a double Highway, which is super strong but there's only one and you'll lose the +Buy
-Goons is super strong anyway and you'll lose the +Buy
-Haggler does have the potential to become crazy, but you'll lose the +$2 and that's a combo with just one other card

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on July 29, 2019, 11:36:03 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 29, 2019, 07:14:43 pm

Quote from: naitchman on July 29, 2019, 01:03:14 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 28, 2019, 07:00:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 28, 2019, 03:42:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zTQsaZ3.png)

Neat, but maybe too strong when while-in-play stuff is available; such as Goons or Highway.

This is probably true. I have 2 suggestions to fix that:

1) Instead of saying, "you may ignore its instructions", you can say, "you may ignore its text". There's no precedent for this though.
2) +1 card, +2 actions, you may set aside an action card from your hand for +1 card, +2 actions. At the start of cleanup, put the set aside card into your discard pile.

Honestly I don't think this is a problem. There aren't that many "while in play" cards, and the effects on them are:

-Lighthouse's one becomes useless
-Herbalist's one sucks anyway
-Highway is a cantrip, so the effect is like Lost Arts on a single card - not broken
-Groundskeeper, see above
-Bridge Troll becomes exactly the same as Highway
-Princess becomes a double Highway, which is super strong but there's only one and you'll lose the +Buy
-Goons is super strong anyway and you'll lose the +Buy
-Haggler does have the potential to become crazy, but you'll lose the +$2 and that's a combo with just one other card

Yeah, I guess you're right that there aren't so many cases. Probably the best ones are haggler and goons. With one sprawling village you can play 4 goons (or hagglers) vs 3 if you changed it. The Loss of 2 coins (and a buy with goons) is probably worth it. Its much easier to set up goons or haggler engines with it (with 4 sv and 4 goons your deck can handle 9 additional terminals while still getting the goons benefit). That being said, it's only 2 cards that are really powerful, so you're probably right.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 30, 2019, 06:53:09 am

Quote from: Aquila on July 26, 2019, 05:44:20 am

Neighbouring Village
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Actions. When you next play an Action card from your hand this turn, add 1 more to each +Card, +Buy, +$, and +VP amount it gives as you resolve it.

I think the wording could be improved (as I would definitely not get "Vault gives +$ equal to what you discarded +$1"), but I understand what you're getting at, so I will spare the pedantics.
It feels very promo-ish, because I don't think it would be worth its own complexities as an off-theme card inside an expansion proper. I think I like it. It has strong combos, but it is strongest with cards that give a variety of resources (at which point this turns into a Bazaar variant of sorts), which are rare enough that they would not typically mind the boost.

Quote from: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 10:07:22 am

Fete
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Choose one: +1 Card; or +1 Action. Choose two (the choices can be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy; or +$1.

I think the Peddler option makes this too much of a no-brainer, let alone its other very decent choices. Maybe give it a buy restriction ($3 Grand Market?), weird cost (<6>?), or an additional benefit to buff it up to $5 (when you gain this, gain a differently named card costing exactly $5?).

Quote from: scolapasta on July 26, 2019, 01:30:44 pm

Developing Village
Types: Action
Cost: $2+
+1 Action. Reveal the top card of your deck. You may trash it and gain a differently named card with the same cost to your hand. If you do, +1 Action; if you don't +1 Card.

---

When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 overpaid, +1 Villager

This doesn't need to reveal the card. You can just look at it.
While it shapes itself somewhat like a splitter, I think Developing Village is really hiding an immensely frustrating Estate trasher, largely because it costs $2+. I'd recommend a cost of $3+ instead just to avoid the ability to turn Estates into Developing Villages. I think I disagree that it doesn't need the overpay. There will be a fair number of boards where triggering the +Actions in this will be difficult. The overpay benefit might even need to be larger for an increased cost.
Exchanging the card instead of trashing it would be fine, but don't forget to specify that you exchange for a card in the Supply, because exchange does not imply that (existing Exchanges being the Travellers and Changeling with exchanges for a specific card).

Quote from: pubby on July 26, 2019, 06:28:30 pm

Capital City
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards, +2 Actions.

---

While this is in play, cards cost $1 more.

I'll ignore issues with timing and cost reduction.
Ideally, +1 Card should be worth more than +$1, but considering it really gives -$1 per Buy, and engine decks typically want to buy multiple cards (let alone other ways they care about card cost), this could probably even cost $3 and wouldn't be unreasonable. I'd want to give it some reason that it cares about the cost of cards.

Quote from: King Leon on July 26, 2019, 06:49:19 pm

Parish
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $5
+1 Card, +1 Action. Put this on your Tavern mat.

---

Directly after you finish playing an Action card, you may call this for +2 Actions.

I think the things that make Coin of the Realm interesting are that it is a stop-card that you can functionally only use every other turn that provides an awkward number of +actions. Parish takes Coin of the Realm and removes about half of what makes it interesting, to an extent that I'd recommend going back to the drawing board with it.

Quote from: Gubump on July 26, 2019, 08:16:36 pm

Bookkeeper
Types: Night, Duration
Cost: $5
The first time you play a card next turn, if it is an... Action card, +1 Card and +2 Actions; Treasure card, +1 Buy and +$2

---

This is gained to your hand.

The flexibility of this I'm not sure is worth the buff from Ghost Town (even though it gives +1 Action more). Its general similarity makes this less exciting to me, generally. Making the $ value worth more than the splitter would risk making Bookkeeper into a big-money enabler.

Quote from: grep on July 26, 2019, 08:48:20 pm

Donjon
Types: Action, Victory
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. You may discard a Victory card for +1 Card and +1 Action.

---

1VP

This reminds me a lot of Shepherd, but sideways. It only provides you sifting for 1 card, but leaves you with extra Actions. Having more tempo-VP cards I don't think is inherently amiss.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 26, 2019, 09:51:11 pm

Merchant's Village
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Actions, +$1. You may reveal a Silver from your hand for +1 Card.

Merchant has this thing in it that I like to call an "anti-frustration" mechanism. I don't have to have a Silver presently to get the +$1 from Merchant, I just have to find it by the end of my deck. Merchant's Village varies from being worse than Squire to as good as Bazaar based upon whether or not I have a Silver. With very little way to help align it with a Silver, I suspect this will result in some swingy games.

Quote from: Kudasai on July 26, 2019, 10:54:24 pm

Metropolis
Types: Action
Cost: $6
+1 Card, +3 Actions. +$1 per card you've played (including this) after the previous Metropolis you played this turn.

This one is a brilliant way to get a $6 splitter working. Having played with a similar card (the produces $ to a cap for playing actions after it) that had a hefty drawback, this will likely be a strong engine card on most boards with +Buy and will otherwise be ignored (which is totally reasonable).

Quote from: 4est on July 26, 2019, 11:40:22 pm

Brewery
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Actions. Put up to 2 cards from your hand onto your deck. Discard your hand. If you discarded any cards this way, +3 Cards and +$2.

This one hurts my head a bit to look at just because the discard is mandatory. I don't doubt that it is strong, but it rubs me the wrong way.

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:08:17 am

Folon Village
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck and discard them. Count the types among them and per revealed type you get: Action: +1 Action; Treasure: +$1; Victory: +1 Card; Curse: +1VP; Attack: Each other player gains a Ruins; Reaction: You may trash a card from your hand; Each other type: +1 Buy.

This seems a swingy tracking-nightmare like Ironmonger wasn't enough, even ignoring that it is an unblockable "Attack" assuming it appears with another Looter. If you want an effect like this, I'd always recommend making the effects require as little tracking as possible. Regardless of anything else, it is only a splitter by virtue of discarding the Actions you would otherwise want to play, which likely increases the likelihood that you don't have Actions to play, so I can't say that I'm a fan. The best use of Folon Village will likely be to try to manage a +VP engine with it around some other discarding cards.

Quote from: majiponi on July 27, 2019, 07:39:27 am

Slave Merchant
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1. You may play a Treasure. You may buy a card.

Breaking convention of playing Treasures in the Buy phase is not something I personally like doing very much. Regardless, I think +2 Actions, +2 Buys, +$1 might be a bit strong at $2.

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 27, 2019, 12:55:52 pm

Slum Village
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +2 Actions

---

When an opponent trashes a card, you may discard this from your hand, to gain a copy of that card from the Supply.

I think this primarily shuts-down fun trash-for-benefit tricks without doing a lot else. I don't like the concept because it makes an entertaining thing you can't do every game anyway into a risky and bad idea.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on July 27, 2019, 03:41:54 pm

Theatre
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Play the card on the Theatre mat

---

Setup: Put a $2 costing Action that gives +1 Action unconditionally onto the Theatre mat.

A comprehensive list of the 15 existing cards that Theatre could play: Cellar, Lurker, Haven, Lighthouse, Pearl Diver, Hamlet, Vagrant, Candlestick Maker, Page, Ratcatcher, Raze, Patrician, Settlers, Pixie, and Border Guard.
I assume from the wording that you mean for Theatre to "Play the card on the Threatre mat, leaving it there." a la Necromancer. Under that assumption, Page, Ratcatcher, and Pixie (20%) make Theatre into an expensive Village with no further effect (except churning the Boons, I guess). Lighthouse and Haven being Durations will leave no cards out so that there will be untrackable Duration effects. The most powerful options I don't think are too unreasonable except for Lurker which sounds really unfun to deal with.

Quote from: Freddy10 on July 27, 2019, 05:49:23 pm

Hillside City
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card, +2 Action. if you have an even number of cards in your hand: +1 Card.

Looks reasonable and vanilla.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 28, 2019, 03:42:38 pm

Sprawling Village
Types: Action
Cost: $4
The next time you play an Action card this turn, you may ignore its instructions and instead receive +1 Card, +2 Actions.

There are few enough "While this is in play" effects that I wouldn't worry too much about this being overpowered with those. My big concern is that this generally looks pretty bad next to Port. Having played with a self-Enchantress (which makes the card weaker than a Village admittedly, but just the same), losing one of your Action cards is typically a big cost, actually. (Discarding the card to avoid an "overpowered" in-play effect would make Sprawling Village significantly stronger because it would no longer consume your Action cards.) The ability to turn temporary cards (like trashers and cursers) and cheap Actions into Villages is neat, but fairly niche, so this will mostly be an expensive Village. I suppose Dominion can't really have too many of those.

Quote from: RTT on July 29, 2019, 03:10:17 am

Midwife
Types: Action, Night
Cost: $3
If it's your night phase, +1 Villager. Otherwise, +2 Actions, +$1.

This one is neat. It would probably be fine at a cost of $2. Compared to Squire you can't draw it dead and you can set aside its +Action later, but only by losing the +$ it gives, which is a pretty expensive cost as far as tempo is concerned.

Quote from: artless on July 29, 2019, 11:29:37 am

Plantation
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Card, +1 Action. You may discard a card from your hand. If it is an... Action card: +1 Card and +1 Action; Treasure Card: Gain a Plantation.

This compares very poorly to Hamlet. I would try to vary it more from Hamlet by giving +2 Actions regardless and discarding for either gaining a Plantation or getting a +Card.

Quote from: Gazbag on July 29, 2019, 04:48:27 pm

Campsite
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Actions. If you have 4 or more Actions (Actions, not Action cards), +2 Cards.

You gut reaction to make it 4 unused Actions seems correct for a $2 splitter. You'll often want to buy a bunch of them just because +2 Actions is that useful.

Quote from: naitchman on July 29, 2019, 07:04:00 pm

Crowded Village
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Actions. If there is at most 1 empty Supply pile, +1 Card. If there are no empty Supply piles, +1 Card.

This would definitely compare poorly to Lost City at $5, but the big problem is all the same problems as Poacher: In multiplayer games, the Supply emptying is a constant concern, but in 2-player games it takes a particular setup. Crowded Village will likely be far too strong in 2-player games. I think this needs some effect to help push the Supply piles (and possibly raise its price to $5).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 30, 2019, 09:20:46 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 30, 2019, 06:53:09 am

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:08:17 am

Folon Village
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck and discard them. Count the types among them and per revealed type you get: Action: +1 Action; Treasure: +$1; Victory: +1 Card; Curse: +1VP; Attack: Each other player gains a Ruins; Reaction: You may trash a card from your hand; Each other type: +1 Buy.

This seems a swingy tracking-nightmare like Ironmonger wasn't enough

You mean a tracking "nightmare" like Throne Room, King's Court and other cards that are type-conditional like Tribute and Courtier? I actually have a small abacus in my box to precisely deal with those tracking "nightmares". So far I have only needed it in KC games, everything else was doable without.

Quote

even ignoring that it is an unblockable "Attack" assuming it appears with another Looter.

You seemingly missed my post in which I pointed out that this card obviously wants Ruins in the Supply. As there is no space on the card and as making it a Looter makes the card too self-reflexive, you can simply imagine a FAQ which says, "In games using this, Ruins are in the Supply." or whatever.

Quote

Regardless of anything else, it is only a splitter by virtue of discarding the Actions you would otherwise want to play, which likely increases the likelihood that you don't have Actions to play, so I can't say that I'm a fan.

Actually it is the other way around, at least during build-up. This isn't an anti-Wandering Ministrel, it doesn't discriminate among the types so the cycling is pretty useful during building up as it increases the likelihood of shuffling which again increases the action density in your deck.

Quote

The best use of Folon Village will likely be to try to manage a +VP engine with it around some other discarding cards..

More like the most borderline use.
Sure, in a deck drawing engine you could try to keep 3 Curses in your deck to generate 3 VPs via this. Seems pretty hard to pull off though; you need to precisely draw everything but those very 3 Curses and then still have Forlorn Villages left to play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 30, 2019, 09:23:38 am

Quote from: naitchman on July 29, 2019, 01:00:04 pm

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:08:17 am

(https://i.imgur.com/rtaBIq9.png)

A Tribute/Courtier kind of thing. The wording is a bit unclear, to clarify I mean that types can get counted several times.
So when you do e.g. reveal 3 Coppers, it is a terminal Gold and when you do e.g. reveal a Smithy, Market Square and a Silver, it is:
+2 Actions
+ _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}
Trash a card from your hand.

You can just make it a looter (in order for ruins to be in the supply) but not an attack.

This is indeed a clean solution but the problem is that it would make Forlorn Village gift Buys in all Kingdoms. I prefer the card to be more Kingdom dependent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 30, 2019, 09:34:13 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 30, 2019, 06:53:09 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 10:07:22 am

Fete
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Choose one: +1 Card; or +1 Action. Choose two (the choices can be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy; or +$1.

I think the Peddler option makes this too much of a no-brainer, let alone its other very decent choices. Maybe give it a buy restriction ($3 Grand Market?), weird cost (<6>?), or an additional benefit to buff it up to $5 (when you gain this, gain a differently named card costing exactly $5?).

I think the most elegant solution to prevent against the no-brainer peddler is move the money option to the first choice.

I'm revising my entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/iv8onfF.png)
Fete
Action
$4
Choose one: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1.
Choose two (the choices may be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy.
-
revision 2

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 30, 2019, 09:38:43 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 30, 2019, 06:53:09 am

Quote from: artless on July 29, 2019, 11:29:37 am

Plantation
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Card, +1 Action. You may discard a card from your hand. If it is an... Action card: +1 Card and +1 Action; Treasure Card: Gain a Plantation.

This compares very poorly to Hamlet. I would try to vary it more from Hamlet by giving +2 Actions regardless and discarding for either gaining a Plantation or getting a +Card.

My hunch is that this is on average better than Hamlet. Unlike Hamlet it does not decrease handsize when you discard an Action and it provides a simply way to gain more Actions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 30, 2019, 10:43:45 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 30, 2019, 09:34:13 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 30, 2019, 06:53:09 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 10:07:22 am

Fete
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Choose one: +1 Card; or +1 Action. Choose two (the choices can be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy; or +$1.

I think the Peddler option makes this too much of a no-brainer, let alone its other very decent choices. Maybe give it a buy restriction ($3 Grand Market?), weird cost (<6>?), or an additional benefit to buff it up to $5 (when you gain this, gain a differently named card costing exactly $5?).

I think the most elegant solution to prevent against the no-brainer peddler is move the money option to the first choice.

I'm revising my entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/iv8onfF.png)
Fete
Action
$4
Choose one: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1.
Choose two (the choices may be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy.
-
revision 2

This will mostly be used as Village and Market Square and looks good.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 30, 2019, 10:54:54 am

Quote from: segura on July 30, 2019, 10:43:45 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 30, 2019, 09:34:13 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 30, 2019, 06:53:09 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 10:07:22 am

Fete
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Choose one: +1 Card; or +1 Action. Choose two (the choices can be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy; or +$1.

I think the Peddler option makes this too much of a no-brainer, let alone its other very decent choices. Maybe give it a buy restriction ($3 Grand Market?), weird cost (<6>?), or an additional benefit to buff it up to $5 (when you gain this, gain a differently named card costing exactly $5?).

I think the most elegant solution to prevent against the no-brainer peddler is move the money option to the first choice.

I'm revising my entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/iv8onfF.png)
Fete
Action
$4
Choose one: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1.
Choose two (the choices may be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy.
-
revision 2

This will mostly be used as Village and Market Square and looks good.

I think it will be used as Village or Market Square a huge majority of the time; because forgoing the +1 card option really hurts. Which means that it ends up being a weaker version of Worker's Village, which already gives you the extra action and the extra buy instead of having to choose one or the other.

But that's probably fine... a little weaker than Worker's Village, but not strictly weaker because there is a lot of other flexibility there; even though it won't get used in those other ways very often.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on July 30, 2019, 11:14:09 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 30, 2019, 10:54:54 am

Quote from: segura on July 30, 2019, 10:43:45 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 30, 2019, 09:34:13 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 30, 2019, 06:53:09 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 10:07:22 am

Fete
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Choose one: +1 Card; or +1 Action. Choose two (the choices can be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy; or +$1.

I think the Peddler option makes this too much of a no-brainer, let alone its other very decent choices. Maybe give it a buy restriction ($3 Grand Market?), weird cost (<6>?), or an additional benefit to buff it up to $5 (when you gain this, gain a differently named card costing exactly $5?).

I think the most elegant solution to prevent against the no-brainer peddler is move the money option to the first choice.

I'm revising my entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/iv8onfF.png)
Fete
Action
$4
Choose one: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1.
Choose two (the choices may be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy.
-
revision 2

This will mostly be used as Village and Market Square and looks good.

I think it will be used as Village or Market Square a huge majority of the time; because forgoing the +1 card option really hurts. Which means that it ends up being a weaker version of Worker's Village, which already gives you the extra action and the extra buy instead of having to choose one or the other.

But that's probably fine... a little weaker than Worker's Village, but not strictly weaker because there is a lot of other flexibility there; even though it won't get used in those other ways very often.

I think you'd use this for +3 Actions pretty often, more often than as Market Square I'd wager.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on July 30, 2019, 02:17:37 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 30, 2019, 06:53:09 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on July 27, 2019, 03:41:54 pm

Theatre
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Play the card on the Theatre mat

---

Setup: Put a $2 costing Action that gives +1 Action unconditionally onto the Theatre mat.

A comprehensive list of the 15 existing cards that Theatre could play: Cellar, Lurker, Haven, Lighthouse, Pearl Diver, Hamlet, Vagrant, Candlestick Maker, Page, Ratcatcher, Raze, Patrician, Settlers, Pixie, and Border Guard.
I assume from the wording that you mean for Theatre to "Play the card on the Threatre mat, leaving it there." a la Necromancer. Under that assumption, Page, Ratcatcher, and Pixie (20%) make Theatre into an expensive Village with no further effect (except churning the Boons, I guess). Lighthouse and Haven being Durations will leave no cards out so that there will be untrackable Duration effects. The most powerful options I don't think are too unreasonable except for Lurker which sounds really unfun to deal with.

I changed the wording to adress compatibility issues with Durations and Reserves. Thanks for pointing it out.

(https://i.imgur.com/iCSEXRkm.png)

Quote

Theatre (Action, $4)
This card has the same types and abilities as the card on the Theatre mat, but gives an additional +1 Action when played.
---
Setup: Put a $2 costing Action that gives +1 Action unconditionally onto the tavern mat.

I don't think it will be overpowered with Lurker, as it is a $4 Necropolis if it doesn't align (an $4 Lurkers are harder to amass). It can certainly be annoying though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 30, 2019, 06:03:12 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 30, 2019, 06:53:09 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 28, 2019, 03:42:38 pm

Sprawling Village
Types: Action
Cost: $4
The next time you play an Action card this turn, you may ignore its instructions and instead receive +1 Card, +2 Actions.

There are few enough "While this is in play" effects that I wouldn't worry too much about this being overpowered with those. My big concern is that this generally looks pretty bad next to Port. Having played with a self-Enchantress (which makes the card weaker than a Village admittedly, but just the same), losing one of your Action cards is typically a big cost, actually. (Discarding the card to avoid an "overpowered" in-play effect would make Sprawling Village significantly stronger because it would no longer consume your Action cards.) The ability to turn temporary cards (like trashers and cursers) and cheap Actions into Villages is neat, but fairly niche, so this will mostly be an expensive Village. I suppose Dominion can't really have too many of those.

I agree that it compares poorly to Port, but that's true of every $4 Village except Wandering Minstrel. Also, there's no reason to limit its use to cheap and "temporary" Actions. Its strength lies in that it lets you load up on more terminals than usual and then gives you flexibility.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 30, 2019, 07:02:00 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 30, 2019, 06:03:12 pm

I suppose Dominion can't really have too many of those.

Huh? There is an abundance of $4 villages with a little extra. Sprawling Village is totally fine and power-level wise also pretty good, i.e. not too crazy like Port, Wandering Ministrel or Worker Village but not too weak like Farming or Mining Village either.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 30, 2019, 06:03:12 pm

I agree that it compares poorly to Port, but that's true of every $4 Village except Wandering Minstrel. Also, there's no reason to limit its use to cheap and "temporary" Actions. Its strength lies in that it lets you load up on more terminals than usual and then gives you flexibility.

Indeed. It kind of does to Village what Werewolf does to Smithy, it increases the optimal density of terminals (relative to the case in which you'd have Smithy instead of Werewolf respectively Village instead of Sprawing Village).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on July 30, 2019, 11:59:29 pm

Quote from: segura on July 30, 2019, 07:02:00 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 30, 2019, 06:03:12 pm

I suppose Dominion can't really have too many of those.

Huh? There is an abundance of $4 villages with a little extra. Sprawling Village is totally fine and power-level wise also pretty good, i.e. not too crazy like Port, Wandering Ministrel or Worker Village but not too weak like Farming or Mining Village either.

I think that's what he was saying. He used a confusing sort-of-double-negative there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on July 31, 2019, 04:18:53 pm

Theatre looks really cool

I'd resub to dominion online if they started adding good fan cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on July 31, 2019, 05:08:12 pm

Parish was to similar to Coin of the Realm, so I came up with a completely new entry. This is Recruiter with +Buy, but without the Villagers.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d4202c0b0ad6b4e672a07e3/f77d61ec2eba615906980728620d6502/Industrial_Village.png)

Industrial Village
Type: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
Trash a card from your hand. +1 Action per $1 it costs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on July 31, 2019, 05:52:38 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 30, 2019, 06:53:09 am

Quote from: majiponi on July 27, 2019, 07:39:27 am

Slave Merchant
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1. You may play a Treasure. You may buy a card.

Breaking convention of playing Treasures in the Buy phase is not something I personally like doing very much. Regardless, I think +2 Actions, +2 Buys, +$1 might be a bit strong at $2.

I meant to say "Take an extra Buy phase immediately, in which you can only buy 1 card." So, buying a card via this SPENDS Buys. It doesn't give you +2 Buys. And playing Treasures is necessary to buy a card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on July 31, 2019, 08:18:21 pm

Quote from: majiponi on July 31, 2019, 05:52:38 pm

And playing Treasures is necessary to buy a card.

Uh, no it's not. There are plenty of Actions that give +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}. And some cards are free.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on August 01, 2019, 12:21:47 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 30, 2019, 06:53:09 am

Quote from: scolapasta on July 26, 2019, 01:30:44 pm

Developing Village
Types: Action
Cost: $2+
+1 Action. Reveal the top card of your deck. You may trash it and gain a differently named card with the same cost to your hand. If you do, +1 Action; if you don't +1 Card.

---

When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 overpaid, +1 Villager

This doesn't need to reveal the card. You can just look at it.
While it shapes itself somewhat like a splitter, I think Developing Village is really hiding an immensely frustrating Estate trasher, largely because it costs $2+. I'd recommend a cost of $3+ instead just to avoid the ability to turn Estates into Developing Villages. I think I disagree that it doesn't need the overpay. There will be a fair number of boards where triggering the +Actions in this will be difficult. The overpay benefit might even need to be larger for an increased cost.
Exchanging the card instead of trashing it would be fine, but don't forget to specify that you exchange for a card in the Supply, because exchange does not imply that (existing Exchanges being the Travellers and Changeling with exchanges for a specific card).

Yes, I can change "reveal" to "look at".

Can you explain what you mean by a "splitter"? I've not heard that term before.

And why is do you suggest turning off the ability to turn estates into DVs? I had thought of that as advantage, in particular on boards with no other $2s.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 01, 2019, 01:02:14 am

Quote from: scolapasta on August 01, 2019, 12:21:47 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 30, 2019, 06:53:09 am

Quote from: scolapasta on July 26, 2019, 01:30:44 pm

Developing Village
Types: Action
Cost: $2+
+1 Action. Reveal the top card of your deck. You may trash it and gain a differently named card with the same cost to your hand. If you do, +1 Action; if you don't +1 Card.

---

When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 overpaid, +1 Villager

This doesn't need to reveal the card. You can just look at it.
While it shapes itself somewhat like a splitter, I think Developing Village is really hiding an immensely frustrating Estate trasher, largely because it costs $2+. I'd recommend a cost of $3+ instead just to avoid the ability to turn Estates into Developing Villages. I think I disagree that it doesn't need the overpay. There will be a fair number of boards where triggering the +Actions in this will be difficult. The overpay benefit might even need to be larger for an increased cost.
Exchanging the card instead of trashing it would be fine, but don't forget to specify that you exchange for a card in the Supply, because exchange does not imply that (existing Exchanges being the Travellers and Changeling with exchanges for a specific card).

Yes, I can change "reveal" to "look at".

Can you explain what you mean by a "splitter"? I've not heard that term before.

And why is do you suggest turning off the ability to turn estates into DVs? I had thought of that as advantage, in particular on boards with no other $2s.

Splitter is a (rightfully) less commonly used term for Village variants.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on August 01, 2019, 08:18:35 am

Quote from: segura on July 30, 2019, 09:20:46 am

Sure, in a deck drawing engine you could try to keep 3 Curses in your deck to generate 3 VPs via this. Seems pretty hard to pull off though; you need to precisely draw everything but those very 3 Curses and then still have Forlorn Villages left to play.

My primary concern is that Forlorn Village looks like a very bad splitter. I start with 0 Actions in my deck typically, so tossing Actions from the top of my deck means that I get +Actions to play the Actions that aren't in my deck anymore. Its VP production would be a difficult use, but is something that Forlorn Village can do that couldn't be substituted by a more consistent card.
What I didn't think so hard about is that Forlorn Village will actually be strong in a Treasure-centric strategy, because it will sift in the early game and produce anywhere from +3 Cards to +$3. That's pretty crazy.

Quote from: spineflu on July 30, 2019, 09:34:13 am

Fete
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Choose one: +1 Card; or +1 Action; or +$1. Choose two (the choices can be the same): +1 Action; or +1 Buy.

It looks fine. It might not need the +$1 option at all. Even if players typically don't choose it, its inclusion might make it more complex without adding significant strength to the card--which is not ideal.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on July 30, 2019, 02:17:37 pm

I don't think it will be overpowered with Lurker, as it is a $4 Necropolis if it doesn't align (an $4 Lurkers are harder to amass). It can certainly be annoying though.

What I wrote does sound like I am identifying Lurker as a broken combo, but I really meant that it would just be annoying. The change looks good. It fixes all the problems other than my general dislike for having to look at more non-Kingdom cards (which is an inherent function of the card and very much to taste).

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 30, 2019, 06:03:12 pm

I agree that [Sprawling Village] compares poorly to Port, but that's true of every $4 Village except Wandering Minstrel. Also, there's no reason to limit its use to cheap and "temporary" Actions. Its strength lies in that it lets you load up on more terminals than usual and then gives you flexibility.

This is like saying Journeyman is weaker than Wild Hunt. It is true, but missing the point.
Mining Village is a weaker Village-with-a-bonus than Wandering Minstrel, but they each have completely different mission statements. I wouldn't buy Wandering Minstrel if I wanted to spike my economy, and I wouldn't buy Mining Village if I needed to sift through a bunch of Coppers\Curses\Estates.

Port is a Village-with-a-bonus whose bonus is:
"I come with another Village when you buy me."
Sprawling Village is a Village-with-a-bonus whose bonus is (outside of the rare edge-cases):
"I come with another Village when you gain me, except the second one eats one of your other Action cards."
Unless losing one of my other Action cards is not a cost (such as a now-useless Sea Hag), or one of some-five specific cards appear with it, then Sprawling Village is worse than Port. That is a much smaller window of difference than most Village-with-a-bonus cards. Wandering Minstrel's strength versus Farming Village's weakness (as similar deck-sifting splitters) is probably the most similar comparison in this category.
It isn't a problem, but it is quite probably weaker than you seem to be suggesting. I would not put it higher than the middling $4 Village-with-a-bonus cards like Mountain Village and Mining Village.

Quote from: King Leon on July 31, 2019, 05:08:12 pm

Industrial Village
Type: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards, +1 Buy. Trash a card from your hand. +1 Action per $1 it costs.

I can tell you from experience:

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 26, 2019, 07:53:32 pm

Prophet
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. You may trash or discard a non-Victory card from your hand. +Actions equal to its cost in coins.

---

When you trash this, you may gain an Action costing exactly $5, putting it into your hand.

Trashing stuff for such temporary +Actions causes its trashing to take front stage, while the +Actions are functionally ignored. That's why my Prophet gives you the option to discard for +Actions instead so that the trashing ends up being a side-thing while the splitting takes center stage.

Quote from: majiponi on July 31, 2019, 05:52:38 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 30, 2019, 06:53:09 am

Quote from: majiponi on July 27, 2019, 07:39:27 am

Slave Merchant
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1. You may play a Treasure. You may buy a card.

Breaking convention of playing Treasures in the Buy phase is not something I personally like doing very much. Regardless, I think +2 Actions, +2 Buys, +$1 might be a bit strong at $2.

I meant to say "Take an extra Buy phase immediately, in which you can only buy 1 card." So, buying a card via this SPENDS Buys. It doesn't give you +2 Buys. And playing Treasures is necessary to buy a card.

Black Market uses the same wording and doesn't work that way, though. I'd recommend the effect "You may buy a card" be restricted to what kind of cards it can buy instead of wrestling with an entirely new wording. +2 Actions, +2 Buys, +$1 is maybe a little strong at $2, but +2 Actions, +$1 is definitely too weak.
Also, playing a Treasure is fine, but I personally don't like doing it outside of the Buy phase. The tracking of spending and gaining $ might end up being an annoyance on Slave Merchant. Storyteller at least consumes all your $ every time you use it, so you don't have to track any $ once you've resolved it.

Quote from: scolapasta on August 01, 2019, 12:21:47 am

Can you explain what you mean by a "splitter"? I've not heard that term before.

It is a less-common term used to refer to cards that give +2 or more Actions. I like the term because I prefer Village-variant for variations of cards that give a minimum of "+1 Card and +2 Actions" (even though cards like Fishing Village don't give those vanilla benefits). Because Throne Room and Developing Village do not unconditionally give "+1 Card and +2 Actions," I think of them as splitters distinctly from Village-variants.
The term refers to a style of laying out Actions that aligns them like a tree: You play your Actions in a line, but offset cards when you play an Action that provides +2 Actions, thereby creating two "branches" to the line of Actions you are playing (the card which provides +2 Actions thereby "splitting" your Action line).

Quote from: scolapasta on August 01, 2019, 12:21:47 am

And why is do you suggest turning off the ability to turn estates into Developing Villages? I had thought of that as advantage, in particular on boards with no other $2s.

The problem is that trashing Estates is really, really good. It would be immensely frustrating (considering the lack of control) for one player to open with Developing Village on a board with no trashing otherwise and luck into trashing a starting Estate on turn 3 that turns it into another Developing Village, thereby necessarily reducing your effective deck size. If Developing Village cost $3, then hitting a starting Estate would only sometimes net you a real benefit based on the other $2 Kingdom cards (if any)--plus Developing Village would then compete with other $3 cards, so buying it for a chance of trashing an Estate would be ill-advised.
There are other cards that can do similar (Necromancer->Zombie Mason I'd argue is even worse), but the fact that official cards exist that can do it does not make it a good design.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 01, 2019, 08:37:24 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 01, 2019, 08:18:35 am

Quote from: segura on July 30, 2019, 09:20:46 am

Sure, in a deck drawing engine you could try to keep 3 Curses in your deck to generate 3 VPs via this. Seems pretty hard to pull off though; you need to precisely draw everything but those very 3 Curses and then still have Forlorn Villages left to play.

My primary concern is that Forlorn Village looks like a very bad splitter. I start with 0 Actions in my deck typically, so tossing Actions from the top of my deck means that I get +Actions to play the Actions that aren't in my deck anymore.

I already pointed out that this argument is dubious as this card cycles everythng and cycling is good during build-up. It only becomes bad during greening.

Quote

What I didn't think so hard about is that Forlorn Village will actually be strong in a Treasure-centric strategy, because it will sift in the early game and produce anywhere from +3 Cards to +$3. That's pretty crazy.

I don't see the craziness.

Smithy is a $4. And while a pure terminal Gold does not exist, there are many terminal Golds with a cherry on top that cost $5. So it is safe to say that a terminal Gold, if it existed, would have to cost $4 (it would obviously be too boring and could be slightly too weak/strong).
All the in-between, i.e. +2 Cards +1 Coin or +1 Card +2 Coins, don't look stronger than a $4 either.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 01, 2019, 03:01:39 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on August 01, 2019, 12:21:47 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 30, 2019, 06:53:09 am

Quote from: scolapasta on July 26, 2019, 01:30:44 pm

Developing Village
Types: Action
Cost: $2+
+1 Action. Reveal the top card of your deck. You may trash it and gain a differently named card with the same cost to your hand. If you do, +1 Action; if you don't +1 Card.

---

When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 overpaid, +1 Villager

This doesn't need to reveal the card. You can just look at it.
While it shapes itself somewhat like a splitter, I think Developing Village is really hiding an immensely frustrating Estate trasher, largely because it costs $2+. I'd recommend a cost of $3+ instead just to avoid the ability to turn Estates into Developing Villages. I think I disagree that it doesn't need the overpay. There will be a fair number of boards where triggering the +Actions in this will be difficult. The overpay benefit might even need to be larger for an increased cost.
Exchanging the card instead of trashing it would be fine, but don't forget to specify that you exchange for a card in the Supply, because exchange does not imply that (existing Exchanges being the Travellers and Changeling with exchanges for a specific card).

Yes, I can change "reveal" to "look at".

Can you explain what you mean by a "splitter"? I've not heard that term before.

And why is do you suggest turning off the ability to turn estates into DVs? I had thought of that as advantage, in particular on boards with no other $2s.

It is a very luck based advantage, considering this card does absolutely nothing when you hit Copper (unlike Necro). I honestly think you should pair it with a Goat, because hitting an Estate here is very similar to hitting the Flame Gift with Pixie. Goat also makes turning Coppers into Curses when the +Action is needed less unappealing.
(It would add an Heirloom on top of Overpaying and Villagers though; do you want that?)

As far as wording goes, I would say something like: "Put the top card of your deck into your hand" so you can remove the "if you don't..." part.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 01, 2019, 06:14:15 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 01, 2019, 08:18:35 am

Sprawling Village is a Village-with-a-bonus whose bonus is (outside of the rare edge-cases):
"I come with another Village when you gain me, except the second one eats one of your other Action cards."

No, that's not what it is. It doesn't "come" with or "eat" anything when you gain it. You can choose to lose an Action card on one particular turn, but then you get it back. You're neglecting the tactical flexibility it provides that Port doesn't.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 01, 2019, 06:53:00 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 01, 2019, 06:14:15 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 01, 2019, 08:18:35 am

Sprawling Village is a Village-with-a-bonus whose bonus is (outside of the rare edge-cases):
"I come with another Village when you gain me, except the second one eats one of your other Action cards."

No, that's not what it is. It doesn't "come" with or "eat" anything when you gain it. You can choose to lose an Action card on one particular turn, but then you get it back. You're neglecting the tactical flexibility it provides that Port doesn't.

Fragasnap is totally right that this is weaker than Port and at the same time totally wrong as most $4 Villages suck in comparison to Port.
The main reason Port is stronger is that the 2 villages are "smeared" over your deck whereas Sprawling Village will behave more similarly to +1 Cards +3 Actions (blank an Action card for this turn).

But more interesting that pondering the power level of Sprawling Village is thinking about how interesting it is to play with. I think that it will be very interesting. For example all cheap cantrips become stronger as they can be potentially turned into a village for one turn and managing the ratio of terminals, non-terminals and villages will be topsy-turvy like with Werewolf.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 03, 2019, 01:05:54 am

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/47qoa0ii.png)

I thought about Camp when thinking about the "turn X into a village" mechanic. There's at least one submission in this contest that tackles that problem. I remember first thinking about this from a fan card years ago that solved it by saying "set aside a card that does not draw cards" as a way to make sure you don't get cheap laboratories. I thought that card was very interesting but I thought the setup of choosing a particular card felt a little strange to me. Though it's an elegant solution to making sure it's not over-powered. Then I thought, why not let the opponent decide what is the right card to turn into a village?

Camp is sort of like a +1card +3actions but you're going to draw the worst action card in your deck, or perhaps an action card even worse than the worse card in your deck. One the other hand, any action card is probably better than the alternative in a deck where you want villages. And in the beginning of the game, this is a village that actually might make sense to open with because it can't miss. Of course, if you play a bunch of these, your opponent will eventually be forced to name some good cards. In one turn, on the 10th play of this (or less if there aren't 10 non-duration action cards), then the only non-duration action card left un-named in the supply will be Camp, and then you'll just get +4 actions and no cards.

This is called Camp because it's a sort of mobile village. One play it's like this, next play it's like that. You know.

I feel confused how to price this. I think it's between a 4 and a 5 right now.

I'm open to feedback on this, but I'm not sure if there's any meaningful way to change it. The only part that could change to weaken the card is to allow the opponent to continue to name the same card, but that makes this card less interesting since you'll pretty much always know what the card will be, but that change would make it more appropriately priced at 4.

Would costing it 5 be better?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 03, 2019, 05:21:43 am

This seems closer to $5 than $4. Unless there is something bad in the Kingdom like Beggar, the worst will usually be a cantrip or a terminal Silver with a little extra. The latter is superior to Conclave.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 03, 2019, 09:42:32 am

I'm not sure I like the part about the opponent choosing the Action. I understand it's there to make the card a lot weaker, but at the same time, I feel that it might often be tedious to play with. I suspect that a lot of time your opponent will choose cards in the same order every turn. And then if you have enough of them to guarantee you get to some good Actions, they'll end up making a lot of meaningless decisions like with Advisor.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on August 04, 2019, 01:14:27 am

OK, so here is v0.3 of Developing Village:
• fixed wording
• now costs 3+
• now gives +2 Villagers for the overpay

Very good points were made about the luck factor that could into play if you trash an Estate for a DV. Changing it to $3 now means you can't get DVs for your Estates, but it may still need a more drastic change.

I increased the # of Villagers so that it still gives 2 if you pay $4 and by giving 4 for $5 it complete better with actual 5 cards.

Thanks for all the feedback!

(https://i.imgur.com/GHxbgI5.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on August 04, 2019, 01:56:11 am

My entry is a very simple village. You need more of these than of regular Villages to draw lots of cards together with a Smithy or similar card, since you need to play V-S-V-S and never V-V-S-S to still have an action left.

(https://starback.se/static/games/Calm_Village.png)

Calm Village
Action
$2
+1 Card
You have exactly 2 Actions

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on August 04, 2019, 03:02:19 am

I will start judging tomorrow around 4pm forum time, at which point the contest will be closed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 04, 2019, 08:08:29 am

My new entry

(https://i.imgur.com/4tAzPRZ.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 04, 2019, 04:27:56 pm

Hey guys, I'm back at least for a while. I think I'm still on time for the village contest. It has been a while since I've designed a card or even played dominion other than 1 or 2 games, so I don't really know if this is balanced:
(https://i.imgur.com/q2nUHUW.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 04, 2019, 04:28:50 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on August 04, 2019, 03:02:19 am

I will start judging tomorrow around 4pm forum time, at which point the contest will be closed.

Just noticed this post, am I in time?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on August 04, 2019, 05:33:26 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 04, 2019, 04:28:50 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on August 04, 2019, 03:02:19 am

I will start judging tomorrow around 4pm forum time, at which point the contest will be closed.

Just noticed this post, am I in time?

I'm just starting judging now, so I'll go ahead and count it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 04, 2019, 06:02:32 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 04, 2019, 08:08:29 am

My new entry

(https://i.imgur.com/4tAzPRZ.png)

“+2 actions in your action phase” is confusing... not sure what you mean by it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 04, 2019, 06:24:47 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 04, 2019, 06:02:32 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 04, 2019, 08:08:29 am

My new entry

(https://i.imgur.com/4tAzPRZ.png)

“+2 actions in your action phase” is confusing... not sure what you mean by it.

I think it means "if you gain, play, or trash this in your action phase +2 actions, if you gain or trash (when would you play it?) outside of your action phase, +1 coffers."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on August 04, 2019, 06:29:49 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 04, 2019, 06:24:47 pm

I think it means "if you gain, play, or trash this in your action phase +2 actions, if you gain or trash (when would you play it?) outside of your action phase, +1 coffers."

For example with Scepter.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on August 04, 2019, 08:19:49 pm

Would it work better worded as:

"When you gain, play or trash this, if it is your Action phase: +2 Actions; otherwise, +1 Coffers"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 04, 2019, 11:39:18 pm

I've decided Camp is more appropriate at 5
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/dyhukeua.png)

I toyed around with sample kingdoms, and most of the time this plays as far better than a 4 cost card. There are kingdoms where you have beggar, you won't buy this card probably. It depends on the kingdom whether this card is worth buying. But on the kingdoms this card is worth buying (there are actually a lot of them), it turns our this is very powerful for a 4 cost card. Especially since it ostensibly gets better with every single play. A lot of the time, the card ends up as +1card +3 actions with some bonus as the weakest it can be, and even that seems okay at 5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on August 05, 2019, 04:08:21 am

Sorry y’all, I was judging this but then my fiancee came over and well I can’t just sit looking at dominion cards at that point. Lots of really good entries in this contest. I’m not very good at providing feedback, but it was hard to pick a winner.

Quote from: Aquila on July 26, 2019, 05:44:20 am

(https://i.imgur.com/t9eIWTq.jpg)

I’ve seen a lot of ideas for the “make a card give +2 of something instead of +1” and I think this is the best one I’ve seen yet. It’s only as good as Village if the next card played gives + Cards, but can also be better depending on what the next card is, so it seems like the price is right. A good, fun, balanced card.

Quote from: spineflu on July 26, 2019, 10:07:22 am

(https://i.imgur.com/iv8onfF.png)

It’s simple, I like it. A little bit boring, but seems balanced. I think putting the coin on the first option was the right move.

Quote from: scolapasta on July 26, 2019, 01:30:44 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/GHxbgI5.png)

I remember seeing this card a while ago, and I like it. I think the overpay makes the card a lot stronger because then you don’t need the village as often. I don’t know how often I’d want this over just Vanillage though, because how many times are there differently named cards of the same cost that I want over what I already have in my deck?

Quote from: pubby on July 26, 2019, 06:28:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Nj6vOET.png)

I’m not sure if this card is playable. Usually, you want a lot of villages, but having more than 1 of these in play can basically shut you out of the game. Was there a reason you didn’t have “Take 1 debt” instead?

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 26, 2019, 07:53:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/qb7MhyK.jpg)

A good attempt at trash-for-+Actions. I think the hunch that this is imbalanced if it can trash/discard victory cards is correct. It makes for some interesting decisions for sure. The on-trash benefit seems tacked on, but then again, so do several other on-trash benefits.

Quote from: Gubump on July 26, 2019, 08:16:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/nUp5v3s.png)

It seems maybe just a little too strong. Smithy variants become +4 Cards, +2 Actions; and Villages become +2 Cards, +4 Actions. I wonder if you’ve playtested it without the gain-to-hand, like Cobbler?

Quote from: grep on July 26, 2019, 08:48:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/A5XmdC0.png)

Like you said in your post, looks like Mill, but serves a different purpose. I think limiting the discard to Victory cards is a good idea, but also encourages single-minded pile rushes in Donjon because how often are people going to want to keep their estates around, even if this is the only Village? I think it’s a good design, though.

Quote from: Kudasai on July 26, 2019, 10:54:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tXPGXQD.jpg)

Making this weaker and putting it at $6 was the right idea, I think. I like the potential for huge money plays with this and a bunch of non-terminals. Seems like a big “winner wins more” card though, because if you’re already getting a bunch of cards in play, you’re doing pretty well for yourself already. You can’t just mindlessly play cards in whatever order with this around, and I like that.

Quote from: 4est on July 26, 2019, 11:40:22 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/8YBWy7d.png)

I’m not sure what to think of this card. It’s tricky to use. It also looks a little bit too much like Minion with both options to me as well.

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2019, 03:08:17 am

(https://i.imgur.com/rtaBIq9.png)

This is too complicated. I also really dislike the rules weirdness of “this is an Attack-Looter but it’s not.” I think the card would be just fine without the Attack and Reaction options.

Quote from: majiponi on July 27, 2019, 07:39:27 am

Slave Merchant
cost $2 - Action
+2 Actions
+1 Buy
+$1
You may play a Treasure.
You may buy a card.

This is strictly better than Villa on-play. Villa has the on-gain madness, but once it’s in your deck it’s worse than this card. This is can also be better than Squire at the same cost as well.

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 27, 2019, 12:55:52 pm

Slum Village (Action - Reaction) [$4]

+1 Card
+2 Actions

———

When an opponent trashes a card, you may discard this from your hand, to gain a copy of that card from the Supply.

I think this is a neat design, but also discourages cool Remodel tricks. No more Remodel Province to Province, or Apprenticing province for 8 cards, unless you want to give your opponent a free province. I think this may work if it said “non-victory card,” but even then it discourages TFB tricks.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on July 27, 2019, 03:41:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/9Ifllqcm.png)

I think this is really creative at first glance, but then at second glance, this looks exactly like a Lost Arts that can only put the +1 Action token on a specific set of $2 cards. The set up is a little confusing, does it put a $2 from the Supply, or from outside the game? Still a cool idea though.

Quote from: Freddy10 on July 27, 2019, 05:49:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Hy5RBOC.png)

Simple, brief, and balanced. I like it. It’s impossible to trigger without some form of extra draw, which means also needing some additional form of draw or having 2 of these and a stop card. I wonder if it’s a little weak as compared to Lost City, but it seems to be at the right price point.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on July 28, 2019, 03:42:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zTQsaZ3.png)

The village that creates other Villages. Can be really useful for when you’re in an action pinch, or for turning your old trashers or cursers into something more useful. Seems balanced at $4 too. I like it.

Quote from: RTT on July 29, 2019, 03:10:17 am

(https://i.imgur.com/15WUKMk.png)

I really like this card. It seems well priced and well balanced. I don’t have much more to say about it, really.

Quote from: artless on July 29, 2019, 11:29:37 am

(https://i.imgur.com/RsnyXQd.jpg)

At first I thought, “discarding an action to get an extra action would suck,” but then I realized you can get more Plantations and discard those to get your extra actions. Seems balanced at $2, and I like the concept.

Quote from: Gazbag on July 29, 2019, 04:48:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/MmsqVDn.png)

When this is the only village, this is almost always an overpriced Necropolis, and with other villages I wonder if it would be too easy to trigger. Comparing this to Encampment, I think this is a little too weak.

Quote from: naitchman on July 29, 2019, 07:04:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/unCvWoc.png)

I think this card is a little too strong. It needs an on-gain penalty (simlar to Lost City) I think. Maybe the penalty only happens if there are no empty supply piles? Getting a lost city for $4 is just too much.

Quote from: King Leon on July 31, 2019, 05:08:12 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d4202c0b0ad6b4e672a07e3/f77d61ec2eba615906980728620d6502/Industrial_Village.png)

This seems like it would be good at trashing those 3 estates and then become an expensive Silk Merchant with mandatory trashing through the rest of the game. +Actions just don’t seem valuable enough to be trashing all your good cards with this. Even with the +Buy on Industrial Village, Recruiter seems so much better because you can save those Villagers for later.

Quote from: pst on August 04, 2019, 01:56:11 am

(https://starback.se/static/games/Calm_Village.png)

This is novel. It’ll take a little more finesse to use this, and you can’t just click on your village over and over. It seems like a good $2 village.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 04, 2019, 08:08:29 am

(https://i.imgur.com/4tAzPRZ.png)

This is also interesting. I feel like Villa already covers the “get more Actions by gaining this” ground, though there could be more ground to cover there. This also effectively costs $3 when purchased, but unlike Villa you have to save the extra $1 you get. All-in-all, I like it but I think I like Villa better.

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 04, 2019, 04:27:56 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/q2nUHUW.png)

Seems balanced at $4, I think. Not giving +1 Card really hurts and makes it harder to get + lots of actions, for money and trashing, which makes it more balanced and interesting to use.

Lots of good cards this time, but unfortunately there can only be one winner.

Winner: Neighboring Village, by Aquila It’s the first time I’ve ever seen a card-number-modifier actually look balanced instead of too weak or too strong, and it’s a really creative way of doing it. Congrats!

Runners-up:: Midwife by RTT; Hillside City by Freddy10

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 05, 2019, 08:10:08 am

Ah great, thanks mail-mi for your time in judging everyone's entries! Quite a few good designs this time round.
For now, I suppose it has to be...

Contest #39: a Duration card.
A very open book. But READ THIS: you know why this contest is here, we're seeing 2 new promo Durations (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19779.msg806927#msg806927) come to the game. I will favour designs that could convincingly be promos. Cover new mechanical territory if you can, and don't be afraid of complexity as this isn't going to be a judging factor. The less like similar to any official card, the better. Use other (card shaped) components in your design if you like.
Think of things that will actually add to the game, and avoid the design mistakes of things like Stash.

Anticipated judging time: Monday 12th August 10am forum time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 09:18:48 am

Quote from: mail-mi on August 05, 2019, 04:08:21 am

]It’s simple, I like it. A little bit boring, but seems balanced. I think putting the coin on the first option was the right move.

yeah i was thinking villages should be simple. Also it's boring because i seem to kick up a shitstorm every time I think outside of vanilla.

---

i guess there's power grid fans on this forum so this should be right up your alley. forgive the bad photoshop work, I do much better with physical art.

(https://i.imgur.com/I9s59DJ.png)
ft.
(https://i.imgur.com/rnKYDhD.png)

a classic spineflu hubris card.
If you really wanna make it fit entirely as a promo card, you could have a punchout coin token on the same cardboard slug as the Market Demand track.

---

edit history:
v4: Card text for Commodity is changed to read:

Quote

If you have a Commodity in play, increase the Market Demand track one step.

$1 plus $ based on the current position of the Market Demand track.
-
At the start of your next turn, +$1.
When you discard this from play, lower the Market Demand track one step.
-
Setup: In games using this, include the Market Demand track when setting up the Kingdom.

v2: updated first sentence to "If you have an even number of Commodities in play, $2; Otherwise $1." to make it less absurdly scaling.

v1: Commodity - Treasure / Duration - $5
"
+$1 per Commodity you have in play.

+$ based on the current position of the Market Demand track.
-
On your next turn, +$1

When you discard this from play, lower the Market Demand track one step.
-
Setup: In games using this, include the Market Demand track when setting up the Kingdom.
"

Market Demand (Coffers-style mat for tracking Market Demand value)
Setup: Place a coin token on the right-most space of the track. When a card instructs you to lower the track, move the coin token to the next space on the left.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 05, 2019, 09:48:25 am

A shot at a Duration with a variable length:


$5
Fishmonger
Action-Duration

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
———————
While this is in play, at the start of your turn, +1 Buy and Action cards cost $1 less during your turn (but no less than $0).
This stays in play until any player, including you, has 6 Action cards in play. Set it aside and discard it during Clean-up.


I don't know whether the wording is clear. The idea is that this should get immediately discarded when somebody has 6 Actions in play.
I am not sure about the parameters. This could be too expensive at $5 and 6 Action is fairly arbitrary; it requires testing to see what the best number of Actions is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 09:57:49 am

Quote from: segura on August 05, 2019, 09:48:25 am

A shot at a Duration with a variable length:


$5
Fishmonger
Action-Duration

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
———————
While this is in play, at the start of your turn, +1 Buy and Action cards cost $1 less during your turn (but no less than $0).
This stays in play until any player, including you, has 6 Action cards in play.


I don't know whether the wording is clear. The idea is that this should get immediately discarded when somebody has 6 Actions in play.
I am not sure about the parameters. This could be too expensive at $5 and 6 Action is fairly arbitrary; it requires testing to see what the best number of Actions is.

so
edge case nitpicking but if there were a bunch of treasure-action or night-actions out played in the treasure/night phases, would that still count towards the potential shutdown on this?

less edge case nitpicking but when you play six of these on a turn, are they immediately discarded? or do they wait around until your cleanup phase for that? If they're discarded right away, what stops you from thinning your deck to six or seven of these, autocycling them for infinity buys, then playing three and clearing the copper, silver and estates piles for a game over/victory?

i feel like at $4 you'd want your cantrips to not provide cost reduction AND +Buys, even if they're self-scrapping. Maybe have them provide cost reduction OR buys based on whether there's an even/odd number of cards in play (kinda like that one treasure from nocture whose name is escaping me), like "if there's an odd number of action cards in play, +1 Buy; otherwise, Action cards cost $1 less during your turn (but no less than $0)"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 05, 2019, 10:06:06 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 09:57:49 am

so
edge case nitpicking but if there were a bunch of treasure-action or night-actions out played in the treasure/night phases, would that still count towards the potential shutdown on this?

Yes.

Quote

less edge case nitpicking but when you play six of these on a turn, are they immediately discarded? or do they wait around until your cleanup phase for that? If they're discarded right away, what stops you from thinning your deck to six or seven of these, autocycling them for infinity buys, then playing three and clearing the copper, silver and estates piles for a game over/victory?

The infinite loop cannot arise as you play the card, draw a card and only then, if the condition is fulfilled, discard all your Fishmongers. Furthermore, note that the cost reduction is only active as long as Fishmongers are in play and that Fishmonger only reduces the price of Actions.
But you are right that it is possible to play a copy of Fishmonger several times per turn. This is probably not a big issue as many Buys are of limited use. The problem of discarding the card like all other Durations, during Clean-up, runs into the issue of the cost reduction for Actions still being active.

Quote

i feel like at $4 you'd want your cantrips to not provide cost reduction AND +Buys

That's why I chose an initial price of $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 10:07:21 am

Quote from: segura on August 05, 2019, 10:02:05 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 09:57:49 am

so
edge case nitpicking but if there were a bunch of treasure-action or night-actions out played in the treasure/night phases, would that still count towards the potential shutdown on this?

Yes.

Quote

less edge case nitpicking but when you play six of these on a turn, are they immediately discarded? or do they wait around until your cleanup phase for that? If they're discarded right away, what stops you from thinning your deck to six or seven of these, autocycling them for infinity buys, then playing three and clearing the copper, silver and estates piles for a game over/victory?

The infinite loop cannot arise as you play the card, draw a card and only then, if the condition is fulfilled, discard all your Fishmongers. Furthermore, Fishmonger only reduces the price of Actions.

that's why you've got seven - six to play to trigger the discard, one to yeet the discard back to the draw pile.

Additionally, infinity buys can still buy out the copper pile, which in a gardens game or game with Action-Victory cards makes it break, not to mention you can still three pile on actions whenever

Quote from: segura on August 05, 2019, 10:06:06 am

Quote

i feel like at $4 you'd want your cantrips to not provide cost reduction AND +Buys

That's why I chose an initial price of $5.

sorry, was going off your first post of it when I was replying.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 05, 2019, 10:19:13 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 10:07:21 am

that's why you've got seven - six to play to trigger the discard, one to yeet the discard back to the draw pile.

Sure, you could build a deck of 6 Fishmongers, play them all, then play 5 again. You will have 11 Buys and all Actions will cost $5 less. That's great, you can get a lot of engine components in one turn. But in all the subsequent turns, you will not be able to keep the Fishmongers in play so you will only profit from the extra Buys; they will degenerate into mere Market Squares for $5 (respectively double Market Squares).
I think a more realistic scenario is one in which you will gain less Fishmongers and build up your engine more gradually.

I will consider some alternative in which the card lands in "nirvana" once the 6 Action triggers is fulfilled and only lands in your discard pile during Clean-up. That's a bit messy but it avoids the weird "play a Fishmonger twic or thrice per turn" thingy.

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 10:07:21 am

Additionally, infinity buys can still buy out the copper pile, which in a gardens game or game with Action-Victory cards makes it break, not to mention you can still three pile on actions whenever

I already pointed out that you cannot generate infinite Buys: you first play Fishmonger, draw a card and then all the Fishmongers land in your discard pile. If I understand the rules correctly, when you play a card you first execute all the stuff on it from top to bottom before it is "in play".
So you'd need infinite draw power to generate infinite Buys.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 10:21:21 am

Quote from: segura on August 05, 2019, 10:11:39 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 10:07:21 am

that's why you've got seven - six to play to trigger the discard, one to yeet the discard back to the draw pile.

Sure, you could build a deck of 6 Fishmongers, play them all, then play 5 again. You will have 11 Buys and all Actions will cost $5 less. That's great, you can get a lot of engine components in one turn. But in all the subsequent turns, you will not be able to keep the Fishmongers in play so you will only profit from the extra Buys; they will degenerate into mere Market Squares for $5 (respectively double Market Squares).
I think a more realistic scenario is one in which you will gain less Fishmongers and build up your engine more gradually.

Bear with me, because I think it's a neat card that deserves to be in the running: You've gotta CYA for your edge cases, not just the nominal uses.
You've got a deck with seven Fishmongers.
You've got a hand  of 5 Fishmongers.
You play one. You draw a Fishmonger.
You play a second. You draw a Fishmonger.
third, fourth, fifth, you don't have deck to draw, but you're racking up buys.
You play a sixth. You don't have deck to draw, but it triggers the discard. You keep your buys. You still have a fishmonger in your hand.

You play the seventh - all the sudden you have deck to draw, from your discard. And seven buys. And you can do it again. And again.

---

The fix for this is either some sort of alternate substate of "in-play" (turn them sideways?) where they can only be discarded when they're in the alternate state, i think. On the turn they're played, they'd need to go from in-play (normal) to the alternate state, and only then be discarded as there'd be six or more in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 05, 2019, 10:27:47 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 10:21:21 am

Quote from: segura on August 05, 2019, 10:11:39 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 10:07:21 am

that's why you've got seven - six to play to trigger the discard, one to yeet the discard back to the draw pile.

Sure, you could build a deck of 6 Fishmongers, play them all, then play 5 again. You will have 11 Buys and all Actions will cost $5 less. That's great, you can get a lot of engine components in one turn. But in all the subsequent turns, you will not be able to keep the Fishmongers in play so you will only profit from the extra Buys; they will degenerate into mere Market Squares for $5 (respectively double Market Squares).
I think a more realistic scenario is one in which you will gain less Fishmongers and build up your engine more gradually.

Bear with me, because I think it's a neat card that deserves to be in the running: You've gotta CYA for your edge cases, not just the nominal uses.
You've got a deck with seven Fishmongers.
You've got a hand  of 5 Fishmongers.
You play one. You draw a Fishmonger.
You play a second. You draw a Fishmonger.
third, fourth, fifth, you don't have deck to draw, but you're racking up buys.
You play a sixth. You don't have deck to draw, but it triggers the discard. You keep your buys. You still have a fishmonger in your hand.

You play the seventh - all the sudden you have deck to draw, from your discard. And seven buys. And you can do it again. And again.

---

The fix for this is either some sort of alternate substate of "in-play" (turn them sideways?) where they can only be discarded when they're in the alternate state, i think. On the turn they're played, they'd need to go from in-play (normal) to the alternate state, and only then be discarded as there'd be six or more in play.

Thanks, you are right and I changed the wording.

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 09:18:48 am

Quote from: Aquila

It’s simple, I like it. A little bit boring, but seems balanced. I think putting the coin on the first option was the right move.

yeah i was thinking villages should be simple. Also it's boring because i seem to kick up a shitstorm every time I think outside of vanilla.

---

i guess there's power grid fans on this forum so this should be right up your alley. forgive the bad photoshop work, I do much better with physical art.

(https://i.imgur.com/1ppsKLz.png)
+
(https://i.imgur.com/rnKYDhD.png)

a classic spineflu hubris card.

I like this. It is a bit wording- / material-intense for what it does but the notion of a Treasure that becomes weaker with limited plays is cool as it (often/always?) creates a run and later everybody wants to trash their Commodities.
Although if you run 2 copies, playing them alternatingly, they are still partly-delayed Golds (2 this turn, 1 next turn) if demand is down to zero. So perhaps the card is a bit too good?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 10:37:32 am

Quote from: segura on August 05, 2019, 10:27:47 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 10:21:21 am

Quote from: segura on August 05, 2019, 10:11:39 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 10:07:21 am

that's why you've got seven - six to play to trigger the discard, one to yeet the discard back to the draw pile.

Sure, you could build a deck of 6 Fishmongers, play them all, then play 5 again. You will have 11 Buys and all Actions will cost $5 less. That's great, you can get a lot of engine components in one turn. But in all the subsequent turns, you will not be able to keep the Fishmongers in play so you will only profit from the extra Buys; they will degenerate into mere Market Squares for $5 (respectively double Market Squares).
I think a more realistic scenario is one in which you will gain less Fishmongers and build up your engine more gradually.

Bear with me, because I think it's a neat card that deserves to be in the running: You've gotta CYA for your edge cases, not just the nominal uses.
You've got a deck with seven Fishmongers.
You've got a hand  of 5 Fishmongers.
You play one. You draw a Fishmonger.
You play a second. You draw a Fishmonger.
third, fourth, fifth, you don't have deck to draw, but you're racking up buys.
You play a sixth. You don't have deck to draw, but it triggers the discard. You keep your buys. You still have a fishmonger in your hand.

You play the seventh - all the sudden you have deck to draw, from your discard. And seven buys. And you can do it again. And again.

---

The fix for this is either some sort of alternate substate of "in-play" (turn them sideways?) where they can only be discarded when they're in the alternate state, i think. On the turn they're played, they'd need to go from in-play (normal) to the alternate state, and only then be discarded as there'd be six or more in play.

Thanks, you are right and I changed the wording.

Also i kinda like your idea of the cards going to limbo rather than your discard pile, and only going from limbo to the discard pile at the start of your cleanup. Makes for some kind of subtle niche situations where your opponent scrapping your fishmongers can cause them to miss the shuffle if you have a big enough turn.

Quote

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 09:18:48 am

Quote from: Aquila

It’s simple, I like it. A little bit boring, but seems balanced. I think putting the coin on the first option was the right move.

yeah i was thinking villages should be simple. Also it's boring because i seem to kick up a shitstorm every time I think outside of vanilla.

---

i guess there's power grid fans on this forum so this should be right up your alley. forgive the bad photoshop work, I do much better with physical art.

(https://i.imgur.com/1ppsKLz.png)
+
(https://i.imgur.com/rnKYDhD.png)

a classic spineflu hubris card.

I like this. It is a bit wording- / material-intense for what it does but the notion of a Treasure that becomes weaker with limited plays is cool as it (often/always?) creates a run and later everybody wants to trash their Commodities.
Although if you run 2 copies, playing them alternatingly, they are still partly-delayed Golds (2 this turn, 1 next turn) if demand is down to zero. So perhaps the card is a bit too good?

hm. yeah. Maybe swap that first line for "if you have an even number of Commodities in play, $2; otherwise $1".
edit: also the first is only a partly-delayed silver - when you play it, you've only got one Commodity in play. So one is (1+MD, 1), the next is (2+MD, 1), etc

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 05, 2019, 11:32:28 am

I think in the fiancé business you may have missed my submission, which was Camp.
I made the exact same mistake last time I judged so I totally understand.

I would appreciate your thoughts on it and if it would have been a runner up, had you seen it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on August 05, 2019, 11:41:40 am

(https://i.imgur.com/9riPhui.png)
Sacred Fire
$3. Action - Duration
+$2; you may trash a card.
-
At the start of each of your turns, you may trash a card for +$1.
If you don't, discard this from play and gain a Curse.
(This stays in play)

Probably the wording is not ideal - the idea is to have a Cathedral that can be stopped at the cost of two dead cards. You still can burn the received Curse to reinstate the fire after desecration.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 05, 2019, 12:14:17 pm

Quote from: grep on August 05, 2019, 11:41:40 am

(https://i.imgur.com/9riPhui.png)
Sacred Fire
$3. Action - Duration
+$2; you may trash a card.
-
At the start of each of your turns, you may trash a card for +$1.
If you don't, discard this from play and gain a Curse.
(This stays in play)

Probably the wording is not ideal - the idea is to have a Cathedral that can be stopped at the cost of two dead cards. You still can burn the received Curse to reinstate the fire after desecration.

While it's hard to compare a card that you have to buy, then draw, then play; to a project that you only have to buy... isn't this just a stronger Cathedral in every way; with Cathedral already being a super strong must-buy "card"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 05, 2019, 12:46:40 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 05, 2019, 12:14:17 pm

Quote from: grep on August 05, 2019, 11:41:40 am

(https://i.imgur.com/9riPhui.png)
Sacred Fire
$3. Action - Duration
+$2; you may trash a card.
-
At the start of each of your turns, you may trash a card for +$1.
If you don't, discard this from play and gain a Curse.
(This stays in play)

Probably the wording is not ideal - the idea is to have a Cathedral that can be stopped at the cost of two dead cards. You still can burn the received Curse to reinstate the fire after desecration.

While it's hard to compare a card that you have to buy, then draw, then play; to a project that you only have to buy... isn't this just a stronger Cathedral in every way; with Cathedral already being a super strong must-buy "card"?

Indeed. This is to Junk Dealer what Hireling is to Laboratory. And then some (decent effect on play, can stop itself).
Sure, you want to trash as early as possible whereas increasing your draw power can start a bit later. So this is just a rough comparison but I think it nonetheless reveals that the card is too good / too automatic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on August 05, 2019, 01:26:24 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 05, 2019, 11:32:28 am

I think in the fiancé business you may have missed my submission, which was Camp.
I made the exact same mistake last time I judged so I totally understand.

I would appreciate your thoughts on it and if it would have been a runner up, had you seen it.

I did see it and I thought I had put notes on it, but alas. I will do so when I can.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on August 05, 2019, 03:23:48 pm

At the risk of being incredibly unoriginal, here is a Black Market/Captain hybrid:

Bootlegger (Action-Duration) [$5]

Now and at the start of your next turn: reveal the top three cards of the Bootlegger deck and play one of them, leaving it there.
At the end of your turn, move all cards revealed from the Bootlegger deck to the bottom.

---
Setup: make up a Bootlegger deck of non-Duration action cards that do not appear in the Kingdom.

Swingy? Yes. Broken? Probably. It might make a fun promo card, though. It costs less than Captain because you have little control over what cards you get to choose to play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on August 05, 2019, 04:10:31 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/dh0qzvwe.png)

Source
Type: Action / Duration
Cost: $4

At the start of each of your turns, you may turn this card by 90° clockwise for +$1, +1 Action, or +1 Buy. If this is upright after rotation, discard this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on August 05, 2019, 04:19:23 pm

I LOVE pst's card!!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 04:33:46 pm

Quote from: King Leon on August 05, 2019, 04:10:31 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/s890otu7.png)

Source
Type: Action / Duration
Cost: $4

Add 4 Coin tokens to this. While any remain, at the start of each of your turns, you may remove a Coin token from here for +$1, +1 Action, or +1 Buy.

feel like you could almost do a thing where each option has like, a space for a coin token, and when you remove a coin you can't pick that option again, thereby protecting against having this be a cheaper hireling

edit: ah i see you edited it to get rid of the "I'm actually a cheaper hireling" option

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 05, 2019, 05:17:17 pm

Here is my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/Ame4WOT.png)

I wanted to do something that prevented cleaning up your cards. Originally, this didn't clean up any cards (including your hand) but then I realized that was too strong. This can work well with while in play effects (highway, groundskeeper, etc.). This works best if you're not drawing your deck every turn. Also when critiquing, note the downsides if you play this before a reshuffle (all your played cards miss the reshuffle).

To preempt people from saying that this is too strong compared to Outpost consider this: If you get a deck that can work with outpost (guide, or a well trashed deck) you can effectively double your turns for the rest of the game. If you have a deck that can draw settlement every turn then settlement doesn't provide a great benefit, since all your played cards can't be played again. If you can't draw settlement every turn, then while it will give you extra turns, it won't double your turns for the rest of the game.

update: changed cost to $7

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 05:45:59 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 05, 2019, 05:17:17 pm

Here is my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/yuT1GS8.png)

I wanted to do something that prevented cleaning up your cards. Originally, this didn't clean up any cards (including your hand) but then I realized that was too strong. This can work well with while in play effects (highway, groundskeeper, etc.). This works best if you're not drawing your deck every turn. Also when critiquing, note the downsides if you play this before a reshuffle (all your played cards miss the reshuffle).

To preempt people from saying that this is too strong compared to Outpost consider this: If you get a deck that can work with outpost (guide, or a well trashed deck) you can effectively double your turns for the rest of the game. If you have a deck that can draw settlement every turn then settlement doesn't provide a great benefit, since all your played cards can't be played again. If you can't draw settlement every turn, then while it will give you extra turns, it won't double your turns for the rest of the game.

I feel like its too strong to be priced at $5 without an additional restriction. Like if this read "+5 cards, go back to your Action phase" (which is essentially what its saying) thats like a $6 or $7 card. Maybe add a restriction where if its the second Settlement it does that?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 05, 2019, 05:53:33 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 05:45:59 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 05, 2019, 05:17:17 pm

Here is my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/yuT1GS8.png)

I wanted to do something that prevented cleaning up your cards. Originally, this didn't clean up any cards (including your hand) but then I realized that was too strong. This can work well with while in play effects (highway, groundskeeper, etc.). This works best if you're not drawing your deck every turn. Also when critiquing, note the downsides if you play this before a reshuffle (all your played cards miss the reshuffle).

To preempt people from saying that this is too strong compared to Outpost consider this: If you get a deck that can work with outpost (guide, or a well trashed deck) you can effectively double your turns for the rest of the game. If you have a deck that can draw settlement every turn then settlement doesn't provide a great benefit, since all your played cards can't be played again. If you can't draw settlement every turn, then while it will give you extra turns, it won't double your turns for the rest of the game.

I feel like its too strong to be priced at $5 without an additional restriction. Like if this read "+5 cards, go back to your Action phase" (which is essentially what its saying) thats like a $6 or $7 card. Maybe add a restriction where if its the second Settlement it does that?

It's not quite +5 Cards. It's like what you said (in quotation marks) but with discard your hand first. I still definitely agree that it's too strong for just _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, though. I'd price it at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)} or add an additional restriction.
I don't get what you said that I put in bold, though. Does what?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 05, 2019, 05:57:55 pm

Here is my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/mz4c39f.png)
Edit: version 1.1 below
I don't know if it's worded like this but the idea is that you can veto someone's veto, so if I have played a veto, then play a Village, someone else discards a Veto from play to make me play something else, then I can discard my Veto to be able to play my Village.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 06:08:56 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 05, 2019, 05:53:33 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 05:45:59 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 05, 2019, 05:17:17 pm

Here is my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/yuT1GS8.png)

I wanted to do something that prevented cleaning up your cards. Originally, this didn't clean up any cards (including your hand) but then I realized that was too strong. This can work well with while in play effects (highway, groundskeeper, etc.). This works best if you're not drawing your deck every turn. Also when critiquing, note the downsides if you play this before a reshuffle (all your played cards miss the reshuffle).

To preempt people from saying that this is too strong compared to Outpost consider this: If you get a deck that can work with outpost (guide, or a well trashed deck) you can effectively double your turns for the rest of the game. If you have a deck that can draw settlement every turn then settlement doesn't provide a great benefit, since all your played cards can't be played again. If you can't draw settlement every turn, then while it will give you extra turns, it won't double your turns for the rest of the game.

I feel like its too strong to be priced at $5 without an additional restriction. Like if this read "+5 cards, go back to your Action phase" (which is essentially what its saying) thats like a $6 or $7 card. Maybe add a restriction where if its the second Settlement it does that?

It's not quite +5 Cards. It's like what you said (in quotation marks) but with discard your hand first. I still definitely agree that it's too strong for just [$5], though. I'd price it at [$7] or add an additional restriction.
I don't get what you said that I put in bold, though. Does what?

Well right now, it's "If this is the first Settlement you played this turn", right?
and Night cards are inherently non-terminal?
So make the first one do nothing and the second "If this is the second Settlement you played this turn", which adds a treasure map-esque element to the card.

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 05, 2019, 05:57:55 pm

Here is my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/mz4c39f.png)
I don't know if it's worded like this but the idea is that you can veto someone's veto, so if I have played a veto, then play a Village, someone else discards a Veto from play to make me play something else, then I can discard my Veto to be able to play my Village.

Can you veto someone else playing a veto? I thought debt was kinda like potions, in that it was orthogonally priced from $

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 05, 2019, 06:21:46 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 05, 2019, 05:53:33 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 05:45:59 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 05, 2019, 05:17:17 pm

Here is my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/yuT1GS8.png)

I wanted to do something that prevented cleaning up your cards. Originally, this didn't clean up any cards (including your hand) but then I realized that was too strong. This can work well with while in play effects (highway, groundskeeper, etc.). This works best if you're not drawing your deck every turn. Also when critiquing, note the downsides if you play this before a reshuffle (all your played cards miss the reshuffle).

To preempt people from saying that this is too strong compared to Outpost consider this: If you get a deck that can work with outpost (guide, or a well trashed deck) you can effectively double your turns for the rest of the game. If you have a deck that can draw settlement every turn then settlement doesn't provide a great benefit, since all your played cards can't be played again. If you can't draw settlement every turn, then while it will give you extra turns, it won't double your turns for the rest of the game.

I feel like its too strong to be priced at $5 without an additional restriction. Like if this read "+5 cards, go back to your Action phase" (which is essentially what its saying) thats like a $6 or $7 card. Maybe add a restriction where if its the second Settlement it does that?

It's not quite +5 Cards. It's like what you said (in quotation marks) but with discard your hand first. I still definitely agree that it's too strong for just [$5], though. I'd price it at [$7] or add an additional restriction.
I don't get what you said that I put in bold, though. Does what?

Noted. I changed the price to $7.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 05, 2019, 06:40:48 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 05, 2019, 05:57:55 pm

Here is my submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/mz4c39f.png)
I don't know if it's worded like this but the idea is that you can veto someone's veto, so if I have played a veto, then play a Village, someone else discards a Veto from play to make me play something else, then I can discard my Veto to be able to play my Village.

As worded, you cannot Veto another Veto. _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/90/Debt4.png/18px-Debt4.png)} isn't _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} or less.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 05, 2019, 06:57:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/8PPzb0C.png)
Version 1.1. Added "from the supply" and the last sentence. Are those changes necessary?

Anyway, what I really meant was that you can use a veto to undo someone else's veto, but you cannot use a veto to stop someone else from playing a veto. That was actually unintentional, I just liked the way the other duration effect worked when the cost is debt. On that topic, what does anyone think on the price?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 05, 2019, 08:02:17 pm

Quote from: King Leon on August 05, 2019, 04:10:31 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/s890otu7.png)

Source
Type: Action / Duration
Cost: $4

Add 4 Coin tokens to this. While any remain, at the start of each of your turns, you may remove a Coin token from here for +$1, +1 Action, or +1 Buy.

Don't know if you care, but a card that uses Coin tokens doesn't fit well with the "Promo" part of the challenge.

Quote from: naitchman on August 05, 2019, 05:17:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Ame4WOT.png)

I feel that the final "this" could be ambiguous, or at least it confused me. I assume that "this turn" is the "this turn" referred to previously (the turn you're on now, not the extra turn you're getting) but the way the sentence is structured, the focus is shifted to the extra turn, making it seem that "this turn" is referring to that instead. I would swap the clauses so that it's something like "do not discard your in-play cards during clean-up and then take another turn after this one." Maybe I'm the only one who found this confusing though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 05, 2019, 09:15:38 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 05, 2019, 08:02:17 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 05, 2019, 05:17:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Ame4WOT.png)

I feel that the final "this" could be ambiguous, or at least it confused me. I assume that "this turn" is the "this turn" referred to previously (the turn you're on now, not the extra turn you're getting) but the way the sentence is structured, the focus is shifted to the extra turn, making it seem that "this turn" is referring to that instead. I would swap the clauses so that it's something like "do not discard your in-play cards during clean-up and then take another turn after this one." Maybe I'm the only one who found this confusing though.

Agreed; I can equally read either meaning... "this" could mean "the turn we're talking about now"; which is the extra turn; or it could mean the current turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 05, 2019, 09:31:04 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/JeVWmqI.png)

I decided to do something similar to Black Market. Gives you access to special piles, but also give your opponents access for a smaller period of time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on August 05, 2019, 09:33:49 pm

Here's a probably bad idea I've wanted to share for a while.
(https://i.imgur.com/SrDoBhc.jpg)

Quote

Trade Vessel
Types: Action, Duration, Victory
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. Now and at the start of each player's next turn (including yours): They get +1 Buy. At the start of your next turn, if any other player gained at least 2 cards on their previous turn: +$1.

---

Worth 2VP if in play at the end of the game (otherwise worth 0VP).

A Market Square that gives everyone, including you, a Market Square next turn so it'll be easier to end the game.  If you can end the game this turn or if anyone else ends the game before your next turn, you get 2VP (if you end the game on your next turn, it gets discarded that clean-up and will be worth 0VP. Just call it insurance.).  If anyone else gains multiple cards (whether by using the free buy you gave them or not) you get a whole Market next turn.  Tracking card gains is usually annoying, but you only need to track when Trade Vessel is in play so it is never a surprise.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 05, 2019, 09:45:31 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 05, 2019, 08:02:17 pm

Don't know if you care, but a card that uses Coin tokens doesn't fit well with the "Promo" part of the challenge.

I sort of forgot that part as I developed my idea (not the card this quote was referring to. Do you think it works?
I just realized that I was subconsciously influenced by Nope from Exploding Kittens. I hate that stupid game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 05, 2019, 10:18:04 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 05, 2019, 09:15:38 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 05, 2019, 08:02:17 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 05, 2019, 05:17:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Ame4WOT.png)

I feel that the final "this" could be ambiguous, or at least it confused me. I assume that "this turn" is the "this turn" referred to previously (the turn you're on now, not the extra turn you're getting) but the way the sentence is structured, the focus is shifted to the extra turn, making it seem that "this turn" is referring to that instead. I would swap the clauses so that it's something like "do not discard your in-play cards during clean-up and then take another turn after this one." Maybe I'm the only one who found this confusing though.

Agreed; I can equally read either meaning... "this" could mean "the turn we're talking about now"; which is the extra turn; or it could mean the current turn.

If you try hard you can read it the wrong way, but you really have to try hard. "This turn" always refers to the turn you are on. If I wanted to talk about the extra turn I would have followed Mission's precedent and written "take another turn after this one during which you do not discard cards from play during your cleanup phase". I'm going to leave it as it is because I think it's fine and I'd rather keep the order closer to outpost's wording.

Title: Re: Contest #39: Design a Duration card
Post by: Gubump on August 06, 2019, 12:23:26 am

Everybody else seems to have taken this challenge to be "design a complicated Duration card," so I'm going to deviate from that norm and post a simple but (hopefully) sweet card that still accomplishes something unique (being a Treasure - Duration card).

(https://i.imgur.com/p4jxkOY.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 06, 2019, 02:37:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/9iiBNCa.png)

Quote

Charlatan
$3 - Action/Duration/Attack

+1 Buy
+ $1
Until your next turn, at the end of each other player's buy phase, they choose a non-Duration card they have in play and exchange it for a card costing at most the same from the supply with a different type. At the start of your next turn: Gain a Silver to your hand.

v0.2: I have removed the per-buy attack as it was too wordy and potentially too crippling. Now it just happens once and in return, the on-play is a bit more powerful. Also some wording improvement (specifies "from the supply") and better tracking (limited to non-Duration).

Old v0.1:

Quote

Charlatan
$3 - Action/Duration/Attack

+1 Buy
Until your next turn, when another player buys a card, they choose a card they have in play and exchange it for a card costing at most the same as the chosen card with a different type. If they didn't, they return the bought card to the supply. At the start of your next turn: Gain a Silver to your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on August 06, 2019, 03:37:49 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 04, 2019, 11:39:18 pm

I've decided Camp is more appropriate at 5
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/dyhukeua.png)

I toyed around with sample kingdoms, and most of the time this plays as far better than a 4 cost card. There are kingdoms where you have beggar, you won't buy this card probably. It depends on the kingdom whether this card is worth buying. But on the kingdoms this card is worth buying (there are actually a lot of them), it turns our this is very powerful for a 4 cost card. Especially since it ostensibly gets better with every single play. A lot of the time, the card ends up as +1card +3 actions with some bonus as the weakest it can be, and even that seems okay at 5.

I think Camp is really interesting, if a bit too powerful. I wonder if (outside this contest) it would be a little better with just +1 Action. Then you're only getting a Super Lab with your Camp'd Smithy instead of +3 Cards, +2 Actions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 06, 2019, 03:40:08 am

(https://i.imgur.com/YsB1mui.png)

Wow, it's a $4 pillage that's reusable! Except, it doesn't actually discard cards. Instead, it maliciously havens them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 06, 2019, 04:07:32 am

Quote from: pubby on August 06, 2019, 03:40:08 am

(https://i.imgur.com/YsB1mui.png)

Wow, it's a $4 pillage that's reusable! Except, it doesn't actually discard cards. Instead, it maliciously havens them.

I think it's too much. First of all, the effect this has on the opponent's next turn is actually worse than Pillage; with Pillage, they at least have the chance to redraw the discarded card. More importantly however, this sets itself up to be stackable: play Customs one turn, and you will be able to attack with 2 Customs on the following turn. I think this is going to be too crippling.

From a tracking perspective, it's probably not a good idea to keep a bunch of cards from different players on the same card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 06, 2019, 09:15:04 am

Quote from: faust on August 06, 2019, 04:07:32 am

Quote from: pubby on August 06, 2019, 03:40:08 am

(https://i.imgur.com/YsB1mui.png)

Wow, it's a $4 pillage that's reusable! Except, it doesn't actually discard cards. Instead, it maliciously havens them.

I think it's too much. First of all, the effect this has on the opponent's next turn is actually worse than Pillage; with Pillage, they at least have the chance to redraw the discarded card. More importantly however, this sets itself up to be stackable: play Customs one turn, and you will be able to attack with 2 Customs on the following turn. I think this is going to be too crippling.

From a tracking perspective, it's probably not a good idea to keep a bunch of cards from different players on the same card.

You can probably fix the tracking thing by putting an island-mat-style customs mat in. Everyone gets a customs mat, this makes people put things on their customs mat. Maybe even have like, slots, "A", "B", "C", "D", in the event there's a lot of these that come out, so you can keep track of which cards were hit by which Customs.

Also you could probably make this into a $6 super mean attack card by having them draw a card first (instead of you gaining a Spoils)

Although when Customs clears, they're probably set up for a mega-turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 06, 2019, 09:48:36 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 06, 2019, 07:16:31 am

(https://i.imgur.com/rc6wALh.png)

This should just be orange, not orange and white.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 06, 2019, 10:18:56 am

Quote from: faust on August 06, 2019, 02:37:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/sZtuTVm.png)

Quote

Charlatan
$3 - Action/Duration/Attack

+1 Buy
Until your next turn, when another player buys a card, they choose a card they have in play and exchange it for a card costing at most the same as the chosen card with a different type. If they didn't, they return the bought card to the supply. At the start of your next turn: Gain a Silver to your hand.

i hate that a $3 attack can veto my buy, and that this auto-vetos buying a copper when you've got nothing in play.

This is way stronger than it looks, especially for the price, and especially with the "different type" requirement - if you wanna go that route, go "different name" at the very least.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 06, 2019, 10:46:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 06, 2019, 10:18:56 am

i hate that a $3 attack can veto my buy, and that this auto-vetos buying a copper when you've got nothing in play.

This is way stronger than it looks, especially for the price, and especially with the "different type" requirement - if you wanna go that route, go "different name" at the very least.

I think you misunderstand something - this does not veto any buys. It just makes it so that when you buy a card, one of the cards you have in play changes its form. The "if you didn't..." clause in there is just to prevent trying and failing to exchange Coppers when the Curses have run out.

EDIT: You're right that it does veto buying a Copper when you have nothing in play. But that's really a fringe case.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 06, 2019, 11:02:45 am

Quote from: faust on August 06, 2019, 10:46:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 06, 2019, 10:18:56 am

i hate that a $3 attack can veto my buy, and that this auto-vetos buying a copper when you've got nothing in play.

This is way stronger than it looks, especially for the price, and especially with the "different type" requirement - if you wanna go that route, go "different name" at the very least.

I think you misunderstand something - this does not veto any buys. It just makes it so that when you buy a card, one of the cards you have in play changes its form. The "if you didn't..." clause in there is just to prevent trying and failing to exchange Coppers when the Curses have run out.

EDIT: You're right that it does veto buying a Copper when you have nothing in play. But that's really a fringe case.

Right but like, it's a constant swindler while it's out; in a kingdom where buys are the only way to gain things, that's way too powerful. Its not even just the first buy in a turn - it's every buy. Way too strong for $3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 06, 2019, 11:15:19 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 06, 2019, 11:02:45 am

Quote from: faust on August 06, 2019, 10:46:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 06, 2019, 10:18:56 am

i hate that a $3 attack can veto my buy, and that this auto-vetos buying a copper when you've got nothing in play.

This is way stronger than it looks, especially for the price, and especially with the "different type" requirement - if you wanna go that route, go "different name" at the very least.

I think you misunderstand something - this does not veto any buys. It just makes it so that when you buy a card, one of the cards you have in play changes its form. The "if you didn't..." clause in there is just to prevent trying and failing to exchange Coppers when the Curses have run out.

EDIT: You're right that it does veto buying a Copper when you have nothing in play. But that's really a fringe case.

Right but like, it's a constant swindler while it's out; in a kingdom where buys are the only way to gain things, that's way too powerful. Its not even just the first buy in a turn - it's every buy. Way too strong for $3.

Yeah while I don't quite get the use of the word "veto" here; this does seem like this basically prevents players from buying anything a lot of the time; unless they have junk in play. Early on you'll just be trading your Coppers for Curses every time you buy a card, and then when you're out of Coppers; whether because there's trashing or because you exchanged them all; you'll be forced to decide between buying a new action card and keeping your old action cards... it basically turns every card in your opponents deck into a one-shot.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 06, 2019, 11:16:02 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 06, 2019, 11:02:45 am

Quote from: faust on August 06, 2019, 10:46:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 06, 2019, 10:18:56 am

i hate that a $3 attack can veto my buy, and that this auto-vetos buying a copper when you've got nothing in play.

This is way stronger than it looks, especially for the price, and especially with the "different type" requirement - if you wanna go that route, go "different name" at the very least.

I think you misunderstand something - this does not veto any buys. It just makes it so that when you buy a card, one of the cards you have in play changes its form. The "if you didn't..." clause in there is just to prevent trying and failing to exchange Coppers when the Curses have run out.

EDIT: You're right that it does veto buying a Copper when you have nothing in play. But that's really a fringe case.

Right but like, it's a constant swindler while it's out; in a kingdom where buys are the only way to gain things, that's way too powerful. Its not even just the first buy in a turn - it's every buy. Way too strong for $3.

While it is likely to convert Copper into Curse after the first shuffle, in the middlegame it is likely less harsh than Swindler. It can even be good for you!
You can e.g. exchange a Merchant into a Silver or a Silver into a Merchant. That's is arguably an idealized case but many Kingdoms have decent stuff below $3 and this very Attack is after all a Silver-gainer.
If Action piles quickly empty you have to return some engine pieces ... but as the piles are empty, you have a lot of Actions anyway so it is not a big issue.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 06, 2019, 11:18:46 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 06, 2019, 11:15:19 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 06, 2019, 11:02:45 am

Quote from: faust on August 06, 2019, 10:46:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 06, 2019, 10:18:56 am

i hate that a $3 attack can veto my buy, and that this auto-vetos buying a copper when you've got nothing in play.

This is way stronger than it looks, especially for the price, and especially with the "different type" requirement - if you wanna go that route, go "different name" at the very least.

I think you misunderstand something - this does not veto any buys. It just makes it so that when you buy a card, one of the cards you have in play changes its form. The "if you didn't..." clause in there is just to prevent trying and failing to exchange Coppers when the Curses have run out.

EDIT: You're right that it does veto buying a Copper when you have nothing in play. But that's really a fringe case.

Right but like, it's a constant swindler while it's out; in a kingdom where buys are the only way to gain things, that's way too powerful. Its not even just the first buy in a turn - it's every buy. Way too strong for $3.

Yeah while I don't quite get the use of the word "veto" here; this does seem like this basically prevents players from buying anything a lot of the time; unless they have junk in play. Early on you'll just be trading your Coppers for Curses every time you buy a card, and then when you're out of Coppers; whether because there's trashing or because you exchanged them all; you'll be forced to decide between buying a new action card and keeping your old action cards... it basically turns every card in your opponents deck into a one-shot.

Not really... you can exchange a $3 Action for a Silver and then Silver again for a $3 Action. If you have both in play, the net result will be nothing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 06, 2019, 11:29:34 am

Quote from: faust on August 06, 2019, 11:18:46 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 06, 2019, 11:15:19 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 06, 2019, 11:02:45 am

Quote from: faust on August 06, 2019, 10:46:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 06, 2019, 10:18:56 am

i hate that a $3 attack can veto my buy, and that this auto-vetos buying a copper when you've got nothing in play.

This is way stronger than it looks, especially for the price, and especially with the "different type" requirement - if you wanna go that route, go "different name" at the very least.

I think you misunderstand something - this does not veto any buys. It just makes it so that when you buy a card, one of the cards you have in play changes its form. The "if you didn't..." clause in there is just to prevent trying and failing to exchange Coppers when the Curses have run out.

EDIT: You're right that it does veto buying a Copper when you have nothing in play. But that's really a fringe case.

Right but like, it's a constant swindler while it's out; in a kingdom where buys are the only way to gain things, that's way too powerful. Its not even just the first buy in a turn - it's every buy. Way too strong for $3.

Yeah while I don't quite get the use of the word "veto" here; this does seem like this basically prevents players from buying anything a lot of the time; unless they have junk in play. Early on you'll just be trading your Coppers for Curses every time you buy a card, and then when you're out of Coppers; whether because there's trashing or because you exchanged them all; you'll be forced to decide between buying a new action card and keeping your old action cards... it basically turns every card in your opponents deck into a one-shot.

Not really... you can exchange a $3 Action for a Silver and then Silver again for a $3 Action. If you have both in play, the net result will be nothing.

The net result will only be nothing if they have 2 buys and use them both. If they only buy a single card, their deck will have to change every turn. Maybe some decks are resilient enough to handle an engine piece becoming a Silver for a turn, but I feel like a lot of decks can't.

I was wrong about it shutting down buys though. The penalty is generally not going to make you decide to simply not buy a card... unless perhaps you only have _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}s in play. Instead it's just going to act more like Swindler, except a weird Swindler where they have more control over what gets Swindled both from and to.

The more I talk about this, the more I feel like the card is too weak, not too strong... it will feel very annoying to be attacked by it, similar to how Swindler feels annoying. But I don't see a middle ground here... either the card shuts down your opponents deck, in which case it leads to unfun games... or the attack is less harmful than Swindler, in which case it's really, really weak because it's just Swindler with +buy instead of +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 06, 2019, 11:58:08 am

@Gendo -
feel like it's definitely going to shine in strength in kingdoms with a variety of costs - potions, debt, etc. - that there's nothing to change things into.

Also is <4> or <8> cheaper? because I don't think that's ever been errata'd.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 06, 2019, 12:09:34 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 06, 2019, 11:58:08 am

@Gendo -
feel like it's definitely going to shine in strength in kingdoms with a variety of costs - potions, debt, etc. - that there's nothing to change things into.

Also is <4> or <8> cheaper? because I don't think that's ever been errata'd.

Cheaper works the same with _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png)} as it does with _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)}. _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png)} is cheaper than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png)}, _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/90/Debt4.png/18px-Debt4.png)}, and _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png)}. It is not cheaper (or more expensive) than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 06, 2019, 12:19:43 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 06, 2019, 11:29:34 am

The more I talk about this, the more I feel like the card is too weak, not too strong... it will feel very annoying to be attacked by it, similar to how Swindler feels annoying. But I don't see a middle ground here... either the card shuts down your opponents deck, in which case it leads to unfun games... or the attack is less harmful than Swindler, in which case it's really, really weak because it's just Swindler with +buy instead of +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.

Swindler is swingy whereas this is not. That's a big advantage in my book.
Also, this card hand-gains Silver (not directly comparable to Swindler being a terminal Silver but nonetheless, Charlatan provides economy) which acts at the same time as mild defense mechanism against itself. This is precisely why I have a hard time seeing the "shutdown". Even in an engine with expensive pieces, i.e. little or nothing that costs $3 or less, you can always convert those Silvers into Estates and then Coppers (this is obviously only possible in a mirror or in a Kingdom with other Silver gaining). That's nastier than a Swindler attack but less harsh than a trashing attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 06, 2019, 12:24:54 pm

Quote from: segura on August 06, 2019, 12:19:43 pm

Also, this card hand-gains Silver (not directly comparable to Swindler being a terminal Silver but nonetheless, Charlatan provides economy) which acts at the same time as mild defense mechanism against itself. This is precisely why I have a hard time seeing the "shutdown". Even in an engine with expensive pieces, i.e. little or nothing that costs $3 or less, you can always convert those Silvers into Estates and then Coppers (this is obviously only possible in a mirror or in a Kingdom with other Silver gaining). That's nastier than a Swindler attack but less harsh than a trashing attack.

I completely missed the "gain a silver to your hand" part.

Which, while my own mistake, also goes to show that the card has way too much text.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 06, 2019, 01:12:19 pm

My submission for this week:
(https://i.imgur.com/vezLFDSl.png)

Quote

Mine Worker ($5, Action-Duration-Reaction)

Now and at the start of your next turn: you may trash a Victory Card from your hand, to gain a card costing up to $3 more than it. If you don't, you may discard your hand for +5 Cards.
-
Before resolving the effect of a Duration at the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, the duration will stay in play and effect will occur the start of your next turn as opposed to this turn.
-
In games using this, when you start a turn with 3 or more Durations in play, you may gain a Duchy or 3 Estates.

This card is similar to Governor in that it does many things and has a strong self-synergy. It has the following functionalities:
* Remodeling: Used to turn your Estates into Mineworkers (or other $5 costs). Or to turn your Duchies into Provinces.
* Reaction: Keeps the Mineworkers in play so you can trigger the "in games using this" effect. This reaction motivated me to design this card.
* Cycling: Used if you fail to have a Mineworker in your hand. Also a consolidation price if you have no Victory cards in hand when playing the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on August 06, 2019, 02:23:50 pm

Source gets a new wording to get rid of the Coin tokens.
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/dh0qzvwe.png)
At the start of each of your turns, you may turn this card by 90° clockwise for +$1, +1 Action, or +1 Buy. If this is upright after rotation, discard this.

(Remark: If this is in the discard pile, the “you may turn this by 90° for ...” will obviously lose track, so I don't need an “if this is still in play”.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 06, 2019, 03:03:05 pm

Quote from: King Leon on August 06, 2019, 02:23:50 pm

Source gets a new wording to get rid of the Coin tokens.
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/dh0qzvwe.png)
At the start of each of your turns, you may turn this card by 90° clockwise for +$1, +1 Action, or +1 Buy. If this is upright after rotation, discard this.

(Remark: If this is in the discard pile, the “you may turn this by 90° for ...” will obviously lose track, so I don't need an “if this is still in play”.)

Fun fact: I have the tabletop campaign book that has this illustration on the cover.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on August 06, 2019, 04:05:47 pm

Quote from: faust on August 06, 2019, 02:37:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/sZtuTVm.png)

Quote

Charlatan
$3 - Action/Duration/Attack

+1 Buy
Until your next turn, when another player buys a card, they choose a card they have in play and exchange it for a card costing at most the same as the chosen card with a different type. If they didn't, they return the bought card to the supply. At the start of your next turn: Gain a Silver to your hand.

Converting Copper to Curse or Silver to Estate is a pretty hard attack, but getting a Silver to your hand in your next turn is just overpowered for a $3 card. There is a reason why Merchant Ship costs $5. It is like playing two Peddlers at the start of your next turn. But at least you can exchange your gained Silvers for Charlatans later. But remember: Bureaucrat costs $4, has a weaker attack and only topdecks the Silver.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 06, 2019, 05:13:24 pm

Quote from: King Leon on August 06, 2019, 02:23:50 pm

Source gets a new wording to get rid of the Coin tokens.
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/dh0qzvwe.png)
At the start of each of your turns, you may turn this card by 90° clockwise for +$1, +1 Action, or +1 Buy. If this is upright after rotation, discard this.

(Remark: If this is in the discard pile, the “you may turn this by 90° for ...” will obviously lose track, so I don't need an “if this is still in play”.)

Your remark doesn't hold true, because lose track doesn't prevent someone from turning a card, or from getting benefits from it. It only prevents a card from being moved.

I think you can just go with "at the start of each of your next four turns..." wording similar to Archive (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Archive). It will be slightly weaker because you can't choose to hold the effect for a later turn; but that will rarely matter because it's almost always the right move to use it asap. Then you also don't need the "discard this" clause because it will just be normally discarded in the cleanup of the 4th turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 06, 2019, 06:24:39 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 06, 2019, 01:12:19 pm

My submission for this week:
(https://i.imgur.com/vezLFDSl.png)

Quote

Mine Worker ($5, Action-Duration-Reaction)

Now and at the start of your next turn: you may trash a Victory Card from your hand, to gain a card costing up to $3 more than it. If you don't, you may discard your hand for +5 Cards.
-
Before resolving the effect of a Duration at the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, the duration will stay in play and effect will occur the start of your next turn as opposed to this turn.
-
In games using this, when you start a turn with 3 or more Durations in play, you may gain a Duchy or 3 Estates.

Way too much text, and it ultimately seems very similar to Rebuild (and about as fun).

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 06, 2019, 05:13:24 pm

Quote from: King Leon on August 06, 2019, 02:23:50 pm

Source gets a new wording to get rid of the Coin tokens.
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/dh0qzvwe.png)
At the start of each of your turns, you may turn this card by 90° clockwise for +$1, +1 Action, or +1 Buy. If this is upright after rotation, discard this.

(Remark: If this is in the discard pile, the “you may turn this by 90° for ...” will obviously lose track, so I don't need an “if this is still in play”.)

Your remark doesn't hold true, because lose track doesn't prevent someone from turning a card, or from getting benefits from it. It only prevents a card from being moved.

I think you can just go with "at the start of each of your next four turns..." wording similar to Archive (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Archive). It will be slightly weaker because you can't choose to hold the effect for a later turn; but that will rarely matter because it's almost always the right move to use it asap. Then you also don't need the "discard this" clause because it will just be normally discarded in the cleanup of the 4th turn.

"At the start of each of your next four turns" is going to be horrific to track on its own. The rotating thing seems okay, though it reminds me a bit too much of Pokemon :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on August 06, 2019, 08:36:44 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 06, 2019, 09:48:36 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 06, 2019, 07:16:31 am

(https://i.imgur.com/rc6wALh.png)

This should just be orange, not orange and white.

It is also almost strictly better than Merchant Ship.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on August 06, 2019, 08:47:14 pm

Quote from: faust on August 06, 2019, 02:37:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/sZtuTVm.png)

Quote

Charlatan
$3 - Action/Duration/Attack

+1 Buy
Until your next turn, when another player buys a card, they choose a card they have in play and exchange it for a card costing at most the same as the chosen card with a different type. If they didn't, they return the bought card to the supply. At the start of your next turn: Gain a Silver to your hand.

I'm not sure "with a different type" is unambiguous in this context. I assume you can exchange a Chapel for a Moat, since Moat has a type which Chapel does not. But can I exchange a Moat for a Chapel, since Moat has a type which Chapel does not? If so, can I also exchange Moat for Moat, since Moat has a type that is different from one of Moat's types?

I think "with a different type" could be interpreted as any of the following:
1. B has a type which A does not have (I can exchange Chapel for Moat, but not vice versa)
2. A and B have mutually exclusive sets of types (I cannot exchange Moat for Chapel or vice versa)
3. A and B do not have exactly the same set of types (I can exchange Moat for Chapel and vice versa)
4. There exist different types x, y, such that A has type x and B has type y (I can exchange Moat for Moat)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 07, 2019, 12:19:59 am

CHALLENGE #39 - DURATION CARD

Well, most people play Dominion for big engine play, and this is certainly not that. Variety is what keeps Dominion interesting though and this takes on some stuff not seen with the official Dominion cards. Namely, dragging out the time in between shuffles. This may not sound fun, but for me at least it kind of is. Beyond that there is a lot of room here to outplay your opponents other than just gaining more cards than them.

(https://i.imgur.com/WL1iie0.jpg)

And yes I realize promos should not use physical items introduced in other sets, but (1) anything can be used as debt tokens (I for instance use new, US pennies) and (2) this isn't really a promo challenge, just a duration challenge that should touch on new mechanics.

Thanks for looking! 8)

Quote from: Kudasai

Wonder
Types: Night - Duration
Cost: 8 Debt
At the start of each of your turns, if this is in play, add 2VP to this. When you shuffle, trash this and take the VP.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is gained to your hand.
(This stays in play until you shuffle and the VP on this is not yours until then.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 07, 2019, 04:21:26 am

Quote from: Kudasai on August 07, 2019, 12:19:59 am

CHALLENGE #39 - DURATION CARD

Well, most people play Dominion for big engine play, and this is certainly not that. Variety is what keeps Dominion interesting though and this takes on some stuff not seen with the official Dominion cards. Namely, dragging out the time in between shuffles. This may not sound fun, but for me at least it kind of is. Beyond that there is a lot of room here to outplay your opponents other than just gaining more cards than them.

(https://i.imgur.com/3WjhDzv.jpg)

And yes I realize promos should not use physical items introduced in other sets, but (1) anything can be used as debt tokens (I for instance use new pennies) and (2) this isn't really a promo challenge, just a duration challenge that should touch on new mechanics.

Thanks for looking! 8)

I like this but since its a victory chit card, it should probably have a sort of wind-down mechanism in it (ie, when you add +2VP, trash the top two cards of your deck, so that you have to buy cards to keep it viable and it runs out the supply that way) other than self-trashing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 07, 2019, 06:05:17 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 07, 2019, 04:21:26 am

I like this but since its a victory chit card, it should probably have a sort of wind-down mechanism in it (ie, when you add +2VP, trash the top two cards of your deck, so that you have to buy cards to keep it viable and it runs out the supply that way) other than self-trashing.

I mean, it trashes itself, and there are combos that allow you to keep this out for a long time, but all of them I can think of also deplete piles (Mandarin, or stuff with Armory or Watchtower).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 07, 2019, 09:56:33 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 06, 2019, 06:24:39 pm

"At the start of each of your next four turns" is going to be horrific to track on its own. The rotating thing seems okay, though it reminds me a bit too much of Pokemon :P

I meant for it to still keep the rotating part also; so the rotating automatically acts as the 4 turn tracker.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 07, 2019, 10:01:49 am

Quote from: King Leon on August 06, 2019, 08:36:44 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 06, 2019, 09:48:36 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 06, 2019, 07:16:31 am

(https://i.imgur.com/rc6wALh.png)

This should just be orange, not orange and white.

It is also almost strictly better than Merchant Ship.

I'm not seeing that at all....

 - This does nothing at all the turn you play it; which really hurts your current turn.
 - "Gain a silver to your hand" is neither better nor worse than +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}; it depends on the state of the game and your deck. Very often you'd rather have the +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.
 - If you don't keep feeding it, this is trashed and you gain a Curse.

I don't know if it would be stronger or weaker than Merchant Ship, especially considering it's _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} instead of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}; but it definitely isn't close to strictly better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 07, 2019, 10:08:38 am

Quote from: faust on August 07, 2019, 06:05:17 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 07, 2019, 04:21:26 am

I like this but since its a victory chit card, it should probably have a sort of wind-down mechanism in it (ie, when you add +2VP, trash the top two cards of your deck, so that you have to buy cards to keep it viable and it runs out the supply that way) other than self-trashing.

I mean, it trashes itself, and there are combos that allow you to keep this out for a long time, but all of them I can think of also deplete piles (Mandarin, or stuff with Armory or Watchtower).

Here's an infinite loop without gaining:

You have 15 Estates which are Inherited Captains. At the start for your turn, 5 Estates are in play, 5 Estates are in your hand, and 5 Estates are in your discard. You play the 5 Estates playing Mountain Villages and drawing Estates. Now you have 10 Estates in hand. You play 5 Estates playing Counts (there's a Ferry token on there) topdecking the other 5 Estates. Repeat.

Not exactly a situation that needs to be addressed, but it was a fun thought experiment.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 07, 2019, 11:00:49 am

If a player can set that up they deserve to have it :)
Actually, do you think that would be a winning strategy? Is someone willing to calculate a very rough approximation on how long that would take to set up and how many points it would earn before the other 2 players empty the Provinces? (there have to be 3 or more so there's enough Estates, wait, is there even a way to get 15 Estates? Now I want to know.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 07, 2019, 11:03:48 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 07, 2019, 11:00:49 am

If a player can set that up they deserve to have it :)
Actually, do you think that would be a winning strategy? Is someone willing to calculate a very rough approximation on how long that would take to set up and how many points it would earn before the other 2 players empty the Provinces? (there have to be 3 or more so there's enough Estates, wait, is there even a way to get 15 Estates? Now I want to know.)

I mean, the way to address this is you never earn the VP chits until you trigger a reshuffle - VP chits on the card are lost, meaning if you're gonna do this strategy, you gotta bite the bullet at some point.

(also 15 estates = 3p game + you empty the estates pile + you don't trash your starting three)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 07, 2019, 11:04:40 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 07, 2019, 11:00:49 am

If a player can set that up they deserve to have it :)
Actually, do you think that would be a winning strategy? Is someone willing to calculate a very rough approximation on how long that would take to set up and how many points it would earn before the other 2 players empty the Provinces? (there have to be 3 or more so there's enough Estates, wait, is there even a way to get 15 Estates? Now I want to know.)

They don't have have to be Estates, some can be actual Captains. Whether it's a winning strategy... I mean once you Inherited Captains, the first person to do that probably wins no matter what.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 07, 2019, 12:04:10 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 07, 2019, 11:03:48 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 07, 2019, 11:00:49 am

If a player can set that up they deserve to have it :)
Actually, do you think that would be a winning strategy? Is someone willing to calculate a very rough approximation on how long that would take to set up and how many points it would earn before the other 2 players empty the Provinces? (there have to be 3 or more so there's enough Estates, wait, is there even a way to get 15 Estates? Now I want to know.)

I mean, the way to address this is you never earn the VP chits until you trigger a reshuffle - VP chits on the card are lost, meaning if you're gonna do this strategy, you gotta bite the bullet at some point.

(also 15 estates = 3p game + you empty the estates pile + you don't trash your starting three)

It may not be exactly clear, but this is how it is supposed to work. You only get the VP tokens when you shuffle.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 07, 2019, 12:38:02 pm

Quote

(also 15 estates = 3p game + you empty the estates pile + you don't trash your starting three)

Duh. I guess I counted wrong

Quote from: Kudasai on August 07, 2019, 12:04:10 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 07, 2019, 11:03:48 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 07, 2019, 11:00:49 am

If a player can set that up they deserve to have it :)
Actually, do you think that would be a winning strategy? Is someone willing to calculate a very rough approximation on how long that would take to set up and how many points it would earn before the other 2 players empty the Provinces? (there have to be 3 or more so there's enough Estates, wait, is there even a way to get 15 Estates? Now I want to know.)

I mean, the way to address this is you never earn the VP chits until you trigger a reshuffle - VP chits on the card are lost, meaning if you're gonna do this strategy, you gotta bite the bullet at some point.

(also 15 estates = 3p game + you empty the estates pile + you don't trash your starting three)

It may not be exactly clear, but this is how it is supposed to work. You only get the VP tokens when you shuffle.

Oh yeah, forgot that when reading the fun example.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 07, 2019, 12:40:00 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on August 07, 2019, 12:04:10 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 07, 2019, 11:03:48 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 07, 2019, 11:00:49 am

If a player can set that up they deserve to have it :)
Actually, do you think that would be a winning strategy? Is someone willing to calculate a very rough approximation on how long that would take to set up and how many points it would earn before the other 2 players empty the Provinces? (there have to be 3 or more so there's enough Estates, wait, is there even a way to get 15 Estates? Now I want to know.)

I mean, the way to address this is you never earn the VP chits until you trigger a reshuffle - VP chits on the card are lost, meaning if you're gonna do this strategy, you gotta bite the bullet at some point.

(also 15 estates = 3p game + you empty the estates pile + you don't trash your starting three)

It may not be exactly clear, but this is how it is supposed to work. You only get the VP tokens when you shuffle.

a line of errata text might be good, explicitly say that. Or maybe, "at the end of the game, remove all VP tokens on this; they are lost and gone forever" or something.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 07, 2019, 02:18:02 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on August 07, 2019, 12:19:59 am

CHALLENGE #39 - DURATION CARD

Well, most people play Dominion for big engine play, and this is certainly not that. Variety is what keeps Dominion interesting though and this takes on some stuff not seen with the official Dominion cards. Namely, dragging out the time in between shuffles. This may not sound fun, but for me at least it kind of is. Beyond that there is a lot of room here to outplay your opponents other than just gaining more cards than them.

(https://i.imgur.com/3WjhDzv.jpg)

And yes I realize promos should not use physical items introduced in other sets, but (1) anything can be used as debt tokens (I for instance use new pennies) and (2) this isn't really a promo challenge, just a duration challenge that should touch on new mechanics.

Thanks for looking! 8)

Wow, that's a great design which makes slogs and money games more interesting!
On a sidenote, it also neatly avoids the issues that Victory cards with a Debt cost have, namely that if you end the game you can convert one extra Buy into x VPs (e.g. Triumph or Annex).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 07, 2019, 06:15:13 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 07, 2019, 12:40:00 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on August 07, 2019, 12:04:10 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 07, 2019, 11:03:48 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 07, 2019, 11:00:49 am

If a player can set that up they deserve to have it :)
Actually, do you think that would be a winning strategy? Is someone willing to calculate a very rough approximation on how long that would take to set up and how many points it would earn before the other 2 players empty the Provinces? (there have to be 3 or more so there's enough Estates, wait, is there even a way to get 15 Estates? Now I want to know.)

I mean, the way to address this is you never earn the VP chits until you trigger a reshuffle - VP chits on the card are lost, meaning if you're gonna do this strategy, you gotta bite the bullet at some point.

(also 15 estates = 3p game + you empty the estates pile + you don't trash your starting three)

It may not be exactly clear, but this is how it is supposed to work. You only get the VP tokens when you shuffle.

a line of errata text might be good, explicitly say that. Or maybe, "at the end of the game, remove all VP tokens on this; they are lost and gone forever" or something.

Eck, adding more text for clarity is always hard for me, but yes, I think you're correct. I expanded the bottom italics to read:
(This stays in play until you shuffle and the VP on this is not yours until then.)

How does that sound?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 07, 2019, 06:18:23 pm

Quote from: faust on August 07, 2019, 10:08:38 am

Quote from: faust on August 07, 2019, 06:05:17 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 07, 2019, 04:21:26 am

I like this but since its a victory chit card, it should probably have a sort of wind-down mechanism in it (ie, when you add +2VP, trash the top two cards of your deck, so that you have to buy cards to keep it viable and it runs out the supply that way) other than self-trashing.

I mean, it trashes itself, and there are combos that allow you to keep this out for a long time, but all of them I can think of also deplete piles (Mandarin, or stuff with Armory or Watchtower).

Here's an infinite loop without gaining:

You have 15 Estates which are Inherited Captains. At the start for your turn, 5 Estates are in play, 5 Estates are in your hand, and 5 Estates are in your discard. You play the 5 Estates playing Mountain Villages and drawing Estates. Now you have 10 Estates in hand. You play 5 Estates playing Counts (there's a Ferry token on there) topdecking the other 5 Estates. Repeat.

Not exactly a situation that needs to be addressed, but it was a fun thought experiment.

You'd also need to initially reduce the cost of Captain down to $4 to be inherited. I guess your scenario calls for Ferry though, so it could still work, just with one extra step.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 07, 2019, 08:24:31 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on August 07, 2019, 06:15:13 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 07, 2019, 12:40:00 pm

...
a line of errata text might be good, explicitly say that. Or maybe, "at the end of the game, remove all VP tokens on this; they are lost and gone forever" or something.

Eck, adding more text for clarity is always hard for me, but yes, I think you're correct. I expanded the bottom italics to read:
(This stays in play until you shuffle and the VP on this is not yours until then.)

How does that sound?

sounds good to me

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on August 07, 2019, 08:41:19 pm

Quote from: segura on August 05, 2019, 09:48:25 am

Fishmonger
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $5
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy

---

While this is in play, at the start of your turn, +1 Buy and Action cards cost $1 less during your turn (but no less than $0). This stays in play until any player, including you, has 6 Action cards in play. Set it aside and discard it during Clean-up.

I suppose your idea is that you want to race to put 6 Action cards in play so you can turn Fishmonger into a worse Market Square for the player of it. Unfortunately, I think the play-pattern might be more of a Fishmonger rush. I mean, 5 Fishmongers gives you 6 Actions each costing up to $5 every turn until you decide to play anything: And player 1 is going to be able to set that up much more reliably than player 2. I have to imaging that, if you are the better player, getting 6 $5-gains will just reveal the better player faster. I imagine even if you can't get to the 5-Fishmonger dream, games will be very fast with so many +Buys and cost-reduction flying about in the early turns.

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 09:18:48 am

Quote

Commodity
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: $5
If you have an even number of Commodities in play, $2; Otherwise $1. +$ based on the current position of the Market Demand track.

---

On your next turn, +$1. When you discard this from play, lower the Market Demand track one step.

---

Setup: In games using this, include the Market Demand track when setting up the Kingdom.

Quote

Market Demand
$0,$1,$1,$2,$2,$3,$3
Setup: Place a coin token on the right-most space of the track. When a card instructs you to lower the track, move the coin token to the next space on the left.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this begins producing $4 and eventually produces $1. Why even bother counting the number of Commodities you have in play? I'd never buy more than one: The first 2 plays are better than Gold, but from then on it is a degrading Gold, so if I needed a Gold I'd have it by then. With +$4 how wouldn't you have Gold?
Even worse, in multiplayer games, only 2 plays get to be +$4, so players 3 and 4 are going to be in a really bad position.

Quote from: King Leon on August 05, 2019, 04:10:31 pm

Source
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $4
At the start of each of your turns, you may turn this card by 90° clockwise for +$1, +1 Action, or +1 Buy. If this is upright after rotation, discard this.

Making the effect optional could be neat, but the effects are not nearly situational enough to make holding on to Source ever worthwhile. You will almost always use it every turn, so you've injected a bunch of complexity into the card to make it optional when it won't really matter.

Quote from: grep on August 05, 2019, 11:41:40 am

Sacred Fire
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $3
+$2. You may trash a card.

---

At the start of each of your turns, you may trash a card for +$1. If you don't, discard this from play and gain a Curse. (This stays in play)

You need to specify where the trashed card is when you trash it.
I imagine Sacred Fire's 1-3 more down turns than Cathedral, does not offset the fact that you get money from Sacred Fire. It is definitely too strong. Either way though, not trashing with Sacred Fire is such a bad option that it may as well be permanent.

Quote from: naitchman on August 05, 2019, 05:17:17 pm

Settlement
Types: Night, Duration
Cost: $7
If this is the first time you played a Settlement this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one, and do not discard cards from play during your Clean-up Phase this turn.

This will be way stronger in the average Kingdom than Outpost (so much so that swinging to it early will be a game decider, it will be so good at stabilizing a deck), but much weaker than Outpost in the ideal Kingdoms. At its most abusive, you could play your deck in two halves, but that would typically be quite inconsistent (excepting setting aside exactly what you need to draw, making Settlement functionally read as a worse "+1 Buy").
I would find it more compelling if it wasn't limited to once per turn--especially with its cost of $7. If you don't discard cards from play, you'll eventually run out of cards.
Why is it a Night card, by the by?

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 05, 2019, 06:57:34 pm

Veto
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: <4>
+2 Cards.

---

While this is in play, Vetos cost $1 more. When anyone plays a card costing $4 or less, you may discard this. If you do, they play that card as a different card with the same cost or a cheaper card of their choice from the supply. It is that card until it leaves play.

I think it is worth noting all the awful complexities of Band of Misfits that are probably going to get removed in second edition (and we are still waiting to see how). It will probably change into a Captain sort of wording instead.
This will probably be best to use as a cheap source of draw and then Band of Misfits your own cards, unless you can typically use it to completely shut down engines, in which case we just play money.
Why does it make itself more expensive? It has no real mechanical reason to do so.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 05, 2019, 09:31:04 pm

Keyring
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: $4
Choose one of the Locked piles. That pile is in the Kingdom while this is in play. Now and at the start of your next turn: +$1, +1 Buy.

---

Setup: Set aside 3 additional Kingdom piles as Locked piles.

I believe it should put the piles into the "Supply," not the "Kingdom."
I think this is really weak. Players will often buy it because it is a non-terminal source of +Buy, but if that isn't important, players will receive incredibly similar benefit from it without having to buy a $4 Copper. Point being, this can probably cost $2.

Quote from: Gubump on August 06, 2019, 12:23:26 am

Reward
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: $4
$1. At the start of your next turn: +2 Cards, then discard 2 cards.

Effectively worse than Dungeon? If the sifting was going to be useful, I'd much rather have more sifting than a Copper.

Quote from: faust on August 06, 2019, 02:37:26 am

Charlatan
Types: Action, Duration, Attack
Cost: $3
+1 Buy. Until your next turn, when another player buys a card, they choose a card they have in play and exchange it for a card costing at most the same as the chosen card with a different type. If they didn't, they return the bought card to the supply. At the start of your next turn: Gain a Silver to your hand.

Exchanging I'm pretty sure needs to mention that it comes from the Supply (Changeling doesn't mention it because it has to exchange for a Changeling).
Others talked about this one. It seems to me that this effect will either be a largely a benefit to the recipient, and will otherwise completely degenerate the game.

Quote from: faust on August 06, 2019, 04:07:32 am

Quote from: pubby on August 06, 2019, 03:40:08 am

Customs
Types: Night, Duration, Attack
Cost: $4
Gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile. Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals their hand and sets aside a card that you choose face-up (on this). At the start of your next turn, each other player puts the card they set aside into their hand.

I think it's too much. First of all, the effect this has on the opponent's next turn is actually worse than Pillage; with Pillage, they at least have the chance to redraw the discarded card. More importantly however, this sets itself up to be stackable: play Customs one turn, and you will be able to attack with 2 Customs on the following turn. I think this is going to be too crippling.

Hm... the fact that one would have to have N*2 Customs to juggle N cards out of your deck forever and the fact that for your N*2 Customs you will also have N Spoils (because you can't get rid of the Spoils the turn you gain them) (which ends up being a lot of stop cards), I'm not sure I agree.
If it was so much a problem, you could probably fix it by bumping Customs to $5 and having it gain Gold. That would also make Customs even less like Pillage.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 06, 2019, 07:16:31 am

Man in Black
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $4
Gain 3 Silvers under this. While any cards are under this, at the start of each of your turns, put one of them into your hand. If none remain after, trash this and gain a Curse.

---

While this is in play, when you gain a Treasure, you may set it aside under this.

Silver flooding is generally pretty underrated. This I imagine will be quite good in slower games, as you can stave it off longer by buying Gold. Without some way to reliably Gold-flood and something to do with that Gold though, I'm not sure how often players will be able to handle the 4 stop cards--especially because its strongest use implies gaining even more Treasures.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 06, 2019, 01:12:19 pm

Mine Worker
Types: Action, Duration, Reaction
Cost: $5
Now and at the start of your next turn: you may trash a Victory Card from your hand, to gain a card costing up to $3 more than it. If you don't, you may discard your hand for +5 Cards.

---

Before resolving the effect of a Duration at the start of your turn, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, the duration will stay in play and effect will occur the start of your next turn as opposed to this turn.

---

In games using this, when you start a turn with 3 or more Durations in play, you may gain a Duchy or 3 Estates.

I like the Reaction idea. It definitely has to be married to a Duration effect that you would actually want to delay, which this is. I'm not convinced that it will be as boring as Rebuild: I imagine trashing Estates for $5 cards other than Mine Worker will generally be better than trying to do any kind of Duchy->Province rush with this.
The In-Games-Using-This effect is too much though. You're not only adding significantly more text to a card that hardly needs more, it's also an effect that will be either trivial (lots of Duration cards are spam-friendly) or virtually impossible when it is the only Duration around.

Quote from: Kudasai on August 07, 2019, 12:19:59 am

Wonder
Types: Night, Duration
Cost: <8>
At the start of each of your turns, if this is in play, add 2VP to this. The next time you shuffle your deck, trash this and take the VP.

---

This is gained to your hand. (This stays in play until you shuffle)

Mitigating the super-rare abuse cases by not giving VP to the player immediately I don't think is worth the added complexity.
In a way, it kind of reads like 2VP per 5 cards in your deck, which is 4 times the points of Gardens, but it's sideways from that because it requires turns to payout and the latter Wonders are worth fewer VP as you slog through your Wonder-turns. I worry mostly that, whenever this is relevant, setting up the multi-Wonder turns will be too swingy. You can buy a Wonder on turn 1, pay it off within those two turns to get a second Wonder on turn 2, and turn 3, and so on; but in a large deck, that will be unreliable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 07, 2019, 10:45:21 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 07, 2019, 08:41:19 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 05, 2019, 09:31:04 pm

Keyring
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: $4
Choose one of the Locked piles. That pile is in the Kingdom while this is in play. Now and at the start of your next turn: +$1, +1 Buy.

---

Setup: Set aside 3 additional Kingdom piles as Locked piles.

I believe it should put the piles into the "Supply," not the "Kingdom."
I think this is really weak. Players will often buy it because it is a non-terminal source of +Buy, but if that isn't important, players will receive incredibly similar benefit from it without having to buy a $4 Copper. Point being, this can probably cost $2.

Yes, you're right, "Supply" is better.

I also agree that I made it too expensive, but I think it's definitely too good for $2. It's a Silver, with the minus that some $ is delayed, but the plus of +Buys and giving strategic and tactical options regarding what people can gain. I'll make it $3.

(https://i.imgur.com/CDumVlj.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 07, 2019, 11:03:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/HKXZYGi.png)

Changing my submission. This is my new one.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Raised price to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} and added cost limit to prevent OPness in Platinum games.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 07, 2019, 11:06:34 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 07, 2019, 10:45:21 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 07, 2019, 08:41:19 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 05, 2019, 09:31:04 pm

Keyring
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: $4
Choose one of the Locked piles. That pile is in the Kingdom while this is in play. Now and at the start of your next turn: +$1, +1 Buy.

---

Setup: Set aside 3 additional Kingdom piles as Locked piles.

I believe it should put the piles into the "Supply," not the "Kingdom."
I think this is really weak. Players will often buy it because it is a non-terminal source of +Buy, but if that isn't important, players will receive incredibly similar benefit from it without having to buy a $4 Copper. Point being, this can probably cost $2.

Yes, you're right, "Supply" is better.

I also agree that I made it too expensive, but I think it's definitely too good for $2. It's a Silver, with the minus that some $ is delayed, but the plus of +Buys and giving strategic and tactical options regarding what people can gain. I'll make it $3.

(https://i.imgur.com/CDumVlj.png)

I actually strongly disagree with it costing only _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}. It's very similar to my Travelling Shop (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19739.0), which has been fairly thoroughly playtested by now, and Keyring is enough stronger most of the time that I think it has to cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. (The current version of Travelling Shop puts the Items in the Supply instead of only enabling buying them, but still costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.) The only comparison between the two that is unfavorable towards Keyring is that Keyring only unlocks one of the extra piles, but other than that it's a now and next-turn Travelling Shop.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 07, 2019, 11:25:53 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7YzRta0.png)

Note: Another version involving treasure was posted earlier in this thread and deleted - this is my submission.

Edit: +1 Action added to give you a chance to use a workshop variant or other Action to give you a better chance of gaining a card the first turn you play it. I don't think it's more interesting if people open MIB/Silver compared to MIB/Action

Man in Black
Action - Duration
+1 Action
Gain a Curse, set it aside under this.
While any cards are set aside under this, at the start of each of your turns, put one into your hand, then discard this from play if none remain.
---
While this is in play, when you gain an Action card, you may set it aside under this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 08, 2019, 02:53:12 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 07, 2019, 08:41:19 pm

Quote from: segura on August 05, 2019, 09:48:25 am

Fishmonger
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $5
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy

---

While this is in play, at the start of your turn, +1 Buy and Action cards cost $1 less during your turn (but no less than $0). This stays in play until any player, including you, has 6 Action cards in play. Set it aside and discard it during Clean-up.

I suppose your idea is that you want to race to put 6 Action cards in play so you can turn Fishmonger into a worse Market Square for the player of it. Unfortunately, I think the play-pattern might be more of a Fishmonger rush. I mean, 5 Fishmongers gives you 6 Actions each costing up to $5 every turn until you decide to play anything: And player 1 is going to be able to set that up much more reliably than player 2. I have to imaging that, if you are the better player, getting 6 $5-gains will just reveal the better player faster. I imagine even if you can't get to the 5-Fishmonger dream, games will be very fast with so many +Buys and cost-reduction flying about in the early turns.

Good point, this monostrategy is something to watch out for (respectively something to test easily).
But in the presence of sifters, trashers or junkers, a deck of merely Fishmongers is unlikely the dominant strategy. And even if your deck had 5 Fishmongers, it is highly unlikely that you can play them all if your deck contains no sifters or trashers.

That's why I think that the likelihood of this scenario ever emerging is close to zero. Fishmonger is only worth it if the Kingdom enables an engine. Yet if it enables an engine, you want to build up your draw, sifting, trashing or junking power at the same time or earlier as building up your gaining power via gaining more Fishmongers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 08, 2019, 04:14:51 am

(https://i.imgur.com/om052gl.png)

OK here's the updated version of Customs. Now it uses a mat for simpler tracking. This changes the semantics slightly in multiplayer games, but it all works out for the better.

I've thought through the strategy of it. Against a draw-your-deck engine, you want to alternate between giving your opponent 4-card dud hands and giving your opponent big 6+ card hands. Typically this means playing with only 1 Customs in your deck. Alternatively, you can play with 3 where you play 1, then 2, then 0 per turn, repeatedly, but that opens yourself up to duds with all the stop cards. You could bump up to 6 and go 1, 2, 3, 0, but man, that's suicide without huge draw.

Against big money, you use an even number, playing the same number each turn. Your opponent will remain at 5 cards in hand, but will have worse distribution. This has the opposite of money smoothing. Perhaps call it money roughing? You want to give them lots of $2, $5, and $7 hands - the worst numbers to have in money.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on August 08, 2019, 05:53:08 am

Gift
cost $4 - Night - Duration
Set aside a card (under this). At the start of your next turn, if it's an...
Action card, gain a copy of it, playing immediately
Victory card, +1vp
Treasure card, gain a Gold.
Discard the set asided card afterwards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 08, 2019, 08:52:48 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 07, 2019, 08:41:19 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 05, 2019, 09:18:48 am

Quote

Commodity
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: $5
If you have an even number of Commodities in play, $2; Otherwise $1. +$ based on the current position of the Market Demand track.

---

On your next turn, +$1. When you discard this from play, lower the Market Demand track one step.

---

Setup: In games using this, include the Market Demand track when setting up the Kingdom.

Quote

Market Demand
$0,$1,$1,$2,$2,$3,$3
Setup: Place a coin token on the right-most space of the track. When a card instructs you to lower the track, move the coin token to the next space on the left.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this begins producing $4 and eventually produces $1. Why even bother counting the number of Commodities you have in play? I'd never buy more than one: The first 2 plays are better than Gold, but from then on it is a degrading Gold, so if I needed a Gold I'd have it by then. With +$4 how wouldn't you have Gold?
Even worse, in multiplayer games, only 2 plays get to be +$4, so players 3 and 4 are going to be in a really bad position.

The commodity track decreases when it's discarded from play - if four players would all open 5/2 and get their commodity in hand on turn 3, each would be worth $4, and then as each of their next turns resolves, the commodity track plummets.

Do you think it was more interesting with the first revision, where it's worth the number of them you have in play plus the market demand track? (ie,
play one = 0 + MD
play a second = 0 + 1 + 2*MD
a third = 0 + 1 + 2 + 3*MD
etc)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on August 08, 2019, 11:24:22 am

(https://i.imgur.com/nLsSZ28.png)

Here's my submission this week: Prisoner, an Action-Attack-Duration. You "imprison" a card from your hand this turn to play it at the start of your turn next turn, like Summon (though this can play Treasures too, not just Actions).  During other players turns, when they play a copy of the imprisoned card, they must first discard a card.  It hurts you the turn you play it, as it's terminal and you forgo playing the imprisoned card this turn.  You get back what you put in though--playing a Copper at the start of your next turn is meh, but playing a strong action can be very powerful.  The attack can be brutal or non-existent, depending on what you set aside and what the other player decides to play.  The balance of deciding what's best to punish the other player for playing vs. what's best to play next turn vs. what you need to play this turn can create some tough decisions. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on August 08, 2019, 11:33:29 am

Armor
$4 Treasure - Victory - Duration

+2$
---
1VP
---
When another player plays an attack card, you may call this, to be unaffected by it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 08, 2019, 11:35:31 am

Quote from: artless on August 08, 2019, 11:33:29 am

Armor
$4 Treasure - Victory - Duration

+2$
---
1VP
---
When another player plays an attack card, you may call this, to be unaffected by it.

You can only call Reserve cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 08, 2019, 11:42:39 am

I'm revising my entry. It can be "tighter" and also use the non-1:1-ness of the MD track.

(https://i.imgur.com/I9s59DJ.png)

Quote

Commodity - Treasure/Duration - $5
If you have a Commodity in play, increase the Market Demand track one step.

$1 plus $ based on the current position of the Market Demand track.
-
On your next turn, +$1.
When you discard this from play, lower the Market Demand track one step.
-
Setup: In games using this, include the Market Demand track when setting up the Kingdom.

(no revisions to Market Demand track)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 08, 2019, 11:47:22 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 07, 2019, 11:03:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tMqn1tr.png)

Changing my submission. This is my new one.

This seems too strong compared to Merchant Ship. Worst case scenario this gives an average of $2 over three turns, though it is not strictly better. It should probably cost at least $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 08, 2019, 11:50:55 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 08, 2019, 11:42:39 am

I'm revising my entry. It can be "tighter" and also use the non-1:1-ness of the MD track.

(https://i.imgur.com/cgJSGw6.png)

Quote

Commodity - Treasure/Duration - $5
If you have a Commodity in play, increase the Market Demand track one step.

$1 plus $ based on the current position of the Market Demand track.
-
On your next turn, +$1.
When you discard this from play, lower the Market Demand track one step.
-
Setup: In games using this, include the Market Demand track when setting up the Kingdom.

(no revisions to Market Demand track)

Looks good. I think it should say "At the start of your next turn", and maybe should have a ?$ in the top corners.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 08, 2019, 11:57:13 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 08, 2019, 11:50:55 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 08, 2019, 11:42:39 am

I'm revising my entry. It can be "tighter" and also use the non-1:1-ness of the MD track.

(https://i.imgur.com/cgJSGw6.png)

Quote

Commodity - Treasure/Duration - $5
If you have a Commodity in play, increase the Market Demand track one step.

$1 plus $ based on the current position of the Market Demand track.
-
On your next turn, +$1.
When you discard this from play, lower the Market Demand track one step.
-
Setup: In games using this, include the Market Demand track when setting up the Kingdom.

(no revisions to Market Demand track)

Looks good. I think it should say "At the start of your next turn", and maybe should have a ?$ in the top corners.

good call; fixes made.
(https://i.imgur.com/I9s59DJ.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 08, 2019, 05:33:59 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 07, 2019, 11:06:34 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 07, 2019, 10:45:21 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 07, 2019, 08:41:19 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 05, 2019, 09:31:04 pm

Keyring
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: $4
Choose one of the Locked piles. That pile is in the Kingdom while this is in play. Now and at the start of your next turn: +$1, +1 Buy.

---

Setup: Set aside 3 additional Kingdom piles as Locked piles.

I believe it should put the piles into the "Supply," not the "Kingdom."
I think this is really weak. Players will often buy it because it is a non-terminal source of +Buy, but if that isn't important, players will receive incredibly similar benefit from it without having to buy a $4 Copper. Point being, this can probably cost $2.

Yes, you're right, "Supply" is better.

I also agree that I made it too expensive, but I think it's definitely too good for $2. It's a Silver, with the minus that some $ is delayed, but the plus of +Buys and giving strategic and tactical options regarding what people can gain. I'll make it $3.

(https://i.imgur.com/CDumVlj.png)

I actually strongly disagree with it costing only _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}. It's very similar to my Travelling Shop (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19739.0), which has been fairly thoroughly playtested by now, and Keyring is enough stronger most of the time that I think it has to cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. (The current version of Travelling Shop puts the Items in the Supply instead of only enabling buying them, but still costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.) The only comparison between the two that is unfavorable towards Keyring is that Keyring only unlocks one of the extra piles, but other than that it's a now and next-turn Travelling Shop.

You seem to be forgetting that Keyring gives opponents access to the pile as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 08, 2019, 05:40:45 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 08, 2019, 05:33:59 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 07, 2019, 11:06:34 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 07, 2019, 10:45:21 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 07, 2019, 08:41:19 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 05, 2019, 09:31:04 pm

Keyring
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: $4
Choose one of the Locked piles. That pile is in the Kingdom while this is in play. Now and at the start of your next turn: +$1, +1 Buy.

---

Setup: Set aside 3 additional Kingdom piles as Locked piles.

I believe it should put the piles into the "Supply," not the "Kingdom."
I think this is really weak. Players will often buy it because it is a non-terminal source of +Buy, but if that isn't important, players will receive incredibly similar benefit from it without having to buy a $4 Copper. Point being, this can probably cost $2.

Yes, you're right, "Supply" is better.

I also agree that I made it too expensive, but I think it's definitely too good for $2. It's a Silver, with the minus that some $ is delayed, but the plus of +Buys and giving strategic and tactical options regarding what people can gain. I'll make it $3.

(https://i.imgur.com/CDumVlj.png)

I actually strongly disagree with it costing only _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}. It's very similar to my Travelling Shop (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19739.0), which has been fairly thoroughly playtested by now, and Keyring is enough stronger most of the time that I think it has to cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. (The current version of Travelling Shop puts the Items in the Supply instead of only enabling buying them, but still costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.) The only comparison between the two that is unfavorable towards Keyring is that Keyring only unlocks one of the extra piles, but other than that it's a now and next-turn Travelling Shop.

You seem to be forgetting that Keyring gives opponents access to the pile as well.

I realized that shortly after I posted my previous comment. It's probably fine at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 08, 2019, 06:05:23 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 07, 2019, 08:41:19 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on August 07, 2019, 12:19:59 am

Wonder
Types: Night, Duration
Cost: <8>
At the start of each of your turns, if this is in play, add 2VP to this. The next time you shuffle your deck, trash this and take the VP.

---

This is gained to your hand. (This stays in play until you shuffle)

Mitigating the super-rare abuse cases by not giving VP to the player immediately I don't think is worth the added complexity.
In a way, it kind of reads like 2VP per 5 cards in your deck, which is 4 times the points of Gardens, but it's sideways from that because it requires turns to payout and the latter Wonders are worth fewer VP as you slog through your Wonder-turns. I worry mostly that, whenever this is relevant, setting up the multi-Wonder turns will be too swingy. You can buy a Wonder on turn 1, pay it off within those two turns to get a second Wonder on turn 2, and turn 3, and so on; but in a large deck, that will be unreliable.

I should note this cares about how many start of turns you have in between shuffles so the equation is more like ((#Cards / 5) - 1) * 2VP. Early on this means you'd get 2VP per shuffle, not 4VP, so in the start of game situation you show it's about twice as good as Gardens at twice the price. Wonder does start to scale much better than Gardens though and that's mainly why I want a shuffle to occur to get the VP tokens.

The luck issue of getting 2 Wonders in play immediately after your reshuffle is unfortunate, but for now I'm not too concerned. Good reshuffle management should go a long way here. Also, luck for better or worse is apart of the game. Play testing should reveal a lot though.

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 09, 2019, 12:59:01 am

Here's something that feels kind of off to me and therefore kind of Promotion-ly

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ky6at75x.png)

Council Chamber lets you turn a card into a council room, so that you get the bonus when other people play that card. This comes at the cost of having to "lose" a copy of that card to be set aside underneath this. So, if it's a good card people want to play often, well, you're going to have to get rid of your copy of that good card.

It comes at the further "cost" of forcing you to trash a card that's in play when you yourself play a copy. This seems like a strength, but often trashing in-play cards is not ideal. Sometimes the only in-play card you will have to trash will be Council Chamber. The Council Chamber led to its own demise! This is intentional! A few rare times you'll be able to make use of this ability, like if you have ruins you want to trash or if you used some shenanigans to get coppers in play (villa, storyteller).

Without mentioning Night cards directly, Council Chamber works with them just fine. Night cards are nice because they'll let you trash coppers you have in play! Treasures work too, but you can't choose copper -- that turns out to be just too powerful. You get way too many +cards and you also turn all of your coppers into a sort of monastery. That would be over powered.

You can also set aside victory cards. That doesn't seem that useful... it's an expensive Island. However, you can set aside an estate and if other players have bought inheritances... that could be fun.

---------

I'm open to feedback on this. There's a lot of directions to go that are unclear. I could have limited it saying "non-treasure." I could be convinced to do that. I think saying "Action card" is less interesting, I like the ability to make this an Island or have a fun interaction with night cards.
I like the trashing part of this, but perhaps it weakens it too much. It also makes setting aside treasures under this a lot more powerful for the trashing copper ability, is that a problem?. On the other hand, I think the weakening might be important.

Also open to ways to re-word this to clarify it.

I'm now considering doing away with weakening the card with the trash in-play mechanic and then costing it at 6...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 09, 2019, 01:31:17 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 09, 2019, 12:59:01 am

I'm open to feedback on this. There's a lot of directions to go that are unclear. I could have limited it saying "non-treasure." I could be convinced to do that. I think saying "Action card" is less interesting, I like the ability to make this an Island or have a fun interaction with night cards.
I like the trashing part of this, but perhaps it weakens it too much. It also makes setting aside treasures under this a lot more powerful for the trashing copper ability, is that a problem?. On the other hand, I think the weakening might be important.

Also open to ways to re-word this to clarify it.

I'm now considering doing away with weakening the card with the trash in-play mechanic and then costing it at 6...

I think a problem is that this card forces mirror matches, which generally speaking is not a lot of fun. If you have a lot of cards that your opponent doesn't, you open yourself to them playing Council Chamber.

Also, the way it is currently worded, the "When a copy of that card is played" effect happens only on the turn you play it. It needs a "while this is in play" clause.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 09, 2019, 09:17:37 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 09, 2019, 12:59:01 am

...
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ky6at75x.png)

...

You can also set aside victory cards. That doesn't seem that useful... it's an expensive Island. However, you can set aside an estate and if other players have bought inheritances... that could be fun.

---------

I'm open to feedback on this. There's a lot of directions to go that are unclear. I could have limited it saying "non-treasure." I could be convinced to do that. I think saying "Action card" is less interesting, I like the ability to make this an Island or have a fun interaction with night cards.
I like the trashing part of this, but perhaps it weakens it too much. It also makes setting aside treasures under this a lot more powerful for the trashing copper ability, is that a problem?. On the other hand, I think the weakening might be important.

Also open to ways to re-word this to clarify it.

I'm now considering doing away with weakening the card with the trash in-play mechanic and then costing it at 6...

There's a (major-issue-but-miniscule-opportunity-for-it-to-happen) phrasing issue with "copy" as you've got it on the card.
I think this was probably brought up in the Inheritance/BoM thread but Inheritance breaks a rule of Dominion, which is that cards with the same name are the same - in this case, if you'd set aside an Estate, and your opponent inherited a card, their Estates would no longer be copies of yours (unless you would also inherit the same card). You could get around this by changing your card to say "[...]. When a card with that title is played:[...]" but idk if that would work with like... setting aside a BoM or Overlord, because they shapeshift their title too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 09, 2019, 01:39:48 pm

Quote from: faust on August 09, 2019, 01:31:17 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 09, 2019, 12:59:01 am

I'm open to feedback on this. There's a lot of directions to go that are unclear. I could have limited it saying "non-treasure." I could be convinced to do that. I think saying "Action card" is less interesting, I like the ability to make this an Island or have a fun interaction with night cards.
I like the trashing part of this, but perhaps it weakens it too much. It also makes setting aside treasures under this a lot more powerful for the trashing copper ability, is that a problem?. On the other hand, I think the weakening might be important.

Also open to ways to re-word this to clarify it.

I'm now considering doing away with weakening the card with the trash in-play mechanic and then costing it at 6...

I think a problem is that this card forces mirror matches, which generally speaking is not a lot of fun. If you have a lot of cards that your opponent doesn't, you open yourself to them playing Council Chamber.

Also, the way it is currently worded, the "When a copy of that card is played" effect happens only on the turn you play it. It needs a "while this is in play" clause.

Ah yes. Thank you for the word update! I will make that for v2. I am wondering why you think this forces mirror matches? If anything I think this card discourages mirrors.

The presence of the card (without anyone purchasing it) encourages variety. If I build a deck of 6 Hunting Parties, my opponent can get a lot more benefit if they buy a council chamber, than if I built a deck of 3 labs and 3 Hunting Parties. So, I feel that Council Chamber encourages spreading out across the Kingdom which is less of mirroring and more of a Use-everything-in-the-Kingdom. I even think it discourages mirroring. Compare two draw engines one is draw-to-x like festival/library and one is more like village/smithy. In a mirror, we both compete for the same cards. If I want to council chamber a festival, well, I then have to lose one of my festivals, and that's going to hurt my engine if I'm mirroring and also doing the draw-to-x engine. However, it doesn't hurt me nearly as bad if I go the opposite route. Sure, I need to buy 1 copy of the card I want to council chamber, but that is more considered part of the cost of this card and I don't think that forces an entire mirroring. Lastly, because of the trash an in-play card, having a Council Chamber in play (most of the time) makes you playing the same card as your opponent a lot worse because you'll have to sacrifice actions to play it. This is another factor that makes it anti-mirror.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 09, 2019, 01:44:24 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 09, 2019, 09:17:37 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 09, 2019, 12:59:01 am

...
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ky6at75x.png)

...

You can also set aside victory cards. That doesn't seem that useful... it's an expensive Island. However, you can set aside an estate and if other players have bought inheritances... that could be fun.

---------

I'm open to feedback on this. There's a lot of directions to go that are unclear. I could have limited it saying "non-treasure." I could be convinced to do that. I think saying "Action card" is less interesting, I like the ability to make this an Island or have a fun interaction with night cards.
I like the trashing part of this, but perhaps it weakens it too much. It also makes setting aside treasures under this a lot more powerful for the trashing copper ability, is that a problem?. On the other hand, I think the weakening might be important.

Also open to ways to re-word this to clarify it.

I'm now considering doing away with weakening the card with the trash in-play mechanic and then costing it at 6...

There's a (major-issue-but-miniscule-opportunity-for-it-to-happen) phrasing issue with "copy" as you've got it on the card.
I think this was probably brought up in the Inheritance/BoM thread but Inheritance breaks a rule of Dominion, which is that cards with the same name are the same - in this case, if you'd set aside an Estate, and your opponent inherited a card, their Estates would no longer be copies of yours (unless you would also inherit the same card). You could get around this by changing your card to say "[...]. When a card with that title is played:[...]" but idk if that would work with like... setting aside a BoM or Overlord, because they shapeshift their title too.

Good find! I am definitely not well-versed and all the BoM/Overlord/Inheritance implications and subtle rulings. So, as written right now, the card doesn't work for inherited estates? Interesting. What if I tried "When a card from that pile is played?" That would make it work for split-piles too. And it would continue to work for non-supply piles. Would it work on estates then? Hm, I wonder whether cards in your starting hand are considered from that pile? Right now there are no Dominion cards that switch which pile a card is from, but there's the perpetual fan-favorite card that hides a supply pile by putting a card on top of it. That's a case that would probably require massive errata but hey I don't have to worry about cards that don't exist!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 09, 2019, 01:56:40 pm

@anordinaryman:

card from that pile would work (and count for the estates, inherited or otherwise, since ambassador tracks that correctly, and make it work for Knights/Ruins, and maybe even cards from the Black Market deck??? I'm not super well versed in Black Market rules); would probably fail with shelters and also if someone manages to pull a zombie from the trash, i think, since there's no pile, but that's such a niche case idk if you'd actually have to worry about it.

minor update: would not work with cards purchased from the black market deck that aren't otherwise in the kingdom, as they have no pile, per this thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16872.msg672749#msg672749)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 09, 2019, 02:50:13 pm

Changing my submission again and for hopefully the last time.

(https://i.imgur.com/GP70DC5.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: polot38 on August 09, 2019, 03:23:56 pm

Future sight
$4
Action-duration

---
When you play this, put a coin counter, a draw counter, and an action counter on it. At the start of each turn, remove up to 2 counters from this card and gain their corresponding bonuses.
---

Basically, you get a +draw, a +action, and a +coin to use during your next turns.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 09, 2019, 05:52:16 pm

Quote from: polot38 on August 09, 2019, 03:23:56 pm

Future sight
$4
Action-duration

---
When you play this, put a coin counter, a draw counter, and an action counter on it. At the start of each turn, remove up to 2 counters from this card and gain their corresponding bonuses.
---

Basically, you get a +draw, a +action, and a +coin to use during your next turns.

Does this stay in play for the whole game, or get discarded when all the counters are off? I think you'll have to explicitly mention it either way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 10, 2019, 01:40:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/AMJZAcU.jpg)

Quote

Cultivate v2

+1 Card
+1 Action
-
At the start of your next turn, you may reveal and discard a victory card from your hand. If you do, +1 Card, + $1.

$3
Action - Duration

Quote

Cultivate (old)

+1 Card
+1 Action
-
At the start of your next turn, you may reveal and discard a victory card from your hand. If you do, +1 Card, + $1.

$3
Action - Duration

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on August 10, 2019, 10:12:58 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 10, 2019, 01:40:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jiHEIri.jpg)

Quote

Cultivate

+1 Card
+1 Action
-
At the start of your next turn, you may reveal and discard a victory card from your hand. If you do, +1 Card, + $1.

$2
Action - Duration

This is a way too strong for a $2 card. I believe, this should cost somewhere between $3 and $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 10, 2019, 11:31:08 pm

Quote from: King Leon on August 10, 2019, 10:12:58 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 10, 2019, 01:40:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jiHEIri.jpg)

Quote

Cultivate

+1 Card
+1 Action
-
At the start of your next turn, you may reveal and discard a victory card from your hand. If you do, +1 Card, + $1.

$2
Action - Duration

This is a way too strong for a $2 card. I believe, this should cost somewhere between $3 and $4.

I doubt it. At best it's nothing this turn and next turn play a victory card as if it were a peddler. That's obviously worse than 4. If you don't have a victory in those 5 cards it's nothing. Absent of decks with nobles or mill or something along those lines, it will probably miss most of the time and these become weaker with each play. The fact that it's a duration also means it will miss the reshuffle more often and be played less often. Also the actual effect (playing a victory card as a peddler) is delayed which always lowers the cost (fishing village, a delayed Bazaar, costs only $3).

That being said, the effects are kind of vanilla. It's kind of plain for a promo.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 11, 2019, 12:10:53 am

Quote from: naitchman on August 10, 2019, 11:31:08 pm

Quote from: King Leon on August 10, 2019, 10:12:58 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 10, 2019, 01:40:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jiHEIri.jpg)

Quote

Cultivate

+1 Card
+1 Action
-
At the start of your next turn, you may reveal and discard a victory card from your hand. If you do, +1 Card, + $1.

$2
Action - Duration

This is a way too strong for a $2 card. I believe, this should cost somewhere between $3 and $4.

I doubt it. At best it's nothing this turn and next turn play a victory card as if it were a peddler. That's obviously worse than 4. If you don't have a victory in those 5 cards it's nothing. Absent of decks with nobles or mill or something along those lines, it will probably miss most of the time and these become weaker with each play. The fact that it's a duration also means it will miss the reshuffle more often and be played less often. Also the actual effect (playing a victory card as a peddler) is delayed which always lowers the cost (fishing village, a delayed Bazaar, costs only $3).

That being said, the effects are kind of vanilla. It's kind of plain for a promo.

I think you must not realize that if Cultivate DOES trigger, it's strictly better than Caravan.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 11, 2019, 12:48:57 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 11, 2019, 12:10:53 am

I think you must not realize that if Cultivate DOES trigger, it's strictly better than Caravan.

It's a big if though. Just say "better" if it's situational. "Strictly better" means it's better without any caveats.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 11, 2019, 10:53:22 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 11, 2019, 12:48:57 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 11, 2019, 12:10:53 am

I think you must not realize that if Cultivate DOES trigger, it's strictly better than Caravan.

It's a big if though.

Not really. It's a pretty small if in the early game and in the greening stage, so you'd mainly be buying them early, which is when price matters most. I'd say it would be justified at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on August 11, 2019, 11:43:35 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 11, 2019, 10:53:22 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 11, 2019, 12:48:57 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 11, 2019, 12:10:53 am

I think you must not realize that if Cultivate DOES trigger, it's strictly better than Caravan.

It's a big if though.

Not really. It's a pretty small if in the early game and in the greening stage, so you'd mainly be buying them early, which is when price matters most. I'd say it would be justified at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

Even when you do trigger it it isn't strictly better than Caravan, you have to discard the victory.

My take on this is that it's probably too potent in the opening for a $2 cantrip, so I'd start it at $3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 11, 2019, 12:10:17 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on August 11, 2019, 11:43:35 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 11, 2019, 10:53:22 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 11, 2019, 12:48:57 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 11, 2019, 12:10:53 am

I think you must not realize that if Cultivate DOES trigger, it's strictly better than Caravan.

It's a big if though.

Not really. It's a pretty small if in the early game and in the greening stage, so you'd mainly be buying them early, which is when price matters most. I'd say it would be justified at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

Even when you do trigger it it isn't strictly better than Caravan, you have to discard the victory.

My take on this is that it's probably too potent in the opening for a $2 cantrip, so I'd start it at $3.

Discarding Victories doesn't really mean much, though, unless it's one of the few Action or Treasure - Victory cards. They were just sitting in your hand doing nothing, anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on August 11, 2019, 12:12:34 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 11, 2019, 12:10:17 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on August 11, 2019, 11:43:35 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 11, 2019, 10:53:22 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 11, 2019, 12:48:57 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 11, 2019, 12:10:53 am

I think you must not realize that if Cultivate DOES trigger, it's strictly better than Caravan.

It's a big if though.

Not really. It's a pretty small if in the early game and in the greening stage, so you'd mainly be buying them early, which is when price matters most. I'd say it would be justified at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

Even when you do trigger it it isn't strictly better than Caravan, you have to discard the victory.

My take on this is that it's probably too potent in the opening for a $2 cantrip, so I'd start it at $3.

Discarding Victories doesn't really mean much, though, unless it's one of the few Action or Treasure - Victory cards. They were just sitting in your hand doing nothing, anyway.

It can totally mean much, if you trigger a shuffle then you'll have an extra dead card in there! And then there's all the card specific things like Shepherd or any trasher or whatever.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 11, 2019, 12:45:31 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on August 11, 2019, 12:12:34 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 11, 2019, 12:10:17 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on August 11, 2019, 11:43:35 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 11, 2019, 10:53:22 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 11, 2019, 12:48:57 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 11, 2019, 12:10:53 am

I think you must not realize that if Cultivate DOES trigger, it's strictly better than Caravan.

It's a big if though.

Not really. It's a pretty small if in the early game and in the greening stage, so you'd mainly be buying them early, which is when price matters most. I'd say it would be justified at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

Even when you do trigger it it isn't strictly better than Caravan, you have to discard the victory.

My take on this is that it's probably too potent in the opening for a $2 cantrip, so I'd start it at $3.

Discarding Victories doesn't really mean much, though, unless it's one of the few Action or Treasure - Victory cards. They were just sitting in your hand doing nothing, anyway.

It can totally mean much, if you trigger a shuffle then you'll have an extra dead card in there! And then there's all the card specific things like Shepherd or any trasher or whatever.

Thank ya'll for the feedback! I was wondering if people would think it was too strong at $2, it took me a while to decide on the price when I was writing it up.

This conversation made me want to simulate how the card would do on the first/second shuffle. It turns out that the card fires 88% of the time on turn 3 and 80% of the time on turn 3/4, assuming you buy one non-victory card per turn (which is obviously not always the case). I also did it with a 25 card deck (3 estates, 21 other cards, and one cultivate) and it still fires 52% of the time.

Those percentages are way higher than I thought they would be when writing the card up, which makes me agree with those who think Cultivate should cost $3 - I'm going back to edit my original submission to reflect that after this. Even with these rather large percentages I still don't think a cost of $4 is appropriate though, given how poorly the card works with any decent estate trashing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 11, 2019, 03:09:43 pm

Things look like things will stay on schedule, so there are 19 hours left until judgment.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 11, 2019, 10:29:53 pm

UPDATED SUBMISSION

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/lln7j3tq.png)

Well, I didn't really make any major changes now, did I? Well I added the "while this is in play" and I made it cards from that pile so it works for split piles. I also removed the clarification what happens when this card is trashed. I imagine the ruling would be the set-aside card is now stuck set aside forever. If you ended up in the position where you had to trash your Council Chamber, well, you don't get the benefit of having that card around.

I like how weird this card is. If you end up mirroring your opponent, and you pick the card the strategy is based on, well, then you are going to have a card that trash your other actions if you play it. Yikes! So, this card works well if there's a way for you to avoid playing the card your opponent wants to spam. Probably by not mirroring. Perhaps this encourages you to lose splits. I don't mind losing the laboratory split 9/0 (I by one to set aside with Council Chamber) if every time you play a Lab, I pretty much get one, too.

There are definitely kingdoms where you won't want this because there's too many diverse cards and you don't want to give one up, and there are kingdoms were the in-play trashing is too much of a problem, then again, there are some kingdoms where the in-play trashing shines (set aside a silver to trash your coppers could be the best trashing -- or perhaps there's a night card you and your opponent both want to play a lot of).

I think if this contest wasn't an "expansion" contest, I'd make the card a little less funky by removing the trash in-play "penalty" and cost the card 6 instead. But I do like the funkiness the forced trashing causes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 12, 2019, 11:27:27 am

The time has come.

Durations are a design space with lots of cool potential, so I felt some good, balanced ones that would do something very different were possible. These contests have already produced some, but I guessed the current big news in Dominion called for more. I allowed complexity and new mechanics to make more space and because some promos do it, but...with that comes a difficulty; not knowing without playtesting if they're balanced. My conclusions and opinions here might prove to be well off in reality.

Quote

Commodity (spineflu)
Treasure Duration, $5 cost.
If you have a Commodity in play, increase the Market Demand track one step. Worth $1 +$ equal to the value on the Market Demand track. At the start of your next turn: +$1. When you discard this from play, lower the Market Demand track one step.
--
Market Demand mat: put a coin token on the rightmost space. Move it to the left one space when an effect lowers it once, one right when increased once. (2 3s, then 2 2s, 2 1s, then 0.)

As soon as you play a Commodity there's one in play, so the track always goes up 1. Do you mean 'another'? 'A Commodity' maintains a constant $4 on first turn unless 3 are discarded before another play. 'Another' will maintain a constant if 2 or 4 are constantly rotated, but another player with just one can lower the track. I'll assume 'another' is meant as that's the better design. The Demand will gradually be lowered toward 0 as the game progresses, but the interactivity between players affects how. It's decent and mildly fun; is it worthwhile over Gold though? They both like a thin deck, and Gold will be the better money density.

Quote

Fishmonger (segura)
Action Duration, $5 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
--
At the start of each of your turns, if this is in play, +1 Buy and Action cards cost $1 less for the turn, but not less than $0. When any player (including you) puts a 6th Action into play, set this aside, then discard it during your next Clean-up.

The way to stop the duration effect tries to create a general incentive for everyone to make Action heavy decks to stop others getting it, but the effect encourages you to do that anyway. So generally it's a temporary Canal for Actions, then a Market Square.
There is something going for your premise of a duration with a stop trigger other than time, and to me that's the biggest interest here, but this I don't feel is the most effective execution.

Quote

Sacred Fire (grep)
Action Duration, $3 cost.
+$2
'You may trash a card'.
At the start of each of your turns, if this is in play, you may 'trash a card' for +$1. If you don't, discard this from play and gain a Curse.

Where are you trashing from? If you're following Cathedral I'll assume from hand. Cathedral works right away from next turn, but this can help build up instead. You not only get great trashing (especially when opening 2 of these and getting them turns 3 and 4) but can even hit $5 in the process. The exchange is a Curse or two typically after the first runs, which won't go if you try trashing them with more Fire. That's quite neat; but typically you stop playing it and end up with 2 dead cards, or get to trash the Curse on your last turn, which I worry isn't much of a setback for such power.

Quote

Bootlegger (mandioca15)
Action Duration, $5 cost.
Now and at the start of your next turn: reveal the top 3 cards of the Bootlegger deck and play one of them, leaving it there. At the end of your turns, move all cards revealed from the Bootlegger deck to the bottom.
--
Setup: make a Bootlegger deck out of unused non-Duration Action kingdom cards.

This fusion of mechanics makes for a very different card than Black Market or Captain, being a random yet unique effect each time. Said unique effect can be radically different played now or start of turn. I can see it being heaps of fun, but what kind of deck actually wants it? I think it needs a little bit of consistency added to it to have an established function.

Quote

Source (King Leon)
Action Duration, $4 cost.
At the start of each of your turns, you may rotate this 90° for +1 Action, +1 Buy or +$1. If it's upright after rotation, discard it.

Simple and effective consistency aid on a timer, the $ option always being useful. Nothing really bad to say about it, other than it may be better costing $3. It hardly hurts to add it to a deck, and would probably be a promo for its timing mechanic (tokens or rotation, however done).

Quote

Settlement (naitchman)
Night Duration, $7 cost.
If this is the first Settlement you've played this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, take another turn after this one and don't discard your cards from play this Clean-up.

It is very much like 'discard your hand, +5 cards, return to your Action phase and set number of Actions and Buys to 1' once per turn, though it also triggers start of turn effects. Outside of the latter part, is it actually a Duration? It's not tracking anything that happens later. Still, its biggest function is as 5-Card Scholar, though it can also let freshly gained cards be played. Restricting it to once per turn is probably sensible to keep safe from some pile-out strategies, but removing it might be more interesting overall. I do like it and it has a promo feel, but its loose Duration justification is a setback.

Quote

Veto (Fly-Eagles-Fly)
Action Duration, <4> cost.
+2 Cards
--
While this is in play, Vetos cost $1 more. When anyone plays a card costing $4 or less, you may discard this, to have them play that card as a different card costing at most the same from the Supply that they choose. It is that card until it leaves play.

A similar question of viability as a Duration card. I think this really wants to be a Reserve costing $4 or less, it would work so much better. It could well be a great card then.

Quote

Keyring (Commodore Chuckles)
Treasure Duration, $3 cost.
Choose one of the Locked piles. That pile is in the Supply while this is in play. Now and at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy and +$1.
--
Setup: set aside three extra piles as Locked piles.

It's unlocking a benefit to every player; is there enough self-benefit to justify buying it? There can be if you can choose a pile that you want and your opposition doesn't, or make things so only you can buy from it (like unlocking a $5 pile after an Attack). So it's a mildly strategic card, quite nice.

Quote

Trade Vessel (Fragasnap)
Action Duration Victory, $4 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Each player (including you) gets +1 Buy at the start of their next turn. At the start of your next turn, if any other player gained 2 or more cards during their last turn, +$1.
--
Worth 2VP if in play at the end of the game (otherwise 0).

The VP is the focal point here, the buys to everybody slightly pointing to emptying. It's rather dependent on opponents playing along; you can try to get lucky with making the last turn happen with several Vessels out, but if it fails, the odds of opponents finishing is lessened by your extra VP, so the game can lengthen. The early economy boost depends on the same kind of thing, hard to rely on. The result seems to be either a mirror game or a counter-the-first-Vessel-buyer one like with Gardens rush, if the VP is strong enough.
Certainly has the promo feel, but the interest as a player interaction card seems mediocre.

Quote

Reward (Gubump)
Treasure Duration, $4 cost.
$1
+1 Buy
At the start of your next turn, +1 Buy and discard any number of cards for +$1 each.

You get Secret Chamber with a starting hand, so there's no handsize reduction from playing it. I can't find much else to say; I don't really like how the SC effect doesn't stack yet it's on a non-terminal, and it also seems weak for $4 (worse Ducat now, something between Artificer and Market Square next turn). I think my favourite of all your entries was the first one.

Quote

Charlatan (faust)
Action Attack Duration, $3 cost.
+1 Buy
Until your next turn, when another player buys a card, they choose a card they have in play and exchange it for a card costing at most the same as it with 'a different' type. If they didn't, they return the bought card to the Supply.
At the start of your next turn, gain a Silver to your hand.

'A different type' - does that mean no matching type or have at least one that the card to exchange doesn't have? So could a Marauder be exchanged for an Enchantress? Either way, generally speaking, Coppers will become Curses or engines will be damaged as with Swindler, kingdom depending; although Charlatans can always be swapped with Silvers and back again. So that Silver to hand kinda blocks an opposing Charlatan, as well as makes your deck less of an engine.
I quite like it as a 'fix to Swindler', being much softer and less annoying. It can make everyone, even if just one player buys a Charlatan, play a good-stuff kind of deck, and long term the Attack can become either not very significant or a tedious decision with lots of stuff in play. Will it be fun? I'm not too sure.

Quote

Customs (pubby)
Night Attack Duration, $4 cost.
Gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile. Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals their hand and sets aside a card that you choose. At the start of your next turn, they put their set aside cards into their hand.

I made a very similar Attack for an earlier contest. It's a terminal Action, draws 3 cards next turn and no Spoils, and costs $5. I had to further nerf it after playtesting and discussion by looking at hands of exactly 5 cards (the 3 cards are a factor here though). Choosing their card to set aside is fun with thinking ahead to their next turn and quite new to the game, so I would like this, but decimating their immediate turn is so strong sometimes that I feel it needs more setback. Non-terminal and more stackable at $4 looks scary.
 

Quote

Man in Black (NoMoreFun)
Action Duration, $3 cost.
+1 Action
Gain a Curse; set it aside under this. While any cards are under this, at the start of each of your turns, put one of them into your hand, then discard this if none remain.
--
While this is in play, when you gain an Action, you may set it aside under this.

It wants to be permanent Cargo Ship for Actions for what will often be -1VP as the curse stays out of deck during its buildup. Replays gain more Curses, so get very early and keep it out right through the building stage. It'll be hard to get going with no initial economy boost, you'll likely have to immediately buy a cheap Action to get it going, but this seems like a neat balancing aid to the power you can get with it later on. A fun Cultist counter too. It is nice, though a very narrow and defined way of use can be frustrating when it doesn't work out.

Quote

Mine Worker (grrgrrgrr)
Action Duration Reaction, $5 cost.
Now and at the start of your next turn, you may choose one: trash a Victory from your hand and gain a card costing up to $3 more than it; or discard your hand for +5 Cards.
--
At the start of your turns, if you would get an effect from a Duration card, you may reveal this from your hand to instead get that effect next turn.
--
In games using this, when you start a turn with 3 or more Durations in play, you may gain a Duchy or 3 Estates.

This looks to be a crazy opening $5. In fact let's just isolate the top part; it can Expand two Estates in one play, later be a kind of Rebuild, with Guide option to line things up. Is that not $6+ worth? The Reaction is neat, I'll give you that, but on a toned down card I think it'll stand out more and be more open to interactions. And the global effect shouldn't be there to avoid making other Durations even stronger; attach it just to Mine Worker somehow. The overall pure Mine Worker strategy would need playtesting to check for speed, with and without a Village.
This is a promo loud and clear, but probably too centralising. 'Speed benchmark cards' like Governor and Rebuild add to the game if they're often beatable, take away from it if they aren't. I don't know this area well enough to give a good estimation here.

Quote

Wonder (Kudasai)
Night Duration, <8> cost.
At the start of each of your turns, if this is in play, add 2VP to this. The next time you shuffle, trash this and take the VP.
--
This is gained to your hand.

It opens up a new strategy, executed sensibly with debt and gain to hand so timing is easy and avoiding the debt-VP design clash by being a one-shot, and it has simplicity in its favour. KC-KC-Scheme-Scheme-payload-payload (just that in the deck) seems a much more likely infinite deck than those suggested that can get a wonder or two every turn, but hopefully KC and said payload in the game makes a Province deck more viable (and in a mirror the first player to set it up is bound to stay ahead). Really need to see playtesting to be sure of balance, but I'd love this to work.

Quote

Gift (majiponi)
Action Duration, $4 cost.
Set aside a card from your hand. At the start of your next turn, if it's an…
Action, gain and play a copy of it;
Treasure, gain a Gold;
Victory. +1VP.
Discard the set aside card.

The balance here looks good, the infinite VP potential is very slow as is the Gold gain rate for saving Coppers. Saving an Action now should be enough sacrifice to gain and play a copy. Simple and convincing with a bit of excitement, I like it.

Quote

Prisoner (4est)
Action Attack Duration, $5 cost.
Set aside an Action or Treasure (on this). Until your next turn, when another player plays a copy of it, they first discard a card. At the start of your next turn, play the set aside card.

Setting something aside to play next turn is weak, more so on a terminal, so it's mostly a consideration of whether or not the Attack will be worth it. Coppers will likely hit, but the Action phase will have passed so the potential damage is limited. Actions will need to be in a dud hand to be worth saving, which fair enough Prisoner will likely make happen as it gives nothing immediately.
In conclusion, it may work but at $4 or lower cost.

Quote

Armour (artless)
Treasure Duration Victory, $4 cost.
$2
1VP
When another player plays an Attack cards, 'you may call this' to be unaffected by it.

It isn't a Duration, so doesn't qualify. It reads and plays like a Reserve (but even then not correctly).

Quote

Council Chamber (anordinaryman)
Action Duration, $5 cost.
Set aside a card other than Copper from your hand (on this). When a card from its pile is played while this is in play: if it's your turn, trash a card you have in play; if not, +1 Card.
(This stays in play.)

This scales awkwardly with player number, similarly to Road Network, so games can go faster with more Chambers out and more draw going on. Possibly the effect could be minor here though. The trash effect on your turns could either be one ability too many, or because it's forced be a balancing aid. I imagine setting aside a Silver will be very handy for possible cards and Copper trashing; this could narrow its most optimal uses down somewhat, and take interest away. Getting the right card in hand can be a fair bit of work and down to chance, yet if you increase the chance with draw and trashing you have less need for this.
It might be a nice card, but there are design risks holding it back a bit for me.

Quote

Future Sight (polot38)
Action Duration, $4 cost.
Put a +1 Card counter, a +1 Action counter and a +$1 counter on this. At the start of each of your turns, if any counters remain, remove up to 2 of them and get their bonuses.

The action and coin counters are worse than a Villager and Coffers respectively, less flexible, and the times you want to save a +Card token and not use it right away are few. Ghost Town and Fishing Village are comparisons worth $3 for the two-token starts you can do. So really weak, and Source is better.

Quote

Cultivate (alion8me)
Action Duration, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn, you may discard a Victory card. If you do, +1 Card and +$1.

It is quite narrow; if you somehow prepare your next hand with Victories in it, then you're getting not much more than Caravan Guard as what you draw would likely be in your hand in place of the Victory anyway. So it's better as an unprepared chance at a Fugitive+, not too fun strategically. I just think doing the discard now and next turn would be better, to define its role a bit more and let it be planned for this turn, even if it would be more expensive.

Shortlist: Source, Settlement, Keyring, Man in Black, Wonder, Gift.

Runner-up: Gift by majiponi
Winner: Wonder by Kudasai

There's potential in a lot of your designs, and they could all be made into something great. Wonder is exactly the kind of card I was hoping to see and at first glance appears balanced, so well done Kudasai!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 12, 2019, 11:48:06 am

Quote from: Aquila on August 12, 2019, 11:27:27 am

Quote

Commodity (spineflu)
Treasure Duration, $5 cost.
If you have a Commodity in play, increase the Market Demand track one step. Worth $1 +$ equal to the value on the Market Demand track. At the start of your next turn: +$1. When you discard this from play, lower the Market Demand track one step.
--
Market Demand mat: put a coin token on the rightmost space. Move it to the left one space when an effect lowers it once, one right when increased once. (2 3s, then 2 2s, 2 1s, then 0.)

As soon as you play a Commodity there's one in play, so the track always goes up 1. Do you mean 'another'? 'A Commodity' maintains a constant $4 on first turn unless 3 are discarded before another play. 'Another' will maintain a constant if 2 or 4 are constantly rotated, but another player with just one can lower the track. I'll assume 'another' is meant as that's the better design. The Demand will gradually be lowered toward 0 as the game progresses, but the interactivity between players affects how. It's decent and mildly fun; is it worthwhile over Gold though? They both like a thin deck, and Gold will be the better money density.

I did mean "another"; w/e, Congrats Kudasai, your card was awesome and deserved to win.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 12, 2019, 12:43:37 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 12, 2019, 11:27:27 am

.
Outside of the latter part, is it actually a Duration?

if outpost is a duration, then settlement is just as much a duration.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 12, 2019, 02:00:10 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 12, 2019, 12:43:37 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 12, 2019, 11:27:27 am

.
Outside of the latter part, is it actually a Duration?

if outpost is a duration, then settlement is just as much a duration.

Definitely correct, but Aquila’s point could be that Outpost itself doesn’t feel like a duration. Outpost doesn’t even technically follow the timing rules for durations (it is done doing stuff the turn it is played; though not until after cleanup of that turn). Possession proves that duration isn’t necessary for creating extra turns.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 12, 2019, 02:47:24 pm

Thanks Aquila! Baseline testing for Wonder seems to show it's mostly balanced, but the true test is actually playing with it. I'll have to do that soon and let you know what the results are.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 12, 2019, 02:49:56 pm

CHALLENGE #40 - KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE PRIZE!!!

This weeks challenge comes in two parts, which will be judged roughly 50/50, but on different judging criteria:

(1) Design a card shaped thing that gains Prizes. Criteria: Balance
Prizes are some of the best cards in Dominion, so designing a card that gains them has to be carefully thought out and balanced. Timing considerations and opportunity cost are important here.

(2) Design a card that is a Prize. Criteria: Creativity
If coming up with a Prize gainer is stressing you out, this should be your chance to unwind, pull out all the stops, try some crazy ideas and most importantly have fun. Prizes offer a lot of design flexibility as they don't take up room in the Kingdom, can't be abused in multiples, and don't really matter if they are not always useful. With that in mind, I will judge cards better that would have some of these issues if they were in the Supply (i.e. cards that only really would work as a Prize). I would like to see Prizes that fill any niches the other official Prizes don't touch on. If this is proving too difficult, overlap is perfectly fine as long as the Prize has a different play style. As with Aquila, I'm very partial to existing mechanics being used or meshed together in ways that are new and interesting.

Love them or hate them, Tournament and Prizes are probably the most unique of all the official Dominion cards and offer a lot of design lessons when analyzed. I can't wait to see what you all come up with and I hope everyone has fun. If you find any part of this post unclear please don't hesitate to ask for clarification! The Dominion Strategy Wiki on Prizes is a good resource as well.

Good luck!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 12, 2019, 02:56:17 pm

Also, I don't see any previous challenges using Prizes, but if there are and I'm just not seeing them please let me know and I can do a different challenge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 12, 2019, 03:06:00 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 12, 2019, 02:00:10 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 12, 2019, 12:43:37 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 12, 2019, 11:27:27 am

.
Outside of the latter part, is it actually a Duration?

if outpost is a duration, then settlement is just as much a duration.

Definitely correct, but Aquila’s point could be that Outpost itself doesn’t feel like a duration. Outpost doesn’t even technically follow the timing rules for durations (it is done doing stuff the turn it is played; though not until after cleanup of that turn). Possession proves that duration isn’t necessary for creating extra turns.

Ah no, I hadn't thought of Possession but that's a fair point. And I see why Outpost is a Duration, I think: you play it, put it up on the Duration row to leave it out at Clean-up, and it cleanly tracks you're taking an extra turn after everything else is cleaned up. You can play lots of stuff after and and not forget.
With Settlement there isn't so much tracking and remembering to do because it's a Night and there is no Clean-up. There is a little window to play other Nights before the extra turn, and triggering start of turn effects, so I guess it has more function than the pure Night variant that was suggested and being Duration is the cleanest way to incorporate it all. Still, I shortlisted this and it's nothing too bad.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 12, 2019, 03:15:21 pm

Is the assumption for the new challenge that the new prize will be added to the regular prize pile; so both Tournament and the new card can gain any of the six prizes?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on August 12, 2019, 03:53:51 pm

WITHDRAWN

I am lazy and I know it. But my idea was so simple and still amazing, that I will give it a try. I combined both parts of contest #40 into a single card-shaped thing. This is the Small Castle of Prizes. Actually a Tournament variant at the cost of the opportunity to pick the first Prize. Be prepared for:

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d51c17bf1718567bc980c2b/e8fa47130504bb30185a3be3a3ea963a/Treasure_Chamber.png)
Treasure Chamber
Type: Action - Prize
Cost: $0*
+1 Card +1 Action
Gain a Prize (from the Prize pile) or a Duchy.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 12, 2019, 03:54:12 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on August 12, 2019, 02:49:56 pm

CHALLENGE #40 - KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE PRIZE!!!

This weeks challenge comes in two parts, which will be judged roughly 50/50, but on different judging criteria:

(1) Design a card shaped thing that gains Prizes. Criteria: Balance
Prizes are some of the best cards in Dominion, so designing a card that gains them has to be carefully thought out and balanced. Timing considerations and opportunity cost are important here.

(2) Design a card that is a Prize. Criteria: Creativity
If coming up with a Prize gainer is stressing you out, this should be your chance to unwind, pull out all the stops, try some crazy ideas and most importantly have fun. Prizes offer a lot of design flexibility as they don't take up room in the Kingdom, can't be abused in multiples, and don't really matter if they are not always useful. With that in mind, I will judge cards better that would have some of these issues if they were in the Supply (i.e. cards that only really would work as a Prize). I would like to see Prizes that fill any niches the other official Prizes don't touch on. If this is proving too difficult, overlap is perfectly fine as long as the Prize has a different play style. As with Aquila, I'm very partial to existing mechanics being used or meshed together in ways that are new and interesting.

Love them or hate them, Tournament and Prizes are probably the most unique of all the official Dominion cards and offer a lot of design lessons when analyzed. I can't wait to see what you all come up with and I hope everyone has fun. If you find any part of this post unclear please don't hesitate to ask for clarification! The Dominion Strategy Wiki on Prizes is a good resource as well.

Good luck!

Thanks a lot, I was actually already planning to design a prize and prize gainer. Didn't have any great ideas yet though...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 12, 2019, 04:02:08 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 12, 2019, 03:15:21 pm

Is the assumption for the new challenge that the new prize will be added to the regular prize pile; so both Tournament and the new card can gain any of the six prizes?

Correct. It will be gainable by both Tournament and the new Prize gainer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on August 12, 2019, 04:47:39 pm

Quote from: King Leon on August 12, 2019, 03:53:51 pm

I am lazy and I know it. But my idea was so simple and still amazing, that I will give it a try. I combined both parts of contest #40 into a single card-shaped thing. This is the Small Castle of Prizes. Actually a Tournament variant at the cost of the opportunity to pick the first Prize. Be prepared for:

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d51c17bf1718567bc980c2b/e8fa47130504bb30185a3be3a3ea963a/Treasure_Chamber.png)
Treasure Chamber
Type: Action - Prize
Cost: $0*
+1 Card +1 Action
Gain a Prize (from the Prize pile) or a Duchy.
(This is not in the Supply.)

I don’t think this works. It gives the first player to get a prize a HUGE advantage because Tournament gains prizes to the top of deck and can draw them, so you would be able to gain this and another prize in the same turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on August 12, 2019, 05:28:49 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on August 12, 2019, 02:49:56 pm

CHALLENGE #40 - KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE PRIZE!!!

This weeks challenge comes in two parts, which will be judged roughly 50/50, but on different judging criteria:

(1) Design a card shaped thing that gains Prizes. Criteria: Balance
Prizes are some of the best cards in Dominion, so designing a card that gains them has to be carefully thought out and balanced. Timing considerations and opportunity cost are important here.

(2) Design a card that is a Prize. Criteria: Creativity
If coming up with a Prize gainer is stressing you out, this should be your chance to unwind, pull out all the stops, try some crazy ideas and most importantly have fun. Prizes offer a lot of design flexibility as they don't take up room in the Kingdom, can't be abused in multiples, and don't really matter if they are not always useful. With that in mind, I will judge cards better that would have some of these issues if they were in the Supply (i.e. cards that only really would work as a Prize). I would like to see Prizes that fill any niches the other official Prizes don't touch on. If this is proving too difficult, overlap is perfectly fine as long as the Prize has a different play style. As with Aquila, I'm very partial to existing mechanics being used or meshed together in ways that are new and interesting.

Love them or hate them, Tournament and Prizes are probably the most unique of all the official Dominion cards and offer a lot of design lessons when analyzed. I can't wait to see what you all come up with and I hope everyone has fun. If you find any part of this post unclear please don't hesitate to ask for clarification! The Dominion Strategy Wiki on Prizes is a good resource as well.

Good luck!

Just to be sure, our entries should have two cards? A prize gainer AND a prize?

And the first has to gain? (i.e. could it somehow interact with Prizes some other way?)

P.S. I'm sorry to have missed last week - was traveling for work and never got a chance to post. I even had a Duration card all lined up - maybe I'll just post it directly to my thread.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 12, 2019, 06:41:52 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on August 12, 2019, 05:28:49 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on August 12, 2019, 02:49:56 pm

CHALLENGE #40 - KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE PRIZE!!!

This weeks challenge comes in two parts, which will be judged roughly 50/50, but on different judging criteria:

(1) Design a card shaped thing that gains Prizes. Criteria: Balance
Prizes are some of the best cards in Dominion, so designing a card that gains them has to be carefully thought out and balanced. Timing considerations and opportunity cost are important here.

(2) Design a card that is a Prize. Criteria: Creativity
If coming up with a Prize gainer is stressing you out, this should be your chance to unwind, pull out all the stops, try some crazy ideas and most importantly have fun. Prizes offer a lot of design flexibility as they don't take up room in the Kingdom, can't be abused in multiples, and don't really matter if they are not always useful. With that in mind, I will judge cards better that would have some of these issues if they were in the Supply (i.e. cards that only really would work as a Prize). I would like to see Prizes that fill any niches the other official Prizes don't touch on. If this is proving too difficult, overlap is perfectly fine as long as the Prize has a different play style. As with Aquila, I'm very partial to existing mechanics being used or meshed together in ways that are new and interesting.

Love them or hate them, Tournament and Prizes are probably the most unique of all the official Dominion cards and offer a lot of design lessons when analyzed. I can't wait to see what you all come up with and I hope everyone has fun. If you find any part of this post unclear please don't hesitate to ask for clarification! The Dominion Strategy Wiki on Prizes is a good resource as well.

Good luck!

Just to be sure, our entries should have two cards? A prize gainer AND a prize?

And the first has to gain? (i.e. could it somehow interact with Prizes some other way?)

P.S. I'm sorry to have missed last week - was traveling for work and never got a chance to post. I even had a Duration card all lined up - maybe I'll just post it directly to my thread.

My intention was to have everyone submit two things, but with the way I worded the challenge, one thing will technically work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 12, 2019, 06:42:44 pm

Let me know if exchanging cards for a prize isn't allowed, I know it isn't *technically* gaining but it seems to fit the spirit of the challenge.

For the first part of the challenge, I made a card that comes with an Heirloom-Traveler which culminates by giving you a card that exchanges itself for a prize. One or arguably two of the travelers are downgrades from the previous line to (hopefully) make it an interesting decision whether to go for a prize or not.

(https://i.imgur.com/CNDckoW.jpg)

Quote

Agora

+3 Cards
+1 Action
+$1 ⠀
Discard 3 cards.
-
Heirloom: Old Medallion

$5
Action

(https://i.imgur.com/4UDEa4S.jpg)

Quote

Old Medallion

$1
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Trinket.

$2
Treasure - Heirloom - Traveller

(https://i.imgur.com/TzZq6rD.jpg)

Quote

Trinket

$2
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Collector.
(This is not in the supply.)

$3*
Treasure - Traveller

(https://i.imgur.com/5cXTowF.jpg)

Quote

Collector


Gain two cards, each costing up to $3.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Junk Heap.
(This is not in the supply.)

$4*
Action - Traveller

(https://i.imgur.com/mrSLxTp.jpg)

Quote

Junk Heap

+$2 ⠀
Gain two coppers onto your deck.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Curio.
(This is not in the supply.)

$5*
Action - Traveller

(https://i.imgur.com/tX3YL47.jpg)

Quote

Curio

+1 Action
Exchange this for a Prize, putting it into your hand.
(This is not in the supply.)

$6*
Action

For the second part of the challenge, I just made a treasure that does the villa thing.

(https://i.imgur.com/4JwMb7N.jpg)

Quote

Affluent Village

$3
+2 Actions
If it's your buy phase, return to your action phase.
(This is not in the supply.)

$0*
Treasure - Prize

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 12, 2019, 07:47:04 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/I7SQP7B.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/nY6QjXO.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 12, 2019, 10:50:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/BGTkici.png)

Like Tournament and the set it came from, Village Fair has card diversity as a theme. It becomes a Throne Room for Action cards whose piles aren't empty, discouraging mono-card strategies. If the pile is empty, you can gain a Prize... but only if you play a single copy of it in the turn, again encouraging reliance on other cards.

(https://i.imgur.com/aYRuIdA.png)

The intention for Master of Ceremonies is that, unlike Band of Misfits and Overlord, it can also become cards whose piles are empty. If the pile is mixed, it can become any Action card from that pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 13, 2019, 04:25:06 am

(https://i.imgur.com/bNqVFEm.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/j70SApn.jpg)
I designed Golden Lance with the other prizes in mind; they're all a kind of payload, good draw is sort of missing, and another +Buy makes Princess less kingmaking in games with no other buys. From there I tried to go exciting and wacky.
King's Quest I first thought would be once per game, but then I liked the combos Golden Lance has with 3 of the other prizes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 13, 2019, 10:53:23 am

Gonna withdraw Winged Sandals, change my Prize entry to
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d543ea7e98951840840989d/aed951503d53cbf817829342640b5f86/EO9CqTj.png)

Quote

Erect • $7* • Action - Prize
+1 Action
Trash this or a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than the trashed card.

A remodel variant that can be its own trasher, and riffs on prizes costing $0* by costing a nontrivial amount instead.

Quote from: spineflu on August 13, 2019, 04:21:56 pm

revising my prize-gainer to a proper card

I'd been kicking around the idea for a card that let you play treasures early a la Storyteller / Black Market, and also maybe had some #hacks to work with Capitalism/Villa. Seems like a good opportunity to put a minigame like that in so :
(https://i.imgur.com/or8say7.png)

A prize is a solid enough reason to buy into potions, right? I picked three so even if you don't win the split you can still get prizes (except in 4-player games, in which case you'll wanna lean on some #hacks to get your prize)

Thematically, I was feeling kind of a Gremlins / Monkey's Paw kinda vibe to a potion-cost peddler. Maybe that dude that gives cursed Frogurt from the simpsons.

---

edit: this is withdrawn
Thematically I'm leaning more towards "my bad understanding of greek stuff" and "my bad understanding of the dominion meta" than "my bad understanding of medieval stuff" with this weeks entry;
My prize entry is sort of an enchanter that works for you that'd be way too strong on its own/in multiples:

(https://i.imgur.com/NKDW9Xz.png)

Quote

Winged Sandals • $0* • Action - Duration - Prize
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Choose one:

• Now and during your next turn, all other action cards have "+1 Card, +1 Action" in addition to their text; or

• Now and during your next turn, while this is in play, cards, events, and projects cost $1 less, to a minimum of $0.

It's magic, or a personal bridge/highway. It's not as strong as Princess but it's a little more consistent and way more engine enabling. It does miss the shuffle more because it's a duration though.

---

My Prizer is an event (edit: this is withdrawn)
(https://i.imgur.com/hGy4EG5.png)

Quote

Ordeal • Event • $4
Trash your hand. If you trashed Golds, Silvers, and Coppers whose value (not cost) was at least $6 in this way, gain a prize. Each other player may trash any number of cards from their hand. If the total cost of the cards they trashed was greater than the value of the Golds/Silvers/Coppers you trashed, they gain a Gold to the top of their deck.

What I was thinking when I made this: I like that Tournaments stop working for you once your opponent gets a Province but dislike that there's really nothing in it for them (just disabling a cantrip for you); I wanted a clear way for this to backfire on you - basically, this can set your opponents up to do an Ordeal better than you.

The revisions this went through:

• 1: this originally cost <4>. While I like the idea of that (so that you can grab a prize right away on Turn 3 when you get 4 copper + yr opening silver) I realized this can definitely enable a debt-lock (where you have no $ in your deck, and also you have debt so you can't buy coppers). I attempted to fix this by:
• 1a: tacking on a "Gain up to two coppers" clause to the end. This was kind of inelegant and also seeing as debt-locking yourself is kind of a novice-trap, electing to take coppers immediately to "dig up" out of a debt trap would probably not be something a novice would realize they need to do. Clunky and inelegant
• 2: Rather than your opponent gaining a Gold topdeck, this gained you a prize during Cleanup and them a prize immediately. However this was kind of ... tricky. How would you know the contents of their hand to not get screwed out of the prize you wanted? When gaining during the clean-up phase, would you be able to (somehow) show a Watchtower and topdeck your prize before or after drawing a new hand? Too many questions and consternations. No bueno.
• Still don't like that the text on this is a novel but sideways C.L.T.s are tough that way.

Revisions "Winged Sandals" went through:

• This was originally one of the "God" cards from my Heresy set, "The Messenger God" (appropriate naming, no?) which are one-shots earned via specific trashing, kinda similar to prizes; I changed it up by 1) making it a duration 2) tamping down the bridge effect and 3) making it a choice which to use.

Hope this was insightful.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 13, 2019, 11:11:32 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 12, 2019, 06:38:43 pm

Party
Action/Duration/Prize - $0*
Gain a card costing up to $5. If it's an Action, play it.

Should this be "now and at the start of your next turn"? or how is it a duration?

Quote from: alion8me on August 12, 2019, 06:42:44 pm

Let me know if exchanging cards for a prize isn't allowed, I know it isn't *technically* gaining but it seems to fit the spirit of the challenge.

...

How's the card-that-comes-with-an-heirloom (Agora) fit in to the rest of this? The traveller line itself seems pretty good and I love the idea of a downgrading traveller for a prize, but I don't like that you start with a traveller via heirlooms; any insight into that design choice?

Quote from: Aquila on August 13, 2019, 04:25:06 am

(https://i.imgur.com/bNqVFEm.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/j70SApn.jpg)
I designed Golden Lance with the other prizes in mind; they're all a kind of payload, good draw is sort of missing, and another +Buy makes Princess less kingmaking in games with no other buys. From there I tried to go exciting and wacky.
King's Quest I first thought would be once per game, but then I liked the combos Golden Lance has with 3 of the other prizes.

humor me and go into the combos? I'm only seeing the one with Diadem

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 12, 2019, 10:50:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/aYRuIdA.png)

The intention for Master of Ceremonies is that, unlike Band of Misfits and Overlord, it can also become cards whose piles are empty. If the pile is mixed, it can become any Action card from that pile.

I'm surprised you didn't add a "You may call this from your tavern mat at the start of your buy phase for +$1" (or similar) to it so it can't get trapped impersonating a reserve card like BoM / Overlord, or maybe a "if you would trash this, return it to the supply pile" to prevent necromancer/lurker shenanigans

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 13, 2019, 12:51:33 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 13, 2019, 11:11:32 am

...

Quote from: alion8me on August 12, 2019, 06:42:44 pm

Let me know if exchanging cards for a prize isn't allowed, I know it isn't *technically* gaining but it seems to fit the spirit of the challenge.

...

How's the card-that-comes-with-an-heirloom (Agora) fit in to the rest of this? The traveller line itself seems pretty good and I love the idea of a downgrading traveller for a prize, but I don't like that you start with a traveller via heirlooms; any insight into that design choice?
...

I'm glad you asked! There were actually two reasons that I did that. The first is that (for multiplayer games in particular) it would feel really bad to get all the way to a Curio and then have all of the prizes gone. This seems particularly plausible in a four player game. The second is that I was finding it hard to come up with a downgrading traveler with the prize at the end that you would actually want to spend a buy on early game: making Old Medallion a heirloom sidesteps this issue.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on August 13, 2019, 01:05:28 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on August 12, 2019, 04:47:39 pm

Quote from: King Leon on August 12, 2019, 03:53:51 pm

I am lazy and I know it. But my idea was so simple and still amazing, that I will give it a try. I combined both parts of contest #40 into a single card-shaped thing. This is the Small Castle of Prizes. Actually a Tournament variant at the cost of the opportunity to pick the first Prize. Be prepared for:

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d51c17bf1718567bc980c2b/e8fa47130504bb30185a3be3a3ea963a/Treasure_Chamber.png)
Treasure Chamber
Type: Action - Prize
Cost: $0*
+1 Card +1 Action
Gain a Prize (from the Prize pile) or a Duchy.
(This is not in the Supply.)

I don’t think this works. It gives the first player to get a prize a HUGE advantage because Tournament gains prizes to the top of deck and can draw them, so you would be able to gain this and another prize in the same turn.

The second prize goes to your discard pile, instead of being available immediately.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on August 13, 2019, 01:12:30 pm

The only other thing I could think of that would get you the kinds of things that Prizes are (like the hand of the princess) is to defeat a dragon!
So here is an Event to fight the unfriendly neighbourhood dragon. You don't need any money to try it, but you need to be resourceful with lots of different cards to have a reasonable chance. And it's dangerous! You can lose good stuff if you lose the fight, and may opt to abort the mission early if it seems too risky, even when you could continue.

The rules for the fight are somewhat wordy (so I put them on a mat), but the concept is actually rather simple. You have to match 4 cards, not as exact matches (by name), but as matches by cost. This can be harder or easier depending on the cost spread in the kingdom. (And cost reduction can help you by bringing down several cards to $0.)

(https://starback.se/static/games/Dragon_Fight-1.png)(https://starback.se/static/games/Dragon-1.png)

FAQ:

• What's that about putting the revealed dragon card on the bottom? – It's because it's theoretically possible to have a Dragon deck with only 3 cards (Copper, Silver, Gold).
• So you could set aside and therefore trash or discard duration cards that are not "done", like for example a Haven with a card under it. – Yes, just deal with that normally, even though the reminder is gone.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 13, 2019, 01:39:26 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 12, 2019, 06:42:44 pm

Let me know if exchanging cards for a prize isn't allowed, I know it isn't *technically* gaining but it seems to fit the spirit of the challenge.

For the first part of the challenge, I made a card that comes with an Heirloom-Traveler which culminates by giving you a card that exchanges itself for a prize. One or arguably two of the travelers are downgrades from the previous line to (hopefully) make it an interesting decision whether to go for a prize or not.

(https://i.imgur.com/CNDckoW.jpg)

Quote

Agora

+3 Cards
+1 Action
+$1 ⠀
Discard 3 cards.
-
Heirloom: Old Medallion

$5
Action

(https://i.imgur.com/4UDEa4S.jpg)

Quote

Old Medallion

$1
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Trinket.

$2
Treasure - Heirloom - Traveller

(https://i.imgur.com/TzZq6rD.jpg)

Quote

Trinket

$2
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Collector.
(This is not in the supply.)

$3*
Treasure - Traveller

(https://i.imgur.com/5cXTowF.jpg)

Quote

Collector


Gain two cards, each costing up to $3.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Junk Heap.
(This is not in the supply.)

$4*
Action - Traveller

(https://i.imgur.com/mrSLxTp.jpg)

Quote

Junk Heap

+$2 ⠀
Gain two coppers onto your deck.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Curio.
(This is not in the supply.)

$5*
Action - Traveller

(https://i.imgur.com/tX3YL47.jpg)

Quote

Curio

+1 Action
Exchange this for a Prize, putting it into your hand.
(This is not in the supply.)

$6*
Action

For the second part of the challenge, I just made a treasure that does the villa thing.

(https://i.imgur.com/4JwMb7N.jpg)

Quote

Affluent Village

$3
+2 Actions
If it's your buy phase, return to your action phase.
(This is not in the supply.)

$0*
Treasure - Prize

Exchanging is fine! I guess I meant gain as a generic term for "getting" a Prize, but I should have been specific. Sorry everyone!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 13, 2019, 03:22:07 pm

I've noticed that my submission has some similarity to spineflu's. I think it's still different enough to be interesting.

(https://i.imgur.com/JZzcyzZ.png)

Quote

Sanctification
$4 - Event

Name a Prize. Each other player may trash a card from their hand, then you may trash a card from your hand. If anyone trashed a card costing more than each other trashed card, they gain the named Prize from the Prize pile.

I wanted to make a Prize gainer that doesn't necessarily make you want to go for the best Prize first. This is an attempt at that.

(https://i.imgur.com/YJdGjsx.png)

Quote

Rematch
$0* - Action/Reaction/Prize

+1 Action
+ $2
Put this on top of your deck.
-
At the start of any player's cleanup, you may put this from your hand into their discard, to put a Prize they have in play into your discard.
(This is not in the supply.)

Still, sometimes it's grating if your opponent snatches a super good Prize. Well, now you can get back at them. But this is also quite decent on its own, if you have overdraw.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 13, 2019, 03:58:06 pm

Quote from: faust on August 13, 2019, 03:22:07 pm

I've noticed that my submission has some similarity to spineflu's. I think it's still different enough to be interesting.

(https://i.imgur.com/JZzcyzZ.png)

Quote

Sanctification
$4 - Event

Name a Prize. Each other player may trash a card from their hand, then you may trash a card from your hand. If anyone trashed a card costing more than each other trashed card, they gain the named Prize from the Prize pile.

I wanted to make a Prize gainer that doesn't necessarily makes you want to go for the best Prize first. This is an attempt at that.

Ayyyy i like yours better. It's cleaner/tidier/doesn't make me bust out the reading glasses. I'm prolly gonna change my prizer.

Quote from: faust on August 13, 2019, 03:22:07 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YJdGjsx.png)

Quote

Rematch
$0* - Action/Reaction/Prize

+1 Action
+ $2
Put this on top of your deck.
-
At the start of any player's cleanup, you may put this from your hand into their discard, to put a Prize they have in play into your discard.
(This is not in the supply.)

Still, sometimes it's grating if your opponent snatches a super good Prize. Well, now you can get back at them. But this is also quite decent on its own, if you have overdraw.

I see you too have been reading the secret history of prizes

Quote from: theory

There was another Prize that didn't work out. "+2 Actions +$2. When you discard this from play, you may put it on your deck." It was crazy. (link (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=120.msg1160#msg1160))

Good stuff. Curious to see just how crazy it gets.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 13, 2019, 04:11:06 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 13, 2019, 03:58:06 pm

I see you too have been reading the secret history of prizes

Quote from: theory

There was another Prize that didn't work out. "+2 Actions +$2. When you discard this from play, you may put it on your deck." It was crazy. (link (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=120.msg1160#msg1160))

Good stuff. Curious to see just how crazy it gets.

Huh. I actually haven't. Well I have, like some years ago, but I didn't remember this bit. The going on top of your deck thing was originally just to make sure you have the Reaction in hand after cleanup, and then I decided I could do other things with it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 13, 2019, 04:21:56 pm

revising my prize-gainer to a proper card

I'd been kicking around the idea for a card that let you play treasures early a la Storyteller / Black Market, and also maybe had some #hacks to work with Capitalism/Villa. Seems like a good opportunity to put a minigame like that in so :
(https://i.imgur.com/or8say7.png)

Quote

Uncanny Storekeeper • Action • $2^
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
You may play a treasure card from your hand, then if you have three or more treasure cards in play and you haven't gained a prize yet this turn, gain a prize of your choice from the prize pile.

A prize is a solid enough reason to buy into potions, right? I picked three so even if you don't win the split you can still get prizes (except in 4-player games, in which case you'll wanna lean on some #hacks to get your prize)

Thematically, I was feeling kind of a Gremlins / Monkey's Paw kinda vibe to a potion-cost peddler. Maybe that dude that gives cursed Frogurt from the simpsons.

link to my original entry post w both prizer + prize (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808625#msg808625)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on August 13, 2019, 04:44:57 pm

Most of these are better designs than Tournament tbqh

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on August 13, 2019, 04:47:00 pm

Quote from: King Leon on August 13, 2019, 01:05:28 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on August 12, 2019, 04:47:39 pm

Quote from: King Leon on August 12, 2019, 03:53:51 pm

I am lazy and I know it. But my idea was so simple and still amazing, that I will give it a try. I combined both parts of contest #40 into a single card-shaped thing. This is the Small Castle of Prizes. Actually a Tournament variant at the cost of the opportunity to pick the first Prize. Be prepared for:

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d51c17bf1718567bc980c2b/e8fa47130504bb30185a3be3a3ea963a/Treasure_Chamber.png)
Treasure Chamber
Type: Action - Prize
Cost: $0*
+1 Card +1 Action
Gain a Prize (from the Prize pile) or a Duchy.
(This is not in the Supply.)

I don’t think this works. It gives the first player to get a prize a HUGE advantage because Tournament gains prizes to the top of deck and can draw them, so you would be able to gain this and another prize in the same turn.

The second prize goes to your discard pile, instead of being available immediately.

But the “winner” would get the free Prize gainer and followers or something. I just think it gives too much advantage to the player who gets the first Prize.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 13, 2019, 06:18:08 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 13, 2019, 11:11:32 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 12, 2019, 10:50:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/aYRuIdA.png)

The intention for Master of Ceremonies is that, unlike Band of Misfits and Overlord, it can also become cards whose piles are empty. If the pile is mixed, it can become any Action card from that pile.

I'm surprised you didn't add a "You may call this from your tavern mat at the start of your buy phase for +$1" (or similar) to it so it can't get trapped impersonating a reserve card like BoM / Overlord, or maybe a "if you would trash this, return it to the supply pile" to prevent necromancer/lurker shenanigans

Those would both add way too much complication to address situations that would not come up often.

Quote from: pubby on August 12, 2019, 07:47:04 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Yp2Pz3Z.png)

This is too swingy, especially in games with Cursers. If both players have 5 Curses, there's a 15-point swing for whoever gets this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 14, 2019, 01:49:04 am

Still working on my prize getter but here is my prize:

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/47c52gik.png)

The prizes provide versatility for engines, three payload $ cards, and a payload attack card. The two major types of cards missing were trashers and gainers. Trashers as prizes have some issues, but Gainers -- now that's something I can do something interesting with! Craftsman is a solid implementation of an idea I've been working on for a while: I want a gainer that can only gain one copy of each card, so it forces variety. But tracking it involved tokens or some complicated maneuver. Then I realized, I could just trash one copy of each card and gain from the trash! This solution completely falls apart with multiple Craftsmans. Either you have to trash the cards multiple times (will lead to strange, probably un-fun, pile outs) OR you only trash the cards once and then Craftsman can no longer gain you a copy of each card, boring. So, this is a card that simply has to be a prize.

There's some exotic synergies you can get with remodelers and trash for benefits. Salt the earth combos with this too strongly -- I'm not sure if it's worth designing around that. I definitely don't want to say "not a victory card" because sometimes there's fun victory cards in the supply (Nobles) that you'll want to gain with this and i don't want to prevent that. I could said "that is not a province." What about Colony? Is it worth designing against the 3-card combo of Prize-winning card, Salt the Earth, and Colonies? I think the gain to hand isn't too powerful and competes nicely in power with the other prizes. But is that with the +1 action to much? I feel like it's good, but would love some thoughts!
Looking for feedback for this!

My prize winner is not final yet, but this is what I'm thinking about:

 

Quote

Contest - costs: 5
+2 cards, +1 buy.
You may discard 2 differently named cards costing 5. If you do, gain a prize to the top of your deck.
Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 14, 2019, 02:17:06 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 13, 2019, 06:18:08 pm

This is too swingy, especially in games with Cursers. If both players have 5 Curses, there's a 15-point swing for whoever gets this.

Good point. I'll change it to only count Curses you have that your opponent doesn't have.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 06:08:06 am

Quote from: pubby on August 14, 2019, 02:17:06 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 13, 2019, 06:18:08 pm

This is too swingy, especially in games with Cursers. If both players have 5 Curses, there's a 15-point swing for whoever gets this.

Good point. I'll change it to only count Curses you have that your opponent doesn't have.

Do you mean how many more curses you have than your opponent?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 06:25:17 am

How's this for a prize, pulled it from either Nocturne or Cornucopia secret histories, I forget which. Might be a bit weak, but I like the idea.
(https://i.imgur.com/OOUslOC.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 14, 2019, 07:11:30 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 06:25:17 am

How's this for a prize, pulled it from either Nocturne or Cornucopia secret histories, I forget which. Might be a bit weak, but I like the idea.
(https://i.imgur.com/OOUslOC.png)

I think you need to specify the order -  is it Action 1-Action 1-Action 2-Action 2 or Action 1-Action 2-Action 1-Action 2? If it's the former, do you choose the second Action before or after resolving the first?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 09:20:44 am

How about this:
(https://i.imgur.com/46KE4g4.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 14, 2019, 10:09:37 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 09:20:44 am

How about this:
(https://i.imgur.com/46KE4g4.png)

Recommend just combining Remake with Throne Room wording:

Do this twice: You may play an Action card from your hand twice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 14, 2019, 10:12:06 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 09:20:44 am

How about this:
(https://i.imgur.com/46KE4g4.png)

More nitpicking: Since you can choose the order of your cleanup, the current wording makes it technically possible to clean up Seat of Honor first ("if you didn't" triggers) and then to clean up the played cards, resulting in all of them being put on top of your deck.

Possibly more concise wording:

Quote

Reveal up two two Actions from your hand. Do this twice: Play them in any order.
-
When you discard this from play, choose one: Put this onto your deck, or put the Actions played with this onto your deck.

PPE: First part was also suggested by Gendo, I see. My version keeps the (I think) intended behaviour.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 14, 2019, 10:16:47 am

You probably almost always want to topdeck Seat of Honor instead anyway... unless your deck is really inconsistent. So perhaps just simplify the wording to just topdeck Seat of Honor when it's discarded, rather than giving the choice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on August 14, 2019, 10:32:00 am

(https://i.imgur.com/9Nc7sGq.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/ICyxWJX.png)

Here are my submissions this week, once again taking some inspiration from my favorite Dominion expansion.  My Prize-getter, Inner Court, is a Landmark with a bidding mechanic, similar to Mountain Pass.  This makes Provinces worth an extra 1 VP to further incentivize players to gain Provinces (and to act as a consolation prize for not winning Prizes).  The one who buys the Province decides which Prize will be put up for auction and then players bid, with the winner taking Debt and gaining the Prize onto their deck.  There will be lots of strategic decisions here, deciding when to gain Provinces, which Prizes to put up for auction when, how much to bid, and when to pass and let others take the Debt. 

A few major benefits of Inner Court over Tournament, that swingy bear of a card: Who gets which Prizes isn't determined by who lucks out first drawing Province and Tournament together, but instead anyone can gain the Prize they want, they'll just have to pay for it.  Secondly, the Debt levels the playing field, making it a bit harder for them to gain the next Province (and thus have bidding order power for the next Prize), unlike Tournament which usually snowballs the Prizes pretty hard for one player. 

My Prize, Half of the Kingdom, attempts to incorporate a few themes missing from the existing Prizes--gainers and Alt-VP.  The top terminally gains two differently named $5 costs while the bottom acts as a poor man's Fairgrounds, 5 VP if you have 15 differently named cards, otherwise nothing.  The halves interact with each other of course, and sometimes you're willing to take it for just one of the halves and not the other.  I tried to make the VP part not too swingy since only one player can get it, but still make the Action part worth getting it for.  Feedback is appreciated!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 14, 2019, 10:40:03 am

Quote from: 4est on August 14, 2019, 10:32:00 am

(https://i.imgur.com/9Nc7sGq.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/ICyxWJX.png)

Here are my submissions this week, once again taking some inspiration from my favorite Dominion expansion.  My Prize-getter, Inner Court, is a Landmark with a bidding mechanic, similar to Mountain Pass.  This makes Provinces worth an extra 1 VP to further incentivize players to gain Provinces (and to act as a consolation prize for not winning Prizes).  The one who buys the Province decides which Prize will be put up for auction and then players bid, with the winner taking Debt and gaining the Prize onto their deck.  There will be lots of strategic decisions here, deciding when to gain Provinces, which Prizes to put up for auction when, how much to bid, and when to pass and let others take the Debt. 

A few major benefits of Inner Court over Tournament, that swingy bear of a card: Who gets which Prizes isn't determined by who lucks out first drawing Province and Tournament together, but instead anyone can gain the Prize they want, they'll just have to pay for it.  Secondly, the Debt levels the playing field, making it a bit harder for them to gain the next Province (and thus have bidding order power for the next Prize), unlike Tournament which usually snowballs the Prizes pretty hard for one player. 

My Prize, Half of the Kingdom, attempts to incorporate a few themes missing from the existing Prizes--gainers and Alt-VP.  The top terminally gains two differently named $5 costs while the bottom acts as a poor man's Fairgrounds, 5 VP if you have 15 differently named cards, otherwise nothing.  The halves interact with each other of course, and sometimes you're willing to take it for just one of the halves and not the other.  I tried to make the VP part not too swingy since only one player can get it, but still make the Action part worth getting it for.  Feedback is appreciated!

I had the same idea for inner court. oh well, you snooze you lose.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 14, 2019, 10:47:45 am

Quote from: 4est on August 14, 2019, 10:32:00 am

Here are my submissions this week, once again taking some inspiration from my favorite Dominion expansion.  My Prize-getter, Inner Court, is a Landmark with a bidding mechanic, similar to Mountain Pass.  This makes Provinces worth an extra 1 VP to further incentivize players to gain Provinces (and to act as a consolation prize for not winning Prizes).  The one who buys the Province decides which Prize will be put up for auction and then players bid, with the winner taking Debt and gaining the Prize onto their deck.  There will be lots of strategic decisions here, deciding when to gain Provinces, which Prizes to put up for auction when, how much to bid, and when to pass and let others take the Debt. 

I don't think this will cause you to get Provinces any sooner than normal. With good players, the Debt you have to take to get the Prize will neutralize its positive effect, so it doesn't really make sense to get Provinces for the Prizes. The extra VP I don't think will make greening earlier more viable either. So you'll get Prizes mostly when greening, and they won't a much of an impact on the game, except of course things that directly give you a VP edge, like Half of the Kingdom or Followers.

Quote from: 4est on August 14, 2019, 10:32:00 am

My Prize, Half of the Kingdom, attempts to incorporate a few themes missing from the existing Prizes--gainers and Alt-VP.  The top terminally gains two differently named $5 costs while the bottom acts as a poor man's Fairgrounds, 5 VP if you have 15 differently named cards, otherwise nothing.  The halves interact with each other of course, and sometimes you're willing to take it for just one of the halves and not the other.  I tried to make the VP part not too swingy since only one player can get it, but still make the Action part worth getting it for.  Feedback is appreciated!

I don't have major complaints about this one except that it is in some cases trivially better to take this over Duchy with Tournament.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 14, 2019, 11:12:22 am

I feel like in general, people are making their prizes way too powerful. Keep in mind the current prizes. Princess gives you +buy and -2 cost (can't be throned). It's good, but not an amazingly powerful card. Bag of gold gives a gold on top of your deck. Nice, but again not game-changing. Trusty steed and followers are great (probably worth $7 or more) but they don't absolutely break the game.

Master of ceremonies has no cost limit or nor supply limit. probably worth at least $8 (and you probably won't have terminal problems)

Craftsman pretty much allows you to gain any card and then play it. it might have diminishing returns, but prizes generally come at the end of the game so you probably won't be able to play it past its use anyway. Again, very very powerful.

Seat of honor can be better than kings court. You can TR 2 cards then top deck seat of honor to do it again next turn.

Winged sandals first option is better than champions (with the only caveat, that it's not permanent). Still way too game changing. Also combined with amulet, this can be crazy.

Prizes are supposed to be good, but they're not supposed to be crazy. Before any of you defend these cards just think; are there really that many situations that you would take a bag of gold, princess, diadem, or even trusty steed over these cards? And would they have the same effect? These cards are not only so good, they can work in almost any situation (unlike followers, which works better if there's no cursing or trashing, but not so good otherwise, or princess which is much better when there's no +buy).

P.S. Maybe it is just me. I just thought I'd put it out there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 11:23:03 am

Quote from: naitchman on August 14, 2019, 11:12:22 am

I feel like in general, people are making their prizes way too powerful. Keep in mind the current prizes. Princess gives you +buy and -2 cost (can't be throned). It's good, but not an amazingly powerful card. Bag of gold gives a gold on top of your deck. Nice, but again not game-changing. Trusty steed and followers are great (probably worth $7 or more) but they don't absolutely break the game.

Seat of honor can be better than kings court. You can TR 2 cards then top deck seat of honor to do it again next turn.

Prizes are supposed to be good, but they're not supposed to be crazy. Before any of you defend these cards just think; are there really that many situations that you would take a bag of gold, princess, amulet, or even trusty steed over these cards? And would they have the same effect? These cards are not only so good, they can work in almost any situation (unlike followers, which works better if there's no cursing or trashing, but not so good otherwise, or princess which is much better when there's no +buy).

Thanks, this was really helpful. For now, I'm going to change SoH to this:

Quote

Do this up to two times: play an action card from your hand twice. You may put any cards played with this onto your deck when you discard them from play.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Changes the order to a simple throned throne, and only schemes the played cards. I will probably change it further, maybe take out the scheming, or take out doing it twice. Thoughts?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 14, 2019, 11:26:53 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 11:23:03 am

Thanks, this was really helpful. For now, I'm going to change SoH to this:

Quote

Do this up to two times: play an action card from your hand twice. You may put any cards played with this onto your deck when you discard them from play.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Changes the order to a simple throned throne, and only schemes the played cards. I will probably change it further, maybe take out the scheming, or take out doing it twice. Thoughts?

It has the accountability issue of first edition Throne Room; although it's also awkward to stick a "may" in there after saying "do this twice". Perhaps "do this up to twice"?

Also recommend adding "this turn" to the very end. As worded, you would be able to top-deck a Duration when it is discarded next turn, which is really weird for tracking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 14, 2019, 11:42:22 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 14, 2019, 11:26:53 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 11:23:03 am

Thanks, this was really helpful. For now, I'm going to change SoH to this:

Quote

Do this up to two times: play an action card from your hand twice. You may put any cards played with this onto your deck when you discard them from play.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Changes the order to a simple throned throne, and only schemes the played cards. I will probably change it further, maybe take out the scheming, or take out doing it twice. Thoughts?

It has the accountability issue of first edition Throne Room; although it's also awkward to stick a "may" in there after saying "do this twice". Perhaps "do this up to twice"?

It already says that in the post you're quoting...

Quote from: naitchman on August 14, 2019, 11:12:22 am

I feel like in general, people are making their prizes way too powerful. Keep in mind the current prizes. Princess gives you +buy and -2 cost (can't be throned). It's good, but not an amazingly powerful card. Bag of gold gives a gold on top of your deck. Nice, but again not game-changing. Trusty steed and followers are great (probably worth $7 or more) but they don't absolutely break the game.

Master of ceremonies has no cost limit or nor supply limit. probably worth at least $8 (and you probably won't have terminal problems)

Craftsman pretty much allows you to gain any card and then play it. it might have diminishing returns, but prizes generally come at the end of the game so you probably won't be able to play it past its use anyway. Again, very very powerful.

Seat of honor can be better than kings court. You can TR 2 cards then top deck seat of honor to do it again next turn.

Winged sandals first option is better than champions (with the only caveat, that it's not permanent). Still way too game changing. Also combined with amulet, this can be crazy.

Prizes are supposed to be good, but they're not supposed to be crazy. Before any of you defend these cards just think; are there really that many situations that you would take a bag of gold, princess, amulet, or even trusty steed over these cards? And would they have the same effect? These cards are not only so good, they can work in almost any situation (unlike followers, which works better if there's no cursing or trashing, but not so good otherwise, or princess which is much better when there's no +buy).

P.S. Maybe it is just me. I just thought I'd put it out there.

It's not just you. I agree full-heartedly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 14, 2019, 11:45:16 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 14, 2019, 11:26:53 am

Also recommend adding "this turn" to the very end. As worded, you would be able to top-deck a Duration when it is discarded next turn, which is really weird for tracking.

It's not that weird since the discarding of the duration will coincide with the discarding of Seat of Honor. It gets strange when you play a Duration and a non-Duration though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 14, 2019, 12:00:56 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 14, 2019, 11:12:22 am

I feel like in general, people are making their prizes way too powerful. Keep in mind the current prizes. Princess gives you +buy and -2 cost (can't be throned). It's good, but not an amazingly powerful card. Bag of gold gives a gold on top of your deck. Nice, but again not game-changing. Trusty steed and followers are great (probably worth $7 or more) but they don't absolutely break the game.

...

Winged sandals first option is better than champions (with the only caveat, that it's not permanent). Still way too game changing. Also combined with amulet, this can be crazy.

Prizes are supposed to be good, but they're not supposed to be crazy. Before any of you defend these cards just think; are there really that many situations that you would take a bag of gold, princess, amulet, or even trusty steed over these cards? And would they have the same effect? These cards are not only so good, they can work in almost any situation (unlike followers, which works better if there's no cursing or trashing, but not so good otherwise, or princess which is much better when there's no +buy).

P.S. Maybe it is just me. I just thought I'd put it out there.

Fair point. Gonna withdraw Winged Sandals, change my Prize entry to
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d543ea7e98951840840989d/aed951503d53cbf817829342640b5f86/EO9CqTj.png)

Quote

Erect • $7* • Action - Prize
+1 Action
Trash this or a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than the trashed card.

A remodel variant that can be its own trasher, and riffs on prizes costing $0* by costing a nontrivial amount instead.

link to my original entry post w both prizer + prize (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808625#msg808625)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 14, 2019, 12:42:15 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 14, 2019, 11:12:22 am

I feel like in general, people are making their prizes way too powerful. Keep in mind the current prizes. Princess gives you +buy and -2 cost (can't be throned). It's good, but not an amazingly powerful card. Bag of gold gives a gold on top of your deck. Nice, but again not game-changing. Trusty steed and followers are great (probably worth $7 or more) but they don't absolutely break the game.

...

Craftsman pretty much allows you to gain any card and then play it. it might have diminishing returns, but prizes generally come at the end of the game so you probably won't be able to play it past its use anyway. Again, very very powerful.

Thank you for the feedback! I had trouble figuring out the power level— you’re right the gain and play is too strong since it’ll act like a super super powerful artisan the first few turns you play it. Good eye!

Do you think it would be best balanced as:
1. terminal but gains to discard like normal
2. Terminal but gains to top of deck
3. Non terminal but gains to discard
4. Non terminal but gains to top of deck

I feel like I’m leaning towards 2 or 3 right now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 01:05:33 pm

First try at a prize gainer:
(https://i.imgur.com/hYpXzSS.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 14, 2019, 01:09:17 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 14, 2019, 12:42:15 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 14, 2019, 11:12:22 am

...

Thank you for the feedback! I had trouble figuring out the power level— you’re right the gain and play is too strong since it’ll act like a super super powerful artisan the first few turns you play it. Good eye!

Do you think it would be best balanced as:
1. terminal but gains to discard like normal
2. Terminal but gains to top of deck
3. Non terminal but gains to discard
4. Non terminal but gains to top of deck

I feel like I’m leaning towards 2 or 3 right now.

for what its worth, i like 3

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 14, 2019, 01:17:29 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 01:05:33 pm

First try at a prize gainer:
(https://i.imgur.com/hYpXzSS.png)

minor feedback: You accidentally a word in the "combined cost" part

more quibbly feedback: equal to exactly, or equal to or greater than? if it's the former, pricing this at $3 gives the second (hit $8) and third (hit $6) prize winners maybe a little bit of an advantage?

Still, I like it, and i like that it gets easier to do as the prizes get worse. Neat card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 01:22:34 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 14, 2019, 01:17:29 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 01:05:33 pm

First try at a prize gainer:
(https://i.imgur.com/hYpXzSS.png)

minor feedback: You accidentally a word in the "combined cost" part

:)

Quote

more quibbly feedback: equal to exactly, or equal to or greater than? if it's the former, pricing this at $3 gives the second (hit $8) and third (hit $6) prize winners maybe a little bit of an advantage?.

Not quite sure what you're saying here... but I think this needs some tweaking, glad you like the idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 14, 2019, 01:27:01 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 01:22:34 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 01:05:33 pm

First try at a prize gainer:
(https://i.imgur.com/hYpXzSS.png)

Quote

more quibbly feedback: equal to exactly, or equal to or greater than? if it's the former, pricing this at $3 gives the second (hit $8) and third (hit $6) prize winners maybe a little bit of an advantage?.

Not quite sure what you're saying here... but I think this needs some tweaking, glad you like the idea.

Does the first person need to trash exactly $10 worth of cards, or greater than or equal to $10 worth of cards? If it's exact, that makes this maybe a little harder to play in Potion/Debt games.


Assuming the players mirror eachother as much as possible, the first player may have a slight advantage getting their second prize (the third prize of the pile) because they can trash their Knighting and a Silver (or other $3 card); the fourth prize in the pile will have to be via two $2 or a $4 and a $0 - can't use the Knighting unless Shelters or Poor House are a thing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 01:32:24 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 14, 2019, 01:27:01 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 01:22:34 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 01:05:33 pm

First try at a prize gainer:
(https://i.imgur.com/hYpXzSS.png)

Quote

more quibbly feedback: equal to exactly, or equal to or greater than? if it's the former, pricing this at $3 gives the second (hit $8) and third (hit $6) prize winners maybe a little bit of an advantage?.

Not quite sure what you're saying here... but I think this needs some tweaking, glad you like the idea.

Does the first person need to trash exactly $10 worth of cards, or greater than or equal to $10 worth of cards? If it's exact, that makes this maybe a little harder to play in Potion/Debt games.


Assuming the players mirror eachother as much as possible, the first player may have a slight advantage getting their second prize (the third prize of the pile) because they can trash their Knighting and a Silver (or other $3 card); the fourth prize in the pile will have to be via two $2 or a $4 and a $0 - can't use the Knighting unless Shelters or Poor House are a thing.

I see, you're talking about players trashing their Knighting (since it's a purposefully weak card) when they buy their second. In light of that, which I definitely already thought about as something players might do before you brought it up :P, I'll change it to exactly or greater.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 14, 2019, 04:20:38 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 14, 2019, 12:42:15 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 14, 2019, 11:12:22 am

I feel like in general, people are making their prizes way too powerful. Keep in mind the current prizes. Princess gives you +buy and -2 cost (can't be throned). It's good, but not an amazingly powerful card. Bag of gold gives a gold on top of your deck. Nice, but again not game-changing. Trusty steed and followers are great (probably worth $7 or more) but they don't absolutely break the game.

...

Craftsman pretty much allows you to gain any card and then play it. it might have diminishing returns, but prizes generally come at the end of the game so you probably won't be able to play it past its use anyway. Again, very very powerful.

Thank you for the feedback! I had trouble figuring out the power level— you’re right the gain and play is too strong since it’ll act like a super super powerful artisan the first few turns you play it. Good eye!

Do you think it would be best balanced as:
1. terminal but gains to discard like normal
2. Terminal but gains to top of deck
3. Non terminal but gains to discard
4. Non terminal but gains to top of deck

I feel like I’m leaning towards 2 or 3 right now.

I think both 2 and 3 are about right. They both tone down the power of the card but each has its strengths and weaknesses. It's up to you.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 14, 2019, 04:32:57 pm

Just thought I'd put out there: Please try to put both your prize and prize gainer in one post. I'm not the judge, but I'm sure Kudasai would appreciate this when it comes time to judge.

Specifically if you update only one of your cards, or if you post one of the two and then post the other, try to put your other card in that post even if nothing changes since it will be much easier than hunting for your other card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 14, 2019, 04:49:57 pm

mine are both updated in my initial entry's post but sure i'll go through and toss on the other on there. We also have the trello (https://trello.com/b/QSNxkOHZ/dominion-strategy-weekly-design-contest) for this

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 14, 2019, 05:09:19 pm

My nom for this week.

(https://i.imgur.com/B7evHrzm.png) (https://i.imgur.com/V60QkNOm.png)

Quote

Rat King (Action, $5)
+1 Card
+1 Action
Trash any amount of Rats from your hand. If you have trashed 3 or more Rats this way, gain a Prize (from the Prize pile) or a Duchy, onto your deck
-
When you gain this, +2 Rats
-
Setup: If there is no Rats pile in the supply, add one.

The Rats king wants to become stronger, sacrificing his folk to the gods. If he sacrifices enough, he grants you a delicious Prize.

Quote

Frog (Treasure - Duration - Prize)
$1
If you have played another Prize this turn, you may set aside this and a non-Duration Action costing up to $4. If you do, at the start of each of your turns, play the set-aside Action, leaving it there.

This is a Prince once it kisses a Princess. I know that involving a Harem is kinda not-done Dominion card design, but it fits so well flavor wise.

UPDATE: I redid the frog, as it is obviously silly to restrict it to Princess. Also toned down to $1, as Prince can be quite strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 14, 2019, 06:28:53 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 14, 2019, 04:49:57 pm

mine are both updated in my initial entry's post but sure i'll go through and toss on the other on there. We also have the trello (https://trello.com/b/QSNxkOHZ/dominion-strategy-weekly-design-contest) for this

ok. didn't know about the trello.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 14, 2019, 06:43:44 pm

Does anyone think the Hall of Fame on the forum should be updated, even though we do have the trello, which is amazing btw?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on August 14, 2019, 07:38:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/FyIZ8kf.jpg)

Quote

Horse Show
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. You may trash a Treasure from your hand. If it cost at least... $2: +1 Action; $4: Gain a Prize from the Prize pile or a Duchy, putting it into your hand; $6: Each other player may trash a Treasure from their hand.

Tempo-trasher, like a terminal Spice Merchant.  Trash Silver non-terminally if it has outlived its usefulness.  Trash a big Treasure to get a Prize or a Duchy (and use that Prize immediately).
Most Kingdoms the only Treasure you can trash for Prizes is Gold, which will also give other players the opportunity to trash Copper.  Maybe it gives you a reason to get Bag of Gold so you can grab more Prizes?  Quarry or Cursed Coin for a Prize will be a pretty sweet deal, though trashing a wanted Crown or Scepter will probably not be quite as good (while cards like Cache, Contraband, Ill-Gotten Gains, Royal Seal, and Talisman won't be sorry for the buff).
Remember that if a player does trash a Gold, they choose which Prize (or Duchy) to gain before you get your option to trash.  If a player gains Followers to hand after trashing a Gold, you can trash that Copper you were going to discard anyway in response.

(https://i.imgur.com/cza7RlF.jpg)

Quote

Archivist
Types: Action, Prize
Cost: $0*
You may trash a Treasure from your hand for +$1. Draw until you have 7 cards in hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

There is no trashing nor any especially significant draw from the Prize pile, so Archivist tries to provide situational availability of both.
A Copper trasher will not be too oppressive in Tournament games by the time it can be acquired (and Animal Show is already a passable Copper trasher in the event that Archivist is good to rush).
Draw-to-X is of fairly limited usefulness on a singleton card, but it can hopefully be exciting--in the same way Princess can be.  It also can act as a counter to the discard of Followers if a player wins a race to it (even though the all-around junking of Followers will make Archivist overall worse. I considered giving it the ability to trash Curses, but that seems too good if there is no other way to trash Followers' Curses).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 14, 2019, 07:49:27 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 14, 2019, 11:12:22 am

Master of ceremonies has no cost limit or nor supply limit. probably worth at least $8 (and you probably won't have terminal problems)

It's good, but I don't think it overshadows the other Prizes. Master of Ceremonies can do anything in the Kingdom, but (most of) the other Prizes can do great things that aren't in the Kingdom. Would you really always choose it over Trusty Steed and Princess? I wouldn't.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 14, 2019, 08:14:45 pm

Artisan, Nobles, the 5 relevant Potion-costed Actions, Goons, Grand Market, Expand, Forge, KC, Border Village (duh, just a village), Altar, Hunting Grounds, Hireling, the 3 relevant Debt-costed Actions, Captain and Prince. That's 21 cards out of 320-325 Kingdom cards and the probability that none of them are present in a Kingdom are around 50%.

Being able to copy one of those >$5s is pretty good, although unlikely to be overpowered as this cannot do what the official Prizes can and what you already pointed out: compensate for what the Kingdom does not feature (no Buy, get Princess; no village, get Trusty Steed; thin deck with too little payload, get Bag of Gold or Diadem).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 14, 2019, 10:30:56 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 14, 2019, 07:49:27 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 14, 2019, 11:12:22 am

Master of ceremonies has no cost limit or nor supply limit. probably worth at least $8 (and you probably won't have terminal problems)

It's good, but I don't think it overshadows the other Prizes. Master of Ceremonies can do anything in the Kingdom, but (most of) the other Prizes can do great things that aren't in the Kingdom. Would you really always choose it over Trusty Steed and Princess? I wouldn't.

It's not that I always would, it's that I would a majority of the time. If there was no +buy in the kingdom I would choose getting a ruined market over getting 10 King's courts, but obviously you would not say that those choices are on the same footing. MoC is versatile and strong. It's strictly better than overlord, and in a majority of cases, better than princess or trusty steed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 14, 2019, 11:51:09 pm

Alright here are my entries.

First off, the prize gainer:
(https://i.imgur.com/lQWg5FH.png)
You lead a crusade for the kingdom and for your efforts you are awarded a prize. However, it takes some time until you come back.

1) A note on the pricing: I wanted to make a card which allowed you to buy prizes outright. I didn't want to give the first player a huge advantage because getting the first prize can be a big deal. Also, I didn't want to make it easy to get a prize by turn 3, however, I couldn't make it cost too much. I couldn't make it cost 5 or less, since it's easy to spike $5 without coppers (moneylender, death cart, horse traders, baron, storeroom, secret chamber, extra coffer from baker, etc.). I also couldn't just price it at $7 (and I felt $8 was too much) or a lucky draw on turn 3 could happen (silver, terminal silver, 3 coppers). So it costs the same as a grand market.

2) When you buy this, there's a cool off period for buying another prize. Since your cube is on the project, you can't buy it again until your cube gets removed (I have not found any official rules on whether you can buy a project if you have your cube on it, so I'm saying you can't. If anyone's seen something different please tell me and I'll change the wording). The first prize puts 5 tokens (assuming 6 prizes) on the card, meaning you have 4 turns you can't buy a crusade (not including the turn you buy it), the next one is 4 tokens and so on. This is to address the problem that people have with tournament, that it is too swingy; whoever gets the first prize is in a better position to get the 2nd prize (considering they must already have a province and tournament, and now they have a prize that can help them get their next prize) and often one player sweeps all the prizes or at least most of them. With crusade, when you buy a prize, your opponent(s) are in a better position than you to get the next prize because you are locked out of it for a couple of turns. You likely won't get more than 2 prizes with this so choose your prizes wisely. The big benefit of getting this first is getting your choice of prizes not getting all the prizes.

3) For tokens, use coffers. The tokens get put under your cube just like sinister plot. I tried to copy the language of sinister plot as much as possible when it came to referencing the tokens.

4) The prize is put on top of your deck to be used your next turn (because presumably, your turn is over).


Now on to the prize:
(https://i.imgur.com/xzColBb.png)
The king is very pleased with you and will now allow you to do things he wouldn't normally allow other peasants to do. It's not a tangible prize, but it is pretty valuable.

1) Since the prizes are all about getting exclusive rights to a card, I thought i'd go along that theme. The exclusive cards will likely be weaker than the other prizes but you can get 5 of them. Obviously the value of this will depend on the kingdom and what the restricted card is.

2) This card works well as a prize since the idea is to get exclusive rights to a kingdom card and that can't work if this card is in the supply.

3) Top half means half of the pile (i.e. if there are 10 cards in the pile set aside the top 5, 12 cards set aside the top 6). It should be the number of cards that would be there if they were in the supply (thus the number of victory cards will be 4 in 2p and 6 in 3p or 4p).It only allows you to buy half the copies of the card. I did this for 2 reasons. Getting 10 copies of a card your opponent can't get can be a little too powerful in some circumstances (villages where there are no other villages, fool's gold). 5 is the amount you'd get, if you'd split it equally with your opponent so I thought it was fair to give you what you would get if the pile was fought over. The 2nd reason is to take care of split pile problems. Gladiator would be unfair since you'd have sole access to fortune. sauna/avanto would also be unfair if you get all of them. Getting sole access to castles would also be unfair. Now getting all 4 castles would be worth 11 in a 2p game. In addition, other victory cards would be tamed down. You would not be able to get all 8 feodums or silk roads.

4) The cards are in the supply during your turns and thus your opponent can technically gain them (messenger, possession).

5) It starts you off with one of the restricted cards. I was back and forth between not giving you any restricted cards, this, and putting it into your hand. I felt the last option could be a little unfair compared to other prizes if you could immediately play restricted cards and get more of them. Not getting any could be a little hard because then you'd have to spend time and $ buying the restricted cards, wait to get your cards in hand and then use them. You might not have the time in late game, so I gave you 1 to start.

6) This was originally a reserve that allowed you to buy restricted cards only if it was on the tavern mat, but I then I realized it would work better as a duration.

7) an empty restricted pile will not trigger the end of the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on August 15, 2019, 04:40:26 am

Mother of Dukes
cost $0* - Action - Prize
+1 Action
Gain a Duchy or 3 Estates.
(This is not in Supply.)

Pumpkin Contest
cost $6P - Event
Gain a Prize.
---
In games using this, add the Tournament pile to the Supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 15, 2019, 06:42:03 pm

Updated Submission (previous post was deleted)

(https://i.imgur.com/NCU8gVp.png)

Concept:: Basically a "card' that's something different every shuffle/turn, using the Prize pile. The trashing isnt optional, and you gain a prize remaining from the pile before restocking it  (so you can't gain the prize you played this turn). It uses the trash so you can't trash prizes out of circulation. The cards are pretty good, but you don't get to have it in your deck reliably, especially if other players go for it.

(https://i.imgur.com/PPvEaP6.png)

A trash for benefit idea I've had around for a while (usually as "Whittler"). It can get very crazy but it's easier to keep up when there's only one of them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 15, 2019, 08:16:44 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 15, 2019, 06:42:03 pm

Updated Submission (previous post was deleted)

(https://i.imgur.com/NCU8gVp.png)

Concept:: Basically a "card' that's something different every shuffle/turn, using the Prize pile. The trashing isnt optional, and you gain a prize remaining from the pile before restocking it  (so you can't gain the prize you played this turn). It uses the trash so you can't trash prizes out of circulation. The cards are pretty good, but you don't get to have it in your deck reliably, especially if other players go for it.

(https://i.imgur.com/PPvEaP6.png)

A trash for benefit idea I've had around for a while (usually as "Whittler"). It can get very crazy but it's easier to keep up when there's only one of them.

Pyrrhic Victory: Interesting Idea. This seems a bit cheap, but considering you only buy this once, you can only get one prize and you have to keep cycling through different ones (which means you don't get exclusive rights to it, and getting first pick won't be huge advantage over your opponent) it's not going to make a big impact. Still, should probably cost $5-$6.

Guided Tour: You should probably specify actions in the supply or else someone could use this to gain other prizes. That being said, I think this card falls into what I said before about the entries for prizes being too strong. If there's enough cheap cantrips/desirable cards this can get a bit crazy. The cards could even be used to get more fodder for guided tour. imagine trashing a $5 to get a bridge, ironworks, village, and smithy. You then use bridge and ironworks to get another $5 card to trash for next turn (and get +1 action) then draw 4 cards and +2 actions. All in all you trash a $5 card for +3 actions, +4 cards, +buy, +$1, -1 cost, and to gain 4 useful cards. Compare that to princess or trusty steed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 15, 2019, 09:15:18 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 15, 2019, 08:16:44 pm

Guided Tour: The cards could even be used to get more fodder for guided tour. imagine trashing a $5 to get a bridge, ironworks, village, and smithy.

Bridge, Ironworks and Smithy all have the same cost so you'd only be able to gain and play one of them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 15, 2019, 10:04:53 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 15, 2019, 09:15:18 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 15, 2019, 08:16:44 pm

Guided Tour: The cards could even be used to get more fodder for guided tour. imagine trashing a $5 to get a bridge, ironworks, village, and smithy.

Bridge, Ironworks and Smithy all have the same cost so you'd only be able to gain and play one of them.

True. I missed that part. That definitely makes it weaker. Still, with a reasonable 2, 3 and 4 I think this is still a bit strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 15, 2019, 10:50:26 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 15, 2019, 10:04:53 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 15, 2019, 09:15:18 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 15, 2019, 08:16:44 pm

Guided Tour: The cards could even be used to get more fodder for guided tour. imagine trashing a $5 to get a bridge, ironworks, village, and smithy.

Bridge, Ironworks and Smithy all have the same cost so you'd only be able to gain and play one of them.

True. I missed that part. That definitely makes it weaker. Still, with a reasonable 2, 3 and 4 I think this is still a bit strong.

I think Gold is mainly what makes it too strong, especially with Gold gainers. Even without a way to fill your deck with Golds, Gold is usually a card you don't really mind trashing anyway. Also, the combination of Pyrrhic Victory with Guided Tour is really crazy. You only need to play Guided Tour once to suddenly have a huge advantage.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 16, 2019, 12:41:54 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 15, 2019, 10:50:26 pm

I think Gold is mainly what makes it too strong, especially with Gold gainers. Even without a way to fill your deck with Golds, Gold is usually a card you don't really mind trashing anyway. Also, the combination of Pyrrhic Victory with Guided Tour is really crazy. You only need to play Guided Tour once to suddenly have a huge advantage.

You can always use Bag of Gold

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 16, 2019, 01:19:07 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 15, 2019, 10:50:26 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 15, 2019, 10:04:53 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 15, 2019, 09:15:18 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 15, 2019, 08:16:44 pm

Guided Tour: The cards could even be used to get more fodder for guided tour. imagine trashing a $5 to get a bridge, ironworks, village, and smithy.

Bridge, Ironworks and Smithy all have the same cost so you'd only be able to gain and play one of them.

True. I missed that part. That definitely makes it weaker. Still, with a reasonable 2, 3 and 4 I think this is still a bit strong.

I think Gold is mainly what makes it too strong, especially with Gold gainers. Even without a way to fill your deck with Golds, Gold is usually a card you don't really mind trashing anyway. Also, the combination of Pyrrhic Victory with Guided Tour is really crazy. You only need to play Guided Tour once to suddenly have a huge advantage.

One of those gainers being Bag of Gold which is in every game with Guided Tour.

However considering what many other TFBs can do by trashing a Gold (usually netting you a province), I don't see gaining a bunch of actions along with it being overwhelmingly better, and this is a Prize we're talking about here.

I have a few ideas for nerfs for both cards at any rate

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on August 16, 2019, 02:30:23 am

(https://i.imgur.com/C1EfhVMm.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/fA4MtH1m.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 16, 2019, 08:42:25 am

Quote from: popsofctown on August 16, 2019, 02:30:23 am

(https://i.imgur.com/C1EfhVMm.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/fA4MtH1m.png)

Neat, though it might require some rewording so it's not broken when Knights are in the kingdom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 16, 2019, 08:43:57 am

Quote from: popsofctown on August 16, 2019, 02:30:23 am

(https://i.imgur.com/C1EfhVMm.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/fA4MtH1m.png)

Digging your prize gainer. With Golden Mace, the "you are unaffected by them" clause:
if you played, say, a Militia, would you get the $2? or is it purely the spite effects of the attack that happened? or is that more to autodefend against attacks that are like "each player gains a curse"?

Or say you play Ambassador - what happens?

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 16, 2019, 08:42:25 am

Quote from: popsofctown on August 16, 2019, 02:30:23 am

...

Neat, though it might require some rewording so it's not broken when Knights are in the kingdom.

Idk if this is an issue - only the top knight is face up, right? so only the top one can be played?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 16, 2019, 09:33:10 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 16, 2019, 08:43:57 am

Idk if this is an issue - only the top knight is face up, right? so only the top one can be played?

Physically speaking, only the top one can be played simply because you aren't allowed to know what the other ones are (other than memory of what's been gained or not). But I'm pretty sure the other Knights are still "in the supply"; so the instruction is telling you to play them; and there's not a rules requirement to be able to see or find a card in order to play it. So it should be worded to somehow specify the top card of each pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on August 16, 2019, 12:52:18 pm

Knights is a case where maybe game-systems-rules does cover it, maybe, but it's worth rewording anyway for clarity. I did totally pick "differently named" to try to solve this exact problem so someone wouldn't try to resolve 9 Witches but then whoops the Knights have different names!

Ambassador seems rather unambiguous to me, if you Pillage me and I Moat you, I don't show you my hand then refuse to give up any cards, I just totally ignore your card's instruction about "reveal"ing something.  You do not reveal any cards when Ambassador tells you to.  No one gains any cards because you didn't reveal a card.  So that's 1 attack in the cardpool that doesn't work out but that's fine.
"Unaffected" means you ignore instructions on the card instructing you to do something, including vanilla bonuses which are shorthand for that. 


The weird thing about my submissions is that if either one was made to be a part of the game, then I suddenly wouldn't want the other one to be part of the game.  In terms of balance Volatile Alchemies might still be o.k. with Golden Mace in the game, but in terms of interesting gameplay Golden Mace would become the most boring, on the nose selection for an early Volatile Alchemies play, "oh, no Attacks, gain a Silver".  All of the other prizes raise more interesting questions about which prize to hand out first, I think.  If I'm overestimating the usefulness of early Diadem or early Bag of Gold, still, you get 1 step closer to the tough choices with Golden Mace off the table.


The more I think about it Golden Mace is a dud a -lot-.  I was trying to be creative, not balanced, like the instructions said though  ^^.  Maybe I can come up with an even better one.  I like the idea of Diadem type cards that can't use their special ability in some Kingdoms but it's o.k. because they are part of a prize pile, those interest me more than cards that are suited to the prize pile for multiplicity or power reasons.

Title: Re: Contest #40: Prize gainer and Prize
Post by: Gubump on August 16, 2019, 03:10:52 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OAm2CrU.png)

A remodel variant that can give you a Prize instead if you trash something expensive enough.

(https://i.imgur.com/xSVD47g.png)

A powerful Courtyard variant. Each existing Prize fills its own niche: Need a Lab variant or something versatile? Trusty Steed. Need +Buys or cost reduction? Princess. Have more leftover Actions than you know what to do with? Diadem. Need a way to gain more Golds? Bag of Gold. Need a way to Attack? Followers. And now, if you need some source of terminal draw or a way to mitigate terminal collisions? Promenade has got you covered.

Version History:
Promote:
v1.0: Original version.
Promenade:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Second topdeck is optional.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on August 16, 2019, 04:00:24 pm

I think Promenade is going to feel more like a Smithy and less like an Embassy or Courtyard when your deck has Tournaments and/or sifters because that's how you got the Promenade to begin with.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on August 16, 2019, 04:08:11 pm

Because my first submission, Treasure Chamber, had several issues, I come up with a new one:

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d570c8e6bf59c887b225435/c09701b0bbf93e6c87a9fa7c4422cadb/Safari.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d570c3c34ad0b369fb36b41/39c21bbcb4e3fc45a7b5fed2859ef4c1/Trophy.png)


Safari
Type: Action
Cost: $6
+2 Cards
+1 Action
+1 Buy

Reveal your hand. If you have 7 or more different named cards in hand, trash this and gain a Prize (from the Prize pile) or a Gold.

Trophy
Type: Victory - Prize

Worth 2 VP per Prize you have (including this).
(This is not in the supply.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on August 16, 2019, 04:24:32 pm

I like Safari a lot, it looks like a fun Horn of Plenty that doesn't take over your game's strategy as much.

I dislike Trophy a lot, it reads like an unnecessary punishment for trying to beat the Prize player with a different strategy, the nonprize player is going to have to buy at least an entire additional Province to close it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on August 16, 2019, 04:28:21 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on August 16, 2019, 04:24:32 pm

I like Safari a lot, it looks like a fun Horn of Plenty that doesn't take over your game's strategy as much.

I dislike Trophy a lot, it reads like an unnecessary punishment for trying to beat the Prize player with a different strategy, the nonprize player is going to have to buy at least an entire additional Province to close it.

The non-Prize player can also get Trophy to ruin the Prize player’s strategy. It is very similar to Castles and I actually like it, because it makes the run for Prizes highly competitive. The top-decking of Tournament is also a disadvantage for players who want to gain Trophy early.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on August 16, 2019, 05:08:13 pm

Quote from: King Leon on August 16, 2019, 04:28:21 pm

The non-Prize player can also get a Prize gainer, then a prize named Trophy,....  makes Prizes highly competitive.

I think you're mostly conceding that the only question left is how heavily to play the Prize game, not whether to go Prizes.  That's ok some cards are like that people have different preferences about where they want things, but I value being able to win a game with Tournament on the board and zero Tournament gains sometimes personally.  I agree the prize gain sequencing may be nuanced.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 17, 2019, 05:11:24 pm

Just a heads up, I'm going to have to start judging a bit early for this competition so final submissions should be in before Monday 08/19/19 at 01:00am EST (GMT-04). I believe this is the time this board uses. Also, this competition covers Prize gainers and Prizes and each reflects about 50% of your score. Any submissions with only one of these can only score half of your potential points.

Thanks!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 17, 2019, 07:35:29 pm

Knighting 2.0
(https://i.imgur.com/AolLU0j.png)
Anyone think it works better thematically as Coronation? It at least looks better to me. Anyway twi changes here, plus wording changes. Only works once per turn and you have to trash at least $6 worth of cards.
I'll add Seat of Honor here later, changed quite a bit.
Seat of Honor 2.0:
(https://i.imgur.com/YTbl1mD.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on August 18, 2019, 11:31:07 am

(https://i.imgur.com/LRv38NH.png)(https://i.imgur.com/DhoYgN2.png)

Sorry for lack of images/uninventive names, hopefully I won't be judged too harshly on that! The idea is that this is the person who made the Prizes, don't think too much about it though...

I liked the idea of a Remodel because it interacts well with some of the prizes, especially Bag of Gold so that's cool. A non-terminal prize gaining remodel seems pretty crazy but it can't trash Gold into Province which I think is a pretty big downside. Perhaps it needs to topdeck the Prize instead of gaining it to hand, but I thought I'd go for the crazier version even though I'll probably get marked down for it. I tend to make remodels on the stronger side in situations like this because I think they're fun. Originally it gained a Prize when it trashed something costing $6 or more but that gives a big advantage to whoever gets Princess because then they can start turning things into Provinces if they want, so I restricted it to Gold. Obviously now it can turn non-Gold $6's into Province but those aren't too common and it's nice to have a card play differently when certain other cards are around.

Throne (bad name sorry) Kings Courts other Prizes and other non-supply cards as well as any cards with empty Supply piles. It doesn't work with Diadem or very well with Princess unfortunately but I'm not too bothered about that, the Prizes aren't very balanced to begin with. I think it's pretty cool because you probably want to get another Prize first even though this might be stronger later.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on August 18, 2019, 09:31:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/QnswFvYm.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 18, 2019, 11:48:14 pm

CHALLENGE #40 - KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE PRIZE!!!  *final submission*


(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/7dellu1d.png)

Once you go through enough Burial Grounds, you might find some treasure (a Prize). Of course, you have to raze the burial grounds and then you can't use that as a sifter any more. And having one less Burial Ground makes it more difficult to activate. There are some games where you won't be able to activate this. With no other support, you have to play 5 Burial Grounds to get a prize. So, in a more than 2 player game with no support, you might not be able to get a prize. Of course support comes VERY often -- any card combination that reduces your hand size (opponent discard attacks, non terminal non drawers, trashers with village, etc) will help you get your beloved Prize.

I wanted to make a prize that seemed fair, that wasn't as luck based, and that felt like a little more of a cost to gain a prize. You either heavily invest in buying a bunch of burial grounds (and the fact that each one draws 3 cards first helps you line them up and makes it less luck-dependent), or you build a deck that can empty your hand. You also have to pay quite the cost to get a Prize, trashing this card after discarding your hand down to 0. Also, you probably want this card even if you can't get a prize -- it's a pretty nice sifter! But it really shrinks your hand size if you play other actions with it and the more you play the worse it gets.

I know this card looks strong, but in practice, you often have other cards in play before this card -- and that weakens this card. If you get the lucky, the best case scenario is, a slightly better lab (5+), then a forum(5), then a warehouse(3), a kind of strange cellar (2), then a discard your whole hand and trash for a prize. Most of the times, you won't get so lucky to use the first two you play as the lab and a forum in one turn.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/eexb3sep.png)

Craftsman is a fun prize I've been trying to get to work as a card for a while. I wanted a card that could only gain one copy of each card in the supply. The elegant solution here is to set aside (in this case, trash) one copy of each card. However, if there were multiple craftsman they become a TON weaker because you are fighting with an opponent to gain copies of the cards. And you can't set aside one card per player because that limits the supply to much. This card concept really works best as a prize! There's some fun synergies with trash for benefits. There's an UNFUN synergy with salt the earth. Rather than work around that with an awkward that's not a province clause (that also limits the fun joy of remodelling or t4b-ing a province into a province and gaining it back with Craftsman), I just said, well this card combo will just be bad.

To be clear, Kingdom cards are the 10 cards you randomly add to the supply each game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on August 19, 2019, 12:59:36 am

Unfortunately, I didn't have much time to think of something early this week, but rather than miss two weeks in a row, here are a couple of half-baked ideas (i.e. there's definitely room for improvement*, but hopefully there something interesting in these to work with):

Joust and Reinforcements

(https://i.imgur.com/WNQStsT.png)(https://i.imgur.com/1xv8GuC.png)


* I think Joust definitely needs a little work and hopefully Reinforcements is interesting even though it's similar to Royal Carriage (well, the same, except that it's becomes available significantly more often).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 19, 2019, 04:43:36 am

Quote from: scolapasta on August 19, 2019, 12:59:36 am

Unfortunately, I didn't have much time to think of something early this week, but rather than miss two weeks in a row, here are a couple of half-baked ideas (i.e. there's definitely room for improvement*, but hopefully there something interesting in these to work with):

Joust and Reinforcements

(https://i.imgur.com/WNQStsT.png)(https://i.imgur.com/1xv8GuC.png)


* I think Joust definitely needs a little work and hopefully Reinforcements is interesting even though it's similar to Royal Carriage (well, the same, except that it's becomes available significantly more often).

Joust is much too strong and also should be an attack. It's also a stacking discarder, which is a terrbile idea - play 5 of those and your opponent won't have any cards left in their hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 19, 2019, 06:36:50 am

CHALLENGE #40 - KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE PRIZE!!! VERDICTS

Well, coming up with a Prize gainer is certainly no easy task. I've tried a few times with no success, so I applaud and admire everyone who participated in this weeks challenge. There were some very good cards to sort through. Anyways, I put an asterisk next to individual cards I liked. Runner-up, the honorable mentions and winner will be at the bottom!

Agora/Affluent Village by alion8me (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808593#msg808593)
Agora: Slowly down the gaining of prizes by having to navigate a Traveler Line is a neat idea. The sifting power of Agora will make this much faster though. Agora itself seems quite strong for $5. Draw+Coin is deceptively strong.
Affluent village*: A Villa that can be drawn dead and then played is certainly useful. I see this fitting in well with the prizes, but in terms of creativity, to me it fulfills the same role as Villa.

King's Accountant/Scrubland by pubby (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808599#msg808599)
King's Accountant: Nice to see another piling mechanic akin to Swashbuckler. Ultimately though I think this sets a very low bar for gaining prizes. By the 3rd play of KA you'll have a prize and a Coffer to spare. I think your original idea of requiring more Coffers was sound.
Scrubland*: Very interesting idea. Really changes the dynamic of how to play a Cursing board. Adding an additional Buy to the prize pool should help on boards without Buys. Even though this can essentially turn an extra Buy into 2VP, Princess can turn a extra buy into 1VP and do a lot more on top of that.

Village Fair/Master of Ceremonies by Commodore Chuckles (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808620#msg808620)
Village Fair*: Very clever requiring both a mono and deck diverse strategy to gain Prizes. I might be off here, but I feel this would strategically speaking be more interesting without the +Action. Possibly more balanced too as a Throne Room with an extra Action is very good and this will gain you Prizes down the road.
Master of Ceremonies: Certainly feels like a good Prize fit. Some people have made good arguments for this being overpowered, but since I'm judging this mainly on creativity I can mostly ignore that. :)

King's Quest/Golden Lance by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808623#msg808623)
King's Quest: At first glance this seems like a pretty low bar for gaining Prizes, but that's deceptive. It essentially equates to $10, +2 Buys and a stop card clunking you up until you can get rid of it. I still think the bar might just be low enough that some players will get this to go off by shear luck. Your cards are always very thought out so I really hope I'm not missing something here.
Golden Lance*: Hyper, mega Treasure drawer! What an awesome card idea. Makes Bag of Gold much more attractive as well as the Silver gaining on Trusty Steed. Could lead to some very lucky, big draws, but in a Tournament game this would less likely. King's Quest much more so.

Uncanny Storekeeper/Erect by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808625#msg808625)
Uncanny Storekeeper*: There's nothing more satisfy then playing Treasures during your Action phase! This mostly can be seen as play three of these and gain a prize. This can lead to scaling problems with games of 3+ players. Even if you fall short of getting three for Prizes, US still seems like a very useful card.
Erect: In terms of creativity it's just a remodel with +Action that can turn itself into something if it duds near the end of the game. Putting this back into the Prize pile might be a more interesting twist.

Dragon Fight by pst (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808629#msg808629)
Dragon Fight*: Really interesting concept. I can imagine how intense going though this process would be. Like fighting a real dragon maybe! It really makes use of the Prizes $0 cost. The more Prizes you have, the less cards you have to win the fight. Albeit Prizes can be used for Copper. Trashing all of your cards might be rough, but I can also see where it could be used as a trasher.

Sanctification/Rematch by faust (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808632#msg808632)
Sanctification: Neat idea! Seems to add a lot of value to Gold as it will usually be the most expensive and accessible card early that also has value in your deck.
Rematch*: I like to top bit quite a lot. Very interesting idea. The bottom part also, but I could easily do without it, but then again it solves to problem of one player having the only extra Buy or Village.

Inner Court/Half of the Kingdom by 4est (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808654#msg808654)
Inner Court: Hard to find balance issues with a card that has a value assigned to players within the game. :) I feel Mountain Mass is only once per game for a reason. Having to do this 6 times may be tedious, but that depends on the play group I guess. Prizes that gain like Half of the Kingdom, Bag of Gold, etc will be in high demand given the debt.

Half of the Kingdom: Seems like a pretty strong card. Cards that gain only one $5 are already pretty good. With Prizes and the good amount of gaining, the 5VP seems almost guaranteed.

Rat King/Frog by grrgrrgrr (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808693#msg808693)
Rat King: Interesting use of Rats! With so much cantrip trashing all players should eventually end up with pretty clean decks. There could be some very unfortunate hiccups along the way though.
Frog Prince is certainly a good card and it does what it does well. Requiring another Prize in hand is interesting, but some games you only get one prize. If that one prize if Frog then you just did all that work for a Copper. But maybe that's what your getting at with naming this Frog?

Horse Show/Archivist by Fragasnap (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808698#msg808698)
Horse Show*: Very interesting card! I like the layers of complexity this brings. I'm afraid the inclusion of $4 and $5 cost Treasures will makes this absurdly powerful though and easy to gain Prizes.
Archivist*: Trashing, drawing and $ all on the same card and you make it seem very balanced! Very nice!

Crusade/King's Favor by naitchman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808727#msg808727)
Crusade*: Very nice mechanic for delaying the player with the first Prize more than the second. The no Copper clause will work well with slowing down the pace of Prize gaining.

King's Favor: This depends highly on what the $4 cost card is. A choice of two cards might make this more viable. Of course I'm just speaking in general as I'm not judging the Prizes in how often they are useful. I do like the concept a lot, but I do feel like it is missing something. Maybe if there was a way to guarantee what kind of card the restricted card will be. Draw comes to mind and would certainly make the first play of King's Favor really good.

Pumpkin Contest/Mother of Dukes by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808752#msg808752)
Pumpkin Contest: I'm not very familiar with the $6P price point, but it seems like a fair price for a Prize.
Mother of Dukes: Essentially does a portion of what Tournament does. Does enable Estate pile out strategies though.

Pyrrhic Victory/Guided Tour byNoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808845#msg808845)
Pyrrhic Victory*: $4 cost for a one shot Prize. Really neat idea! I can see a lot of interesting play arising from the shuffling of Prizes. Some Prizes may have more value at certain times in the game than others depending on the board. Assessing that would be a lot of fun.
Guided Tour: One of my favorite prizes, but I do think it is very over powered. Dropping the gaining would do a lot to address that and help in situations where you may not want to gain certain cards. So dropping it could also buff it. :I Really cool name too!

Volatile Alchemies/Noble Deflect? by popsofctown (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808873#msg808873)
Volatile Alchemies: Interesting idea. Certainly makes people stop and think about if they are ready for a card they may not need versus just blinding rushing the Prizes. All the prizes are mostly useful, but not always. Take Diadem on a board with no Villages/Splitters. Will anyone even go for this knowing that will likely be the first card given out?

Noble Deflect: Hopefully I've assumed correctly that this is your intended submission and not Golden Mace. There's some interesting stuff in here but ultimately I think trashing Prizes isn't very fun.

Promote/Promenade by Gubump (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808883#msg808883)
Promote: A bit like Replace but instead of an Attack it gains Prizes. Seems like a pretty low bar for the latter. Decks will generally have enough $5 cost cards that lining one up with Promote shouldn't be hard. You are losing a key part of your deck, but the Prize should make up for that. I do like that this moderate difficulty Prize gaining comes with an additional cost of Promote becoming less useful late game. Top decking Provinces is no fun, but shouldn't matter on your last turn.
Promenade*: Nice draw is a welcome sight in the Prize pile. The double top-decking is also neat and could be useful with some cards. Wishing Well and Will-O-Wisp come to mind.

Safari/Trophy by King Leon (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808885#msg808885)
Safari*: Lab with a Buy is useful. Should help getting those Prizes. 7 differently named cards in hand will always be achievable and should generally be within reason to achieve.

Trophy: A not always useful but neat addition to the Prize pile. I wonder if this is like a "rich get richer" thing though. Sure you can grab it to deny someone 6-8VP, but then you now have a dead card in your deck for little VP to show. In a 2 player game though, someone should at least get 4VP out of it, which is good.

Knighting/Seat of Honor by Fly-Eagles-Fly (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808904#msg808904)
Knighting: The on-gain trashing seems quite strong. You can slim down very fast with just a couple of these gains. It wouldn't be too hard to then pivote to Golds and other $4 cost to start getting Prizes.

Seat of Honor*: Might need a non-Duration clause for tracking. Other tracking issues could be problematic, but other than that I like this a lot. Both options are in a way trying to achieve the same goal, but in very different ways. Seems very fun.

Master Craftsman/Throne by Gazbag (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808923#msg808923)
Master Craftsman*: Another good value card that sees its usefulness taper off. The amount of Master Craftsman and Golds needed to make Prize gaining reliable seems like a fair price to pay.
Trone*: Very clean design! Not at all useful early on, but boy does it get good. Would be very tempting to get this as a first Prize even if that meant giving up another good Prize. But then maybe you end up with Throne and Princess. Sad times!

Burial Ground/Craftsman by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808966#msg808966)
Burial Ground*: What an interesting card. A very strong card on it's first play that just gets worse and worse, culminating in the ultimate of humiliations, losing your whole hand. But alas, perhaps its all worth it for that sweet, sweet Prize. The default strategy of spamming Burial Grounds is a no-brainer, but I imagine there is a lot of room to outplay your opponents here. Using other cards that discard for instance.
Craftsman*: A Lurker that comes primed with one of each card. Its usefulness is only marginally board dependent, but even on the worst of boards, this will have already left its mark by removing one of each Kingdom card. The setup clause is just beautifully made for a Prize.

Joust/Reinforcements by scolapasta (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808976#msg808976)
Joust: Like faust said, this has an Attack-esque quality to it. I don't believe this was intentional though so I'll judge based on what I believe you intended for the card. Even with fixing that, this is roughly a $4.5 value even without the prize gaining. It's a very interesting idea though.
Reinforcements: A Royal Carriage that puts itself back on the Tavern mat is certainly useful. Not a lot of difference between the two beyond that.

I just want to again emphasize that this was a tough challenge and I appreciate everyone's entries. If I didn't judge someones card well its likely not because I thought it was a bad card or design, but more that it just didn't have the qualities that I think a good prize gainer should have. I can go into more depth on this later if anyone likes. Anyways, on to the awards!!!!





Honorable Mention: faust
Honorable Mention: Commodore Chuckles
Honorable Mention: Gazbag
Runner-up: Fragsnap
Winner: anordinaryman

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 10:23:45 am

Congratulations, anordinaryman!

In case any of you are curious, here's what my rationale for the Prize condition was for my entry, Promote:
1. _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} is generally one of the card costs you'd least want to trash with a Remodel variant, since there are so few cards that cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}; _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} lets you get _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}-costs, and _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} lets you get _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)}-costs, but trashing a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} usually just gives you the same thing trashing a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} would, but means that you trashed a better card than necessary.
2. Most of the existing Prizes have a power level of a ~_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}-cost card, and my Promenade was designed with that power level in mind as well.

I will admit that I realized after the fact that Promote is kind of underpowered and overpowered at the same time, though. Too easy to gain Prizes, but is just a worse Replace when you don't gain Prizes. I kind of forgot that Replace existed when I made Promote.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 19, 2019, 11:56:41 am

Thank you so much! I really appreciated this contest, it made me think a lot about Dominion and balance and game-design. I hope this next contest can inspire people as yours inspired me.

We're going to take aim at one of the more common complaints of Dominion:

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE
Design a card or card-shaped thing that has non-attack player interaction baked into the mechanics of the card/card-shaped thing. I'd prefer original ideas of player interaction, so simply making a new artifact isn't likely to win this contest, but who knows, maybe if the interaction is interesting enough, it could win!

One of my favorite card concepts is Contraband. Lovely player interaction with non-obvious choices for what to limit what your opponent can buy. Can they afford a province this turn? What action card do they really need? Contraband pushes Dominion towards games being different depending on who is playing, rather than just what the Kingdom is. Contraband is too weak to often be useful, but the concept itself is tight. Some other cards with interesting interactions include Council Room, Lurker, Embargo, and Advisor/Envoy. Yes, Embargo would count for this contest.

I really don't want to mess up anybody's entries again. 24 hours before I start judging, I will make a post that has all the current entries. If I have made any mistakes, you will have 24 hours to reply to let me know my mistake (or make new submissions / submit new post updates to old ones). Once I make that post, I will not read anything before that post, so editing past posts will not help.

Title: Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
Post by: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0aYsrXS.png)

The set aside clause is to prevent an infinite loop with Band of Misfits variants.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on August 19, 2019, 12:25:38 pm

Quote from: faust on August 19, 2019, 04:43:36 am

Quote from: scolapasta on August 19, 2019, 12:59:36 am

Unfortunately, I didn't have much time to think of something early this week, but rather than miss two weeks in a row, here are a couple of half-baked ideas (i.e. there's definitely room for improvement*, but hopefully there something interesting in these to work with):

Joust and Reinforcements

(https://i.imgur.com/WNQStsT.png)(https://i.imgur.com/1xv8GuC.png)


* I think Joust definitely needs a little work and hopefully Reinforcements is interesting even though it's similar to Royal Carriage (well, the same, except that it's becomes available significantly more often).

Joust is much too strong and also should be an attack. It's also a stacking discarder, which is a terrbile idea - play 5 of those and your opponent won't have any cards left in their hand.

Quote from: Kudasai on August 19, 2019, 06:36:50 am

Joust/Reinforcements by scolapasta (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808976#msg808976)
Joust: Like faust said, this has an Attack-esque quality to it. I don't believe this was intentional though so I'll judge based on what I believe you intended for the card. Even with fixing that, this is roughly a $4.5 value even without the prize gaining. It's a very interesting idea though.
Reinforcements: A Royal Carriage that puts itself back on the Tavern mat is certainly useful. Not a lot of difference between the two beyond that.

Joust: You are both absolutely correct and that's what I get for trying to come up with something at last minute! (you'll notice my entry got in with just 24 seconds to spare!)

Reinforcements: Yeah, it's too similar to Royal Carriage. I do like the idea of a Prize that is always available as a Reserve; just need to tweak it so it's different enough from Royal Carriage...

I will continue tweaking these in my thread to see if there's anything useful to glean.

Actually seeing this week's contest, maybe there's room for a fixed up Joust this week! :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on August 19, 2019, 12:40:42 pm

I wasn't too happy with either Noble Deflect or Golden Mace, I just wanted something I hated less than the Mace.

Trashing prizes is indeed sucky that was a "keep the game from having infinite length" clause as seen on Salt the Earth.

Title: Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
Post by: segura on August 19, 2019, 12:52:05 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wc74G1Z.png)

Set aside cards are returned to their owners' hands at the end of the turn. The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.

I think that this will lead to very interesting play. You want a Delegate-thick deck in order to copy their good stuff and deny your opponents your good stuff. But if you exaggerate it or the opponents play money, you are left with too many lousy blue dogs in your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 01:06:55 pm

Would cards like messenger, lost city, and embassy work? Or are they a little too weak in their player interaction?

Title: Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
Post by: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 01:10:10 pm

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2019, 12:52:05 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wc74G1Z.png)

Set aside cards are returned to their owners' hands at the end of the turn. The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.

I think that this will lead to very interesting play. You want a Delegate-thick deck in order to copy their good stuff and deny your opponents your good stuff. But if you exaggerate it or the opponents play money, you are left with too many lousy blue dogs in your deck.

Thanks! I'm glad you like my card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on August 19, 2019, 01:19:08 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on August 19, 2019, 06:36:50 am

Dragon Fight by pst (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg808629#msg808629)
Dragon Fight*: Really interesting concept. I can imagine how intense going though this process would be. Like fighting a real dragon maybe! It really makes use of the Prizes $0 cost. The more Prizes you have, the less cards you have to win the fight. Albeit Prizes can be used for Copper. Trashing all of your cards might be rough, but I can also see where it could be used as a trasher.

I tried it in three games, and it was actually really exciting in two of them. (In one of them it never came up.) Sometimes we had sure wins with enough cards of all kinds in hand/play, but most of the time some luck was needed. In one of the games Prince was on the board, so there was always the risk of it coming up which usually meant failure.

Note that you can always opt not to risk a card you want to keep, but chicken out instead, and only set aside really good cards for the final blow if you are still in the fight.

Title: Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
Post by: pubby on August 19, 2019, 01:39:51 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/akfUg1T.png)

You get all the tokens you need but your opponent decides where.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on August 19, 2019, 01:46:40 pm

Gatekeeper (Action) [$4]

+5 Cards

Reveal your hand. The player to your left names a card from your hand.
You can't play any copies of that card this turn.

This combines ideas from Envoy and Contraband. It might be weak. You'll probably need a diverse deck to get something out of it.

Title: Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 19, 2019, 02:02:39 pm

Quote from: pubby on August 19, 2019, 01:39:51 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/meno2q4.png)

You get all the tokens you need but your opponent decides where.

This seems cool, but extremely weak.

Title: Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
Post by: pubby on August 19, 2019, 02:14:17 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 19, 2019, 02:02:39 pm

This seems cool, but extremely weak.

The first version let you pick the token. I changed it last minute. I think I'll change it back to the first version.

Title: Contest #41 - Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 19, 2019, 02:37:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/lkXkhug.png)

Quote

Executioner • Action • $5
The player to your left chooses one of the following for you to do:
Play an action card from your hand twice; or
+1 Buy, Play a treasure card from your hand three times; or
Gain a card costing up to $4 and if it is an Action or Treasure, play it immediately.

Bluffing minigame. Do you have a solid treasure? how about action? Or is there something in supply that'd be helpful?
Picked the name because it can do what thrones/crowns do (do a thing twice) but it does so at the direction of an outside power. Sort of a reverse-possession.

---

revision history:

• withdrew "Smuggle", submitted "Executioner"
• renamed from "Bribe" to "Smuggle"
• first posted

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 02:58:11 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on August 19, 2019, 01:46:40 pm

Gatekeeper (Action) _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}

+5 Cards

Reveal your hand. The player to your left names a card from your hand.
You can't play any copies of that card this turn.

This combines ideas from Envoy and Contraband. It might be weak. You'll probably need a diverse deck to get something out of it.

The problem with this type of drawback is, what happens if a copy of the named card is revealed by Golem, Herald, or Venture? They would both try to force you to play the copy. So which card's rules get broken? Does "can't" override "must," or does "must" override "can't?" The former is the one that makes the most sense, but then what happens to the revealed Action you can't play? None of the other cards I mentioned address this issue.

Here's my suggested fix: Instead of "you can't play any copies of that card this turn," say "When you play a copy of that card this turn, ignore its instructions." Sure, while-in-play effects would still trigger, but those generally have a small enough impact without the top part of the card that this isn't anywhere near as big a problem as what I mentioned in my previous paragraph.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 03:09:53 pm

Here's a simple card inspired by some of the rotating cards in Agricola. (NOTE: it is an heirloom, not a supply pile)
(https://i.imgur.com/1MoLyAU.png) (https://i.imgur.com/tweHrGK.png)

I just made an heirloom without a kingdom pile to go with it. I figured the kingdom pile is unnecessary for the contest, since Gift is the card that gives the player interaction. That being said, I will make a kingdom card to match it if anordinaryman wants me to (maybe i'll give it some more player interaction).

I'd thought I'd go with a card that rotates along the decks. You get a little bonus when you pass it along (i did that or else everyone would be passing them along and it would cancel itself out). You can keep it; of course then it just plays like a copper. This is obviously going to affect the openings a little bit like baker.

1) Your opponent does not gain the card and therefore cannot react (for example with a trader)

2) the card is priced at 0 intentionally. I wanted it to continue to rotate hands so I wanted to disincentivize trashing it. At 0 it doesn't work well for trash for benefit. it also can't be trashed with things that only trash copper (ducat, moneylender). And then, if you really want to get it out of your deck you could always play it as a silver (though it will likely come back).

Update: I have added Research here (this should take care of the heirloom problem and give more interactivity). Here are my comments:

You've worked very hard on your research; too bad everyone wants to steal it for themselves. It's a lab that can be stolen for a cost.

1) The choice of stealing goes clockwise from the current player. Once one player takes it, no other player can take it since it is no longer in play.

2) "Other players" refers to all the players who did not steal the card.

3) Because this is a card that rotates and everyone will end up benefiting from, the cost has to be low since why spend my money if everyone is going to get the benefit (also to prevent tfb). I've also added an interactive clause that allows all your opponents to gain one for free (when you gain your 2nd card). I might tweak this clause since it allows the pile to deplete fast in a 4p game.

4) This pairs thematically well with Gift. Gift is a card you give to your opponents, Research is a card you steal from your opponents.

Update: I have decided to do a different set of cards but with a similar idea. This is no longer my submission.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 19, 2019, 03:10:47 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 02:58:11 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on August 19, 2019, 01:46:40 pm

Gatekeeper (Action) _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}

+5 Cards

Reveal your hand. The player to your left names a card from your hand.
You can't play any copies of that card this turn.

This combines ideas from Envoy and Contraband. It might be weak. You'll probably need a diverse deck to get something out of it.

The problem with this type of drawback is, what happens if a copy of the named card is revealed by Golem, Herald, or Venture? They would both try to force you to play the copy. So which card's rules get broken? Does "can't" override "must," or does "must" override "can't?" The former is the one that makes the most sense, but then what happens to the revealed Action you can't play? None of the other cards I mentioned address this issue.

Here's my suggested fix: Instead of "you can't play any copies of that card this turn," say "When you play a copy of that card this turn, ignore its instructions." Sure, while-in-play effects would still trigger, but those generally have a small enough impact without the top part of the card that this isn't anywhere near as big a problem as what I mentioned in my previous paragraph.

That's a good fix. I guess that "When you play a copy of that card this turn, discard it instead." would even undo the triggering of in-play effects.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 19, 2019, 03:14:46 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 03:09:53 pm

Gift is the card that gives the player interaction.

Either you play it as a Silver and discard it to the left, trash it or sift through it. Just because it lands in somebody else's deck doesn't mean that the card is interactive though. Unless you want to argue that playing it as a mere Copper to keep it and later play it as a Silver will arise often.
I think that something like this can work, but only if the decision is non-trivial.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 03:35:27 pm

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2019, 03:14:46 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 03:09:53 pm

Gift is the card that gives the player interaction.

Either you play it as a Silver and discard it to the left, trash it or sift through it. Just because it lands in somebody else's deck doesn't mean that the card is interactive though. Unless you want to argue that playing it as a mere Copper to keep it and later play it as a Silver will arise often.
I think that something like this can work, but only if the decision is non-trivial.

there are definitely situations that you would play it as a copper to keep it (if you have an extra $1 you don't want to spend). I can kind of hear your other point though that the interactivity is low (though it is still present). I'll see if I can tweak this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on August 19, 2019, 03:46:57 pm

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2019, 03:10:47 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 02:58:11 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on August 19, 2019, 01:46:40 pm

Gatekeeper (Action) _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}

+5 Cards

Reveal your hand. The player to your left names a card from your hand.
You can't play any copies of that card this turn.

This combines ideas from Envoy and Contraband. It might be weak. You'll probably need a diverse deck to get something out of it.

The problem with this type of drawback is, what happens if a copy of the named card is revealed by Golem, Herald, or Venture? They would both try to force you to play the copy. So which card's rules get broken? Does "can't" override "must," or does "must" override "can't?" The former is the one that makes the most sense, but then what happens to the revealed Action you can't play? None of the other cards I mentioned address this issue.

Here's my suggested fix: Instead of "you can't play any copies of that card this turn," say "When you play a copy of that card this turn, ignore its instructions." Sure, while-in-play effects would still trigger, but those generally have a small enough impact without the top part of the card that this isn't anywhere near as big a problem as what I mentioned in my previous paragraph.

That's a good fix. I guess that "When you play a copy of that card this turn, discard it instead." would even undo the triggering of in-play effects.

Thanks for the feedback - I hadn't considered that scenario! Your fix makes sense, so I will modify the card to the following:

Gatekeeper (Action) [$4]

+5 Cards

Reveal your hand. The player to your left names a card from your hand.
When you play a copy of that card this turn, ignore its instructions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 19, 2019, 04:50:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iLuRr2b.png)

A kind of mini-Embassy with the passing mechanism from Masquerade. But unlike Masquerade you don't always want to pass the worst card (to be fair this isn't always the case with Masquerade either).
The wordiness and slow execution are obvious downsides.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 19, 2019, 04:55:49 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

Set aside cards are returned to their owners' hands at the end of the turn.

You should probably put that in your card, then.

Quote from: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 01:06:55 pm

Would cards like messenger, lost city, and embassy work? Or are they a little too weak in their player interaction?

Yes, they work. I even put embassy as one of the examples. However, they are a little weak, and I said in the contest that I'd prefer original ideas of player interaction. So, simply writing a new card that also gives the lost city bonus to your opponents on gain will not fare well in this contest, probably. You could try some other conditional interesting way that a card/card-shaped thing gives your opponents +1 card. Or you could come up with a completely unique interaction!

Quote from: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 03:09:53 pm

Here's a simple card inspired by some of the rotating cards in Agricola. (NOTE: it is an heirloom, not a supply pile)
(https://i.imgur.com/1MoLyAU.png)

I just made an heirloom without a kingdom pile to go with it. I figured the kingdom pile is unnecessary for the contest, since Gift is the card that gives the player interaction. That being said, I will make a kingdom card to match it if anordinaryman wants me to (maybe i'll give it some more player interaction).

To me, submitting an heirloom without a kingdom pile is like submitting only the back-half of a split pile and saying "eh some sort of weak card goes on top". It's an incomplete submission without the kingdom card that would bring this heirloom into the game

@mandioca15 for a better chance of me noticing your submissions, either create a card image, or put a bold text saying this is a submission for challenge 41

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2019, 04:50:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iLuRr2b.png)

This card gives out 1 debt, likely to the player who did not play swamp tower. It feels like an attack card a little bit. I'm worried you didn't make an attack card out of fear of being disqualified. You can make this an attack card if you wish. It will not be disqualified because there is also a non-attack interaction to the card as well. When I said non-attack interaction, I meant as the only interaction. So, a cheap mountebank that gave other players +1 card when you played would be a valid submission (but not a good one) also. Another semantic note about your card, you said gets this "or". But how is the or chosen? Does the player of swamp tower choose? Does the person who gets the bonus choose? You need to say which one on the card. Even cards where it's obvious (like Pawn), still explicitly say the player of the card chooses.
Finally, what happens to the set aside cards? As written now, they stay set aside forever until the game ends.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 19, 2019, 05:00:06 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 19, 2019, 04:55:49 pm

This card gives out 1 debt, likely to the player who did not play swamp tower. It feels like an attack card a little bit. I'm worried you didn't make an attack card out of fear of being disqualified. You can make this an attack card if you wish. It will not be disqualified because there is also a non-attack interaction to the card as well. When I said non-attack interaction, I meant as the only interaction. So, a cheap mountebank that gave other players +1 card when you played would be a valid submission (but not a good one) also. Another semantic note about your card, you said gets this "or". But how is the or chosen? Does the player of swamp tower choose? Does the person who gets the bonus choose? You need to say which one on the card. Even cards where it's obvious (like Pawn), still explicitly say the player of the card chooses.
Finally, what happens to the set aside cards? As written now, they stay set aside forever until the game ends.

Initially this was an Attack, but it runs into rule issues (respectively even more wordiness to exclude players who block from the passing game) with "blocks" like Moat, Lighthouse and Champion.
Also, Masquerade is not an Attack and the 1D is compensated by being able to get rid of bad card and getting a good card in return.

About your last question, the card explicitly says that the cards are passed to the left.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 19, 2019, 05:01:56 pm

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2019, 05:00:06 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 19, 2019, 04:55:49 pm

@segura, your card gives out 1 debt, likely to the player who did not play swamp tower. It feels like an attack card a little bit. I'm worried you didn't make an attack card out of fear of being disqualified. You can make this an attack card if you wish. It will not be disqualified because there is also a non-attack interaction to the card as well. When I said non-attack interaction, I meant as the only interaction. So, a cheap mountebank that gave other players +1 card when you played would be a valid submission (but not a good one) also. Another semantic note about your card, you said gets this "or". But how is the or chosen? Does the player of swamp tower choose? Does the person who gets the bonus choose? You need to say which one on the card. Even cards where it's obvious (like Pawn), still explicitly say the player of the card chooses.

Initially this was an Attack, but it runs into rule issues (respectively even more wordiness to exclude players who block from the passing game) with "blocks" like Moat, Lighthouse and Champion.
Also, Masquerade is not an Attack and the 1D is compensated by being able to get rid of bad card and getting a good card in return.

Okay! Just making sure you were making it a non-attack for *design* reasons rather than for *contest* reasons. I realized the way I wrote my post it may have come across that attack cards were forbidden.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 05:04:14 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 19, 2019, 04:55:49 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

Set aside cards are returned to their owners' hands at the end of the turn.

You should probably put that in your card, then.

That's why it says that the set aside cards are set aside "for the turn." Version 1.2 spelled it out, but I thought it made Delegate more wordy than necessary. I guess that v1.3 might not work though since you're the one setting them aside. I'll edit my OP to have version 1.2 instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 19, 2019, 05:07:24 pm

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2019, 04:50:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iLuRr2b.png)

A kind of mini-Embassy with the passing mechanism from Masquerade. But unlike Masquerade you don't always want to pass the worst card (to be fair this isn't always the case with Masquerade either).
The wordiness and slow execution are obvious downsides.

It seems to me that you'd nearly always just want to pass junk. Trashing a junk card is well worth 1 Debt. And trashing an expensive card is pretty bad. Oh, and at the beginning, the worst cards in your deck are the most expensive ones (Estates or Shelters) which will create rich-get-richer swinginess.

Quote from: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 03:35:27 pm

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2019, 03:14:46 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 03:09:53 pm

Gift is the card that gives the player interaction.

Either you play it as a Silver and discard it to the left, trash it or sift through it. Just because it lands in somebody else's deck doesn't mean that the card is interactive though. Unless you want to argue that playing it as a mere Copper to keep it and later play it as a Silver will arise often.
I think that something like this can work, but only if the decision is non-trivial.

there are definitely situations that you would play it as a copper to keep it (if you have an extra $1 you don't want to spend). I can kind of hear your other point though that the interactivity is low (though it is still present). I'll see if I can tweak this.

I guess the problem is that you don't really care that it ends up in your opponent's deck, so there's no weighing of benefit for you vs. your opponent. Still, I do like that this gets the "wandering" card idea to work. There have been a lot of other ideas for cards that get passed from deck to deck. They never work because there's never any reason to buy the card in the first place. Making it an Heirloom solves this brilliantly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 19, 2019, 05:15:33 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 19, 2019, 05:07:24 pm

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2019, 04:50:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iLuRr2b.png)

A kind of mini-Embassy with the passing mechanism from Masquerade. But unlike Masquerade you don't always want to pass the worst card (to be fair this isn't always the case with Masquerade either).
The wordiness and slow execution are obvious downsides.

It seems to me that you'd nearly always just want to pass junk. Trashing a junk card is well worth 1 Debt. And trashing an expensive card is pretty bad. Oh, and at the beginning, the worst cards in your deck are the most expensive ones (Estates or Shelters) which will create rich-get-richer stinginess.

Sure, it is a weird discontinuity. But this is not unseen in the game, e.g Upgrade often prefers Estates over Coppers.
I don' think that the delta between 1D and 2 Coffers is so tiny such that you always want to pass junk.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 19, 2019, 05:24:31 pm

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2019, 05:15:33 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 19, 2019, 05:07:24 pm

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2019, 04:50:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iLuRr2b.png)

A kind of mini-Embassy with the passing mechanism from Masquerade. But unlike Masquerade you don't always want to pass the worst card (to be fair this isn't always the case with Masquerade either).
The wordiness and slow execution are obvious downsides.

It seems to me that you'd nearly always just want to pass junk. Trashing a junk card is well worth 1 Debt. And trashing an expensive card is pretty bad. Oh, and at the beginning, the worst cards in your deck are the most expensive ones (Estates or Shelters) which will create rich-get-richer stinginess.

Sure, it is a weird discontinuity. But this is not unseen in the game, e.g Upgrade often prefers Estates over Coppers.
I don' think that the delta between 1D and 2 Coffers is so tiny such that you always want to pass junk.

You're missing my point.

Alice plays swamp tower. She and Bob reveal Estates. Carol happened to draw 5 Coppers and so must reveal a Copper. She gets slapped with 1 Debt and gets one of her early payload cards replaced by a dead card. Alice and Bob waltz away with the highest-card reward and one of them gets rid of a dead card to boot. Carol just got screwed over big time, all because of shuffle luck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on August 19, 2019, 05:25:13 pm

Sounds like Dominion though

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 19, 2019, 05:28:14 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 19, 2019, 05:24:31 pm

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2019, 05:15:33 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 19, 2019, 05:07:24 pm

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2019, 04:50:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iLuRr2b.png)

A kind of mini-Embassy with the passing mechanism from Masquerade. But unlike Masquerade you don't always want to pass the worst card (to be fair this isn't always the case with Masquerade either).
The wordiness and slow execution are obvious downsides.

It seems to me that you'd nearly always just want to pass junk. Trashing a junk card is well worth 1 Debt. And trashing an expensive card is pretty bad. Oh, and at the beginning, the worst cards in your deck are the most expensive ones (Estates or Shelters) which will create rich-get-richer stinginess.

Sure, it is a weird discontinuity. But this is not unseen in the game, e.g Upgrade often prefers Estates over Coppers.
I don' think that the delta between 1D and 2 Coffers is so tiny such that you always want to pass junk.

You're missing my point.

Alice plays swamp tower. She and Bob reveal Estates. Carol happened to draw 5 Coppers and so must reveal a Copper. She gets slapped with 1 Debt and gets one of her early payload cards replaced by a dead card. Alice and Bob waltz away with the highest-card reward and one of them gets rid of a dead card to boot. Carol just got screwed over big time, all because of shuffle luck.

Sure. But when Bob plays his Swamp Tower, Carol can get rid of her Estate and cash it in for 2 Coffers.
Like with Masquerade, it is a to and fro.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 19, 2019, 05:33:11 pm

unlike a masquerade, since the cards are passed and (end up in discard pile when passed?) i think you can debt-lock another player if they only have, say, 5 treasures in their deck and happen to have them all in their hand when you get your Throne Room/KC/Swamp Tower combo.

I think (and maybe im wrong, empires is one of the sets ive played/liked the least) most if not all canon sources of debt are voluntarily entered by the debtor-player. Maybe revise to the -$1 token?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 19, 2019, 05:38:04 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 19, 2019, 05:33:11 pm

unlike a masquerade, since the cards are passed and (end up in discard pile when passed?)

That's not how passing works in Dominion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 19, 2019, 05:38:58 pm

might want to specify that since its only on one other card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 19, 2019, 05:40:55 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 19, 2019, 05:38:58 pm

might want to specify that since its only on one other card.

In Dominion cards do not repeat stuff that is in the rulebooks for obvious reasons.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 07:30:54 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 03:09:53 pm

Here's a simple card inspired by some of the rotating cards in Agricola. (NOTE: it is an heirloom, not a supply pile)
(https://i.imgur.com/1MoLyAU.png) (https://i.imgur.com/tweHrGK.png)

I just made an heirloom without a kingdom pile to go with it. I figured the kingdom pile is unnecessary for the contest, since Gift is the card that gives the player interaction. That being said, I will make a kingdom card to match it if anordinaryman wants me to (maybe i'll give it some more player interaction).

I'd thought I'd go with a card that rotates along the decks. You get a little bonus when you pass it along (i did that or else everyone would be passing them along and it would cancel itself out). You can keep it; of course then it just plays like a copper. This is obviously going to affect the openings a little bit like baker.

1) Your opponent does not gain the card and therefore cannot react (for example with a trader)

2) the card is priced at 0 intentionally. I wanted it to continue to rotate hands so I wanted to disincentivize trashing it. At 0 it doesn't work well for trash for benefit. it also can't be trashed with things that only trash copper (ducat, moneylender). And then, if you really want to get it out of your deck you could always play it as a silver (though it will likely come back).

Update: I have added Research here (this should take care of the heirloom problem and give more interactivity). Here are my comments:

You've worked very hard on your research; too bad everyone wants to steal it for themselves. It's a lab that can be stolen for a cost.

1) The choice of stealing goes clockwise from the current player. Once one player takes it, no other player can take it since it is no longer in play.

2) "Other players" refers to all the players who did not steal the card.

3) Because this is a card that rotates and everyone will end up benefiting from, the cost has to be low since why spend my money if everyone is going to get the benefit (also to prevent tfb). I've also added an interactive clause that allows all your opponents to gain one for free (when you gain your 2nd card). I might tweak this clause since it allows the pile to deplete fast in a 4p game.

4) This pairs thematically well with Gift. Gift is a card you give to your opponents, Research is a card you steal from your opponents.

I've updated my old post and quoting it here so people can comment.

Update: this is no longer my submission

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 08:59:29 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 07:30:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tweHrGK.png)

Research is already an existing card:

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/36/Research.jpg/200px-Research.jpg)

And even if it wasn't, it doesn't really make much sense thematically for Research's Heirloom to be a Gift.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 09:04:24 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 08:59:29 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 07:30:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tweHrGK.png)

Research is already an existing card:

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/36/Research.jpg/200px-Research.jpg)

And even if it wasn't, it doesn't really make much sense thematically for Research's Heirloom to be a Gift.

Oops. Thought I remembered there being a research. I'll change it later.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 19, 2019, 11:08:37 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 03:09:53 pm

Here's a simple card inspired by some of the rotating cards in Agricola. (NOTE: it is an heirloom, not a supply pile)
(https://i.imgur.com/1MoLyAU.png) (https://i.imgur.com/tweHrGK.png)

Why doesn't Research just say "the player to your left may..."?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 20, 2019, 09:21:44 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 19, 2019, 11:08:37 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 03:09:53 pm

Here's a simple card inspired by some of the rotating cards in Agricola. (NOTE: it is an heirloom, not a supply pile)
(https://i.imgur.com/1MoLyAU.png) (https://i.imgur.com/tweHrGK.png)

Why doesn't Research just say "the player to your left may..."?

I would guess it's because if they don't, the next player may then choose to.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 20, 2019, 09:29:39 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 20, 2019, 09:21:44 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 19, 2019, 11:08:37 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 19, 2019, 03:09:53 pm

Here's a simple card inspired by some of the rotating cards in Agricola. (NOTE: it is an heirloom, not a supply pile)
(https://i.imgur.com/1MoLyAU.png) (https://i.imgur.com/tweHrGK.png)

Why doesn't Research just say "the player to your left may..."?

I would guess it's because if they don't, the next player may then choose to.

Exactly. That way if there's one player who's not taking any, it doesn't give an unfair advantage to the player to his right.

Title: Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
Post by: faust on August 20, 2019, 10:34:40 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/aikBPXm.png)

The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.

I love this idea (I had a similar one before looking at the thread), but it is not fun that you could use this to remove a Moat from your opponent's hand and then attack.

Title: Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
Post by: Gubump on August 20, 2019, 10:48:28 am

Quote from: faust on August 20, 2019, 10:34:40 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/aikBPXm.png)

The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.

I love this idea (I had a similar one before looking at the thread), but it is not fun that you could use this to remove a Moat from your opponent's hand and then attack.

That's actually never even crossed my mind. Do you have any ideas of how to fix that?

Title: Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
Post by: spineflu on August 20, 2019, 10:51:53 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 20, 2019, 10:48:28 am

Quote from: faust on August 20, 2019, 10:34:40 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/aikBPXm.png)

The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.

I love this idea (I had a similar one before looking at the thread), but it is not fun that you could use this to remove a Moat from your opponent's hand and then attack.

That's actually never even crossed my mind. Do you have any ideas of how to fix that?

"The set aside card is still considered part of your opponent's hand"?

or "play a copy of that card from the supply, leaving it there" which narrows delegate's potential use cases to be not-prizes/travellers/knights/etc and occasionally failing on split piles?

or let it be a weird narrow use case feature, rather than a bug?

Title: Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
Post by: faust on August 20, 2019, 10:57:48 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 20, 2019, 10:48:28 am

That's actually never even crossed my mind. Do you have any ideas of how to fix that?

Well, you could restrict to non-Reactions, or make it an Attack itself. Both are less than ideal solutions. Maybe instead of setting aside, you could just have them flip it upside down, Necromancer-style?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 20, 2019, 10:59:06 am

(https://i.imgur.com/jqeg1sX.jpg)

Quote

Exhibition
$2 - Night/Duration

Set aside an non-Duration Action you have in play. Until your next turn, when another player gains or plays a copy of it, they get +$1. At the start of your next turn, play it.
-
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on August 20, 2019, 02:19:42 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 19, 2019, 11:56:41 am

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE

My contribution:

(https://starback.se/static/games/Polymath.png)

Polymath
Action, $3
The player to your left selects a non-Duration Action card from the Supply that you haven't played this turn. Play that, leaving it there.

It uses the same mechanics as Captain for playing a card from the supply. On most boards there are action cards you probably are not interested in playing, like a Ruins or something that doesn't work that well from the supply, like Royal Carriage (just gives a new action). But by playing several of these, of first playing the cheap cards yourself you can get the effects of the Good Cards for a cheaper price (although maybe not the ones you like).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 20, 2019, 04:25:06 pm

Fixed Delegate by changing the return timing to at the end of resolving Delegate. It removes the "limiting its power in the late game" factor, but it still prevents the Overlord/BoM infinite loop, which is the main reason for the set-aside clause anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 20, 2019, 09:34:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3tyOwHx.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 21, 2019, 12:00:09 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 20, 2019, 09:34:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3tyOwHx.png)

Very interesting. Though you want semicolons instead of commas.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 21, 2019, 12:01:17 am

A weird idea off the top of my head. Not sure how well this would work, also really not sure about the theme.
(https://i.imgur.com/fahKQ8O.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on August 21, 2019, 05:47:20 am

(https://i.imgur.com/MMNWE4n.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 21, 2019, 06:07:45 am

Quote from: hypercube on August 21, 2019, 05:47:20 am

(https://i.imgur.com/MMNWE4n.png)

Seems interesting but potentially broken. Also not sure about the wording "as many cards as you did" - removing a -1 card token counts as drawing in some contexts, does it here? You could just say "you may draw 3 cards, if you did, each other player draws 3 cards".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on August 21, 2019, 06:13:55 am

Quote from: faust on August 21, 2019, 06:07:45 am

Seems interesting but potentially broken. Also not sure about the wording "as many cards as you did" - removing a -1 card token counts as drawing in some contexts, does it here? You could just say "you may draw 3 cards, if you did, each other player draws 3 cards".

"Interesting but potentially broken" is basically my goal in designing cards ;D. I think costing $3 and not giving +Action or net +Buy should be enough to make loops difficult though.

"As many cards as you did" was intended so that if you draw deck, buy a card, then want to draw it with Alliance you can do that without drawing your opponents 3 cards. Possibly there's a better wording. I always thought of removing the -1 card token as something that happens in response to an instruction to draw, not as draw itself, although I don't think there's anything in the official cards which would make that distinction important.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 21, 2019, 07:55:04 am

Quote from: hypercube on August 21, 2019, 06:13:55 am

Quote from: faust on August 21, 2019, 06:07:45 am

Seems interesting but potentially broken. Also not sure about the wording "as many cards as you did" - removing a -1 card token counts as drawing in some contexts, does it here? You could just say "you may draw 3 cards, if you did, each other player draws 3 cards".

"Interesting but potentially broken" is basically my goal in designing cards ;D. I think costing $3 and not giving +Action or net +Buy should be enough to make loops difficult though.

"As many cards as you did" was intended so that if you draw deck, buy a card, then want to draw it with Alliance you can do that without drawing your opponents 3 cards. Possibly there's a better wording. I always thought of removing the -1 card token as something that happens in response to an instruction to draw, not as draw itself, although I don't think there's anything in the official cards which would make that distinction important.

The craziness could be limited with a"once per turn", but if you want it in, that's of course fine too. If you want to make the drawing clearer, you could say "name a number between 0 and 3. Each player draws that many cards." Maybe the current wording is fine though and I'm just overthinking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 21, 2019, 09:47:29 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 21, 2019, 12:01:17 am

A weird idea off the top of my head. Not sure how well this would work, also really not sure about the theme.
(https://i.imgur.com/fahKQ8O.png)

Would you be open to a couple tweaks?
Mostly with the Ale token - have placement of that happen when you gain a Bartender. That way you can:

• hold back on going in on these until someone has committed to a strategy, thereby ensuring you'll get use out of them
• move your Ale token if someone pivots strategies, to make your bartenders not wastes of buys
• cut down to one horizontal line on the card

Could also make the discard trigger "gains or trashes", which may help them see more play.
Regardless, I like it. Lets you play some headgames.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 20, 2019, 09:34:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3tyOwHx.png)

can i choose the same choice twice (and let everyone else load up on villagers/coffers)?

also I'm changing my submission to Executioner:

Quote from: spineflu on August 19, 2019, 02:37:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/lkXkhug.png)

Quote

Executioner • Action • $5
The player to your left chooses one of the following for you to do:
Play an action card from your hand twice; or
+1 Buy, Play a treasure card from your hand three times; or
Gain a card costing up to $4 and if it is an Action or Treasure, play it immediately.

Bluffing minigame. Do you have a solid treasure? how about action? Or is there something in supply that'd be helpful?
Picked the name because it can do what thrones/crowns do (do a thing twice) but it does so at the direction of an outside power. Sort of a reverse-possession.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on August 21, 2019, 10:20:47 am

Sponsor
cost $3 - Action
+$2
Each other player reveals a Treasure from their hand (or reveals they can't). You may gain a copy of that card. If you do, they do so, too.

Title: Re: Contest #41 - Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 21, 2019, 11:02:42 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 19, 2019, 02:37:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/P6hcyas.png)

Quote

Executioner • Action • $5
The player to your left chooses one of the following for you to do:
Play an action card from your hand twice; or
Play a treasure card from your hand twice; or
Gain a card costing up to $4 and if it is an Action or Treasure, play it immediately.

This is a cool idea, except for the second option. At best, ignoring Platinum, Fortune and $5 Treasures which are situationally better than Gold, this is a terminal Gold for $5 which is not impressive. And this is conditional upon you actually having a Gold in your hand.
So I'd cut the second option. It is still weakish as the opponent will always pick the Crown option early in the game and the Summon option late in the game.

Ballroom from the Season set is similar to this idea but better implemented as you always get the Summon early and the Throne Room later.

Title: Re: Contest #41 - Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 21, 2019, 12:48:31 pm

Quote from: segura on August 21, 2019, 11:02:42 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 19, 2019, 02:37:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/lkXkhug.png)

Quote

Executioner • Action • $5
The player to your left chooses one of the following for you to do:
Play an action card from your hand twice; or
+1 Buy, Play a treasure card from your hand three times; or
Gain a card costing up to $4 and if it is an Action or Treasure, play it immediately.

This is a cool idea, except for the second option. At best, ignoring Platinum, Fortune and $5 Treasures which are situationally better than Gold, this is a terminal Gold for $5 which is not impressive. And this is conditional upon you actually having a Gold in your hand.
So I'd cut the second option. It is still weakish as the opponent will always pick the Crown option early in the game and the Summon option late in the game.

Ballroom from the Season set is similar to this idea but better implemented as you always get the Summon early and the Throne Room later.

Would changing the second option to be "+1 Action, Play a treasure card from your hand twice" be sufficient? I'd considered the whole thing as a nonterminal (bumped the cost wayyyy up to compensate) but I kind of like having individual options be non-t~.

update: changed it to +1 Buy, Play a treasure card from your hand three times. Thank you for pointing that out.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 21, 2019, 01:05:24 pm

bartender - love the idea but I have suggestions. I suggest moving the token when it's bought instead of at start of the game. I also suggest making a card you want multiples of. +$3 +Buy is a nice one-of but not much more than that.

alliance - seems like it's really good to prevent dud turns but I don't see much use beyond that. The benefit your opponent gets is better than what you get so it's not something you can buy just for fun.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 21, 2019, 01:31:19 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 19, 2019, 11:56:41 am

Thank you so much! I really appreciated this contest, it made me think a lot about Dominion and balance and game-design. I hope this next contest can inspire people as yours inspired me.

We're going to take aim at one of the more common complaints of Dominion:

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE
Design a card or card-shaped thing that has non-attack player interaction baked into the mechanics of the card/card-shaped thing. I'd prefer original ideas of player interaction, so simply making a new artifact isn't likely to win this contest, but who knows, maybe if the interaction is interesting enough, it could win!

One of my favorite card concepts is Contraband. Lovely player interaction with non-obvious choices for what to limit what your opponent can buy. Can they afford a province this turn? What action card do they really need? Contraband pushes Dominion towards games being different depending on who is playing, rather than just what the Kingdom is. Contraband is too weak to often be useful, but the concept itself is tight. Some other cards with interesting interactions include Council Room, Lurker, Embargo, and Advisor/Envoy. Yes, Embargo would count for this contest.

I really don't want to mess up anybody's entries again. 24 hours before I start judging, I will make a post that has all the current entries. If I have made any mistakes, you will have 24 hours to reply to let me know my mistake (or make new submissions / submit new post updates to old ones). Once I make that post, I will not read anything before that post, so editing past posts will not help.

Would a Forager type card that cares about what's in the trash count? Since the trash is available to all.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #41: non-Attack interaction
Post by: Aquila on August 21, 2019, 04:53:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tQYkZRA.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/UytHiV3.jpg)

Right now I'm thinking of very few ideas that any play group of any size can use. Maybe I set myself too difficult a challenge here. So here's a card I've posted on the forum already but not in this exact form (terminal at $3), getting supply pile blocking to work using a State. You gain a card, and its being trashed takes priority over anything else that affects where it goes (Royal Seal, Watchtower, Nights gained to hand).
No State does this yet but if Targeted isn't a State what is it?

Edit: Targeted just trashes gains, removing returns to the pile or exchanges from it as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #41: non-Attack interaction
Post by: GendoIkari on August 21, 2019, 04:59:58 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 21, 2019, 04:53:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tQYkZRA.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/LM58JTA.jpg)

Right now I'm thinking of very few ideas that any play group of any size can use. Maybe I set myself too difficult a challenge here. So here's a card I've posted on the forum already but not in this exact form (terminal at $3), getting supply pile blocking to work using a State. No State does this yet but if Targeted isn't a State what is it? Exchanged cards (vampire) would leave the pile and be trashed, and returned cards (encampment) enter it and would be trashed. Maybe too much wonkiness but I'm trying for simple cleanness.
And I'll say it again, if you want a fresh idea I will comply.

Considering how rare it is for a card to enter or leave a supply pile other then when that card is gained; it seems like it would make more sense just to have it be when -gain.

This feels too much like a less-fun version of Embargo.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 21, 2019, 06:49:25 pm

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE SUBMISSION

(https://i.imgur.com/LyCotvt.jpg)

Well, this may automatically get dinked because its interactive part is conditional on having a trasher in the Kingdom. I think trashers are common enough though that this should rarely be an issue.

Trashing is such a powerful tool in Dominion that it is rarely passed up. I for one would like to see more cards that reward players for skipping trashing for a few turns. Shaman is my shot at such a card. Akin to Forager, the interactive part comes from forcing players to think a little harder about what cards they put in the trash. This plays a bit different with 3+ player games, but that's just how some cards are.

A few things to clarify:
(1) If neither the Treasure or Victory types have the most cards in the trash, as is the case when the games starts and when there is a tie, Shaman does not trash and does not give +$3 nor +3VP.
(2) If a non-Treasure or non-Victory type like Action has the most in the trash, Shaman does not trash and does not give +$3 nor 3VP.
(3) The type check happens before Shaman trashes, so if when played there are 3 Treasures in the trash and 2 Actions, Shaman would trash and give +$3. There would then be a tie between Treasures and Actions, so the next Shaman played would not trash.

Thanks for looking! 8)

Quote from: Kudasai

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
If the type with the most cards in the trash is:
Treasure, trash this for +$3;
Victory, trash this for +2VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 21, 2019, 09:00:16 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 21, 2019, 09:47:29 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 20, 2019, 09:34:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3tyOwHx.png)

can i choose the same choice twice (and let everyone else load up on villagers/coffers)?

No. I was hoping I wouldn't have to explicitly spell that out because the wording would be messy.

Title: Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
Post by: Kudasai on August 22, 2019, 01:32:54 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 20, 2019, 10:48:28 am

Quote from: faust on August 20, 2019, 10:34:40 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/aikBPXm.png)

The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.

I love this idea (I had a similar one before looking at the thread), but it is not fun that you could use this to remove a Moat from your opponent's hand and then attack.

That's actually never even crossed my mind. Do you have any ideas of how to fix that?

Buy 2 Moats? I actually like this type of interactivity. It's what makes Dominion interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 22, 2019, 02:06:52 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 21, 2019, 04:59:58 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 21, 2019, 04:53:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tQYkZRA.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/LM58JTA.jpg)

Right now I'm thinking of very few ideas that any play group of any size can use. Maybe I set myself too difficult a challenge here. So here's a card I've posted on the forum already but not in this exact form (terminal at $3), getting supply pile blocking to work using a State. No State does this yet but if Targeted isn't a State what is it? Exchanged cards (vampire) would leave the pile and be trashed, and returned cards (encampment) enter it and would be trashed. Maybe too much wonkiness but I'm trying for simple cleanness.
And I'll say it again, if you want a fresh idea I will comply.

Considering how rare it is for a card to enter or leave a supply pile other then when that card is gained; it seems like it would make more sense just to have it be when -gain.

This feels too much like a less-fun version of Embargo.

There is a significant mechanical difference between Curse tokens that stack and make the buying of cards progressively worse and a singular block token which moves among piles.
I like the new, terminal version of Ambush. With the old one, the blocking was more of an en passant thingy (hey, I want a non-terminal Silver so it is kind of neat that it comes with a little extra) whereas the terminal really puts it into the spotlight. Now I guess it leads to much "tighter" play in non-mirrors, especially with Alt-VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 22, 2019, 09:01:06 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 21, 2019, 09:00:16 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 21, 2019, 09:47:29 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 20, 2019, 09:34:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3tyOwHx.png)

can i choose the same choice twice (and let everyone else load up on villagers/coffers)?

No. I was hoping I wouldn't have to explicitly spell that out because the wording would be messy.

No worse than Pawn, surely? "Your choices must be different."

Title: Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
Post by: GendoIkari on August 22, 2019, 09:23:51 am

Quote from: Kudasai on August 22, 2019, 01:32:54 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 20, 2019, 10:48:28 am

Quote from: faust on August 20, 2019, 10:34:40 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/aikBPXm.png)

The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.

I love this idea (I had a similar one before looking at the thread), but it is not fun that you could use this to remove a Moat from your opponent's hand and then attack.

That's actually never even crossed my mind. Do you have any ideas of how to fix that?

Buy 2 Moats? I actually like this type of interactivity. It's what makes Dominion interesting.

Yeah, I don't see any issue at all with the ability to set-aside a Moat and then attack. It's already just luck whether you have Moat in hand when your opponent plays an attack or not. And if you pull off this combo, it means you used your Delegate as a Moat; which is bad.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 22, 2019, 12:28:56 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on August 21, 2019, 01:31:19 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 19, 2019, 11:56:41 am

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE
Design a card or card-shaped thing that has non-attack player interaction baked into the mechanics of the card/card-shaped thing.
[...]

Would a Forager type card that cares about what's in the trash count? Since the trash is available to all.

Stuff that cares about the trash in general, could count!
Forager would count, as would City (tracking a shared resource). However, both are pretty light on interaction and I don't think those cards would convince someone that Dominion isn't solitaire. Lurker is a better implementation of more direct interactivity with the trash, since it forces you to immediately think when you're playing the card, is it worth trashing something if they get it? Can I trash something they don't want? Messenger also puts some sort of similar interactivity in there -- what card do I want that my opponent does not. Can I adjust my strategy to differ from theirs so that I come ahead? That kind of thinking is clearly not solitaire!

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 21, 2019, 09:00:16 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 21, 2019, 09:47:29 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 20, 2019, 09:34:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3tyOwHx.png)

can i choose the same choice twice (and let everyone else load up on villagers/coffers)?

No. I was hoping I wouldn't have to explicitly spell that out because the wording would be messy.

If I read the card as written, right now I would be able to choose the same choice twice. So, reword the card if you want to limit that.

Quote from: Aquila on August 21, 2019, 04:53:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tQYkZRA.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/LM58JTA.jpg)

Right now I'm thinking of very few ideas that any play group of any size can use. Maybe I set myself too difficult a challenge here. So here's a card I've posted on the forum already but not in this exact form (terminal at $3), getting supply pile blocking to work using a State. No State does this yet but if Targeted isn't a State what is it? Exchanged cards (vampire) would leave the pile and be trashed, and returned cards (encampment) enter it and would be trashed. Maybe too much wonkiness but I'm trying for simple cleanness.
And I'll say it again, if you want a fresh idea I will comply.

I don't need fresh ideas. As long as it hasn't won or been runner up in a contest yet.

This is a new event (by event I mean like on-buy is an event, on-gain is an event, on-trash etc), concerning when cards enter or leave the pile. Is this a separate event that occurs at a particular time? If so, what is its precedence with other events (return this to the supply event, on-gain event, on-buy event)? If you meant this to be a shortcut for cards that are gained from this pile or returned to this pile, I suggest using those words because those are the words that are already used in Dominion and then the normal event precedence applies (you get to choose which effect plays first when an event triggers two effects)

*meta note*: I am trying to ask questions for cards that have ambiguous effects this time around rather than just waiting for my final feedback. I'm not commenting on quality of cards into judgement though, just asking questions to clarify the card's intent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 22, 2019, 01:53:11 pm

Quote from: pst on August 20, 2019, 02:19:42 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 19, 2019, 11:56:41 am

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE

My contribution:

(https://starback.se/static/games/Polymath.png)

Polymath
Action, $3
The player to your left selects a non-Duration Action card from the Supply that you haven't played this turn. Play that, leaving it there.

It uses the same mechanics as Captain for playing a card from the supply. On most boards there are action cards you probably are not interested in playing, like a Ruins or something that doesn't work that well from the supply, like Royal Carriage (just gives a new action). But by playing several of these, of first playing the cheap cards yourself you can get the effects of the Good Cards for a cheaper price (although maybe not the ones you like).

Seems very situational, but if played correctly could lead to amazing value for a $3 cost. Recognizing what boards this works on doesn't seem trivial, so abusing shouldn't be easy. Really nice looking card!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 22, 2019, 02:53:15 pm

Quote from: pst on August 20, 2019, 02:19:42 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 19, 2019, 11:56:41 am

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE

My contribution:

(https://starback.se/static/games/Polymath.png)

Polymath
Action, $3
The player to your left selects a non-Duration Action card from the Supply that you haven't played this turn. Play that, leaving it there.

It uses the same mechanics as Captain for playing a card from the supply. On most boards there are action cards you probably are not interested in playing, like a Ruins or something that doesn't work that well from the supply, like Royal Carriage (just gives a new action). But by playing several of these, of first playing the cheap cards yourself you can get the effects of the Good Cards for a cheaper price (although maybe not the ones you like).

Tracking might be an issue. Necromancer has the cards turn over so that you can tell which ones have already been played this turn; and that generally has a much smaller card pool to remember from than this. So you might need a similar turn upside down wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on August 22, 2019, 04:09:55 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 22, 2019, 02:53:15 pm

Quote from: pst on August 20, 2019, 02:19:42 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 19, 2019, 11:56:41 am

CHALLENGE #41 - DOMINION IS NOT SOLITAIRE

My contribution:

(https://starback.se/static/games/Polymath.png)

Polymath
Action, $3
The player to your left selects a non-Duration Action card from the Supply that you haven't played this turn. Play that, leaving it there.

It uses the same mechanics as Captain for playing a card from the supply. On most boards there are action cards you probably are not interested in playing, like a Ruins or something that doesn't work that well from the supply, like Royal Carriage (just gives a new action). But by playing several of these, of first playing the cheap cards yourself you can get the effects of the Good Cards for a cheaper price (although maybe not the ones you like).

Tracking might be an issue. Necromancer has the cards turn over so that you can tell which ones have already been played this turn; and that generally has a much smaller card pool to remember from than this. So you might need a similar turn upside down wording.

When I've tried it tracking was not a big problem.  We would remember what the previous Polymaths had done, and when there were many, which options were not chosen last time. We had to watch out for other played cards that had left the play area though. But all in all I don't think it was a bigger problem than remembering what options there are for Smuggler. I bit more complicated, but closer in time.

Title: Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
Post by: Gubump on August 22, 2019, 04:24:37 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 22, 2019, 09:23:51 am

Quote from: Kudasai on August 22, 2019, 01:32:54 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 20, 2019, 10:48:28 am

Quote from: faust on August 20, 2019, 10:34:40 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/aikBPXm.png)

The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.

I love this idea (I had a similar one before looking at the thread), but it is not fun that you could use this to remove a Moat from your opponent's hand and then attack.

That's actually never even crossed my mind. Do you have any ideas of how to fix that?

Buy 2 Moats? I actually like this type of interactivity. It's what makes Dominion interesting.

Yeah, I don't see any issue at all with the ability to set-aside a Moat and then attack. It's already just luck whether you have Moat in hand when your opponent plays an attack or not. And if you pull off this combo, it means you used your Delegate as a Moat; which is bad.

The reason I take issue with it is because it can be a targeted attack. If multiple opponents reveal Moats, then which Moat you chose would become political.

Title: Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
Post by: spineflu on August 22, 2019, 04:55:12 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 22, 2019, 04:24:37 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 22, 2019, 09:23:51 am

Quote from: Kudasai on August 22, 2019, 01:32:54 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 20, 2019, 10:48:28 am

Quote from: faust on August 20, 2019, 10:34:40 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/aikBPXm.png)

The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.

I love this idea (I had a similar one before looking at the thread), but it is not fun that you could use this to remove a Moat from your opponent's hand and then attack.

That's actually never even crossed my mind. Do you have any ideas of how to fix that?

Buy 2 Moats? I actually like this type of interactivity. It's what makes Dominion interesting.

Yeah, I don't see any issue at all with the ability to set-aside a Moat and then attack. It's already just luck whether you have Moat in hand when your opponent plays an attack or not. And if you pull off this combo, it means you used your Delegate as a Moat; which is bad.

The reason I take issue with it is because it can be a targeted attack. If multiple opponents reveal Moats, then which Moat you chose would become political.

You could have all cards with that name get set aside

Title: Re: Contest #41: Non-Attack Interaction
Post by: Gubump on August 22, 2019, 05:09:06 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 22, 2019, 04:55:12 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 22, 2019, 04:24:37 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 22, 2019, 09:23:51 am

Quote from: Kudasai on August 22, 2019, 01:32:54 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 20, 2019, 10:48:28 am

Quote from: faust on August 20, 2019, 10:34:40 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/aikBPXm.png)

The set aside clause is to limit its power in the late game and prevent infinite an infinite loop with Band of Misfits.

I love this idea (I had a similar one before looking at the thread), but it is not fun that you could use this to remove a Moat from your opponent's hand and then attack.

That's actually never even crossed my mind. Do you have any ideas of how to fix that?

Buy 2 Moats? I actually like this type of interactivity. It's what makes Dominion interesting.

Yeah, I don't see any issue at all with the ability to set-aside a Moat and then attack. It's already just luck whether you have Moat in hand when your opponent plays an attack or not. And if you pull off this combo, it means you used your Delegate as a Moat; which is bad.

The reason I take issue with it is because it can be a targeted attack. If multiple opponents reveal Moats, then which Moat you chose would become political.

You could have all cards with that name get set aside

It would be too weak then.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on August 22, 2019, 05:59:28 pm

Delegate
3$ Action
Each other player reveals her hand, then conceals an Action card from her hand for each corresponding copy you have in play.
Return this to your hand then replay this as if it were another non-Delegate Action card that is visible this way, making this that card until it leaves play.
If you didn't, +2 cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on August 22, 2019, 06:04:24 pm

I was looking for a community pile and I found it: The everywhere loved Trash pile.

Trashing Copper and Estates just to get them back later? No problem. Looking for a combination with Lurker, and Remodellers or TfB? You got it. Here comes Antiquarian. It requires Potion for obvious reasons.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d5f0f31ec52be8c71347085/57a3181569d5231e852ba1ba6e9d5991/Antiquarian.png)

Antiquarian
Type: Event
Cost: $2P
Once per turn:
+1 Buy.
Choose one:
Trash up to two cards from your hand,
or gain up to two cards from the trash, setting them aside and put them into your hand at the start of your next turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 22, 2019, 06:39:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/aFWEgCI.png)

Climber
Action/Duration - $3
Until your next turn, at the start of every player's buy phase, if another player has more cards in hand than you, draw until you have the same number of cards in hand.
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card.

Clarifications: "Every player" means it includes your own buy phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 22, 2019, 08:07:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7nNiGFP.png)

Removed ambiguity. Having "the choices must be different" between the other two turned out to be less awkward than I thought.

I'm starting to think this should only be $1. It looks pretty weak next to Pawn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 22, 2019, 08:20:40 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 21, 2019, 09:47:29 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 21, 2019, 12:01:17 am

A weird idea off the top of my head. Not sure how well this would work, also really not sure about the theme.
(https://i.imgur.com/fahKQ8O.png)

Would you be open to a couple tweaks?

Yes always. I'll post 2.0 shortly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 22, 2019, 08:35:25 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rVt65hj.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 23, 2019, 04:54:16 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 22, 2019, 12:28:56 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 21, 2019, 04:53:10 pm

...

I don't need fresh ideas. As long as it hasn't won or been runner up in a contest yet.

This is a new event (by event I mean like on-buy is an event, on-gain is an event, on-trash etc), concerning when cards enter or leave the pile. Is this a separate event that occurs at a particular time? If so, what is its precedence with other events (return this to the supply event, on-gain event, on-buy event)? If you meant this to be a shortcut for cards that are gained from this pile or returned to this pile, I suggest using those words because those are the words that are already used in Dominion and then the normal event precedence applies (you get to choose which effect plays first when an event triggers two effects)

*meta note*: I am trying to ask questions for cards that have ambiguous effects this time around rather than just waiting for my final feedback. I'm not commenting on quality of cards into judgement though, just asking questions to clarify the card's intent.

(https://i.imgur.com/UytHiV3.jpg)
Taking Gendo's comment too. I suppose putting Targeted on Vampire would stink, and Ambassador needs to fill up its piles, so it's bad design. The interaction with Encampments was my only real justification. So now it's gains only; 'immediately' means this trash takes priority over all other effects that change where a card is gained to. Doesn't feel right to be able to bypass it like this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 23, 2019, 08:51:00 am

@Aquila, Just to be clear, Targeted is one copy per game (like Lost In The Woods), as opposed to Several Copies (like Miserable/Twice Miserable/Deluded/Envious), right?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 23, 2019, 11:42:53 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 23, 2019, 08:51:00 am

@Aquila, Just to be clear, Targeted is one copy per game (like Lost In The Woods), as opposed to Several Copies (like Miserable/Twice Miserable/Deluded/Envious), right?

Yes, sorry I've been rather vague. You move one Targeted around the non-Victory Supply piles with every gain, play and trash of Ambush. Nobody, including yourself, can gain cards from a targeted pile until it's moved somewhere else. You don't have to move it to a different pile every time, you can choose the same one.
And if you target the Ambush pile itself...the next gained Ambush would be immediately trashed, as it's the top priority when-gain effect, then Targeted moved? And a when-buy effect would happen first then the when-gain trash, because you buy a card then gain it? Hope that's not wrong, that's how I've been playing it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 23, 2019, 04:28:11 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 22, 2019, 08:07:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7nNiGFP.png)

Removed ambiguity. Having "the choices must be different" between the other two turned out to be less awkward than I thought.

I'm starting to think this should only be $1. It looks pretty weak next to Pawn.

Really digging the design aspect. Offers a lot of interactivity without bogging down the games by having your opponent constantly making choices during your turn.

Aside from that though, this card is quite weak and I don't believe changing the cost from $2 to $1 will make it any better. It's best early use is for +1 Coffers and +1 Villager. Hard to say, but this is probably about a $3 cost value. Pricing it lower at $2 or $1 with a penalty of giving your opponents +1VP doesn't seem to justify the price change.

I'd think about adding a non-conditional element for the player who played it. Adding +$1 allows the following combos:

+$1, +1 Coffers and +1VP (a better Monument) at the cost of giving your opponents +1 Villager.
+$1, +Coffers and +1 Villager (comparable to Patron) at the cost of giving your opponents +1VP.
+$1, +1 Villager, +1VP at the cost of giving your opponents +1 Coffers.

The on-play effects for the current player seem a bit more inline for how much you're helping your opponent. Anyways, cool card!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 23, 2019, 05:05:12 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on August 23, 2019, 04:28:11 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 22, 2019, 08:07:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7nNiGFP.png)

Removed ambiguity. Having "the choices must be different" between the other two turned out to be less awkward than I thought.

I'm starting to think this should only be $1. It looks pretty weak next to Pawn.

Really digging the design aspect. Offers a lot of interactivity without bogging down the games by having your opponent constantly making choices during your turn.

Aside from that though, this card is quite weak and I don't believe changing the cost from $2 to $1 will make it any better. It's best early use is for +1 Coffers and +1 Villager. Hard to say, but this is probably about a $3 cost value. Pricing it lower at $2 or $1 with a penalty of giving your opponents +1VP doesn't seem to justify the price change.

I'd think about adding a non-conditional element for the player who played it. Adding +$1 allows the following combos:

+$1, +1 Coffers and +1VP (a better Monument) at the cost of giving your opponents +1 Villager.
+$1, +Coffers and +1 Villager (comparable to Patron) at the cost of giving your opponents +1VP.
+$1, +1 Villager, +1VP at the cost of giving your opponents +1 Coffers.

The on-play effects for the current player seem a bit more inline for how much you're helping your opponent. Anyways, cool card!

Agreed. Perhaps the one situation I can think of where it's strong is in a board with so many extra actions floating around that Villagers just aren't helpful (Fishing Village, Recruiter); in which case using it for +1 Coffer +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} is kind of like a cheap Monument alternative.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 24, 2019, 12:11:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/a609pIx.png)

How about this? I added weak sifting as another option and now you choose three.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 24, 2019, 12:26:05 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 24, 2019, 12:11:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/a609pIx.png)

How about this? I added weak sifting as another option and now you choose three.

I think it's probably too strong now. +1 Card, +1 Villager, +1 Coffers, discard a card is probably _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} without the drawback, and giving +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} isn't a big enough drawback to lower that to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}; and it's strictly better than that because that's only one of the combinations!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on August 24, 2019, 02:32:26 pm

I think I have too many words, but I'm going to submit this anyway.
(https://i.imgur.com/6Ahz9S7.jpg)

Quote

Curio Shoppe
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1VP. Reveal the top card of the Curio deck. If it is a Curio, trash this. Regardless, each other player may bid once up to <18>. Choose one: +1VP per <3> in the high bid and high bidder takes the <> they bid and gains the card, or if no one bid, trash the card; or take the <> the high bidder bid and <1> more and gain the card.

---

Setup: Make a Curio deck out of 10 different Curio cards and 10 different unused Kingdom cards costing $5.

Curio Shoppe is a Black Market variant that offers the unique cards (including its own unique Curio cards) to all players through an auction. You either get to win the auction by <1>, or you get VP. The VP does make threshold values for other players at <2>, <5>, <8>, <11>, <14>, and <17>. I'm not sure if 1VP/<3> is the right ratio anyway. It gives you +2VP when another player takes <5>, and +3VP when another player takes <8>. Bidding more than that is probably a bad idea unless it's an important +Buy card (which 2 of the Curios provide, by the way).
The obvious problem is that auctions take time, so Curio Shoppe limits itself by both 1: Not providing economy in and of itself, making rushing it a bad idea and 2: Trashing itself 50% of the time through the Curio deck. Benefits other than $ (like +cards or trashing) run the risk of causing more game-slowing auctions, so Curio Shoppe gives VP instead (to go hand in hand with Empires mechanisms).
Find below the 10 Curios. There is 1 of each for the Curio deck (the wording is simply so you can have more Curios if you want without breaking the stats).
(https://i.imgur.com/gVaxYid.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/KYFIUm5.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/5nsaOEa.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/rZFZsBd.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/KoC04Mz.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/QoIrXo7.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/cSK2wsL.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/uQzGX4S.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/SLrTtUi.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/mKW742g.jpg)

Quote

Curious Armoire
Types: Victory, Curio
Cost: $0*
8VP

---

When you gain this, each other player may gain an Action and may gain a Treasure in either order.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Curious Book
Types: Action, Attack, Curio
Cost: $0*
Reveal your hand and discard 2 cards from it the player to your left chooses. If the total cost of the discarded cards is at least $5, each other player gains a Curse. Draw until you have 7 cards in hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Curious Cauldron
Types: Action, Curio
Cost: $0*
+2 Cards, +1 Action. You may trash a card from your hand. Each player (including you) may discard a card to trash a card from their hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Curious Chest
Types: Treasure, Curio
Cost: $0*
$4, +1 Buy. When you play this, each other player draws until they have 7 cards in hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Curious Doll
Types: Action, Victory, Curio
Cost: $0*
Gain a Gold. Each other player gains a Silver.

---

Worth 1VP for every 2 non-Copper Treasures in the deck of the player to your left (rounded down).
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Curious Figurine
Types: Action, Curio
Cost: $0*
+3 Cards, +1VP. Each other player may take <3> for +1VP.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Curious Hammer
Types: Action, Curio
Cost: $0*
+2 Actions. The player to your left chooses an Action in the Supply costing at least $5. You may gain a copy of it, putting it into your hand. If you don't, each other player gains a copy of it and you may gain a card costing up to $4.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Curious Mirror
Types: Action, Treasure, Curio
Cost: $0*
When you play this, each player (including you) reveals their hand. Play a Treasure in any player's hand, leaving it there. If it is your Action phase, +1 Action and you may play an Action in any player's hand instead.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Curious Plans
Types: Action, Curio
Cost: $0*
Reveal 3 cards from your hand. Trash one that the player to your left chooses and gain a card costing up to $3 more than it.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Curious Weapon
Types: Action, Attack, Curio
Cost: $0*
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a card at once. If no one discards a card costing at least $3, +$2.
(This is not in the Supply.)

EDIT:
Nerf: Curious Armoire's gains for other players are independently optional and in either order (from mandatory in fixed order)
Nerf: Curious Book draws to 7 (from 8)
Nerf: Curious Chest produces $4 (from $5) and has players draw to 7 (from draw 1)
Nerf: Curious Doll worth 1VP per 2 non-Copper Treasures in the deck of the player to your left (from 1VP per 1 non-Copper Treasure)
Buff: Curious Figurine draws 3 (from +$3), gives +1VP unconditionally (from +2VP conditionally), and gives other players the option to take <3> for +1VP (from take <4>)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 24, 2019, 03:10:16 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 24, 2019, 02:32:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0zFJV5G.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Rl7xSnt.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/5nsaOEa.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/XjaruYg.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/qImjNLc.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/YNaPgoP.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/cSK2wsL.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/uQzGX4S.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/SLrTtUi.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/mKW742g.jpg)

I don't think these are balanced with each other at all, assuming they're all supposed to be about the same strength. Chest and Cauldron are by far the best IMO, with Armoire up there as well if you aren't playing with Prosperity. On the other hand, Hammer is usually a worse version of University, and Figurine is easily the weakest of all the Curios.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 24, 2019, 05:35:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZzZwZx9.png)

I decided to go back to the original 3 options and tack on a +Action. I liked the Pawn-like sometimes-useful nature of the original, but the fact is that giving a bonus to your opponent is going to be a big demotivator for a card you don't really need that much. As an explicit, but weak, Village, the choice becomes more interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on August 24, 2019, 06:27:37 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 24, 2019, 03:10:16 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 24, 2019, 02:32:26 pm

...

I don't think [the Curios] are balanced with each other at all, assuming they're all supposed to be about the same strength. Chest and Cauldron are by far the best IMO, with Armoire up there as well if you aren't playing with Prosperity. On the other hand, Hammer is usually a worse version of University, and Figurine is easily the weakest of all the Curios.

I don't think the Curios need to be balanced with respect to each other because they are auctioned and not chosen, but I did want each to be a bit better than a $5 card (with the added considerations that there is only one of each so gaining them in multiples is not a concern). With 10 cards, I expect and even want that, a priori an actual Kingdom, some will be better than others simply because they are more generically useful.
Because players can't control when or if they will appear, they need to be good enough to gain on a dime. With that in mind: Curious Doll and Curious Figurine are probably the weakest of them, being expensive in terms of +actions and dependent on what the other players can do in response; Curious Armoire and Curious Hammer will be intensely Kingdom dependent, as the key Actions (and $5+ cost Actions) on the board will wildly change how much benefit they give; Curious Cauldron and Curious Chest will be the most generically useful as a super good tempo-trasher and a wild payload.

Quote

Curious Armoire
Types: Victory, Curio
Cost: $0*
8VP

---

When you gain this, each other player gains an Action and a Treasure.
(This is not in the Supply.)

I disagree about Curious Armoire in Colony\Platinum games. The 8VP it is worth matters less, and each other player gaining a free Platinum in addition to any Action is a big cost.

Quote

Curious Hammer
Types: Action, Curio
Cost: $0*
+2 Actions. The player to your left chooses an Action in the Supply costing at least $5. You may gain a copy of it, putting it into your hand. If you don't, each other player gains a copy of it and you may gain a card costing up to $4.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Curious Hammer might give the weakest $5+ cost Action on the board straight to your hand (emphasis added), or could just flood other players with it as you get a generic Workshop, so I don't think that University is even a fair comparison

Quote

Curious Figurine
Types: Action, Curio
Cost: $0*
+$3. Each other player may take <4> for +1VP. If anyone does, each player who didn't (including you) may take <4> for +1VP. If no one does, +2VP.
(This is not in the Supply.)

So the core idea of this one is being a bigger Monument, but other players can prevent the big Monument effect by taking debt. Would +4 Cards be more fun than a Monument thing (there is only 1 of them, so infinite Curious Figurine would only be a mild concern with Royal Carriage)? Do you suppose one of the following it would be more more compelling?

• +$3, +2VP. Each player (including you) may take <4> for +1VP.
• +$3. The player to your left chooses: Each other player takes <4>; or you get +2VP.
• +4 Cards, +2VP. Each player (including you) may take <4> for +1VP.
• +4 Cards. The player to your left chooses: Each other player takes <4>; or you get +2VP.

Quote

Curious Chest
Types: Treasure, Curio
Cost: $0*
$5, +1 Buy. When you play this, each other player draws a card.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Do you think the benefit for other players could be improved to make Curious Chest less obscene? Would +$4, +1 Buy be good enough with its current "Each other player draws a card" (I thought it would be too weak in comparison to Council Room, though maybe its exclusivity and typing counterbalances that)?

Thank you for your feedback!

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 22, 2019, 06:39:28 pm

Climber
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $3
Until your next turn, at the start of every player's buy phase, if another player has more cards in hand than you, draw until you have the same number of cards in hand. At the start of your next turn, +1 Card.

So, this will be mandatory on every board where you can increase your hand size, right? I mean, it has this terrifying feedback loop where Climbers continuously out-climb each other until every player just gets their deck in their hand every turn (which is fun thematically, but painfully centralizing). You can only combat it in a 2-player game (so two players can't feed each other in order to leave a third in the dust) by refusing to ever draw cards so that a bought Climber will be largely be a terminal "Now and at the start of your next turn: +1 Card."

Quote from: Kudasai on August 21, 2019, 06:49:25 pm

Quote

Shaman
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy
If the type with the most cards in the trash is... Treasure: Trash this for +$3; Victory: Trash this for +3VP.

Trashing is such a powerful tool in Dominion that it is rarely passed up. I for one would like to see more cards that reward players for skipping trashing for a few turns. Shaman is my shot at such a card. Akin to Forager, the interactive part comes from forcing players to think a little harder about what cards they put in the trash. This plays a bit different with 3+ player games, but that's just how some cards are.

I think that is a wild understatement. Players only have 3 Victory cards each, so I imagine a lot of games will be decided by whoever gets the +VP out of Shaman before forcing Treasures or Shaman to outnumber the Victory cards in the trash.

Quote from: King Leon on August 22, 2019, 06:04:24 pm

Antiquarian
Types: Event
Cost: $2P
Once per turn: +1 Buy. Choose one: Trash up to two cards from your hand; or gain up to two cards from the trash, setting them aside and put them into your hand at the start of your next turn.

Interaction is pretty limited on this card. It really acts more as a deterrent to putting good stuff in the trash. This will largely make trash-for-benefit tricks with Provinces wildly overpowered and impossible to do except when you can immediately Antiquarian them back into your deck. I think the inability to gain Provinces from the trash is an important design choice in Dominion.

Quote from: faust on August 20, 2019, 10:59:06 am

Exhibition
Types: Night, Duration
Cost: $2
Set aside an non-Duration Action you have in play. Until your next turn, when another player gains or plays a copy of it, they get +$1. At the start of your next turn, play it.

---

This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).

This is a nice Duration Throne Room. I hold concerns about multiplayer games having cards end up with multiple Exhibitions applied to them (or players being forced to lose by not getting to Exhibition what they want: A double-bind kind of thing). This also encourages players to mirror each other, so you can abuse any cards that get Exhibited (and that abuse is so much more important in multiplayer games because it can theoretically provide so much economy).

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 22, 2019, 08:35:25 pm

Bartender
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $3
+1 Buy, +$3.

---

When you gain this, put it on your Tavern mat, then you may move your Ale token to any Supply pile. When another player gains or trashes a card from the pile with your Ale token on it, you may discard this from your Tavern mat.

I think turn order issues will be huge with this. Often there is a clear opening strategy, and Player 1 can often abuse that in a way that the last player in turn order can't.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 24, 2019, 05:35:18 pm

Commune
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Action. Choose two: +1 Coffers, +1 Villager, or +1VP. Each other player gets the bonus you didn't choose.

The concept of this is interesting, but the unbounded +Coffers it can provide between turns I think will make the game oddly accelerated in multiplayer games, especially because players will buy this for the +Actions. Point being that if each player plays 2 Communes on their turn, I may end up being flooded with Coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 24, 2019, 06:58:43 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 24, 2019, 06:27:37 pm

Quote

Curious Armoire
Types: Victory, Curio
Cost: $0*
8VP

---

When you gain this, each other player gains an Action and a Treasure.
(This is not in the Supply.)

I disagree about Curious Armoire in Colony\Platinum games. The 8VP it is worth matters less, and each other player gaining a free Platinum in addition to any Action is a big cost.

That's why I said that Armoire is up there if you aren't playing Prosperity. You're arguing the point that I agree with. Although I did misread Armoire as giving players an Action OR a Treasure, so Armoire isn't that great even if you don't have Plat/Colonies.

If you want each to be "a bit better than a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} card," Doll is also too strong (Gain Gold, junk other players, and effectively +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}), as is Book. Here are all of the Curio's power levels in my opinion, and possible suggestions to fix them to just a bit over _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}:

Armoire: >_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
Book: ~_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}; Remove the Curse clause.
Cauldron: >_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}/_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)}; Drop the first trashing and make it into a Fugitive.
Chest: _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)}; Drop the +Buy and reduce _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} value to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. It would only compare poorly to Council Room if Council Room was non-terminal, which it isn't.
Doll: >_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)}; Doll is worth _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} even if it was a pure-victory. The fact that there's only one of them makes it even stronger. I don't know how to fix this one.
Figurine: <_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}; Just change it to +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}, each other player may take _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png)} for +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}. It makes it weaker when strong but stronger when weak.
Hammer: >_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} You've convinced me of this one.
Mirror: >_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
Plans: >_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
Weapon: >_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}

Overall, though, I think your Curio Shoppe is too complicated and too long to resolve.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 24, 2019, 07:26:21 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 24, 2019, 06:27:37 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 22, 2019, 06:39:28 pm

Climber
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $3
Until your next turn, at the start of every player's buy phase, if another player has more cards in hand than you, draw until you have the same number of cards in hand. At the start of your next turn, +1 Card.

So, this will be mandatory on every board where you can increase your hand size, right? I mean, it has this terrifying feedback loop where Climbers continuously out-climb each other until every player just gets their deck in their hand every turn (which is fun thematically, but painfully centralizing). You can only combat it in a 2-player game (so two players can't feed each other in order to leave a third in the dust) by refusing to ever draw cards so that a bought Climber will be largely be a terminal "Now and at the start of your next turn: +1 Card."

Thanks for the feedback.

The goal was some of the strategic aspects of Possession in terms of discouraging deck drawing engines but being more fun and incentivising other kinds of play (eg engines that keep an overall small hand). I'm ok with it being overcentralising as what you do with that ever larger hand will depend on the rest of the kingdom - you can almost certainly do better than BM/Climber. However there are counterplay options in many kingdoms that revolve around you not having a huge hand - can't remember the stats but most kingdoms would have a terminal silver that would stop the climb.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 25, 2019, 04:10:23 am

(https://i.imgur.com/VylKsChm.png)

Quote

Phantom Village
+1 Card
+5 Actions
The player on your left names an Action. For the rest of this turn, when you play a copy of the named card, discard a card.

EDIT: changed from discarding 2 cards to discarding 1 card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on August 25, 2019, 07:52:33 am

(https://i.imgur.com/K4SEkTc.png)

It uses a generic token to track its effect similar to Sinister Plot. I think it's on the weaker side but it at least gives you buys and has the potential to go crazy. It also gets stronger with more players which I guess some people hate.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 25, 2019, 12:17:00 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 25, 2019, 04:10:23 am

(https://i.imgur.com/FY8zuQum.png)

Quote

Phantom Village
+1 Card
+5 Actions
The player on your left names an Action. For the rest of this turn, when you play a copy of the named card, discard 2 cards.

Neat idea but I think it should only force you to discard one card. Discarding hurts. If you're relying on, say, Smithy for draw, discarding two cards makes it pretty much worthless. Discarding one card makes it basically a Moat, bad but manageable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 25, 2019, 01:29:03 pm

The problem of a quadruple village like Phantom Village is that it doesn't really decrease your optimal village density that much.
The notion that a deck with 6 terminals and one Phantom Village works is wrong, you still need several copies such that the likelihood that you have one in hand at the start of your turn is large enough.
Or in other words, Port is better than Busting Village (of course that's not totally true as the latter can draw), you prefer 2 villages over a double village.

That's why I think that the drawback is too nasty.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 25, 2019, 02:23:07 pm

For this week's contest, I decided to make a Plan variant with the twist that you get the benefit not just on your buys but on anybody's gains.

(https://i.imgur.com/lGJBjaC.jpg)

Quote

Prepare

Move your Prepare token to a kingdom supply pile. (When any player (including you) gains a card from that pile, +1 Coffers.)

Event
$4

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 25, 2019, 04:12:44 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 24, 2019, 06:27:37 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on August 21, 2019, 06:49:25 pm

Quote

Shaman
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy
If the type with the most cards in the trash is... Treasure: Trash this for +$3; Victory: Trash this for +3VP.

Trashing is such a powerful tool in Dominion that it is rarely passed up. I for one would like to see more cards that reward players for skipping trashing for a few turns. Shaman is my shot at such a card. Akin to Forager, the interactive part comes from forcing players to think a little harder about what cards they put in the trash. This plays a bit different with 3+ player games, but that's just how some cards are.

I think that is a wild understatement. Players only have 3 Victory cards each, so I imagine a lot of games will be decided by whoever gets the +VP out of Shaman before forcing Treasures or Shaman to outnumber the Victory cards in the trash.

The goal with Shaman is to have the strength of the rewards correlate with how long the game has progressed (or more specifically how trashing generally progresses in a game). Victory cards are usually the first things that end up in the trash so players won't have to wait long before they can trash this for VP tokens. Coin takes a bit longer and should reflect a higher reward for players who have managed to hang on to their Shamans.

A +$3 to +3VP ratio just doesn't fit this objective so I'll drop the VP to +2VP. This is still a nice amount of VP, but it should be offset mostly by the opportunity cost of potentially being behind on trashing and engine components.

Thanks for your input!

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 24, 2019, 05:35:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZzZwZx9.png)

I decided to go back to the original 3 options and tack on a +Action. I liked the Pawn-like sometimes-useful nature of the original, but the fact is that giving a bonus to your opponent is going to be a big demotivator for a card you don't really need that much. As an explicit, but weak, Village, the choice becomes more interesting.

Your original post does not seem to have been updated!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 25, 2019, 04:29:44 pm

I changed the effect of Phantom Village. Thanks for the input!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 25, 2019, 10:49:35 pm

Alright, I am abandoning  my old submission for these cards:
(https://i.imgur.com/lfEkG2w.png)(https://i.imgur.com/R1J5FIL.png)(https://i.imgur.com/pZ9RFte.png)

Here are some helpful secret cards up your sleeve that can help you in a pinch. As with my previous entries these cards travel from player to player.

They are also a new type; secret cards. Secret cards have a randomizer and do not count towards the 10 cards in the kingdom (choose them in a similar way to sideways cards but you can play with all 3 of them). There are 1 copy of each secret card per player. Each player starts with their secret cards (however many they are playing with that game) upside down underneath their deck (they are not part of your deck, this is for reminder purposes only). The first time each player shuffles, they put their secret cards onto their tavern mat. They used to just start on your tavern mat but then I thought it could have some balance issues (player order can make a difference, and it's power can be a bit swingy depending on your opening hand), so now it doesn't affect openings.

I think the wordings of the cards are straightforward but if anyone has any q's, I could answer them.

Originally all cards were passed left (not just the first) but then I figured it would usually lead to one player having all of them and everyone getting +$3 (or cards) each turn. It could also get a little crazy in a 4p game (1st player gets $1, 2nd player gets $2, 3rd player gets $3, 4th player gets $4). Only one of each secret card can get passed each turn now, which means that allowing one player to accumulate a pile of the secret cards can give them an advantage since they can pass only one secret card and still get a big bonus. Also, it means in a 2p game, the first player to use their card, say secret hoard, gets a small bonus of +$1 quicker, and give their opponent a bigger bonus of +$2 later; then they are back to square one (each player has one secret hoard on their tavern mat).

P.S. I'm a little tired right now, so I apologize if my comments are a little incoherent or rambly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 26, 2019, 01:56:47 am

Quote from: alion8me on August 25, 2019, 02:23:07 pm

For this week's contest, I decided to make a Plan variant with the twist that you get the benefit not just on your buys but on anybody's gains.

(https://i.imgur.com/lGJBjaC.jpg)

Quote

Prepare

Move your Prepare token to a kingdom supply pile. (When any player (including you) gains a card from that pile, +1 Coffers.)

Event
$4

My hunch is that this is too good and that it might have to cost $5. As it stands, putting the token on the village pile is a more or less  guaranteed 10 Coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 26, 2019, 03:22:23 pm

This is a 24 hour WARNING for challenge 41. Please make sure your submission is in this post. If your submission is missing or incorrect, or if you want to modify your submission, please reply rather than editing a past response. I will not read anything before this post. I will modify this post to remove the entires when the contest is done so that this does not eat up so much forum real-estate.

[ This post has been edited to remove all the entries]


You have 24 hours to reply with any modifications/additions to the above entries

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 26, 2019, 03:34:00 pm

I'm last minute changing my entry - withdrawing Executioner, entering Mason's Lodge:
(https://i.imgur.com/VdzjFPS.png)

Quote

Mason's Lodge • $5 • Action - Duration
+1 Buy
Until the end of your next turn, cards cost $1 less (to a minimum of $0) for all players, and all players get +1 Buy at the start of their turn.
Whenever a player gains a card after their first, you get +1 Coffers.

(also, to head off the #1 criticism of "why would i buy/play that", you get two turns of +Buy/Cost Reduction to everyone elses one turn of it, your second turn after you have a big ol' pile of coffers from everyone else taking advantage of your group price reduction)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 26, 2019, 04:29:49 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 26, 2019, 03:22:23 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on August 22, 2019, 05:59:28 pm

Delegate
3$ Action
Each other player reveals her hand, then conceals an Action card from her hand for each corresponding copy you have in play.
Return this to your hand then replay this as if it were another non-Delegate Action card that is visible this way, making this that card until it leaves play.
If you didn't, +2 cards.

This is just a rewording suggestion of my entry, not popsofctown's entry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on August 26, 2019, 05:24:34 pm

No entry from me,  I want to see Bartender win, why jeopardize that

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 26, 2019, 05:26:19 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 26, 2019, 03:34:00 pm

I'm last minute changing my entry - withdrawing Executioner, entering Mason's Lodge:
(https://i.imgur.com/VdzjFPS.png)

Quote

Mason's Lodge • $5 • Action - Duration
+1 Buy
Until the end of your next turn, cards cost $1 less (to a minimum of $0) for all players, and all players get +1 Buy at the start of their turn.
Whenever a player gains a card after their first, you get +1 Coffers.

(also, to head off the #1 criticism of "why would i buy/play that", you get two turns of +Buy/Cost Reduction to everyone elses one turn of it, your second turn after you have a big ol' pile of coffers from everyone else taking advantage of your group price reduction)

Bridge for everybody is a very cool idea. I first thought that getting some Coffers does not make up for the lack of the -1 Coin token attack (of Bridge Troll, the benchmark) and the powerful gift of a Highway plus a Market Square for the other players but after running through some simple examples, the card looks similar in strength to Bridge Troll. But only in multiplayer:

If Bob and Clementine each buy 3 cards such that Alice gets 4 Coffers, the cost reduction amounts to the equivalent of 3 Coins for each opponent. So relative to Bridge Troll that's a difference of +4 Coins for each opponents (relative to the Bridge Troll benchmark the which implies that the -1 Coin token attack has to be considered) and +4 Coffers for you.
If they buy 2 Cards, it is +3 Coins vs +2 Coffers.
Seems decent for Alice.

In a 2P game it is different though. Here Bob buying 3 Cards is +4 Coins vs. +2 Coffers and him buying 2 Cards is +3 Coins vs. +1 Coffers. That's too good for Bob.

So I'd try out a version that gifts a Coffers on the very first buy but only for one opponent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 26, 2019, 06:26:40 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on August 26, 2019, 05:24:34 pm

No entry from me,  I want to see Bartender win, why jeopardize that

Well thanks, though the turn order thing might ruin it. I'll try to think of some way to fix that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 26, 2019, 06:54:18 pm

Quote from: segura on August 26, 2019, 05:26:19 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 26, 2019, 03:34:00 pm

I'm last minute changing my entry - withdrawing Executioner, entering Mason's Lodge:
(https://i.imgur.com/VdzjFPS.png)

Quote

Mason's Lodge • $5 • Action - Duration
+1 Buy
Until the end of your next turn, cards cost $1 less (to a minimum of $0) for all players, and all players get +1 Buy at the start of their turn.
Whenever a player gains a card after their first, you get +1 Coffers.

(also, to head off the #1 criticism of "why would i buy/play that", you get two turns of +Buy/Cost Reduction to everyone elses one turn of it, your second turn after you have a big ol' pile of coffers from everyone else taking advantage of your group price reduction)

Bridge for everybody is a very cool idea. I first thought that getting some Coffers does not make up for the lack of the -1 Coin token attack (of Bridge Troll, the benchmark) and the powerful gift of a Highway plus a Market Square for the other players but after running through some simple examples, the card looks similar in strength to Bridge Troll. But only in multiplayer:

If Bob and Clementine each buy 3 cards such that Alice gets 4 Coffers, the cost reduction amounts to the equivalent of 3 Coins for each opponent. So relative to Bridge Troll that's a difference of +4 Coins for each opponents (relative to the Bridge Troll benchmark the which implies that the -1 Coin token attack has to be considered) and +4 Coffers for you.
If they buy 2 Cards, it is +3 Coins vs +2 Coffers.
Seems decent for Alice.

In a 2P game it is different though. Here Bob buying 3 Cards is +4 Coins vs. +2 Coffers and him buying 2 Cards is +3 Coins vs. +1 Coffers. That's too good for Bob.

So I'd try out a version that gifts a Coffers on the very first buy but only for one opponent.

i mean, players can elect not to use the extra buy in an effort to stifle the coffers bonus. Your opponents choose how good this card goes for you.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 27, 2019, 12:21:53 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 26, 2019, 06:54:18 pm

Quote from: segura on August 26, 2019, 05:26:19 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 26, 2019, 03:34:00 pm

I'm last minute changing my entry - withdrawing Executioner, entering Mason's Lodge:
(https://i.imgur.com/VdzjFPS.png)

Quote

Mason's Lodge • $5 • Action - Duration
+1 Buy
Until the end of your next turn, cards cost $1 less (to a minimum of $0) for all players, and all players get +1 Buy at the start of their turn.
Whenever a player gains a card after their first, you get +1 Coffers.

(also, to head off the #1 criticism of "why would i buy/play that", you get two turns of +Buy/Cost Reduction to everyone elses one turn of it, your second turn after you have a big ol' pile of coffers from everyone else taking advantage of your group price reduction)

Bridge for everybody is a very cool idea. I first thought that getting some Coffers does not make up for the lack of the -1 Coin token attack (of Bridge Troll, the benchmark) and the powerful gift of a Highway plus a Market Square for the other players but after running through some simple examples, the card looks similar in strength to Bridge Troll. But only in multiplayer:

If Bob and Clementine each buy 3 cards such that Alice gets 4 Coffers, the cost reduction amounts to the equivalent of 3 Coins for each opponent. So relative to Bridge Troll that's a difference of +4 Coins for each opponents (relative to the Bridge Troll benchmark the which implies that the -1 Coin token attack has to be considered) and +4 Coffers for you.
If they buy 2 Cards, it is +3 Coins vs +2 Coffers.
Seems decent for Alice.

In a 2P game it is different though. Here Bob buying 3 Cards is +4 Coins vs. +2 Coffers and him buying 2 Cards is +3 Coins vs. +1 Coffers. That's too good for Bob.

So I'd try out a version that gifts a Coffers on the very first buy but only for one opponent.

i mean, players can elect not to use the extra buy in an effort to stifle the coffers bonus.

I find it hard to imagine a situation in which forsaking the buying of a card which is reduced in price is worth not gifting a Coffers to the opponent. Market Square plus Highway is better than Baker.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 27, 2019, 06:38:08 am

in my brain, it falls into the same flavor of dilemma as not buying the second-to-last province if you aren't 98% sure you're ahead; in Mason's Lodge's case, late game, if you're not the Lodgeplayer, you spend your cash on one large buy rather than a couple smaller buys.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 27, 2019, 11:42:24 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 27, 2019, 06:38:08 am

in my brain, it falls into the same flavor of dilemma as not buying the second-to-last province if you aren't 98% sure you're ahead; in Mason's Lodge's case, late game, if you're not the Lodgeplayer, you spend your cash on one large buy rather than a couple smaller buys.

This is a dubious argument as Bridge variants can lead to megaturns and piling out. The Coffers then arrive one turn too late.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 27, 2019, 12:04:39 pm

Quote from: segura on August 27, 2019, 11:42:24 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 27, 2019, 06:38:08 am

in my brain, it falls into the same flavor of dilemma as not buying the second-to-last province if you aren't 98% sure you're ahead; in Mason's Lodge's case, late game, if you're not the Lodgeplayer, you spend your cash on one large buy rather than a couple smaller buys.

This is a dubious argument as Bridge variants can lead to megaturns and piling out. The Coffers then arrive one turn too late.

Then it's a hubris card and makes for a good story after the fact. Win/win imo.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 27, 2019, 04:08:19 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 25, 2019, 02:23:07 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/lGJBjaC.jpg)

Quote

Prepare

Move your Prepare token to a kingdom supply pile. (When any player (including you) gains a card from that pile, +1 Coffers.)

Event
$4

I think this concept has massive potential. The interaction of giving yourself a bonus when other players gain a particular card forces some interesting decisions for other players. However, the concept is hampered a lot by the fact that it triggers even when you gain a card from that pile. The decision for your opponents to buy the card or not is less interesting because you get the benefit even if you yourself buy it. I think this card would be better if you it was “when another player” instead of “including you.” It also prevents the balance issue of putting it on the only village in a game for a guaranteed +10 coffers.

Quote from: Aquila on August 21, 2019, 04:53:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tQYkZRA.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/UytHiV3.jpg)

I think the phrasing for target should be “when you would gain a card from this pile.” That has a precedent in Dominion and introducing an “immediately” still doesn't make the card play the way you want to. All effects happen immediately and you choose the order-- that's a core part of triggered effects in Dominion. “would gain” would have the same effect except for with trader allowing you to gain a silver instead of trashing the card, if you want. It would be virtually identical to what you have written, except you don't need to introduce the complexity of a new concept of “immediately.”
Ambush sets up some interesting possibilities. You can pile out the curses without gaining a single one. You can target cultists to get +3 cards when you gain one.  You can buy any attack for 2 if you Target squire. I feel like most of the time those fun combos won't exist – it will play more like embargo. What cards does my opponent want that I don't? That's a really awesome decision. Notice that embargo is one-use only. I worry how easy it is to play these. An engine player can lock big money out of buying golds. And you get to play each ambush twice. There would be two ways you could improve the card and force more interesting strategies:
1) you could make Ambush say “move Targeted onto any non-Victory Supply pile that is not currently Target.” Now you are stuck with a dead card in your deck if you don't want to move it, or you have to build your deck to consistently play two of these. It makes the locking out a player a little more challenging.
2) you could make Ambush trash itself on play. (Still it's not too weak, you get two plays out of it since you gained it and trashed it).

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 24, 2019, 05:35:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZzZwZx9.png)

This card really forces you to think of your opponents. In some games with lots of villages, you'll just be giving out villagers to your opponents. However, your opponents can anticipate that and waste one less of their buys on villages. So then perhaps you don't give them villages. This causes really thoughtful interactions. The only concern is that it does appear be weak, but it's fine because you probably don't want too many of these in your deck, anyway. It's a helpful way to smooth out your deck and the fact that it is non-terminal makes it like a really easy thing to slip in your deck. So, I anticipate this being something I'm happy picking up on a 2/5, but I'm rarely going out of my way for one. Not all cards get to be the strongest, this one certainly is interesting.
This is in the top 5

Quote from: faust on August 20, 2019, 10:59:06 am

(https://i.imgur.com/jqeg1sX.jpg)

Quote

Exhibition
$2 - Night/Duration

Set aside an non-Duration Action you have in play. Until your next turn, when another player gains or plays a copy of it, they get +$1. At the start of your next turn, play it.
-
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).

I first want to analyze this card without the “penalty” of giving $ to your opponents. It is sort of like you played a caravan and a scheme the turn you play an Exhibition. Another way to think about it is it's a much stronger haven for action cards. (you get to play the action card both turns!). So, with that, the card is worth 3-5 without the penalty, so 2 with the penalty feels right. But this penalty encourages mono-strategies across the game which is a form of not-solitaire, (copy your opponents) but it's a decidedly, less fun version of not-solitaire. Of course this card is a lot better if your strategies differ. Or if you have a prize or a black market. In addition the +1$ is a pretty strong penalty, and you're going to want to put it on a card you want to play a lot to make the most of it – but that also makes the penalty stronger. This card works best if you can put it on cards you only want one of. For example, using Exhibition on a terminal trasher is probably best (chapel being the best – the +1$ is unlikely to benefit your opponent the turn they play a chapel). That works well in the beginning of the game, but this could turn into a dead card in many games (the +$ is just not worth it).
Really interesting decisions, I don't know how I would change this.

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 22, 2019, 08:35:25 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rVt65hj.png)

I feel like you unnecessarily added “gains or trashes.” In games with trashers, this is a super cheap terminal gold, with the +buy to immediately buy more of them. The +buy combos well with gaining, I think this card is best and most interesting and more focused if the Ale token only fires on gains. That way it isn't so easy to get this easy of a gold in the beginning of the game. The decisions later – “where do I put my token, and the opponent's decision, can I delay buying this card to keep their bartender in the tavern?” That is a super interesting decision and really shows how Dominion is not solitaire. Excellent idea.
This is in the top 5

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 24, 2019, 02:32:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/6Ahz9S7.jpg)

There's a reason why mountain pass is only once per game.  Bidding takes some time. This card creates bidding up to *twenty*
times in a game. That's a lot of bidding slowing down the game.. Sure, the trashing mechanism can slow this down, but I think if you have to design a card to trash itself so it isn't played so often, you need to ask why. In the case of embargo, the concept itself falls apart if it's super easy to continually pile tokens on piles, it breaks the game. That's a good answer. I'm not convinced that the answer “because I don't want there to be so much bidding” is a good answer for self-trashing. I also think this card gets muddled with adding curiou cards and also cards from the supply. It would be more focused if it were just curio cards. You could even make less of them, that would limit the amount of bidding, too.
The VP muddles the card – now we're bidding on the card AND vp? Why both?

I can't comment on every single one of the curio cards for time reasons, but I will point out a few fun ones: Curious Book is quite an interesting card. Curious Doll is a cool interaction built into it for a VP that I think you could iterate on as a great card all on its own. Curious Plans also sounds like a great expansion card. I think you had some really fun player interaction concepts in the Curio deck. I encourage you refine some of those as individual cards, without the curio deck concept.

Quote from: Gazbag on August 25, 2019, 07:52:33 am

(https://i.imgur.com/K4SEkTc.png)

This scales unevenly with multiple players. The solution is to say “the player to your left.” Now it's always the same power level, and you could test the balance more effectively. The issue with +buy cards is that they become automatic purchases, just because of the non-terminal +buy at the start of next turn. However, I think the +buy could be a more interesting part of this card if it triggers on cards that cost 4 or more—why do I suggest this? Because it takes a long time to ramp up to using a +buy to buy two 5 cost cards. But often in the early game you do buy multiple 3-4 cost cards. This would make the +buy have negative synergy with the duration effect, and make it more focused and interesting. It would probably increase the strength of this card, and you might have to cost it 4 – hey look, more synergy!
On the other hand, by making it 5, you now force the opponents to make the decision, oh, should I buy this shiny 5 I really want even if it gives my opponent +1 money? That's a more interesting decision than it would be with the change I proposed, though I think the card is less focused with it's +buys and the at least 5 cost. I really like this card, it just fell short of top 5.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 25, 2019, 04:10:23 am

(https://i.imgur.com/VylKsChm.png)

Quote

Phantom Village
+1 Card
+5 Actions
The player on your left names an Action. For the rest of this turn, when you play a copy of the named card, discard a card.

5 actions … that's a lot of actions. But it's not even that helpful because for an engine to work, you need density of villagers rather than just one mega village. The discard effect is very interesting, and it encourages you to have a strategy that depends on multiple card names to work. I do like that! I just think the mega village attached to that makes very little sense. This card makes more sense if it was a drawing card, like a library, or a large smithy (starts out with +4 or +5)  or a cheap laboratory. Honestly a cheap laboratory would probably fit well. Then the card becomes all about one thing – increasing or decreasing hand size.

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0aYsrXS.png)

Delegate is an interesting card, the more that it is bought by players in the game, the worse it is. So, my opponent bought a delegate. Now I've given them free access to the best action card in my hand. But if I buy enough delegates, then the best card in my hand will be a delegate – which they can't play. So it's worse for them. But then they buy a lot of delegates, oh dear now it's worse for me!
I really love that thinking, and I think the fallback of +2 cards is super necessary, otherwise this isn't that great. I think often this can be used as pseudo-villages. They are a nice equalizer: if my turn duds with no village, well, I won't dud unless my opponent also duds.
I don't know why the card is set-aside, since you immediately return it after playing. Why not, play that card from the owner's hand, leaving it there?
This is in the top 5

Quote from: hypercube on August 21, 2019, 05:47:20 am

(https://i.imgur.com/MMNWE4n.png)

Alliance definitely has some nice interaction with other players. The focus of this card seems to be improving this turn, however +3 cards in the middle of the turn is a lot worse than +3 cards at the beginning of a turn. So your opponents benefit much more from this. And, it becomes hard to actualy use the +3 cards because you don't get an extra action. I think this event needs to provide an action with the card as well, the cost of 3 is enough of a penalty. And then, you should probably add a (once a turn) to this, just for simplicity sake. I feel this card would be most useful in turns where you dud, oh crap, if I just had 2 more cards I'd get to my village! I appreciate those designs, because dudding is not fun.

Quote from: King Leon on August 22, 2019, 06:04:24 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d5f0f31ec52be8c71347085/57a3181569d5231e852ba1ba6e9d5991/Antiquarian.png)

Antiquarian
Type: Event
Cost: $2P
Once per turn:
+1 Buy.
Choose one:
Trash up to two cards from your hand,
or gain up to two cards from the trash, setting them aside and put them into your hand at the start of your next turn.

I can always pay 2P to get $2 coppers at the start of my next turn. You've said that this costs 2P “for obvious reasons.” The reason I imagine is that you don't want players to trash in the beginning. But I think that would be fine. Bonfire allows you to trash cards that are in play, it's cheaper and WAY better at trashing coppers. If you want to trash coppers with this, well, now the card effectively costs 2 more. I don't think you need to delay this with a potion. Perhaps I am missing another obvious reason. I don't understand why this provides a +buy. That seems just a little mixed up. Other events that do similar things (this is kinda like bonfire meets save/expedition) do not provide a +buy. I think you should reconsider this, as it suddenly gets a lot cheaper if it comes with a +buy, and not in a good way.
This card is very light on player interaction for this contest. It could sort of act like a lurker, but that seems far too bad leaving two good cards in the trash. It's more likely going to be used as a remodeler aide, and that isn't very player-interactiony.

Quote from: Kudasai on August 21, 2019, 06:49:25 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/LyCotvt.jpg)

Quote

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
If the type with the most cards in the trash is:
Treasure, trash this for +$3;
Victory, trash this for +2VP.

Another card that cares about the trash. What's interesting is Shaman makes itself worse. It trashes itself if actions aren't the most common – which makes actions become the most common. In that case, you just have a market, not bad for $3. I think this doesn't create much player interaction, because you really need to trash coppers and estates – it's too good. And worrying about the order you trash in is probably worse than just trashing the right thing. I think in most games this Is going to be +1card +1action  +$3 +1buy trash this, which is an interesting card, though probably slightly better priced at 4. But again, this is pretty low on the interaction side.

Quote from: majiponi on August 21, 2019, 10:20:47 am

Sponsor
cost $3 - Action
+$2
Each other player reveals a Treasure from their hand (or reveals they can't). You may gain a copy of that card. If you do, they do so, too.

I love the concept of this card. I might want to reveal my silver so I can gain a copy of it; however, in most games, you're not trying to gain tons of silvers. So this card is unlikely to be useful until mid-late game when people are getting golds. So I don't see much value in this. Why isn't this card a treasure? It would have a nice synergy with itself. The card is about duplicating treasures, so this card should be duplicable, and it won't be crazy powerful if you did it like that (although it would have to cost more than 3. Beefing it to somehow get to 5 --maybe with some additional benefit--would be the best). The major problem with this card is it is political. Players in turn order A,B,C. Player C likes Player B more than A. When Player A plays Sponsor, C shows a copper. When player B plays Sponsor, C shows a gold. Because of this favoritism, Player B now does the same thing for C. Politics.

Quote from: mandioca15 on August 19, 2019, 01:46:40 pm

Gatekeeper (Action) [$4]

+5 Cards

Reveal your hand. The player to your left names a card from your hand.
When you play a copy of that card this turn, ignore its instructions.

This is similar in concept to phantom village – well, I like this concept, and as you read from my criticism of phantom village, I think this type of card works best with a drawer. The penalty in this case is a lot steeper--  it turns those actions into confusions and that's sort of like a discard (well, I think some duration cards still work the next turn?  I am unsure. Anyone know?). Also, what does it mean to ignore instructions of a copper? I assume it means it gives you no $, but I think that makes this card quite weak. In the beginning of the game, it'll cripple your economy entirely. So it's only useful in the mid-game, which is when your opponent is less likely to know what is in your hand and has to think strategically. I like this style of thinking, but I do think “ignoring it's instructions” is a strong penalty, one that is difficult to reason about and ancitipate.

Quote from: naitchman on August 25, 2019, 10:49:35 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/lfEkG2w.png)(https://i.imgur.com/R1J5FIL.png)(https://i.imgur.com/pZ9RFte.png)

...

They are also a new type; secret cards. Secret cards have a randomizer and do not count towards the 10 cards in the kingdom (choose them in a similar way to sideways cards but you can play with all 3 of them). There are 1 copy of each secret card per player. Each player starts with their secret cards (however many they are playing with that game) upside down underneath their deck (they are not part of your deck, this is for reminder purposes only). The first time each player shuffles, they put their secret cards onto their tavern mat.

Every time I had a question on this, I reread it and realized it was answered. I love that this card is a sensible card that is neither action, treasure, night, or victory. Well done! I like the thought, when do I call this card? Do I wait till I have multiple? But I imagine many times, these +1s are far too good (specifically Library and village) at saving your turn, that you probably just call them when you need them, rather than strategically calling them. So I think the player interaction is a little more limited than it appears. Still. It's pretty fun to have those cards cycle around.
This is in the top 5

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 22, 2019, 06:39:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/aFWEgCI.png)

Climber
Action/Duration - $3
Until your next turn, at the start of every player's buy phase, if another player has more cards in hand than you, draw until you have the same number of cards in hand.
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card.

So, without militias this means I get a draw up to 5 at the start of every buy phase. Hm, That seems fun. Then there is a nice anti-synergy where climber draws you up to 6, so then other players who play climbers draw up to 6. Getting the benefit twice is nice, but I am unsure how helpful it is. Think about it this way – in order for climber to work well, you want to draw treasures with it (since anything else is drawn dead). So, you want to have a treasure-heavy deck. However, if you have a treasure heavy deck, you are far more likely to have at least 5 cards at the end of your turn and therefore climber will do very little for you. I am unsure how to fix this fundamental problem.

Quote from: pst on August 20, 2019, 02:19:42 pm

(https://starback.se/static/games/Polymath.png)

Polymath
Action, $3
The player to your left selects a non-Duration Action card from the Supply that you haven't played this turn. Play that, leaving it there.

I was really intrigued by this card, as it's a real awesome type of player interaction that I've explored in my own designs. I found that cards like this either need a fall-back or some other benefit (like +1 action) to work. Notice how delegate provides some additional benefit (if it misses, it gives +2 cards). I think cards like this need some small extra benefit to be more interesting (even if it's an on-gain benefit). I wanted this to be good, but I looked at 5 of the last Kingdom of the week on the dominion subreddits, and only 1 of those I would even entertain buying this. And I probably wouldn't even buy it then. It's too often incredible weak, and, it's pretty difficult to make it strong-- you have to play a lot of good cards in order to play lots of actions, and in that case, you've played lots of actions but there aren't many good ones left for polymath.

8/19 2:12pm

Quote from: pubby on August 19, 2019, 01:39:51 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/akfUg1T.png)

Very straightforward simple interaction. This is an event you probably buy multiple times in the game. Your opponent needs to figure out what cards you want, what cards you don't want. And the card itself encourages variety. You probably would never get a scout ever, but what if it had a +1 card token on it? Not bad! So, opponents have to worry about selecting a cheap cantrip (I don't want you to have a 2 cost pearl diver lab!). A thoughtful opponent may choose a different, “better” card that isn't a cantrip to avoid you from turning it into a lab, forcing you to buy the card a second time. And you, you might plan on buying this card twice, so you don't waste your +1 card or +1 action on a terminal silver card, but you wait to place those tokens on your second or third discover buy when your opponent has to name smithy or Caravan.  I love the simplicity of this and how it forces your opponent to think through your interactions. This is an event that is more fun for the person to the left of the buyer. That isn't a critique, I think that's a positive trait.
This is in the top 5

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2019, 04:50:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iLuRr2b.png)

A couple of people have mentioned the swinginess inherit in this. I will add that getting rid of good cards is hardly ever going to be worth 2 coffers or 2vp. Also, you never answered my question, how is the or decided? Who chooses? The player playing swamp tower or the player who wins the highest in cost? The debt also is very attack-y. It's a much stronger potential attack than “tribute” or “masquerade” is and so it feels pretty bad to lose a copper, gain a estate, and get saddled with debt. I do appreciate that this card offers some unique sifting that helps the player of this card not get hit by the attack – I think that works. This card would be more focused if you only gave a reward or only gave a penalty, I believe. I do like the masquerade interaction and the encouragement to pass good cards.

Quote from: spineflu on August 26, 2019, 03:34:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/VdzjFPS.png)

Quote

Mason's Lodge • $5 • Action - Duration
+1 Buy
Until the end of your next turn, cards cost $1 less (to a minimum of $0) for all players, and all players get +1 Buy at the start of their turn.
Whenever a player gains a card after their first, you get +1 Coffers.

Wow, very interesting. You sorta give each other player 2$ if they gain two cards. It's hard to turn that down, but then you get +1 coffers. And you get a +buy to deal with all those coffers. Very tight. This card's power (without gaining coffers) is similar to merchant ship. If you buy two things then it's actually stronger than merchant ship. And then you can gain coffers. However that comes at a price, essentially playing a merchant ship for your opponents. One piece of feedback in dominion the way it is phrased is “, but not less than 0” (bridge, highway, quary, bridge troll, etc). Not sure why you phrased it as “(to a minimum of $0).” This was really close to the top 5.


Top 5:
Commune, Bartender, Delegate, Secrets, Discover.
All of these are really wonderful and simple ways that would help make Dominion feel less like solitaire. I'd very happy with any of these in a Kingdom :)

I decided to go with how much they impact the strategy of the game in terms of thinking in your opponent's shoes and adapting to them.

Commune and Delegate don't work too strongly here, Commune you are more likely to do a simple 1,2,3 decision and it's probably most aimed in yourself. Delegate you just try to show your worst card, not much thought goes into that. Secrets is more about, whether you play it or not, it doesn't change based on your opponent's strategy more, though I love how it impacts the game.

Bartender and Discover both have wonderful strategic implications, but to me, Discover is slightly more thoughtful. Plus I'm inspired by how simple it is.

Winner: Discover by pubby.
Runner up: Bartender by fly-eagles-fly

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 27, 2019, 04:16:45 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 27, 2019, 04:08:19 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0aYsrXS.png)

I don't know why the card is set-aside, since you immediately return it after playing. Why not, play that card from the owner's hand, leaving it there?
This is in the top 5

Without the set-aside clause, if Delegate hits somebody's Band of Misfits or Captain, the Delegate player can play it infinite times by repeatedly playing it as a Delegate. The set-aside clause stops that. Doesn't really matter for BoM, but the turn after you play Captain as Delegate infinite times, your infinite Captains can play themselves as a +Buy, +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} card and buy the Supply.

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 27, 2019, 04:08:19 pm

Delegate you just try to show your worst card, not much thought goes into that.

Delegate shows opponents' entire hands. The only on-play decision is that made by the player who played Delegate. The idea is to try to avoid having cards in your deck that would work in your opponent's deck as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on August 27, 2019, 04:23:13 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 27, 2019, 04:08:19 pm

Quote from: pst on August 20, 2019, 02:19:42 pm

(https://starback.se/static/games/Polymath.png)

Polymath
Action, $3
The player to your left selects a non-Duration Action card from the Supply that you haven't played this turn. Play that, leaving it there.

I was really intrigued by this card, as it's a real awesome type of player interaction that I've explored in my own designs. I found that cards like this either need a fall-back or some other benefit (like +1 action) to work. Notice how delegate provides some additional benefit (if it misses, it gives +2 cards). I think cards like this need some small extra benefit to be more interesting (even if it's an on-gain benefit). I wanted this to be good, but I looked at 5 of the last Kingdom of the week on the dominion subreddits, and only 1 of those I would even entertain buying this. And I probably wouldn't even buy it then. It's too often incredible weak, and, it's pretty difficult to make it strong-- you have to play a lot of good cards in order to play lots of actions, and in that case, you've played lots of actions but there aren't many good ones left for polymath.

I wouldn't like +1 Action, because when I tried it it was a big consideration if the player would need more actions or not. Walled Village had become a popular early choice for Polymath, being a not very great card on our board, but then you could play Polymath first from a hand with Polymath and two good terminal actions, instead of just choosing one of the terminals. So maybe better not give out the action. Mind games!

But I think an on-gain benefit would be good!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 27, 2019, 05:05:46 pm

Hurray thanks for judging anordinaryman  :D

CHALLENGE #42 - MONOGAINER

A monogainer is a card-shaped thing that gains cards from exactly one named pile. Examples of monogainers are: Bureaucrat (gains Silver), Baron (gains Estate), Rats (gains Rats), Dominate (gains Province), Pillage (gains Spoils), and Tormentor (gains Imp). Cards that are not monogainers include: Workshop, Tournament, Black Market, Beggar, Count, and Rebuild, for these cards can gain multiple cards with different names.

The goal of this challenge is to design a monogainer. If needed, you may also design the card your monogainer gains.

The gained card must be of a single name and fixed per-game, but I will allow cards where the gained pile is randomly chosen at setup (a la Young WItch banes).

Title: Re: Contest #42: Monogainer
Post by: Gubump on August 27, 2019, 05:13:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0pbFRZJ.png)

Not sure if this counts. It can only gain one name of card per game (barring the edge case of Knights/Split Piles), but which card that is is decided per player and when you buy Campaign.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Changed type from Project to Event.
v1.2: Lowered cost from _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)} to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} and removed cost limit.

Title: Re: Contest #42: Monogainer
Post by: GendoIkari on August 27, 2019, 05:18:47 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 27, 2019, 05:13:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/brz9hDI.png)

Not sure if this counts. It can only gain one name of card per game (barring the edge case of Knights/Split Piles), but which card that is is decided per player and when you buy Campaign.

This feels more like an Event than a Project to me. At least if you want to be consistent with the other card-shaped things that let you put tokens on things. It could still be once per game if you wanted.

Title: Re: Contest #42: Monogainer
Post by: Gubump on August 27, 2019, 05:29:16 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 27, 2019, 05:18:47 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 27, 2019, 05:13:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/brz9hDI.png)

Not sure if this counts. It can only gain one name of card per game (barring the edge case of Knights/Split Piles), but which card that is is decided per player and when you buy Campaign.

This feels more like an Event than a Project to me. At least if you want to be consistent with the other card-shaped things that let you put tokens on things. It could still be once per game if you wanted.

I realize that, especially since it could be like Inheritance, but Inheritance could be a Project nowadays. Inheritance honestly even feels more like a Project than an Event, since Inheritance is a card-shaped thing that you can only buy once and has an effect that lasts the whole rest of the game, which is what defines a Project.

I'll still change it to an Event, though. Like you said, to be more consistent with the other card-shaped things that use tokens.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on August 27, 2019, 05:41:06 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/X92CvTB.jpg)

Quote

Eminent Domain
Types: Project
Cost: $14
Now and at the start of each of your turns, put your hand on top of your deck in any order and gain a Province.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 27, 2019, 05:47:45 pm

Do Curse attacks count as monogainers?

Title: Re: Contest #42: Monogainer
Post by: segura on August 27, 2019, 05:51:24 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 27, 2019, 05:13:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wVkwdT4.png)

Not sure if this counts. It can only gain one name of card per game (barring the edge case of Knights/Split Piles), but which card that is is decided per player and when you buy Campaign.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Changed type from Project to Event.

Given that you gain on average 4 Provinces in 2P and 3P, I think that this can get away with costing $6 (and perhaps even  without any cost restrictions, even if it arguably becomes crazy in Prince and Possession games).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 27, 2019, 05:55:20 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 27, 2019, 05:47:45 pm

Do Curse attacks count as monogainers?

Sure I'll allow it but I'd rather see cards that gain to "you"  rather than your opponent.

Title: Re: Contest #42: Monogainer
Post by: scolapasta on August 27, 2019, 06:12:39 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 27, 2019, 05:13:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/5tjfYTR.png)

Not sure if this counts. It can only gain one name of card per game (barring the edge case of Knights/Split Piles), but which card that is is decided per player and when you buy Campaign.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Changed type from Project to Event.
v1.2: Lowered cost from _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)} to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} and removed cost limit.

Minor bug: the image on this post (as of its current edit) shows the card as a Project (albeit with Event coloring).

Title: Re: Contest #42: Monogainer
Post by: Gubump on August 27, 2019, 06:37:53 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on August 27, 2019, 06:12:39 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 27, 2019, 05:13:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/5tjfYTR.png)

Not sure if this counts. It can only gain one name of card per game (barring the edge case of Knights/Split Piles), but which card that is is decided per player and when you buy Campaign.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Changed type from Project to Event.
v1.2: Lowered cost from _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)} to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} and removed cost limit.

Minor bug: the image on this post (as of its current edit) shows the card as a Project (albeit with Event coloring).

Oops! It's fixed now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 27, 2019, 07:45:28 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 27, 2019, 04:08:19 pm

Runner up: Bartender by fly-eagles-fly

Thanks a lot! Definitely imo wasn't going to be a winner, pubby's and others were too good. I really liked a bunch of these.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 28, 2019, 08:58:27 am

Aight, withdrawing Middleman, entering Manuscript/Grimoire

It's a mixed pile, six of each, that are shuffled together; the supply pile is kept face down and the top card is face up. You can only buy/gain/exchange for the top card (a la Knights)
(https://i.imgur.com/06u5m2U.png)(https://i.imgur.com/tshq2l4.png)

Quote

Manuscript • $1P • Treasure
$1 plus $1 per Grimoire you have in play.
+1 Buy
-
During Clean-up, you may exchange this for a Grimoire if one is available.

Quote

Grimoire • $1P • Treasure
$2
You may spend any number of P. This is worth $1 more for each P spent.
If this is your first Grimoire played this turn, gain a Manuscript if one is available.

If this is your first Grimoire played this turn, gain a Manuscript if one is available.
Worth big money and a couple extra buys if you can run the pile; they don't leave potions dead in your hand.

---

(This is withdrawn)

(https://i.imgur.com/cF9Nm4K.png)

Quote

Middleman • $3 • Action - Reaction
+1 Action
Gain a Silver
-
When another player gains a card costing $4 or more, you may reveal this and set it aside. At the end of their turn discard this, then for each card they gained during their turn, gain a Silver.

this might be underpriced.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 28, 2019, 09:58:11 am

(https://i.imgur.com/42RwJ7P.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/y2VXm5s.jpg)

Treasure Map that gains an engine piece rather than Gold, to kinda try and bring the experience into the engine meta. Handsize increase won't be so good for connecting the Volumes up so going for it won't always be a strong move. It should be worthwhile often enough though. +Action on Volumes lets you remove them if they didn't connect up in good time, but hoarding them until they connect becomes a possibility. And draw to 6 may be too tame compared to 4 Golds.

Edit: Encyclopedia gained to hand and made optional (in case you just use Volumes to decrease handsize)
Edit 2: Volume given +2 Actions

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 28, 2019, 10:12:38 am

Quote from: Aquila on August 28, 2019, 09:58:11 am

(https://i.imgur.com/vmmnAsc.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/y2VXm5s.jpg)

Treasure Map that gains an engine piece rather than Gold, to kinda try and bring the experience into the engine meta. Handsize increase won't be so good for connecting the Volumes up so going for it won't always be a strong move. It should be worthwhile often enough though. +Action on Volumes lets you remove them if they didn't connect up in good time, but hoarding them until they connect becomes a possibility. And draw to 6 may be too tame compared to 4 Golds.

Are you open to feedback on this?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 28, 2019, 11:25:14 am

Quote

Pennymonger
Cost: $4
Type: Action

+2 Cards
+1 Action
Gain a Copper.
————————————
When you gain this, you may put it into your hand or onto your deck (instead of to your discard pile).

As a self-junker this might have missed the spirit of the challenge. A fairly vanilla card. I first thought about gaining the Copper to your hand but this is probably too strong and without anything extra the card is too weak (consistent play makes this behave like Peddler, i.e. the extra card you draw into is a Copper, but the deck bloating makes this worse than Peddler).
Hence the idea to buff it via optionally gaining it to your hand (which makes sense if you gain it via Workshop or Remodel variants) or onto your deck. I included the second option as a consolation price if you buy the card (in a non-Villa Kingdom).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 28, 2019, 12:09:29 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 28, 2019, 08:58:27 am

(https://i.imgur.com/cF9Nm4K.png)

Quote

Middleman • $3 • Action - Reaction
+1 Action
Gain a Silver
-
When another player gains a card costing $4 or more, you may reveal this and set it aside. At the end of their turn discard this, then for each card they gained during their turn, gain a Silver.

this might be underpriced.

This looks slightly weaker than Treasure Hunter and I don't think that Treasure Hunter as a Kingdom card could cost more than $3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 28, 2019, 12:16:50 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 28, 2019, 10:12:38 am

Quote from: Aquila on August 28, 2019, 09:58:11 am

...

Are you open to feedback on this?

Absolutely, I'll always miss out on design points going with just my viewpoint so I appreciate any feedback. I try to cover positives and negatives to help give an accurate first impression, not to deter feedback.

So to be fair:

Quote from: spineflu on August 28, 2019, 08:58:27 am

(https://i.imgur.com/cF9Nm4K.png)

Quote

Middleman • $3 • Action - Reaction
+1 Action
Gain a Silver
-
When another player gains a card costing $4 or more, you may reveal this and set it aside. At the end of their turn discard this, then for each card they gained during their turn, gain a Silver.

this might be underpriced.

It's very similar to Treasure Hunter (semi ninjaed here), differences being: in 3+ player games you can choose your target player; there are no accumulative chains where the last player's gained Silvers count as this looks for $4+s; your reacting may influence the player's decisions later during their turn, whereas there's no easy countering to TH; and there's no Page to play first. TH is better at hoarding masses of Silver overall.
I also think the top could be better. You're getting exactly the same if you react anyway, so something different would add more. Hard to tell if it should be terminal or not, and hopefully it wouldn't detract from this being a mono gainer if it didn't gain Silver.

Quote from: segura on August 28, 2019, 11:25:14 am

Pennymonger
Cost: $4
Type: Action

+2 Cards
+1 Action
Gain a Copper.
————————————
When you gain this, you may put it into your hand or onto your deck (instead of to your discard pile).

The balance looks convincing, and it has several meaningful uses that lab doesn't have like giving tfb fodder, gardens rush or boosting next turn. I don't see many downsides, it's a good one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on August 28, 2019, 12:55:32 pm

Encyclopedia looks very weak.  If you gave both the Volumes the stash ability I think I'd still ignore it and just buy a Walled Village, buy a Smithy, and collide them to buy a Patrol.  Then if you ask me if I want to exchange my Smithy, Village, and Patrol for the Library+ and a Native Village (Purchased in place of Patrol) I shake my head.
Ok, maybe I don't, that might be a close call.
But that's the "stash ability" case and handsize reduction village availability case and yet it's so close to call.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on August 28, 2019, 01:38:39 pm

My entry this week* is from my Worshippers cards. As a reminder Worshippers are tokens that allow you to trash:

Quote

At the start of your Clean-up phase, you may remove tokens from this to trash a card from your hand or one you have in play for each token removed.

So here are Congregation and Blessing:

(https://i.imgur.com/4RTPDDS.png)(https://i.imgur.com/pByxUdg.png)

A possible tweak (making it stronger) is to change Blessing to work on any of your trashed cards:
"When you trash a card not from the Supply, you may call this to gain a card costing $2 more than the trashed card. Return this to the Blessing pile."


* I may change this to something completely different, but I wanted to at least get an entry in this week since I've effectively missed the last 3 weeks (I had one entry, but it was half baked and last minute)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 28, 2019, 04:33:15 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 28, 2019, 12:16:50 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 28, 2019, 10:12:38 am

Quote from: Aquila on August 28, 2019, 09:58:11 am

...

Are you open to feedback on this?

Absolutely, I'll always miss out on design points going with just my viewpoint so I appreciate any feedback. I try to cover positives and negatives to help give an accurate first impression, not to deter feedback.

Gain the Encyclopedia to the hand.
The "draw to six" thing isn't super strong but that turn that you gain it, you'll have a big swing from dropping a couple Volumes *and* bc the Volumes are non-terminal, you'll be able to play it instantly.
Fixes your "is this worth it to go for" problem without changing much else about the card.

Quote from: Aquila on August 28, 2019, 12:16:50 pm

So to be fair:

Quote from: spineflu on August 28, 2019, 08:58:27 am

(https://i.imgur.com/cF9Nm4K.png)

Quote

Middleman • $3 • Action - Reaction
+1 Action
Gain a Silver
-
When another player gains a card costing $4 or more, you may reveal this and set it aside. At the end of their turn discard this, then for each card they gained during their turn, gain a Silver.

this might be underpriced.

It's very similar to Treasure Hunter (semi ninjaed here), differences being: in 3+ player games you can choose your target player; there are no accumulative chains where the last player's gained Silvers count as this looks for $4+s; your reacting may influence the player's decisions later during their turn, whereas there's no easy countering to TH; and there's no Page to play first. TH is better at hoarding masses of Silver overall.
I also think the top could be better. You're getting exactly the same if you react anyway, so something different would add more. Hard to tell if it should be terminal or not, and hopefully it wouldn't detract from this being a mono gainer if it didn't gain Silver.

There's still accumulation chains, it just needs a single $4+ to trigger. Their gained $4+ card doesn't need to be the first card gained to count towards the silver gaining.
I agree the top can be better though. Maybe "+1 Action, +1 Villager" (drop the "gain a silver") so he's a kinda-village.

Title: Re: Contest #42: Monogainer
Post by: King Leon on August 28, 2019, 05:05:44 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 27, 2019, 05:13:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0pbFRZJ.png)

Not sure if this counts. It can only gain one name of card per game (barring the edge case of Knights/Split Piles), but which card that is is decided per player and when you buy Campaign.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Changed type from Project to Event.
v1.2: Lowered cost from _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)} to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} and removed cost limit.

Uh, this is pretty strong with Remodel. You can put your Campaign token on Hunting Grounds and then start to remodel Hunting Grounds to Provinces (or even Provinces to Provinces).

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 27, 2019, 05:41:06 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/X92CvTB.jpg)

Quote

Eminent Domain
Types: Project
Cost: $14
Now and at the start of each of your turns, put your hand on top of your deck in any order and gain a Province.

Isn’t that abusable with Guide?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 28, 2019, 05:32:53 pm

Quote from: pubby on August 27, 2019, 05:05:46 pm

Hurray thanks for judging anordinaryman  :D

CHALLENGE #42 - MONOGAINER

A monogainer is a card-shaped thing that gains cards from exactly one named pile. Examples of monogainers are: Bureaucrat (gains Silver), Baron (gains Estate), Rats (gains Rats), Dominate (gains Province), Pillage (gains Spoils), and Tormentor (gains Imp). Cards that are not monogainers include: Workshop, Tournament, Black Market, Beggar, Count, and Rebuild, for these cards can gain multiple cards with different names.

The goal of this challenge is to design a monogainer. If needed, you may also design the card your monogainer gains.

The gained card must be of a single name and fixed per-game, but I will allow cards where the gained pile is randomly chosen at setup (a la Young WItch banes).

Should I assume gaining Wishes (or any similarly made fancard) is off the table as Wishes can then in turn gain any card costing up to $6?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on August 28, 2019, 06:25:57 pm

Merchant Village
cost $3 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may play a Merchant Village from your hand.
Gain a Merchant Village.
---
There are 20 copies of Merchant Village, rather than the usual 10.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 28, 2019, 06:31:48 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on August 28, 2019, 05:32:53 pm

Should I assume gaining Wishes (or any similarly made fancard) is off the table as Wishes can then in turn gain any card costing up to $6?

Wish gainers are allowed, but not ideal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 28, 2019, 06:36:02 pm

Quote from: majiponi on August 28, 2019, 06:25:57 pm

Merchant Village
cost $3 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may play a Merchant Village from your hand.
Gain a Merchant Village.
---
There are 20 copies of Merchant Village, rather than the usual 10.

This completely outclasses Market Square when there are no trashers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 28, 2019, 07:24:30 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 28, 2019, 06:36:02 pm

Quote from: majiponi on August 28, 2019, 06:25:57 pm

Merchant Village
cost $3 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may play a Merchant Village from your hand.
Gain a Merchant Village.
---
There are 20 copies of Merchant Village, rather than the usual 10.

This completely outclasses Market Square when there are no trashers.

Beyond that, I’d say it outclasses Village and maybe Worker's Village as well. With the self gaining, it should be very common for them to collide multiple times per turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 28, 2019, 07:28:09 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 28, 2019, 06:36:02 pm

Quote from: majiponi on August 28, 2019, 06:25:57 pm

Merchant Village
cost $3 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may play a Merchant Village from your hand.
Gain a Merchant Village.
---
There are 20 copies of Merchant Village, rather than the usual 10.

This completely outclasses Market Square when there are no trashers.

Lackeys completely outclasses Moat when there are no Attacks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 28, 2019, 08:38:55 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 28, 2019, 07:28:09 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 28, 2019, 06:36:02 pm

Quote from: majiponi on August 28, 2019, 06:25:57 pm

Merchant Village
cost $3 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may play a Merchant Village from your hand.
Gain a Merchant Village.
---
There are 20 copies of Merchant Village, rather than the usual 10.

This completely outclasses Market Square when there are no trashers.

Lackeys completely outclasses Moat when there are no Attacks.

Not nearly to the same degree, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on August 28, 2019, 09:07:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/syKIAPS.png) (https://i.imgur.com/HTwlges.png)

Here is my submission this week.  Curio Shop is a Workshop/Salvager mashup that can only gain or trash copies of one specific $5-cost card not in the Kingdom that is randomly assigned at the beginning of the game (similarly to Young Witch's Bane).  Unlike the Bane pile, the Curio pile is not in the Supply, making Curio Shop the only way to access those cards.  Of course, Curio Shop's value is largely determined by what the Curio is--if it's something like Lab, well then Curio Shop is a $3 Lab-gainer; if it's Explorer, well...  The Salvager option could mitigate the bad Curio scenario slightly, making it function sort of like a Death Cart payload card, (i.e. gaining and trashing junk for profit), but more likely you'll use that option in games with good Curios, to cash them in while greening once they're no longer needed. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 28, 2019, 09:45:20 pm

Quote from: 4est on August 28, 2019, 09:07:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/syKIAPS.png) (https://i.imgur.com/HTwlges.png)

Here is my submission this week.  Curio Shop is a Workshop/Salvager mashup that can only gain or trash copies of one specific $5-cost card not in the Kingdom that is randomly assigned at the beginning of the game (similarly to Young Witch's Bane).  Unlike the Bane pile, the Curio pile is not in the Supply, making Curio Shop the only way to access those cards.  Of course, Curio Shop's value is largely determined by what the Curio is--if it's something like Lab, well then Curio Shop is a $3 Lab-gainer; if it's Explorer, well...  The Salvager option could mitigate the bad Curio scenario slightly, making it function sort of like a Death Cart payload card, (i.e. gaining and trashing junk for profit), but more likely you'll use that option in games with good Curios, to cash them in while greening once they're no longer needed.

It would be amazing if the Curio just happened to be Fortress...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on August 28, 2019, 11:04:15 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 28, 2019, 09:45:20 pm

Quote from: 4est on August 28, 2019, 09:07:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/syKIAPS.png) (https://i.imgur.com/HTwlges.png)

Here is my submission this week.  Curio Shop is a Workshop/Salvager mashup that can only gain or trash copies of one specific $5-cost card not in the Kingdom that is randomly assigned at the beginning of the game (similarly to Young Witch's Bane).  Unlike the Bane pile, the Curio pile is not in the Supply, making Curio Shop the only way to access those cards.  Of course, Curio Shop's value is largely determined by what the Curio is--if it's something like Lab, well then Curio Shop is a $3 Lab-gainer; if it's Explorer, well...  The Salvager option could mitigate the bad Curio scenario slightly, making it function sort of like a Death Cart payload card, (i.e. gaining and trashing junk for profit), but more likely you'll use that option in games with good Curios, to cash them in while greening once they're no longer needed.

It would be amazing if the Curio just happened to be Fortress...

Sadly, Fortress costs $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 28, 2019, 11:34:13 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on August 28, 2019, 11:04:15 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 28, 2019, 09:45:20 pm

Quote from: 4est on August 28, 2019, 09:07:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/syKIAPS.png) (https://i.imgur.com/HTwlges.png)

Here is my submission this week.  Curio Shop is a Workshop/Salvager mashup that can only gain or trash copies of one specific $5-cost card not in the Kingdom that is randomly assigned at the beginning of the game (similarly to Young Witch's Bane).  Unlike the Bane pile, the Curio pile is not in the Supply, making Curio Shop the only way to access those cards.  Of course, Curio Shop's value is largely determined by what the Curio is--if it's something like Lab, well then Curio Shop is a $3 Lab-gainer; if it's Explorer, well...  The Salvager option could mitigate the bad Curio scenario slightly, making it function sort of like a Death Cart payload card, (i.e. gaining and trashing junk for profit), but more likely you'll use that option in games with good Curios, to cash them in while greening once they're no longer needed.

It would be amazing if the Curio just happened to be Fortress...

Sadly, Fortress costs $4.

Somehow, I missed the "costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}" part of the setup.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 29, 2019, 04:42:20 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 28, 2019, 04:33:15 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 28, 2019, 12:16:50 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 28, 2019, 10:12:38 am

Quote from: Aquila on August 28, 2019, 09:58:11 am

...

Are you open to feedback on this?

Absolutely, I'll always miss out on design points going with just my viewpoint so I appreciate any feedback. I try to cover positives and negatives to help give an accurate first impression, not to deter feedback.

Gain the Encyclopedia to the hand.
The "draw to six" thing isn't super strong but that turn that you gain it, you'll have a big swing from dropping a couple Volumes *and* bc the Volumes are non-terminal, you'll be able to play it instantly.
Fixes your "is this worth it to go for" problem without changing much else about the card.

I like this and have changed Volume accordingly, thanks a lot:
(https://i.imgur.com/yTU2s0H.jpg)
If Encyclopedia is too weak the draw can be bumped up to 7 cards. With the extra $ you get it'll be a fairly huge buff. As it is, played from a hand of 5 you get +2 Cards +1 Buy +$2, strong vanilla and a good baseline from which you can work to increase. If you get to empty hand it's practically a Province anyway. Still, it might be asking a lot of the kingdom to both support draw to X and connecting Treasure Maps so it's worth it to go up to 7.

Quote from: spineflu on August 28, 2019, 04:33:15 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 28, 2019, 12:16:50 pm

So to be fair:

Quote from: spineflu on August 28, 2019, 08:58:27 am

...

It's very similar to Treasure Hunter (semi ninjaed here), differences being: in 3+ player games you can choose your target player; there are no accumulative chains where the last player's gained Silvers count as this looks for $4+s; your reacting may influence the player's decisions later during their turn, whereas there's no easy countering to TH; and there's no Page to play first. TH is better at hoarding masses of Silver overall.
I also think the top could be better. You're getting exactly the same if you react anyway, so something different would add more. Hard to tell if it should be terminal or not, and hopefully it wouldn't detract from this being a mono gainer if it didn't gain Silver.

There's still accumulation chains, it just needs a single $4+ to trigger. Their gained $4+ card doesn't need to be the first card gained to count towards the silver gaining.
I agree the top can be better though. Maybe "+1 Action, +1 Villager" (drop the "gain a silver") so he's a kinda-village.

I meant how TH could gain Silvers for each Silver the previous player's TH got. Still, sorry to be confusing. The Villager top would be quite strange, as you want some Action density for it to work yet the Reaction gets Silvers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on August 29, 2019, 05:18:50 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 28, 2019, 07:24:30 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 28, 2019, 06:36:02 pm

Quote from: majiponi on August 28, 2019, 06:25:57 pm

Merchant Village
cost $3 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may play a Merchant Village from your hand.
Gain a Merchant Village.
---
There are 20 copies of Merchant Village, rather than the usual 10.

This completely outclasses Market Square when there are no trashers.

Beyond that, I’d say it outclasses Village and maybe Worker's Village as well. With the self gaining, it should be very common for them to collide multiple times per turn.

Fmm... this is a Village only when two collide. In 20-card deck, how reliable? This is not worth $4. Enormous Buys aren't so great.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 29, 2019, 09:04:13 am

Hey pubby
coud we do a mixed pile (2 named cards, randomly ordered) that each gain the other card in the pile if its available? Would that qualify for the contest?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 29, 2019, 09:45:33 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 29, 2019, 09:04:13 am

Hey pubby
coud we do a mixed pile (2 named cards, randomly ordered) that each gain the other card in the pile if its available? Would that qualify for the contest?

I'll allow it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 29, 2019, 10:25:43 am

Quote from: majiponi on August 29, 2019, 05:18:50 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 28, 2019, 07:24:30 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 28, 2019, 06:36:02 pm

Quote from: majiponi on August 28, 2019, 06:25:57 pm

Merchant Village
cost $3 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may play a Merchant Village from your hand.
Gain a Merchant Village.
---
There are 20 copies of Merchant Village, rather than the usual 10.

This completely outclasses Market Square when there are no trashers.

Beyond that, I’d say it outclasses Village and maybe Worker's Village as well. With the self gaining, it should be very common for them to collide multiple times per turn.

Fmm... this is a Village only when two collide. In 20-card deck, how reliable? This is not worth $4. Enormous Buys aren't so great.

I totally disagree. Due to the unconditional self-gaining this would be a very powerful $4, perhaps even stronger than Port.

A simple nerf would be conditional self-gaining, e.g. "You may play a Merchant Village from your hand. If you did not, gain a Merchant Village." That could still be too strong for $4 but at least it is not totally crazy anymore.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 29, 2019, 12:16:43 pm

Here is my submission (there are 20 in the pile)
(https://i.imgur.com/mHcCZcF.png)

I know Donald X. has said that Rats is his favorite card (that was said some time ago, I don't know if it still is). It's one of my favorite as well. There's something so great about the finesse that's required to play a card like that. On the one hand you want to play a bunch of them and gain a bunch them to tfb, on the other hand, you can't let rats overrun your deck. With that in mind, I've always wanted to make a card that fits in that idea. Here is what I came up with. It's a self gaining lab, but you have to be careful about playing too many of them or you'll destroy the rest of your turn (make sure to keep the riot under control).

1) Just to preempt any discussion about price, keep in mind that when it comes to self gainers, a higher cost actually makes the card a more worthwhile buy (would you buy rats if it cost $2?). You only buy it once, but you'll can tfb it multiple times.

2) The bottom part applies to all cards that you play (actions, treasures, night), but only when you play them (so calling a reserve would work).

I have to ask the community for advice on 2 things:

1) The copper clause has a bit of history. First there was no clause. But then I felt it would too punishing to play your first riot and the barrier would be too great since you often play a couple of coppers each turn in the early game. So then I specifically excluded copper. But then I realized you could buy one copper (to have 8 ) and a riot and just play a bunch of riots and play 8 coppers and get a province. So then I made it that copper costs 3 more if you have a riot in play, but realized it could be abused with tfb like farmland or remodel. So finally this is what I have.

I'm wondering if anyone has a better way to word it (especially if you could combine both parts under the line).

2) I was debating adding a little bonus for trashing this (like rats). I was thinking maybe +1 action or you may trash a card. Do you guys think it's good as is, or should I add a bonus (and which one)

Thanks

Update: Fixed Copper issue below line

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 29, 2019, 01:11:43 pm

CHALLENGE #42 - MONOGAINER ENTRY

(https://i.imgur.com/EjnhreX.jpg)

I don't believe Dominion has any official cards that gain and draw on one card so I thought I'd give that a go. Has a lot of dud potential in terms of drawing, but it will always gain a Silver and draw at least one card, which isn't too bad. The draw on this can get a bit crazy, but the Silver gaining and draw itself should help keep itself in check. The former, because Headhunter cares about diversity and you are Silver flooding, the latter because drawing will often force a reshuffle and cut off your draw power from your discard pile. Should work well with both Big Money and Engines, but since there is usually more card diversity in Engines, that should be the optimal play.

This seems fun to play, but could turn out to be tedious.
Thoughts are always welcome!

Quote from: Headhunters by Kudasai

Headhunters
Cost: $5 Type: Action
Gain a Silver then reveal your discard pile. +1 Card per differently named card revealed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 29, 2019, 01:26:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OLgaNWxm.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 29, 2019, 01:29:54 pm

Aight, withdrawing Middleman, entering Manuscript/Grimoire

It's a mixed pile, six of each, that are shuffled together; the supply pile is kept face down and the top card is face up. You can only buy/gain/exchange for the top card (a la Knights)
(https://i.imgur.com/06u5m2U.png)(https://i.imgur.com/tshq2l4.png)

Worth big money and a couple extra buys if you can run the pile; they don't leave potions dead in your hand; however their gaining/exchanging doesn't always work - sometimes there's a card in the way.

Quote

Manuscript • $1P • Treasure
$1 plus $1 per Grimoire you have in play.
+1 Buy
-
During Clean-up, you may exchange this for a Grimoire if one is available.

Quote

Grimoire • $1P • Treasure
$2
You may spend any number of P. This is worth $1 more for each P spent.
If this is your first Grimoire played this turn, gain a Manuscript if one is available.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 29, 2019, 01:40:52 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 29, 2019, 01:26:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OLgaNWxm.png)

I'm not sure how much this improves your deck... having Copper instead of Estate in your hand is slightly better; but you'd still really rather trash that Copper. And if trashing is available; I don't think you'd take the time with this to avoid losing the Estate points.

Then again if trashing isn't available; turning an Estate into a Copper is kind of like gaining a Peddler.

I wonder if it would be better and still balanced if the Copper were gained to your hand?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 29, 2019, 02:09:41 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 29, 2019, 01:40:52 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 29, 2019, 01:26:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OLgaNWxm.png)

I'm not sure how much this improves your deck... having Copper instead of Estate in your hand is slightly better; but you'd still really rather trash that Copper. And if trashing is available; I don't think you'd take the time with this to avoid losing the Estate points.

Then again if trashing isn't available; turning an Estate into a Copper is kind of like gaining a Peddler.

I wonder if it would be better and still balanced if the Copper were gained to your hand?

you're forgetting you could also use this on curses and other victory cards (like provinces)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 29, 2019, 02:45:07 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 29, 2019, 01:40:52 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 29, 2019, 01:26:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OLgaNWxm.png)

I'm not sure how much this improves your deck... having Copper instead of Estate in your hand is slightly better; but you'd still really rather trash that Copper. And if trashing is available; I don't think you'd take the time with this to avoid losing the Estate points.

Then again if trashing isn't available; turning an Estate into a Copper is kind of like gaining a Peddler.

I wonder if it would be better and still balanced if the Copper were gained to your hand?

I considered this, but I think that that'd make the card way too strong. Imagine this:
T1: I open 4/3. Buy Traveling Agency for $4
T2: I get rid of my first estate and hit $4
T3: I draw CCCCE. Bye bye second estate and hit $5
T4: I draw CCCCE. Ok, my estates are gone, and I hit $5 again.

This project isn't that great at getting rid of estates, but it can remove cards simply by drawing them. Staples likes that. Pooka likes that. And remember that sending to the island mat =/= trashing. It can effectively make a singular province produce $1, AND make it trashable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 29, 2019, 02:54:45 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 29, 2019, 02:09:41 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 29, 2019, 01:40:52 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 29, 2019, 01:26:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OLgaNWxm.png)

I'm not sure how much this improves your deck... having Copper instead of Estate in your hand is slightly better; but you'd still really rather trash that Copper. And if trashing is available; I don't think you'd take the time with this to avoid losing the Estate points.

Then again if trashing isn't available; turning an Estate into a Copper is kind of like gaining a Peddler.

I wonder if it would be better and still balanced if the Copper were gained to your hand?

you're forgetting you could also use this on curses and other victory cards (like provinces)

I wasn't forgetting; just not including it because it's a much less common use; and one that doesn't happen as early in the game. For Curses, using this is worse than trashing; which takes away one of the few advantages that this has over something like Cathedral. For Provinces or other VP cards; it often is happening much later in the game where trashing just isn't as impactful.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 29, 2019, 03:02:55 pm

The prophet pile is a mixed pile of 20 cards, 10 copies of each of these versions:
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/i9i82cmp.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ryzg3b0w.png)

Please let me know if this violates mono-gaining rules

I've had this idea for a while of a card that alternated between even and odd trashing. Originally, I had the cards with different names. Then this contest inspired me to try out the idea ... what if two functionally different cards had the same name? The art is flipped to help tell the difference and the * * are supposed to be bold but I wasn't able to use the card template I used to easily bold the difference.

It scales up in power in multiplier games, of course, but it also runs out a lot more quickly in multiplayer games. There's an interesting meta game -- you want to be able to hold onto a Prophet at the end potentially for the big $ it can generate. Maybe that means you hold on to your "even" Prophet so that you don't have to trash to get the $. There's some fun strategic considerations in terms of if you want to play your prophets, or when you should buy a second prophet, etc.

Despite this being almost entirely unprecedented, I do not think this card causes major problems. Band of misfits and similar cards use the card in the supply to play, so if the odd was on top, then it acts as an odd one. They have the same name, but are not copies of each other, so Ambassador might return one and fail to give out more than one, depending on the order of the piles. I don't think any of this is that confusing.

Flavor wise, your prophet sacrifices himself and reincarnates again! However, the disciples that got convinced to convert just stay in the trash -- they don't come back. They gave their life to the cause in terms of $. The more people you've converted the more $ you get. And it's one religion, so anybody your opponents convert also give you $.

I am definitely open to feedback on this card!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 29, 2019, 03:44:23 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 28, 2019, 09:58:11 am

(https://i.imgur.com/yTU2s0H.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/y2VXm5s.jpg)

Treasure Map that gains an engine piece rather than Gold, to kinda try and bring the experience into the engine meta. Handsize increase won't be so good for connecting the Volumes up so going for it won't always be a strong move. It should be worthwhile often enough though. +Action on Volumes lets you remove them if they didn't connect up in good time, but hoarding them until they connect becomes a possibility. And draw to 6 may be too tame compared to 4 Golds.

Edit: Encyclopedia gained to hand and made optional (in case you just use Volumes to decrease handsize)

You could consider the following buff to Volume:

Quote

Volume (Action, $4)
+2 Actions
You may return this and a Volume to the supply. If you did, gain an Encyclopedia from its pile to your hand.

Encyclopedia needs non-drawing villages to be worthwile, so why not let Volume be a helping hand?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 29, 2019, 04:33:24 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 29, 2019, 03:02:55 pm

The prophet pile is a mixed pile of 20 cards, 10 copies of each of these versions:
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/i9i82cmp.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ryzg3b0w.png)

Please let me know if this violates mono-gaining rules

I've had this idea for a while of a card that alternated between even and odd trashing. Originally, I had the cards with different names. Then this contest inspired me to try out the idea ... what if two functionally different cards had the same name? The art is flipped to help tell the difference and the * * are supposed to be bold but I wasn't able to use the card template I used to easily bold the difference.

It scales up in power in multiplier games, of course, but it also runs out a lot more quickly in multiplayer games. There's an interesting meta game -- you want to be able to hold onto a Prophet at the end potentially for the big $ it can generate. Maybe that means you hold on to your "even" Prophet so that you don't have to trash to get the $. There's some fun strategic considerations in terms of if you want to play your prophets, or when you should buy a second prophet, etc.

Despite this being almost entirely unprecedented, I do not think this card causes major problems. Band of misfits and similar cards use the card in the supply to play, so if the odd was on top, then it acts as an odd one. They have the same name, but are not copies of each other, so Ambassador might return one and fail to give out more than one, depending on the order of the piles. I don't think any of this is that confusing.

Flavor wise, your prophet sacrifices himself and reincarnates again! However, the disciples that got convinced to convert just stay in the trash -- they don't come back. They gave their life to the cause in terms of $. The more people you've converted the more $ you get. And it's one religion, so anybody your opponents convert also give you $.

I am definitely open to feedback on this card!

so per this thread about inheritance, word of god is (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18598.0) cards with the same name are supposed to be identical; however this is such a narrow difference case I'd think it's a reasonable sui generis case of it not being a big deal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on August 29, 2019, 04:51:08 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 29, 2019, 04:33:24 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 29, 2019, 03:02:55 pm

The prophet pile is a mixed pile of 20 cards, 10 copies of each of these versions:
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/i9i82cmp.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ryzg3b0w.png)

Please let me know if this violates mono-gaining rules

I've had this idea for a while of a card that alternated between even and odd trashing. Originally, I had the cards with different names. Then this contest inspired me to try out the idea ... what if two functionally different cards had the same name? The art is flipped to help tell the difference and the * * are supposed to be bold but I wasn't able to use the card template I used to easily bold the difference.

It scales up in power in multiplier games, of course, but it also runs out a lot more quickly in multiplayer games. There's an interesting meta game -- you want to be able to hold onto a Prophet at the end potentially for the big $ it can generate. Maybe that means you hold on to your "even" Prophet so that you don't have to trash to get the $. There's some fun strategic considerations in terms of if you want to play your prophets, or when you should buy a second prophet, etc.

Despite this being almost entirely unprecedented, I do not think this card causes major problems. Band of misfits and similar cards use the card in the supply to play, so if the odd was on top, then it acts as an odd one. They have the same name, but are not copies of each other, so Ambassador might return one and fail to give out more than one, depending on the order of the piles. I don't think any of this is that confusing.

Flavor wise, your prophet sacrifices himself and reincarnates again! However, the disciples that got convinced to convert just stay in the trash -- they don't come back. They gave their life to the cause in terms of $. The more people you've converted the more $ you get. And it's one religion, so anybody your opponents convert also give you $.

I am definitely open to feedback on this card!

so per this thread about inheritance, word of god is (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18598.0) cards with the same name are supposed to be identical; however this is such a narrow difference case I'd think it's a reasonable sui generis case of it not being a big deal.

Seems to me you could just have the cards with 2 different names ("Prophet A", "prophet B") and add a type ("Prophet") so that "gain a Prophet" refers to its type and not its name. Of course, cards that care about name would act differently (sometimes worse, sometimes better).

It wouldn't qualify for this challenge*, then - but seems like a cleaner design than two same named cards having different texts.

* unless pubby allows it, as a variant of spineflu's question:

Quote from: spineflu on August 29, 2019, 09:04:13 am

Hey pubby
coud we do a mixed pile (2 named cards, randomly ordered) that each gain the other card in the pile if its available? Would that qualify for the contest?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on August 29, 2019, 09:37:56 pm

I think maybe Travel Agency can be moved to 3$ to better posture itself as a midgame/lategame tactical pickup rather than an opener.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 30, 2019, 03:38:51 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 29, 2019, 03:44:23 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 28, 2019, 09:58:11 am

...

You could consider the following buff to Volume:

Quote

Volume (Action, $4)
+2 Actions
You may return this and a Volume to the supply. If you did, gain an Encyclopedia from its pile to your hand.

Encyclopedia needs non-drawing villages to be worthwile, so why not let Volume be a helping hand?

Great idea, and I've changed Volume to this. I first worried this would be too close to a one-pile strategy, but it would be a lot of work to pull off so should be safe. And Necropolis for $4 isn't the greatest thing to keep so getting them and ignoring Encyclopedia shouldn't be optimal play very often.
Thanks again!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on August 30, 2019, 05:40:46 am

(https://starback.se/static/games/Inherited_Lands.png)

Inherited Lands
Project, $10
At the start of your turn, you may discard a Victory card to gain a Duchy.

---

Get a whole bunch of Duchies for the price of two! If that's what you really want.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 30, 2019, 11:35:20 am

Quote from: naitchman on August 29, 2019, 12:16:43 pm

Here is my submission (there are 20 in the pile)
(https://i.imgur.com/ujPzg6w.png)

I know Donald X. has said that Rats is his favorite card (that was said some time ago, I don't know if it still is). It's one of my favorite as well. There's something so great about the finesse that's required to play a card like that. On the one hand you want to play a bunch of them and gain a bunch them to tfb, on the other hand, you can't let rats overrun your deck. With that in mind, I've always wanted to make a card that fits in that idea. Here is what I came up with. It's a self gaining lab, but you have to be careful about playing too many of them or you'll destroy the rest of your turn (make sure to keep the riot under control).

1) Just to preempt any discussion about price, keep in mind that when it comes to self gainers, a higher cost actually makes the card a more worthwhile buy (would you buy rats if it cost $2?). You only buy it once, but you'll can tfb it multiple times.

2) The bottom part applies to all cards that you play (actions, treasures, night), but only when you play them (so calling a reserve would work).

I have to ask the community for advice on 2 things:

1) The copper clause has a bit of history. First there was no clause. But then I felt it would too punishing to play your first riot and the barrier would be too great since you often play a couple of coppers each turn in the early game. So then I specifically excluded copper. But then I realized you could buy one copper (to have 8 ) and a riot and just play a bunch of riots and play 8 coppers and get a province. So then I made it that copper costs 3 more if you have a riot in play, but realized it could be abused with tfb like farmland or remodel. So finally this is what I have.

I'm wondering if anyone has a better way to word it (especially if you could combine both parts under the line).

2) I was debating adding a little bonus for trashing this (like rats). I was thinking maybe +1 action or you may trash a card. Do you guys think it's good as is, or should I add a bonus (and which one)

Thanks

The way its phrased right now, doesn't the "card other than Riot" part trump the "when you play a copper" part?

Just make Copper always work is my vote.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 30, 2019, 04:02:24 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 30, 2019, 11:35:20 am

Quote from: naitchman on August 29, 2019, 12:16:43 pm

Here is my submission (there are 20 in the pile)
(https://i.imgur.com/ujPzg6w.png)

I know Donald X. has said that Rats is his favorite card (that was said some time ago, I don't know if it still is). It's one of my favorite as well. There's something so great about the finesse that's required to play a card like that. On the one hand you want to play a bunch of them and gain a bunch them to tfb, on the other hand, you can't let rats overrun your deck. With that in mind, I've always wanted to make a card that fits in that idea. Here is what I came up with. It's a self gaining lab, but you have to be careful about playing too many of them or you'll destroy the rest of your turn (make sure to keep the riot under control).

1) Just to preempt any discussion about price, keep in mind that when it comes to self gainers, a higher cost actually makes the card a more worthwhile buy (would you buy rats if it cost $2?). You only buy it once, but you'll can tfb it multiple times.

2) The bottom part applies to all cards that you play (actions, treasures, night), but only when you play them (so calling a reserve would work).

I have to ask the community for advice on 2 things:

1) The copper clause has a bit of history. First there was no clause. But then I felt it would too punishing to play your first riot and the barrier would be too great since you often play a couple of coppers each turn in the early game. So then I specifically excluded copper. But then I realized you could buy one copper (to have 8 ) and a riot and just play a bunch of riots and play 8 coppers and get a province. So then I made it that copper costs 3 more if you have a riot in play, but realized it could be abused with tfb like farmland or remodel. So finally this is what I have.

I'm wondering if anyone has a better way to word it (especially if you could combine both parts under the line).

2) I was debating adding a little bonus for trashing this (like rats). I was thinking maybe +1 action or you may trash a card. Do you guys think it's good as is, or should I add a bonus (and which one)

Thanks

The way its phrased right now, doesn't the "card other than Riot" part trump the "when you play a copper" part?

Just make Copper always work is my vote.

Good point. I should write other than riot or copper.

Like I explained, if copper always works it makes a simple strategy of filling your deck with riots and buying a single copper and then just buying provinces.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 30, 2019, 04:55:57 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 30, 2019, 04:02:24 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 30, 2019, 11:35:20 am

Quote from: naitchman on August 29, 2019, 12:16:43 pm

Here is my submission (there are 20 in the pile)
(https://i.imgur.com/ujPzg6w.png)

I know Donald X. has said that Rats is his favorite card (that was said some time ago, I don't know if it still is). It's one of my favorite as well. There's something so great about the finesse that's required to play a card like that. On the one hand you want to play a bunch of them and gain a bunch them to tfb, on the other hand, you can't let rats overrun your deck. With that in mind, I've always wanted to make a card that fits in that idea. Here is what I came up with. It's a self gaining lab, but you have to be careful about playing too many of them or you'll destroy the rest of your turn (make sure to keep the riot under control).

1) Just to preempt any discussion about price, keep in mind that when it comes to self gainers, a higher cost actually makes the card a more worthwhile buy (would you buy rats if it cost $2?). You only buy it once, but you'll can tfb it multiple times.

2) The bottom part applies to all cards that you play (actions, treasures, night), but only when you play them (so calling a reserve would work).

I have to ask the community for advice on 2 things:

1) The copper clause has a bit of history. First there was no clause. But then I felt it would too punishing to play your first riot and the barrier would be too great since you often play a couple of coppers each turn in the early game. So then I specifically excluded copper. But then I realized you could buy one copper (to have 8 ) and a riot and just play a bunch of riots and play 8 coppers and get a province. So then I made it that copper costs 3 more if you have a riot in play, but realized it could be abused with tfb like farmland or remodel. So finally this is what I have.

I'm wondering if anyone has a better way to word it (especially if you could combine both parts under the line).

2) I was debating adding a little bonus for trashing this (like rats). I was thinking maybe +1 action or you may trash a card. Do you guys think it's good as is, or should I add a bonus (and which one)

Thanks

The way its phrased right now, doesn't the "card other than Riot" part trump the "when you play a copper" part?

Just make Copper always work is my vote.

Good point. I should write other than riot or copper.

Like I explained, if copper always works it makes a simple strategy of filling your deck with riots and buying a single copper and then just buying provinces.

Your original goal of playing something that requires finesse is quite limited by coppers working. You intended to design a card where you want a few, but not too many. But getting 8 coppers and a bunch of riots I think will be a pretty strong strategy. How about you do not make a special case for copper. It costs 0 so as soon as you play 1 riot, it's instructions get ignored. But that makes it super weak early game -- what if you added copper trashing to the card? You could "when you gain a riot, trash a copper from your hand," or you could "when you buy, trash any number of coppers from your hand" you know, there's a lot of different directions here. In addition, the copper trashing will encourage an early buy, but early buys are dangerous because you could end up with a ton of these cards and absolutely no way to make economy. It'll become more strategically interesting. I think adding copper strategy here will move the card towards your original goal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 30, 2019, 05:18:31 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 30, 2019, 04:55:57 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 30, 2019, 04:02:24 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 30, 2019, 11:35:20 am

Quote from: naitchman on August 29, 2019, 12:16:43 pm

Here is my submission (there are 20 in the pile)
(https://i.imgur.com/ujPzg6w.png)

I know Donald X. has said that Rats is his favorite card (that was said some time ago, I don't know if it still is). It's one of my favorite as well. There's something so great about the finesse that's required to play a card like that. On the one hand you want to play a bunch of them and gain a bunch them to tfb, on the other hand, you can't let rats overrun your deck. With that in mind, I've always wanted to make a card that fits in that idea. Here is what I came up with. It's a self gaining lab, but you have to be careful about playing too many of them or you'll destroy the rest of your turn (make sure to keep the riot under control).

1) Just to preempt any discussion about price, keep in mind that when it comes to self gainers, a higher cost actually makes the card a more worthwhile buy (would you buy rats if it cost $2?). You only buy it once, but you'll can tfb it multiple times.

2) The bottom part applies to all cards that you play (actions, treasures, night), but only when you play them (so calling a reserve would work).

I have to ask the community for advice on 2 things:

1) The copper clause has a bit of history. First there was no clause. But then I felt it would too punishing to play your first riot and the barrier would be too great since you often play a couple of coppers each turn in the early game. So then I specifically excluded copper. But then I realized you could buy one copper (to have 8 ) and a riot and just play a bunch of riots and play 8 coppers and get a province. So then I made it that copper costs 3 more if you have a riot in play, but realized it could be abused with tfb like farmland or remodel. So finally this is what I have.

I'm wondering if anyone has a better way to word it (especially if you could combine both parts under the line).

2) I was debating adding a little bonus for trashing this (like rats). I was thinking maybe +1 action or you may trash a card. Do you guys think it's good as is, or should I add a bonus (and which one)

Thanks

The way its phrased right now, doesn't the "card other than Riot" part trump the "when you play a copper" part?

Just make Copper always work is my vote.

Good point. I should write other than riot or copper.

Like I explained, if copper always works it makes a simple strategy of filling your deck with riots and buying a single copper and then just buying provinces.

Your original goal of playing something that requires finesse is quite limited by coppers working. You intended to design a card where you want a few, but not too many. But getting 8 coppers and a bunch of riots I think will be a pretty strong strategy. How about you do not make a special case for copper. It costs 0 so as soon as you play 1 riot, it's instructions get ignored. But that makes it super weak early game -- what if you added copper trashing to the card? You could "when you gain a riot, trash a copper from your hand," or you could "when you buy, trash any number of coppers from your hand" you know, there's a lot of different directions here. In addition, the copper trashing will encourage an early buy, but early buys are dangerous because you could end up with a ton of these cards and absolutely no way to make economy. It'll become more strategically interesting. I think adding copper strategy here will move the card towards your original goal.

It still has finesse even with a leeway for copper. Playing more than 4 is really going to hurt the rest of your turn. The finesse is not gone it's just a little different.

I did used to have a copper trashing ability (I forgot to mention this). It felt a little too much like rats (rats turns estates and coppers into rats, riot would end up turning coppers into riots). Besides it started to feel like there were to many different concepts on the card (lab, self gaining, copper trasher, restrictions on other cards) which makes a card harder to understand and less intuitive. Also trashing coppers alone is still going to hurt early turns since you can't buy anything that turn. Other trashers let you trash multiple (chapel, steward) or at least let you trash while building your deck (moneylender).

Compare a 3rd turn play of rats to riot.

Play rats, trash an estate, buy something for $4 or $5.
Play riot, trash a copper, buy at best a $2 maybe buy nothing because you only have coppers and estates (that extra +card didn't help)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 30, 2019, 05:22:32 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 29, 2019, 12:16:43 pm

Here is my submission (there are 20 in the pile)
(https://i.imgur.com/ujPzg6w.png)

I know Donald X. has said that Rats is his favorite card (that was said some time ago, I don't know if it still is). It's one of my favorite as well. There's something so great about the finesse that's required to play a card like that. On the one hand you want to play a bunch of them and gain a bunch them to tfb, on the other hand, you can't let rats overrun your deck. With that in mind, I've always wanted to make a card that fits in that idea. Here is what I came up with. It's a self gaining lab, but you have to be careful about playing too many of them or you'll destroy the rest of your turn (make sure to keep the riot under control).

1) Just to preempt any discussion about price, keep in mind that when it comes to self gainers, a higher cost actually makes the card a more worthwhile buy (would you buy rats if it cost $2?). You only buy it once, but you'll can tfb it multiple times.

2) The bottom part applies to all cards that you play (actions, treasures, night), but only when you play them (so calling a reserve would work).

I have to ask the community for advice on 2 things:

1) The copper clause has a bit of history. First there was no clause. But then I felt it would too punishing to play your first riot and the barrier would be too great since you often play a couple of coppers each turn in the early game. So then I specifically excluded copper. But then I realized you could buy one copper (to have 8 ) and a riot and just play a bunch of riots and play 8 coppers and get a province. So then I made it that copper costs 3 more if you have a riot in play, but realized it could be abused with tfb like farmland or remodel. So finally this is what I have.

I'm wondering if anyone has a better way to word it (especially if you could combine both parts under the line).

2) I was debating adding a little bonus for trashing this (like rats). I was thinking maybe +1 action or you may trash a card. Do you guys think it's good as is, or should I add a bonus (and which one)

Thanks

Functionally, "when you play a Copper, you do not follow its instructions" can be replaced with "Coppers make $0".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on August 30, 2019, 05:25:52 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on August 30, 2019, 05:22:32 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 29, 2019, 12:16:43 pm

Here is my submission (there are 20 in the pile)
(https://i.imgur.com/ujPzg6w.png)

I know Donald X. has said that Rats is his favorite card (that was said some time ago, I don't know if it still is). It's one of my favorite as well. There's something so great about the finesse that's required to play a card like that. On the one hand you want to play a bunch of them and gain a bunch them to tfb, on the other hand, you can't let rats overrun your deck. With that in mind, I've always wanted to make a card that fits in that idea. Here is what I came up with. It's a self gaining lab, but you have to be careful about playing too many of them or you'll destroy the rest of your turn (make sure to keep the riot under control).

1) Just to preempt any discussion about price, keep in mind that when it comes to self gainers, a higher cost actually makes the card a more worthwhile buy (would you buy rats if it cost $2?). You only buy it once, but you'll can tfb it multiple times.

2) The bottom part applies to all cards that you play (actions, treasures, night), but only when you play them (so calling a reserve would work).

I have to ask the community for advice on 2 things:

1) The copper clause has a bit of history. First there was no clause. But then I felt it would too punishing to play your first riot and the barrier would be too great since you often play a couple of coppers each turn in the early game. So then I specifically excluded copper. But then I realized you could buy one copper (to have 8 ) and a riot and just play a bunch of riots and play 8 coppers and get a province. So then I made it that copper costs 3 more if you have a riot in play, but realized it could be abused with tfb like farmland or remodel. So finally this is what I have.

I'm wondering if anyone has a better way to word it (especially if you could combine both parts under the line).

2) I was debating adding a little bonus for trashing this (like rats). I was thinking maybe +1 action or you may trash a card. Do you guys think it's good as is, or should I add a bonus (and which one)

Thanks

Functionally, "when you play a Copper, you do not follow its instructions" can be replaced with "Coppers make $0".

That's possible. Though I was hesitant about this because of how coppersmith would work (does it produce $0 after or before coppersmith adds $1)

I could say copper makes $1 less though. Though why not just use the same language that's on the other party if the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on August 30, 2019, 06:14:15 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 30, 2019, 05:25:52 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on August 30, 2019, 05:22:32 pm

Quote from: naitchman on August 29, 2019, 12:16:43 pm

Here is my submission (there are 20 in the pile)
(https://i.imgur.com/ujPzg6w.png)

I know Donald X. has said that Rats is his favorite card (that was said some time ago, I don't know if it still is). It's one of my favorite as well. There's something so great about the finesse that's required to play a card like that. On the one hand you want to play a bunch of them and gain a bunch them to tfb, on the other hand, you can't let rats overrun your deck. With that in mind, I've always wanted to make a card that fits in that idea. Here is what I came up with. It's a self gaining lab, but you have to be careful about playing too many of them or you'll destroy the rest of your turn (make sure to keep the riot under control).

1) Just to preempt any discussion about price, keep in mind that when it comes to self gainers, a higher cost actually makes the card a more worthwhile buy (would you buy rats if it cost $2?). You only buy it once, but you'll can tfb it multiple times.

2) The bottom part applies to all cards that you play (actions, treasures, night), but only when you play them (so calling a reserve would work).

I have to ask the community for advice on 2 things:

1) The copper clause has a bit of history. First there was no clause. But then I felt it would too punishing to play your first riot and the barrier would be too great since you often play a couple of coppers each turn in the early game. So then I specifically excluded copper. But then I realized you could buy one copper (to have 8 ) and a riot and just play a bunch of riots and play 8 coppers and get a province. So then I made it that copper costs 3 more if you have a riot in play, but realized it could be abused with tfb like farmland or remodel. So finally this is what I have.

I'm wondering if anyone has a better way to word it (especially if you could combine both parts under the line).

2) I was debating adding a little bonus for trashing this (like rats). I was thinking maybe +1 action or you may trash a card. Do you guys think it's good as is, or should I add a bonus (and which one)

Thanks

Functionally, "when you play a Copper, you do not follow its instructions" can be replaced with "Coppers make $0".

That's possible. Though I was hesitant about this because of how coppersmith would work (does it produce $0 after or before coppersmith adds $1)

I could say copper makes $1 less though. Though why not just use the same language that's on the other party if the card.

True! I hadn't thought of Coppersmith. I think the increase and decrease order would be in the order you played Riot and Coppersmith. I personally like that Coppersmith can counter the negative effects. Wombo-combo!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 30, 2019, 08:04:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/UUzdKQ9.png)

There are 15 Trusts in the pile.

A card inspired by Magpie, but without the problems I have with it. The things I don't like about Magpie are:

1. Too automatic. Magpie never hurts you. With Trust, you have to think hard about when to get it. If you get it too early, it'll basically be a delayed Gold (which might be what you want, but not always).

2. Too swingy. I always end up with 2 Magpies while my opponent gets 8. Magpie has a snowball effect where the more you have, the more you're likely to get. With Trust, the opposite is true, and in fact a Trust will blow up if it collides with another Trust.

I put the "gain a Treasure" part in a when-trash clause because I like that it enhances Rats-style tfb tricks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on August 30, 2019, 08:18:44 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 30, 2019, 08:04:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/UUzdKQ9.png)

There are 15 Trusts in the pile.

A card inspired by Magpie, but without the problems I have with it. The things I don't like about Magpie are:

1. Too automatic. Magpie never hurts you. With Trust, you have to think hard about when to get it. If you get it too early, it'll basically be a delayed Gold (which might be what you want, but not always).

2. Too swingy. I always end up with 2 Magpies while my opponent gets 8. Magpie has a snowball effect where the more you have, the more you're likely to get. With Trust, the opposite is true, and in fact a Trust will blow up if it collides with another Trust.

I put the "gain a Treasure" part in a when-trash clause because I like that it enhances Rats-style tfb tricks.

I don't think this counts as a monogainer since it can gain a treasure when trashed (the closest example from the rules was Beggar, which gained as a reaction).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 30, 2019, 09:15:52 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on August 30, 2019, 08:18:44 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 30, 2019, 08:04:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/UUzdKQ9.png)

There are 15 Trusts in the pile.

A card inspired by Magpie, but without the problems I have with it. The things I don't like about Magpie are:

1. Too automatic. Magpie never hurts you. With Trust, you have to think hard about when to get it. If you get it too early, it'll basically be a delayed Gold (which might be what you want, but not always).

2. Too swingy. I always end up with 2 Magpies while my opponent gets 8. Magpie has a snowball effect where the more you have, the more you're likely to get. With Trust, the opposite is true, and in fact a Trust will blow up if it collides with another Trust.

I put the "gain a Treasure" part in a when-trash clause because I like that it enhances Rats-style tfb tricks.

I don't think this counts as a monogainer since it can gain a treasure when trashed (the closest example from the rules was Beggar, which gained as a reaction).

Ooh, good point. I chose Treasure-gaining because of the theme, but I'll change it to something else.

(https://i.imgur.com/94SIkUu.png)

Now it's a one-shot super-lab if it reveals non-Actions or itself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on August 31, 2019, 09:18:44 am

Quote from: pst on August 30, 2019, 05:40:46 am

(https://starback.se/static/games/Inherited_Lands.png)

Inherited Lands
Project, $10
At the start of your turn, you may discard a Victory card to gain a Duchy.

---

Get a whole bunch of Duchies for the price of two! If that's what you really want.

I think this is too expensive. Keep in mind that you first you have to spend a turn buying this instead of a Duchy, then you can only gain one if you happen to have a Victory card in your 5-card hand.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on August 31, 2019, 02:56:14 am

Philanthropist
Action - $5
Reveal your hand. If it does not have more Golds than Curses, gain a Gold to your hand.

Looks incredibly weak. It will lose most of its ability after a few turns and then become a dead card. The chances of a Curser being present are small and even then it's overpriced. As for deliberately gaining Curses to get more Golds, I don't know why you'd ever want to do that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on August 31, 2019, 11:27:27 am

Quote from: segura on August 29, 2019, 10:25:43 am

Quote from: majiponi on August 29, 2019, 05:18:50 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 28, 2019, 07:24:30 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 28, 2019, 06:36:02 pm

Quote from: majiponi on August 28, 2019, 06:25:57 pm

Merchant Village
cost $3 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may play a Merchant Village from your hand.
Gain a Merchant Village.
---
There are 20 copies of Merchant Village, rather than the usual 10.

This completely outclasses Market Square when there are no trashers.

Beyond that, I’d say it outclasses Village and maybe Worker's Village as well. With the self gaining, it should be very common for them to collide multiple times per turn.

Fmm... this is a Village only when two collide. In 20-card deck, how reliable? This is not worth $4. Enormous Buys aren't so great.

I totally disagree. Due to the unconditional self-gaining this would be a very powerful $4, perhaps even stronger than Port.

A simple nerf would be conditional self-gaining, e.g. "You may play a Merchant Village from your hand. If you did not, gain a Merchant Village." That could still be too strong for $4 but at least it is not totally crazy anymore.

How about this?

Merchant Village
cost $3 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may play a Merchant Village from your hand.
If this is the first time your played a Merchant Village, gain a Merchant Village.

You can gain only 5 or 6 Merchant Villages (since all 4 players buy and play this if this is overpowering). When you have 20 cards in deck, this is unreliable. Do you still buy this only for Buys? Unlike 4 cost cantrips like Magpie and Rats, this is unsuitable for upgrading.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on August 31, 2019, 06:24:02 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 31, 2019, 09:18:44 am

Quote from: pst on August 30, 2019, 05:40:46 am

(https://starback.se/static/games/Inherited_Lands.png)

Inherited Lands
Project, $10
At the start of your turn, you may discard a Victory card to gain a Duchy.

---

Get a whole bunch of Duchies for the price of two! If that's what you really want.

I think this is too expensive. Keep in mind that you first you have to spend a turn buying this instead of a Duchy, then you can only gain one if you happen to have a Victory card in your 5-card hand.

Hm, maybe so. Actually I first had it without discarding Victory cards, but just automatic gains for the same price.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on August 31, 2019, 10:26:48 pm

I hope Ruins gaining counts.

Junkyard
Action - Looter - $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may gain a Ruins to your hand.
Discard any number of cards. +2 Cards per action card discarded, +1 Card per other card discarded.
You may trash this
—
When you trash this, +2 Cards

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on August 31, 2019, 11:26:55 pm

my entry:

Quote

Scientist
$5 - Action
+1 Card, +1 Action.
You may trash a card costing at least $2. If you do, +2 cards. Otherwise, gain a Silver.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on September 01, 2019, 05:59:56 am

Quote from: mail-mi on August 31, 2019, 10:26:48 pm

I hope Ruins gaining counts.

Junkyard
Action - Looter - $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may gain a Ruins to your hand.
Discard any number of cards. +2 Cards per action card discarded, +1 Card per other card discarded.
You may trash this
—
When you trash this, +2 Cards

Sounds broken af. Imagine a hand full of actions. I discard my entire hand for a whopping 10 cards. Then I can easily redraw my actions again.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on September 01, 2019, 12:48:18 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on September 01, 2019, 05:59:56 am

Quote from: mail-mi on August 31, 2019, 10:26:48 pm

I hope Ruins gaining counts.

Junkyard
Action - Looter - $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may gain a Ruins to your hand.
Discard any number of cards. +2 Cards per action card discarded, +1 Card per other card discarded.
You may trash this
—
When you trash this, +2 Cards

Sounds broken af. Imagine a hand full of actions. I discard my entire hand for a whopping 10 cards. Then I can easily redraw my actions again.

That’s a good point. What if I make it terminal? Then you need village support at least

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 01, 2019, 01:07:14 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on September 01, 2019, 12:48:18 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on September 01, 2019, 05:59:56 am

Quote from: mail-mi on August 31, 2019, 10:26:48 pm

I hope Ruins gaining counts.

Junkyard
Action - Looter - $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may gain a Ruins to your hand.
Discard any number of cards. +2 Cards per action card discarded, +1 Card per other card discarded.
You may trash this
—
When you trash this, +2 Cards

Sounds broken af. Imagine a hand full of actions. I discard my entire hand for a whopping 10 cards. Then I can easily redraw my actions again.

That’s a good point. What if I make it terminal? Then you need village support at least

Or set them aside until Clean up. That way you can't loop and have to actually choose whether you want to discard your actions.

You can probably also drop the "+1 Card" part.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on September 01, 2019, 04:58:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/HU3x97x.jpg)

Quote

Vendor

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a Copper from your hand. If you do, gain a Silver, putting it into your hand. Otherwise, +$1.

Action
$5

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 01, 2019, 08:49:23 pm

Quote from: alion8me on September 01, 2019, 04:58:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/HU3x97x.jpg)

Quote

Vendor

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a Copper from your hand. If you do, gain a Silver, putting it into your hand. Otherwise, +$1.

Action
$5

Cool concept, but I think it's plenty strong enough even without the added "Otherwise, +$1" clause.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 01, 2019, 09:31:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/mHcCZcF.png)

I've fixed the copper issue mentioned before.

Just wanted to ask again if anyone has any opinions on whether they feel this needs a trashing benefit (+1 action, trash a card from your hand, etc.) and which they feel would be appropriate.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on September 02, 2019, 07:58:36 am

Gonna judge in a day. Get your entries in if you haven't already.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 02, 2019, 09:45:17 am

Probably won't have an entry this week, but in my dream last night I thought of having a Chicken card that gains you eggs, and the Egg card was something like +1 card +1 action +$1 discard a card. Also I think there was some kind of reserve clause on it to but I couldn't read it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 02, 2019, 10:39:28 am

Chicken
Action - $0*
Gain an Egg.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Egg
Action - $0*
Gain a Chicken.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on September 02, 2019, 10:48:51 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ywuND4M.png)


So it can sift past Estates for +1 Action but can be a Village with Duchy and Province, which I think is a cool dynamic. It can also just be played for +2 Cards. I thought it would be too good in the opening to cost $3 so it costs $4. The Estate gaining part I feel can add an interesting decision. The Manor alleviates the Estate somewhat but you still risk dud turns adding the extra stop card.

*Updated with once per turn clause*

Old version:
(https://i.imgur.com/QV3cZQ6.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 02, 2019, 01:31:13 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on September 02, 2019, 10:48:51 am

(https://i.imgur.com/QV3cZQ6.png)

So it can sift past Estates for +1 Action but can be a Village with Duchy and Province, which I think is a cool dynamic. It can also just be played for +2 Cards. I thought it would be too good in the opening to cost $3 so it costs $4. The Estate gaining part I feel can add an interesting decision. The Manor alleviates the Estate somewhat but you still risk dud turns adding the extra stop card.

This looks like it will just be an inferior Fugitive most of the time. Extra +Actions aren't going to help you in the Province-buying stage. And assuming round-down, getting an early Duchy will make this a Vanillage that costs $9 and 2 buys and only works if two components collide. As for the Fugitive option, I'll go with trashing my Estates most of the time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on September 02, 2019, 03:52:10 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on September 02, 2019, 10:48:51 am

(https://i.imgur.com/QV3cZQ6.png)

So it can sift past Estates for +1 Action but can be a Village with Duchy and Province, which I think is a cool dynamic. It can also just be played for +2 Cards. I thought it would be too good in the opening to cost $3 so it costs $4. The Estate gaining part I feel can add an interesting decision. The Manor alleviates the Estate somewhat but you still risk dud turns adding the extra stop card.

When you inherit Manor House, you can gain the whole Manor House pile. Is that intended?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on September 02, 2019, 03:58:45 pm

Anyway, here is my submission:

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d6d7332e9d94e623b9e8b61/34516716808a33e0e270e3b6a832fc7b/braggart_v2.png)
Braggart
Type: Action – Attack
Cost: $5

+ $3
You may trash a Treasure card from your hand for +$1. Each other player gains a Copper to their hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on September 02, 2019, 05:43:56 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 02, 2019, 01:31:13 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on September 02, 2019, 10:48:51 am

(https://i.imgur.com/QV3cZQ6.png)

So it can sift past Estates for +1 Action but can be a Village with Duchy and Province, which I think is a cool dynamic. It can also just be played for +2 Cards. I thought it would be too good in the opening to cost $3 so it costs $4. The Estate gaining part I feel can add an interesting decision. The Manor alleviates the Estate somewhat but you still risk dud turns adding the extra stop card.

This looks like it will just be an inferior Fugitive most of the time. Extra +Actions aren't going to help you in the Province-buying stage. And assuming round-down, getting an early Duchy will make this a Vanillage that costs $9 and 2 buys and only works if two components collide. As for the Fugitive option, I'll go with trashing my Estates most of the time.

I don't think that comparison makes much sense given Fugitive is a Traveller and is on record as being too strong for $4. A $4 being an inferior Fugitive seems pretty appropriate to be honest.

Extra +actions not being useful in the Province buying stage just sounds wrong to me, maybe in big money but engines often continue building a little as they add Provinces with cards like Workshop or just any extra money and buys they have after buying the Provinces. This also just provides some extra consistency as you add the green, sifting past the Province and providing some actions in case you didn't find a village yet so it's almost always going to make your deck better in that part of the game. You can also use this as just +2 cards, again weak for $4 but not useless if it's the only draw available and you're going to add Provinces eventually.

Quote from: King Leon on September 02, 2019, 03:52:10 pm

When you inherit Manor House, you can gain the whole Manor House pile. Is that intended?

I was aware of this but I didn't think about it too much. Now that you mention it I think it should have some kind of once per turn clause.  You gain the Estate pile, not the Manor House, which is probably even more broken because then everyone else can't buy Inherited Estates. Here's an update, thanks for pointing that out!

(https://i.imgur.com/ywuND4M.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 02, 2019, 06:28:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/qDn3KDD.png)

Quote

Cauldron
$1P - Action

Gain a Potion.
+3 Cards
Play up to 3 Potions from your hand, for +1 Action each.
-
The first time you gain this on one of your turns, +1 Buy.

FAQ: You still get the +P from playing Potions with this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 02, 2019, 08:02:55 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on September 02, 2019, 05:43:56 pm

Quote from: King Leon on September 02, 2019, 03:52:10 pm

When you inherit Manor House, you can gain the whole Manor House pile. Is that intended?

I was aware of this but I didn't think about it too much. Now that you mention it I think it should have some kind of once per turn clause.  You gain the Estate pile, not the Manor House, which is probably even more broken because then everyone else can't buy Inherited Estates. Here's an update, thanks for pointing that out!

(https://i.imgur.com/ywuND4M.png)

Alternatively, you could just say "When you gain a Manor House, you may gain an Estate." Gaining an Estate even when you inherited Manor House is still gaining an Estate, not a Manor House, so that would fix it without over-nerfing it in the presence of gainers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 02, 2019, 09:29:19 pm

If it's not too late

Recycling
Project - $4
At the start of your buy phases, gain a Silver from the trash to your hand.
---
When you buy this, gain a Silver.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 02, 2019, 09:43:40 pm

Quote from: King Leon on September 02, 2019, 03:58:45 pm

Anyway, here is my submission:

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d6d7332e9d94e623b9e8b61/34516716808a33e0e270e3b6a832fc7b/braggart_v2.png)
Braggart
Type: Action – Attack
Cost: $5

+ $3
You may trash a Treasure card from your hand for +$1. Each other player gains a Copper to their hand.

I think this is too strong. Treasurer is also $5 and can only give you +$3. +$4 with Copper trashing seems insanely good even without the Attack. I also don't like that the benefit cancels out the Attack, which forces everyone to buy it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on September 03, 2019, 09:25:11 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 27, 2019, 05:13:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0pbFRZJ.png)

If Duchy gains Duchess, Province gains... anything you want! A straightforward card that appears balanced and worth buying, but the strategy implications aren't huge because of how late you'd buy it. The "once per game" could be removed, but I understand it's needed to fit into my silly rules. And hey, this card seems like something Donald X would make.

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 27, 2019, 05:41:06 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/X92CvTB.jpg)

Quote

Eminent Domain
Types: Project
Cost: $14
Now and at the start of each of your turns, put your hand on top of your deck in any order and gain a Province.

This is the "all-in" of dominion. Once you buy it, chances are you won't be playing for the rest of the game. That's genuinely cool. OK, there are a few ways to keep playing using combos - durations, Guide, etc. But you're probably not playing anymore.

Often, spending $16 on double province is better than spending $14 on this. Of course, not every game has the +Buy for double provinces. In situations like that, the game can be decided by whoever buys Eminent Domain first. That feels swingy to me. It's a bit like tournament and KC, but more severe.

Quote from: spineflu on August 28, 2019, 08:58:27 am

It's a mixed pile, six of each, that are shuffled together; the supply pile is kept face down and the top card is face up. You can only buy/gain/exchange for the top card (a la Knights)
(https://i.imgur.com/06u5m2U.png)(https://i.imgur.com/tshq2l4.png)

Quote

Manuscript • $1P • Treasure
$1 plus $1 per Grimoire you have in play.
+1 Buy
-
During Clean-up, you may exchange this for a Grimoire if one is available.

Quote

Grimoire • $1P • Treasure
$2
You may spend any number of P. This is worth $1 more for each P spent.
If this is your first Grimoire played this turn, gain a Manuscript if one is available.

If this is your first Grimoire played this turn, gain a Manuscript if one is available.
Worth big money and a couple extra buys if you can run the pile; they don't leave potions dead in your hand.

The mixed pile stuff is really interesting. I love the idea and the possibilities! But the cards are a little weak. Both are centered around providing coin, but you need a lot of these cards to be worth it over Gold. Engines typically can't support large amounts of treasure payload, and for those that do the potion requirement is very slow. I foresee problems with having the pile be truly random. If the top cards are all Manuscript, that's a crummy pile. The idea is solid but it needs balance tweaks to be worth buying.

Quote from: Aquila on August 28, 2019, 09:58:11 am

(https://i.imgur.com/42RwJ7P.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/y2VXm5s.jpg)

I really like draw-to-x decks so I'm a bit of a sucker for these cards. Encyclopedia seems extremely powerful with the +Coin it provides, but that's okay because they're hard to acquire... or are they? If you have two Volumes in your starting hand, you can play them, gain the Encyclopedia and play it for +4 cards, +$4, +1 Buy. That's exactly what you need to buy another Volume! So it's not expensive really, just hard to line up.

I'm not sure if the balance is right. I think these cards tend towards being either really bad or really good. If you have virtual coin like Festival, yeah that's going to be triple province turns. If instead you have Wharf, well this village ain't so exciting.

Quote from: scolapasta on August 28, 2019, 01:38:39 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4RTPDDS.png)(https://i.imgur.com/pByxUdg.png)

Lots of neat stuff going on with this card but when combined the effects are complicated to their detriment. There are many mechanics but the end result is a straightforward remodel which makes it all seem unnecessary. I love the reserve gaining - that's great! There are some neat strategies involving stockpiling Blessings and tokens and then using them all for a megaturn but that same idea could be executed simpler. Would love to see this one tweaked.

Quote from: segura on August 28, 2019, 11:25:14 am

Pennymonger
Cost: $4
Type: Action

+2 Cards
+1 Action
Gain a Copper.
————————————
When you gain this, you may put it into your hand or onto your deck (instead of to your discard pile).

It's a lab variant that doesn't help you draw your deck because it junks as fast as it draws. It's good with trashers and other draw, but not so playable otherwise. The on-gain has its uses. It's good with workshops, and it's OK late-game to boost your next turn, though Den of Sin is obviously better.

I think this card is reasonable, but not at $4. Way too expensive. Make it cheap.

Quote from: 4est on August 28, 2019, 09:07:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/syKIAPS.png) (https://i.imgur.com/HTwlges.png)

The most interesting thing about this card is that the Curio pile isn't part of the supply. That means you might buy this card just to get access to the pile. That's sick. I don't think the card even needs the $5 bit (not every card needs to be useful every game, etc etc), though I'm not complaining that you included it. A game where Curio Shop is the only +Buy could be neat.

Quote from: Kudasai on August 29, 2019, 01:11:43 pm

CHALLENGE #42 - MONOGAINER ENTRY

(https://i.imgur.com/EjnhreX.jpg)

Quote from: Headhunters by Kudasai

Headhunters
Cost: $5 Type: Action
Gain a Silver then reveal your discard pile. +1 Card per differently named card revealed.

This card seems excellent in big money and I do believe the world needs more big money cards! In engines, I'm not so sure. If you're drawing your deck every turn, you wouldn't have any cards in your discard at all. I mean, sometimes you would, but I don't see engines using this card for their draw. And of course, silver isn't so hot as engine payload. You could use this as a replacement for Explorer (+1 Card is as good as gaining to hand), but in how many games are you buying Explorer?

I like the concept but this idea doesn't want to be a monogainer. Imagine if the card let you gain more types of cards! That would really spice up the diversity theme.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 29, 2019, 01:26:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OLgaNWxm.png)

Island is a tricky card to make use of, but this version couldn't be easier! You can hide away all the cards you want, but you can't reduce your deck size at all. Pretty neat.

To me, it seems very obvious to buy this card in almost every game. The strategy is straightforward - buy it turn 1 or 2. The card does modify how the game is played - you can green earlier and such - but I don't think it leaves a huge impact. Seems fun though.

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 29, 2019, 03:02:55 pm

The prophet pile is a mixed pile of 20 cards, 10 copies of each of these versions:
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/i9i82cmp.png)(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ryzg3b0w.png)

Another mixed pile thing! Hurray!

To me, this card seems like a swingier, more frustrating version of Chapel. There are too many ways to get screwed. Imagine your opponent opens with the even-Prophet and you get stuck with the odd-Prophet. Okay, your opponent gets to trash 4 cards, while you only get to trash 3. That's not exactly fair. But imagine if your opponent drew their even-Prophet with a silver. Okay, so do they only trash 2 and feel sad? Imagine if you're the first player to get the extra +$1 because your opponent pushed it over the threshold. It's too luck-based for being a Chapel-level trasher.

Quote from: pst on August 30, 2019, 05:40:46 am

(https://starback.se/static/games/Inherited_Lands.png)

Inherited Lands
Project, $10
At the start of your turn, you may discard a Victory card to gain a Duchy.

---

Get a whole bunch of Duchies for the price of two! If that's what you really want.

This card's very expensive. For $10, you could have just bought two Duchies! Plus, you can't usually decide if you're going to start your turn with green in hand. For that reason, I don't think this card works. I do love gaining Duchies though. The world needs more Duchy gainers.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on August 30, 2019, 09:15:52 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/94SIkUu.png)

Another 1-shot super lab, akin to Experiment and Expedition but much more expensive. Sadly, this one doesn't start with "Ex" (Why wasn't it called "Exchange?").

This card has obvious comparisons to Herald. Herald doesn't just draw actions - it plays them. That's a better effect than Trust. However, this card gains copies of itself. That's pretty good!

I dislike how this card pops when it reveals another Trust. That means that even if you build the perfect action-dense deck, you're never safe from your Trusts getting trashed. To me, that's frustrating. I also dislike the difference in strength of the first effect from the second. You can't control if Trust reveals an action or not, so it feels very lucky.

Quote from: majiponi on August 31, 2019, 11:27:27 am

Merchant Village
cost $3 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may play a Merchant Village from your hand.
If this is the first time your played a Merchant Village, gain a Merchant Village.

This looks like a card you always want to buy, and you probably want to buy it turn 1 or 2. There's not much much strategy opening with it, but there is strategy in when you should buy additional copies. Sadly, in 2p games the 20 card pile works against this. There's less incentive to win the split if there's an abundance of these cards to go around, though you do need more than a typical village to make them consistent.

Overall, decently balanced and inoffensive. I like it, but don't feel too excited by it.

Quote from: mail-mi on August 31, 2019, 10:26:48 pm

I hope Ruins gaining counts.

Junkyard
Action - Looter - $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may gain a Ruins to your hand.
Discard any number of cards. +2 Cards per action card discarded, +1 Card per other card discarded.
You may trash this
—
When you trash this, +2 Cards

Seems bonkers powerful. A cantrip cellar would already be a good $4 card worth buying in most games, but add on better-than-Shepherd draw and we're talking about something crazy. Gaining a ruin pushes this even further into nuts territory. Making it non-terminal would fix several issues.

BTW, it would be cute to merge this entry with the Pennymonger entry: +1 Card, +1 Action, Gain a Copper to your hand. Discard any number of cards. +1 Card per card discarded.

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on August 31, 2019, 11:26:55 pm

my entry:

Quote

Scientist
$5 - Action
+1 Card, +1 Action.
You may trash a card costing at least $2. If you do, +2 cards. Otherwise, gain a Silver.

This card accelerates engine building a bit like JoAT does. You trash your Estates (that's good!), you draw (that's good!), and you gain payload (that's good too!"). With Jack you usually reach a point where you stop playing it, but with this you just keep going, trashing Silvers to draw cards. That's cool. It would be very fun (albeit screwy) to build an engine using this as your only draw.

Seems decent in money and slogs too. I like it. Good design.

Quote from: naitchman on September 01, 2019, 09:31:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/mHcCZcF.png)

It's a lab that gains more labs... with a catch. The more you play the less you can do.

The concept is spot-on. What makes monogainers most interesting is not the upside you get from gaining cards, but the downside. It's a curious choice of whether you should play the card or not, for is the gained card actually improving your deck? (For this reason, I think Rats is better designed than Magpie, but I digress)

The downside here is OK, but the text is wordy and complicated. You had to handle Copper some way, but this version isn't elegant. You can do better with this concept.

Quote from: alion8me on September 01, 2019, 04:58:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/HU3x97x.jpg)

Quote

Vendor

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a Copper from your hand. If you do, gain a Silver, putting it into your hand. Otherwise, +$1.

Action
$5

Oh wow, it's a Mine variant that's actually playable. Or is it a Peddler variant? I mean, it always gives you +$1 no matter the circumstance. That's really cool.

If there's no trashing, you probably want this 100% of the time. If there is trashing, there's an interesting decision in how many coppers you should trash.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 02, 2019, 10:39:28 am

Chicken
Action - $0*
Gain an Egg.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Egg
Action - $0*
Gain a Chicken.
(This is not in the Supply.)

The true winner of the contest.

Quote from: Gazbag on September 02, 2019, 10:48:51 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ywuND4M.png)

This card is like Shepherd. It's worse at drawing cards, but better at giving huge amounts of +Action. And hey, you only need a single Province in your deck to farm actions.

To me, it's a little undercooked and weak. I'd prefer if the +Actions were fixed to +2 per victory card discarded. But I can see other disagreeing. It's a sweet card nonetheless.

Quote from: King Leon on September 02, 2019, 03:58:45 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d6d7332e9d94e623b9e8b61/34516716808a33e0e270e3b6a832fc7b/braggart_v2.png)
Braggart
Type: Action – Attack
Cost: $5

+ $3
You may trash a Treasure card from your hand for +$1. Each other player gains a Copper to their hand.

+$4 is nice but too much coin. The bottom half is a weakened Ambassador.

In 3 player and up games, players will junk each other faster than they can trash. That's problematic and leads to weird sloggy game states where nobody can buy what they want.

In 2 player games, players will be trashing at the rate they junk. I foresee one player getting buried in copper while the other player remains clean. This has more flaws than Ambassador. With Ambassador, players get rid of 2 junk and hand out 1, allowing both players to get clean. With Braggart, that's not possible without other trashers.

Quote from: faust on September 02, 2019, 06:28:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/qDn3KDD.png)

Quote

Cauldron
$1P - Action

Gain a Potion.
+3 Cards
Play up to 3 Potions from your hand, for +1 Action each.
-
The first time you gain this on one of your turns, +1 Buy.

Here's a card like Manor House, but slightly different. Instead of Estates, it's Potions, and you're gaining them every play. If you have all 10 in your deck, you'll have 20 card draw with 16 stop cards. That's +4 Cards, +6 Actions, with some inconsistency thrown in. If you have 5 in your deck, you have 10 card draw with 8 stop cards. +2 Cards, +3 Actions. Not a great benefit, but hey, it's not so slow to build because you get +Buy when you purchase it.

Overall, I like both this and Manor House, but feel both could be revised. I said this in Manor House's entry, but I'd really like something as simple as: +2 Cards, Discard a (junk) for +2 Actions. Gain a (junk) when you buy this.


FINAL SUMMARY
Sweet cards overall with many very clever ideas. The winner has to be Curio Shop - it nails the interesting aspects and unique strategy of monogainers too well. Vendor gets second place. Vendor is a well designed card with no foreseeable issues that fulfills a niche previously wasted on Mine and Taxman. I liked Scientist for this reason too, especially how Scientist can be used for draw. Lastly, Volume+Encyclopedia gets fourth place. These two cards must be tons of fun to play with, but I couldn't place them higher because of my perceived balance concerns. +1 Buy, +$6, +6 cards is just nuts, you know?

WINNER
1. Curio Shop by 4est

RUNNERS UP
2. Vendor by alion8me
3. Scientist by LibraryAdventurer
4. Volume + Encyclopedia by Aquila

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on September 03, 2019, 03:32:31 pm

Thanks pubby!  Here is this week's challenge:

Challenge #43: Design a card (or card-shaped thing) that involves revealing your hand

Acceptable submissions may require you to reveal your hand (such as Shanty Town, Menagerie, City Quarter, or Grand Castle) or your opponents reveal their hand (such as Pillage).  I will also accept cards with "or reveals they can't" or similar clauses so long as they require revealing ones entire hand (such as Bureaucrat, Cutpurse, or Rats).  Cards that require revealing only one card from your hand (such as Gladiator, Encampment, or Young Witch) will not be accepted. 

Judging will be based on ingenuity, balance, and creative/appropriate use of the reveal hand mechanic. Have fun!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 03, 2019, 04:50:46 pm

CHALLENGE #43 SUBMISSION

A great trasher that gets more risky the more you play it. Play it enough though and you no longer have to trash any cards and are left with a double Laboratory.

(https://i.imgur.com/Dg1975p.jpg)

Quote from: Apostate by Kudasai

Apostate
$6 - Action

+3 Cards
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand costing at least $1 per token on your Apostate mat (or reveal you can't). Add a token to your Apostate mat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #43: reveal a hand
Post by: Aquila on September 03, 2019, 05:23:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/9HLs7Jz.jpg)
Kind of a Feast or Changeling that's rather challenging to use well. Know their decks and know their minds... The opportunity cost is kept minimal so it's worth a shot more often. If you pick an opponent with a bad hand, you get a Coffers as a consolation.

Edit: completely new entry. The former entry, Culprit, is commented on further down this page.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on September 03, 2019, 06:07:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZgFPMDqm.png)

Let's say pile of 20.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on September 03, 2019, 06:09:13 pm

Just can't stop thinking about those Rats man.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 03, 2019, 07:09:36 pm

I uh went the opposite of Aquila, for complex, and did a rainbow traveller line
(https://i.imgur.com/p6xOjSk.jpg) -> (https://i.imgur.com/g8ZI6jW.jpg) ->
(https://i.imgur.com/YRTBhhA.jpg) -> (https://i.imgur.com/Qblln6z.png) ->
(https://i.imgur.com/dmK1q1z.jpg)

Thematically, it's a fun little story about getting robbed by like.... a thieves guild. or something.

Quote

Pearl • $2 • Treasure - Traveller
Reveal a card from your hand. If it's an...
...Action: +1 Buy
...Treasure: + $1
...Victory: Put your deck into your discard pile.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange this for a Jeweller.

Considered having it play the bottom card of your deck (a la Pearl Diver) but nah.

Quote

Jeweller • $3* • Action - Traveller
"+1 Buy
All players (including you) reveal their hands. For each player, if they do not reveal a Gold, they gain a Silver to the top of their deck.
Gain a Silver to the top of your deck.
-
When this is discarded from play, you may exchange this for a Housebreaker.
(This is not in the Supply)

Load up on some Silver, both for you + opponents prior to getting a Housebreaker; this is designed to slow down the Traveller cycle.

Quote

Housebreaker • $4* • Night - Attack - Duration - Traveller
Each other player with four or more cards discards a Treasure card, or reveals a hand with no Treasures.
At the start of your next turn, +$1
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange this for a Fence.
(This is not in the Supply)

Handsize attack that hits treasures only, and a Copper on the next turn - which causes it to wait out a turn to exchange. Thinking this is vaguely comparable to a Militia - better attack, worse funbux?

Quote

Fence • $5* • Night - Reaction - Traveller
Reveal your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 per each unique card name revealed this way.
-
When this is revealed (using the word reveal), you may discard it, then exchange it for a Cartel (which goes to your discard pile).
(This is not in the Supply)

This needs some synergy from your opponents' Housebreakers or Jewellers to proc, or (or!) you can hit it yourself with Pearl, Fence, or Cartel. You may never even get to play it before swapping it out.

Quote

Cartel • $6* • Night - Victory
Draw cards until you have six in your hand.
Reveal your hand; +1% per type (Action, Treasure, etc) revealed this way
(types can be duplicates).
Return this to the Cartel pile.
-
4%
(This is not in the Supply)

Minimum 6VP; Maximum is 24 VP (5 Housebreakers + Dame Josephine or a Werewolf) but seems pretty unlikely. The 4VP lower section is a consolation prize if you get it too late to use it.
The draw is cycling - you probably won't get to use any of the cards you draw.

---

Revised these to be better.
Originals are quoted in naitchman's post below, and on the trello.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 03, 2019, 07:12:27 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on September 03, 2019, 06:07:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZgFPMDqm.png)

this is kind of a Feels Bad card in Shelters games.

Title: Re: Contest #43: Reveal your hand
Post by: Gubump on September 03, 2019, 07:33:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/IcPv0VZ.png)

A Guide variant that needs to be in the hand you discard, but rewards you with a Gold if you reveal mostly Victory cards. The strange wording in the reaction is to prevent being able to trigger the same Lair repeatedly by having a small deck/triggering a re-shuffle.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on September 03, 2019, 08:14:59 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 03, 2019, 07:12:27 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on September 03, 2019, 06:07:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZgFPMDqm.png)

this is kind of a Feels Bad card in Shelters games.

So is Upgrade with no 2's?  So is Ambassador?  My understanding was, you don't design around Shelters if all they do is make a card unbuyable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 03, 2019, 08:22:22 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on September 03, 2019, 08:14:59 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 03, 2019, 07:12:27 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on September 03, 2019, 06:07:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZgFPMDqm.png)

this is kind of a Feels Bad card in Shelters games.

So is Upgrade with no 2's?  So is Ambassador?  My understanding was, you don't design around Shelters if all they do is make a card unbuyable.

That's fair; that probably came off more critical than I meant for it to. Sorry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on September 03, 2019, 11:03:46 pm

Quote

Rent
cost $2 - Action - Reaction
Reveal your hand.
+$1 per Victory card revealed.
---
When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand to put any number of cards onto your deck.

Strong Secret Chamber, isn't it? (Although you cannot earn $ from Curses or unusable Actions.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 04, 2019, 12:10:55 am

Quote from: spineflu on September 03, 2019, 07:09:36 pm

I uh went the opposite of Aquila, for complex, and did a rainbow traveller line
(https://i.imgur.com/dmLRlrq.png) -> (https://i.imgur.com/UDdYzGS.png) ->
(https://i.imgur.com/7p82zOz.png) -> (https://i.imgur.com/YKxMdyO.png) ->
(https://i.imgur.com/w1yne4o.png)

I feel like the 2 most common pitfalls of traveler lines are weak starters and lackluster finishers.

Note that the 2 official starters of traveler lines are both $2, yet both are strictly worse than pawn. They're supposed to be overpriced compared to what they do when played, because of the benefit of being able to start the line. Meaning, the reason I get a page is not because of the +1 card +1 action but because I can eventually get a champion.

Even if pearl wasn't the beginning of a traveler line this could hold it's weight against silver. At worst it's a copper, but most of the time (especially considering the cards in this traveler line including itself) it will be a silver, possibly a gold or even $4. For $2 that sounds pretty good. For a $2 traveler, it's a steal.

On the flip side, I get the feeling Cartel will not usually be worth that much considering how much time and effort you have to put in to get one (note that the traveler line is a bit harder to get through because of fence). If you play it, even if you get one copy of each card in this line, it will only be worth 8 vp. If there aren't any other traveler lines, and you work even harder (stuffing your deck full of travelers) this could be ~12vp (25vp tops if you're uncontested). Compare that to being immune to attacks and having unlimited actions with an easier line to get through and not having to stuff your deck full of travelers.

As an aside, Fence sounds way too powerful as well. It'd be hard for this to be less than $2. It can easily be +$8 or more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 04, 2019, 01:17:32 am

Quote from: Aquila on September 03, 2019, 05:23:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jLaO2n3.jpg)

I've gone simple. You generally lose the best card in your hand so that $4 isn't as big as it looks, so build the deck to support it well. It can be interesting for you to use and sometimes for them to choose the guilty party carefully, but...it may lose out on innovation.

I think that this is far too weak. At best you only play other virtual money, one Culprit and no Treasures. If you even have one Copper in hand, this is weaker than Sacred Groove (which is arguably just a more expensive Bridge).

In Kingdoms without easily available virtual money besides Culprit, I don't see how it is even better than Woodcutter or Herbalist.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Chris is me on September 04, 2019, 08:40:51 am

I try to go simple for this sort of thing. I'll make a card image later.

---

Potpourri - $5, Action
+1 Buy
Reveal your hand. +$1 for each differently named non-Action card in your hand.

---

I think it needs to say non-Action to prevent those absurd +$15 plays or whatever. But this still produces at least $2-$3 early, can easily produce $5-$6 late, and with the right kingdom and lots of draw can go nuts.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 04, 2019, 09:15:35 am

I'm seeing those criticisms you posted and generally nodding. gonna kinda think aloud in response here.

Quote from: naitchman on September 04, 2019, 12:10:55 am

Quote from: spineflu on September 03, 2019, 07:09:36 pm

I uh went the opposite of Aquila, for complex, and did a rainbow traveller line

I feel like the 2 most common pitfalls of traveler lines are weak starters and lackluster finishers.

Note that the 2 official starters of traveler lines are both $2, yet both are strictly worse than pawn. They're supposed to be overpriced compared to what they do when played, because of the benefit of being able to start the line. Meaning, the reason I get a page is not because of the +1 card +1 action but because I can eventually get a champion.

(https://i.imgur.com/dmLRlrq.png)
Even if pearl wasn't the beginning of a traveler line this could hold it's weight against silver. At worst it's a copper, but most of the time (especially considering the cards in this traveler line including itself) it will be a silver, possibly a gold or even $4. For $2 that sounds pretty good. For a $2 traveler, it's a steal.

I think I've got a fix for this - do an Iron* thing, change it to be

Quote

Reveal and discard a card from your hand. If it's an...
...Action: +1 Buy
...Treasure: +$1
...Victory: Put your deck into your discard pile.
-
exchange blah blah blah

This way it's got an antisynergy with Midnighter (thematic!) and you aren't getting a boatload of dollars, and it can only do the woodcutter*/pouch thing if you scrap a Crown (or Crown a Pearl, but then that costs two cards). The Chancellor effect should really be the stealth Useful Thing this card can do.
Also this way it costs a card on-use.

altho should it be the bottom card of your deck revealed? in homage to Pearl Diver? That scraps the "cost of a card on use" thing, which is kind of a shame, and also loosens its synergy with Fence (altho making it less useful is kind of the point right?)

Quote from: naitchman on September 04, 2019, 12:10:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/w1yne4o.png)
On the flip side, I get the feeling Cartel will not usually be worth that much considering how much time and effort you have to put in to get one (note that the traveler line is a bit harder to get through because of fence). If you play it, even if you get one copy of each card in this line, it will only be worth 8 vp. If there aren't any other traveler lines, and you work even harder (stuffing your deck full of travelers) this could be ~12vp (25vp tops if you're uncontested). Compare that to being immune to attacks and having unlimited actions with an easier line to get through and not having to stuff your deck full of travelers.

The bottom part was meant to be a concession prize if the game ended before you were able to pop it. It's meant to be a Province-to-Colony tier point boost without a card slowing down your deck. I think I wanna make the bottom piece just a flat 3%/duchy, and change the top to be .... iunno, 2% per type? which should emphasize what you're supposed to do with it. 2% per type might be too much though. Maybe 1% per type, unique be damned?

Or maybe make it just like... +2 Cards, +2%/type .
My adhoc analysis says the best case 6 card hand, the most types you could come up with is 12 (Dame Josephine, Housebreaker, Idol, Hovel, and then any two that're a Prize / Looter / Ruin / Reserve / Gatherer / etc).
Might be broken in a Cultist-Draws-Your-Deck situation, but in a way you want a Traveller terminus to be broken; One of every (existing) type ends up at 22. That doubled should be game clenching but that's... Hard to pull off if you aren't in a ridiculous Black Market game, where you can somehow draw your entire deck and yet you aren't bogged down in Garbage.

Quote from: naitchman on September 04, 2019, 12:10:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/7p82zOz.png)
As an aside, Fence sounds way too powerful as well. It'd be hard for this to be less than $2. It can easily be +$8 or more.

yeah i think i wanna make Fence terminal again. Or make it a Night card (and gainer)? so same deal as cartel - if you want it to be "Good" you'd have to wait through your turn with a mitt full of cards [or go hard on Hunting Grounds/Smithy] before using it (and then a card costing up to $1 per unique card name revealed)?

Midnighter and Jeweller seem ok tho?

(i think ima change Midnighter's name - turns out the Thesaurus lied to me, that it is not a synonym for Thief, but instead a comic book character)

Here's the fully revised versions, taking your feedback into account, and also re-ordering them a bit:
(https://i.imgur.com/p6xOjSk.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/g8ZI6jW.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/YRTBhhA.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/Qblln6z.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dmK1q1z.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on September 04, 2019, 09:29:29 am

(https://i.imgur.com/GYq8buL.png)

For example if you discard copper, you have to discard ALL the coppers from your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on September 04, 2019, 11:55:46 am

Quote from: segura on September 04, 2019, 01:17:32 am

Quote from: Aquila on September 03, 2019, 05:23:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jLaO2n3.jpg)

I've gone simple. You generally lose the best card in your hand so that $4 isn't as big as it looks, so build the deck to support it well. It can be interesting for you to use and sometimes for them to choose the guilty party carefully, but...it may lose out on innovation.

I think that this is far too weak. At best you only play other virtual money, one Culprit and no Treasures. If you even have one Copper in hand, this is weaker than Sacred Groove (which is arguably just a more expensive Bridge).

In Kingdoms without easily available virtual money besides Culprit, I don't see how it is even better than Woodcutter or Herbalist.

Thanks, you've woken me up. I narrowed my vision to just the times when this was interesting without seeing how infrequent they were.

Complete new entry:
(https://i.imgur.com/9HLs7Jz.jpg)
Kind of a Feast or Changeling that's rather challenging to use well. Know their decks and know their minds... The opportunity cost is kept minimal so it's worth a shot more often. If you pick an opponent with a bad hand, you get a Coffers as a consolation.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on September 04, 2019, 01:45:01 pm

Vandal (Action) [$4]

Reveal your hand. If all cards are differently named, trash this and +1VP per card you revealed. Otherwise, +$2 and +1 Buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 04, 2019, 03:47:48 pm

No name
Action $4
Reveal your hand. The player to your left chooses one. Choose one: trash it and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it and you may trash a card from your hand; or gain a copy of it; or each other player gains a copy of it.

Edit: added to the first option

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 04, 2019, 07:29:08 pm

Here's my submission for now
(https://i.imgur.com/CM452VQ.png)

It's an advisor and king's court merged into one.

I know the cost looks low but the fact that you don't get to choose the card can be really annoying. Often times, throne room might be a better pick.

1) One of the things that makes king's court so powerful is the fact that it synergizes with itself (playing K Court on a K Court). However, this won't work here since your opponent will never choose for you to triple play a King's counsel unless you only have King's Counsels (which isn't helpful).

2) Unlike some other TR variants, this doesn't replace villages as easily since if you have no actions (after playing King's Counsel) and you have a terminal in hand, your opponent can make you play the terminal and end your action phase.

3) Also, cards that outlive their usefullness, or need to be carefully played such as chapel, cursers, mandatory trashers etc. will seriously hamper your ability to use this effectively.

In some decks with the right support this card can do well, but not always.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 04, 2019, 07:32:32 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 04, 2019, 03:47:48 pm

No name
Action $4
Reveal your hand. The player to your left chooses one. Choose one: trash it and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it and you may trash a card from your hand; or gain a copy of it; or each other player gains a copy of it.

Edit: added to the first option

Should be "The player to your left chooses one of the revealed cards." Otherwise it's confusing and actually illogical.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 04, 2019, 08:22:19 pm

Socialite
Action/Attack - $4
+2 Actions
Each player (including you) discards any number of cards from their hand to reveal a hand with only Actions and Treasures.
Then, draw until you have 4 cards in hand.

Rules clarification: You can discard any number of cards that you like, but you must discard all non treasure and action cards before revealing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on September 04, 2019, 09:37:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/34CShScm.png)

I think the original isn't going to get bought as often as Rats which is a poor bar to miss.  I think this might be better.

The choosing element gives it some hope of being purchaseable in villageless games is the hope, but maybe the card doesn't really ever have any hope in villageless games and that should be abandoned to streamline.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on September 04, 2019, 10:56:51 pm

No name
Night $4
Reveal your hand. +1 Coffers per Treasure card revealed. +1 Villager per Action card revealed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 05, 2019, 09:24:51 am

Quote from: mad4math on September 04, 2019, 10:56:51 pm

No name
Night $4
Reveal your hand. +1 Coffers per Treasure card revealed. +1 Villager per Action card revealed.

Can I suggest a name? "Lamplighter"? bc it makes your next turn(s) a little brighter. This is a neat card.

Quote from: popsofctown on September 04, 2019, 09:37:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/34CShScm.png)

I think the original isn't going to get bought as often as Rats which is a poor bar to miss.  I think this might be better.

The choosing element gives it some hope of being purchaseable in villageless games is the hope, but maybe the card doesn't really ever have any hope in villageless games and that should be abandoned to streamline.

I feel like you're playing at 9 kingdom cards with this unless you have a workshop-style gainer on the board, like it's a dead pile almost. Maybe (for the top part) instead of giving a dollar it can gain a card costing up to ... $1? $2? so there's some self-synergy at least? edit: i'm an idiot. you can do that with the rest of the effect. You're good; this should probably have a "Choose one:" at the front.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 04, 2019, 08:22:19 pm

Socialite
Action/Attack - $4
+2 Actions
Each player (including you) discards any number of cards from their hand to reveal a hand with only Actions and Treasures.
Then, draw until you have 4 cards in hand.

Rules clarification: You can discard any number of cards that you like, but you must discard all non treasure and action cards before revealing.

You withdrew Iconoclast, yeah?
Also this might be rough with Night cards. I like it though.

Quote from: naitchman on September 04, 2019, 07:29:08 pm

Here's my submission for now
(https://i.imgur.com/CM452VQ.png)

It's an advisor and king's court merged into one.

I know the cost looks low but the fact that you don't get to choose the card can be really annoying. Often times, throne room might be a better pick.

1) One of the things that makes king's court so powerful is the fact that it synergizes with itself (playing K Court on a K Court). However, this won't work here since your opponent will never choose for you to triple play a King's counsel unless you only have King's Counsels (which isn't helpful).

2) Unlike some other TR variants, this doesn't replace villages as easily since if you have no actions (after playing King's Counsel) and you have a terminal in hand, your opponent can make you play the terminal and end your action phase.

3) Also, cards that outlive their usefullness, or need to be carefully played such as chapel, cursers, mandatory trashers etc. will seriously hamper your ability to use this effectively.

In some decks with the right support this card can do well, but not always.

The trick to this would be keeping your action density low enough that you'd only ever give one choice, right? Feel like this would be a contender in the last contest two contests ago (player interaction) too.

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 04, 2019, 03:47:48 pm

No name
Action $4
Reveal your hand. The player to your left chooses one. Choose one: trash it and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it and you may trash a card from your hand; or gain a copy of it; or each other player gains a copy of it.

Can I suggest the name "Tailor"? goes with the Remodel theme of having the card name be a verb, but can also be another person choosing which thread to pull. Again, a solid entry in last the player interaction contest too.

Quote from: Aquila on September 04, 2019, 11:55:46 am

Complete new entry:
(https://i.imgur.com/9HLs7Jz.jpg)
Kind of a Feast or Changeling that's rather challenging to use well. Know their decks and know their minds... The opportunity cost is kept minimal so it's worth a shot more often. If you pick an opponent with a bad hand, you get a Coffers as a consolation.

This is solid but might be underpriced - it's on par with Baker, no?
Or, it's better as the chosen opponent to never reveal your hand unless you've got like... 5 coppers. 5 curses. something Really Bad. And even then, it lets a player duplicate their Silver or run out the Estates, at minimum. Might be better priced at $4? Cool concept though.

Quote from: mandioca15 on September 04, 2019, 01:45:01 pm

Vandal (Action) [$4]

Reveal your hand. If all cards are differently named, trash this and +1VP per card you revealed. Otherwise, +$2 and +1 Buy.

I really like the Press Your Luck type minigame of trying to hit this with like eight cards in hand. Feel like this'd be very at home in Cornucopia, if that had vp tokens. It'd be interesting to have a game where this is the only +buy and one player was aiming to run out this pile via +VP-trashing.

Quote from: pubby on September 04, 2019, 09:29:29 am

(https://i.imgur.com/GYq8buL.png)

For example if you discard copper, you have to discard ALL the coppers from your hand.

I love everything about this but the name. Very clever way to combine a Lab+ xor a Village. However "Genocide" suggests an attack card to me - maybe look to like "The New Atlantis" for an olde tyme-y scientist word?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on September 05, 2019, 09:46:43 am

(https://i.imgur.com/twLn2rK.png)

I believe I posted this on the forum about a year ago, if you'd rather have a new card for this contest I'll think of something new!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on September 05, 2019, 03:06:20 pm

Quote from: 4est on September 03, 2019, 03:32:31 pm

Challenge #43: Design a card (or card-shaped thing) that involves revealing your hand

(https://starback.se/static/games/Confessional2.png)

Confessional (Action, $4)
+$2
Reval your hand. If one of the revealed cards costs less than all the others, trash that card, and then +2 Cards and +2 Actions.

---

As for Menagerie the revealing is to show if you are to get the fun or the boring result of the card, but also to show which card to trash in the former case. It can be used to get rid of starting deck cards and other bad stuff, but without some support like something that discards, it doesn't hit a single card that often in the beginning. It can also be used to get things rolling by sacrificing better cards. I even trashed a Vampire with it late in a game where this was tested. It is sometimes very good, but often you just get a boring terminal $2, and sometimes you don't even want to play it at all.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 06, 2019, 01:36:21 am

Quote from: spineflu on September 05, 2019, 09:24:51 am

Quote from: naitchman on September 04, 2019, 07:29:08 pm

Here's my submission for now
(https://i.imgur.com/CM452VQ.png)

It's an advisor and king's court merged into one.

I know the cost looks low but the fact that you don't get to choose the card can be really annoying. Often times, throne room might be a better pick.

1) One of the things that makes king's court so powerful is the fact that it synergizes with itself (playing K Court on a K Court). However, this won't work here since your opponent will never choose for you to triple play a King's counsel unless you only have King's Counsels (which isn't helpful).

2) Unlike some other TR variants, this doesn't replace villages as easily since if you have no actions (after playing King's Counsel) and you have a terminal in hand, your opponent can make you play the terminal and end your action phase.

3) Also, cards that outlive their usefullness, or need to be carefully played such as chapel, cursers, mandatory trashers etc. will seriously hamper your ability to use this effectively.

In some decks with the right support this card can do well, but not always.

The trick to this would be keeping your action density low enough that you'd only ever give one choice, right? Feel like this would be a contender in the last contest too.

I think you mean 2 contests ago (player interaction). Last contest was monogainer.

Also, I don't think your action density necessarily needs to be low. If you have little variety and just have a lot of 1 nonterminal (such as labs, governor etc.) that could also work. Non terminals (especially cantrips) like pearl diver also aren't a liability since you could just play pearl diver first and then play king's counsel. Discarding cards (like Hamlet) can also help. In addition, giving your opponent a choice of all good cards can also be a strategy (if my opponent has to choose between KCing market, lab, or Ironmonger I'm happy with that). Too low of an action density will actually hurt this (like any TR vairant) because you risk drawing it with no actions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 06, 2019, 11:46:30 am

Quote from: pst on September 05, 2019, 03:06:20 pm

Quote from: 4est on September 03, 2019, 03:32:31 pm

Challenge #43: Design a card (or card-shaped thing) that involves revealing your hand

(https://starback.se/static/games/Confessional2.png)

Confessional (Action, $4)
+$2
Reval your hand. If one of the revealed cards costs less than all the others, trash that card, and then +2 Cards and +2 Actions.

---

As for Menagerie the revealing is to show if you are to get the fun or the boring result of the card, but also to show which card to trash in the former case. It can be used to get rid of starting deck cards and other bad stuff, but without some support like something that discards, it doesn't hit a single card that often in the beginning. It can also be used to get things rolling by sacrificing better cards. I even trashed a Vampire with it late in a game where this was tested. It is sometimes very good, but often you just get a boring terminal $2, and sometimes you don't even want to play it at all.

It sounds like this would be very difficult to get it to work... you almost have to have exactly a single Copper in hand when you play it. Or a single Estate with no Coppers. Both of those situations are going to be pretty rare. It could be strong when combined with cards like Hamlet (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Hamlet) or Warehouse (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Warehouse); but you basically have to have a card like that with it. Most of the time when you play this, it will just be a terminal Silver; and occasionally it will just be a dead card because you don't want to play it as it would force you to trash a good card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on September 06, 2019, 06:25:20 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 06, 2019, 11:46:30 am

Quote from: pst on September 05, 2019, 03:06:20 pm

Quote from: 4est on September 03, 2019, 03:32:31 pm

Challenge #43: Design a card (or card-shaped thing) that involves revealing your hand

(https://starback.se/static/games/Confessional2.png)

Confessional (Action, $4)
+$2
Reval your hand. If one of the revealed cards costs less than all the others, trash that card, and then +2 Cards and +2 Actions.

---

As for Menagerie the revealing is to show if you are to get the fun or the boring result of the card, but also to show which card to trash in the former case. It can be used to get rid of starting deck cards and other bad stuff, but without some support like something that discards, it doesn't hit a single card that often in the beginning. It can also be used to get things rolling by sacrificing better cards. I even trashed a Vampire with it late in a game where this was tested. It is sometimes very good, but often you just get a boring terminal $2, and sometimes you don't even want to play it at all.

It sounds like this would be very difficult to get it to work... you almost have to have exactly a single Copper in hand when you play it. Or a single Estate with no Coppers. Both of those situations are going to be pretty rare. It could be strong when combined with cards like Hamlet (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Hamlet) or Warehouse (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Warehouse); but you basically have to have a card like that with it. Most of the time when you play this, it will just be a terminal Silver; and occasionally it will just be a dead card because you don't want to play it as it would force you to trash a good card.

The reason I think it works (it has when I've tried it, although I certainly need to test it more) is that it offers both trashing and a good effect. If you don't have any other trashing you welcome what you get, so it's worth betting. And if you have other trashing, that will help Confessional and you will get the good effect more often. For example just trashing a couple of Coppers with Moneylender will make Confessional much better in finding the rest of them, finding Estates, and maybe eventually also get rid of the Moneylender when that has become deadweight. Also, in most cases where you don't want to play it because you have only good cards, those good cards include other Action cards that you want to play instead anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 06, 2019, 07:54:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4nWM1Td.png)

A Menagerie-like card. Like Menagerie, it's less likely to work the bigger your hand is. But, it lets you discard unwanted expensive stuff first, particularly Provinces. It overall encourages you to either buy a lot of cheap things or do a draw-to-x-like strategy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 07, 2019, 01:43:08 am

I think that $25 is too large and that for too long this will be a cheap Double Lab.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on September 07, 2019, 03:08:59 am

The dirty truth is that I want Crossroads and Rats to have a baby together

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on September 07, 2019, 03:09:22 am

(https://i.imgur.com/dbBsKgLm.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on September 07, 2019, 12:03:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/nQVVNey.png)
Numismatist
Action - $5
Reveal your hand.
Gain a Treasure card to your hand with a name different from any revealed card.
If you didn't, +$2

In absence of alt-coins, it starts as a Gold gainer, and eventually with a full set of Gold+Silver+Copper turns into a Province gainer.

Upd: picture, minor spellcheck and wording

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 07, 2019, 04:11:09 pm

Quote from: segura on September 07, 2019, 01:43:08 am

I think that $25 is too large and that for too long this will be a cheap Double Lab.

Agreed; far too large. I don’t think you would ever skip getting this any time you have $4 or more until they are all gone. Even without the ability to discard cards before revealing it would be super strong; that ability puts it over the top. This could probably cost $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 07, 2019, 06:28:39 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/1lSWLK8.png)

I've decided to give my idea a complete overhaul. It's now like Conspirator, but different conditions have to be met.

Quote

Arithmancer
Action - $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
Discard any number of cards, then reveal your hand. If the total cost in $ of the revealed cards is exactly $13, +$2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 07, 2019, 06:44:01 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 07, 2019, 06:28:39 pm

(http://i.imgur.com/BlPN5iq.png) (https://imgur.com/BlPN5iq)

I've decided to give my idea a complete overhaul. It's now like Conspirator, but different conditions have to be met.

Quote

Arithmancer
Action - $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
Discard any number of cards, then reveal your hand. If the total cost of the revealed cards is exactly $13, +$2.

I would make this say "cost in coins" so that it doesn't completely suck with Potions and Debt.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 07, 2019, 11:08:47 pm

Quote from: faust on September 07, 2019, 06:44:01 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 07, 2019, 06:28:39 pm

(http://i.imgur.com/BlPN5iq.png) (https://imgur.com/BlPN5iq)

I've decided to give my idea a complete overhaul. It's now like Conspirator, but different conditions have to be met.

Quote

Arithmancer
Action - $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
Discard any number of cards, then reveal your hand. If the total cost of the revealed cards is exactly $13, +$2.

I would make this say "cost in coins" so that it doesn't completely suck with Potions and Debt.

Done. Updated in the OP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on September 08, 2019, 08:31:04 am

(https://i.imgur.com/YNhcG63m.png)

Quote

At the start of your turns, reveal your hand. Trash all Actions with +Actions amounts in their text. Draw until you have 4 cards in your hand. For every $2 in the combined cost of the trashed cards, +1 Coffers and +1 Villager.

EDIT: For some explanation, Trade agreement essentially supercharges your nonterminals, but makes them disappear. It certainly accelerates the game, but purchasing this too early can kill your engine. The Draw to 4 cards (as opposed to 5 cards) is intentional, to slightly tone it down, and because I don't want it to be the killer of handsize attacks.

EDIT2: I misformulated the draw to 4 part, so I fixed that (thanks, Pubby)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on September 08, 2019, 09:29:47 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d7501d05ddf876570251e03/2577cbcb2555173b0901a74c9f072771/soup_kitchen.png)
Soup Kitchen
Type: Action
Cost: $2

Reveal your hand.
+1 Action per Action card revealed
+$1 per Victory or Curse card revealed
-$1 per Treasure card revealed

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 08, 2019, 10:12:14 am

(https://i.imgur.com/Kvx8vro.png)

Quote

Siege Tower
$5 - Action/Attack

+2 Cards
Reveal your hand. Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a copy of a card you didn't reveal (or reveals they can't).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on September 08, 2019, 05:03:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/uacGJkj.png)

Quote

Mart

+1 Action
Reveal your hand. If you revealed any copies of Mart, discard them. Otherwise, +$1 and you may gain a Mart.
+1 Card

Action
$4

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 09, 2019, 09:59:09 am

Quote from: King Leon on September 08, 2019, 09:29:47 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d7501d05ddf876570251e03/2577cbcb2555173b0901a74c9f072771/soup_kitchen.png)
Soup Kitchen
Type: Action
Cost: $2

Reveal your hand.
+1 Action per Action card revealed
+$1 per Victory or Curse card revealed
-$1 per Treasure card revealed

Needs "(You can't go below _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)})" like Poor House.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 09, 2019, 01:55:11 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/oc8h38iz.png)

This card punishes village idiots by giving them curses. (Thematically, sometimes you excavate an old village and get some new version of the stuff you already excavated. Sometimes you get ~~cUrSeD oBjEcTs~~ I dunno, it's silly!)

Don't buy this card too early, or you'll get curses.

This card encourages you to buy a variety of different stuff, because as soon as a pile is empty, you're going to be getting curses on each play whenever that card is in hand. The more variety you have, the less likely it is that your opponent can keep giving you the same card over and over.

Seeing your hand lets your opponent know more about what card will be worst to give you.

I thought of this fun idea but haven't had time to find an image.
Edit: added an image that Kudasai sent me. Thank you Kudasai!

I know it seems powerful for the price point, but there's no need to discourage buying it early since buying it early is a bad idea, anyway. I think the potential curses does a lot to weaken it.

I'm open to feedback!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 09, 2019, 03:09:27 pm

@anordinaryman - Sent you a PM with an image that might work for Excavated Village.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on September 09, 2019, 05:11:49 pm

Whenever someone instructs me to draw up to four cards, regardless of how recently I've been hit by a handsize attack, I choose 4 rather than 3, 2, 1, or zero. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on September 09, 2019, 05:48:20 pm

Trade agreements should be phrased "draw until you have 4 cards in hand" rather than "draw up to 4". The latter sounds like a hunting grounds effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on September 09, 2019, 05:49:00 pm

24 hours left in this week's contest!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 10, 2019, 01:26:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/3UexeSF.png)

This is just a rough idea. The obvious parameters to change are the price (although at $6 it is arguably too similar to Gold) and the non-terminality.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on September 10, 2019, 03:30:29 pm

Challenge #43: Design a card (or card-shaped thing) that involves revealing your hand: Commentary & Results

Thanks everyone for the submissions, there were a lot of great ideas.  OPs are hyperlinked, shortlisted entries are bolded.

---

Apostate by Kudasai (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810093#msg810093)
I had to read this a couple times to understand how it works, but I think I like this card.  Triple Labs are always hard to balance, but I appreciate that this one works eventually, provided you put in the effort.  The trashing is nice at first, hitting Coppers and Estates, but then you really need to ensure you have enough fodder to prevent hitting key engine pieces (or another Apostate).  Neat idea.

Chest by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810097#msg810097)
The multiple choices make it just slightly more complicated than I like (i.e. “when am I allowed to take +Coffers, again?”), but I do like the player interaction.  It feels more like a fairer version of Smugglers than Feast.  Small nitpick: I’d prefer this say “player to your left” instead of picking a player.

Urban Sprawl by popsofctown (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810286#msg810286)
The idea of a Rats-like card that can gain copies of itself by revealing Estates and then better cards with Duchies and Provinces is certainly interesting, however I don’t like the weird buy restriction and may gain on first buy phase clause.  I guess I understand why it’s there, but I imagine there’s probably a cleaner way to do it. 

Pearl line by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810101#msg810101)
I’m impressed by your ambition here, but I’m afraid the line’s complexity stifles the more interesting ideas.  Jeweler’s Silver attack is unique and makes Housebreaker’s attack more likely to hit.  Fence is a weaker Horn of Plenty but why does it need to be a Reaction and use a non-standard exchange condition?  Cartel seems okay, though it feels like a boring way to end the line—just turning your Traveller into some VP chips.

Lair by Gubump (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810104#msg810104)
I think this still can cause loops, right?  Since it’s still technically “the start of your turn” after drawing?  Loops aside, it’s certainly a lot better than Tunnel, but it’s tricky that the Guide effect only works when it’s A) in your hand at the start of your turn, and B) in a hand you actually want to discard.  At least buying this makes it more likely for both of these happen.

Rent by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810113#msg810113)
The on-play is simple, though often weak.  The reaction also feels pretty niche.  Uh not much else to say, I guess?  Could definitely use a buff.   

Potpourri by Chris is me (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810132#msg810132)
I think Donald X. tested a card similar to this one which eventually became Menagerie.  Making yours not work on Action cards keeps it from being crazy too often, and the +Buy helps with the hands where it is.  It compares quite favorably to Sacred Grove and Wine Merchant, so it might be on the strong side, but it’s still just terminal coin so it’s probably fine.

Genocide by pubby (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810135#msg810135)
Ignoring the distasteful card name and horrifying card art, I like the idea here.  It feels similar to Forum with a village option can be useful sometimes, except I don’t like how costly it is to use—as currently worded, it would seem that discarding a total of 4 cards just for a village doesn’t seem worth it.  Perhaps discarding just 2 cards after the reveal could trigger the +Action, or perhaps the Actions could even scale per card discarded (e.g. discard 2 cards, get +2 Actions).

Vandal by madioca15 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810151#msg810151)
One of my favorites, I love the minigame here of trying to get a big hand of uniques and cash in for points, yet they’re still useful as a plain ol’ Woodcutters while you’re trying to get there.  Simple, but some cool possibilities, and it feels much more fun than the similar (and swingier) Farmer’s Market.

No name by Fly-Eagles-Fly (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810156#msg810156)
It’s an interesting idea, however the options here don’t feel super balanced with one another.  The Remodel plus trash is often going to be far better than the other two, both in the early game for trashing as well as mid to late for gaining engine pieces and VP.  The Ambassador option is the weakest, since trashing your own junk is usually better than passing out more of it.  Along with the gain a copy option, this is a card where the opponent will feel bad about whatever they choose, since there’s almost always going to be an option that’s good for you.   

King’s Counsel by naitchman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810170#msg810170)
King’s Court on a card you can’t choose feels balanced at $3, and the player interaction and decisions here seem to be far more meaningful than those with Advisor, since you can’t just spam a bunch of these.  It will be unplayable in some games, especially ones with few non-terminals, however with strategic hand management and choosing carefully when to play it and when not to, this can be incredibly powerful.  You’ll of course never get Kinged King’s Counsels, and it will be tough to King other key payload or draw cards without help, but Kinging weaker cards such as a cantrip or a terminal silver isn’t bad at all for $3.  Very neat card!

Socialite by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810173#msg810173)   
A sort of mini-Cursed Village with a mild discard attack.  Clearing out Victory cards from your own hand helps this keep drawing, though you’ll need trashing to prevent from choking on Treasures.  It’s nice that the draw-to-X counters its own attack.  This does stomp all over Night cards though which is a little sad, but I suppose there are official cards that do that too (I’m looking at you Haunted Woods).

No name by mad4math (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810177#msg810177)
Look at that, two cards named “No name.”  This is a nice utility card that essentially lets you “save” extra Coppers and Action plays for a later turn.  It works really nicely as a Night card too, as it lets you plan out which Treasures you’ll play and which you won’t, while also providing consolation prizes for dead-drawn Actions, or ones that have outlived their usefulness.  Nice one.   

Sellsword by Gazbag (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810188#msg810188)
This feels like what Taxman should have been, it’s cheaper and more versatile, while still hitting opponents with a similarly targeted discard attack.  Early game, there’s the decision of if it’s better to thin a Copper and Cutpurse your opponents or upgrade your Estate for a much milder attack.  Depending on the board, it’s probably less likely to hit as the game goes on, but still hurts when it does.  Also it’s cute that you can Sellsword Estates into more Sellswords.   

Confessional by pst (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810223#msg810223)
It sounds great on paper: +2 Cards, +2 Actions, +$2, AND trash a junk card!  Except…triggering this is going to be frustratingly difficult—far more so than triggering Menagerie.  Yes, with sifters, discarders, or handsize attacks, it gets a bit easier, but most of the time, you’ll need trashing to get this set up—but by then you won’t need the trashing anymore, and playing with this becomes more of a liability than a useful engine piece. 

Numismatist by grep (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810353#msg810353)
Simple and straightforward, and the reveal mechanic cleverly prevents it from stacking and encourages variety.  A bit boring if nothing else, though it can get much more exciting when there are Kingdom treasures to work with. 

Arithmancer by Commodore Chuckles (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810387#msg810387)
Nice card name, I see what you did there.  It's sort of a reverse Conspirator where the cantrip is guaranteed instead of the +$2, which makes them safer to gain a lot of.  The issue here is hitting exactly $13 and reliably hitting it multiple times in a row.  Discarding helps a bit, but I imagine this will trigger far less often than Conspirator.

Trade Agreement by grrgrrgrr (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810454#msg810454)
This one is interesting—a deal with the devil of sorts.  You can get a whole bunch of Coffers and Villagers out of it, and eventually it eats all your fodder and won’t produce anything else unless you gain more Action cards with +Actions.  The biggest problem here is this basically kills any non-terminal draw—I know the project sort of adds its own draw, but on boards without a terminal handsize increaser, this will be a very hard sell. 

Soup Kitchen by King Leon (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810458#msg810458)
I worry this is often going to be pretty weak, and probably could almost do without the treasure drawback.  Yes, it can get strong in multiples in the right deck, but needs draw and buy.  Also, this needs a “can’t go below $0” clause like Poor House. 

Siege Tower by faust (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810461#msg810461)
One of the few attacks submitted, this one seems okay.  It can be very painful when it hits, and the draw can help increase the chances of hitting something good, but if you have too many things in your hand or no bad cards in your hand, the attack might not hurt much or at all.   It’s a bit hard to control, even more so than Raider, and thus looks a little weak next to something like Ghost Ship or Witch, but I think it’s probably still worth going for on a lot of boards. 

Mart by alion8me (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810467#msg810467)
A Peddler that gains copies itself seems good, with the drawback that having too many can make it discard copies of itself—kind of like Poacher with multiple empty piles.  Having +1 Card at the very end reads a little weird, but I do appreciate that it makes it less likely you’ll draw into another Mart before revealing.  Mart can auto-run the pile if your deck and discard are empty, but it’s a little tricky to set up. 

Excavated Village by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810534#msg810534)
At first glance I thought this was way too strong—of course you’d never play it without other Action cards so the "Village Idiot punishment” of gaining a Curse for a hand without Actions seemed unlikely to ever matter.  However, the Cursing once piles empty is a very clever touch and makes this a much more interesting card (and piles WILL empty when this card is on the board).  It’s sort of like University, except the player interaction can lead to some tough decisions—e.g. should you give someone another bad terminal, or a better card that's the last in the pile in hopes of Cursing them later?  I’ve come around on this one.  Also dope card art.

Hearth by segura (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810565#msg810565)
It’s simple which I like, but I worry this will often just be a $5 Gold or better (since revealing Action, Treasure, and a third type such as Attack or Victory will be pretty common).  Giving it +Buy instead of +Action might help, but it definitely seems too automatic in its non-terminal state.   

---

Runner Up: Vandal by madioca15

WINNER: King’s Counsel by naitchman


Congrats to naitchman and thanks everyone for participating!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 10, 2019, 11:13:53 pm

I have to say that I think King's Counsel is problematic because drawing it with (only) a key action early on is very snowbally. Like, imagine a board where you can open Mountebank-King's Counsel. Whoever connects this first wins the game. There will be plenty of boards where opening King's Counsel/X is optimal just because the potential benefit of connecting is so good, but the chances of actually connecting them aren't very high. Basically, it's double Urchin on steroids.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 10, 2019, 11:40:39 pm

Oh wow, my first win. Thanks 4est.

Without further ado:
Challenge #44: Extra! Extra!
There are only 4 cards that give extra turns so far (Possession, Outpost, Mission, and Fleet). Design another card that gives an extra turn. Remember to word it so you can't get infinite turns. In addition, remember that extra turns can be very powerful. Think about how you will limit the turn (just like the official cards do) to balance this.

I'm going to be a bit busy so I'll start judging on Wednesday next week (I'll give the standard 24 hour warning). Good Luck!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on September 11, 2019, 02:52:47 am

Quote from: naitchman on September 10, 2019, 11:40:39 pm

Challenge #44: Extra! Extra!
There are only 4 cards that give extra turns so far (Possession, Outpost, Mission, and Fleet). Design another card that gives an extra turn.

(https://starback.se/static/games/Double_Shift.png)
Double Shift
Project, $5
After one of your turns in which you gain a Victory card costing more than $5 you get an extra turn. During that extra turn, whenever you would gain a Victory card, instead gain nothing.

---

A project that isn't interesting until you've started greening, and doesn't help you (directly) with that greening, but still let's you continue to improve your deck so that you can start getting Provinces earlier.

Besides Province the existing Victory cards costing more than $5 are Colony, some Castles, Harem, Nobles, Fairgrounds and Farmland, and they will all result in a bit different Double Shift games. (This could be a welcome big boost for Harem!)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #44: extra turn
Post by: Aquila on September 11, 2019, 03:32:29 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ua0kDuT.png)

Edit: didn't like the look of plain once per game bonus turn at $5. The strategy with it seemed a mundane 'whenever you could get a Duchy now but better next turn, do it'.
Now this bonus turn comes without the starting Action and at $2 cost; so using it becomes more accessible early, and there's a bit more of a decision when to use it. Early building/speed boost is an option, if you know you won't need the Action, or a later big turn if you can prepare right.
This is in one of my fan expansions; it started as a portrait card that could grant multiple extra turns with no Actions, but Villagers make the setback too easy to get around, being more reliable and consistent than Guide or Cursed Village with Outpost.

Edit 2: removed use of a State (see further down this page) for this contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 11, 2019, 09:33:15 am

Quote from: naitchman on September 10, 2019, 11:40:39 pm

Oh wow, my first win. Thanks 4est.

Without further ado:
Challenge #44: Extra! Extra!
There are only 4 cards that give extra turns so far (Possession, Outpost, Mission, and Fleet). Design another card that gives an extra turn. Remember to word it so you can't get infinite turns. In addition, remember that extra turns can be very powerful. Think about how you will limit the turn (just like the official cards do) to balance this.

I'm going to be a bit busy so I'll start judging on Wednesday next week (I'll give the standard 24 hour warning). Good Luck!

You didn't list it, but would a card like Villa count?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 11, 2019, 09:42:45 am

Quote from: pst on September 11, 2019, 02:52:47 am

Quote from: naitchman on September 10, 2019, 11:40:39 pm

Challenge #44: Extra! Extra!
There are only 4 cards that give extra turns so far (Possession, Outpost, Mission, and Fleet). Design another card that gives an extra turn.

(https://starback.se/static/games/Double_Shift.png)
Double Shift
Project, $5
After one of your turns in which you gain a Victory card costing more than $5 you get an extra turn. During that extra turn, whenever you would gain a Victory card, instead gain nothing.

---

A project that isn't interesting until you've started greening, and doesn't help you (directly) with that greening, but still let's you continue to improve your deck so that you can start getting Provinces earlier.

Besides Province the existing Victory cards costing more than $5 are Colony, some Castles, Harem, Nobles, Fairgrounds and Farmland, and they will all result in a bit different Double Shift games. (This could be a welcome big boost for Harem!)

Recommend "_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} or more" instead of "more than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}". When reading through the card initially I thought Duchies would count because I saw the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 11, 2019, 09:52:57 am

EDIT: this is withdrawn; I'm entering Heir instead (submission updated at http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810942#msg810942 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810942#msg810942))


(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d7903ad34c3301920a7faca/8b9a524faa2b35dcfd8b4a18ec3e8380/image.png)

Quote

Witching Hour • $4 • Night - Duration
Each other player draws until they have 7 cards in their hand.
If the previous turn wasn't yours, take an extra turn after this one. Skip your Night phase during that turn.

While this is in play, when you play an Attack card, you get +1 Card, +1 Action instead of the card's instructions, and when you play a Treasure card, you get $1 instead of the card's instructions.

• for sure gives everyone else a 7 card hand - no militia-ing on the next turn (or Hexing on this one) to undo that
• works best with gainers and funbux, because your money's gonna be envious
• no double dipping because there's no bonus turn night phase
• short circuits Capitalism - sorry, they're coppers now.
• enough drawbacks that this can cost $4? talk me out of this one maybe, or help me justify it, because Outpost is only $5 and that was my model-goal with this.

Revisions:

• changed cost to $4
• multi-turn proofed. still skip your night phase on your extra turn.
• Regardless of whether or not this gives you an extra turn, it still Council Rooms Library's everyone else to 7 cards.
• Regardless of whether or not this gives you an extra turn, it still Enchantresses your attack cards and Enviouses your treasures.

---

From Last Contest...

Quote from: 4est on September 10, 2019, 03:30:29 pm

Challenge #43: Design a card (or card-shaped thing) that involves revealing your hand: Commentary & Results
Pearl line by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810101#msg810101)
I’m impressed by your ambition here, but I’m afraid the line’s complexity stifles the more interesting ideas.  Jeweler’s Silver attack is unique and makes Housebreaker’s attack more likely to hit.  Fence is a weaker Horn of Plenty but why does it need to be a Reaction and use a non-standard exchange condition?  Cartel seems okay, though it feels like a boring way to end the line—just turning your Traveller into some VP chips.

The nonstandard exchange condition (and consequently the reaction) on Fence were to slow down the travelling - maybe you get your Fence when no-one is playing a card that lets you reveal it - it's gotta come around again in the shuffle (ergo Pearl's Chancellor effect).

Cartel needed to be a payoff card more than anything, one that can't be drawn dead (ergo Night) and also hella points (at minimum* on par with Province)
*yeah i guess you could trash down to a four card deck or something but play stupid games, win stupid prizes

Also Jewellers slow down everyones trip through the traveller line, which i thought was kind of novel.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 11, 2019, 10:10:43 am

Witching Hour and Double Shift have an interesting property that makes them different from Outpost and Mission... Outpost and Mission prevent the extra turn with a very explicit "if the previous turn wasn't yours". Witching Hour and Double Shift both instead prevent it by only granting an extra turn under certain circumstances and making those circumstances impossible to happen on their own extra turn.

The upshot of this is that if you have a game with both Witching Hour and Double Shift (or any 2 cards that use a similar mechanism for preventing infinite turns), you can get infinite turns by alternating the two cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #44: extra turn
Post by: spineflu on September 11, 2019, 10:29:11 am

Quote from: Aquila on September 11, 2019, 03:32:29 am

(https://i.imgur.com/slrT8On.png) (https://i.imgur.com/GFoNNVN.jpg)

Edit: didn't like the look of plain once per game bonus turn at $5. The strategy with it seemed a mundane 'whenever you could get a Duchy now but better next turn, do it'.
Now this bonus turn comes without the starting Action and at $2 cost; so using it becomes more accessible early, and there's a bit more of a decision when to use it. Early building boost is an option, if you know you won't need the Action, or a later big turn if you can prepare right.
This is in one of my fan expansions; it started as a portrait card that could grant multiple extra turns with no Action, but Villagers make the setback too easy to get around, being more reliable and consistent than Guide or Cursed Village with Outpost.

So just to be clear, by default, you don't get actions on your bonus turn? Or it takes some ridiculousness with Villa or Villagers to get to have actions on your bonus turn?

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 11, 2019, 10:10:43 am

Witching Hour and Double Shift have an interesting property that makes them different from Outpost and Mission... Outpost and Mission prevent the extra turn with a very explicit "if the previous turn wasn't yours". Witching Hour and Double Shift both instead prevent it by only granting an extra turn under certain circumstances and making those circumstances impossible to happen on their own extra turn.

The upshot of this is that if you have a game with both Witching Hour and Double Shift (or any 2 cards that use a similar mechanism for preventing infinite turns), you can get infinite turns by alternating the two cards.

huh. should we be accounting for this with our cards? or is this an ok loophole?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #44: extra turn
Post by: GendoIkari on September 11, 2019, 10:36:49 am

Quote from: spineflu on September 11, 2019, 10:29:11 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 11, 2019, 10:10:43 am

Witching Hour and Double Shift have an interesting property that makes them different from Outpost and Mission... Outpost and Mission prevent the extra turn with a very explicit "if the previous turn wasn't yours". Witching Hour and Double Shift both instead prevent it by only granting an extra turn under certain circumstances and making those circumstances impossible to happen on their own extra turn.

The upshot of this is that if you have a game with both Witching Hour and Double Shift (or any 2 cards that use a similar mechanism for preventing infinite turns), you can get infinite turns by alternating the two cards.

huh. should we be accounting for this with our cards? or is this an ok loophole?

I'm torn. On one hand, preventing infinite turns seems like an important thing. On the other hand, the idea of preventing a card from giving you 3 turns in a row by things like skipping your Night phase or preventing the gaining of victory cards seems like a very cool and clever way of limiting the card. And both cards were designed in a world where no other card exists that causes the problem.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on September 11, 2019, 11:06:24 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 11, 2019, 10:10:43 am

Witching Hour and Double Shift have an interesting property that makes them different from Outpost and Mission... Outpost and Mission prevent the extra turn with a very explicit "if the previous turn wasn't yours". Witching Hour and Double Shift both instead prevent it by only granting an extra turn under certain circumstances and making those circumstances impossible to happen on their own extra turn.

The upshot of this is that if you have a game with both Witching Hour and Double Shift (or any 2 cards that use a similar mechanism for preventing infinite turns), you can get infinite turns by alternating the two cards.

I don't think it's a problem, since as you wrote later, "both cards were designed in a world where no other card exists that causes the problem". Also, to actually be infinite turns with both of these you need not only to gain an expensive Victory card each other turn, but also to return it to the supply in time before depleting those piles ends the game!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #44: extra turn
Post by: scolapasta on September 11, 2019, 12:09:55 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 11, 2019, 10:29:11 am

Quote from: Aquila on September 11, 2019, 03:32:29 am

(https://i.imgur.com/slrT8On.png) (https://i.imgur.com/GFoNNVN.jpg)

Edit: didn't like the look of plain once per game bonus turn at $5. The strategy with it seemed a mundane 'whenever you could get a Duchy now but better next turn, do it'.
Now this bonus turn comes without the starting Action and at $2 cost; so using it becomes more accessible early, and there's a bit more of a decision when to use it. Early building boost is an option, if you know you won't need the Action, or a later big turn if you can prepare right.
This is in one of my fan expansions; it started as a portrait card that could grant multiple extra turns with no Action, but Villagers make the setback too easy to get around, being more reliable and consistent than Guide or Cursed Village with Outpost.

So just to be clear, by default, you don't get actions on your bonus turn? Or it takes some ridiculousness with Villa or Villagers to get to have actions on your bonus turn?

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but why not just have Night Shift say:

Quote

Once per game: Take another turn after this one in which you start with 0 Actions.

I don't see why you would need the extra state card, since it's only once per game anyway. Functionally, it wouldn't affect a (2nd) buying of Villa the turn you bought Night Shift, but I think that's an OK trade off for the simplification (in fact, I like it better as protection around Villa  shenanigans)


If you want to go even further and handicap Villagers you could even be more strict:

Quote

Once per game: Take another turn after this one in which you can't play any Actions.

(though I'm not quite sure of the implications with Action to be played from cards like Prince, Summon, Captain, etc...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #44: extra turn
Post by: mail-mi on September 11, 2019, 01:03:22 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on September 11, 2019, 12:09:55 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 11, 2019, 10:29:11 am

Quote from: Aquila on September 11, 2019, 03:32:29 am

(https://i.imgur.com/slrT8On.png) (https://i.imgur.com/GFoNNVN.jpg)

Edit: didn't like the look of plain once per game bonus turn at $5. The strategy with it seemed a mundane 'whenever you could get a Duchy now but better next turn, do it'.
Now this bonus turn comes without the starting Action and at $2 cost; so using it becomes more accessible early, and there's a bit more of a decision when to use it. Early building boost is an option, if you know you won't need the Action, or a later big turn if you can prepare right.
This is in one of my fan expansions; it started as a portrait card that could grant multiple extra turns with no Action, but Villagers make the setback too easy to get around, being more reliable and consistent than Guide or Cursed Village with Outpost.

So just to be clear, by default, you don't get actions on your bonus turn? Or it takes some ridiculousness with Villa or Villagers to get to have actions on your bonus turn?

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but why not just have Night Shift say:

Quote

Once per game: Take another turn after this one in which you start with 0 Actions.

I don't see why you would need the extra state card, since it's only once per game anyway. Functionally, it wouldn't affect a (2nd) buying of Villa the turn you bought Night Shift, but I think that's an OK trade off for the simplification (in fact, I like it better as protection around Villa  shenanigans)


If you want to go even further and handicap Villagers you could even be more strict:

Quote

Once per game: Take another turn after this one in which you can't play any Actions.

(though I'm not quite sure of the implications with Action to be played from cards like Prince, Summon, Captain, etc...

You could change it to “Once per game, take an extra turn after this one, in which, when you play an Action, instead ignore its instructions.”

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on September 11, 2019, 03:06:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/kAKTaDWm.png)

Quote

Pact (Project, $8)
For the rest of the game, play 2 turns in a row. When you trash a Copper, move it to the discard.
-
After buying this project, gain 7 Coppers.

EDIT: For those wondering why I say "After buying this project" instead of "when you buy this project", I do this to ensure the Coppers cannot be insta-removed by revealing Watchtower.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 11, 2019, 03:11:18 pm

Quote from: faust on September 11, 2019, 09:33:15 am

Quote from: naitchman on September 10, 2019, 11:40:39 pm

Oh wow, my first win. Thanks 4est.

Without further ado:
Challenge #44: Extra! Extra!
There are only 4 cards that give extra turns so far (Possession, Outpost, Mission, and Fleet). Design another card that gives an extra turn. Remember to word it so you can't get infinite turns. In addition, remember that extra turns can be very powerful. Think about how you will limit the turn (just like the official cards do) to balance this.

I'm going to be a bit busy so I'll start judging on Wednesday next week (I'll give the standard 24 hour warning). Good Luck!

You didn't list it, but would a card like Villa count?

Villa would not count. It needs to actually give an extra turn. The extra turn does not need to be yours (though if you do give your opponents extra turns make sure not to make it lengthen the game too much).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #44: extra turn
Post by: Aquila on September 11, 2019, 03:37:53 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on September 11, 2019, 12:09:55 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 11, 2019, 10:29:11 am

Quote from: Aquila on September 11, 2019, 03:32:29 am

(https://i.imgur.com/slrT8On.png) (https://i.imgur.com/GFoNNVN.jpg)

...

So just to be clear, by default, you don't get actions on your bonus turn? Or it takes some ridiculousness with Villa or Villagers to get to have actions on your bonus turn?

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but why not just have Night Shift say:

Quote

Once per game: Take another turn after this one in which you start with 0 Actions.

Heh, in my expansion there are other cards using Exhausted, as a way to achieve using 2 Actions on one card, so if you take it with them you can't use this. But of course, outside the set this suggestion (thanks for the others) is the cleanest. For this contest I'll change it to this.
Villagers, Villa, start of turn Action plays, they're all intended ways around it. Or just a big Buy phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on September 11, 2019, 04:34:22 pm

Bonanza (Event) [$5]

At the end of this turn, if you have unspent coins, take Voyager, and take another turn after this one, where you draw one card per unspent coin for your hand.
---
You can't buy this if you have Voyager.


Voyager (State)

Worth 1VP if you have this at the end of the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on September 11, 2019, 06:04:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iXfgdcA.jpg)

Quote

Coffee Roast
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
$2, +2 Cards.

---

When you buy this, you may trash a Potion you have in play. If you do, take an extra turn after this one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 11, 2019, 06:26:07 pm

CHALLENGE #44 - SUBMISSION

[UPDATE] I decided to go big and allow infinite turns with this. Is that crazy? Well I think instant win scenarios like King's Court / Bridge are neat to have around. Besides you need four to six of these at cost $8 to make it work so I think it will usually be unrealistic. Hopefully we can all overlook the fact that jerk players can stall the game with just two of these. I always design for IRL play so I don't think table etiquette will ever allow that to happen.

(https://i.imgur.com/6y9CWwx.jpg)

So on to what it does. You essentially are gambling on whether your Action, Buy or Night phase will be most useful for your extra turn. Playing two of these on the same turn though allows you to choose both your Action and Treasure phases for what essentially is a full, extra turn! Very powerful, but the price and issues with lining these up should keep that it check.

Thanks for looking! 8)

Quote from: Kudasai on September 11, 2019, 06:26:07 pm

Refuge
$8 Night - Duration
Name a phase (Buy, Night, etc).
If this is the first time you played a Refuge this turn, take an extra turn after this one, where you can only play your Clean-up and phases named this turn with Refuges.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 11, 2019, 06:36:14 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on September 11, 2019, 04:34:22 pm

Bonanza (Event) [$5]

At the end of this turn, if you have unspent coins, take Voyager, and take another turn after this one, where you draw one card per unspent coin for your hand.
---
You can't buy this if you have Voyager.


Voyager (State)

Worth 1VP if you have this at the end of the game.

Is Voyager supposed to be an Artifact that can bounce between players? As stated, Voyager can't be gotten rid of and thus you can only have one extra turn per game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on September 11, 2019, 08:48:40 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on September 11, 2019, 06:36:14 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on September 11, 2019, 04:34:22 pm

Bonanza (Event) [$5]

At the end of this turn, if you have unspent coins, take Voyager, and take another turn after this one, where you draw one card per unspent coin for your hand.
---
You can't buy this if you have Voyager.


Voyager (State)

Worth 1VP if you have this at the end of the game.

Is Voyager supposed to be an Artifact that can bounce between players? As stated, Voyager can't be gotten rid of and thus you can only have one extra turn per game.

Well, unless it's a single state card* like Lost in the Woods (which is in all practical terms an artifact).

* I assume this is the desired effect, because of the "if you have this at this at the end of the game" wording. If it was supposed to be a state per player, it could just be "+1VP" (like Miserable).

Also, if it supposed to be a state per player, then you could just "once per game" it:

Quote

Once per game:  +1 Victory token; take another turn after this one, and you draw one card per unspent coin for your next hand.

(note that I added the "next" to follow Outpost wording; I suggest this happen independent of the other suggestions)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 11, 2019, 09:26:07 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EP2NEoi.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: stechafle on September 11, 2019, 10:54:35 pm

Challenge #44: Extra! Extra!

$4 Penance Event
If the previous turn wasn't yours, take an extra turn after this one. During that turn when you play a card, discard a card sharing a type with the played card or reveal you can't.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 11, 2019, 11:06:16 pm

Hey guys, I just wanted to weigh in on something that's coming up with some of the cards. As judge, I'll try not to give away my opinion on the cards themselves.

Some of the submissions give extra turns in interesting ways that prevent getting extra turns on their own extra turn (double shift, witching hour, sanctuary, voyage). As Gendoikari pointed out, technically these cards together could create an infinite turn loop. While it might be a good idea if you're Donald X to design cards that give you some flexibility to design other potential cards later on, for a design contest I think it's ok. I'm going to judge these cards only based on themselves (and the cards that actually exist in the kingdom).

That being said, I want to bring up a point that isn't exactly about unlimited turns but is somewhat related

Mission and Outpost have two key phrases in their text. "If the previous turn wasn't yours" prevents infinite turns. "If this is the first time you played mission/outpost" prevents you from getting more than one extra turn per round. Consider not just whether you can get extra turns on your extra turns, but how many extra turns you can get per round. 2 questions to ask yourself. For illustration I'm going to use an example Action card I've made up called Extra Turn which says "Take another turn in which Extra Turn has no effect when played" (it's not good, I know)

1) Can I play multiple of these per turn? (Yes)
2) If I utilize outpost and/or mission can I play this multiple times per round? (Yes. Play ET, Outpost and buy mission on Turn 1. Take outpost turn and play ET. Take mission turn and play ET. Take 3 extra turns).  Note that while outpost and mission allow one extra turn per round no matter how many other extra turn cards there are, Extra Turn can be played multiple times per round (even if "if this is the first time you've played extra turn" was added) in the presence of outpost and mission.

It's not inherently bad to have a card that can get more than one extra turn per round. After all possession can do that. But it's something that will greatly change the relative strength of the card. Possession costs $6p (essentially more than a province). Even the best constructed outpost deck can only get one extra turn per round. If it could get more, it would have to cost more than $5. #2 is a lot less common to come up so it won't greatly affect the cost or how it's played (but is something to consider), but #1 will make a big difference.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 11, 2019, 11:13:02 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 11, 2019, 09:52:57 am

enough drawbacks that this can cost $2? talk me out of this one maybe, or help me justify it, because Outpost is only $3 and that was my model-goal with this.[/li][/list]

Not going to comment on the card itself but it's kinda bothering me that nobody corrected you on Outpost's price. It's $5 not $3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on September 12, 2019, 03:09:34 am

There’s only meant to be a single copy of Voyager. Perhaps it should be an Artifact rather than a State.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 12, 2019, 08:47:29 am

Quote from: naitchman on September 11, 2019, 11:13:02 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 11, 2019, 09:52:57 am

enough drawbacks that this can cost $2? talk me out of this one maybe, or help me justify it, because Outpost is only $3 and that was my model-goal with this.[/li][/list]

Not going to comment on the card itself but it's kinda bothering me that nobody corrected you on Outpost's price. It's $5 not $3.

oh snap. why did i think it was $3. maybe the 3 card hand?

Quote from: naitchman on September 11, 2019, 11:06:16 pm

Hey guys, I just wanted to weigh in on something that's coming up with some of the cards. As judge, I'll try not to give away my opinion on the cards themselves.

Some of the submissions give extra turns in interesting ways that prevent getting extra turns on their own extra turn (double shift, witching hour, sanctuary, voyage). As Gendoikari pointed out, technically these cards together could create an infinite turn loop. While it might be a good idea if you're Donald X to design cards that give you some flexibility to design other potential cards later on, for a design contest I think it's ok. I'm going to judge these cards only based on themselves (and the cards that actually exist in the kingdom).

That being said, I want to bring up a point that isn't exactly about unlimited turns but is somewhat related

Mission and Outpost have two key phrases in their text. "If the previous turn wasn't yours" prevents infinite turns. "If this is the first time you played mission/outpost" prevents you from getting more than one extra turn per round. Consider not just whether you can get extra turns on your extra turns, but how many extra turns you can get per round. 2 questions to ask yourself. For illustration I'm going to use an example Action card I've made up called Extra Turn which says "Take another turn in which Extra Turn has no effect when played" (it's not good, I know)

1) Can I play multiple of these per turn? (Yes)
2) If I utilize outpost and/or mission can I play this multiple times per round? (Yes. Play ET, Outpost and buy mission on Turn 1. Take outpost turn and play ET. Take mission turn and play ET. Take 3 extra turns).  Note that while outpost and mission allow one extra turn per round no matter how many other extra turn cards there are, Extra Turn can be played multiple times per round (even if "if this is the first time you've played extra turn" was added) in the presence of outpost and mission.

It's not inherently bad to have a card that can get more than one extra turn per round. After all possession can do that. But it's something that will greatly change the relative strength of the card. Possession costs $6p (essentially more than a province). Even the best constructed outpost deck can only get one extra turn per round. If it could get more, it would have to cost more than $5. #2 is a lot less common to come up so it won't greatly affect the cost or how it's played (but is something to consider), but #1 will make a big difference.

Revised my entry to be more in line with these suggestions.

(it's revised in the original post too)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d7903ad34c3301920a7faca/8b9a524faa2b35dcfd8b4a18ec3e8380/image.png)

Edit: this is withdrawn; submission updated at http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810942#msg810942 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810942#msg810942)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 12, 2019, 12:12:41 pm

Challenge #44: Extra! Extra! SUBMISSION

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/cz3w7tvm.png)

Quote

Frontier: Action - Duration $3
Gain a Copper to the top of your deck per Frontier you have in play. If this is the first time you played a Frontier this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one.
(This stays in play.)

Frontier has a few interesting concepts -- it plays more like an event. You only get to use each Frontier once, and then it stays in play. Staying in play helps it keep track of itself to make each subsequent play less useful. Well, of course this is Dominion, there are some clever ways to work around that (bonfire, procession, etc). Therefore, it's fine to price it low, since playing 4 of these usually has the cost of adding 10 coppers to your deck -- yikes!. On the other hand, this plays like a card and not an event -- you don't get to choose to play it when you buy it. You have to wait for it to come up and then play, and on that turn, you might not have a convenient way of dealing with those coppers and your next turn might suffer.

Cards that help you deal with those coppers before your next turn are going to be great -- I'm looking at you lookout and doctor! Watchtower shines gloriously here. Mainly though, it's going to be a struggle to make this work. Starting a turn with a lot of coppers could make that turn bad. Sifters benefit a ton here, if you get enough forums, you might be able to cycle through that bad starting hand, in a way that doesn't help Outpost as much. Not too bad.

This plays differently from other turn-extenders. I could see opening with one of these to get an extra turn early in the game, seems worth the cost of the extra copper and losing your 3-cost opening buy.

In addition, this is an interesting card in that it actually could be useful in slogs. You're not so sad about having all those coppers in a slog, and the "penalty" might even be good! And, it's cheap enough you might be able to afford it! Garden slogs especially are going to be grateful for those coppers.


As always, open to feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on September 12, 2019, 12:18:42 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on September 11, 2019, 04:34:22 pm

Bonanza (Event) [$5]

At the end of this turn, if you have unspent coins, take Voyager, and take another turn after this one, where you draw one card per unspent coin for your hand.
---
You can't buy this if you have Voyager.


Voyager (State)

Worth 1VP if you have this at the end of the game.

Is this supposed to be five cards +1 card for each unspent coin, or modify cleanup more similar to Outpost?

Either one seems too weak or too strong to me XD.  But I ain't the judge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on September 12, 2019, 12:20:43 pm

Extra Allowance
cost $2 - Event
Once per turn: Take your Allowance token. If you have 3, remove all tokens used in this game, and if the previous turn wasn't your turn, take another.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 12, 2019, 12:29:45 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 11, 2019, 01:28:34 am

Garbage Day
Event - $6
Once per turn: If the previous turn wasn't yours, take an extra turn after this turn. Trash all Action cards you discard from play that turn.

I like how some cards (Squire, Catacombs, etc) could turn this trashing around into a benefit.

From the perspective of an engine, I think that this is over-priced. The trashing action cards penalty is pretty high -- plus you had to sacrifice a buy and a $6 to get the turn, and that turn can't even be that good because you're going to trash all those actions.

For big-money, this also seems over-priced. It could be useful in endgame when I'm trying to get a province and I just have 7, but for a lot of the game if I have $6 I'd rather buy a gold. This card could be useful in mid-game if it didn't compete with gold.

I recommend either keeping the same price but turning this into an action card, or lowering the price (maybe even to $4??).

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on September 11, 2019, 03:06:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/kAKTaDWm.png)

Quote

Pact (Project, $8)
For the rest of the game, play 2 turns in a row. When you trash a Copper, move it to the discard.
-
After buying this project, gain 7 Coppers.

I like the idea of this (the penalty seems valid), but I have to imagine this is a frustrating card if your opponent gets two turns in a row. It's also frustrating for that opponent because now their deck has coppers they can't get rid of. I wonder if you could try, when they trash a copper, they gain a curse? I wonder if you could put some restriction like "if you don't play any coppers, take a second turn." You know, make the second turn a little less automatic?

Quote from: mandioca15 on September 11, 2019, 04:34:22 pm

Bonanza (Event) [$5]

At the end of this turn, if you have unspent coins, take Voyager, and take another turn after this one, where you draw one card per unspent coin for your hand.
---
You can't buy this if you have Voyager.


Voyager (State)

Worth 1VP if you have this at the end of the game.

What does coin mean? Coffer? Does it mean $?

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 11, 2019, 06:04:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iXfgdcA.jpg)

Quote

Coffee Roast
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
$2, +2 Cards.

---

When you buy this, you may trash a Potion you have in play. If you do, take an extra turn after this one.

Excellent use of potions! I think the +2 cards in a $ phase is an interesting concept that doesn't belong on this card. I'd say this can be stronger like $3 maybe $3 +1buy or $2 +1 buy. The +1 buy would make the concept make sense as you have to spend buys for the potion you just lost.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 11, 2019, 09:26:07 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EP2NEoi.png)

This is a very clean card. Great design.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 12, 2019, 01:01:31 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 11, 2019, 06:04:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iXfgdcA.jpg)

Quote

Coffee Roast
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
$2, +2 Cards.

---

When you buy this, you may trash a Potion you have in play. If you do, take an extra turn after this one.

it takes some setup, but Trader and Graverobber would let you infinite* turns with this.
* i mean, until the silvers run out and then some, due to the blue dog rule; your opponent would probably get bored and/or die before you'd actually get infinite turns tho.

You could even golden deck this with a five card deck of
Potion, Graverobber, Grand Market, Monument, Trader (and have Capitalism [for playing G.Market, Monument] + Cathedral [to trash out the silvers u gain] OR Capitalism + Plan w trash token on Coffee Roast)

Quote from: majiponi on September 12, 2019, 12:20:43 pm

Extra Allowance
cost $2 - Event
Once per turn: Take your Allowance token. If you have 3, remove all tokens used in this game, and if the previous turn wasn't your turn, take another.

does this remove vanilla bonus tokens as well? or your –1 Card token? your Inheritance token? tokens on your Pirate Ship mat?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on September 12, 2019, 01:46:33 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 12, 2019, 12:29:45 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 11, 2019, 01:28:34 am

Garbage Day
Event - $6
Once per turn: If the previous turn wasn't yours, take an extra turn after this turn. Trash all Action cards you discard from play that turn.

I like how some cards (Squire, Catacombs, etc) could turn this trashing around into a benefit.

From the perspective of an engine, I think that this is over-priced. The trashing action cards penalty is pretty high -- plus you had to sacrifice a buy and a $6 to get the turn, and that turn can't even be that good because you're going to trash all those actions.

For big-money, this also seems over-priced. It could be useful in endgame when I'm trying to get a province and I just have 7, but for a lot of the game if I have $6 I'd rather buy a gold. This card could be useful in mid-game if it didn't compete with gold.

I recommend either keeping the same price but turning this into an action card, or lowering the price (maybe even to $4??).

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on September 11, 2019, 03:06:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/kAKTaDWm.png)

Quote

Pact (Project, $8)
For the rest of the game, play 2 turns in a row. When you trash a Copper, move it to the discard.
-
After buying this project, gain 7 Coppers.

I like the idea of this (the penalty seems valid), but I have to imagine this is a frustrating card if your opponent gets two turns in a row. It's also frustrating for that opponent because now their deck has coppers they can't get rid of. I wonder if you could try, when they trash a copper, they gain a curse? I wonder if you could put some restriction like "if you don't play any coppers, take a second turn." You know, make the second turn a little less automatic?

Quote from: mandioca15 on September 11, 2019, 04:34:22 pm

Bonanza (Event) [$5]

At the end of this turn, if you have unspent coins, take Voyager, and take another turn after this one, where you draw one card per unspent coin for your hand.
---
You can't buy this if you have Voyager.


Voyager (State)

Worth 1VP if you have this at the end of the game.

What does coin mean? Coffer? Does it mean $?

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 11, 2019, 06:04:01 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iXfgdcA.jpg)

Quote

Coffee Roast
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
$2, +2 Cards.

---

When you buy this, you may trash a Potion you have in play. If you do, take an extra turn after this one.

Excellent use of potions! I think the +2 cards in a $ phase is an interesting concept that doesn't belong on this card. I'd say this can be stronger like $3 maybe $3 +1buy or $2 +1 buy. The +1 buy would make the concept make sense as you have to spend buys for the potion you just lost.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 11, 2019, 09:26:07 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EP2NEoi.png)

This is a very clean card. Great design.

Yes, I mean $. Any unspent $ at the end of your turn is converted into cards for your next turn. For example, if you had $12 to spend and you decided to buy Bonanza, you would have $7 left at the end of your turn. Therefore, your bonus turn would give you 7 cards in hard (one per unspent $).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on September 12, 2019, 02:13:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/UNL6q9y.png)

Here's my attempt at giving opponents extra turns. Feedback welcome. I'm wondering if the bonus for you if they take the extra turn is too much, or maybe even not enough.

FAQ: If 2 players have Con Artist in play and a third player takes their single extra turn, then both of the players with Con Artist get their bonus

Quote

Con Artist
Action - Duration - $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+ $1
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy
-
While this is in play, each other player may take an extra turn at the end of one of their turns if the previous turn wasn't theirs. If they do, at the end of their extra turn, +6 Coffers, +4%, +2 Villagers

EDIT: Modified to make the top more powerful and fix wording on the bottom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 12, 2019, 04:09:44 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on September 12, 2019, 02:13:17 pm

Quote

Con Artist
Action - Duration - $5
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn:
+1 Card
+1 Buy
--------------
While this is in play, each other player may take an extra turn if the previous turn wasn't theirs. If they do, at the end of their extra turn, +6 Coffers, +4%, +2 Villagers

It should be noted that, since you are giving your opponent a choice, this card is strictly worse than it with just the top part, and the top part is only marginally better than Caravan, so this is super weak.

Also the wording should make clear that the opponents can only take extra turns after one of their turns. With the current wording, if you have 2 opponents A and B, A is allowed to take an extra turn after the turn you played this, so is B, and then A can take another extra turn etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on September 12, 2019, 04:45:09 pm

Quote from: faust on September 12, 2019, 04:09:44 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on September 12, 2019, 02:13:17 pm

Quote

Con Artist
Action - Duration - $5
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn:
+1 Card
+1 Buy
--------------
While this is in play, each other player may take an extra turn if the previous turn wasn't theirs. If they do, at the end of their extra turn, +6 Coffers, +4%, +2 Villagers

It should be noted that, since you are giving your opponent a choice, this card is strictly worse than it with just the top part, and the top part is only marginally better than Caravan, so this is super weak.

Also the wording should make clear that the opponents can only take extra turns after one of their turns. With the current wording, if you have 2 opponents A and B, A is allowed to take an extra turn after the turn you played this, so is B, and then A can take another extra turn etc.

Good points.

What about something like this:

Con Artist
Action - Duration - $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy
-
While this is in play, each other player may take an extra turn at the end of one of their turns if the previous turn wasn't theirs. If they do, at the end of their extra turn, +6 Coffers, +4%, +2 Villagers

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 12, 2019, 06:00:30 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 11, 2019, 09:26:07 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EP2NEoi.png)

Skipping your Clean-up phase the turn this is played will make all the cards you played that turn unavailable for your extra turn. Just wanted to make sure this was intended.

Neat way of keeping the power level in check. Your extra turn could get kind of junky, but I can think of a few ways this could be a positive.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 12, 2019, 09:09:33 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on September 12, 2019, 06:00:30 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 11, 2019, 09:26:07 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EP2NEoi.png)

Skipping your Clean-up phase the turn this is played will make all the cards you played that turn unavailable for your extra turn. Just wanted to make sure this was intended.

Neat way of keeping the power level in check. Your extra turn could get kind of junky, but I can think of a few ways this could be a positive.

Good point. I wasn't thinking of that at all, actually. Though as you pointed out, it's a good way to check the power level. I'm still leaning towards changing it to what I originally wanted, though. Would this make it too strong?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on September 12, 2019, 11:41:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/lPlWYTjr.jpg)
Siege
Project - $5
At the beginning on your turn, if the previous turn was not yours, you can discard your hand to take your Siege token.
At the end of your Cleanup phase, you can return the Siege token. If you do, take another turn after this one.

Clarification: There is one Siege token per player

Basically a version of Guide, but you can get a full-fledged turn with a little help of +Card durations.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 13, 2019, 02:02:54 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 12, 2019, 09:09:33 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on September 12, 2019, 06:00:30 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 11, 2019, 09:26:07 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EP2NEoi.png)

Skipping your Clean-up phase the turn this is played will make all the cards you played that turn unavailable for your extra turn. Just wanted to make sure this was intended.

Neat way of keeping the power level in check. Your extra turn could get kind of junky, but I can think of a few ways this could be a positive.

Good point. I wasn't thinking of that at all, actually. Though as you pointed out, it's a good way to check the power level. I'm still leaning towards changing it to what I originally wanted, though. Would this make it too strong?

Skipping your Clean-up phase also means that you don't get to draw any cards for your extra turn, so this is accidental weaksauce.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on September 13, 2019, 11:23:39 am

Quote from: spineflu on September 12, 2019, 01:01:31 pm

Quote from: majiponi on September 12, 2019, 12:20:43 pm

Extra Allowance
cost $2 - Event
Once per turn: Take your Allowance token. If you have 3, remove all tokens used in this game, and if the previous turn wasn't your turn, take another.

does this remove vanilla bonus tokens as well? or your –1 Card token? your Inheritance token? tokens on your Pirate Ship mat?

Oh, I just feel like oversleeping. I meant to say "all tokens you have", so yes, remove Debt tokens, journey tokens, -1 Card token, Pirate Ship tokens,  vanilla tokens, Coffers, Villagers, vp tokens, and so on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 13, 2019, 02:26:55 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 12, 2019, 09:09:33 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on September 12, 2019, 06:00:30 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 11, 2019, 09:26:07 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EP2NEoi.png)

Skipping your Clean-up phase the turn this is played will make all the cards you played that turn unavailable for your extra turn. Just wanted to make sure this was intended.

Neat way of keeping the power level in check. Your extra turn could get kind of junky, but I can think of a few ways this could be a positive.

Good point. I wasn't thinking of that at all, actually. Though as you pointed out, it's a good way to check the power level. I'm still leaning towards changing it to what I originally wanted, though. Would this make it too strong?

I don't think so. I think the current phrasing is actually way too weak. I would recommend a few changes:

• Rephrase to use cleanup phases: "Go directly to your cleanup phase, then take another turn where you go directly to your cleanup phase after your action phrase." This makes it so that you still get to draw up to 5 for your extra turn and your next turn (the cleanup phrase is where you draw up to 5). Without it, you'll spend at least one turn with 0 cards. Also, duration cards would sit out because they don't get cleaned up but wouldn't have an affect apply -- it's a confusion interaction you could avoid.
• Add the whole (i"f the previous turn wasn't yours and this is your first Voyage in play") to help limit having multiple turns in a row

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 13, 2019, 04:45:31 pm

Deleted my previous entry. Instead, a Workshop variant.

Prototype
Action/Duration - $4
Gain a card costing up to $4
If this is the first time you played a Prototype this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, you may set aside the gained card to take an extra turn after this one, and put the set aside card into your hand instead of drawing your next hand.

Edit: Changed to wording suggested by Gubump. The art will be updated to reflect the text (but it's functionally the same).

Edit 2: Haven't got time to update the text on the card art, so it's gone. For posterity
https://i.imgur.com/BVf0kNK.png

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 13, 2019, 07:08:48 pm

Thank you all for your advice. I'm changing the wording to "end your Night phase" so that you still do Clean-up.

(https://i.imgur.com/AI48Fm5.png)

Quote

Voyage
Night - Duration - $5
End your Night phase. Take another turn after this one where you discard your hand at the end of your Action phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on September 14, 2019, 01:28:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/m6GsRbk.png)
I tried some fancier things like this that gave your opponent different tokens depending on what you did on your turn but they were way too wordy. I liked the idea of giving your opponent a bonus that scaled with how good your extra turn was, although I'm not sure if this is the best execution.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on September 14, 2019, 08:49:45 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/NWXKsmV.png)

Here's my submission this week.  Borrowed Land is an expensive Estate that gives you an extra turn during which you can't buy Victory cards.  It's a dead card once it's in your deck, but you're rewarded with another extra turn if you can trash it later (making it a nice TfB target).  Similar to Mission, you can't buy VP cards on your extra turns, but other methods of gaining VP cards get around that restriction.  Unlike Mission, you can still buy other cards, and of course the extra turns of Borrowed Lands are a limited commodity and can eventually run out (8 cards in 2 player, 12 in 3 or 4).

The weird Turn token mechanic is the best way I could come up with to clearly and concisely ensure that gaining/trashing multiples on one turn doesn't result in multiple extra turns (vs. something like "When you gain or trash this, if this is the first time you gained or trashed this...").  Each player has one Turn token. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 14, 2019, 09:26:58 pm

I'm changing my entry, I'm not feeling awesome about Witching Hour anymore. Too much finicky stuff going on in it.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d7d924ea6ed968b3ba33716/eaab7a536e32a408dfad379fd16ebd02/image.png).

Take ten turns in a row. You're gonna make your deck terrible, give your opponents a bunch of free VP, and have a mountain of debt but whatever, do it.

Just a side note: this with like, Watchtower, or Trader - should I phrase this instead to be "reveal the top card of your deck; if it's a Curse, (extra turn w -1 card token)" to be more Watchtower/Trader-proof?

edit edit: looked up how Soothsayer handles it; changed phrasing accordingly. You gotta take the Curse for your extra turn.

Quote

Delegate • <7> • Event
Each other player gets +2%. Gain a Curse to the top of your deck. Reveal the top card of your deck; if it's a Curse, take your –1 Card Token and an additional turn after this one.

Updated at http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810942#msg810942 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810942#msg810942)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on September 14, 2019, 11:12:21 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 14, 2019, 09:26:58 pm

I'm changing my entry, I'm not feeling awesome about Witching Hour anymore. Too much finicky stuff going on in it.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d7d924ea6ed968b3ba33716/eaab7a536e32a408dfad379fd16ebd02/image.png).

Take ten turns in a row. You're gonna make your deck terrible, give your opponents a bunch of free VP, and have a mountain of debt but whatever, do it.

Just a side note: this with like, Watchtower, or Trader - should I phrase this instead to be "reveal the top card of your deck; if it's a Curse, (extra turn w -1 card token)" to be more Watchtower/Trader-proof?

edit edit: looked up how Soothsayer handles it; changed phrasing accordingly. You gotta take the Curse for your extra turn.

Quote

Delegate • <7> • Event
Each other player gets +2%. Gain a Curse to the top of your deck. Reveal the top card of your deck; if it's a Curse, take your –1 Card Token and an additional turn after this one.

Pretty much any engine deck that can consistently go off on an Outpost turn can use this to take all the turns.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on September 15, 2019, 02:11:16 am

Quote from: Gazbag on September 14, 2019, 11:12:21 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 14, 2019, 09:26:58 pm

I'm changing my entry, I'm not feeling awesome about Witching Hour anymore. Too much finicky stuff going on in it.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d7d924ea6ed968b3ba33716/eaab7a536e32a408dfad379fd16ebd02/image.png).

Take ten turns in a row. You're gonna make your deck terrible, give your opponents a bunch of free VP, and have a mountain of debt but whatever, do it.

Just a side note: this with like, Watchtower, or Trader - should I phrase this instead to be "reveal the top card of your deck; if it's a Curse, (extra turn w -1 card token)" to be more Watchtower/Trader-proof?

edit edit: looked up how Soothsayer handles it; changed phrasing accordingly. You gotta take the Curse for your extra turn.

Quote

Delegate • <7> • Event
Each other player gets +2%. Gain a Curse to the top of your deck. Reveal the top card of your deck; if it's a Curse, take your –1 Card Token and an additional turn after this one.

Pretty much any engine deck that can consistently go off on an Outpost turn can use this to take all the turns.

The extra turn only happens if the top card of your deck is a curse, so you’d have to have some top deck manipulation too. However that could be easily accomplished with Courtyard, Sentry, etc., so I think it would be better to make the extra turn conditional on gaining a curse instead of checking the top of your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on September 15, 2019, 06:50:48 am

Quote from: mail-mi on September 15, 2019, 02:11:16 am

Quote from: Gazbag on September 14, 2019, 11:12:21 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 14, 2019, 09:26:58 pm

I'm changing my entry, I'm not feeling awesome about Witching Hour anymore. Too much finicky stuff going on in it.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d7d924ea6ed968b3ba33716/eaab7a536e32a408dfad379fd16ebd02/image.png).

Take ten turns in a row. You're gonna make your deck terrible, give your opponents a bunch of free VP, and have a mountain of debt but whatever, do it.

Just a side note: this with like, Watchtower, or Trader - should I phrase this instead to be "reveal the top card of your deck; if it's a Curse, (extra turn w -1 card token)" to be more Watchtower/Trader-proof?

edit edit: looked up how Soothsayer handles it; changed phrasing accordingly. You gotta take the Curse for your extra turn.

Quote

Delegate • <7> • Event
Each other player gets +2%. Gain a Curse to the top of your deck. Reveal the top card of your deck; if it's a Curse, take your –1 Card Token and an additional turn after this one.

Pretty much any engine deck that can consistently go off on an Outpost turn can use this to take all the turns.

The extra turn only happens if the top card of your deck is a curse, so you’d have to have some top deck manipulation too. However that could be easily accomplished with Courtyard, Sentry, etc., so I think it would be better to make the extra turn conditional on gaining a curse instead of checking the top of your deck.

It makes you gain a Curse to the top of your deck so you only need the deck manipulation if your consistent engine deck somehow can't win after 11 turns in a row.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 15, 2019, 09:44:33 am

Quote from: Gazbag on September 15, 2019, 06:50:48 am

Quote from: mail-mi on September 15, 2019, 02:11:16 am

Quote from: Gazbag on September 14, 2019, 11:12:21 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 14, 2019, 09:26:58 pm

I'm changing my entry, I'm not feeling awesome about Witching Hour anymore. Too much finicky stuff going on in it.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d7d924ea6ed968b3ba33716/eaab7a536e32a408dfad379fd16ebd02/image.png).

Take ten turns in a row. You're gonna make your deck terrible, give your opponents a bunch of free VP, and have a mountain of debt but whatever, do it.

Just a side note: this with like, Watchtower, or Trader - should I phrase this instead to be "reveal the top card of your deck; if it's a Curse, (extra turn w -1 card token)" to be more Watchtower/Trader-proof?

edit edit: looked up how Soothsayer handles it; changed phrasing accordingly. You gotta take the Curse for your extra turn.

Quote

Delegate • <7> • Event
Each other player gets +2%. Gain a Curse to the top of your deck. Reveal the top card of your deck; if it's a Curse, take your –1 Card Token and an additional turn after this one.

Pretty much any engine deck that can consistently go off on an Outpost turn can use this to take all the turns.

The extra turn only happens if the top card of your deck is a curse, so you’d have to have some top deck manipulation too. However that could be easily accomplished with Courtyard, Sentry, etc., so I think it would be better to make the extra turn conditional on gaining a curse instead of checking the top of your deck.

It makes you gain a Curse to the top of your deck so you only need the deck manipulation if your consistent engine deck somehow can't win after 11 turns in a row.

waking up hungover in the morning to find out you were drunkposting on the dominion fan cards forum is a helluva beast.
uuh this c.l.t. has Some Issues; i'm gonna think on it today and change it or replace it on Monday.

Updated at http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810942#msg810942 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810942#msg810942)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 15, 2019, 02:18:42 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 13, 2019, 04:45:31 pm

Prototype
Action/Duration - $4
Gain a card costing up to $4
If this is the first time you played a Prototype this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, you may set that card aside on this to take an extra turn after this one, drawing only that card for your next hand.

Minor wording gripe: setting a card aside and then putting it in your hand isn't "drawing" it.

Title: Re: Contest #44: Extra turns
Post by: Gubump on September 15, 2019, 02:36:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sqTcPEf.png)

Like Outpost, but you have to set aside cards from your current hand to make your extra turn's hand. The +2 Cards is there to make it compare more favorably to Outpost.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Made the +2 Cards unconditional.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 15, 2019, 05:20:23 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 15, 2019, 02:18:42 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 13, 2019, 04:45:31 pm

Prototype
Action/Duration - $4
Gain a card costing up to $4
If this is the first time you played a Prototype this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, you may set that card aside on this to take an extra turn after this one, drawing only that card for your next hand.

Minor wording gripe: setting a card aside and then putting it in your hand isn't "drawing" it.

It was a way to save space compared to "draw zero cards and put the set aside card in your hand at the start of your next turn".

Title: Re: Contest #44: Extra turns
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 15, 2019, 05:26:34 pm

Quote from: Gubump on September 15, 2019, 02:36:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/MJhT6nm.png)

Like Outpost, but you have to set aside cards from your current hand to make your extra turn's hand. The conditional +2 Cards is there to make it compare more favorably to Outpost.

I don't think this card would be too overpowered if the +2 Cards was unconditional.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on September 15, 2019, 06:08:24 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d7eb5627b48526a33a7e0b7/5e3ca57657079f0ae82bff761b5c7582/Memorial.png)

Memorial
Type: Victory
Cost: $2

2 VP
---
If this is the first time, you bought a Memorial this turn, take an extra turn after this one, during which you can't buy Victory cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 15, 2019, 07:01:19 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 15, 2019, 05:20:23 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 15, 2019, 02:18:42 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 13, 2019, 04:45:31 pm

Prototype
Action/Duration - $4
Gain a card costing up to $4
If this is the first time you played a Prototype this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, you may set that card aside on this to take an extra turn after this one, drawing only that card for your next hand.

Minor wording gripe: setting a card aside and then putting it in your hand isn't "drawing" it.

It was a way to save space compared to "draw zero cards and put the set aside card in your hand at the start of your next turn".

"If this is the first time you played a Prototype this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, you may set aside the gained card to take an extra turn after this one, and put the set aside card into your hand instead of drawing your next hand."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 16, 2019, 10:32:08 am

Alright so here's the sober Delegate-replacement.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d7d924ea6ed968b3ba33716/2f533af13bb2d4ae634a1260299a9719/image.png)

Quote

Heir • <4> • Event
Once per turn: Gain a Curse. Choose one: take your –1 Coin token and a Turn token, then each other player gets +2%; or take your –1 Card token, return two Turn tokens, and take an additional turn after this one.
-
Setup: include ten additional Curses in the Supply

I wanted something that would allow you to take an arbitrary number of turns in a row, provided you could deal with the drawbacks associated.
This will let you do that; it will also give you 3 curses for each extra turn you get, and your opponents 4vp tokens, and you'll have to set it up over the course of several turns.

Clarifications:
The "ten additional curses" setup is so this doesn't get in the way of a traditional Curser.
Turn tokens are an arbitrary collectable token (a la coin/debt/embargo tokens) and not component limited. If you're using pennies for debt tokens, use nickels for turn tokens.

Updated @ http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810942#msg810942 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810942#msg810942)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on September 17, 2019, 08:55:05 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 12, 2019, 12:29:45 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 11, 2019, 06:04:01 pm

Coffee Roast
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
$2, +2 Cards.

---

When you buy this, you may trash a Potion you have in play. If you do, take an extra turn after this one.

Excellent use of potions! I think the +2 cards in a $ phase is an interesting concept that doesn't belong on this card. I'd say this can be stronger like $3 maybe $3 +1buy or $2 +1 buy. The +1 buy would make the concept make sense as you have to spend buys for the potion you just lost.

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 17, 2019, 05:17:01 pm

I believe I disagree with this general design philosophy you are displaying (and throughout your judging post). It seems to me you are looking at cards that have problems baked into them and considering them poorly designed for that reason: I think cards that have inherent problems are the best designed cards because you have to look elsewhere in the Kingdom to solve them.

"+2 Cards, +$2" is too strong for $5 and too boring for $6.  Coffee Roast moves the effect sideways by costing $4P with the extra turn stuff and moving it to a Treasure where the +Cards become awkward.  It hopefully pulls down the earlier Coffee Roast turns as a pseudo-stop-card, but I'm not sure it will do that.  Later Coffee Roast turns will be great because of its self-synergy.
If you really want to, you can view the extra turn as the +Buy after which you are asking, but you want to manage much more than that on your Coffee Roast turn.

Also, theme.  It's caffeine, so you get to take another turn.  The card draw represents productivity, but it is of an unusual and undirected sort that you might not be able to leverage very well as society adapts to the common consumption of caffeine.

Quote from: spineflu on September 12, 2019, 01:01:31 pm

it takes some setup, but Trader and Graverobber would let you infinite* turns with this.
* i mean, until the silvers run out and then some

Coffee Roast can go infinite with two parts:
1) Some way to keep the Coffee Roasts from running out (being Trader (notably, running out of Silvers doesn't matter: Trader will just stop giving you Silvers) or Ambassador + an unconditional blocker (like Lighthouse or Guardian))
2) Some way to get the Potions out of the trash (being Graverobber, Rogue, or Treasurer)
Having it trigger on gain would make it infinite with Treasurer without needing anything else.
There are probably some complicated rewordings that could try to avoid literally infinite turns, but really though, Coffee Roast looks most to be a variation on a megaturn.  You only have to ensure that your extra turns include gaining a Potion and buying another Coffee Roast until you win.  Coffee Roast is not itself super helpful for managing it, though.  In the rare event that this infinite turn can occur, you should win.  The only instance in which the turn continuing forever even does anything notable is with Bishop (with the already granted trash rescue), Monument, Wild Hunt, Goons+Trader (and this is when we are already talking about a 3+ card combo).
Whenever you can't megaturn with it, turning a Potion into a ~$6 card and an extra turn is a pretty worthwhile trade (depending on why you have or how you gained the Potion).

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 12, 2019, 12:12:41 pm

Frontier
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $3
Gain a Copper to the top of your deck per Frontier you have in play. If this is the first time you played a Frontier this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one. (This stays in play.)

Playing one Frontier is likely mandatory on virtually any board, though its timing is hardly trivial and the second and on become questionable based upon the ability to trash Coppers.  Even on boards with no trashing, I think the first Frontier will typically be mandatory, which is definitely to the strength of the card.

Quote from: 4est on September 14, 2019, 08:49:45 pm

Borrowed Land
Types: Victory
Cost: $4
1VP

---

When you gain or trash this, take your Turn token and return it at the start of Clean-Up. If you do and the previous turn wasn't yours, take another turn after this one during which you cannot buy Victory cards

Quote from: King Leon on September 15, 2019, 06:08:24 pm

Memorial
Types: Victory
Cost: $6
2VP

---

If this is the first time, you bought a Memorial this turn, take an extra turn after this one, during which you can't buy Victory cards.

I'll assume these were designed separately in spite of their similarities.
I like Borrowed Land for having the trashing incentive, though its current cost renders it so similar to Flag Bearer.  It will probably be much more frustrating too, because Flag Bearer at least provides a terminal-Silver as a consolation prize when you can't trash it.
I like Memorial for having a higher cost and more VP attached to it, but it looks like it will only ever make the later turns (the longest turns of the game) even longer.

They both have a fun and unique VP-turn\build-turn dynamic.
I'd probably like them better at $5 with 2VP and the gain+trash extra turn.  It would make it more expensive to buy and trash for the extra turns and more tempting to keep in the face of its trashing incentive.

Quote from: spineflu on September 16, 2019, 10:32:08 am

Heir
Types: Event
Cost: <4>
Once per turn: Gain a Curse. Choose one: take your –1 Coin token and a Turn token, then each other player gets +2%; or take your –1 Card token, return two Turn tokens, and take an additional turn after this one.

---

Setup: include ten additional Curses in the Supply

Some of your commentary disagrees with the way I am parsing the card. As I read it, I can buy Heir multiple times in a turn and I only gain 1 Curse each turn.
Putting -$1 token and <> tokens together reads oddly.  I'd pare down.  Maybe gain a Curse and take your -1 Card token either way?  Then you could simplify the once per turn, too (because you can typically only take your -1 Card token once until you draw--which you don't typically do in the Buy phase).  "Gain a Curse and take your -1 Card token. If you do both..."
I also don't think it needs this setup condition.  You want to keep Heir from becoming too good in Cursing games, but instead have made something that will make Cursing cards stronger.  So long as taking or spending Turn tokens is contingent upon gaining the Curse, it will never get unreasonable.  I think having to buy 3 Heirs is probably unnecessary.  Gaining 3 Curses for 1 turn will almost never be worth the cost: 2 is likely sufficient.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 17, 2019, 09:55:22 am

so this is kind of stream-of-conciousness; bear with me

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 17, 2019, 08:55:05 am

Quote from: spineflu on September 16, 2019, 10:32:08 am

Heir
Types: Event
Cost: <4>
Once per turn: Gain a Curse. Choose one: take your –1 Coin token and a Turn token, then each other player gets +2%; or take your –1 Card token, return two Turn tokens, and take an additional turn after this one.

---

Setup: include ten additional Curses in the Supply

Some of your commentary disagrees with the way I am parsing the card. As I read it, I can buy Heir multiple times in a turn and I only gain 1 Curse each turn.
Putting -$1 token and <> tokens together reads oddly.  I'd pare down.  Maybe gain a Curse and take your -1 Card token either way?  Then you could simplify the once per turn, too (because you can typically only take your -1 Card token once until you draw--which you don't typically do in the Buy phase).  "Gain a Curse and take your -1 Card token. If you do both..."
I also don't think it needs this setup condition.  You want to keep Heir from becoming too good in Cursing games, but instead have made something that will make Cursing cards stronger.  So long as taking or spending Turn tokens is contingent upon gaining the Curse, it will never get unreasonable.  I think having to buy 3 Heirs is probably unnecessary.  Gaining 3 Curses for 1 turn will almost never be worth the cost: 2 is likely sufficient.

The "Once per turn" verbiage is same as from Pilgrimage. They event is buy-able once per turn. Not sure how to make that more clear.

I think I do want it to have abuseability/cheeseability when the curses run out (or you've got Watchtower/Trader) - you've still got a penalty both in the slow build up to amass turn tokens and in the immediate penalty tokens you're hitting yourself with, plus the debt.

The 2:1 tokens:turns ratio even without curses, i arrived at because... well, change that to 1:1 and you've got Three turns in a row with Outpost or Mission happening almost constantly [turn 1: buy Heir for token + Mission (or play outpost, buy Heir for token), turn 2: buy Heir, return token]. I think that's worth avoiding.

idk if I like the idea of self-handsize attacking to set up the card - self-money-sabotage is less painful in my estimate. Does cut down on lines though. Let's see how that'd look.

Quote

Once per turn: Gain a Curse and take your –1 Card Token, then choose one: take a Turn token and each other player gets +2%; or return two Turn tokens and take an additional turn after this one.
-
Setup: include 3 additional Curses per player in the Supply

i think 3 additional curses per player (while not exactly standard procedure for the Curse pile) is probably a sufficient balance between Curser-power-enabling and providing enough fuel for this card.

As far as 3-curses-per-bonus-turn, that might be A Lot in a vaccuum or if you're the only one dealing in Heirs, but [in 2-player] if your opponent is mirroring (trashing aside), you've got a net gain in VP per set-of-extra-turns for the table - in 3+ player, you've got a major gain in points from this. If only there were some way to set aside Curses you gain through this

....uh


(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d7d924ea6ed968b3ba33716/4ba4264fdaa1e7ef9b33a63eb1880785/image.png)

Quote

Heir • <4> • Event
Once per turn, choose one: Gain a Curse to your Heirs mat, then each other player gets +2%; or put two Curse cards from your Heirs mat onto your deck to take an additional turn after this one.
-
Setup: include 3 additional Curses per player in the Supply

FAQ: cards on your Heirs mat, like your tavern mat/island mat/NV mat, are still part of your deck

• still have to three buys, but now only two curses per bonus turn
• not-as-OP for cursers
• does the handsize hit when the bonus turn
• reads cleaner for once-per-turn?
• eliminates turn tokens - return your nickels to the change jar
• opportunity for hubris (and therefore a good story, and therefore fun/replayability) if people somehow get stuck with no way of getting their amassed curses off of their Heirs mat (or accidentally do a "Donate" with like eight curses on their Heirs mat)
• breaks the Watchtower + Trader defense against gaining Curses - a Silver gained to your curse mat won't help you
• Curses run out? no more Heir turns.
• art for the heirs mat should be of ways your children have disappointed you

---

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 17, 2019, 08:55:05 am

Quote from: spineflu on September 12, 2019, 01:01:31 pm

it takes some setup, but Trader and Graverobber would let you infinite* turns with this.
* i mean, until the silvers run out and then some

Coffee Roast can go infinite with two parts:
1) Some way to keep the Coffee Roasts from running out (being Trader (notably, running out of Silvers doesn't matter: Trader will just stop giving you Silvers) or Ambassador + an unconditional blocker (like Lighthouse or Guardian))
2) Some way to get the Potions out of the trash (being Graverobber, Rogue, or Treasurer)
Having it trigger on gain would make it infinite with Treasurer without needing anything else.
There are probably some complicated rewordings that could try to avoid literally infinite turns, but [...]

Quote from: naitchman on September 10, 2019, 11:40:39 pm

[...]
Challenge #44: Extra! Extra!
[...]Remember to word it so you can't get infinite turns. [...]

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 17, 2019, 11:45:27 am

I'm changing your bolding to focus on the more important aspect of what I said.

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 17, 2019, 08:55:05 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 12, 2019, 12:29:45 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 11, 2019, 06:04:01 pm

Coffee Roast
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
$2, +2 Cards.

---

When you buy this, you may trash a Potion you have in play. If you do, take an extra turn after this one.

Excellent use of potions! I think the +2 cards in a $ phase is an interesting concept that doesn't belong on this card. I'd say this can be stronger like $3 maybe $3 +1buy or $2 +1 buy. The +1 buy would make the concept make sense as you have to spend buys for the potion you just lost.

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 17, 2019, 05:17:01 pm

I believe I disagree with this general design philosophy you are displaying (and throughout your judging post). It seems to me you are looking at cards that have problems baked into them and considering them poorly designed for that reason: I think cards that have inherent problems are the best designed cards because you have to look elsewhere in the Kingdom to solve them.

"+2 Cards, +$2" is too strong for $5 and too boring for $6.  Coffee Roast moves the effect sideways by costing $4P with the extra turn stuff and moving it to a Treasure where the +Cards become awkward.  It hopefully pulls down the earlier Coffee Roast turns as a pseudo-stop-card, but I'm not sure it will do that.  Later Coffee Roast turns will be great because of its self-synergy.
If you really want to, you can view the extra turn as the +Buy after which you are asking, but you want to manage much more than that on your Coffee Roast turn.

Also, theme.  It's caffeine, so you get to take another turn.  The card draw represents productivity, but it is of an unusual and undirected sort that you might not be able to leverage very well as society adapts to the common consumption of caffeine.

I think I'm being misrepresented here. I'm re-quoting the below in case you missed this. I don't like cards that solve all their problems. I like cards that are clearly focused.

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 20, 2019, 02:52:54 pm

What's weird is I think we actually agree a lot more than it seems. When I read your sentence I wanted to explain what cards design I like and a ton of the examples you gave were the same examples I'd give. To me I also don't like when one card solves all of it's problems -- Margrave is a good example of a card with too much going for it. I like it when cards are about single topics such that they naturally effect themselves. On the flip side, Margrave's attack is well designed: it is not an attack the second time it's a benefit to the opponent, so that reacts with itself. That's what I mean by single-concept cards that naturally have synergy or anti-synergy with itself.

My opinion was that I really loved the concept of the tome and cursing and I think there's a separate concept of "cheap cursers" and I thought it would be better if you focused on one of those concepts. Of course, that's totally opinion. I still would really love to see what you did with Tome and curses to hand without the concept of "cheap curser" also.

In case you saw this earlier, I'm going to try to explain again.

The +2 cards is like adding a 4th hole to a pair of pants. Shirts need 4 holes, pants don't. By the way, I don't think that adding a +buy is actually the way to make this card better, it was just a way of showing clearly, hey here is something that is more focused. The +buy makes it too powerful and wouldn't be great design.

 +2 cards just muddies the concept. There's a whole wonderful card design involved around getting +2 cards as a treasure and making that work, and there's a whole wonderful card design around balancing extra turns. Slamming those two concepts together is leading to a poorer design. And the hope that it draws cards you wanted -- that doesn't impact the next turn in the same way that discarding from the top of your opponent's deck is not an attack. If you wanted to make it more focused you could draw 2 action cards, but you might as well discard them from top of deck instead of draw in treasure phase.

There's a lot to like about this card. Using potions is a really great way of balancing the extra turn mechanic.

I thought I had clearly articulated that before, but I guess not. Perhaps we disagree on this -- do you like to add many different concepts onto a card at once? If so, I'll definitely stop providing you feedback to pare your cards down to one focused concept.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 17, 2019, 01:01:32 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 17, 2019, 11:45:27 am

I'm changing your bolding to focus on the more important aspect of what I said.

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 17, 2019, 08:55:05 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 12, 2019, 12:29:45 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 11, 2019, 06:04:01 pm

Coffee Roast
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4P
$2, +2 Cards.

---

When you buy this, you may trash a Potion you have in play. If you do, take an extra turn after this one.

Excellent use of potions! I think the +2 cards in a $ phase is an interesting concept that doesn't belong on this card. I'd say this can be stronger like $3 maybe $3 +1buy or $2 +1 buy. The +1 buy would make the concept make sense as you have to spend buys for the potion you just lost.

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 17, 2019, 05:17:01 pm

I believe I disagree with this general design philosophy you are displaying (and throughout your judging post). It seems to me you are looking at cards that have problems baked into them and considering them poorly designed for that reason: I think cards that have inherent problems are the best designed cards because you have to look elsewhere in the Kingdom to solve them.

"+2 Cards, +$2" is too strong for $5 and too boring for $6.  Coffee Roast moves the effect sideways by costing $4P with the extra turn stuff and moving it to a Treasure where the +Cards become awkward.  It hopefully pulls down the earlier Coffee Roast turns as a pseudo-stop-card, but I'm not sure it will do that.  Later Coffee Roast turns will be great because of its self-synergy.
If you really want to, you can view the extra turn as the +Buy after which you are asking, but you want to manage much more than that on your Coffee Roast turn.

Also, theme.  It's caffeine, so you get to take another turn.  The card draw represents productivity, but it is of an unusual and undirected sort that you might not be able to leverage very well as society adapts to the common consumption of caffeine.

I think I'm being misrepresented here. I'm re-quoting the below in case you missed this. I don't like cards that solve all their problems. I like cards that are clearly focused.

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 20, 2019, 02:52:54 pm

What's weird is I think we actually agree a lot more than it seems. When I read your sentence I wanted to explain what cards design I like and a ton of the examples you gave were the same examples I'd give. To me I also don't like when one card solves all of it's problems -- Margrave is a good example of a card with too much going for it. I like it when cards are about single topics such that they naturally effect themselves. On the flip side, Margrave's attack is well designed: it is not an attack the second time it's a benefit to the opponent, so that reacts with itself. That's what I mean by single-concept cards that naturally have synergy or anti-synergy with itself.

My opinion was that I really loved the concept of the tome and cursing and I think there's a separate concept of "cheap cursers" and I thought it would be better if you focused on one of those concepts. Of course, that's totally opinion. I still would really love to see what you did with Tome and curses to hand without the concept of "cheap curser" also.

In case you saw this earlier, I'm going to try to explain again.

The +2 cards is like adding a 4th hole to a pair of pants. Shirts need 4 holes, pants don't. By the way, I don't think that adding a +buy is actually the way to make this card better, it was just a way of showing clearly, hey here is something that is more focused. The +buy makes it too powerful and wouldn't be great design.

 +2 cards just muddies the concept. There's a whole wonderful card design involved around getting +2 cards as a treasure and making that work, and there's a whole wonderful card design around balancing extra turns. Slamming those two concepts together is leading to a poorer design. And the hope that it draws cards you wanted -- that doesn't impact the next turn in the same way that discarding from the top of your opponent's deck is not an attack. If you wanted to make it more focused you could draw 2 action cards, but you might as well discard them from top of deck instead of draw in treasure phase.

There's a lot to like about this card. Using potions is a really great way of balancing the extra turn mechanic.

I thought I had clearly articulated that before, but I guess not. Perhaps we disagree on this -- do you like to add many different concepts onto a card at once? If so, I'll definitely stop providing you feedback to pare your cards down to one focused concept.

I feel like I'm jumping halfway into a conversation, so I'll just apologize now if this is off topic! One of my favorite things about Dominion is trying to figure out how to extract the maximum value out of a card. Sometimes this is a question of how many of a card to buy and when, but mostly it's about figuring out those key Kingdom card interactions.

Coffee Roast is doing a lot of great things: drawing, giving coin and giving an extra turn, but as you said they all sort of bump into each other. Probably for good reason too as all of these alone would make a powerful and problematic card. Players that manage to solve this puzzle and draw without effecting their next turn, get an extra Buy and navigate the high cost of $4P are going to be rewarded with an awesome card. Those who don't will stumble. Balance is maintained!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 17, 2019, 01:23:27 pm

Here is your 24 hour warning. Get your submissions in.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 18, 2019, 01:30:19 pm

Raft $2
Action-Traveller
Trash a card from your hand.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Fishing Vessel.

Fishing Vessel $3*
+ $2
+1 Buy
At the start of your next turn, choose one: + $1, +1 Buy; or you may exchange it for a Cog, putting it on the bottom of your deck.
(This is not in the Supply.)

(https://i.imgur.com/kSZrp9a.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/PjnIKBI.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ViSYNJL.png)


If you've already started judging by now you can ignore this, but some feedback would be nice from anyone.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 18, 2019, 03:08:13 pm

Gonna start judging now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 18, 2019, 11:26:03 pm

Hey everyone here's my thoughts on the cards.
I'm creating the following terminology when talking about different types of extra turn cards
Level 0- Once per game. Cards in this category can gain one extra turn the entire game. Fleet is in this category.
Level 1- Once per turn on one turn (per round). Cards in this category can be played only once per turn, and only allow one extra turn per round (usually because they don't allow extra turns on any type of extra turn). Outpost and Mission would fall in this category.
Level 2- Once per turn over multiple turns. Cards in this category can only be played once per turn, but can be played on extra turns (like outpost and mission turns) that are not its own.
Level 3- Multiple per turn on one turn. Cards in this category can be played multiple times on a turn, but can't be utilized on extra turns (its own or others).
Level 4- Multiple per turn over multiple turns. Cards in this category can be played multiple times on a single turn, and over multiple turns per round (though not on its own extra turns, or else infinite loops would be possible). Possession would fall in this category.
Level 5- Infinite Loop. An extra turn card that could allow for infinite turns (usually because it allows itself to be played on its own extra turns).
Other- Cards that don't fall in these categories.

---

Double Shift by Pst (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810648#msg810648)

Quote

(https://starback.se/static/games/Double_Shift.png)
Double Shift- Project - $5
After one of your turns in which you gain a Victory card costing more than $5 you get an extra turn. During that extra turn, whenever you would gain a Victory card, instead gain nothing.

A level 2 extra turn. An interesting concept. It's going to be used toward the end, once you've started greening, but you can't use the extra turn to get more points (normally; edge cases always apply). Instead, you'll use it to keep your deck composition. Assuming there aren't nobles, harem, or farmland in the game it will just trigger on provinces meaning you'll probably get ~3-4 extra turns on it. If there's a good enough engine to double-province, you'll get even less. I think it would be better as a level 1, but other than that I like it.

Night Shift by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810649#msg810649)

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/ua0kDuT.png)
Night Shift - Event - $2
Once per game: take another turn after this one, starting with 0 Actions.

A level 0 extra turn. I'm not against level 0 extra turns, I just think this was a bad case to use it. I like the concept of allowing an extra turn with no actions. It's something I might even be able to build a deck around to take advantage of that extra turn (just like one does with outpost). But if I can only get 1 extra turn the whole game, it's not worth building my deck around it, so it makes this card much less interesting. I think this might work better as an action card (I'm guessing the only reason it was an event was to make it once per game) and changed to a level 1 extra turn (you'll probably have to tweak the price).

Pact by Grrgrrgrr (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810679#msg810679)

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/kAKTaDWm.png)
Pact - Project - $8
For the rest of the game, play 2 turns in a row. When you trash a Copper, move it to the discard.
-
After buying this project, gain 7 Coppers.

A permanent Level 1 extra turn at the cost of having (at least) 7  untrashable coppers. I like this idea. The fact that you get an extra turn every round isn't as crazy as it first appeared since a well constructed engine can do the same with a single buy of outpost. I think this compares well to outpost in general. Outpost gives an extra turn with only 3 cards. With Pact, you'll have so many coppers, it'll be like having less cards. If you had 21 "good" cards and 7 coppers, you can expect 1.25 cards in each hand to be a copper making it harder to run your engine. The downside is this hits you even on your non-extra turns. In engines, trashing is a must for this buy (14 coppers is just too much).This could be used more effectively for extra turns by BM (than other extra turn cards) since BM usually isn't drawing your deck every turn. In addition BM doesn't care as much about copper. Trashing would be helpful for BM. Alt VP (especially gardens) could probably benefit from this without trashing at all, since your price points are usually lower. Of course $8 is hard to reach for alt VP usually.

Despite all of my analysis, this is one of those cards I think I would understand better with playtesting. There might need to be some tweaking (maybe gain 6 coppers or 8 coppers). I think the price could definitely use some tweaking. It seems like a good fit for BM and Alt VP yet for BM it doesn't work because you have give up a province for it (BM advantage is usually speed), and Alt VP usually has trouble hitting $8. Maybe lower the price or convert it to debt?

In addition, trader can still work here. Maybe instead of gaining the coppers, you just put them in your discard?

Bonanza by mandiaco15 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810682#msg810682)

Quote

Bonanza - Event - $5

At the end of this turn, if you have unspent coins, take Voyager, and take another turn after this one, where you draw one card per unspent coin for your hand.
---
You can't buy this if you have Voyager.


Voyager - State
Worth 1VP if you have this at the end of the game.

I think the intention was a Level 1 extra turn but because you take Voyager at the end of the turn this is technically a Level 3. The simplest fix is either a "once per turn" clause or taking voyager when you buy it. That aside, I don't see this being used many times in a game. In order to be a worthwhile buy, you probably need to be producing a large amount of money each turn, and buy something else with this. If I have $10 and buy this and leave the $5 for 5 cards, I would need to be confident I'm going to get more than $10 on this extra turn to have gained anything(why didn't that happen this turn?). Buying this at $7 (2 cards for next turn) seems like a long shot, and at $8 or more (outpost level), I could've just gotten a province. A likely scenario is I have $18 and 2 (or more) buys. Buy province and Bonanza (leave 5 cards for next turn) and then double province next turn. At that point, I have to wait for my oponent to have a worthwhile turn to buy bonanza, and at that point the games almost over. I might not even be able to buy bonanza a 2nd time. I'm sure there are exceptions (guide, hireling, etc.) but I think this is the likely case. I think the choices on this aren't so intriguing. I liked the concept of Voyager (by taking an extra turn, you allow your opponent to take an extra turn. likewise, you can deny your opponent extra turns by not taking extra turns yourself), but when it's expected to pass back and forth so few times, it's not as interesting. I also think Voyager would be a little more interesting as a penalty (-1VP) since whoever takes the last extra turn, is going to have a slight advantage.

Coffee Roast by Fragasnap (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810684#msg810684)

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/iXfgdcA.jpg)
Coffee Roast - Treasure - $4P
$2
+2 Cards
-
When you buy this, you may trash a Potion you have in play. If you do, take another turn after this one.

A level 5 extra turn. Not only is the card itself pretty strong, 2 peddlers and a lab (even though it's during you buy phase), but it gives an extra turn on top of this (at the cost of a potion). If this were limited to one per round, this could be an ok card. I see this working better in BM deck since it reduces the chance of terminal collision with your actions. It could likely be better than a gold (sometimes even a platinum) if it draws the right cards. I think the glaring error is the infinite turn possibility with trader and treasurer. Any infinite turn loop can be abused (add monument, goons, anything that gains coffers, etc.). The fact that this only requires 3 cards is a problem (see KC-Goons-Masquerade).

Refuge by Kudasai (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810685#msg810685)

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/6y9CWwx.jpg)
Refuge - Night - $8
Name a phase.
If this is the first time you played a Refuge this turn, take an extra turn after this one, where you can only play your Clean-up and phases named this turn with Refuge.

A Level 5 extra turn. I know you acknowledged the fact that this can infinite turn loop, but it can really be abused even with only 2 with werewolf. A deck of 4 werewolves and 2 Refuges can dish out an unlimited number of hexes, giving out all the curses, all the coppers, and making your opponents trash a bunch of cards (among other things). I think restricting this down to just action or buy could've made an interesting card though. I think there are plenty of decks that can work with this in interesting ways.

Voyage by Commodore Chuckles (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810793#msg810793)

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/AI48Fm5.png)
Voyage - Night - $5
End your Night phase. Take another turn after this one where you discard your hand at the end of your Action phase.

A Level 2 extra turn. I think this works well. It gives a restriction to work around to make that extra turn worthwhile. This could work in situations when Tactician would work (virtual coin). It would work very nice with tactician  :D. Overall I like it.

Penance by setchafle (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810692#msg810692)

Quote

Penance - Event - $4
If the previous turn wasn't yours, take an extra turn after this one. During that turn when you play a card, discard a card sharing a type with the played card or reveal you can't.

A Level 3 extra turn. This sounds a bit harsh to work with. It's almost impossible to grow your handsize (labs or village-smithy don't work), meaning you won't be able to play that many payload cards. Absent of some very key cards, it's going to be hard to produce alot of $ on  this turn. In addition, I'm not a fan of not limiting the buys for this.

Frontier by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810728#msg810728)

Quote

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/cz3w7tvm.png)
Frontier - Action - $3
Gain a Copper to the top of your deck per Frontier you have in play. If this is the first time you played a Frontier this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one.

A Level 1 extra turn. Obviously, there's no reason to play more (barring some weird reason to want coppers). It feels unnecessary to even put the "per frontier you have in play" clause. That aside, this sounds a bit too strong. Outpost gives you three cards and costs $5. This gives you 4 cards plus a copper and costs $3. Yes, you get junked, but it shouldn't be too hard to trash it it (consider that trashing is usually necessary in an outpost strategy anyway to guarantee getting reasonable cards in your 3 card draw).

Extra Allowance by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810730#msg810730)

Quote

Extra Allowance - Event - $2
Once per turn: Take your Allowance token. If you have 3, remove all tokens used in this game, and if the previous turn wasn't your turn, take another.

This extra turn falls in the other category (you can get it on its own extra turns but it takes 3 for 1). I like the idea of setting aside a little for a turn down the line. I think a +buy would make this a little better (since I can get this early game without wasting my buys). However, I think the "remove all tokens from the game" clause is way too wonky. I mean it doesn't even say your tokens, so this will affect your opponents too. All debt tokens, coffers, villagers, VP tokens (bye-bye lead), journey tokens (how does that even work if you don't have a journey token), vanilla bonuses, etc. get removed which means going for them is a waste in this game. Just removing the allowance tokens would've been fine.

Con Artist by mail-mi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810735#msg810735)

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/UNL6q9y.png)
Con Artist - Action - $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
+ $1
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy
-
While this is in play, each other player may take an extra turn at the end of one of their turns if the previous turn wasn't theirs. If they do, at the end of their extra turn, +6 Coffers, +4%, +2 Villagers

A Level 3 extra turn for your opponents at a cost. I feel like the cost of this extra turn is bit steep (this is especially true in a 4p game where you can get the bonus multiple times). I would have to be confident I'm getting more than a province since I'm giving you 4 VP tokens and 6 coffers (which can translate into VP). The card itself also feels pretty strong (peddler this turn, almost a level 3 city next turn). I think this could also be frustrating in a 3p or 4p game where one opponent is utilizing another opponent's con artist when he really shouldn't. I'm not sure if there's a great way to give opponents extra turns in this manner.

Siege by grep (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810761#msg810761)

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/lPlWYTjr.jpg)
Siege - Project - $5
At the beginning on your turn, if the previous turn was not yours, you can discard your hand to take your Siege token.
At the end of your Cleanup phase, you can return the Siege token. If you do, take another turn after this one.

Level 1 Extra turn. Reminds me of Guide. Often it won't really be giving extra turns, since you'll be using up this turn to get it, but with some shtick (guide, duration bonuses) you could turn this into an extra turn. I like it.

Prototype by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810792#msg810792)

Quote

Prototype - Action - $4
Gain a card costing up to $4
If this is the first time you played a Prototype this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, you may set aside the gained card to take an extra turn after this one, and put the set aside card into your hand instead of drawing your next hand.

A Level 1 extra turn. I think there's something to the concept of being able to construct your extra turn hand, but I don't think this will usually work as is. There are few $4 or less cards that can start an engine by themselves unless your deck is really well stacked (and I mean really well stacked). Even if there was a card that it could work for, it'd be a little boring, since all players will just use prototype on that card until it's gone and then prototype doesn't work anymore.

Negotiator by Gazbag (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810815#msg810815)

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/m6GsRbk.png)
Negotiator - Action - $6
If this is the first time you played a Negotiator this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one. During your next turn, whenever you gain a card, each other player gets +1 Villager and +1 Coffers.

A Level 1 extra turn. Nice and simple. An extra turn where your opponents get a bonus for you buying cards (which is usually the point of the extra turn). I like it.

Borrowed Land by 4est (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810826#msg810826)

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/NWXKsmV.png)
Borrowed Land - Victory - $4
1%
-
When you gain or trash this, take your Turn token and return it at the start of Clean Up. If you do, and the previous turn wasn't yours, take another turn after this one during which you cannot buy Victory cards.

A Level 1 extra turn. I think this would've been nicer without the token (even if it is wordy). Regardless, I like the card. You get an extra turn at the cost of junking yourself. In addition the extra turn can't be used for victory cards. Since this also gets use on trashing, I can utilize this even in the beginning since I get a net +buy when I buy and trash this.

Desert Outpost by Gubump (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810849#msg810849)

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/sqTcPEf.png)
Desert Outpost - Action - $5
+2 Cards
If this is the first time you've played a Desert Outpost this turn and the previous turn wasn't yours, then set aside up to 5 cards from your hand, take an extra turn after this one, and put the set aside cards into your hand instead of drawing your next hand.

A Level 1 extra turn. It feels a bit strong. Even though you have to sacrifice cards this turn, the fact that you can choose them is a big deal. I can set aside 2 cards (village-smithy) and have a reliable engine next turn. And it gives you good odds of having the cards you need with that draw. I think it's a little OP especially at the price point.

Memorial by King Leon (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810859#msg810859)

Quote

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d7eb5627b48526a33a7e0b7/5e3ca57657079f0ae82bff761b5c7582/Memorial.png)
Memorial - Victory - $6
2 VP
---
If this is the first time, you bought a Memorial this turn, take an extra turn after this one, during which you can't buy Victory cards.

A Level 2 extra turn for buying a victory card. Not bad. An extra turn without victory cards at the cost of junking yourself a little. I like this kind of balance getting the benefit without junking yourself too much.

Heir by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810942#msg810942)

Quote

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d7d924ea6ed968b3ba33716/4ba4264fdaa1e7ef9b33a63eb1880785/image.png)

Heir - Event - 4d
Once per turn, choose one: Gain a Curse to your Heirs mat, then each other player gets +2%; or put two Curse cards from your Heirs mat onto your deck to take an additional turn after this one.
-
Setup: include 3 additional Curses per player in the Supply

This extra turn falls in the other category (you can get it on its own extra turns but it takes 3 for 1). This seems way too expensive for a single extra turn (that only gets 3 cards and 2 curses in hand). It takes $12, (in debt) 3 buys, 4vp to all opponents, and 2 curses to get a single outpost-like turn. You'd have to get a province just to break even on points (not to mention the opportunity cost of $12 and 3 buys). On top of that, you have to set up a deck that can work with outpost. Compare that to just buying Outpost a single time and getting extra turns every round. I also think this will just make cursers more strong in that they will be able to curse longer.

Raft (Traveler Line) by Fly-Eagles-Fly (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810761#msg810761)

Quote

Raft - Action - $2
Trash a card from your hand.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Fishing Vessel.

---

Fishing Vessel - Action - $3*
+ $2
+1 Buy
At the start of your next turn, choose one: + $1, +1 Buy; or you may exchange it for a Cog, putting it on the bottom of your deck.
(This is not in the Supply.)

---

(https://i.imgur.com/kSZrp9a.png)
Cog - Action - $4*
+3 Cards
+1 Action
Discard 2 cards.
At the start of your next turn, choose one: +3 Cards, discard 2 cards; or exchange this for a Galleon, putting it on the bottom of your deck.
(This is not in the Supply)

---

(https://i.imgur.com/PjnIKBI.png)
Galleon - Action - $5*
+1 Card
+1 Action
+ $2
Each other player discards a treasure card from their hand or reveals they can't.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Flagship
(This is not in the Supply)

---

(https://i.imgur.com/ViSYNJL.png)
Flagship - Action - $6*
+1 Card
+1 Action
While this is in play, when you play a Duration card, +1%. At the end of the game, choose one:
+2%; or take an extra turn.
(This stays in play; This is not in the Supply)

A Level 0 extra turn. I'll be a little lenient in this judging since Traveler lines are hard to make. Raft is good; you avoided the common pitfall of making the beginning of a traveler line too good. It's weak for $2 (not including the exchange) which is what it should be. Fishing Vessel is also a weakish card (as it should be). Cog is very good if you choose +3 cards for next turn (not sure why the discard option is there). I was thinking this might fit better in slot 4, but then again warrior is usually the card people keep over hero so it's not crazy that the better card is in slot 3. Of course galleon is also very strong. BTW I like the creative way to exchange fishing vessel and cog instead of the simple cleanup way.

My thoughts on Flagship:
1) You get an extra turn per flagship at the end of the game, but how do you know how many you have without looking through your deck? You should probably get a token when you gain a flagship to track this. Also this should be below a line (just like the in play effect). In addition it should be orange.
2) I like the choice between extra turn and 2vp since sometimes 2vp might just be better.
3) The while in play effect can kind of break this. Since you have so many durations in this line alone (15) and you can stack multiple flagships (each which will get points when played), you can really get some broken VP engines with this (especially cog which is a great draw card). Unlike most other VP token cards, this is not contingent on buying/gaining cards or trashing them, and it can give  is very likely. It's probably likely even without since if I have 3 flagships and play 3 duration cards per turn, that's 9 points without changing my deck.

---

Conclusion: There were some pretty good cards to choose from. The top 5 were Double Shift, Voyage, Siege, Negotiator, and Borrrowed Land. This was a pretty tough decision among these. At the end of the day, Negotiator didn't seem like too much of a choice (it seems always worth it to go for). Between the rest I was really drawn to voyage's challenge of making a deck that could ultilize it's extra turn, and Borrowed Land, which required a little balancing with your extra turns. In the end, I'm drawn more towards voyage.

Winner: Voyage by Commodore Chuckles
Runner-Up: Borrowed Land by 4est

Congrats Commodore Chuckles (and everyone else)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 19, 2019, 12:50:41 am

@naitchman - Good catch. I think I'll slip in a clause saying you can't play Attack cards on your extra turn. It is a Refuge after all! Thanks for the thoughtful feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 19, 2019, 03:09:55 am

Quote from: naitchman on September 18, 2019, 11:26:03 pm

Prototype by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810792#msg810792)

Quote

Prototype - Action - $4
Gain a card costing up to $4
If this is the first time you played a Prototype this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, you may set aside the gained card to take an extra turn after this one, and put the set aside card into your hand instead of drawing your next hand.

A Level 1 extra turn. I think there's something to the concept of being able to construct your extra turn hand, but I don't think this will usually work as is. There are few $4 or less cards that can start an engine by themselves unless your deck is really well stacked (and I mean really well stacked). Even if there was a card that it could work for, it'd be a little boring, since all players will just use prototype on that card until it's gone and then prototype doesn't work anymore.

Thank you for the feedback.

Not sure what you meant by "won't work". The card is "workshop with a bonus" and costed as such (same as Ironworks, Armory, Inventor). In every game it can be used as "Gain a card costing up to $4 and a prototype" and "Gain a Silver and a $2 card". Then you have the small positive effects from cards in a way somewhat similar to when you buy a card under Innovation (eg being able to get the next turn effects of durations, instant attacks, cycling). There'd be some ways to start an engine (eg draw and Villagers/CotR, or a Guide you played earlier), but that wasn't the core use I imagined for the card.

In that context "a little boring" rings true enough so not complaining about your judgement here.

Congrats to Commodore Chuckles

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 19, 2019, 10:16:06 am

Congrats Commodore Chuckles!

Quote from: naitchman on September 18, 2019, 11:26:03 pm

Frontier by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810728#msg810728)

Quote

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/cz3w7tvm.png)
Frontier - Action - $3
Gain a Copper to the top of your deck per Frontier you have in play. If this is the first time you played a Frontier this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one.

A Level 1 extra turn. Obviously, there's no reason to play more (barring some weird reason to want coppers). It feels unnecessary to even put the "per frontier you have in play" clause. That aside, this sounds a bit too strong. Outpost gives you three cards and costs $5. This gives you 4 cards plus a copper and costs $3. Yes, you get junked, but it shouldn't be too hard to trash it it (consider that trashing is usually necessary in an outpost strategy anyway to guarantee getting reasonable cards in your 3 card draw).

When you copied my card description, you omitted the super important part "this stays in play" at the end. In the image it also says "this stays in play." The whole point is that each time you play it it gets worse, you get one more copper, and you only get one play out of each card. So, you buy one, play it and you get one copper. Second one you buy and play and you get now two coppers, etc. I agree that the card as you read it is over powered and not interesting  and can't cost 3. I'm curious how the proper reading changes your thoughts/ideas. Also, I'd like to know anything I could have done to make it more clear so it wasn't easy to miss that last sentence.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 19, 2019, 11:19:18 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 19, 2019, 10:16:06 am

Congrats Commodore Chuckles!

Quote from: naitchman on September 18, 2019, 11:26:03 pm

Frontier by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810728#msg810728)

Quote

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/cz3w7tvm.png)
Frontier - Action - $3
Gain a Copper to the top of your deck per Frontier you have in play. If this is the first time you played a Frontier this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one.

A Level 1 extra turn. Obviously, there's no reason to play more (barring some weird reason to want coppers). It feels unnecessary to even put the "per frontier you have in play" clause. That aside, this sounds a bit too strong. Outpost gives you three cards and costs $5. This gives you 4 cards plus a copper and costs $3. Yes, you get junked, but it shouldn't be too hard to trash it it (consider that trashing is usually necessary in an outpost strategy anyway to guarantee getting reasonable cards in your 3 card draw).

When you copied my card description, you omitted the super important part "this stays in play" at the end. In the image it also says "this stays in play." The whole point is that each time you play it it gets worse, you get one more copper, and you only get one play out of each card. So, you buy one, play it and you get one copper. Second one you buy and play and you get now two coppers, etc. I agree that the card as you read it is over powered and not interesting  and can't cost 3. I'm curious how the proper reading changes your thoughts/ideas. Also, I'd like to know anything I could have done to make it more clear so it wasn't easy to miss that last sentence.

Oops. that makes more sense. I was a little tired last night, sorry. I guess, I can rescind most of my criticism. It's much better than before. Though now being able to use it will be severly limited. Besides all the copper gain, you have to buy one per extra turn you want, and your extra turns get worse fast. Barring a guide, I highly doubt I'd play more than 2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 19, 2019, 12:38:34 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 19, 2019, 10:16:06 am

Congrats Commodore Chuckles!

Quote from: naitchman on September 18, 2019, 11:26:03 pm

Frontier by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg810728#msg810728)

Quote

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/cz3w7tvm.png)
Frontier - Action - $3
Gain a Copper to the top of your deck per Frontier you have in play. If this is the first time you played a Frontier this turn, and the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one.

A Level 1 extra turn. Obviously, there's no reason to play more (barring some weird reason to want coppers). It feels unnecessary to even put the "per frontier you have in play" clause. That aside, this sounds a bit too strong. Outpost gives you three cards and costs $5. This gives you 4 cards plus a copper and costs $3. Yes, you get junked, but it shouldn't be too hard to trash it it (consider that trashing is usually necessary in an outpost strategy anyway to guarantee getting reasonable cards in your 3 card draw).

When you copied my card description, you omitted the super important part "this stays in play" at the end. In the image it also says "this stays in play." The whole point is that each time you play it it gets worse, you get one more copper, and you only get one play out of each card. So, you buy one, play it and you get one copper. Second one you buy and play and you get now two coppers, etc. I agree that the card as you read it is over powered and not interesting  and can't cost 3. I'm curious how the proper reading changes your thoughts/ideas. Also, I'd like to know anything I could have done to make it more clear so it wasn't easy to miss that last sentence.

I think the main problem is the top part doesn't technically keep the card in play for any reason. Something like this might work while keeping the mechanics the same way:

For the rest of the game: When you play a Frontier (including this time) gain a Copper onto your deck.

If this is the first time you played a Frontier this turn and the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one.

(This stays in play.)


[UPDATE] Other than that, I think this is a really innovative design that has a lot of play potential. I would start it at $4 though to mostly avoid opening with 2 of these.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 19, 2019, 06:18:18 pm

Thank you very much, naitchman! And thanks again to Kudasai for pointing out the Clean-up phase problem with the first version of my card.

All right, is everyone ready for a real challenge? Someone else suggested this a while back, and it was such a good idea that I wanted to see it happen:

Challenge #45: Unruin the Library
Make a card that gives a vanilla terminal +1 Card

Whenever anyone tries to buff a fan card by adding +1 Card, it's always pointed out what an awkward bonus this is. The prospect of drawing a single dead Action card is awful, and even if you have spare Actions, you don't actually increase your handsize, so it never feels good.

Your challenge is to make this fun! Basically, the first line of your card should be a vanilla "+1 Card" and there should not be any vanilla +Actions or +Villagers below it. Other vanilla bonuses, such as +$, are fine. Conditional +Cards, +Actions or +Villagers are allowed. Also, it should be played only in the Action Phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 19, 2019, 07:04:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/dyvf1f0.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on September 19, 2019, 07:04:43 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d8409041851a30f4cc99663/baa549343cc24bf03cbdea7657f47eef/Abbey.png)
Abbey
Type: Action - Reaction
Cost: $2

+1 Card
Trash up to two cards from your hand.
-
When another player plays an Attack card, you may first play this from your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 19, 2019, 07:39:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/K0x1vJY.png)

Copier
Action - $3
+1 Card
You may discard a card. If it isn't a Victory card, gain a copy of it onto your deck

Edit: Changed to $3 to avoid runaway advantage in 5/2 openings
Edit 2: Changed wording slightly to allow combos with Tunnel.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on September 19, 2019, 07:46:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tAWyyCX.png)

Not sure if this is legal but I'm posting it anyway!

It's kinda like Hireling/Alchemist in that you can permanently increase your handsize with this, but it takes villages to do so. The +Action option is there for a bit of flexibility, but it's pretty terrible as a 2-turn cantrip.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 19, 2019, 08:54:28 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 19, 2019, 07:39:24 pm

Copier
Action - $2
+1 Card
You may reveal a non-Victory card from your hand to put it onto your deck and gain a copy of it.

Wouldn't it be simpler to discard it and gain a copy onto your deck? Takes less words for the same overall result (barring edge cases like empty piles, knights, castles, and split piles)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 19, 2019, 09:02:39 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 19, 2019, 08:54:28 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 19, 2019, 07:39:24 pm

Copier
Action - $2
+1 Card
You may reveal a non-Victory card from your hand to put it onto your deck and gain a copy of it.

Wouldn't it be simpler to discard it and gain a copy onto your deck? Takes less words for the same overall result (barring edge cases like empty piles, knights, castles, and split piles)

Good catch - changed

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 19, 2019, 09:26:09 pm

Quote from: pubby on September 19, 2019, 07:46:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tAWyyCX.png)

I'm sorry but I'm afraid this doesn't completely fit with the spirit of the contest, as the +1 Action is unconditional (you can choose it every time). There needs to be some other condition on the +1 Action besides the player's choice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on September 19, 2019, 09:56:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/PAMtO4Km.png)

No actions period, here, but maybe you're anticipating having some of them next turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 19, 2019, 10:23:14 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 19, 2019, 09:26:09 pm

Quote from: pubby on September 19, 2019, 07:46:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tAWyyCX.png)

I'm sorry but I'm afraid this doesn't completely fit with the spirit of the contest, as the +1 Action is unconditional (you can choose it every time). There needs to be some other condition on the +1 Action besides the player's choice.

It is technically terminal though, since it doesn't give any +Actions immediately.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 19, 2019, 10:42:00 pm

Quote from: Gubump on September 19, 2019, 10:23:14 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 19, 2019, 09:26:09 pm

Quote from: pubby on September 19, 2019, 07:46:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tAWyyCX.png)

I'm sorry but I'm afraid this doesn't completely fit with the spirit of the contest, as the +1 Action is unconditional (you can choose it every time). There needs to be some other condition on the +1 Action besides the player's choice.

It is technically terminal though, since it doesn't give any +Actions immediately.

Yes, that's why I had to think about this for a bit. But really, if you're buying them in pairs they're (theoretically) not terminal because they can piggyback off each other. For this contest I want the workaround to be more difficult than that. I've made up my mind: no unconditional +Actions, even on a future turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on September 20, 2019, 01:17:01 am

Reposting mine with more type appropriate card coloring.  No mechanical change.

(https://i.imgur.com/ECavzkYm.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 20, 2019, 02:21:44 am

CHALLENGE #45 SUBMISSION

[UPDATE] Escsort seemed a little to strong so I changed a few things up:
(1) You can now only play the top card of your discard pile. You can still run through your whole pile, but it now requires more thought and setup.
(2) You can now play Treasure cards. This means Escort can act as a type of Peddler using Coppers from your discard pile. This gives Escort more utility early, but this functionality is probably short lived as you'll wanna stack Actions instead.

Overall this card still has a lot of potential, but it will now require more thought as skill to get the most out of it.

(https://i.imgur.com/n4PeIXH.jpg)

Escort can be bonkers strong with a large amount of Action cards in your discard to play from, but the trick is having a discard pile. These are best in high numbers, but these don't really work well until you have an equally high number of other Action cards with +Action amounts to play off of. Can play other Escorts from the discard pile for extra card draw.

The +1 Card serves to allow precise, incremental drawing from the discard and helps keep the power level of Escort in check as these will eventually get rid of your discard pile when reshuffling occurs.

Quote from: Kudasai on September 20, 2019, 02:21:44 am

Escort
$4 - Action
+1 Card
Look through your discard pile. You may reveal an Action from it and play it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 20, 2019, 03:19:59 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 19, 2019, 07:04:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zyuXjfX.png)

Welcome back Doom Shark! Your Weekly Design Contest seems to be a big success. Anyways, as for your card, I'll repeat something you once told me:

"Looks horribly broken to me."

Worst case scenario you can discard your whole hand for +5 Coffers. Then there really isn't anything you can't buy at that point. Opening two of these you can potentially have +10 Coffers by your second shuffle, while if your opponent collides they are at +5 Coffers. That's a very big swing based purely on shuffle luck.

Cool concept, but I think it needs some adjusting. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #45: terminal +1 Card
Post by: Aquila on September 20, 2019, 05:53:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/wmZWvcj.jpg)

Set aside your hand for next turn and stick a $5 into it that might make it play better, meanwhile get $3 to help this turn. Lots of payload but at the cost of Clean-up draw.
A niche card with a few strategies that really stand out, maybe too niche overall. Or complicated.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 20, 2019, 10:23:26 am

Dialing it back this week with a cultist-style Actioncopper.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d84df519622426cffb3bd40/c19713faaeb867df12a717f4ddf6dca5/image.png)

Quote

Madrigal • $3 • Action
+1 Card
+ $1
You may play a Madrigal from your hand.
-
If you have a Madrigal in play when you buy this, +2 Buys.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 20, 2019, 11:29:48 am

Quote from: Kudasai on September 20, 2019, 03:19:59 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 19, 2019, 07:04:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zyuXjfX.png)

Welcome back Doom Shark! Your Weekly Design Contest seems to be a big success. Anyways, as for your card, I'll repeat something you once told me:

"Looks horribly broken to me."

Worst case scenario you can discard your whole hand for +5 Coffers. Then there really isn't anything you can't buy at that point. Opening two of these you can potentially have +10 Coffers by your second shuffle, while if your opponent collides they are at +5 Coffers. That's a very big swing based purely on shuffle luck.

Cool concept, but I think it needs some adjusting. :)

I did coffers because I wanted to differentiate from storeroom. I did not think about the ramifications of that. I'm debating whether to try to fix it or just scrap it entirely and make a new entry. Thanks for the candid feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on September 20, 2019, 01:22:06 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 20, 2019, 11:29:48 am

Quote from: Kudasai on September 20, 2019, 03:19:59 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 19, 2019, 07:04:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zyuXjfX.png)

Welcome back Doom Shark! Your Weekly Design Contest seems to be a big success. Anyways, as for your card, I'll repeat something you once told me:

"Looks horribly broken to me."

Worst case scenario you can discard your whole hand for +5 Coffers. Then there really isn't anything you can't buy at that point. Opening two of these you can potentially have +10 Coffers by your second shuffle, while if your opponent collides they are at +5 Coffers. That's a very big swing based purely on shuffle luck.

Cool concept, but I think it needs some adjusting. :)

I did coffers because I wanted to differentiate from storeroom. I did not think about the ramifications of that. I'm debating whether to try to fix it or just scrap it entirely and make a new entry. Thanks for the candid feedback.

Safe is completely broken in comparison to Vault. +1 Coffers for each 2 cards discarded would probably fix it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on September 20, 2019, 01:40:22 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/QWMkIPW.png)
Sledgehammer
$2 - Action
+1 Card
You may reveal two cards with exactly the same cost. If you do, trash one of them, and if the other one is an Action or a Treasure, play it twice.

--
It requires some precision to demolish with a Sledgehammer. Coppers can be trashed without cash penalty; chain reaction with trashing an Estate is intended.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 20, 2019, 02:55:20 pm

Quote from: King Leon on September 20, 2019, 01:22:06 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 20, 2019, 11:29:48 am

Quote from: Kudasai on September 20, 2019, 03:19:59 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 19, 2019, 07:04:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zyuXjfX.png)

Welcome back Doom Shark! Your Weekly Design Contest seems to be a big success. Anyways, as for your card, I'll repeat something you once told me:

"Looks horribly broken to me."

Worst case scenario you can discard your whole hand for +5 Coffers. Then there really isn't anything you can't buy at that point. Opening two of these you can potentially have +10 Coffers by your second shuffle, while if your opponent collides they are at +5 Coffers. That's a very big swing based purely on shuffle luck.

Cool concept, but I think it needs some adjusting. :)

I did coffers because I wanted to differentiate from storeroom. I did not think about the ramifications of that. I'm debating whether to try to fix it or just scrap it entirely and make a new entry. Thanks for the candid feedback.

Safe is completely broken in comparison to Vault. +1 Coffers for each 2 cards discarded would probably fix it.

I like this suggestion. Will edit my original post. Thanks!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on September 20, 2019, 05:29:02 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/MpzxSfo.jpg)

Quote

Reform
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card. Do this twice: You may trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing from $2 to $5, sharing a type with it.

Turn Coppers into Silvers. Turn Estates into Duchies. Reform your finished or inferior or terminally drawn Actions into better Actions. Price range is so you can trash Curses with it if you want. The fact that you can't cross types makes it way worse than Altar or Expand. It costs more, draws a card, optionally trashes, and generally doesn't reduce the number of stop cards in your deck, so it isn't really comparable to Remake.
I considered having it Expand instead of straight gain, but making it faster than Rebuild is probably a bigger problem than the fact that $5 Treasures sometimes exist. Just buy a couple of these when Crown shows up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on September 20, 2019, 06:01:51 pm

New fun litmus test, if you can't say "FanCard isn't really comparable to Remake", FanCard has major issues and needs to be purged with fire.

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 20, 2019, 05:29:02 pm

a bigger problem than the fact that $5 Treasures sometimes exist.

Your fan card is complete trash when a curser is in the kingdom and a terminal 2$ Curse card is also available in the kingdom, so you should withdraw it immediately.  I'm providing the kind of high quality input that makes fan card creation subforum very useful btw.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on September 20, 2019, 06:51:31 pm

Quote

Shanty Library
cost $2 - Action
+1 Card
Put this into your hand.
If this is the first time you played Shanty Library in this turn, +2 Actions.

Revised a card named Animal Trail from https://s456.hatenablog.com/entry/2019/08/29/171427 .
It converts Actions to Cards.
Super strong? Maybe yes, but the second Shanty Library in hand will be useless. Not broken.
Super strong with Champion? Of course yes!

EDIT: forgot to add "once per turn" clause.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 20, 2019, 08:16:25 pm

Quote from: majiponi on September 20, 2019, 06:51:31 pm

Quote

Shanty Library
cost $2 - Action
+1 Card
Put this into your hand.
If this is the first time you played Shanty Library, +2 Actions.

Revised a card named Animal Trail from https://s456.hatenablog.com/entry/2019/08/29/171427 .
It converts Actions to Cards.
Super strong? Maybe yes, but the second Shanty Library in hand will be useless. Not broken.
Super strong with Champion? Of course yes!

Play it twice and you get +2 Cards, +1 Action, so this is strictly better than lab, but not better enough to cost $6. [EDIT:]Oh nevermind, it's not strictly better than lab because the 2nd one in your hand does nothing. Still, it should probably cost more than $2.

My entry:

Quote

Ancestral Crypt
Cost $5 - Action
+1 Card.
Trash up to two cards from your hand. For each card you trashed, take a coin token per $2 in its cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on September 20, 2019, 08:33:22 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 19, 2019, 07:04:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/dyvf1f0.png)

I now like that card more. It is just like a small Tactician and also has nice interaction with Faithful Hound, some Alt-VP strategies (Vineyard, Gardens, Duke ...), Tunnel and Grand Market.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 20, 2019, 08:44:07 pm

Quote from: King Leon on September 20, 2019, 08:33:22 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 19, 2019, 07:04:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/dyvf1f0.png)

I now like that card more. It is just like a small Tactician and also has nice interaction with Faithful Hound, some Alt-VP strategies (Vineyard, Gardens, Duke ...), Tunnel and Grand Market.

Aren't you the one that suggested the fix?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on September 21, 2019, 02:36:40 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 20, 2019, 08:44:07 pm

Quote from: King Leon on September 20, 2019, 08:33:22 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 19, 2019, 07:04:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/dyvf1f0.png)

I now like that card more. It is just like a small Tactician and also has nice interaction with Faithful Hound, some Alt-VP strategies (Vineyard, Gardens, Duke ...), Tunnel and Grand Market.

Aren't you the one that suggested the fix?

I am. What's the problem here?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 21, 2019, 10:15:05 am

Quote from: King Leon on September 21, 2019, 02:36:40 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 20, 2019, 08:44:07 pm

Quote from: King Leon on September 20, 2019, 08:33:22 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 19, 2019, 07:04:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/dyvf1f0.png)

I now like that card more. It is just like a small Tactician and also has nice interaction with Faithful Hound, some Alt-VP strategies (Vineyard, Gardens, Duke ...), Tunnel and Grand Market.

Aren't you the one that suggested the fix?

I am. What's the problem here?

Nothing. Just struck me as odd that you suggested the change and then commented on it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on September 21, 2019, 02:10:10 pm

Manuscript (Action) [$5]

+1 Card

Reveal your hand. Reveal the top card of your deck. If it costs more than any other card in your hand, discard it and +1VP; otherwise, put it into your hand and +1 Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 21, 2019, 03:26:30 pm

Quote from: majiponi on September 20, 2019, 06:51:31 pm

Quote

Shanty Library
cost $2 - Action
+1 Card
Put this into your hand.
If this is the first time you played Shanty Library, +2 Actions.

Revised a card named Animal Trail from https://s456.hatenablog.com/entry/2019/08/29/171427 .
It converts Actions to Cards.
Super strong? Maybe yes, but the second Shanty Library in hand will be useless. Not broken.
Super strong with Champion? Of course yes!

I'm assuming this is meant to proc once per turn. If so, it needs an extra bit added on:

"If this is the first time you played a Shanty Library this turn, +1 Actions."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 21, 2019, 10:15:25 pm

Quote from: majiponi on September 20, 2019, 06:51:31 pm

Quote

Shanty Library
cost $2 - Action
+1 Card
Put this into your hand.
If this is the first time you played Shanty Library, +2 Actions.

Revised a card named Animal Trail from https://s456.hatenablog.com/entry/2019/08/29/171427 .
It converts Actions to Cards.
Super strong? Maybe yes, but the second Shanty Library in hand will be useless. Not broken.
Super strong with Champion? Of course yes!

You really should try to avoid putting cards back into your hand (or discarding them) after playing them. You even mention that champion + this provides infinite draw (an infinite combo with only 2 cards), but imagine if you have your +1 coin token on shanty library too. I'm of the opinion that infinite combos should be avoided as much as possible (the ones that exist usually require 5 or more fairly specific cards)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 21, 2019, 10:40:33 pm

Quote from: naitchman on September 21, 2019, 10:15:25 pm

Quote from: majiponi on September 20, 2019, 06:51:31 pm

Quote

Shanty Library
cost $2 - Action
+1 Card
Put this into your hand.
If this is the first time you played Shanty Library, +2 Actions.

Revised a card named Animal Trail from https://s456.hatenablog.com/entry/2019/08/29/171427 .
It converts Actions to Cards.
Super strong? Maybe yes, but the second Shanty Library in hand will be useless. Not broken.
Super strong with Champion? Of course yes!

You really should try to avoid putting cards back into your hand (or discarding them) after playing them. You even mention that champion + this provides infinite draw (an infinite combo with only 2 cards), but imagine if you have your +1 coin token on shanty library too. I'm of the opinion that infinite combos should be avoided as much as possible (the ones that exist usually require 5 or more fairly specific cards)

Champion is broken anyway. I don't think anyone should change their fan card ideas because of an interaction with one or two official cards. Just don't put those two cards in the same kingdom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 22, 2019, 02:53:57 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on September 21, 2019, 10:40:33 pm

Quote from: naitchman on September 21, 2019, 10:15:25 pm

Quote from: majiponi on September 20, 2019, 06:51:31 pm

Quote

Shanty Library
cost $2 - Action
+1 Card
Put this into your hand.
If this is the first time you played Shanty Library, +2 Actions.

Revised a card named Animal Trail from https://s456.hatenablog.com/entry/2019/08/29/171427 .
It converts Actions to Cards.
Super strong? Maybe yes, but the second Shanty Library in hand will be useless. Not broken.
Super strong with Champion? Of course yes!

You really should try to avoid putting cards back into your hand (or discarding them) after playing them. You even mention that champion + this provides infinite draw (an infinite combo with only 2 cards), but imagine if you have your +1 coin token on shanty library too. I'm of the opinion that infinite combos should be avoided as much as possible (the ones that exist usually require 5 or more fairly specific cards)

Champion is broken anyway. I don't think anyone should change their fan card ideas because of an interaction with one or two official cards. Just don't put those two cards in the same kingdom.

I disagree. An interaction between your card and an official card is a very good reason to refine your card. Donald X. did it to masquerade because of an interaction between it and KC and Goons.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on September 22, 2019, 03:11:03 am

There's a lots of stuff going on with Goons Masquerade, this would definitely be a closer case. 

I think I agree it's a perverse enough interaction to warrant a change though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 22, 2019, 12:50:55 pm

Here's my card
(https://i.imgur.com/K8pEsAV.png)

I just want to ask Commodore Chuckles whether this follows the rules. It doesn't technically have +action, but it is a TR variant.

I was trying to decide on the cost (between 6 and 7). I think the +card before the TR is super helpful. It pretty much prevents it from being drawn dead (like getting 3 KC and no other actions).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 22, 2019, 07:19:45 pm

Quote from: naitchman on September 22, 2019, 12:50:55 pm

Here's my card
(https://i.imgur.com/K8pEsAV.png)

I just want to ask Commodore Chuckles whether this follows the rules. It doesn't technically have +action, but it is a TR variant.

I was trying to decide on the cost (between 6 and 7). I think the +card before the TR is super helpful. It pretty much prevents it from being drawn dead (like getting 3 KC and no other actions).

Royal Carriage and Crown are TR variants that (mostly) can't whiff for $5. "Cantrip or Throne Room" was an outtake for $4 when Throne Room was $3.

+1 Card Throne Room is probably fine at $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 22, 2019, 07:44:39 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 22, 2019, 07:19:45 pm

Quote from: naitchman on September 22, 2019, 12:50:55 pm

Here's my card
(https://i.imgur.com/K8pEsAV.png)

I just want to ask Commodore Chuckles whether this follows the rules. It doesn't technically have +action, but it is a TR variant.

I was trying to decide on the cost (between 6 and 7). I think the +card before the TR is super helpful. It pretty much prevents it from being drawn dead (like getting 3 KC and no other actions).

Royal Carriage and Crown are TR variants that (mostly) can't whiff for $5. "Cantrip or Throne Room" was an outtake for $4 when Throne Room was $3.

+1 Card Throne Room is probably fine at $5.

$5 seems way too cheap. Remember it synergizes with itself. Since most parades will be paraded it's going to be better than a lab.

Think of it this way: if you had a parade and 2 smithies in hand, would you rather have another parade or a lab (extra parade means you draw 15 cards, vs labs 11 cards).

Parade will mostly be better than crown and Royal carriage putting it at at least $6. I put it at 7 since the +card is before throning making it much easier to utilize the throning to it's full potential.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 22, 2019, 11:27:57 pm

Quote from: naitchman on September 22, 2019, 12:50:55 pm

Here's my card
(https://i.imgur.com/K8pEsAV.png)

I just want to ask Commodore Chuckles whether this follows the rules. It doesn't technically have +action, but it is a TR variant.

I was trying to decide on the cost (between 6 and 7). I think the +card before the TR is super helpful. It pretty much prevents it from being drawn dead (like getting 3 KC and no other actions).

Yes, I'll accept this. The important thing is that it does not have guaranteed +Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 23, 2019, 12:08:33 am

Quote from: naitchman on September 22, 2019, 07:44:39 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 22, 2019, 07:19:45 pm

Quote from: naitchman on September 22, 2019, 12:50:55 pm

Here's my card
(https://i.imgur.com/K8pEsAV.png)

I just want to ask Commodore Chuckles whether this follows the rules. It doesn't technically have +action, but it is a TR variant.

I was trying to decide on the cost (between 6 and 7). I think the +card before the TR is super helpful. It pretty much prevents it from being drawn dead (like getting 3 KC and no other actions).

Royal Carriage and Crown are TR variants that (mostly) can't whiff for $5. "Cantrip or Throne Room" was an outtake for $4 when Throne Room was $3.

+1 Card Throne Room is probably fine at $5.

$5 seems way too cheap. Remember it synergizes with itself. Since most parades will be paraded it's going to be better than a lab.

Think of it this way: if you had a parade and 2 smithies in hand, would you rather have another parade or a lab (extra parade means you draw 15 cards, vs labs 11 cards).

Parade will mostly be better than crown and Royal carriage putting it at at least $6. I put it at 7 since the +card is before throning making it much easier to utilize the throning to it's full potential.

I think _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} is probably the best price for it. It just feels wrong to me to price it at the same cost as King's Court.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on September 23, 2019, 09:06:48 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 22, 2019, 11:27:57 pm

Quote from: naitchman on September 22, 2019, 12:50:55 pm

Here's my card
(https://i.imgur.com/K8pEsAV.png)

I just want to ask Commodore Chuckles whether this follows the rules. It doesn't technically have +action, but it is a TR variant.

I was trying to decide on the cost (between 6 and 7). I think the +card before the TR is super helpful. It pretty much prevents it from being drawn dead (like getting 3 KC and no other actions).

Yes, I'll accept this. The important thing is that it does not have guaranteed +Action.

How is the +Action not guaranteed? If it said play a card once, instead of twice, would that qualify? If so, what's the difference between that and just saying +1 Action? I don't have a problem with this card qualifying, but I don't follow the reasoning.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on September 23, 2019, 04:39:13 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on September 23, 2019, 09:06:48 am

How is the +Action not guaranteed? If it said play a card once, instead of twice, would that qualify? If so, what's the difference between that and just saying +1 Action? I don't have a problem with this card qualifying, but I don't follow the reasoning.

Technically it is not the same, as sometimes Actions swallowed through to the Buy phase can be reused (Diadem, Villa)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 23, 2019, 06:41:20 pm

Okay, after thinking about this some more, I'm afraid I am going to have to reject the card as it currently stands. I'm very sorry naitchman, and I feel especially bad about this as you were the one who gave me the win in the last contest. But in the end, the point of the challenge is to make a card that does something usually considered awkward (drawing a single card and not letting you play it if it's an Action card.) Parade can always play an Action card if there's one in your hand, so the challenge simply isn't there.

I'm not rejecting the idea outright; I'll accept it if the ability to Throne is based on some condition that's not always met (besides an Action card being in your hand, of course.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 23, 2019, 08:09:57 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 23, 2019, 06:41:20 pm

Okay, after thinking about this some more, I'm afraid I am going to have to reject the card as it currently stands. I'm very sorry naitchman, and I feel especially bad about this as you were the one who gave me the win in the last contest. But in the end, the point of the challenge is to make a card that does something usually considered awkward (drawing a single card and not letting you play it if it's an Action card.) Parade can always play an Action card if there's one in your hand, so the challenge simply isn't there.

I'm not rejecting the idea outright; I'll accept it if the ability to Throne is based on some condition that's not always met (besides an Action card being in your hand, of course.)

It's cool. guess, I'll need to think of something quick.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 23, 2019, 09:18:40 pm

Ok, new card:
(https://i.imgur.com/OadBs3k.png)
The +1 card doesn't hurt since you can reorder and choose what you draw. Thus if you have no actions, you can topdeck a treasure and draw it.

Started out closer to navigator +1 card, but then needed to make a few tweaks. What do you guys think of the price/ number of cards inspected? Should either of those be tweaked?

Update: Added +coin

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 23, 2019, 11:38:47 pm

Quote from: naitchman on September 23, 2019, 09:18:40 pm

Ok, new card:
(https://i.imgur.com/FhLM98m.png)
The +1 card doesn't hurt since you can reorder and choose what you draw. Thus if you have no actions, you can topdeck a treasure and draw it.

Started out closer to navigator +1 card, but then needed to make a few tweaks. What do you guys think of the price/ number of cards inspected? Should either of those be tweaked?

Looks good, but I think it should cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}, maybe even _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. It's a lot like a card from my fan expansion, Minor, which costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, but also gives +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 24, 2019, 09:09:30 am

agree with LibraryAdventurer that Pioneer should probably cost $3; however why not go back and do the Conclave thing on Parade? something like "You may reveal an Action card from your hand that you don't have a copy of in play. If you do, play it twice." sort of adds to the whole "variety" type theme of parade/cornucopia-style cards.

(side note to Cdre. Chuckles: Would that be sufficient barrier to the "No Plus Actions" rule?)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on September 24, 2019, 10:52:29 am

My submission. It is a cheap Witch in the vein of sea hag or young Witch.

Masked Witch (€4, Action/Attack/Looter)
+1 Card
Play the top card of the Ruins pile, leaving it there. Each other player gains a Curse.
-----
When you gain this, gain a Ruins.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on September 24, 2019, 11:17:49 am

I think Pioneer is just a better card than Parade anyway.  I think doubler cards are more interesting when they remain totally dependent on their targets, and making a doubler card with any of the vanilla bonuses, but +Card especially, takes away from that.  Royal Carriage, Procession, King's Court, and Ghost all put some twist on Throne Room that doesn't really free it from dependence on its targets. 

Ghost, Procession, and Royal Carriage all put some twist on the question "is Throne Room good here?" that makes it slightly tricker, except maybe in the case of Royal Carriage where it is somewhat easier (don't want to spend 5$ on something for it to spend all game on your tavern mat though).  Deciding whether Parade will be good enough will probably be easier most of the time because Parade Parade collisions usually dig into an action to play and even when they don't they cycle your deck forward to the next iteration where you've cut your disaster risk even lower with your purchases.


On the other hand, Pioneer, which I think seems best at 2, seems like a very interesting card to me.  I mean.  It's Scout with +1 Card instead of +1 Action.  Isn't it?  I love me some Scout man! But seriously, aside from filling the hole in my heart from the lover I never want to forget, Pioneer offers a way to avoid buying a Silver that you know is slightly better than Pioneer right now and will be worse than Pioneer later.  You'll often get to put a Silver on top and draw it, the times you can't, the Silver is probably already in your hand, and you can discard all the looks to cycle that Silver into the reshuffle faster.  In the early game, you buy Pioneer as a pseudosilver to ensure you keep hitting 5$ consistently to buy some key 5$ card a lot.  In the midgame you buy an extra village to pair with the Pioneer so that Pioneer is no worse than Great Hall, maybe a little better if trashing has been a slow process.  (Note that buying an extra village doesn't make a Silver stop being a stop card.  Buying a village and connecting with it make Pioneer a nonstop card that occasionally snipes a stop card).  In the late game when you are forced to have provinces in your deck, this can just be a Smithy! (Not an exciting ending to the story if this stays at 4$ but exciting if its price is adjusted down.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 24, 2019, 12:03:42 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 23, 2019, 06:41:20 pm

Okay, after thinking about this some more, I'm afraid I am going to have to reject the card as it currently stands. I'm very sorry naitchman, and I feel especially bad about this as you were the one who gave me the win in the last contest. But in the end, the point of the challenge is to make a card that does something usually considered awkward (drawing a single card and not letting you play it if it's an Action card.) Parade can always play an Action card if there's one in your hand, so the challenge simply isn't there.

I'm not rejecting the idea outright; I'll accept it if the ability to Throne is based on some condition that's not always met (besides an Action card being in your hand, of course.)

Given the new rules, does Escort still qualify?

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811130#msg811130

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on September 24, 2019, 01:32:44 pm

THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN REVOKED

(https://i.imgur.com/Ay8h9n2.jpg)

Here's my attempt. Not sure if card-shaped things are allowed, but here it is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 24, 2019, 04:26:17 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on September 24, 2019, 10:52:29 am

My submission. It is a cheap Witch in the vein of sea hag or young Witch.

Masked Witch (€4, Action/Attack/Looter)
+1 Card
Play the Ruins that is in the supply, leaving it there. Each other player gains a Curse.
-----
When you gain this, gain a Ruins.

I would reword this to something like "Play the top card of the Ruins pile, leaving it there."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on September 24, 2019, 04:42:40 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Z34QAmE.png)

Not sure if this is legal part 2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 24, 2019, 04:47:32 pm

Gremlin $4
Action-Attack
+1 Card
If you have 5 or fewer cards in hand (after drawing), +2 Cards. Otherwise, each other player gains a Curse.


Really hard for me to decide between $4 and $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on September 24, 2019, 05:47:36 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 24, 2019, 04:26:17 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on September 24, 2019, 10:52:29 am

My submission. It is a cheap Witch in the vein of sea hag or young Witch.

Masked Witch (€4, Action/Attack/Looter)
+1 Card
Play the Ruins that is in the supply, leaving it there. Each other player gains a Curse.
-----
When you gain this, gain a Ruins.

I would reword this to something like "Play the top card of the Ruins pile, leaving it there."

Thanks. I'll reword it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 24, 2019, 07:53:22 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 24, 2019, 09:09:30 am

agree with LibraryAdventurer that Pioneer should probably cost $3; however why not go back and do the Conclave thing on Parade? something like "You may reveal an Action card from your hand that you don't have a copy of in play. If you do, play it twice." sort of adds to the whole "variety" type theme of parade/cornucopia-style cards.

(side note to Cdre. Chuckles: Would that be sufficient barrier to the "No Plus Actions" rule?)

Yes, I would accept that.

Quote from: Kudasai on September 24, 2019, 12:03:42 pm

Given the new rules, does Escort still qualify?

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811130#msg811130

Since there isn't guaranteed to a card in your discard pile, yes it still does.

Quote from: mail-mi on September 24, 2019, 01:32:44 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Ay8h9n2.jpg)

Here's my attempt. Not sure if card-shaped things are allowed, but here it is.

I'm afraid not. I explicitly stated in the OP that only Action cards are allowed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 24, 2019, 11:54:20 pm

After doing some playtesting, I've come to the conclusion that pioneer does need a bit of a bump (though I still think the previous version would be $3 not $2). So I've added +$1. BM+pioneer (1st version) got 4 provinces in 17 turns. BM+pioneer (2nd version) got 4 provinces in 13 turns. When compared to navigator, it seems fair. 1 less coin for an extra (sniped) card. In addition you look at less cards but have more control of them (discard some as opposed to all or nothing).
(https://i.imgur.com/OadBs3k.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on September 25, 2019, 07:57:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/C5mTC2S.png)

 I got really creative this week and took the +1 Action off Seer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 25, 2019, 11:57:44 am

Quote from: Gazbag on September 25, 2019, 07:57:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/U4hDCD3.png)

 I got really creative this week and took the +1 Action off Seer.

I think this can probably cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 25, 2019, 12:26:30 pm

are we at the 24 hour mark?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on September 25, 2019, 01:31:46 pm

Quote from: Gubump on September 25, 2019, 11:57:44 am

Quote from: Gazbag on September 25, 2019, 07:57:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/U4hDCD3.png)

 I got really creative this week and took the +1 Action off Seer.

I think this can probably cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.

I think it possibly could too but I put it at $3 because unlike Seer this can draw copies of itself that it reveals. I think that kind of self synergy makes $3 a reasonable price. I don't think it should affect the judging much anyway, it isn't a huge difference.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on September 25, 2019, 02:04:37 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on September 25, 2019, 01:31:46 pm

Quote from: Gubump on September 25, 2019, 11:57:44 am

Quote from: Gazbag on September 25, 2019, 07:57:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/U4hDCD3.png)

 I got really creative this week and took the +1 Action off Seer.

I think this can probably cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.

I think it possibly could too but I put it at $3 because unlike Seer this can draw copies of itself that it reveals. I think that kind of self synergy makes $3 a reasonable price. I don't think it should affect the judging much anyway, it isn't a huge difference.

Am I missing something or does this, as worded, not do anything with the named card type?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on September 25, 2019, 02:34:46 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on September 25, 2019, 02:04:37 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on September 25, 2019, 01:31:46 pm

Quote from: Gubump on September 25, 2019, 11:57:44 am

Quote from: Gazbag on September 25, 2019, 07:57:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/C5mTC2S.png)

 I got really creative this week and took the +1 Action off Seer.

I think this can probably cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.

I think it possibly could too but I put it at $3 because unlike Seer this can draw copies of itself that it reveals. I think that kind of self synergy makes $3 a reasonable price. I don't think it should affect the judging much anyway, it isn't a huge difference.

Am I missing something or does this, as worded, not do anything with the named card type?

What are you talking about? It never said that! It's definitely not something left over from the previous version that I forgot to delete when I changed it...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on September 25, 2019, 04:24:59 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on September 25, 2019, 02:34:46 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on September 25, 2019, 02:04:37 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on September 25, 2019, 01:31:46 pm

Quote from: Gubump on September 25, 2019, 11:57:44 am

Quote from: Gazbag on September 25, 2019, 07:57:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/C5mTC2S.png)

 I got really creative this week and took the +1 Action off Seer.

I think this can probably cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.

I think it possibly could too but I put it at $3 because unlike Seer this can draw copies of itself that it reveals. I think that kind of self synergy makes $3 a reasonable price. I don't think it should affect the judging much anyway, it isn't a huge difference.

Am I missing something or does this, as worded, not do anything with the named card type?

What are you talking about? It never said that! It's definitely not something left over from the previous version that I forgot to delete when I changed it...

I think I may have to add that to all my future cards  :o:

Quote

Verbose Village - $3

+1 Cards
+2 Action.

Name a card type.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 26, 2019, 01:49:26 pm

There are 20 of these in the supply:

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/6ltomn0e.png)

Quote

Rabbits - Action - $2 There are 20 of these in the supply
+1 Card
If there are no empty Supply piles, you may choose to do any of these in any order: gain a Rabbits to your hand; play a Rabbits from your hand; and/or trash this if it is the first Rabbits you played this turn.

Rabbits is an interesting card. It functions a little like beggar in the sense that it can boost this hand, but future hands will suffer.  Because you can chain them like cultists, you can draw an insane amount, but be careful, it comes with a steep price -- soon too many rabbits is a pest, that clog up your deck.

 It's the ultimate "spike" card. If you want to get an early Kings Court or a Forge, you can keep gaining rabbits until you draw all your coppers. However; you're left with a bunch of Rabbits that become Ruined Libraries as soon as any supply pile is empty. Rabbits have a built in mechanism for emptying their own pile, likely all the early Rabbit plays will be at least "trash the first rabbit, gain another and play it" so you end up with +2 cards, no net cards in your deck, but the Rabbits supply pile is one less. There's a lot of strategy to make sure you don't end up with too many rabbits when the rabbit pile empties.

Making it turn into Ruined libraries when any pile empties also prevents it from being so great in garden decks. Let's say you gain all but 1, well your opponent just buys the last Rabbits. Good luck buying any gardens when a deck full of 19 ruined libraries! If you try to empty another pile first, you won't even be able to multiply your rabbits.

Some decks just want lots of action cards -- Rabbits can feed your sacrifice, your remodel, your scrying pool, etc.

I'm definitely open to feedback on this!

Commodore Chuckles: I am pretty sure this qualifies since the cultist-y chaining is conditional on there being no empty supply piles. If this does not qualify for the contest, I do have an alternate, less unique card that gives a +1 card and is always terminal and never draws more. Let me know if I should submit that instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on September 26, 2019, 02:19:39 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 24, 2019, 07:53:22 pm

I'm afraid not. I explicitly stated in the OP that only Action cards are allowed.

Serves me right for not checking the challenge post again before crafting my card.

Here's my next attempt:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ynlepxo.jpg)

Gives you $ and actions, but not in the order you want them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 26, 2019, 08:29:50 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 26, 2019, 01:49:26 pm

Quote

Rabbits - Action - $2 There are 20 of these in the supply
+1 Card
If there are no empty Supply piles, you may choose to do any of these in any order: gain a Rabbits to your hand; play a Rabbits from your hand; and/or trash this if it is the first Rabbits you played this turn.

Commodore Chuckles: I am pretty sure this qualifies since the cultist-y chaining is conditional on there being no empty supply piles. If this does not qualify for the contest, I do have an alternate, less unique card that gives a +1 card and is always terminal and never draws more. Let me know if I should submit that instead.

Yes, this is fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 26, 2019, 09:02:09 pm

When is the judging supposed to be?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 26, 2019, 10:01:05 pm

Judging is in 24 hours.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on September 27, 2019, 12:24:33 am

(https://i.imgur.com/wbuHtP3.png)

Common Property
Action
Cost: $3

+1 Card
All other players set aside one card from their hand simultaneously. You may play any of these cards during the rest of your turn. If you do, the player who owns the card gets +2 Cards.
At the end of your turn, all cards that were set aside by Common Property are returned to their player's hands.

I'll let the Commodore determine if allowing the player to play the actions available violates his conditions. Goal of the card is to allow a player to play higher powered cards of other players. Meanwhile the other players have to decide if it's worth allowing another player to use a good card they have in hand to draw an additional 2 cards, or if they want to skip the draw bonus by playing a garbage card in their hand. This card gets even more interesting the more players there are, as it increases the number of actions or treasures the original card holder can play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on September 27, 2019, 11:06:17 am

Should I increase the +cards reward to the other players to "+Cards equal to the number of players"? The card is so wordy as it is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 27, 2019, 11:47:30 am

Quote from: ShadowHawk on September 27, 2019, 11:06:17 am

Should I increase the +cards reward to the other players to "+Cards equal to the number of players"? The card is so wordy as it is.

i don't think that's really the problem with the card as much as the card being incredibly better in a 6-player game than it is in a 2-player game - am i reading this right in that you get a free play of each set-aside card, which doesn't cost an action? because that turns villages into labs/cities for the person playing them; might be kind of Busted.

You could even it out by having it just target the player to the left (or right, if you want weird things to happen with Masquerade + Possession?)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on September 27, 2019, 04:48:03 pm

The more natural reading is that you still need to spend an action to spend an action card that was set aside, since the time period for it is "for the rest of your turn".  That's how MtG does it at least.

If your playgroup doesn't mind a little bit of politics, you could fix the scaling-with-more-players issue by only allowing up to 1 of the set aside cards to be played.  Then there is a fun minigame of trying to offer up something nice enough that it will be played.  You likely would need more vanilla bonuses on this version of the card and it might end up a fun fan card that doesn't meet the rules of this challenge.

You could fix the scaling with other players the way Tribute does (r.i.p. Tribute I love you) and just have this work on the player to your left (wow I think of Tribute as being a Dominion card more than Possession, I guess, just because Possession is so hated).  In that case you would probably want to increase how many cards they show you, so that it's more likely you cut past and estate to actually look at something interesting to play.  That kills some of the exciting socialism theme of the card, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on September 28, 2019, 12:24:06 am

Thank you two for the input. The theme is based not on socialism but rather what happens in monastic orders that are canons regular. Their vow of poverty according to their rule of life causes some types of possessions of the members being converted to communal property. It's a way of learning to detach from created goods. My own experience, in a different type but similar religious order, was the sharing of my board games with my brothers during my time of discernment. This is referred to as possession in common, which sounds cooler than Common Property but also sounds like some kind of demonic possession if unfamiliar with religious orders and religious life.

I want to try and keep the communal effect in place, while balancing this a bit. I could limit the use of the cards presented to a fixed amount, say 3. This would mean in a 4 player game, all cards presented could be used, and 5 or 6 players starts leaving cards out..increasing the tension and maybe filling in some of that silence between turns.

As to the interpretation, spineflu got my gist right. I want to allow the one playing the card to use the action/night/treasure cards without having to grant extra +actions, +$, etc. The rule for Durations and Reserves would only allow the part that goes into immediate effect to take place and then the later effect would be canceled out since the card returns to their respective player hands. First card I think of that allows a player to play a card without extra actions is Throne Room, so I could just take away "during the rest of your turn."

As for the reward of just +2 cards, I take it back. If another player set's aside their own Common Property, the cards would chain, and another round of bonuses could occur.

I've upped the price to $4. Since this could in theory act like a Throne Room or a King's Court, but gives advantage to your opponents. Might need to be a $5 though.

Here is version 1.1
(https://i.imgur.com/WZh1Rfx.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 28, 2019, 12:32:43 am

Hey, guys, sorry about the delay in judging. I'm sure I'll have it finished in at least 12 hours.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 28, 2019, 07:47:59 am

Quote from: ShadowHawk on September 28, 2019, 12:24:06 am

(https://i.imgur.com/WZh1Rfx.png?1)

I don't think that this is any good in Kingdoms without handsize attacks (but it is easy to defend against this in Kingdoms with handsize attacks).

The other players can set aside unplayable stuff (green and purple) to make the card a petty Ruined Library or weak stuff like Coppers and Silvers which is far weaker than the DoubleLab they get. But even if they set aside good stuff, they arguably get something better or similar out of it as the active player:

For example, suppose it is a 2P game and the other dude sets aside a cantrip. For them it is a net effect of +2 Cards whereas for you it is just +1 Card.
Suppose it is a 3P game and the other dudes set aside cantrips, then for you it is +2 Cards +1 Action.

So I think that you have to nerf the +2 Cards for the other players. Two Laboratories is simply too good.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 28, 2019, 12:18:41 pm

Challenge #45: Unruin the Library
Make a card that gives a vanilla terminal +1 Card

Thank you all for taking on this unusual challenge. I appreciate all of the effort you put forth to make such a bizarre concept work.

Safe by Doom_Shark http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811111#msg811111 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811111#msg811111)
A while back someone suggested adding +1 Card to Secret Chamber as a way of making it not completely terrible. It’s a decent idea overall: if you draw a dead Action card, you can just discard it for $. This is like that but with Coffers, which is a good choice for a benefit. The big problem with Secret Chamber was that it turned out to be generally not worth bothering with for the little amount of $ it gave you. Coffers, though, seem just useful enough to be worth it. However, I do think the one-for-the-price-of-two ratio nerfs this enough to kick it back down to $2. Overall, a solid if not terribly original idea.

Abbey by King Leon http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811112#msg811112 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811112#msg811112)
I definitely like the idea of trasher with +1 Card. A trasher is something you want at the beginning, which is also when you’re least likely to draw a dead Action card. The card itself is absolutely going to be a powerhouse in the beginning. You get the same trashing as Steward, plus additional cycling, and you’re almost guaranteed to have $3 left over, which can at least get a Silver. Unfortunately, I feel for that reason that the card will play kind of boringly. It will be used to trash and that’s it. The Reaction seems like an odd add-on. It’s a nice way to clear your hand of the card when you’re done trashing, but connecting it to Attacks doesn’t make much sense to me, though it will explicitly help against junkers.

Copier by NoMoreFun http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811113#msg811113 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811113#msg811113)
This is in the top 5.
This is definitely different. At the same time, the +1 Card fits everything else pretty well. It does seem like a needed buff to what would probably be a weak card otherwise. It doesn’t increase your handsize overall, but it does give you one more card to choose from. If you draw a dead Action card, you can just copy it instead of playing it. And then the copy goes on top of your deck, so you’re not really missing anything. And then you can draw it with another Copier! Definitely a well-made card.

Reservoir by popsofctown http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811129#msg811129 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811129#msg811129)
This is in the top 5.
Saving cards for later is a decent way around the problems with +1 Card. At first glance, this looks like just a more convoluted version of Gear. However, the ability to set aside any number of cards is a real game-changer. It maybe compares more to Tactician with its ability to set up a powerful next turn at the expensive of this turn. It’s also like Church, but you have the powerful ability of choosing which cards get set aside. The +$1 and +Buy feel sort of tacked-on, but other than that it looks fun.

Escort by Kudasai http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811130#msg811130 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811130#msg811130)
One of those frustrating cards that depends on you having a discard pile in order to do anything. This feels particularly swingy because it’s terminal, but could have a strong effect depending on what’s in there. It also feels like it’s not worth the price. Maybe I’m missing something here, but it’s hard for me to think of a situation in which I would actually want this. If you’re drawing your deck, it’s useless. If you’re not drawing your deck, it’s probably full of junk, so your targets won’t be very good.

Respite by Aquila http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811136#msg811136 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811136#msg811136)
This is similar to Reservoir, but you have to set aside your whole hand. You also get a nice +$3 to spend this turn. Gaining a $5 card is really the main strength, but this ability feels tacked-on with respect to what the rest of the card is doing. I think I’d prefer playing with Reservoir because of the neat flexibility it gives you, but I do like that this card gives you a solid $ bonus up-front (maybe if Reservoir gave +$2 instead?)

Madrigal by spineflu http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811165#msg811165 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811165#msg811165)
I’ve seen at least one other fan card with the same top part as this. But hey, it’s a cool idea: a Peddler that’s trickier to play. I’d try a different bottom part, though. This one feels lackluster, honestly.

Sledgehammer by grep http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811187#msg811187 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811187#msg811187)
This certainly looks fun to play with! Though it’s unfortunate that you won’t get to use the chain reaction effect much. This card will outlive its usefulness fast, but the explosiveness might be worth it. I do like that you found a way to make the +1 Card more useful by being able to double it. If you draw a dead Action card you can Sledgehammer it to Throne a same-costed Action card, which is neat but doesn’t seem like it would usually be worth it.

Reform by Fragasnap http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811200#msg811200 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811200#msg811200)
So it’s sort of a double Mine/Rebuild thing. It can’t gain to hand like Mine, but upgrading 2 Coppers at once is enough to still make it better. In the end, though, I’d prefer to trash my Coppers than turn them into Silvers. The Rebuild option is even worse, useless unless there’s tfb around. Upgrading an Action card doesn’t seem worth it either unless there are Looters. Overall, I don’t find this terribly exciting and the +1 Card doesn’t feel needed.

Shanty Library by majiponi http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811203#msg811203 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811203#msg811203)
So the first one you play is generally either a Village, a Laboratory or a Smithy. On its own such a card should be at least $6, but of course the other ones you draw will be worth $0. This makes it difficult to estimate the price, and even more difficult to actually play with. This is also completely broken not only with Page but also with Peasant and Lost Arts. Overall, I suspect this won’t work as a card. Though for what it’s worth, I found the name amusing.

Ancestral Crypt by LibraryAdventurer http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811206#msg811206 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811206#msg811206)
This is the same a King Leon’s Abbey, but it’s more expensive, it doesn’t have the Reaction, and it gives Coffers for trashing expensive stuff. Unlike Abbey, this will remain useful after all your junk is trashed, which makes the strategy more interesting. However, a Coffer per $2 in cost doesn’t give you much overall if you’re trashing expensive stuff for Provinces. Mostly this will be used for the powerful trashing effect like Abbey.

Manuscript by mandioca15 http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811216#msg811216 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811216#msg811216)
So, this can potentially turn the +1 Card into a Lab, which is certainly useful. However, the big problem with this is that you don’t know for sure whether or not it will be terminal when you play it. You can get around this through having a bunch of spare +Actions, but that won’t always be possible. Relying on this for draw seems a frustrating prospect indeed as your engine could sputter at any time.

Pioneer by naitchman http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811377#msg811377 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811377#msg811377)
This is in the top 5.
Another neat way around the +1 Card problem, letting you pick which card you’re going to draw and also giving more deck inspection tricks. It has the potential to be strong in the opening as it will be at least a Silver altogether and also lets you control your cycling pretty well. I do very much like this idea, but I'm not sure it's that much of a useful card overall. The best comparison I can think of is with Navigator: It gives +$, it's terminal and it inspects your deck. The flexibility does make this better though.

Masked Witch by grrgrrgrr http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811419#msg811419 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811419#msg811419)
So it’s a Curser, which is something you usually want even if the rest of the card sucks. So hey, that’s a way to make a Ruined Library desirable. But then, of course, it can take one of 5 forms. It’s very good with Ruined Library and Ruined Village, because those make it a regular Witch and a Familiar, respectively. Hey, a situation where Ruined Village is good! With Survivors it’s also pretty good, since you can then discard the Curses you’re getting. With Ruined Mine it’s not so good, and with Ruined Market it’s usually pretty bad. I feel for this reason it’s going to be fairly swingy, especially with the Familiar option. Familiar is already pretty swingy, but with this there’s extra luck needed to chain a few Cursers together. One lucky Ruined Village can easily make it gg. I do like the new currency you came up with, though :P.

Scrap Village by pubby http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811449#msg811449 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811449#msg811449)
At first glance it looks neat. The first one you play you get to trash something, then if you can play another you’ll get the +2 Actions. And as I said before, +1 Card isn’t so bad if it comes with trashing. Towards the end you might be forced to trash something good, but the trashing with this is slow enough that you might be able to avoid that if play it right. Looks fun to play with overall. I do think $2 is too cheap, though. Other than that I like it.

Gremlin by Fly-Eagles-Fly http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811452#msg811452 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811452#msg811452)
This is in the top 5.
Like the card above it, this gives you different benefits depending on how many cards are in your hand. The first play is just a Smithy, then it becomes a Curser if you can play more. I really like how the +1 Card seems needed here: You need it to keep the handsize benefit you got from an earlier play, but it has to be terminal to keep the power level in check. I guess my main beef with this is that it plays pretty similar to Witch in the end: you increase your handsize and give everyone else Curses.

Augur by Gazbag http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811519#msg811519 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811519#msg811519)
And Gazbag wins this week’s laziness award! No seriously, this actually plays very differently than Seer despite the small change. The terminality means you need a different strategy, and as it was pointed out, this can draw copies of itself. It’s unlikely to turn over 3 cards you can’t draw, but even if it does it’s nice that it at least draws something. I actually like this a lot on first glance, despite the stolen concept.

Rabbits by anordinaryman http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811610#msg811610 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811610#msg811610)
This is in the top 5.
Wow, bonus points for trying something really crazy! The comparison to Beggar is very apt; it’s also a $2 card that can give you a massive benefit this turn in exchange for ruining your deck. Very creative way to make a Ruined Library valuable, and it looks very fun when it’s useful. My main concern is how you can empty the pile on a single play. It’s not something you usually want to do, but I can imagine all sorts of edge-case abuse. Imagine, for instance, gaining the whole pile, then buying Triumph and Donate. I would definitely put some sort of limit on the amount you can gain in a turn.

Travel Stop by mail-mi http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811613#msg811613 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811613#msg811613)
So, you need other Villages in order for this to be a Village itself, as well as a fair amount of non-Action cards. But if you run out of Actions when you play this, at least you can get $ for each dead Action card in your hand. A decent idea overall.

Common Property by ShadowHawk http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811721#msg811721 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811721#msg811721)
This is another card with the problem that you don’t know whether or not it will be terminal when you play it. Even if you have spare +Actions, that will often discourage you from playing it. I understand the big bonus of +2 Cards for your opponent is to encourage them to give you good stuff to play. But +1 Card is such a bad effect for you that I’d still be tempted to give you junk anyway. I imagine this will play very differently 2-player games than in games with more players. In 2-player you can guarantee your opponent’s Common Properties will suck by just giving them junk every time, but in multiplayer you don’t know if your opponents will give them something good to get the +2 Cards, and you might want to get in on that. I suspect this is unbalanced as a result, but I don’t know for sure.

---------------------------

Well, this was a tough choice and you guys gave me a lot of cool cards to look through. In the end, though, in terms creativity and making a terminal +1 Card work, I have to give First Place to:

Copier by NoMoreFun

with Rabbits by anordinaryman as the runner-up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 28, 2019, 06:35:38 pm

Thank you Commodore Chuckles

Challenge #46: But it wasn't even your turn!

Design a card (shaped thing) that can do one of the following things on another players turn:

• Increase your VP (either with VP chips, an alt-VP formula, or other means) and/or decrease the VP of other players
• Give you a say in when the game ends (eg it can gain a card, prevent gains, return a card to the supply, etc.)

The idea behind this challenge is cards that change the endgame so that players need to think about more than their own deck's capacity to gain a VP lead and end the game, because other players have cards that will change the VP balance, or it might not be up to them whether the game is going to end on a given turn. Cards which add a level of complexity to the endgame, while still being fun and fair, will have the best chance of winning.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 28, 2019, 07:04:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/GNpC4RK.png)

Quote

Banker
Night-Reaction $5
You may trash a treasure you have in play to gain a treasure costing up to $3 more than it to your deck.

---

When another player gains a victory card, you may discard this to gain an Estate and a treasure costing up to $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on September 28, 2019, 09:08:20 pm

Dueling Witch
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} Action-Attack-Reaction

+1 Buy
Each other player gains a Curse.
----------------------------------------------------
When any player gains a card (including you), you may reveal this from your hand to return a copy of that card to the supply from your hand or the top of your discard pile, then discard this.


The reaction by itself isn't great, but the guaranteed presence of a Witch gives you a reason to pick it up for the reaction, because this is its own defense. It's probably a lot more swingy than Witch (whoever wins the split has more attack power and less defense power), but I'm not sure how to fix that, and hopefully its lower cost should help.

Version 1: fixed the fact that you had to discard the Dueling Witch first, which was an oversight.
Version 2: fixed the non-specificity of the location from which this was revealed.
Version 3: Added +2 Cards and the Attack type, and raised the cost by _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}.
Version 4: Changed +2 Cards bonus to +1 Buy

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 28, 2019, 09:17:12 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on September 28, 2019, 09:08:20 pm

Dueling Witch
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} Action-Reaction

Each other player gains a Curse.
----------------------------------------------------
When any player gains a card (including you), you may discard this from your hand to return a copy of that card to the supply from your hand or the top of your discard pile.


The reaction by itself isn't great, but the presence of this card gives you a reason to pick it up for the reaction, because this is its own defense.

You probably want to have the discard come after returning the card (maybe set aside in between), otherwise the curse won't be on top of the discard pile anymore.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on September 28, 2019, 09:19:30 pm

Just wondering, do cards like trader, or watchtower count? (They don't gain or return cards, they prevent you from gaining cards which also affects the end game)
What about tomb (even though it doesn't always give you vp on your turn, it makes it possible with cards like swindler)?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on September 28, 2019, 09:34:33 pm

Quote from: naitchman on September 28, 2019, 09:17:12 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on September 28, 2019, 09:08:20 pm

Dueling Witch
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} Action-Reaction

Each other player gains a Curse.
----------------------------------------------------
When any player gains a card (including you), you may discard this from your hand to return a copy of that card to the supply from your hand or the top of your discard pile.


The reaction by itself isn't great, but the presence of this card gives you a reason to pick it up for the reaction, because this is its own defense.

You probably want to have the discard come after returning the card (maybe set aside in between), otherwise the curse won't be on top of the discard pile anymore.

Thanks, I missed that. Fixed.

Title: Re: Contest #46: But it Wasn't Even Your Turn!
Post by: Gubump on September 28, 2019, 09:45:22 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7eT1YQg.png)

EDIT: This is no longer my submission.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 28, 2019, 10:35:05 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on September 28, 2019, 09:08:20 pm

Dueling Witch
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} Action-Reaction

Each other player gains a Curse.
----------------------------------------------------
When any player gains a card (including you), you may reveal this to return a copy of that card to the supply from your hand or the top of your discard pile, then discard this.

The reaction has to specify "reveal this from your hand."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on September 28, 2019, 11:41:01 pm

Quote from: Gubump on September 28, 2019, 10:35:05 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on September 28, 2019, 09:08:20 pm

Dueling Witch
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} Action-Reaction

Each other player gains a Curse.
----------------------------------------------------
When any player gains a card (including you), you may reveal this to return a copy of that card to the supply from your hand or the top of your discard pile, then discard this.

The reaction has to specify "reveal this from your hand."

Fixed!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 28, 2019, 11:44:37 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on September 28, 2019, 09:08:20 pm

Dueling Witch
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} Action-Reaction

Each other player gains a Curse.
----------------------------------------------------
When any player gains a card (including you), you may reveal this to return a copy of that card to the supply from your hand or the top of your discard pile, then discard this.


The reaction by itself isn't great, but the presence of this card gives you a reason to pick it up for the reaction, because this is its own defense.

Previous version had you discard this first, which was an oversight.

First off, this wants the Attack type. Secondly, DXV has said that players don't like attacks that don't give you something else, and I personally don't think that the reaction is enough of a something else. Just a thought.

Title: Re: Contest #46: But it Wasn't Even Your Turn!
Post by: naitchman on September 29, 2019, 12:20:51 am

Quote from: Gubump on September 28, 2019, 09:45:22 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7eT1YQg.png)

Outside of alt-vp or colony games, this feels better than duchy. I'll probably just save all of my totems until the end and cash them out when my opponent buys his last province (probably last or 2nd to last province bought). As long as you play right, it's not likely you'll get left with these on the mat. So basically totem is worth 4 points (to duchy's 3), isn't a dead card in your deck (unlike duchy), and in the event where you need some fodder for TfB, totem can be called early and trashed without losing VP (unlike duchy).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 29, 2019, 01:43:29 am

Quote from: naitchman on September 28, 2019, 09:19:30 pm

Just wondering, do cards like trader, or watchtower count? (They don't gain or return cards, they prevent you from gaining cards which also affects the end game)
What about tomb (even though it doesn't always give you vp on your turn, it makes it possible with cards like swindler)?

Yes to the reactions - they can influence the endgame on a turn that isn't yours.

Tomb would also not be disqualified. Alt-VP cards count too (eg Feodum counts, since you can gain Silvers not on your turn with reactions like Trader and Beggar).

Just a general point though that I would prefer that the central idea of the challenge not be an "edge case" for the card you design. If your card is great, but it's a puzzle to figure out when and how it influences the endgame on a turn that isn't yours, it's not going to do very well this round.

Title: Re: Contest #46: But it Wasn't Even Your Turn!
Post by: segura on September 29, 2019, 05:39:15 am

Quote from: naitchman on September 29, 2019, 12:20:51 am

Quote from: Gubump on September 28, 2019, 09:45:22 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7eT1YQg.png)

Outside of alt-vp or colony games, this feels better than duchy. I'll probably just save all of my totems until the end and cash them out when my opponent buys his last province (probably last or 2nd to last province bought). As long as you play right, it's not likely you'll get left with these on the mat. So basically totem is worth 4 points (to duchy's 3), isn't a dead card in your deck (unlike duchy), and in the event where you need some fodder for TfB, totem can be called early and trashed without losing VP (unlike duchy).

So? Distant Lands is nearly always better than Duchy.
I don't think that the card is particularly exciting, being a bit like a reverse Distant Lands (instead of leaving your deck, it starts out of deck and somewhen enters your deck). But being often better than Duchy is definitely not an argument against it.
Also, play isn't as simple as you made it out: in pile-emptying situations, whoever bought too many Totems can be screwed (empty piles, buy Duchies instead of Provinces).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #46: influence endgame on turn other than yours
Post by: Aquila on September 29, 2019, 08:28:24 am

(https://i.imgur.com/xBjCiLP.jpg)

Edit: cost reduced to $4. Feels like a better price, at the risk of making it more relevant early so deviating a little from the endgame brief.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on September 29, 2019, 09:55:25 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 28, 2019, 11:44:37 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on September 28, 2019, 09:08:20 pm

Dueling Witch
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} Action-Reaction

Each other player gains a Curse.
----------------------------------------------------
When any player gains a card (including you), you may reveal this to return a copy of that card to the supply from your hand or the top of your discard pile, then discard this.


The reaction by itself isn't great, but the presence of this card gives you a reason to pick it up for the reaction, because this is its own defense.

Previous version had you discard this first, which was an oversight.

First off, this wants the Attack type. Secondly, DXV has said that players don't like attacks that don't give you something else, and I personally don't think that the reaction is enough of a something else. Just a thought.

Clearly, I haven't done this recently enough. For now, I'll bump the cost up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} and add +2 Cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on September 29, 2019, 09:56:15 am

Persecutor (Action) [$4]

+$2
+1 Buy

Move your Exiled token to a Supply pile. The game also ends when this pile empties.

Title: Re: Contest #46: But it Wasn't Even Your Turn!
Post by: spineflu on September 29, 2019, 09:58:45 am

Quote from: naitchman on September 29, 2019, 12:20:51 am

Quote from: Gubump on September 28, 2019, 09:45:22 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7eT1YQg.png)

Outside of alt-vp or colony games, this feels better than duchy. I'll probably just save all of my totems until the end and cash them out when my opponent buys his last province (probably last or 2nd to last province bought). As long as you play right, it's not likely you'll get left with these on the mat. So basically totem is worth 4 points (to duchy's 3), isn't a dead card in your deck (unlike duchy), and in the event where you need some fodder for TfB, totem can be called early and trashed without losing VP (unlike duchy).

mmm after you call it, it is a dead card (unless there's some other card that lets you put it on your tavern mat) but still agree on all other points (better than duchy, tfb fodder)

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on September 29, 2019, 09:55:25 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 28, 2019, 11:44:37 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on September 28, 2019, 09:08:20 pm

Dueling Witch
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} Action-Reaction

Each other player gains a Curse.
----------------------------------------------------
When any player gains a card (including you), you may reveal this to return a copy of that card to the supply from your hand or the top of your discard pile, then discard this.


The reaction by itself isn't great, but the presence of this card gives you a reason to pick it up for the reaction, because this is its own defense.

Previous version had you discard this first, which was an oversight.

First off, this wants the Attack type. Secondly, DXV has said that players don't like attacks that don't give you something else, and I personally don't think that the reaction is enough of a something else. Just a thought.

Clearly, I haven't done this recently enough. For now, I'll bump the cost up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} and add +2 Cards.

....but then its strictly better than witch

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 29, 2019, 11:08:46 am

(https://i.imgur.com/QqDReDy.png)

Quote

Repurpose
$6 - Project

When another player buys a card, you may return a non-Treasure card from your hand to the supply. If you did, gain a cheaper card, then +1 card.

Title: Re: Contest #46: But it Wasn't Even Your Turn!
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on September 29, 2019, 11:29:50 am

Quote from: spineflu on September 29, 2019, 09:58:45 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on September 29, 2019, 09:55:25 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 28, 2019, 11:44:37 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on September 28, 2019, 09:08:20 pm

Dueling Witch
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} Action-Reaction

Each other player gains a Curse.
----------------------------------------------------
When any player gains a card (including you), you may reveal this to return a copy of that card to the supply from your hand or the top of your discard pile, then discard this.


The reaction by itself isn't great, but the presence of this card gives you a reason to pick it up for the reaction, because this is its own defense.

Previous version had you discard this first, which was an oversight.

First off, this wants the Attack type. Secondly, DXV has said that players don't like attacks that don't give you something else, and I personally don't think that the reaction is enough of a something else. Just a thought.

Clearly, I haven't done this recently enough. For now, I'll bump the cost up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} and add +2 Cards.

....but then its strictly better than witch

I don't think so, because there is guaranteed to be a defense on the board for Dueling Witch. When playing with Witch, often the only defense is to let is cycle back through your deck and trash it. There is not often a Watchtower/Moat/Guardian/Lighthouse type card. Here, there is guaranteed to be a Watchtower-like defense on the board.

Although that said, if they are on the same board, it is actually strictly better. Huh. +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} instead, maybe? Or +1 Card +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}? Just +1 Card, or +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}? I think it becomes to unbalanced after increasing the cost to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, or making it non-terminal, so those are out. What about giving it +1 Buy?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on September 29, 2019, 12:38:28 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on September 29, 2019, 09:56:15 am

Persecutor (Action) [$4]

+$2
+1 Buy

Move your Exiled token to a Supply pile. The game also ends when this pile empties.

This wants to be an Event, I think.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 29, 2019, 12:54:23 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d90de1121501c2ef37a0ba7/0a232e70d2eba6ae456a294f3ff63751/image.png)

Quote

Jetty • $5  • Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn, +2 Cards.
-
If the game would end while this is in play, there is an additional round of turns for players with Jetty in play. (There is only one round of extra turns from Jetty)

Made a Wharf-Fleet hybrid; I think I got the wording (and self-shapeshifting) right so there aren't infinite Jetty turns at the end of the game. Lemme know if that wording works or not, yeah?
Name taken from this post that I saw like five years ago:
(https://i.imgur.com/hBFmT9p.jpg)

---

FAQ: When playing with this and Fleet, extra turns from Fleet happen first. Having a Jetty in play during the original end of game or during the end of the Fleet turn qualifies a player for the Jetty turn.
.
Updates: modified the wording to specify there are not infinite Jetty turns at the end of the game if you can keep it in play. Added FAQ errata to describe how this works with Fleet.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on September 29, 2019, 02:10:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/AHKcDMB.png?1)

Royal Demesne, Action - Duration, Costs $4
Now and at the start of your next turn: +1 Card and +$1.
-
While this is in play,
when another player gains a Victory card costing $4 or more, +1%.

After sleeping on it, Bonfire of Vanities is still broken and needs to be reworked. I'm returning to Royal Demesne.
The card reduces the advantage of a Duchy, Province or Colony by 1 Victory per card, and if an alt-VP Victory card is present, that one too. But only if this card is in play. To prevent the card from playing another RD, I replaced the +1 Action with +1 Card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on September 29, 2019, 02:13:44 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on September 29, 2019, 02:10:16 pm

Since I'm new to this, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to attempt both options or if I can only present one.
Executioner, Action - Attack, Costs $4
+$2. Select a Kingdom card pile. Trash up to 3 cards from that pile.

You can only have one submission. But also, the second submission can't do anything on another player's turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 29, 2019, 02:30:14 pm

New submission is a split pile:

(https://i.imgur.com/IqbXFPu.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/lByksXO.png)

This nerfs Totem in two ways:
1. Totem is on the bottom of a split-pile, and the first card in the pile gets worse when you call your Totems.
2. Only one Totem can be called per Province gained, so your VP from Totems will never outpace the total VP from Provinces other players have.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on September 29, 2019, 02:37:42 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on September 29, 2019, 02:13:44 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on September 29, 2019, 02:10:16 pm

Since I'm new to this, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to attempt both options or if I can only present one.
Executioner, Action - Attack, Costs $4
+$2. Select a Kingdom card pile. Trash up to 3 cards from that pile.

You can only have one submission. But also, the second submission can't do anything on another player's turn.

Thank you, and good catch, I knew that but forgot while typing it. I didn't like the theme anyway and changed it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on September 29, 2019, 02:54:29 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pOvdaRD.png)

Here is my submission for this week.  Bargainer is a Woodcutter on-play with a Haggler-like Reaction that can work on other players' turns.  It's similar to Charm, where depending on what you're trying to buy, you sometimes might choose to play it for +$2 and the Buy instead using the Haggler ability.  Unlike Haggler, this can gain VP cards (e.g. Buy Province, gain Duchy), but since you discard the Bargainer, it's less powerful than it seems.  You can also use the reaction on other players' turns to sneak in an extra gain, if you're lucky enough to have it in your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 29, 2019, 03:12:46 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on September 29, 2019, 02:10:16 pm

Bonfire of Vanities, Action - Reaction - Attack, Costs $3
+2 Cards. Trash a card from your hand.
-
When another player gains a Kingdom card, you may reveal this from your hand to trash one card from that Kingdom card pile in the Supply.

Fixed the prior submission. hhelibebcnofnena said I can only submit one. So, for the purposes of the contest, I'll submit Bonfire of Vanities.

There's no rule saying that you can only reveal a given Reaction card once per triggering event, so when somebody gains a Kingdom card, you could just reveal the same Bonfire of Vanities numerous times to empty that pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on September 29, 2019, 03:29:27 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on September 29, 2019, 02:10:16 pm

Since I'm new to this, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to attempt both options or if I can only present one.

(https://i.imgur.com/49Sl1zE.png?1)

Royal Demesne, Action - Duration, Costs $4
Now and at the start of your next turn: +1 Action and +$1. While this is in play, when another player gains a Victory card costing $4 or more, +1%.

Executioner, Action - Attack, Costs $4
+$2. Select a Kingdom card pile. Trash up to 3 cards from that pile.

(https://i.imgur.com/7vG2ZIg.png?1)

Bonfire of Vanities, Action - Reaction - Attack, Costs $3
+2 Cards. Trash a card from your hand.
-
When another player gains a Kingdom card, you may reveal this from your hand to trash one card from that Kingdom card pile in the Supply.

Fixed the prior submission. hhelibebcnofnena said I can only submit one. So, for the purposes of the contest, I'll submit Bonfire of Vanities.

When designing a reaction, always remember that there is no limit on how often you reveal a Reaction. Also, just remove the non-submissions altogether.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 29, 2019, 03:35:36 pm

Quote from: Gubump on September 29, 2019, 03:12:46 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on September 29, 2019, 02:10:16 pm

Bonfire of Vanities, Action - Reaction - Attack, Costs $3
+2 Cards. Trash a card from your hand.
-
When another player gains a Kingdom card, you may reveal this from your hand to trash one card from that Kingdom card pile in the Supply.

Fixed the prior submission. hhelibebcnofnena said I can only submit one. So, for the purposes of the contest, I'll submit Bonfire of Vanities.

There's no rule saying that you can only reveal a given Reaction card once per triggering event, so when somebody gains a Kingdom card, you could just reveal the same Bonfire of Vanities numerous times to empty that pile.

what's the Attack part of this? Could one player stop the supply-trashing by having a moat?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 29, 2019, 05:30:44 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 28, 2019, 06:35:38 pm

Thank you Commodore Chuckles

Challenge #46: But it wasn't even your turn!

Design a card (shaped thing) that can do one of the following things on another players turn:

• Increase your VP (either with VP chips, an alt-VP formula, or other means) and/or decrease the VP of other players
• Give you a say in when the game ends (eg it can gain a card, prevent gains, return a card to the supply, etc.)

The idea behind this challenge is cards that change the endgame so that players need to think about more than their own deck's capacity to gain a VP lead and end the game, because other players have cards that will change the VP balance, or it might not be up to them whether the game is going to end on a given turn. Cards which add a level of complexity to the endgame, while still being fun and fair, will have the best chance of winning.

Would the following format be accepted?

"At the start of your next turn, while this was in play, if any player condition, take reward."

This technically gives you something on your turn and not your opponents, but it is conditional on something happening during your opponents turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on September 29, 2019, 09:42:16 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on September 29, 2019, 03:29:27 pm

When designing a reaction, always remember that there is no limit on how often you reveal a Reaction. Also, just remove the non-submissions altogether.

I'm aware. That's the idea. Just like how some of these moral panics got out of hand, this too can do the same. The card does permit a player to not reveal if they don't wish to.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on September 29, 2019, 09:43:42 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 29, 2019, 03:35:36 pm

Quote from: Gubump on September 29, 2019, 03:12:46 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on September 29, 2019, 02:10:16 pm

Bonfire of Vanities, Action - Reaction - Attack, Costs $3
+2 Cards. Trash a card from your hand.
-
When another player gains a Kingdom card, you may reveal this from your hand to trash one card from that Kingdom card pile in the Supply.

Fixed the prior submission. hhelibebcnofnena said I can only submit one. So, for the purposes of the contest, I'll submit Bonfire of Vanities.

There's no rule saying that you can only reveal a given Reaction card once per triggering event, so when somebody gains a Kingdom card, you could just reveal the same Bonfire of Vanities numerous times to empty that pile.

what's the Attack part of this? Could one player stop the supply-trashing by having a moat?

Good point. Since it did damage to the supply, I thought Attack should be in the heading. I can take it out though so that it does not react with other Reactions. Will update.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on September 29, 2019, 10:39:23 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on September 29, 2019, 09:43:42 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 29, 2019, 03:35:36 pm

Quote from: Gubump on September 29, 2019, 03:12:46 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on September 29, 2019, 02:10:16 pm

Bonfire of Vanities, Action - Reaction - Attack, Costs $3
+2 Cards. Trash a card from your hand.
-
When another player gains a Kingdom card, you may reveal this from your hand to trash one card from that Kingdom card pile in the Supply.

Fixed the prior submission. hhelibebcnofnena said I can only submit one. So, for the purposes of the contest, I'll submit Bonfire of Vanities.

There's no rule saying that you can only reveal a given Reaction card once per triggering event, so when somebody gains a Kingdom card, you could just reveal the same Bonfire of Vanities numerous times to empty that pile.

what's the Attack part of this? Could one player stop the supply-trashing by having a moat?

Good point. Since it did damage to the supply, I thought Attack should be in the heading. I can take it out though so that it does not react with other Reactions. Will update.

As a general rule, attacks affect all other players. Possession, for example, really feels like it should be an attack, but since it only affects the player to your left, it isn't one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 29, 2019, 11:55:52 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on September 29, 2019, 05:30:44 pm

Would the following format be accepted?

"At the start of your next turn, while this was in play, if any player condition, take reward."

This technically gives you something on your turn and not your opponents, but it is conditional on something happening during your opponents turn.

Go for it

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on September 30, 2019, 05:27:50 am

Young Artisan
cost $2 - Action - Reserve
+1 Action
Put this on your tavern mat.
---
When another player gains a Province, you may call this to gain a card costing up to $4 into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 30, 2019, 08:32:48 pm

CHALLENGE #46 - BUT IT WASN'T EVEN YOUR TURN - SUBMISSION

(https://i.imgur.com/ZMnX8mP.jpg)

Changes: v0.2 - Changed the choice to just one card/position choice. I like two to three choices better, but one has less chance of overwhelming players. Less opportunity to score VP points, but even a 2VP token swing can drastically change the end game.

Examples: A player can choose Market 4. Market being the Kingdom card and 4 being the card position from the top. If another player (not you) gains the 4th Market, you reveal your secretly recorded note and you get 4VP tokens. More tokens are rewarded the further down a pile you choose as the risk is often greater. You can call the 10th Market going and maybe it never gets gained!

A few things to clarify:
-Card position - The top card of a pile is card position #1, the next card is card position #2 and so on.
-Secretly record - Can be any means of recording a card and position. Paper and pen or a phone work best.
-Kingdom cards - These are the 10 random cards selected for each game. They do not include the standard Victory cards and standard Treasure cards. So for instance you cannot choose the Province pile for Blockade.

Quote from: Kudasai on September 30, 2019, 08:32:48 pm

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811873#msg811873
Blockade -Landmark
At the start of the game, secretly record 3 different Kingdom card piles and positions (from the top of that pile). When another player gains a card/position you recorded, reveal it for +1VP equal to its position.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on September 30, 2019, 09:41:04 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 29, 2019, 12:54:23 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d90de1121501c2ef37a0ba7/a30efd6fd14328cafd172cdb279f5a2a/image.png)

Quote

Jetty • $5  • Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn, +2 Cards.
-
If the game would end while this is in play, there is an additional round of turns for players with Jetty in play, during which Jetty reads "+2 Cards."

Made a Wharf-Fleet hybrid; I think I got the wording (and self-shapeshifting) right so there aren't infinite Jetty turns at the end of the game. Lemme know if that wording works or not, yeah?
Name taken from this post that I saw like five years ago:
(https://i.imgur.com/hBFmT9p.jpg)

I don't think this needs the end bit "during which Jetty reads as +2 Cards." Jetty already gives +2 Cards on play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on October 01, 2019, 12:11:13 am

Here's my submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/QNipqkR.jpg)

You decide to buy yourself a nice piece of country property. However, when you see your rival kings buying up provinces and duchies, you decide to rip apart the idyllic scene and build yourself a castle or something.

Originally, the card didn't have the "+1 Card" when you trashed it, but I thought that was too strong for $4, too weak for $5, so now trashing it gets a dead card out of your hand and doesn't reduce your handsize.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on October 01, 2019, 01:35:16 am

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/bMi6Qqe.png)
Abomination
$2 Action - Attack - Reaction - Curse
-1VP
+2 Cards, +1 Buy. Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a card.
---
When you discard this other than during Clean-Up, you may trash this instead.


A Moat-like attacker you want to get rid of eventually. Happily, it's vulnerable to its own attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 01, 2019, 02:48:35 am

Quote from: grep on October 01, 2019, 01:35:16 am

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/bMi6Qqe.png)
Abomination
$2 Action - Attack - Reaction - Curse
-1VP
+2 Cards, +1 Buy. Each other player discards down to 4 cards.
---
When you discard this other than during Clean-Up, you may trash this instead.


A Moat-like attacker you want to get rid of eventually. Happily, it's vulnerable to its own attack.

The text in your description does not match the text on the image.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 01, 2019, 08:47:37 am

Quote from: Kudasai on September 30, 2019, 09:41:04 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 29, 2019, 12:54:23 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d90de1121501c2ef37a0ba7/a30efd6fd14328cafd172cdb279f5a2a/image.png)

Quote

Jetty • $5  • Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn, +2 Cards.
-
If the game would end while this is in play, there is an additional round of turns for players with Jetty in play, during which Jetty reads "+2 Cards."

Made a Wharf-Fleet hybrid; I think I got the wording (and self-shapeshifting) right so there aren't infinite Jetty turns at the end of the game. Lemme know if that wording works or not, yeah?

I don't think this needs the end bit "during which Jetty reads as +2 Cards." Jetty already gives +2 Cards on play.

right but during the Jetty turn, if someone plays Jetty, it would trigger an additional Jetty turn if it didn't have that clause. Would it be less ambiguous if it said "there is only one round of Jetty turns"?

also @Kudasai - you've got a typo in your card image - "Kindom card"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on October 01, 2019, 10:18:53 am

Quote from: Gubump on October 01, 2019, 02:48:35 am

Abomination
The text in your description does not match the text on the image.

Thanks, fixed. The image is correct - I decided at the last moment to weaken the attack a little.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 01, 2019, 10:53:05 am

Quote from: grep on October 01, 2019, 01:35:16 am

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/bMi6Qqe.png)
Abomination
$2 Action - Attack - Reaction - Curse
-1VP
+2 Cards, +1 Buy. Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a card.
---
When you discard this other than during Clean-Up, you may trash this instead.


A Moat-like attacker you want to get rid of eventually. Happily, it's vulnerable to its own attack.

Recommend removing the type "Curse"; it only adds rules confusion with things like Witch any other Curser... the rules don't define if you would be able to gain this when told to gain a Curse. There's a reason that Curse is the only card in Dominion with the type Curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on October 01, 2019, 03:19:36 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on September 30, 2019, 08:32:48 pm

CHALLENGE #46 - BUT IT WASN'T EVEN YOUR TURN - SUBMISSION

(https://i.imgur.com/Yuxlc41.jpg)

Examples: A player can choose Market 4. Market being the Kingdom card and 4 being the card position from the top. If another player (not you) gains the 4th Market, you reveal your secretly recorded note and you get 4VP tokens. More tokens are rewarded the further down a pile you choose as the risk is often greater. You can call the 10th Market going and maybe it never gets gained!

A few things to clarify:
-Card position - The top card of a pile is card position #1, the next card is card position #2 and so on.
-Secretly record - Can be any means of recording a card and position. Paper and pen or a phone work best.
-Kingdom cards - These are the 10 random cards selected for each game. They do not include the standard Victory cards and standard Treasure cards. So for instance you cannot choose the Province pile for Blockade.
-Kingdom card piles must be different and card positions must be different. So if you choose say Market 4, you cannot then choose Smithy 4 as the 4th card position can only be chosen once.

Quote from: Kudasai on September 30, 2019, 08:32:48 pm

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811873#msg811873
Blockade -Landmark
At the start of the game, secretly record 3 different Kingdom card piles and positions (from the top of that pile). When another player gains a card/position you recorded, reveal it for +1VP equal to its position.

While I'm not sure I can identify the equilibrium strategy, "the first time" only adds one word to the card and is probably overall helpful with respect to the concerning possible disincentive to ever buy Province in an Ambassador game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 01, 2019, 03:30:58 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on October 01, 2019, 03:19:36 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on September 30, 2019, 08:32:48 pm

CHALLENGE #46 - BUT IT WASN'T EVEN YOUR TURN - SUBMISSION

(https://i.imgur.com/Yuxlc41.jpg)

Examples: A player can choose Market 4. Market being the Kingdom card and 4 being the card position from the top. If another player (not you) gains the 4th Market, you reveal your secretly recorded note and you get 4VP tokens. More tokens are rewarded the further down a pile you choose as the risk is often greater. You can call the 10th Market going and maybe it never gets gained!

A few things to clarify:
-Card position - The top card of a pile is card position #1, the next card is card position #2 and so on.
-Secretly record - Can be any means of recording a card and position. Paper and pen or a phone work best.
-Kingdom cards - These are the 10 random cards selected for each game. They do not include the standard Victory cards and standard Treasure cards. So for instance you cannot choose the Province pile for Blockade.
-Kingdom card piles must be different and card positions must be different. So if you choose say Market 4, you cannot then choose Smithy 4 as the 4th card position can only be chosen once.

Quote from: Kudasai on September 30, 2019, 08:32:48 pm

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811873#msg811873
Blockade -Landmark
At the start of the game, secretly record 3 different Kingdom card piles and positions (from the top of that pile). When another player gains a card/position you recorded, reveal it for +1VP equal to its position.

While I'm not sure I can identify the equilibrium strategy, "the first time" only adds one word to the card and is probably overall helpful with respect to the concerning possible disincentive to ever buy Province in an Ambassador game.

Yes, Ambassador makes it possible to gain the same card/position twice or more in a game. Is this bad? I'm not sure, but I kind of like the interaction. It will rarely come up and even so once a player has revealed their card/position for VP points, everyone will know not to gain that card. This could lead to blocking piles, but again I kind of like this niche strategy.

As for the Province comment I don't follow.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 01, 2019, 03:32:57 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 01, 2019, 08:47:37 am

Quote from: Kudasai on September 30, 2019, 09:41:04 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 29, 2019, 12:54:23 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d90de1121501c2ef37a0ba7/a30efd6fd14328cafd172cdb279f5a2a/image.png)

Quote

Jetty • $5  • Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn, +2 Cards.
-
If the game would end while this is in play, there is an additional round of turns for players with Jetty in play, during which Jetty reads "+2 Cards."

Made a Wharf-Fleet hybrid; I think I got the wording (and self-shapeshifting) right so there aren't infinite Jetty turns at the end of the game. Lemme know if that wording works or not, yeah?

I don't think this needs the end bit "during which Jetty reads as +2 Cards." Jetty already gives +2 Cards on play.

right but during the Jetty turn, if someone plays Jetty, it would trigger an additional Jetty turn if it didn't have that clause. Would it be less ambiguous if it said "there is only one round of Jetty turns"?

also @Kudasai - you've got a typo in your card image - "Kindom card"

Thanks for the typo catch and yes, I now see what you're saying about Jetty. I think it's less ambiguous to go with your "there is only one round of Jetty extra turns" phrasing!

As for the card, I do like the balance of it. Wharf without buys for the same price is strictly worse, but if you can get that extra turn it could be worth it. The value of that extra turn doesn't necessarily go up with each purchase though. So given two players who both get the same value out of their extra turn, a player who can manage say 2 of these versus a player who has 3 or more will technically be getting a better value. That makes sense right? Or am I way off? Anyways, I think this card is very straight forward and easy to understand, but offers a lot of subtle yet complex strategy. Very nice!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 01, 2019, 04:39:33 pm

Thank you! I updated the wording on the original post (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811795#msg811795).
As far as pricing, I was thinking a lot about how RTT said buying Fleet was like buying green but a little different; I think this has some similar timing but can also be a good kickstart for an engine if you hit 5 early.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on October 01, 2019, 05:37:33 pm

Challenge #46 - But It Wasn’t Even Your Turn, my submission.

(https://starback.se/static/games/Royal_Pardon3.png)

Quote

Royal Pardon, Action - Reserve - Reaction, $4

Trash the top card of each supply pile with 3 to 7 cards. Put this on your Tavern mat.

---

When a supply pile is emptied, you may discard this from your hand or your Tavern mat. If you do, name a card in the trash that you haven’t named with Royal Pardon before, then return all cards with that name from the trash to the supply.

FAQ:

• A supply pile can be emptied at least by someone gaining the last card, trashing it, or setting it aside (with Inheritance).
• If several players want to react to a pile being emptied the normal priority order is followed and maybe there is no card left to name for a later player.
• You may name a card in the trash that doesn't come from the supply (if you haven't named it before), for example Spoils or Princess. Then no cards are returned to the supply. For piles with differently named cards they may end up in a different order when being returned to the supply (as with Ambassador).

You can get a lot of money early to buy expensive things you want, like King's Court or Platinum, and later it will almost surely be enough for a Province, giving even more money than Death Cart, but it's almost a one-shot. Then at the end of the game it can affect the endgame both by making it harder to three-pile and to maybe return Provinces when its pile is emptied. It trashes "popular" cards when played to make it more often piles are emptied and to put some interesting stuff in the trash that can be returned. The "if you haven't named it before" condition is to avoid loops. Yes, the Curses can be brought back several times, but only once per player.

[Edit October 4: Changed which cards are trashed when Royal Pardon is played to care about number of cards but not about cost. Old version is here (https://starback.se/static/games/Royal_Pardon2.png).]

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on October 01, 2019, 06:01:18 pm

Quote

Jetty • $5  • Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn, +2 Cards.
-
If the game would end while this is in play, there is an additional round of turns for players with Jetty in play. (There is only one round of extra turns from Jetty)

How would Jetty interact with Fleet? The order of extra turns matters.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 01, 2019, 06:30:03 pm

Quote from: grep on October 01, 2019, 06:01:18 pm

Quote

Jetty • $5  • Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn, +2 Cards.
-
If the game would end while this is in play, there is an additional round of turns for players with Jetty in play. (There is only one round of extra turns from Jetty)

How would Jetty interact with Fleet? The order of extra turns matters.

Fleet turns happen first, I think. Jetties in play during the original end-of-game and played during the Fleet turn both count toward that player getting a Jetty turn. I think this would have to be covered in the rulebook FAQ.

added FAQ errata to original post.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on October 01, 2019, 08:15:24 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on September 28, 2019, 09:08:20 pm

Dueling Witch
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} Action-Attack-Reaction

+1 Buy
Each other player gains a Curse.
----------------------------------------------------
When any player gains a card (including you), you may reveal this from your hand to return a copy of that card to the supply from your hand or the top of your discard pile, then discard this.

Changed the bonus to +1 Buy from +2 Cards, so that it wouldn't be strictly better than Witch on a board with both of them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 01, 2019, 09:43:33 pm

Sorry, the card generator site isn't loading for me right now so I'll use text:

Quote

Armorsmith
Action - Victory - $5
Worth 2 VP
+3 Cards
Discard a card.
------------------
In games using this, when another player gains a Province, you may gain an Armorsmith.

Try to build a deck with this awkward draw-sifter, or leave the pile untouched and let your opponent leech points off you when you're greening. The choice is yours!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on October 02, 2019, 11:36:06 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 01, 2019, 03:30:58 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on October 01, 2019, 03:19:36 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on September 30, 2019, 08:32:48 pm

CHALLENGE #46 - BUT IT WASN'T EVEN YOUR TURN - SUBMISSION

(https://i.imgur.com/Yuxlc41.jpg)

Examples: A player can choose Market 4. Market being the Kingdom card and 4 being the card position from the top. If another player (not you) gains the 4th Market, you reveal your secretly recorded note and you get 4VP tokens. More tokens are rewarded the further down a pile you choose as the risk is often greater. You can call the 10th Market going and maybe it never gets gained!

A few things to clarify:
-Card position - The top card of a pile is card position #1, the next card is card position #2 and so on.
-Secretly record - Can be any means of recording a card and position. Paper and pen or a phone work best.
-Kingdom cards - These are the 10 random cards selected for each game. They do not include the standard Victory cards and standard Treasure cards. So for instance you cannot choose the Province pile for Blockade.
-Kingdom card piles must be different and card positions must be different. So if you choose say Market 4, you cannot then choose Smithy 4 as the 4th card position can only be chosen once.

Quote from: Kudasai on September 30, 2019, 08:32:48 pm

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811873#msg811873
Blockade -Landmark
At the start of the game, secretly record 3 different Kingdom card piles and positions (from the top of that pile). When another player gains a card/position you recorded, reveal it for +1VP equal to its position.

While I'm not sure I can identify the equilibrium strategy, "the first time" only adds one word to the card and is probably overall helpful with respect to the concerning possible disincentive to ever buy Province in an Ambassador game.

Yes, Ambassador makes it possible to gain the same card/position twice or more in a game. Is this bad? I'm not sure, but I kind of like the interaction. It will rarely come up and even so once a player has revealed their card/position for VP points, everyone will know not to gain that card. This could lead to blocking piles, but again I kind of like this niche strategy.

As for the Province comment I don't follow.

My thinking is you select Duchess 10, piledrive the Duchesses, and hand them out to your opponent one at a time.  Your opponent will not "know not to gain the card", they should gain the card to hold you to 50 points instead of 100.
If both players select Duchess 10 I have no idea what happens but I'm scared.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 02, 2019, 12:52:08 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on October 02, 2019, 11:36:06 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 01, 2019, 03:30:58 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on October 01, 2019, 03:19:36 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on September 30, 2019, 08:32:48 pm

CHALLENGE #46 - BUT IT WASN'T EVEN YOUR TURN - SUBMISSION

(https://i.imgur.com/Yuxlc41.jpg)

Examples: A player can choose Market 4. Market being the Kingdom card and 4 being the card position from the top. If another player (not you) gains the 4th Market, you reveal your secretly recorded note and you get 4VP tokens. More tokens are rewarded the further down a pile you choose as the risk is often greater. You can call the 10th Market going and maybe it never gets gained!

A few things to clarify:
-Card position - The top card of a pile is card position #1, the next card is card position #2 and so on.
-Secretly record - Can be any means of recording a card and position. Paper and pen or a phone work best.
-Kingdom cards - These are the 10 random cards selected for each game. They do not include the standard Victory cards and standard Treasure cards. So for instance you cannot choose the Province pile for Blockade.
-Kingdom card piles must be different and card positions must be different. So if you choose say Market 4, you cannot then choose Smithy 4 as the 4th card position can only be chosen once.

Quote from: Kudasai on September 30, 2019, 08:32:48 pm

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811873#msg811873
Blockade -Landmark
At the start of the game, secretly record 3 different Kingdom card piles and positions (from the top of that pile). When another player gains a card/position you recorded, reveal it for +1VP equal to its position.

While I'm not sure I can identify the equilibrium strategy, "the first time" only adds one word to the card and is probably overall helpful with respect to the concerning possible disincentive to ever buy Province in an Ambassador game.

Yes, Ambassador makes it possible to gain the same card/position twice or more in a game. Is this bad? I'm not sure, but I kind of like the interaction. It will rarely come up and even so once a player has revealed their card/position for VP points, everyone will know not to gain that card. This could lead to blocking piles, but again I kind of like this niche strategy.

As for the Province comment I don't follow.

My thinking is you select Duchess 10, piledrive the Duchesses, and hand them out to your opponent one at a time.  Your opponent will not "know not to gain the card", they should gain the card to hold you to 50 points instead of 100.
If both players select Duchess 10 I have no idea what happens but I'm scared.

if multiple players select Duchess 10, only the players who didn't gain the 10th Duchess get the +10vp
This landmark will play very differently with junkers vs without (but not Looters/Ruins - who'd make that gamble, that card 10 in the Ruin deck was a Ruined Market?); Idk if I dig the duality with it or if you'd want to change it to "when another player buys the card at that position" to make it more straightforward than "oh how can I throw the 12th Silver at my opponent"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 02, 2019, 01:10:46 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 02, 2019, 12:52:08 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on October 02, 2019, 11:36:06 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 01, 2019, 03:30:58 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on October 01, 2019, 03:19:36 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on September 30, 2019, 08:32:48 pm

CHALLENGE #46 - BUT IT WASN'T EVEN YOUR TURN - SUBMISSION

(https://i.imgur.com/Yuxlc41.jpg)

Examples: A player can choose Market 4. Market being the Kingdom card and 4 being the card position from the top. If another player (not you) gains the 4th Market, you reveal your secretly recorded note and you get 4VP tokens. More tokens are rewarded the further down a pile you choose as the risk is often greater. You can call the 10th Market going and maybe it never gets gained!

A few things to clarify:
-Card position - The top card of a pile is card position #1, the next card is card position #2 and so on.
-Secretly record - Can be any means of recording a card and position. Paper and pen or a phone work best.
-Kingdom cards - These are the 10 random cards selected for each game. They do not include the standard Victory cards and standard Treasure cards. So for instance you cannot choose the Province pile for Blockade.
-Kingdom card piles must be different and card positions must be different. So if you choose say Market 4, you cannot then choose Smithy 4 as the 4th card position can only be chosen once.

Quote from: Kudasai on September 30, 2019, 08:32:48 pm

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811873#msg811873
Blockade -Landmark
At the start of the game, secretly record 3 different Kingdom card piles and positions (from the top of that pile). When another player gains a card/position you recorded, reveal it for +1VP equal to its position.

While I'm not sure I can identify the equilibrium strategy, "the first time" only adds one word to the card and is probably overall helpful with respect to the concerning possible disincentive to ever buy Province in an Ambassador game.

Yes, Ambassador makes it possible to gain the same card/position twice or more in a game. Is this bad? I'm not sure, but I kind of like the interaction. It will rarely come up and even so once a player has revealed their card/position for VP points, everyone will know not to gain that card. This could lead to blocking piles, but again I kind of like this niche strategy.

As for the Province comment I don't follow.

My thinking is you select Duchess 10, piledrive the Duchesses, and hand them out to your opponent one at a time.  Your opponent will not "know not to gain the card", they should gain the card to hold you to 50 points instead of 100.
If both players select Duchess 10 I have no idea what happens but I'm scared.

if multiple players select Duchess 10, only the players who didn't gain the 10th Duchess get the +10vp
This landmark will play very differently with junkers vs without (but not Looters/Ruins - who'd make that gamble, that card 10 in the Ruin deck was a Ruined Market?); Idk if I dig the duality with it or if you'd want to change it to "when another player buys the card at that position" to make it more straightforward than "oh how can I throw the 12th Silver at my opponent"

Are Ruins considered Kingdom cards? I know Silvers are not and thus cannot be used with Blockade.

@popsofctown: When all players choose the same card/position it's a blockade!!! Nobody then wants to gain that card, but nobody will ever for sure know why.

I had not thought of the Blockade/Ambassador combo as being so abusable. I kind of still think this is a feature and not a flaw, but boy this could get out of hand. Maybe I should put in a "first time" clause.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 02, 2019, 01:27:39 pm

ah i guess not - my brain just filled in "Supply" instead of Kingdom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 02, 2019, 01:30:51 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 02, 2019, 01:27:39 pm

ah i guess not - my brain just filled in "Supply" instead of Kingdom.

Confirmed. Ruins are Special Basic cards and not Kingdom cards. I get the glossing over the Kingdom card part. I guess the term "Kingdom card" has been cut from expansions because nobody knew what it was since it's a term rarely used.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on October 02, 2019, 01:45:17 pm

Con Man
Action - Attack - Reaction $4
+$1
+1 Buy
Each other player gains a Copper.
-----
When any player gains a card, you may reveal this from your hand to return a copy of that card from your hand to the supply.

I know about revealing multiple times to one trigger. It is intentional that you can in fact reveal this any number of times to return any number of copies to the supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on October 02, 2019, 01:50:09 pm

@both - "I have no idea what happens when both players pick Duchess 10" meant I don't know whether the Ambassador gamestate locks up or not, not that I don't understand what happens mechanically.

I'm pretty sure whoever defects from the strategy of trying to pile out Ambassador, Duchess/Woodcutter, and Estate loses if no villages are available.  But the Estates will not actually empty out and end the game unless one player starts foolishly buying excess Silvers and Merchant Ships, before such a time players will not buy Estate and risk missing Ambassador/Duchess collisions, and if there's no 2-4$ cantrip for them to buy instead of Silver there's no 3rd pile. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 02, 2019, 02:19:13 pm

@pops
can you elaborate/elucidate a little bit on what scenario you've concocted? I'm having trouble following it as-written.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on October 02, 2019, 07:12:15 pm

Quote from: mad4math on October 02, 2019, 01:45:17 pm

Con Man

Hey ...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on October 02, 2019, 10:41:16 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 02, 2019, 02:19:13 pm

@pops
can you elaborate/elucidate a little bit on what scenario you've concocted? I'm having trouble following it as-written.

Both plays choose Ambassador 10 and Woodcutter 10.

Both players pile out the Ambassadors and the Woodcutters.

Both players gain 10 points every time they return an Ambassador or a Woodcutter.

First player to buy something like Silver slowly starts to get less efficient at connecting Ambassadors and Woodcutters.  The opposing player notices this and piles out the estate while they're about ~3 woodcutter gifts ahead, which would require 5 province purchases with those Silvers for it to be offset.

I'm not 100% sure I'm right on this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on October 04, 2019, 12:41:15 pm

Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.
(https://i.imgur.com/P4GNToR.png)

1) This orginally did not have +1 action. The problem was how to price it. It seemed worse than duplicate, since you had less control and it was more likely to miss reshuffle (since it must stay on your tavern mat for at least 1 turn). It also seemed better than smugglers since it was more versatile since you could hold onto it (ever get smugglers on a turn your opponent didn't buy anything good?) and it could work on any opponent (not strictly better since you get the card later and eavesdropper is more likely to miss the reshuffle). If figured a good solution was to give +1 action and make it $4.

2) I added the "on their turn" clause so it you wouldn't have players using their eavesdroppers on other players eavesdroppers (you'd start having reactions on reactions and it would get confusing who gets to react first). Also, at that point it would start to feel more like a duplicate. This usually won't make too much of a difference since cards gained on other players turns are usually cards you don't like (ruins, curses, etc.)

UPDATE: Took away +1 action, lowered price to $3, and now only can gain 1 copy per copy your opponent gains.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on October 04, 2019, 01:58:26 pm

Quote from: pst on October 01, 2019, 05:37:33 pm

Challenge #46 - But It Wasn’t Even Your Turn, my submission.

(https://starback.se/static/games/Royal_Pardon3.png)

Quote

Royal Pardon, Action - Reserve - Reaction, $4

After testing it in play I've changed it so that it doesn't care about costs of cards to trash. It is actually a feature that it can put a couple of Provinces in the trash that then can be brought back, so that shouldn't be avoided.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 04, 2019, 02:01:14 pm

Quote from: naitchman on October 04, 2019, 12:41:15 pm

Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.
(https://i.imgur.com/NaBII2f.png)

1) This orginally did not have +1 action. The problem was how to price it. It seemed worse than duplicate, since you had less control and it was more likely to miss reshuffle (since it must stay on your tavern mat for at least 1 turn). It also seemed better than smugglers since it was more versatile since you could hold onto it (ever get smugglers on a turn your opponent didn't buy anything good?) and it could work on any opponent (not strictly better since you get the card later and eavesdropper is more likely to miss the reshuffle). If figured a good solution was to give +1 action and make it $4.

2) I added the "on their turn" clause so it you wouldn't have players using their eavesdroppers on other players eavesdroppers (you'd start having reactions on reactions and it would get confusing who gets to react first). Also, at that point it would start to feel more like a duplicate. This usually won't make too much of a difference since cards gained on other players turns are usually cards you don't like (ruins, curses, etc.)

really like this. Probably more of an FAQ/errata question but: what happens when... say.. three player game, Players B + C have Eavesdropper on their mat, player A plays two Highways and buys the penultimate Province - whose Eavesdropper happens first? whoever's next in turn order?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on October 04, 2019, 02:45:22 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 04, 2019, 02:01:14 pm

Quote from: naitchman on October 04, 2019, 12:41:15 pm

Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.
(https://i.imgur.com/NaBII2f.png)

1) This orginally did not have +1 action. The problem was how to price it. It seemed worse than duplicate, since you had less control and it was more likely to miss reshuffle (since it must stay on your tavern mat for at least 1 turn). It also seemed better than smugglers since it was more versatile since you could hold onto it (ever get smugglers on a turn your opponent didn't buy anything good?) and it could work on any opponent (not strictly better since you get the card later and eavesdropper is more likely to miss the reshuffle). If figured a good solution was to give +1 action and make it $4.

2) I added the "on their turn" clause so it you wouldn't have players using their eavesdroppers on other players eavesdroppers (you'd start having reactions on reactions and it would get confusing who gets to react first). Also, at that point it would start to feel more like a duplicate. This usually won't make too much of a difference since cards gained on other players turns are usually cards you don't like (ruins, curses, etc.)

really like this. Probably more of an FAQ/errata question but: what happens when... say.. three player game, Players B + C have Eavesdropper on their mat, player A plays two Highways and buys the penultimate Province - whose Eavesdropper happens first? whoever's next in turn order?

Next in turn order makes the most sense to me. The only card I can think of that might have a good precedent ruling would be Fool's Gold (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Fool's_Gold), but I don't know if that ruling exists or not just because I doubt anyone's ever really considered a nearly empty gold pile with that card in the kingdom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on October 04, 2019, 04:10:21 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 04, 2019, 02:01:14 pm

Quote from: naitchman on October 04, 2019, 12:41:15 pm

Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.
(https://i.imgur.com/NaBII2f.png)

1) This orginally did not have +1 action. The problem was how to price it. It seemed worse than duplicate, since you had less control and it was more likely to miss reshuffle (since it must stay on your tavern mat for at least 1 turn). It also seemed better than smugglers since it was more versatile since you could hold onto it (ever get smugglers on a turn your opponent didn't buy anything good?) and it could work on any opponent (not strictly better since you get the card later and eavesdropper is more likely to miss the reshuffle). If figured a good solution was to give +1 action and make it $4.

2) I added the "on their turn" clause so it you wouldn't have players using their eavesdroppers on other players eavesdroppers (you'd start having reactions on reactions and it would get confusing who gets to react first). Also, at that point it would start to feel more like a duplicate. This usually won't make too much of a difference since cards gained on other players turns are usually cards you don't like (ruins, curses, etc.)

really like this. Probably more of an FAQ/errata question but: what happens when... say.. three player game, Players B + C have Eavesdropper on their mat, player A plays two Highways and buys the penultimate Province - whose Eavesdropper happens first? whoever's next in turn order?

Yep. As far as I know, that's the general rule (when things happen to multiple players at the same time, they happen in turn order)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on October 04, 2019, 04:10:51 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on October 04, 2019, 02:45:22 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 04, 2019, 02:01:14 pm

Quote from: naitchman on October 04, 2019, 12:41:15 pm

Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.
(https://i.imgur.com/NaBII2f.png)

1) This orginally did not have +1 action. The problem was how to price it. It seemed worse than duplicate, since you had less control and it was more likely to miss reshuffle (since it must stay on your tavern mat for at least 1 turn). It also seemed better than smugglers since it was more versatile since you could hold onto it (ever get smugglers on a turn your opponent didn't buy anything good?) and it could work on any opponent (not strictly better since you get the card later and eavesdropper is more likely to miss the reshuffle). If figured a good solution was to give +1 action and make it $4.

2) I added the "on their turn" clause so it you wouldn't have players using their eavesdroppers on other players eavesdroppers (you'd start having reactions on reactions and it would get confusing who gets to react first). Also, at that point it would start to feel more like a duplicate. This usually won't make too much of a difference since cards gained on other players turns are usually cards you don't like (ruins, curses, etc.)

really like this. Probably more of an FAQ/errata question but: what happens when... say.. three player game, Players B + C have Eavesdropper on their mat, player A plays two Highways and buys the penultimate Province - whose Eavesdropper happens first? whoever's next in turn order?

Next in turn order makes the most sense to me. The only card I can think of that might have a good precedent ruling would be Fool's Gold (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Fool's_Gold), but I don't know if that ruling exists or not just because I doubt anyone's ever really considered a nearly empty gold pile with that card in the kingdom.

Another precedent might be Messenger. It's probably more common.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 04, 2019, 04:54:44 pm

Quote from: naitchman on October 04, 2019, 12:41:15 pm

Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.
(https://i.imgur.com/NaBII2f.png)

I think this amplies the problematic scenarios of Smugglers where it can cause a stalemate (ideal for both players not to gain anything). Unlike with Smugglers, you'll always know exactly how much benefit your opponent gets from you gaining a card. I'd imagine that in a lot of situations where this is the only way to gain cards, the game breaks down.

I also disagree that this is worse than Duplicate without the +1 Action; Duplicate only allows you to gain two cards of a kind at a time, whereas this is more flexible, and you can get the benefit even when you wouldn't have been able to afford the thing you want to gain.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 05, 2019, 02:19:59 am

The previous 24 hour warning was premature - judging will be much later (about 3 days from now) - there'll be a new warning 24 hours before I'll actually be ready to judge

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on October 05, 2019, 06:09:07 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 28, 2019, 12:18:41 pm

Abbey by King Leon http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811112#msg811112 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811112#msg811112)
I definitely like the idea of trasher with +1 Card. A trasher is something you want at the beginning, which is also when you’re least likely to draw a dead Action card. The card itself is absolutely going to be a powerhouse in the beginning. You get the same trashing as Steward, plus additional cycling, and you’re almost guaranteed to have $3 left over, which can at least get a Silver. Unfortunately, I feel for that reason that the card will play kind of boringly. It will be used to trash and that’s it. The Reaction seems like an odd add-on. It’s a nice way to clear your hand of the card when you’re done trashing, but connecting it to Attacks doesn’t make much sense to me, though it will explicitly help against junkers.

The actual reason for the Reaction was, that it mitigates Chapel’s weakness against hand-size reducers like Militia or Torturer.

---

Anyway. Here is my submission. Merely a Swamp Witch variant, but let’s see!

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d986a5b7d9c9a1ce8977b61/bf95f06a192c9f95ae441186bfa6b389/Brothel.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d986a5b7d9c9a1ce8977b61/c3c27ea04e72e51702e70bd002be56a9/Lust.png)


Brothel
Type: Action
Cost: $4

+ $2
+1 Buy
Trash a card from the supply. Each other player who has not Lust takes Lust.

---

Lust
Type: State

During your turns, cards cost $1 more. When you gain a Victory card, return this and each other player gains +1 VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 05, 2019, 07:15:02 pm

I'm tweaking my entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/sqWb9Gw.png)

Now it's an awkward Village that only gives you +VP if you gain it in response to your opponent gaining a Victory card. I feel this makes the choice more stark and interesting. You can try to make an engine with it, in which case all the +Actions will help but the discarding probably won't, or you can wait until the end to get it, in which case the discarding won't hurt as much, but the +Actions will be less useful and you'll also give your opponent the opportunity to leech points off of you. I wasn't sure whether to make this $2 or $3. I settled on $3 because that mirrors Vanillage and all the +Actions do seem very useful, but I can see the case for it only being $2.

Quote from: King Leon on October 05, 2019, 06:09:07 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 28, 2019, 12:18:41 pm

Abbey by King Leon http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811112#msg811112 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811112#msg811112)
I definitely like the idea of trasher with +1 Card. A trasher is something you want at the beginning, which is also when you’re least likely to draw a dead Action card. The card itself is absolutely going to be a powerhouse in the beginning. You get the same trashing as Steward, plus additional cycling, and you’re almost guaranteed to have $3 left over, which can at least get a Silver. Unfortunately, I feel for that reason that the card will play kind of boringly. It will be used to trash and that’s it. The Reaction seems like an odd add-on. It’s a nice way to clear your hand of the card when you’re done trashing, but connecting it to Attacks doesn’t make much sense to me, though it will explicitly help against junkers.

The actual reason for the Reaction was, that it mitigates Chapel’s weakness against hand-size reducers like Militia or Torturer.

Abbey only trashes 2 cards, though, so those will only weaken it in that you won't be able to buy the Silver after trashing. And Torturer really isn't a good example of something that hurts Chapel...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on October 05, 2019, 10:53:53 pm

Quote from: faust on October 04, 2019, 04:54:44 pm

Quote from: naitchman on October 04, 2019, 12:41:15 pm

Ok, here's my submission. It's a cross between smugglers and duplicate.
(https://i.imgur.com/NaBII2f.png)

I think this amplies the problematic scenarios of Smugglers where it can cause a stalemate (ideal for both players not to gain anything). Unlike with Smugglers, you'll always know exactly how much benefit your opponent gets from you gaining a card. I'd imagine that in a lot of situations where this is the only way to gain cards, the game breaks down.

I also disagree that this is worse than Duplicate without the +1 Action; Duplicate only allows you to gain two cards of a kind at a time, whereas this is more flexible, and you can get the benefit even when you wouldn't have been able to afford the thing you want to gain.

Thanks for the critique. The more I think about it, the more I'm certain you're right. I'm imagining where 2 players each have 5 eavesdroppers on their mats and have reliable engines that could play all their eavesdroppers every turn. Every card I buy is 5 copies for my opponent: Stalemate.

I was also bothered by another problem. This might work ok in a 2 player game but it gives an advantage to the next player in a 3 or 4 player game. Say player B and C each have 5 eavesdroppers on their mat and there's 6 grand markets left. Player A buys a grand market -> Player B gains 5 grand markets (C doesn't get any).

So I've made a small change that allows only one copy per card gained (that way it's 1 to 1). I feel this solves both problems. In addition, I felt I had to decrease the cost because of this and I thought I'd take off the +1 action to balance it (it was bothering me anyway. it felt like it wasn't in the duplicate and smugglers family if it's non terminal.)
(https://i.imgur.com/P4GNToR.png)

Now it cost the same as smugglers but they each have their strength and weaknesses. Eavesdropper is more flexible, but you can't use multiple on the same card, and unlike smugglers you can't use the card you gained on the turn you play it. In addition, because eavesdropper is a reserve, it (and the card it gains) are more likely to miss the reshuffle.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on October 05, 2019, 11:07:45 pm

Quote from: King Leon on October 05, 2019, 06:09:07 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on September 28, 2019, 12:18:41 pm

Abbey by King Leon http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811112#msg811112 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg811112#msg811112)
I definitely like the idea of trasher with +1 Card. A trasher is something you want at the beginning, which is also when you’re least likely to draw a dead Action card. The card itself is absolutely going to be a powerhouse in the beginning. You get the same trashing as Steward, plus additional cycling, and you’re almost guaranteed to have $3 left over, which can at least get a Silver. Unfortunately, I feel for that reason that the card will play kind of boringly. It will be used to trash and that’s it. The Reaction seems like an odd add-on. It’s a nice way to clear your hand of the card when you’re done trashing, but connecting it to Attacks doesn’t make much sense to me, though it will explicitly help against junkers.

The actual reason for the Reaction was, that it mitigates Chapel’s weakness against hand-size reducers like Militia or Torturer.

---

Anyway. Here is my submission. Merely a Swamp Witch variant, but let’s see!

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d986a5b7d9c9a1ce8977b61/bf95f06a192c9f95ae441186bfa6b389/Brothel.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5d986a5b7d9c9a1ce8977b61/c3c27ea04e72e51702e70bd002be56a9/Lust.png)


Brothel
Type: Action
Cost: $4

+ $2
+1 Buy
Trash a card from the supply. Each other player who has not Lust takes Lust.

---

Lust
Type: State

During your turns, cards cost $1 more. When you gain a Victory card, return this and each other player gains +1 VP.

This feels a bit too punishing. I'm comparing this to troll bridge. It gives a somewhat similar benefit and a much stronger attack. Troll bridge gives -$1 once. This gives -$1 per card you buy (in addition to hurting cards like workshop) plus an eventual +1vp. More importantly, it doesn't simply go away after one turn. With troll bridge you have to play it every turn to get the attack, with this it continues until they buy a victory card.

In the end game it might not be too bad, since I'm buying victory cards anyway (though that +1 vp still can tip this to be better than troll bridge), but in the beginning this could be devastating (and I could open with it). My opponent (who went first) plays brothel turn 3. I have $5 (which is essentially $4). Next turn I'll have the same problem. I could buy an estate, but not only am I junking myself, there's an opportunity cost. And of course, my opponent will just play brothel again soon.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on October 06, 2019, 08:08:43 am

(https://i.imgur.com/X8ZfSCKm.png)

Quote

+1 Card
+1 Action
If this is the first time you played a Landlord this turn, you may discard a card from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, +2 Cards
-
While this is in play, when another player buys a card, gain an Estate.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 06, 2019, 06:56:38 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/2fqktx02.png)

Quote

Stowaway $5
Action - Reserve
+1 Card  +1 Action
+$1 per card on your Tavern Mat.
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
-
When another player gains a card, you may call this to gain one card per empty Supply pile that each costs less than the card the other player gained.

I had trouble with this contest. I wanted to make something that really applied mainly in the endgame so it is mainly used for victory points. I decided to track the endgame state via empty supply piles -- it turns out that works well. If someone is in the middle of a pileout, they will have three empty piles and you'll be able to call each of your stowaways for three estates. Or, if someone gains the last province, you can call each of your stowaways for a duchy. You might be able to cause a pile out that your opponent didn't want. In a game with single gains, and your opponent empties a second pile, you can potentially clear out another pile on their turn. This seems to be a strong card.

The +$ gives you money to buy higher cost cards (that other players can then gain cards costing less than it), and also provides a tension between whether to call the stowaways or not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 06, 2019, 10:53:29 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 06, 2019, 06:56:38 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/2fqktx02.png)

Quote

Stowaway $5
Action - Reserve
+1 Card  +1 Action
+$1 per card on your Tavern Mat.
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
-
When another player gains a card, you may call this to gain one card per empty Supply pile that each costs less than the card the other player gained.

I had trouble with this contest. I wanted to make something that really applied mainly in the endgame so it is mainly used for victory points. I decided to track the endgame state via empty supply piles -- it turns out that works well. If someone is in the middle of a pileout, they will have three empty piles and you'll be able to call each of your stowaways for three estates. Or, if someone gains the last province, you can call each of your stowaways for a duchy. You might be able to cause a pile out that your opponent didn't want. In a game with single gains, and your opponent empties a second pile, you can potentially clear out another pile on their turn. This seems to be a strong card.

The +$ gives you money to buy higher cost cards (that other players can then gain cards costing less than it), and also provides a tension between whether to call the stowaways or not.

it took me like four tries to read this and figure out the "costs less than the card the opponent gained" applied to the card you were gaining and not the empty supply pile; I'm not sure how I'd fix that though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on October 07, 2019, 01:39:43 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 06, 2019, 10:53:29 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 06, 2019, 06:56:38 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/2fqktx02.png)

Quote

Stowaway $5
Action - Reserve
+1 Card  +1 Action
+$1 per card on your Tavern Mat.
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
-
When another player gains a card, you may call this to gain one card per empty Supply pile that each costs less than the card the other player gained.

I had trouble with this contest. I wanted to make something that really applied mainly in the endgame so it is mainly used for victory points. I decided to track the endgame state via empty supply piles -- it turns out that works well. If someone is in the middle of a pileout, they will have three empty piles and you'll be able to call each of your stowaways for three estates. Or, if someone gains the last province, you can call each of your stowaways for a duchy. You might be able to cause a pile out that your opponent didn't want. In a game with single gains, and your opponent empties a second pile, you can potentially clear out another pile on their turn. This seems to be a strong card.

The +$ gives you money to buy higher cost cards (that other players can then gain cards costing less than it), and also provides a tension between whether to call the stowaways or not.

it took me like four tries to read this and figure out the "costs less than the card the opponent gained" applied to the card you were gaining and not the empty supply pile; I'm not sure how I'd fix that though.

I think just switching the order of the clauses would read clearer:

When another player gains a card, you may call this to gain one card that costs less than the card the other player gained per each empty Supply pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 07, 2019, 03:13:30 am

Get your entries in - this is the definitive 24 hour warning.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 07, 2019, 07:32:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/2n3vFvx.jpg)

Quote

Colossus
Types: Treasure
Cost: $5
$4, +1 Buy. When you play this, each other player discards any number of Action, Curse, and Victory cards revealed for +1VP each.

Big payload.  Others can discard the least or most useful cards in their deck for VP.  Use it after players trashed their Victory and when they're still going to get another turn.  Your own petard.

---

Quote from: Gubump on September 29, 2019, 02:30:14 pm

Quote

Shaman
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +1 Action. +$1 per Totem on your Tavern mat.

Quote

Totem
Types: Reserve
Cost: $5
This is gained onto your Tavern mat (instead of your discard pile).

---

When another player gains a Province, you may call a Totem for +4VP.

I think Shaman looks like trouble. I wonder how often gaining 5 Pigs will ever be counterbalanced by the strength of Totem and the eventual strength of your 5 Pigs turning into super Conspirators. I think players will need to have a strong Workshop variant to ever justify gaining so many Shaman cards. I mean, buying 5 Shaman sounds like a good way to lose the game. Buying 0 Shaman in multiplayer to other players buying 3/2 or 2/2/1 is probably going to also lose you the game.

Quote from: mail-mi on October 01, 2019, 12:11:13 am

Countryside
Types: Victory, Reaction
Cost: $5
2VP

---

When another played buys a Victory card, you may trash this from your hand for +1 Card, +4VP.

I think any reaction with such a gulf in power between its trigger and its miss will be inevitably frustrating.  All you're hoping for when buying this is to randomly draw it on a turn when another player buys a Victory card.  A smaller version (such as $4 for 2VP trashing for +2VP) would probably be more fun.

Quote from: King Leon on October 05, 2019, 06:09:07 am

Quote

Brothel
Type: Action
Cost: $4
+$2, +1 Buy. Trash a card from the supply. Each other player who has not Lust takes Lust.

Quote

Lust
Type: State
During your turns, cards cost $1 more. When you gain a Victory card, return this and each other player gains +1VP.

I like this one best, but I agree with naitchman that both halves of this are too powerful.
Brothel provides a lot of random pile control by trashing the Supply and giving a +Buy while being attached to an incredibly punishing Attack.
Lust doesn't merely harm 1 buy, but every single buy until you spend one on a Victory card. The presence of Brothel as written may as well increase the cost of all cards by $1 forever, frankly.

I'd make Brothel cost $6 and remove the +1 Buy from it.
If you really want Brothel to cost $4, I'd remove the +1 Buy and the "Trash a card from the Supply" effects and make Lust return itself in response to any non-Action gain. Forcing the VP out of players by giving them Lust and then forcing a Silver or Curse onto them could be neat.
You might also consider some way to dodge Lust, like revealing a Victory card or some such.  That way Lust will not be virtually always up whenever Brothel is relevant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 07, 2019, 10:56:20 pm

Updated Entry:
NOTE: This was edited after the contest to use a picture that Kudasai kindly found for me

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/0iw43sgr.png)

Quote

Stowaway - $5
Action - Reserve
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
Choose one: +1 Card +1 Action;
 or +$1 per card on your Tavern Mat.
-
When another player gains a card, you may call this to gain a cheaper card per empty Supply pile.

I rephrased this, using cheaper I think makes it more clear, as well. When I said less than and they "per empty Supply pile" it made it seem like if there's 2 empty supply piles it has to cost less. But cheaper is more clear. And it actually is more align with the rest of Dominion. Dismantle says cheaper.

 I also weakened the +$ bonus by making you choose. I realized it was a little too powerful to give both cantrip and potentially a really good payload on play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 08, 2019, 05:24:01 am

Banker

I really like the on play effect. It's usually (but not strictly) better than Mine, but that card needs a bit of a boost anyway. Not sure why it needs to be limited to trashing Treasures - giving up an Action for a Gold (usually) would be an interesting choice. The reaction is good for tiebreaking while being fairly benign, and it's a meaningful choice between that and the play effect in the endgame.

Duelling Witch

The reaction  is a decent idea and I can imagine it being a fun "not so fast!" when supply piles empty. I also like how you tried to make the two halves work well together.
Generally in games with cursers, there's already enough pressure for everyone to buy a curser, and this card just exaggerates it. Attacks that are also moats can also end up being a bit too swingy.
Additionally "top of your discard pile" isn't really a thing in Dominion - if it's going to be on a card it should really justify keeping a tightly ordered discard pile in a game where that largely doesn't matter, and I think the new errata make it matter even less. Gaining the curse to hand simplifies things a little bit.
+1 Buy also doesn't seem like enough of an on play benefit to me to get around looking like Sea Hag (for what it's worth, Skulk is on my Dominion Online banlist).

Mirage Island
This is a very interesting card. I like the way it can turn bad hands into good hands which really mitigates the luck based aspects of the card. Even without other Victory cards in hand it's a good play on the Distant Lands concept.

Persecutor
This will lead to very quick games, which could be dominated by early game luck. I feel like there'd be ways to make this concept more interesting (eg you not being able to buy the cards you put your Exiled token on, or other limitations).

Repurpose
May need some wording changes to prevent the lose track/don't move rule from preventing other players from gaining the card they just bought. If that's what you intended, I don't really like the idea of you not getting what you paid for.

 In general however I like how this enables desperate endgame plays. My first thought was that it was a bit weak for $6 but it can be used like Crop Rotation on your estates, trash curses/ruins and as an endgame tool so maybe it's fine there. I think it would be cleaner if it triggered on opponents gaining Victory cards to fix the wording challenges and not trigger quite as often (which can be a bit annoying online).

Jetty

A weaker Wharf is still a very strong card and would likely be well bought even without the Fleet effect, which makes the card less interesting for me. When it changes the outcome, I can imagine the mood being more "you happened to have a Jetty in play at the time" than "Well played, buying Jetties and managing them". There may be a top that could make the bottom work, perhaps one involving deck control, but not the card as is.

Royal Demesne
The card is strong enough that you'd want to build an engine with these anyway (or maybe even BM), and then you can end up getting a lot of bonus points around the endgame without much strategy involved. Not a bad choice for an effect, although I would change the threshold so that there'd be ways to get around the Demesne. This card could be good as part of a split pile or with a weaker on play or higher cost.

Shaman/Totem
Shaman does nothing for you until you get to the Totems, so there's quite a risk there (and counter-play may be to ignore the pile and get the person aiming for totems wasting time). The "reverse distant lands" effect is strong enough that the player buying Shamans doesn't have an overwhelming advantage once the Totem pile gets revealed; all players would be going for them.

Bargainer
Nice and simple. The fact it can trigger on any players turn is nice. It encourages players to win with smaller cards, but keeps provinces in the picture, which I think is cool. Sometimes I think it's a bit strong for $4 but the fact it doesn't help you gain a more powerful (a bit like Devil's Workshop).

Young Artisan
A nice simple $2. Unfortunately the games where it would shine in the endgame are also the games where "don't buy a province" counterplay could neuter it. Still it looks like a lot of fun. I wonder if it would even be ok gaining $5 cards, since it won't activate too many times per game.

Blockade
I can see this one being a lot of fun. Ambassador shenanigans don't bother me much. This will work especially well in games with potential for 3 pile endings - and it will teach players to plan for them or even strategise from the beginning about bringing them on instead of them just being something that "happens" as the game progresses. Unfortunately I don't think it fits the brief particularly well as it doesn't give players strategy around the endgame. Still it's a fantastic idea that I'd love to play with.

Countryside
Similar to Mirage Island, but a bit more straightforward. A Green card that you actually want in your hand as the game is wrapping up. I think you'd generally want this over Duchy unless you're reasonably sure it's your last shuffle, which is similar ground covered by Distant Lands.

Abomination
Cards with the type Curse really do need some clarification around what happens in games with Cursers, especially when they're very cheap cards. It isn't an easy decision to decide when to get rid of this with the +buy so you're on to something. I think this concept would be served better by a higher stakes card costing more.

Royal Pardon
I had to think about this one for quite a bit. A powerful "oneshot" that can resurrect itself and keep the game going. Not sure it needs to be both a Reserve and a Reaction. Tracking may be an issue with naming cards (but it's unlikely to be a frequent occurrence). It really could be a simpler card. Would be interested in playtesting.

Armorsmith / Overcrowded Village

Didn't see the 2 entries and I'd written up Armorsmith so you get a double write up.

The main effect of Armorsmith, which is actually quite strong and useful on play, would be to discourage Province buying. You'd almost always take the Armorsmith (even in BM games). There'd be some interesting strategy around it (since Armorsmith itself would be a reasonably good buy), but not for the player gaining the Armorsmiths. The Armorsmith pile basically modifies the Province pile. Actually quite interesting.

Overcrowded Village on the other hand is not a great card on play. You would prefer almost any other source of +Actions. This card instead encourages players to get in earlier on the Provinces to discourage other players from taking the bonus VP. Buy early provinces instead of engine building - unless Overcrowded Village is the only source of +Actions, then buying the Province helps other players build their engine. Again, interesting.

Both cards create interesting game dynamics, but they don't really make other players active participants in the endgame so much as modify the way provinces are valued in that game.

Con Man
Cards that unconditionally give out Copper have issues well discussed on this forum, but this gets around them by letting you put Coppers back (including on your own turns). It's a bit too much of an auto-buy in terms of being able to junk other players and thin your own deck (like Ambassador), but there are some situations that are interesting with the reaction (eg one player returning their estates when another player is greening).

Eavesdropper
I like it more than Smugglers. It still encourages players to use less powerful cards to get Provinces or pursue different strategies, which is interesting, and has less luck and is easier to track.

I think a better way to nerf the card would be to allow the player gaining the first copy of the card earlier access to it (optional top decking or gaining to hand). Setting up a bunch of these that would trigger a game winning Duchy run (if your opponent buys a Duchy) is actually quite an interesting situation to me.

Brothel/Lust
I think it's just a bit too strong all around (really not sure why it needs a "salt the earth" effect), but I like the idea of a persistent negative effect that sits there until you do something, and "buy a victory card" is an interesting one strategically. I think it would be worth playtesting a bunch of different effects for the state and have the card itself be simple.

Landlord
This card just seems like one nerf after another. I think more about what this card can't do than what it can. At the very least the estate gain should be optional.

Colossus
Too good for other players I think. In games without trashing you'd never buy this, and even in games with trashing I would want to hang on to my Estates so they could continuously generate VP. In games with cursing, I can see players just choosing the curser over the Colossus. Just making it apply to Action cards may be the most interesting.

Stowaway It can be very strong like City in situations where City is strong, but largely I see it functioning like a Duchy you want early game. The more the game progresses (and the more you want an actual Duchy), the stronger the on play effect is. However you won't get to claim the Duchies if they aren't in the supply - which makes Duchy Dancing all the more fun. It might be a bit slow and I think I preferred the stronger version, but it's a great design.

Winner - Mirage Island by Aquila
Runner Up - Stowaway by anordinaryman

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 08, 2019, 08:01:04 am

Oh nice, thanks NoMoreFun! I found this quite a tricky challenge, the design space looked quite small, so nice choice.

Contest #47: an Event that uses an Artifact.

This feels like a wide space of opportunity to me. You have lots of ways to go, so find something that really shines. If you want to use one of the official Artifacts...I will judge it based on games with the official card it's attached to also included, which I can't say will go too well as the functionality of that original card is interfered with. Basically, go for something new.

Expected closing time: October 15th 9am forum time. I'll try to get judging up by then.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 08, 2019, 08:56:57 am

Congrats Aquila!!

Also, thank you spineflu and scolapasta for the feedback on rephrasing the card...I hope it’s clearer now! I apologize for not being to find an image ( My google skills aren’t high) if anyone has one off-hand, I’d appreciate it greatly!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 08, 2019, 10:15:35 am

(https://i.imgur.com/0cH1vZj.png)       (https://i.imgur.com/NRIKcTO.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on October 08, 2019, 11:12:49 am

Quote from: segura on October 08, 2019, 10:15:35 am

(https://i.imgur.com/6d6pyHB.png)       (https://i.imgur.com/NRIKcTO.png)

So does Supervision take effect on next turn’s  buy phase?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 08, 2019, 01:21:30 pm

Quote from: hypercube on January 06, 2019, 08:17:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wMHMTxR.png) (https://i.imgur.com/1a9fQrp.png)

This was the first thing I thought of when I read the contest. I hope hypercube comes back/tweaks this design. Its pretty neat.

---

I made a Lookout style sifter/trasher and a weird miniature anti-junker/trasher for the artifact.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d9cc278f3d62e75f51b0064/1200x783/d881106b27557943283e77706a36505e/image.png)

Quote

Surveil • $2 • Event
+1 Buy. Reveal the top card of your deck; trash it, discard it, or put it back. If you have trashed 3 or more cards this turn, take the Beacon and put your deck into your discard pile.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d9cc278f3d62e75f51b0064/1200x783/34b57e24c00d4aa9eb7e374808259532/image.png)

Quote

Beacon • Artifact
When you would shuffle, you may look through and trash a card from your discard pile before shuffling. Play with your deck face-up.

rulebook errata: when you lose Beacon, flip your deck over - what card is on top will change. When you shuffle, you still do that face-down/so you can't see what cards are where.

• synergies: Mystic, Wishing Well, on-trash benefits that have to line up with an external trasher (Cultist, Feodum, Overgrown Estate, Rats).
• antisynergies: top-decking cards on the turn you lose the Beacon; topdeck attacks like Swindler, Knights, Jester (because your opponents will see whether it's "worth it" to hit you with it). Chancellor effect on Surveil can cause you to miss Travellers.

I uh also did the art on these - its spray paint and sheet metal - and it wasn't the reason i picked them from my list of potential cardlike things, just a fun coincidence.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 08, 2019, 02:19:58 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on October 08, 2019, 11:12:49 am

Quote from: segura on October 08, 2019, 10:15:35 am

(https://i.imgur.com/6d6pyHB.png)       (https://i.imgur.com/NRIKcTO.png)

So does Supervision take effect on next turn’s  buy phase?

Yes, once you buy stuff, the start of the Buy phase is over.
It could be too conservative but I did not want to make it too easy to just discard a Mill or whatever to grab whatever VPs are on Sandals.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 08, 2019, 02:29:20 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 08, 2019, 08:56:57 am

Congrats Aquila!!

Also, thank you spineflu and scolapasta for the feedback on rephrasing the card...I hope it’s clearer now! I apologize for not being to find an image ( My google skills aren’t high) if anyone has one off-hand, I’d appreciate it greatly!

I have one that could work. I'll send it to you later!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 08, 2019, 09:39:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OcQ69vm.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/6pBO2I9.png)

Quote

Redecorator
Action - $4
Trash a card from your hand. Gain and play an Action or Treasure card costing exactly $1 more. If the gained card costs $5 or more, take the Ladder.

Quote

Ladder
Artifact
The first time you trash a card on your turns, gain and play a cheaper Action or Treasure card from the Trash.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on October 08, 2019, 10:47:34 pm

Imgur won't let me resize the image unless I make the card a public post
I guess I don't need privacy for my Dominion fan cards but then the "make post public" button bugs out like 50% of the time
Anyone else hitting this?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 08, 2019, 10:53:27 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on October 08, 2019, 10:49:37 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jDCiqypm.png)

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 08, 2019, 09:39:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OcQ69vm.png)

Quote from: Aquila on October 08, 2019, 08:01:04 am

Event that uses an Artifact.

Also, popsofctown, the name Hideout is already taken.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on October 08, 2019, 11:03:07 pm

Oy

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on October 09, 2019, 01:48:25 am

Quote from: popsofctown on October 08, 2019, 10:47:34 pm

Imgur won't let me resize the image unless I make the card a public post
I guess I don't need privacy for my Dominion fan cards but then the "make post public" button bugs out like 50% of the time
Anyone else hitting this?

Say [ img width=250 ] [ /img ] without the spaces as your image tags and it will post in a normal size. (I use 500 for landscape cards)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on October 09, 2019, 10:58:03 am

(https://i.imgur.com/6DNQfsL.png)(https://i.imgur.com/9vsazHc.png)

Not sure about the cost, but here's my entry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 09, 2019, 11:50:02 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on October 09, 2019, 10:58:03 am

(https://i.imgur.com/6DNQfsL.png)(https://i.imgur.com/9vsazHc.png)

Not sure about the cost, but here's my entry.

Mining is definitely undercosted. In the opening it effectively turns a 3/4 into a 4/4 + trash 2 Estates. It also allows you to trash Gold from play into Province with the money that Gold gave you, which is probably pretty degenerate. I'd suggest a price of at least $5, but I suspect it might be better off even higher than that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on October 09, 2019, 11:50:35 am

(https://i.imgur.com/d5R16EV.png) (https://i.imgur.com/1Lq89mY.png)

Revolution
$4 - Event
Gain a Ruins and a card costing up to $5.
Take the Guillotine.

Guillotine
Artifact
At the beginning of your turn, trash a card from your hand.
If it's an Action card, +1VP.

--
Yes, you can buy several Revolutions in one turn.
The cost is chosen to reduce the 5-2 advantage.
I am not sure if the Event should have an extra type Looter.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on October 09, 2019, 11:54:14 am

Five-year plan
cost $3 - Event
+1 Buy
Take Communism.

Communism
Artifact
This turn, put two cards onto your deck in any order when you discard them from play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 09, 2019, 01:08:39 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 09, 2019, 11:50:02 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on October 09, 2019, 10:58:03 am

(https://i.imgur.com/6DNQfsL.png)(https://i.imgur.com/9vsazHc.png)

Not sure about the cost, but here's my entry.

Mining is definitely undercosted. In the opening it effectively turns a 3/4 into a 4/4 + trash 2 Estates. It also allows you to trash Gold from play into Province with the money that Gold gave you, which is probably pretty degenerate. I'd suggest a price of at least $5, but I suspect it might be better off even higher than that.

I mean Mining is a Remodel+ whenever you want it, which means it should at least cost $4 (and probably have a drawback if it's that cheap). You could probably get away with a $5 cost if you change Pick to be non-optional.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on October 09, 2019, 01:20:31 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 09, 2019, 01:08:39 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 09, 2019, 11:50:02 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on October 09, 2019, 10:58:03 am

(https://i.imgur.com/6DNQfsL.png)(https://i.imgur.com/9vsazHc.png)

Not sure about the cost, but here's my entry.

Mining is definitely undercosted. In the opening it effectively turns a 3/4 into a 4/4 + trash 2 Estates. It also allows you to trash Gold from play into Province with the money that Gold gave you, which is probably pretty degenerate. I'd suggest a price of at least $5, but I suspect it might be better off even higher than that.

I mean Mining is a Remodel+ whenever you want it, which means it should at least cost $4 (and probably have a drawback if it's that cheap). You could probably get away with a $5 cost if you change Pick to be non-optional.

One thing to consider with Artifacts that say "When you trash a card", gain X benefit, is that this would apply to cards trashed by Lurker. Maybe it's fine to have that combo, but you could also avoid it with phrasing like "When you trash a card not from Supply".

(I prefer that to something more specific like "When you trash a card from your hand", so it covers cards trashed by Bonfire, Lookout, or Attacks like Knight and Giant)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on October 09, 2019, 01:53:38 pm

Reconnoitre (Event) [$5]

If you gained a Victory card this turn, take the Compass. Otherwise, +1VP and trash a card from the Supply.


Compass (Artifact)

At the start of your turn, you may discard up to two cards from your hand. If you do, +1 Card per card discarded.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on October 09, 2019, 03:11:16 pm

EDIT: Each player has its own trophy token. Also changed the effect of Floating trophy.

Subscribe (Event, $5)
Gain an Action costing up to $4. Move your Trophy token to its supply pile. (when it's the third time you play a card from its pile during your turns, take the Floating Trophy.)

Floating Trophy (Artifact)
At the start of your Buy phase, +1 VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on October 09, 2019, 05:12:14 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on October 09, 2019, 01:20:31 pm

One thing to consider with Artifacts that say "When you trash a card", gain X benefit, is that this would apply to cards trashed by Lurker. Maybe it's fine to have that combo, but you could also avoid it with phrasing like "When you trash a card not from Supply".

Alternatively, "when you trash one of your cards".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 09, 2019, 05:49:35 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zFjdWI3.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/MDJQGss.jpg)

Quote Warfare Types: Event Cost: $3 Take the Holy Land. Trash a Victory card with the lowest cost in coins from the Supply.

Quote Holy Land Types: Artifact When you gain a Victory card, each other player may trash a card costing at least $3 from their hand. If they do, they draw a card. Otherwise, they gain a Curse.

Fight over the Holy Land. Warfare trashes Victory cards from the Supply so that
1) You can buy Estates more easily to leverage the Holy Land while emptying Supply piles to threaten a 3-pile.
2) It prevents the objective of the game from ever turning into "fight over the Holy Land forever."
Other players have the option to trash a valuable card or gain a Curse so that postponing a 3-pile is possible (or other times when losing a card is better than gaining a Curse).

I don't know if I like it, but that might be my anti-expansion-mixing bias. Maybe I'm also a little upset with myself considering Holy Land was a pretty cool Artifact pubby made a bit ago (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805287#msg805287). Maybe because of similarities between this and Salt the Earth. EDIT: Maybe because it feels like a modification of segura's Parade (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805040#msg805040) (which I realized shortly after posting).
Anyone else have any thoughts?

History:
Holy Land originally didn't draw a card when another player trashed a card.

---

Quote from: segura on October 08, 2019, 02:19:58 pm

Quote Supervision Types: Event Cost: $0 +1 Buy. At the start of your Buy phase, you may discard a card with two or more types to take the Sandals.

Quote Sandals Types: Artifact At the end of your Buy phase, choose one: Put 1VP here; or take the VP from this.

...
It could be too conservative but I did not want to make it too easy to just discard a Mill or whatever to grab whatever VPs are on Sandals.

This would function virtually identically and much smoother if Supervision occurred when you bought it and Sandals triggered at the start of your turn. I bet Sandals will never pop in 3-player games (without Outpost or Mission): The chance of 2 players missing in a row when Sandals has 2+VP on it (which will be around turn 7(!), unless the board is so bad it is better to lose your turn 1/2 buy on turn 3/4 to get Sandals) is just about 0%. Honestly, Sandals giving 0.5VP per turn--less really because it is uncertain--is probably too little. Even 1VP might be too little.

Quote from: spineflu on October 08, 2019, 01:21:30 pm

Quote Surveil Types: Event Cost: $4 +1 Buy. Reveal the top three cards of your deck. You may trash or discard any number of them, then put the rest back in any order. If you have trashed three or more cards this turn, take the Beacon and put your deck into your discard pile.

Quote Beacon Types: Artifact When you would shuffle, you may look through and trash a card from your discard pile before shuffling. Play with your deck face-up.

Beacon is really cool, though I can think of plenty of players who will mistake their deck and discard pile.
Surveil is ridiculous though. $4 trashes 4 Coppers\Estates on turn 1. Surveil should probably not trash so many cards so freely as it makes Beacon's trashing less notable.

Quote from: Doom_Shark on October 09, 2019, 10:58:03 am

Quote Mining Types: Event Cost: $3 Trash a card from your hand or in play, then gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. If you trashed a card costing $4 or more, take the Pick.

Quote Pick Types: Artifact When you trash a card, you may gain a card costing less than it.

Quote from: spineflu on October 09, 2019, 01:08:39 pm

I mean Mining is a Remodel+ whenever you want it, which means it should at least cost $4 (and probably have a drawback if it's that cheap). You could probably get away with a $5 cost if you change Pick to be non-optional.

I disagree with spineflu's argument because buying an Event is so incomparable to buying, drawing, and playing an Action.
I do agree with the sentiment though. Trashing Estates in the opening is freakishly powerful. Trashing Golds from play for Provinces is a super-powerful end-game tool as well. Mining could probably cost $6 as written and would still be pretty strong. It you want it to cost less, I'd remove the ability to trash from hand.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on October 09, 2019, 03:11:16 pm

Quote Subscribe Types: Event Cost: $5 Gain an Action costing up to $4. Move the Trophy token to its supply pile. (when it's the third time you play a card from its pile during your turns, take the Floating Trophy.)

Quote Floating Trophy Types: Artifact When the game ends, +3 VP.

Assuming there is only one Trophy token (which seems to be the case, considering its wording), I don't think there is any incentive to buy the first Subscribe. I can benefit just as much from it without having to buy it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 09, 2019, 06:28:27 pm

Liturgy
Event - $3
+2 Buys
Take the Confessional

Confessional
Artifact
When you gain a card, you may trash a card from your hand

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 09, 2019, 08:22:38 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 09, 2019, 05:49:35 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zFjdWI3.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/BZuzmmS.jpg)

Quote Warfare Types: Event Cost: $3 Take the Holy Land. Trash a Victory card with the lowest cost in coins from the Supply.

Quote Holy Land Types: Artifact When you gain a Victory card, each other player may trash a card costing at least $3 from their hand. If they don't they gain a Curse.

Fight over the Holy Land. Warfare trashes Victory cards from the Supply so that
1) You can buy Estates more easily to leverage the Holy Land while emptying Supply piles to threaten a 3-pile.
2) It prevents the objective of the game from ever turning into "fight over the Holy Land forever."
Other players have the option to trash a valuable card or gain a Curse so that postponing a 3-pile is possible (or other times when losing a card is better than gaining a Curse).

I don't know if I like it, but that might be my anti-expansion-mixing bias. Maybe I'm also a little upset with myself considering Holy Land was a pretty cool Artifact pubby made a bit ago (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805287#msg805287). Maybe because of similarities between this and Salt the Earth.
Anyone else have any thoughts?

Warfare is kinda interesting in a Vineyards game. You could make it Real Weird for shelters games by having you put your hand into play without playing it and have it trash the Victory card with the lowest cost in coins from in play or the supply - also lets you do strange things with "trash a card in play"/"for each card you've got in play" when you've got +Buys.

Holy Land, man that's a stupid powerful curser. Maybe change it to when you Buy a victory card? and / or lower the trash-a-card-dodge cost to $2 (because presumably someone's gonna try to spam Estates to curse everyone else and then they can dodge it when someone takes it away from them)?  That has the additional effect of making Going For It maybe not a wise thing to do right away - other players can trash their starting Estates to dodge.

I think they're workable as-is. I think if I were to redesign them, I'd have Warfare trash a Curse from the Supply as well (weakens Holy Land's Cursing ability), and (and maybe this is last contest in my brain still) make Holy Land something like "When you gain a Victory card, choose one: each other player may trash a card costing at least $2 from their hand, and if they don't, they gain a Curse; or return a Curse from your hand to the Supply." so you can choose whether you wanna fight or grow. Thematic! but maybe not in a good way.

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 09, 2019, 05:49:35 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 08, 2019, 01:21:30 pm

Quote Surveil Types: Event Cost: $4 +1 Buy. Reveal the top three cards of your deck. You may trash or discard any number of them, then put the rest back in any order. If you have trashed three or more cards this turn, take the Beacon and put your deck into your discard pile.

Quote Beacon Types: Artifact When you would shuffle, you may look through and trash a card from your discard pile before shuffling. Play with your deck face-up.

Beacon is really cool, though I can think of plenty of players who will mistake their deck and discard pile.
Surveil is ridiculous though. $4 trashes 4 Coppers\Estates on turn 1. Surveil should probably not trash so many cards so freely as it makes Beacon's trashing less notable.

That's a good point. I think drop the price tag on Surveil to $2 and have it peek at one is probably a saner solution - no turn one Beacons then (unless Cursed Gold? but thats fine, I guess, since everyone can do it. Feature, not bug.). I'll update that tomorrow when I'm back at my Real Computer.

I guess I didn't really think about whether people would mix up their deck/discard - I keep them on opposite sides of the "in play" zone, with Deck on the left all the time. Looks like that's how the Playmats for the base game laid things out too. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Play_Mat) I suppose I could include Banes style "Deck" and "Discard" cards but that kinda seems like overkill. I think they'll figure it out.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 09, 2019, 06:28:27 pm

Liturgy
Event - $3
+2 Buys
Take the Confessional

Confessional
Artifact
When you gain a card, you may trash a card from your hand

Hell Yeah More Buy-splitters

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on October 09, 2019, 11:43:29 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/VMsjscf.png) (https://i.imgur.com/cQgs0uC.png)

Gives you an extra buy and special access to cards. Like many cards in Dominion, it may or may not be worth it depending on the kingdom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 09, 2019, 11:50:07 pm

Okay, let's try this again:

(https://i.imgur.com/AROj70e.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/yZ5rObW.png)

Quote

Accolade
Event - Looter - $0
If there is no Debt on this, take 6 Debt, putting it on this (it remains yours.) If you did, take the Sword and gain a Ruins and 2 cards each costing up to $4.

Quote

Sword
Artifact
At the start of your turn, play an Action card from your hand (or reveal you can't), then trash it and gain one costing exactly $1 more.

Clarification: When you buy Accolade, you take 6 Debt and put it on the Accolade card. The Debt is still yours and you still have to pay it off before you can buy anything else. I did this so that you can insure that you can use the Sword's effect at least once before somebody else snatches it away.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 10, 2019, 09:42:30 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 09, 2019, 08:22:38 pm

Holy Land, man that's a stupid powerful curser.

I don't think so. I posted, and since played a bit, Parade (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805040#msg805040) here, a $4 Project which curses when you gain green. It is good but not overpowered. Holy Land is significantly weaker as you gotta fight for it and as you have an out-option.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 10, 2019, 09:44:35 am

Quote from: naitchman on October 09, 2019, 11:43:29 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/VMsjscf.png) (https://i.imgur.com/cQgs0uC.png)

Gives you an extra buy and special access to cards. Like many cards in Dominion, it may or may not be worth it depending on the kingdom.

I like the flexibility of this. Sometimes you only want the Travelling Fair style extra Buy, sometimes you want temporary access to a good $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 10, 2019, 11:43:15 am

Quote from: segura on October 10, 2019, 09:42:30 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 09, 2019, 08:22:38 pm

Holy Land, man that's a stupid powerful curser.

I don't think so. I posted, and since played a bit, Parade (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805040#msg805040) here, a $4 Project which curses when you gain green. It is good but not overpowered. Holy Land is significantly weaker as you gotta fight for it and as you have an out-option.

I feel that, but I still think it's too powerful. Parade is *way* underpriced for my taste, and also is kinda apples-to-oranges - the cursing goes both ways there, where everyone can buy it. With Warfare/Holy Land, if it's a no-plus-buys game, someone's gotta make the call on whether to Warfare or work on their Actual Deck, and meanwhile the Holy Land player gets to curse them and/or break their components. The first person to get there in a no-plus-buys game is in a way better position to hand out punishment.

Speaking of outs: There's not much junk in the $3+ range (Potions after the potion cards have run out/you have enough of them? Swindler in midgame? Silvers in a Colony game after you've started to get Platina? Masterpiece?), so your out is to trash a component or economy, and that's likely going to hurt more than a Curse will; meanwhile going for green is something you want to do anyways, so while there may be some hubris going for it too early, it's more of a rich-get-richer vibe that I'm getting from it (same rationale DXV used when he said he'd change Margrave to lose the +Buy).


ALSO
That dodge gets Painful in a game with cost reduction.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on October 10, 2019, 02:21:13 pm

Quote from: segura on October 10, 2019, 09:44:35 am

Quote from: naitchman on October 09, 2019, 11:43:29 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/VMsjscf.png) (https://i.imgur.com/cQgs0uC.png)

Gives you an extra buy and special access to cards. Like many cards in Dominion, it may or may not be worth it depending on the kingdom.

I like the flexibility of this. Sometimes you only want the Travelling Fair style extra Buy, sometimes you want temporary access to a good $4.

Yep. It's got a little bit of a parallel to Traveling Fair. Both give you an extra buy for $2, both give you another ability that benefits from that +buy, and both don't give you a benefit (besides the +buy) past the 1st time you buy it each turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 10, 2019, 05:16:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Ct79eM2.png?1)(https://i.imgur.com/vTZng2y.png?1)

For Excavation, you trash two treasures of any value that you have in play. Since the event cost's $3, it's easy to trash some Coppers but you may have to trash something more valuable due to hand limits. You also have to trash a Victory card that isn't an Estate, so a Duchy purchase is needed beforehand.

The Holy Relic's ability only applies to the standard bonuses written on a card. If the card lacks these bonuses, nothing happens. For example, Village would become +2 Cards, +3 Actions while Throne Room would remain unaffected.

Edit: added majiponi's edit suggestion to Excavation
Edit 2: altered Holy Relic based on input from naitchman, GendoIkari, and spineflu.
Edit 3: altered Excavation based on input from LibraryAdventurer
Edit 4: altered text of Holy Relic based on input from GendoIkari
Edit 5: altered text of Holy Relic after reading Kudasai's suggestion

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on October 10, 2019, 05:31:54 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 10, 2019, 05:16:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/l2WTA0V.png?1)(https://i.imgur.com/BUk3rrd.png?1)

For Excavation, you trash two treasures of any value that you have in play. Since the event cost's $5, you may get lucky and trash Coppers but you may have to trash something more valuable. You also have to trash a Victory card that isn't an Estate.

The Holy Relic's ability only applies to the standard bonuses a card gives. If the card lacks these bonuses, nothing happens. For example, Village would become +2 Cards, +3 Actions while Throne Room would remain unaffected.

You should say "If you did trash 3 cards, ..."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 10, 2019, 05:37:28 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 09, 2019, 05:49:35 pm

This would function virtually identically and much smoother if Supervision occurred when you bought it

Yeah, you are totally right. I screwed up the timing badly and changed Supervision.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on October 10, 2019, 06:24:54 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 10, 2019, 05:16:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/GrYMP23.png?1)(https://i.imgur.com/BUk3rrd.png?1)

For Excavation, you trash two treasures of any value that you have in play. Since the event cost's $5, you may get lucky and trash Coppers but you may have to trash something more valuable. You also have to trash a Victory card that isn't an Estate.

The Holy Relic's ability only applies to the standard bonuses a card gives. If the card lacks these bonuses, nothing happens. For example, Village would become +2 Cards, +3 Actions while Throne Room would remain unaffected.

Edit: added majiponi's edit suggestion to Excavation

Despite how  difficult it is to get holy relic, I still feel it's too powerful. It's pretty much mandatory to fight for it (there are so many cards with vanilla bonuses, it's pretty much guaranteed to have some in the kingdom). And if I take a couple turns to take it away from my opponent (which can easily happen if I can't get a duchy/alt vp in my hand) he has a huge advantage. Even weak cards like pearl diver suddenly become better than a lost city, lab becomes lost city+ lab, and peddler becomes vilage+ lab+ conspirator. That can be game changing even for only 1 turn let alone the whole game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 10, 2019, 07:17:05 pm

I don’t think the wording on Holy Relic works like you want. As worded; I see no reason why all of those bonuses wouldn’t be added to every card. 0+1=1; so a card that gives 0 cards would give 1 instead. I don’t know a good wording that does what you want though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 10, 2019, 08:00:59 pm

Holy Relic would be plenty strong if it only affected one of the +Vanilla bonuses (compare/contrast with Vanilla bonus adventures tokens); Also then you'd be able to rephrase to something that'd fit on the card but not turn 0 -> 1.
Also Gendo's right, as worded, it turns everything into a peddler+.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on October 10, 2019, 08:26:53 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 10, 2019, 08:00:59 pm

Holy Relic would be plenty strong if it only affected one of the +Vanilla bonuses (compare/contrast with Vanilla bonus adventures tokens); Also then you'd be able to rephrase to something that'd fit on the card but not turn 0 -> 1.
Also Gendo's right, as worded, it turns everything into a peddler+.

Make that a Market w/ _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}+

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 10, 2019, 09:46:14 pm

Did Donald X ever come up with a term for those basic type of effects?

Here is an edit based on the above. I changed the wording, and limited it to the first action played per turn.

(https://i.imgur.com/EXWk9vD.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 11, 2019, 01:33:56 am

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 10, 2019, 09:46:14 pm

Here is an edit based on the above. I changed the wording, and limited it to the first action played per turn.

(https://i.imgur.com/EXWk9vD.png?1)

I like this version. And now that Holy Relic isn't OP, you can tweak excavation to make it a little easier to get.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 11, 2019, 08:05:26 am

Now it seems like a less elegant version of a Throne Room thingy. I also feel that it is more expensive / hard to get / swingy than Citadel.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 11, 2019, 10:12:43 am

[/quote]
I like this version. And now that Holy Relic isn't OP, you can tweak excavation to make it a little easier to get.
[/quote]

Agreed on the suggestion. Dropped the price to $3 since you have to purchase a Duchy to pull it off.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ct79eM2.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 11, 2019, 10:28:30 am

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 10, 2019, 09:46:14 pm

Did Donald X ever come up with a term for those basic type of effects?

Here is an edit based on the above. I changed the wording, and limited it to the first action played per turn.

(https://i.imgur.com/EXWk9vD.png?1)

Instead of "once per turn on the first action you play"... try "the first time you play an action card during each of your turns" a la Citadel (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Citadel).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on October 11, 2019, 12:11:24 pm

Decompose
Event, $2
+1 Buy, take the Compost

Compost
Artifact
At the end of your turn (after drawing), trash a card from your hand.

It's like a lesser Cathedral, so the cost is lower and it doesn't take a buy. You're guaranteed to get at least one use out of it before it gets stolen, as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 11, 2019, 10:50:52 pm

@ Kudasai

The Curio illustration is by Tom Garden https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2010/11/2/one-step-forward-two-steps-back/ (https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2010/11/2/one-step-forward-two-steps-back/)

Interesting set. It's a tempting gamble, but it's utility is very much tied to the Kingdom cards available. At least it favors engines over BM.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 11, 2019, 11:13:38 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 11, 2019, 10:28:30 am

Instead of "once per turn on the first action you play"... try "the first time you play an action card during each of your turns" a la Citadel (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Citadel).
[/quote]

Done. Thank you

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 12, 2019, 08:09:47 am

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 11, 2019, 10:50:52 pm

At least it favors engines over BM.

Not necessarily. When you engine already works and draws nearly the entire deck, Unleash is like a Villa, you buy it for the Action and not the cards.
In a money deck with a source of extra Buys on the other hand, this can potentially yield 2 Provinces or more.

I think that this very strategic flexibility, the universality of the two cards, is the main asset of Kudasai's design.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: DEGwer on October 12, 2019, 08:24:51 am

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/GX2qlyg.png)(https://i.imgur.com/ryKXJqm.png)

I am new to here and enjoyed making images!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 12, 2019, 09:01:36 am

I don't see the situation in which the "finish your Buy phase" clause of Land Surveying ever matters. If you want to buy other stuff, you can always do it before you buy the Event.
I also don't see the appeal of the degenerate equilibrium this leads to. We know this from other cards like Treasurer that fight over an Artifact (and arguably cards like Relic which make everybody waste resources such that the game becomes slower). But these are Kingdom cards that do not automatically lead to boring to-and-fro.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 12, 2019, 09:09:41 am

Quote from: segura on October 12, 2019, 09:01:36 am

I don't see the situation in which the "finish your Buy phase" clause of Land Surveying ever matters. If you want to buy other stuff, you can always do it before you buy the Event.
I also don't see the appeal of the degenerate equilibrium this leads to. We know this from other cards like Treasurer that fight over an Artifact (and arguably cards like Relic which make everybody waste resources such that the game becomes slower). But these are Kingdom cards that do not automatically lead to boring to-and-fro.

I think the intent of the "finish your buy phase" is to prevent you from buying two Land Surveying in one turn, but the event should just say  "Once per turn".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 12, 2019, 09:21:20 am

By "gain a Victory" do you mean "gain any Victory card, including a Province or Colony"? That's way too powerful.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: DEGwer on October 12, 2019, 09:45:11 am

Quote from: Gazbag on October 12, 2019, 09:09:41 am

Quote from: segura on October 12, 2019, 09:01:36 am

I don't see the situation in which the "finish your Buy phase" clause of Land Surveying ever matters. If you want to buy other stuff, you can always do it before you buy the Event.
I also don't see the appeal of the degenerate equilibrium this leads to. We know this from other cards like Treasurer that fight over an Artifact (and arguably cards like Relic which make everybody waste resources such that the game becomes slower). But these are Kingdom cards that do not automatically lead to boring to-and-fro.

I think the intent of the "finish your buy phase" is to prevent you from buying two Land Surveying in one turn, but the event should just say  "Once per turn".

I wanted to prevent from buying three or more Land Surveying without having Map, but I don't want to prevent it with having Map: Opponent should take Map to prevent megaturn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: DEGwer on October 12, 2019, 09:49:32 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 12, 2019, 09:21:20 am

By "gain a Victory" do you mean "gain any Victory card, including a Province or Colony"? That's way too powerful.

Gaining a Colony might be too strong, but at least gaining a Province is not so strong. It might be better to make "Gain a Province", but sometimes we want a Vineyard (or a Duchy) instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on October 12, 2019, 10:35:25 am

Modified my entry.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on October 09, 2019, 03:11:16 pm

EDIT: Each player has its own trophy token. Also changed the effect of Floating trophy.

Subscribe (Event, $5)
Gain an Action costing up to $4. Move your Trophy token to its supply pile. (when it's the third time you play a card from its pile during your turns, take the Floating Trophy.)

Floating Trophy (Artifact)
At the start of your Buy phase, +1 VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 13, 2019, 09:14:34 am

Quote from: DEGwer on October 12, 2019, 09:49:32 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 12, 2019, 09:21:20 am

By "gain a Victory" do you mean "gain any Victory card, including a Province or Colony"? That's way too powerful.

Gaining a Colony might be too strong, but at least gaining a Province is not so strong. It might be better to make "Gain a Province", but sometimes we want a Vineyard (or a Duchy) instead.

In a game without Colonies, gaining a Province is every bit as strong as gaining a Colony. Probably stronger, in fact, because without Colonies it's the only pile that can end the game on its own.

Think about how this card would actually play out in a game. Imagine that you're the only one who's buying this. You're then guaranteed a Province every time you hit $4, which is trivial even with a 4-card hand. You'd need no deck-building beyond buying Silvers and maybe a trasher. If you absolutely have to buy a card to have even a hope of winning, that's a sign that it's too strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on October 13, 2019, 06:12:15 pm

Quote from: DEGwer on October 12, 2019, 08:24:51 am

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/GX2qlyg.png)(https://i.imgur.com/ryKXJqm.png)

I am new to here and enjoyed making images!

You should say "Otherwise" instead of "If you have..."

When you buy this, you resolve its effect from top to bottom. So, first, you take the Map and end your Buy phase. But you STILL HAVE TO resolve the rest. When you resolve the second sentence, you HAVE the Map, so you gain a Victory even if this is your first Buy of Land Surveying.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 14, 2019, 09:10:53 am

Nothing unusual about my schedule as far as I know, so: 24 hours remain until judgment.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on October 14, 2019, 03:31:20 pm

OK, so I haven't had an entry in a several weeks, but I came up with what I hope is an interesting idea for an artifact yesterday, so let's try it out:

Official entry version: (after updates)

(https://i.imgur.com/GFf1QG1.png)(https://i.imgur.com/pzcenfm.png)

---

Original version - kept here for posterity:

Cauldron - Artifact
During your turns, Potions are  "Choose one: +1 Potion or +$3."

Infusion - Event - $P
+1 Buy. Trash a card from play. If it costs $4 or more, take the Cauldron. Play any number of treasures.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 14, 2019, 04:32:05 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on October 14, 2019, 03:31:20 pm

OK, so I haven't had an entry in a several weeks, but I came up with what I hope is an interesting idea for an artifact yesterday, so let's try it out*:

* I'll tweak/add card names / images later, but wanted to get something in sooner in case anyone has any feedback (in particular the Event, as I just tried to think of something quickly that could go with the Artifact)

Cauldron - Artifact
During your turns, Potions are  "Choose one: +1 Potion or +$3."

? - Event - $P
+1 Buy. Trash a card from play. If it costs $4 or more, take the Cauldron. Play any number of treasures.

"Brew"? "Concoct"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 14, 2019, 08:10:00 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 10, 2019, 09:46:14 pm

Did Donald X ever come up with a term for those basic type of effects?

Here is an edit based on the above. I changed the wording, and limited it to the first action played per turn.

(https://i.imgur.com/EXWk9vD.png?1)

The manual refers to them as "Special terms". Although this is not very common knowledge and no card references these in this way. You could add a note though to make it clear:

"The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, add 1 to each special term (+1 Card, +1 Buy, etc) in its text."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on October 14, 2019, 08:51:56 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 14, 2019, 04:32:05 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on October 14, 2019, 03:31:20 pm

OK, so I haven't had an entry in a several weeks, but I came up with what I hope is an interesting idea for an artifact yesterday, so let's try it out*:

* I'll tweak/add card names / images later, but wanted to get something in sooner in case anyone has any feedback (in particular the Event, as I just tried to think of something quickly that could go with the Artifact)

Cauldron - Artifact
During your turns, Potions are  "Choose one: +1 Potion or +$3."

? - Event - $P
+1 Buy. Trash a card from play. If it costs $4 or more, take the Cauldron. Play any number of treasures.

"Brew"? "Concoct"?

Thanks, those ideas lead me to "Infusion". (Names still might change...)

And I have some images now, with fixed wording for Infusion:

(https://i.imgur.com/uW5Iy7P.png)(https://i.imgur.com/pzcenfm.png)

I'd still be curious to hear any feedback, especially on Infusion.

General idea is that Cauldron turns your potions into (optional) $4 Golds. To get the Cauldron you'll have to trash a $4 (or more) card, and look at that, you can trash the potion you just played. Of course, then you lose one of those newly minted $4 golds. Infusion also allows you to play any potions you still have in head that very turn to use on the extra buy it gives you.

I do think Infusion still needs something. I'm considering:

• +$1 for each $2 the trashed card costs. (this would mean with three Potions, you could get a Province)
• +1 Action and return to your Action phase (I could then remove the "play any number of treasures").

Ideally I'd like to make Infusion worth buying even if you already have the Cauldron.

Any thoughts on these or other suggestions for Infusion? (or any better way to phrase Cauldron?)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on October 14, 2019, 11:43:20 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on October 14, 2019, 08:51:56 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 14, 2019, 04:32:05 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on October 14, 2019, 03:31:20 pm

OK, so I haven't had an entry in a several weeks, but I came up with what I hope is an interesting idea for an artifact yesterday, so let's try it out*:

* I'll tweak/add card names / images later, but wanted to get something in sooner in case anyone has any feedback (in particular the Event, as I just tried to think of something quickly that could go with the Artifact)

Cauldron - Artifact
During your turns, Potions are  "Choose one: +1 Potion or +$3."

? - Event - $P
+1 Buy. Trash a card from play. If it costs $4 or more, take the Cauldron. Play any number of treasures.

"Brew"? "Concoct"?

Thanks, those ideas lead me to "Infusion". (Names still might change...)

And I have some images now, with fixed wording for Infusion:

(https://i.imgur.com/uW5Iy7P.png)(https://i.imgur.com/pzcenfm.png)

I'd still be curious to hear any feedback, especially on Infusion.

General idea is that Cauldron turns your potions into (optional) $4 Golds. To get the Cauldron you'll have to trash a $4 (or more) card, and look at that, you can trash the potion you just played. Of course, then you lose one of those newly minted $4 golds. Infusion also allows you to play any potions you still have in head that very turn to use on the extra buy it gives you.

I do think Infusion still needs something. I'm considering:

• +$1 for each $2 the trashed card costs. (this would mean with three Potions, you could get a Province)
• +1 Action and return to your Action phase (I could then remove the "play any number of treasures").

Ideally I'd like to make Infusion worth buying even if you already have the Cauldron.

Any thoughts on these or other suggestions for Infusion? (or any better way to phrase Cauldron?)

OK, clearly posted too late to get any feedback before judging, so I'll just go with that first alternative for the contest:

(https://i.imgur.com/GFf1QG1.png)

I'd still be open to feedback, either here, or in my dedicated thread. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19722.0)

I'll update my original post with my official entry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 14, 2019, 11:45:47 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 14, 2019, 08:10:00 pm

The manual refers to them as "Special terms". Although this is not very common knowledge and no card references these in this way. You could add a note though to make it clear:

"The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, add 1 to each special term (+1 Card, +1 Buy, etc) in its text."

Good notice, but agreed, it is not common knowledge nor used. What about this phrasing: "The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, add 1 to each denominated bonus (+ Cards, + Coffers, +$, etc.) in its text."?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 15, 2019, 09:23:44 am

Quote from: segura on October 10, 2019, 09:42:30 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 09, 2019, 08:22:38 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 09, 2019, 05:49:35 pm

Quote Warfare Types: Event Cost: $3 Take the Holy Land. Trash a Victory card with the lowest cost in coins from the Supply.

Quote Holy Land Types: Artifact When you gain a Victory card, each other player may trash a card costing at least $3 from their hand. If they don't they gain a Curse.

Holy Land, man that's a stupid powerful curser.

I don't think so. I posted, and since played a bit, Parade (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg805040#msg805040) here, a $4 Project which curses when you gain green. It is good but not overpowered. Holy Land is significantly weaker as you gotta fight for it and as you have an out-option.

I did think about linking to Parade shortly after I posted Warfare\HolyLand.  I was not very interested in Parade because it seemed like players would typically buy it and then largely forget about it.  That the major consideration of Parade is "How do I deal with the inevitable Curses?", a problem common to any Curser, but this one less interesting because me gaining a (non-Action) Victory card and each other player gaining a Curse is of functionally equal value in terms of tempo and consistency.  Holy Land, being an Artifact controlled by Warfare, is something with which players have to continually interact.

Quote from: spineflu on October 10, 2019, 11:43:15 am

I feel that, but I still think it's too powerful. Parade is *way* underpriced for my taste, and also is kinda apples-to-oranges - the cursing goes both ways there, where everyone can buy it. With Warfare/Holy Land, if it's a no-plus-buys game, someone's gotta make the call on whether to Warfare or work on their Actual Deck, and meanwhile the Holy Land player gets to curse them and/or break their components. The first person to get there in a no-plus-buys game is in a way better position to hand out punishment.

I don't follow your argument here though.  In a 1-buy game, someone can make the call on whether to Warfare or work on their deck, but the Holy Land player is the player who already decided to Warfare.  In a 1-buy game, the Holy Land could give out 2 or 3 Curses if you have a bunch of extra gains, but the other players only need $3 to take the Holy Land from the player who has it and then they'll have to buy it again.  Typically you won't be able to trigger it on the same turn if you have only 1-buy, so other players would have to functionally give you permission to do the Cursing thing.  And that's why Warfare has the Victory-card trashing thing: To ensure stand-offs like that end.

Quote from: spineflu on October 10, 2019, 11:43:15 am

Speaking of outs: There's not much junk in the $3+ range (Potions after the potion cards have run out/you have enough of them? Swindler in midgame? Silvers in a Colony game after you've started to get Platina? Masterpiece?), so your out is to trash a component or economy, and that's likely going to hurt more than a Curse will; meanwhile going for green is something you want to do anyways, so while there may be some hubris going for it too early, it's more of a rich-get-richer vibe that I'm getting from it (same rationale DXV used when he said he'd change Margrave to lose the +Buy).

One of my favorite comments in this regard was in the 2019 Qvist list regarding Soothsayer.

Quote from: xyrix on February 17, 2019, 04:59:03 am

Sometimes there is a huge difference in utility between Gold and Curse and sometimes there isn’t.

So trashing a $3+ card is very rarely good, but it can be better than gaining a Curse.  That's the point: Trashing a $3+ card from hand is not a get-out-of-jail free card, but the bail might sometimes be cheaper than gaining a Curse.  The fact that players don't just trash a $3+ card, but trash it from hand does make it very expensive. I will add a "draw a card" clause to the trashing even though I don't like how small it makes the text.  I think it is better attached to only the trashing.  Players will probably fight over the Holy Land less often if it also gave card draw with its Cursing.
Original post updated.
(https://i.imgur.com/MDJQGss.jpg)

Quote

Holy Land
Types: Artifact
When you gain a Victory card, each other player may trash a card costing at least $3 from their hand. If they do, they draw a card. Otherwise, they gain a Curse.

---

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 09, 2019, 06:28:27 pm

Quote Liturgy Types: Event Cost: $3 +2 Buys. Take the Confessional

Quote Confessional Types: Artifact When you gain a card, you may trash a card from your hand

Uh, turn 1 $3 Buy Confessional to turn 2 Estates into Coppers sounds pretty busted to me.

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 13, 2019, 09:14:34 am

Quote from: DEGwer on October 12, 2019, 08:24:51 am

Quote Land Surveying Types: Event Cost: $4 If you do not have the Map, take it and finish your Buy phase. If you have the Map, gain a Victory.

Quote Map Types: Artifact At the start of Clean-up, put -1 Card token on your deck.

In a game without Colonies, gaining a Province is every bit as strong as gaining a Colony. Probably stronger, in fact, because without Colonies it's the only pile that can end the game on its own.

Think about how this card would actually play out in a game. Imagine that you're the only one who's buying this. You're then guaranteed a Province every time you hit $4, which is trivial even with a 4-card hand. You'd need no deck-building beyond buying Silvers and maybe a trasher. If you absolutely have to buy a card to have even a hope of winning, that's a sign that it's too strong.

I don't agree that gaining a Province for $4 is stronger than gaining a Colony for $4, but it is too strong either way.
The big problem Land Surveying will have is that you cannot allow someone to have it because $12 and 3-Buys turns into 3 Provinces, but buying it doesn't help the game end, so it will be a back-and-forth forever.

Quote from: scolapasta on October 14, 2019, 03:31:20 pm

Quote Infusion Types: Event Cost: $P +1 Buy. Trash a card you have in play for +$1 per $2 it costs (round down). If it costs $4 or more, take the Cauldron. Play any number of treasures.

Quote Cauldron Types: Artifact During your turns, Potions are  "Choose one: +1 Potion or +$3."

Infusion turns Potions into a worse Forager-alike with the Cauldron as its weird bonus.  You can buy Potions to Infuse Coppers out of your deck and then Infuse a Potion (or other $4+ card) to take the Cauldron and repurpose your Potions into cheap Golds.  Worse case scenario, this becomes a Strategy in itself, where you buy a bunch of Potions to use as cheap Golds.  In such a case, all you can really do if continually Infusion whenever anyone takes the Cauldron from you, in order to keep playing your Potions as Gold.  This is possibly a losing battle because you have to trash $4+ cards, so I imagine this is particularly weak in the average case.

---

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 17, 2019, 11:45:27 am

I thought I had clearly articulated that before, but I guess not. Perhaps we disagree on this -- do you like to add many different concepts onto a card at once? If so, I'll definitely stop providing you feedback to pare your cards down to one focused concept.

I appreciate feedback, whether or not I agree with it.  I highlighted the particular text because you were continuously suggesting cards with built-in hiccups have those hiccups removed (like Coffee Roast's "how do I re-gain my trashed Potion?"), but you now claim to have suggested +1 Buy in spite of thinking that would make the card overpowered: So I am not sure what we're talking about now.
I agree that cards can be focused, and more often than not should be, though that is not necessarily a golden standard.  Per card we would be looking at individual particular criticisms, but I don't like flooding the replies with disagreements.  Thank you for the time you've put into your posts.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 15, 2019, 09:55:16 am

(https://i.imgur.com/2siQmsC.png)(https://i.imgur.com/zoc74W1.png)

I think that an Event Artifact needs to give you an immediate benefit, like the Flag, so players don't pass the Artifact back and forth without it doing anything. Fishing is a little like Travelling Fair, but you only get to topdeck one card, but you can topdeck a card that was in your discard pile already or one you just bought. If you keep the Rod you get a discount on $4s too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 15, 2019, 09:56:25 am

Quote from: scolapasta on October 14, 2019, 03:31:20 pm

OK, so I haven't had an entry in a several weeks, but I came up with what I hope is an interesting idea for an artifact yesterday, so let's try it out:

Official entry version: (after updates)

(https://i.imgur.com/GFf1QG1.png)(https://i.imgur.com/pzcenfm.png)

---

Original version - kept here for posterity:

Cauldron - Artifact
During your turns, Potions are  "Choose one: +1 Potion or +$3."

Infusion - Event - $P
+1 Buy. Trash a card from play. If it costs $4 or more, take the Cauldron. Play any number of treasures.

I like this a lot. Situations in which you want more than 1 Potion are rare and I actually think that this a key reason for why Alchemy is held in low esteem (although nobody ever explicitly says this). Gee, if there is a new resource, we want to see more than just 1 copy per player and game!
Your cards fix that issue, now you potentially want several Potions per game. It is also versatile, you can get the Potion as overpriced (but who cares about that if there are no other ways to thin) non-terminal trasher as well as source of payload. And it becomes really funky when there are Kingdom cards with Potion cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #47: Results
Post by: Aquila on October 15, 2019, 10:12:44 am

Contest #47 Results

I find there are two ways to go with Artifacts, make them easy to take to make competitiveness or hard to take for a way to get ahead. Events I thought could be a great way to make both happen, being there ready to buy whenever the time is right. In either case, the main asset of Artifacts in Dominion is player interaction, so in judging your entries I've tried to keep in mind how a strategic player will feel as the Artifact moves around.

Supervision/Sandals (segura)
Event, $0 +1 Buy, discard card with two or more types to take the Sandals.
Artifact, at the end of your Buy phase, choose add 1VP to this or take the VP.
This creates competition and either risky or carefully measured decisions based on tracking what your opponents have when on whether to take or add to the VP pool. Play things safe and get 1VP every other turn and that does you out of several turns of potential 1VP adds. Or go super safe and never choose to add any VP; that would be a bad scenario, which would probably happen when everyone builds to take the Sandals every turn. The cost to take and keep the Sandals is not using a two+ -typed card, an elegant way to ensure it's something useful most of the time; though of course, there won't always be a two type card in full random games so you have to make it happen, so this loses a little cleanness there. Needs playtesting with Tunnel and Faithful Hound too.
Overall: Make adding a VP mandatory when there are none. That someone's investment on one turn can yield no reward (Tunnel exempt) will probably make this have a limited audience; I for one don't like that.

Surveil/Beacon (spineflu)
Event, $2 +1 Buy, look at the top card of your deck, discard, trash or put it back, if you've trashed 3 or more cards this turn take Beacon and put deck into discard pile.
Artifact, when you shuffle you may first trash a card from your discard pile. Play with your deck face up.
The change to 1 card look $2 cost makes things so much better, not just for balance but now the Beacon has a lot more to do with trashing, both with the shuffle trash and knowing the top card of the deck. The idea of an Artifact that flips the deck over had crossed my mind; one could look through their whole deck (whilst the other players should just see the top), bottom card becomes top, but you'd have to ensure they can't look during shuffling so they can't get the order just right. Taking it calls for a fun twist on trashing, losing several cards during the same turn whilst still producing $2 so Chapel and Count aren't so relevant.
Overall: this makes trashing fun. The concept is great, but I wonder if the Beacon couldn't be changed to be an always relevant effect. If you trash to take it the shuffle trashing might not be needed, and sometimes knowing your deck makes no real difference outside of peace of mind.

Mining/Pick (Doom_Shark)
Event, $3, trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it, if you trashed a card costing $4 or more take Pick.
Artifact, when you trash a card you may gain a card costing less than it.
Mining is similarly powerful in the opening; it does work against the normally superior 5/2 starts, but losing 2 Estates will be a much more marked difference in deck power. Later on you can change Golds to Provinces and pick up some Duchies with the Pick, and this will really be the main reason to compete for the Pick. Winning by pile driving is another reason.
Overall: it's neat how the Pick comes in late when one would want it, and the competition for it to pick up Duchies is quite interesting, but the starting game will be pretty automatic.

Revolution/Guillotine (grep)
Event, $4, gain a card costing up to $5 and a Ruins, take Guillotine.
Artifact, at the start of your turn trash a card from your hand, if an Action +1VP.
This looks like one influential Event. You get a $5 and a Cathedral for $4, with a Ruins to get around. The early game could be really affected by this, particularly when the other trashing in the game is weak; yet the more one competes for it the more they undo their trashing with the Ruins. When there is other trashing to handle the starting deck, the Guillotine can be a setback later if it misses the Ruins with nothing else bad to trash. Buying late Revolutions will be about Duchies and cashing Actions in for VP, generally creating an easier Duchy dance at $4 cost but risking big loss of deck functionality.
Overall: every positive to getting this is set back by something negative, so there's great strategic depth here. Every negative is self-imposed, so things feel fine when they go wrong. Player interactivity is created by the threat of one thinning and possibly gaining VP. It's a contender.

Five Year Plan/Communism (majiponi)
Event, $3 +1 Buy, take Communism.
Artifact, this turn put 2 of your cards onto your deck in any order when you discard them from play.
Save $3 to Scheme 2 things. It'll be something to consider building around for late game, or possibly going for Duchy instead of province if it will potentially turn things round. It may be competed for during mid game building with spare $3s or to save a dud next turn.
Overall: simple and sound, and it creates some competitiveness. $2 cost might be better, but maybe this is better balanced. A contender.

Reconnoitre/Compass (mandioca15)
Event, $5, if you gained a Victory this turn take the Compass. Otherwise +1VP and trash a card from the Supply.
Artifact, at the start of your turn discard up to 2 cards then draw that many.
It's either Salt the Earth for any Supply pile or take a cantrip cellar-for-2-cards start of turn effect. The former probably is worth $5 for being a 'better' version of the Event. Compass is certainly handy to have and worth competing for, but for $5 and a gained Victory? Letting the Victory gain determine which option makes good sense, the greening can be sifted through with Compass, so the Salt the Earth bit bumping up the $ cost I'd say is holding competing for the Compass back.
Overall: change the no-Victory-gain option to something else that's cheaper, and I think it'll be a great design.

Subscribe/Floating Trophy (grrgrrgrr)
Event, $5, gain a card costing up to $4, move your Trophy token to its pile (when you play a third card from its pile during your turns, take Floating Trophy).
Artifact, at the start of your Buy phase +1VP.
Set up a way to take the Trophy, and if you run an engine playing the 3 cards each turn get 1 VP each turn. It'll be a race to start with to see who can get the first VP, who can get ahead, which can be fun (and whilst Treasures can take the Trophy Actions are way better). Later on shuffle randomness might become a factor affecting the swing.
Overall: a little too affected by chance to be consistently fun.

Warfare/Holy Land (Fragasnap)
Event, $3, take Holy Land, trash Victory card with lowest cost in $ from the Supply.
Artifact, when you gain a Victory each other player may trash a card costing at least $3 from their hand, if they do they draw a card, if they don't they gain Curse.
Pay $3 to have a means of attacking that bypasses Moat variants. It's a pure 'attack' like Sea Hag where the self advantage seems to be about 3-pile strategies, or a way to possibly get further ahead with your Provinces and Duchies with a spare $3 mid-late game. How often will the possibility of getting nothing out of the $3 investment deter someone from trying it? Unless they want to imply a forced $3 to someone else anyway.
Overall: the way this enhances rush strategies might be nice, though such games seem to be rare. And I guess this really adds player interactivity, but...it's hard for a softie like me to imagine enjoying this.

Liturgy/Confessional (NoMoreFun)
Event, $3 +2 Buys, take Confessional.
Artifact, when you gain a card you may trash a card from your hand.
One of two consecutive 'buy splitting' entries. This one is more expensive and looks to Monastery some cards away. Well, it would do if it could trash Coppers in play, and because it can't Confessional won't be immediately useful very often.
Overall: I would prefer to put Travelling Fair in the game than this, the $1 extra cost doesn't pay for anything much more than the top-decking effect. Put the Copper trashing on and it would make quite a lot more competitiveness.

Flattery/Signet Ring (naitchman)
Event, $2 +2 Buys, take Signet Ring.
Artifact, Forbidden cards are in the Supply your turns, setup add an extra kingdom pile costing $4 or more, this is the Forbidden pile and isn't in the Supply.
This buy splitter grants access to an extra pile if nobody else uses it before the buyer's next turn, or lets them securely buy from the pile straight away for $2 more cost. How impactful this is depends on what the extra pile is.
Overall: it's quite nice, but the Forbidden pile ideally needs to be selected manually rather than randomised to ensure it's meaningful. Only a minor setback, just if one of the players sets up the game they get a head start having to think of the game's interactions to choose a good pile.

Accolade/Sword (Commodore Chuckles)
Event, $0, if there's no debt on this take <6> and put it on this (it remains yours), and take Sword, gain a Ruins and 2 cards costing up to $4.
Artifact, at the start of your turn play an Action from your hand, trash it and gain one costing exactly $1 more.
After someone buys this nobody else can until the debt has all been paid. Whilst this ensures one use of the sword for the buyer, it also gives them a way to keep possession of it; this could make for a potentially strong building and piling strategy. Player 1 could open with this twice for 4 $4s, 2 Ruins and 5 debt, so also a fair amount of building to $5s or Ruins trashing his Sword could do, and nobody else could get a lookin. Hard to tell for sure if this would be a sure-win scenario, but it seems a bit strong in some cases.
Overall: Sword might be a nice Artifact (if players are OK with the interaction with Durations that Procession recently lost), but Accolade I'm convinced needs work.

Excavation/Holy Relic (ShadowHawk)
Event, $3, Trash 2 Treasures you have in play and a Victory costing $3 or more from your hand. If you did, take the Holy Relic.
Artifact, when you first play an Action on each of your turns, add 1 to each denominative bonus (+1 Card, +1 Action, etc) in its text.
Excavation needs a way to give proof of a Victory costing $3+ in hand, because it's not optional. You could add '(or reveal you can't)' to as it is, but do you want this to be able to work like Bonfire for Treasures, trashing them from play without having the Victory in hand? Or, do you reveal the Victory from hand first, then trash it and the 2 Treasures, then, 'if you trashed 3 cards, take the Holy Relic'? The latter feels more appropriate to me. I also take the Relic to add 1 to every bonus in the ability of the card above and below the line, and every scaling amount of '+1 per…' (Vault, Goons VP) to be doubled. There are some scary combos here (Groundskeeper, City Quarter, Goons), but this adds impetus to buy a Victory to get the Relic.
Overall: if I have the intent of the cards right, this is a good way to get a powerful Artifact, gaining a useless card to trash on a later turn (Artisan exempt) or forcing opponents to lose late greens if they are to have it. But I have to figuratively deduct points for the way Excavation currently is.

Decompose/Compost (hhelibebcnofnena)
Event, $2 +1 Buy, take Compost.
Artifact, at the end of your turn (after drawing) trash a card from your hand.
One use of Cathedral may not quite be worth $2, considering the one turn hold scenario, but you're also buying it off someone else so there's competitive value. If someone's left with the Compost, they probably have to have good things in hand to trash to it later, so there's always that risk for them to consider.
Overall: simple and effective, consistent yet balanced and interesting competitiveness in almost every game. It's a contender.

Unleash/Curio (Kudasai)
Event, $0, once per game: +1 Action +1 Buy, put deck and discard pile into hand, return to Action phase, take Curio.
Artifact, when you gain a card take your -$1 token.
You referenced my Exhibit and Emblem, that's nice! I guess that's where the idea for this contest came from, thinking of them. Still, there's a responsibility to get this judgment right…
Players look to unleash a mega turn when they've collected sufficient payload, mainly money and Buys. Or it could be used in an engine when the turn enablers (drawing, villages) fail to show up in the starting hand, so it has nice usability. The Curio, though, I feel would be better taking 1 debt rather than the -$1 token, as buying several cards has no setback as is (you don't produce any $ after you play all your Treasures). It would make timing this more significant, and might better keep a rather boring pure money and Buys strategy in check.
Overall: it's nearly something great, just that a big buildup strategy to a grand final turn or close to final turn will mean Curio doesn't hurt much.

Land Surveying/Map (DEGwer)
Event, $4, if you don't have the Map take it, if you have the Map gain a Victory.
Artifact, at the start of Clean-up put your -1 Card token on your deck.
Firstly, welcome to the forum and the contest. You definitely want to swap the 'if you have the Map' and 'if you don't' bits around, otherwise Provinces and Colonies cost $4. As majiponi explained, you'll always have the Map when you get to that instruction. Put the other way round, Provinces still cost $8 but with 2 Buys, but so will Colonies, so it's not good in them being there when buys are available; this will always be the mandatory strategy, and that will take much of the interest of that game away. If you added 'once per turn' usage that would take a lot of the craziness away, but might still be too intense an effect to not contest, even on a late Duchy turn.
Overall: reducing the cost of Victory cards is a very volatile effect, so doing it by a whole $4 or $7 without the effort of 4 or 7 Bridges in play is imbalanced without question. Hope this isn't too hard hitting for your first time, but here's a design principle to remember in future.

Infusion/Cauldron (scolapasta)
Event, P +1 Buy, trash a card you have in play for + $1 per $2 it costs, if it costs $4 or more take Cauldron, then play any number of Treasures from your hand.
Artifact, Potions have "Choose one: +P; or + $3".
The Potion cost of the Event is a great idea in this contest, you play the Potion repeatedly to compete for the Artifact. But how many Potions does one get so that they should turn into Gold for deck payload? And seeing that this won't be a permanent feature, why not just get Golds? The half-Salvager bit would work for removing the Potion you used to pay for this, if the Cauldron didn't imply you should try to keep it; otherwise it has a few niche uses.
Overall: I feel Cauldron should do something else, but Infusion is good.

Fishing/Fishing Rod (Gazbag)
Event, $3, If you have Fishing Rod gain a card costing up to $4, otherwise +1 Buy and take Fishing Rod.
Artifact, at the end of your Buy phase put a card from your discard pile onto your deck.
This squeaked into judging by about 2 minutes! I'll be brief so this contest closes nearer to on time. For top-decking things for next turn I prefer Five Year Plan/Communism as it's more definite in its impact, you'd need $3 + a bought card to guarantee a good card in the discard pile.
Overall: not bad, but lacks a little excitement.

Shortlist: Surveil, Revolution, Five Year Plan, Flattery, Decompose, Unleash.

This is really close between 3 to me, so I've put 2 runners-up.

Winner: Decompose/Compost by hhelibebcnofnena.
Runners-up: Revolution/Guillotine by grep, Five Year Plan/Communism by majiponi.

Whilst Decompose might look rather un-innovative next to Cathedral, it's doing everything I perceive an Artifact should do in making interaction and strategic decisions based on what opponents are doing. Choosing not to buy it off someone to potentially harm them gave it the edge over Five Year Plan, whilst Revolution has great strategic depth but could pressure pile emptying if Guillotine is heavily contested.
Congrats, and nice to see people who haven't hosted before up there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 15, 2019, 10:29:14 am

Quote from: Aquila on October 15, 2019, 10:12:44 am

Decompose/Compost (hhelibebcnofnena)
Event, $2 +1 Buy, take Compost.
Artifact, at the end of your turn (after drawing) trash a card from your hand.
One use of Cathedral may not quite be worth $2, considering the one turn hold scenario, but you're also buying it off someone else so there's competitive value. If someone's left with the Compost, they probably have to have good things in hand to trash to it later, so there's always that risk for them to consider.
Overall: simple and effective, consistent yet balanced and interesting competitiveness in almost every game. It's a contender.

I don't wanna diss the design, it is simple and neat. But it is also often forced (T1 to trash before the shuffle unless you open CCCCC) and thus unlikely to be balanced:

Quote

Hovel is the only one that changed. Originally it was an action you could trash by discarding your hand. It turned out that trashing it turn 1-2 usually seemed like the correct play, even if you drew it with four Coppers.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4318.0

This isn't surprising, if you are often willing to pay $3 (Bonfire) in the opening to get rid of 2 Coppers (and actually decrease the economic power of your deck for the next shuffle!) you are likely to often pay $2 to get rid of a dead card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 15, 2019, 11:41:01 am

Congrats hheli, grep, majiponi!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 15, 2019, 02:12:40 pm

@Aquila: Curio was essentially supposed to be "All cards cost $1 more", but I decided to implement that using the -$1 token. I can see now that they do not function the same. Oops! Thanks for the feedback!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 15, 2019, 02:15:23 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 14, 2019, 11:45:47 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 14, 2019, 08:10:00 pm

The manual refers to them as "Special terms". Although this is not very common knowledge and no card references these in this way. You could add a note though to make it clear:

"The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, add 1 to each special term (+1 Card, +1 Buy, etc) in its text."

Good notice, but agreed, it is not common knowledge nor used. What about this phrasing: "The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, add 1 to each denominated bonus (+ Cards, + Coffers, +$, etc.) in its text."?

I'm partial to Special terms since the manual uses it. However, denominated terms is more intuitive. Either way  I think the parentheses on both make it clear what's going on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 15, 2019, 02:39:37 pm

Congrats to hhelibebcnofnena, grep and majiponi  :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on October 15, 2019, 07:55:46 pm

Wow, thanks, Aquila!

I have to say, I didn't consider what would happen if I won this. I don't think I'm going to have time for judging in the next week, unfortunately, as October is one of my busiest months. I will have to pass this chance up. Aquila, who would you say is the second place for this week?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 16, 2019, 03:40:33 am

Five Year Plan feels the safer design, so I'll say majiponi is second.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on October 16, 2019, 11:55:08 am

So, I can post an mission and judge, right? Then...

CONTEST #48 DESIGN A COMMAND
Donald added a new type, Command, to Band of Misfits, Overlord, and Captain to avoid infinite loops. Let's enjoy this new card type. You can create either a card or a card-shaped thing. Your card should have "Command" in its text or its type, with a good reason to have that word.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on October 16, 2019, 02:13:34 pm

Well now, this seems like the perfect opportunity to revisit my first ever challenge card, Student. By changing to work as a command card, and some other (hopefully, clever) changes, I've made it simpler and (again, hopefully) more interesting.

(https://i.imgur.com/foFhG5z.png)

Notes:
• I debated whether it should just go up $ in cost, instead of debt. But I really liked the the thematic idea of going into debt for the more "advanced" courses. I also think it differentiates it some from Band of Misfits, when there aren't any Actions that cost more than 5 (i.e. you can still buy this when you have $4, even if it puts you into some debt).
• I made the setting aside optional, so you could gain Students without setting aside a new "course" / raising cost.
• It wouldn't make sense to ever gain just one of these, but I think that's fine. That's true of BOM too.
• One aspect of the design was to have a BoM variant that (eventually) let you play cards that cost more than $5.

Feedback welcome!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 16, 2019, 02:25:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/C1M4FYb.png?1)

Ideally, for theme, there would be a University mat or a Schola mat, but this game has enough mats as it is so I left it for the Tavern mat.

The Scholasticus collects research and students in the forms of Actions and then directs them. You need at least 2 of them to make the Command portion work.

Edit one: majiponi noted the loop issue. Corrected card language to specify non-Command Actions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on October 16, 2019, 02:33:58 pm

majiponi: Wow! That's exactly the challenge I was thinking about!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on October 16, 2019, 03:15:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OeRJN60.png)

Here's my submission this week. Falconer is one of my first fan cards from a few years back, initially using the old Band of Misfits wording; I've updated it now to reflect the new Command errata. Essentially it's a cheap Band of Misfits that lets you either play a simple cantrip or the worst Action card in your opponent's hand. Sometimes what they reveal doesn't work, but that's okay, there's always the cantrip consolation prize. But other times, their worst card is still a winner. Late game, it can become a tactical puzzle for your opponent on which of their good actions to reveal that will help you the least.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 03:21:10 pm

Oh nice. This was my first alternate for last week anyway.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/fa4825a863218f3dd5adc598a022afc8/image.png)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/2c7a17812df0a947562b85e9a0742b4b/image.png)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/89ed61bcb3248e3d6186f0eb8631f620/image.png)

Quote

Practise • $3 • Event
Once per turn: Play a non-Command, non-Duration Action card whose cost is $4 or less from the Supply, leaving it there. Take the Bow or the Rosin.

Quote

Bow • Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play a card whose cost is $5 or less instead.
(Follow all other restrictions on Practise)

Quote

Rosin • Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play the selected card twice, leaving it in the Supply.
(Follow all other restrictions on Practise)

---

Notes:

• Bow lets you bypass Potion costs. This is intentional. cleaner to get rid of this and fix the "play debt cards for free"
• Rosin probably doesn't need the reminder text Rosin now actually uses its reminder text
• Practise now can't play Duration cards, because the tracking on that would be a mess.
• Practise is now once per turn - no infinite money with a Woodcutter + Rosin

Big shout-out to Fragasnap for making me think what an event/command card would look like, and to Gubump + scolapasta for reminding me that: Hey Debt exists and you should probably fix this, and to majiponi for pointing out loop potential exists.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on October 16, 2019, 03:30:06 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on October 16, 2019, 02:13:34 pm

Well now, this seems like the perfect opportunity to revisit my first ever challenge card, Student. By changing to work as a command card, and some other (hopefully, clever) changes, I've made it simpler and (again, hopefully) more interesting.

(https://i.imgur.com/uYkaz5p.png)

Notes:
• I debated whether it should just go up $ in cost, instead of debt. But I really liked the the thematic idea of going into debt for the more "advanced" courses. I also think it differentiates it some from Band of Misfits, when there aren't any Actions that cost more than 5 (i.e. you can still buy this when you have $4, even if it puts you into some debt).
• I made the setting aside optional, so you could gain Students without setting aside a new "course" / raising cost.
• It wouldn't make sense to ever gain just one of these, but I think that's fine. That's true of BOM too.

Feedback welcome!

Actually, besides any general feedback, one very specific question I have, is the phrasing of "costing less than than the $ + debt this costs" clear?

The idea is that this first lets you gain a card, costing $3, then $4, then $5, etc. (i.e. you add up the $ and the debt and the cards you gain can only cost $)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 03:46:26 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on October 16, 2019, 03:30:06 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on October 16, 2019, 02:13:34 pm

Well now, this seems like the perfect opportunity to revisit my first ever challenge card, Student. By changing to work as a command card, and some other (hopefully, clever) changes, I've made it simpler and (again, hopefully) more interesting.

(https://i.imgur.com/uYkaz5p.png)

Notes:
• I debated whether it should just go up $ in cost, instead of debt. But I really liked the the thematic idea of going into debt for the more "advanced" courses. I also think it differentiates it some from Band of Misfits, when there aren't any Actions that cost more than 5 (i.e. you can still buy this when you have $4, even if it puts you into some debt).
• I made the setting aside optional, so you could gain Students without setting aside a new "course" / raising cost.
• It wouldn't make sense to ever gain just one of these, but I think that's fine. That's true of BOM too.

Feedback welcome!

Actually, besides any general feedback, one very specific question I have, is the phrasing of "costing less than than the $ + debt this costs" clear?

The idea is that this first lets you gain a card, costing $3, then $4, then $5, etc. (i.e. you add up the $ and the debt and the cards you gain can only cost $)

That works to my read; a thing you may want to include is that it should set aside a unique card each time? ie, that card isn't already on the Student mat. Otherwise it's sorta easy to empty the Student + (other cheap card) pile to force a 3-pile ending.

If you need to free up space, you can lose the second line and just have a

or two in there before the cost modification.

---

Also just a sorta general reminder for the thread: be careful making a command card that can play treasures because Scepter didn't get errata'd, which means an infinity loop is possible there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on October 16, 2019, 04:26:58 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 03:46:26 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on October 16, 2019, 03:30:06 pm

Actually, besides any general feedback, one very specific question I have, is the phrasing of "costing less than than the $ + debt this costs" clear?

The idea is that this first lets you gain a card, costing $3, then $4, then $5, etc. (i.e. you add up the $ and the debt and the cards you gain can only cost $)

That works to my read; a thing you may want to include is that it should set aside a unique card each time? ie, that card isn't already on the Student mat. Otherwise it's sorta easy to empty the Student + (other cheap card) pile to force a 3-pile ending.

If you need to free up space, you can lose the second line and just have a

or two in there before the cost modification.

Did something get cut off there? I don't follow that part about losing the 2nd line.

Regardless, is it that easy to empty the Student + 2nd pile? The first student costs $4, the second 4$@1, etc. At that point there aren't many cards that just gain you any Action (since this now has debt). And while you're emptying that 2nd pile, you'd be making the Students even more expensive for actually buying them. The 10th student, assuming you got them all, would cost you $4@9.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 06:43:52 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on October 16, 2019, 04:26:58 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 03:46:26 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on October 16, 2019, 03:30:06 pm

Actually, besides any general feedback, one very specific question I have, is the phrasing of "costing less than than the $ + debt this costs" clear?

The idea is that this first lets you gain a card, costing $3, then $4, then $5, etc. (i.e. you add up the $ and the debt and the cards you gain can only cost $)

That works to my read; a thing you may want to include is that it should set aside a unique card each time? ie, that card isn't already on the Student mat. Otherwise it's sorta easy to empty the Student + (other cheap card) pile to force a 3-pile ending.

If you need to free up space, you can lose the second line and just have a

or two in there before the cost modification.

Did something get cut off there? I don't follow that part about losing the 2nd line.

Regardless, is it that easy to empty the Student + 2nd pile? The first student costs $4, the second 4$@1, etc. At that point there aren't many cards that just gain you any Action (since this now has debt). And while you're emptying that 2nd pile, you'd be making the Students even more expensive for actually buying them. The 10th student, assuming you got them all, would cost you $4@9.

oh no, the VioletCLM/Shard of Honor card generators handle a double-line-break pretty gracefully - they shrink down the line height for the newline's line (i thought literalizing the double newline as

was more graceful than that mouthful of a line).
The only real metric you've gotta hit with Student is $4 on your "buying" turns (and to get through your debt turns ASAP), and that gets even easier if your students are some form of virtual coin + cantrip.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 16, 2019, 08:23:59 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/MsEWT9S.png)

Quote

Charity
Action - Command - $4
Trash a card from your hand. Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $3 more than the trashed card, leaving it there.

Title: Re: Contest #48: Design a Command
Post by: Gubump on October 16, 2019, 09:18:22 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/XrPbCwF.png)

I came up with this one about 3 months ago, but just recently changed it into a Command type. The Command type is present to prevent an infinite loop (play Delegate, play opponent's BoM, play Delegate from Supply, play same BoM, repeat ad infinitum). It also happens to be one of my most playtested fan cards if not the most.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 16, 2019, 09:53:30 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 03:21:10 pm

Notes:

• Bow lets you bypass Potion costs. This is intentional.
• Rosin probably doesn't need the reminder text

Big shout-out to Fragasnap for making me think what an event/command card would look like.

Is it intentional that Bow also lets you bypass Debt costs?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 16, 2019, 10:01:57 pm

This is no longer my entry

Retiree
Action/Command - $2
Trash this to play a non-Command Action costing up to $5 from the supply, leaving it there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 10:04:47 pm

Quote from: Gubump on October 16, 2019, 09:53:30 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 03:21:10 pm

Notes:

• Bow lets you bypass Potion costs. This is intentional.
• Rosin probably doesn't need the reminder text

Big shout-out to Fragasnap for making me think what an event/command card would look like.

Is it intentional that Bow also lets you bypass Debt costs?

Hm. no. That probably shouldn't happen. Although... that's what, Engineer and no others since there's no cost reduction on debt cards? and you can't trash it since it stays there, so you can't get the double-up, so it's just a workshop? That's not the worst. Should probably fix it so it plays nice with everyone elses fan cards though. edit: nope, it's all debt cards that aren't Fortune or Overlord. need to fix it.

maybe "At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play a card whose cost in coins and debt is $5@0 or less instead."? kind of inelegant. I'll sleep on it. Feel free to make suggestions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on October 16, 2019, 10:10:34 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 10:04:47 pm

Quote from: Gubump on October 16, 2019, 09:53:30 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 03:21:10 pm

Notes:

• Bow lets you bypass Potion costs. This is intentional.
• Rosin probably doesn't need the reminder text

Big shout-out to Fragasnap for making me think what an event/command card would look like.

Is it intentional that Bow also lets you bypass Debt costs?

Hm. no. That probably shouldn't happen. Although... that's what, Engineer and no others since there's no cost reduction on debt cards? and you can't trash it since it stays there, so you can't get the double-up, so it's just a workshop? That's not the worst. Should probably fix it so it plays nice with everyone elses fan cards though

maybe "At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play a card whose cost in coins and debt is $5@0 or less instead."? kind of inelegant. I'll sleep on it.

It would affect any Debt Action cards (e.g. City Quarter, Royal Blacksmith) though, no? Since their cost in coins is $0.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 16, 2019, 10:15:09 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 10:04:47 pm

Quote from: Gubump on October 16, 2019, 09:53:30 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 03:21:10 pm

Notes:

• Bow lets you bypass Potion costs. This is intentional.
• Rosin probably doesn't need the reminder text

Big shout-out to Fragasnap for making me think what an event/command card would look like.

Is it intentional that Bow also lets you bypass Debt costs?

Hm. no. That probably shouldn't happen. Although... that's what, Engineer and no others since there's no cost reduction on debt cards? and you can't trash it since it stays there, so you can't get the double-up, so it's just a workshop? That's not the worst. Should probably fix it so it plays nice with everyone elses fan cards though. edit: nope, it's all debt cards that aren't Fortune or Overlord. need to fix it.

maybe "At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play a card whose cost in coins and debt is $5@0 or less instead."? kind of inelegant. I'll sleep on it. Feel free to make suggestions.

Honestly, I would just drop the whole "ignoring-_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)}-costs" functionality. I wouldn't have noticed it if it weren't for your notes, and I'd say it would probably be overpowered to let Practise ignore _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)} costs.

If you insist on allowing Potion-cost cards, though, you could just do "At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play a card costing up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)} instead."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on October 16, 2019, 11:43:38 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 16, 2019, 02:25:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/RPuYtuS.png?1)

Ideally, for theme, there would be a University mat or a Schola mat, but this game has enough mats as it is so I left it for the Tavern mat.

The Scholasticus collects research and students in the forms of Actions and then directs them. You need at least 2 of them to make the Command portion work.

Scholasticus cannot avoid loops.
Put +$1 token on this. Play this to set aside it. Play another, choosing that Scholasticus, choosing it, ...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 17, 2019, 08:38:06 am

(https://i.imgur.com/UYXglKP.jpg)

Quote

General
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $4
Choose one: Trash this and a non-Command, non-Duration Action from the Supply to play that card, leaving it in the trash; or replay up to 2 differently named Actions you played this turn before you played this that are still in play.

One-shot anything, or double-up on the cards you already played (in the way Scepter does, but in the Action phase).  One-shot Forge is probably silly, but everyone can open with it. Can't immediately think of another Action that would be broken as a one-shot in the opening.
Cascading Generals are noted: General 2 can play General 1 and another card, then General 1 plays two Actions you played before it.  Is that too strong do you suppose?  It seems immediately to me that a deck that can consistently rely on that deserves it and it would be really fun regardless of strength, but perhaps I'm underestimating how quickly it will build up and overestimating how much fun it would be.  It's not like a General-centric strategy wouldn't involve other Actions.

History:
Trashes the card it plays in the Supply. It's more thematically violent and reduces the chance of infinites.

---

Quote from: 4est on October 16, 2019, 03:15:36 pm

Falconer
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $3
The player to your left reveals a non-Command Action card from their hand (or reveals they can't). Choose one: +1 Card and +1 Action; or play the revealed card, leaving it there.

Quote from: Gubump on October 16, 2019, 09:18:22 pm

Delegate
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $3
Each other player reveals their hand. Play a revealed non-Command, non-Duration Action, leaving it there. If you couldn't, +2 Cards.

The old "play Actions from another player's hand" trick doesn't work very well because you stop if from working by not buying Actions, so the question is how you general combat a largely Treasure-centered strategy in the design of the card.
4est's Falconer gets around it by making it a cantrip instead of the worst Action in the player to your left's hand.  I think the limitation is huge.  If you play Falconer terminally they can reveal a terminal card the you can't play.  If you play Falconer non-terminally, they reveal a minimally useful non-terminal, again making Falconer of only marginal use.  I think a strong money-centric Strategy will make Falconer a waste of time.
Gubump's Delegate instead turns into a Moat instead of the best Action in any other player's hand.  Hitting anyone's any card means that this scales poorly into multiplayer.  The save of Moat is probably even worse than Falconer's cantrip, so I would likely still run good money against Delegate.
I recommend the catch for not having an Action to play be better than the Action play, honestly.  Me revealing an Action to your Command-card should make your Command card worse.

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 16, 2019, 02:25:43 pm

Scholasticus
Types: Action, Command, Reserve
Cost: $4
Choose one: Place this and an Action card from your hand onto your Tavern mat; or play an Action card that is on your Tavern mat, leaving it there.

---

You may call this when you play another Scholasticus.

You ought to put a "non-Reserve non-Command" clause on both the "Action card" phrases, or the loop majiponi presents exists.
The fact that the call is only to bring back Scholasticus is weird, on top of the pseudo-trashing being really slow. Way slower than Necromancer. I'd rather the calling it be what plays a Tavern Action and then the playing always puts it on your Tavern mat. It would make it much faster to both trash and play a card (after the first one).

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 16, 2019, 08:23:59 pm

Charity
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $3 more than the trashed card, leaving it there.

I love trash-for-benefits.  This can trash Estates to play $5 cards which is nice.  Its ability to trash Coppers is strongly dependent on the quality of $3 Actions that appear: Is that limitation intentional?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 17, 2019, 09:10:45 am

I wonder if I can reuse one of my newest mechanics ideas here...

(https://i.imgur.com/xXAc59h.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Pzl2o6N.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/IaSvObV.jpg)

A $4 that can be a $5 but it weakens the next vanilla Action you play, using a State to take 1 point off a bonus it gives before you resolve it. Taunted/Twice Taunted is a two-sided State that reduces 1 Action per side so Twice Taunted affects the next 2 Actions.
The ways you can get around the setback like with Remodels and draw-to-X might make this too strong overall.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 17, 2019, 10:02:22 am

updated Practise/Bow/Rosin - got rid of the potion/debt mess on Bow, updated the wording on Rosin, changed Practise to not be able to play Durations because that sounds like a mess with tracking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: DEGwer on October 17, 2019, 10:06:03 am

My Entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/PJIQb0u.png?1)


The first play of this will basically be ruined village, but it becomes strong when stacked.
In the second play it can be a Laboratory (Moat), in the third play it can be a Bustling Village (Village), in the fourth play it can be +3 Cards, +1 Action (Smithy), and from the sixth, it can be Goons with +Action! (Although Lost Arts are the easier way)
In first play, Ruined Library can also be used as a cantrip.

Another purpose is providing pseudo-villages in the kingdom with no village. Playing two successors as nothing-Perl Diver works like a Necropolis.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 17, 2019, 10:26:10 am

(https://i.imgur.com/5Fb3L9f.png)

The idea is that it's like a Throne Room, but you can choose a different card for the 2nd play. It might be too flexible and should perhaps require the card to be exactly the same cost as the first card but it can't play copies of itself, which is a pretty substantial downside vs other Thrones. the wording could probably be better too, I'm not the best at wording these cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 17, 2019, 10:38:01 am

Quote from: Gazbag on October 17, 2019, 10:26:10 am

(https://i.imgur.com/uEZgYsI.png)

The idea is that it's like a Throne Room, but you can choose a different card for the 2nd play. It might be too flexible and should perhaps require the card to be exactly the same cost as the first card but it can't play copies of itself, which is a pretty substantial downside vs other Thrones. the wording could probably be better too, I'm not the best at wording these cards.

the way its worded now allows it to play Treasures for the second card; is that intentional?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: DEGwer on October 17, 2019, 10:49:29 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 17, 2019, 08:38:06 am

(https://i.imgur.com/OTN4EK4.jpg)

Quote

General
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $4
Choose one: Trash this to play a non-Command non-Duration Action from the Supply, leaving it there; or play up to 2 differently named Actions you played this turn before you played this that are still in play.

General with +1 Card token will produce very simple infinite loop with Lurker. We can
- Play General1.
-- Draw General2 by effect of +1 Card token.
-- Use a Lurker by General1 and Gain General3 from the trash.
-- Trash General1.
- Play General2.
-- Draw General3 by effect of +1 Card token.
-- Use a Lurker by General2 and Gain General1 from the trash.
-- Trash General2.
...and so on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 17, 2019, 10:55:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 17, 2019, 10:38:01 am

Quote from: Gazbag on October 17, 2019, 10:26:10 am

(https://i.imgur.com/uEZgYsI.png)

The idea is that it's like a Throne Room, but you can choose a different card for the 2nd play. It might be too flexible and should perhaps require the card to be exactly the same cost as the first card but it can't play copies of itself, which is a pretty substantial downside vs other Thrones. the wording could probably be better too, I'm not the best at wording these cards.

the way its worded now allows it to play Treasures for the second card; is that intentional?

Nope, that's a mistake! Thanks for pointing it out, I've fixed it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 17, 2019, 01:25:18 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 17, 2019, 08:38:06 am

Quote from: 4est on October 16, 2019, 03:15:36 pm

Falconer
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $3
The player to your left reveals a non-Command Action card from their hand (or reveals they can't). Choose one: +1 Card and +1 Action; or play the revealed card, leaving it there.

Quote from: Gubump on October 16, 2019, 09:18:22 pm

Delegate
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $3
Each other player reveals their hand. Play a revealed non-Command, non-Duration Action, leaving it there. If you couldn't, +2 Cards.

The old "play Actions from another player's hand" trick doesn't work very well because you stop if from working by not buying Actions, so the question is how you general combat a largely Treasure-centered strategy in the design of the card.
4est's Falconer gets around it by making it a cantrip instead of the worst Action in the player to your left's hand.  I think the limitation is huge.  If you play Falconer terminally they can reveal a terminal card the you can't play.  If you play Falconer non-terminally, they reveal a minimally useful non-terminal, again making Falconer of only marginal use.  I think a strong money-centric Strategy will make Falconer a waste of time.
Gubump's Delegate instead turns into a Moat instead of the best Action in any other player's hand.  Hitting anyone's any card means that this scales poorly into multiplayer.  The save of Moat is probably even worse than Falconer's cantrip, so I would likely still run good money against Delegate.
I recommend the catch for not having an Action to play be better than the Action play, honestly.  Me revealing an Action to your Command-card should make your Command card worse.

I think that people will still buy Action cards just as much as normal even with Delegate/Falconer in the Kingdom (and my experience playtesting Delegate shows that this is true). A key thing that I don't think you're taking into account is that in order to play an opponent's Action with Delegate, you have to have a Delegate in hand while your opponent also has that Action in hand, whereas to play that same Action card, your opponent just needs to have it in hand. So overall, having the actual Action itself is still better than having a Delegate, and thus having Action cards is still well worth doing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on October 17, 2019, 02:14:48 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/k46ra3y.jpg)

Like Captain but both plays happen this turn. Has advantages and disadvantages over Captain, what do y'all think?

Edit: Fixed grammar etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on October 17, 2019, 02:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/IXiNZX2.png) (https://i.imgur.com/iWuQaOJ.png)
Traitor
$3 - Action - Command
The player to your right reveals their hand.
You may trash this. If you did, play a non-Command Action card from their hand, leaving it there.
If you didn't, +1 Action, +1 Buy
Heirloom: Bribe

Bribe
$3 - Treasure - Heirloom
$1
When you play this, gain a non-Treasure card costing up to $3

Upd. wording with DEGwer's input:

Traitor
$3 - Action - Command
The player to your right reveals their hand.
You may set this aside to play a non-Command Action card from that player's hand, leaving it there.
If you didn't, +1 Action, +1 Buy.
At the end of your turn, trash the set aside Traitor.
Heirloom: Bribe

Bribe stays the same.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Abel_K on October 17, 2019, 02:38:35 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on October 17, 2019, 02:14:48 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/6VghPaT.jpg)

Like Captain but both plays happen this turn. Has advantages and disadvantages over Captain, what do y'all think?

It seems to me that Captain is more interesting, because he allows you to choise before your turn what will be more useful with your new hand, particularly can give you an Action more, and you are happy with it if terminal actions in hand...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on October 17, 2019, 02:46:07 pm

Quote from: Abel_K on October 17, 2019, 02:38:35 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on October 17, 2019, 02:14:48 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/6VghPaT.jpg)

Like Captain but both plays happen this turn. Has advantages and disadvantages over Captain, what do y'all think?

It seems to me that Captain is more interesting, because he allows you to choise before your turn what will be more useful with your new hand, particularly can give you an Action more, and you are happy with it if terminal actions in hand...

I think they have different strengths and weaknesses. This allows me to get +6 Cards with a Smithy, which is really nice. I’m trading a start-of-turn effect from next turn for a bigger bang this turn.

In one way, this is like a Throne Room that (almost) never misses.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Abel_K on October 17, 2019, 02:59:10 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on October 17, 2019, 02:46:07 pm

Quote from: Abel_K on October 17, 2019, 02:38:35 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on October 17, 2019, 02:14:48 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/6VghPaT.jpg)

Like Captain but both plays happen this turn. Has advantages and disadvantages over Captain, what do y'all think?

It seems to me that Captain is more interesting, because he allows you to choise before your turn what will be more useful with your new hand, particularly can give you an Action more, and you are happy with it if terminal actions in hand...

I think they have different strengths and weaknesses. This allows me to get +6 Cards with a Smithy, which is really nice. I’m trading a start-of-turn effect from next turn for a bigger bang this turn.

In one way, this is like a Throne Room that (almost) never misses.

Right !  :)

Title: Re: Contest #48: Design a Command
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 17, 2019, 03:08:03 pm

Quote from: Gubump on October 16, 2019, 09:18:22 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/XrPbCwF.png)

I came up with this one about 3 months ago, but just recently changed it into a Command type. The Command type is present to prevent an infinite loop (play Delegate, play opponent's BoM, play Delegate from Supply, play same BoM, repeat ad infinitum). It also happens to be one of my most playtested fan cards if not the most.

I like this a lot. Nothing more to add.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 17, 2019, 03:12:51 pm

Quote from: majiponi on October 16, 2019, 11:43:38 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 16, 2019, 02:25:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/RPuYtuS.png?1)

Ideally, for theme, there would be a University mat or a Schola mat, but this game has enough mats as it is so I left it for the Tavern mat.

The Scholasticus collects research and students in the forms of Actions and then directs them. You need at least 2 of them to make the Command portion work.

Scholasticus cannot avoid loops.
Put +$1 token on this. Play this to set aside it. Play another, choosing that Scholasticus, choosing it, ...

Thank you majiponi. I forgot the "non-Command". This fixes it, yes?
(https://i.imgur.com/C1M4FYb.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 17, 2019, 03:14:16 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on October 17, 2019, 02:14:48 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/6VghPaT.jpg)

Like Captain but both plays happen this turn. Has advantages and disadvantages over Captain, what do y'all think?

I like when he adds +1/+1 to all my Vampires. but uh also you've got some typos - Commander / non-Commander, lowercase supply. Still, seems about right pricewise, and like a decent card regardless.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on October 17, 2019, 03:20:01 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 17, 2019, 03:12:51 pm

Quote from: majiponi on October 16, 2019, 11:43:38 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 16, 2019, 02:25:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/RPuYtuS.png?1)

Ideally, for theme, there would be a University mat or a Schola mat, but this game has enough mats as it is so I left it for the Tavern mat.

The Scholasticus collects research and students in the forms of Actions and then directs them. You need at least 2 of them to make the Command portion work.

Scholasticus cannot avoid loops.
Put +$1 token on this. Play this to set aside it. Play another, choosing that Scholasticus, choosing it, ...

Thank you majiponi. I forgot the "non-Command". This fixes it, yes?
(https://i.imgur.com/C1M4FYb.png?1)

This and Wine Merchant make a powerful combo. After you first play Wine Merchant, you get all the benefits of Wine Merchant for just $4 and you never have to underspend to get it back.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 17, 2019, 06:39:45 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 17, 2019, 08:38:06 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 16, 2019, 08:23:59 pm

Charity
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $3 more than the trashed card, leaving it there.

I love trash-for-benefits.  This can trash Estates to play $5 cards which is nice.  Its ability to trash Coppers is strongly dependent on the quality of $3 Actions that appear: Is that limitation intentional?

Yes, it is intentional. If you were guaranteed some sort of cantrip ability every time you trashed a Copper, it would probably be too strong.

Quote from: DEGwer on October 17, 2019, 10:06:03 am

My Entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/PJIQb0u.png?1)


The first play of this will basically be ruined village, but it becomes strong when stacked.
In the second play it can be a Laboratory (Moat), in the third play it can be a Bustling Village (Village), in the fourth play it can be +3 Cards, +1 Action (Smithy), and from the sixth, it can be Goons with +Action! (Although Lost Arts are the easier way)
In first play, Ruined Library can also be used as a cantrip.

Another purpose is providing pseudo-villages in the kingdom with no village. Playing two successors as nothing-Perl Diver works like a Necropolis.

This looks extremely weak. Yes, the second play is a Lab (if Moat or Faithful Hound happen to be there) but the first play cancels out that effect completely. Then the Bustling Village effect is something you have to pay $9 and 3 Buys to get. If this is the only Village in the kingdom, I suspect playing Money will be more effective a lot if not most of the time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on October 17, 2019, 08:54:32 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 17, 2019, 03:14:16 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on October 17, 2019, 02:14:48 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/6VghPaT.jpg)

Like Captain but both plays happen this turn. Has advantages and disadvantages over Captain, what do y'all think?

I like when he adds +1/+1 to all my Vampires. but uh also you've got some typos - Commander / non-Commander, lowercase supply. Still, seems about right pricewise, and like a decent card regardless.

Thanks, fixed

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 18, 2019, 12:10:28 am

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/sj7v78sz.png)

Quote

Developer - $4 - Action-Command
Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left names a cheaper and a more expensive non-Command Action card in the supply. Play both in either order, leaving them in the supply.

Imagine if Develop instead of gaining immediately played those cards. And they didn't have to cost exact $1 different. But throw in the fact that your opponent gets to choose which cards you play. This has to be the most bonkers splitter of all time. Yeah, you can play more than one terminal card with this, but you don't really get to choose what they are. Games where this is the only splitter/village are definitely going to be interesting. You do have some power -- In games with only non-terminal 2-costs (fishing village, pawn, etc), trashing a silver is guaranteed to be non-terminal. Of course, you do lose the silver.

It is intentional that you probably only get one action out of trashing a copper, and unless there are ruins, you only get one action out of trashing an estate -- but at least it's a 3-cost action or higher! You get a lot of milage out of trashing 4 costs, your opponent has to let you play a 5 cost or better. That's the big reason for this to cost 4. Also it's potentially incredibly strong in certain kingdoms and so I'd rather avoid the opening 2 of them.

The compelling reason this needs to be a command is to prevent the self-play of this which could cause you trash valuable cards in your hand. And to help prevent infinite loops with other Commands!

I anticipate that developer is a high-skill card to master. You have to purposefully position your deck such that the worst choice your opponent makes for you is still a good one. It's a fun little game-theory-esque challenge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 18, 2019, 12:27:52 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 17, 2019, 06:39:45 pm

Quote from: DEGwer on October 17, 2019, 10:06:03 am

My Entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/PJIQb0u.png?1)


The first play of this will basically be ruined village, but it becomes strong when stacked.
In the second play it can be a Laboratory (Moat), in the third play it can be a Bustling Village (Village), in the fourth play it can be +3 Cards, +1 Action (Smithy), and from the sixth, it can be Goons with +Action! (Although Lost Arts are the easier way)
In first play, Ruined Library can also be used as a cantrip.

Another purpose is providing pseudo-villages in the kingdom with no village. Playing two successors as nothing-Perl Diver works like a Necropolis.

This looks extremely weak. Yes, the second play is a Lab (if Moat or Faithful Hound happen to be there) but the first play cancels out that effect completely. Then the Bustling Village effect is something you have to pay $9 and 3 Buys to get. If this is the only Village in the kingdom, I suspect playing Money will be more effective a lot if not most of the time.

But it can turn any terminal into non-terminal, and that's pretty good. But yeah, you'll need low cost +cards or you discard your hand just playing successors. Or a draw-to-x could pair with these cards extremely well.

This concept is so cool. You can have a monolithic strategy that results in you playing almost all the cards in the supply. Dope! I wonder if you could strengthen it slightly to give +1 card if it's the first successor you have in play?

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 17, 2019, 08:38:06 am

Quote from: 4est on October 16, 2019, 03:15:36 pm

Falconer
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $3
The player to your left reveals a non-Command Action card from their hand (or reveals they can't). Choose one: +1 Card and +1 Action; or play the revealed card, leaving it there.

Quote from: Gubump on October 16, 2019, 09:18:22 pm

Delegate
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $3
Each other player reveals their hand. Play a revealed non-Command, non-Duration Action, leaving it there. If you couldn't, +2 Cards.

The old "play Actions from another player's hand" trick doesn't work very well because you stop if from working by not buying Actions, so the question is how you general combat a largely Treasure-centered strategy in the design of the card.
4est's Falconer gets around it by making it a cantrip instead of the worst Action in the player to your left's hand.  I think the limitation is huge.  If you play Falconer terminally they can reveal a terminal card the you can't play.  If you play Falconer non-terminally, they reveal a minimally useful non-terminal, again making Falconer of only marginal use.  I think a strong money-centric Strategy will make Falconer a waste of time.
Gubump's Delegate instead turns into a Moat instead of the best Action in any other player's hand.  Hitting anyone's any card means that this scales poorly into multiplayer.  The save of Moat is probably even worse than Falconer's cantrip, so I would likely still run good money against Delegate.
I recommend the catch for not having an Action to play be better than the Action play, honestly.  Me revealing an Action to your Command-card should make your Command card worse.

Fallbacks make these cards less interesting I think. What if instead of fall-backs, you made them more likely to hit? What about a militia first? Does the opponent kept their crappy action cards around for you to use or discard all their action cards? If so they have a bad turn. But if they leave their good action cards, well then oh no! Or you could make each opponent draw a card, choose an opponent to reveal their hand and you choose one. Just a few ways of making it not scale uncontrollably with multiple players and making it more interesting than adding a fall-back.
Make it cheaper/weaker and if it doesn't hit, it doesn't hit. Sometimes smugglers doesn't hit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: DEGwer on October 18, 2019, 08:33:19 am

(https://i.imgur.com/KnwUfDE.png?1)

Yes, it seems cooler to set it as if like it can always refer Ruined Library. Thank you for your advise. Now I made it easier to use. Of course, it remains strong with Poor House. It still doesn't break the balance even with Moat, does it?

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 18, 2019, 12:27:52 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 17, 2019, 06:39:45 pm

Quote from: DEGwer on October 17, 2019, 10:06:03 am

My Entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/PJIQb0u.png?1)


The first play of this will basically be ruined village, but it becomes strong when stacked.
In the second play it can be a Laboratory (Moat), in the third play it can be a Bustling Village (Village), in the fourth play it can be +3 Cards, +1 Action (Smithy), and from the sixth, it can be Goons with +Action! (Although Lost Arts are the easier way)
In first play, Ruined Library can also be used as a cantrip.

Another purpose is providing pseudo-villages in the kingdom with no village. Playing two successors as nothing-Perl Diver works like a Necropolis.

This looks extremely weak. Yes, the second play is a Lab (if Moat or Faithful Hound happen to be there) but the first play cancels out that effect completely. Then the Bustling Village effect is something you have to pay $9 and 3 Buys to get. If this is the only Village in the kingdom, I suspect playing Money will be more effective a lot if not most of the time.

But it can turn any terminal into non-terminal, and that's pretty good. But yeah, you'll need low cost +cards or you discard your hand just playing successors. Or a draw-to-x could pair with these cards extremely well.

This concept is so cool. You can have a monolithic strategy that results in you playing almost all the cards in the supply. Dope! I wonder if you could strengthen it slightly to give +1 card if it's the first successor you have in play?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: DEGwer on October 18, 2019, 09:00:50 am

Quote from: grep on October 17, 2019, 02:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/IXiNZX2.png) (https://i.imgur.com/iWuQaOJ.png)
Traitor
$3 - Action - Command
The player to your right reveals their hand.
You may trash this. If you did, play a non-Command Action card from their hand, leaving it there.
If you didn't, +1 Action, +1 Buy
Heirloom: Bribe

Bribe
$3 - Treasure - Heirloom
$1
When you play this, gain a non-Treasure card costing up to $3

It cause the same infinite loops as General, which I posted above. Lurker accidentally kills all self-trashing Commands.

Bribe is very strong (it is often stronger than Gold because it works like +$4 and +1 Buy), but I think it is good card and does not break the balance because it is Heirloom. But it doesn't help Traitor much, because we can simply gain another useful Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on October 18, 2019, 01:29:32 pm

Quote from: DEGwer on October 18, 2019, 09:00:50 am

Quote from: grep on October 17, 2019, 02:24:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/IXiNZX2.png) (https://i.imgur.com/iWuQaOJ.png)
Traitor
$3 - Action - Command
The player to your right reveals their hand.
You may trash this. If you did, play a non-Command Action card from their hand, leaving it there.
If you didn't, +1 Action, +1 Buy
Heirloom: Bribe

Bribe
$3 - Treasure - Heirloom
$1
When you play this, gain a non-Treasure card costing up to $3

It cause the same infinite loops as General, which I posted above. Lurker accidentally kills all self-trashing Commands.

Bribe is very strong (it is often stronger than Gold because it works like +$4 and +1 Buy), but I think it is good card and does not break the balance because it is Heirloom. But it doesn't help Traitor much, because we can simply gain another useful Action.

Thank you for the analysis.
Bribe might be very strong in presence of $2-3 cantrips, but most of the cheap cards are junk after saturation - so I think it's on par with Lucky Coin. A possible nerf is "Gain a non-Treasure card costing up to $3 that you don't have in play"
The loop can be broken with a "set aside" trick ("Set aside this. If you did, play.... At the end of your turn trash this")

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 18, 2019, 06:13:40 pm

Quote from: DEGwer on October 17, 2019, 10:49:29 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 17, 2019, 08:38:06 am

General
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $4
Choose one: Trash this to play a non-Command non-Duration Action from the Supply, leaving it there; or play up to 2 differently named Actions you played this turn before you played this that are still in play.

General with +1 Card token will produce very simple infinite loop with Lurker.

Considering this is a minimum 3-card combo (General\Lurker\Teacher (you can get there with Pathfinding, but then you need more elements to make it do anything) with drawn deck (or Watchtower) to ensure the +1 Card draws the Lurked General), I'd hardly call it simple.  Once you have Teacher really, you can put the +1 Card and +1 Action onto the two piles and make Graverobber and Rogue work for this loop, too (though in Graverobber's case you need Priest, Tomb, Training, or Seaway also).
Corrected regardless.  General now trashes the card you target with it in addition to itself, so the described loop would empty the Lurker pile.
         

Quote from: Gubump on October 17, 2019, 01:25:18 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 17, 2019, 08:38:06 am

Quote from: Gubump on October 16, 2019, 09:18:22 pm

Delegate
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $3
Each other player reveals their hand. Play a revealed non-Command, non-Duration Action, leaving it there. If you couldn't, +2 Cards.

The old "play Actions from another player's hand" trick doesn't work very well because you stop if from working by not buying Actions, so the question is how you general combat a largely Treasure-centered strategy in the design of the card.
Gubump's Delegate instead turns into a Moat instead of the best Action in any other player's hand.  Hitting anyone's any card means that this scales poorly into multiplayer.  The save of Moat is probably even worse than Falconer's cantrip, so I would likely still run good money against Delegate.
I recommend the catch for not having an Action to play be better than the Action play, honestly.  Me revealing an Action to your Command-card should make your Command card worse.

I think that people will still buy Action cards just as much as normal even with Delegate/Falconer in the Kingdom (and my experience playtesting Delegate shows that this is true). A key thing that I don't think you're taking into account is that in order to play an opponent's Action with Delegate, you have to have a Delegate in hand while your opponent also has that Action in hand, whereas to play that same Action card, your opponent just needs to have it in hand. So overall, having the actual Action itself is still better than having a Delegate, and thus having Action cards is still well worth doing.

This is totally fair.  I don't think Delegate would push weak Treasure strategies to the front (I'm not going to run Smithy\BM simply because Delegate is present).  It runs the risk of making stronger money strategies more dominant when the failsafe of Delegate makes Delegate such a weak card.  A part of the problem I think comes in the players' headspace: Players tend to feel bad when other players piggyback off of them.  Based on this assistance aversion, the card would read healthier if copying other players' cards, strong as it may be, was blocking something that was stronger still.
For example, I had initially considered a design as follows:

Quote

The player to your left reveals their hand. If they reveal any non-Command, non-Duration Actions, you may play one of them, leaving it there. Otherwise, you may play a non-Command, non-Duration Action from the Supply, leaving it there.

---

*TODO: Buy restriction to reduce opening with this*

So that players would want to have Actions to stop it from being its best version.  It wouldn't even need such a stark contrast between its stronger and weaker versions: If Delegate missing was a Laboratory then it would be totally reasonable in the opening and players would feel good when they "block" it with a <$4-cost Action.  It is probably fine regardless.  Don't mind me.

Quote from: Gazbag on October 17, 2019, 10:26:10 am

Assembly
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $5
You may play a non-Command Action card from your hand. Then, if you did, play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to the cost of that Action card, leaving it there.

Does this really need the Command limitation for the play from hand?  Assembly->Assembly doesn't sound crazy.  In most cases, this is +2 Actions attached to a mildly worse Band of Misfits.  If you play a $5 card from your hand with Assembly, your Assembly is a Band of Misfits played without spending an +action.  If you only have $4 Actions to play with it, you can only Band of Misfits $3 Actions.

Quote from: mail-mi on October 17, 2019, 02:14:48 pm

Lieutenant
Types: Action, Commander
Cost: $6
Choose a non-Command Action card in the Supply costing up to $4. Play it twice, leaving it there.

I think Lieutenant is significantly stronger than Captain, even ignoring that it can play Duration cards. We can argue regarding the strength of 2 plays now versus 1 play at the start of your turn, but Captain misses the shuffle where Lieutenant doesn't.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 18, 2019, 06:43:48 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 18, 2019, 06:13:40 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 17, 2019, 10:26:10 am

Assembly
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $5
You may play a non-Command Action card from your hand. Then, if you did, play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to the cost of that Action card, leaving it there.

Does this really need the Command limitation for the play from hand?  Assembly->Assembly doesn't sound crazy.  In most cases, this is +2 Actions attached to a mildly worse Band of Misfits.  If you play a $5 card from your hand with Assembly, your Assembly is a Band of Misfits played without spending an +action.  If you only have $4 Actions to play with it, you can only Band of Misfits $3 Actions.

I'm not sure whether it would be broken with anything if it didn't have the non-Command clause, I didn't really put much thought into it to be honest. It seemed wise to me to have it there so it won't become problematic though. I think you're misunderstanding the card, in the context of Dominion up to $X includes $X. So if you play a $5 with Assembly you can play any card in the Supply costing $5 or less, including another copy of the card you played.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on October 19, 2019, 06:52:58 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 03:21:10 pm

Oh nice. This was my first alternate for last week anyway.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/5346179a4bd36918226a6d2dd9791916/image.png)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/2c7a17812df0a947562b85e9a0742b4b/image.png)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/89ed61bcb3248e3d6186f0eb8631f620/image.png)

Quote

Practise • $3 • Event
Play a non-Command, non-Duration Action card whose cost is $4 or less from the Supply, leaving it there. Take the Bow or the Rosin.

Quote

Bow • Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play a card whose cost is $5 or less instead.
(Follow all other restrictions on Practise)

Quote

Rosin • Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play the selected card twice, leaving it in the Supply.
(Follow all other restrictions on Practise)

---

Notes:

• Bow lets you bypass Potion costs. This is intentional. cleaner to get rid of this and fix the "play debt cards for free"
• Rosin probably doesn't need the reminder text Rosin now actually uses its reminder text
• Practise now can't play Duration cards, because the tracking on that would be a mess.

Big shout-out to Fragasnap for making me think what an event/command card would look like, and to Gubump + scolapasta for reminding me that: Hey Debt exists and you should probably fix this.

In my dreams, I have a Plan, if I got me Wine Merchant ah, I wouldn't have to work at all, I'd Fool around and have a Ball...

Too easy to loop.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 19, 2019, 08:56:54 pm

Quote from: DEGwer on October 18, 2019, 08:33:19 am

(https://i.imgur.com/KnwUfDE.png?1)

Yes, it seems cooler to set it as if like it can always refer Ruined Library. Thank you for your advise. Now I made it easier to use. Of course, it remains strong with Poor House. It still doesn't break the balance even with Moat, does it?

Yes, this looks much more usable now. And no, it isn't broken at all with Moat, because you'd $6, 2 Buys and collision to get the Lab effect, whereas Lab itself is only $5 and 1 Buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 19, 2019, 10:01:03 pm

Quote from: majiponi on October 19, 2019, 06:52:58 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 03:21:10 pm

Oh nice. This was my first alternate for last week anyway.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/5346179a4bd36918226a6d2dd9791916/image.png)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/2c7a17812df0a947562b85e9a0742b4b/image.png)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/89ed61bcb3248e3d6186f0eb8631f620/image.png)

Quote

Practise • $3 • Event
Play a non-Command, non-Duration Action card whose cost is $4 or less from the Supply, leaving it there. Take the Bow or the Rosin.

Quote

Bow • Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play a card whose cost is $5 or less instead.
(Follow all other restrictions on Practise)

Quote

Rosin • Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play the selected card twice, leaving it in the Supply.
(Follow all other restrictions on Practise)

---

Notes:

• Bow lets you bypass Potion costs. This is intentional. cleaner to get rid of this and fix the "play debt cards for free"
• Rosin probably doesn't need the reminder text Rosin now actually uses its reminder text
• Practise now can't play Duration cards, because the tracking on that would be a mess.

Big shout-out to Fragasnap for making me think what an event/command card would look like, and to Gubump + scolapasta for reminding me that: Hey Debt exists and you should probably fix this.

In my dreams, I have a Plan, if I got me Wine Merchant ah, I wouldn't have to work at all, I'd Fool around and have a Ball...

Too easy to loop.

i'm not following what you're saying here

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 19, 2019, 10:29:38 pm

New Entry

Shadow Realm
Action/Command - $3
You may reveal an Action from your hand to play it, then play the Shadow card with the same cost, leaving it there.
-
Setup: For each Action card cost present in the supply, set aside an extra non-command Action with that cost; these are the Shadow cards.

Note: Sometimes there won't be a card available to set aside as a Shadow (eg Poor House or Engineer or Golem is in the supply, or Artisan is and you only own the base set). "Do as much as you can" - Shadow Realm is just a Ruined Village to those cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 19, 2019, 10:36:42 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 19, 2019, 10:01:03 pm

Quote from: majiponi on October 19, 2019, 06:52:58 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 03:21:10 pm

Oh nice. This was my first alternate for last week anyway.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/5346179a4bd36918226a6d2dd9791916/image.png)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/2c7a17812df0a947562b85e9a0742b4b/image.png)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/89ed61bcb3248e3d6186f0eb8631f620/image.png)

Quote

Practise • $3 • Event
Play a non-Command, non-Duration Action card whose cost is $4 or less from the Supply, leaving it there. Take the Bow or the Rosin.

Quote

Bow • Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play a card whose cost is $5 or less instead.
(Follow all other restrictions on Practise)

Quote

Rosin • Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play the selected card twice, leaving it in the Supply.
(Follow all other restrictions on Practise)

---

Notes:

• Bow lets you bypass Potion costs. This is intentional. cleaner to get rid of this and fix the "play debt cards for free"
• Rosin probably doesn't need the reminder text Rosin now actually uses its reminder text
• Practise now can't play Duration cards, because the tracking on that would be a mess.

Big shout-out to Fragasnap for making me think what an event/command card would look like, and to Gubump + scolapasta for reminding me that: Hey Debt exists and you should probably fix this.

In my dreams, I have a Plan, if I got me Wine Merchant ah, I wouldn't have to work at all, I'd Fool around and have a Ball...

Too easy to loop.

i'm not following what you're saying here

If I understand correctly Practise produces unbounded +$ and +buy with anything that gives at least +$2 and +1 Buy with Rosin. I'm pretty sure you win on turn 1 with a $4 hand and Messenger/Nomad Camp on the board. It needs a once per turn clause or some other way to stop you buying it over and over with +buy cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 19, 2019, 10:52:26 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 19, 2019, 10:29:38 pm

New Entry

Shadow Realm
Action/Command - $3
You may reveal an Action from your hand to play it, then play the Shadow card with the same cost, leaving it there.
-
Setup: For each Action card cost present in the supply, set aside an extra non-command Action with that cost; these are the Shadow cards.

Note: Sometimes there won't be a card available to set aside as a Shadow (eg Poor House or Engineer or Golem is in the supply, or Artisan is and you only own the base set). "Do as much as you can" - Shadow Realm is just a Ruined Village to those cards.

I would personally price this at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. I might even say that it's better on average than a Throne Room.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 19, 2019, 11:58:13 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 19, 2019, 10:36:42 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 19, 2019, 10:01:03 pm

Quote from: majiponi on October 19, 2019, 06:52:58 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 03:21:10 pm

Oh nice. This was my first alternate for last week anyway.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/5346179a4bd36918226a6d2dd9791916/image.png)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/2c7a17812df0a947562b85e9a0742b4b/image.png)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/89ed61bcb3248e3d6186f0eb8631f620/image.png)

Quote

Practise • $3 • Event
Play a non-Command, non-Duration Action card whose cost is $4 or less from the Supply, leaving it there. Take the Bow or the Rosin.

Quote

Bow • Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play a card whose cost is $5 or less instead.
(Follow all other restrictions on Practise)

Quote

Rosin • Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play the selected card twice, leaving it in the Supply.
(Follow all other restrictions on Practise)

---

Notes:

• Bow lets you bypass Potion costs. This is intentional. cleaner to get rid of this and fix the "play debt cards for free"
• Rosin probably doesn't need the reminder text Rosin now actually uses its reminder text
• Practise now can't play Duration cards, because the tracking on that would be a mess.

Big shout-out to Fragasnap for making me think what an event/command card would look like, and to Gubump + scolapasta for reminding me that: Hey Debt exists and you should probably fix this.

In my dreams, I have a Plan, if I got me Wine Merchant ah, I wouldn't have to work at all, I'd Fool around and have a Ball...

Too easy to loop.

i'm not following what you're saying here

If I understand correctly Practise produces unbounded +$ and +buy with anything that gives at least +$2 and +1 Buy with Rosin. I'm pretty sure you win on turn 1 with a $4 hand and Messenger/Nomad Camp on the board. It needs a once per turn clause or some other way to stop you buying it over and over with +buy cards.

Ah gotcha. yeah that makes sense. Changed it to once per turn. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 20, 2019, 02:07:06 am

Quote from: Gubump on October 19, 2019, 10:52:26 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 19, 2019, 10:29:38 pm

New Entry

Shadow Realm
Action/Command - $3
You may reveal an Action from your hand to play it, then play the Shadow card with the same cost, leaving it there.
-
Setup: For each Action card cost present in the supply, set aside an extra non-command Action with that cost; these are the Shadow cards.

Note: Sometimes there won't be a card available to set aside as a Shadow (eg Poor House or Engineer or Golem is in the supply, or Artisan is and you only own the base set). "Do as much as you can" - Shadow Realm is just a Ruined Village to those cards.

I would personally price this at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. I might even say that it's better on average than a Throne Room.

Its strength really depends on the cards it calls up.

In the secret histories Throne Room was fine at $3 but was bumped up to $4 to make eleborate Throned Throne trees pop up less in the base set. Shadow Realm chains are linear.

But the main reason I made it $3 is it's one of those cards that gets better the higher you price it, as you can play a Shadow Realm with Shadow Realm.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 20, 2019, 11:31:56 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 20, 2019, 02:07:06 am

Quote from: Gubump on October 19, 2019, 10:52:26 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 19, 2019, 10:29:38 pm

New Entry

Shadow Realm
Action/Command - $3
You may reveal an Action from your hand to play it, then play the Shadow card with the same cost, leaving it there.
-
Setup: For each Action card cost present in the supply, set aside an extra non-command Action with that cost; these are the Shadow cards.

Note: Sometimes there won't be a card available to set aside as a Shadow (eg Poor House or Engineer or Golem is in the supply, or Artisan is and you only own the base set). "Do as much as you can" - Shadow Realm is just a Ruined Village to those cards.

I would personally price this at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. I might even say that it's better on average than a Throne Room.

Its strength really depends on the cards it calls up.

In the secret histories Throne Room was fine at $3 but was bumped up to $4 to make eleborate Throned Throne trees pop up less in the base set. Shadow Realm chains are linear.

But the main reason I made it $3 is it's one of those cards that gets better the higher you price it, as you can play a Shadow Realm with Shadow Realm.

That's an opportunity to make a Shadow card specific to each unique price point which is only used with Shadow Realm (kinda like Zombies with Necromancer). So you'd need one for Transmute, Engineer, Golem, Poor House, and Possession (and maybe Peddler?)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on October 20, 2019, 12:39:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/cFCTMRjm.png)

Quote

Once per game: Gain a Duchy. Set aside a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $4. Move your Duchy token to it.
(During your turns, Duchies are also Actions with "Play the card with your Duchy token, leaving it there.")

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 20, 2019, 04:02:36 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 20, 2019, 11:31:56 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 20, 2019, 02:07:06 am

Quote from: Gubump on October 19, 2019, 10:52:26 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 19, 2019, 10:29:38 pm

New Entry

Shadow Realm
Action/Command - $3
You may reveal an Action from your hand to play it, then play the Shadow card with the same cost, leaving it there.
-
Setup: For each Action card cost present in the supply, set aside an extra non-command Action with that cost; these are the Shadow cards.

Note: Sometimes there won't be a card available to set aside as a Shadow (eg Poor House or Engineer or Golem is in the supply, or Artisan is and you only own the base set). "Do as much as you can" - Shadow Realm is just a Ruined Village to those cards.

I would personally price this at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. I might even say that it's better on average than a Throne Room.

Its strength really depends on the cards it calls up.

In the secret histories Throne Room was fine at $3 but was bumped up to $4 to make eleborate Throned Throne trees pop up less in the base set. Shadow Realm chains are linear.

But the main reason I made it $3 is it's one of those cards that gets better the higher you price it, as you can play a Shadow Realm with Shadow Realm.

That's an opportunity to make a Shadow card specific to each unique price point which is only used with Shadow Realm (kinda like Zombies with Necromancer). So you'd need one for Transmute, Engineer, Golem, Poor House, and Possession (and maybe Peddler?)

If I was designing a whole bunch of cards I'd make sure no price point only had 1 card, but in order to avoid not having shadows, you'd need 11 Action cards to exist at each price point. I'd rather keep it (relatively) simple.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on October 20, 2019, 06:02:02 pm

Here's my quick made submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/E8arY62.png)
Kind of like a miser, you can save up during a year of plenty and make your next YoP better (diminishing returns on YoP when you start cashing them in though).  Hope it's clear what it does.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 20, 2019, 09:09:17 pm

Quote from: naitchman on October 20, 2019, 06:02:02 pm

Here's my quick made submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/E8arY62.png)
Kind of like a miser, you can save up during a year of plenty and make your next YoP better (diminishing returns on YoP when you start cashing them in though).  Hope it's clear what it does.

I think to make it more clear you should say "turn one Copper on your Tavern mat face down. At the end of your turn, flip it face up." That is more align with Dominion cards that specifically instruct rather than imply what to do. "Keep it down for the turn" is satisfied by keeping it down for the turn and next turn and forever, technically. So, it'd be a little clearer to instruct the turning back of the Copper.
edit: retracting this, see conversation after this 

I think this card is very cool!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 20, 2019, 09:37:59 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 20, 2019, 09:09:17 pm

Quote from: naitchman on October 20, 2019, 06:02:02 pm

Here's my quick made submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/E8arY62.png)
Kind of like a miser, you can save up during a year of plenty and make your next YoP better (diminishing returns on YoP when you start cashing them in though).  Hope it's clear what it does.

I think to make it more clear you should say "turn one Copper on your Tavern mat face down. At the end of your turn, flip it face up." That is more align with Dominion cards that specifically instruct rather than imply what to do. "Keep it down for the turn" is satisfied by keeping it down for the turn and next turn and forever, technically. So, it'd be a little clearer to instruct the turning back of the Copper.

I think this card is very cool!

Necromancer uses the same "turn it face down for the turn" wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 21, 2019, 12:19:39 am

Quote from: Gubump on October 20, 2019, 09:37:59 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 20, 2019, 09:09:17 pm

Quote from: naitchman on October 20, 2019, 06:02:02 pm

Here's my quick made submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/E8arY62.png)
Kind of like a miser, you can save up during a year of plenty and make your next YoP better (diminishing returns on YoP when you start cashing them in though).  Hope it's clear what it does.

I think to make it more clear you should say "turn one Copper on your Tavern mat face down. At the end of your turn, flip it face up." That is more align with Dominion cards that specifically instruct rather than imply what to do. "Keep it down for the turn" is satisfied by keeping it down for the turn and next turn and forever, technically. So, it'd be a little clearer to instruct the turning back of the Copper.

I think this card is very cool!

Necromancer uses the same "turn it face down for the turn" wording.

You’re absolutely right!! My comment is retracted

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on October 21, 2019, 01:03:33 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 19, 2019, 10:36:42 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 19, 2019, 10:01:03 pm

Quote from: majiponi on October 19, 2019, 06:52:58 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 03:21:10 pm

Oh nice. This was my first alternate for last week anyway.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/5346179a4bd36918226a6d2dd9791916/image.png)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/2c7a17812df0a947562b85e9a0742b4b/image.png)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/89ed61bcb3248e3d6186f0eb8631f620/image.png)

Quote

Practise • $3 • Event
Play a non-Command, non-Duration Action card whose cost is $4 or less from the Supply, leaving it there. Take the Bow or the Rosin.

Quote

Bow • Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play a card whose cost is $5 or less instead.
(Follow all other restrictions on Practise)

Quote

Rosin • Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play the selected card twice, leaving it in the Supply.
(Follow all other restrictions on Practise)

---

Notes:

• Bow lets you bypass Potion costs. This is intentional. cleaner to get rid of this and fix the "play debt cards for free"
• Rosin probably doesn't need the reminder text Rosin now actually uses its reminder text
• Practise now can't play Duration cards, because the tracking on that would be a mess.

Big shout-out to Fragasnap for making me think what an event/command card would look like, and to Gubump + scolapasta for reminding me that: Hey Debt exists and you should probably fix this.

In my dreams, I have a Plan, if I got me Wine Merchant ah, I wouldn't have to work at all, I'd Fool around and have a Ball...

Too easy to loop.

i'm not following what you're saying here

If I understand correctly Practise produces unbounded +$ and +buy with anything that gives at least +$2 and +1 Buy with Rosin. I'm pretty sure you win on turn 1 with a $4 hand and Messenger/Nomad Camp on the board. It needs a once per turn clause or some other way to stop you buying it over and over with +buy cards.

In addition to that, there is no reason to ban Command cards from being played. I mean, you aren't going to create loops when the card is played from an event.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 21, 2019, 01:35:44 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on October 21, 2019, 01:03:33 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 19, 2019, 10:36:42 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 19, 2019, 10:01:03 pm

Quote from: majiponi on October 19, 2019, 06:52:58 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 16, 2019, 03:21:10 pm

Oh nice. This was my first alternate for last week anyway.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/5346179a4bd36918226a6d2dd9791916/image.png)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/2c7a17812df0a947562b85e9a0742b4b/image.png)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/89ed61bcb3248e3d6186f0eb8631f620/image.png)

Quote

Practise • $3 • Event
Play a non-Command, non-Duration Action card whose cost is $4 or less from the Supply, leaving it there. Take the Bow or the Rosin.

Quote

Bow • Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play a card whose cost is $5 or less instead.
(Follow all other restrictions on Practise)

Quote

Rosin • Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy. When you buy Practise, you may play the selected card twice, leaving it in the Supply.
(Follow all other restrictions on Practise)

---

Notes:

• Bow lets you bypass Potion costs. This is intentional. cleaner to get rid of this and fix the "play debt cards for free"
• Rosin probably doesn't need the reminder text Rosin now actually uses its reminder text
• Practise now can't play Duration cards, because the tracking on that would be a mess.

Big shout-out to Fragasnap for making me think what an event/command card would look like, and to Gubump + scolapasta for reminding me that: Hey Debt exists and you should probably fix this.

In my dreams, I have a Plan, if I got me Wine Merchant ah, I wouldn't have to work at all, I'd Fool around and have a Ball...

Too easy to loop.

i'm not following what you're saying here

If I understand correctly Practise produces unbounded +$ and +buy with anything that gives at least +$2 and +1 Buy with Rosin. I'm pretty sure you win on turn 1 with a $4 hand and Messenger/Nomad Camp on the board. It needs a once per turn clause or some other way to stop you buying it over and over with +buy cards.

In addition to that, there is no reason to ban Command cards from being played. I mean, you aren't going to create loops when the card is played from an event.

true but
1) challenge requires "Command" in the text or type
2) futureproofs against hypothetical Command cards that may play events
3) the gain from allowing them is pretty much just to let you hit multiple adventures tokens in a "single" play or to make Conspirator better - just point to the card you wanna do, none of this pointers-to-pointers stuff. You can still use it as Necromancer if you wanna do that sort of thing.

Revising that specific aspect isn't a high priority to me. Good catch though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 22, 2019, 11:05:42 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 21, 2019, 01:35:44 pm

1) challenge requires "Command" in the text or type

I would avoid listing that as a point of defense (especially as the first point), because it reads like you're ok with just taking any random card, and adding "Command" in the text to make it fit the challenge; when the challenge specifically requires there to be good reason to use the text/type.

I think your reason #3 is good enough as a defense.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 22, 2019, 11:32:40 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 22, 2019, 11:05:42 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 21, 2019, 01:35:44 pm

1) challenge requires "Command" in the text or type

I would avoid listing that as a point of defense (especially as the first point), because it reads like you're ok with just taking any random card, and adding "Command" in the text to make it fit the challenge; when the challenge specifically requires there to be good reason to use the text/type.

I think your reason #3 is good enough as a defense.

I mean, regardless if it can play commands or not, i think it fits the spirit of the challenge. But yeah that bell is rung as far as not including that as a defense.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on October 22, 2019, 02:27:55 pm

Zealot
Types: Action, Duration, Attack, Command
Cost: $4
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action, and +$1. Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a card on their turn, they ignore its effect and may play a cheaper non-Command card sharing a type with it from the Supply, leaving it there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: JW on October 22, 2019, 05:26:27 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 16, 2019, 08:23:59 pm

Quote

Charity
Action - Command - $4
Trash a card from your hand. Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $3 more than the trashed card, leaving it there.

The play of the action from the Supply appears to be mandatory.  Was that intentional? There could be some kingdoms and situations where you'd prefer not to play an action costing $3 or less as a result of trashing a copper (in particular, the most common such situation seems to be when the only actions you could play are forced trashers, and you don't have any other cards you want to trash).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 22, 2019, 06:19:04 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on October 22, 2019, 02:27:55 pm

Zealot
$4 - Action/Duration/Attack/Command

At the start of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action, and +$1.
Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a card on their turn that would be unaffected by a Zealot, they ignore its effect and may play a cheaper non-Command card from the Supply sharing a type with it.

This card might be too brutal against cheap Action cards, but it looks neat otherwise. My brain broke trying understand the part in italics though. What would cause something to be "affected" by Zealot besides being hit by the Attack?

Quote from: JW on October 22, 2019, 05:26:27 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 16, 2019, 08:23:59 pm

Quote

Charity
Action - Command - $4
Trash a card from your hand. Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $3 more than the trashed card, leaving it there.

The play of the action from the Supply appears to be mandatory.  Was that intentional? There could be some kingdoms and situations where you'd prefer not to play an action costing $3 or less as a result of trashing a copper (in particular, the most common such situation seems to be when the only actions you could play are forced trashers, and you don't have any other cards you want to trash).

Yes, this is intentional. I think it makes it more interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on October 22, 2019, 07:16:59 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 22, 2019, 06:19:04 pm

This card might be too brutal against cheap Action cards, but it looks neat otherwise. My brain broke trying understand the part in italics though. What would cause something to be "affected" by Zealot besides being hit by the Attack?

Oh, the intent of that wording was to make the attack stack (so if you play two Zealots it downgrades your opponent's first two cards), primarily to give it a sufficiently different design space from Enchantress. So like the first Zealot you play downgrades your opponent's first play, and the second one downgrades the second play (since it skipped over the first one for already being affected by a Zealot). That might be disgusting with Throne though, but I think the attack doesn't have enough potency if it can't be stacked. If you have any ideas on how to make that wording less confusing, I'm all ears.

As for the cheap action thing, you might be right. Maybe I could put in a clause to allow the opponent to get +1 Action if they can't play a cheaper card; getting hit with that is still significantly worse than getting hit with Enchantress, though you only miss out on playing an action that wasn't that good anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 22, 2019, 09:06:07 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 18, 2019, 06:43:48 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 18, 2019, 06:13:40 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 17, 2019, 10:26:10 am

Assembly
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $5
You may play a non-Command Action card from your hand. Then, if you did, play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to the cost of that Action card, leaving it there.

If you play a $5 card from your hand with Assembly, your Assembly is a Band of Misfits played without spending an +action.  If you only have $4 Actions to play with it, you can only Band of Misfits $3 Actions.

I think you're misunderstanding the card, in the context of Dominion up to $X includes $X. So if you play a $5 with Assembly you can play any card in the Supply costing $5 or less, including another copy of the card you played.

Quite right, I don't misunderstand the concept of "up to": I misread the card (funnily enough considering I transcribed it correctly).  I stand by the non-Command from hand being unnecessary (from Supply is needed), especially because Assembly->Assembly would need to have a third Action in hand to be able to chain.  It just seems like a feel-bad mechanism that I wouldn't want to have on a $5 Throne Room variant. 

Quote from: Something_Smart on October 22, 2019, 07:16:59 pm

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 22, 2019, 06:19:04 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on October 22, 2019, 02:27:55 pm

Zealot
Types: Action, Duration, Attack, Command
Cost: $4
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action, and +$1. Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a card on their turn that would be unaffected by a Zealot, they ignore its effect and may play a cheaper non-Command card from the Supply sharing a type with it.

This card might be too brutal against cheap Action cards, but it looks neat otherwise. My brain broke trying understand the part in italics though. What would cause something to be "affected" by Zealot besides being hit by the Attack?

Oh, the intent of that wording was to make the attack stack (so if you play two Zealots it downgrades your opponent's first two cards), primarily to give it a sufficiently different design space from Enchantress.

This is not preferable from a design sense.  A Zealot chain can shut out the game (which would be a huge first-player advantage and could be exacerbated in multiplayer (though they have to get through the other players' Zealots first)), especially because it hits any kind of card you play, even cancelling Coppers altogether.  I think it is sufficiently different than Enchantress regardless.  Enchantress is an independently strong card that increases the value of low-cost Actions, while Zealot will be much more Kingdom-dependent in reducing the value of low-cost cards.  It giving +1 Action next turn might be trouble, though, as players might buy it just for the actions.

The big rules problem this has is how it is supposed to interact with Enchantress when I play an Action while under both effects.
I'd guess I get +1 Card and +1 Action and then also play a cheaper non-Command card sharing a type with it (Enchantress nullifies the effects of the Action and gives me the cantrip bonus, and then Zealot steps in and nullifies the nothing that the card did and tells me to play a cheaper non-Command card in the Supply, or the other way around because I choose the order): An anti-synergy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on October 22, 2019, 11:19:09 pm

Hmm. As much as I'd like it to be able to stack, the multiplayer interaction combined with the first turn advantage combined with the tortured wording may be too many strikes against it.

Zealot
Types: Action, Duration, Attack, Command
Cost: $4
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action, and +$1. Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a card on their turn, they ignore its effect and may play a cheaper non-Command card sharing a type with it from the Supply, leaving it there.

By the way, where are you guys finding art to use in the card generator?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: DEGwer on October 23, 2019, 04:09:13 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on October 22, 2019, 11:19:09 pm

Zealot
Types: Action, Duration, Attack, Command
Cost: $4
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action, and +$1. Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a card on their turn, they ignore its effect and may play a cheaper non-Command card sharing a type with it from the Supply, leaving it there.

I think this attacking concept is cool. It sometimes hurt so much (Seer) and sometimes help so much (Smithy into Village!) and change the opponent's strategy like Embargo.
By the way, I think the non-Command restriction is not needed. Playing Zealot from the Supply to help the next turn is reasonable defense strategy and doesn't make loops.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on October 23, 2019, 08:15:36 am

I made a minot tweak to Student, using Peddler's phrasing, to make it clear that the cost is based on the players whose turn it is, not the player whose Student is being evaluated (this matters for Attacks, for example):

(https://i.imgur.com/foFhG5z.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Abel_K on October 23, 2019, 10:34:16 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on October 22, 2019, 11:19:09 pm

By the way, where are you guys finding art to use in the card generator?

(https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2019/10/23//mini_19102304280320605916474640.png)

...Difficult to find a good painting for this subject that yet seems interesting to treat.
I propose you Simon the Zealot.

(sorry I don't know how to post an image that could be enlarged...)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on October 23, 2019, 10:47:15 am

I'll post my judgement within 12 hours.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 23, 2019, 10:47:21 am

@Abel_K:

Quote from: Abel_K on October 23, 2019, 10:37:15 am

...the big one :

(https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2019/10/23//19102304280320605916474640.png)

pretend this has brackets at the front/back:

Code: [Select]

img width=size_in_pixels height=size_in_pixelsI use width=250 for my vertical cards, width=300 for horizontal

---

@Something_Smart:
Just a wording style nitpick on zealot: you usually have the effects in the order they happen.
So it'd be

Quote

Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a card on their turn, they ignore its effect and may play a cheaper non-Command card sharing a type with it from the Supply, leaving it there.
-
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action, and +$1.

in the card generator, with effects that happen at a different time than when you play a card (on-gain/on-buy, next turn, when you trash this, etc) under a horizontal line.

Also welcome to the board!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on October 23, 2019, 11:09:43 am

Good point about the ordering of the effects, though looking at other Durations I don't think "next turn" uses a dividing line.

Thanks for the image Abel; how do you usually find those? Just google "[name] art"?

I'll put up a final version of the card with fixed wording when I get home from work. I think I'll keep the non-Command restriction so it's harder to get into a Zealot war.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Abel_K on October 23, 2019, 11:33:33 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on October 23, 2019, 11:09:43 am

Thanks for the image Abel; how do you usually find those? Just google "[name] art"?

Generally yes, or "paintings", or "museum", or the same in french... If no success, I try with synonyms, etc.
I "turn around"... and sometimes I change the title of the card !!!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on October 23, 2019, 11:52:06 am

Quote from: scolapasta

(https://i.imgur.com/uYkaz5p.png)

A little bit wordy, but I like it.

Quote from: ShadowHawk

(https://i.imgur.com/C1M4FYb.png?1)

I don't think setting Schola aside is needed.  Playing an expensive card via this seems nice, but you have to have them in hand together.  Until that, Schola is dead.  I prefer just buying the target card.

Quote from: 4est

(https://i.imgur.com/OeRJN60.png)

This looks like a Smuggler as it helps the second player.  I like Smuggler.  However, this kills some cards like Familiar.  I just buy Falconers to play my opponent Sally's Familiar.  She knows, so she never buys Familiar.  In Smuggler games, you still want to buy a 5 or 6-cost card, because you may be able to re-Smuggle.

Quote from: spineflu

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/fa4825a863218f3dd5adc598a022afc8/image.png) (https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/2c7a17812df0a947562b85e9a0742b4b/image.png) (https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5da76100cd39b45d3790883a/89ed61bcb3248e3d6186f0eb8631f620/image.png)

Compared to Innovation, this seems less attactive.  Playing an Action card after buying something is only useful when it is also an Attack or earns more money.  I prefer just buying that Attack.
Note: Avoiding a pointer to a pointer is an acceptable reason to write "non-Command".

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles

(https://i.imgur.com/MsEWT9S.png)

Maybe too strong, but trash-for-benefit BoM is amazing idea.  I like it.

Quote from: Gubump

(https://i.imgur.com/XrPbCwF.png)

Not bad.

Quote from: Fragasnap

(https://i.imgur.com/UYXglKP.jpg)

"Before you played this" seems "before re-playing of this", which enables the leftmost General to replay itself.  Is there a good way not to confuse players?

Quote from: Aquila

(https://i.imgur.com/xXAc59h.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Pzl2o6N.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/IaSvObV.jpg)

This cannot avoid loops.  (But playing this with Ironworks is very attactive.  I like it.)

Quote from: DEGwer

(https://i.imgur.com/KnwUfDE.png?1)

Don't forget that some games don't have 2 or 3 cost Action cards in Supply.  But not bad.

Quote from: Gazbag

(https://i.imgur.com/5Fb3L9f.png)

Wow! A Throne Room with an extra ability!  I like Thrones!

Quote from: mail-mi

(https://i.imgur.com/k46ra3y.jpg)

Nice, but too overpowering.  With Smithy, this is "+6 Cards".

Quote from: grep

(https://i.imgur.com/IXiNZX2.png) (https://i.imgur.com/iWuQaOJ.png)

A BoM with a Heirloom! Nice card, but I don't know when to go for it.

Quote from: anordinaryman

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/sj7v78sz.png)

Nice card, but this often slows down games.  I cannot decide which to let you play so fast.

Quote from: NoMoreFun

Shadow Realm
Action/Command - $3
You may reveal an Action from your hand to play it, then play the Shadow card with the same cost, leaving it there.
-
Setup: For each Action card cost present in the supply, set aside an extra non-command Action with that cost; these are the Shadow cards.

Wow, this is similar to Potion, as this enables you to access non-Supply cards.  I like it.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr

(https://i.imgur.com/cFCTMRjm.png)

Far less interesting than Inheritance.  You usually have a few Estates when you inherit.  You usually have at most one Duchy when you buy Civilization.

Quote from: naitchman

(https://i.imgur.com/E8arY62.png)

Setting aside 5 Coppers with Miser makes it terminal Platinum.  Nice.  Setting aside with YoP makes it Council Room when you first play YoP.  ...I prefer just buying Council Rooms or something.

Quote from: Something_Smart

Zealot
Types: Action, Duration, Attack, Command
Cost: $4
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action, and +$1. Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a card on their turn, they ignore its effect and may play a cheaper non-Command card sharing a type with it from the Supply, leaving it there.

This punishes engines too harsh.  Some boards doesn't have cheap +Action cards.  Enchantress is ok because it provides an incentive to gain more Action cards.

---

This week's winner is Commodore Chuckles!  Gazbag is the 2nd place.  Congraturations!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 23, 2019, 01:40:22 pm

Quote from: majiponi on October 23, 2019, 11:52:06 am

Quote from: naitchman

(https://i.imgur.com/E8arY62.png)

Setting aside 5 Coppers with Miser makes it terminal Platinum.  Nice.  Setting aside with YoP makes it Council Room when you first play YoP.  ...I prefer just buying Council Rooms or something.

I think you seriously underestimate the flexibility of this. Play it as village, play the second copy as Smithy and so on.
Also, we usually prefer to use our terminal space for draw and not for terminal Coin generation.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 23, 2019, 03:01:22 pm

Quote from: segura on October 23, 2019, 01:40:22 pm

Quote from: majiponi on October 23, 2019, 11:52:06 am

Quote from: naitchman

(https://i.imgur.com/E8arY62.png)

Setting aside 5 Coppers with Miser makes it terminal Platinum.  Nice.  Setting aside with YoP makes it Council Room when you first play YoP.  ...I prefer just buying Council Rooms or something.

I think you seriously underestimate the flexibility of this. Play it as village, play the second copy as Smithy and so on.
Also, we usually prefer to use our terminal space for draw and not for terminal Coin generation.

You'd need at least 5 Coppers on your mat to pull off that combo, though, since one of the Coppers is turned over for the turn each time YoP is played.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 23, 2019, 03:12:07 pm

Quote from: Gubump on October 23, 2019, 03:01:22 pm

Quote from: segura on October 23, 2019, 01:40:22 pm

Quote from: majiponi on October 23, 2019, 11:52:06 am

Quote from: naitchman

(https://i.imgur.com/E8arY62.png)

Setting aside 5 Coppers with Miser makes it terminal Platinum.  Nice.  Setting aside with YoP makes it Council Room when you first play YoP.  ...I prefer just buying Council Rooms or something.

I think you seriously underestimate the flexibility of this. Play it as village, play the second copy as Smithy and so on.
Also, we usually prefer to use our terminal space for draw and not for terminal Coin generation.

You'd need at least 5 Coppers on your mat to pull off that combo, though, since one of the Coppers is turned over for the turn each time YoP is played.

I am not claiming that it is much better than Miser, which is fairly weak / situational. But the flexibility is strong (and without the turning of the Coppers the card would be an ultimate emulator, a mono-engine card) and makes it a tad better than Miser (around which you often have to build an engine with extra Buys and draw power to make it worthwhile).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 24, 2019, 03:48:01 pm

Quote from: majiponi on October 23, 2019, 11:52:06 am

Quote from: ShadowHawk

(https://i.imgur.com/C1M4FYb.png?1)

I don't think setting Schola aside is needed.  Playing an expensive card via this seems nice, but you have to have them in hand together.  Until that, Schola is dead.  I prefer just buying the target card.

Good point. How about this?
(https://i.imgur.com/CUHCySB.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 24, 2019, 03:52:42 pm

congrats to CC and Gazbag!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 24, 2019, 03:59:14 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 24, 2019, 03:52:42 pm

congrats to CC and Gazbag!

Thanks! Commodore's was my favourite this week too so I'm glad it won! 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on October 24, 2019, 07:41:46 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 24, 2019, 03:48:01 pm

Quote from: majiponi on October 23, 2019, 11:52:06 am

Quote from: ShadowHawk

(https://i.imgur.com/C1M4FYb.png?1)

I don't think setting Schola aside is needed.  Playing an expensive card via this seems nice, but you have to have them in hand together.  Until that, Schola is dead.  I prefer just buying the target card.

Good point. How about this?
(https://i.imgur.com/CUHCySB.png?1)

Nice, but I wonder it should let you play a Potion-cost card or a $6 card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 24, 2019, 10:03:06 pm

Thanks, Majiponi!

Contest #49: Make a Card with a Custom Heirloom
Couldn't think of a snappier title, sorry. Anyway, it's exactly what it says on the tin: design both a card and a new Heirloom that comes with it. Can't think of any restrictions at the moment except that the Heirloom has to have the Treasure type. If this specific contest has been done before, sorry, I'll pick something else. I remember there was a contest for making a card that comes with an existing official Heirloom, but this is slightly different.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 24, 2019, 10:11:45 pm

Quote

Good point. How about this?
(https://i.imgur.com/CUHCySB.png?1)


Nice, but I wonder it should let you play a Potion-cost card or a $6 card.

Neither  ;D I should limit it to "on a non-Command Action Supply pile costing $5/$4 or less." But now it's just a Band of Misfits, so I'll drop it and come up with something else. Thank you.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 25, 2019, 01:37:19 am

(https://i.imgur.com/NxByqQA.png?1)(https://i.imgur.com/LQ8bx50.png?1)

Menagerie variant that can assist the heirloom in producing a greater $.

Edited 10/25/2019 after input by segura and Gubump
Edited 10/26/2019 after further input from segura, DEGwur and Fragasnap.
Edited 10/27/2019 to use rephrase by grrgrrgrr.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 25, 2019, 02:06:31 am

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 25, 2019, 01:37:19 am

(https://i.imgur.com/NZJKIfk.png?1)(https://i.imgur.com/ouuMRbG.png?1)

Menagerie variant that can assist the heirloom in producing a greater $.

First Born is either a worse Fugitive (discard first is worse than discarding after) or a Villa without the +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} or the on-gain effect. I think First Born is too weak to cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} and should probably cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 25, 2019, 02:08:58 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 24, 2019, 10:03:06 pm

Thanks, Majiponi!

Contest #49: Make a Card with a Custom Heirloom
Couldn't think of a snappier title, sorry. Anyway, it's exactly what it says on the tin: design both a card and a new Heirloom that comes with it. Can't think of any restrictions at the moment except that the Heirloom has to have the Treasure type. If this specific contest has been done before, sorry, I'll pick something else. I remember there was a contest for making a card that comes with an existing official Heirloom, but this is slightly different.

How about an Action - Treasure - Heirloom?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 25, 2019, 05:26:53 am

(https://i.imgur.com/iNJyaVR.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/xl9aLr8.jpg)
I had +1 Coffers as an Heirloom floating around in my head for a while. Then I thought, it lets you get fewer, bigger buys, so the card it's attached to needs to either be big itself or support them. I did the former; Hireling that does Upgrade gaining to hand at the start of every turn. Copper trashing may be lessened a bit if one chooses to use Safe, and the $7 cost is hopefully balanced and makes a $1 cost bridge between Gold and Province. Gain to hand may be too crazy, but at least that card probably won't be hit by Foundation next turn.
Then Safe just as 1 Coffers looked a tad boring, so added the extra bit on. You might save something for Foundation next turn?

Edit: replaced old entry:
(https://i.imgur.com/C1kQo4D.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/80p1hmw.jpg)
I first went down the support big buys route, but then there may never be any big buys in the game. Safe had to change since 2 Coffers saved makes things a bit too easy to hit $7. Also, spot the mistake on each card! Safe is easy, but see if you can find aristocrat's (it's not non-Duration).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 25, 2019, 07:06:08 am

Doesn't seem to me it should have to be a Treasure.

(https://i.imgur.com/INbRDZX.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Z72SDqC.jpg)

Quote

Farrier
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Action, +$3. You may play a Treasure from your hand. Either way, spend all your $ and gain a card other than a Farrier costing up to the amount you paid.
Heirloom: Horseshoe

Quote

Horseshoe
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
Cost: $0
When you play this, cards cost $1 less this turn.

Per #5 in the 2019 errata (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19892.msg811444#msg811444), Horseshoe doesn't need to mention that cards can't cost less than $0. Take it up with Donald X. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19), not me.

Farrier is a non-terminal Workshop variant that you pay to make better.  Normally you can lose a Copper to make it into a normal Workshop.  Dropping a Silver turns it into a $5 gainer.  Other coins coming from Peddlers and the like also power it up.  If you're overdrawing, you can use Farriers as mid-turn "buys."  It spends all $ so you don't have to track it, and also because a Gold for $3 would be silly, even if you had to gain a Copper for it.
Horseshoe reduces the cost of cards.  You can double-dip between Farrier and your Buy phase--or multiple Farriers, I suppose.  When Farrier isn't relevant, you can use Horseshoe with +Buys anyway.  Horseshoe is worded so you can Crown or Counterfeit it.

HISTORY:
Originally Farrier could gain Farriers.  Farrier->Farrier\Silver\Estate into Farrier+Silver->Duchy seemed dangerous on sight.  Now you have to actually buy the Farriers which makes the described rush much slower.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 25, 2019, 08:26:11 am

Quote from: Gubump on October 25, 2019, 02:06:31 am

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 25, 2019, 01:37:19 am

(https://i.imgur.com/NZJKIfk.png?1)(https://i.imgur.com/ouuMRbG.png?1)

Menagerie variant that can assist the heirloom in producing a greater $.

First Born is either a worse Fugitive (discard first is worse than discarding after) or a Villa without the +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} or the on-gain effect. I think First Born is too weak to cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} and should probably cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

I don't want to disagree with your assessment, this is a weak $5. But you cannot ignore the Heirloom, i.e. Cellar-Fugitive is stronger due to Father's Sword than it would be without it.
I'd change the Menagerie option though. An extra Buy is smart to make Father's Sword payoff but the other stuff seems too weak.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 25, 2019, 09:49:37 am

(https://i.imgur.com/CemFxeJ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/g5XMl1r.png)

Not sure about Blacksmith's strength, also forgot to include the heirloom on the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on October 25, 2019, 10:04:43 am

Is Tool supposed to work if you discard it during Clean-Up? Right now, it does.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 10:30:20 am

Some stiff competition already this week. I think I mostly want to play Fragasnap's entry because I'm p sure I can get Lord Rattington to masquerade some horseshoes over to me.

My entry: Tinker, Tin Snips

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5db2fccd470393416f7388c4/3a5a37f8d760ceb57588d4bb0d52383c/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5db2fccd470393416f7388c4/c962823749264ba230e0386d6674dd21/image.png)

Quote

Tinker • $5 • Night
Exchange a card from your hand for a card from the Supply costing up to $2 more than it.
Heirloom: Tin Snips

Quote

Tin Snips • $4 • Treasure - Reaction - Heirloom
$2
-
When you return a card to the supply, you may reveal this from your hand for +2 Coffers, then put it onto your deck.

The Heirloom is pretty closely coupled to Tinker, but it also works with the Nocturne exchangers (bat/vampire/changeling) and Travellers, Ambassador, and vanishing cards (experiment, encampment, etc), although not with Not-In-Supply vanishing cards like Madman or Spoils.

---

Revisions:

• Specified that Tinker's target is from the Supply
• Changed Tin Snips' price from $2 to $3; changed amt of coffers you get from 2 to 3
• Changed Tinkers price to $5 from $4
• Changed Tin Snips' immediate money/on-play to $2
• Changed Tin Ships' price to $4
• Changed Tin Snips' coffers effect back to +2 Coffers, but you put it onto your deck instead of discarding it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Abel_K on October 25, 2019, 10:34:14 am

Hello everybody !
I'm fond of yhis contest, and I send my first try now… Well, as I am, it's rather complicated but, i Think, rather logical.

(https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2019/10/25//19102503495820605916477630.jpg) (https://www.casimages.com/i/19102503495820605916477630.jpg.html)(https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2019/10/25//19102504183720605916477730.jpg) (https://www.casimages.com/i/19102504183720605916477730.jpg.html) (https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2019/10/25//19102503460020605916477624.jpg)(https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2019/10/25//19102504183720605916477729.jpg) (https://www.casimages.com/i/19102504183720605916477729.jpg.html)


Strategist. Cost $3

Choose one : +1 Action or +$1

Choose one : trash a card, gain a Strategic Map, or
trash a Treasure and a Victory, gain a Strategic Conquest, or a card costing up to $4 ($3 ?)
If theese two card are double type or more, gain a card costing up to $7. ($6 ?)
Worth 1PV per 2 Strategist in your deck (rounded UP!)


Heirloom : Strategic Money
+1 Buy
When you play this, if you have only different cards in play, + $ equal to half of the number of theese cards, rounded down.
(You are not allowed to play other treasures after this)


Strategic Map

$1    +1 Buy  VP1
This is not in the Supply

Strategic Conquest

Count the cards in play that contain « Strategi/c/st » in their name.
This is worth :
$1 if this number is 1
$2 if this number is 2 or 3
$3 if this number is 4+
At the end of the game, this is worth 1/2  VP per 2 cards « Strategi/c/st » in your deck (rounded down)


As you can imagine, I like Menagerie ! The idea here is to gain rather easily different cards that match with the Heirloom.
Strategist is double-type so you can trash it with another Strategist…
Of course, I am not shure of how all this is balanced (so some possible variants for the gained cards in Strategist ; and this one could cost $4…)
Thank you for your feedback and your indulgence...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 25, 2019, 11:39:39 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 10:30:20 am

Some stiff competition already this week. I think I mostly want to play Fragasnap's entry because I'm p sure I can get Lord Rattington to masquerade some horseshoes over to me.

My entry: Tinker, Tin Snips

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5db2fccd470393416f7388c4/aade487b07b710293952996ea119c612/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5db2fccd470393416f7388c4/bb4297805b2f76e8f6df362f8a7fd7eb/image.png)

Quote

Tinker • $4 • Night
Exchange a card from your hand for a card costing up to $2 more than it.
Heirloom: Tin Snips

Quote

Tin Snips • $2 • Treasure - Reaction - Heirloom
$1
-
When you return a card to the supply, you may discard this from your hand for +2 Coffers

The Heirloom is pretty closely coupled to Tinker, but it also works with the Nocturne exchangers (bat/vampire/changeling) and Travellers, Ambassador, and vanishing cards (experiment, encampment, etc), although not with Not-In-Supply vanishing cards like Madman or Spoils.

I think that Tinker compares too favorably to Remodel. Tinker is both non-terminal and synergizes with Tin Snips, and exchanging isn't that different from trashing most of the time.
More importantly, Tinker needs to specify that you can only exchange for cards from the Supply. As worded, you can use Tinker to exchange an Estate for a Warrior.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on October 25, 2019, 11:39:57 am

Haunted Dresser
cost $2 - Action
Reveal a card from your hand and put it onto your deck.
If it is...
an Action card, +2 Villagers
an Victory card, +1vp
an Treasure card, +2 Coffers
(Heirloom: Drawer)

Drawer
cost $3 - Treasure - Heirloom
$1
Draw 1 extra card for your next hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 25, 2019, 12:18:10 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 25, 2019, 09:49:37 am

(https://i.imgur.com/CemFxeJ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/g5XMl1r.png)

Not sure about Blacksmith's strength, also forgot to include the heirloom on the card.

In a vacuum, Blacksmith is weaker than Catacombs.
But via Blacksmith you are more likely to get the Villager via Tool.
Yet I don't think that this pushes the card from "similar to Catacombs and thus a $5" into $6 territory.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 12:36:25 pm

Quote from: Gubump on October 25, 2019, 11:39:39 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 10:30:20 am

Some stiff competition already this week. I think I mostly want to play Fragasnap's entry because I'm p sure I can get Lord Rattington to masquerade some horseshoes over to me.

My entry: Tinker, Tin Snips

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5db2fccd470393416f7388c4/aade487b07b710293952996ea119c612/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5db2fccd470393416f7388c4/bb4297805b2f76e8f6df362f8a7fd7eb/image.png)

Quote

Tinker • $4 • Night
Exchange a card from your hand for a card costing up to $2 more than it.
Heirloom: Tin Snips

Quote

Tin Snips • $2 • Treasure - Reaction - Heirloom
$1
-
When you return a card to the supply, you may discard this from your hand for +2 Coffers

The Heirloom is pretty closely coupled to Tinker, but it also works with the Nocturne exchangers (bat/vampire/changeling) and Travellers, Ambassador, and vanishing cards (experiment, encampment, etc), although not with Not-In-Supply vanishing cards like Madman or Spoils.

I think that Tinker compares too favorably to Remodel. Tinker is both non-terminal and synergizes with Tin Snips, and exchanging isn't that different from trashing most of the time.
More importantly, Tinker needs to specify that you can only exchange for cards from the Supply. As worded, you can use Tinker to exchange an Estate for a Warrior.

Tinker can't do my favorite feature of Remodel, which is run down the Province pile (remodel province into province), and while it is non-terminal, it also doesn't have the support cards from things like Imp, Conclave, Throne Room, Scepter, etc, which make it not-a-stop card; You have to hang onto it and the target card until you're night phase. Those two play differences - both drawbacks, imo - make it different enough from Remodel to keep at the same price point.

You're right though, it does need the "from the Supply" specification. 

---

Quote from: majiponi on October 25, 2019, 11:39:57 am

Drawer
cost $3 - Treasure - Heirloom
$1
Draw 1 extra card for your next hand.

I see what you did there

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on October 25, 2019, 01:00:29 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/r6j6cqT.png) (https://i.imgur.com/RqjpdgV.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 25, 2019, 01:09:47 pm

Quote from: segura on October 25, 2019, 08:26:11 am

Quote from: Gubump on October 25, 2019, 02:06:31 am

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 25, 2019, 01:37:19 am

(https://i.imgur.com/NZJKIfk.png?1)(https://i.imgur.com/ouuMRbG.png?1)

Menagerie variant that can assist the heirloom in producing a greater $.

First Born is either a worse Fugitive (discard first is worse than discarding after) or a Villa without the +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} or the on-gain effect. I think First Born is too weak to cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} and should probably cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

I don't want to disagree with your assessment, this is a weak $5. But you cannot ignore the Heirloom, i.e. Cellar-Fugitive is stronger due to Father's Sword than it would be without it.
I'd change the Menagerie option though. An extra Buy is smart to make Father's Sword payoff but the other stuff seems too weak.

I could make the Menagerie option more like a weaker Festival (add +$1) or make it +2 Actions. The Village default is probably fine unless it would be more interesting to use a gainer option, gaining an Action costing up to the number of differently named cards in hand.

Edit: made the Menagerie option Festival. Left the Village option intact rather than make it a Smithy + Action, but I did move the discard to after the draw. Dropped the price to $4.

(https://i.imgur.com/zX5TItF.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 25, 2019, 01:16:34 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 12:36:25 pm

Tinker can't do my favorite feature of Remodel, which is run down the Province pile (remodel province into province), and while it is non-terminal, it also doesn't have the support cards from things like Imp, Conclave, Throne Room, Scepter, etc, which make it not-a-stop card; You have to hang onto it and the target card until you're night phase. Those two play differences - both drawbacks, imo - make it different enough from Remodel to keep at the same price point.

You're right though, it does need the "from the Supply" specification. 

1. Considering that Remodel only costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, running down the Province pile is far from the main point of Remodel.
2. The second drawback you mention only comes into play in the late game, but Remodel and Tinker are both priced such that you can open with them. Needing to hang onto the target card until your Night phase doesn't make any difference unless you'd draw into the card you gain/receive since you wouldn't be playing the target card either way.
Two minor drawbacks do not override two major pluses.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 01:31:45 pm

Quote from: Gubump on October 25, 2019, 01:16:34 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 12:36:25 pm

Tinker can't do my favorite feature of Remodel, which is run down the Province pile (remodel province into province), and while it is non-terminal, it also doesn't have the support cards from things like Imp, Conclave, Throne Room, Scepter, etc, which make it not-a-stop card; You have to hang onto it and the target card until you're night phase. Those two play differences - both drawbacks, imo - make it different enough from Remodel to keep at the same price point.

You're right though, it does need the "from the Supply" specification. 

1. Considering that Remodel only costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, running down the Province pile is far from the main point of Remodel.
2. The second drawback you mention only comes into play in the late game, but Remodel and Tinker are both priced such that you can open with them. Needing to hang onto the target card until your Night phase doesn't make any difference unless you'd draw into the card you gain/receive since you wouldn't be playing the target card either way.
Two minor drawbacks do not override two major pluses.

I'm just not seeing it as a $5 card, that's my real issue here. You need the target card in-hand, which absent a draw engine, leaves you 3 other cards to buy or play; if you try to capitalize on the non-terminality, you've got one other card to buy or play. Even in a draw engine, these eat at what you've got available for the rest of your turn, which you've gotta play beforehand.

Would you say its more balanced with Tin Snips giving +1 Coffers, instead of +2? I had considered that but it felt like, why even bother? That's +$1 this turn or +$1 next turn. not exactly breaking new ground.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on October 25, 2019, 01:36:27 pm

A few editions ago, I posted the Mineworker, which was horribly wordy and broken. Here is the fixed version.

EDIT: reworded Mineworker to prevent confusion with Durations that last more than 2 turns. I also added in the "reveal from your hand" part, to ensure a Duration effect can only be postponed once per turn (it would otherwise cause horrible tracking problems).
Also simplified Mine Cart.

(https://i.imgur.com/2X1Kz6t.png) (https://i.imgur.com/CBfrgpz.png)

Quote

Mineworker (Action - Duration - Reaction; $5)

Now and at the start of your next turn: you may discard your hand for +5 Cards.
-
Before resolving the effect of a Duration at the start of your turn, you may once reveal a Mine Worker from your hand. If you do, all unresolved effects will occur one turn later.

Mine Cart (Treasure - Heirloom - Reaction, $2)

$1
You may set this aside from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, trash this. Gain an Estate and +2% per Duration in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 25, 2019, 01:51:35 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 01:31:45 pm

Quote from: Gubump on October 25, 2019, 01:16:34 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 12:36:25 pm

Tinker can't do my favorite feature of Remodel, which is run down the Province pile (remodel province into province), and while it is non-terminal, it also doesn't have the support cards from things like Imp, Conclave, Throne Room, Scepter, etc, which make it not-a-stop card; You have to hang onto it and the target card until you're night phase. Those two play differences - both drawbacks, imo - make it different enough from Remodel to keep at the same price point.

You're right though, it does need the "from the Supply" specification. 

1. Considering that Remodel only costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, running down the Province pile is far from the main point of Remodel.
2. The second drawback you mention only comes into play in the late game, but Remodel and Tinker are both priced such that you can open with them. Needing to hang onto the target card until your Night phase doesn't make any difference unless you'd draw into the card you gain/receive since you wouldn't be playing the target card either way.
Two minor drawbacks do not override two major pluses.

I'm just not seeing it as a $5 card, that's my real issue here. You need the target card in-hand, which absent a draw engine, leaves you 3 other cards to buy or play; if you try to capitalize on the non-terminality, you've got one other card to buy or play. Even in a draw engine, these eat at what you've got available for the rest of your turn, which you've gotta play beforehand.

The non-terminality is simply far more important than Province-Province or drawing into the gained card during the same turn. The reason for the latter is again the limitedness of terminal space: you are rarely able to use a Remodel variant (not even Replace) mid-turn and then still have the Actions left to draw into the gained card (respectively you first gotta spend your draw power to draw into something you want to Remodel).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 25, 2019, 01:52:06 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 01:31:45 pm

Quote from: Gubump on October 25, 2019, 01:16:34 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 12:36:25 pm

Tinker can't do my favorite feature of Remodel, which is run down the Province pile (remodel province into province), and while it is non-terminal, it also doesn't have the support cards from things like Imp, Conclave, Throne Room, Scepter, etc, which make it not-a-stop card; You have to hang onto it and the target card until you're night phase. Those two play differences - both drawbacks, imo - make it different enough from Remodel to keep at the same price point.

You're right though, it does need the "from the Supply" specification. 

1. Considering that Remodel only costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, running down the Province pile is far from the main point of Remodel.
2. The second drawback you mention only comes into play in the late game, but Remodel and Tinker are both priced such that you can open with them. Needing to hang onto the target card until your Night phase doesn't make any difference unless you'd draw into the card you gain/receive since you wouldn't be playing the target card either way.
Two minor drawbacks do not override two major pluses.

I'm just not seeing it as a $5 card, that's my real issue here. You need the target card in-hand, which absent a draw engine, leaves you 3 other cards to buy or play; if you try to capitalize on the non-terminality, you've got one other card to buy or play. Even in a draw engine, these eat at what you've got available for the rest of your turn, which you've gotta play beforehand.

Remodel is worse because you don't even have the option to capitalize on its non-terminality because it doesn't have non-terminality. I agree that Tinker is too weak for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, but even without the Heirloom I think it's too strong for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. I think you'd be best off buffing Tinker into the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} range. My suggestion would be giving Tin Snips another +Coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 25, 2019, 01:54:04 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on October 25, 2019, 01:36:27 pm

A few editions ago, I posted the Mineworker, which was horribly wordy and broken. Here is the fixed version.

(https://i.imgur.com/dvRQP3v.png)(https://i.imgur.com/3sNKMts.png)

Quote

Mineworker (Action - Duration - Reaction; $5)

+1 Card
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn: you may discard your hand for +5 Cards.
–
Before resolving the effect of a Duration at the start of your turn, you may reveal this. If you do, the effect will occur at the start of your next turn instead of this turn (the Duration will stay in play).

Mine Cart (Treasure - Heirloom - Reaction, $2)

$1
-
When you play a Duration, you may set this aside. If you do, at the start of your next turn, trash this. +2% per Duration you have in play.

Mineworker's reaction has to specify where it's being revealed from (I assume from your hand).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 01:57:57 pm

Quote from: segura on October 25, 2019, 01:51:35 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 01:31:45 pm

Quote from: Gubump on October 25, 2019, 01:16:34 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 12:36:25 pm

Tinker can't do my favorite feature of Remodel, which is run down the Province pile (remodel province into province), and while it is non-terminal, it also doesn't have the support cards from things like Imp, Conclave, Throne Room, Scepter, etc, which make it not-a-stop card; You have to hang onto it and the target card until you're night phase. Those two play differences - both drawbacks, imo - make it different enough from Remodel to keep at the same price point.

You're right though, it does need the "from the Supply" specification. 

1. Considering that Remodel only costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, running down the Province pile is far from the main point of Remodel.
2. The second drawback you mention only comes into play in the late game, but Remodel and Tinker are both priced such that you can open with them. Needing to hang onto the target card until your Night phase doesn't make any difference unless you'd draw into the card you gain/receive since you wouldn't be playing the target card either way.
Two minor drawbacks do not override two major pluses.

I'm just not seeing it as a $5 card, that's my real issue here. You need the target card in-hand, which absent a draw engine, leaves you 3 other cards to buy or play; if you try to capitalize on the non-terminality, you've got one other card to buy or play. Even in a draw engine, these eat at what you've got available for the rest of your turn, which you've gotta play beforehand.

The non-terminality is simply far more important than Province-Province or drawing into the gained card during the same turn. The reason for the latter is again the limitedness of terminal space: you are rarely able to use a Remodel variant (not even Replace) mid-turn and then still have the Actions left to draw into the gained card (respectively you first gotta spend your draw power to draw into something you want to Remodel).

how do you draw into the gained* card in your night phase?
*in this case, exchanged but you get what i'm saying

Regardless, I'm gonna give the Tin Snips an additional + Coffers & bump the price on Tinker to $5

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 25, 2019, 02:02:03 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 01:57:57 pm

Quote from: segura on October 25, 2019, 01:51:35 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 01:31:45 pm

Quote from: Gubump on October 25, 2019, 01:16:34 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 12:36:25 pm

Tinker can't do my favorite feature of Remodel, which is run down the Province pile (remodel province into province), and while it is non-terminal, it also doesn't have the support cards from things like Imp, Conclave, Throne Room, Scepter, etc, which make it not-a-stop card; You have to hang onto it and the target card until you're night phase. Those two play differences - both drawbacks, imo - make it different enough from Remodel to keep at the same price point.

You're right though, it does need the "from the Supply" specification. 

1. Considering that Remodel only costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, running down the Province pile is far from the main point of Remodel.
2. The second drawback you mention only comes into play in the late game, but Remodel and Tinker are both priced such that you can open with them. Needing to hang onto the target card until your Night phase doesn't make any difference unless you'd draw into the card you gain/receive since you wouldn't be playing the target card either way.
Two minor drawbacks do not override two major pluses.

I'm just not seeing it as a $5 card, that's my real issue here. You need the target card in-hand, which absent a draw engine, leaves you 3 other cards to buy or play; if you try to capitalize on the non-terminality, you've got one other card to buy or play. Even in a draw engine, these eat at what you've got available for the rest of your turn, which you've gotta play beforehand.

The non-terminality is simply far more important than Province-Province or drawing into the gained card during the same turn. The reason for the latter is again the limitedness of terminal space: you are rarely able to use a Remodel variant (not even Replace) mid-turn and then still have the Actions left to draw into the gained card (respectively you first gotta spend your draw power to draw into something you want to Remodel).

how do you draw into the gained* card in your night phase?

You don't. That's one of the only ways Tinker isn't strictly better than Remodel.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 25, 2019, 06:20:39 pm

Quote from: segura on October 25, 2019, 12:18:10 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 25, 2019, 09:49:37 am

(https://i.imgur.com/CemFxeJ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/g5XMl1r.png)

Not sure about Blacksmith's strength, also forgot to include the heirloom on the card.

In a vacuum, Blacksmith is weaker than Catacombs.
But via Blacksmith you are more likely to get the Villager via Tool.
Yet I don't think that this pushes the card from "similar to Catacombs and thus a $5" into $6 territory.

I knew it, there's often a card similar to an idea of mine that I forget. I'll have an edited version or replacement soon, along with a fixed version of tool.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on October 25, 2019, 06:25:38 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 25, 2019, 02:08:58 am

How about an Action - Treasure - Heirloom?

That's fine.

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 25, 2019, 07:06:08 am

Doesn't seem to me it should have to be a Treasure.

I'm keeping the rule, for these reasons:
1. All official Heirlooms are Treasures
2. It's replacing a Copper
3. Treasures usually have less (immediately) dramatic effects than other types of cards. It's more interesting if you have to gain cards with dramatic effects instead of having them in your deck right away.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on October 25, 2019, 06:39:14 pm

Upd: New version with a weakened on gain effect and new synergy with workshops.

(https://i.ibb.co/Zm3Zg8B/Galley-1.png) (https://i.ibb.co/frLwVRz/Coffee.png)

Galley
$4 - Action
+2 Villagers
You may spend any number of Villagers for +1 Card each.
-
When you gain this, you may discard a Treasure card for +1 Villager.
Heirloom: Coffee

Coffee
$2 - Treasure - Heirloom
$1
+1 Villager

---
Clarification: You spend all the Villagers you want and then draw the cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on October 25, 2019, 09:03:04 pm

I may as well have a go at this, even though my submission is basically guaranteed not to win. In the extremely rare event that I do win, I'd like to design the challenge, but let the runner up judge, since I am not at all good at that sort of thing. Without further ado;

Senator
$4
Action-Duration
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
At the start of your next turn, if you have 4 or less cards in hand, +3 Cards.
Heirloom: Bonds

Bonds
$2
Treasure-Heirloom
$2
When you play this, put your -1 Card token onto your deck.

Change log:
V1.0: Original.
V1.1: Made Senator a $4 Peddler.
V1.2: Benefit of Senator increased to +3 Cards instead of +2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: DEGwer on October 26, 2019, 04:29:22 am

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/82HrhDQ.png?1) (https://i.imgur.com/Z42BdPT.png?1) (https://i.imgur.com/ZGnenHz.png?1)

Manuscript pile contains 12 cards of Manuscripts.

My idea is making a smithy with less fear of collision and accidents. Using it by a Book or Manuscripts produces extra source of +Buy, so we also have less fear of $16 and 1 Buy. A Book is not enough to enable Novelist's additional effect consistently, so we can copy it to Manuscripts.

Dominion already have eight ways to play treasure before Novelist: Black Market, Storyteller, Capitalism, Scepter, Innovation, Crown, Coin of the Realm, and Villa. The heirloom is the ninth one and we can enable additional effect every time because it is heirloom, but there may be tricky local strategy with these cards.

Title: Re: Contest #49: Custom Heirloom
Post by: Gubump on October 26, 2019, 05:18:22 am

(https://i.imgur.com/tGneI2W.png) (https://i.imgur.com/HWoCLDk.png)

Wizard acts like a cheap Witch, but you have to play your Grimoire once per Curse you want to give out.

Version History (Wizard):
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Reduced Cursing cost from two Spell tokens to one.
v1.2: Added +1 Buy to Wizard's vanilla bonuses.

Version History (Grimoire):
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Lowered cost to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: DEGwer on October 26, 2019, 06:27:52 am

Quote from: Gubump on October 26, 2019, 05:18:22 am

(https://i.imgur.com/HOInFQQ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/ttyzZY9.png)

Wizard acts like a cheap Witch, but you have to play your Grimoire twice per Curse you want to give out.

Seems so slow. It is difficult to distribute even five curses until the game ends. I'd rather throw Grimoire by Catapult to send a Curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 26, 2019, 06:47:00 am

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 25, 2019, 01:09:47 pm

I could make the Menagerie option more like a weaker Festival (add +$1) or make it +2 Actions. The Village default is probably fine unless it would be more interesting to use a gainer option, gaining an Action costing up to the number of differently named cards in hand.

Edit: made the Menagerie option Festival. Left the Village option intact rather than make it a Smithy + Action, but I did move the discard to after the draw. Dropped the price to $4.

(https://i.imgur.com/zX5TItF.png?1)

I think that this is too good now. Festival is a $5, Fugitive is a $4.5. Perhaps stick with discarding before drawing?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: DEGwer on October 26, 2019, 07:30:00 am

Quote from: segura on October 26, 2019, 06:47:00 am

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 25, 2019, 01:09:47 pm

I could make the Menagerie option more like a weaker Festival (add +$1) or make it +2 Actions. The Village default is probably fine unless it would be more interesting to use a gainer option, gaining an Action costing up to the number of differently named cards in hand.

Edit: made the Menagerie option Festival. Left the Village option intact rather than make it a Smithy + Action, but I did move the discard to after the draw. Dropped the price to $4.

(https://i.imgur.com/zX5TItF.png?1)

I think that this is too good now. Festival is a $5, Fugitive is a $4.5. Perhaps stick with discarding before drawing?

It is not easy to control which option is chosen. This fact weaken the card. Ironmonger is a Spy with additional effect of Village (3+Spy) / Peddler (4.5+Spy) / Laboratory (5+Spy), but it is $4 because we basically cannot choose which is chosen.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 26, 2019, 07:40:08 am

Quote from: Commodore Chuckles on October 25, 2019, 06:25:38 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 25, 2019, 07:06:08 am

Doesn't seem to me it should have to be a Treasure.

I'm keeping the rule, for these reasons:
1. All official Heirlooms are Treasures
2. It's replacing a Copper
3. Treasures usually have less (immediately) dramatic effects than other types of cards. It's more interesting if you have to gain cards with dramatic effects instead of having them in your deck right away.

3 is hardly true.  Cursed Gold and Goat are immediately dramatic and each have huge implications on the whole strategy space of the game.  If you mean Treasures don't matter as much generally, I think you are underestimating Ill-Gotten Gains rushes and the sheer power of Spices and I see more than my fair share of players undersell the Gold flood of Hoard and Treasure Trove in the heat of a game.  It just seems odd to inherently limit the Heirloom to a Treasure simply because the others are Treasures.  I'm not so bothered either way.

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 25, 2019, 01:37:19 am

First Born
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action. Reveal your hand. If the revealed cards all have different names, +1 Action, +1 Buy and +$2. Otherwise, +2 Cards and discard a card from your hand.
Heirloom: Father's Sword

Quote

Father's Sword
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
Cost: $5
$1*. Worth an additional $1 per differently named Action you have in play.

For clarity, I'd recommend combining the benefits as much as possible: Reading +1 Action and +1 Action separately looks weird.
I agree with segura that both cards (Festival or Fugitive) this can be make this too good for $4.  If you put "discard a card" at the top, making it into Fugitive or Festival+Discard, and otherwise left everything the same it would look okay.
Thematically it is a little weird because your deck is going to have a bunch of First Borns in it for the +Actions: It needs the +Actions, but the theme remains odd.

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 10:30:20 am

Tinker
Types: Night
Cost: $5
Exchange a card from your hand for a card from the Supply costing up to $2 more than it.
Heirloom: Tin Snips

Quote

Tin Snips
Types: Treasure, Reaction, Heirloom
Cost: $3
$1

---

When you return a card to the Supply, you may discard this from your hand for +3 Coffers.

I do agree that Tinker needs to cost $5 (which you changed in the image but not the text): Remodel is very nearly too strong for $4, let alone Remodel-with-a-benefit (and being non-terminal is a huge benefit, even if it has to trigger during the Night phase).
Tin Snips is this huge source of +Coffers, but has so little to play with it except Tinker.  +3 Coffers is way too big for how frustrating it will be to align in the early game.  I'd much rather Tin Snips trigger off trashing for it to play nicer with more Kingdom cards.  Then it can give a more reasonable number of Coffers, and Tinker could trash instead of Exchange.

Quote from: Abel_K on October 25, 2019, 10:34:14 am

Strategist
Types: Action, Victory
Cost $3
Choose one : +1 Action or +$1. Choose one : trash a card, gain a Strategic Map; or trash a Treasure and a Victory, gain a Strategic Conquest, or a card costing up to $4, If theese two card are double type or more, gain a card costing up to $7.

---

Worth 1VP per 2 Strategist in your deck (rounded up!)
Heirloom: Strategic Money

Quote

Strategic Money
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
+1 Buy. When you play this, if you have only different cards in play, + $ equal to half of the number of theese cards, rounded down. (You are not allowed to play other treasures after this)

Quote

Strategic Map
Types: Treasure, Victory
Cost: $1*
$1, +1 Buy.

---

1VP
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Strategic Conquest
Types: Treasure, Victory
Cost: $4*
Count the cards in play that contain « Strategi/c/st » in their name. This is worth: $1 if this number is 1; $2 if this number is 2 or 3; $3 if this number is 4+.

---

Worth 1VP per 4 cards « Strategi/c/st » in your deck (rounded down)
(This is not in the Supply.)

This is a lot of cards with a lot of words that is ultimately very self-centered.  They mostly care about themselves and each other.  It is difficult to evaluate it for that reason.  Strategic Money could give you +$3 pretty easily, using Strategist to trash your duplicate Coppers and gain Strategic Maps and Strategic Conquests, but 1 Gold at the cost of the ability to play any duplicates is not good.  If you buy the entire Strategist pile, you get 32VP (which is not a lot), but then you're never getting any value from Strategic Money, so you should trash that for $7-gains if you can.  Strategic Conquests are then worth ~2VP, so they remain very weak as far as VP is concerned, but gives lots of $.
Really, the biggest problem is that none of these cards play nice with anything else.  They dominate 100% of your strategic focus if you want to use each of their elements and look pretty slow, unreliable, and weak.  Ultimately, if I bought these at all, I'd probably buy 2 Strategists to turn Copper\Estate into weak Strategic Conquests which I can then trash for $7 gains, which means there is a lot of design chaff hanging off of these cards.
The idea of Strategic Money is okay (it does reduce your opening by $1 because Strategic Money is worth $0 at that time), but Strategist\Strategic Map\Strategic Conquest are overly complicated.  Pare this down a lot.

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on October 25, 2019, 09:03:04 pm

Senator
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +1 Action. At the start of your next turn, if you have 4 or less cards in hand, +2 Cards.
Heirloom: Bonds

Quote

Bonds
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
$2. When you play this, put your -1 Card token onto your deck.

I'm not sure how much I like Bonds, considering I don't like messing with the opening so much.  However, Senator I really like conceptually.  A pseudo-defense Duration with a way to leverage it yourself in Bonds is super clever.  I would probably like Senator better if it gave some sort of benefit on its up-turn instead of being a cantrip: Maybe a $4 Peddler?  The Duration effect is quite nearly a draw-back, as there is not currently a way to reduce your hand-size at the start of your turn.

Quote from: DEGwer on October 26, 2019, 04:29:22 am

Novelist
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. If you have a treasure in play, +$1 and +1 Buy.
Heirloom: Book

Quote

Book
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
Cost: $4
$1. You may choose one: Play an action card from your hand; or gain a Manuscript.

Quote

Manuscript: 16
Types: Treasure
Cost: $2*
$1. You may play an Action card from your hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

I'd recommend Novelist state "if you have any Treasures in play" or "at least 1 Treasure in play" for clarity.  +$1 and +1 Buy should be swapped for standard bonus order.  Card types should be capitalized (Treasure on Novelist, Action on Book and Manuscript).  Book needs to specify that Manuscript comes "from its pile" or else you can't gain it unless Manuscript appears in the Supply.
I like this set.  Offering a way to increase the effect of the Heirloom by gaining Manuscripts is nice, though card intensive.
I think Novelist should cost $6, though.  Its benefit is a bit sideways, but +3 Cards and +1 Buy and +$1 is very strong--especially when the card necessitates a way to activate it is present in the Kingdom.

Quote from: grep on October 25, 2019, 06:39:14 pm

Galley
Types: Action
Cost: $4+
+2 Villagers. You may spend any number of Villagers for +1 Card each.

---

When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you have overpaid, +1 Villager.
Heirloom: Coffee

Quote

Coffee
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
Cost: $2
$1, +1 Villager

Coffee is fun, but I don't like Galley very much.  Another way to spend Villagers makes enough sense, but the benefit is so unpredictable that I suspect it will be frustrating.  More pressingly, it offers a way to easily accumulate large numbers of Villagers.  I think the fact that there isn't a very easy way to accumulate Villagers is an important design aspect in Renaissance (Recruiter requires you to trash valuable cards, Patron is a terminal Silver if you don't spend its single Villager immediately, and the rest are all on-gain and on-trash abilities.  Coffee plays nicely into the concept because it's a Copper and you can only have one of them.).

Quote from: Gubump on October 26, 2019, 05:18:22 am

Wizard
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. You may spend two Spell tokens. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.
Heirloom: Grimoire

Quote

Grimoire
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
Cost: $4
$1. When you play this, take a Spell token.

Having played with a Treasure that provides a limited resource, the fact that Grimoire is the only 1-card source of Spell tokens feels frustrating.  If your Grimoire ends up on the bottom of your shuffle, you will fall wildly behind in Spell tokens and you have no recourse to improve your status.
I also agree with DEGwer that it is pretty slow.  Having another way to accelerate your Spell tokens is probably desirable, either through some additional ability on Wizard or Grimoire, or via making Wizard into a split pile--though putting together three cards might be a little much.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 26, 2019, 10:10:29 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 26, 2019, 07:40:08 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 10:30:20 am

Tinker
Types: Night
Cost: $5
Exchange a card from your hand for a card from the Supply costing up to $2 more than it.
Heirloom: Tin Snips

Quote

Tin Snips
Types: Treasure, Reaction, Heirloom
Cost: $3
$1

---

When you return a card to the Supply, you may discard this from your hand for +3 Coffers.

I do agree that Tinker needs to cost $5 (which you changed in the image but not the text): Remodel is very nearly too strong for $4, let alone Remodel-with-a-benefit (and being non-terminal is a huge benefit, even if it has to trigger during the Night phase).
Tin Snips is this huge source of +Coffers, but has so little to play with it except Tinker.  +3 Coffers is way too big for how frustrating it will be to align in the early game.  I'd much rather Tin Snips trigger off trashing for it to play nicer with more Kingdom cards.  Then it can give a more reasonable number of Coffers, and Tinker could trash instead of Exchange.

I mean if I did that I'd basically be making cards that already exist. The exchange-instead-of-trashing is The Whole Point of the card.
I did change Tin Snips to +2 Coffers tho, because +3 is too much - you hit that and a Swashbuckler? You've got your treasure chest in one go. Too much. But in the interest of having a game where you ignore Tinker and still use Tin Snips, I changed it to be a Silver instead of a Copper (and bumped the price up by one so we don't have to have Yet Another "Strictly Better" thread derailment on this board).

---

Quote from: Gubump on October 26, 2019, 05:18:22 am

(https://i.imgur.com/HOInFQQ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/ttyzZY9.png)

Wizard acts like a cheap Witch, but you have to play your Grimoire twice per Curse you want to give out.

Are spell tokens component-limited? or is it like a "we included a spell token mat, just use the coin tokens that you use for coffers/etc as spell tokens"? Are there other ways to earn them? because as-is, if Grimoire gets trashed by a Bandit or Knight or something (or because it's a Copper if you ignore Wizard), Wizard is a very expensive Lackeys.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 26, 2019, 10:30:35 am

Quote from: DEGwer on October 26, 2019, 07:30:00 am

Quote from: segura on October 26, 2019, 06:47:00 am

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 25, 2019, 01:09:47 pm

I could make the Menagerie option more like a weaker Festival (add +$1) or make it +2 Actions. The Village default is probably fine unless it would be more interesting to use a gainer option, gaining an Action costing up to the number of differently named cards in hand.

Edit: made the Menagerie option Festival. Left the Village option intact rather than make it a Smithy + Action, but I did move the discard to after the draw. Dropped the price to $4.

(https://i.imgur.com/zX5TItF.png?1)

I think that this is too good now. Festival is a $5, Fugitive is a $4.5. Perhaps stick with discarding before drawing?

It is not easy to control which option is chosen. This fact weaken the card. Ironmonger is a Spy with additional effect of Village (3+Spy) / Peddler (4.5+Spy) / Laboratory (5+Spy), but it is $4 because we basically cannot choose which is chosen.

About Ironmonger, it is superstrong because you are virtually always (pay $4 for a Mining Village) willing to pay $4 for all 3 options ... and then get a cherry on top via the cycling.

The lack of control / randomness is indeed a liability. But it is not strong enough to make a card which behaves either as a 4.5 (closer at 5 than 4 due to the Heirloom) or a 5 be worth 4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on October 26, 2019, 10:49:57 am

(https://i.imgur.com/EeoIA3G.png) (https://i.imgur.com/nEdyGd3.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on October 26, 2019, 12:02:04 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 26, 2019, 07:40:08 am

Quote from: grep on October 25, 2019, 06:39:14 pm

Galley
Types: Action
Cost: $4+
+2 Villagers. You may spend any number of Villagers for +1 Card each.

---

When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you have overpaid, +1 Villager.
Heirloom: Coffee

Quote

Coffee
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
Cost: $2
$1, +1 Villager

Coffee is fun, but I don't like Galley very much.  Another way to spend Villagers makes enough sense, but the benefit is so unpredictable that I suspect it will be frustrating.  More pressingly, it offers a way to easily accumulate large numbers of Villagers.  I think the fact that there isn't a very easy way to accumulate Villagers is an important design aspect in Renaissance (Recruiter requires you to trash valuable cards, Patron is a terminal Silver if you don't spend its single Villager immediately, and the rest are all on-gain and on-trash abilities.  Coffee plays nicely into the concept because it's a Copper and you can only have one of them.).

I agree, the overpay effect is too strong. I will moderate it in the new version.

(https://i.ibb.co/Zm3Zg8B/Galley-1.png) (https://i.ibb.co/frLwVRz/Coffee.png)
Galley
$4 - Action
+2 Villagers
You may spend any number of Villagers for +1 Card each.
-
When you gain this, you may discard a Treasure card for +1 Villager.
Heirloom: Coffee

This version limits on gain benefit with just a single Villager, and enables fun interaction with workshops.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 26, 2019, 12:31:35 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on October 25, 2019, 09:03:04 pm

I may as well have a go at this, even though my submission is basically guaranteed not to win. In the extremely rare event that I do win, I'd like to design the challenge, but let the runner up judge, since I am not at all good at that sort of thing. Without further ado;

Senator
$3
Action-Duration
+1 Card
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn, if you have 4 or less cards in hand, +2 Cards.
Heirloom: Bonds

Bonds
$2
Treasure-Heirloom
$2
When you play this, put your -1 Card token onto your deck.

The vast majority of the time, the only way to trigger Senator is to play it and Bonds in the same turn, and even when you do trigger it that way, the first +Card just gives you whatever you would have had without the -1 Card token, so Senator is effectively just a hard to trigger Caravan that doesn't stack. It's too weak compared to Caravan to cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}. The problem with minus variants of cards that cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} or less is that the difference between costs that low is almost negligible, so the difference has to be very small. The difference between Senator and Caravan is not small.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: DEGwer on October 26, 2019, 02:11:11 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 26, 2019, 07:40:08 am

Quote from: DEGwer on October 26, 2019, 04:29:22 am

Novelist
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. If you have a treasure in play, +$1 and +1 Buy.
Heirloom: Book

Quote

Book
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
Cost: $4
$1. You may choose one: Play an action card from your hand; or gain a Manuscript.

Quote

Manuscript: 16
Types: Treasure
Cost: $2*
$1. You may play an Action card from your hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

I'd recommend Novelist state "if you have any Treasures in play" or "at least 1 Treasure in play" for clarity.  +$1 and +1 Buy should be swapped for standard bonus order.  Card types should be capitalized (Treasure on Novelist, Action on Book and Manuscript).  Book needs to specify that Manuscript comes "from its pile" or else you can't gain it unless Manuscript appears in the Supply.
I like this set.  Offering a way to increase the effect of the Heirloom by gaining Manuscripts is nice, though card intensive.
I think Novelist should cost $6, though.  Its benefit is a bit sideways, but +3 Cards and +1 Buy and +$1 is very strong--especially when the card necessitates a way to activate it is present in the Kingdom.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZcFRN4I.png?1) (https://i.imgur.com/TxoHnWD.png?1) (https://i.imgur.com/bJLTWwm.png?1)

Fixed wording problems. Thank you for your suggestion. But I don't think Novelist should cost $6: Novelist seems to have similar strength as Swashbuckler. (+1 Coffer) and (+1 Buy and +1$) are judged as similar strength (as Market/Baker) and I cannot say that the bonus condition of (Swashbuckler / Novelist) are far harder to be satisfied against the other, even with the heirloom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on October 26, 2019, 04:32:14 pm

Quote

I'm not sure how much I like Bonds, considering I don't like messing with the opening so much.  However, Senator I really like conceptually.  A pseudo-defense Duration with a way to leverage it yourself in Bonds is super clever.  I would probably like Senator better if it gave some sort of benefit on its up-turn instead of being a cantrip: Maybe a $4 Peddler?  The Duration effect is quite nearly a draw-back, as there is not currently a way to reduce your hand-size at the start of your turn.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll change it to a $4 Peddler. To me, Bonds seems similar to a Turn 1 Borrow (which, incidentally, is another way to activate Senator), so I think it's fine.

Quote

The vast majority of the time, the only way to trigger Senator is to play it and Bonds in the same turn, and even when you do trigger it that way, the first +Card just gives you whatever you would have had without the -1 Card token, so Senator is effectively just a hard to trigger Caravan that doesn't stack. It's too weak compared to Caravan to cost . The problem with minus variants of cards that cost  or less is that the difference between costs that low is almost negligible, so the difference has to be very small. The difference between Senator and Caravan is not small.

Okay, good to hear. My idea was to somewhat alleviate the drawback of the Heirloom, and I thought that, hey, there are other ways, you could get Militia'd or something, but yeah, I need to buff it. Is a $4 Peddler fine?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 26, 2019, 11:19:51 pm

@segura
@Fragasnap
@DEGwer

updated: (https://i.imgur.com/ZA5Upni.png?1)

New take, menagerie but +Cards/+Actions flip, +1 Buy. Changed name to avoid thematic dissonance.

Still assists in playing several differently named Actions. I thought about changing part of it to a digger, but dropped it. I then thought about making the consolation bonus be more cards and an Action, but then it gets to be too overpowered. I want the Son to sometimes "succeed" and sometime "fail".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on October 27, 2019, 07:02:21 am

Quote from: Gubump on October 25, 2019, 01:54:04 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on October 25, 2019, 01:36:27 pm

A few editions ago, I posted the Mineworker, which was horribly wordy and broken. Here is the fixed version.

(https://i.imgur.com/dvRQP3v.png)(https://i.imgur.com/3sNKMts.png)

Quote

Mineworker (Action - Duration - Reaction; $5)

+1 Card
+1 Action
Now and at the start of your next turn: you may discard your hand for +5 Cards.
–
Before resolving the effect of a Duration at the start of your turn, you may reveal this. If you do, the effect will occur at the start of your next turn instead of this turn (the Duration will stay in play).

Mine Cart (Treasure - Heirloom - Reaction, $2)

$1
-
When you play a Duration, you may set this aside. If you do, at the start of your next turn, trash this. +2% per Duration you have in play.

Mineworker's reaction has to specify where it's being revealed from (I assume from your hand).

Thanks. Fixed it.
EDIT: forgot to mention I also made other modifications. See original entry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on October 27, 2019, 07:15:33 am

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 26, 2019, 11:19:51 pm

@segura
@Fragasnap
@DEGwer

updated: (https://i.imgur.com/ZA5Upni.png?1)

New take, menagerie but +Cards/+Actions flip, +1 Buy. Changed name to avoid thematic dissonance.

Still assists in playing several differently named Actions. I thought about changing part of it to a digger, but dropped it. I then thought about making the consolation bonus be more cards and an Action, but then it gets to be too overpowered. I want the Son to sometimes "succeed" and sometime "fail".

I think this is a huge improvement. However, you want the card to be drawn after the reveal of your hand, otherwise that one card can screw things up. So I'd do it this way.

Quote

+1 Action, +1 Buy

If the revealed cards all have different names, +1 Card, +2 Actions. Otherwise, +1 Card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 27, 2019, 10:32:21 am

THIS IS AN OLD ENTRY, see further down the thread for an updated submission
Contest #49: Make a Card with a Custom Heirloom

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/furtrader.png)               (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/pelt.png)

Quote

Fur Trader | Action - Reaction | $3
Gain a silver to your hand.
-
When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. Discard any number of cards to instead gain a card costing up to $1 more per card discarded.
Heirloom: Pelt

Quote

Pelt | Treasure - Heirloom | $2
+$1

If you have a silver in play, you may trash this to gain a card costing exactly $3.

The clear idea here is the reaction in fur-trader. Everything else spiraled out from that. It's kind of like an upgrade, except you upgrade cards as you buy them. On the other hand, it's a little like a fusion of a vault/artisan. Yes, you get to discard the fur-trader if you want, so whenever you activate your pelt, if you still have your fur-trader in hand you can reveal and discard it to gain a card costing $4. It also allows you to turn curses you are attacked with into coppers, or, if you're willing to discard, even turn a curse into a helpful $2 action!

The part in the above is a fun idea we haven't seen in a while that I'm a little partial to. It also has synergy with itself (if you have two fur-traders in hand, play one and reveal the other to gain a not-silver instead!)

Pelt is useful and interesting regardless of whether you buy a fur-trader. A fur trader does incentivize you to wait a little bit to activate it, since you could gain a $4 or $5 cost if you have enough cards in your hand. Fur trader of course helps you activate the Pelt.

I'm open to feedback! I originally had +2 cards for the fur trader above-the-line benefit, but I changed it to make it a little more narrow.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on October 27, 2019, 11:06:27 am

Explorer is pretty weak, but Fur Trader still looks really strong when you compare it with Explorer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 27, 2019, 11:35:03 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on October 27, 2019, 11:06:27 am

Explorer is pretty weak, but Fur Trader still looks really strong when you compare it with Explorer.

Hm, would you say the same about bureaucrat? Perhaps I should bump the price up to $4?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 27, 2019, 11:47:16 am

Fur Trader is strong enough to cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} imo, regardless of comparing it to cards like Explorer. Also, nitpick: The word "Silver" should be capitalized in both cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 27, 2019, 12:04:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/QGelfJJ.png)(https://i.imgur.com/DpouxrN.png)

Gild gains Gold without bloating your deck to help activate Ingot, there's synergy but it's hopefully not too in your face. It's simple because Ingot is an Heirloom and uses an Adventures token so there's quite a lot going on there. It's supposed to be a classic Gold gainer with a bonus for $5, along the lines of Bandit or Courtier but trashing might be a little big of a bonus for a $5, especially alongside Ingot. I have ideas for a potential drawback but I thought I'd see what people think of the simpler version first. Ingot is trying to be a less over the top Magic Lamp sort of thing.

Edit: Ingot cost fixed to be $0.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on October 27, 2019, 12:16:45 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 27, 2019, 12:04:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/QGelfJJ.png)(https://i.imgur.com/i1A6mxf.png)

Gild gains Gold without bloating your deck to help activate Ingot, there's synergy but it's hopefully not too in your face. It's simple because Ingot is an Heirloom and uses an Adventures token so there's quite a lot going on there. It's supposed to be a classic Gold gainer with a bonus for $5, along the lines of Bandit or Courtier but trashing might be a little big of a bonus for a $5, especially alongside Ingot. I have ideas for a potential drawback but I thought I'd see what people think of the simpler version first. Ingot is trying to be a less over the top Magic Lamp sort of thing.

Gild seems too good when compared to Mine, I think.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 27, 2019, 12:42:24 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on October 27, 2019, 12:16:45 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 27, 2019, 12:04:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/QGelfJJ.png)(https://i.imgur.com/i1A6mxf.png)

Gild gains Gold without bloating your deck to help activate Ingot, there's synergy but it's hopefully not too in your face. It's simple because Ingot is an Heirloom and uses an Adventures token so there's quite a lot going on there. It's supposed to be a classic Gold gainer with a bonus for $5, along the lines of Bandit or Courtier but trashing might be a little big of a bonus for a $5, especially alongside Ingot. I have ideas for a potential drawback but I thought I'd see what people think of the simpler version first. Ingot is trying to be a less over the top Magic Lamp sort of thing.

Gild seems too good when compared to Mine, I think.

Mine is one of the weakest cards in the game so I wouldn't use it as a point of comparison myself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on October 27, 2019, 12:59:38 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 27, 2019, 11:35:03 am

Hm, would you say the same about bureaucrat? Perhaps I should bump the price up to $4?

Bureaucrat gaining onto deck is weaker because it displaces another card in your next hand; gaining to hand doesn't displace anything.

I think as it is it's somewhere between $4 and $5; the reaction essentially serves as a discard for money like Secret Chamber, but it can also be used to avoid curses and such (and it makes gainers like Workshop a LOT more powerful). The reaction is definitely the more interesting part and it'd be cool to see that more accessible so maybe nerf the silver gaining somehow and make it $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on October 27, 2019, 01:05:55 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 27, 2019, 12:42:24 pm

Mine is one of the weakest cards in the game so I wouldn't use it as a point of comparison myself.

And even then Mine has an advantage over Gild as it gains to hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on October 27, 2019, 04:00:14 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on October 27, 2019, 07:15:33 am

I think this is a huge improvement. However, you want the card to be drawn after the reveal of your hand, otherwise that one card can screw things up. So I'd do it this way.

Quote

+1 Action, +1 Buy

If the revealed cards all have different names, +1 Card, +2 Actions. Otherwise, +1 Card.

That does say it better grr. Will make the change. Thank you

(https://i.imgur.com/NxByqQA.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 27, 2019, 04:08:47 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on October 27, 2019, 04:00:14 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on October 27, 2019, 07:15:33 am

I think this is a huge improvement. However, you want the card to be drawn after the reveal of your hand, otherwise that one card can screw things up. So I'd do it this way.

Quote

+1 Action, +1 Buy

If the revealed cards all have different names, +1 Card, +2 Actions. Otherwise, +1 Card.

That does say it better grr. Will make the change. Thank you

(https://i.imgur.com/NxByqQA.png?1)

You could simplify it to
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Reveal your hand. If the revealed cards all have different names, +2 Actions. Either way, +1 Card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 27, 2019, 04:59:26 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on October 27, 2019, 12:59:38 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 27, 2019, 11:35:03 am

Hm, would you say the same about bureaucrat? Perhaps I should bump the price up to $4?

Bureaucrat gaining onto deck is weaker because it displaces another card in your next hand; gaining to hand doesn't displace anything.

I think as it is it's somewhere between $4 and $5; the reaction essentially serves as a discard for money like Secret Chamber, but it can also be used to avoid curses and such (and it makes gainers like Workshop a LOT more powerful). The reaction is definitely the more interesting part and it'd be cool to see that more accessible so maybe nerf the silver gaining somehow and make it $4.

Thank you, I totally agree and I appreciate your perspective. I actually think it'd be interesting to make the on-play lower hand size -- less synergy could be interesting. I'm thinking one of these variants:
1. Gain a silver to your hand, put a card onto your deck.
2. Put a card onto your deck, gain a silver to your hand.
3. Gain a silver to your hand, discard a card.
4. Discard a treasure card, gain a silver to your hand.
5. +1$ gain a silver to hand, discard 2 cards. (kind of horse traders)
Costing it 4 for all of these.
I'm leaning towards 1 right now.

Any thoughts?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 27, 2019, 05:38:16 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 27, 2019, 04:59:26 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on October 27, 2019, 12:59:38 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 27, 2019, 11:35:03 am

Hm, would you say the same about bureaucrat? Perhaps I should bump the price up to $4?

Bureaucrat gaining onto deck is weaker because it displaces another card in your next hand; gaining to hand doesn't displace anything.

I think as it is it's somewhere between $4 and $5; the reaction essentially serves as a discard for money like Secret Chamber, but it can also be used to avoid curses and such (and it makes gainers like Workshop a LOT more powerful). The reaction is definitely the more interesting part and it'd be cool to see that more accessible so maybe nerf the silver gaining somehow and make it $4.

Thank you, I totally agree and I appreciate your perspective. I actually think it'd be interesting to make the on-play lower hand size -- less synergy could be interesting. I'm thinking one of these variants:
1. Gain a silver to your hand, put a card onto your deck.
2. Put a card onto your deck, gain a silver to your hand.
3. Gain a silver to your hand, discard a card.
4. Discard a treasure card, gain a silver to your hand.
5. +1$ gain a silver to hand, discard 2 cards. (kind of horse traders)
Costing it 4 for all of these.
I'm leaning towards 1 right now.

Any thoughts?

I think #1 is best.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 27, 2019, 06:52:17 pm

I'm changing my entry a bit:

(https://i.imgur.com/iNJyaVR.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/xl9aLr8.jpg)
I went down the big card route rather than support big cards route; you can actually make one appear in the game that way. Safe can only give 1 Coffers now, to make things a bit harder to hit $7, and lets you top-deck something instead, sometimes useful generally but here could include preparing something for Foundation to hit.
Foundation is a Hireling Upgrade-gaining-to-hand. It can stack (though perhaps the gain to hand is too strong), be something to save Coffers up for, and acts as a $1 cost step between Gold and Province.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on October 27, 2019, 09:23:51 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 27, 2019, 04:59:26 pm

Thank you, I totally agree and I appreciate your perspective. I actually think it'd be interesting to make the on-play lower hand size -- less synergy could be interesting. I'm thinking one of these variants:
1. Gain a silver to your hand, put a card onto your deck.
2. Put a card onto your deck, gain a silver to your hand.
3. Gain a silver to your hand, discard a card.
4. Discard a treasure card, gain a silver to your hand.
5. +1$ gain a silver to hand, discard 2 cards. (kind of horse traders)
Costing it 4 for all of these.
I'm leaning towards 1 right now.

Any thoughts?

I think 1's good if it costs $4 because then it still slows you down, either this turn or next turn. 4 is also not bad (nor is 2, but I don't think you lose much by allowing them to topdeck the silver if they want).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 28, 2019, 10:14:02 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/r1ouJoW.png)(https://i.imgur.com/lxlIyLZ.png)

Street
Action - $2
+3 Actions
(Heirloom: Map)

Map
Treasure/Heirloom - $4
+$1 per unused Action you have (Action, not Action card)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 29, 2019, 01:45:31 pm

Updated entry
Contest #49: Make a Card with a Custom Heirloom

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/0hm9mbds.png)               (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ulk2yc9w.png)

Quote

Fur Trader | Action - Reaction | $4
Gain a Silver to your hand. Put a card from your hand onto your deck.
-
When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. Discard any number of cards to instead gain a card costing up to $1 more per card discarded.
Heirloom: Pelt

Quote

Pelt | Treasure - Heirloom | costs $2 | worth $1 money
$1

You may trash a Silver from your hand to gain a card costing up to $4.

Made pelt into a situational upgrade instead. It seemed a little more interesting than what I had, and it still combos with Fur Trader, and works by itself without fur trader. For example, your jack of trades in an engine finally has a way to turn the silvers into engine components. I added a top-decking ability to fur trader to slightly weaken it, but also give it some strategic depth. Fur Trader is now a really good card for terminal collisions it gives you the option to put the terminal onto your deck if you play it, and if you don't play it (let's say you had 3 terminals collide), you can use the those unused action cards as discard fodder when gaining a card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 29, 2019, 05:45:59 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 26, 2019, 10:10:29 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 26, 2019, 07:40:08 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 10:30:20 am

Tinker
Types: Night
Cost: $5
Exchange a card from your hand for a card from the Supply costing up to $2 more than it.
Heirloom: Tin Snips

Quote

Tin Snips
Types: Treasure, Reaction, Heirloom
Cost: $3
$1

---

When you return a card to the Supply, you may discard this from your hand for +3 Coffers.

I do agree that Tinker needs to cost $5 (which you changed in the image but not the text): Remodel is very nearly too strong for $4, let alone Remodel-with-a-benefit (and being non-terminal is a huge benefit, even if it has to trigger during the Night phase).
Tin Snips is this huge source of +Coffers, but has so little to play with it except Tinker.  +3 Coffers is way too big for how frustrating it will be to align in the early game.  I'd much rather Tin Snips trigger off trashing for it to play nicer with more Kingdom cards.  Then it can give a more reasonable number of Coffers, and Tinker could trash instead of Exchange.

I mean if I did that I'd basically be making cards that already exist. The exchange-instead-of-trashing is The Whole Point of the card.
I did change Tin Snips to +2 Coffers tho, because +3 is too much - you hit that and a Swashbuckler? You've got your treasure chest in one go. Too much. But in the interest of having a game where you ignore Tinker and still use Tin Snips, I changed it to be a Silver instead of a Copper (and bumped the price up by one so we don't have to have Yet Another "Strictly Better" thread derailment on this board).

There isn't currently a non-terminal Remodel, nor a Remodel that ties into an Heirloom.  Exchanging is a fine idea for a Remodel variant, but it is not as though exchanging is the only unique part of Tinker.  It seems to just make Tin Snips virtually only proc on Tinker instead of having a host of triggers.  That reads odd to me, because I would think that Heirlooms should be designed to interact meaningfully with their Kingdom cards without being strictly defined by it.
Reducing Coffers to +2 is a major improvement to Tin Snips, especially with it giving +$2 on play: It massively reduces the frustration of missing as it goes from better $2 to worse $2.  I'm not sure I like the effect it has on the opening, as $5/$3 is probably pretty silly on most boards compared to $4/$4.

Quote from: Gazbag on October 27, 2019, 12:04:36 pm

Gild
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a Gold.
Heirloom: Ingot

Quote

Ingot
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
Cost: $3
$1. When you play this, if you have a Gold, Silver and Copper in play, you may trash this, to move your +$1 token to an Action Supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you first get +$1.)

I like Ingot a lot. I mostly worry that Gild will speed the game up too often that the +$1 token won't matter. I might take notes from Altar and make Gild cost $6.  It would be a weaker $6 for sure, but I worry it would be domineering as a $5 in how it doesn't increase your stop-density.  Comparisons to Mine are not warranted as this turns Coppers and even Estates into Gold, which is wildly better. Comparisons to Dismantle might make more sense, but not quite because Dismantle actually floods your deck when you're trashing Estates, so this remains wildly better than that official card too.  I think it is unique enough, but plays largely against Ingot.  I'm not sure how I'd feel better about it without complicating Gild's pure simplicity.

Quote from: Aquila on October 27, 2019, 06:52:17 pm

Foundation
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $7
At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game: you may trash a card from your hand, to gain a card to your hand costing exactly $1 more than it.
Heirloom: Safe

Quote

Safe
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
Cost: $1
+1 Coffers. When you play this, you may put a card from your hand onto your deck.

I think Foundation should cost $8 mostly because being able to trash Golds for Foundations is probably too good in 2-player when you can also trash Foundations for Provinces.  Even without that ability, having multiple Foundations would give you a lot of pile control, which is why I would go up to $8 instead of down to $6.

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 29, 2019, 01:45:31 pm

Fur Trader
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $4
Gain a Silver ot your hand. Put a card from your hand onto your deck.

---

When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. Discard any number of cards to instead gain a card costing up to $1 more per card discarded.
Heirloom: Pelt

Quote

Pelt
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
Cost: $2
$1. You may trash a Silver from your hand to gain a card costing up to $4.

This version of your submission is much better overall.  You are probably underselling Fur Trader's ability to discard your hand for a $5 gain early in the game.  Most Kingdoms I buy Fur Trader would probably be for that Reaction.  The key interaction between the two is probably using Pelt to trash a Silver and Fur trader to gain a $5 (functionally out of $4 in the form of Silver being trashed and a Fur Trader being discarded).  It still costs a Buy most of the time, so I wouldn't call it overpowered.  Fur Trader -> Workshop+ around draw is a fine idea, but playing Fur Trader is probably really bad. 
I recommend a slight buff by having Fur Trader "gain a card costing exactly $1 more per card discarded" so you can typically block Curses by discarding 1 card.  I might make Fur Trader gain 2 Silvers with no hand shenanigans so you can more easily align Pelt.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 29, 2019, 07:33:04 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 29, 2019, 05:45:59 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 26, 2019, 10:10:29 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 26, 2019, 07:40:08 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 25, 2019, 10:30:20 am

Tinker
Types: Night
Cost: $5
Exchange a card from your hand for a card from the Supply costing up to $2 more than it.
Heirloom: Tin Snips

Quote

Tin Snips
Types: Treasure, Reaction, Heirloom
Cost: $3
$1

---

When you return a card to the Supply, you may discard this from your hand for +3 Coffers.

I do agree that Tinker needs to cost $5 (which you changed in the image but not the text): Remodel is very nearly too strong for $4, let alone Remodel-with-a-benefit (and being non-terminal is a huge benefit, even if it has to trigger during the Night phase).
Tin Snips is this huge source of +Coffers, but has so little to play with it except Tinker.  +3 Coffers is way too big for how frustrating it will be to align in the early game.  I'd much rather Tin Snips trigger off trashing for it to play nicer with more Kingdom cards.  Then it can give a more reasonable number of Coffers, and Tinker could trash instead of Exchange.

I mean if I did that I'd basically be making cards that already exist. The exchange-instead-of-trashing is The Whole Point of the card.
I did change Tin Snips to +2 Coffers tho, because +3 is too much - you hit that and a Swashbuckler? You've got your treasure chest in one go. Too much. But in the interest of having a game where you ignore Tinker and still use Tin Snips, I changed it to be a Silver instead of a Copper (and bumped the price up by one so we don't have to have Yet Another "Strictly Better" thread derailment on this board).

There isn't currently a non-terminal Remodel, nor a Remodel that ties into an Heirloom.  Exchanging is a fine idea for a Remodel variant, but it is not as though exchanging is the only unique part of Tinker.  It seems to just make Tin Snips virtually only proc on Tinker instead of having a host of triggers.  That reads odd to me, because I would think that Heirlooms should be designed to interact meaningfully with their Kingdom cards without being strictly defined by it.
Reducing Coffers to +2 is a major improvement to Tin Snips, especially with it giving +$2 on play: It massively reduces the frustration of missing as it goes from better $2 to worse $2.  I'm not sure I like the effect it has on the opening, as $5/$3 is probably pretty silly on most boards compared to $4/$4.

Rebuild exists (and is way too good but the nonterminality isn't the biggest issue there). Upgrade exists. Changeling is arguably also a nonterminal remodel variant, and I really like the idea of Night-Remodels exchanging rather than trashing.

As far as openings, its less drastic than Cursed Gold and on par with Baker (although you get to choose your opening w Baker).

I do have another possible entry along similar lines:
(https://i.imgur.com/na2FACz.png)(https://i.imgur.com/lOnxR6o.png)

Quote

Bargain • $3 • Treasure - Night - Heirloom
If it's your Night Phase, you may exchange a card from your hand for a card from the Supply costing up to $3 that does not share a type with it. Otherwise, +$1.

Quote

Hub • $4 • Action
+1 Action
Choose a card type (Action, Treasure, etc). Cards of that type cost $1 less while this is in play.
Heirloom: Bargain

but I'm disinclined to have this be my entry because Commodore Chuckles has historically favored less wordy/keep-it-simple entries as winners.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 29, 2019, 09:31:28 pm

CONTEST - HEIRLOOM ENTRY

Just some funky ideas that kind of help each other out.

(https://i.imgur.com/qfNTpTr.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/dQwxfiC.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 29, 2019, 09:35:53 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 29, 2019, 09:31:28 pm

CONTEST - HEIRLOOM ENTRY

Just some funky ideas that kind of help each other out.

(https://i.imgur.com/qfNTpTr.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/dQwxfiC.jpg)

I like the Lute/Looter pun, if that was intentional.
i love it if it's unintentional

Are you worried that it'll mess with the opening at all? $2/$4 can be a rough start.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 29, 2019, 10:07:51 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 29, 2019, 09:35:53 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 29, 2019, 09:31:28 pm

CONTEST - HEIRLOOM ENTRY

Just some funky ideas that kind of help each other out.

(https://i.imgur.com/qfNTpTr.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/dQwxfiC.jpg)

I like the Lute/Looter pun, if that was intentional.
i love it if it's unintentional

Are you worried that it'll mess with the opening at all? $2/$4 can be a rough start.

Getting _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}/_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} in a Chapel game would really suck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 29, 2019, 10:27:29 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 29, 2019, 09:35:53 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 29, 2019, 09:31:28 pm

CONTEST - HEIRLOOM ENTRY

Just some funky ideas that kind of help each other out.

(https://i.imgur.com/qfNTpTr.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/dQwxfiC.jpg)

I like the Lute/Looter pun, if that was intentional.
i love it if it's unintentional

Are you worried that it'll mess with the opening at all? $2/$4 can be a rough start.

I'm very worried it will mess with the opener! I believe Donald X tried an Heirloom that didn't give any $ and he said it was fine, but just slowed the game down. So maybe it works okay? I'm really not convinced though.

If you had a way to guarantee your opening split, I think $6 coin to start would be fine.

And no, the pun was not intentional. That is quite funny though. Good catch!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on October 29, 2019, 10:48:06 pm

Okay, I've been thinking, the benefit from activating Senator is a tad weak, as it gives you the same handsize as a Caravan play, and it doesn't stack. So, I have decided to buff it just a little. Hopefully this doesn't make it too good.

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on October 25, 2019, 09:03:04 pm

Senator
$4
Action-Duration
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
At the start of your next turn, if you have 4 or less cards in hand, +3 Cards.
Heirloom: Bonds

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 30, 2019, 08:53:39 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 29, 2019, 10:27:29 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 29, 2019, 09:35:53 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 29, 2019, 09:31:28 pm

CONTEST - HEIRLOOM ENTRY

Just some funky ideas that kind of help each other out.

(https://i.imgur.com/qfNTpTr.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/dQwxfiC.jpg)

I like the Lute/Looter pun, if that was intentional.
i love it if it's unintentional

Are you worried that it'll mess with the opening at all? $2/$4 can be a rough start.

I'm very worried it will mess with the opener! I believe Donald X tried an Heirloom that didn't give any $ and he said it was fine, but just slowed the game down. So maybe it works okay? I'm really not convinced though.

If you had a way to guarantee your opening split, I think $6 coin to start would be fine.

And no, the pun was not intentional. That is quite funny though. Good catch!

Yeah I'd be real worried about that slowdown with intentionally seeding your deck with ruins. Maybe adopt City wording?
Like a

Quote

$1
If there is one empty supply pile, +$2.
If there are two or more empty supply piles, +$5.

to maybe at least mitigate the opening. I realize that kinda hoses you on situations where you empty 4+ supply piles.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on October 30, 2019, 10:33:41 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 30, 2019, 08:53:39 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 29, 2019, 10:27:29 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 29, 2019, 09:35:53 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on October 29, 2019, 09:31:28 pm

CONTEST - HEIRLOOM ENTRY

Just some funky ideas that kind of help each other out.

(https://i.imgur.com/qfNTpTr.jpg)    (https://i.imgur.com/dQwxfiC.jpg)

I like the Lute/Looter pun, if that was intentional.
i love it if it's unintentional

Are you worried that it'll mess with the opening at all? $2/$4 can be a rough start.

I'm very worried it will mess with the opener! I believe Donald X tried an Heirloom that didn't give any $ and he said it was fine, but just slowed the game down. So maybe it works okay? I'm really not convinced though.

If you had a way to guarantee your opening split, I think $6 coin to start would be fine.

And no, the pun was not intentional. That is quite funny though. Good catch!

Yeah I'd be real worried about that slowdown with intentionally seeding your deck with ruins. Maybe adopt City wording?
Like a

Quote

$1
If there is one empty supply pile, +$2.
If there are two or more empty supply piles, +$5.

to maybe at least mitigate the opening. I realize that kinda hoses you on situations where you empty 4+ supply piles.

What about "If there are no empty supply piles, +$1. Otherwise, +$3 per empty supply pile."?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on October 30, 2019, 11:08:35 am

@spineflu, hhelibebcnofnena:

These are both great wording choices for Lute and are certainly safer than what I'm trying to do. Which is have a starting card that starts at $0 and gets much better if you hold onto it. I just worry that if Lute gives $1 initially and scales later, holding onto it is a no-brainer.

I think Lute can work as-is, but it probably needs a cheap ($2-$3) cantrip as a counterpart to make it viable. Musician is anything but that. Any suggestions for a Musician change? Even a complete overhaul would be fun to discuss!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 30, 2019, 11:23:29 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 29, 2019, 05:45:59 pm

This version of your submission is much better overall.  You are probably underselling Fur Trader's ability to discard your hand for a $5 gain early in the game.  Most Kingdoms I buy Fur Trader would probably be for that Reaction.  The key interaction between the two is probably using Pelt to trash a Silver and Fur trader to gain a $5 (functionally out of $4 in the form of Silver being trashed and a Fur Trader being discarded).  It still costs a Buy most of the time, so I wouldn't call it overpowered.  Fur Trader -> Workshop+ around draw is a fine idea, but playing Fur Trader is probably really bad. 
I recommend a slight buff by having Fur Trader "gain a card costing exactly $1 more per card discarded" so you can typically block Curses by discarding 1 card.  I might make Fur Trader gain 2 Silvers with no hand shenanigans so you can more easily align Pelt.

Thank you for your feedback. I decided to not do that buff for a few reasons. One, the card is pretty strong already it nearly guarantees being able to afford a $5 in all the cases that horse traders can. It doesn’t come with a +buy, but that power is non terminal, so, I don’t want to strengthen that power more. It can always turn curses into copper and if you discard two, curses into 2 costs. That’s strong enough defense. Also, I really like the exoticness of buying one card and gaining a cheaper card. Like buy a mint, reveal fur trader to instead gain a conspirator. And I think it’s a very rare but interesting interaction I wouldn’t want to remove. Plan, too! there’s other cool combos. It allows you to actually use contraband — player names a 5 cost you want? No problem, buy a gold and reveal a fur trader to instead gain that 5 cost. Etc

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 30, 2019, 11:31:06 am

Quote from: Kudasai on October 30, 2019, 11:08:35 am

@spineflu, hhelibebcnofnena:

These are both great wording choices for Lute and are certainly safer than what I'm trying to do. Which is have a starting card that starts at $0 and gets much better if you hold onto it. I just worry that if Lute gives $1 initially and scales later, holding onto it is a no-brainer.

I think Lute can work as-is, but it probably needs a cheap ($2-$3) cantrip as a counterpart to make it viable. Musician is anything but that. Any suggestions for a Musician change? Even a complete overhaul would be fun to discuss!

well
I'm thinking mainly on the ruins slowdown here
but you could have Musician look at the top two cards of the ruins pile, trash one and gain the other. Cuts into the number of cards in the ruins pile, empties it faster, makes sure you're getting the "good" ruins.

An alternate suggestion would be, on play, to discard any number of Ruins or Curses and draw a card (or two cards?) per, kind of a Shepherd for garbage. Thematically you can justify that as taking inspiration from tragedy, i guess.

As far as mitigating the opening, you could have musician, if it's the first card you buy on a turn, give +1 Buys which allows you to keep a $1/$5 opening but still get 2 new cards by turn 3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on October 30, 2019, 12:24:20 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 29, 2019, 05:45:59 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 27, 2019, 12:04:36 pm

Gild
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a Gold.
Heirloom: Ingot

Quote

Ingot
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
Cost: $3
$1. When you play this, if you have a Gold, Silver and Copper in play, you may trash this, to move your +$1 token to an Action Supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you first get +$1.)

I like Ingot a lot. I mostly worry that Gild will speed the game up too often that the +$1 token won't matter. I might take notes from Altar and make Gild cost $6.  It would be a weaker $6 for sure, but I worry it would be domineering as a $5 in how it doesn't increase your stop-density.  Comparisons to Mine are not warranted as this turns Coppers and even Estates into Gold, which is wildly better. Comparisons to Dismantle might make more sense, but not quite because Dismantle actually floods your deck when you're trashing Estates, so this remains wildly better than that official card too.  I think it is unique enough, but plays largely against Ingot.  I'm not sure how I'd feel better about it without complicating Gild's pure simplicity.

Thanks for kicking up the discussion! I thought about Altar and the $6 cost and I think it would lead to frustrating one-sided games more often and so the gameplay would be worse than a $5 cost. The change I would make is something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/YFUOoDs.png)

What I'm thinking regarding Gild is that it isn't blatantly mispriced or unbalanced in its current form and I don't think you can really prove either way without playtesting so I'd rather keep the cleaner version for this contest and if Commodore disagrees with me I can live with that. But to expand a bit I think the main risk of Gild being too strong would be it  enabling boring money strategies, Ingot helps prevent this as it is both easier to trigger in, and gives more benefit to, the more exciting Action chaining decks.
 
I also realised Ingot had the wrong cost so I've edited it in the original post to cost $0.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Frolouch on October 30, 2019, 05:46:16 pm

HEIRLOOM ENTRY
Here's my submission for a new heirloom. It's from my Small Hands expansion:
(https://imgur.com/SHhUMDb.jpg) (https://imgur.com/RFDQ7sQ.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2019, 08:10:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/LsNzHMT.png) (https://i.imgur.com/nv7JL5C.png)
My second attempt

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 31, 2019, 01:57:21 am

Given that a non-terminal Silver is already a $3.5, I'd make Clergy terminal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 31, 2019, 09:42:00 am

Quote from: Gazbag on October 30, 2019, 12:24:20 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 29, 2019, 05:45:59 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 27, 2019, 12:04:36 pm

Gild
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a Gold.
Heirloom: Ingot

Quote

Ingot
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
Cost: $3
$1. When you play this, if you have a Gold, Silver and Copper in play, you may trash this, to move your +$1 token to an Action Supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you first get +$1.)

I like Ingot a lot. I mostly worry that Gild will speed the game up too often that the +$1 token won't matter. I might take notes from Altar and make Gild cost $6.  It would be a weaker $6 for sure, but I worry it would be domineering as a $5 in how it doesn't increase your stop-density.  Comparisons to Mine are not warranted as this turns Coppers and even Estates into Gold, which is wildly better. Comparisons to Dismantle might make more sense, but not quite because Dismantle actually floods your deck when you're trashing Estates, so this remains wildly better than that official card too.  I think it is unique enough, but plays largely against Ingot.  I'm not sure how I'd feel better about it without complicating Gild's pure simplicity.

Thanks for kicking up the discussion! I thought about Altar and the $6 cost and I think it would lead to frustrating one-sided games more often and so the gameplay would be worse than a $5 cost. The change I would make is something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/YFUOoDs.png)

What I'm thinking regarding Gild is that it isn't blatantly mispriced or unbalanced in its current form and I don't think you can really prove either way without playtesting so I'd rather keep the cleaner version for this contest and if Commodore disagrees with me I can live with that. But to expand a bit I think the main risk of Gild being too strong would be it  enabling boring money strategies, Ingot helps prevent this as it is both easier to trigger in, and gives more benefit to, the more exciting Action chaining decks.
 
I also realised Ingot had the wrong cost so I've edited it in the original post to cost $0.

This compares very favorably to bandit. I wonder if you could put the benefit other players on every play rather than just on gain? It’s a nice other player interaction.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on October 31, 2019, 11:23:42 am

(https://i.imgur.com/f6UswyF.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Z7GBYAJ.png)

Here's my submission this week: Plough, which adds in the Heirloom, Savings.  Plough is a Lost City variant which only gives +Actions when you have an odd number of cards in your hand, meaning it won't typically activate when it's the first card you play from a starting hand of 5 cards (because Ploughs work best if you use them in the right season).  Thankfully, it comes with Savings, a Copper that lets you Save a card from your hand for next turn (and thus providing the odd handsize for activating Plough).  Savings also can allow non-standard openings if you draw it turn one, can keep bad cards out of your shuffles, and you can always Save a dead Plough.  The downside of course is that you can only use Savings' ability (and economy) every other turn. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 31, 2019, 03:24:07 pm

Quote from: 4est on October 31, 2019, 11:23:42 am

(https://i.imgur.com/f6UswyF.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Z7GBYAJ.png)

Here's my submission this week: Plough, which adds in the Heirloom, Savings.  Plough is a Lost City variant which only gives +Actions when you have an odd number of cards in your hand, meaning it won't typically activate when it's the first card you play from a starting hand of 5 cards (because Ploughs work best if you use them in the right season).  Thankfully, it comes with Savings, a Copper that lets you Save a card from your hand for next turn (and thus providing the odd handsize for activating Plough).  Savings also can allow non-standard openings if you draw it turn one, can keep bad cards out of your shuffles, and you can always Save a dead Plough.  The downside of course is that you can only use Savings' ability (and economy) every other turn.

I love these cards!!! I think that these would be ideal for a split pile as you would definitely buy savings (or a savings like card).
All of the heirlooms are cards that either need to be 1 copy of, or are much more interesting if you start with them. Pouch is a bit of a counter-example, though.

Savings doesn’t fit as an heirloom as well, but it’s such a cool card and plough is too.

One way you could make it more heirloomy is by forcing it to set aside, but that would suck if it turned a 2/5 into 2/4. Not sure a way around that. You could make it give +1 if you set aside a treasure? But then it’s less heirloomy. Hmmmm

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on October 31, 2019, 04:26:29 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 31, 2019, 03:24:07 pm

One way you could make it more heirloomy is by forcing it to set aside, but that would suck if it turned a 2/5 into 2/4. Not sure a way around that.

Wouldn't you just play it last, with no cards in hand to set aside?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on November 01, 2019, 01:51:04 am

Plough/Savings
I suggest to rename "Savings" into "Seeds" for better thematicity

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on November 01, 2019, 02:43:27 am

I think the idea was that it was based off Save.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 01, 2019, 03:36:08 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on October 31, 2019, 04:26:29 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 31, 2019, 03:24:07 pm

One way you could make it more heirloomy is by forcing it to set aside, but that would suck if it turned a 2/5 into 2/4. Not sure a way around that.

Wouldn't you just play it last, with no cards in hand to set aside?

There is green, purple and unplayed white.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 01, 2019, 04:42:01 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 31, 2019, 09:42:00 am

This compares very favorably to bandit. I wonder if you could put the benefit other players on every play rather than just on gain? It’s a nice other player interaction.

I don't see how you could directly compare the trashing attack of Bandit with that trashing of Gild. Perhaps I am too stupid but I don't immediately see how one or the other are on average better. For example in a Kingdom with decent trashing, you don't need Gild's trashing and do perhaps prefer Bandit (as decks are thinner it also hits more often). If there is no thinning, you do perhaps prefer Gild.
The main issue I see is not the power level of Gild, that is fine even without the stuff underneath the line. But a money Kingdom card and an engine Heirloom that needs money to trigger and improve Actions are kind of antithetical.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on November 01, 2019, 07:47:09 am

Quote from: segura on November 01, 2019, 04:42:01 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 31, 2019, 09:42:00 am

This compares very favorably to bandit. I wonder if you could put the benefit other players on every play rather than just on gain? It’s a nice other player interaction.

I don't see how you could directly compare the trashing attack of Bandit with that trashing of Gild. Perhaps I am too stupid but I don't immediately see how one or the other are on average better. For example in a Kingdom with decent trashing, you don't need Gild's trashing and do perhaps prefer Bandit (as decks are thinner it also hits more often). If there is no thinning, you do perhaps prefer Gild.
The main issue I see is not the power level of Gild, that is fine even without the stuff underneath the line. But a money Kingdom card and an engine Heirloom that needs money to trigger and improve Actions are kind of antithetical.

I agree about Bandit, also Bandit is a pretty weak card anyway so something comparing favourably doesn't seem like an issue. The idea is that Gild gives a decent way to add Golds to your deck to help trigger Ingot but isn't an automatic target for the token. I think you don't want to build too much synergy into this kind of thing so it doesn't dominate games too much, the tension between Ingots requirement and payoff is intentional. If it was all engine benefiting stuff or all money stuff I think that would be a problem.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 01, 2019, 09:04:07 am

Quote from: Gazbag on November 01, 2019, 07:47:09 am

Quote from: segura on November 01, 2019, 04:42:01 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 31, 2019, 09:42:00 am

This compares very favorably to bandit. I wonder if you could put the benefit other players on every play rather than just on gain? It’s a nice other player interaction.

I don't see how you could directly compare the trashing attack of Bandit with that trashing of Gild. Perhaps I am too stupid but I don't immediately see how one or the other are on average better. For example in a Kingdom with decent trashing, you don't need Gild's trashing and do perhaps prefer Bandit (as decks are thinner it also hits more often). If there is no thinning, you do perhaps prefer Gild.
The main issue I see is not the power level of Gild, that is fine even without the stuff underneath the line. But a money Kingdom card and an engine Heirloom that needs money to trigger and improve Actions are kind of antithetical.

I agree about Bandit, also Bandit is a pretty weak card anyway so something comparing favourably doesn't seem like an issue. The idea is that Gild gives a decent way to add Golds to your deck to help trigger Ingot but isn't an automatic target for the token. I think you don't want to build too much synergy into this kind of thing so it doesn't dominate games too much, the tension between Ingots requirement and payoff is intentional. If it was all engine benefiting stuff or all money stuff I think that would be a problem.

I don't dislike the use of Adventure tokens without the craziness of Adventure, on the contrary!
But here the two things simply overlap too much. We knwo that stuff from Soothsayer. You start the game, intend to play it engine-ish but then realize that all the Golds simply steer the game more towards money.
If Ingot would provide one of the other tokens it would be better IMO.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 01, 2019, 05:31:35 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 31, 2019, 03:24:07 pm

One way you could make it more heirloomy is by forcing it to set aside, but that would suck if it turned a 2/5 into 2/4. Not sure a way around that. You could make it give +1 if you set aside a treasure? But then it’s less heirloomy. Hmmmm

This wouldn't ruin your 2/5 if you didn't want it to... you simply play your 4 Coppers first, then Savings.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on November 01, 2019, 05:47:22 pm

Quote from: segura on November 01, 2019, 09:04:07 am

Quote from: Gazbag on November 01, 2019, 07:47:09 am

Quote from: segura on November 01, 2019, 04:42:01 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 31, 2019, 09:42:00 am

This compares very favorably to bandit. I wonder if you could put the benefit other players on every play rather than just on gain? It’s a nice other player interaction.

I don't see how you could directly compare the trashing attack of Bandit with that trashing of Gild. Perhaps I am too stupid but I don't immediately see how one or the other are on average better. For example in a Kingdom with decent trashing, you don't need Gild's trashing and do perhaps prefer Bandit (as decks are thinner it also hits more often). If there is no thinning, you do perhaps prefer Gild.
The main issue I see is not the power level of Gild, that is fine even without the stuff underneath the line. But a money Kingdom card and an engine Heirloom that needs money to trigger and improve Actions are kind of antithetical.

I agree about Bandit, also Bandit is a pretty weak card anyway so something comparing favourably doesn't seem like an issue. The idea is that Gild gives a decent way to add Golds to your deck to help trigger Ingot but isn't an automatic target for the token. I think you don't want to build too much synergy into this kind of thing so it doesn't dominate games too much, the tension between Ingots requirement and payoff is intentional. If it was all engine benefiting stuff or all money stuff I think that would be a problem.

I don't dislike the use of Adventure tokens without the craziness of Adventure, on the contrary!
But here the two things simply overlap too much. We knwo that stuff from Soothsayer. You start the game, intend to play it engine-ish but then realize that all the Golds simply steer the game more towards money.
If Ingot would provide one of the other tokens it would be better IMO.

I chose the +$1 token as the other tokens are more variable in strength. For instance when Smithy is on the board then the game could just devolve into who gets their +1 Action Ingot token on Smithy first, but on some boards you have plenty of Villages already or there aren't many terminals you need and the token is much less important there. The +$1 token is a little more consistent as something that's always nice to have but never particularly key. I also don't want the Gild/Ingot package to do too many different things at once and the +$1 token is also more thematic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 01, 2019, 08:33:00 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 30, 2019, 12:24:20 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 29, 2019, 05:45:59 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on October 27, 2019, 12:04:36 pm

Gild
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a Gold.
Heirloom: Ingot

Quote

Ingot
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
Cost: $0
$1. When you play this, if you have a Gold, Silver and Copper in play, you may trash this, to move your +$1 token to an Action Supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you first get +$1.)

I like Ingot a lot. I mostly worry that Gild will speed the game up too often that the +$1 token won't matter. I might take notes from Altar and make Gild cost $6.  It would be a weaker $6 for sure, but I worry it would be domineering as a $5 in how it doesn't increase your stop-density.  ...  I think it is unique enough, but plays largely against Ingot.  I'm not sure how I'd feel better about it without complicating Gild's pure simplicity.

Thanks for kicking up the discussion! I thought about Altar and the $6 cost and I think it would lead to frustrating one-sided games more often and so the gameplay would be worse than a $5 cost. ...

Would it lead to frustrating one-sided games any more often than Altar does?  My point really was that a cost of $6 would mean that you need to make the choice between a Gold-flooding tempo-trasher and buying the Gold outright to trigger your Ingot, and, as a point of comparison, I think Altar, a tempo-trashing Workshop+, is stronger than Gild at the same price point.

Quote from: Frolouch on October 30, 2019, 05:46:16 pm

Picture Taker
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Action. You may discard a treasure, if you do gain a copy of that card.
Heirloom: Micro SD Card

Quote

Micro SD Card
Types: Treasure
Cost: $1
Look through your discard pile and put a treasure from it in your hand.

Card types should be capitalized (Treasure on both Picture Taker and Micro SD Card).  Micro SD Card needs the Heirloom type.  Micro SD Card doesn't need to give permission to look through the discard pile per 2019 errata.  Theme is incredibly anachronistic: How about Painter \ Palette?
The only time I might ever buy Picture Taker is in an Ill-Gotten Gains rush.  I just don't have enough time to discard my payload treasure in order to duplicate it.  Mint is only decent because it trashes your Treasures when you buy it.  Picture Taker would be better by playing the Treasure instead of discarding it.
Micro SD Card introduces a lot of problems to the opening. When you get it on the bottom of your opening, you get $3/$5 or $4/$4 by buying a Silver, but if you get it on top of your shuffle you're shafted, let alone anything weird that might happen around alternate Treasures.  Opening with Counterfeit and playing it on turn 2 is unlikely, but insane, I'm sure.  Your feeling regarding $5 Treasures aside, Micro SD Card would be more stable if it gave $1 if you didn't have a discard pile.

Quote from: Kudasai on October 29, 2019, 09:31:28 pm

Musician
Types: Action, Duration, Looter
Cost: $2
+2 Actions. Put up to 3 tokens on this. (When you play an Action card, remove a token for +$1.) While any remain, at the start of each of your turns, gain a Ruins.
Heirloom: Lute

Quote

Lute
Types: Treasure, Heirloom
Cost: $4
When you play this, +$3 per empty Supply pile.

You've written Musician as though you expect players to use it to gain Ruins as a benefit so you can get +$1 (or +$2, or $3, depending on the number of Musicians preceding it) added onto it, but you could just build a deck without Musician and then put Musician into it for that ridiculously strong benefit.  I've played extensively with a card that pays out coins as you play other Actions, and the coins that it gives are fairly reliable as you simply put the card into your deck when your deck can consistently proc them.  Because players can just build around the effect it comes with a different drawback (it limits your first buy).  If you want to maintain Musician in its current idea, then its drawback needs to be harder to ignore.
Otherwise, I'd recommend changing Musician to be some sort of Supply trasher to help Lute go off.  Really though, I think a Kingdom card that makes Lute realistic in Kingdoms where it might not otherwise be possible to empty Supply piles will end up having major Supply problems in multiplayer.
I concur that an Heirloom that depresses the opening is a problem.

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on October 30, 2019, 08:10:23 pm

Clergy
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action, +$2. Reveal your hand. The player on your left chooses a revealed card. Trash up to 3 cards from your hand other than that card.
Heirloom: Teachings

Quote

Teachings
Types: Treasure, Reaction
Cost: $2*
$1.
When you trash a card from your hand, you may discard this from your hand. If you did, +1 Villager per $1 in the card's cost, or if the card costs $0, +1 Villager.

Teachings needs the Heirloom type.  Heirlooms don't have * in their cost.  The Reaction should be separated by a horizontal rule. "Discard" is implied to be from hand without context, so the "from your hand" on Teachings is redundant (Market Square still has it, probably to avoid confusion that you can't discard it from play).
Silver-with-a-bonus is somewhat of a "no-no" at $4, and +1 Action and +$2 is largely the same as a Silver (worse as you can draw it dead, but better because you can get it out of your hand for a variety of benefits).  I'd recommend Clergy either be terminal or require that you trash 1 to 3 cards.
Teachings's trigger is weird.  I would just crib Market Square's wording.  The times you can trash cards outside your hand are fairly rare, and being able to respond to Swindler\Knight type Attacks doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

Quote from: 4est on October 31, 2019, 11:23:42 am

Plough
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. If you have an odd number of cards in hand (after drawing), +2 Actions.
Heirloom: Savings

Quote

Savings
Types: Treasure, Heirloom, Duration
Cost: $2
$1. When you play this, you may set aside a card from your hand face down. At the start of your next turn, put it into your hand.

Plough compares far too well to Diplomat.  To get Diplomat to work you have to repeatedly reduce your hand, but Plough can chain as though it were Laboratory with any +Actions or some hand-size changes, let alone the fact that you can make it even better with anything else that can change your hand.  Unlike Diplomat it is guaranteed to have a trigger in every game in the form of Savings.  It would compare poorly to Lost City at $5, though.  I might go for a bigger bonus with its odd number trigger so it can cost $5.
I think a turn 2 Savings versus a turn 1 Savings is a big deal as it pseudo-trashes itself and either a Victory card or a Copper from your deck for that so-important second shuffle.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 02, 2019, 05:24:51 pm

Judging is in 24 hours.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Commodore Chuckles on November 03, 2019, 08:45:24 pm

A little late on the judging, sorry.

Contest #49: Make a Card with a Custom Heirloom

* Means it's in the Top 5

Noble Son/Father’s Sword by ShadowHawk
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg813963#msg813963 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg813963#msg813963)
Noble Son looks like sometimes fun, sometimes frustrating. You’re going to get screwed over a lot if you’re relying on it for +Actions. Father’s Sword will help increase diversity, but it won’t be enough on its own. Other than that, the actual on-play ability of Father’s Sword doesn’t actually help Noble Son, it’s just something that’s likely to be good if Noble Son is already good.

*Foundation/Safe by Aquila
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg813971#msg813971 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg813971#msg813971)
I really like these. Foundation looks super fun overall. Safe is has a bunch of neat uses on its own, and you’ve really done a good job fitting it with Foundation. The top decking helps line up something to upgrade, the Coffers help save up for Foundation and even the $1 price point makes it often a decent target for upgrading itself. My one complaint is that putting “you may” on both of them makes the pair seem a bit too easy to use. Forcing the top decking on Safe would be pretty annoying so I can see why you didn’t do that. I feel that Foundation would be more interesting if the upgrading were forced, though. That would make the choices more intense and differentiate it further from Transmogrify.

*Farrier/Horseshoe by Fragasnap
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg813981#msg813981 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg813981#msg813981)
Another nice pair of cards, although Farrier seems too good for $3. I can’t think of much else to say except that I do like them.

Tinker/Tin Snips by spineflu
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814004#msg814004 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814004#msg814004)
I don’t think there’s enough reason here for the cards to be returned to the Supply instead of just trashed. There are very few cards besides Tinker that Tin Snips will interact with. I’m also not seeing any reason for this to be a Night card. It seems annoying that you have to remember to not play Tin Snips if you want to use the Reaction.

Strategist/Strategic Money by Abel_K
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814005#msg814005 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814005#msg814005)
These are way too complicated. Try to make cards that each implement a simple, singular idea. Be sure to check how your cards compare to existing ones - Strategic Map is strictly better than Estate, so it should cost more. Also, if it’s really necessary to refer to a group of cards, make up a new Type for them so that you can just name the Type (which is why Donald made the Spirit Type, for instance).

Haunted Dresser/Drawer by majiponi
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814015#msg814015 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814015#msg814015)
Drawer is cute - both the name and the effect, though it might be hard to track the effect as the card isn’t a Duration. Drawer does seem very strong, though - I might bump the price up to $4 or even $5. Haunted Dresser has some neat uses. Top decking a Treasure or Victory card is usually bad, but Drawer can cancel the effect. I guess it’s good then that Drawer isn’t a Duration, since it means you can play Haunted Dresser every turn and not worry about top decking something bad. Honestly, though, I think I'd often prefer to just have something good for my extra card next turn. You can top deck an Action card and get Villagers but then you can't play it this turn.

*Dividends/Investment by pubby
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814021#msg814021 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814021#msg814021)
I like Dividends as an Heirloom. Its effect is neat and making it an Heirloom is a nice way to stop it from getting too crazy. Investment is also nice - normally a simply Peddler but it synergizes well with Dividends. Overall these are simple but still have good interaction.

Mine Worker/Mine Cart by grrgrrgrr
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814028#msg814028 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814028#msg814028)
These are both rather wordy, but I like the basic idea of them: keep Durations in play with Mine Worker, then cash in on Mine Cart when you’ve piled up a whole bunch of them. Mine Cart should maybe be a Duration itself, and I’d prefer if Mine Worker had a different, less wordy top part.

Galley/Coffee by grep
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814079#msg814079 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814079#msg814079)
I like Galley’s basic effect. On average it’s a bare cantrip that offers a large amount of flexibility. The on-gain and Coffee will help increase your average handsize, but they both come with drawbacks - with Coffee you’ll spend the extra draw on the Coffee itself, and if you discard a Treasure card that usually means not playing it. I’m not completely persuaded Galley needs either of these as it already gives Villagers on play.

Senator/Bonds by [TP] Inferno
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814091#msg814091 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814091#msg814091)
So Bonds is like Cursed Gold, but with an effect that usually isn’t as bad. For me, though, it might actually be more annoying to play with, because the bad effect hurts you immediately and it won’t ever stop. Senator is a good way to turn it into a bonus, although for my taste the cards feel a bit too closely bound. Without Senator, Bonds’ effect is virtually always bad, and it’s hard to think of ways besides Bonds to guarantee that Senator’s effect hits - though it’s a good defense against handsize attacks and the interaction with Cathedral is neat.

Novelist/Book by DEGwer
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814097#msg814097 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814097#msg814097)
These look fun on first glance. I feel that they could be made cleaner, though, either by dropping Manuscript or by making Novelist and Manuscript and split pile and ditching Book.

Wizard/Grimoire by Gubump
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814098#msg814098 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814098#msg814098)
I’d like this a lot more if there were other things you could do with the Spell Tokens. As it is, though, spending your Spell Tokens on Curses is something you’ll want to do as soon as possible, so this is ultimately just a slower Witch.

*Elder/Locket by Something_Smart
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814111#msg814111 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814111#msg814111)
An all-around good entry, with cards that have good interaction but that are also good in and of themselves. Elder looks very fun, a Golem-Vassal hybrid that plays in its own different way.  Locket also looks fun. The usefulness is obvious, but it can burn you when you buy a Treasure or especially a Victory card.

Gild/Ingot by Gazbag
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814210#msg814210 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814210#msg814210)
Gild I’m not too excited about; if Gold is good you’ll get it, otherwise not. I do like Ingot though; it looks like a fun thing to try to crack.

Street/Map by NoMoreFun
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814466#msg814466 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814466#msg814466)
Nice and simple, but too much so? I don’t really like that Map is identical to Diadem except for not having +$2. Still, it seems like a good thing to make into an Heirloom to prevent the effect from being overpowered.

*Pelt/Fur Trader by anordinaryman
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814482#msg814482 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814482#msg814482)
I like Pelt a lot. It’s the sort of thing that’s useful in many games but that you still only want one of. I also like that Fur Trader gains Silvers to your hand. I'm not sold on the rest of the effects, though. Pelt can already effectively replace your gained Silver with something else, so it feels redundant that Fur Trader can as well.

Musician/Lute by Kudasai
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814495#msg814495 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814495#msg814495)
I like the idea of Lute, but it’s really weak. I think it should give an unconditional +$1; that would make it maybe worth keeping around. Musician is also very weak; it’s unreliable as a Village and gaining Ruins is awful. Musician should either have some way to trash the Ruins or give a whole bunch of +Actions so that you can at least play the Ruins and it leaving your deck doesn’t hurt as much.

Picture Taker/Micro SD Card by Frolouch
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814557#msg814557 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814557#msg814557)
Micro SD Card looks frustrating and weak; in the beginning its value depends on you having Coppers in your discard, and when you have better Treasures you’re more likely to not have a discard. Picture Taker feels too similar to Mint; the discarding doesn’t add anything interesting because the copy is also going in your discard.

Clergy/Teachings by Fly-Eagles-Fly
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814572#msg814572 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814572#msg814572)
I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that the optimal strategy for Clergy is to always choose Copper; then your opponent can get rid of their Estates but still has 7 junk cards. The exceptions would be in the odd case where your opponent’s Coppers do not outnumber their Estates or if there’s Curses. Either way, the situation where you can trash more than one card at a time with this doesn’t seem likely. The cards overall seem fine but don’t excite me much.

Plough/Savings by 4est
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814634#msg814634 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814634#msg814634)
Plough should absolutely be $5. Get an even number of cards in your hand and it’s a Lab. Having said that, it does have some interesting strategy behind it: you can either use it as a straight Lab or alternate it with terminal payload for a Lost City effect. Savings looks fine, though maybe a bit too similar to Haven.

-------------------------------

Winner: Elder/Locket by Something_Smart
Runner-up: Foundation/Safe by Aquila

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 04, 2019, 04:58:59 pm

Awesome! Thanks for the feedback :)

Contest #50: Design a card (or card-shaped thing) that causes you to reveal one or more cards from the top of your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 04, 2019, 05:54:45 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/1vKsbQz.jpg)

Quote

Belfry
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Action. Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. You may trash this or a card from your hand. Put the revealed cards sharing a type with the trashed card into your hand and the rest back in any order.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 04, 2019, 09:57:46 pm

Young Smithy
cost $3 - Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one, and put the rest into your hand.

EDIT: Withdrawn

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on November 04, 2019, 10:03:33 pm

wait this is contest 50 and we're not doing a gold themed one?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 04, 2019, 10:41:09 pm

Quote from: majiponi on November 04, 2019, 09:57:46 pm

Young Smithy
cost $3 - Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one, and put the rest into your hand.

I don't think this really fits the challenge because there's no reason to have it be "reveal" instead of "look at," and the challenge specified "reveal."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #50: reveal from top of your deck
Post by: Aquila on November 05, 2019, 03:40:27 am

(https://i.imgur.com/3hLXL11.jpg)

This lets you discard something to get a better but similar card in your deck. You can build your strategy around it. But, with a lot of revealing on a cantrip, it could be too slow to resolve, and maybe it should be $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 05, 2019, 04:28:49 am

Quote from: Gubump on November 04, 2019, 10:41:09 pm

Quote from: majiponi on November 04, 2019, 09:57:46 pm

Young Smithy
cost $3 - Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Discard one, and put the rest into your hand.

I don't think this really fits the challenge because there's no reason to have it be "reveal" instead of "look at," and the challenge specified "reveal."

Oh, I misunderstood. Not look, but reveal. Withdrawn.

Quote

Young Envoy
cost $4 - Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck.  Put each one with different names into your hand. Discard the rest.  Put one copy of each differently-named card into your hand.

If I reveal 4 Coppers, I put a Copper into my hand.
If I reveal 2 Coppers and 2 Estates, I put a Copper and an Estate into my hand.
If I reveal a Copper, a Silver, a Gold, and a Province, I put all of them into my hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 05, 2019, 07:51:51 am

I might phrase that "put one copy of each differently-named card into your hand."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on November 05, 2019, 11:36:59 am

(https://i.imgur.com/OYgYgri.jpg)

Not sure if this qualifies of strictly better than Hunting Grounds

OP has been updated with new card

Old card:
Cavern
Action - $5
Reveal the top four cards of your deck. You may discard any non-Victory cards for +$1 each. Put the rest into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 05, 2019, 01:09:26 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on November 05, 2019, 11:36:59 am

(https://i.imgur.com/jH4FDHw.jpg)

Not sure if this qualifies of strictly better than Hunting Grounds

Cavern is strictly better than Hunting Grounds and costs less. Cavern has to cost at least _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on November 05, 2019, 01:11:37 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 05, 2019, 01:09:26 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on November 05, 2019, 11:36:59 am

(https://i.imgur.com/jH4FDHw.jpg)

Not sure if this qualifies of strictly better than Hunting Grounds

Cavern is strictly better than Hunting Grounds and costs less. Cavern has to cost at least _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}.

This also seems to be a case where "reveal" isn't strictly necessary, since you have the option to not discard.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on November 05, 2019, 01:44:42 pm

Herdsman (Action, $4)

Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Reveal your hand. Put the cards revealed from your deck that match those from your hand into your hand, and discard the rest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 05, 2019, 01:52:08 pm

I won't disqualify cards that use "reveal" when they could use "look at," though I may take it into account.

Also, Cavern isn't strictly better than Hunting Grounds because Hunting Grounds has the on-trash ability.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 05, 2019, 02:10:57 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 05, 2019, 01:52:08 pm

I won't disqualify cards that use "reveal" when they could use "look at," though I may take it into account.

Also, Cavern isn't strictly better than Hunting Grounds because Hunting Grounds has the on-trash ability.

It is, however, strictly better on play, and you don't exactly buy Hunting Grounds for its on-trash ability like you do for Fortress.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 05, 2019, 04:03:12 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5dc1e1d06e042919541e0af0/4fdb8b2bdeebb7cc24b9848a8547761f/image.png)

Quote

Racketeer • $5 • Action - Attack
Name a card type and reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. For each revealed card with the named type, choose one: Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand; Each other player takes their –1 Card token; or Each other player gains a Copper.
Discard the cards with the named type and put the rest into your hand.

I did a long one this week. Considered breaking the three flavors of attack out to hexes/hex-like cards but i figured these were all easy enough to do and I didn't want the variation/envy/miserables from hexing to be in there.
Has a fun interplay between whether you want to get cards for you in your hand or hurt other ppl.

Rulebook errata, since this card is overly long already: choices must be different.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Frolouch on November 05, 2019, 07:30:16 pm

(https://imgur.com/AkeUB42.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 05, 2019, 07:48:36 pm

Farm Cellar
Action - $5
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action or Treasure, then put all revealed cards in your hand.
Discard any number of cards, then draw that many.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on November 06, 2019, 03:28:31 am

Convulsion of Nature
Project - $2
For the rest of the game, flip your deck upside-down and play with it that way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 06, 2019, 04:47:42 am

Quote from: scolapasta on November 05, 2019, 01:11:37 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 05, 2019, 01:09:26 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on November 05, 2019, 11:36:59 am

(https://i.imgur.com/jH4FDHw.jpg)

Not sure if this qualifies of strictly better than Hunting Grounds

Cavern is strictly better than Hunting Grounds and costs less. Cavern has to cost at least _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}.

This also seems to be a case where "reveal" isn't strictly necessary, since you have the option to not discard.

Revealing is necessary in this case. You can hide your Victories under your Copper. (Others cannot see non-top cards in your players' discard pile, so they cannot know whether you are honest.) Relying on players' bushido is not a good design.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 06, 2019, 08:51:04 am

Quote from: pubby on November 06, 2019, 03:28:31 am

Convulsion of Nature
Project - $2
For the rest of the game, flip your deck upside-down and play with it that way.

isn't this a yu-gi-oh card?
You can probably rephrase the last bit to "play with your deck face-up". That's what I did with Beacon (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg812340#msg812340) anyhow (which was this same concept as an Artifact)

Quote from: Frolouch on November 05, 2019, 07:30:16 pm

(https://imgur.com/AkeUB42.png)

You can probably rephrase the first line to "For each card in your hand, reveal a card from your deck." which should cut down on your text wall

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on November 06, 2019, 09:42:21 am

Quote from: majiponi on November 06, 2019, 04:47:42 am

Quote from: scolapasta on November 05, 2019, 01:11:37 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 05, 2019, 01:09:26 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on November 05, 2019, 11:36:59 am

(https://i.imgur.com/jH4FDHw.jpg)

Not sure if this qualifies of strictly better than Hunting Grounds

Cavern is strictly better than Hunting Grounds and costs less. Cavern has to cost at least _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}.

This also seems to be a case where "reveal" isn't strictly necessary, since you have the option to not discard.

Revealing is necessary in this case. You can hide your Victories under your Copper. (Others cannot see non-top cards in your players' discard pile, so they cannot know whether you are honest.) Relying on players' bushido is not a good design.

True, relying on other players is not good design, it just seemed that the revealing while discarding, when the discard type is conditional, is implied. There are official cards that conditionally discard without specifically stating "reveal":

Quote

Opulent Castle
Discard any number of Victory cards. +$2 per card discarded. 3 VP

Quote

Quest
You may discard an Attack, two Curses, or six cards. If you do, gain a Gold.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on November 06, 2019, 09:45:30 am

Quote from: pubby on November 06, 2019, 03:28:31 am

Convulsion of Nature
Project - $2
For the rest of the game, flip your deck upside-down and play with it that way.

FAQ question: since you are allowed to count your deck, are allowed to see what all the cards are? Or does counting need to be done without looking?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: DEGwer on November 06, 2019, 09:52:10 am

My entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/btP2gvW.png?1)

My idea is designing an on-buy Island, though putting starting Estates or late-game Provinces does not provide another 2VP.

This event has various usage. We can use it simply as Estate (or Hovel) trasher keeping VP, even on our first turn. We can keep consistency of deck with $12, 2 buys and it makes easier to even building a golden deck. On the supply with Curser, it can be a another source of VP. Gaining a Curse by Haggler or Stonemason can be reasonable playing.

I considered several version of bonus. Since I like tricky things, it is intentional to make a Curse into something which is sometimes better than an Estate.
Giving 4VP is too strong against Duchy (and I wanted to give $4 cost to make it possible to buy it at the first turn), thus it gives 3VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: DEGwer on November 06, 2019, 10:28:26 am

Quote from: Gubump on November 05, 2019, 02:10:57 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 05, 2019, 01:52:08 pm

I won't disqualify cards that use "reveal" when they could use "look at," though I may take it into account.

Also, Cavern isn't strictly better than Hunting Grounds because Hunting Grounds has the on-trash ability.

It is, however, strictly better on play, and you don't exactly buy Hunting Grounds for its on-trash ability like you do for Fortress.

Once I did it on the Supply with Groundskeeper and no +Buy.  Although it is very rare case, theoretically it can be a reason to keep Cavern $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 06, 2019, 10:29:44 am

Quote from: DEGwer on November 06, 2019, 09:52:10 am

My entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/btP2gvW.png?1)

My idea is designing an on-buy Island, though putting starting Estates or late-game Provinces does not provide another 2VP.

This event has various usage. We can use it simply as Estate (or Hovel) trasher keeping VP, even on our first turn. We can keep consistency of deck with $12, 2 buys and it makes easier to even building a golden deck. On the supply with Curser, it can be a another source of VP. Gaining a Curse by Haggler or Stonemason can be reasonable playing.

I considered several version of bonus. Since I like tricky things, it is intentional to make a Curse into something which is sometimes better than an Estate.
Giving 4VP is too strong against Duchy (and I wanted to give $4 cost to make it possible to buy it at the first turn), thus it gives 3VP.

1: this still hits Night cards
2: this is approaching Remodel levels of "too good" as an anti-junker
3: given that you can net 2VP when you Drift a Curse, this may discourage using cursers at all  in games where it's present. It may even encourage people buying Curses with extra buys to try to Drift them in future turns.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: DEGwer on November 06, 2019, 10:40:45 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 06, 2019, 10:29:44 am

Quote from: DEGwer on November 06, 2019, 09:52:10 am

My entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/btP2gvW.png?1)

My idea is designing an on-buy Island, though putting starting Estates or late-game Provinces does not provide another 2VP.

This event has various usage. We can use it simply as Estate (or Hovel) trasher keeping VP, even on our first turn. We can keep consistency of deck with $12, 2 buys and it makes easier to even building a golden deck. On the supply with Curser, it can be a another source of VP. Gaining a Curse by Haggler or Stonemason can be reasonable playing.

I considered several version of bonus. Since I like tricky things, it is intentional to make a Curse into something which is sometimes better than an Estate.
Giving 4VP is too strong against Duchy (and I wanted to give $4 cost to make it possible to buy it at the first turn), thus it gives 3VP.

1: this still hits Night cards
2: this is approaching Remodel levels of "too good" as an anti-junker
3: given that you can net 2VP when you Drift a Curse, this may discourage using cursers at all  in games where it's present. It may even encourage people buying Curses with extra buys to try to Drift them in future turns.

Oh, I completely forgot about Night cards. I'll fix it. Although I don't buy Ill-Gotten Gains when Drift exists, I don't consider to ignore Witch.
Maybe it is better to make it Night card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on November 06, 2019, 10:41:10 am

Quote from: Frolouch on November 05, 2019, 07:30:16 pm

(https://imgur.com/AkeUB42.png)

This has the design flaw of generating VP without bringing the game closer to its end. There can come a point where everyone has well-made florist decks and there's less than 6 points between them, and the best play is to keep running the deck through to get VP because nobody can run the risk of the last Province deciding the winner. A never-ending situation.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 06, 2019, 10:48:26 am

Quote from: scolapasta on November 06, 2019, 09:45:30 am

Quote from: pubby on November 06, 2019, 03:28:31 am

Convulsion of Nature
Project - $2
For the rest of the game, flip your deck upside-down and play with it that way.

FAQ question: since you are allowed to count your deck, are allowed to see what all the cards are? Or does counting need to be done without looking?

followup: does shuffling need to be done without looking?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 06, 2019, 10:55:52 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 06, 2019, 10:48:26 am

Quote from: scolapasta on November 06, 2019, 09:45:30 am

Quote from: pubby on November 06, 2019, 03:28:31 am

Convulsion of Nature
Project - $2
For the rest of the game, flip your deck upside-down and play with it that way.

FAQ question: since you are allowed to count your deck, are allowed to see what all the cards are? Or does counting need to be done without looking?

followup: does shuffling need to be done without looking?

Either yes, or you are allowed to specifically order your deck as you want each time you shuffle. There can't really be a middle ground there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on November 06, 2019, 01:36:27 pm

Thanks for the feedback on Cavern, it seems like it would have to cost $7 compared to hunting grounds but it doesn't seem like a good $7 cost. Here's a revised version that has somewhat the same idea (and requires revealing instead of looking at):

(https://i.imgur.com/6ErWG8S.jpg)

Question: Should it reveal 4 or 3? I feel like it compares favorably to Envoy/Advisor even with revealing only 3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 06, 2019, 02:32:26 pm

Quote from: Aquila on November 06, 2019, 10:41:10 am

Quote from: Frolouch on November 05, 2019, 07:30:16 pm

(https://imgur.com/AkeUB42.png)

This has the design flaw of generating VP without bringing the game closer to its end. There can come a point where everyone has well-made florist decks and there's less than 6 points between them, and the best play is to keep running the deck through to get VP because nobody can run the risk of the last Province deciding the winner. A never-ending situation.

I don't disagree but I think we have to specify the very situation in which this can only arise: a deck drawing engine with a sifter like Cellar, Warehouse or Dungeon.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on November 06, 2019, 03:03:06 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on November 06, 2019, 01:36:27 pm

Thanks for the feedback on Cavern, it seems like it would have to cost $7 compared to hunting grounds but it doesn't seem like a good $7 cost. Here's a revised version that has somewhat the same idea (and requires revealing instead of looking at):

(https://i.imgur.com/6ErWG8S.jpg)

Question: Should it reveal 4 or 3? I feel like it compares favorably to Envoy/Advisor even with revealing only 3.

I think it is pretty weak at 3. If you haven't trashed your coppers yet, it's roughly +3 cards, discard a copper which is worse than smithy. Even if you have trashed down to a lean engine, it probably discards a $3 cost, being about as good as +2 cards, +$1, still worse than smithy.

At reveal 4 it seems good. +4 cards discard a copper seems like a fine $5, and +3 cards +$1 is a fairly strong $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on November 06, 2019, 09:44:25 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/fMDvHpf/Impressment.png)
Impressment
$4 - Action
Reveal the top 2 cards from your deck. Play the revealed Action cards in any order and discard the rest.
If you haven't revealed any Action card, gain a card costing up to $4.


A mixup of Throne Room and Workshop with a hint of Golem/Ghost. Chainable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on November 07, 2019, 05:21:14 am

Here's mine:

Sawmill
$3
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. Gain a card costing up to $4 that doesn't share a type with the revealed card. Put the revealed card into your hand.

So basically, it's a cantrip Workshop that loses some of its gaining power.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 07, 2019, 09:40:35 am

Quote from: grep on November 06, 2019, 09:44:25 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/fMDvHpf/Impressment.png)
Impressment
$4 - Action
Reveal the top 2 cards from your deck. Play the revealed Action cards in any order and discard the rest.
If you haven't revealed any Action card, gain a card costing up to $4.


A mixup of Throne Room and Workshop with a hint of Golem/Ghost. Chainable.

This is too good.
Either it is a Workshop for $4 that cycles 2 cards. Slightly worse than Ironworks but still decent due to the cycling.
Or it is a cantrip Workshop with some cycling. That card would have to cost $5 and is probably a bit better than Cobbler.
Or it is a Lost City which is better than a $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 07, 2019, 10:39:54 am

Quote from: segura on November 07, 2019, 09:40:35 am

Quote from: grep on November 06, 2019, 09:44:25 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/fMDvHpf/Impressment.png)
Impressment
$4 - Action
Reveal the top 2 cards from your deck. Play the revealed Action cards in any order and discard the rest.
If you haven't revealed any Action card, gain a card costing up to $4.


A mixup of Throne Room and Workshop with a hint of Golem/Ghost. Chainable.

This is too good.
Either it is a Workshop for $4 that cycles 2 cards. Slightly worse than Ironworks but still decent due to the cycling.
Or it is a cantrip Workshop with some cycling. That card would have to cost $5 and is probably a bit better than Cobbler.
Or it is a Lost City which is better than a $5.

I don't see the cantrip Workshop part. If it hits one Action card, it plays it and that's all it does. So if it's actually either Workshop+Cycling, Cantrip+Cycling, or Lost City. Lost City is by far the rarest option and you can't usually control which outcome you get, so I think Impressment is underpowered if anything because the Cantrip+Cycling effect is on par with Border Guard, if BG didn't have the artifacts.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 07, 2019, 10:51:35 am

Quote from: segura on November 06, 2019, 02:32:26 pm

Quote from: Aquila on November 06, 2019, 10:41:10 am

Quote from: Frolouch on November 05, 2019, 07:30:16 pm

(https://imgur.com/AkeUB42.png)

This has the design flaw of generating VP without bringing the game closer to its end. There can come a point where everyone has well-made florist decks and there's less than 6 points between them, and the best play is to keep running the deck through to get VP because nobody can run the risk of the last Province deciding the winner. A never-ending situation.

I don't disagree but I think we have to specify the very situation in which this can only arise: a deck drawing engine with a sifter like Cellar, Warehouse or Dungeon.

or shepherd, or count, or any other discard-for-benefit/discard-for-penalty card + draw

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 07, 2019, 12:53:48 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 07, 2019, 10:39:54 am

Quote from: segura on November 07, 2019, 09:40:35 am

Quote from: grep on November 06, 2019, 09:44:25 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/fMDvHpf/Impressment.png)
Impressment
$4 - Action
Reveal the top 2 cards from your deck. Play the revealed Action cards in any order and discard the rest.
If you haven't revealed any Action card, gain a card costing up to $4.


A mixup of Throne Room and Workshop with a hint of Golem/Ghost. Chainable.

This is too good.
Either it is a Workshop for $4 that cycles 2 cards. Slightly worse than Ironworks but still decent due to the cycling.
Or it is a cantrip Workshop with some cycling. That card would have to cost $5 and is probably a bit better than Cobbler.
Or it is a Lost City which is better than a $5.

I don't see the cantrip Workshop part. If it hits one Action card, it plays it and that's all it does. So if it's actually either Workshop+Cycling, Cantrip+Cycling, or Lost City. Lost City is by far the rarest option and you can't usually control which outcome you get, so I think Impressment is underpowered if anything because the Cantrip+Cycling effect is on par with Border Guard, if BG didn't have the artifacts.

Sorry, I misread. It is probably fine as it is but I don't think that it is underpowered. First, you use it was Workshop, then it becomes a weak sifter and then it sometimes becomes a Lost City.
Herald has a higher chance to hit in the later part of the game but while your Action density is low it does nothing whereas this card cycles/gains.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on November 07, 2019, 02:42:56 pm

Quote from: mad4math on November 06, 2019, 03:03:06 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on November 06, 2019, 01:36:27 pm

Thanks for the feedback on Cavern, it seems like it would have to cost $7 compared to hunting grounds but it doesn't seem like a good $7 cost. Here's a revised version that has somewhat the same idea (and requires revealing instead of looking at):

(https://i.imgur.com/6ErWG8S.jpg)

Question: Should it reveal 4 or 3? I feel like it compares favorably to Envoy/Advisor even with revealing only 3.

I think it is pretty weak at 3. If you haven't trashed your coppers yet, it's roughly +3 cards, discard a copper which is worse than smithy. Even if you have trashed down to a lean engine, it probably discards a $3 cost, being about as good as +2 cards, +$1, still worse than smithy.

At reveal 4 it seems good. +4 cards discard a copper seems like a fine $5, and +3 cards +$1 is a fairly strong $5.

I think you're right. Then it's a decent Smithy+ for $5 Either it's +4 cards, discard a copper, or +3 cards, +$1, discard a $3, or +3 Cards, +$2, discard a key $5.

Here's the new card (OP will be updated too)

(https://i.imgur.com/OYgYgri.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Abel_K on November 07, 2019, 03:45:02 pm

(https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2019/11/07//19110709365220605916498149.png) (https://www.casimages.com/i/19110709365220605916498149.png.html)
Three-cards Monte. Costs $5
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck.
- If they are all different, discard them,  and + $3. The other players gain a Ruin
- If they are not, take in hand the similar cards. +1 Action

Some ideas :
- this card interacts with itself : if you're attacked and gain Ruins, you have more chances to get 3 different cards.
- you can try two strategies completely different : collecting various cards (1st effect) , or multiply buys of few cards , to take advantage of the second effect.

It seems to me balanced, but perhaps it is not at all !

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: TheAgileBeast on November 09, 2019, 01:59:00 am

(https://i.imgur.com/En14mAA.png)

Servants' Quarters
Landmark
When you gain a Province, name a card then reveal the top card of your deck. If you named it, +2VP.

If you have a nice clean organized deck that you know well, then your Provinces are worth a bit more. Seems fun. Mainly wanted to try to make a Landmark that reveals cards, since that feels weird.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 09, 2019, 05:46:44 am

I like this a lot and think that it might be strategically more interesting if you do all Victory cards instead of Provinces.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on November 09, 2019, 09:50:35 am

Mad Scientist
$5 - Action
---
Reveal cards from your deck until two cards of same cost are revealed.
Put them into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on November 09, 2019, 01:53:54 pm

Quote from: artless on November 09, 2019, 09:50:35 am

Mad Scientist
$5 - Action
---
Choose one:
Reveal the top card of your deck. If its cost differs from other cards revealed by this, replay Mad Scientist. Otherwise, discard the revealed cards.
or
Put all cards revealed by this into your hand. +1 Action.



I believe a better wording exists but I have no idea. Any suggestions?

Looks much weaker than Lab - even with a carefully curated deck the situations when you want to draw the third card are rare. I suggest the third option "Trash all the revealed cards"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 09, 2019, 05:13:58 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Z5ctPfy.png)

The Magpie effect as Project. Not as good as Piazza (which is the equivalent of +1 Card and +1 Action) but cheaper.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 11, 2019, 09:27:17 am

Quote from: Abel_K on November 07, 2019, 03:45:02 pm

(https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2019/11/07//19110709365220605916498149.png) (https://www.casimages.com/i/19110709365220605916498149.png.html)
Three-cards Monte. Costs $5
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck.
- If they are all different, discard them,  and + $3. The other players gain a Ruin
- If they are not, take in hand the similar cards. +1 Action

Some ideas :
- this card interacts with itself : if you're attacked and gain Ruins, you have more chances to get 3 different cards.
- you can try two strategies completely different : collecting various cards (1st effect) , or multiply buys of few cards , to take advantage of the second effect.

It seems to me balanced, but perhaps it is not at all !

You may want to give the +1 Action regardless (think of Tournament as your comparison) - would you play it knowing it could be your last action?
You may also want to rephrase for the edge case where someone uses these to draw their deck (since it's a super-lab/super-cultist, that's entirely possible) - if you draw no cards, are all the cards different?

maybe something like:

Quote

+1 Action.
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If you revealed 3 different cards, discard them, +$3, and all other players gain a Ruins. Otherwise, put the revealed cards in your hand.

---

Quote from: segura on November 09, 2019, 05:13:58 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Z5ctPfy.png)

The Magpie effect as Project. Not as good as Piazza (which is the equivalent of +1 Card and +1 Action) but cheaper.

I think this might be under-costed; the reason Piazza gets away with a $5 pricetag is you've got to also buy actions to use with it, meaning it's generally not bought until your action density is high enough for it to hit - money density's high at the beginning of the game anyhow. This is a no-brainer buy during your opening, doubly so if the other project is Silos.

You could also make it do a weird thing and play the treasure (a la Piazza) for some fun interactions with Quarry, Royal Seal, Crown, and some antisynergy with Fortune, Bank, Horn of Plenty, Spoils, Magic Lamp, Cursed Gold, and Diadem.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on November 11, 2019, 09:41:48 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 11, 2019, 09:27:17 am

You may want to give the +1 Action regardless (think of Tournament as your comparison) - would you play it knowing it could be your last action?
You may also want to rephrase for the edge case where someone uses these to draw their deck (since it's a super-lab/super-cultist, that's entirely possible) - if you draw no cards, are all the cards different?

Drawing your deck is not really an edge case.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Abel_K on November 11, 2019, 10:32:09 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 11, 2019, 09:27:17 am

Quote from: Abel_K on November 07, 2019, 03:45:02 pm

(https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2019/11/07//19110709365220605916498149.png) (https://www.casimages.com/i/19110709365220605916498149.png.html)
Three-cards Monte. Costs $5
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck.
- If they are all different, discard them,  and + $3. The other players gain a Ruin
- If they are not, take in hand the similar cards. +1 Action

Some ideas :
- this card interacts with itself : if you're attacked and gain Ruins, you have more chances to get 3 different cards.
- you can try two strategies completely different : collecting various cards (1st effect) , or multiply buys of few cards , to take advantage of the second effect.

It seems to me balanced, but perhaps it is not at all !

You may want to give the +1 Action regardless (think of Tournament as your comparison) - would you play it knowing it could be your last action?
You may also want to rephrase for the edge case where someone uses these to draw their deck (since it's a super-lab/super-cultist, that's entirely possible) - if you draw no cards, are all the cards different?

maybe something like:

Quote

+1 Action.
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If you revealed 3 different cards, discard them, +$3, and all other players gain a Ruins. Otherwise, put the revealed cards in your hand.

Thanks for your feedback.
- Don't you think that the +Action is  too strong for the first case ? TCM becomes a super-cultist now, no ?

- " if you draw no cards, are all the cards different?"...oups, I didn't think of that case. My idea is that is a third case in this card, so that risks to become a bit wordy... ("if you reveal less than 3 cards, +1 Action, and put them in hand")
- your proposition 'forgets' the concept of "similar cards" , that is important for me in that card : if I systematically put in my hand 3 cards + Action, it is an hyper-card, no?

So, something like :

Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If you revealed 3 different cards, discard them, +$3, and all other players gain a Ruin. Otherwise, +1 Action, put the revealed similar cards in your hand, or all the cards if you revealed less than 3[/

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 11, 2019, 12:58:44 pm

Quote from: Abel_K on November 11, 2019, 10:32:09 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 11, 2019, 09:27:17 am

Quote from: Abel_K on November 07, 2019, 03:45:02 pm

(https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2019/11/07//19110709365220605916498149.png) (https://www.casimages.com/i/19110709365220605916498149.png.html)
Three-cards Monte. Costs $5
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck.
- If they are all different, discard them,  and + $3. The other players gain a Ruin
- If they are not, take in hand the similar cards. +1 Action

Some ideas :
- this card interacts with itself : if you're attacked and gain Ruins, you have more chances to get 3 different cards.
- you can try two strategies completely different : collecting various cards (1st effect) , or multiply buys of few cards , to take advantage of the second effect.

It seems to me balanced, but perhaps it is not at all !

You may want to give the +1 Action regardless (think of Tournament as your comparison) - would you play it knowing it could be your last action?
You may also want to rephrase for the edge case where someone uses these to draw their deck (since it's a super-lab/super-cultist, that's entirely possible) - if you draw no cards, are all the cards different?

maybe something like:

Quote

+1 Action.
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If you revealed 3 different cards, discard them, +$3, and all other players gain a Ruins. Otherwise, put the revealed cards in your hand.

Thanks for your feedback.
- Don't you think that the +Action is  too strong for the first case ? TCM becomes a super-cultist now, no ?

- " if you draw no cards, are all the cards different?"...oups, I didn't think of that case. My idea is that is a third case in this card, so that risks to become a bit wordy... ("if you reveal less than 3 cards, +1 Action, and put them in hand")
- your proposition 'forgets' the concept of "similar cards" , that is important for me in that card : if I systematically put in my hand 3 cards + Action, it is an hyper-card, no?

So, something like :

Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If you revealed 3 different cards, discard them, +$3, and all other players gain a Ruin. Otherwise, +1 Action, put the revealed similar cards in your hand, or all the cards if you revealed less than 3

yeah that looks good.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Abel_K on November 11, 2019, 02:09:47 pm

Let's go then...

2nd Version

(https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2019/11/11//19111108105320605916505841.png) (https://www.casimages.com/i/19111108105320605916505841.png.html)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 11, 2019, 03:35:38 pm

Judging in a few hours!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on November 11, 2019, 03:51:41 pm

Late entry (I'm sure it needs tweaking, but I think it has some potential):

(https://i.imgur.com/cXhfg7k.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 11, 2019, 05:30:59 pm

Submission

Quote

Clairvoyant - Action ($3)
Name a card. Reveal up to 4 cards from your deck. If you revealed exactly one copy of the named card, put all the revealed cards into your hand. Otherwise, put one of them onto your deck and
discard the rest.

Clairvoyant will be tricky to use, but in early game it’ll excel at drawing cards you know you only have one copy of (or at worst case will help you cycle towards it). The problem is that it’s termianl so, naming an action card won’t help. Naming a silver you purchased T1 or T2 could work great. In mid game, it becomes a lot harder to let you draw cards unless you know what’s in your deck very well. A previously played clairvoyant can help with that — put a card you don’t have many copies of on top of your deck!

Definitely open to feedback on this one. Took me a while to come up with an idea I liked, so didn’t have time to make the graphic yet.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on November 11, 2019, 06:35:18 pm

Hope I'm not too late! No worries if I am!

(https://i.imgur.com/rpKFf1P.jpg)

Quote

Preacher
$4 Action
-
+$1
Reveal any number of cards from your hand, then reveal the top card of your deck. Either trash all the revealed cards, or discard them.

I'd imagine this works well right at the beginning of the game, then progressively gets riskier to play but potentially more rewarding if you have a hand fulla' curses. Sort of like a safer Lookout, I suppose.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on November 11, 2019, 07:19:01 pm

Quote from: FlyerBeast on November 11, 2019, 06:35:18 pm

Hope I'm not too late! No worries if I am!

(https://i.imgur.com/rpKFf1P.jpg)

Quote

Preacher
$4 Action
-
+$1
Reveal any number of cards from your hand, then reveal the top card of your deck. Either trash all the revealed cards, or discard them.

I'd imagine this works well right at the beginning of the game, then progressively gets riskier to play but potentially more rewarding if you have a hand fulla' curses. Sort of like a safer Lookout, I suppose.

It's way, way too powerful. Chapel is already one of the best cards for trashing 4, but this card trashes 5 and gives money! Also I notice the reveal effect is rather swingy for a chapel-style card - if you reveal your opening buy turn 3 you're at a huge disadvantage.

You could make a cool card out of this idea if it only trashed 1 card at a time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 11, 2019, 08:38:18 pm

Belfry by Fragasnap (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814920#msg814920)
This is pretty cool, but I feel like the cases where it will draw anything other than a Treasure are very unlikely-- it may trash itself to draw necessary actions in the endgame, or it may trash Ruins, but beyond those, trashing Estates will probably net you nothing and trashing Coppers may net you some coin, kinda like a non-terminal Moneylender. It seems the primary strength is just the ability to non-terminally trash cards. I would play it if there weren't a better trasher on the board, but I probably wouldn't count on it for anything other than trashing. I don't think the cost is that off but it maybe should be priced at $4 to prevent people from opening double Belfry.

Dismiss by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814944#msg814944)
This feels very abusable if you can find some way to get Golds in your deck without getting Silvers. If the only treasures in your deck are Coppers and Golds, assuming you have a Copper in hand when you play this, it's a double Peddler which is insane priced at $4, Villagers notwithstanding. Less troubling is the strategy where you buy nothing but Dismiss and some other terminal you'd like to play every turn (Mountebank, Wharf, Pirate Ship, etc.) and every hand with two Dismisses nets you a copy of your other terminal. It's a neat idea in the vein of Hunting Party, but as a trade-off for not increasing handsize you get massive control over what it finds. I think this ought to cost $5, at least.

Young Envoy by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814946#msg814946)
This pretty much seems like a Smithy variant that wants an engine rather than big money. Seems pretty good in an engine, too, especially one with a bunch of non-terminals that it can draw, or one with powerful terminals that you only want one or two of, since you're very unlikely to miss those. Definitely pretty strong for a $4.

Cavern by mail-mi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814972#msg814972)
Probably plays out very similarly to Envoy, if you assume the fifth card you would have drawn is a Silver which probably provides about as much coin as the discarded card. I do like that the opponent has to think a little harder than they do with Envoy, but I don't think this plays out that differently for the player. This might just be strongest in Big Money where it's just +4 Cards -$1 (assuming you reveal a Copper or Silver which both give you -$1 if discarded), better than Smithy if your money density's over $1/card but this is a $5 so that's justified. Not a card I'd fall in love with, probably not even one I'd usually play, but that's just my style. If played in an engine, it probably works best with $4 engine parts which provide the same coin as $5's when discarded but are way easier to get.

Herdsman by mandioca15 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814981#msg814981)
An anti-Hunting Party. Cute. Seems like it kinda snowballs in engines where the more of your deck you draw the more this will draw you, which is neat I guess as it probably requires another terminal draw (or a Lab, I suppose) to get off the ground. It's a lot more inconsistent, though. If I could stick with a conventional +Actions/+Cards engine with this on the board, I probably would. This does seem good in games where you're flooding yourself with a certain Treasure, though (Bureaucrat/Jack/Amulet/Trader/Lucky Coin, for instance).

Racketeer by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814993#msg814993)
It feels unsatisfying to get all the cards that aren't of the type you're focusing on. That's my first instinct. If you play this in an engine, you're probably naming Action, making it probably dead (to you) or maybe drawing you a Treasure or two if you're lucky. If you play it in Big Money, you name Treasure, and again it's completely dead to you. While the attack is very strong, I understand why there are very few official attacks that give no benefit at all to the person who played them. Even if I did well with this card, I wouldn't feel I was doing well-- I would just feel my opponent was doing badly. You can use it as a Smithy, of course, but then it's just an expensive Smithy.

Florist by Frolouch (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg815033#msg815033)
I think you've underestimated how good VP chips are, especially from a non-terminal card. Monument is terminal and gives you a single VP chip; this is non-terminal and in a deck built around it can easily give you 3 or 4. I can just imagine a nightmare scenario of a deck-drawing engine that uses something like Vault to discard all its Victory cards and then draws them all back with Florist, multiple times per turn, for 10+ VP's per turn while not changing the game state at all. This should cost at least $5, probably $6, so it's harder to spam them, but I don't see that alleviating the above problem, only making it slower to set up.

Farm Cellar by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg815034#msg815034)
I like this, though I'm having a hard time to determine if it's appropriately priced. I feel like it must be, because a cantrip Cellar that's also sometimes a Lab has to be at least $5. This seems fantastic in slog-like games such as Curser-heavy ones, especially without trashing. However I feel like the price would probably prevent me from taking it in any other type of game, just because there are other $5's that would probably benefit my engine or Big Money more. It's also a cute counter to Fortune Teller and Rabble (and Bureaucrat and Ghost Ship, sort of).

Convulsion of Nature by pubby (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg815044#msg815044)
This is definitely something I would pick up with a spare $2 without a better $2 buy, but I can't say it would make much of a difference in most games. Oracle/Wishing Well combos are obvious and extremely powerful, Vassal/Doctor/Pawn/the like might benefit somewhat, but most cards that draw, I'll be playing anyway whether or not I know what's on top of my deck. Jester/Swindler/Knights and other top-deck-targeting attacks would actually make this negative utility. Overall kinda funny, but probably not interactive enough for my liking.

Drift by DEGwer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg815055#msg815055)
This is just asking for people to make golden decks. Pretty much any board with a trasher and a +Buy can be used to make a 5-card deck that generates $12 with 2 buys, and buys a Province and a Drift, rinse and repeat. Beyond that, I guess it allows you to green earlier, which is cool but not that game-changing as you also have to spend some turns buying Drift. It neuters Cursers, to the point where I probably wouldn't play all but the strongest Cursers (Mountebank for instance would still be appetizing, but most probably wouldn't be worth allowing my opponent to nab 2VP for just $4).

Impressment by grep (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg815089#msg815089)
This looks a lot like Elder... :o except instead of being terminal draw when it misses, it's a Workshop. This seems like the type of card that loves absolute cantrip spamming; it can gain more copies of itself, so eventually you can just flood your deck with them and with other cantrips, crossing your fingers for those moments when your Impressment reveals two actions and becomes a Lost City. This is cool, except that I don't really see another viable way to play this card, other than an expensive Workshop replacement in a makeshift Workshop/Gardens rush. Noting too that a Workshop (0 actions revealed) is better than a cantrip (1 action revealed), this seems like the only way to use its full strength is to spam your deck with actions and hope you get lucky.

Sawmill by [TP] Inferno (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg815114#msg815114)
This is cool. Once again I'm drawn to the Gardens strat where you gain a Gardens unless you reveal a Victory card in which case you gain another Sawmill. But it works in an engine too... kinda. Your engine's not gonna love all that Silver. I feel like the best use of this is probably in an extremely strong engine where you can already draw most or all of your deck without too much trouble. With enough non-action cards in your deck, this can probably hit a decent balance of gaining you engine parts versus gaining you Silvers when you do hit an action. This seems like the type of card I'd buy and then regret, and then wonder how I could set things up to make it work. A lot of depth there, for sure.

Servants' Quarters by TheAgileBeast (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg815279#msg815279)
Can I play this with pubby's Convulsion of Nature, hehe. Free points for people with more homogeneous decks? Encourages Big Money or a mono-engine like Lab, I guess. Makes all deck inspectors stronger (Sentry, Cartographer, Courtyard, Apothecary, even Scout). Beyond that, makes a very tight endgame kinda funny (if I buy this last Province I'll lose, unless I 360 noscope the top card of my deck...) but probably not satisfying for either player.

Mad Scientist by artless (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg815290#msg815290)
Feels abusable, but I don't think it is. Just really swingy. Probably only good if you can get rid of starting Coppers (Estates are less likely to be a concern). Ideally, I'd want to use this in an engine where both parts are the same cost, because I'd much rather get a village and a terminal draw from this than two villages or two terminal draws. In most other scenarios, I don't think I'd ever pay $5 for it, honestly.

Ship Launch by segura (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg815304#msg815304)
Funnily enough, I was reading about Renaissance today, and discovered that DXV tried this idea:

Quote

Start of turn, reveal top, +1 Card if Treasure. Some people liked this one. A runner-up.

I feel pretty similarly to that about it. I think it pushes you more toward a boring money strategy, but not that far, and otherwise it just will randomly give you extra cards. It's very unlikely that you could control this as you'd have to get a Treasure exactly 6 cards down at the end of your turn, but that's true of Piazza too, I think Piazza's just more interesting because the bonus is something you control by picking what actions are in your deck, rather than just plus some money.

Three-Cards Monte by Abel_K (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg815421#msg815421)
A whimsical looter that junks at a very leisurely pace. If you can nix your Coppers (and maybe Estates) and make it so this thing only hits duplicates when it's a duplicate of an action you actually want, this seems very strong. The looting attack is certainly strong enough (compare with Cultist, which is better when you can chain it but way worse when you can't), and I think getting the Lab effect to not get stuck on Coppers would make this a very powerful, albeit unreliable, engine card.

Surveyor by scolapasta (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg815429#msg815429)
This needs a clause for what to do with the other revealed cards, since I think DXV has intentionally avoided making people remember the order cards were in when revealed off your deck. Other than that, it pretty much just seems like a +1VP (or 2 if you're lucky) with some cycling that's mitigated by missing some shuffles. It's not clear what happens if you reveal multiple Victory cards, but I think you would get 1VP for each, because although Surveyor is discarded after you get the first VP, the other triggers were on the stack and still get resolved because the Victory card was revealed while it was still in play? Needs some rewording, I think. Other than that, feels pretty hard to control. Likely a good supplement to any sort of alt-VP strategy, otherwise probably too slow.

Clairvoyant by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg815432#msg815432)
Ooh, push your luck. Seems really good for a $3, given that it sifts if it fails to hit. I would probably always go for 4 cards, especially in an engine where if I miss I can put the card I really want to draw next to help keep my engine going even if I don't get the ridiculously strong +4 Cards effect. I think this needs to be at least $4, probably $5 (maybe with the failure condition buffed a bit, like discard any number and put the rest back in any order).

Preacher by FlyerBeast (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg815447#msg815447)
This doesn't feel all that different from Chapel, honestly. The +$1 is very unlikely to help; the +1 Card will help, but you'll probably be trashing all your starting cards without much trouble anyway, and it's mitigated by the risk of revealing your other opening buy off your deck. Lategame this is a terminal Copper that may trash a card or two (revealing a Copper is risky lategame), not all that great, but better than the mostly dead Chapel at least. Is this worth $4? Probably, but I don't see games with it playing out that differently from Chapel games.


Winner: Sawmill by [TP] Inferno
Runner-up: Three-Cards Monte by Abel_K

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 11, 2019, 09:10:01 pm

Congrats [TP] Inferno!

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 11, 2019, 08:38:18 pm

Racketeer by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg814993#msg814993)
It feels unsatisfying to get all the cards that aren't of the type you're focusing on. That's my first instinct. If you play this in an engine, you're probably naming Action, making it probably dead (to you) or maybe drawing you a Treasure or two if you're lucky. If you play it in Big Money, you name Treasure, and again it's completely dead to you. While the attack is very strong, I understand why there are very few official attacks that give no benefit at all to the person who played them. Even if I did well with this card, I wouldn't feel I was doing well-- I would just feel my opponent was doing badly. You can use it as a Smithy, of course, but then it's just an expensive Smithy.

I mean, you'd probably name the cards you don't want more than action/treasure - you name "Ruins", or "Curse" or "Victory", you get to sift past the cards you don't want in your hand anyways and draw the rest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on November 12, 2019, 06:24:34 am

Congrats [TP] Inferno, a very elegant card!

I've thought again about my card and I agree with all the comments on it. I think it would be a lot more interesting as:

Quote

Preacher
$4 Action
-
+1 Card
Reveal any number of cards from your hand, then reveal that number from your deck. Either trash all the revealed cards, or discard them.

EDIT: Okay, this might still be grossly overpowered in the early game?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 12, 2019, 10:01:40 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 11, 2019, 09:10:01 pm

I mean, you'd probably name the cards you don't want more than action/treasure - you name "Ruins", or "Curse" or "Victory", you get to sift past the cards you don't want in your hand anyways and draw the rest.

Yeah that's true, I should have written about that possibility too... didn't want to be working on that post all night, you know.

I think the attack is probably strong enough that it's worth naming something that's likely to hit. Imagine naming Victory, hitting one Victory card, and making your opponent gain a Copper... and compare that to Witch. I guess if your intent was to use it as a Smithy that sometimes attacks, it does that pretty well, but the unreliability might get annoying (especially for the opponent). I do like it more today than I did yesterday, after thinking about it, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 12, 2019, 10:14:18 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 12, 2019, 10:01:40 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 11, 2019, 09:10:01 pm

I mean, you'd probably name the cards you don't want more than action/treasure - you name "Ruins", or "Curse" or "Victory", you get to sift past the cards you don't want in your hand anyways and draw the rest.

Yeah that's true, I should have written about that possibility too... didn't want to be working on that post all night, you know.

I think the attack is probably strong enough that it's worth naming something that's likely to hit. Imagine naming Victory, hitting one Victory card, and making your opponent gain a Copper... and compare that to Witch. I guess if your intent was to use it as a Smithy that sometimes attacks, it does that pretty well, but the unreliability might get annoying (especially for the opponent). I do like it more today than I did yesterday, after thinking about it, though.

yeah, no worries, judging posts look like a beast to make, especially collecting all the post-hyperlinks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on November 12, 2019, 07:37:47 pm

Wow. I honestly didn't expect to win. As I stated before, somebody else do the judging, please. But without further ado:

Challenge #51: There's A Curse On You!!!
Design a custom Curse card. *gasp*! This will probably be a bit difficult. Rules are:

• All submissions must have the Curse type and be worth negative VP. Cards that award -VP tokens or something similar aren't justified in having the Curse type (like Monument isn't a Victory card)
• Submissions shouldn't be just an undercosted card with a VP penalty, see rinkworks' article on that. Try and come up with an interesting way to make it work.

If there's anything more I need to add, let me know.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 12, 2019, 08:10:58 pm

I think Abel_K gets the honors of being the judge then, since they were runner up?

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5dcb546eaacea07e14113a89/af14535723abf108da7c10abed363219/image.png)
I went simple on this one. Yeah, this'll make the estates run out fast if there's a cantrip curser, but it can also de-junk a bit. You may even want to buy one if there's no other trashing in the game!  On a subtler note, this also has a higher-than-zero cost to allow you to use it with TfB cards.
For clarity, included the setup note that you're using these instead of the stock Curses.

Actually no i wanna do something weird and do the Ruins variant i've been kicking around. To h*ck with simple. Someone else can do simple.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5dcb5b977d40ee716b599810/2ee27dcc2698599eed65ca9e087b8c48/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5dcb5b977d40ee716b599810/8de6fe560c96d2f7dcfaaad3fe881432/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5dcb5b977d40ee716b599810/067f671675c064405d52fd3810ddc7f1/image.png)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5dcb5b977d40ee716b599810/e4643c29aa3c6ac627a7a28cdc6833ab/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5dcb5b977d40ee716b599810/d2a7043a81e7693b02cd2e9d8afeab62/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5dcb5b977d40ee716b599810/d846083c1c0a3cc8f73b76076a58a69d/image.png)

Curses that mess stuff up before you even get them. Revolutionary.
Ten of each, shuffle 'em together, same deal as Ruins as far as setup goes. I included the randomizer which has the setup instructions.

Quote

Boor • $2 • Night - Cuss - Curse
While this card is in the top card of its supply pile, when you trash a card, trash the top card of your deck as well.
-
Trash a card from your hand.
-
-1%

Quote

Cur • $2 • Night - Cuss - Curse
While this card is in the top card of its supply pile, Gold produces $2 instead of $3.
-
Trash a card from your hand.
-
-1%

Quote

Heel • $2 • Night - Cuss - Curse
While this card is in the top card of its supply pile, at the start of each turn, trash a non-Night card costing between $3 and $6 from the supply (the player whose turn it is chooses which card to trash).
-
Trash a card from your hand
-
-1%

Quote

Rake • $2 • Night - Cuss - Curse
While this card is in the top card of its supply pile, if you have more than 4 cards and it's not your turn, discard until you have 4 cards.
-
Trash a card from your hand.
-
-1%

Quote

Cretin • $2 • Night - Cuss - Curse
While this card is in the top card of its supply pile, when you play a card that causes you to draw more than one card, draw one card instead.
-
Trash a card from your hand.
-
-1%

Above the first line is what it does while it's showing in the supply,between the lines is what is does when you play it.

Errata:

• Draw-to-X bypasses Cretin; Likewise cards that reveal-and-then-put-into-hand (Scrying Pool, etc).
• Rake happens immediately (in the event of Soothsayer/Council Room)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 12, 2019, 08:51:28 pm

What are the play/setup rules around cards like this? Are they cards in the supply that also have the Curse type, meaning they can be voluntarily gained instead of the -1 VP curse we know and love? Or do you want us to make a card that replaces the curse pile?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on November 12, 2019, 09:15:53 pm

Either is fine, I think.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on November 13, 2019, 01:16:05 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on November 12, 2019, 07:37:47 pm

[...]
Challenge #51: There's A Curse On You!!!
Design a custom Curse card. *gasp*! This will probably be a bit difficult. Rules are:

• All submissions must have the Curse type and be worth negative VP. Cards that award -VP tokens or something similar aren't justified in having the Curse type (like Monument isn't a Victory card)
• Submissions shouldn't be just an undercosted card with a VP penalty, see rinkworks' article on that. Try and come up with an interesting way to make it work.

[...]

finally - waiting for this since months :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 13, 2019, 04:29:09 am

Lazy Patrol
cost $4 - Action - Curse
+3 Cards
Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. If you reveal any Curse cards, put them into your hand, and +1 Action. Discard the rest.
---
-2VP

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 13, 2019, 06:03:17 am

I spent some time working on a fan expansion with custom Curses called Dominion: Accursed.  A problem with Curses is that there is no way to determine if existing cards that refer to "Curses" are referring to the Type "Curse" or the card named "Curse."  Dominion: Accursed sidesteps the issue by instead replacing the cards called Curse in name and type as follows:

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 24, 2019, 07:11:17 am

In games using any cards from Dominion: Accursed, replace half of the Curse pile with Jinxes and the other half with one of Curios, Heretics, or Wastelands. These cards are both part of the same pile and can be gained or bought in any order.

Jinxes, Curios, Heretics, and Wastelands are as follows:
(https://i.imgur.com/C5RT0xW.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/cHAvxkF.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/k43owtk.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/NEcwys7.jpg)

Quote

Jinx
Types: Curse, Reaction
Cost: $0
-1VP

---

When you gain a Curse, you may discard this. If you do, +2 Cards.

Quote

Curio
Types: Treasure, Curse
Cost: $2
$1, +1 Buy.

---

-2VP

Quote

Heretic
Types: Action, Curse
Cost: $0
+2 Actions

---

-2VP

Quote

Wasteland
Types: Curse
Cost: $0
-2VP

---

When you gain this, gain a card costing up to $4 that isn't a Curse or Victory card.

The idea is two-fold.
1) By replacing the Curse pile with two different kinds of cards with different functions, players can respond more flexibly to cards that might give them Curses.  Cursing cards are usually very high priority, but slower Cursers might be less valuable due to the Curses themselves not being nearly as detrimental.
2) By having two types of Curses, we can design cards that care about and use Curses in different ways. While not every card in the set needs to explicitly reference Curses, we can have more cards that function around them because the behavior of Curses is both less punishing to general deck composition and overall less one-note.
For example, here are some cards from Dominion: Accursed
(https://i.imgur.com/0T1kmXe.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Fpkrvsd.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/bYhu6OC.jpg)

Quote

Sepulcher
Types: Victory
Cost: $3
3VP

---

When you gain this, gain a Curse. If you do, set this aside. Return it to your deck at the end of the game.

Sepulcher functionally gives fewer VP than is printed in order to gain one of the functions of the alternate Curses for positive VP. Additionally you can trash the Curse and maintain the Victory points of Sepulcher.

Quote

Hedgewitch
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. Each other player gains a Jinx. If no-one does, trash this.

---

When you gain or trash this, you may return a Curse from your hand to the Supply.

Hedgewitch is a weaker Curser. It can only deal half as many Curses to other players because it refers specifically to the always-present Jinx cards.  Hedgewitch goes on to be a response to the Cursing itself, where trashing it (via its on-play effect or otherwise) or gaining it can be used to reload other Hedgewitches.

Quote

Succubus
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+1 Action, +$3. Gain a Curse, putting it into your hand. You may trash a non-Curse card from your hand.

Succubus offers a possibly large source of payload with tempo-trashing at the cost of gaining Curses. You might leverage a Curse like Curio once in order to make Succubus +$4 and +1 Buy, or Heretic for +2 Actions and +$3.  Other times you might fashion a deck that can trash the Curse as you gain it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on November 13, 2019, 06:51:22 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ssfpK79.jpg)

Quote

Rotten Egg Basket
$3 Curse-Reaction
---
-4 VP
-
When you would gain a Curse, you may gain this instead. If you do, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 cards named Curse. Return the revealed Curses to the Supply and discard the rest.

Just like putting all your eggs in one basket- you can bundle your Curses up into one slightly more Curse-y card and (hopefully) trash it later!

Errata: I was considering adding a Setup rule to add an extra Curse-giving Attack to the kingdom to make up for the potentially wasted space, but decided that was way too wordy.

Avoiding letting it return itself to the Supply was a problem and has made the wording a little weird too, I'd appreciate feedback on how to make it a bit simpler!

EDIT: fixed the text to match the card image (it said -3VP)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #51
Post by: herw on November 13, 2019, 07:40:34 am

Curse is a shady card. So variants of it has to be shady too. Basic curse is bad for you, when you have to gain it, but good for your opponent if he wants to slow the game (mostly for you ;) ).
So i want to create a curse card which is more twilight: it should be bad and beneficial. I don't want to create a new rule mechanism. It should be easy to understand and it should cooperate with many cards. It should be attractive without a curser too. Trashers are useful, but do you really want to trash a loophole or a breath? Maybe or not - your decision.
It is a kingdom card and you can play it. There a several methods to play a curse: an action-curse, treasure-curse or night-curse. I choose an action-curse.
The main idea is that you can choose a path, best is to choose a path as traveller. So the starting card is an action-curse-traveller card.
Following travellers are treasure-traveller cards and the last one is a Treasure-victory (!) card. But it is shady too, bad and beneficial.
The trick is that you always can decide if you want to stop or continue. It is a shady decision at start, middle game and end game. Would you like to buy two Dark Paths at your start and later with crossroad? It is a shady curse-big-money-strategy. Although Jungle, Crossroad and Loophole are no curses i have choosen a treasure-curse banner for better counting at the end of game.
Here it is:

(https://imgur.com/811hrn5.png) (https://imgur.com/tuFXLvN.png) (https://imgur.com/pttkzaa.png) (https://imgur.com/CSXgmUl.png) (https://imgur.com/3LVHgO1.png)

Quote

Dark Path
Types: Action - Curse - Traveller
cost : $0
-2 VP

---

+1 Action

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a jungle.

Quote

Jungle
Types: Treasure - Traveller
cost: $3*
-2 VP

---

$3

---

When you discard this from play, you
may exchange it for a Crossroad.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Crossroad
Types: Treasure - Traveller
cost: 4*
-3 VP

---

$4
+1 Buy

---

When you discard this from play, you
may exchange it for a Loophole.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Loophole
Types: Treasure - Traveller
cost $5*
-4 VP

---

$5

---

When you discard this from play, you
may exchange it for a Breath.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Breath
Types: Treasure - Victory
cost: 6*
2 VP

---

$6
Trash this.

---

(This is not in the supply)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 13, 2019, 09:20:48 am

Quote from: FlyerBeast on November 13, 2019, 06:51:22 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ssfpK79.jpg)

Quote

Rotten Egg Basket
$3 Curse-Reaction
---
-3 VP
-
When you would gain a Curse, you may gain this instead. If you do, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 cards named Curse. Return the revealed Curses to the Supply and discard the rest.

Just like putting all your eggs in one basket- you can bundle your Curses up into one slightly more Curse-y card and (hopefully) trash it later!

Errata: I was considering adding a Setup rule to add an extra Curse-giving Attack to the kingdom to make up for the potentially wasted space, but decided that was way too wordy.

Avoiding letting it return itself to the Supply was a problem and has made the wording a little weird too, I'd appreciate feedback on how to make it a bit simpler!

Is it supposed to be -3VP or -4VP? the image and description don't match.

---

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 13, 2019, 06:03:17 am

Dominion: Accursed sidesteps the issue by instead replacing the cards called Curse in name and type as follows:

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 24, 2019, 07:11:17 am

In games using any cards from Dominion: Accursed, replace half of the Curse pile with Jinxes and the other half with one of Curios, Heretics, or Wastelands. These cards are both part of the same pile and can be gained or bought in any order.

To clarify, for a full six-player-ready set, you'd have 25 of each type?

---

Quote from: herw on November 13, 2019, 07:40:34 am

(https://imgur.com/811hrn5.png) (https://imgur.com/tuFXLvN.png) (https://imgur.com/pttkzaa.png) (https://imgur.com/CSXgmUl.png) (https://imgur.com/3LVHgO1.png)

Quote

Dark Path
Types: Action - Curse - Traveller
cost : $0
-2 VP

---

+1 Action

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a jungle.

Quote

Jungle
Types: Treasure - Traveller
cost: $3*
-2 VP

---

$3

---

When you discard this from play, you
may exchange it for a Crossroad.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Crossroad
Types: Treasure - Traveller
cost: 4*
-3 VP

---

$4
+1 Buy

---

When you discard this from play, you
may exchange it for a Loophole.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Loophole
Types: Treasure - Traveller
cost $5*
-4 VP

---

$5

---

When you discard this from play, you
may exchange it for a Breath.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Breath
Types: Treasure - Victory
cost: 6*
2 VP

---

$6
Trash this.

---

(This is not in the supply)

This is a super cool idea but i've got a couple reservations about it -

• Should it really jump to gold right away? Especially with Dark Path being non-terminal, all you've really got to do is not dead draw it from a smithy or something to be able to get a Jungle, which is an upgrade in every way; You may want to consider having them be $2 -> $2 +1 Buy -> $3 -> $4 Trash this Return this to the supply, which would make them a little more even-keeled (ie, if you wanted to play with the biggest money, you wouldn't just buy curses right away)
• How many of each card should there be in a two, three, ... , six player game?
• You've got a naming conflict (Crossroads exists (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Crossroads)) and a typo in the card for Crossroad (on its exchange line) - if you need a new forest-y name, maybe "Thicket" or "Copse"?
• Likewise, i think there's a translation issue with "Loophole" and "Breath" - the physical phenomenon of a loophole as opposed to the conceptual phenomenon, which is usually for legal/rules-related things is a man-made thing (like an arrow slit in a tower) rather than something that exists in a forest; I'd suggest "Grove" and "Glade", respectively for what I think you're getting at with those.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #51: Curse card
Post by: Aquila on November 13, 2019, 10:21:17 am

It's a stretch, but:

(https://i.imgur.com/VVO0F9n.jpg)
There are 20 of these.

Whenever you gain a Curse, you can get one of these instead, a falcon to chase the crows away. You effectively change attacks from a Curse to a discarding one to get it, so the attack still hurts. Falcon is a weak but not insignificant card that you'll want over a Curse often, but getting too many like this will be a bad thing. One can still spam Curse attacks if they wish, but the junking and the -VP are mitigated a little. You could also buy this for $0 and 2 discarded cards, and this is why I costed it $2 whilst it's probably $1 strong, to make this a more distinct feature and to be a bit better with trash-for-benefit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on November 13, 2019, 10:40:46 am

Confession
$5 - Event
Gain an Indulgence from its pile. If you did, return any number of Curses from your hand and discard pile to the supply.

Indulgence
$0* - Curse - Reaction
-1 VP
When you gain a Curse, you may discard this to trash it.
(This is not in the supply. There is one Indulgence per player in its pile)

Rule clarification: As Indulgence is not in the supply, you won't return it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on November 13, 2019, 11:44:37 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 13, 2019, 09:20:48 am

[...]

Quote from: herw on November 13, 2019, 07:40:34 am

(https://imgur.com/811hrn5.png) (https://imgur.com/tuFXLvN.png) (https://imgur.com/pttkzaa.png) (https://imgur.com/CSXgmUl.png) (https://imgur.com/3LVHgO1.png)

Quote

Dark Path
Types: Action - Curse - Traveller
cost : $0
-2 VP

---

+1 Action

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a jungle.

Quote

Jungle
Types: Treasure - Traveller
cost: $3*
-2 VP

---

$3

---

When you discard this from play, you
may exchange it for a Crossroad.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Crossroad
Types: Treasure - Traveller
cost: 4*
-3 VP

---

$4
+1 Buy

---

When you discard this from play, you
may exchange it for a Loophole.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Loophole
Types: Treasure - Traveller
cost $5*
-4 VP

---

$5

---

When you discard this from play, you
may exchange it for a Breath.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Breath
Types: Treasure - Victory
cost: 6*
2 VP

---

$6
Trash this.

---

(This is not in the supply)

This is a super cool idea but i've got a couple reservations about it -

thanks - Before i answer: i am a non native speaker, so maybe i misunderstand some comments; so be patient.

Quote

• Should it really jump to gold right away? Especially with Dark Path being non-terminal, all you've really got to do is not dead draw it from a smithy or something to be able to get a Jungle, which is an upgrade in every way; You may want to consider having them be $2 -> $2 +1 Buy -> $3 -> $4 Trash this Return this to the supply, which would make them a little more even-keeled (ie, if you wanted to play with the biggest money, you wouldn't just buy curses right away)

the original Dark Path was a Treasure-Traveller-card with [cost $2, $2 -1VP], means a terminal card. So perhaps it is too provocative to give nothing only change to jungle?
The idea of this traveller line is humans gear to money ;) .
So the goal is to go the whole line from Dark Path to Breath. It is interesting that at the end you can decide wether you want the $6 and loose +2VP or you want only +2 VP.
The main thing is, that you ignore the -x VP-line in middle game and hope at the end to change from loophole to breath.
I have tested some games with it and it is not simple to win, because the longer the game lasts the improbable is, to get one of the traveller.

Quote

• How many of each card should there be in a two, three, ... , six player game?

As it is a normal traveller line there are always 10 cards of Dark Path and 5 for each other.

Quote

• You've got a naming conflict (Crossroads exists (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Crossroads)) and a typo in the card for Crossroad (on its exchange line) - if you need a new forest-y name, maybe "Thicket" or "Copse"?

thanks -yes i remembered something, but i used the wrong search („crossroad” instead of „crossroads”). I will think about a new name.
In german i call it „Scheideweg”, originally it was „decision”. „Branch” would be an alternative.

Quote

• Likewise, i think there's a translation issue with "Loophole" and "Breath" - the physical phenomenon of a loophole as opposed to the conceptual phenomenon, which is usually for legal/rules-related things is a man-made thing (like an arrow slit in a tower) rather than something that exists in a forest; I'd suggest "Grove" and "Glade", respectively for what I think you're getting at with those.

The idea of naming is meant more figuratively. So the picture of a real forest way is only a picture but the sense is like in star wars ;) (way to the dark side of the force).

Thanks for clarifying and questions. Creating such a path is provocative but worth to try.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Abel_K on November 13, 2019, 11:48:09 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 12, 2019, 08:10:58 pm

I think Abel_K gets the honors of being the judge then, since they were runner up?

I missed that, sorry.

Thank you very much... but no thank you ! I don't feel able to judge this contest for the moment, especially with a subject that I didn't choose (even if it's really interesting !) : I have not enough experience and knowledge to do this well.
And, agravating circumstance (is that really english??) , as you can see, I am not a very good english locutor : I would perhaps have difficulties to translate what I think (and sometimes what I read !!!)

So, really sorry, but find someone else : there are plenty of members that have a good analytic spirit to do that very well !

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 13, 2019, 12:17:13 pm

Yikes.

I guess I should pick someone for third place?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on November 13, 2019, 12:18:01 pm

Quote from: spineflu on November 13, 2019, 09:20:48 am

Quote from: FlyerBeast on November 13, 2019, 06:51:22 am

Quote

Rotten Egg Basket
$3 Curse-Reaction
---
-3 VP
-
When you would gain a Curse, you may gain this instead. If you do, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 cards named Curse. Return the revealed Curses to the Supply and discard the rest.

Is it supposed to be -3VP or -4VP? the image and description don't match.

Oh, oops. Definitely -4VP, so it's worse to have than three curses.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 13, 2019, 12:22:32 pm

Okay, uh, third place goes to Farm Cellar by NoMoreFun. If they also don't want to judge, I guess we can just allow anyone who wants to to volunteer?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 13, 2019, 09:16:51 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 13, 2019, 12:22:32 pm

Okay, uh, third place goes to Farm Cellar by NoMoreFun. If they also don't want to judge, I guess we can just allow anyone who wants to to volunteer?

I'll judge, no worries (I was having trouble coming up with a card for this round anyway)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on November 14, 2019, 02:41:46 am

This may not be valid for this contest, but I’ll throw it in anyway...

Faustian Pact (Event, $6)

Once per game: set aside a non-Duration Action card costing up to $4 from the supply. Move your Devil token to it. All of your curses gain the types and abilities of that card. In addition, each of your curses is now worth -2VP at the end of the game.

Not sure how balanced this is, but it certainly makes things interesting...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on November 14, 2019, 05:56:01 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 13, 2019, 09:20:48 am

[...]

Quote from: herw on November 13, 2019, 07:40:34 am

(https://imgur.com/3LVHgO1.png)
[...]

Quote

Breath
Types: Treasure - Victory
cost: 6*
2 VP

---

$6
Trash this.

---

(This is not in the supply)

This is a super cool idea but i've got a couple reservations about it -

• [...] You may want to consider having them be $2 -> $2 +1 Buy -> $3 -> $4 Trash this Return this to the supply, which would make them a little more even-keeled (ie, if you wanted to play with the biggest money, you wouldn't just buy curses right away)

[...]
[/list]

The instruction of breath „trash this” is very important here, means it follows the main idea to give the player a decision. If you don't play it it is only an estate. If you play it you loose 2 VP but you have a one-shot-gold; maybe you need it in your last turn?
BTW the name in German is Lebenshauch which is dfficult to translate in English, maybe soul?
An Alternative are expressions like „Odem” or „Brodem” which are old expressions. But again it is difficult to translate.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 14, 2019, 06:41:02 am

Quote from: herw on November 14, 2019, 05:56:01 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 13, 2019, 09:20:48 am

[...]

Quote from: herw on November 13, 2019, 07:40:34 am

(https://imgur.com/3LVHgO1.png)
[...]

Quote

Breath
Types: Treasure - Victory
cost: 6*
2 VP

---

$6
Trash this.

---

(This is not in the supply)

This is a super cool idea but i've got a couple reservations about it -

• [...] You may want to consider having them be $2 -> $2 +1 Buy -> $3 -> $4 Trash this Return this to the supply, which would make them a little more even-keeled (ie, if you wanted to play with the biggest money, you wouldn't just buy curses right away)

[...]
[/list]

The instruction of breath „trash this” is very important here, means it follows the main idea to give the player a decision. If you don't play it it is only an estate. If you play it you loose 2 VP but you have a one-shot-gold; maybe you need it in your last turn?
BTW the name in German is Lebenshauch which is dfficult to translate in English, maybe soul?
An Alternative are expressions like „Odem” or „Brodem” which are old expressions. But again it is difficult to translate.

Yeah, i was thinking more that since it's not in the supply anyway (so you can't just buy them) that it might be better to handle the one-shot like Madman; do it the trashing way, the first five players to do the traveller line get a Breath and everyone else is out of luck. Do it the return-to-supply way (or even "exhange this for a Dark Path"?) and they cycle through/no one gets hosed by someone else's lucky shuffle.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on November 14, 2019, 08:00:31 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 14, 2019, 06:41:02 am

Quote from: herw on November 14, 2019, 05:56:01 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 13, 2019, 09:20:48 am

[...]

Quote from: herw on November 13, 2019, 07:40:34 am

(https://imgur.com/3LVHgO1.png)
[...]

Quote

Breath
Types: Treasure - Victory
cost: 6*
2 VP

---

$6
Trash this.

---

(This is not in the supply)

This is a super cool idea but i've got a couple reservations about it -

• [...] You may want to consider having them be $2 -> $2 +1 Buy -> $3 -> $4 Trash this Return this to the supply, which would make them a little more even-keeled (ie, if you wanted to play with the biggest money, you wouldn't just buy curses right away)

[...]
[/list]

The instruction of breath „trash this” is very important here, means it follows the main idea to give the player a decision. If you don't play it it is only an estate. If you play it you loose 2 VP but you have a one-shot-gold; maybe you need it in your last turn?
BTW the name in German is Lebenshauch which is dfficult to translate in English, maybe soul?
An Alternative are expressions like „Odem” or „Brodem” which are old expressions. But again it is difficult to translate.

Yeah, i was thinking more that since it's not in the supply anyway (so you can't just buy them) that it might be better to handle the one-shot like Madman; do it the trashing way, the first five players to do the traveller line get a Breath and everyone else is out of luck. Do it the return-to-supply way (or even "exhange this for a Dark Path"?) and they cycle through/no one gets hosed by someone else's lucky shuffle.

ah yes thanks. I forgot about trashing and return to supply. On the other hand normal traveller's end is always gone for other players. So the last five end-cards are gone - it is normal behaviour for traveller-lines (with one exception (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17140.msg791304#msg791304)  ;) )

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 14, 2019, 01:18:19 pm

I like the Travellers as they change the simple linear (the earlier and the more the better) junking thing to something more complex for the junker as well as the junkee.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on November 14, 2019, 03:35:16 pm

Hang on... since I'm not judging, can I make a submission? Or am I forbidden because I made the Challenge?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 14, 2019, 03:53:42 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on November 14, 2019, 02:41:46 am

This may not be valid for this contest, but I’ll throw it in anyway...

Faustian Pact (Event, $6)

Once per game: set aside a non-Duration Action card costing up to $4 from the supply. Move your Devil token to it. All of your curses gain the types and abilities of that card. In addition, each of your curses is now worth -2VP at the end of the game.

Not sure how balanced this is, but it certainly makes things interesting...

Subtle note I like about this - it uses the pre-errata Inheritance wording so you can turn your curses into Feasts/Embargos/other one-shots and they can then autotrash themselves. Very cool.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on November 15, 2019, 01:27:43 am

(https://i.imgur.com/H3xfAIN.png?1)

Originally thought about doing a Coppersmith variant affecting all of the Base Treasures, but decided to go with a Bridge variant instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ShadowHawk on November 15, 2019, 01:59:58 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 14, 2019, 03:53:42 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on November 14, 2019, 02:41:46 am

This may not be valid for this contest, but I’ll throw it in anyway...

Faustian Pact (Event, $6)

Once per game: set aside a non-Duration Action card costing up to $4 from the supply. Move your Devil token to it. All of your curses gain the types and abilities of that card. In addition, each of your curses is now worth -2VP at the end of the game.

Not sure how balanced this is, but it certainly makes things interesting...

Subtle note I like about this - it uses the pre-errata Inheritance wording so you can turn your curses into Feasts/Embargos/other one-shots and they can then autotrash themselves. Very cool.

I like it too, though I must ask mandioca why he wants the card set aside rather than just have the player place their Devil token on a card in the Supply? Add some suspense for this deal with the Devil.

Oh and Mandioca, here's an art suggestion if you like it, though it'll need editing for an Event - https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8f/8c/9b/8f8c9b6b4d42b11f2c5a8a065983c4b8.jpg

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 15, 2019, 04:59:59 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on November 14, 2019, 03:35:16 pm

Hang on... since I'm not judging, can I make a submission? Or am I forbidden because I made the Challenge?

Go ahead. It doesn't seem like you came up with the challenge because you thought only you could win it. The more ideas the better I say.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 15, 2019, 09:32:03 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on November 14, 2019, 02:41:46 am

This may not be valid for this contest, but I’ll throw it in anyway...

Faustian Pact (Event, $6)

Once per game: set aside a non-Duration Action card costing up to $4 from the supply. Move your Devil token to it. All of your curses gain the types and abilities of that card. In addition, each of your curses is now worth -2VP at the end of the game.

Not sure how balanced this is, but it certainly makes things interesting...

This is better than in Inheritance in 3 ways: cheaper, good when Cursers are in the Kingdom, Curses are cheaper than Estates. It is worse in 2 ways: you don't start your deck with Curses and it is a VP spread of 3.
Perhaps this could get away without the -2VP? Hard to say. But definitely the coolest Inheritance variant I have seen. 8)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on November 15, 2019, 12:35:02 pm

Quote from: ShadowHawk on November 15, 2019, 01:27:43 am

(https://i.imgur.com/H3xfAIN.png?1)

Originally thought about doing a Coppersmith variant affecting all of the Base Treasures, but decided to go with a Bridge variant instead.

This could give -30 VP and still be overpowered.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on November 15, 2019, 06:10:31 pm

UPDATE: I retract my old nomination for Cheat and instead go for this:

(https://i.imgur.com/ADeSufl.png)

This Village is free and gives a +Buy; how awesome! However, slavery is very very evil and having too many of those can be very harmful for your VP count. 1 slave means -1 VP, 2 slaves means -4 VP, 3 slaves means -9 VP and so on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on November 15, 2019, 06:16:13 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on November 15, 2019, 04:59:59 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on November 14, 2019, 03:35:16 pm

Hang on... since I'm not judging, can I make a submission? Or am I forbidden because I made the Challenge?

Go ahead. It doesn't seem like you came up with the challenge because you thought only you could win it. The more ideas the better I say.

Yaaaaaaaaay!

Charlatan
$5
Action-Curse
You may set this aside. If you do, gain 2 cards each costing up to $4.
-------
-2VP

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 15, 2019, 09:12:49 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 15, 2019, 06:10:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/IjVycAn.png)

Yikes, this is really close to an idea I wrote down but didn't make an image for yet.

To be honest though I wasn't a huge fan of it so I don't feel bad about doing something different :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on November 15, 2019, 10:14:29 pm

Cheat is pretty similar to Ferry, so it probably plays out pretty well. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 16, 2019, 10:00:20 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 15, 2019, 06:10:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/IjVycAn.png)

This card image seems like a cheato, which is used in Banjo Tooie...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on November 16, 2019, 06:45:20 pm

Cheatos are in both Banjo games but off the top of my head I think that's the Tooie sprite.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on November 17, 2019, 06:23:36 am

Retracted my Cheat nom. Replaced it with:

(https://i.imgur.com/ADeSufl.png)

Quote from: popsofctown on November 16, 2019, 06:45:20 pm

Cheatos are in both Banjo games but off the top of my head I think that's the Tooie sprite.

Cheato was in both games, but the pages were a Tooie thing. The image is taken on Mayahem Temple if I recall correctly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 17, 2019, 06:57:01 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 17, 2019, 06:23:36 am

Retracted my Cheat nom. Replaced it with:

(https://i.imgur.com/ADeSufl.png)

Quote from: popsofctown on November 16, 2019, 06:45:20 pm

Cheatos are in both Banjo games but off the top of my head I think that's the Tooie sprite.

Cheato was in both games, but the pages were a Tooie thing. The image is taken on Mayahem Temple if I recall correctly.

I think that this implies no choice at all: without trashing you obviously avoid the quadratic thing (even 5-5 split in a 2P game would make this a -5VP curse) and with trashing you take the Working Villages.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on November 17, 2019, 07:41:20 am

Quote from: segura on November 17, 2019, 06:57:01 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 17, 2019, 06:23:36 am

Retracted my Cheat nom. Replaced it with:

(https://i.imgur.com/ADeSufl.png)

Quote from: popsofctown on November 16, 2019, 06:45:20 pm

Cheatos are in both Banjo games but off the top of my head I think that's the Tooie sprite.

Cheato was in both games, but the pages were a Tooie thing. The image is taken on Mayahem Temple if I recall correctly.

I think that this implies no choice at all: without trashing you obviously avoid the quadratic thing (even 5-5 split in a 2P game would make this a -5VP curse) and with trashing you take the Working Villages.

I think it is more nuanced. When there is no trashing, you can still pick up a Slave, as they provide a +Buy and the +Actions can still be useful. You just don't pick 5 of them; only one or two, maybe 3. When there is trashing, getting rid of the slaves can be somewhat of a pain. In order to trash a Slave, you must forego playing it, and your deck gets worse afterwards. And trashers like Apprentice don't like trashing slaves as they cost $0. On the flipside, trashers like Bonfire, Advance or Sacrifice are excellent for the job.

In the end of the day, it is a Village that punishes having too many of them. It may be on the lower end, but it being free means that there is no opportunity cost in picking them up when you have spare +Buys (which they provide themselves).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 17, 2019, 08:03:33 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 17, 2019, 07:41:20 am

Quote from: segura on November 17, 2019, 06:57:01 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 17, 2019, 06:23:36 am

Retracted my Cheat nom. Replaced it with:

(https://i.imgur.com/ADeSufl.png)

Quote from: popsofctown on November 16, 2019, 06:45:20 pm

Cheatos are in both Banjo games but off the top of my head I think that's the Tooie sprite.

Cheato was in both games, but the pages were a Tooie thing. The image is taken on Mayahem Temple if I recall correctly.

I think that this implies no choice at all: without trashing you obviously avoid the quadratic thing (even 5-5 split in a 2P game would make this a -5VP curse) and with trashing you take the Working Villages.

I think it is more nuanced. When there is no trashing, you can still pick up a Slave, as they provide a +Buy and the +Actions can still be useful.

You refer to the case of no Cursing and no trashing. This is also trivial, you will pick up one or two Slaves. Three is highly unlikely.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on November 17, 2019, 09:01:00 am

Quote from: FlyerBeast on November 13, 2019, 06:51:22 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ssfpK79.jpg)

Quote

Rotten Egg Basket
$3 Curse-Reaction
---
-4 VP
-
When you would gain a Curse, you may gain this instead. If you do, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 cards named Curse. Return the revealed Curses to the Supply and discard the rest.

Just like putting all your eggs in one basket- you can bundle your Curses up into one slightly more Curse-y card and (hopefully) trash it later!

Errata: I was considering adding a Setup rule to add an extra Curse-giving Attack to the kingdom to make up for the potentially wasted space, but decided that was way too wordy.

Avoiding letting it return itself to the Supply was a problem and has made the wording a little weird too, I'd appreciate feedback on how to make it a bit simpler!

EDIT: fixed the text to match the card image (it said -3VP)

I think it is simpler to just make it a buyable card that moves curses back when purchased. I would do something like this.

Quote

-4%
-
When you buy this, +1 Buy. Look through your discard pile. Move up to 3 Curses from your hand or discard pile to the supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 17, 2019, 04:15:01 pm

CHALLENGE #51: THERE'S A CURSE ON YOU --- SUBMISSION:

(https://i.imgur.com/Wyt3nfo.jpg)

12-Pile

I guess the idea is two-fold:
-As a card you'd want to buy, it's a decently powerful card for cheap, but at the cost of -2VP. Can't be trashed later unless Bonfire is in the Kingdom.
-As a card you'd give out when Cursing someone, it gives -2VP versus -1VP, but players will need to understand when that actually will hurt an opponent and not help them.

Quote from: Kudasai on November 17, 2019, 04:15:01 pm

FANATIC - $3 Action - Duration - Curse
At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game: +$1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-2VP
(This stays in play.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on November 17, 2019, 09:39:49 pm

That's right, you meet Cheato directly in the first one, don't you.
But he is multiple places at once.
Very omnipotent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 18, 2019, 01:14:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/PfoS6Jc.png)

Quote

Haunted Shop
$0
Action - Duration - Curse
+1 Action. Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Buy and +$1.
--
While this is in play, you must use all of your Buys during your Buy phase. -1 VP.

(When playing with this, replace the Supply Curses with an equal number of Haunted Shops.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on November 18, 2019, 02:04:18 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 17, 2019, 09:01:00 am

Quote from: FlyerBeast on November 13, 2019, 06:51:22 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ssfpK79.jpg)

Quote

Rotten Egg Basket
$3 Curse-Reaction
---
-4 VP
-
When you would gain a Curse, you may gain this instead. If you do, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal 2 cards named Curse. Return the revealed Curses to the Supply and discard the rest.

Just like putting all your eggs in one basket- you can bundle your Curses up into one slightly more Curse-y card and (hopefully) trash it later!

Errata: I was considering adding a Setup rule to add an extra Curse-giving Attack to the kingdom to make up for the potentially wasted space, but decided that was way too wordy.

Avoiding letting it return itself to the Supply was a problem and has made the wording a little weird too, I'd appreciate feedback on how to make it a bit simpler!

EDIT: fixed the text to match the card image (it said -3VP)

I think it is simpler to just make it a buyable card that moves curses back when purchased. I would do something like this.

Quote

-4%
-
When you buy this, +1 Buy. Look through your discard pile. Move up to 3 Curses from your hand or discard pile to the supply.

Yeah, simplifying it that way would help. My thinking was to stay true to the "gain a Curse" wording on Attacks (in my mind, "gain a Curse" means to gain a card with the Curse type like Hero's "gain a Treasure", rather than the specific card named Curse) but I was probably overthinking it so I might try reenterring a version closer to your idea.

I think it would need to be guaranteed to return the same amount of Curses every time you gain one though, otherwise it'd be too much of a gamble to buy one? If you only find one Curse in your discard, it'd be a pretty unsatisfying purchase. If you can get one when you're attacked, you're gonna be getting -1 VP  anyway, so I think it'd make for some interesting tactical decisions (but only if you mostly know what you're in for?)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 18, 2019, 02:08:07 pm

I don't think Rotten Egg Basket should be a reaction. Duchess isn't a reaction.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 18, 2019, 02:35:24 pm

24 hours to go

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on November 18, 2019, 02:42:00 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 18, 2019, 02:08:07 pm

I don't think Rotten Egg Basket should be a reaction. Duchess isn't a reaction.

Agreed. I was basing it on Trader being a Reaction but I see the difference there now.

I'm replacing my earlier entry with this fixed and far less wordy version. Here we go:
(https://i.imgur.com/ifCGlnj.jpg)

Quote

Rotten Egg Basket
$3 Curse
---
-4 VP
-
When you gain this, look through your discard pile for up to 2 cards named Curse, then trash them.

The rulebook that would come with this would say 'when someone gains a Curse, they can choose any card with the Curse type that's in the Kingdom'. I've made it trash the Curses instead of returning them to the Supply, so when the vanilla Curses run out people have to gain Rotten Egg Baskets instead until those have run out too. Might be unfair but hey, I tend to avoid playing games with Attacks anyway ;D

EDIT: spelling and the rule

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on November 18, 2019, 10:51:41 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on November 15, 2019, 06:16:13 pm

Charlatan
$5
Action-Curse
You may set this aside. If you do, gain 2 cards each costing up to $4.
-------
-2VP

My card's FAQ would say that Witch calls for the card NAMED Curse, instead of the type, just so you guys know.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on November 18, 2019, 10:55:47 pm

Here is my little experiment  ;D

(https://i.imgur.com/bzyvHa5.png)

In games using this, replace the curse pile with a pile of nightmares of the same size

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on November 19, 2019, 12:30:05 am

My entry is a 5/5 split pile:

Note: My entry has been updated. See post #4072 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg816354#msg816354).

(https://i.imgur.com/vDlkAPx.png)(https://i.imgur.com/w7EiXQX.png)

This is supposed to work such that you can't gain Demons until all the Dark Rituals are gone. If this wording doesn't accomplish this, please let me know how to fix it  ;)

P.S. The images from the shardofhonor tool are huge. Is there a way to make them show up smaller on the forum without manually resizing the files?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 19, 2019, 01:39:38 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on November 18, 2019, 10:51:41 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on November 15, 2019, 06:16:13 pm

Charlatan
$5
Action-Curse
You may set this aside. If you do, gain 2 cards each costing up to $4.
-------
-2VP

My card's FAQ would say that Witch calls for the card NAMED Curse, instead of the type, just so you guys know.

I'd argue this is the case already as Witch gives out a Curse (name) and not a Curse card (type). It all comes down to what players understand though, so making the distinction helps.

Hopefully one day we'll get another official card with the Curse type.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 19, 2019, 06:11:59 am

Quote from: forkofnature on November 19, 2019, 12:30:05 am

My entry is a 5/5 split pile:

(https://i.imgur.com/vDlkAPx.png)(https://i.imgur.com/w7EiXQX.png)

This is supposed to work such that you can't gain Demons until all the Dark Rituals are gone. If this wording doesn't accomplish this, please let me know how to fix it  ;)

P.S. The images from the shardofhonor tool are huge. Is there a way to make them show up smaller on the forum without manually resizing the files?

I like this but it has some obvious issues.

In the presence of other Cursers and with few players, it is unlikely that somebody will go for Dark Rituals (i.e. either buy them or take a Dark Ritual instead of a Curse). It is simply too slow.

Without other Cursers and in 3P games (2P game situation: if Alice goes for Dark Rituals, Bob can simply not go for them and Alice having 5 dead cards in her deck before she converts them into junkers is simply harmful for her and not for Bob) this is interesting.

One solution is to make this a parallel pile, i.e. both cards are always available.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 19, 2019, 06:23:14 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 18, 2019, 01:14:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/PfoS6Jc.png)

Quote

Haunted Shop
$0
Action - Duration - Curse
+1 Action. Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Buy and +$1.
--
While this is in play, you must use all of your Buys during your Buy phase, if you can. -1 VP.

(When playing with this, replace the Supply Curses with an equal number of Haunted Shops.)

I like this, the Copper self-junking is neat.
But I'd definitely give this -2VPs, otherwise it is (barring edge cases of "forced players" like Herald, Golem and Ghost) strictly better than Curse (you can always choose to not play Haunted Shop). I'd also cut the if you can, it seems unlikely that the Copper pile empties (and even if it would, the general rule is always to do as much as possible).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 19, 2019, 09:05:52 am

Quote from: forkofnature on November 19, 2019, 12:30:05 am

My entry is a 5/5 split pile:

(https://i.imgur.com/vDlkAPx.png)(https://i.imgur.com/w7EiXQX.png)

This is supposed to work such that you can't gain Demons until all the Dark Rituals are gone. If this wording doesn't accomplish this, please let me know how to fix it  ;)

P.S. The images from the shardofhonor tool are huge. Is there a way to make them show up smaller on the forum without manually resizing the files?

Include width=250 (or a number of your choice) in the [ img ] tag. 250 works good for vertical cards, 300 for horizontal.
This replaces the normal Curses?
The numbers on this being a 5/5 split might not be great - you might want to do something like 2 of each per player (4/4 for two player, scaling up to 12/12 for six)
Also welcome to the board!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 19, 2019, 10:11:15 am

Quote from: segura on November 19, 2019, 06:23:14 am

I like this, the Copper self-junking is neat.
But I'd definitely give this -2VPs, otherwise it is (barring edge cases of "forced players" like Herald, Golem and Ghost) strictly better than Curse (you can always choose to not play Haunted Shop). I'd also cut the if you can, it seems unlikely that the Copper pile empties (and even if it would, the general rule is always to do as much as possible).

I don't think there's anything wrong with it being strictly better than Curse, given that it replaces the regular Curses. I think if it were -2VP, then Cursers would be way stronger than they already are (and the action of Haunted Shop doesn't help in most cases), and if it were -2VP and placed alongside the Curses, people would never take these unless they had good trashing to get rid of them and if they do have good trashing then which Curse they take doesn't matter much. The way it is takes some of the edge off of Cursers, but playing these can come back to bite you even harder.

"If you can" covers other edge cases like Contraband and Mission but you're probably right that it's implied well enough.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on November 19, 2019, 12:25:33 pm

Quote from: segura on November 19, 2019, 06:11:59 am

Quote from: forkofnature on November 19, 2019, 12:30:05 am

My entry is a 5/5 split pile:

(https://i.imgur.com/vDlkAPx.png)(https://i.imgur.com/w7EiXQX.png)

This is supposed to work such that you can't gain Demons until all the Dark Rituals are gone. If this wording doesn't accomplish this, please let me know how to fix it  ;)

P.S. The images from the shardofhonor tool are huge. Is there a way to make them show up smaller on the forum without manually resizing the files?

I like this but it has some obvious issues.

In the presence of other Cursers and with few players, it is unlikely that somebody will go for Dark Rituals (i.e. either buy them or take a Dark Ritual instead of a Curse). It is simply too slow.

Without other Cursers and in 3P games (2P game situation: if Alice goes for Dark Rituals, Bob can simply not go for them and Alice having 5 dead cards in her deck before she converts them into junkers is simply harmful for her and not for Bob) this is interesting.

One solution is to make this a parallel pile, i.e. both cards are always available.

You're probably right that if your goal is to junk your opponent's deck, Demon absolutely works better in larger games, and Mountebank probably works better in general. However, I was thinking of this with a greater focus on the alt-VP. The junking was supposed to be more of a bonus to go along with buying out the Curses, which are free VP with two or more Demons.

That said, you may still be right that this strategy is on the slow side. I'll drop Dark Ritual to -1VP so Demons are more valuable and whiffing is less painful.

Quote from: spineflu on November 19, 2019, 09:05:52 am

This replaces the normal Curses?
The numbers on this being a 5/5 split might not be great - you might want to do something like 2 of each per player (4/4 for two player, scaling up to 12/12 for six)

This is a kingdom pile. Witch etc. still give out regular Curses, never Dark Rituals. However, Demon counts both. I'm wary of scaling up to 12/12, or even 8/8, since such large quantities require many players to attempt the strategy (or a good source of +Buy) if the Demons are ever going to show up. However, I think you're right to question the flat 5/5. Maybe a more standard alt-VP count makes sense: 4/4 for two-player and 6/6 for multiplayer.

---

To summarize then, my entry is now as follows:

(https://i.imgur.com/TMGfGWl.png)(https://i.imgur.com/sIzJ0m0.png)

This is a kingdom pile that does not replace the regular Curses. Cursers such as Witch hand out Curses, not Dark Rituals; however, Demon counts both Curses and Dark Rituals. With two players, this is a 4/4 split; with three or more players, it's a 6/6 split.

Thanks for the feedback!

Edit: Demon now gives 2VP per Curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 19, 2019, 12:28:15 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 19, 2019, 10:11:15 am

Quote from: segura on November 19, 2019, 06:23:14 am

I like this, the Copper self-junking is neat.
But I'd definitely give this -2VPs, otherwise it is (barring edge cases of "forced players" like Herald, Golem and Ghost) strictly better than Curse (you can always choose to not play Haunted Shop). I'd also cut the if you can, it seems unlikely that the Copper pile empties (and even if it would, the general rule is always to do as much as possible).

I don't think there's anything wrong with it being strictly better than Curse, given that it replaces the regular Curses.

I totally disagree. If you take a quick look at the other cards in this very contest, you realize that none of them are strictly better than Curses in order to make the decision non-trivial.
Also, your card in and of itself, i.e. without he negative VPs, is pretty decent. It is probably a $3 and in many engines likely preferrable to Woodcutter. So we don't talk about some moderate form of improved Curses like Ruins (in which case your notion of a straightforward Curse substitute would have more merit) but a decent Action card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 19, 2019, 12:37:22 pm

Quote from: forkofnature on November 19, 2019, 12:25:33 pm

However, I was thinking of this with a greater focus on the alt-VP.

There is no viable alt-VP strategy:

- An even split, i.e. 5 Curses and 4 Demons, would be 15VPs spread over 9 cards. Less than 2VP per (semi-)dead card in your deck is not feasible (compare this with Shepherd-Pasture, you gotta make these 2VP cards quasi-cantrip-Lab-hybrids to make it viable)
- Let's make this more extreme, 7 Curses and 7 Demons. Extremely unrealistic as a smart opponent would buy more Curses once he realizes that you go for Demons. That's 42 VPs spread over 14 cards, i.e. they are all Duchies. Even if half of them come for free, not all that impressive (and, as already mentioned, not realistic).

Perhaps there is something there with 2VPs/Curse. No idea. But the current alt-VP idea is simply too weak.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on November 19, 2019, 01:14:39 pm

Quote from: segura on November 19, 2019, 12:37:22 pm

Quote from: forkofnature on November 19, 2019, 12:25:33 pm

However, I was thinking of this with a greater focus on the alt-VP.

There is no viable alt-VP strategy:

- An even split, i.e. 5 Curses and 4 Demons, would be 15VPs spread over 9 cards. Less than 2VP per (semi-)dead card in your deck is not feasible (compare this with Shepherd-Pasture, you gotta make these 2VP cards quasi-cantrip-Lab-hybrids to make it viable)
- Let's make this more extreme, 7 Curses and 7 Demons. Extremely unrealistic as a smart opponent would buy more Curses once he realizes that you go for Demons. That's 42 VPs spread over 14 cards, i.e. they are all Duchies. Even if half of them come for free, not all that impressive (and, as already mentioned, not realistic).

Perhaps there is something there with 2VPs/Curse. No idea. But the current alt-VP idea is simply too weak.

Hm, fair. I think 2VP/Curse should help.

In that case, your example of 5 Curses and 4 Demons gives 35 points over 9 cards: that's a much better rate than Duchies, Demons aren't dead in hand, and you've probably handed out a few Curses to your opponent in the meantime.

However, your opponent will probably take a Demon out from under you if they can. 3 Demons and 5 Curses gives 25 points over 8 cards, which isn't as good, but still better than Duchies. If your opponent wants to steal your Curses, that's their own deck they're junking while speeding up your three-pile.

No matter what, I think the speed of the rush shouldn't be underestimated. All of the above seems feasible by turn 10 or so, and should be very resistant to attacks. However, it should be made fair by the fact that draining a third pile will be much more difficult than the first two.

2VP/Curse it is. I've updated my entry above.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 19, 2019, 01:21:10 pm

Quote from: segura on November 19, 2019, 12:28:15 pm

I totally disagree. If you take a quick look at the other cards in this very contest, you realize that none of them are strictly better than Curses in order to make the decision non-trivial.

Which decision? The decision to include them at the start of the game? Most heirlooms are strictly better than Copper, but that doesn't mean anything because you don't ever choose heirloom or Copper during the game.

I can see why it might not be preferable, but I personally don't think anything's wrong with it. I guess we'll have to see what NMF thinks.

Quote

Also, your card in and of itself, i.e. without he negative VPs, is pretty decent. It is probably a $3 and in many engines likely preferrable to Woodcutter. So we don't talk about some moderate form of improved Curses like Ruins (in which case your notion of a straightforward Curse substitute would have more merit) but a decent Action card.

I think its value can vary significantly, to the point where you might want to buy one if it's the only +Buy. It's definitely stronger when there are cheap cantrips like Hamlet, but it makes it really hard to buy expensive cards without self-junking, so I probably wouldn't price it at $3 without the -1 VP. Maybe $2. But regardless cursers still have bite because you almost never want to play more than one of these in a turn.

(In all honesty I wish this challenge had been "design a new junk card" rather than "design a card with the curse type," but you work with what you have.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 19, 2019, 01:41:26 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 19, 2019, 01:21:10 pm

Quote from: segura on November 19, 2019, 12:28:15 pm

I totally disagree. If you take a quick look at the other cards in this very contest, you realize that none of them are strictly better than Curses in order to make the decision non-trivial.

Which decision? The decision to include them at the start of the game?

To take Curses or Curses 2.0. Perhaps I wrongly assume that both piles are in the game but that simply seems far more interesting than a straightforward Curse substitute (and as already mentioned, mosts card in this thread work well as extra instead of just substitutes as they are not strictly better than Curse).
Both ways lead to scaling issues but that is simply because alt Curses are messy no matter what.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on November 19, 2019, 01:45:56 pm

It's ok for a curse mod to be strictly better than Curse, but I think you would want it to be as close to curse's power level as you can possibly get it so that weak cursers like Soothsayer stay competitive with other cards of equal cost.  Given that I'd probably prefer to see Haunted Shop as a Night - Duration with only the second play effect.
-2 VP with the same effect would swing too far in the other direction, most of the time I think it'd make cursers significantly stronger.

Quote from: Kudasai on November 17, 2019, 04:15:01 pm

FANATIC - $3 Action - Duration - Curse
At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game: +$1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-2VP

I love this one, it's such a clever end run around "use becursed platinum but you can trash it later" designs that have been around since forever.  You can't trash it if it's in play! 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 19, 2019, 02:11:25 pm

Without wanting to take anything away from Kudasai's great card, the idea is not totally new. This is a design by GeneralRamos and underneath is my adapated version of the idea of a Hireling-esque card with negative VPs.

(https://i.imgur.com/HNiitsR.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/SA8XkMP.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 19, 2019, 03:50:18 pm

Winner
Slave by grrgrrgrr

Runner Up
Fanatic by Kudasai

Full feedback to come later

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on November 19, 2019, 05:48:44 pm

And so contest #52 is on its way, the 1st year anniversary!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on November 19, 2019, 05:54:59 pm

Nice. Congrats grrgrrgrr!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 19, 2019, 06:10:20 pm

Quote from: segura on November 19, 2019, 02:11:25 pm

Without wanting to take anything away from Kudasai's great card, the idea is not totally new. This is a design by GeneralRamos and underneath is my adapated version of the idea of a Hireling-esque card with negative VPs.

(https://i.imgur.com/HNiitsR.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/SA8XkMP.png)

It certainly felt like an idea that has been done before. Thanks for confirming! Also, was your version meant to have the Curse type?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on November 20, 2019, 03:26:45 am

Yaaaaay!  :) :) :)

Anyway, the next challenge will be:

CHALLENGE #52: DRUID NEEDS SOME COMPANY
Design a card whose effect differs per game. From the already-existing cards, Druid and Black Market would be eligible.

EDIT: Young Witch and Obelisk would qualify as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 20, 2019, 04:05:58 am

Quote from: Kudasai on November 19, 2019, 06:10:20 pm

Quote from: segura on November 19, 2019, 02:11:25 pm

Without wanting to take anything away from Kudasai's great card, the idea is not totally new. This is a design by GeneralRamos and underneath is my adapated version of the idea of a Hireling-esque card with negative VPs.

(https://i.imgur.com/HNiitsR.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/SA8XkMP.png)

It certainly felt like an idea that has been done before. Thanks for confirming! Also, was your version meant to have the Curse type?

No, I did not want to delve into that but of course it makes the entire thing more interesting. That's the beauty of your card, it implies a tricky trade-off in games with Cursers and in games without!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on November 20, 2019, 04:54:36 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 20, 2019, 03:26:45 am

Yaaaaay!  :) :) :)

Anyway, the next challenge will be:

CHALLENGE #52: DRUID NEEDS SOME COMPANY
Design a card whose effect differs per game. From the already-existing cards, Druid and Black Market would be eligible.

Ooh... Tricky one. Uhh, let's see. How about this:

Metropolis
$10*
Action
+1 Card
+3 Actions
+1 Buy
+$1
-------
This costs $1 less per Treasure on top of a pile in the Supply that isn't an Action.

FAQ: For split and varied piles like Knights or say, Gladiator/Fortune, refer to the top card of the pile. This counts Copper, Silver and Gold. Capitalism does not change the cost of this card. Empty piles don't change the cost either. have I covered everything?

So basically it's a nice engine component that is only spammable if there are less Action cards in the Supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on November 20, 2019, 04:58:47 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 20, 2019, 03:26:45 am

Yaaaaay!  :) :) :)

Anyway, the next challenge will be:

CHALLENGE #52: DRUID NEEDS SOME COMPANY
Design a card whose effect differs per game. From the already-existing cards, Druid and Black Market would be eligible.

Also, would Young Witch count? I mean, the Bane card varies each time it is included...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on November 20, 2019, 05:09:59 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on November 20, 2019, 04:58:47 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 20, 2019, 03:26:45 am

Yaaaaay!  :) :) :)

Anyway, the next challenge will be:

CHALLENGE #52: DRUID NEEDS SOME COMPANY
Design a card whose effect differs per game. From the already-existing cards, Druid and Black Market would be eligible.

Also, would Young Witch count? I mean, the Bane card varies each time it is included...

It does. Edited in the OP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 20, 2019, 05:24:17 am

Owl
cost $5 - Action - Attack
+2 Cards
Each other players receives one of the set-aside Hexes, your choose (leaving it there).
Setup: Set aside the top 3 Hexes face up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on November 20, 2019, 07:15:20 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 20, 2019, 03:26:45 am

CHALLENGE #52: DRUID NEEDS SOME COMPANY
Design a card whose effect differs per game.

With a Cozener you can get access to some services you wouldn't have access to otherwise. Similar to Black Market, but different, in that the Event you bought will still be available for other players to buy.

(https://starback.se/static/games/Cozener3.png)

Quote

Cozener, Action, $3
+$2. You may discard one of the Cozen events and draw a new one from the Event deck. (Shuffle discards if the deck is empty.) Play any number of Treasures from your hand. You may buy one of the Cozen events, even if you have Debt tokens.

---

Setup: Make a deck of unused Events, not following setup instructions. Turn over two initial Cozen events from that deck.

---

There are 34 official Events, so the typical Event deck would have 32 to 34 cards (if playing with all the cards). The only official Event with a setup instruction (that will be ignored) is Tax. It's possible some future Event card will be meaningless if its setup isn't done. Then so be it.

Some events are extra good when you get to buy them during your Action phase, like Alms. I like that the Event you bought will still be available afterwards. (Of course you can play a second Cozener to switch it out.)

Changes Nov 24:

• Now you get to turn up a new Cozen event before you play Treasures
• Now you can buy a Cozen event even if you are in debt
• Don't explicitly say that you should use all unused Events for the deck, but be less specific (like Black Market)
• Discard instead of putting cards at bottom.

The previous version is here (https://starback.se/static/games/Cozener2.png).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on November 20, 2019, 11:49:00 am

This is a little wack but what the hey, I think it fits the challenge

(https://i.imgur.com/3zvLV9B.png)

Errata/FAQ (subject to correction):

- You can't trash an empty pile.
- If no appropriate Kingdom card exists, the first pile gets trashed with no replacement.
- Regardless of how many cards were in the trashed pile, the new pile comes with all 8/10/12 cards.
- A split pile can replace a trashed pile that costs the same as the top card of the split. (For example, Swindler can turn into Gladiator/Fortune.)
- A split pile is replaced by a card that costs the same as the topmost trashed card. (For example, Gladiator can turn into Swindler, but Fortune can turn into Peddler.)
- This totally ignores potions and debt. University can turn into Embargo and vice versa; same with Vineyard and Overlord.
- This takes cost adjustments into account. However, global adjustments like those from Bridge are usually moot. (For example, Laboratory with your Ferry token on it can turn into Village, but not Market.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on November 20, 2019, 01:04:48 pm

Quote from: forkofnature on November 20, 2019, 11:49:00 am

This is a little wack but what the hey, I think it fits the challenge

(https://i.imgur.com/3zvLV9B.png)

Errata/FAQ (subject to correction):

- You can't trash an empty pile.
- If no appropriate Kingdom card exists, the first pile gets trashed with no replacement.
- Regardless of how many cards were in the trashed pile, the new pile comes with all 8/10/12 cards.
- A split pile can replace a trashed pile that costs the same as the top card of the split. (For example, Swindler can turn into Gladiator/Fortune.)
- A split pile is replaced by a card that costs the same as the topmost trashed card. (For example, Gladiator can turn into Swindler, but Fortune can turn into Peddler.)
- This totally ignores potions and debt. University can turn into Embargo and vice versa; same with Vineyard and Overlord.
- This takes cost adjustments into account. However, global adjustments like those from Bridge are usually moot. (For example, Laboratory with your Ferry token on it can turn into Village, but not Market.)

Would the trashed pile count toward endgame conditions?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on November 20, 2019, 01:16:30 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on November 20, 2019, 01:04:48 pm

Would the trashed pile count toward endgame conditions?

It's not supposed to. I thought replacing the pile before end of turn covered that but I suppose the old pile is still an empty pile in a larger kingdom. I'll have to reword somehow.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 20, 2019, 01:25:04 pm

Quote from: forkofnature on November 20, 2019, 01:16:30 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on November 20, 2019, 01:04:48 pm

Would the trashed pile count toward endgame conditions?

It's not supposed to. I thought replacing the pile before end of turn covered that but I suppose the old pile is still an empty pile in a larger kingdom. I'll have to reword somehow.

Probably better to just go with a new keyword like "replace" rather than trying to work with the existing trash mechanic. Trashing a whole pile is a new thing anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on November 20, 2019, 01:40:57 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 20, 2019, 01:25:04 pm

Quote from: forkofnature on November 20, 2019, 01:16:30 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on November 20, 2019, 01:04:48 pm

Would the trashed pile count toward endgame conditions?

It's not supposed to. I thought replacing the pile before end of turn covered that but I suppose the old pile is still an empty pile in a larger kingdom. I'll have to reword somehow.

Probably better to just go with a new keyword like "replace" rather than trying to work with the existing trash mechanic. Trashing a whole pile is a new thing anyway.

The tricky thing is if you completely obliterate a pile what happens when you need to return one of its cards to the supply? That I supposed could be answered in FAQ, but I think I have a simpler solution:

(https://i.imgur.com/blmYO0s.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 20, 2019, 05:46:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/BmFHYTe.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 20, 2019, 05:54:55 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on November 20, 2019, 04:54:36 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 20, 2019, 03:26:45 am

Yaaaaay!  :) :) :)

Anyway, the next challenge will be:

CHALLENGE #52: DRUID NEEDS SOME COMPANY
Design a card whose effect differs per game. From the already-existing cards, Druid and Black Market would be eligible.

Ooh... Tricky one. Uhh, let's see. How about this:

Metropolis
$10*
Action
+1 Card
+3 Actions
+1 Buy
+$1
-------
This costs $1 less per Treasure pile in the Supply, but not less than $2.

FAQ: For split and varied piles like Knights or say, Gladiator/Fortune, refer to the top card of the pile. This counts Copper, Silver and Gold. Capitalism does not change the cost of this card. Empty piles don't change the cost either. have I covered everything?

So basically it's a nice engine component that is only spammable if there are less Action cards in the Supply.

Interesting card! I think this would be more interesting if it did interact with Fortune when it is revealed and Capitalism when bought. It technically does as worded, so you'd need to add some extra text. This probably will get wordy very fast.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 20, 2019, 05:58:02 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 20, 2019, 03:26:45 am

Yaaaaay!  :) :) :)

Anyway, the next challenge will be:

CHALLENGE #52: DRUID NEEDS SOME COMPANY
Design a card whose effect differs per game. From the already-existing cards, Druid and Black Market would be eligible.

EDIT: Young Witch and Obelisk would qualify as well.

How about cards with a Setup that has changes to the card that players choose? The card could be different each game, but only if the player wishes it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on November 20, 2019, 07:38:02 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on November 20, 2019, 05:54:55 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on November 20, 2019, 04:54:36 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 20, 2019, 03:26:45 am

Yaaaaay!  :) :) :)

Anyway, the next challenge will be:

CHALLENGE #52: DRUID NEEDS SOME COMPANY
Design a card whose effect differs per game. From the already-existing cards, Druid and Black Market would be eligible.

Ooh... Tricky one. Uhh, let's see. How about this:

Metropolis
$10*
Action
+1 Card
+3 Actions
+1 Buy
+$1
-------
This costs $1 less per Treasure pile in the Supply, but not less than $2.

FAQ: For split and varied piles like Knights or say, Gladiator/Fortune, refer to the top card of the pile. This counts Copper, Silver and Gold. Capitalism does not change the cost of this card. Empty piles don't change the cost either. have I covered everything?

So basically it's a nice engine component that is only spammable if there are less Action cards in the Supply.

Interesting card! I think this would be more interesting if it did interact with Fortune when it is revealed and Capitalism when bought. It technically does as worded, so you'd need to add some extra text. This probably will get wordy very fast.

But then it would be pretty broken with Capitalism... a $2 megamarket that you dont need actions to play... oh wait, then it would pretty much just turn into a Market. But still. Ill edit the OP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on November 20, 2019, 08:02:03 pm

I'm misreading Metropolis somehow I guess, if Fortune is revealed by Gladiator in a 10 action game, I thought the cost of Metropolis would drop from 7$ to 6$.

Similarly with that interpretation the probability of having 6 treasure cards in the same kingdom is so low that the minimum value rule wouldn't be worth the text space.

I tried reading it as the value of the treasure on top then tried reading it the number of treasure cards that aren't covered up except covering up treasures with treasures doesn't matter, I've tried everything, can't get the same numbers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on November 20, 2019, 08:35:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wBqTqUO.png)

So obviously there's a huge gulf in power between the strongest and weakest combinations (my votes go to Encampment+Experiment and Poor House+Beggar) so this isn't trying to be balanced 100% of the time. I think 3P is a good price for the average case and the Potion at least somewhat tempers the most absurd combinations. It's possible that it should be limited to terminal Actions only to make it a bit more consistent but that isn't nearly as cool.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 20, 2019, 11:24:04 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on November 20, 2019, 08:35:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wBqTqUO.png)

So obviously there's a huge gulf in power between the strongest and weakest combinations (my votes go to Encampment+Experiment and Poor House+Beggar) so this isn't trying to be balanced 100% of the time. I think 3P is a good price for the average case and the Potion at least somewhat tempers the most absurd combinations. It's possible that it should be limited to terminal Actions only to make it a bit more consistent but that isn't nearly as cool.

I've always been unsure what "unused" actually means in Dominion. Is it cards not in the Kingdom or is it cards not in that game. The former (and what I believe Black Market suggest) means you could choose the same card twice. Not so much a big deal, just curious what your interpretation is.

Also, I believe it is "your mat" and not "the mat".

Title: Re: Contest #52: Varying effect per-game
Post by: Gubump on November 21, 2019, 12:27:19 am

(https://i.imgur.com/yE8xAAE.png)

FAQ:
- During a turn in which a Travelling Shop was played, all cards in the Item piles are considered to be in the Supply, and as a result can be gained by cards like Workshop and Altar (provided they fit all other restrictions, e.g. cost), not just bought.
- Items with "return this to the Supply" will be returned from the pile if and only if you also played a Travelling Shop earlier in the turn.
- You can use Teacher to move your tokens to an Item pile as long as you played a Travelling Shop (with e.g. Prince) before calling it. Likewise, you can also use Events to move your tokens to Item piles as long as you played a Travelling Shop before buying said Event. You can move Adventures tokens off of Item piles even if they are not in the Supply.
- Item piles do not count towards the game end conditions, even during a turn in which a Travelling Shop was played.

Title: Re: Contest #52: Varying effect per-game
Post by: forkofnature on November 21, 2019, 12:40:20 am

Quote from: Gubump on November 21, 2019, 12:27:19 am

(https://i.imgur.com/yE8xAAE.png)

FAQ:
- During a turn in which a Travelling Shop was played, all cards in the Item piles are considered to be in the Supply, and as a result can be gained by cards like Workshop and Altar (provided they fit all other restrictions, e.g. cost), not just bought.
- Items with "return this to the Supply" will be returned from the pile if and only if you also played a Travelling Shop earlier in the turn.
- You can use Teacher to move your tokens to an Item pile as long as you played a Travelling Shop (with e.g. Prince) before calling it. Likewise, you can also use Events to move your tokens to Item piles as long as you played a Travelling Shop before buying said Event. You can move Adventures tokens off of Item piles even if they are not in the Supply.
- Item piles do not count towards the game end conditions, even during a turn in which a Travelling Shop was played.

This is neat: being able to shell out for access to a bigger kingdom sounds fun. However, I wonder (a) whether this is all that different from Black Market, (b) why the cost restriction is necessary, and (c) whether this might work better as a Project, which would also address question (a).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on November 21, 2019, 08:33:53 am

Quote from: Kudasai on November 20, 2019, 11:24:04 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on November 20, 2019, 08:35:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wBqTqUO.png)

So obviously there's a huge gulf in power between the strongest and weakest combinations (my votes go to Encampment+Experiment and Poor House+Beggar) so this isn't trying to be balanced 100% of the time. I think 3P is a good price for the average case and the Potion at least somewhat tempers the most absurd combinations. It's possible that it should be limited to terminal Actions only to make it a bit more consistent but that isn't nearly as cool.

I've always been unsure what "unused" actually means in Dominion. Is it cards not in the Kingdom or is it cards not in that game. The former (and what I believe Black Market suggest) means you could choose the same card twice. Not so much a big deal, just curious what your interpretation is.

Also, I believe it is "your mat" and not "the mat".

I probably should have specified Kingdom cards, the intent is that it's two different cards. To me that's more of a rule book/faq clarification thing because the Black Market rules have always been more of a do what you like thing. There is only one mat so it is "the mat".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on November 21, 2019, 09:04:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/RiUtpTe.jpg)

Put simply, a Villain variant with a silly name that varies in power each game, targeting a specific price point that's guaranteed to be there (even if only the Henchman is at it). The stronger it is, the more expensive it is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 21, 2019, 01:10:32 pm

Sleepwalker
$2
Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Dream card. Discard the other revealed cards, then play the Dream card.
--
Setup: Choose 3 random non-Attack Action Supply piles other than Sleepwalker. Action cards from those piles are Dream cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on November 21, 2019, 04:04:27 pm

Crusade (Victory, $4)

Worth 1VP per 3 Attack cards you have.

Setup: Choose three additional non-Attack Action piles to add to the Kingdom; one costing $2, one costing $3 and one costing $4.
Cards from these piles gain the Attack type and the following additional text at the end of the card: 'Each other player discards down to 4 cards unless they can reveal a copy of this card. If any player does, trash both copies of the card.'

Alt-VP cards are interesting, so I thought I'd try this variant with Attack cards. It adds additional Attack cards to the Kingdom to make itself more worthwhile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on November 21, 2019, 06:34:10 pm

Travelling Shop violates the "can't beats can" golden rule generally used for interpreting board game rules.  One way of getting around the rule is using "as though" wording the way MtG sometimes does.
There's no clarity issue with the card with regards to figuring out what it's -supposed- to do but it's a little less jarring to read cards if they're technically worded on point.
Really though, it seems like adding four cards to the Kingdom, which generally has the purpose of adding those cards to the supply, then immediately turning around and saying those cards aren't in the supply, isn't how you want to do it anyway.  It'd make more sense to me to say "Setup: Designate four unused Kingdom card piles costing 3$-5$ as Item piles."  You can tell people that it's foolish not to pull them out of the box in the rulebook, that's pretty fair game since Bard, Tournament, and Bandit Camp are also cards that have to resort to telling people it's foolish not to pull them out of the box in advance in the rulebook.
Alternatively you could do "Setup: Add four Kingdom card piles costing 3$-5$ to the Kingdom without adding them to the Supply", which is kind of what you meant, the "they aren't in the supply" seems intended as a modifier but is actually going to function as a standalone rule when you put it in a separate sentence like that.

This technical nitpicking has led me to a funny realization : since you -are- adding these cards to the supply, unlike several other fan Black Markets you can 3 pile using the Item piles.  If one player does the Item thing and the other doesn't, it's possible for the player going for Items to gain unilateral control over when the game 3-piles.  I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, it seems really interesting, I doubt it will be overbearingly powerful coming from halfwoodcutter.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on November 21, 2019, 07:13:49 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 21, 2019, 01:10:32 pm

Sleepwalker
$2
Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Dream card. Discard the other revealed cards, then play the Dream card.
--
Setup: Choose 3 random Action Supply piles other than Sleepwalker. Action cards from those piles are Dream cards.

So, you could have Goons as a Dream card and reliably play it every time you have another card costing $2 in your hand? You know what, that sounds fun!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 21, 2019, 07:42:46 pm

That was the intention, yes. There are probably some Dream cards that make this abusable but I don't expect it to get that bad. Even in the Goons case, you're gonna run out of Sleepwalkers to buy before too long, and you're gonna be drawing them dead, and spamming Sleepwalkers is probably beatable by one method or another.

If you think there are some actions that are a bit nuts for this (KC comes to mind, though I'm fairly sure a dream-KC game would be super fun), I could put a cost and/or non-attack restriction on it. I definitely want to allow $5's but maybe I could ban $6's and higher.

It also just occurred to me how funny it would be to have Sleepwalkers and Golems constantly finding each other. I don't think that's a bad thing, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on November 21, 2019, 07:57:11 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 21, 2019, 07:42:46 pm

That was the intention, yes. There are probably some Dream cards that make this abusable but I don't expect it to get that bad. Even in the Goons case, you're gonna run out of Sleepwalkers to buy before too long, and you're gonna be drawing them dead, and spamming Sleepwalkers is probably beatable by one method or another.

If you think there are some actions that are a bit nuts for this (KC comes to mind, though I'm fairly sure a dream-KC game would be super fun), I could put a cost and/or non-attack restriction on it. I definitely want to allow $5's but maybe I could ban $6's and higher.

It also just occurred to me how funny it would be to have Sleepwalkers and Golems constantly finding each other. I don't think that's a bad thing, though.

I think the thing to do is probably specify non-attack. In the case of Goons (or even weaker things like Militia), the first player to land an attack is going to hardcore snowball since your opponent is basically playing with three-card hands from then on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 21, 2019, 09:00:17 pm

Yeah, you're probably right. It can be spammable in a lot of cases but the non-attack cases seem like they'd be a lot more fun than the attack cases.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on November 21, 2019, 09:18:50 pm

Quote from: FlyerBeast on November 21, 2019, 07:13:49 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 21, 2019, 01:10:32 pm

Sleepwalker
$2
Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Dream card. Discard the other revealed cards, then play the Dream card.
--
Setup: Choose 3 random Action Supply piles other than Sleepwalker. Action cards from those piles are Dream cards.

So, you could have Goons as a Dream card and reliably play it every time you have another card costing $2 in your hand? You know what, that sounds fun!

I kind of am tempted to think getting knocked from 6$ to 4$ by Goons and having to buy Silver is a lot more devastating than getting knocked from 6$ to 4$ by Goons and buying Dream, which is almost as good as Goons.  Wouldn't that be less swing, not more?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 21, 2019, 11:16:09 pm

I mean the issue is if one person has Goons and is playing it with Sleepwalker every turn and the other person can't get to $6 to even get a Goons in the first place.

But honestly I think there are attacks that are more degenerate than Goons to be playing every turn, such as Mountebank or the Knights. While I don't think those games would necessarily be unbalanced they would probably not be very fun.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on November 21, 2019, 11:44:07 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 21, 2019, 11:16:09 pm

I mean the issue is if one person has Goons and is playing it with Sleepwalker every turn and the other person can't get to $6 to even get a Goons in the first place.

But honestly I think there are attacks that are more degenerate than Goons to be playing every turn, such as Mountebank or the Knights. While I don't think those games would necessarily be unbalanced they would probably not be very fun.

Yeah, that kind of lock is the main problem. Mountebank doesn't have immediate impact and loses effectiveness eventually. Goons, Militia, Ghost Ship, Knights, etc. are strong all game. I remember a game where I managed to streamline pretty early down to a deck mostly composed of a lot of Fishing Villages and Pirate Ships. My opponent couldn't really do anything for the rest of the game. Not all that enjoyable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on November 22, 2019, 12:44:18 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on November 19, 2019, 03:50:18 pm

[...]
Full feedback to come later

?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 22, 2019, 01:19:47 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 21, 2019, 11:16:09 pm

I mean the issue is if one person has Goons and is playing it with Sleepwalker every turn and the other person can't get to $6 to even get a Goons in the first place.

But honestly I think there are attacks that are more degenerate than Goons to be playing every turn, such as Mountebank or the Knights. While I don't think those games would necessarily be unbalanced they would probably not be very fun.

That has less to do with Sleepwalker being too strong but with Mountebank and Goons being too strong and centralizing.

Sleepwalker is at best a target-draw Sage and at worst a dead card. The latter is a serious downside.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Joseph2302 on November 22, 2019, 08:34:23 am

Quote from: segura on November 22, 2019, 01:19:47 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 21, 2019, 11:16:09 pm

I mean the issue is if one person has Goons and is playing it with Sleepwalker every turn and the other person can't get to $6 to even get a Goons in the first place.

But honestly I think there are attacks that are more degenerate than Goons to be playing every turn, such as Mountebank or the Knights. While I don't think those games would necessarily be unbalanced they would probably not be very fun.

That has less to do with Sleepwalker being too strong but with Mountebank and Goons being too strong and centralizing.

Sleepwalker is at best a target-draw Sage and at worst a dead card. The latter is a serious downside.

Attack cards can't have Dream tokens, so that wouldn't be a problem

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 22, 2019, 09:42:15 am

Well yeah, we were discussing whether that restriction is a good idea.

I think it is. There are plenty of actions that are fun to play every turn in a way that doesn't make your opponent's life miserable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 22, 2019, 09:55:37 am

I went with trying to make the hypothetical hex-druid in a way that doesn't ruin everyone's game via spamming Deluded/Envious
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5dd7f5f253d88a098201812e/02c8bde9b95fa4ba007c897cb3375236/image.png)

Quote

Warlock • $5 • Action - Attack - Doom
+ $2
Choose one: each other player receives one of the set aside face-up Hexes, then flip it face-down; or flip one of the set-aside face-down Hexes face up and +$1.
(You may look at the face-down Hexes at any time)
-
Setup: place 3 Hexes face up, set aside.

Borrows a little from Necromancer too.

v1, for posterity:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5dd7f5f253d88a098201812e/94798cc7c3db2ba3e2b3a5c36c203aa2/image.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 22, 2019, 10:32:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/UaKUe9Y.jpg)

Quote

Gang
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may play an Initiate card from your hand.

---

Setup: Choose a different random Action Supply pile. Cards from that pile are Initiate cards.

Notes: Gang can't choose itself. If it is the only Action Supply pile, it fails to choose one.

Conditional super Laboratory variant. Compare to Stables, which has you discard a much more common Treasure card, this lets you chain into a specific card.  It's only "non-terminal" if it chooses a non-terminal card, though.  When it chooses a cheap card you can possibly rely on it.  If it chooses a big $5+ card, it will be harder to proc, so maybe would be better at +2 Cards costed $3.  I don't know that I like how much +2 Cards tastes like Cultist.  What do you think?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 22, 2019, 10:41:18 am

@Fragasnap: is it a gang or a cabal? it's different in the photo + the text versions.

I think it's probably a bit much to have at $5. +2 Cards, +$1 feels like maybe a better middle ground between Cultist and Smithy. Or like +3 Cards, discard one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 22, 2019, 02:15:12 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 22, 2019, 10:32:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/UaKUe9Y.jpg)

Give me Magpie as Initiate, please. ;D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on November 22, 2019, 03:13:15 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 21, 2019, 11:16:09 pm

I mean the issue is if one person has Goons and is playing it with Sleepwalker every turn and the other person can't get to $6 to even get a Goons in the first place.

But honestly I think there are attacks that are more degenerate than Goons to be playing every turn, such as Mountebank or the Knights. While I don't think those games would necessarily be unbalanced they would probably not be very fun.

I guess that is true. 
"Non-attack" seems like an inelegant restriction, I don't want it to be the right answer, but it might be.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 22, 2019, 03:26:03 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on November 22, 2019, 03:13:15 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 21, 2019, 11:16:09 pm

I mean the issue is if one person has Goons and is playing it with Sleepwalker every turn and the other person can't get to $6 to even get a Goons in the first place.

But honestly I think there are attacks that are more degenerate than Goons to be playing every turn, such as Mountebank or the Knights. While I don't think those games would necessarily be unbalanced they would probably not be very fun.

I guess that is true. 
"Non-attack" seems like an inelegant restriction, I don't want it to be the right answer, but it might be.

"costing less than $5" would fix a lot of these problems but then it's just Sage that can hit a Poor House.

Another option would be "cards whose only type is Action", although that disqualifies a few more than just "non-attack".

I think "non-attack" is the right way to go with this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 22, 2019, 04:13:18 pm

It's no more inelegant than saying Captain and Procession can't play Duration cards :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 22, 2019, 05:45:47 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 22, 2019, 10:32:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/UaKUe9Y.jpg)

Quote

Gang
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may play an Initiate card from your hand.

---

Setup: Choose a different random Action Supply pile. Cards from that pile are Initiate cards.

Notes: Gang can't choose itself. If it is the only Action Supply pile, it fails to choose one.

Conditional super Laboratory variant. Compare to Stables, which has you discard a much more common Treasure card, this lets you chain into a specific card.  It's only "non-terminal" if it chooses a non-terminal card, though.  When it chooses a cheap card you can possibly rely on it.  If it chooses a big $5+ card, it will be harder to proc, so maybe would be better at +2 Cards costed $3.  I don't know that I like how much +2 Cards tastes like Cultist.  What do you think?

A Smithy that can be a DoubleLab is too strong. I suggest: Discard a card. If it is an Initiate card, play it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on November 22, 2019, 05:55:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/a1I7gKj.png)
Fish Market
$4 - Action - Duration
Now and at start of your next turn:
+$1, +1 Buy
-
While this is in play, when you buy a Bait card first time during the turn, gain a non-Victory card costing up to $5.
-
Setup: Choose a random Kingdom cards pile. These cards are Bait.

(old version: (https://i.imgur.com/Zr0KsmF.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on November 22, 2019, 11:08:08 pm

Fan Creation
Type: ?
Cost: ?

Set up:
Choose a kingdom card from Weekly Design Contest Thread. This is that card until the game ends.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Abel_K on November 23, 2019, 06:06:19 am

(https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2019/11/23//19112312065520605916523295.png) (https://www.casimages.com/i/19112312065520605916523295.png.html)

Good or Evil.  Action-Attack

Choose one : +1 Action or +1 Card or +$1 +1 Buy
Choose one effect of one of Temptation mat Attack : the attack or the benefit.
-
Set up : 2 random Attacks build the Temptation mat
-
This costs the same price as the most expensive Attack in Temptation


Of course, with Torturer this is seems a mega-card, and with Oracle less !
But this is the goal of this Contest isn't it ?

My first idea was with only one Attack, or « 1 or 2 ». I finally decided for two, for more fun and strategy. But…

Variable cost : I know that it is not in the « tradition » of Dominion but it seems to me necessary here.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on November 23, 2019, 07:04:24 am

Quote from: artless on November 22, 2019, 11:08:08 pm

Fan's Creation
Type: ?
Cost: ?

Set up:
Choose a kingdom card from Weekly Design Contest Thread. This is that card until the game ends.

This is so unbalanced I don't know where to begin!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 23, 2019, 07:05:06 am

Quote from: Abel_K on November 23, 2019, 06:06:19 am

Of course, with Torturer this is seems a mega-card, and with Oracle less !
But this is the goal of this Contest isn't it ?

Torturer is a DoubleLab and broken at any price. Oracle in combination with this is better than Lab so even if there is a $5 Attack on the map it would be underpriced.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on November 23, 2019, 07:24:22 am

Quote from: Gazbag on November 23, 2019, 07:04:24 am

Quote from: artless on November 22, 2019, 11:08:08 pm

Fan's Creation
Type: ?
Cost: ?

Set up:
Choose a kingdom card from Weekly Design Contest Thread. This is that card until the game ends.

This is so unbalanced I don't know where to begin!

Balanced version:
Choose a balanced kingdom card from Weekly Design Contest Thread. This is that card until the game ends.
(If you can't choose a balanced card, it's your own fault)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 23, 2019, 08:09:23 am

Quote from: Abel_K on November 23, 2019, 06:06:19 am

(https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2019/11/23//19112312065520605916523295.png) (https://www.casimages.com/i/19112312065520605916523295.png.html)

Good or Evil.  Action-Attack

Choose one : +1 Action or +1 Card or +$1 +1 Buy
Choose one effect of one of Temptation mat Attack : the attack or the benefit.
-
Set up : 2 random Attacks build the Temptation mat
-
This costs the same price as the most expensive Attack in Temptation


Of course, with Torturer this is seems a mega-card, and with Oracle less !
But this is the goal of this Contest isn't it ?

My first idea was with only one Attack, or « 1 or 2 ». I finally decided for two, for more fun and strategy. But…

Variable cost : I know that it is not in the « tradition » of Dominion but it seems to me necessary here.

So, for example, I choose Swindler's trash effect, then each other player trashes the top of their deck, then they don't gain anything, as I have to choose "one effect", right? I mean, what is "one effect", each command, each sentence, each paragraph, or each on-play effect?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 23, 2019, 09:24:54 am

(https://i.imgur.com/t76IgQO.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 23, 2019, 09:28:01 am

Quote from: majiponi on November 23, 2019, 08:09:23 am

Quote from: Abel_K on November 23, 2019, 06:06:19 am

(https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2019/11/23//19112312065520605916523295.png) (https://www.casimages.com/i/19112312065520605916523295.png.html)

Good or Evil.  Action-Attack

Choose one : +1 Action or +1 Card or +$1 +1 Buy
Choose one effect of one of Temptation mat Attack : the attack or the benefit.
-
Set up : 2 random Attacks build the Temptation mat
-
This costs the same price as the most expensive Attack in Temptation


Of course, with Torturer this is seems a mega-card, and with Oracle less !
But this is the goal of this Contest isn't it ?

My first idea was with only one Attack, or « 1 or 2 ». I finally decided for two, for more fun and strategy. But…

Variable cost : I know that it is not in the « tradition » of Dominion but it seems to me necessary here.

So, for example, I choose Swindler's trash effect, then each other player trashes the top of their deck, then they don't gain anything, as I have to choose "one effect", right? I mean, what is "one effect", each command, each sentence, each paragraph, or each on-play effect?

Swindler's benefit is the +$2, Swindler's attack is the trashing attack. Benefit impacts you, attack effects the other players.

I think that this very seperation idea is pretty neat, but the anti-terminalizing breaks the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 23, 2019, 11:04:55 am

Quote from: segura on November 23, 2019, 09:24:54 am

(https://i.imgur.com/t76IgQO.png)

the / is confusing. I think you mean the total number of dvictory and treasure cards supply piles. I said supply piles because castles has so many differently named victory cards.
But what about treasure-victory cards, do they count twice? You’d have to explicitly clarify say so “this card costs 1 more for every treasure and/or victory supply pile”
Or “this costs 1 for every treasure and/or victory card visible in the supply” which has the neat affect of it costing less when a pile runs out

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 23, 2019, 11:43:18 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on November 23, 2019, 11:04:55 am

the / is confusing.

True that, "and" would be more precise but there are formatting issues with too much text.

Quote

I think you mean the total number of dvictory and treasure cards supply piles. I said supply piles because castles has so many differently named victory cards.

No, I don't. I first wanted to condition it on piles but this becomes bonkers with Castles.

Quote

But what about treasure-victory cards, do they count twice?

No, because Harem is not named different from Harem.

Quote

Or “this costs 1 for every treasure and/or victory card visible in the supply” which has the neat affect of it costing less when a pile runs out

Again, overpowered with Castles. Also, I don't want this to merely cost $6 in a Kingdom with Encampment in which every player is virtually guaranteed to get at least one copy of Plunder.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 23, 2019, 06:51:17 pm

Quote from: segura on November 23, 2019, 09:28:01 am

Quote from: majiponi on November 23, 2019, 08:09:23 am

Quote from: Abel_K on November 23, 2019, 06:06:19 am

(https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2019/11/23//19112312065520605916523295.png) (https://www.casimages.com/i/19112312065520605916523295.png.html)

Good or Evil.  Action-Attack

Choose one : +1 Action or +1 Card or +$1 +1 Buy
Choose one effect of one of Temptation mat Attack : the attack or the benefit.
-
Set up : 2 random Attacks build the Temptation mat
-
This costs the same price as the most expensive Attack in Temptation


Of course, with Torturer this is seems a mega-card, and with Oracle less !
But this is the goal of this Contest isn't it ?

My first idea was with only one Attack, or « 1 or 2 ». I finally decided for two, for more fun and strategy. But…

Variable cost : I know that it is not in the « tradition » of Dominion but it seems to me necessary here.

So, for example, I choose Swindler's trash effect, then each other player trashes the top of their deck, then they don't gain anything, as I have to choose "one effect", right? I mean, what is "one effect", each command, each sentence, each paragraph, or each on-play effect?

Swindler's benefit is the +$2, Swindler's attack is the trashing attack. Benefit impacts you, attack effects the other players.

I think that this very seperation idea is pretty neat, but the anti-terminalizing breaks the card.

So, if I play Jester, do I count "I or she gains" effect as which? Benefit? or Attack?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on November 23, 2019, 07:55:51 pm

Quote from: majiponi on November 23, 2019, 06:51:17 pm

So, if I play Jester, do I count "I or she gains" effect as which? Benefit? or Attack?

For Jester, obviously, $2 is the benefit, and the rest of the text is attack. Benefit is what you get when all the opponents are Moat'ed, attack is the rest. For example, Sea Hag has no benefit at all, and Familiar's benefit is just cycling

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on November 23, 2019, 08:15:36 pm

Quote from: grep on November 23, 2019, 07:55:51 pm

Quote from: majiponi on November 23, 2019, 06:51:17 pm

So, if I play Jester, do I count "I or she gains" effect as which? Benefit? or Attack?

For Jester, obviously, $2 is the benefit, and the rest of the text is attack. Benefit is what you get when all the opponents are Moat'ed, attack is the rest. For example, Sea Hag has no benefit at all, and Familiar's benefit is just cycling

I think it has a lot of cases where is not so obvious: thief (the benefit and attack is the same), replace, pillage (the "trash this" is benefit?)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on November 24, 2019, 12:47:17 am

Quote from: Freddy10 on November 23, 2019, 08:15:36 pm

Quote from: grep on November 23, 2019, 07:55:51 pm

Quote from: majiponi on November 23, 2019, 06:51:17 pm

So, if I play Jester, do I count "I or she gains" effect as which? Benefit? or Attack?

For Jester, obviously, $2 is the benefit, and the rest of the text is attack. Benefit is what you get when all the opponents are Moat'ed, attack is the rest. For example, Sea Hag has no benefit at all, and Familiar's benefit is just cycling

I think it has a lot of cases where is not so obvious: thief (the benefit and attack is the same), replace, pillage (the "trash this" is benefit?)

The defense criterion is quite obvious.
Thief - no benefit apart from attack. Replace - everything works except cursing. Pillage - everything works except discarding.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on November 24, 2019, 03:17:59 am

Quote from: pst on November 20, 2019, 07:15:20 am

With a Cozener you can get access to some services you wouldn't have access to otherwise. Similar to Black Market, but different, in that the Event you bought will still be available for other players to buy.

(https://starback.se/static/games/Cozener3.png)

Quote

Cozener, Action, $3
+$2. You may discard one of the Cozen events and draw a new one from the Event deck. (Shuffle discards if the deck is empty.) Play any number of Treasures from your hand. You may buy one of the Cozen events, even if you have Debt tokens.

---

Setup: Make a deck of unused Events, not following setup instructions. Turn over two initial Cozen events from that deck.

---

I have now playtested Cozener, and it was fun! Often several tokens came into play, sometimes in an asymmetric way because we hurried to remove access to a token moving event to the other player.

During playtest I changed it to the quoted version (and I have edited the original post).

There are two major changes:

You get to exchange one Cozen event before you play Treasures

There are situations where you may want to play Treasures first, for example a Venture to know if you can afford an expensive Event before you decide if you want to discard it. But more often you want to know what you want to buy before you play your Treasures, so it just seemed natural to do it in this order instead.

Now you can buy a Cozen event even if you are in Debt

As with BM not being able to pay off Debt can be irritating, and since many events have Debt costs it's so easy to get into Debt during your Action phase if you are playing multiple Cozeners so I wanted to do something about it. I considered letting Cozener actually have an extra Buy Phase instead of doing this the BM way, but I'm happy I thought of this solution instead, which sometimes has interesting consequences.

And two minor:

• Now it doesn't explicitly say that you should use all unused Events for the deck, but is less specific (like Black Market):
  I still recommend putting all your unused Events there.
• Discard instead of putting cards at bottom:
  This is just a practical change – when playing with a full Cozen deck we were never close to using all of it anyway. So by not having to put cards at the bottom of that deck we could just put new Cozen cards over the discarded ones and didn't need to keep track of their order.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on November 24, 2019, 03:24:29 am

Wouldn't using Moat's logic work better for Good or Evil?
"Play the attack leaving it there, blah blah blah, but choose one: it can't affect other players, or it can't affect you"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on November 24, 2019, 06:46:46 am

How much does Good or Evil cost when there's a Mountebank and a Familiar on the mat?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on November 24, 2019, 11:55:03 pm

Quote from: herw on November 22, 2019, 12:44:18 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on November 19, 2019, 03:50:18 pm

[...]
Full feedback to come later

?

First: thanks to NoMoreFun that he has judged out of band. Nevertheless it is disappointing that there is no feedback. :(
ciao herw

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: nemryn on November 25, 2019, 02:33:37 am

Travelling Players $4
Action
Refer to the noted results. For each time you rolled a...
1, +1 Card
2, +1 Action
3, +$1
4, +1 Buy
5, +1 VP
6, You may trash a card from your hand
---------------
Setup: Roll three six-sided dice and note the results.

An attempt to make a card that varies based on something other than mucking around with piles. There's tracking issues, and also cost issues, but hey, maybe it's okay to get a cheap Laboratory every 216 or so games.

Edit: name changed from Traveling Fair

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 25, 2019, 02:58:18 am

Quote from: nemryn on November 25, 2019, 02:33:37 am

Traveling Fair $4
Action
Refer to the noted results. For each time you rolled a...
1, +1 Card
2, +1 Action
3, +$1
4, +1 Buy
5, +1 VP
6, You may trash a card from your hand
---------------
Setup: Roll three six-sided dice and note the results.

An attempt to make a card that varies based on something other than mucking around with piles. There's tracking issues, and also cost issues, but hey, maybe it's okay to get a cheap Laboratory every 216 or so games.

The name Travelling Fair is already taken by an Event.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 25, 2019, 09:06:20 am

Quote from: artless on November 22, 2019, 11:08:08 pm

Fan Creation
Type: ?
Cost: ?

Set up:
Choose a kingdom card from Weekly Design Contest Thread. This is that card until the game ends.

I like the recursive case for this, where Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation isFan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation isFan Creation is Fan Creation is Fan Creation is...

It's not often we get an infinite loop during setup.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on November 26, 2019, 02:07:23 am

Quote from: segura on November 23, 2019, 09:24:54 am

(https://i.imgur.com/t76IgQO.png)

I see that you have used my template. I am just refreshing it; is there still any interest here?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 26, 2019, 08:30:23 am

Quote from: segura on November 22, 2019, 05:45:47 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 22, 2019, 10:32:58 am

Gang
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may play an Initiate card from your hand.

---

Setup: Choose a different random Action Supply pile. Cards from that pile are Initiate cards.

A Smithy that can be a DoubleLab is too strong. I suggest: Discard a card. If it is an Initiate card, play it.

I've been thinking about this, and I don't think I agree, largely on the grounds that "You play a specific card from your hand" is much weaker than "+1 Action."  Sometimes you will get some spammable <$4 Action chosen, but a lot of time you're going to hit payloads, trashers, or even other draw which makes it significantly less effective.  +3 Cards is already a weak effect at $5, and so making the play of Gang weaker would likely render it functionally useless if it doesn't pick a stronger Initiate.  If I were to make a change, I would likely aim towards making the way it plays with Initiate different, either
1) Violent Gang: You may play an Initiate from your hand twice, and then trash it.  Which would allow it to utilize payload and draw more dramatically.
2) Rich Gang: Choose a different random Action Supply pile costing at least $5.  Which would simply ensure Gang and the card it plays are at competing a price point.
3) Exclusive Gang: Cards from it are Initiate cards and you can't buy them without Coppers in Play.  Which would make acquiring good initiate cards more difficult at the cost of making weaker Initiates even worse.
Ultimately though, I'm not sure any of these are worth the added complexity.  Looking at some random games, it looks like there will typically be 1 busted target for Gang, 2-3 decent targets, and the rest are middling (Remodel) to bad (Chapel).  Do its play patterns really become so consistently one-note when it gets paired with a Village Initiate?

---

Quote from: spineflu on November 22, 2019, 09:55:37 am

Warlock
Types: Action, Attack, Doom
Cost: $5
+1 Card, +1 Action. Choose one: each other player receives one of the set aside face-up Hexes, then flip it face-down; or flip one of the set-aside face-down Hexes face up and +$1. (You may look at the face-down Hexes at any time)

---

Setup: place 3 Hexes face up, set aside.

You say you want to avoid Deluded every turn, but you put this on a cantrip.  Playing 2 Warlocks each turn to proc Delusion will be pretty easy.
If you want it to be non-terminal, consuming all the Hexes first and then flipping them automatically would go a long way to preventing a single abusive Hex from being played (though it would scale even more strangely than it already does).  I would say it would work better simply being terminal, though.

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 21, 2019, 01:10:32 pm

Sleepwalker
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Dream card. Discard the other revealed cards, then play the Dream card.

---

Setup: Choose 3 random non-Attack Action Supply piles other than Sleepwalker. Action cards from those piles are Dream cards.

The existing digging cards all have awkwardness to them in the form of other cards upon which they trip.  Sleepwalker will inevitably be much too strong by virtually always playing the targeted Action card (so long as you have a Dream that isn't in your hand or play area) because you have no obligation to add an undesirable Dream Action to your deck (as opposed to if it played the first Action it found, which would be more inhibiting).  It also risks making the game run very long, because players will consistently dig through their deck when there is a good Dream target.
It might be worth giving it the ability to trip on something else (even if it is a raw cap to the number revealed) to hold back the game length when it becomes relevant.

Quote from: mandioca15 on November 21, 2019, 04:04:27 pm

Crusade
Types: Victory
Cost: $4
Worth 1VP per 3 Attack cards you have.

---

Setup: Choose three additional non-Attack Action piles to add to the Kingdom; one costing $2, one costing $3 and one costing $4. Cards from these piles gain the Attack type and the following additional text at the end of the card: 'Each other player discards down to 4 cards unless they can reveal a copy of this card. If any player does, trash both copies of the card.'

I like the idea of turning other cards into marginal Attacks that can be blocked to justify a Victory card for Attacks.  I have a few problems:
1) This adds 3 Actions to the Supply. That is a massive number of cards. I'd rather it just target a card or two in the fashion of Obelisk.
2) It trashes the cards when used to block.  Because the Attack is so small, the function of this is to deny players the ability to even play those Attack cards, which undercuts the idea of a Victory card giving points for Attacks when you are no longer allowed to field them.
3) The Victory point Ratio is bad without adding said ridiculous number of cards.  With only 1 guaranteed Attack a ratio of 1VP/2 cards would probably do fine.  Even if that proved too much, another relevant $5-cost Victory card might be more fun to have than another seldom-used $4-cost.

Quote from: segura on November 23, 2019, 09:24:54 am

Treasure Cove
Types: Treasure, Victory
Cost: $?
+$1 per differently named Treasure in play.

---

Worth 1VP for every differently named Victory card in your deck.

---

This costs $1 per differently named Treasure / Victory card in the Supply.

It will cost $7 providing up to $4 and 4VP typically, which sounds pretty bonkers and gets even stronger if any other Victory cards show up.  Even if you were able to reel it back in some reasonable fashion, I think back to those rare games where Harem is relevant in which crossing your fingers for good draws in Harem-infested decks is frustrating.  I can't imaging Treasure Cove would end up playing a whole lot differently, merely more commonly dominating the game due to the strength of its Victory points.

Quote from: nemryn on November 25, 2019, 02:33:37 am

Travelling Players
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Refer to the noted results. For each time you rolled a... 1, +1 Card;  2, +1 Action;  3, +$1;  4, +1 Buy;  5, +1 VP;  6, You may trash a card from your hand.

---

Setup: Roll three six-sided dice and note the results.

You get Laboratory every 3/216 (1.39%) games.
77/216 (35.65%) are too strong, especially any combination with +2VP or more. 29/216 (13.43%) would still be strong if it cost $5.
53/216 (24.54%) are very weak, as in less than $3 weak.
86/216 (39.81%) are largely uninteresting, but balanced.  You could possibly normalize its power in a variety of ways (I'd start with making it necessarily non-terminal), but I'm not sure it saves the concept.  It reminds me of 504 (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/175878/504).  It is interesting in theory, but in practice is just bland.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 26, 2019, 08:51:23 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 26, 2019, 08:30:23 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 22, 2019, 09:55:37 am

Warlock
Types: Action, Attack, Doom
Cost: $5
+1 Card, +1 Action. Choose one: each other player receives one of the set aside face-up Hexes, then flip it face-down; or flip one of the set-aside face-down Hexes face up and +$1. (You may look at the face-down Hexes at any time)

---

Setup: place 3 Hexes face up, set aside.

You say you want to avoid Deluded every turn, but you put this on a cantrip.  Playing 2 Warlocks each turn to proc Delusion will be pretty easy.
If you want it to be non-terminal, consuming all the Hexes first and then flipping them automatically would go a long way to preventing a single abusive Hex from being played (though it would scale even more strangely than it already does).  I would say it would work better simply being terminal, though.

That's a good point. I think changing the bonus to +$2 rather than cantrip would probably be better (and people can have it be non-terminal in their Capitalism games, if they want, since this is already capitalism-susceptible).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on November 26, 2019, 12:39:32 pm

Final 24 hours start now!!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on November 26, 2019, 01:39:28 pm

Thanks for the feedback, Fragasnap. I will change my entry to the following.

Crusade (Victory, $4)

Worth 1VP per 2 Attack cards you have.

Setup: Choose two additional non-Attack Action piles (each costing at most $4) to add to the Kingdom. Cards from these piles gain the Attack type and the following additional text at the end of the card: 'Each other player may reveal a copy of this card. If they don't, they discard down to 4 cards in hand.'

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 26, 2019, 03:02:30 pm

This was edited. The original submission did not have a discard. It's totally possible the original submission (identical minus the discard part) is being the one that was judged since I'm editing at the last minute
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/5s32a2v0.png)

Quote

King - Action - costs 5
Choose one: discard a card to play a card from the Arms pile twice and trash it; or you may play an Action card from your hand twice.
-
Setup: Create an Arms pile by adding an extra Kingdom Action card pile to the game. These cards are not in the supply.

Here's a throne room that can throne room a unique card each game. Sometimes this will be very powerful depending on what the Arms pile is. However, it's limited, you only get 10 usages of King'ing the Arms pile before it's gone. Or sometimes less (Rats, Magpie) or more (Port, Victory-Action cards w/ more than 2 players).  Of course there's some funkiness, if Catapault/Rocks is the supply pile, then you can play a treasure in your action phase! Well, throning a Rocks for $2 and gaining a silver when you trash it is not so powerful.

I'd say this is a little on the powerful side, depending on what the Arms pile is. You're pretty unhappy if Treasure Map is the arms. On the other side, having a cheap Altar is pretty strong, even if it self-trashes. Don't forget that the pile runs out quickly and everyone has access to it. There's some interesting strategy here -- maybe you have a card in your hand you want to double, but you'd rather take away your opponent's access to the last Arms card.

I do appreciate feedback, but well, I only came around to an idea I liked this morning, so there's limited time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 27, 2019, 10:55:49 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on November 26, 2019, 03:02:30 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/9r233tht.png)

Quote

King - Action - costs 5
Choose one: play a card from the Arms pile twice and trash it; or you may play an Action card from your hand twice.
-
Setup: Create an Arms pile by adding an extra Kingdom Action card pile to the game. These cards are not in the supply.

Here's a throne room that can throne room a unique card each game. Sometimes this will be very powerful depending on what the Arms pile is. However, it's limited, you only get 10 usages of King'ing the Arms pile before it's gone.

This is playable with the better option as often as (straightforward) junkers. So it is safe to say that it is a bit too good: we know from Crown that you don't mind paying $5 for a TR and even if the Arms pile is something weak like Pearl Diver this is a Lost City.
But it looks very fun!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 27, 2019, 11:00:36 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 26, 2019, 08:30:23 am

Quote from: segura on November 23, 2019, 09:24:54 am

Treasure Cove
Types: Treasure, Victory
Cost: $?
+$1 per differently named Treasure in play.

---

Worth 1VP for every differently named Victory card in your deck.

---

This costs $1 per differently named Treasure / Victory card in the Supply.

It will cost $7 providing up to $4 and 4VP typically, which sounds pretty bonkers and gets even stronger if any other Victory cards show up.  Even if you were able to reel it back in some reasonable fashion, I think back to those rare games where Harem is relevant in which crossing your fingers for good draws in Harem-infested decks is frustrating.  I can't imaging Treasure Cove would end up playing a whole lot differently, merely more commonly dominating the game due to the strength of its Victory points.

Seems pretty tricky to draw Copper (or a Kingdom Treasure), Silver, Gold and Treasure Cove to me. In an engine you don't want that many Treasures. But of course you are right that the card could be too good in a money-Smithy situation.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 27, 2019, 11:34:31 am

If there's time I'm slightly modifying my submission.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/5s32a2v0.png)

Quote

King - Action - $5
Choose one: discard a card to play a card from the Arms pile twice and trash it; or you may play an Action card from your hand twice.
-
Setup: Create an Arms pile by adding an extra Kingdom Action card pile to the game. These cards are not in the supply.

Now you have to discard to play the Arms card. I didn't realize that without discarding it's sort of like a throne room with +1 card which I didn't want. This weakens it slightly in the Arms choice, in a good and logical way. It's like you turned a card into the arms card.

This addresses Segura's feedback. If the Arms is a pearl diver, it's a pretty weak target. You end up with the exact same number of cards in your hand as before you played the pearl diver, only one action stronger. It is still nice and strong sometimes, but the Arms card will run out. You probably only get to use it's power 4-6 times in a 2 player game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on November 27, 2019, 11:48:32 am

Master - Action-Command - $2
Play a non-Command Action underneath a Master from the supply, leaving it there.
Setup: Place one Master on top of each Kingdom supply pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 27, 2019, 12:01:08 pm

Quote from: pubby on November 27, 2019, 11:48:32 am

Master - Action-Command - $2
Play a non-Command Action underneath a Master from the supply, leaving it there.
Setup: Place one Master on top of each Kingdom supply pile.

Sucks to get a 5/2 opening!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 27, 2019, 12:23:01 pm

I've seen a lot of fan cards that deal with putting a card on top of a supply pile; generally as a way of blocking that pile until the card is bought.

Do official Dominion rules support this notion as-is; or are these fan cards assuming the creation of a new rule to support it? I mean, we have Knights and Castles which give us rules saying that only the top card of those piles can be bought or gained. But that feels different to me, because the top card of the Knights pile is always a Knight (or more specifically; a card that belongs to that Kingdom pile); same with Castles. Can we say within Dominion rules that putting any random card on top of a pile suddenly makes that top card buyable and gainable? I feel like the rules for buying basically assume that there's only 1 buyable copy of a card at the same time. For example, if you have Talisman in play and buy a Master, do you also gain another Master, from any other pile you choose?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 27, 2019, 12:25:51 pm

Quote from: pubby on November 27, 2019, 11:48:32 am

Master - Action-Command - $2
Play a non-Command Action underneath a Master from the supply, leaving it there.
Setup: Place one Master on top of each Kingdom supply pile.

Do you use this as an "eleventh" supply pile when you play with it? or does the game start down a pile from the get-go?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on November 27, 2019, 12:41:13 pm

Time's up! Judging starts now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 27, 2019, 12:47:59 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 27, 2019, 12:23:01 pm

For example, if you have Talisman in play and buy a Master, do you also gain another Master, from any other pile you choose?

I would assume so; when you're told to gain something that you could gain from multiple piles, such as Tragic Hero's "gain a Treasure," you can pick any pile that has a Treasure on top and gain that Treasure. I wouldn't call gaining a specific card fundamentally different from that; when told to gain a Master, you pick a pile that has a Master on top and gain that Master.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on November 27, 2019, 04:26:58 pm

Metropolis by [TP] Inferno (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg816496#msg816496)
This is an improved Market or Bazaar, so $6 would be its value ($1 lower than its price with only Copper/Silver/Gold). On top of that, many kingdom treasures don't really antisynergize with engines: Bank likes draw, Loan trashes, Relic wants to be played every turn, etc.  And this card is also good in treasure heavy decks as it can also act as a Market Square. Long story short: the price concept is neat, but the execution is flawed.

Owl by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg816499#msg816499)
The choice of the vanilla effect is sound, as Hexes are typically weaker than Ghost Ship and Witch, but those cards lack the ability to choose between 3 attacks. Biggest strike against this is that several Hexes are not balanced around of being used each turn (possibly multiple times). Delusion is the prime example, but Envy can be really bad as well, and Greed would need some errata as well. Nontheless, this is a novel attempt at making an Evil Druid.

Cozener by pst (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg816538#msg816538)
I really like how this card is its own thing, instead of being a shameless Black Market rip-off. The discard mechanic is a clever way of making sure hitting Donate isn't an autowin as other players can follow suit. It can be quite annoying when someone hits stuff like pathfinding, because then players are forced to hit a high amount of $$ in a rapid fashion. However, this can't be as bad as someone acquiring an Outpost through BM. This is in the top 4

Polymorph by forkofnature (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg816639#msg816639)
What cards can be added to the kingdom? All unused dominion cards? That's a buttload of options and also makes future expansions render older setups obsolete. Is it a subset of the unused cards? Specify it in a setup section!
That out of the way, I'm not really sold by this. As far as the "remove" part goes, it is a stronger version of Tax and Embargo, two cards that usually harm the user about as much as the opponent. The "unlock a new pile" part can be cool once in a blue moon, but most of the time, the games are too symmetric to make it benefit the user more than the opponent.
(I also see you made an event version but you didn't specify it'd replace this submission).

Tall Tale Teller by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg816733#msg816733) 
This one is really neat, with a funny image. Making a card produce less is a surefire way of reducing its value, and $3 sounds like an appropriate price for this (especially considering it degrades Bazaar into Village). Very curious to make an engine with a piece that gives debt on each play. Only suggestion I'd give is not allowing Attack cards here.  This is in the top 4

Splice by Gazbag (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg816763#msg816763) 
I'd love to see a working version of this, but your version looks rather... unfinished to say it at least. The "best version" you described reads +4 Cards, +3 Actions, which is beyond ridiculous. In fact, any nonterminal can make this quite strong; Moat+Pearl Diver already makes it a better version of The Forbidden Card. With two terminals, however, this card will almost certainly become rather bland.

Travelling Shop by Gubumb (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg816780#msg816780) 
Novel concept for sure. And I actually do agree with the restriction to cards between $3 and $5, as hitting $6 with this is just too annoying (and I don't wanna see Familiar being locked behind this thing). It needs playtesting to see how it works in practice, but I definitely value the idea of cards that are locked to a later section of the game (or just a fraction of your turns). And playing with more than 10 kingdom cards can be cool as well. This is in the top 4

Boss by Aquilla (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg816791#msg816791)
This attack can be really oppressive, as it is a little too reliable at hitting specific targets. Especially the $5 costing version sounds scary, as it produces $3, and is able to force me to discard my Plazas. It compares rather favorable to Raider, which costs $6, forces the user not to play any filler tech to be good, and hits once per 2 turns. The idea is nice, but it doesn't sound like a recipe for fun.

Sleepwalker by Something_Smart (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg816836#msg816836)
If the pool of Dream cards has exactly one useful card, then this is a Sage+, as it has no chance of stumbling upon a Silver or a Province, and being forces to ply it immediately is irrelevant. If the pool of dream cards has multiple useful cards, then this card is still really good if it isn't too important which one you play, and packs some Golem-esque swingyness otherwise. For these reasons, I am afraid this card isn't going to play that well.

Crusade by mandioca15 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg816851#msg816851)
Sounds like an alright source of VP, but the guaratueed presence of 3 attack piles can make it somewhat automatic. The Attack is weak enough to ensure the prices of the cards don't have to be lifted. I am afraid that the attacks are a little too easy to forget though.

Warlock by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg816935#msg816935)
I't good that you try to circumvent the Delusion problem, but it does make the card somewhat wordy. Ultimately, the attempt is futile, as Delusion can still be summoned consistently by two Warlocks, which is still too good. (I mis the Setup part in the card's text).

Gang by Fragasnap (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg816956#msg816956)
Being a Smithy variant makes it rather easy to find the Initiate card, and when that card is nonterminal, we can easily gain a Sauna/Avanto situation on steroids. Especially considering there are 10 of these, while there are only 5 avantos. For this reason, it may be wise to limit the pool of possibilities to terminal cards, although that'd make the card rather wordy (as "terminal" is not official terminology).

Bait by greg (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817081#msg817081)
I'm a little confused by how the card operates. What do you mean with "the turn"? The turn you play this card? The next turn? Both?
I think this card can be decently fun and balanced, though it is hard to tell from face value. Gaining $5 costs is pretty dope for a $4 costs, though the conditions in doing so are probably tight enough. For the bait, I'd limit to $2-$3 costs to fit flavor and add some consistency, and use a similar setup as Young Witch.

Good or Evil by Abel_K (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817133#msg817133)
This card can be a strictly superior DoubleLab, a major red flag. The balance issues most definitely don't there, though. You can always choose between two "benefits", which in combination with above are very powerful relative to its cost. If one of the cards is a Sea Hag, the card becomes a Sea Hag with a half-pawn that can be something else, while still costing $4.
 The card is also a pain to figure out, as it has a variable price and has lots of choice. The phrase "attack or benefit" is not official dominion terminology and will most definitely cause confusion. You definitely overdid it on the "differs per game" part.

Treasure Cove by segura (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817153#msg817153)
Treasure Cove obviously needs a different name (Treasure Trove exists) and the formulation is also rather unclean. That said, it's quite a solid nomination. I think it is alright power wise, as it needs to be drawn together with the other treasures in order to produce a decent amount of money (it is a greatly-inforior Bank if we foget the VP), and the VP-to-price ratio isn't too crazy either. Obviously, playtesting would give a more accurate result. It compares favorably to Harem, but that is fine, as Harem is horrible. This is in the top 4

Travelling Players by nemrym (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817284#msg817284)
If we forbid any 5s to be rolled, we'd obtain a configuration that either already exists at a better price point, or that is just plain dreadful. The 5s are the main issue though. Cards that give VP need to be designed with great care, as they may not cause endless games. Monument produces 2$, is terminal and doesn't draw, and therefore builds towards the end. This cannot be said about the vast majority of the configurations with 5s (especially when there are two...).

King by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817416#msg817416)
Limiting the pool to $3 costing cards would be a start (you don't want Sea Hag there...). Although that wouldn't save the card from having balance issues... The optimal strategy of playing King seems trying to deplete the Arms pile as fast as possible, to ensure opposing kings can use them as little as possible. If Arms is Pearl Diver, this means that King is temporary a Lost City, which is pretty stellar in situations where Throne Room would be a dead card. And with stronger Arms cards, this situation only gets worse. I'm not sold, sorry.

Master by pubby (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817481#msg817481)
This one doesn't qualify for this contest. And I'm not a fan of it either sorry. It's too centralizing, messes too much with the overall flow of the game, and makes turn order too much of a factor. First you have to get masters to get actual cards, but then the masters become completely useless. Without trashers, this sounds quite like a degenerate situation.

This brings us to the following top 4:
4) Treasure Cove by segura
3) Travelling Shop by Gubumb
2) Tall Tale Teller by NoMoreFun
1) Cozener by pst

Congratulations, pst, you win this weak's challenge and will host challenge 53!!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on November 27, 2019, 05:32:48 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 27, 2019, 04:26:58 pm

Splice by Gazbag (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg816763#msg816763) 
I'd love to see a working version of this, but your version looks rather... unfinished to say it at least.

No it was definitely finished, it was just a terrible design!

Congrats pst!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on November 27, 2019, 05:38:23 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 27, 2019, 04:26:58 pm

This brings us to the following top 4:
4) Treasure Cove by segura
3) Travelling Shop by Gubumb
2) Tall Tale Teller by NoMoreFun
1) Cozener by pst

Congratulations, Cozener, you win this weak's challenge and will host challenge 53!!

Whee, thanks! Here is the next one:

Challenge #53: Three is company

Make a card(-shaped object) that would be suitable for an expansion meant specifically for 3- and 4-player games!

Their randomizers wouldn't be used at all in 2-player games. Of course there are already over 400 card(-shaped object)s that are good for these games, but here is the opportunity to use ideas that just wouldn't work or wouldn't work well enough in 2-player games. I will judge if I think I'd like to play with the entries and if I think they are exploring areas that would be harder to do for other card(-shaped objects) (instead of just having a random limitation).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 27, 2019, 07:00:38 pm

Cool! I made a sorta musical chairs variant of hypercube's Cursed Skull artifact.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ddf05c70a98238f37e6a68e/410fbcb895c8f9c05ac11b65cb2609eb/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ddf05c70a98238f37e6a68e/403863f9f091bce634cc0a5369b38144/image.png)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ddf05c70a98238f37e6a68e/51d66e002997f625280b486c9eaf64ae/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ddf05c70a98238f37e6a68e/9dcb88ccc7e77157454e71ae29c525b5/image.png)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ddf05c70a98238f37e6a68e/552e1291f2d1afc15f805504d8411b29/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ddf05c70a98238f37e6a68e/ba5b081d6762165987674b9c08e1d390/image.png)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ddf05c70a98238f37e6a68e/3123a297839676389b14ba4c93e8bf90/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ddf05c70a98238f37e6a68e/37103e1f38c83589cd003958e95b3037/image.png)

Each has a reasonably-good-but-not-gamebreaking effect.

Quote

Swap • $4@1 • Event
+1 Buy. You may exchange your Pendant for another player's Pendant.
-
Setup: Deal out one Pendant Artifact at random to each player.

Quote

Sapphire Pendant • Artifact
If you have $2 or more when you draw a new hand at the end of your turn, +1 Card, then put a card from your hand on top of your deck.

Quote

Jade Pendant • Artifact
At the start of your turn, +1 Buy

Quote

Amethyst Pendant • Artifact
If you have the most Curses at the end of the game, this is worth 4%

Quote

Ruby Pendant • Artifact
At the start of your turn, if you have any @, +$2.
1%

Quote

Emerald Pendant • Artifact
2%

Quote

Pearl Pendant • Artifact
At the start of your turn, you may discard a non-Victory card for +$1

Quote

Crystal Pendant • Artifact
Play with the top card of your deck face-up.

---

FAQ/errata:

• Cards revealed by Crystal Pendant count as constantly revealed (so revealed once, no infinite Patron coffers).
• Amethyst Pendant isn't worth anything if you don't have the most curses
• There's seven of them so there's always at least one left over/not used in a game
• "exchange" as used on Swap means you give them your pendant and take theirs simultaneously - I'm open to a different word since this is a keyword but couldn't think of one at the moment.
• These may need a "grouping" card(like thing) type (kinda like Knights or Castles or what have you) to be able to "exchange your Pendant" but the template generator doesn't provide enough room for that so please use your imagination
• I'll probably make some art for these at some point this weekend.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 27, 2019, 07:36:32 pm

I think Pearl Pendant gives too much of an advantage to whoever happens to get it since they can guarantee a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} in one of their opening hands.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 27, 2019, 08:10:06 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 27, 2019, 07:36:32 pm

I think Pearl Pendant gives too much of an advantage to whoever happens to get it since they can guarantee a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} in one of their opening hands.

makes sense. Ima change it to "discard a non-Victory card". That way it only happens that way with Shelters and even then doesn't always happen.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on November 27, 2019, 09:19:10 pm

Hmm...

Clown
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} Action-Attack
+2 Cards
Each other player with at least 4 cards in hand discards a card. If it was a Victory card, they put it onto their deck; otherwise they gain a copy of that card or you do, your choice.

Heavily inspired by Jester, which is known to scale dramatically in multiplayer games.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on November 27, 2019, 11:40:21 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on November 27, 2019, 05:32:48 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 27, 2019, 04:26:58 pm

Splice by Gazbag (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg816763#msg816763) 
I'd love to see a working version of this, but your version looks rather... unfinished to say it at least.

No it was definitely finished, it was just a terrible design!

Congrats pst!

My Bannermen card does the same thing,  but with more words to cover edge cases. Might be worth checking out.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 28, 2019, 12:57:57 am

Friends
cost $3 - Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player except your friend discards down to 4 cards in hand.
You may pass a card from your hand to your friend.
---
When games using this, the player on the opposite side of the table is your friend. When scoring, add your friend's vp to your vp.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 28, 2019, 01:19:05 pm

Quote from: majiponi on November 28, 2019, 12:57:57 am

Friends
cost $3 - Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player except your friend discards down to 4 cards in hand.
You may pass a card from your hand to your friend.
---
When games using this, the player on the opposite side of the table is your friend. When scoring, add your friend's vp to your vp.

Three broad sets of issues here:
1. Are friends a reflexive property? If A is my friend, am I A's friend? If it is reflexive, then whoever goes earlier in the game has a massive disadvantage. Their score will be the same as someone else with fewer turns and according to tie breaking principles that person going later will win. Or if they have the same number of a turns, it is a tie. The first turn player can never win a game with this card, they can only hope to tie. This card really only works if friendship is non-reflexive. As in A is B's friend, B is C's Friend, C is A's friend.

2. What happens with odd players? How do you define "opposite side of the table." Is it literally opposite side of a table? What if we aren't playing at a table (I normally play on the ground)? What if you are playing online? What if there's a table but everyone is on the same side?

3. As it's written, it depends on what order you score people. If my score gets doubled from my friend, and then my friend calculates their score, then they get the points from my friend's friend AND me.

You can resolve all these problems with something like "the player to your left is your friend, when scoring, add the value of all the victory card's in your friend's deck to your vp." Now this unambiguously works for any number of players, any table arrangement, makes sure that player 1 can still win, resolves the scoring-order ambiguity, works with variable cost victory points (gardens are worth differently in their deck than yours), and also thoroughly addresses the contest requirements. It also incentivizes victory point and landmark scoring since that will not pass off to the player that you are their friend. I might recommend changing from "friend" to something that is more one-way, like "crush" or "idol"

If you do this, the card passing gives you an interesting incentive to pass provinces to your friend. You want their score high, but you don't want their engine strong or they can give those provinces to their friend instead. Ha! I could see this continually happening, with cheaper victory cards being passed around all game. I think this is a really interesting concept, but you'll need to address the three issues I mentioned by modifying card text. Another solution to making reflexive-friendship work (one I don't like as much) is redefining Dominion as a team-based game. Instead of a tie -- you'd have two winners. Of course, this breaks down entirely when you have an odd number of players. You could also use the "value of all the victory card's in your friend's deck" to make reflexivity work, but again, it breaks down with odd number of players.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on November 28, 2019, 01:48:07 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on November 28, 2019, 01:19:05 pm

Quote from: majiponi on November 28, 2019, 12:57:57 am

Friends
cost $3 - Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player except your friend discards down to 4 cards in hand.
You may pass a card from your hand to your friend.
---
When games using this, the player on the opposite side of the table is your friend. When scoring, add your friend's vp to your vp.

Three broad sets of issues here:
1. Are friends a reflexive property? If A is my friend, am I A's friend? If it is reflexive, then whoever goes earlier in the game has a massive disadvantage. Their score will be the same as someone else with fewer turns and according to tie breaking principles that person going later will win. Or if they have the same number of a turns, it is a tie. The first turn player can never win a game with this card, they can only hope to tie. This card really only works if friendship is non-reflexive. As in A is B's friend, B is C's Friend, C is A's friend.

2. What happens with odd players? How do you define "opposite side of the table." Is it literally opposite side of a table? What if we aren't playing at a table (I normally play on the ground)? What if you are playing online? What if there's a table but everyone is on the same side?

3. As it's written, it depends on what order you score people. If my score gets doubled from my friend, and then my friend calculates their score, then they get the points from my friend's friend AND me.

You can resolve all these problems with something like "the player to your left is your friend, when scoring, add the value of all the victory card's in your friend's deck to your vp." Now this unambiguously works for any number of players, any table arrangement, makes sure that player 1 can still win, resolves the scoring-order ambiguity, works with variable cost victory points (gardens are worth differently in their deck than yours), and also thoroughly addresses the contest requirements. It also incentivizes victory point and landmark scoring since that will not pass off to the player that you are their friend. I might recommend changing from "friend" to something that is more one-way, like "crush" or "idol"

If you do this, the card passing gives you an interesting incentive to pass provinces to your friend. You want their score high, but you don't want their engine strong or they can give those provinces to their friend instead. Ha! I could see this continually happening, with cheaper victory cards being passed around all game. I think this is a really interesting concept, but you'll need to address the three issues I mentioned by modifying card text. Another solution to making reflexive-friendship work (one I don't like as much) is redefining Dominion as a team-based game. Instead of a tie -- you'd have two winners. Of course, this breaks down entirely when you have an odd number of players. You could also use the "value of all the victory card's in your friend's deck" to make reflexivity work, but again, it breaks down with odd number of players.

I think what he meant is that Dominion becomes a 2 vs 2 game when this card is in the game. This is better accomplished by adding the "Team" type, specifying that this card is exclusively meant for 4P games where P1 and P3 play against P2 and P4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on November 28, 2019, 03:50:56 pm

Somehow releated to this contest: Asper made team cards some time ago: Asper's Cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #53: 3+ players only
Post by: Aquila on November 28, 2019, 05:11:02 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/R0bmj9o.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 28, 2019, 09:16:00 pm

Pot Stirrer
Action/Duration - $2
At the start of your next turn, +1 Buy, +$2
-
While this is in play,  when any player plays an attack, it doesn't affect you, and +1 Coffers if the Attack affected another player whose turn it isn't


Basically a card that rewards you for watching other players get attacked. It's probably fine in 2 player, but the interesting effect would only ever kick in with more than 2 players.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 29, 2019, 07:11:01 pm

Here's a silly idea I had after spiralstaircase posted Fairytale cards which begot Story Points (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14902.msg574399#msg574399).  I hadn't fully designed or even really tested the idea, but here's how it goes:

Introducing Story cards (Stories) (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=&description=%C2%A7&type=Story&credit=&creator=&price=&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGDTk1rq.png&c0.0=0.5&c0.1=1.25&c0.2=0.75&color1=0&size=0).  There are 12 cards in each Story pile, just like Victory cards.  They grant to their owner Story points (SP).  The player with the fewest Story Points loses the game, regardless of their Victory Point total, and then the remaining player with the most VP wins.  Ties are friendly, so if multiple players each have the fewest Story Points, none of them are eliminated.
(https://i.imgur.com/D11smNq.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/7RrQEv6.jpg)

Quote

Dominion: Fantasy, Setup
In games using any cards or Landmarks from Dominion: Fantasy, each player begins by secretly building their 10 card deck out of the normal starting cards and up to 6 History cards (4 with 5 or more players). Remove the other cards from the game without looking at them.
At the end of the game, the player with the fewest SP loses the game regardless of VP. If this is a tie, no one loses.

Quote

History: 24
Types: Story
Cost: $2
4SP

Players begin games with Dominion: Fantasy cards by building their own deck out of the usual cards and History cards.  It is secret, so you won't necessarily know how many History cards a player has (though their opening plays will give you a hint).  There are 24 History cards total.  History cards are not added to the Supply: You can only get them at setup.  You are allowed to replace Shelters and Heirlooms from your starting deck with History cards.  Your deck must be comprised of exactly 10 cards.  Players shuffle and draw their starting hands after building their decks.
Dominion: Fantasy as a set has 24 History cards, 20 Kingdom card piles (each of which is a Story card), and 16 Landmarks that provide SP.

Find below some sample cards:
(https://i.imgur.com/f1gxrwd.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/0WZhfEk.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/1xQqtWC.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3AiibFb.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/dXc2u2u.jpg)

Quote

Interpreter
Types: Victory, Story
Cost: $3
Worth 1VP for every 2 History cards in your deck (round down).

---

Worth 1SP for each differently named Victory card in your deck.

Keep 4 History cards for a cheap 2VP+SP card.  Keep 2 History cards and this is at least an Estate+SP.  Maybe don't keep 6 History cards, but I won't tell you how to live your life.

Quote

Superstitious Village
Types: Action, Story
Cost: $4
+1 Card, +3 Actions. Discard a card.

---

2SP

A sifting double-Village with a fixed SP counterpoint. Too many of these and you'll be discarding your whole hand.

Quote

Magic Beans
Types: Treasure, Story
Cost: $5
$2. When you play this, trash a card from your hand and if it isn't a Treasure, gain a Treasure costing up to $3 more than it.

---

Worth 1SP per differently named Treasure in your deck.

A mandatory trashing Treasure that Mines non-Treasures into Treasures if you want.  Too many of these and you won't have anything to trash.

Quote

Faerie Circle
Types: Landmark
When scoring, 3SP per differently named card you have after the first 5.

Like Museum, but with a threshold.  It matches Museum at 15 differently named cards for 30SP to a typical maximum of 18 names for 39SP.

Quote

Shangri-La
Types: Landmark
When scoring, 3SP per copy you have of the least common Victory card among your cards (if it’s a tie, count either).

Similar to Triumphal Arch, but makes you need to have an equal number of each Victory card you put into your deck.  Maybe the 1 Duchy you'd buy will cost you the Story Points that allowed you to compete?

Even scaling cards have largely fixed SP caps to make it easier to track other players' SP potential.  If I know you have 2 Magic Beans cards, then I know you can have 2*(Unique Treasures)+4*History Story Points, but I can't necessarily be completely sure of how many History cards you have (from 0 to 6).
Strategically, you want to have 1SP more than the player who has the fewest SP, but any SP over that is useless.

HISTORY
Superstitious Village originally gave 1SP per 2 differently named Actions in your deck, and is now worth 2SP so that tracking players' SP is easier.
Magic Beans originally optionally Remodeled anything to Treasures, and now trashes Treasures or Mines non-Treasures so you can't trash anything to Copper on your last turn for Magic Beans' SP value.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on November 29, 2019, 10:28:27 pm

The "lose, then win" aspect of Story Points is interesting, but man it looks like a lot to keep track of. Especially given that (1) the History setup makes it impossible to use a counting aid, and (2) all your cards are worth a variable amount of SP. I'm sorry, but I'm not playing a game where I need to mentally track the number of unique actions in four different decks on top of tracking VP. And even if I do track all that successfully, I can still lose to something I couldn't account for at all (History count).

Then again, I always use a VP counter irl, so maybe that's just me.

To be a bit more constructive, I would suggest having Story cards be worth a static amount of SP, and limit the initial History gamble to something like 3 instead of 6 so that known quantities can more easily insure against the hidden variance. (The hidden variance will remain relevant since it will still be detrimental to excessively focus SP.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on November 29, 2019, 11:19:58 pm

Usurper's Crown
Artifact(*) - 3+ players

At the start of your turn, +1 card, +1 action
---
When you gains a province, you may take Usurper's Crown.
---
At the end of game, if your vp is not higher than the sum of your best two opponent's, you lose.(**)

*This artifact doesn't bind with a kingdom card. It should be shuffled with project / event / landmark (into the randomizer deck or a card-shaped things deck).
**The remaining player with highest VP wins.

This card turns a regular game into a N vs 1 game, while not breaking the game too much.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 30, 2019, 06:32:38 am

Quote from: artless on November 29, 2019, 11:19:58 pm

Usurper's Crown
Artifact

At the start of your turn, +1 card, +1 action
---
When a player gains a province, they may take Usurper's Crown.
---
At the end of game, if your vp is not higher than the sum of your best two opponent's, you lose.

The Artifact is fine but I fail to see the appeal of playing any competitive (you can obviously lose as a team in a coop) game in which everybody can lose. Here this will happen basically always among players of a similar skill level.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on November 30, 2019, 06:28:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/8rLek13.png)
Great Wall
$8* - Project
When the player to your left plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect you.

---

This costs $2 less per player in the game beyond the first two.

v2: modified cost (old version: (https://i.imgur.com/DXGsKkC.png))

Title: Re: Contest #53: Three is Company
Post by: Gubump on December 01, 2019, 10:11:29 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/8616aZJ.png)

Based on my card Delegate (https://i.imgur.com/XrPbCwF.png) (submitted for the Command-type contest). Based on the playtesting results from Delegate, I think it would be safe to say that Emissary works great with 3 or 4 players, but is unbalanced at other player numbers.

Version History
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Changed vanilla bonus to a choose one instead of +2 Cards, and moved them to after the special effect.
v1.2: Changed vanilla bonus to +1 Card and +1 Action and moved it back to before the special effect.

Title: Re: Contest #53: Three is Company
Post by: segura on December 02, 2019, 10:17:39 am

Quote from: Gubump on December 01, 2019, 10:11:29 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/XiGQHcy.png)

Based on my card Delegate (https://i.imgur.com/XrPbCwF.png) (submitted for the Command-type contest). Based on the playtesting results from Delegate, I think it would be safe to say that Emissary works great with 3 or 4 players, but is unbalanced at other player numbers.

Why? Sure, in a 2P games you have less options and the other player can simply play money to make Emissary pointless. But as it stands the card looks extremely strong: even a petty Pearl Diver makes Emissary better than DoubleLab.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on December 02, 2019, 10:48:37 am

Agora - Landmark
When scoring, +2 VP for each differently named Action card in your deck, if there is both a player who has more copies of that card than you and a player who has fewer copies of that card than you

Title: Re: Contest #53: Three is Company
Post by: Gubump on December 02, 2019, 11:36:51 am

Quote from: segura on December 02, 2019, 10:17:39 am

Quote from: Gubump on December 01, 2019, 10:11:29 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/XiGQHcy.png)

Based on my card Delegate (https://i.imgur.com/XrPbCwF.png) (submitted for the Command-type contest). Based on the playtesting results from Delegate, I think it would be safe to say that Emissary works great with 3 or 4 players, but is unbalanced at other player numbers.

Why? Sure, in a 2P games you have less options and the other player can simply play money to make Emissary pointless. But as it stands the card looks extremely strong: even a petty Pearl Diver makes Emissary better than DoubleLab.

It's a lot less likely to hit in 2P games, even if everybody is playing an engine deck. You're probably right about its power, though. I'll change the vanilla bonus.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on December 02, 2019, 11:52:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/hKolmwI.jpg)

Flight of Fancy, Action, $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
The player to your left names a card, then the player to your right names a card. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card without those names. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.

Cheaper Lab with the drawback that it won't always draw your good stuff. I suppose this technically works in two-player, but the 3+ spirit is there  :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on December 03, 2019, 07:50:39 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 28, 2019, 01:48:07 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on November 28, 2019, 01:19:05 pm

Quote from: majiponi on November 28, 2019, 12:57:57 am

Friends
cost $3 - Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player except your friend discards down to 4 cards in hand.
You may pass a card from your hand to your friend.
---
When games using this, the player on the opposite side of the table is your friend. When scoring, add your friend's vp to your vp.

Three broad sets of issues here:
1. Are friends a reflexive property? If A is my friend, am I A's friend? If it is reflexive, then whoever goes earlier in the game has a massive disadvantage. Their score will be the same as someone else with fewer turns and according to tie breaking principles that person going later will win. Or if they have the same number of a turns, it is a tie. The first turn player can never win a game with this card, they can only hope to tie. This card really only works if friendship is non-reflexive. As in A is B's friend, B is C's Friend, C is A's friend.

2. What happens with odd players? How do you define "opposite side of the table." Is it literally opposite side of a table? What if we aren't playing at a table (I normally play on the ground)? What if you are playing online? What if there's a table but everyone is on the same side?

3. As it's written, it depends on what order you score people. If my score gets doubled from my friend, and then my friend calculates their score, then they get the points from my friend's friend AND me.

You can resolve all these problems with something like "the player to your left is your friend, when scoring, add the value of all the victory card's in your friend's deck to your vp." Now this unambiguously works for any number of players, any table arrangement, makes sure that player 1 can still win, resolves the scoring-order ambiguity, works with variable cost victory points (gardens are worth differently in their deck than yours), and also thoroughly addresses the contest requirements. It also incentivizes victory point and landmark scoring since that will not pass off to the player that you are their friend. I might recommend changing from "friend" to something that is more one-way, like "crush" or "idol"

If you do this, the card passing gives you an interesting incentive to pass provinces to your friend. You want their score high, but you don't want their engine strong or they can give those provinces to their friend instead. Ha! I could see this continually happening, with cheaper victory cards being passed around all game. I think this is a really interesting concept, but you'll need to address the three issues I mentioned by modifying card text. Another solution to making reflexive-friendship work (one I don't like as much) is redefining Dominion as a team-based game. Instead of a tie -- you'd have two winners. Of course, this breaks down entirely when you have an odd number of players. You could also use the "value of all the victory card's in your friend's deck" to make reflexivity work, but again, it breaks down with odd number of players.

I think what he meant is that Dominion becomes a 2 vs 2 game when this card is in the game. This is better accomplished by adding the "Team" type, specifying that this card is exclusively meant for 4P games where P1 and P3 play against P2 and P4.

I supposed to use in 4-player games. Yes, in 3-player games it won't work. Better wording exists.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 04, 2019, 09:23:18 am

Tithe
$4 - Action/Attack
+$2
Each other player draws until they have 4 or more cards in hand, then sets a card aside face-down. All players discard their set aside cards, and if any such card cost less than every other one, that player gains a Curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 04, 2019, 09:32:45 am

Quote from: artless on November 29, 2019, 11:19:58 pm

Usurper's Crown
Artifact(*) - 3+ players

At the start of your turn, +1 card, +1 action
---
When you gains a province, you may take Usurper's Crown.
---
At the end of game, if your vp is not higher than the sum of your best two opponent's, you lose.(**)

*This artifact doesn't bind with a kingdom card. It should be shuffled with project / event / landmark (into the randomizer deck or a card-shaped things deck).
**The remaining player with highest VP wins.

This card turns a regular game into a N vs 1 game, while not breaking the game too much.

I like this but you might want to change the bonus to be like... Woodcutter or something instead of an autovillage. I imagine lack of buys is more of a limiting factor when trying to double skunk (http://cribbagecorner.com/taxonomy/term/84) the table.

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 04, 2019, 09:23:18 am

Tithe
$4 - Action/Attack
+$2
Each other player draws until they have 4 or more cards in hand, then sets a card aside face-down. All players discard their set aside cards, and if any such card cost less than all the others, that player gains a Curse.

Does this only curse one person, or if (in a four player game) two people toss Copper, one tosses an estate, do the copper tossers get Cursed?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 04, 2019, 09:47:25 am

In that situation, nobody's card cost less than all the others, so nobody gets cursed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on December 04, 2019, 09:56:03 am

24 hour notice! The deadline for submissions is in 24 hours from now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 04, 2019, 11:31:05 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 04, 2019, 09:47:25 am

In that situation, nobody's card cost less than all the others, so nobody gets cursed.

One last dumb question - "all" as in the sum of all other cards discarded, or "all" as in any other card discarded?
like, if the former, if the following are tossed:
Transmute
Silver
University

then the university player gets cursed, yeah (2P vs 3 + P)?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 04, 2019, 11:50:45 am

All as in each; they're only cursed if it costs less than each other card, considered individually.

The wording's already nasty, I'll see if I can clarify that without making it worse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on December 04, 2019, 12:25:50 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 04, 2019, 11:50:45 am

All as in each; they're only cursed if it costs less than each other card, considered individually.

The wording's already nasty, I'll see if I can clarify that without making it worse.

Does this help?

"Each other player draws until they have 4 cards in hand, then each other player simultaneously discards a card. The player who discarded the card costing the least gains a Curse. (Ties don't count.)"

Honestly, I would make ties lose: as it is, as long as two people discard a Copper this is mostly a weak Militia. That might be worded something like "…Each player who discarded a card costing the least gains a Curse (including ties)."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 04, 2019, 12:56:57 pm

Simultaneously doesn't exist in Dominion. Things happen one at a time, always. Even attacks like Spy are technically supposed to go in turn order, usually irl it doesn't matter and so they do them all at the same time, but here it very much matters. So unfortunately, first setting the cards aside face-down is necessary.

Also, there isn't always a "least," because of Potion and Debt costs. Transmute doesn't cost more or less than Silver, for instance.

As for making ties lose, that's probably too brutal in a 3-player game, especially early on. There's still that element of fear in discarding a Copper because your opponents might be discarding Estates.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on December 04, 2019, 01:37:06 pm

Quote from: forkofnature on November 29, 2019, 10:28:27 pm

To be a bit more constructive, I would suggest having Story cards be worth a static amount of SP, and limit the initial History gamble to something like 3 instead of 6 so that known quantities can more easily insure against the hidden variance. (The hidden variance will remain relevant since it will still be detrimental to excessively focus SP.)

Typically, Interpreter is worth 4SP and Magic Beans is worth 4SP, but they imply more construction than just buying them. It is mostly to give players some recourse to increase their SP (or shortchange a lagging player's SP by ending the game before they're ready) if only one Story card appears in a Kingdom.  I want it to be hard for players to end up in a situation where they definitively have the fewest SP and cannot win, but the game isn't over (unlike VP, where there is usually a chance, however slim, of a comeback).  Without slightly scaling SP, the situation would be much more common due to how often there will be only 1 Story card (Superstitious Village might be too much scaling, I admit.  The whole concept is untested.  I will change Superstitious Village).  Really, if I were to change this function, a basic Story card would be necessary to act counterpoint to Provinces, but that risks rendering Story Points much more similar to Victory Points, which was not my ideal.  I want players to think about Story Points on turn 0 and Victory Points on turn 9, where a 10SP "Epic" card added to the Supply alongside Provinces would make players think about both styles of points at the same time in the game instead of balancing their consideration.

To further elaborate on this History card setup, they were added because ties are friendly.  Due to the fact that 2-way ties for least result in no elimination, 3-way ties with 0SP each would be much more common if players weren't encouraged to buy into the system before the game even begins (mind you, I don't mind if 3-way ties for 0SP do happen, I only want to discourage them without complicating the rules for ties-for-least (ties-for-least eliminating multiple players would need a caveat to not eliminate all players, and further makes it more likely for players to have the definitively least SP as well as making the concept work overall poorly with Landmarks)).

As far as the History card count: You normally start with 3 junk cards.  You would virtually always swap all your Estates with History cards (barring cards that incentivize having or trashing Estates like Shepherd or Sacrifice), so having extras on top of that is what makes it interesting.  Not to mention that your opening tells other players the History cards you could have: If you open $3/$3, you can have at most 4 History cards, where -/$3 has 7 unaccounted cards, and Alms is tortuous.  Damaging your opening for extra SP from History cards may often be a bad idea, but I'd test with a few too many History cards than too few─and even then the first change I would likely make is reducing the SP value of History cards to 3SP.  I want to make holding onto your starting junk more tempting though, and 4SP seemed a reasonable way to do it.

---

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 04, 2019, 12:56:57 pm

Simultaneously doesn't exist in Dominion. Things happen one at a time, always.

Not true. Masquerade occurs "at once," so anything that happens simultaneously should be described that way (Each player discards a card at once)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 04, 2019, 01:37:40 pm

my submission:

Quote

Redistribute - event - $4
The player with the most wealth tokens discards down to 3 cards.
The player with the least wealth tokens gains a card costing up to $5
—
In games using this, each player gains a wealth token whenever they gain a card costing $5 or more.

According to the wording, ties mean no one gets the benefit. If player a had 4 wealth tokens, player b 3, player c 3, Then buying redistribute simply attacks player a and no one gains a card costing 5.

Here’s an event to help you catch up in a 3 or more player game. The reason it doesn’t work so well is that in a 2 player game, it’s a little too strong since the second player can for $4 get a $5 and attack your opponent. But in a 3 or 4 player game, ties on wealth tokens are much more common, which greatly weakens the event.

I’ve been trying to think of a fun “blue shell” card for a while. Here’s the closest I’ve gotten.

You can only purchase it if you have already gained a $5. This is to make a 5/2 opening vs someone’s 4/3 not absolutely horrible. It also means you still have to strategize to get up to $5 and can’t ONLY rely on this event to boost you up. I’ve realized that the three player or more restriction actually elegantly solves this problem!

Open to feedback, of course!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on December 04, 2019, 01:39:38 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 04, 2019, 12:56:57 pm

Simultaneously doesn't exist in Dominion. Things happen one at a time, always. Even attacks like Spy are technically supposed to go in turn order, usually irl it doesn't matter and so they do them all at the same time, but here it very much matters. So unfortunately, first setting the cards aside face-down is necessary.

Also, there isn't always a "least," because of Potion and Debt costs. Transmute doesn't cost more or less than Silver, for instance.

As for making ties lose, that's probably too brutal in a 3-player game, especially early on. There's still that element of fear in discarding a Copper because your opponents might be discarding Estates.

Simultaneously exists if you say it does. That's how LCGs work. Also see Masquerade. If there's no least, nobody gains a Curse: simple. The balance point is fair.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 04, 2019, 01:47:55 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 04, 2019, 01:37:06 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 04, 2019, 12:56:57 pm

Simultaneously doesn't exist in Dominion. Things happen one at a time, always.

Not true. Masquerade occurs "at once," so anything that happens simultaneously should be described that way (Each player discards a card at once)

Not on the online implementation, if you look at the game log - it's still in turn order, it's just broken into discrete steps. First, each player chooses a card to pass, then in turn order, each player passes the card they selected. There's no "instants" or "interrupts" that make it matter in this case though.

However for things like Tunnel when theres less than the number of players discarding Tunnel's worth of Gold left, you're gonna be doing this in turn order anyway and you may want to rephrase to something like:
"Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand set a card aside, face-down. All players then reveal their set aside card. The player whose revealed card costs the least gains a Curse. All players then discard the set aside cards."
This uses the blue dog rule like, six times but it does the appropriate steps without introducing a "true simultaneous" rule.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on December 04, 2019, 01:53:42 pm

Quote from: spineflu on December 04, 2019, 01:47:55 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 04, 2019, 01:37:06 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 04, 2019, 12:56:57 pm

Simultaneously doesn't exist in Dominion. Things happen one at a time, always.

Not true. Masquerade occurs "at once," so anything that happens simultaneously should be described that way (Each player discards a card at once)

Not on the online implementation, if you look at the game log - it's still in turn order, it's just broken into discrete steps. First, each player chooses a card to pass, then in turn order, each player passes the card they selected. There's no "instants" or "interrupts" that make it matter in this case though.

The official FAQ states "At the same time." The online engine might not support simultaneous action, but such a limitation needn't influence the generic rules.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 04, 2019, 02:11:56 pm

Oh, I totally forgot about Masquerade, lol. Although I still think the situations aren't the same, because the Masquerade cards aren't publicly revealed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on December 04, 2019, 06:27:40 pm

Quote from: forkofnature on December 04, 2019, 01:53:42 pm

Quote from: spineflu on December 04, 2019, 01:47:55 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 04, 2019, 01:37:06 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 04, 2019, 12:56:57 pm

Simultaneously doesn't exist in Dominion. Things happen one at a time, always.

Not true. Masquerade occurs "at once," so anything that happens simultaneously should be described that way (Each player discards a card at once)

Not on the online implementation, if you look at the game log - it's still in turn order, it's just broken into discrete steps. First, each player chooses a card to pass, then in turn order, each player passes the card they selected. There's no "instants" or "interrupts" that make it matter in this case though.

The official FAQ states "At the same time." The online engine might not support simultaneous action, but such a limitation needn't influence the generic rules.

This can actually be generalized to "the laws of physics might not support simultaneous action, but such a limitation needn't influence the generic rules".  Two things never really happen at exactly the same time.

MtG doesn't have an "all effects happen in turn order" rule like dominion does, and a very popular card (Liliana of the Veil) causes both players to discard a card, and even though Liliana says to do it simultaneously, players always perform the set-aside face-down to lock it in, then discard procedure because without that it's too difficult to keep one player from gaining unfair information about the other player's discard to inform their own discard.
I think maybe it's possible to do a simultaneous discard on a quantum computer though?  Because maybe you could get the data representing the cards quantum entangled and have them discover their states in disentanglement simultaneously.  Quantum computing is really fascinating.

Something_Smart is correct that if he doesn't specify the set-aside procedure then the turn-order-impact rule from the rules FAQs would take effect and ruin the intended gameplay of the card, even though if it was implanted into MtG or several other games as written it would get the set-aside procedure implicitly.

Masquerade overrides that rule with the Golden Rule: since "at once" is wording that contradicts the rules FAQ in a very overt and targeted way, the text on the card wins.
There's no reason S_S couldn't override the rule using "at once" also, it's immaterial whether the zones involved are public.  Masquerade uses the text because even though Masquerade is functional without it, it's more boring, you keep passing player 1's curse around too much of the time.  Same thing for this card, it's functional without it, but it's more boring, you bid the value of the card you discard rather than guessing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on December 04, 2019, 08:27:27 pm

All good stuff, but how is "at once" meaningfully different from "simultaneously" as an explicit contradiction of the turn-order rule?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on December 04, 2019, 08:31:48 pm

Oh I'm not saying it is, "simultaneously" is fine too.  I'm using them interchangeably.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 05, 2019, 10:37:46 am

By the way, the reason I'm keeping it sequential, even though Masquerade does open up a precedent for doing it simultaneously, is that the right way to play Masquerade irl is obvious. You pass a card, then you pick up the card passed to you. You obviously can't pick up your card before you pass, but you don't have to wait for anyone else-- as soon as you've passed, if there's a card to pick up, you pick it up.

Tithe isn't like that though; everyone has to wait until everyone else is ready, or it doesn't work. So if I tell people to discard "at once" it may imply that they don't need to look at what everyone else is doing, which isn't accurate.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on December 05, 2019, 04:22:33 pm

I'm sorry for being late with this. I though I would have time between work and a dinner invitation, which I didn't, but now I'm here.

I probably won't do as thorough write-ups of the cards as some have done. [added: Thorough or not, actually I wrote more than I thought I would.] It's not as if my views on these cards are more insightful than what others have said or are saying anyway. I am the judge though, so it matters what I think! So here are my comments on the 13 submissions are in the order they were given:

Swap (Event with 7 Artifacts) by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817521#msg817521)

I like the idea of minor startup differences. Sometimes they are not that minor, like if Jade Pendant is the only +Buy in the game, but then there is Swap, which might get used a lot, which can be fun.

This is in top four.

Clown (Action-Attack) by [TP] Inferno (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817533#msg817533)

It's inspired by Jester and is said to scale in multiplayer games like that does. I believe this would work fine for 2-Player as well though (like Jester does, incidentally).

Friends (Action-Attack) by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817556#msg817556)

It's meant only for 4-player games which makes it too restrictive for this challenge.

Unite (Event) by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817616#msg817616)

I like how it reuses the Flag artifact in a way that will work fine both if Flag Bearer is or isn't in the game. (Even though it would need a reprint of Flag anyway in this imagined multi-player expansion.)

Introducing this new concept of Artifacts being between players might become a problem with some (imagined future) card that does something general with players' Artifacts, but there is nothing like that now at least. (If this card stood on its own not reusing the Flag of course it could use an Artifact that affects you and your neighbour.

I like the Event having that low cost but no extra Buy, which can lead to interesting decisions on when to buy it for your single buy.

Pot Stirrer (Action-Duration) by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817625#msg817625)

It would be fun to get the positive effect from it! I think it would need an FAQ to make it clear what being affected by an attack means, though. Are you "affected" by a Swamp Hag when it is played if you don't reveal Moat (or have Lighthouse out or ...) or are you not "affected" by Swamp Hag until you buy a card and get a Curse because of that? Also if there are no Curses left?

I think the first interpretation is the easiest, as when an Attack card is played is when the game "decides" who is immune and not, but I think some players would argue that they were not "affected" by someone playing Pirate Ship or Minion and not choosing the attack option, or someone playing Legionary without revealing Gold, etc.

On the other hand I think that some also would argue that they were not affected by a Young Witch if the revealed a Bane card, even if that's "just" part of following the instructions of the attack they were not immune against.

Story cards (Fragasnap) (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817644#msg817644)

I really like that idea of having a property that may disqualify one player, and the winner is determined normally from the others! That can be really interesting, and is obviously not good for 2-player games, so extends the game in a direction not taken before, as I wanted to see!

That could have been a simple Landmark that disqualifies for example a player who has fewer Silvers than any other player, or who has more Victory cards than any other player, or who has a higher combined cost of all their Action cards than any other player, just to take three examples which I think could be interesting (even though I haven't though that much about them, and the last one may be a bit tedious to count).

The Story card concept looks interesting, but for me it looks a bit too complicated to be worth it, and as forkofnature (who commented on this) I'm also a VP counter player, so this uncertainness doesn't suit me.

Usurper's Crown (Artifact) by Artless (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817650#msg817650)

Here is another option where one player can be disqualified. I would have liked to test this! But I suspect that often it will just stay out of play, because no one dares to take it. Wouldn't getting double the score of other players often be just too hard?

I wonder if it wouldn't be more interesting with a version which you must take when gaining a Province. On some boards I guess it would lead to no one getting Provs, and players going for Duchies early.

Great Wall (Project) by grep (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817711#msg817711)

This looks solid. Personally I'm not that found of players being immune to attacks all the time, since I think attacks make the game more fun. (I would prefer it if playing Champion forced everyone else to discard their Champions, so that there was no eternal immunity even then.)

So it won't be a favourite of mine, but I think it's a good one.

Emissary (Action-Command) by Gubump (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817754#msg817754)

This is a card I really would like to play with a few times to see it in action. Actually it gets better and better in my mind just thinking about playing with it, when I notice how exciting that seems to be.

It might be slightly weak in what I wrote about exploring areas that would be harder to do for other C(SO)s, but I see that this would be weak in a 2-player game, so suitable for this imagined expansion for practical reasons.

This is in top four.

Agora (Landmark) by popsofctown (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817777#msg817777)

I like the idea of it being good to be in the middle! So very multiplayer-y!

I suspect that 2 VP is too little to matter that much, though. When building an engine, each action card you need multiple copies of will open up the possibility for someone to get 2 VP from that pile. That shouldn't be that much of a deterrent to not get as many as you "need" of the card. Compare that with the 2 VP is what you get for each card with Obelisk.

Flight of Fancy (Action) by forkofnature (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg817859#msg817859)

The 3+ spirit is there as forkofnature writes, but I don't think it adds anything significant that two different players are naming the cards, instead of the same player naming both of them. So not enough multi-player-specific for this challenge for me.

Tithe (Action-Attack) by Something_Smart (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg818001#msg818001)

I like the general idea of an attack where it's up to the other players to somehow determine who will get the worst of it. That is also really a multi-player idea!

But since this is an attack, what happens if one or several players are immune against the attack, so there is only one player who discards a card? Does the card cost less to all the cards in the empty set? I suspect most of us say yes, at least if we are math/computer people, but I think it ought to be spelled out.

This is in top four.

Redistribute (Event) by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg818035#msg818035)

Sometimes catching up effects in games can be irritating in that they prolong games. But since this leads to someone gaining a good card I don't think it will. I wonder how often it would change how you build your deck, using more $3 and $4 cards. I think it can lead to interesting decisions!

This is in top four.

---

So which one is my favourite? I'll go with the last one: Redistribute (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg818035#msg818035)
Congratulations, anordinaryman! You get to do challenge #54.

Title: Weekly Design Contest -- Challenge 54: The Sweetest Sound
Post by: anordinaryman on December 05, 2019, 11:38:49 pm

Thank you, pst!!!

Challenge 54 - The Sweetest Sound
"A person's name is to him or her the sweetest and most important sound in any language." – Dale Carnegie

Your challenge is to create a card or card-shaped thing that refers to copies of itself by name. Examples of cards that do this are Rats, Treasure Map, Magpie, Cultist, Port.  Edit: spineflu reminded me that Gladiator/Fortune also qualifies since Gladiator refers to itself.

Cards that do not count are Death Cart and Raze (they both use the wording "this." If your card wants to refer to itself like those do, precedence in Dominion is to use the word "this," and so those entries won't count. Knights do not count, as they refer to a type, not the name of a card. You can use the self name in negation-- Dumb Chapel: "Trash a card. If it's not a Dumb Chapel, gain a card from the trash." Obviously this is a very bad card design. Just to show an example.

I will judge this card based on how elegantly the card needs to refer to copies of itself. Command cards more effectively use a type. It would not be an elegant solution for Captain to say "Play a non-Captain action" since using the Command type solves the problem better. Ideal cards will be cards that have a convincing reason to refer to copies of itself.

I will also judge this based on balance, fun-ness, and how aligned it is with Dominion precedents (no politics, etc).

If you submit or update an entry, please make it the first non-quoted thing in your post so it's easier for me to see! If you want to make your submission and respond to people in one post, make the submission first. Also it would help if you included image and raw text. Of course, none of this is required, it just makes my job easier.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on December 06, 2019, 12:37:57 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fm82Aix.png)

Quote

Refugee Camp, Action, $2
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Discard a card.
-
In games using this, when you buy a more expensive card, you may gain a Refugee Camp.

Simple, but elegance was stated as a judging factor…

Neat challenge!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #54: names itself
Post by: Aquila on December 06, 2019, 08:07:17 am

Great, let's see if we can fix up Raven:
(https://i.imgur.com/KwW37u6.jpg)

Quote

Raven - Action Reserve, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard a Treasure to gain a Raven. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you gain a Province, you may discard this from your Tavern mat. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.

I've changed the way of gaining another Raven to discarding a Treasure, and lowered the cost to $3. So it's initially a very low opportunity cost but it gradually builds up over time if you increase your flock. Possibly it's too low and everyone rushes to empty the ravens out first, but the provinces are delayed in the process.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 06, 2019, 09:28:55 am

Would a split pile that refers to the other entry count? (i'm thinking Sauna/Avanto)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 06, 2019, 10:29:35 am

Quote from: spineflu on December 06, 2019, 09:28:55 am

Would a split pile that refers to the other entry count? (i'm thinking Sauna/Avanto)

No. But if ONE of the cards in the split pile named itself it would count. Like  Bad avanto: you may play a bad sauna from your hand. Bad sauna: you may play a bad avanto from your hand if you do gain a bad sauna. Bad sauna refers to itself so it qualifies.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 06, 2019, 10:37:29 am

I made a Cartographer/Navigator variant.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5dea768ada27af3bcdc6afa8/c12c71c05c945edd02361dff5c6156a4/image.png)

Quote

Hoist • $5 • Action - Reaction
+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put any revealed Hoists into your hand. You may discard any of the other revealed cards, then put the rest back in any order.
-
At the start of Clean-up, you may reveal and discard this from your hand for +1 Card when drawing a new hand.

It has a built in dilemma of "when is the topdeck grooming good enough" that gives you +Cards for your next turn.

---

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 06, 2019, 10:29:35 am

Quote from: spineflu on December 06, 2019, 09:28:55 am

Would a split pile that refers to the other entry count? (i'm thinking Sauna/Avanto)

No. But if ONE of the cards in the split pile named itself it would count. Like  Bad avanto: you may play a bad sauna from your hand. Bad sauna: you may play a bad avanto from your hand if you do gain a bad sauna. Bad sauna refers to itself so it qualifies.

So Gladiator/Fortune qualifies. Nice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 06, 2019, 12:26:36 pm

Quote from: forkofnature on December 06, 2019, 12:37:57 am

Quote

Refugee Camp, Action, $2
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Discard a card.
-
In games using this, when you gain a more expensive card, you may gain a Refugee Camp.

Interesting concept, but as worded it might be broken with Trader?

Buy Silver, gain Refugee Camp, reveal Trader to gain Silver instead, gain Refugee Camp, reveal Trader to gain Silver instead, etc.

You might need to change "when you gain a more expensive card" to "when you buy a more expensive card." Or just rephrase the wording somehow to make this not allowed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on December 06, 2019, 12:33:47 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 06, 2019, 12:26:36 pm

Quote from: forkofnature on December 06, 2019, 12:37:57 am

Quote

Refugee Camp, Action, $2
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Discard a card.
-
In games using this, when you gain a more expensive card, you may gain a Refugee Camp.

Interesting concept, but as worded it might be broken with Trader?

Buy Silver, gain Refugee Camp, reveal Trader to gain Silver instead, gain Refugee Camp, reveal Trader to gain Silver instead, etc.

You might need to change "when you gain a more expensive card" to "when you buy a more expensive card." Or just rephrase the wording somehow to make this not allowed.

Ooh, nice catch. As much as my Johnnie sensibilities love the idea of emptying the Silvers on T3, I'll switch it to when you buy  ;)

---

Quote from: Aquila on December 06, 2019, 08:07:17 am

Great, let's see if we can fix up Raven:
(https://i.imgur.com/KwW37u6.jpg)

Quote

Raven - Action Reserve, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard a Treasure to gain a Raven. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you gain a Province, you may discard this from your Tavern mat. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.

I've changed the way of gaining another Raven to discarding a Treasure, and lowered the cost to $3. So it's initially a very low opportunity cost but it gradually builds up over time if you increase your flock. Possibly it's too low and everyone rushes to empty the ravens out first, but the provinces are delayed in the process.

This is cool. Rushing Ravens puts you way behind anybody building an actual deck, but then you can slam the opponent with like 8 curses out of nowhere. This probably isn't worth it if any normal Curser is on the board, but I like it!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on December 06, 2019, 01:53:11 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/h5RcADY.png)

Quote

Rabbit - $3 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
If you have an even number of Rabbits in play, +$1 and gain a Rabbit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 06, 2019, 03:22:08 pm

Loner
Action - $4
+2 Cards
+1 Action
This turn, at the start of Clean-up, if you have exactly one Loner in play, gain a Loner. Otherwise, return all Loners in play to the supply.

Edit: Changed wording to avoid any situation where you both return and gain Loners on the same turn. You can still gain many Loners by playing them with Command cards, Procession, TR, Necromancer, etc. as long as you have exactly one in play at the start of Clean Up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on December 06, 2019, 05:22:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/vYrpREs.jpg)

Quote

Censure
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +1 Action. The player to your left may reveal a Censure or Victory card from their hand. If they don't, +1 Card and then discard a card.

HISTORY
Previously only blocked with a revealed Censure, then a revealed Censure or Province.  I decided something to hold it down early and late made more sense.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on December 06, 2019, 05:34:15 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 06, 2019, 05:22:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/HLkoIZD.jpg)

Quote

Censure
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +1 Action. The player to your left may reveal a Censure from their hand. If they don't, +1 Card and then discard a card.

I wouldn't make this a cantrip. Buying a handful of these doesn't affect your deck all that much so what's likely to end up happening is everybody wastes a few turns buying these to prevent their opponents getting the full effect and the game state goes nowhere. If this were terminal, it would be a more interesting decision whether or not to clog your own deck to hurt your opponent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on December 06, 2019, 05:56:49 pm

I'm skeptical that the optimal play will simply be Censure>0-4$ cards until the stack is empty since a sifter-lab is going to synergize with a dense nugget of money. I think you squeeze a terminal silver or silver in there, probably.

I will point out though that this is a 3$ version of 4$ "+2 Cards +1 Action Discard a card" which reportedly flunked beta testing according to DXV's secret history.  Censure's weakness is that people might buy Censure, which is a self-referential weakness that reinforces the idea that it will be very strong and hard to skip, it can't be any easier to skip than the flunked beta card. 
Since just 1 copy of Censure in the player-to-the-left's hand can neutralize numerous Censures, maybe Censure doesn't consume as many purchases as the flunked card, but it's still really brushing elbows with the flunked card. 



Hoist is really sweet

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on December 06, 2019, 07:50:45 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on December 06, 2019, 05:56:49 pm

I'm skeptical that the optimal play will simply be Censure>0-4$ cards until the stack is empty since a sifter-lab is going to synergize with a dense nugget of money. I think you squeeze a terminal silver or silver in there, probably.

I will point out though that this is a 3$ version of 4$ "+2 Cards +1 Action Discard a card" which reportedly flunked beta testing according to DXV's secret history.  Censure's weakness is that people might buy Censure, which is a self-referential weakness that reinforces the idea that it will be very strong and hard to skip, it can't be any hard to skip than the flunked beta card. 
Since just 1 copy of Censure in the player-to-the-left's hand can neutralize numerous Censures, maybe Censure doesn't consume as many purchases as the flunked card, but it's still really brushing elbows with the flunked card. 

I did intend Censure to be a variation of the $4.5 cost small-Forum.  Because Censure doesn't increase your handsize, you need stuff to actually sift to, so Censure>0-4$ cards is a little silly to suggest.  Blocking it being wholly reliant upon Censure might make it too much of a degenerate gamble though.  What other cards do you suppose could non-trivially block it?  Censure, Silver, or Gold?  Century or a Victory card?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on December 06, 2019, 08:38:51 pm

The card's so close to being balanced already that even "Province" might be enough to balance it.  I think 4$ sifterlab is barely too strong.  If Province isn't enough I think Gold almost certainly is.  Gold works better than Silver because it's at a different price point, I think.

Another angle to go would be if it was an Heirloom card that came with an Heirloom that can block Censures  (and possibly that could trash itself).  I'm not sure exactly how you design the Heirloom but I think there could be an interesting angle there.  The ability to trash the heirloom and then your opponent picking up some Censures and then you go hey not so fast, I can't get the heirloom back but I'll decide how many censures to buy to keep you in check, that could be cool, and I think there'd be plenty of games where you don't buy the first Censure if the Heirloom is designed right.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on December 07, 2019, 02:38:35 am

Storeroom
$2
Action
+1 Action
Gain a Storeroom. Do this twice: +2 Cards, then discard 2 cards.

Tried to make it simple. Basically, it offers some nice sifting search space, but do you really want more copies of it? Worse comes to worst though, it can sift through other copies of itself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on December 07, 2019, 09:21:01 am

Jedi
cost $3 - Action - Attack
+1 Action
Each other player reveals their hand.
Choose one: Draw until you have 6 cards in hand; or each other player discards their hand and draws 5 cards.
---
When another player plays a Jedi, you may reveal this from your hand, to be unaffected by that Jedi.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 07, 2019, 09:53:41 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on December 07, 2019, 02:38:35 am

Storeroom
$2
Action
+1 Action
Gain a Storeroom. Do this twice: +2 Cards, then discard 2 cards.

Tried to make it simple. Basically, it offers some nice sifting search space, but do you really want more copies of it? Worse comes to worst though, it can sift through other copies of itself.

Storeroom is already an official card jsyk, and also this looks a lot like Dungeon (except for the self-gaining).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 08, 2019, 07:05:37 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on December 07, 2019, 02:38:35 am

Storeroom
$2
Action
+1 Action
Gain a Storeroom. Do this twice: +2 Cards, then discard 2 cards.

Tried to make it simple. Basically, it offers some nice sifting search space, but do you really want more copies of it? Worse comes to worst though, it can sift through other copies of itself.

I don't like this. The play effect looks like a slightly stronger version of Warehouse/Dungeon (although Dungeon's second sifting happening at the srat of the turn is neat for consistency so it is arguable which is better) but the self-spamming is simply nasty. You can easily end up with all Storerooms if the other players forsake it and all that the sifting will achieve is reduce your handsize.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on December 09, 2019, 12:11:39 pm

C'mon, Storeroom is hilarious, it's close to Rats.  The numbers might not be right but conceptually look how similar it is to DXV's favorite card and his fans' least favorite card

I am trying to count out in my head how often draw 2 discard 2 twice is different from draw four, discard four.  It seems like you can only discard something different on the first 2 if you didn't know there was something even badder you'd be drawing later that you'd need to discard... but you're going to have to discard 2 more at that point... therefore it's the same?  Except when you do stuff like "I'm going to discard all but one Village" and the obscured information matters, but it seems too niche to be worth the wording nuance.

I'm skeptical this is actually brokenly bad rather than brokenly good.  If you play one of these you look at 8 other cards and discard half of them.  So you'll be stuck doing no sifting besides discarding Storerooms themselves if half your deck (a little over half, actually, the card you just played is a storeroom) is storerooms.  You'll very rarely be cornered into playing two of these per turn, so even if you play one every turn and buy a Silver/Gold every turn your deck will stay half Silver/Gold, +starting cards.

It's probably optimal to delay the purchase until your deck is more heterogenous, the other sifters are mostly like that too.

After this is renamed to "Rat Cellar" it probably gets the stacksize of forty along with whatever other changes it needs.

I think conceptually it's a good card, probably both in gameplay and sadistic sense of humor, but bare baseline minimum sadistic sense of humor.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 09, 2019, 01:40:24 pm

I think Rats just does the sadistic part better. (Fwiw I hate Rats but my brother loves them. He's far more of an evil person than me so probably not a coincidence.)

I think you're right about draw 2, discard 2, draw 2, discard 2 being only negligibly different from draw 4, discard 4. That makes it a cheaper, better Warehouse that you can't get in moderation. I suspect it's very strong with nonterminal handsize-increasers such as Cursed Village, Diplomat, Lab, and Seer. Tunnel is bound to be nuts, Faithful Hound is also probably nuts. Pathfinding turns it into a jacked-up Forum.

In the absence of these cards, it's probably only useful in slog games where you have tons of junk (I would certainly pick one up in a Workshop/Gardens game for instance).

And I don't think it differentiates itself from the other sifters, especially Warehouse and Dungeon, because the self-gaining is a pain in the ass and only limits the situations where you want it (and the difference between $2 and $3 is so small it's not like the cheaper price really matters usually).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on December 09, 2019, 02:01:47 pm

CHALLENGE #54 - THE SWEETEST SOUND SUBMISSION

(https://i.imgur.com/fxGCj32.jpg)

Essentially an Action Silver that can stack and play off of each other to give a village effect. Playing a Bivouac with a Bivouac doesn't use an Action so you end up with an extra one. This also can top deck itself so lining them up will eventually happen (no luck factor there).

Sounds a bit strong, but the forced topdecking might hurt more than it helps. Having 2 Bivouacs will essentially mean you start each turn with +$4 and +2 Actions, but at the cost of drawing 2 less cards. I can't tell if this is balanced. Thoughts are always appreciated!

Quote from: Kudasai on December 09, 2019, 02:01:47 pm

Bivouac - Action - $5
+1 Action
+$2
You may play a Bivouac from your hand. At the start of Clean-up this turn, if you have 3 or more Bivouacs in play, discard them all. Otherwise, put them all onto your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on December 09, 2019, 02:50:33 pm

I think the topdecking helps, since you want a village at the start of your turn to go off.

I actually think it is weak. Compare to festival, which is like a always-village bivuoac but with an additional +buy, and isn't too strong of a $5. The topdecking is a small benefit, but not worth the fact that these are only half-villages and lose the +buy.

Quote from: Kudasai on December 09, 2019, 02:01:47 pm

CHALLENGE #54 - THE SWEETEST SOUND SUBMISSION

Essentially an Action Silver that can stack and play off of each other to give a village effect. Playing a Bivouac with a Bivouac doesn't use an Action so you end up with an extra one. This also can top deck itself so lining them up will eventually happen (no luck factor there).

Sounds a bit strong, but the forced topdecking might hurt more than it helps. Having 2 Bivouacs will essentially mean you start each turn with +$4 and +2 Actions, but at the cost of drawing 2 less cards. I can't tell if this is balanced. Thoughts are always appreciated!

Quote from: Kudasai on December 09, 2019, 02:01:47 pm

Bivouac - Action - $5
+1 Action
+$2
You may play a Bivouac from your hand. At the start of Clean-up this turn, if you have 3 or more Bivouacs in play, discard them all. Otherwise, put them all onto your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 09, 2019, 04:34:05 pm

I would recommend you get rid of the "discard them all" clause (and just say "if you have no more than 2 Bivouacs in play, put them all onto your deck"); I don't think it affects functionality except that it creates weird edge cases like preventing you from topdecking it with Scheme and allowing Walled Village to be topdecked.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 10, 2019, 10:11:19 am

Quote from: popsofctown on December 09, 2019, 12:11:39 pm

I'm skeptical this is actually brokenly bad rather than brokenly good.

Storeroom, without the Rat-style propagation is very similar to Dungeon. We can debate all day long about whether the start of the turn consistency that Dungeon provides is weaker or stronger than the non-Duration, do-it-all-now aspect of Storeroom. But it is obvious that they are similar in strength.

But it seems crystal clear to me that the price difference of $1 cannot even nearly compensate for the self-junking of Storeroom.

I also don't see the comparison with Rats. Sure, they both propagate but Rats has a $5 (4-5 is far huger than 2-3) play effect and an on-trash effect that you ALWAYS (there is no way Rats is viable without other trashers) use whereas Storeroom provides no bonus when you get rid of them (and is also less suited for trash for benefit due to the low price).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on December 10, 2019, 12:29:37 pm

It's not self junking, the card you're forced to gain is the kind of card you'd willingly buy when six provinces are remaining in a Dominion game.  +1 card, +1 Action, trash from hand isn't a card you would buy at that phase of the game, that's a card you'd only buy early on, which is what gives the Rats too long to propogate.

The coin cost doesn't matter, I'd buy this at 4$ in some games around when six Provinces are remaining, the way I'd excitedly buy a "Port but the villages are warehouse" for 4$. If you draw two copies of them together the quality is exactly the same as Warehouse.
3 is ok, there is no direct existing dominion analogue but I'd guess it's similar to the average power of Cellar.
If you draw 4 or 5 you bought the card too early. 

"Brokenly good" was definitely hyperbole, I was just excited.  Sometimes Warehouse gets skipped and therefore often this would get skipped, just like Port doesn't have a huge impact on whether you decide it's an engine game or not.  But I think the card is strong in an exciting way.  Hitting 10$ and buying a "Storeroom" and a Province seems really strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 10, 2019, 12:56:29 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on December 10, 2019, 12:29:37 pm

It's not self junking

Tell that to the player who has 10 or 20 Storerooms in his deck because he opened with it.

Quote

the kind of card you'd willingly buy when six provinces are remaining in a Dominion game.

I agree, the card is only a good purchase around the time everybody starts to green.
Which makes it narrower and weaker than Cellar, Warehouse and Dungeon, i.e. sifters that are decent during all phases of the game.

Quote

If you draw two copies of them together the quality is exactly the same as Warehouse.

No, not at all. Warehouse has less sifting depth. 2 Storerooms have more sifting depth but reduce the handsize by one. Being a Lab or being an anti-Lab kinda matters. A lot. For example if Rats did not have the on-trash Lab effect it would suck.

Quote

Sometimes Warehouse gets skipped and therefore often this would get skipped

Again, Warehouse is flexible and good during all phases of the game whereas Storeroom can only be gained late in the game to keep the self-junking at bay.
I like narrow cards but not when they play strategically identically in all Kingdoms.

Quote

just like Port doesn't have a huge impact on whether you decide it's an engine game or not.

Huh? Port is one of the strongest villages so its presence or absence does very much determine whether a Kingdom enables an engine or not.

Quote

But I think the card is strong in an exciting way.  Hitting 10$ and buying a "Storeroom" and a Province seems really strong.

This is simply not the case; the card is weak if it can be only used in the endgame. Warehouse and Dungeon are often good openers as cycling accelerates your build-up and during the middlegame you increase the matching chances of your engine pieces.
I agree that cycling through green during the endgame is an important job of sifters but your notion that it is the main or only job is dubious.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on December 10, 2019, 04:38:34 pm

Quote from: segura on December 10, 2019, 12:56:29 pm

Quote

If you draw two copies of them together the quality is exactly the same as Warehouse.

No, not at all. Warehouse has less sifting depth. 2 Storerooms have more sifting depth but reduce the handsize by one. Being a Lab or being an anti-Lab kinda matters. A lot. For example if Rats did not have the on-trash Lab effect it would suck.

You surprise me here.
You're shuffling your deck a hand of cards for the Fleet turn of a game of Dominion.  I offer to gain either two Warehouses on top of the deck before you draw your five, or one Dungeon.  You pick the Dungeon?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 10, 2019, 05:28:17 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on December 10, 2019, 04:38:34 pm

Quote from: segura on December 10, 2019, 12:56:29 pm

Quote

If you draw two copies of them together the quality is exactly the same as Warehouse.

No, not at all. Warehouse has less sifting depth. 2 Storerooms have more sifting depth but reduce the handsize by one. Being a Lab or being an anti-Lab kinda matters. A lot. For example if Rats did not have the on-trash Lab effect it would suck.

You surprise me here.
You're shuffling your deck a hand of cards for the Fleet turn of a game of Dominion.  I offer to gain either two Warehouses on top of the deck before you draw your five, or one Dungeon.  You pick the Dungeon?

Doesn't matter. Two Storerooms are simply not the same as one Warehouse. That's a fact, not an opinion.
Once we agree that the world is not flat we can talk about which is preferable in which situation (but no, I can already tell you that a larger sifting depth is not always better than the cost of a larger handsize reduction; Dominion ain't that trivial/simple/Kingdom-insensitive).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on December 11, 2019, 03:24:36 am

You answered incorrectly, it is correct to put the two Warehouses on top 100% of the time in the situation I explained (occasionally it is a tie if your deck is all silver, but in a deck that is some generic heterogenous mix of Silver, Gold, and Copper, it is not a tie, and in a deck that is a generic heterogenous mix of a Smithy Village (woodcutter?) Engine it is not a tie.)

This is kingdom insensitive, it requires a strange puzzle solution for topdecking the Dungeon to be correct, something as forced as Menagerie being part of your deck's design, or being trashed down to seven cards, or wanting Courtier to hit Dungeon before you play it.

You are failing to consider that you are being offered the opportunity to discard one Warehouse to the other and accept a 4 card hand, the same four card hand that is your only choice when you choose the Dungeon.  However, if after drawing three but before discarding, you realize that you cannot hit the pricepoint you desire unless you "go big or go home" and hit some golds, you have the option to go after that three card hand.  But the four card hand is always available to you.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 11, 2019, 07:22:21 am

Quote from: popsofctown on December 11, 2019, 03:24:36 am

You answered incorrectly

Nope. I did not answer your question at all because it is so particular that it is irrelevant (and your "2 Storerooms = 1 Warehouse" compairson is like saying that 2 Pearl Divers in hand > 1 Laboratory in hand so hurrah, Pearl Diver is brilliant; you cannot make such nonsensical comparisons in which the very liability of a card, sifting at the cost of handsize reduction is not only ignored but inverted) .
Of course Storeroom is fine for the endgame. You don't have to convince me of that, it is the only point we agree on.

If you ignore that a card is a bad opening and middlegame purchase and only rave about how brilliant it is for discarding green during the last turn of the game, well, such a kind of narrow analysis naturally leads to a totally wrong evaluation.

Back to Storeroom in general: I don't think that a self-junking sifter is per se a bad idea. But it needs something extra, like Rats not just being a cantrip trasher but also a Lab on-trash (and an interesting price point for TfB) to make the entire idea viable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 11, 2019, 08:28:32 am

As a note, in order to win the contest, a card needs to be designed such that players could actually use it when playing the game. As it is right now, the fan submission "storeroom" by [TP] Inferno conflicts with the Dark Ages storeroom, so it should have a name change. To allow people to play with all previous and winners, I'd rather you not use names of previous winners or runner-ups. To that end, I'd like to remind @Grep know that "Rabbits" was the name of a previous runner up in contest 45 (plural is hardly a difference), so I hope you feel comforting using a new name.

The back and forth between pops and segura is feeling slightly little more combative than helpful. Of course this has absolutely no bearing on my judging, I just wanted to give a moment of reflection of whether each of you think the conversation is worth continuing in this thread. Of course, totally your choice!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 11, 2019, 08:35:46 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 11, 2019, 08:28:32 am

As a note, in order to win the contest, a card needs to be designed such that players could actually use it when playing the game. As it is right now, the fan submission "storeroom" by [TP] Inferno conflicts with the Dark Ages storeroom, so it should have a name change. To allow people to play with all previous and winners, I'd rather you not use names of previous winners or runner-ups. To that end, I'd like to remind @Grep know that "Rabbits" was the name of a previous runner up in contest 45 (plural is hardly a difference), so I hope you feel comforting using a new name.

The back and forth between pops and segura is feeling slightly little more combative than helpful. Of course this has absolutely no bearing on my judging, I just wanted to give a moment of reflection of whether each of you think the conversation is worth continuing in this thread. Of course, totally your choice!

Sorry, I did not want to derail the thread. I hope that [TP] Inferno can nonetheless use something from this discussion about the pros and cons of his card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 11, 2019, 08:57:40 am

@anordinaryman is that the 24 hour warning?

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 11, 2019, 08:28:32 am

To allow people to play with all previous and winners, I'd rather you not use names of previous winners or runner-ups. To that end, I'd like to remind @Grep know that "Rabbits" was the name of a previous runner up in contest 45 (plural is hardly a difference), so I hope you feel comforting using a new name.

This is good praxis but also we've had two different Cozeners win (challenges 23 + 52), Rabbits was a pretty well known fan card in Kru5h's card ideas prior to contest 45, Drawbridge runner upped in #30 (Kudasai) + #37 (NoMoreFun), etc; idk how enforceable this'd be.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on December 11, 2019, 11:15:26 am

Quote from: spineflu on December 11, 2019, 08:57:40 am

@anordinaryman is that the 24 hour warning?

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 11, 2019, 08:28:32 am

To allow people to play with all previous and winners, I'd rather you not use names of previous winners or runner-ups. To that end, I'd like to remind @Grep know that "Rabbits" was the name of a previous runner up in contest 45 (plural is hardly a difference), so I hope you feel comforting using a new name.

This is good praxis but also we've had two different Cozeners win (challenges 23 + 52) and Rabbits was a pretty well known fan card in Kru5h's card ideas prior to contest 45 so idk how enforceable this'd be.

I mean, it's enforceable at least this time around inasmuch as the judging criteria are up to the judge, but I agree it's a little bit silly as a rule rather than a guideline.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 11, 2019, 12:56:24 pm

Totally unenforceable since the judges change, for sure! We can’t consider outside fan expansions because we can’t know all of them. This thread being as internally consistent as possible is a nice ideal to strive for. sure, Cozener is an exception to that rule, but we’ve done a good job avoiding duplicate names, and I believe we should try to continue doing so.

According to my records this is not quite 24 Hours. I’ll make a separate post for that when it hits.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pst on December 11, 2019, 02:12:58 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 11, 2019, 12:56:24 pm

Cozener is an exception to that rule, but we’ve done a good job avoiding duplicate names, and I believe we should try to continue doing so.

Oops! When I made that second Cozener I didn't know about the previous one. I had some other idea I didn't like for some reason and was looking in synonym lexicons to find a name. Would absolutely have changed it if someone had mentioned this!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 11, 2019, 03:21:53 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Kvze6fD.png)

Quote

Millstone
$4 - Treasure
$1
Choose one: return this to the Supply for +$2, or gain a Millstone.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on December 11, 2019, 05:59:51 pm

I don't feel like I'm the reason the discussion has become combative, but that is subjective, in any case it's a public forum so anyone can determine if I'm at fault or not.  I hope not. 
I give segura the last word on the topic of the card(s).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on December 11, 2019, 06:05:19 pm

Islet
6$ Action - Victory
You may set an Islet from your hand aside on your Island mat.  If you do, set this aside on your Island mat.
--
Worth 4 VP

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 11, 2019, 11:11:36 pm

24 hour warning post!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on December 12, 2019, 09:47:40 am

(https://i.imgur.com/leEa85t.png)

Quote

Cats
$4 Action
+2 Cards
Choose one: Gain a Cats; or +1 Action and return this to the Supply.

Hopefully the name isn't too similar to Rats and Bats.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 12, 2019, 10:07:04 am

"Cats" has some much needed thematic synergy with "Villain"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 12, 2019, 10:23:21 am

Oh god my title is Scout now, what kind of cruel prank is this.

Gazbag I gotta ask, did you come up with Cats before or after reading my Millstone card? I'm sure it plays differently (Cats is to Lab as Millstone is to Gold), but the structural similarity is there :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on December 12, 2019, 11:38:29 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 12, 2019, 10:23:21 am

Oh god my title is Scout now, what kind of cruel prank is this.

Gazbag I gotta ask, did you come up with Cats before or after reading my Millstone card? I'm sure it plays differently (Cats is to Lab as Millstone is to Gold), but the structural similarity is there :P

Ah shoot, I checked to make sure nobody did a similar thing but I must have glossed over Millstone because it's a Treasure. I can retire Cats from the contest if you want, it was more of a tongue-in-cheek thing anyway with the name.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 12, 2019, 11:55:23 am

Haha, no it's fine, I was just curious if we both came up with the same idea independently. Like I said although they use a similar mechanic they're still quite different.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on December 12, 2019, 01:13:32 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on December 12, 2019, 09:47:40 am

(https://i.imgur.com/leEa85t.png)

Quote

Cats
$4 Action
+2 Cards
Choose one: Gain a Cats; or +1 Action and return this to the Supply.

Hopefully the name isn't too similar to Rats and Bats.

Huh. I wonder how this compares to Experiment. I like that you can choose whether to earn or spend a Cat after you see what you draw.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 12, 2019, 01:42:17 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on December 12, 2019, 09:47:40 am

Hopefully the name isn't too similar to Rats and Bats.

Feeling a strong urge to make a Hats submission.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 12, 2019, 02:22:50 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 11, 2019, 03:21:53 pm

Millstone
$4 - Treasure
$1
Choose one: return this to the Supply for +$2, or gain a Millstone.

This looks like a classic. At the first glance it looks like a strong opener as it makes spiking to $5 (or $6 on some boards) likely but on the second glance it is not better than Feast for that job and Feast was never crazy.
Also, assuming a to and fro between the gain and the liquidating option (which isn't totally realistic, you will liquidiate more often than gain), this is on average just a Silver.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on December 12, 2019, 03:32:32 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 12, 2019, 11:55:23 am

Haha, no it's fine, I was just curious if we both came up with the same idea independently. Like I said although they use a similar mechanic they're still quite different.

Yeah it was from trying to make a self gaining card that wouldn't auto empty its pile like Magpie does. I think it's a compelling mechanic so I'm not surprised someone else came up with it!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on December 12, 2019, 03:49:55 pm

Quote

Bicycle
$5 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Bicycle. Put 3 of the revealed non-Bicycle cards into your hand, and discard the rest.

I think it might be too strong without the "non-Bicycle" clause, although I would like to remove it if possible. Essentially, it is a smithy+ that gets worse the more you have.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 12, 2019, 04:28:25 pm

Quote from: mad4math on December 12, 2019, 03:49:55 pm

Quote

Bicycle
$5 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Bicycle. Put 3 of the revealed non-Bicycle cards into your hand, and discard the rest.

I think it might be too strong without the "non-Bicycle" clause, although I would like to remove it if possible. Essentially, it is a smithy+ that gets worse the more you have.

You may want to have this do the Experiment thing where you get two so that buying one of these isn't "pick the best three cards in your deck; put them in your hand".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 12, 2019, 04:33:35 pm

Quote from: mad4math on December 12, 2019, 03:49:55 pm

Quote

Bicycle
$5 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Bicycle. Put 3 of the revealed non-Bicycle cards into your hand, and discard the rest.

I think it might be too strong without the "non-Bicycle" clause, although I would like to remove it if possible. Essentially, it is a smithy+ that gets worse the more you have.

Bicycle/Tunnel has got to be broken. Buy a few Bicycles (and add a few more later on), buy as many Tunnels as you can manage, pick up Provinces easily with all the gold.

Prince/Inheritance with cost reduction is also nuts, as is +1 Action token and Scheme.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 12, 2019, 04:35:10 pm

Quote from: mad4math on December 12, 2019, 03:49:55 pm

Quote

Bicycle
$5 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Bicycle. Put 3 of the revealed non-Bicycle cards into your hand, and discard the rest.

I think it might be too strong without the "non-Bicycle" clause, although I would like to remove it if possible. Essentially, it is a smithy+ that gets worse the more you have.

At first this looks crazy: 3 out of X? Wow!
But at worst this is dead and draws nothing and for a functioning draw engine, it kinda sucks that your Smithy cannot draw other Smithies, such that you have to rely on your villages to draw into them.

That's why I think that this is only suited for money decks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on December 13, 2019, 12:01:46 am

House
$4 Action
The player to your left names their favorite card. If they name House, they win the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 13, 2019, 10:57:59 am

Quote from: pubby on December 13, 2019, 12:01:46 am

House
$4 Action
The player to your left names their favorite card. If they name House, they win the game.

bold move to design a card to use exclusively with Ambassador + Masquerade

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on December 13, 2019, 10:59:04 am

Fertile Village (Action, $4)
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may discard an Action, to gain another Fertile VIllage.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 13, 2019, 04:07:43 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 05, 2019, 11:38:49 pm

Challenge 54 - The Sweetest Sound
"A person's name is to him or her the sweetest and most important sound in any language." – Dale Carnegie

Your challenge is to create a card or card-shaped thing that refers to copies of itself by name.

I thought there were some really wonderful submissions this time. Broadly people went two directions -- cards that work better with more copies of themselves, and cards that work worse with more copies of themselves. There was a lot of fun play with how or when to gain, and also when the copies go away. Overall, I think that of the contests I've judged, these were some of the highest quality submissions over all. Very nice, simple, focused cards!

Reviews of the cards

Refugee Camp by forkofnature

Quote

Refugee Camp, Action, $2
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Discard a card.
-
In games using this, when you buy a more expensive card, you may gain a Refugee Camp.

This is sort of like the reverse Border Village! Neat! Don't be fooled, this is much more powerful than necropolis. The main draw back of villages that decrease your hand-size is that you lose a change to draw your drawing cards. Refugee camp at the least sifts, so it gives you a second chance that the card you need is on the top of your deck.
I think this card only costs 2 because it cant cost 3. Strength-wise it is priced closer to what it should be at $3 -- except for the fact that no one ever buys this card, they buy a $3 or more card, and a Refugee camp comes along! So the price is actually perfect, since you end up having to pay $3 or more for it. Nice work!
Normally, the interesting decision about villages is when to sacrifice a buy for them. Beginners buy them too early and too often. But not using your buys on them can end up losing the game if the split goes 3-7 the other way in a strong-engine game. Refugee Camp makes a different decision, it's when you gain them. And you don't have to lose a buy on it, so it's less of a tactical decision. Plus, you don't have to slow down to gain them back and not lose the split too badly. I think that games with Refugee Camp vs games with Village, games with Refugee Camp are just a little simpler tactically. I wonder if you could add some sort on-play affect that makes them more complicated? Or not, some cards need to be simple.

Honestly, I think this is a very cool and unexplored space. Nice work!
This is in the top 5

Raven by Aquila

Quote

Raven - Action Reserve, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may discard a Treasure to gain a Raven. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you gain a Province, you may discard this from your Tavern mat. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.

I am very glad to see Raven make a return! It was originally submitted for a contest I judged and I said this:

Quote

I really love the concept here, and I hope you iterate on it and figure out a way to make Raven's self-gaining.

. I do think overall this is an even better submission this time around-- in particular the forcing you to discard a treasure to gain a Raven is very interesting. However, there is one way that this card is not "aligned it is with Dominion precedents" (one of the judging criteria). Donald X has gone on to record to say how divisive attack cards that do not benefit the player playing them are, and has thus avoided them since seaside (even skulk comes with a +buy and a gold). Raven goes further by actually having a clause to hurt the player of the card. I think this is too far this direction. You don't have to remove the discard mechanic, but I think that there's a couple of things you could do here. Perhaps add an on buy mechanic (perhaps overpay) that makes the purchase of a Raven benefit the player. Perhaps Ravens on play could benefit you if you discard a Raven. Something like "you may discard a card. If it's a treasure, gain a Raven. If it's a Raven, +2$" Which effectively turns your second Raven into a Silver. Of course to make this tenable, you'd have to make the Tavern'ing optional as well. You can also remove the can-tripness and give it a static bonus, which might be interesting but it does veer away from rats/magpie cantrip self-gainers a bit.

I do love this card a lot, and I think it poses a ton of interesting decisions. If my opponent is stocking up on Ravens, can I build up a way to quickly empty duchies and ignore provinces? Is it worth sacrificing $ here to gain another Raven? I was really glad to see this come back!

Hoist by spineflu

Quote

Hoist • $5 • Action - Reaction
+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put any revealed Hoists into your hand. You may discard any of the other revealed cards, then put the rest back in any order.
-
At the start of Clean-up, you may reveal and discard this from your hand for +1 Card when drawing a new hand.

Wow. Every Hoist you don't play is sort of like top-decking an experiment next turn. It's also nice because next turn you have a bigger hand and in those bigger hands, your more likely to have other draw cards that the hoists will be nice sifters for! Really interesting decision -- do I play all my hoists? Or Do I keep them for a bigger hand next round? I have two hoists in my hand. Do I play them hoping to draw more, or do I keep them in hand. Keeping them in hand isn't free, of course. You sacrificed a card this hand for them.I can see in certain decks they function a bit like weak Den of Sins. If you have a 20 card deck with 5 cantrips and 5 Hoists, then each turn you likely see all 20 cards and keep the 5 Hoists in hand for next turn starting with 10 to draw the last 10 cards, rinse and repeat. I am a sucker for sifters like this. It is very strong but not too strong. I actually think this is an improved Cartographer. It's more interesting in every way. It will, just like Cartographer, be slow, but I think it's worth it.
Really nice work!
This is in the top 5

Rabbit by grep

Quote

Rabbit - $3 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
If you have an even number of Rabbits in play, +$1 and gain a Rabbit.

I think the best part of design here is the "even number" gaining. Without command cards, this means you need to spend at least two gains on a Rabbit before they start multiplying. If you did it on odd it would be probably two strong and multiple too fast. (and of course, thematically this is hilarious and fun). However; by also putting the +1$ on the even event, the card is weakened substantially. I wonder if the money bonus could happen with odd numbers? It would be a lot stronger. Right now, even if I buy 2, I have to wait for them to line up, just to get a half-merchant. When I do line them up, I gain a 3rd one which helps me, but still I only have the equivalence of 1 merchant in my deck. Even if I manage to get all 10, I spent most of the game with them not lining up, and only by the end of the game am I getting the equivalent of $5. I would bet that player who buys 2 early Rabbits is significantly worse off than a player who buys 2 early merchants. I don't think the price difference of $1 is enough here. It just isn't strong enough to be worthwhile. Of course there are some unusual situations. Command cards let you play them with 0 in play which is nice. I think this card could be better by putting the $ bonus on odd Rabbits. You might even be able to price it $4 at that point.

I also wanted to point out that Rabbits was the name of a runner-up. I don't know if you saw my post earlier in this thread, but it is. I think we should try to avoid duplicate names in this thread if we can.

Loner by NoMoreFun

Quote

Loner
Action - $4
+2 Cards
+1 Action
This turn, at the start of Clean-up, if you have exactly one Loner in play, gain a Loner. Otherwise, return all Loners in play to the supply.

Yes, yes, very nice. This is a card that very elegantly refers to itself, both for gaining, and for anti-synergy. Well-done! I'm pretty sad buying an experiment for $4, so you have to be careful about playing your last Loner. Strategically, you probably want to count to make sure you always have at least 1 left in your deck. So perhaps you play all but 1 in your hand. But maybe the next two cards in your deck can dramatically change this turn!! These are interesting and complicated decisions. I'm a sucker for cheaper-lab alternatives. This is a very good one.
This is in the top 5

Censure by Fragasnap

Quote

Censure
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +1 Action. The player to your left may reveal a Censure or Province from their hand. If they don't, +1 Card and then discard a card.

I think that I'm fine ignoring Censure in most games. I probably only pick it up when I have $3 and don't want any other card. Which, you know, some cards have to be a Pearl Diver, but they are less interesting cards. Even less interesting it encourages opponents to pick up further Censures. I think the concept of "your opponent may block with a copy of this card" is really really interesting, and I'd be curious to see where you could go with it. It just doesn't work so strongly for me on this Fugitive-like card. Personal opinion, you know.

Storeroom by [TP] Inferno

Quote

Storeroom
$2
Action
+1 Action
Gain a Storeroom. Do this twice: +2 Cards, then discard 2 cards.

Storeroom is already the name of a Dominion card. You should rename this. This card is also a sifter, with the interesting complication of having it gain more of itself. Sifters are good when you have a few good cards to get to, but more sifters mean you have to sift through the sifters themselves in order to get to the good card. So it hurts itself in an interesting way. Nice! The sifting is a little powerful and slow, in a bad way. Ever throne room a cellar? So much AP. This card gives you AP on a single play. I think if you made it +1 card, Discard a card, +3 cards, discard 3 cards, it wouldn't cause as much AP, since the first discard should be easy. I think you can make this card stronger because the real cost of this card is buying it too-early. So people are likely to buy it late, which means costing it low isn't as consequential, so you could investigate a way to make this stronger on play to also make it more captivating. I'm a sucker for sifters, but I could only pick this up late, and sifters are most valuable with asymmetric decks but later in the game your deck is more symmetrical. Not that all cards need to be valuable turn 1! But sifters as a concept want to be valuable turn 1.
Certainly you made an interesting card that generated a lot of discussion.


Jedi by majiponi

Quote

Jedi
cost $3 - Action - Attack
+1 Action
Each other player reveals their hand.
Choose one: Draw until you have 6 cards in hand; or each other player discards their hand and draws 5 cards.
---
When another player plays a Jedi, you may reveal this from your hand, to be unaffected by that Jedi.

This card is slow (since you have to look at all the cards potentially multiple times) and you make a decision each time, and it's non-terminal. Donald X learned that spy was bad for this reason. This is also political. You see everyone's hand and then you choose your action. If I play with Ali and Briggs, and Briggs has a bunch of bad cards in their hand, and Ali has a bunch of good cards in their hand, what i choose to do is political. And Dominion is meant to be not political. Notice how Minion doesn't let you see your opponent's cards before making the choice. The one part of design that is very good is that this card lowers your hand count, which incentivizes you to draw back up to 6. However, that ability is strong enough (first play is a lab), that I don't think $3 is the right cost for this.


Bivouac by Kudasai

Quote

Bivouac - Action - $5
+1 Action
+$2
You may play a Bivouac from your hand. At the start of Clean-up this turn, if you have 3 or more Bivouacs in play, discard them all. Otherwise, put them all onto your deck.

I think you have over-estimated the value of being able to top-deck your Bivouacs. Starting with two Bivouacs is basically like you starting your turn with a Silver and a Festival that doesn't have a +buy. Not that inspiring of a start. Plus, if you use these in an engine, you have a lot more than 2 in play so you don't even get the benefit. They start to look even more like really sad Festivals. Villages are meant for engines, and therefore villages that don't draw really need strong bonuses to make them compelling in engines, especially ones costing $5. +2$ isn't nearly as helpful to an engine as the +buy does for festival, and again, the top-deck isn't so strong. Fishing Village doesn't decrease your hand-size next turn, and it gives you money too the next turn, and it's appropriately cheap--making it a strong engine enabler. If your village doesn't enable engines, it isn't doing it's job as a village. I think you could potentially weaken this and cost it $4. Perhaps allowing you to choose to reveal a Bivouac from your hand to either play it, gain $, or gain a buy. If you keep the +2$ and non-terminality then this still costs $5.


Millstone by Something_Smart

Quote

Millstone
$4 - Treasure
$1
Choose one: return this to the Supply for +$2, or gain a Millstone.

Cats by Gazbag

Quote

Cats
$4 Action
+2 Cards
Choose one: Gain a Cats; or +1 Action and return this to the Supply.

I'm actually going to talk about these cards together because, well they both break down to the same, very interesting concept:

Quote

Get a mild bonus and choose to either return this to the supply for a stronger bonus; or gain another copy of this card

I love this concept, I think it makes really interesting decisions--do you make this turn weaker (both cards offer a pathetic $0 or $1 card costing bonus if you choose to gain another) to make other turns better? And when is the right time to gain the strong bonus? Plus when you gain the strong bonus, you lose the card itself, how humiliating! I love these decisions--very interesting and complicated. Nice work.

Millstone: Ultimately, in the beginning of the game copper is actually not that horrible, so it probably doesn't hurt to use it, but you gained this at the expense of a silver. Pretty strong drawback. And spiking up to use the $3 early isn't as strong as it seems. $4 for a spoils is about right, but it's not fun to buy a $4 cost just to buy a $5 later with it. It's like a feast in a sense, though non-terminal. I'm thinking you could probably have it self-trash for a +buy to make it a little more fun to get the stronger benefit from.

Cats: This card functions a lot differently than Millstone because Experiments help you continue to draw. I also like that you get to see your next card before choosing whether to trade this for an action. I'm a sucker for cheap labs. It does seem strong, though. Basically, in the begining of the game, +2 cards is roughly equivalent to +2cards, +1 action, so this card doesn't have a strong enough drawback (Millstone does only generate +1$, which is a better drawback of not returning the card). Even so, this seems fun to play with, so  This is in the top 5


Islet by  popsofctown

Quote

Islet
6$ Action - Victory
You may set an Islet from your hand aside on your Island mat.  If you do, set this aside on your Island mat.
--
Worth 4 VP

Ah, yes. An excellent Seaside addition, combing the treasure map concept with the Island. When I originally designed this contest, I imagined more people might go for Treasure Map concepts, this was one I definitely didn't think of at all. You have to gain two Islets to have them go away, and line them up. I do think this is appropriately costed, since Distant Lands requires an entire shuffle and play for them to have value, while this one is instantly valuable. But you still want to buy them early so you can play them and get them out of your deck. Interestingly enough, I think that this is a strong enough alt VP that I could play around the Ravens submission with this. I like this a lot. Focused, well-priced, and introduces a ton of alt-vp.
This is in the top 5

Bicycle by mad4math

Quote

Bicycle
$5 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Bicycle. Put 3 of the revealed non-Bicycle cards into your hand, and discard the rest.

Hm! Buying one of these is essentially look through your whole deck, pick your 3 most useful cards right now. That's actually incredibly strong. Too strong, I'd say. Since the more Bicycles you have in your deck, the worse they are, Bicycle should have some mechanic for gaining more. Having them port-themselves was a very very good suggestion. I also think they could gain a Bicycle on play. That way you have to be careful about when you buy it.
Hm, there's essentially two types of games with Bicycle. Ones where it's the only hand-size increaser, and one's where it's not the only hand-size increaser. In games where it's the only, you just buy 1 and go big money. On games where it's not, it's incredibly powerful since you just pick your engine parts you need and use those to draw the next Bicycle. So, in that case, having them self-gain is probably too good for that use-case.
I wonder what this card would look like if it only drew 2 cards (letting you put the Bicycle in hand, probably) and it would be cheaper, of course. I think this could avoid it being way too powerful when you only have a few.
I do love that you designed a card that is very strong but you don't want to buy a lot of. It's like Chapel in that regard.


House by pubby

Quote

House
$4 Action
The player to your left names their favorite card. If they name House, they win the game.

This card is unlikely to be any one's favorite because it takes away pretty much all strategy. If someone's true favorite card is House, it means they really don't like Dominion. Which could be really helpful for me with my friends to make sure they actually enjoy the game I love so much, or if they're just humoring me. So I could buy this card and play it force them to tell the truth. And if they don't name House, whatever card they name, I could make sure we play with next time so they have more fun. So this card is really good, this means it is my favorite card -- ARGH OH NO!!!

Fertile Village by grrgrrgrr

Quote

Fertile Village (Action, $4)
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may discard an Action, to gain another Fertile Village.

This was received a while after the 24 hour submission deadline, but who cares, I'll let it in the contest anyway!
I think this is a great example of a 4-cost village. You can gain your second village, but at the harsh expense of discarding an action, which the whole reason you bought this card was so that you could play more actions! I love this complicated focus and synergy. I don't have much to add, but I think that most often the best move will be not discarding Actions. The ability to know when it is time to gain another Fertile Village is a tricky one that will distinguish good from great Dominion players. Nice work! Of course, cards you don't care to play that turn  (ruins, sometimes necropolis, sometimes encampment) will strengthen this card. This card was incredibly close to the top 5, but there can only be 5. I can easily see this card making it in a Dominion expansion.


Final Results
The top 5 are: Refugee Camp, Hoist, Loner, Cats, Islet.
These are all wonderful. This is very hard.

Right now, Loner feels more tricky than Cats, in an interesting way. It's a lot less powerful, whereas Cats can be strong, in the beginning of the game getting +2 cards is probably equivalent to a Lab anyway. So Cats can't be the top card. Refugee Camp modifies the game in a way I can't be convinced I love, though the concept is rad, it just isn't my favorite. This leaves Hoist, Loner, and Islet. At some point I just have to go with my gut, though I keep swinging around each time.

First place
Loner by NoMoreFun

Quote

Loner
Action - $4
+2 Cards
+1 Action
This turn, at the start of Clean-up, if you have exactly one Loner in play, gain a Loner. Otherwise, return all Loners in play to the supply.

Second place
Hoist by spineflu
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5dea768ada27af3bcdc6afa8/c12c71c05c945edd02361dff5c6156a4/image.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 13, 2019, 05:33:46 pm

Oh wow! Thank you anordinaryman.

Challenge: For you and your kin

Firstly, I'm interested in a Christmas/Holiday theme for the cards. Presents, nativity, Santa, winter wonderland, Hanukkah etc. This theme idea actually came first to me and the mechanic later, so I'm bringing it up first.

The mechanic: The card (shaped thing) should do something positive for your other players at some point, and that effect shouldn't be buried in a negative effect (eg Margrave wouldn't count). A non-attack interaction, but in a direct way (like Council Room or Embassy) rather than in an indirect way (like City).

Unlike other rounds I've put up, I pledge to do at least some judging based on how well the mechanic gels with the name of the card and the theme. Of course I am interested in cards that would be good additions to the game which you'd actually buy (and the usual balancing etc.), but if you're designing cards theme first, then in this round, you're on the right track.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on December 13, 2019, 06:41:16 pm

Christmas Chapel
cost $3 - Action
Trash any number of cards from your hand for $1 each.
Each other players looks at the top card of their deck. They may trash or discard it.

Edit: added "may" so stop saying shifting is an attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on December 13, 2019, 07:12:54 pm

Quote from: majiponi on December 13, 2019, 06:41:16 pm

Christmas Chapel
cost $3 - Action
Trash any number of cards from your hand for $1.
Each other players looks at the top card of their deck. They trash or discard it, their choose.

For $1 total or per card trashed?
"Trash or discard" is almost an attack (that's why people hated Tribute). Can you please add an option to leave it there?

Title: Re: WDC 55: Humbug
Post by: spineflu on December 13, 2019, 07:17:31 pm

Does DXV get an honorary entry in this contest? (https://dominionstrategy.com/2017/12/25/2017-holiday-kingdom/)

also: unequivocally positive? like, would Messenger count even though you can throw curses around with it?

---

EDIT: This is withdrawn - see the newer entry here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg819393#msg819393)
idk if I'm gonna stick with this but I leaned extremely hard into the theme:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5df435ac89e6ab4a76df5576/ac31a7c7ab02800c1914dc4aab575d4c/image.png)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5df435ac89e6ab4a76df5576/23a84a6283f74e570c9cc8a5af287f4e/image.png)

Quote

Haunt • $5 • Project
Gain a Christmas Ghost to your hand and place three tokens here.
-
-3% for each token you have here

Quote

Christmas Ghost • $3* • Night - Duration
Remove a token from Haunt. If you have:

2 tokens remaining: choose a Treasure card from your discard pile and set it aside with this.

1 token remaining: reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action card and set it aside with this (discard the rest).

0 tokens remaining: gain an Action costing up to $4 from the supply and set it aside with this.

At the start of your next turn, play the set aside card twice and if you have no tokens remaining on Haunt, trash this and each player (including you) gets +2 Coffers.
(This is not in the supply)

It's uh maybe a little wordy, but it's pretty straightforward - you get visited by the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future, then you give some presents. If you don't get visited by all three Ghosts and give some goodwill to your fellow players (presumably in an attempt to dodge giving other people money, you scrooge), there's a VP penalty.

Christmas Ghost isn't duration colored bc the full-image option on Shard of Honor's card maker only lets you pick one - I went with the color that tells you when to play it (and I don't have photoshop so **shrug**) - and i did full image because the text was microscopic on the normal layout.

The tokens-on-project thing is borrowed from Sinister Plot and uses the same rules - if you're playing IRL, use coin tokens + put them under your cube.

and uh errata i guess - Christmas Ghost only removes your tokens from Haunt. I'll change it if it's a big deal as-written.

EDIT: well after this contest concluded, I've got a fix for the :scroll: on this - it's making it a traveller line. 6/pile, since you can't double up on a project
(https://trello.com/1/cards/5df435ac89e6ab4a76df5576/attachments/611120b38c3bc71d46b19e5e/previews/611120b58c3bc71d46b19e82/download)(https://trello.com/1/cards/5df435ac89e6ab4a76df5576/attachments/61111fdf06e1847dba7552e0/previews/61111fe206e1847dba755324/download)(https://trello.com/1/cards/5df435ac89e6ab4a76df5576/attachments/61111fe4e8ac6601e712622a/previews/61111fe6e8ac6601e7126292/download)(https://trello.com/1/cards/5df435ac89e6ab4a76df5576/attachments/611120554a08e131723af70a/download/image.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on December 13, 2019, 09:34:20 pm

Christmas Feast
Event -  $4
-
Look at cards from the Christmas Feast deck equal to the number of players. Reveal and gain one of these cards onto your deck. Randomly hand out the remaining cards, giving one to each player. They may gain the card or put it on the bottom of the Christmas Feast deck.
-
Setup: Make a Christmas Feast deck out of different unused Kingdom cards.

(You look at the cards privately and do not reveal them. After picking a card for yourself, you hold the remaining cards out face-down and have other players randomly pick one.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on December 14, 2019, 12:03:49 am

Snow Hill
Action - $5
+2 Actions
Gain a Sleigh into your hand. Each other player gains a Sleigh.

Sleigh
Action - $0*
+2 Cards
Return this to its pile. You may play another Sleigh from your hand.
*This is not in the supply. There is a separate pile of 5 Sleighs per player.

Updated after the Fragsnap's comment to make getting buried with Sleighs less miserable (actually super beneficial)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on December 14, 2019, 12:26:49 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/lJyerJT.jpg)

Quote

Oversee
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Trash the top card of your deck and gain a card costing up to $3 more than it, putting it on top of your deck. Each other player looks at the top 3 cards of their deck, discards any number of them, and puts the rest back in any order.

An unprepared Oversee Expands a random card from the top of your deck straight back to the deck, and gives each other player the ability to mill the top of their deck, possibly prepping their own Oversee.  Follow in each other's footsteps and all that.

HISTORY
Theme update. Now it's King Wenceslas.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on December 14, 2019, 10:31:40 pm

Midnight Ride, Night, $3
Choose a non-Victory card. Starting with the player on your left, each player (including you) gains a copy of that card, putting it on top of their deck.

Even though you're the last to receive a card, you're still the first to get to use it, which I figure is reasonable given you're spending a buy to probably help everyone, which is really bad for tempo.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 15, 2019, 03:43:12 am

Santa Claus, Action, $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
—————————
While this is in play, when you gain a card without buying it, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} and each other player draws a card.

Mixture between Tree (https://i.imgur.com/KA5ef5m.png) and Groundskeeper so quite lame. Potentially broken with discard attacks and in some Kingdoms during the the last turn  (easy extra Buys, Masterpiece, ...) while often being too weak (+1 Card can be situationally stronger than +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on December 15, 2019, 04:00:55 pm

Santa's Workshop
$3
Action
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Gain a card costing up to $4.
-------
When you gain this, each other player gains a Gift.

Gift
$0*
Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Return this to its pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Setup instructions for Gift: 10 Gifts are used instead of 50, as they return themselves.
The name is as thematic as I could get, hopefully it works.
So basically, it's a Workshop+ that gives a little present to the other players. How nice. I think the +Buy will be useful in Gardens games, and if you're making an engine, this could help you gain 3 cheap components in a single turn. Just be careful how many Gifts you give.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on December 15, 2019, 04:18:25 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ywJhCCq.png)

I can explain the flavour of all the abilities if you need.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on December 15, 2019, 04:35:29 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on December 15, 2019, 04:18:25 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ywJhCCq.png)

I can explain the flavour of all the abilities if you need.

This probably needs at least +1 Action to be viable, considering it does nothing every other time you play it. Ranger and Giant at least give small benefits whenever you play them and don't benefit your opponents in the process. Granted, Pilgrimage does nothing every other time, but it has a much higher ceiling than this card, doesn't cost an Action to use, and again, it doesn't benefit your opponents.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on December 15, 2019, 05:40:18 pm

Quote from: forkofnature on December 15, 2019, 04:35:29 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on December 15, 2019, 04:18:25 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ywJhCCq.png)

I can explain the flavour of all the abilities if you need.

This probably needs at least +1 Action to be viable, considering it does nothing every other time you play it. Ranger and Giant at least give small benefits whenever you play them and don't benefit your opponents in the process. Granted, Pilgrimage does nothing every other time, but it has a much higher ceiling than this card, doesn't cost an Action to use, and again, it doesn't benefit your opponents.

Agreed that this is a bit weak. I don't think the fact that this does nothing rather than very little on its off turn is particularly relevant, I think you could argue that Ranger would be better if it gave both buys on the 2nd play.

Giving this +1 Action is definitely not the thing to do, largely because of how that undermines the Journey token dynamic but also that seems way too strong for a $4 to me. I'd go with this change:
(https://i.imgur.com/g7FGBMq.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 16, 2019, 09:11:29 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on December 15, 2019, 04:00:55 pm

Santa's Workshop
$3
Action
+1 Buy
Gain a card costing up to $4. Each other player gains a Gift.

Gift
$0*
Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1

Setup instructions for Gift: Use as many of them as you would Curses (haha). 50 provided.
The name is as thematic as I could get, hopefully it works.
So basically, it's a Workshop+ that gives a little present to the other players. How nice. I think the +Buy will be useful in Gardens games, and if you're making an engine, this could help you gain 3 cheap components in a single turn. Just be careful how many Gifts you give.

Just to be clear - Gifts aren't in the supply, right? Like, the impression i'm getting is they're in a similar boat to Spoils or Will-O-Wisps but uh it doesn't have the "not in the supply" disclaimer and also they're immediately compared to Curses so ... in the supply? free peddlers?

Also: gain 3 cheap components? help me w the math on that - i'm seeing the gained card, the +Buy card, and ????

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 16, 2019, 10:25:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on December 16, 2019, 09:11:29 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on December 15, 2019, 04:00:55 pm

Santa's Workshop
$3
Action
+1 Buy
Gain a card costing up to $4. Each other player gains a Gift.

Gift
$0*
Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1

Setup instructions for Gift: Use as many of them as you would Curses (haha). 50 provided.
The name is as thematic as I could get, hopefully it works.
So basically, it's a Workshop+ that gives a little present to the other players. How nice. I think the +Buy will be useful in Gardens games, and if you're making an engine, this could help you gain 3 cheap components in a single turn. Just be careful how many Gifts you give.

Just to be clear - Gifts aren't in the supply, right? Like, the impression i'm getting is they're in a similar boat to Spoils or Will-O-Wisps but uh it doesn't have the "not in the supply" disclaimer and also they're immediately compared to Curses so ... in the supply? free peddlers?

Also: gain 3 cheap components? help me w the math on that - i'm seeing the gained card, the +Buy card, and ????

And the "normal" Buy. You gain one card and can buy 2 cards.

I think that a Workshop with an extra Buy is cool (I play with an "Worskhop or Woodcutter but with the Buy being storable via a token similar to Villagers/Coffers" card) but agree that a free Peddler is far too strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on December 16, 2019, 02:13:15 pm

Santa's Workshop seems underpowered. The gifts are better than most $4 cards you could gain, so you help your opponents more than you help yourself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on December 16, 2019, 05:56:45 pm

Quote from: spineflu on December 16, 2019, 09:11:29 am

Just to be clear - Gifts aren't in the supply, right? Like, the impression i'm getting is they're in a similar boat to Spoils or Will-O-Wisps but uh it doesn't have the "not in the supply" disclaimer and also they're immediately compared to Curses so ... in the supply? free peddlers?

Ah yes, sorry. They aren't in the Supply. Edited.

Also, you guys are right. What if the peddlers came only on-gain? This means they only get one if you only buy one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on December 16, 2019, 08:31:49 pm

Quote from: pubby on December 13, 2019, 09:34:20 pm

Christmas Feast
Event -  $5
-
Look at cards from the Christmas Feast deck equal to the number of players. Gain one of these cards onto your deck. Each other player may gain one of the remaining cards at random, putting it onto their deck.
-
Setup: Make a Christmas Feast deck out of different unused Kingdom cards.

(You look at the cards privately and do not reveal them. After picking a card for yourself, you hold the remaining cards out face-down and have other players randomly pick one.)

This is fun. Couple of questions:
1. What happens to the cards players do not gain (as the gaining is optional)?
2. What happens if I gain an Ill-Gotten Gains (either as the buyer who sees it or a player who doesn't)? You might prefer to avoid the key-word "gain" so it doesn't trigger on-gain effects.
3. Do you think it's okay that super weak Victory cards can be part of the Christmas Feast deck? I think there are plenty of cards that would be bad to randomly shove into a deck without having Silk Road be one of them.

Quote from: grep on December 14, 2019, 12:03:49 am

Snow Hill
Action - $5
+1 Card, +1 Action
You may play any number of Sleighs from your hand.
Each player including you gains a Sleigh.

Sleigh
Action - $0*
+3 Cards
Return this to its pile.
*This is not in the supply. There is a separate pile of 5 Sleighs per player.

I don't like that Sleigh is terminal without Snow Hill. It creates a possibly degenerate effect of every player needing to gain Snow Hills or else get buried in Sleighs.

Quote from: forkofnature on December 14, 2019, 10:31:40 pm

Midnight Ride, Night, $3
Choose a non-Victory card. Starting with the player on your left, each player (including you) gains a copy of that card, putting it on top of their deck.

Even though you're the last to receive a card, you're still the first to get to use it, which I figure is reasonable given you're spending a buy to probably help everyone, which is really bad for tempo.

I think you are mistaken here.  I don't get to use it first, I just get it into my hand during Clean-Up.  Each other player need only play a cantrip to draw the card and use it before I get to.
Workshop+ to the top of my deck and everyone else gains to their discard pile would probably still be pretty weak.

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on December 15, 2019, 04:00:55 pm

Santa's Workshop
$3
Action
+1 Buy
Gain a card costing up to $4.
-------
When you gain this, each other player gains a Gift.

Gift
$0*
Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
(This is not in the Supply.)

Setup instructions for Gift: Use as many of them as you would Curses (haha). 50 provided.
The name is as thematic as I could get, hopefully it works.
So basically, it's a Workshop+ that gives a little present to the other players. How nice. I think the +Buy will be useful in Gardens games, and if you're making an engine, this could help you gain 3 cheap components in a single turn. Just be careful how many Gifts you give.

The benefit on top of Workshop is so marginal to make giving other players a free Peddler. I can see it being bought in some games when a +Buy is desperately needed, but that it will rot in the same hole as Woodcutter for that reason.  The card is also simply very component hungry, which I think is an unspoken issue on this forum.  I'd never want to print 50 Gift cards to work with one weak card.  I'd recommend that Gift be a one-shot Peddler (could even be optional like "may return this to its pile for +$1") so having 10 of them would be reasonable, and then balancing the other card around that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 17, 2019, 12:22:46 am

Quote from: Gazbag on December 15, 2019, 04:18:25 pm

I can explain the flavour of all the abilities if you need.

Please do

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on December 17, 2019, 12:37:53 am

@Fragasnap Good points. I'll tweak the wording a bit so that those issues don't arise.

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on December 16, 2019, 05:56:45 pm

Also, you guys are right. What if the peddlers came only on-gain? This means they only get one if you only buy one.

It's better regarding balance, but I think it could be more interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on December 17, 2019, 12:11:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/6j4fq2D.png)

Quote

The Grinch ($3, Event)
+1 Villager
If the Grinch token is face down, turn it over. (When the Grinch token is face up, each player gains an Imp at the end of their turn)

To clearify, there is one Grinch token, which starts face down.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest 55: WDC a humbug, uncle? surely you don't mean that.
Post by: spineflu on December 18, 2019, 09:13:35 am

EDIT: this is withdrawn; new entry is here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg819393#msg819393)

---

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5dfa33789ace572644611a9f/019f740c1a8e6d79f988344b439dd4d7/image.png)

changing up my entry (again) to a scrying pool variant that helps everyone rather than hurts everyone:

Quote

Prepare • $4 • Action - Victory
+1 Action.
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. You may discard any number of them.
All players reveal cards from their deck until they reveal a Victory card. Put one of your revealed cards into your hand and discard the rest. Each other player may discard a card revealed this way then put the rest back in the same order.
-
2%

---

Revisions:

• changed from 1VP to 2VP
• changed other player action to "discard a card revealed this way and put the rest back"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 18, 2019, 11:26:25 am

This is too weak as the active player net draws 0 cards whereas all other players netdraw one. Compare this with Governor which netdraws 2 for the active player and 1 for the others.
I guess this would even too weak in Kingdoms without discard Attacks if you added +1 Card for the active player: it would then be a Lab with some mildly superior sifting for you vs a Lab with some sifting for the other players.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 18, 2019, 12:38:32 pm

net draw isn't The Point for you though, it's being able to pick the best card from between the top of your deck and whenever the next victory card [after card #3] is. It's sifting on roughly the same tier as a Embassy (no handsize gain like embassy, but is nonterminal). Like, net draw doesn't mean anything if you pick up three estates.

You point out one of the ways of short circuiting the benefit - handsize attacks - but topdeck attacks like Bureaucrat, Ghost Ship, and Haunted Woods do this as well.

I think moving this to to the 2VP scoring point might be a fair idea though. Makes Mill less worthwhile i guess but like, Mill costs more than Tunnel anyway so *mumbles incoherently*

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on December 18, 2019, 03:09:44 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Ncz2Llf.png?2) (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=Gift%20Exchange&description=Starting%20with%20the%20player%20to%20your%20left%2C%20each%20player%20trashes%20a%20card%20from%20their%20hand%20or%20a%20Gold%20from%20the%20Supply.%0A%0AStarting%20with%20you%2C%20each%20player%20may%20gain%20a%20card%20from%20the%20trash.&type=Action&credit=Illustration%3A%20Douglas%20Shuler&creator=&price=%243&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1.1&picture=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.manaleak.com%2Fmtguk%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F02%2FReparations.jpg&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0)

Quote

Gift Exchange
$3 - Action
Starting with the player to your left, each player trashes a card from their hand or a Gold from the supply.
Starting with you, each player may gain a card from the trash.

Art from Magic the Gathering: Reparations (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=reparations)

---

It's secret Santa time!
You get to give last and choose first, so you can gift yourself a Gold if nobody else trashed one. Or take any other good card that somehow wound up in the trash. One man's junk is another man's treasure... but then, usually you'll take the actual treasure. Your opponent gets to trash a Copper, at least, so they get something out of it too.

Question:
The way I want this to work when the Gold pile is empty is: players can still choose the Gold option, and if they do they trash nothing. Is that how you understood it? If not, how can I tweak the wording?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 18, 2019, 03:48:22 pm

welcome to the board!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on December 18, 2019, 04:08:47 pm

Thanks! I've been lurking for a little bit; this theme inspired me enough to create an account!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on December 19, 2019, 06:22:00 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 16, 2019, 08:31:49 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on December 15, 2019, 04:00:55 pm

Santa's Workshop
$3
Action
+1 Buy
Gain a card costing up to $4.
-------
When you gain this, each other player gains a Gift.

Gift
$0*
Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
(This is not in the Supply.)

Setup instructions for Gift: Use as many of them as you would Curses (haha). 50 provided.
The name is as thematic as I could get, hopefully it works.
So basically, it's a Workshop+ that gives a little present to the other players. How nice. I think the +Buy will be useful in Gardens games, and if you're making an engine, this could help you gain 3 cheap components in a single turn. Just be careful how many Gifts you give.

The benefit on top of Workshop is so marginal to make giving other players a free Peddler. I can see it being bought in some games when a +Buy is desperately needed, but that it will rot in the same hole as Woodcutter for that reason.  The card is also simply very component hungry, which I think is an unspoken issue on this forum.  I'd never want to print 50 Gift cards to work with one weak card.  I'd recommend that Gift be a one-shot Peddler (could even be optional like "may return this to its pile for +$1") so having 10 of them would be reasonable, and then balancing the other card around that.

Good idea. Making Gift a one shot would weaken the power and hopefully make Santa's Workshop viable a bit more. It itself is weak like you said, so maybe a +Action will help improve it without making it too strong. I will edit the OP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on December 19, 2019, 06:27:51 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on December 17, 2019, 12:22:46 am

Quote from: Gazbag on December 15, 2019, 04:18:25 pm

I can explain the flavour of all the abilities if you need.

Please do

If I were to try, I can explain the top half, they journey far to see the baby Jesus(Journey token), then they present gifts of Gold and Spices (I assume Coffers has something to do with Spices, not too familiar with the card), but I don't see the thematic explanation behind the optional Minion-like effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 19, 2019, 11:12:08 am

Quote from: spineflu on December 18, 2019, 12:38:32 pm

net draw isn't The Point for you though, it's being able to pick the best card from between the top of your deck and whenever the next victory card [after card #3] is. It's sifting on roughly the same tier as a Embassy (no handsize gain like embassy, but is nonterminal). Like, net draw doesn't mean anything if you pick up three estates.

This is a better Border Guard for you. Let's say a $3.
This is a better Lab for everybody else, so a $6.

So nobody would ever buy this except when hitting $4 in the endgame to get 2VPs ... which is like buying Cemetery in the endgame without trashing anything.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 19, 2019, 01:28:00 pm

good point. Modified so other players just get topdeck grooming rather than "put a card in hand"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on December 19, 2019, 02:52:22 pm

Quote from: pubby on December 13, 2019, 09:34:20 pm

Christmas Feast
Event -  $4
-
Look at cards from the Christmas Feast deck equal to the number of players. Reveal and gain one of these cards onto your deck. Randomly hand out the remaining cards, giving one to each player. They may gain the card or put it on the bottom of the Christmas Feast deck.
-
Setup: Make a Christmas Feast deck out of different unused Kingdom cards.

The flavour of this one is delicious. Everyone gets cool presents, they could be anything until you unwrap them, enjoy the suspense! Somebody gets Socks (https://dominionstrategy.com/2017/12/25/2017-holiday-kingdom/) and that's fine, you kept the receipt so they can return it. I think you nailed it.

I'm curious whether choosing first and topdecking the card is enough of an advantage that I'd choose to spend my Action on this. Topdecking helps a lot -we have entire cards like Scavenger and Harbinger just for that - but is it enough?

Well, maybe the player doesn't care about winning. Maybe they just want to spread some Christmas cheer. Like I said, delicious flavour.

Quote from: segura on December 15, 2019, 03:43:12 am

Santa Claus, Action, $5
+1 Card
+1 Action
—————————
While this is in play, when you gain a card without buying it, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} and each other player draws a card.

A lot of kingdoms won't have any way of triggering this. What a shame! Surely there's a tweak you can make so it activates itself, or can be activated with the base cards only? I can see one way by removing the text "without buying it", though of course that loses the link with Tree.

Big points for simplicity. You could print this on an actual card and it wouldn't even need a small font. It's hard to get an asymmetrical affects-all-players effect into so few words, that's why this week's contest is hard, but you pulled it off.

Quote from: spineflu on December 18, 2019, 09:13:35 am

Prepare • $4 • Action - Victory
+1 Action.
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. You may discard any number of them.
All players reveal cards from their deck until they reveal a Victory card. Put one of your revealed cards into your hand and discard the rest. Each other player may discard a card revealed this way then put the rest back in the same order.
-
2%

This might be too strong for 2VP now that you've buffed its Action. $4 for 2VP and a dead card is an OK deal on its own.

It has some neat self-synergy, because it looks for Victory cards and it's a Victory card itself. Prepare into Prepare! If these are your only Victory cards, you can search your entire deck for the one card you need.

... the thing is, playing this several times a turn would be slow and annoying. Every player has to draw a bunch of cards, examine them all without disordering them, make a choice, and maybe even shuffle the discard pile. Remember, "card that cantrips and involves a decision for each player" is why Spy was removed. This isn't technically an Attack, but it's the same principle.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on December 19, 2019, 03:41:56 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on December 19, 2019, 06:27:51 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on December 17, 2019, 12:22:46 am

Quote from: Gazbag on December 15, 2019, 04:18:25 pm

I can explain the flavour of all the abilities if you need.

Please do

If I were to try, I can explain the top half, they journey far to see the baby Jesus(Journey token), then they present gifts of Gold and Spices (I assume Coffers has something to do with Spices, not too familiar with the card), but I don't see the thematic explanation behind the optional Minion-like effect.

Yeah you got it, the coffers are supposed to be the frankincense and myrrh. It isn't a Minion effect, it's a Guide effect because they were guided by a star... it's a bit of a stretch.

Title: Re: Are there no Weekly Design Contests, no workhouses?
Post by: spineflu on December 20, 2019, 09:05:15 am

I slept on it and I think Snowyowl's right about it taking too long / being too fiddly.
I'm uh withdrawing "Prepare" and entering "Papa Noel" instead.
It's a riff on Governor and is non-terminal with Capitalism (which honestly seems about right).

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5dfcd37123bd8769b65e40fb/82dca80de317a5f374f916265e8f7f23/image.png)

Quote

Papa Noel • @8 • Action
+$1
Choose one; you get the version in parenthesis: Each player gets +1 (+2) Coffers; or Each player may discard up to 2 (3) cards from their hand then draw until they have 5 (7) cards in hand; Each player may discard a Victory card for +1 ( +2 ) %.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on December 20, 2019, 02:44:41 pm

here's my attempt, hopefully the attack part is okay.

(https://i.imgur.com/5B8VM2K.jpg)

Title: Re: King's Court your "Ho!" to get Ho! Ho! Ho!
Post by: Snowyowl on December 20, 2019, 03:32:19 pm

Quote from: spineflu on December 20, 2019, 09:05:15 am

Papa Noel • @8 • Action
+$1
Choose one; you get the version in parenthesis: Each player gets +1 (+2) Coffers; or Each player may discard up to 2 (3) cards from their hand then draw until they have 5 (7) cards in hand; Each player may discard a Victory card for +1 ( +2 ) %.

Potent stuff! I like the Governor riff, that's a good way to make a card that helps everyone, but also helps you more so you actually have a reason to play it.
Giving VPs is a bit fraught. Usually that's tied to something that advances the game (e.g. emptying the Supply) so that you can't have the game continue forever with everyone gaining VPs but nobody emptying a pile. Santa has to rest sometime, it can't be Christmas forever.
What's the reason for it costing Debt? Nothing wrong with that, I just don't get it.

Quote from: mail-mi on December 20, 2019, 02:44:41 pm

Sub For Santa
$5 - Action - Attack
Gain a card costing up to $5. Each other player gains a Curse and a card of their choice costing less than the one you gained.

That's a neat junking attack! It can gain itself, it can gain a Duchy... it can gain a $2 card and if there's no $1 card they have to take a Copper and a Curse, that's so mean.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on December 20, 2019, 03:38:50 pm

When is the deadline for this one? I've had an idea stewing in my head, but it's not fully formed yet.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 20, 2019, 03:54:25 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on December 20, 2019, 03:38:50 pm

When is the deadline for this one? I've had an idea stewing in my head, but it's not fully formed yet.

It's Saturday morning where I live. I'll go until Monday night (24 hour warning will be 36 hours from now)

Title: Re: trashed with a stake of Holly thru his heart
Post by: spineflu on December 20, 2019, 04:45:17 pm

Quote from: Snowyowl on December 20, 2019, 03:32:19 pm

Quote from: spineflu on December 20, 2019, 09:05:15 am

Papa Noel • @8 • Action
+$1
Choose one; you get the version in parenthesis: Each player gets +1 (+2) Coffers; or Each player may discard up to 2 (3) cards from their hand then draw until they have 5 (7) cards in hand; Each player may discard a Victory card for +1 ( +2 ) %.

Potent stuff! I like the Governor riff, that's a good way to make a card that helps everyone, but also helps you more so you actually have a reason to play it.
Giving VPs is a bit fraught. Usually that's tied to something that advances the game (e.g. emptying the Supply) so that you can't have the game continue forever with everyone gaining VPs but nobody emptying a pile. Santa has to rest sometime, it can't be Christmas forever.
What's the reason for it costing Debt? Nothing wrong with that, I just don't get it.

Thematic reasons; 8 debt is roughly the $5/$6 ish mark, by my estimation, and this allows santa to come early (as someone who has missed the $5 mark until turn 6 in the last like, five games hes played). The free VPs is yeah, potentially golden deck fodder, but a net +1VP is more like tiebreaker potential than "runaway win" potential; it's also kind of the hubris option, since it sets up the other player's draw-to-X for Papa Noel

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on December 20, 2019, 05:31:44 pm

That all makes sense, thanks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on December 20, 2019, 08:56:57 pm

https://imgur.com/a/CUJEUiN

Aagh. Hi all.
Any advice on how to embed these into the reply. I can't seem to find where I would even find how to do it.

Also the Ghost of Christmas Past should have that heirloom reference on it that tells you to include the Ghost of Christmas Past in your deck at the beginning of the game instead of a copper. But I thought it looked messy.

Title: Re: A Poor Excuse for Picking a man's pocket every december the 25th
Post by: spineflu on December 20, 2019, 09:38:51 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on December 20, 2019, 08:56:57 pm

https://imgur.com/a/CUJEUiN

Aagh. Hi all.
Any advice on how to embed these into the reply. I can't seem to find where I would even find how to do it.

Also the Ghost of Christmas Past should have that heirloom reference on it that tells you to include the Ghost of Christmas Past in your deck at the beginning of the game instead of a copper. But I thought it looked messy.

[ img width=250 ] Image's url (ending in .jpg / .png / etc) goes here [ /img ], but without the spaces around the brackets.

You can replace the 250 with whatever and that'll be the image's width in pixels; 250 works good for most vertical cards, 350 for landscape cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on December 20, 2019, 10:14:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3elw3eo.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/NhAe0wy.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0mihXAh.jpg)

So the expectation here is that the Ghost of Christmas Present is in people's deck replacing a copper at the start with a kind of spoils that also gives +1 Buy. Buying a Ghost of Christmas Past from the supply ( a fairly ordinary card in and of itself ) will allow you to gain the Ghost of Christmas Future from outside the supply who in addition to being a great trasher will gain you all those Ghosts of Christmas Present in the trash.

(Tah spineflu)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on December 22, 2019, 01:07:01 am

v0.2

(https://i.imgur.com/yDxBZQa.png)


Notes from v0.1:

(https://i.imgur.com/iWfRh9q.png)

(I'll likely still tweak this some tomorrow, but wanted to get this out there to get some feedback)

Originally this was super simple: "+3 cards, Each player may set aside a Victory from their hand." The +3 cards helped you increase the probability for you, but I was still worried it would miss for you, but hit for your opponents. So I went with "Reveal until..."

The +1 Action allows you to play multiple WWs in a turn, and with each, your opponents are less likely to have a Victory in their hands.

It's still missing something, maybe a +Buy to also help you get more victories for future turns?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 22, 2019, 04:06:57 am

I prefer the Smithy version.

The problem of this is that it is not the best opening buy. After the first shuffle chances are high that the opponents have green in hand, so this would do something virtually identical for everybody.
So this is then only decent for alt-VP and once you start to green.

The Smithy variant on the other hand is more versatile, even with little or no green in your deck you might want a $5 Smithy.

Basically we already went though something very similar to this with Scout and Patrol.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 22, 2019, 04:55:06 am

Judging is in 24 hours

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 22, 2019, 11:12:54 am

Too lazy to make another image, sorry

Quote

Magic Workshop
Action - $4
Gain a card costing up to $5.

Name an Action card in the Supply costing at least $3; each other player may gain a copy of it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 22, 2019, 11:52:51 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 22, 2019, 11:12:54 am

(https://i.imgur.com/o64hYQZ.png)

Silver is often semi-junk so this is likely too strong. I'd take a minimum price of $4, and if you wanna be on the safe side you can add an extra Kingdom card costing $4 whenever Magic Workshop is present.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 22, 2019, 11:56:46 am

Quote from: scolapasta on December 22, 2019, 01:07:01 am

(https://i.imgur.com/iWfRh9q.png)

(I'll likely still tweak this some tomorrow, but wanted to get this out there to get some feedback)

Originally this was super simple: "+3 cards, Each player may set aside a Victory from their hand." The +3 cards helped you increase the probability for you, but I was still worried it would miss for you, but hit for your opponents. So I went with "Reveal until..."

The +1 Action allows you to play multiple WWs in a turn, and with each, your opponents are less likely to have a Victory in their hands.

It's still missing something, maybe a +Buy to also help you get more victories for future turns?

Quote from: segura on December 22, 2019, 04:06:57 am

I prefer the Smithy version.

The problem of this is that it is not the best opening buy. After the first shuffle chances are high that the opponents have green in hand, so this would do something virtually identical for everybody.
So this is then only decent for alt-VP and once you start to green.

The Smithy variant on the other hand is more versatile, even with little or no green in your deck you might want a $5 Smithy.

Basically we already went though something very similar to this with Scout and Patrol.

imo, split the difference, put it at +1 Card +1 Action +[reveal until victory] and bump the price to $4 or $5. That way it's a lab-cantrip hybrid that always draws a victory for the second card (and then sets a card aside).

---

Quote from: somekindoftony on December 20, 2019, 10:14:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/NhAe0wy.jpg)

Love the concept on these but isn't that the Ghost of Christmas Present in Scrooged? You didn't wanna go with David Johansen's over the top cabbie?

---

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 22, 2019, 11:12:54 am

(https://i.imgur.com/o64hYQZ.png)

the goodwill-to-all aspect breaks in Potions games because no one is going to want to get junked with potions.
You might want to revise the order of these to make it more ... charitable - something like

Quote

Choose a card in the Supply costing at least $3; each other player may gain a copy of it. If anyone does, gain a card costing up to $5; otherwise, +1 Action

which keeps it from being a totally dead card in a game with an opponent who is refusing your help.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 22, 2019, 06:26:56 pm

Wanted something heavy on theme? Here we go!

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/christmasv2.png)

Quote

Christmas - Event $4
Choose to gain a Grinch; or both a Gift and a card costing up to $4. Each other player that has Naughty gains a Lump of Coal; if they don't have Naughty, they gain a Gift.

An event that acts like a sort of messenger if everyone plays nice, but ends up attacking everyone if they are Naughty. How do you get Naughty?

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/naughty.png)

Quote

Naughty - State
When you play an Attack card, take Naughty.

Ah, so you get Naughty by being Naughty. Seems thematic.

So that explains that. But what a Lump of Coal vs a Gift? And what's a Grinch? A Grinch is a laboratory attack (that's where Naughty comes into play). And a Lump of Coal is a better Confusion and a Gift is a weak wish.

 (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/gift.png)  (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/lumpofcoal.png)    (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/grinch.png)

Quote

Gift - Action - $4*
+1 Action

Return this to the Gift pile, if you did, gain a card costing up to $4.

(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Lump of Coal - Action - $0*
Return this to the Lump of Coal pile.

(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Grinch - Action Attack - $6*
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a Gift or reveals a hand with no Gifts. Then, each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

(There are 10 copies of each of these. Seems about right. Sometimes you will run out of gifts to give.)

So yeah, you buy Christmas and everyone gets presents, and hey you get one two, and also get to open one immediately! Or you could get a grinch to take away people's presents. Grinch is a powerful card in that Laboratory is a powerful card. The attack is annoying but amounts to a slightly stronger urchin overall, so not terribly painful. Plus, normally you can only be hit once by it. Of course, playing a Grinch opens you up to other people attacking you by buying Christmases. It's worth noting that giving the other players Gifts is nice, but they have to wait to play the card and then another shuffle to use the card they exchanged the Gift for. So, it is slightly weaker of a boon to your opponents then it may seem. And you, if you're naughty, you don't mind giving them gifts because you can force them to discard them with your Grinches and never even be able to open the Gifts. Now that isn't the Christmas spirit!

So, at first buying Christmas does something positive for the other players. If they stay nice, it keeps doing something positive. But if they get Naughty, then it no longer does. Okay, those are my cards! Always open to feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on December 22, 2019, 08:35:11 pm

Quote from: spineflu on December 22, 2019, 11:56:46 am

Quote from: scolapasta on December 22, 2019, 01:07:01 am

(https://i.imgur.com/iWfRh9q.png)

(I'll likely still tweak this some tomorrow, but wanted to get this out there to get some feedback)

Originally this was super simple: "+3 cards, Each player may set aside a Victory from their hand." The +3 cards helped you increase the probability for you, but I was still worried it would miss for you, but hit for your opponents. So I went with "Reveal until..."

The +1 Action allows you to play multiple WWs in a turn, and with each, your opponents are less likely to have a Victory in their hands.

It's still missing something, maybe a +Buy to also help you get more victories for future turns?

Quote from: segura on December 22, 2019, 04:06:57 am

I prefer the Smithy version.

The problem of this is that it is not the best opening buy. After the first shuffle chances are high that the opponents have green in hand, so this would do something virtually identical for everybody.
So this is then only decent for alt-VP and once you start to green.

The Smithy variant on the other hand is more versatile, even with little or no green in your deck you might want a $5 Smithy.

Basically we already went though something very similar to this with Scout and Patrol.

imo, split the difference, put it at +1 Card +1 Action +[reveal until victory] and bump the price to $4 or $5. That way it's a lab-cantrip hybrid that always draws a victory for the second card (and then sets a card aside).

Good points from both, thanks. I decided to try and go back to the Smithy variant, with an additional bonus. That way, even if you miss and others don't, you get 1VP.

(I considered tweaking the order and have other players set aside first, so they don't know if you have, but that didn't seem worth it for the added words. Unless I make the +1 VP contingent on *only* the other players.

(https://i.imgur.com/yDxBZQa.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on December 23, 2019, 12:51:33 am

Oh no spineflu did I really get that wrong? Aagh I did.
Its an ephemeral spirit in the book so I just made the mistake in my memory about the film.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on December 23, 2019, 01:13:41 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 22, 2019, 06:26:56 pm

Wanted something heavy on theme? Here we go!

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/christmasv2.png)

Quote

Christmas - Event $4
Choose to gain a Grinch; or both a Gift and a card costing up to $4. Each other player that has Naughty gains a Lump of Coal; if they don't have Naughty, they gain a Gift.

An event that acts like a sort of messenger if everyone plays nice, but ends up attacking everyone if they are Naughty. How do you get Naughty?

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/naughty.png)

Quote

Naughty - State
When you play an Attack card, take Naughty.

Ah, so you get Naughty by being Naughty. Seems thematic.

So that explains that. But what a Lump of Coal vs a Gift? And what's a Grinch? A Grinch is a laboratory attack (that's where Naughty comes into play). And a Lump of Coal is a better Confusion and a Gift is a weak wish.

 (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/gift.png)  (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/lumpofcoal.png)    (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/grinch.png)

Quote

Gift - Action - $4*
+1 Action

Return this to the Gift pile, if you did, gain a card costing up to $4.

(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Lump of Coal - Action - $0*
Return this to the Lump of Coal pile.

(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Grinch - Action Attack - $6*
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a Gift or reveals a hand with no Gifts. Then, each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

(There are 10 copies of each of these. Seems about right. Sometimes you will run out of gifts to give.)

So yeah, you buy Christmas and everyone gets presents, and hey you get one two, and also get to open one immediately! Or you could get a grinch to take away people's presents. Grinch is a powerful card in that Laboratory is a powerful card. The attack is annoying but amounts to a slightly stronger urchin overall, so not terribly painful. Plus, normally you can only be hit once by it. Of course, playing a Grinch opens you up to other people attacking you by buying Christmases. It's worth noting that giving the other players Gifts is nice, but they have to wait to play the card and then another shuffle to use the card they exchanged the Gift for. So, it is slightly weaker of a boon to your opponents then it may seem. And you, if you're naughty, you don't mind giving them gifts because you can force them to discard them with your Grinches and never even be able to open the Gifts. Now that isn't the Christmas spirit!

So, at first buying Christmas does something positive for the other players. If they stay nice, it keeps doing something positive. But if they get Naughty, then it no longer does. Okay, those are my cards! Always open to feedback.

Nice theme!

Once you take naughty, are you naughty for the rest of the game, or should there maybe be a way to return it? How about when you play / return lump of coal? (Forcing you to play it and not just trash it)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 23, 2019, 06:05:08 am

Tired tonight so everyone gets another 24 hours!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 23, 2019, 09:13:04 am

Quote from: scolapasta on December 23, 2019, 01:13:41 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 22, 2019, 06:26:56 pm

Wanted something heavy on theme? Here we go!

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/christmasv2.png)

Quote

Christmas - Event $4
Choose to gain a Grinch; or both a Gift and a card costing up to $4. Each other player that has Naughty gains a Lump of Coal; if they don't have Naughty, they gain a Gift.

An event that acts like a sort of messenger if everyone plays nice, but ends up attacking everyone if they are Naughty. How do you get Naughty?

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/naughty.png)

Quote

Naughty - State
When you play an Attack card, take Naughty.

Ah, so you get Naughty by being Naughty. Seems thematic.

So that explains that. But what a Lump of Coal vs a Gift? And what's a Grinch? A Grinch is a laboratory attack (that's where Naughty comes into play). And a Lump of Coal is a better Confusion and a Gift is a weak wish.

 (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/gift.png)  (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/lumpofcoal.png)    (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/grinch.png)

Quote

Gift - Action - $4*
+1 Action

Return this to the Gift pile, if you did, gain a card costing up to $4.

(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Lump of Coal - Action - $0*
Return this to the Lump of Coal pile.

(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Grinch - Action Attack - $6*
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a Gift or reveals a hand with no Gifts. Then, each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

(There are 10 copies of each of these. Seems about right. Sometimes you will run out of gifts to give.)

So yeah, you buy Christmas and everyone gets presents, and hey you get one two, and also get to open one immediately! Or you could get a grinch to take away people's presents. Grinch is a powerful card in that Laboratory is a powerful card. The attack is annoying but amounts to a slightly stronger urchin overall, so not terribly painful. Plus, normally you can only be hit once by it. Of course, playing a Grinch opens you up to other people attacking you by buying Christmases. It's worth noting that giving the other players Gifts is nice, but they have to wait to play the card and then another shuffle to use the card they exchanged the Gift for. So, it is slightly weaker of a boon to your opponents then it may seem. And you, if you're naughty, you don't mind giving them gifts because you can force them to discard them with your Grinches and never even be able to open the Gifts. Now that isn't the Christmas spirit!

So, at first buying Christmas does something positive for the other players. If they stay nice, it keeps doing something positive. But if they get Naughty, then it no longer does. Okay, those are my cards! Always open to feedback.

Nice theme!

Once you take naughty, are you naughty for the rest of the game, or should there maybe be a way to return it? How about when you play / return lump of coal? (Forcing you to play it and not just trash it)

Yes, I guess the one thing anti-theme is that you can’t ever lose naughty (goes against the literal tale I’m invoking of the grinch). I thought about ways to make naughty go away (what if you could give a gift to become Un-naughty — VERY thematic ) but they all run into design problems. If naughty is temporary, you tactically get these cheap labs, so Christmas has to be more expensive, and more powerful, but still balanced for both naughty and nice players. I couldn’t think of a way that was fun and balanced to play.

I also like that, once made, this is a permanent decision. It also gives players who don’t like attacks a way to playfully punish players that do use attacks. “Hey— I was trying to give you a gift. It’s YOUR fault you’re naughty!”

Thank you for the feedback. Feel free to take the naughty concept and play with a workable way to lose naughty. I just personally couldn’t find design there that I wanted to pursue more than a permanent naughty.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 23, 2019, 09:52:36 am

I could change Magic Workshop to "choose an Action card costing at least $3." That would solve both the Silver and Potion problems, though it would remove the ability to distribute useless alt-VP like Duke and Feodum (which I thought was cool), but that's also probably for the better.

I think anordinaryman spineflu's suggestion is too political and also far too weak; I'd never take a $3 if it meant my opponent got a $5, and the Ruined Village aspect doesn't really help. (At least make it a cantrip, though it could be interesting to make it a Peddler or Lab or something your opponent might want to accept the gift to deny you, but that's still very political in multiplayer.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 23, 2019, 02:45:46 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 23, 2019, 09:52:36 am

I think anordinaryman's suggestion is too political and also far too weak; I'd never take a $3 if it meant my opponent got a $5, and the Ruined Village aspect doesn't really help. (At least make it a cantrip, though it could be interesting to make it a Peddler or Lab or something your opponent might want to accept the gift to deny you, but that's still very political in multiplayer.)

Uh... I’m really confused. There’s no choice to take a 3 for your opponent to get a 5...i think you may have misread it?

When you buy Christmas, there’s no conditional on the opponents accepting the gift. They always get it, and you always get your reward of either a gift and a $4, or a grinch.

So, it’s not that political. Sure in a 3 person game there’s a little politics between buying a $4 and buying Christmas if one opponent is naughty and the other isn’t, but more often the choice is, do *I* want a free gift with my $4? In a game where you’re buying $4s, you do. Or if you’re going for a grinch, it ain’t political cuz you can’t buy one you need to buy Christmas


There’s also nothing close to a ruined village... there’s a weak gift that has +1 action on it but you gain a card with it. And there’s a lump of coal but that’s like a confusion you can self return if you have a spare action. So it’s like a minus action.

edit: spineflu pointed out that  this comment was directed towards his suggestion towards a card, and not my contest submission. Probably using my name instead of his was a typo Something_Smart made?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 23, 2019, 02:47:51 pm

i think Something_Smart was talking my suggestion on his card, which admittedly does make it a political card. anordinaryman, yours seems very well thoughtout and balanced to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on December 23, 2019, 04:01:20 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 23, 2019, 02:45:46 pm

edit: spineflu pointed out that  this comment was directed towards his suggestion towards a card, and not my contest submission. Probably using my name instead of his was a typo Something_Smart made?

Derp, yes, my bad. Topic summary confused me :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on December 23, 2019, 10:07:01 pm

Quote from: Snowyowl on December 18, 2019, 03:09:44 pm

Quote

Gift Exchange
$3 - Action
Starting with the player to your left, each player trashes a card from their hand or a Gold from the supply.
Starting with you, each player may gain a card from the trash.

Question:
The way I want this to work when the Gold pile is empty is: players can still choose the Gold option, and if they do they trash nothing. Is that how you understood it? If not, how can I tweak the wording?

Your wording is correct according to the similar behavior of Tournament.  I've always disliked the wording and would prefer something such as

Code: [Select]

Starting with the player to your left, each player may trash a card from their hand. If they don't, they trash a Gold from the Supply.I don't know how much I like the card, just because it reads to me like a more troublesome Bishop.  The way it provides trashing to all players way will make it similarly irrelevant whenever it appears without other trashers.  When other trashers─and especially trashing Attacks─appear it goes on to be a weak Gold gainer with an uneven gaining power that is strongly bound by turn order.  Bishop at least can be relevant in any end-game by providing a decent trash-for-benefit effect.

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 23, 2019, 09:52:36 am

Quote from: spineflu on December 22, 2019, 11:56:46 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on December 22, 2019, 11:12:54 am

Magic Workshop
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card costing up to $5. Choose a card in the Supply costing at least $3; each other player may gain a copy of it.

the goodwill-to-all aspect breaks in Potions games because no one is going to want to get junked with potions.
You might want to revise the order of these to make it more ... charitable - something like

Quote

Choose a card in the Supply costing at least $3; each other player may gain a copy of it. If anyone does, gain a card costing up to $5; otherwise, +1 Action

which keeps it from being a totally dead card in a game with an opponent who is refusing your help.

I could change Magic Workshop to "choose an Action card costing at least $3." That would solve both the Silver and Potion problems, though it would remove the ability to distribute useless alt-VP like Duke and Feodum (which I thought was cool), but that's also probably for the better.

I think anordinaryman spineflu's suggestion is too political and also far too weak; I'd never take a $3 if it meant my opponent got a $5, and the Ruined Village aspect doesn't really help. (At least make it a cantrip, though it could be interesting to make it a Peddler or Lab or something your opponent might want to accept the gift to deny you, but that's still very political in multiplayer.)

Magic Workshop is inherently incredibly political because Player A gets to choose the card that Players B and C can gain.  Helpful cards for each of those players would be different in many circumstances.  Regardless of politics, the ability for other players to gain a Silver in response to me gaining a $5 card does little to nothing to counterbalance the strength of that effect, let alone that there will often be worse options than Silver (like Duchy in the early game).  Frankly, this may as well just read "Gain a card costing up to $5."
While "Choose an Action card in the Supply..." would go a long way to improving the effect, I think that spineflu is ultimately correct to say that the card ought to be throttled by requiring one to select cards other players want.  I would try to make Magic Workshop an unconditional cantrip that then only gives you its powerful Workshop effect when you choose a card another player actually wants.

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 22, 2019, 06:26:56 pm

Quote

Christmas - Event $4
Choose to gain a Grinch; or both a Gift and a card costing up to $4. Each other player that has Naughty gains a Lump of Coal; if they don't have Naughty, they gain a Gift.

Quote

Naughty - State
When you play an Attack card, take Naughty.

Quote

Gift - Action - $4*
+1 Action. Return this to the Gift pile, if you did, gain a card costing up to $4.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Lump of Coal - Action - $0*
Return this to the Lump of Coal pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Grinch - Action Attack - $6*
+2 Cards, +1 Action. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a Gift or reveals a hand with no Gifts. Then, each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)

All theme aside, Lump of Coal likely renders Attacks automatically impossible to play in Christmas games.  In 2-player games, playing an Attack means that the other player can buy a super-cheap Ball-ish that junks you for the rest of the game.  In multiplayer games, playing an Attack means that players can bury you in Lump of Coal cards for the rest of the game.
There probably needs to be something to prevent Lump of Coal from becoming so oppressive.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 23, 2019, 11:27:54 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 23, 2019, 10:07:01 pm

All theme aside, Lump of Coal likely renders Attacks automatically impossible to play in Christmas games.  In 2-player games, playing an Attack means that the other player can buy a super-cheap Ball-ish that junks you for the rest of the game.  In multiplayer games, playing an Attack means that players can bury you in Lump of Coal cards for the rest of the game.
There probably needs to be something to prevent Lump of Coal from becoming so oppressive.

I appreciate the feedback. I believe this dynamic is what makes Christmas interesting. Similar to how a player who buys a bunch of ambassadors can be so oppressive, or like a torturer chain can be oppressive, or a ghost ship can be oppressive, but now it's the person who bought the attack that is in trouble with losing out on Christmas.

 Except the lump of coal isn't as bad as any of those attacks. It's not that oppressive. It's much better to have in you deck than a curse. You can trash a Lump of Coal if there's trashers available. If there's no trashers available, then you can return it for an action. Also, if there are no trashers available, well, you don't mind being Naughty because the Witch you bought is definitely worth being Naughty for. But the presence of Christmas makes you probably delay Witch so you can take advantage of a few Gifts before you get Naughty. If there are trashers available, then you don't care so much for the lump of coals you're getting, but it does make you rethink some of the weaker attacks like oracle might be worth skipping. A strong attack though, it might be worth being naughty. And Christmas always comes with a strong attack -- you want to add a Grinch to almost any deck. Plus, naughty isn't cumulative. In a game with multiple attack cards, it is probably a viable strategy to either be naughty or nice. It's a complicated strategy. It's also worth noting you can only get cards costing up to $4 with Christmas. So your opponents will probably have to shell out for $5s later on. Towards the endgame, no one will want to buy Christmas, so it's safer to become naughty then.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 24, 2019, 08:10:43 am

Feedback:

Christmas Chapel by majiponi

I can imagine this functioning very similarly to Chapel, except even more centralising. The effect for everyone seems tacked on and not really enough to make not going for this worthwhile.

Christmas Feast by pubby

Do the other players get to see the card before choosing to gain it or putting it back? Either would be interesting. I like this one a lot - it's swingy but in a fun way. I think it would be better as a workshop variant rather than an event, so there's an extra layer in deciding to "go for" the Christmas Feast deck, to make it more conscious than luck based. Still, I like the idea. Excellent response to the theme.

Snow Hill/Sleigh by grep

I imagine this being really good and fun in games where this is the only Village, but otherwise useless. The drawback is too much - compare to Lost City. You would want to not play sleighs to set up a chain later, but that actually nullifies the advantage of gaining to hand. Perhaps gaining to top of deck would be the best of both words. I like what you're going for here (one of my long time favourite things is everyone getting the same benefit), but I don't think this works quite well enough.

Oversee by Fragasnap

I think this is a bit too swingy. Estate->$5 card is very good in the opening (why Expand needs to cost $7), while in games with special cards it can backfire horribly. I don't think it's any more interesting for the trashing being mandatory,. The shared effect helps other people in an interesting way in Kingdoms with this card, giving some 2nd player advantage, but it all seems like through the lens of luck.

Midnight Ride by forkofnature

This card pretty much doesn't work sorry. A cantrip leaves you worse off than every other player for having played it. There are some niche scenarios where you are far better equipped to deal with a card than other players, but I don't think this card explores it well. Better luck next time

Santa Claus by segura

I like the Heirloom by theory/Donald X better, as I don't mind seeing a dead Heirloom as much as a dead kingdom card. Still this is an interesting card that makes the greening phase interesting and brings new life to gainers (in non alt vp games). The penalty might be a bit too much.

Santa's Workshop/Gift by [TP] Inferno

Workshop variants are on the weaker/situational side as far as cards go, so putting a penalty on one needs to have something to balance it out, and I don't think being non terminal with +buy is quite enough. I think this is a very good approach to the theme, and I like Gift, but I don't think the card as a whole adds enough interesting.

Magi by Gazbag

 I really like the on gain penalty and am surprised there isn't an official card with it. This doesn't seem to fit neatly into any kind of deck I can imagine unfortunately. Engines aren't really that fond of Gold, it takes 3 shuffles for a single one to get the main benefit (not good for BM and Slogs), and I can't think of any good combos with it. Theme is nice.

The Grinch by grrgrrgrr

Very original. There are 13 imps so you will have 1 more than your opponents except in 5 player (if you're the first to buy). The best way to make good use of being flooded with Imps is a deck with good variety. The more I think about this, the more I like it.

Gift Exchange by Snowyowl

I like the theme of this, and it's nice and simple. In practice I think it will largely be "Gain a Gold, each other player trashes a card from their hand", but that sounds like a good card (I'm a fan of Leprechaun). There's a lot of potential for politics, but that sounds about right for Christmas.

Papa Noel by spineflu

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't really like the combination of effects here. It may be non terminal with Capitalism, but in most games it is terminal. Effects for other players are basically "+1 Card, +1 Action, (effect)", but with no opportunity cost. The opportunity cost for you on the other hand, is big. I like the Victory -> VP effect but it's not really carrying the card. I'm also not getting a lot of theme.

Sub for Santa by mail-mi

Thinking about theme here (Christmas), this card can be way too mean; gain a $2 with it and it's basically a Mountebank. I think it would be better if the Curse and other card were optional (gain a curse to gain the card - I had a fan card that did something similar). The 5/4 gap is very big and I think that makes this card too good.

Ghosts of Christmas by somekindoftony

While I did say I focused more on theme I was hoping that each card would satisfy the competition criteria (something positive for your opponents), and this does no such thing.

Looking at theme, I think what you're going for here is that the Ghost of Christmas Future scares you but gives you another chance at Christmas. This is a nice idea and the cards work well with it. I think it can best be compared with a Journey token card as an interesting spin on chapel which plays a bit with the early game (do you really want to use your oneshot gold now?)

I think on theme alone you'd be competitive, but it would be better with some sense of the idea of "giving" in the theme (even if you wanted to stick with "A Christmas Carol")

Winter Wonderland by scolapasta

I like it. You'll probably want to pick one up but you can make not picking one up work well for you too. Late game I think it mitigates greening a bit too well and the +VP may not really be necessary.

Magic Workshop by Something_Smart

This is very strong, and I think there are far too many situations where you can come up with a card other people don't want.

Christmas and a whole lot of other things, by anordinaryman

I asked people to go hard on theme, and nobody went harder than you.
I really like "Naughty" although to make it work as intended, I think a better every player should start with "Nice", with "flip this to Naughty when you play an Attack" written on it. Maybe something obscure but not unavoidable like "Trash an attack" would be good for getting back to Nice (which is an important part of Christmas IMO - you aren't naughty forever, forgiveness is possible).

Probably the best aspect of this card is that it works well when everyone chooses to be nice. Once someone's mean, you can flood them with coal.

Only issue is that there might not be $4 cards in the kingdom you want to gain a lot of. This would ultimately benefit the "naughty" player who is happy to get $4 Labs, and you end up with coal flying everywhere.

Still, this was the sort of thing I had more in mind when I came up with the competition.

RESULTS

Winner - Gift Exchange by snowyowl
Runner Up - The Grinch by grrgrrgrr

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on December 25, 2019, 09:38:27 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on December 24, 2019, 08:10:43 am

Santa's Workshop/Gift by [TP] Inferno

Workshop variants are on the weaker/situational side as far as cards go, so putting a penalty on one needs to have something to balance it out, and I don't think being non terminal with +buy is quite enough. I think this is a very good approach to the theme, and I like Gift, but I don't think the card as a whole adds enough interesting.

It will be very helpful to know that about Workshop variants, even though I won with one. Thanks lots for the feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 25, 2019, 10:48:42 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on December 25, 2019, 09:38:27 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on December 24, 2019, 08:10:43 am

Santa's Workshop/Gift by [TP] Inferno

Workshop variants are on the weaker/situational side as far as cards go, so putting a penalty on one needs to have something to balance it out, and I don't think being non terminal with +buy is quite enough. I think this is a very good approach to the theme, and I like Gift, but I don't think the card as a whole adds enough interesting.

It will be very helpful to know that about Workshop variants, even though I won with one. Thanks lots for the feedback.

Workshop is a solid "Depends on the kingdom" card. It has powerful combos with Alt-VP cards, and it's good when you there are cards you want quite a lot of under $4. The main thing to remember about these kinds of cards is the $4-$5 gap.

Workshop is in the bottom half of $3 cards. My understanding however might be out of date. Being non terminal is a nice bonus - and Ironworks and Devil's Workshop are both in the top half of the $4 cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on December 25, 2019, 11:13:26 pm

Gift Exchange has a problem.

Play Apprentice to trash Province.
Play Gift Exchange to gain Province.

...too overpowering. Cost restriction is needed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on December 26, 2019, 04:31:48 am

Quote from: majiponi on December 25, 2019, 11:13:26 pm

Gift Exchange has a problem.

Play Apprentice to trash Province.
Play Gift Exchange to gain Province.

...too overpowering. Cost restriction is needed.

Treasurer does something similar with gold. It's fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 26, 2019, 12:23:45 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on December 26, 2019, 04:31:48 am

Quote from: majiponi on December 25, 2019, 11:13:26 pm

Gift Exchange has a problem.

Play Apprentice to trash Province.
Play Gift Exchange to gain Province.

...too overpowering. Cost restriction is needed.

Treasurer does something similar with gold. It's fine.

Treasurer also costs $5, and cannot cause wild VP swings from gaining a Swindled/Locusted etc. Provinces. I agree that there should be a restriction - cost or type.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on December 26, 2019, 02:44:47 pm

Don't we usually say you have 48 hours to start the next contest?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 26, 2019, 03:15:45 pm

Quote from: naitchman on December 26, 2019, 02:44:47 pm

Don't we usually say you have 48 hours to start the next contest?

I think so.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 26, 2019, 03:39:27 pm

i think we make a sui generis extension of a day, considering the holiday.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Abel_K on December 26, 2019, 04:22:46 pm

snowyowl  is a very recent member. Perhaps didn't he understand the "urgency" to open a new contest ?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on December 26, 2019, 05:41:13 pm

I think we should wait until 72 hours and then let grrgrrgrr take over (considering the holiday)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on December 26, 2019, 07:47:53 pm

Hi! Sorry for the delay, I'm out for the holiday. I don't have time to run the next contest, can grrgrrgrr take over?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Abel_K on December 27, 2019, 08:15:57 am

So, let us graciously, gratefully grant grrgrrgrr to grave a great contest, to ground grimly our grievous gresearches !!!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on December 27, 2019, 01:04:46 pm

Very well. Next challenge will be

CHALLENGE #56 - WHAT'S YOUR NEXT ADVENTURE

Design a card shaped object that uses one of the tokens that were introduced in the Adventures expansion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 27, 2019, 01:34:20 pm

can we use more than one of the adventure tokens? also do we have to maintain all of the regular functionality for the trash/estate tokens or can we come up with new functionality and just say "don't use this with plan/inheritance"?

asking specifically on those two because everything else is pretty straightforward on how it works

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on December 27, 2019, 03:21:15 pm

Quote from: spineflu on December 27, 2019, 01:34:20 pm

can we use more than one of the adventure tokens? also do we have to maintain all of the regular functionality for the trash/estate tokens or can we come up with new functionality and just say "don't use this with plan/inheritance"?

asking specifically on those two because everything else is pretty straightforward on how it works

a) You can definitely use multiple tokens.
b) You have to stick with the original functionality of the token. (otherwise, I might as well add the ability to create custom tokens)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 27, 2019, 04:56:57 pm

Withdrawing this - it's got stuff yall're gonna complain about like "why do i take my –1 Card token" (the answer is it's an additional price for unlocking additional functionality) and "i don't know if the Villa/Hammer effect is a good call" (i really don't either - I'd be interested to see how broken it could get). New entry is gonna be downthread.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e067b76ffb22f13e0051d14/281d8e078beccbd888a4e7c35e928436/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e067b76ffb22f13e0051d14/8f2e5ca8cd0d0f6619dedf29ee956031/image.png)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e067b76ffb22f13e0051d14/ae62abc9f216dcba600a81a06d1583de/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e067b76ffb22f13e0051d14/5a1232de735a2bdbd8ca830c5642ee8a/image.png)

Quote

Order • $4 • Event
Move your –$2 cost token to a non-Victory pile. If cards from that pile cost $0, gain a Carpenter and take your –1 Card token.

Quote

Carpenter • $3* • Action
You may gain a card costing up to $4. You may trash a card from your hand. If you did both, you may take the Hammer or Nails, then return this to the Carpenter pile.
(This is not in the Supply)

Quote

Hammer • Artifact
When you buy a card from the pile with your –$2 cost token, +1 Action and you may return to your Action phase.

Quote

Nails • Artifact
During your turn, cards cost $1 less.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 27, 2019, 05:04:59 pm

Tramway
Action - $3
+2 Actions
If you have your -1 Card token on your deck, +1 Coffers. Otherwise, +2 Cards and put your -1 Card token on your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on December 27, 2019, 11:36:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ifEQxss.jpg)

Quote

Pioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action, +$1. Move your +1 Card token to an Action Supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you first get +1 Card.) At the start of Clean-Up, remove it from the Supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #56: Adventures tokens
Post by: Aquila on December 28, 2019, 07:18:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/zqoTWI9.jpg)
Lots of brevity here to make room for all the instructions. Cantrip trasher that powers up if you trash better things. It might be crazy, though it's at $6 cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on December 28, 2019, 08:59:24 am

I've changed this from what is pictured below. Will figure out how to link to later post but skip to next page to see that as most final version.

(https://i.imgur.com/BasjikG.png)

I think the overall effect of a bunch of Usurpers will be to cancel each other out. The cost plus debt is so that they can come out early and have an effect rather than being a finishing move for the player already in the lead. I would even consider giving them a lower cost ($3 and 4 debt) as I think they might not be particularly strong. Its a terminal attack whose benefit is primarily when first played after all.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on December 28, 2019, 10:33:33 am

Clownpiece
cost $5 - Action
+1 Action
+$1 per unused Actions (not Action cards) you have.
If this is the first time you played a Clownpiece this turn, you may move your +1 Action token to an Action Supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you first get +1 Action.)

EDIT: cost $4 => $5

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 28, 2019, 11:14:24 am

one quick clarification @grrgrrgrr - can it be a regular card or does it have to be a sideways card like object?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 28, 2019, 01:43:52 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 27, 2019, 11:36:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ifEQxss.jpg)

Quote

Pioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action, +$1. Move your +1 Card token to an Action Supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you first get +1 Card.) At the start of Clean-Up, remove it from the Supply.

Looks weakish. A rough heuristic is to pick Pioneer as target for the +1 Card token but then it is weaker than Peddler. And if you pick another card, e.g. a village, you still needs several Pioneers/Coppers to activate the +1 Card thingy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on December 28, 2019, 05:20:06 pm

Quote from: segura on December 28, 2019, 01:43:52 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 27, 2019, 11:36:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ifEQxss.jpg)

Quote

Pioneer
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action, +$1. Move your +1 Card token to an Action Supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you first get +1 Card.) At the start of Clean-Up, remove it from the Supply.

Looks weakish. A rough heuristic is to pick Pioneer as target for the +1 Card token but then it is weaker than Peddler. And if you pick another card, e.g. a village, you still needs several Pioneers/Coppers to activate the +1 Card thingy.

No. This is SUPER SWINGY. Play Pioneer to put +1 Card on Village, play Village as Lost City, play another, play another, play Pioneer to put +1 Card to Smithy, play Smithy as Hunting Grounds, play Smithy as Hunting Grounds,  ...

Yes, you need to have Pioneer in hand, but moving +1 Card token multiple times in one turn is horrible. Needs once per turn clause like mine, or another trick.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on December 28, 2019, 07:03:37 pm

Quote from: spineflu on December 28, 2019, 11:14:24 am

one quick clarification @grrgrrgrr - can it be a regular card or does it have to be a sideways card like object?

Regular cards are definitely eligible.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 28, 2019, 07:29:42 pm

Quote

Archaeologist
$5 Action - Looter
+1 Card, +1 Action.
Gain a ruins, putting it in your hand.
You may play an action costing $3 or less.
-
When you gain this, you may put your +1 Action, +1 Card, +$1, or +1 Buy token on the ruins pile.

The first two of these you buy are weak, but once you buy four of them, you'll have all four tokens on your ruins pile which should make them pretty strong.

Posting the entry now. I might do a mock-up later so it looks nice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on December 28, 2019, 07:58:02 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 28, 2019, 07:29:42 pm

Quote

Archaeologist
$5 Action - Looter
+1 Card, +1 Action.
Gain a ruins, putting it in your hand.
You may play an action costing $3 or less.
-
When you gain this, you may put your +1 Action, +1 Card, +$1, or +1 Buy token on the ruins pile.

The first two of these you buy are weak, but once you buy four of them, you'll have all four tokens on your ruins pile which should make them pretty strong.

Posting the entry now. I might do a mock-up later so it looks nice.

I quite like this. I suspect it might get strong from the get go unless it gets affected by the variable top card of ruins? I mean does it only apply if the ruins card played is the same as the top card?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 29, 2019, 12:48:21 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on December 28, 2019, 07:58:02 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 28, 2019, 07:29:42 pm

Quote

Archaeologist
$5 Action - Looter
+1 Card, +1 Action.
Gain a ruins, putting it in your hand.
You may play an action costing $3 or less.
-
When you gain this, you may put your +1 Action, +1 Card, +$1, or +1 Buy token on the ruins pile.

The first two of these you buy are weak, but once you buy four of them, you'll have all four tokens on your ruins pile which should make them pretty strong.

Posting the entry now. I might do a mock-up later so it looks nice.

I quite like this. I suspect it might get strong from the get go unless it gets affected by the variable top card of ruins? I mean does it only apply if the ruins card played is the same as the top card?

No, the tokens affect all the cards in the pile. See the rule here: http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Adventures_tokens

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 29, 2019, 12:58:23 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 28, 2019, 07:29:42 pm

Quote

Archaeologist
$5 Action - Looter
+1 Card, +1 Action.
Gain a ruins, putting it in your hand.
You may play an action costing $3 or less.
-
When you gain this, you may put your +1 Action, +1 Card, +$1, or +1 Buy token on the ruins pile.

The first two of these you buy are weak, but once you buy four of them, you'll have all four tokens on your ruins pile which should make them pretty strong.

Posting the entry now. I might do a mock-up later so it looks nice.

Just after gaining one of these, you can put your +1 Card token on the Ruins pile and your Archaeologist will be strictly better than a Laboratory on-play (since the Ruin can be played freely, it's a net +2 Cards, +1 Action, plus the Ruins effect). And with just two Archaeologists gained, the Ruins become either:
A free Laboratory (Ruined Library)
A free Village (Ruined Village)
A free, reaction-less Market Square (Ruined Market)
A free Peddler (Abandoned Mine)
Or a free mini-cartographer (Survivors). I think Archaeologist is way too strong for just _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}. (And note this is assuming you use your +1 Card and +1 Action tokens first. You can move the tokens in any order, so Archaeologist is actually strictly better than that.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on December 29, 2019, 08:12:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/vXbWLh6.png)

I'm still umming and aahing about the cost. But I've improved the effect while mildly weakening the attack. However it now has the problem of obliging people to keep track of which of the two tokens it "moved" and I'm assuming you can move a token to the same pile it was on (counterintuitively).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 30, 2019, 11:08:12 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on December 29, 2019, 08:12:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/vXbWLh6.png)

I'm still umming and aahing about the cost. But I've improved the effect while mildly weakening the attack. However it now has the problem of obliging people to keep track of which of the two tokens it "moved" and I'm assuming you can move a token to the same pile it was on (counterintuitively).

can you edit the previous post with a link to this one and make it clear that the previous post isn't the finalized entry?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on December 30, 2019, 11:58:15 am

(https://i.imgur.com/D7jiCvs.png)

Quote

Shipwright
$4 Action
Choose one: Gain a card costing up to $3; or put your -$2 cost token on an Action Supply pile. (Cards from that pile cost $2 less on your turns, but not less than $0.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 30, 2019, 04:46:57 pm

Whatever1
$6 Event
Move your +$1 token to a non-Action Supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you first get +$1.)

Whatever2
$5 Event
Move your +1 Buy token to a non-Action Supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you first get +1 Buy.)


I don't know, the second one is probably sound but the first one could be broken. For example in a Baker Kingdom and 5/2 , you could open with it and convert all your Coppers into Silvers.
The main idea here is obviously to counterbalance the heavy engine bias of Adventures.

Title: Re: Contest #56: What's Your Next Adventure
Post by: Gubump on December 31, 2019, 05:40:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7XWa8of.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on January 01, 2020, 01:56:00 pm

My attempt to reuse the Estate token:

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/85ls7F2.png)
Reinvest
$5 D3 - Event
Set aside a non-Command Action card from your hand. If you did, move the Estate token on it. If you had removed the Estate token from some card, move that card to the discard pile.

v 1.1. Renamed and added an illustration

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 02, 2020, 09:15:33 am

changing my entry to Carnival
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e0dfa7885ae2f8df43888f3/776f1ddbb598abd4ec1ed5ac4fd7c654/image.png)

Quote

Carnival • $4 • Project
Move your + Buy token to an Action pile
(When you play a card from that pile, you first get +1 Buy).
When you buy a card from the pile your + Buy token is on, +2 Buys.

Modular buy splitter. If Seaway is around, you can change what splits your buys.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on January 02, 2020, 01:40:31 pm

Time to say "24 hours left".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on January 02, 2020, 02:45:33 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/o93qbYD.png)

Quote

Forest Path
$5 - Action
+1 Buy
Choose one: +$2, or put your -$2 cost token on a Supply pile. (Cards from that pile cost $2 less on your turns, but not less than $0.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ClouduHieh on January 03, 2020, 03:42:11 am

(https://i.imgur.com/910vx4r.jpg)

When you Hear a lion roar, well let’s just say in real life you usually drop what your doing and react to it until after it’s roar has ended. But definitely not during the roar.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on January 04, 2020, 06:19:22 am

I will finish the judging this evening (European time). Feel free to post ideas until then.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Abel_K on January 04, 2020, 09:12:27 am

(https://nsm09.casimages.com/img/2020/01/04//20010403155420605916585664.jpg) (https://www.casimages.com/i/20010403155420605916585664.jpg.html)

Merchant Wharf.  Action-Attack-Duration. Costs $5

+1 Action
Put your +1 Buy token on an Action pile. If you buy this Action this turn, put it aside. If you don't, the other players take their -$1 token
At the start of your next turn, play the eventual aside Action, then choose 2 different : +1 Card +1 Action  +$1.
When you discard this from play, remove the +1 Buy token.


Well, my proposition is late, and it's a pity because i'd like to have time and discussions for perhaps balance it better.
The first turn is weak, the second rather strong, but is that worth $5 ?
Vanilla bonus at first and/or 2nd turn can be changed, for example...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 04, 2020, 01:38:08 pm

Rewording suggestion for Merchant Wharf:

+1 Action
Move your +1 Buy token to an Action Supply pile. If you buy an Action from that pile this turn, set it aside. Otherwise, each other player takes their -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} token at the start of Clean-up.
At the start of your next turn, play the set aside Action, then choose two: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}. (The choices must be different.)
-
When you discard this from play, remove your +1 Buy token.

This way, it's more in-line with official cards and easier to read and understand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Abel_K on January 04, 2020, 02:50:37 pm

Thank you very much !
Obviously more clear (and "in-line"  ;) )
I tried to make shorter to avoid too small lines (one could tell me to design less complicated cards !)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on January 04, 2020, 08:31:04 pm

Adventurer's Village
$4
Action
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Flip over your Journey token (it starts face up). If its face up, +2 Cards, +1 Action, +$1.

Its a cheap level 3 City with its bonuses split.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 05, 2020, 02:51:04 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on January 04, 2020, 08:31:04 pm

Adventurer's Village
$4
Action
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Flip over your Journey token (it starts face up). If its face up, +2 Cards, +1 Action, +$1.

Its a cheap level 3 City with its bonuses split.

Looks OK. It is on average a Worker Village with 1/2 less Action and 1/2 more Coin.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on January 05, 2020, 09:16:59 am

Ok, judging time.

Tramway by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820040#msg820040)
This is a really nice way of using your -1 card token. Tramway+Smithy is a slightly more reliable version of Village+Smithy. When you don't undo the -1card token, you can have some actions and some Coffers, but your next hand is gimped. Like it a lot. A $4 price would've been probably better though.

Pioneer by Fragasnap (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820055#msg820055)
This could work as a $6 cost, as it is basically a Peddler+ when drawn with another Action card. Being able to move your +1 Card token mid turn is a scary feat, but it really needs to connect probably in order to be that impactful. And using your +1 Card token on a card that appears once isn't super impressive (but not bad either)


Clownpiece by Majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820076#msg820076[/url)
I'd love to see Diadem as a regular Kingdom card, but I'm afraid this is going to be on the broken side. You have to consider that Smithy variants are not the only viable targets for Lost Arts; turning nonterminals into villages is also a very good use of the event. Spamming villages is going to make it a little too easy to make this produce lots of money, especially considering it is nonterminal action card. It'd work better as a Treasure.

Archaeologist by LibraryAdventurer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820111#msg820111[/url)
Very very very broken. After four purchases, ruins are going to be absolutely amazing. I mean, Abandoned Mine becomes a free Grand Market for crying out loud. Getting there shouldn't be difficult in 2P: the card itself is a cantrip and, afer two purchases, Ruins aren't going to be a hindrance either and Archaeologist becomes a superior Lost City. Not sure how to balance it; getting rid of the ability to gain ruins to the hand and to play $3 costs would be a start I suppose. Right now, it's probably superior to The Forbidden Card: Superlab.

Usurper by somekindoftony (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820176#msg820176[/url)
Not sure if I want an attack to be this expensive. The attack is definitely interesting; it's a Torturer that takes longer to to become a thread, but can become even more oppressive when it's stacked and the victim doesn't bring enough variety into the deck. The trashing token isn't going to be any meaningful when Ruins overtake the deck, and the +1 Card token elevates the price too much. Interesting concept, and you should definitely play with this idea in future contests.

Shipwright by Gazbag (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820199#msg820199[/url)
This card is nice if you want several copies of a singular $5 cost, but can be rather slow since it requires to move your first -2$ token before you can get your first copy. For getting $4 components, it is horrible. On the flip side, being able to move your -2$ token on play is a strong feat on its own. Very had to judge whether it's broken or underpowered (the latter is definitely not the case on Seer boards), but it looks solid.

Whatever1/2 by segura (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820205#msg820205[/url)
Two submissions at once is not allowed, but I will comment regardless. Donald has a sound reason to not allow the Coin token or the Buy token on treasures. Enabling the coin token on Copper would be clearly ridiculous, and enabling it on Silver or Gold would make it too automatic as well. Whatever 2 fares extremely poorly in comparison to Seaway, as that card actually makes you gain a card. Enabling the Buy token on Copper would be extremely busted with Gardens, too.

Fairy Forest by Gubumb (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820248#msg820248[/url)
We don't need more Smithy variants, and this one doesn't seem to bring much on the table. The ability to be screwed over by Delusion or War is probably reason enough to consider it inferior to any Smithy variant (including Smithy itself) for engines. For Money, the situation isn't much better, as Envious can be extremely annoying. Receiving boons is cute, but most are fairly superfluous, and receiving one in two plays is probably already balanced at $5; we don't need a bad version that gives hexes.

Reinvest by grep (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820282#msg820282[/url)
A bold move to not include a once-per-game clause. Needs playtesting to see if it is necessary. Comparing to Inheritence, it can be activated earlier as part of the price is in Debt. And being able to use $5 costs is a plus, too. At the same time, it seems rather clunky, as ensuring to hit $5 with a specific target in hand can be painful. It is a neat attempt at giving Inheritence a brother, but ultimately, I doubt if this is going to bring too much on the table.

Carnival by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820311#msg820311[/url)
This one compares poorly to Seaway (especially since it's a Project), and tying a "Modular buy splitter" effect to a +Buy token doesn't sound like a good idea. Don't get me wrong, a modular buy splitter can be cool, but it is much better to make it the on-buy effect of a specific card. Your idea is broken with Pedler: if both players move their +Buy token to Pedler, then the first player to play 4 actions can deplete the entire Pedler pile in one turn, while the other player is stuck with a useless +Buy token he can't even move. To be honest, I like your original nom a lot better, though that one was flawed as well.

Forest Path by Something_Smart (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820326#msg820326[/url)
On face value, this looks pretty horrible, as it's a Woodcutter that cost $5 that can do something else. But woodcutters are helpful at depleting the pile with the -2$ token on it. And on turns you move the -2$ token, it could be essentially equivalent to +$4, +1 Buy, which is nice. Playtesting needs to determine if this card is good enough (it's almost certainly not broken), but I think it will be on the weak side (though certainly not Harvest-tier weak).

Lion by Clouduhieh (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820349#msg820349[/url)
I don't like that the non-attack portion is completely identical to Haunted Woods. And the attack portion seems not to be something that alters the path to victory, but rather just needlessly drags out the game. The ability to dodge Reactions seems kinda cool, but is ultimately a way to make a card extra wordy for something that is not that strong or common to begin with.

Merchant Warf by Abel_K (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820411#msg820411[/url)
Thanks to Gubumb for providing a readable version of this card. It is still unnecessarily convoluted and the use of either or the tokens seems completely artificial to me. It also raises questions to what happens when you play multiple Merchant Warves, or when you buy Seaway after buying a card with the +Buy token. If you wanna finetune this card, please consider a Cargo-Ship like approach (no idea if it is balanced):

Quote

+1 Action
Once this turn, when you gain an Action, you may set it aside face up (on this). At the start of your next turn, play that card and then then choose 2 different : +1 Card +1 Action  +$1.

Adventurer's Village by [TP] Inferno (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820444#msg820444[/url)
Mmm, I'm not convinced this is balanced at $4. Mass buying this still provides a good amount of +Actions, +Coin and +Buy without reducing your handsize. The thing that keeps City from being overbearing is the First Mover problem. This card doesn't have that at all.

Final result:
Winner: Tramway by NoMoreFun
Runner-up: Shipwright by Gazbag

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on January 05, 2020, 06:37:16 pm

I agree with most of what you said. Here's my 2cents

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on January 05, 2020, 09:16:59 am

Pioneer by Fragasnap (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820055#msg820055)
This could work as a $6 cost, as it is basically a Peddler+ when drawn with another Action card. Being able to move your +1 Card token mid turn is a scary feat, but it really needs to connect probably in order to be that impactful. And using your +1 Card token on a card that appears once isn't super impressive (but not bad either)

There's no way this is strong enough for $6. A peddler+ is usually $5 cost (see Artificer, Treasury, Baker...), so $5 would probably be good here.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on January 05, 2020, 09:16:59 am

Archaeologist by LibraryAdventurer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820111#msg820111[/url)
Very very very broken. After four purchases, ruins are going to be absolutely amazing. I mean, Abandoned Mine becomes a free Grand Market for crying out loud. Getting there shouldn't be difficult in 2P: the card itself is a cantrip and, afer two purchases, Ruins aren't going to be a hindrance either and Archaeologist becomes a superior Lost City. Not sure how to balance it; getting rid of the ability to gain ruins to the hand and to play $3 costs would be a start I suppose. Right now, it's probably superior to The Forbidden Card: Superlab.

You're probably right that it's too strong, but I don't think it's quite as broken as a Superlab. I'll make it slightly weaker.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on January 05, 2020, 09:16:59 am

Forest Path by Something_Smart (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820326#msg820326[/url)
On face value, this looks pretty horrible, as it's a Woodcutter that cost $5 that can do something else. But woodcutters are helpful at depleting the pile with the -2$ token on it. And on turns you move the -2$ token, it could be essentially equivalent to +$4, +1 Buy, which is nice. Playtesting needs to determine if this card is good enough (it's almost certainly not broken), but I think it will be on the weak side (though certainly not Harvest-tier weak).

I think you misread the card. You either get +$2 or place the -$2 cost token, never both. Which IMO makes it too weak for $5, but I think it'd be fine at $4.

My favorites (with appropriate tweaks): Pioneer, Shipwright, Forest Path, and my Archaeologist of course.

But congrats to NoMoreFun anyway...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on January 05, 2020, 08:06:31 pm

I don't know about anyone else, but I think Forest Path being able to make Provinces cost $6 is pretty good and definitely worth $5...

Congrats NoMoreFun!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on January 05, 2020, 09:39:35 pm

Regarding my own card, I couldn't agree more with the feedback (again).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on January 05, 2020, 10:47:11 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on January 05, 2020, 08:06:31 pm

I don't know about anyone else, but I think Forest Path being able to make Provinces cost $6 is pretty good and definitely worth $5...

Oh I missed that. I'm used to the -$2 cost token being only usable on action card piles.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 06, 2020, 04:39:32 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on January 05, 2020, 09:16:59 am

Ok, judging time.

Tramway by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820040#msg820040)
This is a really nice way of using your -1 card token. Tramway+Smithy is a slightly more reliable version of Village+Smithy. When you don't undo the -1card token, you can have some actions and some Coffers, but your next hand is gimped. Like it a lot. A $4 price would've been probably better though.

Why? This is either a Village (slightly better due to the increased matching chances with a Smithy that you pointed out) or a degenerate village which is roughly similar to Village and hardly worth more than $3 (precisely because it does not draw which again decreases the matching chances; the implicit comparison of Tramway+Tramway is obviously Village+Village).
$3 is precisely the right price as it is not (strictly) better than Village (it is actually easy to argue that this is often slightly worse).

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on January 05, 2020, 06:37:16 pm

I agree with most of what you said. Here's my 2cents

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on January 05, 2020, 09:16:59 am

Pioneer by Fragasnap (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820055#msg820055)
This could work as a $6 cost, as it is basically a Peddler+ when drawn with another Action card. Being able to move your +1 Card token mid turn is a scary feat, but it really needs to connect probably in order to be that impactful. And using your +1 Card token on a card that appears once isn't super impressive (but not bad either)

There's no way this is strong enough for $6. A peddler+ is usually $5 cost (see Artificer, Treasury, Baker...), so $5 would probably be good here.

It is a Copper which could make itself into a Peddler or improve any other card. So it is a Copper+ and $4 is the right price.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on January 05, 2020, 09:16:59 am

Adventurer's Village by [TP] Inferno (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820444#msg820444[/url)
Mmm, I'm not convinced this is balanced at $4. Mass buying this still provides a good amount of +Actions, +Coin and +Buy without reducing your handsize. The thing that keeps City from being overbearing is the First Mover problem. This card doesn't have that at all.

Dude, this ain't no City. It is on average:
+1 Card
+1.5 Actions
+1 Buy
+ 0.5 Coins

So it is a Workers Village which trades half an Action for half a Coin. Does this make it a $5? Perhaps, but it is definitely not crazy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on January 06, 2020, 05:45:24 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on January 05, 2020, 06:37:16 pm

I agree with most of what you said. Here's my 2cents

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on January 05, 2020, 09:16:59 am

Pioneer by Fragasnap (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820055#msg820055)
This could work as a $6 cost, as it is basically a Peddler+ when drawn with another Action card. Being able to move your +1 Card token mid turn is a scary feat, but it really needs to connect probably in order to be that impactful. And using your +1 Card token on a card that appears once isn't super impressive (but not bad either)

There's no way this is strong enough for $6. A peddler+ is usually $5 cost (see Artificer, Treasury, Baker...), so $5 would probably be good here.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on January 05, 2020, 09:16:59 am

Archaeologist by LibraryAdventurer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820111#msg820111[/url)
Very very very broken. After four purchases, ruins are going to be absolutely amazing. I mean, Abandoned Mine becomes a free Grand Market for crying out loud. Getting there shouldn't be difficult in 2P: the card itself is a cantrip and, afer two purchases, Ruins aren't going to be a hindrance either and Archaeologist becomes a superior Lost City. Not sure how to balance it; getting rid of the ability to gain ruins to the hand and to play $3 costs would be a start I suppose. Right now, it's probably superior to The Forbidden Card: Superlab.

You're probably right that it's too strong, but I don't think it's quite as broken as a Superlab. I'll make it slightly weaker.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on January 05, 2020, 09:16:59 am

Forest Path by Something_Smart (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg820326#msg820326[/url)
On face value, this looks pretty horrible, as it's a Woodcutter that cost $5 that can do something else. But woodcutters are helpful at depleting the pile with the -2$ token on it. And on turns you move the -2$ token, it could be essentially equivalent to +$4, +1 Buy, which is nice. Playtesting needs to determine if this card is good enough (it's almost certainly not broken), but I think it will be on the weak side (though certainly not Harvest-tier weak).

I think you misread the card. You either get +$2 or place the -$2 cost token, never both. Which IMO makes it too weak for $5, but I think it'd be fine at $4.

My favorites (with appropriate tweaks): Pioneer, Shipwright, Forest Path, and my Archaeologist of course.

But congrats to NoMoreFun anyway...

I didn't misread Forest path; when you move the -2$ token and then use the extra buy to gain 2 cards from that pile, then you essentially gained $4 out of this card. You are right at your other points.

I realize that some of the feedback is somewhat ill-formulated, but I think that Tramway is still a valid choice for a winner.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on January 06, 2020, 07:27:44 pm

Thank you grrgrrgrr.

Challenge: Fee for service


The card (shaped thing) must involve paying or overpaying some kind of currency (eg $, Actions, Buys, VP Tokens, Coffers, Villagers, some other arbitrary token that can be earned). The overpay mechanic from Guilds is allowed, and the official cards Storyteller, Butcher and Black Market would count. Discard for benefit (eg Artificer) doesn't count.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: bitwise on January 06, 2020, 07:42:17 pm

Scrap Melter
Action
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. +1 Coffer for every $ it cost. You may return 1 Coffer for +1 Villager.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on January 06, 2020, 08:56:38 pm

Woodworker
Action
Cost: $4
+1 Buy
You may spend up to three Buys. Gain a card costing up to $4 once per Buy spent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on January 06, 2020, 09:09:37 pm

EDIT: I am going to stick with this card after all. It has the sort of potential for digging ones own grave I like.

Does this fit the theme? I'm honestly not sure it does.
(https://i.imgur.com/jpk4T0l.png)

(image credit: Drunk Pirate with Pigs print by Shaunna Peterson https://www.etsy.com/nz/listing/207874147/drunk-pirate-with-pigs-print-by-shaunna)

Also is it awful? At least the idea of gaining a lot of dosh but not being able to buy anything feels like a rowdy patron being blocked at the bar.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 06, 2020, 09:20:42 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on January 06, 2020, 08:56:38 pm

Woodworker
Action
Cost: $4
+1 Buy
You may spend up to three Buys. Gain a card costing up to $4 once per Buy spent.

Playing just one of these is strictly better than playing a Workshop... seems way too good for just costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} instead of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} for Workshop; considering how much better it can get when you have other sources of buy, or less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} to spend with your normal buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on January 06, 2020, 10:26:25 pm

Quote

Time Machine
cost $5 - Action - Duration
+2 Coffers
If the previous turn wasn't yours, and if this is the first Time Machine you played in this turn, you may pay up to 3 Coffers. If you do, draw that many (instead of 5 cards) in this turn's Cleanup phase, and take another turn.

You draw 3 cards when you play Outpost later in the same turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on January 07, 2020, 12:19:36 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on January 06, 2020, 05:45:24 pm

I realize that some of the feedback is somewhat ill-formulated, but I think that Tramway is still a valid choice for a winner.

I didn't mean to imply your choice was invalid. When you're the judge, it's up to you. My 2 cents is nothing more than my 2 cents.

My card for this week:

Quote

Night Stocker
$5 - Night - Duration
Pay up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. Return a card from the trash to the supply for each coin you spent this way.
At the start of your next turn: +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} and +1 Buy.
While this is in play, +2_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} when you gain the last card in a supply pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on January 07, 2020, 12:26:39 am

Here's my submission
(https://i.imgur.com/4nXeajV.png) (https://i.imgur.com/fhKViOQ.png)

Similar to black market, but you have better idea what you're going to get. Not as many possibilities, but more certainty. Obviously, the value of this card will depend on the cards on the mat.

I priced this at $4, because while it's not strictly better than Woodcutter, it does seem better. It's essentially $2, a buy, and access to cards impossible to get otherwise (which presumably you want because you bought the card). Seems a little more helpful than BM because what you get is more predictable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 07, 2020, 03:25:19 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on January 06, 2020, 09:09:37 pm

Also is it awful? At least the idea of gaining a lot of dosh but not being able to buy anything feels like a rowdy patron being blocked at the bar.

It's bad. Contraband tells us that blocking 1 card is already a huge downside, and this doesn't provide the benefit to justify that. The only way it is useful is with Event/Projects or a no-buy engine, and then 3 is always the correct choice, so it doesn't really offer an interesting decision.
Which is a shame because Contraband is a cool concept. But it's just hard to make it not terrible.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on January 07, 2020, 03:26:07 am

(https://i.imgur.com/EAp1cT3.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/GFoNNVN.jpg)

Quote

Textile Mill - Action, $5 cost.
+3 Cards
You may take Exhausted. If you do, +2 Cards.

Quote

Exhausted - State
When you next have unused Actions (Actions, not Action cards) during your Action phase , immediately return this and -1 Action.

I used this State in a previous contest, but here it's justified; you could use this in games with no Villages. Exhausted can carry over to next turn to take away the Action you get right at the start. So here's a simple draw where you can pay an extra Action to double it up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on January 07, 2020, 05:39:25 am

Do the -1 Card and -1$ tokens from Adventures count for this contest?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on January 07, 2020, 07:44:50 am

Quote from: Snowyowl on January 07, 2020, 05:39:25 am

Do the -1 Card and -1$ tokens from Adventures count for this contest?

They weren't really what I had in mind. I'd prefer "spend a good thing on something other than its originally intended purpose" than "penalty". I would have specified that it had to be a cost paid for a beneficial effect but I like LastFootnote's Trade Tokens and Asper's Sheriff so I'll allow for paying neutral tokens, or even negative ones.

I'll judge any card submitted for the contest, just try and keep it within the intent of what I proposed or else you're very unlikely to win.

Optionally being able to take them for additional benefit is more within the spirit of the competition than compulsory taking on play/buy etc. I just couldn't require it to be optional as Storyteller is definitely within the spirit of the competition even though paying all your $ is compulsory.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on January 07, 2020, 08:48:27 am

Edit:  Gonna stick with Rowdy Patron. Thanks spineflu for the quality comments below but Rowdy Patron makes me laugh even if it's often a poor choice.

Well due to agreeing that the aforementioned Rowdy Patron is ummm kinda lousy I am submitting this instead.
(https://i.imgur.com/VkB3Qci.png)

But please tell me if this is not on the theme. I'm going for something a little different to overpay but I may have gone too far. I'm aiming for an optional cost effect that applies to all other cards really by letting you sack an action for +$1 basically.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 07, 2020, 09:40:32 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on January 07, 2020, 08:48:27 am

Well due to agreeing that the aforementioned Rowdy Patron is ummm kinda lousy I am submitting this instead.
(https://i.imgur.com/VkB3Qci.png)

But please tell me if this is not on the theme. I'm going for something a little different to overpay but I may have gone too far. I'm aiming for an optional cost effect that applies to all other cards really by letting you sack an action for +$1 basically.

I really like this - it's not supposed to have a once per turn clause on it, right? - for letting you really stick the landing on an engine game where you'd otherwise be leaving one province. I don't know if it's on theme but this should be a real card.

It is supposed to be an event right?

Also a copy-editing note - + Buys go before +$

Quote from: Something_Smart on January 07, 2020, 12:06:57 pm

Not sure if this will be my final submission, but I'll put it down for now.

Quote

Gnome
Action/Fate - $2+
+1 Action. Look at the top Boon; you may receive it. If you don't, +1 Card.
--
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, receive the top Boon once per $1 you overpaid.

I don't know if I'd ever overpay for this - of the boons only Flame's (trashing), Moon's (topdeck from discard), and River's (+Cards at end of turn) gift would be worth doing multiple times at the end of the buy phase, unless like... you want to silver flood or hog all the will-o-wisps or something. You may want to do the Blessed Village thing and give them at the start of next turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on January 07, 2020, 12:06:57 pm

Not sure if this will be my final submission, but I'll put it down for now.

Quote

Gnome
Action/Fate - $2+
+1 Action. Look at the top Boon; you may receive it. If you don't, +1 Card.
--
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, receive the top Boon once per $1 you overpaid.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on January 07, 2020, 01:02:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/XwMG7KZ.png)

Not sure if this counts, Metal tokens are just a generic token used to track this card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on January 07, 2020, 01:16:00 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on January 07, 2020, 12:06:57 pm

Not sure if this will be my final submission, but I'll put it down for now.

Quote

Gnome
Action/Fate - $2+
+1 Action. Look at the top Boon; you may receive it. If you don't, +1 Card.
--
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, receive the top Boon once per $1 you overpaid.

This seems like this would be unfair if the Flame's gift is the only way of trashing and someone can overpay on this by a lot.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on January 07, 2020, 01:24:57 pm

Maybe. It'd be very difficult to set up an overpay of more than $2. The $2 overpay is powerful, but at least sometimes there's a way for your opponent to steal it from you.

I think given the possibility to look at the Boons before receiving them, it isn't much worse than the variance the flame's gift already has.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on January 07, 2020, 01:46:25 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on January 06, 2020, 07:27:44 pm

Challenge: Fee for service

The card (shaped thing) must involve paying or overpaying some kind of currency (eg $, Actions, Buys, VP Tokens, Coffers, Villagers, some other arbitrary token that can be earned). The overpay mechanic from Guilds is allowed, and the official cards Storyteller, Butcher and Black Market would count. Discard for benefit (eg Artificer) doesn't count.

(Edited to put the prompt at the top, so you don't have to go digging too far into the previous page to find it.)

My entry:
(https://i.imgur.com/kfsOVsfl.jpg?1) (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=Porcelain%20Shop&description=%2B1%20Coffers%0A%0ARemove%20any%20number%20of%20tokens%20from%20your%20Coffers.%0AFor%20each%20one%2C%20%2B%242.&type=Action&credit=Illustration%3A%20Sir%20Matthew%20Digby%20Wyatt%20(1820-1877)&creator=&price=%243&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1.2&picture=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.rawpixel.com%2Fs3fs-private%2Frawpixel_images%2Fwebsite_content%2Fpd20-310136-jj.jpg%3Fauto%3Dformat%26bg%3Dtransparent%26con%3D3%26cs%3Dsrgb%26dpr%3D1%26fm%3Djpg%26ixlib%3Dphp-3.1.0%26mark%3Drawpixel-watermark.png%26markalpha%3D90%26markpad%3D13%26markscale%3D10%26markx%3D25%26q%3D75%26usm%3D15%26vib%3D3%26w%3D400%26s%3D1ea1b1b790308036d6555f7b03ad5ff5&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0)

Quote

Porcelain Shop
$3 - Action
+1 Coffers
Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers. For each one, +2$.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 07, 2020, 01:47:07 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on January 06, 2020, 07:27:44 pm

Thank you grrgrrgrr.

Challenge: Fee for service


The card (shaped thing) must involve paying or overpaying some kind of currency (eg $, Actions, Buys, VP Tokens, Coffers, Villagers, some other arbitrary token that can be earned). The overpay mechanic from Guilds is allowed, and the official cards Storyteller, Butcher and Black Market would count. Discard for benefit (eg Artificer) doesn't count.

So does this preclude any discarding as the "fee"? I have an idea which includes a Statw with the following clause: "...you may discard two cards to return this." Would that count?

(if not, no worries, I can save this for a future contest)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 07, 2020, 02:14:52 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e14d504bd09aa24a30608e0/1f62c8e1cd09c759dec3cc430659f450/image.png)

Quote

Draft • $3@0+ • Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Choose one: +1 Buy or Return @1
-
When you buy this, you may take up to @12 to gain a card to the top of your deck costing $1 per @2 you take from this (rounded down).

This is actually a riff on an old King Leon card that won contest #30 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg801561#msg801561); it uses a 2-to-1 debt overpay mechanic (and can assist with getting rid of the debt).

revised to clarify the debt-taking + card gaining are related - you cannot gain a $0 card by taking 0 debt (same deal as Stonemason); also revised so the debt amount is rounded down and odd numbers of debt don't just get you a blue dog nothing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on January 07, 2020, 02:52:46 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on January 07, 2020, 01:16:00 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on January 07, 2020, 12:06:57 pm

Not sure if this will be my final submission, but I'll put it down for now.

Quote

Gnome
Action/Fate - $2+
+1 Action. Look at the top Boon; you may receive it. If you don't, +1 Card.
--
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, receive the top Boon once per $1 you overpaid.

This seems like this would be unfair if the Flame's gift is the only way of trashing and someone can overpay on this by a lot.

It's quite hard to set up - you need a Gnome to ensure that Flame's gift is on the way, cash to overpay (if all you have is Coppers it's half efficient), and good draw to have nontrivial hand size. So I would not call it a strategy to rely on.

More significant, many Boons are pretty useless at the Buy stage. That's why Blessed Village has an option of delayed receiving.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on January 07, 2020, 04:09:33 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 07, 2020, 02:14:52 pm

Draft • $3@0+ • Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Choose one: +1 Buy or Return @1
-
When you buy this, you may take up to @12. Gain a card to the top of your deck costing $1 per @2 you take from this.

Well that throws all my opening theory out the window. You can potentially buy an Attack on turn 1 and play it on turn 2 before the first shuffle. I can see this card shaking a lot of games up.

Do players have the option to not overpay? At $3, it's a good deal for a cantrip +Buy/+virtual money. If I just want that, do I still need to pay @0 and gain a card that costs $0? And if so, what happens if I pay @2 instead?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 07, 2020, 04:59:31 pm

Quote from: Snowyowl on January 07, 2020, 04:09:33 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 07, 2020, 02:14:52 pm

Draft • $3@0+ • Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Choose one: +1 Buy or Return @1
-
When you buy this, you may take up to @12. Gain a card to the top of your deck costing $1 per @2 you take from this.

Well that throws all my opening theory out the window. You can potentially buy an Attack on turn 1 and play it on turn 2 before the first shuffle. I can see this card shaking a lot of games up.

Do players have the option to not overpay? At $3, it's a good deal for a cantrip +Buy/+virtual money. If I just want that, do I still need to pay @0 and gain a card that costs $0? And if so, what happens if I pay @2 instead?

players do have the option to not overpay ("When you buy this you may take up to ...")  - i tried to keep it similar to Market Square when played, hence why it's a $3 and its virtual coin only works against Debt. I'll try to rephrase to make it clear the debt overpay doesn't copper-junk you if you don't but normal overpay can't be $0 so please consider that precedent for the time being;

If you take debt that translates to a cost not on the board, you can do that, but you'll fail to find a proper target and just get whack debt for no benefit. play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on January 08, 2020, 06:20:54 pm

This is an oldish idea I put in the Really Bad Card Ideas thread, and I got feedback and now, here is the finished version. I hope it fits the theme.

Guild Admiral
$2+
Action-Command
+1 Buy
+1 Coffers
-------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, set aside an Action card from the Supply costing the amount you overpaid, and at the start of your next turn, play it, leaving it there, then return it to its pile.

It's a good ol' overpay Band Of Misfits. (with the new errata wording of course.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 08, 2020, 06:46:47 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on January 08, 2020, 06:20:54 pm

This is an oldish idea I put in the Really Bad Card Ideas thread, and I got feedback and now, here is the finished version. I hope it fits the theme.

Guild Admiral
$2+
Action-Duration-Command
+1 Buy
+1 Coffers
-------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, set this aside, and at the start of your next turn, play an Action card from the Supply costing the amount you overpaid, leaving it there.

BTW, just got Guilds+Cornucopia for Christmas! Yaaaaaaaaay!

I don't think this needs to be a Duration - it's not in play when you buy it. Compare with Horse Traders.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 09, 2020, 12:50:29 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 08, 2020, 06:46:47 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on January 08, 2020, 06:20:54 pm

This is an oldish idea I put in the Really Bad Card Ideas thread, and I got feedback and now, here is the finished version. I hope it fits the theme.

Guild Admiral
$2+
Action-Duration-Command
+1 Buy
+1 Coffers
-------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, set this aside, and at the start of your next turn, play an Action card from the Supply costing the amount you overpaid, leaving it there.

BTW, just got Guilds+Cornucopia for Christmas! Yaaaaaaaaay!

I don't think this needs to be a Duration - it's not in play when you buy it. Compare with Horse Traders.

It also needs some way to track how much you overpaid instead of expecting you to remember it for an entire round of play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on January 09, 2020, 04:44:19 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 09, 2020, 12:50:29 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 08, 2020, 06:46:47 pm

I don't think this needs to be a Duration - it's not in play when you buy it. Compare with Horse Traders.

It also needs some way to track how much you overpaid instead of expecting you to remember it for an entire round of play.

Good points. The wording was a bit tricky, but I think I can tweak it to make it suitable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on January 09, 2020, 05:14:16 pm

Flea Market (Action, $5)

+$2
Play any number of Treasures from your hand. You may buy a non-Victory card from the Supply. If you do, you may overpay for it. Gain an extra copy of the bought card for each $1 you overpaid.

Perhaps you can get a bargain. Three Golds for $8? Maybe you want lots of terminal draw. This card can get you what you need quickly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 09, 2020, 05:49:24 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 09, 2020, 05:14:16 pm

Flea Market (Action, $5)

+$2
Play any number of Treasures from your hand. You may buy a non-Victory card from the Supply. If you do, you may overpay for it. Gain an extra copy of the bought card for each $1 you overpaid.

Perhaps you can get a bargain. Three Golds for $8? Maybe you want lots of terminal draw. This card can get you what you need quickly.

Neat. If you can make the balance work, this would feel much more natural as a treasure. You could trade "you may buy... if you do..." for "the next time you buy a card this turn..."; and not have to worry about text allowing you to play treasures.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on January 09, 2020, 06:35:23 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 09, 2020, 05:14:16 pm

Flea Market (Action, $5)

+$2
Play any number of Treasures from your hand. You may buy a non-Victory card from the Supply. If you do, you may overpay for it. Gain an extra copy of the bought card for each $1 you overpaid.

Perhaps you can get a bargain. Three Golds for $8? Maybe you want lots of terminal draw. This card can get you what you need quickly.

Ooh, fascinating. Empty the Copper pile in a Gardens deck. Win the split on That One Card. Suddenly, $2 and $3 cards look very attractive, while $4 and $5 cards are probably a bit harder to get enough treasure for.

Unless you're playing this in a Colony game. Then all bets are off.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on January 09, 2020, 08:12:21 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 09, 2020, 05:14:16 pm

Flea Market (Action, $5)

+$2
Play any number of Treasures from your hand. You may buy a non-Victory card from the Supply. If you do, you may overpay for it. Gain an extra copy of the bought card for each $1 you overpaid.

Perhaps you can get a bargain. Three Golds for $8? Maybe you want lots of terminal draw. This card can get you what you need quickly.

I like this too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 10, 2020, 10:35:57 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 09, 2020, 05:14:16 pm

Flea Market (Action, $5)

+$2
Play any number of Treasures from your hand. You may buy a non-Victory card from the Supply. If you do, you may overpay for it. Gain an extra copy of the bought card for each $1 you overpaid.

Perhaps you can get a bargain. Three Golds for $8? Maybe you want lots of terminal draw. This card can get you what you need quickly.

Kinda drooling over the idea of taking the half the copper pile by using the other half of the copper pile in a Counting House game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 10, 2020, 01:49:20 pm

Here's my entry for the week. Feedback please, as usual, I'm sure it needs some tweaking:

(https://i.imgur.com/u1H0kmY.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/VhbYqAT.png)

FAQ: When you play a card from the Prison mat, it goes into play, and gets cleaned up when it normally would.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 10, 2020, 02:26:09 pm

@scolapasta - do you play the same card from the prison mat ($)X times, or do you play ($)X cards from the prison mat in any order? honestly either sounds really cool

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on January 10, 2020, 02:27:19 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 10, 2020, 01:49:20 pm

+$1

Choose one: Set aside an Action card on your Prison mat; or you may play a Treasure from your hand, then pay all of your $ (including the $1 from this) to play a card from your Prison mat per 1$ you paid.

Set aside from where? Your hand? It seems a little weak, though it might be useful for lining up your combo pieces.

I'm amused at the interaction that you can send cards with a debt cost to prison, but you can never get them back out again. Life sentence!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 10, 2020, 02:45:55 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 10, 2020, 02:26:09 pm

@scolapasta - do you play the same card from the prison mat ($)X times, or do you play ($)X cards from the prison mat in any order? honestly either sounds really cool

The intention was X cards in any order. Maybe needs slight rewording?

Quote from: Snowyowl on January 10, 2020, 02:27:19 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 10, 2020, 01:49:20 pm

+$1

Choose one: Set aside an Action card on your Prison mat; or you may play a Treasure from your hand, then pay all of your $ (including the $1 from this) to play a card from your Prison mat per 1$ you paid.

Set aside from where? Your hand? It seems a little weak, though it might be useful for lining up your combo pieces.

I'm amused at the interaction that you can send cards with a debt cost to prison, but you can never get them back out again. Life sentence!

Thanks, I missed the "from your hand" there. I'm not sure, however, what you mean by not being able to release debt cost cards? Nothing about the release depends on the cost of the imprisoned cards.

I wasn't quite sure about strength, which is where the tweaking might come in. But that's also why I priced this at $3. The idea is it doesn't do much (but maybe needs a little more?) while you imprison some cards, but then can release them in bunches, based on what you pay, in order to have some powerful combo turns. 

(it was inspired by the new expansion with delayed +1 Cards and the Exile mat*)

* I assume in the expansion, the Exile mat will be related to multiple cards, and not just one

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on January 10, 2020, 02:53:53 pm

Got it. I misread it the first time, and thought it released a card that cost $X.

That is very good for lining up combo pieces! Especially if they're terminals.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 10, 2020, 03:24:26 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 10, 2020, 02:45:55 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 10, 2020, 02:26:09 pm

@scolapasta - do you play the same card from the prison mat ($)X times, or do you play ($)X cards from the prison mat in any order? honestly either sounds really cool

The intention was X cards in any order. Maybe needs slight rewording?

"[...]; or you may play a Treasure from your hand, then pay all of your $ (including the $1 from this) and for each $1 you paid, play a card from your Prison mat."
?

Title: Re: Contest #57: Fee for Service
Post by: Gubump on January 10, 2020, 03:59:34 pm

EDIT: This is no longer my submission.

(https://i.imgur.com/l1maetf.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on January 11, 2020, 12:47:38 am

This is a card I designed previously, but fits the current contest rules, I believe.

Cloister
(https://i.imgur.com/JnL4xC0.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on January 11, 2020, 07:18:45 am

Quote from: Gubump on January 10, 2020, 03:59:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/l1maetf.png)

This isn't strong enough considering it doesn't do anything for a while.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 11, 2020, 07:21:55 am

Quote from: D782802859 on January 11, 2020, 07:18:45 am

Quote from: Gubump on January 10, 2020, 03:59:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/l1maetf.png)

This isn't strong enough considering it doesn't do anything for a while.

Being an Action-Gold isn't what I would call not doing anything.

Title: Re: Contest #57: Fee for Service
Post by: Gubump on January 11, 2020, 03:14:09 pm

Decided that I like this other new card I came up with better.

(https://i.imgur.com/tNm6OSr.png)

A Peddler variant that can Scheme a card (including itself) if you don't spend its _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}. Might be too strong for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Title: Re: Contest #57: Fee for Service
Post by: GendoIkari on January 11, 2020, 07:20:49 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 11, 2020, 03:14:09 pm

Decided that I like this other new card I came up with better.

(https://i.imgur.com/tNm6OSr.png)

A Peddler variant that can Scheme a card (including itself) if you don't spend its _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}. Might be too strong for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

I doubt it’s too strong.. it’s basically a $4 card that can optionally be used as a $3 card instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on January 12, 2020, 08:15:02 am

(https://i.imgur.com/GWurXzy.jpg)

Quote

Nouveau Riche
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may remove a token from your Villager mat to play an Action from your hand three times. Otherwise, you may play an Action from your hand of which you have no copies in play two times for +1 Villager.

HISTORY:
Changed from "You may reveal an Action from your hand. If you have no copies of it in play, +1 Villager. Either way, play it twice, and then you may remove a token from your Villager mat to play it a third time." Realized that's virtually never going to generate Villagers since you'd only keep one so you could consume it with a different play. Now it's a King's Court by eating a Villager or an Impish Throne Room that generates a Villager.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 12, 2020, 09:28:34 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 12, 2020, 08:15:02 am

(https://i.imgur.com/30eThSt.jpg)

Quote

Nouveau Riche
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may reveal an Action from your hand. If you have no copies of it in play, +1 Villager. Either way, play it twice, and then you may remove a token from your Villager mat to play it a third time.

Too cheap.  It's going to play like a King's Court with a  plus action.  This might even, over-all, be better than KC.  This will be much better than KC early to midgame.  But
it probably won't have as much engine power in the end game.  This is a $6 card minimum.

Cool card, though!  Very cool!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 12, 2020, 11:14:31 am

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 12, 2020, 09:28:34 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 12, 2020, 08:15:02 am

(https://i.imgur.com/30eThSt.jpg)

Quote

Nouveau Riche
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may reveal an Action from your hand. If you have no copies of it in play, +1 Villager. Either way, play it twice, and then you may remove a token from your Villager mat to play it a third time.

Too cheap.  It's going to play like a King's Court with a  plus action.  This might even, over-all, be better than KC.  This will be much better than KC early to midgame.  But
it probably won't have as much engine power in the end game.  This is a $6 card minimum.

Cool card, though!  Very cool!

I think you missed something; you don’t get a +action and a KC effect; you have to spend the villager you get the KC, so you won’t also get +action. Either way though I agree that it’s too strong; it’s still almost a King’s Court.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 12, 2020, 11:23:36 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 12, 2020, 11:14:31 am

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 12, 2020, 09:28:34 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 12, 2020, 08:15:02 am

(https://i.imgur.com/30eThSt.jpg)

Quote

Nouveau Riche
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may reveal an Action from your hand. If you have no copies of it in play, +1 Villager. Either way, play it twice, and then you may remove a token from your Villager mat to play it a third time.

Too cheap.  It's going to play like a King's Court with a  plus action.  This might even, over-all, be better than KC.  This will be much better than KC early to midgame.  But
it probably won't have as much engine power in the end game.  This is a $6 card minimum.

Cool card, though!  Very cool!

I think you missed something; you don’t get a +action and a KC effect; you have to spend the villager you get the KC, so you won’t also get +action. Either way though I agree that it’s too strong; it’s still almost a King’s Court.

Yep.  It is a KC hybrid with an option to redirect the last  play to another card.  Think of how many times you have wanted to be able to split the KC on that final play!  Another way to look at it is a Throne Room +Action.

Powerful card!  Maybe like a $5+2debt.?  Or 5+1debt?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on January 12, 2020, 07:05:41 pm

I am going to stick with this card after all. It has the sort of potential for digging ones own grave I like. I am after all the player who laughs while their deck chokes from having too many rats.

But also this is a card that can get a person out of a real hole by giving them a chance to buy a few silvers when up against knights.  Or it can just be used to draw cards for an engine. Occasionally you'll not play it but that's true for cellar and chapel too.

Either way it feels more fun than any of my alternatives.


(https://i.imgur.com/jpk4T0l.png)

(image credit: Drunk Pirate with Pigs print by Shaunna Peterson)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 12, 2020, 09:01:30 pm

Based on the post date, it should be about time for a 24 hour warning.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on January 12, 2020, 10:10:02 pm

Sure is. 24 hour warning - get your submissions in

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on January 14, 2020, 05:49:02 am

I took a look through and two cards stood out for me as seeming like the most fun to play with.

Winner: Porcelain Shop by Snowyowl
Simple and creates a lot of strategy around it in terms of when you want to cash in the coffers.

Runner Up: Metalsmith by Gazbag
Underpowered (it would probably be better as a non terminal $3 or $4) but I love the concept. I think it would be fun to buy a bunch of these then get big draws out of them, but it would only work in certain kinds of deck. It's a card you really need to commit to which I quite like.

Feedback for other cards on request (PM me)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on January 14, 2020, 08:35:11 am

Thank you NoMoreFun!

Double, Double

Create a card-shaped thing that in some way doubles or duplicates something.

Examples of official cards include Throne Room (doubles an action you play), Coppersmith (doubles the value of your coppers),  Experiment, Magpie (get more copies of themselves), and Duplicate (is called Duplicate).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on January 14, 2020, 08:54:00 am

Fortune is another example

Title: Re: Contest #57: Fee for Service
Post by: majiponi on January 14, 2020, 11:06:10 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 11, 2020, 07:20:49 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 11, 2020, 03:14:09 pm

Decided that I like this other new card I came up with better.

(https://i.imgur.com/tNm6OSr.png)

A Peddler variant that can Scheme a card (including itself) if you don't spend its _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}. Might be too strong for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

I doubt it’s too strong.. it’s basically a $4 card that can optionally be used as a $3 card instead.

It is a Baker variant. It can save an unspent coin for the future turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 14, 2020, 11:17:38 am

[This is no longer my entry this challenge, see Siege Tower further down]

---

I have a few ideas, so figured I'd get one in and get initial feedback - if it's no good, can definitely switch to something else:

(https://i.imgur.com/SOfZESt.png)

(and yes, it's the Villager / Action version of Porcelain Shop - not super original, but I love the image I found for Juggler, since the card deals with Villagers)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 14, 2020, 12:47:46 pm

Double Double

(My first entry ever!!  But replaced below by a better entry - I think.)

(http://i.imgur.com/jpYRSf8.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on January 14, 2020, 12:51:36 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OeZhShB.png)

This doubles the Actions your non-terminals give. It only works when you get exactly +1 Action so it wouldn't work on e.g. Villages. It might want to cost $7 given the abundance of +1 Action cards we have these days.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 14, 2020, 12:53:11 pm

Use the width attribute, e.g:

Code: [Select]

[img width=200]URL[/img]

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 14, 2020, 01:15:53 pm

edit: this is withdrawn, new entry downthread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821753#msg821753)


(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e1e04a7c84b508f184fecca/0a5dc1fe4d88c5615c044f067c40cd94/image.png)

Quote

Doppelganger • $4+ • Action - Attack
Play an Attack from your hand twice. For each token on your Doppelganger mat, choose one (the choices must be different): Each other player ...
... with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card.
... gains a Copper.
... takes their -$1 Token;
... receives the next Hex, then remove a token from your Doppelganger mat.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay. If you do, add a token to your Doppelganger mat.

This might be under/overpowered, depending on the kingdom. Doppelganger mat is a generic token-holding mat, like the Pirate Ship mat. Any amount of overpay (coin or potion) is sufficient to add a token, one per purchase - you don't get more tokens if you overpay by $5 instead of $1.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on January 14, 2020, 01:20:31 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 14, 2020, 12:47:46 pm

(My first entry ever!!  Sorry this is so damn huge.  Don't know how to shrink.)

On the Imgur page (here (https://imgur.com/jpYRSf8)), if you're logged in you should see a menu in the top-right of your picture. Open it, select "Edit Image", and then resize it to, say 300x460.
That way it loads faster, too.

Quote from: scolapasta on January 14, 2020, 11:17:38 am

it's the Villager / Action version of Porcelain Shop

This sort of blatant pandering is completely and utterly fine. Please, continue.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on January 14, 2020, 01:42:17 pm

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on January 14, 2020, 01:55:55 pm

Here's my entry. (Mix of Tactician and Fortune)
(https://i.imgur.com/Kf1kH78.png)

It doesn't combine and with fortune to quadruple. It's way cheaper than fortune, but doubles before you play treasures, and discards the rest of your hand (meaning no more treasures).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 14, 2020, 01:58:37 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 14, 2020, 01:42:17 pm

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.

This is especially powerful with cards that provide +Villagers, e.g. Patron or Acting Troupe, since those can be used with for the 3rd play.

For Acting Troupe it's basically +10 Villagers!!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on January 14, 2020, 02:11:41 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 14, 2020, 01:15:53 pm

Doppelganger • $4@3 • Action - Attack
Play an Attack from your hand twice. If it cost:
$5 or more: Each player with four or more cards in hand discards a card
$3 or less: Each player gains a copper to the top of their deck.
Otherwise: +$1, Each other player takes their -$1 Token

Almost a dead card if there is no Attacks other than Doppelganger

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on January 14, 2020, 02:19:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pPyRz4L.png)

Quote

Flooded Fields
$4 - Action - Victory
Flip your Journey token (it starts face up). If it's face up, +$3, +1 Buy
-
While this is in play, once in a turn, when you buy a Victory card costing up to $6, gain a copy of that card
1VP

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 03:00:50 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 14, 2020, 01:58:37 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 14, 2020, 01:42:17 pm

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.

This is especially powerful with cards that provide +Villagers, e.g. Patron or Acting Troupe, since those can be used with for the 3rd play.

For Acting Troupe it's basically +10 Villagers!!

It's practically a dead card if it's the only source of Villagers, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 14, 2020, 03:20:22 pm

Quote from: Snowyowl on January 14, 2020, 01:20:31 pm

On the Imgur page (here (https://imgur.com/jpYRSf8)), if you're logged in you should see a menu in the top-right of your picture. Open it, select "Edit Image", and then resize it to, say 300x460.
That way it loads faster, too.

Can I do that from my phone or the app?  I can't seem to find that menu.  It lets me edit the post . . . but when I click on it, there is no option to reduce the size.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 14, 2020, 03:24:24 pm

A second entry for Double Double.  This is the one I want to go with.

"So it's turn five. You bottom decked your purchases on turns 1 and 2 and here they are in your hand: a silver, and something good, and who knows? Maybe another something with a plus buy (from turn 3 or 4)? 

What to do, what to do, what to do.   Hmmmm.

Here's your 'fix.' Kind of.  But WTF, you are screwed anyway."

(Given its name, is it not fitting that you will find this one in the Projects?)

(http://i.imgur.com/4JOj7WG.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 14, 2020, 03:26:34 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 14, 2020, 03:24:24 pm

A second entry for Double Double.  Sorry so huge.

(http://i.imgur.com/4JOj7WG.png)

Sorry so huge.

1: just use the width=# in the img tag, where # is the number of pixels you wanna use (quote this post if you wanna see how i did it)
2: one entry per contest; you can change what your entry is, but you gotta pick one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 14, 2020, 03:38:37 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 14, 2020, 03:26:34 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 14, 2020, 03:24:24 pm

A second entry for Double Double.  Sorry so huge.

(http://i.imgur.com/4JOj7WG.png)

Sorry so huge.

1: just use the width=# in the img tag, where # is the number of pixels you wanna use (quote this post if you wanna see how i did it)
2: one entry per contest; you can change what your entry is, but you gotta pick one.

Maybe we should be allowed two entries for a contest that is about doubling! :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on January 14, 2020, 03:40:59 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 14, 2020, 03:20:22 pm

Can I do that from my phone or the app?  I can't seem to find that menu.  It lets me edit the post . . . but when I click on it, there is no option to reduce the size.

I don't know about the app.

On the website: In the editor, it shows the size of the image. This is a field you can edit, just click on it. Then click Apply, then Save.

... or, like spineflu says, write this code in your post:

[img width = 300]http://i.imgur.com/4JOj7WG.png[/img]

Quote from: scolapasta on January 14, 2020, 03:38:37 pm

Maybe we should be allowed two entries for a contest that is about doubling! :P

Nice try, but nope. I'll only judge the last card each person posts.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 14, 2020, 05:17:10 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 14, 2020, 01:15:53 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e1e04a7c84b508f184fecca/cb7483429712aa28685e553392c8a210/image.png)

Quote

Doppelganger • $4@3 • Action - Attack
Play an Attack from your hand twice. If it cost:
$5 or more: Each player with four or more cards in hand discards a card
$3 or less: Each player gains a copper to the top of their deck.
Otherwise: +$1, Each other player takes their -$1 Token

This might be under/overpowered, depending on the kingdom. I've got a couple other ideas I'm working on also but I like the weird niche this is working on.

Also would the otherwise clause here still happen if you failed to play an action? I tried to word it so it would.

That is how it reads to me.  If it didn't have that clause, I don't think it would be an Attack card, per se.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 05:38:32 pm

Quote from: naitchman on January 14, 2020, 01:55:55 pm

Here's my entry. (Mix of Tactician and Fortune)
(https://i.imgur.com/Kf1kH78.png)

It doesn't combine and with fortune to quadruple. It's way cheaper than fortune, but doubles before you play treasures, and discards the rest of your hand (meaning no more treasures).

I like this. My only concern is that it could show up in a Kingdom with no actions that give _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 14, 2020, 05:39:10 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 14, 2020, 03:26:34 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 14, 2020, 03:24:24 pm

A second entry for Double Double.  Sorry so huge.

(http://i.imgur.com/4JOj7WG.png)

Sorry so huge.

1: just use the width=# in the img tag, where # is the number of pixels you wanna use (quote this post if you wanna see how i did it)
2: one entry per contest; you can change what your entry is, but you gotta pick one.

Got it fixed.  Going with entry #2 - Addiction Project.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 05:40:50 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 03:00:50 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 14, 2020, 01:58:37 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 14, 2020, 01:42:17 pm

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.

This is especially powerful with cards that provide +Villagers, e.g. Patron or Acting Troupe, since those can be used with for the 3rd play.

For Acting Troupe it's basically +10 Villagers!!

It's practically a dead card if it's the only source of Villagers, though.

How? It's a Throne Room that's a King's Court for the first time you play it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 05:51:07 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 05:40:50 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 03:00:50 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 14, 2020, 01:58:37 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 14, 2020, 01:42:17 pm

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.

This is especially powerful with cards that provide +Villagers, e.g. Patron or Acting Troupe, since those can be used with for the 3rd play.

For Acting Troupe it's basically +10 Villagers!!

It's practically a dead card if it's the only source of Villagers, though.

How? It's a Throne Room that's a King's Court for the first time you play it.

Yes, but it only costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less than a King's Court. It's so much worse than King's Court for being a similar price.

I guess it's not "practically a dead card," but it's definitely weak for its price if its the only source of Villagers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on January 14, 2020, 05:52:20 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 05:51:07 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 05:40:50 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 03:00:50 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 14, 2020, 01:58:37 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 14, 2020, 01:42:17 pm

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.

This is especially powerful with cards that provide +Villagers, e.g. Patron or Acting Troupe, since those can be used with for the 3rd play.

For Acting Troupe it's basically +10 Villagers!!

It's practically a dead card if it's the only source of Villagers, though.

How? It's a Throne Room that's a King's Court for the first time you play it.

Yes, but it only costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less than a King's Court. It's so much worse than King's Court for being a similar price.

There's a huge gulf between much worse than King's Court and practically dead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on January 14, 2020, 07:05:23 pm

Tired of people beating you to the City split or snatching all the Nobles? Take the Back road.
(https://i.imgur.com/4JOKlAy.png)

Feel free to help with the wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on January 14, 2020, 07:44:27 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 05:38:32 pm

Quote from: naitchman on January 14, 2020, 01:55:55 pm

Here's my entry. (Mix of Tactician and Fortune)
(https://i.imgur.com/Kf1kH78.png)

It doesn't combine and with fortune to quadruple. It's way cheaper than fortune, but doubles before you play treasures, and discards the rest of your hand (meaning no more treasures).

I like this. My only concern is that it could show up in a Kingdom with no actions that give _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}.

Thanks.

There are a decent number that give virtual coin.
Most cards have kingdoms that favor them and those that don't and many are useless (or virtually useless) without support (rats without other trashing, conspirator without + actions, moat when there aren't attacks, etc.). If it's not worth buying, people just don't buy it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 07:59:55 pm

Quote from: naitchman on January 14, 2020, 07:44:27 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 05:38:32 pm

Quote from: naitchman on January 14, 2020, 01:55:55 pm

Here's my entry. (Mix of Tactician and Fortune)
(https://i.imgur.com/Kf1kH78.png)

It doesn't combine and with fortune to quadruple. It's way cheaper than fortune, but doubles before you play treasures, and discards the rest of your hand (meaning no more treasures).

I like this. My only concern is that it could show up in a Kingdom with no actions that give _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}.

Thanks.

There are a decent number that give virtual coin.
Most cards have kingdoms that favor them and those that don't and many are useless (or virtually useless) without support (rats without other trashing, conspirator without + actions, moat when there aren't attacks, etc.). If it's not worth buying, people just don't buy it.

Problem is, you also need the virtual coin to either be non-terminal or have Villages in order to play Profit afterwards. And most virtual coin is +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}, which makes it very hard to make Profit make more _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} than even a Woodcutter.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 08:16:20 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on January 14, 2020, 05:52:20 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 05:51:07 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 05:40:50 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 03:00:50 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 14, 2020, 01:58:37 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 14, 2020, 01:42:17 pm

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.

This is especially powerful with cards that provide +Villagers, e.g. Patron or Acting Troupe, since those can be used with for the 3rd play.

For Acting Troupe it's basically +10 Villagers!!

It's practically a dead card if it's the only source of Villagers, though.

How? It's a Throne Room that's a King's Court for the first time you play it.

Yes, but it only costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less than a King's Court. It's so much worse than King's Court for being a similar price.

There's a huge gulf between much worse than King's Court and practically dead.

Yeah. This is just a more-expensive Throne Room that has a stronger effect than Throne Room. I dunno if it's weak at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} or not, but it seemed weird to use the term "dead" when that generally refers to something like Stables in a hand with no treasure; or when people make fan cards that do almost nothing unless there's an attack available, etc. Even if the card were just literally Throne Room but costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}, I wouldn't think to use the term "dead".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 14, 2020, 08:46:45 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 08:16:20 pm

 or when people make fan cards that do almost nothing unless there's an attack available, etc.

Feeling maybe a little seen here.

I'm revising my entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821597#msg821597) this week
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e1e04a7c84b508f184fecca/0a5dc1fe4d88c5615c044f067c40cd94/image.png)

Now it doesn't have to be a dead card unless you let it. (edit: this is withdrawn)

---

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 14, 2020, 05:17:10 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 14, 2020, 01:15:53 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e1e04a7c84b508f184fecca/cb7483429712aa28685e553392c8a210/image.png)

Quote

Doppelganger • $4@3 • Action - Attack
Play an Attack from your hand twice. If it cost:
$5 or more: Each player with four or more cards in hand discards a card
$3 or less: Each player gains a copper to the top of their deck.
Otherwise: +$1, Each other player takes their -$1 Token

This might be under/overpowered, depending on the kingdom. I've got a couple other ideas I'm working on also but I like the weird niche this is working on.

Also would the otherwise clause here still happen if you failed to play an action? I tried to word it so it would.

That is how it reads to me.  If it didn't have that clause, I don't think it would be an Attack card, per se.

moot point since this is edited out, but an attack doesn't have to "attack" to be an attack - check out Minion.

---

Quote from: somekindoftony on January 14, 2020, 07:05:23 pm

Tired of people beating you to the City split or snatching all the Nobles? Take the Back road.
(https://i.imgur.com/4JOKlAy.png)

Feel free to help with the wording.

A concern with this would be, you've got a six player game, you have a round of turns where everyone plays one or more Back Roads - how do you track it?
You may want to consider introducing a "back road" adventures style token of some kind and give each player ... idk, three of them? two? two seems flexible/pragmatic, one simplifies it a bunch - and then have these place/move Back Road tokens - that way no one can lock out more than N piles at once, and while a whole board Action standstill is possible, it's way less likely.

Also can my Back Road block your Back Road? you can fix that with the token-based design - Make it only placeable on a pile that doesn't have a Back Road token on it.

Something like

Quote

Place your Back Road token on an Action supply pile that does not have a Back Road token on it. (Players may not buy cards from a pile that has another player's Back Road token on it). Until the end of your next turn, whenever you buy a card from a Supply Pile that has your Back Road token on it, gain a copy of it. When you discard this, remove one of your Back Road tokens.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on January 14, 2020, 08:49:03 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 07:59:55 pm

Quote from: naitchman on January 14, 2020, 07:44:27 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 05:38:32 pm

Quote from: naitchman on January 14, 2020, 01:55:55 pm

Here's my entry. (Mix of Tactician and Fortune)
(https://i.imgur.com/Kf1kH78.png)

It doesn't combine and with fortune to quadruple. It's way cheaper than fortune, but doubles before you play treasures, and discards the rest of your hand (meaning no more treasures).

I like this. My only concern is that it could show up in a Kingdom with no actions that give _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}.

Thanks.

There are a decent number that give virtual coin.
Most cards have kingdoms that favor them and those that don't and many are useless (or virtually useless) without support (rats without other trashing, conspirator without + actions, moat when there aren't attacks, etc.). If it's not worth buying, people just don't buy it.

Problem is, you also need the virtual coin to either be non-terminal or have Villages in order to play Profit afterwards. And most virtual coin is +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}, which makes it very hard to make Profit make more _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} than even a Woodcutter.

There are plenty of games where I've generated coin mostly off virtual coin (peddler variants help). I've played double tactician plenty of times and that requires complete virtual coin (yes the extra 5 cards helps, but it's not absolutely necessary).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 14, 2020, 09:43:51 pm

Quote

moot point since this is edited out, but an attack doesn't have to "attack" to be an attack - check out Minion.

It does have to option to attack, though.  Technically speaking, without that clause, the card doesn't attack.  It just doubles another attack.  Minion has the explicit option to attack every time it is played.

If a card can't attack on its own, can it be an attack?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 10:25:10 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 14, 2020, 08:46:45 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 08:16:20 pm

 or when people make fan cards that do almost nothing unless there's an attack available, etc.

Feeling maybe a little seen here.

I'm revising my entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821597#msg821597) this week

Heh, I mean +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}, each other player takes their -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} token is weak to be sure, but not dead/nothing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on January 15, 2020, 12:42:58 am

@spineflu I did want people to back road each other with ensuing hilarity but I didn't think through the tracking issues especially for large games. I may use that token idea or drop it for something new.
I also wonder if it wouldn't be significantly unfun to play against if there is a kingdom with only one village type card that a single player hoards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on January 15, 2020, 07:44:38 am

Dance Hall
Action - $2
+1 Villager per Villager you have
-
When you gain this, +1 Villager

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on January 15, 2020, 03:14:58 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/BeKMETd.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/uBPGwN9.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/qkeJC1o.jpg)

Quote

Summer House - Action Shelter, $1
You may play a non-Duration, non-Shelter Action card from your hand twice. If you do, trash this.

Quote

Wagon - Action Shelter, $1
+1 Action
This turn, when you gain an Action card and have 2 or more Shelters in play, you may trash this to gain a copy of the gained card. replaced by Taverna

Quote

Taverna - Night Shelter, $1
Choose a card you have in play that you've gained a copy of this turn. If you do, trash this to gain another copy of it.

Quote

Asylum - Action Shelter, $1
Discard 2 Shelters. If you do, +1 Card per card in your hand. replaced by Cavern

Quote

Cavern - Treasure Shelter, $1
When you play this, discard 2 Shelters and reveal a Victory card from your hand, revealing them. If you do both, +1 Buy and double your $ if you haven't yet this turn.

Tell me if a set of Shelters doesn't count as one entry. Or indeed if any of them are crazy.

Edit: reworked Summer House so it can't be trashed in the opening. Replaced Wagon with the cleaner Taverna, which also can't be trashed in the opening.
Edit 2: changed Asylum to Cavern, something a fair bit more rewarding if you choose to keep all 3. (Thanks Fragasnap for highlighting Asylum's flaws out clearly enough). A later edit to Cavern to make it more correct.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on January 15, 2020, 06:30:04 pm

Would this count as doubling?
(https://i.imgur.com/N5sg1Wg.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 15, 2020, 10:33:30 pm

Quote from: Aquila on January 15, 2020, 03:14:58 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/GIMVbnF.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/7hHptWf.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/RcuDrSY.jpg)

Quote

Summer House - Action Shelter, $1
You may trash this to play a non-Duration Action card from your hand twice.

Quote

Wagon - Action Shelter, $1
+1 Action
This turn, when you gain an Action card and have 2 or more Shelters in play, you may trash this to gain a copy of the gained card.

Quote

Asylum - Action Shelter, $1
Discard 2 Shelters. If you do, +1 Card per card in your hand.

Tell me if a set of Shelters doesn't count as one entry. Or indeed if any of them are crazy.

These are cool.  No idea if they fit the contest.  But definitely cool.

Would help speed up games, too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on January 15, 2020, 11:14:22 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 14, 2020, 09:43:51 pm

Quote

moot point since this is edited out, but an attack doesn't have to "attack" to be an attack - check out Minion.

It does have to option to attack, though.  Technically speaking, without that clause, the card doesn't attack.  It just doubles another attack.  Minion has the explicit option to attack every time it is played.

If a card can't attack on its own, can it be an attack?

I think the attack type idea was to make other cards, such as moat, be able to interact with them.
Legionary also does not always "attack"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on January 16, 2020, 01:24:20 am

My doubling entry.

(https://i.imgur.com/bmeLYn7.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on January 16, 2020, 05:12:43 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 15, 2020, 03:14:58 pm

Tell me if a set of Shelters doesn't count as one entry. Or indeed if any of them are crazy.

I'll allow it. If they're meant to all be added to the game together, they're not so different from a split pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on January 16, 2020, 08:04:02 am

(https://i.imgur.com/bEYdY9p.png?3)
Note that it specifies card, not just action, meaning it can be used on any playable card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on January 16, 2020, 08:27:15 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1iMRXWa.jpg)

Quote

Provisioner
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may gain a Silver. For each card in your hand, the player to your left puts a card from your discard pile into your hand.

Doubles your hand from the worst cards in your discard pile (or all of them if you don't have that many).  It also lets you gain a Silver for the cases when you don't have a discard pile or want to slog your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 16, 2020, 09:18:20 am

Quote from: D782802859 on January 16, 2020, 08:04:02 am

(https://i.imgur.com/bEYdY9p.png?3)
Note that it specifies card, not just action, meaning it can be used on any playable card.

This is strictly better than Moneylender (as in, using it on a copper is the same as Moneylender, and this adds additional functionality) and should probably cost more as a result

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on January 16, 2020, 09:39:23 am

Harlequin/Capital...

Why yes, I would like two free Provinces.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 16, 2020, 10:13:34 am

I'ma change my entry, Doppelganger is trying to do too much with not enough design space to do it. I reworked it because I love the art I found but c'est la vie.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e207ab14c2dbc3664f0f4d7/56a209b5139d1a8985d56b4c3652858c/image.png)

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Victory
Set this aside. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Victory card costing up to $8^. Set it aside with this, face up (discard the rest of the revealed cards). If this sets aside an...
...Estate, gain a Vista
...Province, all other players get +1 Card
-
Worth % equal to the set-aside card(s).

Make sure your Province has a view!

This is a riff on an old card from the Throne Room contest (#19), spiralstaircase's Eyre (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788465#msg788465), with the difference being this always works (and sometimes hurts you after the fact) instead of having to try to time it.

FAQ: If you throne/KC this, you do set aside two/three cards; this is worth VP equal to the sum VP of all set-aside cards. Also the Throne/KC  stays out with it (which isn't unique to this, it also happens when you Throne a Champion or whatev).

This cost adjustment does break gainers but not remodelers (since your cards now cost an additional <x> too). As grep points out, you can get around the cost penalty by lowering card prices (Highway, Bridge, Canal, etc) before you buy things. old revision stuff; doesn't matter anymore.

oh and uh I did the art for this one too. Spray paint on sheet metal, 2019 (https://www.instagram.com/p/B1XV6LTlTzr/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link)


Revised to make this closer to Rebuild in application, but less centralizing - if your Vista has a Vista, well, buddy, that's a park, it's 0VP.

Revised again to give a bonus for the most common bad outcome (set aside an estate) and put a price cap on it. If you can work cost reduction magic to set aside a Colony with this, well, you earned it.

Revised again after LibraryAdventurer pointed out i don't need it to be a duration anymore

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on January 16, 2020, 11:05:17 am

Quote from: Snowyowl on January 16, 2020, 05:12:43 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 15, 2020, 03:14:58 pm

Tell me if a set of Shelters doesn't count as one entry. Or indeed if any of them are crazy.

I'll allow it. If they're meant to all be added to the game together, they're not so different from a split pile.

Great, yes they're designed to be played together.

Quote from: D782802859 on January 16, 2020, 08:04:02 am

(https://i.imgur.com/bEYdY9p.png?3)
Note that it specifies card, not just action, meaning it can be used on any playable card.

Where's the doubling with this?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 16, 2020, 11:06:22 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 16, 2020, 11:05:17 am

Quote from: Snowyowl on January 16, 2020, 05:12:43 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 15, 2020, 03:14:58 pm

Tell me if a set of Shelters doesn't count as one entry. Or indeed if any of them are crazy.

I'll allow it. If they're meant to all be added to the game together, they're not so different from a split pile.

Great, yes they're designed to be played together.

Quote from: D782802859 on January 16, 2020, 08:04:02 am

(https://i.imgur.com/bEYdY9p.png?3)
Note that it specifies card, not just action, meaning it can be used on any playable card.

Where's the doubling with this?

Right after the second play and before the third? But yeah, it's a stretch.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on January 16, 2020, 11:56:13 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 16, 2020, 10:13:34 am

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Victory - Duration
Set a Victory card aside under this, face up.
(This stays in play)
If the card set aside in this way cost $5 or more, cards cost <1> more during your turn.
-
This is worth VP equal to the set-aside card.

Make sure your Province has a view!

FAQ: If you throne/KC this, you do set aside two/three cards; this is worth VP equal to the sum VP of all set-aside cards, and if the total cost of cards set aside with this is above 5, cards cost 1 debt more (not one debt more for each set aside card). Also the Throne/KC  stays out with it (which isn't unique to this, it also happens when you Throne a Champion or whatev).

The throning behavior from FAQ doesn't meet the card text. Normally when there are many ways to do something, the player makes a choice. For example, if Province and Duchy are set aside, the player may choose Vista to cost 6VP or 3VP, and separately choose to pay or not to pay the fine.

BTW funny interaction with cost reducers - if you play enough Bridges, you don't need to pay the fine

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 16, 2020, 12:36:48 pm

Quote from: grep on January 16, 2020, 11:56:13 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 16, 2020, 10:13:34 am

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Victory - Duration
Set a Victory card aside under this, face up.
(This stays in play)
If the card set aside in this way cost $5 or more, cards cost <1> more during your turn.
-
This is worth VP equal to the set-aside card.

Make sure your Province has a view!

FAQ: If you throne/KC this, you do set aside two/three cards; this is worth VP equal to the sum VP of all set-aside cards, and if the total cost of cards set aside with this is above 5, cards cost 1 debt more (not one debt more for each set aside card). Also the Throne/KC  stays out with it (which isn't unique to this, it also happens when you Throne a Champion or whatev).

The throning behavior from FAQ doesn't meet the card text. Normally when there are many ways to do something, the player makes a choice. For example, if Province and Duchy are set aside, the player may choose Vista to cost 6VP or 3VP, and separately choose to pay or not to pay the fine.

BTW funny interaction with cost reducers - if you play enough Bridges, you don't need to pay the fine

this fixes it?:

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Victory - Duration
Set a Victory card aside under this, face up.
(This stays in play)
If the card(s) set aside in this way cost $5 total or more, cards cost <1> more during your turn.
-
This is worth VP equal to the set-aside card(s).

I think the Bridge/Highway thing is more feature than bug. and it's thematic. you've got a great view of the canal, and the Bridges, and the Bridge Troll.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 16, 2020, 01:29:57 pm

Quote from: grep on January 16, 2020, 11:56:13 am

The throning behavior from FAQ doesn't meet the card text. Normally when there are many ways to do something, the player makes a choice. For example, if Province and Duchy are set aside, the player may choose Vista to cost 6VP or 3VP, and separately choose to pay or not to pay the fine.

I don't know if this is right... are there any similar examples in real Dominion cards? There aren't as far as I know. Either interpretation seems equally possible to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on January 16, 2020, 01:47:10 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 08:16:20 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on January 14, 2020, 05:52:20 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 05:51:07 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 05:40:50 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 03:00:50 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 14, 2020, 01:58:37 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 14, 2020, 01:42:17 pm

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.

This is especially powerful with cards that provide +Villagers, e.g. Patron or Acting Troupe, since those can be used with for the 3rd play.

For Acting Troupe it's basically +10 Villagers!!

It's practically a dead card if it's the only source of Villagers, though.

How? It's a Throne Room that's a King's Court for the first time you play it.

Yes, but it only costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less than a King's Court. It's so much worse than King's Court for being a similar price.

There's a huge gulf between much worse than King's Court and practically dead.

Yeah. This is just a more-expensive Throne Room that has a stronger effect than Throne Room. I dunno if it's weak at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} or not, but it seemed weird to use the term "dead" when that generally refers to something like Stables in a hand with no treasure; or when people make fan cards that do almost nothing unless there's an attack available, etc. Even if the card were just literally Throne Room but costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}, I wouldn't think to use the term "dead".

Would this work better as a $5? I wasn't sure initially if it should cost $5 or $6; eventually I erred on the side of caution.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 16, 2020, 02:29:26 pm

[This is no longer my entry this challenge, see Siege Tower further down]

---

So I've decided to switch my entry away from Juggler (great image aside) and go with my original idea for doubling.

I think TRs for attacks have been tried before, BUT they're not too effective because:
a) attacks are often designed to not stack
b) there may not be other attacks in the Kingdom

Gauntlets attempts to solve a) by making the 2nd attack happen next turn. As for b) well, the setup clause guarantees other attacks!

Since you still have to have an attack on your hand with Gauntlets, it itself can be a straight curser (but to your opponent's hands, which should be a little weak).

(https://i.imgur.com/XSLc9ZX.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on January 16, 2020, 03:18:42 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 16, 2020, 01:47:10 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 08:16:20 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on January 14, 2020, 05:52:20 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 05:51:07 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 05:40:50 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 03:00:50 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 14, 2020, 01:58:37 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 14, 2020, 01:42:17 pm

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.

This is especially powerful with cards that provide +Villagers, e.g. Patron or Acting Troupe, since those can be used with for the 3rd play.

For Acting Troupe it's basically +10 Villagers!!

It's practically a dead card if it's the only source of Villagers, though.

How? It's a Throne Room that's a King's Court for the first time you play it.

Yes, but it only costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less than a King's Court. It's so much worse than King's Court for being a similar price.

There's a huge gulf between much worse than King's Court and practically dead.

Yeah. This is just a more-expensive Throne Room that has a stronger effect than Throne Room. I dunno if it's weak at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} or not, but it seemed weird to use the term "dead" when that generally refers to something like Stables in a hand with no treasure; or when people make fan cards that do almost nothing unless there's an attack available, etc. Even if the card were just literally Throne Room but costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}, I wouldn't think to use the term "dead".

Would this work better as a $5? I wasn't sure initially if it should cost $5 or $6; eventually I erred on the side of caution.

I think $6 is an appropriate cost. I'd generally advise against using busted cards like King's Court as a benchmark to balance other cards and comparing this to the $5 Throne variants it seems clearly much stronger than those to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on January 16, 2020, 03:24:04 pm

Zimbabwe Money - $4 - Treasure
+$7
+1 Buy
This turn, double the coin cost of all cards and events.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 16, 2020, 03:43:13 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on January 16, 2020, 03:18:42 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 16, 2020, 01:47:10 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 08:16:20 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on January 14, 2020, 05:52:20 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 05:51:07 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 05:40:50 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 14, 2020, 03:00:50 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 14, 2020, 01:58:37 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 14, 2020, 01:42:17 pm

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.

This is especially powerful with cards that provide +Villagers, e.g. Patron or Acting Troupe, since those can be used with for the 3rd play.

For Acting Troupe it's basically +10 Villagers!!

It's practically a dead card if it's the only source of Villagers, though.

How? It's a Throne Room that's a King's Court for the first time you play it.

Yes, but it only costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less than a King's Court. It's so much worse than King's Court for being a similar price.

There's a huge gulf between much worse than King's Court and practically dead.

Yeah. This is just a more-expensive Throne Room that has a stronger effect than Throne Room. I dunno if it's weak at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} or not, but it seemed weird to use the term "dead" when that generally refers to something like Stables in a hand with no treasure; or when people make fan cards that do almost nothing unless there's an attack available, etc. Even if the card were just literally Throne Room but costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}, I wouldn't think to use the term "dead".

Would this work better as a $5? I wasn't sure initially if it should cost $5 or $6; eventually I erred on the side of caution.

I think $6 is an appropriate cost. I'd generally advise against using busted cards like King's Court as a benchmark to balance other cards and comparing this to the $5 Throne variants it seems clearly much stronger than those to me.

You could make it a little stronger by being +2 Villagers, instead of +1.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on January 16, 2020, 08:06:18 pm

Toads
$5
Action
Trash this. Gain 2 Toads. If you did, +4 Cards.

Like Rats, which it was inspired by, it too has 20 cards in the pile. Works as decent terminal draw until they run out. It doubles itself while also being a one-shot. Hope it fits the theme.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on January 16, 2020, 08:13:12 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on January 16, 2020, 08:06:18 pm

Toads
$5
Action
Trash this. Gain 2 Toads. If you did, +3 Cards.

Like Rats, which it was inspired by, it too has 20 cards in the pile. Works as decent terminal draw until they run out. It doubles itself while also being a one-shot. Hope it fits the theme.

I feel like the risk this becomes a dead card means it could draw four cards  and be fine. I don't really want to draw a hand of these due to their terminal nature. At +4 cards I really like it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 16, 2020, 09:58:52 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 16, 2020, 08:27:15 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1iMRXWa.jpg)

Quote

Provisioner
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may gain a Silver. For each card in your hand, the player to your left puts a card from your discard pile into your hand.

Doubles your hand from the worst cards in your discard pile (or all of them if you don't have that many).  It also lets you gain a Silver for the cases when you don't have a discard pile or want to slog your deck.

This seems like a card that should be purchased with some debt.  And more expensive maybe?  Maybe 3$ and $3debt?

Can't say why.  Just a feel that it is OP at $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on January 16, 2020, 10:29:44 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 16, 2020, 09:58:52 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 16, 2020, 08:27:15 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1iMRXWa.jpg)

Quote

Provisioner
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may gain a Silver. For each card in your hand, the player to your left puts a card from your discard pile into your hand.

Doubles your hand from the worst cards in your discard pile (or all of them if you don't have that many).  It also lets you gain a Silver for the cases when you don't have a discard pile or want to slog your deck.

This seems like a card that should be purchased with some debt.  And more expensive maybe?  Maybe 3$ and $3debt?

Can't say why.  Just a feel that it is OP at $5.

Without villages and labs, it's worse than Envoy, and degrading quickly while greening. I would value it $4

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 17, 2020, 01:32:04 am

Quote from: grep on January 16, 2020, 10:29:44 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 16, 2020, 09:58:52 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 16, 2020, 08:27:15 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1iMRXWa.jpg)

Quote

Provisioner
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may gain a Silver. For each card in your hand, the player to your left puts a card from your discard pile into your hand.

Doubles your hand from the worst cards in your discard pile (or all of them if you don't have that many).  It also lets you gain a Silver for the cases when you don't have a discard pile or want to slog your deck.

This seems like a card that should be purchased with some debt.  And more expensive maybe?  Maybe 3$ and $3debt?

Can't say why.  Just a feel that it is OP at $5.

Without villages and labs, it's worse than Envoy, and degrading quickly while greening. I would value it $4

You underestimate that the opponent cannot discard your best card and that you do at least gain a Silver to hand. Not brilliant, but Explorer and Sculptor sometimes do nothing more.
I agree though that this could be too weak. I think Gazbad did a better implentation of drawing from the discard pile via a Mountain Villager style Smithy (i.e. you draw from your deck if you have no discard pile) some time ago.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 17, 2020, 01:34:13 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 16, 2020, 11:05:17 am

Quote from: Snowyowl on January 16, 2020, 05:12:43 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 15, 2020, 03:14:58 pm

Tell me if a set of Shelters doesn't count as one entry. Or indeed if any of them are crazy.

I'll allow it. If they're meant to all be added to the game together, they're not so different from a split pile.

Great, yes they're designed to be played together.

Quote from: D782802859 on January 16, 2020, 08:04:02 am

(https://i.imgur.com/bEYdY9p.png?3)
Note that it specifies card, not just action, meaning it can be used on any playable card.

Where's the doubling with this?

KCing is arguably like Throning twice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on January 17, 2020, 01:59:00 am

Quote from: pubby on January 16, 2020, 03:24:04 pm

Zimbabwe Money - $4 - Treasure
+$7
+1 Buy
Double the coin cost of all cards and events.

Combos with Monument.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on January 17, 2020, 04:00:36 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on January 16, 2020, 08:13:12 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on January 16, 2020, 08:06:18 pm

Toads
$5
Action
Trash this. Gain 2 Toads. If you did, +3 Cards.

Like Rats, which it was inspired by, it too has 20 cards in the pile. Works as decent terminal draw until they run out. It doubles itself while also being a one-shot. Hope it fits the theme.

I feel like the risk this becomes a dead card means it could draw four cards  and be fine. I don't really want to draw a hand of these due to their terminal nature. At +4 cards I really like it.

Alright then. +4 Cards it is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on January 17, 2020, 10:33:38 am

Quote from: Awaclus on January 17, 2020, 01:59:00 am

Quote from: pubby on January 16, 2020, 03:24:04 pm

Zimbabwe Money - $4 - Treasure
+$7
+1 Buy
Double the coin cost of all cards and events.

Combos with Monument.

You probably mean Bishop (as well as Apprentice and Raze). Also debt cost cards become incredibly cheap.
puppy: Is it "while this is in play" or "until end of turn"? The difference is in interaction with thrones and impostors like BOM

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 17, 2020, 10:36:33 am

Quote from: Awaclus on January 17, 2020, 01:59:00 am

Quote from: pubby on January 16, 2020, 03:24:04 pm

Zimbabwe Money - $4 - Treasure
+$7
+1 Buy
Double the coin cost of all cards and events.

Combos with Monument.

How?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on January 17, 2020, 10:37:48 am

Quote from: grep on January 17, 2020, 10:33:38 am

Quote from: Awaclus on January 17, 2020, 01:59:00 am

Quote from: pubby on January 16, 2020, 03:24:04 pm

Zimbabwe Money - $4 - Treasure
+$7
+1 Buy
Double the coin cost of all cards and events.

Combos with Monument.

You probably mean Bishop (as well as Apprentice and Raze). Also debt cost cards become incredibly cheap.
puppy: Is it "while this is in play" or "until end of turn"? The difference is in interaction with thrones and impostors like BOM

I think he meant that because you double the cost permanently (obviously unintentionally) after a few plays nobody will be able to afford any non-$0 cards so you just accumulate vp with Monument and the game never ends.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 17, 2020, 10:47:33 am

Quote from: grep on January 16, 2020, 10:29:44 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 16, 2020, 09:58:52 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 16, 2020, 08:27:15 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1iMRXWa.jpg)

Quote

Provisioner
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may gain a Silver. For each card in your hand, the player to your left puts a card from your discard pile into your hand.

Doubles your hand from the worst cards in your discard pile (or all of them if you don't have that many).  It also lets you gain a Silver for the cases when you don't have a discard pile or want to slog your deck.

This seems like a card that should be purchased with some debt.  And more expensive maybe?  Maybe 3$ and $3debt?

Can't say why.  Just a feel that it is OP at $5.

Without villages and labs, it's worse than Envoy, and degrading quickly while greening. I would value it $4

You make a convincing case there.  I think you are right.  In one sense, a guaranteed 10 cards is better than.  But I would easily prefer 5 cards of cycling progression to five cards without it.

$4 is right.  But a pretty good card at that price if TFB cards and a village is present.

But not as good as Envoy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 17, 2020, 02:59:41 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 16, 2020, 02:29:26 pm

So I've decided to switch my entry away from Juggler (great image aside) and go with my original idea for doubling.

I think TRs for attacks have been tried before, BUT they're not too effective because:
a) attacks are often designed to not stack
b) there may not be other attacks in the Kingdom

Gauntlets attempts to solve a) by making the 2nd attack happen next turn. As for b) well, the setup clause guarantees other attacks!

Since you still have to have an attack on your hand with Gauntlets, it itself can be a straight curser (but to your opponent's hands, which should be a little weak).

(https://i.imgur.com/XSLc9ZX.png)

So, another change - though generally the same idea.

Thematically, I think this concept works better as Siege Tower. So we have a name switch. And then I think the attack should be something other than a curse, So I've switched it to something also thematic; when under siege, supplies are cut off.

(https://i.imgur.com/NJeHnWA.png)

I'm open to other suggestion of what the attack could be; the main idea of the card is a delayed attack TR, which needs to also have an alternative attack option. Or if the alternative attack option should have some benefit to the player.

As currently written it can plan Vampire, Werewolf (though it would be +3 cards, and not the hex), Relic, etc. I don't see that as problematic, or should it only allow playing Action-Attack cards? (which would still include Werewolf). I've also considered non-duration, but don't know if it *needs* it.

(I also like that the classic defense of Moat is thematic too!)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 17, 2020, 04:25:09 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 17, 2020, 10:47:33 am

Quote from: grep on January 16, 2020, 10:29:44 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 16, 2020, 09:58:52 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 16, 2020, 08:27:15 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1iMRXWa.jpg)

Quote

Provisioner
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may gain a Silver. For each card in your hand, the player to your left puts a card from your discard pile into your hand.

Doubles your hand from the worst cards in your discard pile (or all of them if you don't have that many).  It also lets you gain a Silver for the cases when you don't have a discard pile or want to slog your deck.

This seems like a card that should be purchased with some debt.  And more expensive maybe?  Maybe 3$ and $3debt?

Can't say why.  Just a feel that it is OP at $5.

Without villages and labs, it's worse than Envoy, and degrading quickly while greening. I would value it $4

You make a convincing case there.  I think you are right.  In one sense, a guaranteed 10 cards is better than.  But I would easily prefer 5 cards of cycling progression to five cards without it.

$4 is right.  But a pretty good card at that price if TFB cards and a village is present.

But not as good as Envoy.

If you play this from a new hand, you're getting 4 cards, not 5; for a total of 8, not 10.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 17, 2020, 05:20:49 pm

Great point.  Then Envoy is strictly better?  Maybe this is a $3 or a 4@?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 17, 2020, 06:23:05 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 17, 2020, 02:59:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/NJeHnWA.png)

DXV tested a Duration TR for Seaside and it was bad.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 17, 2020, 06:40:12 pm

Quote from: segura on January 17, 2020, 06:23:05 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 17, 2020, 02:59:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/NJeHnWA.png)

DXV tested a Duration TR for Seaside and it was bad.

That was like, a decade ago and also Seaside was part of the first "big batch" of five expansions. Maybe the concept has grown up now that Feast/Thief/Saboteur/Scout are retired; is it really that far off from Captain?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 18, 2020, 03:37:33 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 17, 2020, 06:40:12 pm

Quote from: segura on January 17, 2020, 06:23:05 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 17, 2020, 02:59:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/NJeHnWA.png)

DXV tested a Duration TR for Seaside and it was bad.

That was like, a decade ago and also Seaside was part of the first "big batch" of five expansions. Maybe the concept has grown up now that Feast/Thief/Saboteur/Scout are retired; is it really that far off from Captain?

I fail to see in what way the 5 cards you mentioned are related to a now-and-later Throne Room. Captain is an emulator, what does this have to do with TR?
As a stupid example, if you use Captain to play two Pearl Divers it is like a delayed Lost City (now a cantrip, +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn). If you use a now and later Throne Room on Pearl Diver it is -1 Card on this turn and +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn. That's the same net effects as Ghost Town, with the big difference that you need two cards for it to work and that the handgaining of Ghost Town is absent.

I know that this comparison is not perfect or complete, I intentionally picked the weakest card to illustrate that Captain is pretty decent even when there are weak Action cards in the Kingdom whereas you cannot say the same about the now-and-later TR.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on January 18, 2020, 09:05:05 am

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 17, 2020, 10:47:33 am

Quote from: grep on January 16, 2020, 10:29:44 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 16, 2020, 09:58:52 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 16, 2020, 08:27:15 am

Quote

Provisioner
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may gain a Silver. For each card in your hand, the player to your left puts a card from your discard pile into your hand.

Doubles your hand from the worst cards in your discard pile (or all of them if you don't have that many).  It also lets you gain a Silver for the cases when you don't have a discard pile or want to slog your deck.

This seems like a card that should be purchased with some debt.  And more expensive maybe?  Maybe 3$ and $3debt?

Can't say why.  Just a feel that it is OP at $5.

Without villages and labs, it's worse than Envoy, and degrading quickly while greening. I would value it $4

You make a convincing case there.  I think you are right.  In one sense, a guaranteed 10 cards is better than.  But I would easily prefer 5 cards of cycling progression to five cards without it.

$4 is right.  But a pretty good card at that price if TFB cards and a village is present.

But not as good as Envoy.

Provisioner's draw becomes big and decent if you have a source of +actions and a way to ensure you have a larger number of cards in hand than useless cards in your discard pile (especially trash Estates, gain mid-turn, and discard productively).  When this occurs, Provisioner's draw is often non-trivial, so the length of its resolution becomes an important consideration in its design.  The draw effect on its own is likely a $4 effect due to how much needs to appear to make it valuable, but I want Provisioner to be a $5 card to reduce the number of times it is gained and played in a game.  In order to make Provisioner's draw worthwhile, I put one of the things it needs onto it: A mid-turn gain.  The form of that mid-turn gain needs to be something that does not add significantly to its resolution speed (Workshop or The Sky's Gift would take too long), so it optionally gains a Silver.  With that gain, its plays become more like Explorer (can't gain Gold) or Sculptor (can't gain non-Silver, doesn't give Villagers), so $5 looks like a fair enough cost─though definitely in the weaker half of $5 cards.

Quote from: Aquila on January 15, 2020, 03:14:58 pm

Quote

Summer House - Action Shelter, $1
You may play a non-Duration, non-Shelter Action card from your hand twice. If you do, trash this.

Quote

Taverna - Night Shelter, $1
Choose a card you have in play that you've gained a copy of this turn. If you do, trash this to gain another copy of it.

Quote

Asylum - Action Shelter, $1
Discard 2 Shelters. If you do, +1 Card per card in your hand.

Edit: reworked Summer House so it can't be trashed in the opening. Replaced Wagon with the cleaner Taverna, which also can't be trashed in the opening.

You can still trash Taverna in the opening by turning it into a Copper.  Not sure if that's good or not, but I would just ask to "choose an Action you have in play..." to avoid the issue altogether.
Asylum looks super weak.  I get that the idea is that you have to hold onto Taverna and Summer House so you can get a powerful draw, but fact is that if you can manage to draw all 3 junk Shelters in any kind of consistent way, the not-even-doubling your hand (your hand is reduced by 3 before you get to draw anything) will be a paltry benefit that only clinches a deck that was already going to draw itself anyway.  I cannot imagine a deck that could stomach 3 extra dead-weight cards that it could otherwise trash just for the hope of this benefit.

Quote from: spineflu on January 16, 2020, 09:18:20 am

Quote from: D782802859 on January 16, 2020, 08:04:02 am

Quote

Harlequin
Types: Action
Cost: $4
You may play a card from your hand three times. If you did, trash it.

Note that it specifies card, not just action, meaning it can be used on any playable card.

This is strictly better than Moneylender (as in, using it on a copper is the same as Moneylender, and this adds additional functionality) and should probably cost more as a result

Seconded.  I'd say it would still be strong at $5 but unhealthy at $6 (as swinging into a strong tempo-trasher on turn 3\4 is typically too luck-based).
I'm also not sure that the rules inherently imply that you can't "play" a Curse or Victory card, it just doesn't have any generic function to do so nor a definition of what would happen if you did.  I think this does need to specify Action or Treasure.  It also should either trash the card when it is discarded or else follow Procession's lead by excluding Duration cards to avoid tracking issues.

Quote from: spineflu on January 16, 2020, 10:13:34 am

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Victory - Duration
Set a Victory card aside under this, face up.
(This stays in play)
If the card set aside in this way cost $5 or more, cards cost <1> more during your turn.
-
This is worth VP equal to the set-aside card.

This is a riff on an old card from the Throne Room contest, spiralstaircase's Eyre (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788465#msg788465), with the difference being this always works (and sometimes hurts you after the fact) instead of having to try to time it.

Needs to be optional for when it gets played with no Victory cards in your hand.
I was playing around with a similar idea, but the problem is that its power budget gets completely eaten up by setting aside Provinces and then it ends up feeling so similar to a less interesting Island anyway.  The really meaningful difference here is that it makes cards more expensive, but that only occurs so close to the end of the game (other than the fact that it drags out the game's ending more because adding another whole ~36VP to the game is pretty silly) and doing virtually anything else with it seems like such a waste of a one-shot $5 card.

Quote from: Gazbag on January 16, 2020, 03:18:42 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 16, 2020, 01:47:10 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 08:16:20 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 14, 2020, 01:42:17 pm

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.

...
Yeah. This is just a more-expensive Throne Room that has a stronger effect than Throne Room. I dunno if it's weak at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} or not, but it seemed weird to use the term "dead" when that generally refers to something like Stables in a hand with no treasure; or when people make fan cards that do almost nothing unless there's an attack available, etc. Even if the card were just literally Throne Room but costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}, I wouldn't think to use the term "dead".

Would this work better as a $5? I wasn't sure initially if it should cost $5 or $6; eventually I erred on the side of caution.

I think $6 is an appropriate cost. I'd generally advise against using busted cards like King's Court as a benchmark to balance other cards and comparing this to the $5 Throne variants it seems clearly much stronger than those to me.

A King's Court once that becomes a Throne Room is much stronger than a Throne Room that never misses (Royal Carriage)?  Crown and Scepter are definitely a very marginal benefit on top of Throne Room, but having a one-time upgrade is also not much of one.  I would not vote a $5 price as overwhelming, merely that the way it plays is dully familiar.
I'd personally prefer its playing be limited in some other way and it generate Villagers in some circumstance.  It would make it feel more different than Throne Room and the other Villager cards.

Quote from: scolapasta on January 17, 2020, 02:59:41 pm

Siege Tower
Types: Action, Attack, Duration
Cost: $4
You may play an Attack card from your hand. If you do, at the start of your next turn, play it again. Otherwise, each other player puts their -1 Card token on their deck.

---

Setup: Add 2 extra Attack Kingdom card piles to the Supply.

I've played with "Play a non-Duration Action from your hand. If it is still in play, at the start of your next turn: Play it again." Even with no limiters it is such a weak effect that it is often best ignored at a cost of $2, because the costs of aligning it with a worthwhile Action and that inherent -1 Card on the first turn is not nearly compensated by the strength of start-of-turn draw.  Siege Tower however is significantly more limited than that.  It should probably Throne Room the Attack now and play it again next turn.
Playing an Attack Duration in an Attack Duration sounds like a tracking headache, and it seems doubly frustrating that Siege Tower is so bad in Siege Tower.  I'd much rather its Attack be something that can stack.  Maybe "+$1 and each other player with at least 4 cards in hand puts a card from their hand on top of their deck"?
I continue to dislike the idea of anything that throws more piles into the Supply simply because that is a design path that doesn't seem to have any meaningful end: We're just going to keep getting bigger and bigger Kingdoms.  That is completely to taste, though, so don't mind me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 18, 2020, 04:29:21 pm

Quote from: segura on January 18, 2020, 03:37:33 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 17, 2020, 06:40:12 pm

Quote from: segura on January 17, 2020, 06:23:05 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 17, 2020, 02:59:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/NJeHnWA.png)

DXV tested a Duration TR for Seaside and it was bad.

That was like, a decade ago and also Seaside was part of the first "big batch" of five expansions. Maybe the concept has grown up now that Feast/Thief/Saboteur/Scout are retired; is it really that far off from Captain?

I fail to see in what way the 5 cards you mentioned are related to a now-and-later Throne Room. Captain is an emulator, what does this have to do with TR?
As a stupid example, if you use Captain to play two Pearl Divers it is like a delayed Lost City (now a cantrip, +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn). If you use a now and later Throne Room on Pearl Diver it is -1 Card on this turn and +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn. That's the same net effects as Ghost Town, with the big difference that you need two cards for it to work and that the handgaining of Ghost Town is absent.

I know that this comparison is not perfect or complete, I intentionally picked the weakest card to illustrate that Captain is pretty decent even when there are weak Action cards in the Kingdom whereas you cannot say the same about the now-and-later TR.

Re; my examples - I mean the now-and-later throne was probably tested against some cards that weren't worth testing against - garbage in, garbage out.

A throne room in general requires a collision; the next turn effect really just boosts the efficacy of attacks that require consistent application - by your metric, Ghost ship is a Superlab on the next turn, even if everyone else has a Moat - Discard and topdeck attacks in general will be more effective with this - I think this is a great enabler for Pirate Ship, up there with Prince.

You could make your exact same case that Band of Misfits is better than Throne Room because it doesn't require collision, but at the end of the day, they're both useful in different contexts. When I brought up Captain, I was comparing this cards now-and-later-ness to an existing now-and-later card and they can be of varying degrees of utility - there's oceans in that $2 price gap between $4 and $6.

This still at least hits something when it misses the collision, which is more than can be said about other thrones.

---

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 18, 2020, 09:05:05 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 16, 2020, 10:13:34 am

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Victory - Duration
Set a Victory card aside under this, face up.
(This stays in play)
If the card set aside in this way cost $5 or more, cards cost <1> more during your turn.
-
This is worth VP equal to the set-aside card.

This is a riff on an old card from the Throne Room contest, spiralstaircase's Eyre (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg788465#msg788465), with the difference being this always works (and sometimes hurts you after the fact) instead of having to try to time it.

Needs to be optional for when it gets played with no Victory cards in your hand.

I could fix this but it's fine if it does a blue dog miss - there's no required player accountability with it beyond what's stated, like the original Moneylender or Throne.

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 18, 2020, 09:05:05 am

I was playing around with a similar idea, but the problem is that its power budget gets completely eaten up by setting aside Provinces and then it ends up feeling so similar to a less interesting Island anyway.  The really meaningful difference here is that it makes cards more expensive, but that only occurs so close to the end of the game (other than the fact that it drags out the game's ending more because adding another whole ~36VP to the game is pretty silly) and doing virtually anything else with it seems like such a waste of a one-shot $5 card.

What about if it, rather than going from hand for its target card, was like Rebuild, where it seeked (sook?) out the next Victory card in your deck and set it aside? It'd still be terminal. Maybe get rid of the penalty with that since it's going to be more randomized. Feel like that'd be less centralizing than Rebuild. Could be maybe a little swingy in slogs (player A sets aside an Overgrown Estate, player B sets aside a Colony - bad news bears for A) but it wouldn't slow the game down nearly as hard as trying to line up a collision which causes a price increase.

Revising it to

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Duration - Victory
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Victory card. Set the revealed Victory card aside, face up, under this. If this sets aside a Province or Colony, all other players get +1 Card.
(This stays in play).
-
This is worth % equal to its set-aside card(s).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on January 18, 2020, 08:04:54 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 18, 2020, 09:05:05 am

Quote from: Gazbag on January 16, 2020, 03:18:42 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 16, 2020, 01:47:10 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 08:16:20 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 14, 2020, 01:42:17 pm

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.

...
Yeah. This is just a more-expensive Throne Room that has a stronger effect than Throne Room. I dunno if it's weak at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} or not, but it seemed weird to use the term "dead" when that generally refers to something like Stables in a hand with no treasure; or when people make fan cards that do almost nothing unless there's an attack available, etc. Even if the card were just literally Throne Room but costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}, I wouldn't think to use the term "dead".

Would this work better as a $5? I wasn't sure initially if it should cost $5 or $6; eventually I erred on the side of caution.

I think $6 is an appropriate cost. I'd generally advise against using busted cards like King's Court as a benchmark to balance other cards and comparing this to the $5 Throne variants it seems clearly much stronger than those to me.

A King's Court once that becomes a Throne Room is much stronger than a Throne Room that never misses (Royal Carriage)?  Crown and Scepter are definitely a very marginal benefit on top of Throne Room, but having a one-time upgrade is also not much of one.  I would not vote a $5 price as overwhelming, merely that the way it plays is dully familiar.
I'd personally prefer its playing be limited in some other way and it generate Villagers in some circumstance.  It would make it feel more different than Throne Room and the other Villager cards.

Yes? King's Court is insane. This is also a Throne with an on-gain Villager which I think would be very strong at $5 anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 19, 2020, 02:56:05 am

Quote from: Gazbag on January 18, 2020, 08:04:54 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 18, 2020, 09:05:05 am

Quote from: Gazbag on January 16, 2020, 03:18:42 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 16, 2020, 01:47:10 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 14, 2020, 08:16:20 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 14, 2020, 01:42:17 pm

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.

...
Yeah. This is just a more-expensive Throne Room that has a stronger effect than Throne Room. I dunno if it's weak at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} or not, but it seemed weird to use the term "dead" when that generally refers to something like Stables in a hand with no treasure; or when people make fan cards that do almost nothing unless there's an attack available, etc. Even if the card were just literally Throne Room but costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}, I wouldn't think to use the term "dead".

Would this work better as a $5? I wasn't sure initially if it should cost $5 or $6; eventually I erred on the side of caution.

I think $6 is an appropriate cost. I'd generally advise against using busted cards like King's Court as a benchmark to balance other cards and comparing this to the $5 Throne variants it seems clearly much stronger than those to me.

A King's Court once that becomes a Throne Room is much stronger than a Throne Room that never misses (Royal Carriage)?  Crown and Scepter are definitely a very marginal benefit on top of Throne Room, but having a one-time upgrade is also not much of one.  I would not vote a $5 price as overwhelming, merely that the way it plays is dully familiar.
I'd personally prefer its playing be limited in some other way and it generate Villagers in some circumstance.  It would make it feel more different than Throne Room and the other Villager cards.

Yes? King's Court is insane. This is also a Throne with an on-gain Villager which I think would be very strong at $5 anyway.

A big part of why King's Court is insane is because you can KC-KC. Promenade-Promenade, on the other hand, is more akin to KC-Throne Room, which is nowhere near as powerful. KC gets better the more you have, whereas Promenade doesn't.

That said, my main issue with Promenade isn't its power level, but that it's too Kingdom dependent. If the Kingdom has no other sources of Villagers, it's too weak IMO, but if the Kingdom has a way of getting large amounts of Villagers, such as Recruiter or Academy, then Promenade becomes practically just a cheap King's Court. It's always going to be broken in one direction or the other, IMO.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 19, 2020, 03:12:50 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 18, 2020, 04:29:21 pm

Quote from: segura on January 18, 2020, 03:37:33 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 17, 2020, 06:40:12 pm

Quote from: segura on January 17, 2020, 06:23:05 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 17, 2020, 02:59:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/NJeHnWA.png)

DXV tested a Duration TR for Seaside and it was bad.

That was like, a decade ago and also Seaside was part of the first "big batch" of five expansions. Maybe the concept has grown up now that Feast/Thief/Saboteur/Scout are retired; is it really that far off from Captain?

I fail to see in what way the 5 cards you mentioned are related to a now-and-later Throne Room. Captain is an emulator, what does this have to do with TR?
As a stupid example, if you use Captain to play two Pearl Divers it is like a delayed Lost City (now a cantrip, +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn). If you use a now and later Throne Room on Pearl Diver it is -1 Card on this turn and +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn. That's the same net effects as Ghost Town, with the big difference that you need two cards for it to work and that the handgaining of Ghost Town is absent.

I know that this comparison is not perfect or complete, I intentionally picked the weakest card to illustrate that Captain is pretty decent even when there are weak Action cards in the Kingdom whereas you cannot say the same about the now-and-later TR.

Re; my examples - I mean the now-and-later throne was probably tested against some cards that weren't worth testing against - garbage in, garbage out.

There is no power creep in Dominion (with Attacks it is actually the other way around, DXV doesn't do crazy attacks like Mountebank or Torturer anymore.)
But even if there was, DXV likely tested Seaside cards with not just Base and Intrigue but also cards that ended up in other expansions.

So yeah, pretty dubious to claim that DXV's clear playtesting result has not stood the test of time.

Quote

A throne room in general requires a collision; the next turn effect really just boosts the efficacy of attacks that require consistent application - by your metric, Ghost ship is a Superlab on the next turn, even if everyone else has a Moat
Discard and topdeck attacks in general will be more effective with this - I think this is a great enabler for Pirate Ship, up there with Prince.

That's a good point. Discard attacks and similar stuff like Ghost Ship do actually benefit from a delayed Throne Room.

Quote

You could make your exact same case that Band of Misfits is better than Throne Room because it doesn't require collision, but at the end of the day, they're both useful in different contexts. When I brought up Captain, I was comparing this cards now-and-later-ness to an existing now-and-later card and they can be of varying degrees of utility - there's oceans in that $2 price gap between $4 and $6.

You have to count net effects. Being dead this turn is a big thing for a delayed TR and keeping stuff out of your deck significantly reduces the power of your engine. TR-Duration only keeps the TR out of your deck, the Duration would be out anyway. But DurationTR-Action keeps two cards out of your deck which otherwise would not. So you need far more engine pieces.

Hey, there could be Kingdoms in which this works. Lots of gaining, Hermit gaining cheap stuff, whatever. But hey, why go down this road and do a card which is more restrictive/borderline/bad than a card that the game designer tested and considers to be bad?

Quote

This still at least hits something when it misses the collision, which is more than can be said about other thrones.

A terminal that spreads the -1 Card token is Bureacrat level style weak.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 19, 2020, 08:12:15 am

Quote from: segura on January 19, 2020, 03:12:50 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 18, 2020, 04:29:21 pm

Quote from: segura on January 18, 2020, 03:37:33 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 17, 2020, 06:40:12 pm

Quote from: segura on January 17, 2020, 06:23:05 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 17, 2020, 02:59:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/NJeHnWA.png)

DXV tested a Duration TR for Seaside and it was bad.

That was like, a decade ago and also Seaside was part of the first "big batch" of five expansions. Maybe the concept has grown up now that Feast/Thief/Saboteur/Scout are retired; is it really that far off from Captain?

I fail to see in what way the 5 cards you mentioned are related to a now-and-later Throne Room. Captain is an emulator, what does this have to do with TR?
As a stupid example, if you use Captain to play two Pearl Divers it is like a delayed Lost City (now a cantrip, +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn). If you use a now and later Throne Room on Pearl Diver it is -1 Card on this turn and +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn. That's the same net effects as Ghost Town, with the big difference that you need two cards for it to work and that the handgaining of Ghost Town is absent.

I know that this comparison is not perfect or complete, I intentionally picked the weakest card to illustrate that Captain is pretty decent even when there are weak Action cards in the Kingdom whereas you cannot say the same about the now-and-later TR.

Re; my examples - I mean the now-and-later throne was probably tested against some cards that weren't worth testing against - garbage in, garbage out.

There is no power creep in Dominion (with Attacks it is actually the other way around, DXV doesn't do crazy attacks like Mountebank or Torturer anymore.)
But even if there was, DXV likely tested Seaside cards with not just Base and Intrigue but also cards that ended up in other expansions.

So yeah, pretty dubious to claim that DXV's clear playtesting result has not stood the test of time.

is it? Adventurer passed his early playtesting, that card is awful. He's gotten way better and he's had a decade of experience with it. This is what I mean, garbage in garbage out - you get married to the idea of Adventurer as a terminal, you test it against its intermediary/nonterminal cards, when Adv. is bad, you blame the intermediary. It's human.

Quote from: segura on January 19, 2020, 03:12:50 am

Quote

This still at least hits something when it misses the collision, which is more than can be said about other thrones.

A terminal that spreads the -1 Card token is Bureacrat level style weak.

oh absolutely. it's swingy based on whether its alone or not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on January 19, 2020, 08:45:32 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 18, 2020, 09:05:05 am

Quote from: Aquila on January 15, 2020, 03:14:58 pm

Quote

Summer House - Action Shelter, $1
You may play a non-Duration, non-Shelter Action card from your hand twice. If you do, trash this.

Quote

Taverna - Night Shelter, $1
Choose a card you have in play that you've gained a copy of this turn. If you do, trash this to gain another copy of it.

Quote

Asylum - Action Shelter, $1
Discard 2 Shelters. If you do, +1 Card per card in your hand.

Edit: reworked Summer House so it can't be trashed in the opening. Replaced Wagon with the cleaner Taverna, which also can't be trashed in the opening.

You can still trash Taverna in the opening by turning it into a Copper.  Not sure if that's good or not, but I would just ask to "choose an Action you have in play..." to avoid the issue altogether.
Asylum looks super weak.  I get that the idea is that you have to hold onto Taverna and Summer House so you can get a powerful draw, but fact is that if you can manage to draw all 3 junk Shelters in any kind of consistent way, the not-even-doubling your hand (your hand is reduced by 3 before you get to draw anything) will be a paltry benefit that only clinches a deck that was already going to draw itself anyway.  I cannot imagine a deck that could stomach 3 extra dead-weight cards that it could otherwise trash just for the hope of this benefit.

Yes, and in the case of a thick Village-Smithy-ish deck it's just chance that they line up, isn't it? Or use a sifter, which is going to be just a few games. So:

(https://i.imgur.com/qkeJC1o.jpg)

Something more rewarding to build around. Fortune spread across 4 cards I'm hoping is safe on a Shelter? The Victory need is there to stop a $5/$2 opening becoming $5/$4. I could make it need an Action in play if 4 cards is too many.

Thanks for your feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 19, 2020, 04:30:20 pm

My entry for the weekly challenge is v2a below:

---

Quote from: spineflu on January 19, 2020, 08:12:15 am

Quote from: segura on January 19, 2020, 03:12:50 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 18, 2020, 04:29:21 pm

Quote from: segura on January 18, 2020, 03:37:33 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 17, 2020, 06:40:12 pm

Quote from: segura on January 17, 2020, 06:23:05 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 17, 2020, 02:59:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/NJeHnWA.png)

DXV tested a Duration TR for Seaside and it was bad.

That was like, a decade ago and also Seaside was part of the first "big batch" of five expansions. Maybe the concept has grown up now that Feast/Thief/Saboteur/Scout are retired; is it really that far off from Captain?

I fail to see in what way the 5 cards you mentioned are related to a now-and-later Throne Room. Captain is an emulator, what does this have to do with TR?
As a stupid example, if you use Captain to play two Pearl Divers it is like a delayed Lost City (now a cantrip, +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn). If you use a now and later Throne Room on Pearl Diver it is -1 Card on this turn and +1 Card +1 Action on the next turn. That's the same net effects as Ghost Town, with the big difference that you need two cards for it to work and that the handgaining of Ghost Town is absent.

I know that this comparison is not perfect or complete, I intentionally picked the weakest card to illustrate that Captain is pretty decent even when there are weak Action cards in the Kingdom whereas you cannot say the same about the now-and-later TR.

Re; my examples - I mean the now-and-later throne was probably tested against some cards that weren't worth testing against - garbage in, garbage out.

There is no power creep in Dominion (with Attacks it is actually the other way around, DXV doesn't do crazy attacks like Mountebank or Torturer anymore.)
But even if there was, DXV likely tested Seaside cards with not just Base and Intrigue but also cards that ended up in other expansions.

So yeah, pretty dubious to claim that DXV's clear playtesting result has not stood the test of time.

is it? Adventurer passed his early playtesting, that card is awful. He's gotten way better and he's had a decade of experience with it. This is what I mean, garbage in garbage out - you get married to the idea of Adventurer as a terminal, you test it against its intermediary/nonterminal cards, when Adv. is bad, you blame the intermediary. It's human.

Quote from: segura on January 19, 2020, 03:12:50 am

Quote

This still at least hits something when it misses the collision, which is more than can be said about other thrones.

A terminal that spreads the -1 Card token is Bureacrat level style weak.

oh absolutely. it's swingy based on whether its alone or not.

Wow, great discussion on my entry - thank you!

I do see what you mean that it can be weak - my thought was that straight delayed TR would be, but if I focused on attacks, since many would prefer to be delayed, and gave the alternative so it can't outright miss, it could work. But, yeah it needs... something. And the tracking could be weird with Duration (though by I adding non Duration it can't play itself, so needs to do a little more).

So here are a couple of variants I've come up with to handle this. Do these help mitigate the issues? If so, is one better than the other? Are they, at least, in the right direction?

(https://i.imgur.com/k78U0Jj.png) (https://i.imgur.com/NBVqrI3.png)

The first one gives a card, so it makes this closer to just playing the other attack this turn (the difference being, of course, if the card you draw is something you would've played before this). And if you don't have an attack card in hand, it itself is the duration attack for both turns.

The second is simpler, if you don't play an attack, it is a cantrip that still attack this turn.

I still have other variants floating about, but wanted to get these two out now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 19, 2020, 04:41:19 pm

second one is probably sufficiently strong with +1 Card next turn - compare to Caravan's next turn ability.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 19, 2020, 04:49:55 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 19, 2020, 04:41:19 pm

second one is probably sufficiently strong with +1 Card next turn - compare to Caravan's next turn ability.

It's not +1 next turn (or at least not meant to be. the "if you don't"  is meant to be the opposite of the "if you do" which refers to playing a non duration attack this turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 19, 2020, 05:16:03 pm

ohh my b. misread. yeah that works then.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 19, 2020, 05:37:47 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 19, 2020, 05:16:03 pm

ohh my b. misread. yeah that works then.

Any thoughts on which is better / more interesting?

Title: Re: Contest #58: Double Double
Post by: Gubump on January 19, 2020, 05:38:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/riOif3b.png)

A Procession variant whose upgrading portion is optional instead of mandatory.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Changed cost limit to "up to" instead of "exactly" and changed wording to work with Duration tracking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on January 19, 2020, 05:46:30 pm

Duration Throne Room is weak but with +1 Card it's a decent cantrip. Compare to Scheme; probably right for $4, trading flexibility and stackability (if it says "non Duration") for +1 Card and Action next turn (if it connects). It will miss reshuffles which I think keeps it below $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 19, 2020, 05:52:49 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 19, 2020, 05:37:47 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 19, 2020, 05:16:03 pm

ohh my b. misread. yeah that works then.

Any thoughts on which is better / more interesting?

well, the first one is going to hit more because of the +1 card, but its also going to slow down the game more with everyone working out of a 4 card hand; its an ok defense against itself tho (similar patterns exist w Ghost Ship, Bandit, Margrave, and Haunted Woods) since you can get rid of the penalty token with a Siege Tower.

The second maybe reword to a choice wording? "Choose one: +1 Card, +1 Action; or Play an Attack from your hand, then play it again at the start of your next turn". Its weaker than #1 but also its a $4 card so it shouldn't be crazy strong.

I think i like #1 better

Title: Re: Contest #58: Double Double
Post by: NoMoreFun on January 19, 2020, 05:54:02 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 19, 2020, 05:38:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/hSFcowz.png)

A Procession variant whose upgrading portion is optional instead of mandatory.

Procession was changed to exclude Durations due to new rules around tracking.

Another option would be to adopt similar wording to Improve (ie you do the upgrading when you discard the card from play),  which wpuld allow it to be played with Durations. I also don't think the card would be too strong if you could turn Actions into non Actions, or if the trashing was "up to".

Title: Re: Contest #58: Double Double
Post by: Gubump on January 19, 2020, 06:00:14 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on January 19, 2020, 05:54:02 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 19, 2020, 05:38:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/hSFcowz.png)

A Procession variant whose upgrading portion is optional instead of mandatory.

Procession was changed to exclude Durations due to new rules around tracking.

Another option would be to adopt similar wording to Improve (ie you do the upgrading when you discard the card from play),  which wpuld allow it to be played with Durations. I also don't think the card would be too strong if you could turn Actions into non Actions, or if the trashing was "up to".

Thanks, I completely forgot about that! Fixed, and buffed by changing the cost restriction to "up to."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on January 19, 2020, 10:15:29 pm

Quote

$8 Project
When you buy this, set aside an action card from your hand. Whenever you play a copy of that card from your hand, play it again.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 20, 2020, 06:18:32 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on January 19, 2020, 05:46:30 pm

Duration Throne Room is weak but with +1 Card it's a decent cantrip. Compare to Scheme; probably right for $4, trading flexibility and stackability (if it says "non Duration") for +1 Card and Action next turn (if it connects). It will miss reshuffles which I think keeps it below $5.

Scheme is a great comparison! In fact, one of my other alternatives was to find a way to have it "wait" until an attack came.

SO that makes me feel better about v2a. It's like scheme for attacks that, as you point out, gets you +1 Card and Action next turn when it hits; and if misses, attacks both turns instead.

And 2b is at worst a cantrip that attacks if it misses.

(thematically you start the siege, slowing down their supplies, and if you succeed (have another attack card), hit them extra hard for two turns)

This card clearly will slow games down; that works for me as I think cards that alter the gameplay can be interesting. i.e. in games with Siege Tower, it's going to be more of a slog (I mean, you are under siege), so you'll need to find ways to mitigate for that.

Still willing to hear other thoughts on 2a vs 2b vs any tweaks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on January 20, 2020, 10:40:08 am

48 hour warning!

There's a lot of good entries this week - it'll be great to read through them again but hard to pick one winner.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on January 20, 2020, 11:01:15 am

Quote

Knight Errant
$5 - Action
+$3. Each player (including you) reveals and discards the top 2 cards of their deck and gains a copy of a card they revealed costing from $3 to $6 that you choose.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 20, 2020, 04:25:20 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on January 20, 2020, 11:01:15 am

Quote

Knight Errant
$5 - Action
+$3. Each player (including you) reveals and discards the top 2 cards of their deck and gains a copy of a card they revealed costing from $3 to $6 that you choose.

This is gonna decimate piles in 4+ player games

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 20, 2020, 05:25:27 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 20, 2020, 04:25:20 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on January 20, 2020, 11:01:15 am

Quote

Knight Errant
$5 - Action
+$3. Each player (including you) reveals and discards the top 2 cards of their deck and gains a copy of a card they revealed costing from $3 to $6 that you choose.

This is gonna decimate piles in 4+ player games

Not that much more than Jester, I don't think. That said, I think it's almost certainly too weak. Just +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} is too weak for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} (Legionary) and I think this is going to be weaker than that most of the time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 20, 2020, 06:21:34 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 20, 2020, 05:25:27 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 20, 2020, 04:25:20 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on January 20, 2020, 11:01:15 am

Quote

Knight Errant
$5 - Action
+$3. Each player (including you) reveals and discards the top 2 cards of their deck and gains a copy of a card they revealed costing from $3 to $6 that you choose.

This is gonna decimate piles in 4+ player games

Not that much more than Jester, I don't think. That said, I think it's almost certainly too weak. Just +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} is too weak for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} (Legionary) and I think this is going to be weaker than that most of the time.

jester, only one person is getting a card at a time. this is tossing out 4+ copies each time its played.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 20, 2020, 06:43:11 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 20, 2020, 06:21:34 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 20, 2020, 05:25:27 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 20, 2020, 04:25:20 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on January 20, 2020, 11:01:15 am

Quote

Knight Errant
$5 - Action
+$3. Each player (including you) reveals and discards the top 2 cards of their deck and gains a copy of a card they revealed costing from $3 to $6 that you choose.

This is gonna decimate piles in 4+ player games

Not that much more than Jester, I don't think. That said, I think it's almost certainly too weak. Just +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} is too weak for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} (Legionary) and I think this is going to be weaker than that most of the time.

jester, only one person is getting a card at a time. this is tossing out 4+ copies each time its played.

Jester gives out one card per player who revealed a non-Victory card. Knight Errant has just as high a cap as Jester.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 20, 2020, 08:16:46 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 20, 2020, 06:43:11 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 20, 2020, 06:21:34 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 20, 2020, 05:25:27 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 20, 2020, 04:25:20 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on January 20, 2020, 11:01:15 am

Quote

Knight Errant
$5 - Action
+$3. Each player (including you) reveals and discards the top 2 cards of their deck and gains a copy of a card they revealed costing from $3 to $6 that you choose.

This is gonna decimate piles in 4+ player games

Not that much more than Jester, I don't think. That said, I think it's almost certainly too weak. Just +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} is too weak for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} (Legionary) and I think this is going to be weaker than that most of the time.

jester, only one person is getting a card at a time. this is tossing out 4+ copies each time its played.

Jester gives out one card per player who revealed a non-Victory card. Knight Errant has just as high a cap as Jester.

Victory cards too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on January 20, 2020, 09:19:30 pm

Think the vanilla bonus should be stronger? +1 Buy +$3, maybe, but I think that compares too favorably to Sacred Grove. (Since Sacred Grove gives +1 Buy +$3 and a bonus that's more likely to help others than to help you, whereas this would give the same but with a bonus more likely to help you.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on January 20, 2020, 09:22:53 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 19, 2020, 02:56:05 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 14, 2020, 01:42:17 pm

Promenade (Action, $6).

You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
You may return one of your Villagers. If you did, play it a third time.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villager.

A Throne Room variant that lets you upgrade to King's Court if you have a Villager to hand.

...
That said, my main issue with Promenade isn't its power level, but that it's too Kingdom dependent. If the Kingdom has no other sources of Villagers, it's too weak IMO, but if the Kingdom has a way of getting large amounts of Villagers, such as Recruiter or Academy, then Promenade becomes practically just a cheap King's Court. It's always going to be broken in one direction or the other, IMO.

Couldn't say it better.

Quote from: spineflu on January 18, 2020, 04:29:21 pm

seeked (sook?)

"Sought."

Quote from: spineflu on January 18, 2020, 04:29:21 pm

What about if it, rather than going from hand for its target card, was like Rebuild, where it [sought] out the next Victory card in your deck and set it aside? It'd still be terminal. Maybe get rid of the penalty with that since it's going to be more randomized. Feel like that'd be less centralizing than Rebuild. Could be maybe a little swingy in slogs (player A sets aside an Overgrown Estate, player B sets aside a Colony - bad news bears for A) but it wouldn't slow the game down nearly as hard as trying to line up a collision which causes a price increase.

Revising it to

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Duration - Victory
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Victory card. Set the revealed Victory card aside, face up, under this. If this sets aside a Province or Colony, all other players get +1 Card.
(This stays in play).
-
This is worth % equal to its set-aside card(s).

The hunting Island is definitely more interesting conceptually, but, as you cover, it would render many games far too luck-based, not even in the worst-case. Consider Estate versus Province for a 5VP swing that makes the player lose a $5-cost one-shot while, in a way, reducing the overall VP that is available in the game.  That's pretty miserable compared to Distant Lands.  I think it needs to be worked into something where hitting an Estate is actually a good thing.

Quote from: Aquila on January 19, 2020, 08:45:32 am

Quote

Cavern - Treasure Shelter, $1
When you play this, discard 2 Shelters and a Victory card, revealing them. If you d, +1 Buy and double your $ if you haven't yet this turn.

Something more rewarding to build around. Fortune spread across 4 cards I'm hoping is safe on a Shelter? The Victory need is there to stop a $5/$2 opening becoming $5/$4. I could make it need an Action in play if 4 cards is too many.

Thanks for your feedback.

Assuming we are doubling $10 (not too unreasonable for a deck junked up with 3 Shelters and a Province), that turns the 4 cards into $2.5 each, so it's probably still on the weak side.  The +Buy will likely be the deciding factor on whether or not Cavern is worth pursuing, which is fine if that is your intent.

Quote from: mad4math on January 19, 2020, 10:15:29 pm

$8 Project
When you buy this, set aside an action card from your hand. Whenever you play a copy of that card from your hand, play it again.

I like the concept.  I also but don't imagine that there are many Kingdoms for which it is not irreparably broken.  $14 would possibly still be too low.

Quote from: spineflu on January 20, 2020, 04:25:20 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on January 20, 2020, 11:01:15 am

Quote

Knight Errant
$5 - Action
+$3. Each player (including you) reveals and discards the top 2 cards of their deck and gains a copy of a card they revealed costing from $3 to $6 that you choose.

This is gonna decimate piles in 4+ player games

Gaining an Action typically deci (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deci-)mates (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate) its pile.

Quote from: Gubump on January 20, 2020, 06:43:11 pm

Jester gives out one card per player who revealed a non-Victory card. Knight Errant has just as high a cap as Jester.

The cap is higher as the player of Knight Errant is affected too: It is not N-1 cards gained, it is straight N cards.  Really though, this will be far more like an Attack that not.  Gaining a Smithy is good.  Gaining 4 Smithies is not so good. And I can think of plenty worse targets that will be commonly swung into since the player of Knight Errant chooses.  I think it will be pretty strong.  I will confirm though that this will speed up 4-player games to an unhealthy degree whenever relevant, which would make me loathe to use the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 21, 2020, 09:54:03 am

Quote from: Gubump on January 20, 2020, 05:25:27 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 20, 2020, 04:25:20 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on January 20, 2020, 11:01:15 am

Quote

Knight Errant
$5 - Action
+$3. Each player (including you) reveals and discards the top 2 cards of their deck and gains a copy of a card they revealed costing from $3 to $6 that you choose.

This is gonna decimate piles in 4+ player games

Not that much more than Jester, I don't think. That said, I think it's almost certainly too weak. Just +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} is too weak for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} (Legionary) and I think this is going to be weaker than that most of the time.

This is hard to judge but my hunch is this is slightly weakish for a $5 but only slightly. The best case is nearly always that the opponents gain a Silver which can be borderline junking or, you choosing a card whose pile is empty! Then the card is situationally better than Jester.

I also think that a lot of terminal Golds are pretty good so a terminal Gold with only a mild bonus is not such a horrible design choice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 21, 2020, 08:17:17 pm

did a last minute revision (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821753#msg821753) to put a price cap and a bonus for the most-common bad effect (when it sets aside an Estate). Also specified what to do with the rest of the revealed cards since I guess I forgot that when I revised into a hunting island.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on January 21, 2020, 09:45:02 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 16, 2020, 10:13:34 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e207ab14c2dbc3664f0f4d7/f2de4d3d11c21c06ea60123b301b3910/image.png)

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Victory - Duration
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Victory card costing up to $8^. Set it aside, face up, under this (discard the rest of the revealed cards). If this sets aside an...
...Estate, gain a Vista
...Province, all other players get +1 Card
(This stays in play)
-
Worth % equal to the set-aside card(s).

Make sure your Province has a view!

Just took another look at this and wondered Why is this a duration? Why does it stay in play?

Otherwise, I like this version.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 21, 2020, 09:47:24 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on January 15, 2020, 07:44:38 am

Dance Hall
Action - $2
+1 Villager per Villager you have
-
When you gain this, +1 Villager

Quote from: majiponi on January 21, 2020, 09:37:49 pm

Oh I forgot to post.


Villager Clicker
cost $2 -  Action
Double your Villager tokens.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villagers.

I think I'm seeing double!  8)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on January 21, 2020, 10:15:29 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 21, 2020, 09:47:24 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on January 15, 2020, 07:44:38 am

Dance Hall
Action - $2
+1 Villager per Villager you have
-
When you gain this, +1 Villager

Quote from: majiponi on January 21, 2020, 09:37:49 pm

Oh I forgot to post.


Villager Clicker
cost $2 -  Action
Double your Villager tokens.
---
When you gain this, +1 Villagers.

I think I'm seeing double!  8)

Oh, I didn't notice. Ok, another.

Quote

Coffer Clicker
cost $4 - Action
If this is the first Coffer Clicker you played in this turn, double your Coffers.
---
When you gain this, +1 Coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 21, 2020, 11:13:36 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on January 21, 2020, 09:45:02 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 16, 2020, 10:13:34 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e207ab14c2dbc3664f0f4d7/f2de4d3d11c21c06ea60123b301b3910/image.png)

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Victory - Duration
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Victory card costing up to $8^. Set it aside, face up, under this (discard the rest of the revealed cards). If this sets aside an...
...Estate, gain a Vista
...Province, all other players get +1 Card
(This stays in play)
-
Worth % equal to the set-aside card(s).

Make sure your Province has a view!

Just took another look at this and wondered Why is this a duration? Why does it stay in play?

Otherwise, I like this version.

It's like a Victory Card trapper.  It stays in play to keep whatever it catches out of your deck.  If it catches a cheap one, it gives you another Vista and a VP tokens.  If it catches an expensive one, it gives you a huge payday.

I think it is a brilliant concept.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on January 21, 2020, 11:28:15 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 21, 2020, 11:13:36 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on January 21, 2020, 09:45:02 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 16, 2020, 10:13:34 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e207ab14c2dbc3664f0f4d7/f2de4d3d11c21c06ea60123b301b3910/image.png)

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Victory - Duration
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Victory card costing up to $8^. Set it aside, face up, under this (discard the rest of the revealed cards). If this sets aside an...
...Estate, gain a Vista
...Province, all other players get +1 Card
(This stays in play)
-
Worth % equal to the set-aside card(s).

Make sure your Province has a view!

Just took another look at this and wondered Why is this a duration? Why does it stay in play?

Otherwise, I like this version.

It's like a Victory Card trapper.  It stays in play to keep whatever it catches out of your deck.  If it catches a cheap one, it gives you another Vista and a VP tokens.  If it catches an expensive one, it gives you a huge payday.

I think it is a brilliant concept.

I get what the card does. I just don't know why it stays in play instead of setting itself aside with the card under it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 22, 2020, 03:45:20 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on January 21, 2020, 11:28:15 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 21, 2020, 11:13:36 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on January 21, 2020, 09:45:02 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 16, 2020, 10:13:34 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e207ab14c2dbc3664f0f4d7/f2de4d3d11c21c06ea60123b301b3910/image.png)

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Victory - Duration
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Victory card costing up to $8^. Set it aside, face up, under this (discard the rest of the revealed cards). If this sets aside an...
...Estate, gain a Vista
...Province, all other players get +1 Card
(This stays in play)
-
Worth % equal to the set-aside card(s).

Make sure your Province has a view!

Just took another look at this and wondered Why is this a duration? Why does it stay in play?

Otherwise, I like this version.

It's like a Victory Card trapper.  It stays in play to keep whatever it catches out of your deck.  If it catches a cheap one, it gives you another Vista and a VP tokens.  If it catches an expensive one, it gives you a huge payday.

I think it is a brilliant concept.

I get what the card does. I just don't know why it stays in play instead of setting itself aside with the card under it.

I see your point!  It is really just a forced Island that always hits a mark.  Maybe that's why it stays in play?  Does it keep searching for a mark if you have no other VC cards in your deck?

Another question:. what happens when it catches itself?  Seems like it would really, really suck.  Never have two in your deck at one time!

If the contest were Design A Card That Hates Itself, this would be a ringer!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 22, 2020, 08:17:02 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on January 21, 2020, 11:28:15 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 21, 2020, 11:13:36 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on January 21, 2020, 09:45:02 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 16, 2020, 10:13:34 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e207ab14c2dbc3664f0f4d7/f2de4d3d11c21c06ea60123b301b3910/image.png)

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Victory - Duration
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Victory card costing up to $8^. Set it aside, face up, under this (discard the rest of the revealed cards). If this sets aside an...
...Estate, gain a Vista
...Province, all other players get +1 Card
(This stays in play)
-
Worth % equal to the set-aside card(s).

Make sure your Province has a view!

Just took another look at this and wondered Why is this a duration? Why does it stay in play?

Otherwise, I like this version.

It's like a Victory Card trapper.  It stays in play to keep whatever it catches out of your deck.  If it catches a cheap one, it gives you another Vista and a VP tokens.  If it catches an expensive one, it gives you a huge payday.

I think it is a brilliant concept.

I get what the card does. I just don't know why it stays in play instead of setting itself aside with the card under it.

out-of-play zones (tavern mat, "set aside", the trash) generally aren't ordered or paired (well, except prince i guess?). in-play ones generally are paired at least (archive, gear, crypt - "this card is the target of this other card"). Additionally, the card originally continuously did something after it was played and now it doesnt - skeumorphism, i guess.
that said, i think the orange/green color scheme is very attractive compared to the light grey/green.

i guess its mostly so you can do dumb tricks with Bonfire or enable that vp grab from emporium.

no good reasons. I'll revise it.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e207ab14c2dbc3664f0f4d7/56a209b5139d1a8985d56b4c3652858c/image.png)

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Victory
Set this aside. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Victory card costing up to $8^. Set it aside with this, face up (discard the rest of the revealed cards). If this sets aside an...
...Estate, gain a Vista
...Province, all other players get +1 Card
-
Worth % equal to the set-aside card(s).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 22, 2020, 11:50:13 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 22, 2020, 08:17:02 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on January 21, 2020, 11:28:15 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 21, 2020, 11:13:36 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on January 21, 2020, 09:45:02 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 16, 2020, 10:13:34 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e207ab14c2dbc3664f0f4d7/f2de4d3d11c21c06ea60123b301b3910/image.png)

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Victory - Duration
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Victory card costing up to $8^. Set it aside, face up, under this (discard the rest of the revealed cards). If this sets aside an...
...Estate, gain a Vista
...Province, all other players get +1 Card
(This stays in play)
-
Worth % equal to the set-aside card(s).

Make sure your Province has a view!

Just took another look at this and wondered Why is this a duration? Why does it stay in play?

Otherwise, I like this version.

It's like a Victory Card trapper.  It stays in play to keep whatever it catches out of your deck.  If it catches a cheap one, it gives you another Vista and a VP tokens.  If it catches an expensive one, it gives you a huge payday.

I think it is a brilliant concept.

I get what the card does. I just don't know why it stays in play instead of setting itself aside with the card under it.

out-of-play zones (tavern mat, "set aside", the trash) generally aren't ordered or paired (well, except prince i guess?). in-play ones generally are paired at least (archive, gear, crypt - "this card is the target of this other card"). Additionally, the card originally continuously did something after it was played and now it doesnt - skeumorphism, i guess.
that said, i think the orange/green color scheme is very attractive compared to the light grey/green.

i guess its mostly so you can do dumb tricks with Bonfire or enable that vp grab from emporium.

no good reasons. I'll revise it.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e207ab14c2dbc3664f0f4d7/56a209b5139d1a8985d56b4c3652858c/image.png)

Quote

Vista • $5 • Action - Victory
Set this aside. Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Victory card costing up to $8^. Set it aside with this, face up (discard the rest of the revealed cards). If this sets aside an...
...Estate, gain a Vista
...Province, all other players get +1 Card
-
Worth % equal to the set-aside card(s).

Do you care if this hits another Vista?  Or other Action Victories or Treasure-Victories, etc?

I think it might be better and more usable in more kingdoms if you wrote it in such a way to only catch pure VCs.  Just my take!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 22, 2020, 11:55:56 am

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 22, 2020, 11:50:13 am

Do you care if this hits another Vista?  Or other Action Victories or Treasure-Victories, etc?

I think it might be better and more usable in more kingdoms if you wrote it in such a way to only catch pure VCs.  Just my take!

nah successful implementation is left as an exercise to the reader. it has kingdoms it is weak in and thats fine.

its kinda the same deal as rebuild in that respect, in that it sucks when rebuild hits your harem or nobles but also thats definitely on you - however this is also circumstantially better because you keep your pasture or Humble Castle or whatever, so you still get the VP at the end

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 22, 2020, 12:23:55 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 22, 2020, 11:55:56 am

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 22, 2020, 11:50:13 am

Do you care if this hits another Vista?  Or other Action Victories or Treasure-Victories, etc?

I think it might be better and more usable in more kingdoms if you wrote it in such a way to only catch pure VCs.  Just my take!

nah successful implementation is left as an exercise to the reader. it has kingdoms it is weak in and thats fine.

its kinda the same deal as rebuild in that respect, in that it sucks when rebuild hits your harem or nobles but also thats definitely on you - however this is also circumstantially better because you keep your pasture or Humble Castle or whatever, so you still get the VP at the end

Great points!  Makes sense.  I like the card and no doubt it would get a lot of play in most kingdoms.  Even in "bad" kingdoms I could see myself taking a flyer if I was behind in the late game.  Of if I could gain it mid-turn and hit a province I knew was in my discard.

This would synergize really well with Tournament.

It's a game-changer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 22, 2020, 12:25:57 pm

Fwiw, I did like the orange-green color scheme, too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on January 22, 2020, 02:05:19 pm

is judging today?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on January 22, 2020, 06:19:47 pm

Okay, here we go! Sorry for the delay, I was busy last night.

We're all more or less in agreement about what constitutes a good card, but everyone has their preferences. With that in mind, here is the sort of thing I particularly favour:

• Less text is a bonus. Cards should be as simple as possible, and no simpler.
• Whether it's actually playable in practice, in the paper and digital versions. No cards that take a long time to resolve, have effects that could be forgotten, require players to remember things instead of tracking them, only make sense in English, or would require a weird UI.
• I don't look too closely at balance, in terms of cost. It's enough that a card could be made balanced. After all, if Chapel is allowed to cost $2, none of you have to worry about undercosting your cards.
• Name and flavour count. It's the little touches that make it feel like a real Dominion card.

.. oh, and it should be fun to play too.

User	Card	Comments
spineflu	Vista (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821753#msg821753)	It’s been great seeing this refined over the course of the week. The concept is great. The final version is carefully balanced. I'm flattered that it has two duplication effects – double your doubles, you're really going for the contest theme this week. Nice job on the art, too. The wording is a little complex; it has a different effect for every Victory card in the base game, and even one that isn’t. I’m not sure about referencing Potions on a non-Alchemy card.
majiponi	Coffer Clicker (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822172#msg822172)	After the third or fourth time you play this, you may never need to worry about money again. Who needs terminal Silvers when you have a terminal Diamond (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19999.0) for $4? The no-quadrupling caveat might not be necessary. If somebody wants to buy Villages and extra copies of this so they can try to outrace their opponent, it’s worth a try. This card is crazy, don’t try to make it sane! Note that the box only comes with 40 coin tokens, so you'll eventually need a different way to track your vast wealth.
Something_Smart	Knight Errant (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822070#msg822070)	A terminal Gold with a chaos-inducing… upside? Interesting. I don't know how often it'll matter who makes the choice - and in any case, the top of players' decks isn't very controllable. I love the $3-$6 as a callback to the Knights pile from Dark Ages. It’s unfortunate that it looks so much like one, and yet for the purposes of cards that care about Knights, it’s not a Knight. Nor an Attack, for that matter.
mad4math	unnamed (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822041#msg822041)	Potent stuff! Any cantrip becomes a Lost City and any terminal Silver becomes a +4$… even before their actual effects. With all that, it’s maybe a bit too much. It’s already an $8 Project, so you can’t simply balance it by increasing the cost. And it needs a name.
Gubump	Mausoleum (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822021#msg822021)	Procession with no downsides. Simple idea, well executed. With the name and trash-for-benefit effect, it could be an actual Dark Ages card. Not strictly better than Upgrade, but close enough that I’d never take Upgrade if this is around.
scolapasta	Siege Tower (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822010#msg822010)	Throne Room for Attacks! This was a tall order, but you pulled it off. So many Attacks don’t combo with themselves. Splitting the effect over two turns is an inspired fix. The extra Setup clause is inelegant, even Moat doesn't have that – if Siege Tower shows up in Kingdoms with no other Attacks, it should be able to live with the consequences.
Aquila	Summer House / Taverna / Cavern (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821980#msg821980)	Nice! Thanks for trying something new with this one. Another set of Shelters was outside the rules I set but it’s definitely allowed – I should have encouraged it more. Summer House is actually useful, what kind of Shelter is this? Taverna might be hard to line up, but only being able to get a card you already have two of is a good drawback (I’d probably always use it on Gold). Cavern is tempting – I can’t see how it would be played if you need 4 otherwise-dead cards in your hand, but it’d be interesting to find out.
[TP] Inferno	Toads (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821788#msg821788)	Cool plague of frogs. I like the parallel with Rats here – you get one and they infest your deck, and fittingly it benefits from trash-for-benefit in the same way as Rats. The way it gets a lot worse when its pile runs out is interesting, and adds some nontrivial traps to a card that's otherwise a Smithy variant.
pubby	Zimbabwe Money (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821778#msg821778)	Points for originality: You made the only card in this contest whose doubling is unambiguously bad for its player! It’s good in that it looks like a bad joke but it secretly has uses for Projects, for Debt, for anytime you really need the +Buys. Oh, and for doing weird stuff that tracks the cost of cards. Not exactly medieval-themed, though.
Fragasnap	Provisioner (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821747#msg821747)	Again, it looks like a bad joke but there’s definitely combos that make it work, e.g. don’t have any bad cards in your deck. The extra Silver prevents it from being a dead card. It’s a shame that it’s so dependent on shuffle luck – it’s most useful when you have about 5 cards in discard, and there’s no way to control whether it shows up then.
D782802859	Harlequin (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821745#msg821745)	Welcome to the forums! This is nice – you want to spend it on a good card, but you don’t want your good cards to be trashed. It produces some interesting choices. Good work. The timing suggests it should only work on Actions – if nothing else, it’s not clear what “playing” a Curse or Victory card would do.
kru5h	Twins (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821738#msg821738)	It’s rare to actually want 4 Actions (or 6, or 8 ) so it makes sense that it’s an optional extra. I don’t see why it returns to the supply instead of trashing – some combo where you can keep gaining them once the Supply is empty? Sometimes you just want a $4 Village in your deck and the bonus doesn’t matter. Good card.
somekindoftony	Flattery (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821724#msg821724)	I’ll be honest, I’m just amused by the mental image of two players getting these and comboing off each others’ Flatteries. “You’re the best!” “No, you’re the best!”. Self-replicating gold is every miser’s dream and the +Buy is a powerful bonus; once there’s two of these in play the game won’t last much longer.
NoMoreFun	Dance Hall (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821666#msg821666)	It’s really interesting to compare this with Coffer Clicker, above. There’s a limit to how many Actions you can use up in a game, and cards like Champion show that even unlimited Actions aren’t necessarily unbalanced. So this starts out as a basically-Necropolis, hits the sweet spot around the 4th time you play it, and shortly after becomes… a completely dead card. And again, past 40 it becomes hard to track.
Saul Goodman	Addiction (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821612#msg821612)	Welcome to the forums! This card empties two piles by itself, making a very short clock before the game ends. Is Dominion too long a game for you? Getting to play and gain the best Action every turn is amazing, but it’s a steep penalty and you need to buy the card legitimately at least once. It’s a good question whether you always buy this after your opponent does – maybe the -10VP from curses is enough to stop them? A brokenly cheap card, but that doesn’t mean anything! It reshapes the game and it creates interesting decisions, that’s the important part.
grep	Flooded Fields (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821606#msg821606)	Simple, but effective. Its two effects both make sense individually and feed each other. Making it a Victory card so that it can trigger itself is very elegant, and gives it a reason to be played in the midgame when players don't want Duchies. Doesn't work on Provinces, but doesn't necessarily force a Duchy game the way e.g. Duke does. A simple but deep card.
natichman	Profit (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821601#msg821601)	It’s an expensive dead card if there isn’t enough +$ in your hand, when discarding your Treasures means you may well be worse off for playing this. And it’s brokenly strong if there are reliable sources of money in the Action phase. With very little middle ground.
mandioca15	Promenade (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821599#msg821599)	This would have been a very good entry to the previous contest! Its value depends a lot on whether you have another source of Villagers – it’s too expensive for a Throne Room and too cheap for a King’s Court.
Gazbag	Town Hall (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821595#msg821595)	Makes a lot of sense. It’s a kind of intermediate between Barracks and Lost Arts. $6 to make a bunch of your cards into Villages is about right, you can prepare for this it by filling your deck with cantrips first. It looks like it’ll take skilful timing to have enough of an engine to buy this without immediately becoming the Village Idiot with too many +Actions.

Winner: Flooded Fields by grep
Runner-up: Mausoleum by Gubump

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 22, 2020, 06:59:16 pm

Quote from: Snowyowl on January 22, 2020, 06:19:47 pm

User	Card	Comments
spineflu	Vista (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821753#msg821753)	It’s been great seeing this refined over the course of the week. The concept is great. The final version is carefully balanced. I'm flattered that it has two duplication effects – double your doubles, you're really going for the contest theme this week. Nice job on the art, too. The wording is a little complex; it has a different effect for every Victory card in the base game, and even one that isn’t. I’m not sure about referencing Potions on a non-Alchemy card.

It would've been weird to me that it didn't work on Vineyards, since it works on all the other deck-census-altVP. Plus this way it'll work with whatever Victory cards are in Alchemy II: Electric Boogaloo. :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on January 22, 2020, 07:10:43 pm

You say that but you haven't accounted for the debt-costing Victory cards in Empires II: The Empire Strikes Back

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on January 23, 2020, 02:55:53 am

Wow, that's unexpected, thanks!
My personal favorite was Dance Hall by NoMoreFun.

Challenge: Automaton
Design a card (or card-shaped object) that may cause playing а card that the player cannot predict or prevent.

Qualifying examples: Golem, Venture, Piazza, Herald
Non-qualifying: Necromancer (you know the content of trash and can choose the card to play), Vassal (you may choose not to play the revealed card)

Please correct me if a similar challenge already has been played. I am relatively new in this thread.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on January 23, 2020, 04:32:11 am

Glad my last entries humourous potential was recognised.

Thanks and congrats to grep.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 09:58:01 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 22, 2020, 06:59:16 pm

Quote from: Snowyowl on January 22, 2020, 06:19:47 pm

User	Card	Comments
spineflu	Vista (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821753#msg821753)	It’s been great seeing this refined over the course of the week. The concept is great. The final version is carefully balanced. I'm flattered that it has two duplication effects – double your doubles, you're really going for the contest theme this week. Nice job on the art, too. The wording is a little complex; it has a different effect for every Victory card in the base game, and even one that isn’t. I’m not sure about referencing Potions on a non-Alchemy card.

It would've been weird to me that it didn't work on Vineyards, since it works on all the other deck-census-altVP. Plus this way it'll work with whatever Victory cards are in Alchemy II: Electric Boogaloo. :P

In my opinion you should just drop the cost restriction completely; make it work on all Victory cards. The cost restriction seems like extra words on an already wordy card that in practical terms just means "but not Colonies". Yes it would become stronger in a Colonies game, but I don't see why that's a big problem. The +1 cards for opponents could be extended somehow to include Colonies and Provinces if it's an issue.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 10:03:16 am

Quote from: Snowyowl on January 22, 2020, 06:19:47 pm

Okay, here we go! Sorry for the delay, I was busy last night. . . .

Man, thanks so much for the detailed comments!  Congrats to Grep.  This is really fun.  I think I will stick around for more!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 23, 2020, 10:08:35 am

Ghost qualifies for this week's contest, right?

withdrawn:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e29becb8193540c687091e4/658591fab02f706ea3616034d2f92a75/image.png)

Quote

Poltergeist • $4 • Action - Command
Reveal and discard cards from your deck until you reveal a Gold, Silver, or Copper. Play it, then play the Spectre card with the same cost, leaving it there.
-
Setup: next to the Gold, Silver, and Copper piles, place a random Spectre card with the same cost. These cards are not in the supply.

Copper Spectres: (one card of each)	(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e29becb8193540c687091e4/7bd498b7fc076263113f3a7d9e3f7a87/image.png) Quote Book • $0* • Action - Spectre +1 Card (This is not in the Supply)	(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e29becb8193540c687091e4/6e7b3c2fa9269302065e959b378c0039/image.png) Quote Teapot • $0* • Action - Spectre +$1 (This is not in the Supply)	(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e29becb8193540c687091e4/28bd67540ec00ffc474b447c534a23b7/image.png) Quote Clock • $0* • Action - Spectre Discard your deck. You may put a card from your discard pile on top of your deck. (This is not in the Supply)
Silver Spectres: (one card of each)	(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e29becb8193540c687091e4/6ccd2e906fa4c5fc8c3f5af9d14ceeea/image.png) Quote Nest Egg • $3* • Action - Spectre Choose one: +1 Buy and +$1; or +1 Coffers (This is not in the Supply)	(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e29becb8193540c687091e4/f40788beed385e6760f0c4a6da6b6343/image.png) Quote Rosary • $3* • Action - Spectre Trash up to two cards from your hand (This is not in the Supply)	(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e29becb8193540c687091e4/43fc36a6233db06cc313516694d92f89/image.png) Quote Crawlspace • $3* • Action - Spectre When drawing a new hand during Clean up, +1 Card (This is not in the Supply)
Gold Spectres: (one card of each)	(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e29becb8193540c687091e4/6dd836bcba6a5cb8d3b8cc34ba5b4f29/image.png) Quote Shade • $6* • Action - Spectre Play a non-Command Action or Treasure from the Supply costing up to $5, leaving it there. (This is not in the Supply)	(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e29becb8193540c687091e4/762f9f87c1a6098279ea64cec1064033/image.png) Quote Watch • $6* • Action - Spectre You may play a Treasure from your hand, then draw until you have five cards in hand. (This is not in the Supply)	(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e29becb8193540c687091e4/296da885bc4a88646ed87811bde1194e/image.png) Quote Repent • $6* • Action - Spectre Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $3 more than it that doesn't share a type with it. (This is not in the Supply)

---

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 09:58:01 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 22, 2020, 06:59:16 pm

Quote from: Snowyowl on January 22, 2020, 06:19:47 pm

User	Card	Comments
spineflu	Vista (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg821753#msg821753)	It’s been great seeing this refined over the course of the week. The concept is great. The final version is carefully balanced. I'm flattered that it has two duplication effects – double your doubles, you're really going for the contest theme this week. Nice job on the art, too. The wording is a little complex; it has a different effect for every Victory card in the base game, and even one that isn’t. I’m not sure about referencing Potions on a non-Alchemy card.

It would've been weird to me that it didn't work on Vineyards, since it works on all the other deck-census-altVP. Plus this way it'll work with whatever Victory cards are in Alchemy II: Electric Boogaloo. :P

In my opinion you should just drop the cost restriction completely; make it work on all Victory cards. The cost restriction seems like extra words on an already wordy card that in practical terms just means "but not Colonies". Yes it would become stronger in a Colonies game, but I don't see why that's a big problem. The +1 cards for opponents could be extended somehow to include Colonies and Provinces if it's an issue.

The problem is it's too swingy if it just works on Colonies - the 4VP gap between Province and Colony, when doubled, it becomes too much. Like, you hit $16 with two buys, you decide to play it safe and rush the Province pile, try to end the game faster - your opponent has the same, but goes for a Colony and a Vista, then the next turn gets the Vista, hits the Colony with it - 20VP to your 12VP, and they're down two junk cards, and getting the Vista to hit Colony was luck if they had any other Victory cards. If it de-junked opponents (but boosted your VP score) maybe that'd be a fair trade-off.

I could probably make it explicitly just not work on Colonies  ("Reveal until you reveal a Victory card other than Colony") and it'd be less text/less "is this cheaper"/less "why is there a potion". Probably the way to do it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on January 23, 2020, 11:10:55 am

Here's my submission for now:
(https://i.imgur.com/mW74pKV.png)

priced at $4 bc it's slightly worse than bazaar.

UPDATE: Changed order of discard and playing to take care of Gubump's problem.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 11:29:18 am

Fun challenge. Here's what I've got: Palace Garden.  This started as Royal Garden in v1.1.  Edited to discard cards before playing the revealed Action.  Then in v1.2 it remodeled to anything.  Now in v1.3 it only remodels to Victory Cards, and I changed the format to mirror other victory-actions like Mill, Great Hall, etc.

This is an Action-Victory, Throne Room-Remodel hydrid with an undetermined target.   Input welcome!
(https://i.imgur.com/t02eRyB.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 12:08:40 pm

I never noticed the difference between Vassal and Herald in terms of optional vs mandatory. Has Donald ever mentioned why this difference exists?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 12:30:46 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 23, 2020, 10:08:35 am

Nest Egg • $3* • Action - Spectre
Choose one:
+1 Buy, +$1; or +1 Coffers
(This is not in the Supply)

The +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} choice doesn't make sense; +1 Coffers is strictly better (ignoring weird Black Market or Storyteller edge cases).

Quote

Shade • $6* • Action - Spectre
Play a non-Command Action or Treasure from the Supply costing up to $5.
(This is not in the Supply)

Needs "leaving it there" wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 23, 2020, 12:38:10 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 12:30:46 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 23, 2020, 10:08:35 am

Nest Egg • $3* • Action - Spectre
Choose one:
+1 Buy, +$1; or +1 Coffers
(This is not in the Supply)

The +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} choice doesn't make sense; +1 Coffers is strictly better (ignoring weird Black Market or Storyteller edge cases).

Quote

Shade • $6* • Action - Spectre
Play a non-Command Action or Treasure from the Supply costing up to $5.
(This is not in the Supply)

Needs "leaving it there" wording.

the +$1 is part of the +Buy option - i'll change it to "and" wording so that's clearer. ty.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 12:38:22 pm

Quote from: naitchman on January 23, 2020, 11:10:55 am

Here's my submission for now:
(https://i.imgur.com/wVutwDM.png)

priced at $4 bc it's slightly worse than bazaar.

It is slightly worse than Bazaar, but it's also close to strictly better than Poacher. (Sorry, edited because I was discounting the extra +action).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 01:11:36 pm

Quote from: naitchman on January 23, 2020, 11:10:55 am

Here's my submission for now:
(https://i.imgur.com/wVutwDM.png)

priced at $4 bc it's slightly worse than bazaar.

Cool card!  Is this strictly better than Herald?  I think I would go here above Herald almost every time.  I think it might be underpriced.  Maybe you can do something like let the other players draw and discard a card to balance it out at $4?  Just my .02!  Cool card!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on January 23, 2020, 01:33:41 pm

Sword (Treasure, $5)

When you play this, choose one: +$2; or reveal the top card of your deck, and play it if it's an Action or a Treasure.

A Scepter variant that resembles Piazza, but lets you play Treasures too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 01:45:28 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 01:11:36 pm

Quote from: naitchman on January 23, 2020, 11:10:55 am

Here's my submission for now:
(https://i.imgur.com/wVutwDM.png)

priced at $4 bc it's slightly worse than bazaar.

Cool card!  Is this strictly better than Herald?  I think I would go here above Herald almost every time.  I think it might be underpriced.  Maybe you can do something like let the other players draw and discard a card to balance it out at $4?  Just my .02!  Cool card!

When Herald succeeds, it is like +2 cards. When Scribe succeeds, it is like +1 card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 01:49:17 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 23, 2020, 01:33:41 pm

Sword (Treasure, $5)

When you play this, choose one: +$2; or reveal the top card of your deck, and play it if it's an Action or a Treasure.

A Scepter variant that resembles Piazza, but lets you play Treasures too.

The second option is basically like +1 card, +1 action. Since it's on a Treasure that doesn't cost an action to play, it seems like the best-case scenario for the second option is that it's like you played a Village. The worst-case scenario is that it might as well have been a Curse in your hand. Basically, that option is very weak.

If it let you play the found card twice instead of once, then it would be similar to Scepter.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 01:56:28 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 01:45:28 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 01:11:36 pm

Quote from: naitchman on January 23, 2020, 11:10:55 am

Here's my submission for now:
(https://i.imgur.com/wVutwDM.png)

priced at $4 bc it's slightly worse than bazaar.

Cool card!  Is this strictly better than Herald?  I think I would go here above Herald almost every time.  I think it might be underpriced.  Maybe you can do something like let the other players draw and discard a card to balance it out at $4?  Just my .02!  Cool card!

When Herald succeeds, it is like +2 cards. When Scribe succeeds, it is like +1 card.

Yep. 

But doesn't +1$, plus extra sift, plus a much greater likelihood of hitting an action more than account for that?  In most like kingdoms, I am grabbing this above Herald all day long.  It is also more fun imo.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 02:00:02 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 23, 2020, 01:33:41 pm

Sword (Treasure, $5)

When you play this, choose one: +$2; or reveal the top card of your deck, and play it if it's an Action or a Treasure.

A Scepter variant that resembles Piazza, but lets you play Treasures too.

Would this return you to your action phase of you hit a plus action?  Or function more like Capitalism?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 02:20:00 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 01:56:28 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 01:45:28 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 01:11:36 pm

Quote from: naitchman on January 23, 2020, 11:10:55 am

Here's my submission for now:
(https://i.imgur.com/wVutwDM.png)

priced at $4 bc it's slightly worse than bazaar.

Cool card!  Is this strictly better than Herald?  I think I would go here above Herald almost every time.  I think it might be underpriced.  Maybe you can do something like let the other players draw and discard a card to balance it out at $4?  Just my .02!  Cool card!

When Herald succeeds, it is like +2 cards. When Scribe succeeds, it is like +1 card.

Yep. 

But doesn't +1$, plus extra sift, plus a much greater likelihood of hitting an action more than account for that?  In most like kingdoms, I am grabbing this above Herald all day long.  It is also more fun imo.

It might account for it; but it definitely stops it from being strictly better. +1 card is much stronger than +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} by itself. The extra sift is probably countered by the fact that your opponent chooses the card, meaning you lose your best action for the shuffle unless you only reveal exactly 1 action. So it comes down to the higher chance of it working vs extra strength of +1 card vs +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}. Also that when they both miss; Herald is better.

As a whole I think this is similar in strength to Herald, but not better than it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 02:37:11 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 02:00:02 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 23, 2020, 01:33:41 pm

Sword (Treasure, $5)

When you play this, choose one: +$2; or reveal the top card of your deck, and play it if it's an Action or a Treasure.

A Scepter variant that resembles Piazza, but lets you play Treasures too.

Would this return you to your action phase of you hit a plus action?  Or function more like Capitalism?

Keep in mind that Scepter (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Scepter) and Innovation (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Innovation) already allow you to play Action cards during your Buy phase; there's no reason based on the wording that this would return you to your Action phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 02:44:00 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 02:20:00 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 01:56:28 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 01:45:28 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 01:11:36 pm

Quote from: naitchman on January 23, 2020, 11:10:55 am

Here's my submission for now:
(https://i.imgur.com/wVutwDM.png)

priced at $4 bc it's slightly worse than bazaar.

Cool card!  Is this strictly better than Herald?  I think I would go here above Herald almost every time.  I think it might be underpriced.  Maybe you can do something like let the other players draw and discard a card to balance it out at $4?  Just my .02!  Cool card!

When Herald succeeds, it is like +2 cards. When Scribe succeeds, it is like +1 card.

Yep. 

But doesn't +1$, plus extra sift, plus a much greater likelihood of hitting an action more than account for that?  In most like kingdoms, I am grabbing this above Herald all day long.  It is also more fun imo.

It might account for it; but it definitely stops it from being strictly better. +1 card is much stronger than +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} by itself. The extra sift is probably countered by the fact that your opponent chooses the card, meaning you lose your best action for the shuffle unless you only reveal exactly 1 action. So it comes down to the higher chance of it working vs extra strength of +1 card vs +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}. Also that when they both miss; Herald is better.

As a whole I think this is similar in strength to Herald, but not better than it.

You make some good points.  I still think for $4 it is underpriced.  And the only kingdoms in which I am favoring it would be those without villages, or ones where I have a very diverse and dense action deck.  Like a Cornucopia kingdom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on January 23, 2020, 02:49:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3u2Ge2f.png)

Here is my submission this week. Machine is a Herald variant with a terminal +2 cards on top instead of cantrip, and mandatory trashing if it doesn't hit an Action.  Early game, its draw and trashing help you cycle and thin quickly, enabling the nice action density that want in the mid-game for the Herald effect.  When you hit an action, Machine essentially acts as a double lab, but be careful, this comes at the risk of drawing actions dead or eating valuable Treasures or VP cards.  Without good deck tracking or set-up, there often comes a point where it's no longer safe to play.

Machines are efficient, but dangerous if not handled properly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 23, 2020, 02:56:55 pm

Quote from: 4est on January 23, 2020, 02:49:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3u2Ge2f.png)

Here is my submission this week. Machine is a Herald variant with a terminal +2 cards on top instead of cantrip, and mandatory trashing if it doesn't hit an Action.  Early game, its draw and trashing help you cycle and thin quickly, enabling the nice action density that want in the mid-game for the Herald effect.  When you hit an action, Machine essentially acts as a double lab, but be careful, this comes at the risk of drawing actions dead or eating valuable Treasures or VP cards.  Without good deck tracking or set-up, there often comes a point where it's no longer safe to play.

Machines are efficient, but dangerous if not handled properly.

Me imagining buying this card: haha, I have successfully shuffled the machines to be every third card so i draw my entire deck

Me actually playing this card: Well, there's been three provinces i've trashed with a Machine, but maybe this time it'll work

basically, i have deep respect for its hubris opportunities and look forward to experiencing them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 03:05:45 pm

Quote from: 4est on January 23, 2020, 02:49:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3u2Ge2f.png)

Machines are efficient, but dangerous if not handled properly.

I think you should call this Instrument given the precision it requires as the game progresses.  Or maybe Surgeon.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 03:06:53 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 23, 2020, 02:56:55 pm

Quote from: 4est on January 23, 2020, 02:49:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3u2Ge2f.png)

Here is my submission this week. Machine is a Herald variant with a terminal +2 cards on top instead of cantrip, and mandatory trashing if it doesn't hit an Action.  Early game, its draw and trashing help you cycle and thin quickly, enabling the nice action density that want in the mid-game for the Herald effect.  When you hit an action, Machine essentially acts as a double lab, but be careful, this comes at the risk of drawing actions dead or eating valuable Treasures or VP cards.  Without good deck tracking or set-up, there often comes a point where it's no longer safe to play.

Machines are efficient, but dangerous if not handled properly.

Me imagining buying this card: haha, I have successfully shuffled the machines to be every third card so i draw my entire deck

Me actually playing this card: Well, there's been three provinces i've trashed with a Machine, but maybe this time it'll work

I laughed!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on January 23, 2020, 03:19:21 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 02:44:00 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 02:20:00 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 01:56:28 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 23, 2020, 01:45:28 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 01:11:36 pm

Quote from: naitchman on January 23, 2020, 11:10:55 am

Here's my submission for now:
(https://i.imgur.com/wVutwDM.png)

priced at $4 bc it's slightly worse than bazaar.

Cool card!  Is this strictly better than Herald?  I think I would go here above Herald almost every time.  I think it might be underpriced.  Maybe you can do something like let the other players draw and discard a card to balance it out at $4?  Just my .02!  Cool card!

When Herald succeeds, it is like +2 cards. When Scribe succeeds, it is like +1 card.

Yep. 

But doesn't +1$, plus extra sift, plus a much greater likelihood of hitting an action more than account for that?  In most like kingdoms, I am grabbing this above Herald all day long.  It is also more fun imo.

It might account for it; but it definitely stops it from being strictly better. +1 card is much stronger than +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} by itself. The extra sift is probably countered by the fact that your opponent chooses the card, meaning you lose your best action for the shuffle unless you only reveal exactly 1 action. So it comes down to the higher chance of it working vs extra strength of +1 card vs +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}. Also that when they both miss; Herald is better.

As a whole I think this is similar in strength to Herald, but not better than it.

You make some good points.  I still think for $4 it is underpriced.  And the only kingdoms in which I am favoring it would be those without villages, or ones where I have a very diverse and dense action deck.  Like a Cornucopia kingdom.

Sorry for not giving more of an explanation behind price. I kind of dropped this post and then had to go to an appointment.

Here's the thought process:
1) Originally this did not have +$1. The problem is, it's just too weak. At best, it hits an action and is essentially +1 card +2 actions, aka vanilla village. And you don't have control over what you play. And if you don't hit an action this is a ruined village. The only time I'd rather have this than village is if I had village in hand with no other actions, since scribe would more likely hit an action to keep the chain going. At the end of the day it's be pretty weak and have to be priced at most $2 (probably less).

2)So I tacked on the +$1. Now what to price it? If it does hit an action it's +1 card +2 actions +$1. So it's a bazaar with less choice. Similar comparisons exist between vanilla village to the original (#1) as do bazaar to this one. So it would seem this should be less than bazaar (not strictly worse than bazaar, but probably not as good). $4 felt right for what it does. I thought about herald but I think they both have pros and cons:

Herald is either a simple cantrip, or +2 cards +2 actions, which is worth at least $6 (if you hit an action); scribe is either a copper (kind of) or a bazaar ($5). Herald has better payoffs than scribe but it's harder to hit because you only get one card. In addition, scribe gives your opponents the choice, which means you're more likely to play weaker cards with it. They can also make you discard great cards making you go through the reshuffle to get them (Reveal Grand Market, Champion, and pearl diver. Guess what you're playing and what's going into the discard.)

So in short the pros of herald are: Greater payoffs when you hit an action, immune to interference from your opponent, more likely to play better actions with it.
the cons are: less likely to hit an action, no cycling.

That was the logic, and I think it holds up.

P.S. Upon further reading the comments, I think Gendoikari pretty much said everything I write here in less words.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on January 23, 2020, 03:24:50 pm

Quote from: grep on January 23, 2020, 02:55:53 am

Challenge: Automaton
Design a card (or card-shaped object) that may cause playing а card that the player cannot predict or prevent.

Would you count cards that use Boons or Hexes? That's currently what fills the chaotic, chaotic niche of things the player may not want to play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on January 23, 2020, 03:53:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YYQJSEu.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on January 23, 2020, 03:58:53 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on January 23, 2020, 03:53:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YYQJSEu.png?1)

You should be a little more clear when you say return. Return to the player's top deck or the supply? Or are you talking about the action played from the supply? (it shouldn't need returning since it shouldn't move). I'm guessing you mean to the top of the players deck, otherwise this card would be way too harsh.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 23, 2020, 04:24:45 pm

A problem I've noticed with almost all of the entries so far is that they play a card from your deck and then discard the other revealed cards. You can look at official cards like Ghost and Golem to see that it should be "discard the other revealed cards, then play that Action." The reason is because, for example, let's say Privateer hits an opponent's Fortune Teller. All of the cards that were revealed by Privateer are still in revealed "limbo," so it's unclear what happens. Are those cards ignored by Fortune Teller's Attack? And if I hit Bob's Council Room and it makes Bob reshuffle, he doesn't get to shuffle the revealed cards in.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on January 23, 2020, 05:14:42 pm

Quote from: Snowyowl on January 23, 2020, 03:24:50 pm

Quote from: grep on January 23, 2020, 02:55:53 am

Challenge: Automaton
Design a card (or card-shaped object) that may cause playing а card that the player cannot predict or prevent.

Would you count cards that use Boons or Hexes? That's currently what fills the chaotic, chaotic niche of things the player may not want to play.

I was considering this question while formulating the challenge, but no. Boons, Hexes, Events, Projects etc. don't count.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on January 23, 2020, 06:23:16 pm

Epic Tale
Action - $5
+$2
Repeat the following until you have no $ remaining: Pay $1, reveal the top card of your deck. If it's an Action play it, otherwise put it in your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on January 23, 2020, 07:08:36 pm

Servant
$3
Action
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. Choose one: If it's an Action card, play it; or discard it and reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action card, discard the other cards, then play it.

Basically, it's a Herald that lets you choose whether you want to play the top card if it's an Action or the next Action from your deck. You have a bit of choice but it can still go badly. I hope this fits the challenge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on January 23, 2020, 07:52:59 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 23, 2020, 04:24:45 pm

A problem I've noticed with almost all of the entries so far is that they play a card from your deck and then discard the other revealed cards. You can look at official cards like Ghost and Golem to see that it should be "discard the other revealed cards, then play that Action." The reason is because, for example, let's say Privateer hits an opponent's Fortune Teller. All of the cards that were revealed by Privateer are still in revealed "limbo," so it's unclear what happens. Are those cards ignored by Fortune Teller's Attack? And if I hit Bob's Council Room and it makes Bob reshuffle, he doesn't get to shuffle the revealed cards in.

Good Point. I'll Edit my card. I guess I was copying my text mostly from advisor.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 23, 2020, 09:44:18 pm

EDIT: this is also withdrawn. See downthread

I looked back through grep's old entries for the contest and poltergeist + nine spectre cards might be a bit much so i'm going to withdraw that and instead enter
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e2a564abb500a5b87e6fb68/fe275936b378ba4a66395ad370ae751a/image.png)

Quote

Town Crier • $4 • Action - Command
+1 Action
Roll a d10. Play the card whose number you rolled, leaving it there.
-
Setup: Randomly assign each Action or Treasure kingdom pile other than Town Crier a number from 1 to 10. Put any remaining numbers with the Silver pile.

Who knows what news needs to travel through the town immediately - a Caravan of Merchants? is an Overlord coming to town? a Royal Carriage passing through? The Town Crier knows.
The overflow numbers play a silver, if there's alt-VP or something.

Requires some numbered chits (pull 'em out of your copy of Catan, using the "11" as a "1" and the robber as a "7"? use uno cards or a regular deck of playing cards?) and a d10 but we're all nerds here, right? we've got those lying around?
(alternatively, you can just tell google to roll 1d10 (https://www.google.com/search?q=roll+1d10&oq=roll+1d10&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.1926j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8))

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 11:29:34 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 23, 2020, 04:24:45 pm

A problem I've noticed with almost all of the entries so far is that they play a card from your deck and then discard the other revealed cards. You can look at official cards like Ghost and Golem to see that it should be "discard the other revealed cards, then play that Action." The reason is because, for example, let's say Privateer hits an opponent's Fortune Teller. All of the cards that were revealed by Privateer are still in revealed "limbo," so it's unclear what happens. Are those cards ignored by Fortune Teller's Attack? And if I hit Bob's Council Room and it makes Bob reshuffle, he doesn't get to shuffle the revealed cards in.

Edited and changed the name.  Great point!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 11:31:32 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 23, 2020, 09:44:18 pm

I looked back through grep's old entries for the contest and poltergeist + nine spectre cards might be a bit much so i'm going to withdraw that and instead enter
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e2a564abb500a5b87e6fb68/fe275936b378ba4a66395ad370ae751a/image.png)

Quote

Town Crier • $4 • Action - Command
+1 Action
Roll a d10. Play the card whose number you rolled, leaving it there.
-
Setup: Randomly assign each Action or Treasure kingdom pile other than Town Crier a number from 1 to 10. Put any remaining numbers with the Silver pile.

Who knows what news needs to travel through the town immediately - a Caravan of Merchants? is an Overlord coming to town? a Royal Carriage passing through? The Town Crier knows.
The overflow numbers play a silver, if there's alt-VP or something.

Requires some numbered chits (pull 'em out of your copy of Catan, using the "11" as a "1" and the robber as a "7"? use uno cards or a regular deck of playing cards?) and a d10 but we're all nerds here, right? we've got those lying around?
(alternatively, you can just tell google to roll 1d10 (https://www.google.com/search?q=roll+1d10&oq=roll+1d10&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.1926j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8))

What great card and idea!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on January 24, 2020, 04:34:54 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1O2ytyB.jpg)

Quote

Sigil - Treasure Duration, $5 cost.
$2
At the start of your next turn: reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action. Discard the rest, then play the Action.

I nearly made this an Action with +2 Cards on first turn, but I wasn't sure about the single-card BM strategy it would enable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on January 24, 2020, 05:53:28 am

Clown
cost $4 - Action - Attack
Choose one: +$2; or each other player reveals their deck until they reveals an Action card. Then, you choose one of the revealed Action cards to play, leaving it there. Each other player discards the revealed cards afterwards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 24, 2020, 07:53:00 am

Quote from: 4est on January 23, 2020, 02:49:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3u2Ge2f.png)

Here is my submission this week. Machine is a Herald variant with a terminal +2 cards on top instead of cantrip, and mandatory trashing if it doesn't hit an Action.  Early game, its draw and trashing help you cycle and thin quickly, enabling the nice action density that want in the mid-game for the Herald effect.  When you hit an action, Machine essentially acts as a double lab, but be careful, this comes at the risk of drawing actions dead or eating valuable Treasures or VP cards.  Without good deck tracking or set-up, there often comes a point where it's no longer safe to play.

Machines are efficient, but dangerous if not handled properly.

I like this a lot and don't want to underestimate the danger of trashing a Treasure or Province, but I am fairly certain that this is too good for $4.

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on January 23, 2020, 07:08:36 pm

Servant
$3
Action
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. Choose one: If it's an Action card, play it; or discard it and reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action card, discard the other cards, then play it.

Basically, it's a Herald that lets you choose whether you want to play the top card if it's an Action or the next Action from your deck. You have a bit of choice but it can still go badly. I hope this fits the challenge.

This is a $4. Sure, the net effect is the same as that of Village with the downside that once you have played all Actions in your deck this becomes a Ruined Village. But until then it is better than Village and probably only slightly weaker than Wandering Ministrel.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 24, 2020, 12:58:01 pm

Quote from: Aquila on January 24, 2020, 04:34:54 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1O2ytyB.jpg)

Quote

Sigil - Treasure Duration, $5 cost.
$2
At the start of your next turn: reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action. Discard the rest, then play the Action.

I nearly made this an Action with +2 Cards on first turn, but I wasn't sure about the single-card BM strategy it would enable.

Never seen a treasure duration card.  Nice concept.

Here is some art for the card that might work.


https://steemitimages.com/p/BRWJ2YmdUFozvi1t4HpN4qormysFfuK7LQkBeM4NCQNi8atn?format=match&mode=fit&width=640
(https://steemitimages.com/p/BRWJ2YmdUFozvi1t4HpN4qormysFfuK7LQkBeM4NCQNi8atn?format=match&mode=fit&width=640)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on January 24, 2020, 03:53:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OfkTEsA.jpg)

Here's my idea. Before I had without the +buy option, but then it seemed like a slightly better Lab which wasn't quite a $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on January 25, 2020, 01:18:40 am

(https://i.imgur.com/Cr6UTJe.png)

Imagine  a deck of gizmos.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 25, 2020, 06:46:36 pm

sorry to keep doing the "wait no this one" game but i'm withdrawing Town Crier and changing my entry to Heir. Keeping it even simpler than a "pure random" card.

Sort of a one-shot Prince, when bought.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e2cd2a8bfb8fd57a3c8501d/5afe14ebb61b792f3b8552df829be426/image.png)

Quote

Heir • $5+ • Action
You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay. For each $1 you overpay, discard the top card of your deck and if its an Action, set it aside and play it at the start of your next turn.

FAQ: if you reveal more than one Action, you may play them in any order at the start of your next turn (this is how that works anyways).

revised to a slightly shorted version of the same text; changes interaction with Patron (no more revealing) but thats about it

Title: Re: Contest #59: Automaton
Post by: Gubump on January 26, 2020, 12:46:45 am

(https://i.imgur.com/WeVkBho.png)

Hopefully this qualifies. A cheaper Band of Misfits with no cost restriction, but lets the player to your left choose the worse of two cards for it to mimic.

Version History:
v1.0: Original version.
v1.1: Changed cost to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 26, 2020, 04:13:10 am

Quote from: spineflu on January 25, 2020, 06:46:36 pm

sorry to keep doing the "wait no this one" game but i'm withdrawing Town Crier and changing my entry to Heir. Keeping it even simpler than a "pure random" card.

Sort of a one-shot Prince, when bought.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e2cd2a8bfb8fd57a3c8501d/7327b557f6022906e7a49288518b817f/image.png)

Quote

Heir • $5+ • Action
You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay. For each $1 you overpay, reveal the top card of your deck. Set all actions revealed this way aside; at the start of your next turn, play them. Discard the rest of the revealed cards.

This reminds me of Summon or Piazza, i.e. you get +1 Card and +1 Action, and I like it. $6 seems like a steep price for it to trigger once but you can imagine middle- and endgame situations in which you would pay $6 or $7 to improve your next turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on January 26, 2020, 09:06:29 am

(https://i.imgur.com/MXlqkba.jpg)

Quote

Retainers
Types: Action
Cost: <4>
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal an Action. Discard the other cards and then play the Action. If it's the first time you've played a copy of that card this turn, +1 Card and +1 Action.

Action-search card.  It costs debt so as to be expensive enough to not load up on them arbitrarily and "cheap" enough to not compete with most of the stuff you want to play with it.  It encourages deck variety because it turns into a Lost City if it finds a unique card. It's like Herald but in reverse, where it always finds a card and only sometimes gives "+1 Card and +1 Action."  Retainers can never proc each other because Retainers→Retainers will never be the first Retainers you've played.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on January 26, 2020, 11:18:37 pm

I think my previous version of gizmo was too strong. Here is a weaker version. At least I think its weaker. I needed it to gain the card to your hand when trashed so that you didn't get stuck in a gizmo loop playing multiple gizmos forever.

(https://i.imgur.com/CsskW85.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on January 29, 2020, 07:28:41 am

Quote from: naitchman on January 23, 2020, 11:10:55 am

Scribe
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action, +$1. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. The player to your left chooses an Action card from the revealed cards. Discard the rest, then play that card.

The large amount of sifting makes it look more like a Wandering Minstrelish+ than a Bazaar-.  I concur that this would be on the weaker-half of $5-cost cards but is surely too strong in the average case at $4 due to the guaranteed non-terminal nature of it.

Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 23, 2020, 11:29:18 am

Palace Garden
Types: Action, Victory
Cost: $6
2VP
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal an Action. Discard the rest. Play it twice, trash it, and gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.

The order of this is wrong per Distant Lands, Island, Mill, and Nobles: List the Action effect, horizontal rule, and then the Victory value (colors are swapped too).  This ought to follow Procession's lead either skipping Duration cards or trashing them only when they leave play.
The only thing bad about Remodeling Actions is that you don't get to play the Actions, but this plays them twice while Remodeling them, and acts as the perfect intermediary to Remodel your $4 Actions into Palace Gardens that later turn into Provinces.  That. Is. Bonkers.  It would honestly be weaker if it cost $5 (though I'd reduce its Victory points to 1VP).
I think when you originally posted this it had to gain a Victory card and it lost that when you rejiggered the wording.  Was that an intentional omission or am I remembering incorrectly? Only Remodeling into Victory cards would be an improvement, but doesn't change the wild power of Out-of-Hand-Throne Room-$4→Palace Garden to Out-of-Hand-Throne Room-Palace Garden→Province.  If it can only gain Victory cards, I'd still bump this up to $7 just because Palace Gardens→Palace Gardens is ridiculously good.

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 23, 2020, 01:33:41 pm

Sword
Types: Treasure
Cost: $5
When you play this, choose one: +$2; or reveal the top card of your deck, and play it if it's an Action or a Treasure.

I second GendoIkari that choosing between Silver and "Maybe Village" is bad for a $5-cost.  Changing as little as possible would be to make it a $5 Treasure-Vassal (always produce $2, always discard, always play if an Action), but those changes emphasize the card's similarity to Vassal, but without the excitement of the Vassal→Vassal dream.
Thematically it is odd, too, being a weapon that isn't an Attack (unless you mean "Ceremonial Sword (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_weapon)").

Quote from: 4est on January 23, 2020, 02:49:57 pm

Machine
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. Reveal the top card of your deck. If it's an Action, play it, otherwise trash it.

"+3 Cards. Trash a bad card," is crazy at $4.  "+3 Cards, +1 Action," is crazy at $4.  "+3 Cards. Trash a good card," is awful at any price.  The pass\fail of this card is too large a gap: It is too powerful to ignore and too random to control, which would cause games to degenerate into the flip of the Machine.

Quote from: majiponi on January 24, 2020, 05:53:28 am

Clown
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Choose one: +$2; or each other player reveals their deck until they reveals an Action card. Then, you choose one of the revealed Action cards to play, leaving it there. Each other player discards the revealed cards afterwards.

This should probably be a Command card that finds a non-Command card so you don't end up with Clown→Clown→Clown, as unlikely as that might be to occur.  Tracking could also become a headache if it plays Duration cards.
I think these sorts of Attack cards need some way to ensure that it doesn't just pull players closer to their shuffles.  Getting a choice between +$2 and the Attack-and-Command effect seems kind of pointless, as you would never buy Clown if you intended to choose +$2.  I'd either nix the +$2 completely or make the +$2 a choice instead of playing another player's card (the latter of which would make it invalid for the contest).  I also don't like how much stronger it becomes in multiplayer for the added flexibility.

Quote from: Gubump on January 26, 2020, 12:46:45 am

Maester
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $4
Name two differently named non-Command Action cards in the Supply. The player to your left chooses one of them for your to play, leaving it there.

Maester should "Choose two differently named..." instead of "Name two differently named..."
I think that too many Kingdoms will make this too safe.  A lot of Kingdoms have a reasonable 2-card redundancy (choose Journeyman or Embassy) or a spam-friendly card (choose Laboratory or Journeyman) which make Maester an easy throw-away $4 buy which will circumstantially drag the pace of the game down as you're constantly choosing cards that another player also has to choose.  A Potion cost might be a better limiter.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 29, 2020, 12:14:25 pm

Good suggestions/catches, Fragasnap!  Here is the updated version (v.1.3 Palace Garden). Changed it back to only remodeling to Victory cards, and corrected the format/order. 

PG--->PG--->Province is indeed powerful.  But a $6 card should get you something pretty good, no?  I think its lack of control (what am I going to throne/destroy?) and options (what can I get when I do? Only Victories?) seem to balance out the cost.  So leaving it at $6 for now.

Thanks for the feedback!

(http://i.imgur.com/t02eRyB.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 29, 2020, 12:20:39 pm

we coming up on the 24hr mark?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 29, 2020, 12:49:58 pm

Due to travel this week, I'm not going to have a chance to come up with something new, BUT, I realized that this week's challenge affords me the opportunity to solve one of the biggest issues with my entry for last week. So, while I don't expect this will win, I'm pleased to introduce this latest version of Siege Tower:

(https://i.imgur.com/d1gfuQs.png)

Basically, since the card limits you to playing non duration attack cards, it would often not hit. But the Automaton challenge neatly resolves that (though if you have more than one attack, you won't know necessarily know which one you'll get).

(and if you haven't yet gained the other attack or it's out of commission, e.g. currently in play, it's a cantrip with a minor attack)

It seems people didn't love the setup clause, so I went ahead and removed it. I'd probably still add something in the FAQ, that it's recommended to play with other Attack cards - I think that's perfectly acceptable for fan cards to have "quirkiness", similar to promo cards - think of Stash, for example, having a different back!

One minor syntax question - is "if you don't" enough, or does it need the full "if you don't reveal any non-Duration attack card this way"? I'm hopeful it is as there is already enough text on this cards.

Other feedback, as always, is welcome (and encouraged!)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on January 29, 2020, 01:00:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Pqc8n4v.png)
So it's Cellar but it only draws Actions but it plays the Actions for you so it's a Village. It's probably worse than Cellar in a deck with non-action junk to sift through but in a deck with little junk this could be quite a powerful Village.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on January 29, 2020, 01:37:50 pm

I've decided to change my entry, to make it worthier of the $5 tag.

Sword (Treasure, $5)

+$2
When you play this, reveal the top card of your deck. If it's an Action or Treasure, play it; otherwise, discard it.

This gives you a little sifting if you get unlucky with the reveal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 29, 2020, 02:22:54 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 29, 2020, 01:37:50 pm

I've decided to change my entry, to make it worthier of the $5 tag.

Sword (Treasure, $5)

+$2
When you play this, reveal the top card of your deck. If it's an Action or Treasure, play it; otherwise, discard it.

This gives you a little sifting if you get unlucky with the reveal.

This is nearly as good as a double Peddler. Compare it with Venture which is a Treasure-Peddler that only draws yellow to realize why this is OP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on January 29, 2020, 03:02:17 pm

Quote from: segura on January 29, 2020, 02:22:54 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 29, 2020, 01:37:50 pm

I've decided to change my entry, to make it worthier of the $5 tag.

Sword (Treasure, $5)

+$2
When you play this, reveal the top card of your deck. If it's an Action or Treasure, play it; otherwise, discard it.

This gives you a little sifting if you get unlucky with the reveal.

This is nearly as good as a double Peddler. Compare it with Venture which is a Treasure-Peddler that only draws yellow to realize why this is OP.

Hmm. Would this work better as a $6, or if it was limited to playing only Action/Treasure?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 29, 2020, 04:56:18 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 29, 2020, 03:02:17 pm

Quote from: segura on January 29, 2020, 02:22:54 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 29, 2020, 01:37:50 pm

I've decided to change my entry, to make it worthier of the $5 tag.

Sword (Treasure, $5)

+$2
When you play this, reveal the top card of your deck. If it's an Action or Treasure, play it; otherwise, discard it.

This gives you a little sifting if you get unlucky with the reveal.

This is nearly as good as a double Peddler. Compare it with Venture which is a Treasure-Peddler that only draws yellow to realize why this is OP.

Hmm. Would this work better as a $6, or if it was limited to playing only Action/Treasure?

Probably better as only playing Actions at $5 so there's no recursive case

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on January 29, 2020, 05:31:05 pm

24 hour warning

Thanks spineflu, I've missed the moment

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on January 29, 2020, 09:09:00 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 29, 2020, 07:28:41 am

Quote from: majiponi on January 24, 2020, 05:53:28 am

Clown
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Choose one: +$2; or each other player reveals their deck until they reveals an Action card. Then, you choose one of the revealed Action cards to play, leaving it there. Each other player discards the revealed cards afterwards.

This should probably be a Command card that finds a non-Command card so you don't end up with Clown→Clown→Clown, as unlikely as that might be to occur.  Tracking could also become a headache if it plays Duration cards.
I think these sorts of Attack cards need some way to ensure that it doesn't just pull players closer to their shuffles.  Getting a choice between +$2 and the Attack-and-Command effect seems kind of pointless, as you would never buy Clown if you intended to choose +$2.  I'd either nix the +$2 completely or make the +$2 a choice instead of playing another player's card (the latter of which would make it invalid for the contest).  I also don't like how much stronger it becomes in multiplayer for the added flexibility.

Clown->Clown->Clown->... infinite chain doesn't happen. Read very carefully. When you play 2nd Clown from your opponent's deck, 2nd Clown is removed from her deck (it is "revealed", not in deck). I made Clown an Attack so that you can moat because someone dislikes Tribute-like "non-Attack". Tracking could also be trouble when you Necromancer to play Necromancer to play an Durations. +$2 is needed to stop other player's going Money-only boring strategy. Adding flexibility is limited, since both Alice and Bob may reveal Smithies. I also like Jester-like boosting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on January 30, 2020, 09:21:50 am

Quote from: majiponi on January 29, 2020, 09:09:00 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 29, 2020, 07:28:41 am

Quote from: majiponi on January 24, 2020, 05:53:28 am

Clown
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $4
Choose one: +$2; or each other player reveals their deck until they reveals an Action card. Then, you choose one of the revealed Action cards to play, leaving it there. Each other player discards the revealed cards afterwards.

This should probably be a Command card that finds a non-Command card so you don't end up with Clown→Clown→Clown, as unlikely as that might be to occur.  Tracking could also become a headache if it plays Duration cards.
I think these sorts of Attack cards need some way to ensure that it doesn't just pull players closer to their shuffles.  Getting a choice between +$2 and the Attack-and-Command effect seems kind of pointless, as you would never buy Clown if you intended to choose +$2.  I'd either nix the +$2 completely or make the +$2 a choice instead of playing another player's card (the latter of which would make it invalid for the contest).  I also don't like how much stronger it becomes in multiplayer for the added flexibility.

Clown->Clown->Clown->... infinite chain doesn't happen. Read very carefully. When you play 2nd Clown from your opponent's deck, 2nd Clown is removed from her deck (it is "revealed", not in deck). I made Clown an Attack so that you can moat because someone dislikes Tribute-like "non-Attack". Tracking could also be trouble when you Necromancer to play Necromancer to play an Durations. +$2 is needed to stop other player's going Money-only boring strategy. Adding flexibility is limited, since both Alice and Bob may reveal Smithies. I also like Jester-like boosting.

Isn't a card revealed from the top of the deck still on top of the deck?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 30, 2020, 10:25:36 am

Quote from: scolapasta on January 29, 2020, 12:49:58 pm

Due to travel this week, I'm not going to have a chance to come up with something new, BUT, I realized that this week's challenge affords me the opportunity to solve one of the biggest issues with my entry for last week. So, while I don't expect this will win, I'm pleased to introduce this latest version of Siege Tower:

(https://i.imgur.com/d1gfuQs.png)

Basically, since the card limits you to playing non duration attack cards, it would often not hit. But the Automaton challenge neatly resolves that (though if you have more than one attack, you won't know necessarily know which one you'll get).

(and if you haven't yet gained the other attack or it's out of commission, e.g. currently in play, it's a cantrip with a minor attack)

It seems people didn't love the setup clause, so I went ahead and removed it. I'd probably still add something in the FAQ, that it's recommended to play with other Attack cards - I think that's perfectly acceptable for fan cards to have "quirkiness", similar to promo cards - think of Stash, for example, having a different back!

One minor syntax question - is "if you don't" enough, or does it need the full "if you don't reveal any non-Duration attack card this way"? I'm hopeful it is as there is already enough text on this cards.

Other feedback, as always, is welcome (and encouraged!)

I like the revisions, here!  Also, imo, "If you don't" is fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on January 30, 2020, 10:27:51 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on January 29, 2020, 07:28:41 am

Quote from: naitchman on January 23, 2020, 11:10:55 am

Scribe
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Action, +$1. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. The player to your left chooses an Action card from the revealed cards. Discard the rest, then play that card.

The large amount of sifting makes it look more like a Wandering Minstrelish+ than a Bazaar-.  I concur that this would be on the weaker-half of $5-cost cards but is surely too strong in the average case at $4 due to the guaranteed non-terminal nature of it.

I'm not sure of your logic. First of all, it compares very well to bazaar bc if it hits an action, it is essentially +1 card, +2 actions, +$1 (which is bazaar). Yes it does sift, but sifting isn't usually as beneficial in an engine (where I would expect this card to be bought), due to the fact that you're likely drawing your deck every turn anyway. This sifting is not the same as warehouse where you draw good and discard bad, it's more like navigator or chancellor where you just discard cards off of your deck.

Second, here is a small list of other non-terminal sifters that cost $4 or less
1) Wandering Minstrel (sifts 1-4)
2) Ironmonger (sifts 2 or more cards)
3) Night watchmen (sifts 0-5)
4) Advisor (sifts 3)

Third, this is definitely not strictly better than wandering minstrel. Here are some camparisons
1)if your top 3 cards contain no actions- both discard the top 3, WM gives you +1 card +2 actions (village), Scribe gives you +1 action +$1 (copper). Neither is strictly better, but WM will usually be more helpful.
2)if your top 3 cards contain 1 action- WM topdecks the action (discarding the others). net result is +1 card +2 actions and 2 sifted cards. Scribe plays the action. net result is +1 card +2 actions +$1 and 2 cards sifted. So scribe would usually be better in this case
3)if your top 3 cards contain 2 or 3 actions- WM topdecks the actions (in order you choose).  net result is +1 card +2 actions (plus some deck inspection and rearrangement, which is helpful in an engine). Scribe plays the worst action. net result is +1 card +2 actions +$1 and 2 cards sifted (not good sifting, because it's cards that you wanted.) This is highly situational and it's hard to say either is better in this case.
WM's advantage is the fact that it keeps the actions (which are the cards you need to continue the engine).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on January 30, 2020, 01:40:41 pm

Will tweak my entry again, hopefully for the final time.

Sword (Treasure, $5)

+$2
When you play this, reveal the top card of your deck. If it's an Action, play it; otherwise, discard it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on January 30, 2020, 08:36:20 pm

Judging time!

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822301#msg822301 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822301#msg822301)
Scribe by Natchman
An Advisor village puts some decision pressure on the opponent - sometimes, their power is quite limited. Unless an unhappy case with no Actions revealed, it's a non-hand-reducing sifter, comparable to Forum with an extra action. I would buy it for $5 most of the time.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822343#msg822343 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822343#msg822343)
Machine by 4est
Lookout on steroids. Starts as a mild trasher, comparable to Lab in midgame, it becomes extremely scary when you buy the first Province, thanks to self-chaining. There are not many ways to arrange the card at depth 3 of the deck, which makes this card much less predictable than Herald or even Patrician. Cool but really chaotic.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822352#msg822352 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822352#msg822352)
Privateer by D782802859
Discarding the top Action of a player sounds attackish, and as only one opponent is affected, it becomes political. On average, the profit doesn't worth the effort, even if their average Action costs more than $4, there is a discount for unpredictability. Nice solution of the Duration/Reserve problem.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822376#msg822376 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822376#msg822376)
Epic Tale by NoMoreFun
Epic supervillage that would suck all your virtual money and potentially play and draw all your desk (if some coins left after drawing, they will evaporate). About as strong as City Quarter, and as it tends to leave the player without a penny, I would put the same epic price tag <8>
Honorable Mention

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822385#msg822385 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822385#msg822385)
Servant by [TP] Inferno
Play this, or if you don't like it, play something else. It's a village with a guaranteed Action to play, which is at least a strong $5, and the option makes it even stronger. I would like it better if it didn't give automatic +Action

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822416#msg822416 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822416#msg822416)
Sigil by Aquila
A novel approach to Big Money: schedule all the necessary drawers and +Buys for the next turn at Buy time. As it's a Duration, you need a double set of Sigils to make this strategy work, so it is not overpowered. I like Saul Goodman's artwork.
Top Four

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822419#msg822419 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822419#msg822419)
Clown by majiponi
Special multiplayer fun! Probably too weak in a two player game for the same reason as Privateer. I assume that the mechanics issue can be overcome with some clever rewording.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822454#msg822454 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822454#msg822454)
Trumpeter by mail-mi
At first sight, this Lab-Adventurer hybrid doesn't look strong, but it might be a proper fix for not very well constructed desks. Thinking of it as a mega-Pawn.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822534#msg822534 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822534#msg822534)
Heir by spineflu
Variant of royalty with an unusually strong on-buy effect. Elegant solution for a problem of too much money too early, or a kick for a megaturn. As the cards are discarded one by one, there is no provability problem.
Top Four

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822548#msg822548 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822548#msg822548)
Maester by Gubump
You know when you want it. Extremely strong in some kingdoms, while not very playable in others. Potion costs demands necessary commitment to ensure that it won't be picked up opportunistically. For strategists.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822566#msg822566 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822566#msg822566)
Retainers by Fragasnap
Wow, blind Conclave! Stronger than the original, as it gives virtual +2 cards instead of $2. I like how it chains with itself without choking, but still limiting the power. Debt costs enables it pretty early, which might be too disruptive with 5/2 split. Regardless of this defect,
Top Four

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822618#msg822618 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822618#msg822618)
Gizmo by somekindoftony
This one runs on heavy fuel! You need a strong supply of Action cards, maybe some kind of Workshop, to make it efficient. Or maybe you want to burn the engine quickly for rapid greening (as it is not affected by the green density). I am not sure about the usefulness of the on trash benefit.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822822#msg822822 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822822#msg822822)
Palace Garden by Saul Goodman
Turn your $4 Action into a Palace Garden and then into a Province - and all of this chainable, as PGs like to ignite each other. Pretty strong megaturn opportunity, so having a few PGs is a much stronger necessity than, say, Farmlands. Just build your deck without those pesky $3s that tend to turn into Duchies. Ka-Boom!
Top Four

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822826#msg822826 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822826#msg822826)
Siege Tower by scolapasta
Guaranteed heavy bombardment! This makes Attacks extremely powerful, and changes the overall pattern of the game. Usually there is no more than one or two Attack piles in the game that makes this card quite deterministic (and unlikely to shoot into your own leg)
Honorable Mention

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822831#msg822831 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822831#msg822831)
Wine Cellar by Gazbag
The only village you need after thinning the deck, but not very useful in the beginning and in clogs. Having enough Action density, you will probably start the turn from discarding the whole hand to Wine Cellar.
Honorable Mention

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822881#msg822881 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822881#msg822881)
Sword by mandioca15
A chance to squeeze a few extra coins from an odd Action. It likes engines, but it's a Treasure, so engines don't like it much - nice dilemma. But you probably still want it if the engine cards don't give enough virtual money.

Winner: Heir by spineflu
Runner-up: Sigil by Aquila

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 30, 2020, 09:30:03 pm

Thank you so much, grep!
Contest #60: Design a card named "Judge"

I was reading the secret history of Nocturne and a thing that stuck out to me was Vampire / Bat were designed name-first. DXV has said in the endless interview thread that he doesn't usually do that (but Guided By Voices, a band he likes, sometimes does).

So.
Design a card/card-like-thing named "Judge". It can be part of a heirloom pair, or traveller line, or just a kingdom card, or a prize, a hex, a boon?, an artifact, an event, whatever (if it goes with other cards, please submit those too). Maybe it's a verb and it's a remake/remodel variant. Maybe you lean into the Empires theme and do a colosseum thumbs-up/thumbs-down thing. Maybe it's a Count or Throne variant. Go nuts.

one request is you keep it to types that exist in the game so far other than Curses, Castles, and Knights (the former because i hate the endless and recurring "is it the title or the type" thread derailment, the latter two because it's not clear what that would mean and the WDC thread isn't the place to decide what it would mean). If you want to design a ruin, that's fine.

Judging criteria will be viability in a game, creativity, and thematic cohesion ("Judge: $4 Action, +3 Cards " isn't thematic.)

Godspeed. Use the Fan Card Creation Guide (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Fan_Card_Creation_Guide) if you need it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on January 30, 2020, 10:20:57 pm

Help with wording appreciated;
(https://i.imgur.com/vzs1DIc.png)

I'm also not certain of the cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on January 30, 2020, 10:57:24 pm

Judge (how original haha)
$5
Action-Attack
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Each other player gains a Copper.
If you have at least one other Attack card in play, discard a card.

It's a Lab that kinda hurts other people, but it doesn't like you being mean to people. You can't play multiples without it turning into a Fugitive. Thematically, if you have Attacked people, it finds you 'guilty' and makes you discard a card. Also hypocritical and kinda corrupt.

Also, feedback is welcome as nowadays, I only get feedback until judging and by then it's too late. If I can improve it beforehand, it will help me heaps. Thanks. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on January 30, 2020, 11:31:28 pm

Nice challenge!

(https://i.ibb.co/R4rW5QP/Judge.png)
Judge
$5 - Action - Reserve - Reaction
+1 Card, +1 Action, +$1
You may put this on the tavern mat.
-
When another player plays an Attack card, you may call this for +2 Coffers.


A peddler that can disincentivize attackers, giving the victim some restitution (but not saving from the attack itself). The art represents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Dee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Dee)

Edit: Retracted. See http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg822924#msg822924 instead

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on January 31, 2020, 12:27:12 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on January 30, 2020, 10:57:24 pm

Judge (how original haha)
$5
Action-Attack
+2 Cards
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Each other player gains a Copper.
If you have an Attack card in play, discard a card.

It's a Lab that kinda hurts other people, but it doesn't like you being mean to people. You can't play multiples without it turning into a sifting Market Square. Thematically, if you have Attacked people, it finds you 'guilty' and makes you discard a card. Also hypocritical and kinda corrupt.

Also, feedback is welcome as nowadays, I only get feedback until judging and by then it's too late. If I can improve it beforehand, it will help me heaps. Thanks. :)

I think you mean to say
"If you have another Attack card in play, discard a card."
Otherwise the card would count itself I think and always force a discard.
 But then that would be quite strong - arguably much better than a standard lab.
Maybe what you mean to say is for every attack card in play (including this) discard a card. But then that would potentially be crippling if you played multiples.

Could you have meant that you just want it to discard one card?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on January 31, 2020, 02:43:41 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on January 31, 2020, 12:27:12 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on January 30, 2020, 10:57:24 pm

Judge (how original haha)
$5
Action-Attack
+2 Cards
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Each other player gains a Copper.
If you have an Attack card in play, discard a card.

It's a Lab that kinda hurts other people, but it doesn't like you being mean to people. You can't play multiples without it turning into a sifting Market Square. Thematically, if you have Attacked people, it finds you 'guilty' and makes you discard a card. Also hypocritical and kinda corrupt.

Also, feedback is welcome as nowadays, I only get feedback until judging and by then it's too late. If I can improve it beforehand, it will help me heaps. Thanks. :)

I think you mean to say
"If you have another Attack card in play, discard a card."
Otherwise the card would count itself I think and always force a discard.
 But then that would be quite strong - arguably much better than a standard lab.
Maybe what you mean to say is for every attack card in play (including this) discard a card. But then that would potentially be crippling if you played multiples.

Could you have meant that you just want it to discard one card?

It doesn't count itself and only discards one card. I will thus make it weaker.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on January 31, 2020, 04:10:55 am

Judge (Action, $4)

+$2
———
When you gain or trash this, move the Sanction token to a Supply pile. Cards from that pile cost $2 more (after cost reductions).

An Embargo/Flag Bearer hybrid, with a lesser penalty than Embargo. Could backfire on TfB boards...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 31, 2020, 07:23:03 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 31, 2020, 04:10:55 am

Judge (Action, $4)

+$2
———
When you gain or trash this, move the Sanction token to a Supply pile. Cards from that pile cost $2 more (after cost reductions).

An Embargo/Flag Bearer hybrid, with a lesser penalty than Embargo. Could backfire on TfB boards...

This can get away with prices of $2 and $3 as, unlike Flag Bearer, this has a global effect (which is mainly relevant in non-mirrors).
You can also try a version that moves the Sanction token on play (again, the effect is not that nasty).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on January 31, 2020, 10:46:42 am

Here's my submission. Might have to tweak the effect or price.
(https://i.imgur.com/n9a9oEl.png)

Your opponents can save (bribe the judge) to spare some of his cards, and then you judge which card is guilty.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on January 31, 2020, 11:54:44 am

I am replacing my submission with a ladder, keeping the idea of restitution.

(https://i.imgur.com/m8dsESf.png)(https://i.imgur.com/9KN4BMB.png)(https://i.imgur.com/97CJz7X.png)(https://i.imgur.com/LzIB38r.png)(https://i.imgur.com/JBMUvu6.png)

Law Student
$2 - Action - Traveller
+2 Cards. Discard a card.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Clerk.

Clerk
$3* - Action - Traveller
Gain a card costing up to $3 into your hand.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for an Attorney.
(This is not in the supply)

Attorney
$4* - Action - Traveller
Name an Action card. +3 Cards. Discard 3 Cards. You may play the named card from your hand, if you did, +1 Action.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Prosecutor.
(This is not in the supply)

Prosecutor
$5* - Action - Attack - Traveller
+1 Action, +$2. Each other player discards an Attack card or reveals a hand with no Attack cards.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Judge.
(This is not in the supply)

Judge
$6* - Action - Duration
Now and at the start of each of your subsequent turns: +1 Buy, you may trash a card from your hand for +1VP.
(This remains in play)
While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack cars, choose one: +1 Coffer, or you are unaffected by the attack.
(This is not in the supply)


Law Student is a weak sifter.
Clerk can prepare minor paperwork and earn a Silver or something.
Attorney is a sifting village, but only if you know exactly (or can guess) what you are planning to present.
Prosecutor deprives the opponents from attacks, but does not touch peaceful commoners.
Judge is generating honor and deflecting/mildening attacks.

Hopefully the pricing is correct.
Edit: tweaked Judge to make him less powerful en masse (usually you only need one fully evolved traveller)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Barbarossa41 on January 31, 2020, 03:58:57 pm

Judge $5 Action-Reaction-Attack


+1 Card
+1 Action
-
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard any number of copies of this from your hand to set that card aside onto that player's Jail mat with a debt token on it for each copy discarded.  Each time they shuffle their deck, they remove a debt token, then if the card has no debt tokens on it, place the card on the bottom of their deck. During a players turn, they may spend a buy and $3 to remove a debt token.


P.S. How do I attach an image?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on January 31, 2020, 04:02:57 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa41 on January 31, 2020, 03:58:57 pm

P.S. How do I attach an image?

Use the generator: https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html
Or if you mean "how to add the image to the post": [ img width=300 ]http://somewhere/image.png[ /img ] <- remove spaces

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on January 31, 2020, 04:15:40 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa41 on January 31, 2020, 03:58:57 pm

Judge $5 Action-Reaction-Attack


+1 Card
+1 Action
-
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard any number of copies of this from your hand to set that card aside onto that player's Jail mat with a debt token on it for each copy discarded.  Each time they shuffle their deck, they remove a debt token, then if the card has no debt tokens on it, place the card on the bottom of their deck. During a players turn, they may spend a buy and $3 to remove a debt token.

Huh. That's quite funny, I was doing something along the lines of a cantrip "when another player plays an Attack card" as well.

Here's my attempt:

(https://i.postimg.cc/kGxTtC1S/Judge.png)

The spirit behind this card is that having a prosecutor on the table should scare unlawful behaviours away (in Dominion's case, Attacks). Also, there's that cute part about there being only one Judge at a time on the table. Functionally and thematically, I think this is a pretty neat way to go about it. A cantrip duration Moat seems rightly priced to me at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), but do say so if you believe it might be wrong.


Edit: Dang. Grep, I just realised that the unaffected by other players' Attacks is something you've done on your Judge card too. The similarity is only coincidental though. I didn't mean to copy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on January 31, 2020, 07:34:21 pm

I've made a small change but I think it's much better now and makes more sense as an action. Now if you play it during your turn you will draw a fresh hand and some of your actions might be in play saving them from any judgement. It's still risky as you could get good cards in both piles but the option to clear out a lot of junk seems worth it.

(https://i.imgur.com/hGC4cOO.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on January 31, 2020, 10:36:51 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on January 31, 2020, 07:34:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/hGC4cOO.png)

This looks like an Event candidate, as it is unlikely to be played more than once during the game, and Events are bought after Treasures played, keeping them safe.
Does the player control the size of piles? Is it OK to split unevenly, or even trash everything not in play?

Quote from: X-tra on January 31, 2020, 04:15:40 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/kGxTtC1S/Judge.png)
Edit: Dang. Grep, I just realised that the unaffected by other players' Attacks is something you've done on your Judge card too. The similarity is only coincidental though. I didn't mean to copy.

X-tra, no problem, shielding Attacks is quite natural for a card named Judge.
The card looks too weak - even without the exclusivity clause it's worse than Lighthouse. I suggest to add some significant delayed bonus

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 01, 2020, 12:49:00 am

Quote from: grep on January 31, 2020, 10:36:51 pm

X-tra, no problem, shielding Attacks is quite natural for a card named Judge.
The card looks too weak - even without the exclusivity clause it's worse than Lighthouse. I suggest to add some significant delayed bonus

To me, this Judge variant feels like it'd be stronger the more players are present in the game. I considered making this of varying cost depending of the number of players in the game. This would have been a 0*, with its cost being increased by 1 per player. Felt too wordy at this point though. Could this be tweaked so that it stays in play until an Attack card is played? This would put that sort of useless cantrip out of your deck until its usefulness has been fulfilled. This would shut off other Judges until one decides to Attack that one active Judge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on February 01, 2020, 01:35:38 am

This idea needs work; but, I think it could be pretty fun.

Split-pile with non-supply Judge and Artifact: the Gavel.

Criminal - top half 6 cards
Advocate - bottom half 6 cards
Judge (non-supply) - gained via Advocates & Money
Gavel - gained via Judge
Verdict Token - self-explanatory

(https://i.imgur.com/5q0Q8NJ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/YG2KN80.png) (https://i.imgur.com/FQpJail.png) (https://i.imgur.com/bPTlGnE.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 01, 2020, 03:31:57 am

Unless the Kingdom leads to a high demand of cantrips that do nothing, e.g. due to Conspirator or Golem or Herald, Advocated are not gonna see the light of day.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on February 01, 2020, 05:32:40 am

I also did a legal judge (feels most like Dominion), and I also did a Gavel artifact... If there are objections, I can make it a wig.

(https://i.imgur.com/6wBf45b.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/bt2ge1d.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/OKhWuQP.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/0ezYuU9.jpg)

I know Guilty should just be -5VP by itself rather than 'when scoring...', but you can't add anything else on then. Overall a kinda strategic card that's maybe a little funny. He intentionally isn't an Attack, it doesn't make thematic sense and it's hard to pull the attack off.

Also, I intentionally avoid putting pictures on my contest entries to be safe from any possible legal issues. If they're good cards they can always get safe pictures later.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 01, 2020, 07:29:11 am

@Saul Goodman - you can get the +VP (and +$) symbols smaller on the card mock up generator by putting a space between the + and the symbol; this should make the rest of Judge more readable

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on February 01, 2020, 07:50:59 am

(https://i.imgur.com/wKNKIBn.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/X6wjPRr.jpg) (it just flips itself to Sentenced) (https://i.imgur.com/Wt8FYPL.jpg)

Quote Judge Types: Action, Attack Cost: $5 +$3. Each other player who has Sentenced returns it and discards their hand. Each other player who doesn't have Condemned or Sentenced may reveal a hand with no cards costing $5 or more in it. Otherwise, they take Condemned.

Quote Condemned Types: State At the start of your turn, flip this over to Sentenced. Quote Sentenced Types: State When you gain a Victory card or a card costing at most $2, you may return this.

Judge is an Attack that makes other players lose an entire turn!  First it hands out Condemned which becomes Sentenced at the start of their turn (this is to ensure that players have at least one turn with Sentenced before being affected by Judge).  Then the player can get a cheap card or a Victory card, or else run the risk of discarding their hand.

Do note that a player can avoid Condemned by not having a $5 card in hand, so a player who opens with Judge can only Condemn other players with similar $5 openings, and a player who has no hand will necessarily be unaffected.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on February 01, 2020, 12:55:29 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/JZ5yxPg.png)

Here's my submission this week: Judge.  Judge is a sort of Jester-variant, still a terminal silver and gainer, though with greater emphasis on the gaining and non-attack interaction.  It's the classic you cut the cake, I pick a slice mechanic.  Your opponent might choose two good cards to take advantage of the free gain or two mediocre to minimize the benefit to you and damage to them.  This can eat up piles especially in 3+ player games (like Jester), but hopefully allows for interesting choices both for who plays the card and their opponents, depending on the kingdom and game state.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 01, 2020, 08:54:09 pm

Judge
Type: Action
Cost: $6

+1 Action
Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Pick two of them. The player to your left chooses one: discard the picked cards or the other cards. Put the rest into your hand.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e362aa04063e33540c5d47b/c077d51e5d23bc4846a94753ae4c9e5d/Judge.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 02, 2020, 02:11:51 am

That's an old one, eHalcyon did one called Harbinger (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3521.0) for the contests long ago. But yours is correctly priced and of course the idea is super cool.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 02, 2020, 10:23:17 am

Quote from: segura on February 02, 2020, 02:11:51 am

That's an old one, eHalcyon did one called Harbinger (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3521.0) for the contests long ago. But yours is correctly priced and of course the idea is super cool.

Thank you. I did not see that card before, but in fact both cards are different. Harbinger forces the opponent to do the split. With Judge, you have to perform the split yourself (which means, if you want a certain card, you can always get it, even if it comes paired with a bad one). Unlike Harbinger is also not possible to do a 1/4 split. Pricing is very difficult. For example, if your top cards are 2 Platium and then 3 Estates, this is normally worse than a Lab, but better than a Scout. There is also a difference between draw and put-in-hand, if you have the -1 Card token on your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on February 02, 2020, 10:53:39 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 01, 2020, 05:32:40 am

Also, I intentionally avoid putting pictures on my contest entries to be safe from any possible legal issues.

Bravo!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on February 02, 2020, 09:55:46 pm

Judge
cost $6 - Action - Attack
You may sentence "Guilty". If you do, +$2, each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals their hand and discards a card, your choose. Otherwise, gain a Gold to your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 03, 2020, 04:01:11 am

(https://i.imgur.com/qwsfcbL.png)(https://i.imgur.com/l5u50j9.png)(https://i.imgur.com/73R2Kv5.png)

Split pile (5 of each, Executioners on top). The Innocent token starts on Estate, the Guilty token starts on Province.

Executioner
Action - $3
+1 Card
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. If its pile has the Guilty token, gain a Gold to your hand. If it has the Innocent token, gain a Curse.

Judge
Action - $5
+$3
Place the Guilty and Innocent tokens on Supply piles of your choice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 03, 2020, 04:17:16 am

Quote from: majiponi on February 02, 2020, 09:55:46 pm

Judge
cost $6 - Action - Attack
You may sentence "Guilty". If you do, +$2, each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals their hand and discards a card, your choose. Otherwise, gain a Gold to your hand.

I don't think the card text should include unnecessary flavor. This could be rephrased as

Quote

Choose one:
+2$, and each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals their hand and discards a card that you choose.
Gain a Gold to your hand.

On a mechanical level, I think a non-one shot version of Pillage should not exist. If you want this, I would weaken the attack, for instance by letting them draw a replacement card (of course then you need another way to prevent stacking these).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 03, 2020, 09:17:18 am

(https://i.postimg.cc/HxgL06wN/Judge.png)

Modified my Judge attempt so that it isn't strictly worse than Lighthouse (and its price is higher too). Now it stays in play until you get Attacked, which shields you from it and promptly discards your Judge. Still, only 1 Judge can be in play at a time. If another player has one in play and you'd like to be under the protection of your own Judge, then you must Attack that player for that to happen. And if you have no Attack cards in your hand but have a Judge, no worries: It's a cantrip. It self replaces anyway. I just hope I worded everything correctly on that card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on February 03, 2020, 03:51:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/SjQE2e9.png?1)

Quote

Judge
$3 - Action - Reaction

+1 Action
Look at the top card of your deck. Draw it, or trash it and draw a card.
--
When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand, to put that card onto your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on February 03, 2020, 06:36:08 pm

Quote from: X-tra on February 03, 2020, 09:17:18 am

(https://i.postimg.cc/HxgL06wN/Judge.png)

Modified my Judge attempt so that it isn't strictly worse than Lighthouse (and its price is higher too). Now it stays in play until you get Attacked, which shields you from it and promptly discards your Judge. Still, only 1 Judge can be in play at a time. If another player has one in play and you'd like to be under the protection of your own Judge, then you must Attack that player for that to happen. And if you have no Attack cards in your hand but have a Judge, no worries: It's a cantrip. It self replaces anyway. I just hope I worded everything correctly on that card.

Put +$1 token on this.
Draw your deck.
Play Judge A.
Play Judge B.
Play Judge C.
Now you can replay Judge B.
...

Need to stop loops.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on February 03, 2020, 07:38:41 pm

Quote from: majiponi on February 03, 2020, 06:36:08 pm

Put +$1 token on this.
Draw your deck.
Play Judge A.
Play Judge B.
Play Judge C.
Now you can replay Judge B.
...

Need to stop loops.

Maybe introduce a (gavel-shaped  :D) token for the current Judge.
"+1 Card, +1 Action; if the Gavel token is unclaimed, put it on this card. This card stays in play while the Gavel token is on it. When another player plays an Attack card, discard this from play and return the Gavel token; you are unaffected by that attack"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 03, 2020, 07:41:07 pm

Quote from: majiponi on February 03, 2020, 06:36:08 pm

Put +$1 token on this.
Draw your deck.
Play Judge A.
Play Judge B.
Play Judge C.
Now you can replay Judge B.
...

Need to stop loops.

Ach, you are right. Welp. On to attempt number 3 now:

(https://i.postimg.cc/0K5Sz09k/Judge-V3-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/0K5Sz09k)

(https://i.postimg.cc/hz2n13C6/Judge-V4-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/hz2n13C6)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) JUDGE (Action - Duration - Reaction) +1 Card +2 Actions When you play this, if there is another Judge in play, + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) and trash this. Otherwise, this stays in play during each of your Clean-up phases. While this is in play, discard this when another player plays an Attack card. You are unaffected by that Attack.

• It now gets trashed if another Judge is in play. Should stop the loops.
• Reworded the Duration part. Looks better that way imo.
• Changed the art. This one is more representative of what a Judge should be.
• Added a version and expansion logo because I care about such things I dunno.  ;D

When I hit "Post", you sniped me Grep. Didn't see the Gavel suggestion, woopsie.


Edit: I got to test this card for a couple of games with my partner and a couple of issues became apparent with the way Judge V3 worked. So, I decided to Village our dear Judge. This ensures that there'll be a +2 Actions card in the Supply for you to play an Attack card to discard your opponent's Judge and to then put your own Judge down (a second Judge in fact, since your first one'll be trashed). There's also now a small benefit of + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) to reap if you want to trash your Judge. All in all, this increased the price of the Judge to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), because it is a Village with some neat stuff. If there are no Attack cards in the Supply and someone plays a Judge, then all subsequent Judges played act as Mining Villages you have no choice of trashing for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) less.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on February 05, 2020, 12:32:50 pm

Modified my original entry to address the obvious problem: if you have a bunch of Criminals running around trying to steal coffers, who is going to keep their coffers?  So now we have a landmark that makes coffers count for VP.

This is a split-pile.  You will need a good legal team and some money to get that Judge on your side.  But man, he's worth the effort when you see what he can do with The Gavel.

(https://i.imgur.com/23Yrdbj.png) (https://i.imgur.com/YfnU50L.png) (https://i.imgur.com/5zR3TOQ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/jCpSbZN.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/u5Eg5zo.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/MK0ZzQ5.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 05, 2020, 12:48:24 pm

Criminal is crazily overpowered. 2 Coins into 1 Coffers is already too good as an Event and this does some more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on February 05, 2020, 04:01:21 pm

Quote from: segura on February 05, 2020, 12:48:24 pm

Criminal is crazily overpowered. 2 Coins into 1 Coffers is already too good as an Event and this does some more.

I agree on point #1.  I'm not sure I follow the second part (in bold).

What price seems right to you?  Is $3 too cheap, still?

Here is the other thing: it starts off as -1VP (a curse) because all Verdict Tokens start face down (see The Gavel).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 05, 2020, 10:38:39 pm

24 hour warning?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 05, 2020, 11:02:59 pm

Quote from: naitchman on February 05, 2020, 10:38:39 pm

24 hour warning?

sure. I somehow managed to finish some schoolwork ahead of schedule, so yeah. Watch this space tomorrow night.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 06, 2020, 11:03:03 pm

This was really tough yall. Great job at making me do recursion to Judge Judges.

Also I'm sure I made typos typing all these up, so be generous, it was A Lot.
Rather than organize these by name, I'm going to organize them by entrant, (since most are just named "Judge").

---

Barbarossa

Quote

Judge • $5 • Action - Reaction - Duration
+1 Card
+1 Action
-
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard any number of copies of this from your hand to set that card aside onto that player's Jail mat with a debt token on it for each copy discarded.  Each time they shuffle their deck, they remove a debt token, then if the card has no debt tokens on it, place the card on the bottom of their deck. During a players turn, they may spend a buy and $3 to remove a debt token.

Having Judge block an attack is a good impulse, but this card needs some work. For one, I don't think it can be an Attack - you aren't playing this card when you react with it, so if the original attacking player used a Moat, it wouldn't do anything.

For another, read up in the Fan Card Creation Guide (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Fan_Card_Creation_Guide#.22No_U.22) about why the "No U" reaction doesn't work - Donald X has a good mini-essay about it.

The debt jail mechanic is pretty neat though. That could probably be developed into something cool. (sort of reminds me of the richard garfield Battletech card game a little, with how you'd build mechs to deploy. Probably some fertile ground there in terms of design space.)

---

X-tra

Quote

Judge • $4 • Action - Duration - Reaction
+1 Card
+2 Actions
When you play this, if there is another
Judge in play, +$1  and trash this.
Otherwise, this stays in play during each
of your Clean-up phases.
-
While this is in play, discard this when
another player plays an Attack card. You
are unaffected by that Attack.

It's been neat seeing you refine this over the course of the week.
I think all the infinite loops are out of this - there's still iterative ones if you draw your deck and have a ton of lurkers and also a Procession or two, i think - but this is quality.

A thing I'm not nuts about is the compulsory attack blocking - imo that's one of the neat features of moat, is that if you decide the attack isn't going to be too painful, you can just weather it, as opposed to the Duration-Moats (Champion, Lighthouse, Guardian) - and the ability to turn off everyone elses Moat-capabilities here indefinitely would've been very clever.

As-is, this does a lot of stuff - village; peddler, kinda; moat - and it does it decently. I don't love the compulsory trashing though - couldn't you just say "if there's a card named Judge already in play, discard this during your Clean up step"? The loop problem was from unexpected moving so just... don't move it, no?

I don't know how well it does adhering to the idea of a Judge - the "judgement choice" you're making here is whether to play it or not, but you make that with every card, no? - but you should be proud of this, this is a decent card.
Also don't think this needs to be a Reaction. Maybe. Not sure.

---

Majiponi

Quote

Judge • $6 • Action - Attack
You may sentence "Guilty". If you do, +$2, each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals their hand and discards a card, your choose. Otherwise, gain a Gold to your hand.

This is super beefy compared to Pillage. I think someone said that already but this is too powerful. Also non-terminal with Capitalism, which is something you'd probably want to avoid with something anywhere close to this powerful. 
I like the "you may sentence guilty" flavor but should probably avoid that.

---

Saul Goodman

Quote

Criminal • $2 • Action - Attack - Duration
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may take one Coffers from each other player.
-
When you buy this, +1 Coffers. This stays in play until the beginning of your next turn.

Criminal: A Coffers attack! Novel! Comes with an incentive to use that Coffer you got right away; may prevent others from going for this at all if you get one of these and get a shuffle right away. Probably too good for $2.

Quote

Advocate • $6 • Action - Attack
+2 Cards
+1 Action
+1 Coffers
Choose one: trash an opponent's Criminal or gain a Criminal from the trash.
-
If you have two or more of these in play, you may pay $3 to gain a Judge.

Advocates are probably overpriced - they're under a bunch of other cards, right? You can probably drop the cost to $5. I know I personally wouldn't buy them at $6. Advocates also may create accountability problems when trashing from other player's in-play zones. I should write a thing about how to not cause problems with card-moving for the FCCG.

Quote

Judge • $8* • Action
+ 2#
Choose two: Gain a treasure to your hand; or Gain any number of Criminals from the trash; or Take the Gavel.
-
You may only gain this if you do not have another Judge.
(This is not in the supply.)

Judge, it's weird to put "you may only gain this if you do not have another Judge" - that's not really a thing on any existing cards. I guess it works with the canon as-is, although if there's ever a blind masquerade style passer, someone could already have a Judge and not know it. "Gain a Treasure to your hand" is going to be overpowered in Fortune, Bank, or Platinum games - you may want to say "Gain a Gold to your hand" or "Gain a Treasure costing up to $6 to your hand" and then if someone can work some price-reduction magic, good for them. Might also be too beefy in Guildhall games, given that there's multiple routes to alt-vp here. Can the choices for Judge be the same (even if that's "bad" choices like taking the gavel twice)?
On a copy-editing note, this should have a type - i'm assuming leaving off "Action" was a typo? I suppose I'm also assuming it should be an Action because of the background color.

Quote

The Gavel • Artifact
You may flip one Verdict token over (all Verdict tokens start face down).
-
If a player's Verdict token is...
...face down: Criminals and Advocates count -1% each.
...face up: Criminals and Advocates count +2% each.

The Gavel is maybe too good. It's going to lead to swingy situations, where one person can line up a Judge early and everyone who also went for Crim/Advos gets penalized for their less-lucky shuffles. When can the player with the gavel flip a Verdict token? It might be better if this was an "At the start of your turn" situation, so if there's endless bickering between Judging players there's no VP adjustment. The point range on this is A Lot - essentially a Duchy per card if there's an even split on Crim/Advos. This is a very political "attack", given you're targeting one other player specifically.
Copy editing note - you shouldn't have the + on the face up option (+ means take VP tokens). Also you could probably break that up into a two-sided Verdict state for each player - one side is "Verdict: Innocent" and reads "1% per Criminal or Advocate", the other "Verdict: Guilty" and yadda yadda yadda.

Quote

Courtroom • Landmark
Every three (3) coffers you have (rounded down) = +2%

Courtroom alone is probably fine, actually. Doesn't qualify on its own for the contest, but provided it's in a game with some Coffers-generating capacity, it's a pretty reasonable landmark. Copy editing note on that: Should probably read "2% per 3 Coffers you have (rounded down)"; Again, you'll want to omit the + portion unless it's giving victory chits.

One last copy editing note on your setup/randomizer card - you'll want to include a type on that ("Action - Attack" works best, I think) because there's card-like-things (the Adventures token placing events, probably others) that care about the Pile's type, and this is what communicates that (rather than the top card of the pile - think about the Knights / Castles and how they handle that).

Overall, this was a good effort, and I really enjoyed analyzing it. The design is very centralizing here - I'd be wary of that going forward. A card should be ignorable in the right circumstance, or victory through it is not a foregone conclusion. This still needs a little work.

---

[TP] Inferno

Quote

Judge • $5 • Action - Attack
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Each other player gains a Copper.
If you have at least one other Attack card in play, discard a card.

Very clever lab variant. I suspect it will slow games down a lot, given the Copper junking, but that's also to the player's own detriment, I suppose - doubling down on any sort of attacking will only cause you to handsize attack yourself.

I'd really dial up the self-attack aspect-
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Each other player gains a Copper
Discard a card per Attack you've played this turn.

which lets this not allow freebies on attacks like Pillage that move out of play.

---

Fragasnap

Quote

Judge • $5 • Action - Attack
+$3.
Each other player who has Sentenced returns it and discards their hand.

Each other player who doesn't have Condemned or Sentenced may reveal a hand with no cards costing $5 or more in it. Otherwise, they take Condemned.

Quote

Condemned • State
At the start of your turn, flip this over to Sentenced

Sentenced • State
When you gain a Victory card or a card costing at most $2, you may return this.

Love the concept here but i have an implementation question - why not just give Sentenced right away and have it say "When you gain a Victory card or a card costing at most $2 on your turn, you may return this"? Otherwise the Condemned state just lasts from between when Player A played Judge and Player B starts their turn.

If there's supposed to be a one-turn gap in there, why not have Condemned flip at the start of Clean up?

Is the goal that player B can shake off the targeting right away? or that they aren't targeted for hand discarding until their turn? Basically, did you want there to be a one-turn gap before players are targeted for attack?

Otherwise, very strong but dodgable attack, and a terminal gold, hey why aren't there more of those? Very cool / into it.

---

NoMoreFun
Split pile (5 of each, Executioners on top). The Innocent token starts on Estate, the Guilty token starts on Province.

Quote

Executioner • $3 • Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. If its pile has the Guilty token, gain a Gold to your hand. If it has the Innocent token, gain a Curse.

Quote

Judge • $5 • Action
+$3
Place the Guilty and Innocent tokens on Supply piles of your choice.

Hey look another terminal gold! I like those.

Clever token use here. I think that's a real area where there's lots of design space available, "global" adventure tokens. Judge is maybe kind of plain-jane but it's more an enabler for Executioner.

Thing is, until you dig the Judges out, all Executioner does is discourage you from trashing Estates. That's. ... idk. We've got Hideout for that already. Could be a long game if Executioner is the only trashing, or if one player moves the Innocent token to Curses.

---

grep
Alright! I'm glad someone went for the Traveller line.

Quote

Law Student • $2 • Action - Traveller
+2 Cards. Discard a card.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Clerk.

Quote

Clerk • $3* • Action - Traveller
Gain a card costing up to $3 into your hand.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for an Attorney.
(This is not in the supply)

I don't really have much to say about Law Student or Clerk (as is the way with most Travellers) other than they seem like reasonable first and second stage Travellers.

Quote

Attorney • $4* • Action - Traveller
Name an Action card. +3 Cards. Discard 3 Cards. You may play the named card from your hand, if you did, +1 Action.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Prosecutor.
(This is not in the supply)

Attorney is a beast. I'd probably buy that at $5. Quality Conclave action on a Warehouse action. It's good though - the two existing Traveller lines have competent 4s that you might want to stop on rather than progress (during some games, or maybe you've already got a Teacher or something). The cycling from this can also help you get several Travellers going simultaneously for that big Judge trash-your-deck/empty-the-coffers payout.

Quote

Prosecutor • $5* • Action - Attack - Traveller
+1 Action, +$2. Each other player discards an Attack card or reveals a hand with no Attack cards.
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Judge.
(This is not in the supply)

Prosecutor's attack is kinda weak but as a non-terminal Silver it's decent. If I were to pick at one of these as the weak link, it'd be this, but also I recognize it's a stepping stone. I don't let my Heroes fart around in my deck too often either.

Quote

Judge • $6* • Action - Duration
Now and at the start of each of your subsequent turns: +1 Buy, you may trash a card from your hand for +1VP.
(This remains in play)
-
While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack card, choose one: +1 Coffer, or you are unaffected by the attack.
(This is not in the supply)

Judge is going to be real good. Goons esque, if it's the only source of +buys, and it can provide its own fodder for trashing.

Overall this is a really strong entry that I can tell a lot of work went into.
Honorable Mention

---

somekindoftony

Quote

Judge • $5 • Action
Shuffle all cards from your deck, hand, and discard pile into two random piles. You may look through each pile. Then choose one to trash. Shuffle the other as your deck and draw five cards.

I really like this card - most of my designs for a "Judge" card have included a "make two piles" mechanic. I think this needs some FAQ/Errata type stuff to specify if it has to be two as-equal-as-possible piles or whether a player can make one pile of 20 and one pile of 5. It can also come down in price to be a "for sure affordable in opening" card - probably a $4? maybe 5 debt? - since that sort of drastic-lucky trashing being available unevenly can lead to a game being over before it begins.
Honorable Mention

---

mandioca15

Quote

Judge • $4 • Action
+$2
-
When you gain or trash this, move the Sanction token to a Supply pile. Cards from that pile cost $2 more (after cost reductions).

I Love this. Pile denial is an underdeveloped mechanic - we've only got like, Embargo, Taxes, and Contraband, right? - and it's really good that you specified "after cost reductions" so that they bottom out at $2 rather than $0.

I'd really love to use this in a Band of Misfits game. Big-time power boost to that card.

Be prepared for $10 province games with this. I might've specified that it has to go to a Kingdom pile or an Action or Treasure supply pile (other than Copper).
Honorable Mention

---

Snowyowl

Quote

Judge • $3 • Action - Reaction
+1 Action
Look at the top card of your deck. Draw it, or trash it and draw a card.
-
When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand, to put that card onto your deck.

I really love topdeck groomers. Like if I had to pick a card type that's among my favorite to use and design, it's that.

I think this would be a quality replacement for Watchtower if DXV ever decided he was tired of Watchtower. Lets you get a little more modular with payload, while retaining the reaction content if you only have one inbound junk card to deal with. Clever stuff.

Is this intentionally phrased "Draw a card" (instead of +1 Card) to try to get around the -1 Card token or something? I don't think this quite does the trick.

Honorable Mention

---

King Leon

Quote

Judge • $6 • Action
+1 Action
Reveal the top 5 cards of your deck. Pick two of them. The player to your left chooses one: discard the picked cards or the other cards. Put the rest into your hand.

Clever superlab implementation/Envisor variant.
Good Patron enabler, too, even if they don't get selected.
This is solid and probably hard to counter.
Honorable Mention

---

Aquila

Quote

Judge • $5 • Action
+$2
Choose one: take the Gavel; or take the Law Book; or if you have the Gavel and the Law Book, each player (including you) takes Guilty.

Quote

Gavel • Artifact
At the start of your turn, you may play an Action card from your hand.

Quote

Law Book • Artifact
At the start of Clean-up, if you didn't gain any cards during your turn, you may gain a non-Victory card costing up to $5

Quote

Guilty • State
When scoring, -5% if you have this.
At the start of your turn, you may go straight to Clean-up. If you do, return this.

When I first read this, I was puzzled - "How is Gavel not just +1 Action" - but then I read the Guilty state and whoa. Nice. Subtle. I liked the legal puns you sprinkled throughout your OP.

I feel like this'll be swingy but not in the usual random-outcome swingy, probably more high vs low skill swingy.

I've got reservations about its viability/guilty-distributing ability in 4+ player games - feel like there'll always be someone around to take an artifact from you.

Copy editing note: On guilty, you could probably get rid of the first sentence (shorten it to just "- 5%") if you put a space between the - and the 5. Stops it from being gigantic. Card generator is finnicky that way.
This is a Runner Up

---

4est

Quote

Judge • $5 • Action
+$2
The player to yor left names 2 differently-named Action cards from the Supply. Gain a copy of one and each other player gains a copy of the other.

I really love this card. Concise, powerful gainer, and an interesting decision space to mess with your opponents head. This can probably be counted on to force players to take a sub-optimal card to avoid emptying piles in 4+ player games.
This is a Runner Up

---

naitchman

Quote

Judge • $5 • Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals 3 cards of their choice from their hand and discards one that you choose.

This is a fantastic variation on Villain. It throws out everyones middlest card. It's nonterminal in Capitalism games but its attack doesn't really stack. It may slow down games a little - attacked players have to make choices, then the attacker makes choices but honestly, I love it.
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner

---

Thank you all for entering, it was an honor to judge these, there were so many really great, viable cards. If you've got any outtakes or b-sides you feel were interesting, toss 'em in the Outtakes and B-sides (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19909.0) thread.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on February 07, 2020, 02:50:36 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 06, 2020, 11:03:03 pm

Is this intentionally phrased "Draw a card" (instead of +1 Card) to try to get around the -1 Card token or something? I don't think this quite does the trick.

It was because vanilla bonuses like +1 Card always go before the ability, but this mechanic only makes sense if the draw comes after the grooming. Now that you point it out, I forgot that conditional bonuses can can come after. Thanks for the feedback.

Well done naitchman!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on February 07, 2020, 03:20:39 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 06, 2020, 11:03:03 pm

Fragasnap

Quote

Judge • $5 • Action - Attack
+$3.
Each other player who has Sentenced returns it and discards their hand.

Each other player who doesn't have Condemned or Sentenced may reveal a hand with no cards costing $5 or more in it. Otherwise, they take Condemned.

Quote

Condemned • State
At the start of your turn, flip this over to Sentenced

Sentenced • State
When you gain a Victory card or a card costing at most $2, you may return this.

Love the concept here but i have an implementation question - why not just give Sentenced right away and have it say "When you gain a Victory card or a card costing at most $2 on your turn, you may return this"? Otherwise the Condemned state just lasts from between when Player A played Judge and Player B starts their turn.

If there's supposed to be a one-turn gap in there, why not have Condemned flip at the start of Clean up?

Is the goal that player B can shake off the targeting right away? or that they aren't targeted for hand discarding until their turn? Basically, did you want there to be a one-turn gap before players are targeted for attack?

Otherwise, very strong but dodgable attack, and a terminal gold, hey why aren't there more of those? Very cool / into it.

Condemned like this prevents 2 Judges played every turn locking everyone else out the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on February 07, 2020, 03:29:13 am

Spineflu, thanks for the feedback.  That was awesome to read.  Congrats to Naichman!  Cool card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 07, 2020, 07:15:24 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 07, 2020, 03:20:39 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 06, 2020, 11:03:03 pm

Fragasnap

Quote

Judge • $5 • Action - Attack
+$3.
Each other player who has Sentenced returns it and discards their hand.

Each other player who doesn't have Condemned or Sentenced may reveal a hand with no cards costing $5 or more in it. Otherwise, they take Condemned.

Quote

Condemned • State
At the start of your turn, flip this over to Sentenced

Sentenced • State
When you gain a Victory card or a card costing at most $2, you may return this.

Love the concept here but i have an implementation question - why not just give Sentenced right away and have it say "When you gain a Victory card or a card costing at most $2 on your turn, you may return this"? Otherwise the Condemned state just lasts from between when Player A played Judge and Player B starts their turn.

If there's supposed to be a one-turn gap in there, why not have Condemned flip at the start of Clean up?

Is the goal that player B can shake off the targeting right away? or that they aren't targeted for hand discarding until their turn? Basically, did you want there to be a one-turn gap before players are targeted for attack?

Otherwise, very strong but dodgable attack, and a terminal gold, hey why aren't there more of those? Very cool / into it.

Condemned like this prevents 2 Judges played every turn locking everyone else out the game.

ah that makes more sense. that wasn't clear to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 07, 2020, 08:46:18 am

Spineflu, thank you so much for this very thorough and in-dept retro-action. I could never dream of doing an analysis as detailed as yours. So again, thanks for taking the time to comment on our cards one by one.

(Just a little something though: The Judge thematic part of my card was the fact that once he's on the table, unlawful actions would be deterred. Unlawful actions as in Attacks :) ).

Congrats Naitchman, yours was truly a fantastic card! My personal favourite was Snowyowl's. But it goes without saying that all of you guys' entries were very cool and interesting to think about how it would interact with 9 other Kingdoms.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 07, 2020, 01:05:14 pm

Thanks Spineflu. That was fun.

Chllange 61: Create a new simple mechanic

So I've always found it fun when new mechanics are introduced into Dominion, however, I hate having to deal with the setup (looking at you adventures). My favorite are the mechanics that are self contained within the card itself.

For this challenge create a new simple mechanic that can be used on different cards. Also provide some cards that can use this mechanic (at least 3 but no more than 10). I will be judging more on the mechanic than on the cards themselves (unbalanced, not priced right, etc.); they are more a way to showcase what the mechanic could add to the game.

By simple mechanic I mean the mechanic must have no extra setup (beyond the pile itself) - No tokens, Mats, extra piles/cards that have to be pulled from the box (even if they are exclusive to that pile like Hermit, Urchin, Young Witch, travelers, or Artifacts etc.), or cards to replace starting deck (Heirlooms/Shelters). Having a specific order (like split piles) or random order (knights, castles) is okay. Also sideways cards are okay (even though you technically have to pull out one more kingdom pile when you draw it). New types of cards are allowed as long as they don't have extra setup.

Here is a list of current Dominion mechanics that would be ok:
1) Choices on cards (introduced in Intrigue)
2) Duration Cards
3) Reaction Cards
4) On Gain/Buy Effects
5) On Trash Effects
6) Overpaying
7) Events
8 ) Landmarks
9) Night Cards
10) Split Piles

Here is a list of Dominion Mechanics that wouldn't work
1) Potion Cards (Extra Pile of Potions)
2) Colony/Platinum
3) Shelters
4) Looters
5) Spoils
6) Coffers
7) Villagers
8 ) Vanilla Bonus tokens
9) Journey token
10) Travellers (because of the extra piles)
11) Debt
12) VP Tokens
13) Gathering Piles
14) Fate and Doom cards
15) Heirlooms
16) Artifacts
17) Projects (because of the cubes)

I will be judging based on how much depth the mechanic adds to the game, how versatile the mechanic is (can it be used in a variety of ways?), and how fun it is. Good Luck!

P.S. I probably will give an extra day until judging because of my schedule.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 07, 2020, 01:15:36 pm

I assume that Reserve cards would go in the list of "wouldn't work" due to the Tavern mat?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 07, 2020, 01:33:09 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 07, 2020, 01:15:36 pm

I assume that Reserve cards would go in the list of "wouldn't work" due to the Tavern mat?

Yep. Knew that I forgot something.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on February 07, 2020, 02:19:32 pm

How about different cardbacks, like Stash?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on February 07, 2020, 02:21:21 pm

Hopefully this works.
It's a two-sided event card - when you buy the current side, the other side gets available. The two sides are expected to have some synergy when the player buys both in one turn.

(https://i.imgur.com/nAwcvRi.png)	(https://i.imgur.com/uQ8rN8Y.png)
Reformation $3 - Event Trash your hand. Flip this over. (This event starts Reformation side up)	Renaissance $3 - Event Gain a card from Trash. If you did, gain a card costing up to $5. Flip this over.

A few other examples of two-sided events:

Plough ($2, Event) +1 Buy. Look at the top 5 cards of your deck and put them back in any order. You may put your deck into the discard pile. Flips over into Seeds.
Seeds ($3, Event) +1 Buy. Set aside a card from the discard pile. At start of your next turn, put it into your hand. Flips over into Plough.

Passage ($1, Event) +1 Buy. You may discard two Victory cards, if you do, +1 Card at the end of this turn. Flips over into Thrift Market.
Thrift Market ($1, Event) +3 Buys. -1 Buy for each card in hand. Flips over into Passage.

Commodore ($3, Event) Set aside an Action card from play. Play it at the beginning of your next turn. Flips over into Flagship.
Flagship ($5, Event) Gain a card with $ cost exactly equal to the number of differently named cards in play. Flips over into Commodore.

Obviously, existing tokens can be reused:
Seasonal Worker ($2, Event) +1 Villager, if you have 2 or more Villagers, +1 Buy. Flips over into Wanderer
Wanderer ($2, Event) +1 Coffer, if you have 2 or more Coffers, +1 Buy. Flips over into Seasonal Worker

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on February 07, 2020, 02:36:54 pm

My mechanic is a new card type, Follower. When shuffling your deck, Followers are shuffled separately and placed at the bottom of your deck. By definition, this means they will be played less often, unless you can engineer gaining them to your hand or onto your deck. Followers will usually have the entire discard pile to interact with, so you can do things like this:

Alchemist (Action-Follower, $4)

+1 Action
Do this twice: look through your discard pile and put a card from it into your hand; if you can't, +1 Card.

It's similar to Laboratory, but you won't get to play it as often on average, so it costs less.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 07, 2020, 03:03:23 pm

Quote from: Snowyowl on February 07, 2020, 02:19:32 pm

How about different cardbacks, like Stash?

That would work provided it's something you do for more than one card. Remember the goal is to have a mechanic that can be used on more than just one card. So stash itself wouldn't work, but a series of kingdom cards that all have different backs for some reason would work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 07, 2020, 03:13:42 pm

I just want to say that while I won't disqualify an entry that has less than 3 examples, I think it's to your benefit to have more than one to give examples of what the mechanic can do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 07, 2020, 04:50:03 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on February 07, 2020, 02:36:54 pm

My mechanic is a new card type, Follower. When shuffling your deck, Followers are shuffled separately and placed at the bottom of your deck. By definition, this means they will be played less often, unless you can engineer gaining them to your hand or onto your deck. Followers will usually have the entire discard pile to interact with, so you can do things like this:

Alchemist (Action-Follower, $4)

+1 Action
Do this twice: look through your discard pile and put a card from it into your hand; if you can't, +1 Card.

It's similar to Laboratory, but you won't get to play it as often on average, so it costs less.

Followers is already the name of a card, so you might want to rename the type. Alchemist is also already taken.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Sheogorath on February 07, 2020, 05:18:02 pm

Quote from: Snowyowl on February 03, 2020, 03:51:20 pm

Quote

Judge
$3 - Action - Reaction

+1 Action
Look at the top card of your deck. Draw it, or trash it and draw a card.
--
When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand, to put that card onto your deck.

Am I missing something, because this seems like it's strictly better than a Lab? Guaranteed to draw two cards, +1 Action, and the option to trash one of those cards along with a top-decking reaction.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 07, 2020, 05:47:17 pm

Morning Cards
Morning cards are kingdom cards. They can be thought of as temporary projects or artifacts that affect everyone simultaneously.

Morning cards are a Kingdom card; they're playable in your Morning Phase, which happens after the start of your turn but before your Action Phase.
You may play as many Morning cards as you like.

There can only be one Morning card in play at a time.
When a new Morning card is played, any in-play Morning cards are discarded and stop doing things. Morning cards are assumed to have "While this is in play:" at the top of their text.

Morning cards stay in play until a new Morning card is played (or they're trashed with something exotic like Bonfire).

The in-play Morning card affects all players, but still is "in play" only in one player's area - that player may have slightly better effects from it.

(N E W) At the start of a player's cleanup phase, they may reveal a Morning card from their hand, set it aside, and add it to their hand before drawing new cards (so if one is drawn during the Action phase, its playable on the next turn); that player will still have 5 cards in hand after drawing (or more, if they have other bonuses like The River's Gift). This can only be done with one Morning card, so if you draw two or more, you'll have to choose which you do this with.

The player who is referred to as "you"/"your" is the player who played the Morning card. When a Morning card says "Now and at the start of each player's turn", only player who played it gets the "Now" benefit, not each player. The person who played the Morning card still gets the benefits of the "Each player" portion - it's not "each other player".

Each pile of Morning cards has four distinct cards in it; in a 2 player game, use two of each (8 total to the pile); otherwise use three of each (12 total to the pile, like Victory cards). The piles are mixed/shuffled, and all but the top card are kept face-down (like Knights).

Each pile of Morning cards has a group type (similar to how Knights does) - this is just to help you keep them separate from each-others piles.

Design notes:

• Morning cards should be affordable for the opening
• Morning cards should never be an Attack or Attack-like.
• Morning cards with drastic effects should probably be an optional/"you may" card
• Morning cards should always follow the 4 distinct cards per pile schema
• Morning cards should always affect everyone
• The "Extra Custom" color for Morning cards on the shard of honor card generator is 1.35, 1.35, 0.95 / 0.5, 0, 0.05 / 0.7, 0.7, 0.35 / 1.55, 0.8, 0.5.

I've mocked up exactly one card because this is a long post as-is, but here's three Morning card piles - Sunrise, Cityfolk, and Weather
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e3dde2d03e93423ea7aaff1/bf7d3a8560bea9ed56b5ac259b84e596/image.png)

Quote

Quote

Dawn Chorus • $3 • Morning - Sunrise
Now and at the start of each players turn, they get +1 Card
Now and at the start of your turn, +1 Action

Quote

Dew • $3 • Morning - Sunrise
Now and at the start of each players turn, +$1
Now and at the start of your turn, +1 Buy

Quote

Rooster • $3 • Morning - Sunrise
Now and at the start of each players turn, they may discard a card for +1 Card.
Now and at the start of your turn, if the card you discard for this costs $5 or more, +$1

Quote

Sunrise • $3 • Morning - Sunrise
Now and at the start of each players turn, +1 Action
Now and at the start of your turn, +1 Buy

Quote

Quote

Rag and Bone Man • $4 • Morning - Cityfolk
Now and at the start of each players turn, they may trash a card from their hand.
When you trash a card with this, you may gain a card costing up to $1 more than the trashed card.

Quote

Farmhand • $4 • Morning - Cityfolk
Now and at the start of each players turn, they may reveal their hand to gain a card costing up to $1 per differently named card in their hand.
When you do this, gain that card to your hand.

Quote

Vicar • $4 • Morning - Cityfolk
Now and at the start of each players turn, they may trash a card from their hand.
When you trash a Copper with this, +$1

Quote

Wayfarer • $4 • Morning - Cityfolk
Now and at the start of each players turn, they may reveal the top card of their deck; if it's a Victory card, they may discard it.
When you do this, if it's a Copper or Curse, you may put it in your hand.

Quote

Quote

Clear Skies • $3 • Morning - Weather
All players play with their deck face up.
Now and at the start of your turn, you may discard the top card of your deck.

Quote

Fog • $3 • Morning - Weather
Before shuffling, players may discard their deck.
When you shuffle, you may choose a card from your discard pile to put on top of your deck.

Quote

Red Skies • $3 • Morning - Weather
Now and at the start of each players turn, they may trash an Action card from the Supply.
At the start of your turn, you may trash a Copper from your hand.

Quote

Snow • $3 • Morning - Weather
While this is in play, Actions cost $1 more and Treasures cost $1 less.
Now and at the start of your turn, +1 Card, then discard a card.

---

Quote from: Sheogorath on February 07, 2020, 05:18:02 pm

Quote from: Snowyowl on February 03, 2020, 03:51:20 pm

Quote

Judge
$3 - Action - Reaction

+1 Action
Look at the top card of your deck. Draw it, or trash it and draw a card.
--
When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand, to put that card onto your deck.

Am I missing something, because this seems like it's strictly better than a Lab? Guaranteed to draw two cards, +1 Action, and the option to trash one of those cards along with a top-decking reaction.

This doesn't draw two cards - it either draws the card you're looking at, or it trashes that to draw the one under it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 07, 2020, 05:54:05 pm

Quote from: Sheogorath on February 07, 2020, 05:18:02 pm

Quote from: Snowyowl on February 03, 2020, 03:51:20 pm

Quote

Judge
$3 - Action - Reaction

+1 Action
Look at the top card of your deck. Draw it, or trash it and draw a card.
--
When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand, to put that card onto your deck.

Am I missing something, because this seems like it's strictly better than a Lab? Guaranteed to draw two cards, +1 Action, and the option to trash one of those cards along with a top-decking reaction.

You parsed it wrong. The options are draw it; or trash it and draw a card. Not draw it or trash it, then draw a card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on February 07, 2020, 07:22:04 pm

Quote from: mandioca15

Judge • $4 • Action
+$2
-
When you gain or trash this, move the Sanction token to a Supply pile. Cards from that pile cost $2 more (after cost reductions).

I also love the interaction of that card and Remodel. You can buy this for $4 and remodel it to a Province later.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on February 07, 2020, 08:34:19 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 07, 2020, 05:54:05 pm

Quote from: Sheogorath on February 07, 2020, 05:18:02 pm

Quote from: Snowyowl on February 03, 2020, 03:51:20 pm

Quote

Judge
$3 - Action - Reaction

+1 Action
Look at the top card of your deck. Draw it, or trash it and draw a card.
--
When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand, to put that card onto your deck.

Am I missing something, because this seems like it's strictly better than a Lab? Guaranteed to draw two cards, +1 Action, and the option to trash one of those cards along with a top-decking reaction.

You parsed it wrong. The options are draw it; or trash it and draw a card. Not draw it or trash it, then draw a card.

Yes, that's the way it's intended to work. You only ever draw one card from it, but optionally you can also trash and/or topdeck.

I'll pay more attention to the clarity of my wording in this week's contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on February 07, 2020, 09:54:23 pm

Two side Event card is nice, as usual Events affects only the player bought.

Quote

Angel
$3 - Events - Duration
Gain a gold.
Flip this over.
---
When you start your turn, discard down to 3 cards in hand.

Devils
$0 - Events - Duration
+1 Buy
Flip this over.
(This starts face up.)
---
When you start your turn, +1 Card.

You draw or discard even if you don't buy Angels or Devils.

Quote

Ghone
cost $2 - Event - Duration
Gain a card costing up to $5.
Flip this over.
---
When you start your turn, take your -$1 token.

Jukebox
cost $0 - Event - Duration
Flip this over.
(This starts face up.)
---
When you start your turn, +$1.

Quote

Rich
cost $2 - Event - Duration
Trash 2 cards from your hand.
Flip this over.
---
When you start your turn, gain a Copper.

Poor
cost $0 - Event - Duration
Flip this over.
(This starts face up.)
---
When you start your turn, you may trash a card from your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 07, 2020, 10:15:28 pm

Single

There's only one copy of these cards, and they don't count towards the total count of piles (like Events etc.), nor does their absence count as an empty pile, but are otherwise bought and gained like normal cards in the supply.

Example:

Conflict
Action/Single - $3
+2 cards
Starting with the player to your left, each player trashes any number of cards from their hand. The player who trashed the most cards first gains this, and each other player gains a Curse.

Communion
Action/Single - $2
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Coffers
The player to your left gains this.
---
When you buy or trash this, put it on top of your deck.

Stock Market
Action/Duration/Single - $4
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
+$2
+2 Buys
At the start of your next turn, if this is still in play, gain a Curse
---
While this card is in play, any player may buy it

Doorman
Action/Single - $2
+2 Cards
Put this on top of a supply pile
---
When you buy this, +1 buy

Subprovince
Action/Victory/Single - $7
Worth 5VP
-
Return this to the supply to gain a Province

King of the Hill
Action/Duration/Single - $5
Now and at the start of every turn it remains in play, you may reveal a non-Command non-Duration Action you don't have a copy of in play to play it twice (leave it in play). If you don't, return this to the supply and discard the Actions played by this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on February 07, 2020, 10:50:05 pm

Thanks for the feedback on my last card. A new job meant I didn't have the headspace to improve it. But here's an early go at the next challenge (which is a cool challenge indeed.)

(https://i.imgur.com/Y5dBfvd.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on February 07, 2020, 11:07:11 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/NJ5k7ko.png) (https://i.imgur.com/gIQux4q.png) (https://i.imgur.com/mEgZSxi.png) (https://i.imgur.com/TGXhUVj.png) (https://i.imgur.com/QQ0KVru.png)

Here's my simple mechanic submission: Armor.  Armor is a new card type for cards which can be played normally OR can be "equipped" to specific cards to modify or add an effect to them for the remainder of the turn.  To activate an Armor card's equipping effect, it must be played immediately along with the card it's equipping (it can be played sideways underneath the equipped card to remind players they're using the equipping effect instead of its on-play effect). You may equip an eligible card with multiple Armor cards (resolving them in the order you choose) and you may equip an Armor card with another Armor card.  Most Armor cards have fairly powerful equipping abilities, though they must be lined up with their respective targets to work.  Their on-plays tend to be slightly weaker (as a consolation prize for not using the equip ability), and I also tried to make each card's two abilities interact with one another as well.

My example cards try to showcase some of the unique equipping triggers and abilities possible with Armor cards:

Greaves: A one-turn Lost Arts on the card it equips or a cantrip (that turns into a Village if you equip one with another).
Gauntlets: terminal silver on play, but adds a nice draw-to-X effect to Actions it equips.
Helm: A Copper that gains Golds, which you can later equip to trash and gain $5 cost cards.
Halberd: A Smithy with a mild discard attack. You can also equip to another Attack to add a Copper-junking ability.
Cuirass: Market Square on play, and a Ferry variant on the card it equips.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 08, 2020, 03:09:16 am

How is this mechanically different from “you may play an Action card for...“?

Only in the case of Cuirass does it to make a difference, but here Armor just eases tracking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on February 08, 2020, 07:56:23 am

Quote from: 4est on February 07, 2020, 11:07:11 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/8asNzOC.png) (https://i.imgur.com/dJqxdKr.png) (https://i.imgur.com/tx1KL1E.png) (https://i.imgur.com/fAw5lpc.png) (https://i.imgur.com/QQ0KVru.png)

Here's my simple mechanic submission: Armor.  Armor is a new card type for cards which can be played normally OR can be "equipped" to specific cards for an alternative effect.  To activate an Armor card's equipping effect, it must be played immediately along with the card it's equipping (it can be played sideways underneath the equipped card to remind players they're using the equipping effect instead of its on-play effect). You may equip an eligible card with multiple Armor cards (resolving them in the order you choose) and you may equip an Armor card with another Armor card.  Most Armor cards have fairly powerful equipping abilities, though they must be lined up with their respective targets to work.  Their on-plays tend to be slightly weaker (as a consolation prize for not using the equip ability), and I also tried to make each card's two abilities interact with one another as well.

My example cards try to showcase some of the unique equipping triggers and abilities possible with Armor cards:

Greaves: A very simple village, it's a Crossroads (without the draw) if it equips and a cantrip if it doesn't.
Gauntlets: Secret Chamber on play, but with some nice draw-to-X if played with another Action. Can get cute with some village support.
Helm: A Copper that gains Golds, which you can later equip to gain free $5 cost cards.
Axe: A trasher that Curses, while giving your opponent the chance to trash too.  Once you don't need the trashing or attack anymore, it can supercharge another Attack with some decent payload.
Cuirass: Market Square on play, and a Ferry variant on the card it equips.

Wow.

/Contest.  This is brilliant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 08, 2020, 08:57:11 am

i'm with segura here, you might want to focus equipping things to modifying the pile its equipped to (like Cuirass does), because otherwise its not noticably different than Throne Room / Conclave / Imp's "You may play an Action card"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 08, 2020, 10:47:34 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 07, 2020, 10:15:28 pm

Single

There's only one copy of these cards, and they don't count towards the toal count of piles (like Events etc.), but are otherwise bought and gained like normal cards in the supply.

Example:

Conflict
Action/Single - $3
+2 cards
Starting with the player to your left, each player trashes any number of cards from their hand. The player who trashed the most cards gains this, and each other player gains a Curse.

Communion
Action/Single - $2
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Coffers
The player to your left gains this.
-
When you buy or trash this, put it on top of your deck.

I like this, kind of an inverse hot potatoe card.
If I understand how these cards are supposed to work correctly, the wording should be "Put this into the discard pile of the player to your left."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 08, 2020, 11:00:21 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 07, 2020, 10:15:28 pm

Single

There's only one copy of these cards, and they don't count towards the toal count of piles (like Events etc.), but are otherwise bought and gained like normal cards in the supply.

Example:

Conflict
Action/Single - $3
+2 cards
Starting with the player to your left, each player trashes any number of cards from their hand. The player who trashed the most cards gains this, and each other player gains a Curse.

Communion
Action/Single - $2
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Coffers
The player to your left gains this.
-
When you buy or trash this, put it on top of your deck.

Awesome! I love this too. Communion is funny, as in it never stops rotating around the table, moving around players' decks (this is especially true since it can't be trashed). I think Conflict needs a way to break ties. For instance, if nobody trashes anything, then everyone is tied for 0 trashed cards. Who gains Conflict then? And who gains the Curses? Other than that, very novel idea! I would like to see more cards exploiting this idea. :)

I'll post my entry today... hopefully it is tweaked enough 'til then! I have this very... intricate idea. I fear it drifts away too much from simplicity though. And y'know what they say, the further you venture from a simple concept, the higher chance there is that errr... you screw up. Anyway. We'll see!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on February 08, 2020, 11:16:44 am

I've decided to withdraw my previous entry, since it is a bit unwieldy and probably needs to have several cards of that type in the Kingdom for it to be interesting.

My simple mechanic is Reload. When a card says "+1 Reload", it means "shuffle your discard pile and put it onto your deck". If your discard pile is empty, nothing happens.

This allows for some potential topdecking mechanics, but it won't always hit. Here are some cards that demonstrate this:

Foundry (Action, $3)

Gain a card costing up to $4.
+1 Reload
+1 Card

Smelter (Treasure, $5)

+$2
Discard all Treasures in play.
+1 Reload

Spectre (Night, $3)

You may move a card you played this turn into your discard pile. If you did, +1 Reload.

Of course, if your discard pile is empty, you'll get the cards you discarded next turn. If not, then there's a chance you'll miss.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on February 08, 2020, 11:50:23 am

(https://i.imgur.com/YFu9gVH.png?2) (https://i.imgur.com/GwKoDz4.png?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/bym8y0S.png?1) (https://i.imgur.com/WQJ2E7Y.png?1) (https://i.imgur.com/QbSQoLw.png?1)
Workers are piles of cards with 5 cards in them each, and are another type of card-shaped thing, along with events, projects, and landmarks, and are randomized with them. When you buy a copy of a Worker, it goes in front of you. At any point during your action phase, you can tap, or turn sideways, a worker to receive the effect on the card. You can only tap a worker once per turn, even if it is untapped. During the Cleanup phase, you return all tapped Workers to their pile. Scribe should say "When you buy this," by the time I noticed, it was too late to change.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 08, 2020, 12:01:35 pm

Quote from: segura on February 08, 2020, 03:09:16 am

How is this mechanically different from “you may play an Action card for...“?

Only in the case of Cuirass does it to make a difference, but here Armor just eases tracking.

It seems like the only difference is that you can equip multiple Armours onto one card, I'm not really convinced that's worth a whole new mechanic to be honest. Although I like the general idea here.

Also the Equip ability on Greaves being contingent on having another Action seems pointless because you'd only ever want the +3 Actions when you have another Action to play after. So really Greaves could just be a simple choose one card and be practically identical, aside from a couple of edge cases.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on February 08, 2020, 02:34:07 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on February 08, 2020, 12:01:35 pm

Quote from: segura on February 08, 2020, 03:09:16 am

How is this mechanically different from “you may play an Action card for...“?

Only in the case of Cuirass does it to make a difference, but here Armor just eases tracking.

It seems like the only difference is that you can equip multiple Armours onto one card, I'm not really convinced that's worth a whole new mechanic to be honest. Although I like the general idea here.

Also the Equip ability on Greaves being contingent on having another Action seems pointless because you'd only ever want the +3 Actions when you have another Action to play after. So really Greaves could just be a simple choose one card and be practically identical, aside from a couple of edge cases.

Thanks all for the feedback, the Armor mechanic definitely needs to be more fleshed out than it is here.  I'll spend some time rethinking and post a revised submission soon.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on February 08, 2020, 03:49:44 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oXuWE1M.png) (https://i.imgur.com/dhEVMNt.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/LsTC6ge.png) (https://i.imgur.com/rRP5pmr.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/eOihAhS.png)

Rules are horizontal cards that give an effect that holds from the start of the game. They can be seen as Projects that are bought prior to the start of the game. Or as a Landmarks that do more than just altering the VP count. It is not recommended to play with more then two horizontal cards - be it Events, Landmarks, Projects and Rules.

About the five rules:
* Golden era: Basically a Delve for Golds. However, it does nerf Golds as TfB fodder quite hard.
* Modern Times: Wanna play Dominion with 6-card hands? Here is your chance! The starting deck is bigger to ensure the first shuffle still happens after T2.
* Accelerate: This card rewards the ability to play multiple cards a turn.
* Fair Start: This card forbids 5/2 openings, and also prevents unlucky 3-Estate draws later on. Plays rather awkward with Heirlooms/Shelters though.
* Heritage: When you own Renaissance, this card provides multiple rules for the price of one! I'm pretty sure the games where the set aside card is Cathedral are going to be very fun.

EDIT: Fixed the description of Modern Times, and slightly modified the descriptions of the cards themselves.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 08, 2020, 04:05:05 pm

My entry for this week is a new Treasure subtype: Jewelry:

Normally your buy phase consists of of two sub phases: First, play your treasure cards (spend coffer, pay off debt); second, buy card(s) (or event(s), or project(s))

Treasure-Jewelry cards are are cards you can play any time during your buy phase. Frequently, they will care about what or how many cards you have bought.

Examples:

(https://i.imgur.com/Bm1uZIj.png)(https://i.imgur.com/SWIjrKk.png)(https://i.imgur.com/bPlY8tS.png)(https://i.imgur.com/kB1lKPr.png)(https://i.imgur.com/TrGo7VM.png)


Notes on mechanic:
• Jewelry cards should generally have +1 Buy.
• They should generally be better if you play them after at least one buy.
• Originally, I considered Jewelry as its own type and Jewelry cards had to wait until a card was bought to be played. But they seemed more interesting as regular treasure cards that just don't get the extra benefit (or in the case of Necklace are handicapped) if you play them as regular treasures before before buying.

Notes on specific cards:
•Ring - uses mechanic to encourage spending more buys
•Bracelet - uses mechanic to care about other cards you bought
•Necklace - uses mechanic to limit buy power of the card
•Earrings - uses mechanic to limit buy power of the card
•Jewelry Box - uses mechanic to encourage spending more buys and to interact with other cards that draw after you buy

Feedback on both the mechanic and example cards very welcome!

---

Older versions:

(https://i.imgur.com/hW9nIkv.png)(https://i.imgur.com/rXwRePs.png)(https://i.imgur.com/llPKamK.png)(https://i.imgur.com/ePNEFeG.png)(https://i.imgur.com/HxwXH9s.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on February 08, 2020, 04:24:56 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on February 08, 2020, 04:05:05 pm

My entry for this week is a new Treasure subtype: Jewelry:

Normally your buy phase consists of of two sub phases: First, play your treasure cards (spend coffer, pay off debt); second, buy card(s) (or event(s), or project(s))

Treasure-Jewelry cards are are cards you can play any time during your buy phase. Frequently, they will care about cards you bought (and are better if you play them after at least one buy).

Examples:

(https://i.imgur.com/hW9nIkv.png)(https://i.imgur.com/rXwRePs.png)(https://i.imgur.com/ePNEFeG.png)




Notes on mechanic:
• Originally, I considered Jewelry as its own type and Jewelry cards had to wait until a card was bought to be played. But they seemed more interesting as regular treasure cards that just don't get the extra benefit (or in the case of Necklace are handicapped) if you play them as regular treasures before before buying.
• Most Jewelry cards will have +1 Buy.
• I may change the color, for now I went with just changing the background to the treasure color so they're overall similar to Treasure cards, but with a noticeable difference
• Any suggestions on name / theme? I'm not in love with "Jewelry" but it's the best I could think of.

Notes on specific cards:
• Ring: A copper, unless you wait, can then get you coffers
• Bracelet: you can get 2 provinces for $15 instead of $16 (or less with multiple bracelets).
• Necklace: really benefits from waiting until after your first buy, though is buffed with events, projects, cards that cost only debt, etc. (is there a better way to phrase? The "or $0" clause seems inelegant, but necessary.
• I'm working on at least one more than will let you play treasures (useful when the kingdom allows you to draw cards after you buy, e.g. with Innovation
 

Feedback on both the mechanic and example cards very welcome!

The mechanic looks fine, though fairly easy to forget. Two of your examples are fairly broken:
* Bracelet absolutely should cost $5. It compares extremely well to Bridge (nonterminal and produces $2), and Enhanced Silvers are never priced at $4.
* Necklace is completely unusable without external sources of +Buy. I'd therefore recommend to somehow involve a +Buy token, or make it part of a split pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 08, 2020, 04:42:27 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on February 08, 2020, 04:05:05 pm

My entry for this week is a new Treasure subtype: Jewelry:

Normally your buy phase consists of of two sub phases: First, play your treasure cards (spend coffer, pay off debt); second, buy card(s) (or event(s), or project(s))

Treasure-Jewelry cards are are cards you can play any time during your buy phase. Frequently, they will care about cards you bought (and are better if you play them after at least one buy).

Examples:

(https://i.imgur.com/hW9nIkv.png)(https://i.imgur.com/rXwRePs.png)(https://i.imgur.com/ePNEFeG.png)




Notes on mechanic:
• Originally, I considered Jewelry as its own type and Jewelry cards had to wait until a card was bought to be played. But they seemed more interesting as regular treasure cards that just don't get the extra benefit (or in the case of Necklace are handicapped) if you play them as regular treasures before before buying.
• Most Jewelry cards will have +1 Buy.
• I may change the color, for now I went with just changing the background to the treasure color so they're overall similar to Treasure cards, but with a noticeable difference
• Any suggestions on name / theme? I'm not in love with "Jewelry" but it's the best I could think of.

Notes on specific cards:
• Ring: A copper, unless you wait, can then get you coffers
• Bracelet: you can get 2 provinces for $15 instead of $16 (or less with multiple bracelets).
• Necklace: really benefits from waiting until after your first buy, though is buffed with events, projects, cards that cost only debt, etc. (is there a better way to phrase? The "or $0" clause seems inelegant, but necessary.
• I'm working on at least one more than will let you play treasures (useful when the kingdom allows you to draw cards after you buy, e.g. with Innovation
 

Feedback on both the mechanic and example cards very welcome!

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on February 08, 2020, 04:24:56 pm

The mechanic looks fine, though fairly easy to forget.

Do you mean generally, or with the physical cards?
For the former, I'd hope that the text of the cards care about cards you've bought would help remind you of the new rule.

 For the latter, I used the different background to try and differentiate from regular Treasures. Compare with Scepter, for example:

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/dd/Scepter.jpg/200px-Scepter.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/hW9nIkv.png)

If that's not enough, I can play with the colors and change more drastically.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on February 08, 2020, 04:24:56 pm

Two of your examples are fairly broken:
* Bracelet absolutely should cost $5. It compares extremely well to Bridge (nonterminal and produces $2), and Enhanced Silvers are never priced at $4.

Pricing is often my biggest challenge, so you're likely right. Do note, though, it only lowers after you've bought something else, so some of your coin will already be spent (unless you buy a Copper, but then you've bought a Copper and the discount is limited to only Treasures).

So working through some two province example:
1 Bridge vs 1 Bracelet: Bridge reduces each province by 1 and gives $1, so you need $13. Bracelet reduces only the 2nd province by $1, but provides an extra $1, so similarly also need $13. Tie.

2 Bridges vs 2 Bracelets: Bridge reduces each province by 2 and gives $2, so you need $10. Bracelet reduces only the 2nd province by $2, but provides an extra $2, so similarly also need $10. Difference is non terminal, so bridge needs help to play. Advantage: Bracelet

3 Bridges vs 3 Bracelets: Bridge reduces each province by 3 and gives $3, so you need $7. Bracelet reduces only the 2nd province by $3, but provides an extra $3. However this time, you need $8 for the first (and end with $1 left over). Still non terminal, so Necklace still probably has the advantage, but is dependent on other factors. (in a kingdom with villagers, maybe the advantage goes to Bridge)

So I think maybe it's not so broken, but still likely makes sense as a $5. (the enhanced silver argument is a good one).

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on February 08, 2020, 04:24:56 pm

* Necklace is completely unusable without external sources of +Buy. I'd therefore recommend to somehow involve a +Buy token, or make it part of a split pile.

I don't understand how Necklace is unusable without other buys.

Hand of Gold, Gold, Necklace: you first play 2 golds, buy another gold, then place necklace and buy a silver. (but you can't buy a province since if you play necklace before you buy, you're limited to cards that cost 0).

Necklace was one of the more challenging to come up with, but I hoped a creative use of the mechanic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 08, 2020, 04:48:33 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on February 08, 2020, 03:49:44 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oXuWE1M.png) (https://i.imgur.com/inlJxMg.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/LsTC6ge.png) (https://i.imgur.com/rRP5pmr.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/eOihAhS.png)

Rules are horizontal cards that give an effect that holds from the start of the game. They can be seen as Projects that are bought prior to the start of the game. Or as a Landmarks that do more than just altering the VP count. It is not recommended to play with more then two horizontal cards - be it Events, Landmarks, Projects and Rules.

About the five rules:
* Golden era: Basically a Delve for Golds. However, it does nerf Golds as TfB fodder quite hard.
* Modern Times: Wanna play Dominion with 6-card hands? Here is your chance! Maybe I will implore to add two extra cards to the starting deck.
* Accelerate: This card rewards the ability to play multiple cards a turn.
* Fair Start: This card forbids 5/2 openings, but instead enables premature shuffles.
* Heritage: When you own Renaissance, this card provides multiple rules for the price of one! I'm pretty sure the games where the set aside card is Cathedral are going to be very fun.

Rules are nice - much better than overloading Landmarks. Fair Start would be problematic in a game with Shelters. Also heirlooms: I draw 5 coppers and have to "start over", while you draw 4 coppers and an heirloom and get the (probable) advantage.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 08, 2020, 05:10:51 pm

I present you the Strength mechanic. Strength is essentially some kind of resource that does not accumulate over time, but rather that you have at a given moment in your play area and/or your hand. Just like (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png), really. Cards that involve this mechanic are wine colored and come with the “Strength” label on the bottom of them. This is how you recognise such cards. If Strength cards are used in a game, I recommend using 2 Kingdoms being Strength typed, just like Donald recommend at least 2 Potion Kingdoms if they are used. However, a lone Strength Kingdom in a game will work just fine. Likewise, more than 2 Strength cards in a game can also work. If you like to get mot chaotic, then get crazy!  ;D

Now, how does it work? Strength cards all provide Strength, denoted with this icon: (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png). Each (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) given to you appears on the bottom of the Strength cards, under an horizontal line.

How do you utilize these given (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)? What do they do for you? Well. Each Strength typed card come with a “If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)” clause. If, when you compare your number of (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) with the number of (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) each other player has individually, you have the most (and NOT tied for the most), then you must perform that clause. Otherwise, you do not gain the bonuses granted by that condition. Sometimes, you’ll have an “Otherwise” part afterwards. If you did not have the most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png), then you must perform everything stated after that clause. It probably won't be good for you.

So how do you compare your number of (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) against other players’? First, this comparison happens IMMEDIATELY when you play a Strength card. Do whatever the card says and then, when you reach the “If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) ” part, you do the comparison. Each Strength card in play from THE ACTIVE PLAYER have their (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) added up. This is the ACTIVE PLAYER’S (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) TOTAL. Then, each OTHER PLAYER, starting from the left of the active player and going clockwise, may or may not reveal Strength cards from their hand. This number is not limited, players may reveal any number of Strength cards from their hand. These other players then add up all of their own revealed (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png), and this is their own (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total.The moment another player beats your (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total, the comparison stops and you fail the “If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)” clause of your card. You must perform the “Otherwise” part, if there is any. Your (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total must be compared again each time you play a Strength card, even in the same turn.

What I expect out of this mechanic:

• Intense battles for Strength cards. Usually, they are underpriced compared to what they can do if fully powered. You do not want to let your adversaries run wild with these, especially since some of them are also nasty Attacks. This might make you reconsider certain Buys you would have otherwise taken and make mundane Province rush games a little trickier to balance. Winning a split of Strength cards should be at your advantage, since you are expected to have more (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) in your deck, allowing you to trigger the most of these cards and circumventing your opponents to use theirs. The good part about it is that it’s not all lost though. There’s still some luck in your draws involved, although getting more Strength cards improve your odds.
• The idea behind Strength cards was also to up the player *direct* interactions outside of stuff like Attack cards. I got partially inspired by Through the Ages: A New Story of Civilization (which I must’ve played 500 or more games of).
• Another important point to consider here is that the first player advantage part of getting Strength cards first is mitigated. Because your opponent(s) might've drawn their Strength card(s) on their first shuffle, negating your own Strength card.

Here are 12 Kingdom cards utilising this mechanic. I know this is more than what this challenge limited us to, but this was to demonstrate how multiple concepts would intertwine with Strength cards. These are sorted by complexity, with the simpler cards being presented first.

---

(https://i.postimg.cc/s1Qx23Tg/Pikemen-V1-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/s1Qx23Tg)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Pikemen (Action – Strength) +1 Action +1 Card If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): +1 Card 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)

This is the simplest, most straight-forward Strength card out of the set. A (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Laboratory, if you have the most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png), what’s not to love? Well, your opponent trying to deny you of this a-little-too-easy-path-to-victory-thank-you, for one. Then it’s a useless cantrip. Again, for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png). Suddenly, it’s not really worth it anymore, isn’t it?

(https://i.postimg.cc/8fQfppnF/02-Flamethrowers-V1-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/8fQfppnF)

(https://i.postimg.cc/Snc297Zx/02-Flamethrowers-V2-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/Snc297Zx)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Flamethrowers (Action – Attack – Strength) If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): +2 Cards. You may trash up to 5 cards from your hand. Each other player with 5 or more cards reveal their hand and you may discard 1 of their cards costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) or less. 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)

Flamethrowers was bonkers before! 3 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) on a single card is just too much. It should never get that overpowered. Especially if you’re the first one to afford one. This is how you nullify your competition, pretty much. So now it is worth 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png). Secondly, you can now trash up to 5, not 6. Small change, but eh. Finally, it doesn’t trash a card of your choice from your opponents’ hands costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) anymore, it discards it. Still mean, but it’s not a deck killer at least.

(https://i.postimg.cc/m1HgpSPH/Experimental-Magic-EN-V1.png) (https://postimg.cc/m1HgpSPH)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Experimental Magic (Action – Attack – Strength) You may trash a card from your hand. If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): Each other player gains a Curse onto their deck. Otherwise: Gain a Curse. 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)

I wasn’t lying when I said “there’ll be more”, when it comes to Attacks. This one’s a Curser. This was the last card I added to this set, out of curiosity to see how a Strength card would interact with Curses. So here it is. This is our first “Otherwise” card, meaning your plans can fail miserably. Thus, this might be a self-Curser if used incorrectly. But but but, it can trash. So if you failed your little magical experiment, then you’ll always have the possibility of trashing the Curse it induced. It is terminal, has a Sea Hag mechanic and so I priced it at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png).

(https://i.postimg.cc/Wd6hPSXm/Open-Borders-EN-V1.png) (https://postimg.cc/Wd6hPSXm)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Open Borders (Action – Attack – Strength) + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): Each other player with 4 cards or more in hand discards a card. You may gain a card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than a discarded card. Otherwise: Discard 2 cards. 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)

Did I say I got inspired by Through the Ages : A New Story of Civilization? I hope this is proof enough, here. Thematically, we have something funny here. You try to take advantage of an open border agreement with neighboring civilizations, planning a foray into their land, taking what you can. However, this can backfire if they planned to make the most of that agreement themselves beforehand. So, either you Militia yourself, or you make them discard to potentially gain something. End games are going to be funny with this one. A careless Attacked player might think they’re smart by discarding a Province to Open Borders. “It was useless in my hand anyway”, they might say. Until they realize that they just allowed you to gain a Province yourself. Oops.

(https://i.postimg.cc/vcvt07fj/05-Trenches-V1-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/vcvt07fj)

(https://i.postimg.cc/QVVFmr6P/05-Trenches-V2-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/QVVFmr6P)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Trenches (Action – Reaction – Strength) Discard 1 card and +2 Cards. When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this once, after the Attack. If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): +2 Cards. 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)

Trenches simply doesn’t make you discard anymore when you use it as a Reaction. Why would you want to actively hurt yourself when Reacting is supposed to help you? Isn’t the Attack you’re Reacting to enough?

(https://i.postimg.cc/2q0y1ypV/Pickpocket-V1-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/2q0y1ypV)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Pickpocket (Action – Attack – Strength) + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) Each other player discards down to 4 cards. If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) and each other player discards down to 3 cards. Reveal your hand. Worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) if you have 1 or fewer Treasure card in your hand.

I said there was more upcoming Attack cards, but it won’t be all that, I swear! Anyway, we are now entering “varying amount of (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)” territory. Pickpocket works well in a deck with barely any Treasures. In contrast, it bodes well against Big Money goers. Big Money guys probably won’t be able to get their (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) going from Pickpocket, but a thinned Engine deck will. So you’re probably going to come out on top when comparing (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) if that’s what you’re going for. Now, as it is, this card is a weaker Militia for its price. Unless you trigger Pickpocket’s full effects. Then it’s a super Militia ! Worth mentioning that the “reveal your hand” part is unconditional. You must do it when you play the Pickpocket.

(https://i.postimg.cc/2qS8NYqm/Strategic-Village-EN-V1.png) (https://postimg.cc/2qS8NYqm)

(https://i.postimg.cc/YhZYYSMb/07-Strategic-Village-V2-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/YhZYYSMb)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Strategic Village (Action – Strength) +1 Card If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): +2 Actions, +1 Buy and + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) Worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) if this is in play. Otherwise, worth 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)

It is now a riskier Village. I changed this because chaining these was too easy. Besides, it’s more thematically coherent now. This village represents a bastion of safety. Thus, using it as a sort of “defense” against someone who’s doing a display of strength should be what Strategic Village tries to accomplish. And now it does. It is weaker in play than it is in hand. Other players can block your little engine with less trouble with this new version.

(https://i.postimg.cc/DSK8DRdy/Gunpowder-Barrel-V1-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/DSK8DRdy)

(https://i.postimg.cc/zL5LFbMS/08-Gunpowder-Barrel-V2-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/zL5LFbMS)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) Gunpowder Barrel (Action – Reserve – Strength) +1 Action Put this on your Tavern mat. At the start of your turn, you may call this. If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) Worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) per Gunpowder Barrel on your Tavern mat.

This, a cantrip? No. Suffered the “it was too easy to get there” syndrome, again. So now it just does “+1 Action” before being put on your Tavern Mat.

(https://i.postimg.cc/WDyJy6Gw/09-Palisade-Archers-V1-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/WDyJy6Gw)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) Palisade/Archers (Action – Strength) This pile starts the game with 5 copies of Palisade on top, then 5 copies of Archers. Only the top card of the pile can be gained or bought.

(https://i.postimg.cc/xkfqjH4w/Palisade-V1-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/xkfqjH4w)		(https://i.postimg.cc/vcJxDStK/09-Palisade-V2-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/vcJxDStK)		(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) Palisade (Action – Strength) +1 Card +1 Action When you buy this, you may trash a card from your hand. Worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) if you have another Palisade in play. Otherwise, worth 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png).
(https://i.postimg.cc/qhCCHhQV/09-Archers-V1-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/qhCCHhQV)		(https://i.postimg.cc/8Jzjq8T7/09-Archers-V2-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/8Jzjq8T7)		(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) Archers (Action – Attack – Duration – Strength) Choose: +1 Card; or + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) You may discard any number of Palisades, each for + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png). If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): Each other player has – (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) until the start of your next turn.

And then, we have Archers, again. I mentioned in my original post that I was the most unsure about this card. I still am. But this looks... better, now? Discarding Palisades will give you your money, but will drive you further away from the Attack part. And you have the choice of +1 Card or + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png). Choices, man. Hey, speaking of Palisades. Now, it goes like this: You play a Palisade. Congrats, you have 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png). Now you play another one. Your (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total is still 2. Because they are now worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) each. Other people’s Palisades are still packing their full 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) punch. And this is what Palisades should do: Be used more as a defense than as an attack. This new scaling is pretty neat, I think.

(https://i.postimg.cc/bZ8wLkpZ/Plunderer-EN-V1.png) (https://postimg.cc/bZ8wLkpZ)

(https://i.postimg.cc/jw3LT8jZ/10-Plunderer-V2-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/jw3LT8jZ)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Plunderer (Action – Strength) +1 Card +1 Action If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): Choose up to 2: + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png); or trash 1 card from your hand; or gain a card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png). Worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) if there is another Plunderer in play, or worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) if the turn isn’t yours.

He had a hard time, so now, if this is catharsis enough, he can pick up to 2 things in the list of things he can do. Trivially superior to what it was before, in my opinion.

(https://i.postimg.cc/rKYfLm6V/11-Roads-V1-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/rKYfLm6V)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Roads (Action – Strength) +2 Cards If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): +2 Cards Otherwise: Discard 2 cards. Worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) if this is in play, or worth 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) if you reveal another Roads from your hand and the turn isn't yours.

This one’s so niche. A cheaper Smithy that can be weaker or better. When I mean weaker, I mean way weaker! Not even worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) kinda weak. And when I mean better, I mean way better! +4 cards at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) is the deal of the century. This is the only card where, in a vacuum, you’ll have an easier time getting the most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) playing it rather than revealing it. It should be the opposite in retrospective. I dunno. Help me. ;D

(https://i.postimg.cc/jCc8ZcZJ/12-Recession-Roads-V1-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/jCc8ZcZJ)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) Recession (Treasure – Strength) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) Otherwise: – (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) Worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) if 3 other Treasures are in play, or worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) if you reveal 2 other Treasures from your hand.

Last but not the least! A Strength/Treasure hybrid! This card simulates a situation where your civilization’s strength and might can make you easily overcome a period of economic toughness, or where your civilization didn’t get strong enough to prepare for the harsh Recession at hand. So this is either a Copper or a Gold, depending of your Strength. You have 2 ways to go about this one and this can create quite the dilemma. Big Money enabler here, in my opinion.

---

EDIT: Edited this post. Removed a lot of useless paragraphs of text. Added a rule change as to how your Strength is compared to other players’ Strength. Added the modification to certain cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on February 08, 2020, 08:40:19 pm

Mine is simpleish but is kinda similar to other ideas seen here.
Introducing Equipment cards. These are cards that have an on play effect and can cycle round your deck as usual. However, once you play them, you have the option to Carry them, putting them in front of you in a fashion similar to Duration cards. While carried, these cards have a small lingering effect, like Hireling or Champion, that happens at regular intervals. At any time during your turn, you can stop carrying them and put them in your discard pile to be shuffled back into your deck. Basically, they are like Durations that can be kept out for as long as you want until you want them back. Of course, you can keep them out permanently...

Villager's Backpack
$4
Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: At the start of each of your turns, +1 Action.

Blacksmith's Hammer
$7
Action
+2 Cards
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: At the start of each of your turns, +1 Card.

Woodcutter's Axe
$5
Action
+1 Buy
+$2
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: At the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy, +$1

The King's Letter
$5
Treasure
$2
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: When you gain a card, you may put it onto your deck.

Drunkard's Bottle
$4
Action
+1 Action
+$3
Carry this.
-------
While carried: You may not discard this until you buy a Copper in one of your turns.

Hopefully this makes sense.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 08, 2020, 09:26:14 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on February 08, 2020, 08:40:19 pm

Villager's Backpack
$4
Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: At the start of each of your turns, +1 Action.

Carrying this is effectively the same as playing a Village every turn, which makes it a cheap Barracks and strictly better than Walled Village. In addition to being way too strong for _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, there's no real reason not to just permanently Carry it except for a few edge cases.

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on February 08, 2020, 08:40:19 pm

Blacksmith's Hammer
$7
Action
+2 Cards
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: At the start of each of your turns, +1 Card.

+2 Cards from an Action is net +1 handsize. +1 Card at the start of your turn is also net +1 handsize, but doesn't take an Action. So, just like Villager's Backpack, there's no reason not to Carry this forever except for a few edge cases. It might as well just be a Hireling that also gives +2 Cards on play.

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on February 08, 2020, 08:40:19 pm

Woodcutter's Axe
$5
Action
+1 Buy
+$2
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: At the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy, +$1

Carrying this is effectively the same as playing a Market every turn, for the same price as a single Market, which is way too strong, even though it's technically not strictly better than a Market.

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on February 08, 2020, 08:40:19 pm

The King's Letter
$5
Treasure
$2
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: When you gain a card, you may put it onto your deck.

You can just discard this during the Clean-up phase of the same turn, to mimic the effect of Royal Seal. Which makes this strictly better than Royal Seal at the same price.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on February 09, 2020, 07:41:16 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on February 08, 2020, 08:40:19 pm

Mine is simpleish but is kinda similar to other ideas seen here.
Introducing Equipment cards. These are cards that have an on play effect and can cycle round your deck as usual. However, once you play them, you have the option to Carry them, putting them in front of you in a fashion similar to Duration cards. While carried, these cards have a small lingering effect, like Hireling or Champion, that happens at regular intervals. At any time during your turn, you can stop carrying them and put them in your discard pile to be shuffled back into your deck. Basically, they are like Durations that can be kept out for as long as you want until you want them back. Of course, you can keep them out permanently...

Villager's Backpack
$4
Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: At the start of each of your turns, +1 Action.

Blacksmith's Hammer
$7
Action
+2 Cards
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: At the start of each of your turns, +1 Card.

Woodcutter's Axe
$5
Action
+1 Buy
+$2
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: At the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy, +$1

The King's Letter
$5
Treasure
$2
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: When you gain a card, you may put it onto your deck.

Drunkard's Bottle
$4
Action
+1 Action
+$3
Carry this.
-------
While carried: You may not discard this until you buy a Copper in one of your turns.

Hopefully this makes sense.

This mechanic seems like it's being misused. None of the cards have any reason for you to not just permanently carry them, other than Villager's Backpack, and that's because it has a penalty. There should be at least some Equipment cards with a reason to carry and a reason to not carry. Also, is Equipment a card type? It isn't on the cards and probably should be.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on February 09, 2020, 08:13:38 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on February 08, 2020, 08:40:19 pm

Mine is simpleish but is kinda similar to other ideas seen here.
Introducing Equipment cards. These are cards that have an on play effect and can cycle round your deck as usual. However, once you play them, you have the option to Carry them, putting them in front of you in a fashion similar to Duration cards. While carried, these cards have a small lingering effect, like Hireling or Champion, that happens at regular intervals. At any time during your turn, you can stop carrying them and put them in your discard pile to be shuffled back into your deck. Basically, they are like Durations that can be kept out for as long as you want until you want them back. Of course, you can keep them out permanently...

Villager's Backpack
$4
Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: At the start of each of your turns, +1 Action.

.....

I wonder about the consequences of giving carrying the following negative effect; all cards cost you one more to buy for each card you are carrying. This seems like a reasonable trade off for Villagers Backpack at least. It would allow you to reduce the cost of Blacksmiths Hammer and Drunkards bottle by two. Kings Letter and Woodcutters Axe may become nonviable though. It also creates an effect where you don't want to carry too much which makes sense.
Just a thought.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on February 09, 2020, 08:53:35 am

I did a spot of GIMPing for my entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/hRimih4.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/0ZCmJ5g.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/lFeHnnq.jpg)

The card cost, spending the cards you have in your hand to buy things. Hopefully it's self-explanatory so as to pass the simple test! Just in case it isn't...

The card symbol signifies that you need to have certain cards in your hand to afford the bought thing, and the instructions will signify what exactly. You'd only ever have 1 card symbol in the cost, even if you make several hand setups possible. It joins debt and Potion as a different type of cost.

The 3 example cards. Example is the operative word here, they may be way off balance:

• Magnate is a card you get in 2 stages, first get a Gold then later use a buy to change it for this. This felt like it should give you a strong card, maybe $7 or $8 strong, so here's something that hopefully fits: an effect that would be broken on a $ cost card.
• Coach House requires payment of two Action cards. It was nearly one, something you could pick up with a terminal clash, but going with two lets it be bigger and better, and it's more of a distinct sacrifice. Making $8+ strength cards seems to be one of the biggest advantages to the card cost.
• Highwayman is here to show several things the first two examples don't. It requires payment of both $4 and 3 cards in hand to discard, which is reasonably hard to do early, like about $5 or $6 strong, but it's different. You can't gain it with Workshop, it beats $4s in a Chariot Race but doesn't beat $5s, $4+debt or $4P.
  The Attack is not just 'when another player buys a card, they discard a card'. If they have an empty hand, they can't afford anything. And because of adding the card cost on, all Workshops bar (Tragic) Hero become useless. Highwaymen won't stack either, since after the first one is played, all cards have a card cost so later ones won't work.

Other musings I had:

• A card cost of 'discard 5 cards' wouldn't just be very cheap but potentially mundane: 'do I try to use this hand or just grab one of those?'
• 'Discard 6 cards' wouldn't always be attainable, but put it at the bottom of a split pile with a drawing top and it could work. You could do quite a bit with card costs and split piles, actually...
• Having the choice between a card or $ cost, choose how to pay, could be a thing too.

Edit: added explanations.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 09, 2020, 11:02:10 am

Mount cards

When you gain a Mount card, you can choose to either gain it as normal or mount it. Mounted cards are put into play instead of your discard pile and stay out in front of you, they give you some kind of effect. You can only have 1 mount at a time (that's one mount, not one of each different mount). When certain things happen you are forced to dismount your mount, when this happens it is discarded from play and becomes a regular card in your deck. You can only mount cards when you gain them, so once you've dismounted you'll have to gain a new one if you want to mount again. A few examples:

(https://i.imgur.com/0D8adbH.png)(https://i.imgur.com/qDsL5aT.png)(https://i.imgur.com/dZTz5Jh.png)(https://i.imgur.com/bHZJD8L.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on February 09, 2020, 11:24:39 am

Quote from: Gazbag on February 09, 2020, 11:02:10 am

Mount cards
(https://i.imgur.com/bHZJD8L.png)

This is overpriced, a card like this you want early, and a 6 price tag makes it hard to get before the third shuffle, which is when you really need it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 09, 2020, 11:43:44 am

Quote from: Gazbag on February 09, 2020, 11:02:10 am

Mount cards

When you gain a Mount card, you can choose to either gain it as normal or mount it. Mounted cards are put into play instead of your discard pile and stay out in front of you, they give you some kind of effect. You can only have 1 mount at a time (that's one mount, not one of each different mount). When certain things happen you are forced to dismount your mount, when this happens it is discarded from play and becomes a regular card in your deck. You can only mount cards when you gain them, so once you've dismounted you'll have to gain a new one if you want to mount again. A few examples:

(https://i.imgur.com/0D8adbH.png)(https://i.imgur.com/qDsL5aT.png)(https://i.imgur.com/dZTz5Jh.png)(https://i.imgur.com/bHZJD8L.png)

I like this idea a lot. Do you believe that Mount cards should have an alternate colouring, just like Reserve cards are, to distinguish them further from normal Action cards in the Supply? Or to not accidentally discard them in your Clean-up phase if you didn't dismount that turn. It may just be that I'm childish, but I sure love me colours.  ;D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 09, 2020, 11:47:47 am

Quote from: D782802859 on February 09, 2020, 11:24:39 am

Quote from: Gazbag on February 09, 2020, 11:02:10 am

Mount cards
(https://i.imgur.com/bHZJD8L.png)

This is overpriced, a card like this you want early, and a 6 price tag makes it hard to get before the third shuffle, which is when you really need it.

This one wasn't the most serious/though out one. But I'm pretty sure it'd be completely broken if it was any cheaper (imagine opening with it), it's a stronger effect than Cathedral and that's completely broken at its price point!

Quote from: X-tra on February 09, 2020, 11:43:44 am

Quote from: Gazbag on February 09, 2020, 11:02:10 am

Mount cards

When you gain a Mount card, you can choose to either gain it as normal or mount it. Mounted cards are put into play instead of your discard pile and stay out in front of you, they give you some kind of effect. You can only have 1 mount at a time (that's one mount, not one of each different mount). When certain things happen you are forced to dismount your mount, when this happens it is discarded from play and becomes a regular card in your deck. You can only mount cards when you gain them, so once you've dismounted you'll have to gain a new one if you want to mount again. A few examples:

I like this idea a lot. Do you believe that Mount cards should have an alternate colouring, just like Reserve cards are, to distinguish them further from normal Action cards in the Supply? Or to not accidentally discard them in your Clean-up phase if you didn't dismount that turn. It may just be that I'm childish, but I sure love me colours.  ;D

Yes I meant to say they should probably have their own colour, but I'm colourblind and not so great at that sort of thing so I just left them regular colour.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 09, 2020, 11:57:28 am

Quote from: Gazbag on February 09, 2020, 11:47:47 am

Yes I meant to say they should probably have their own colour, but I'm colourblind and not so great at that sort of thing so I just left them regular colour.

No worries m8. At this point, I was just nitpicking. The concept itself is very novel and, to reiterate, I really like it!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on February 09, 2020, 11:59:23 am

Threat cards (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=&description=When%20the%20threatened%20player&type=Threat&credit=&creator=&price=&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=2.2&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=&c0.0=0.85&c0.1=0.3&c0.2=0.5&color1=0&size=0):
At the end of your Clean-Up, you may reveal 1 Threat from your hand to "Threaten" other players during their turns.  When you are threatened, you trigger an effect per the instructions of the Threat card during your turn.  The Threat card remains revealed in the player's hand.  If the card is removed from your hand, its Threat effect no longer applies.

(https://i.imgur.com/V35ketV.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/dxyGJay.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/TlUCSCo.jpg)

Quote

Cloister
Types: Action, Threat
Cost: $2
+2 Actions. You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, set this aside and at the start of Clean-Up put it on top of your deck.

---

When the threatened player trashes a card costing at most $2 this turn, they put it into their discard pile.

Quote

Phylactery
Types: Treasure, Threat
Cost: $3
$1, +1 Buy. When you play this, you may put a card from your discard pile on top of your deck.

---

When the threatened player gains a second card this turn, they gain a Copper and a Curse.

Quote

Dam
Types: Action, Threat
Cost: $4
+$3. Discard a card. If you do, you may put this on top of your deck

---

When the threatened player plays a third Treasure this turn, they discard their hand.

Cloister is a splitter with a trashing ability that lets you keep it every turn.  Its threat disables trashing cheap cards.
Phylactery is a Copper with a Buy that lets you top-deck a thing.  You could top-deck a Threat with it if you wanted.  Its threat discourages players from gaining multiple cards in a turn.
Dam is a sifting terminal payload that can jump on top of your deck.  Its threat requires players to use big Treasures as only 3 can be played.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 09, 2020, 01:08:37 pm

I got very inspired and excited seeing all these cool ideas presented for this challenge.
So I generated a game with a couple of guys’ ideas and obtained this (click on the picture to enlarge it):

(https://i.postimg.cc/94nXtV9x/Game-exemple.png) (https://postimg.cc/94nXtV9x)

I wonder how a game like this would play. What I would even open with. So much awesome concepts together, I wouldn’t be too far off analysis paralysis on my turn. :D
With 5/2, maybe it'd open Torturer/Communion? With 4/3, maybe Ring/Pikemen... I dunno!

I added pictures on some of the cards presented here, just to have a fully coloured set. Don’t think too much about it, it’s just yet another one of my small, stupid caprices. I had to add 2 cards of my own mechanic, because such is the recommended way to go about it if they are to be used (please do not think of me as an egocentric).
Oh, by the way, the trash “mat” is that grey circle in the middle. It’s a bin seen from above. I used the workshop downloaded Tabletop Simulator mod, so eh. That’s how it be.

(I appologise if these sort of dicussions are not allowed on this thread. Do say so and I'll quiet down if this is the case.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on February 09, 2020, 02:04:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/NJ5k7ko.png) (https://i.imgur.com/gIQux4q.png) (https://i.imgur.com/mEgZSxi.png) (https://i.imgur.com/TGXhUVj.png) (https://i.imgur.com/QQ0KVru.png)

I'm slightly revising my entry with some updates to the Armor mechanic and example cards (also see updated OP).  Armor cards still work the same way as before--you can play them normally, or equip them to another card (by playing them sideways underneath the card your equipping).  Rather than just effectively being "you may play an Action for X bonus," the equipping abilities now in most cases actually modify or add additional effects to all copies of that card for the remainder of the turn. 

Below are the revised example cards, all except Cuirass received updates or replacements.

Greaves: still cantrip on play, but now acts as a one-turn Lost Arts on the card it equips
Gauntlets: terminal silver on play, with a draw-to-X effect equipping ability
Helm: still a Gold-gainer on play; equipping lets you trash copies of the treasure after you play it to gain cheaper cards (e.g. play your Golds for +$3 then trash them to gain $5s)
Halberd: Smithy with mild discard attack, equip another Attack to add a Copper junking effect
Cuirass: same as before, Market Square on play with Ferry equipping effect

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on February 09, 2020, 03:11:26 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 09, 2020, 11:59:23 am

Threat cards (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=&description=When%20the%20threatened%20player&type=Threat&credit=&creator=&price=&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=2.2&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=&c0.0=0.85&c0.1=0.3&c0.2=0.5&color1=0&size=0):
At the end of your Clean-Up, you may reveal 1 Threat from your hand to "Threaten" other players during their turns.  When you are threatened, you trigger an effect per the instructions of the Threat card during your turn.  The Threat card remains revealed in the player's hand.  If the card is removed from your hand, its Threat effect no longer applies.

(https://i.imgur.com/V35ketV.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/dxyGJay.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/TlUCSCo.jpg)

Quote

Cloister
Types: Action, Threat
Cost: $2
+2 Actions. You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, set this aside and at the start of Clean-Up put it on top of your deck.

---

When the threatened player trashes a card costing at most $2 this turn, they put it into their discard pile.

Quote

Phylactery
Types: Treasure, Threat
Cost: $3
$1, +1 Buy. When you play this, you may put a card from your discard pile on top of your deck.

---

When the threatened player gains a second card this turn, they gain a Copper and a Curse.

Quote

Dam
Types: Action, Threat
Cost: $4
+$3. Discard a card. If you do, you may put this on top of your deck

---

When the threatened player plays a third Treasure this turn, they discard their hand.

Cloister is a splitter with a trashing ability that lets you keep it every turn.  Its threat disables trashing cheap cards.
Phylactery is a Copper with a Buy that lets you top-deck a thing.  You could top-deck a Threat with it if you wanted.  Its threat discourages players from gaining multiple cards in a turn.
Dam is a sifting terminal payload that can jump on top of your deck.  Its threat requires players to use big Treasures as only 3 can be played.

Holy crap.  This is genius, too!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on February 09, 2020, 06:13:07 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 09, 2020, 11:59:23 am

Threat cards (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=&description=When%20the%20threatened%20player&type=Threat&credit=&creator=&price=&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=2.2&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=&c0.0=0.85&c0.1=0.3&c0.2=0.5&color1=0&size=0):
At the end of your Clean-Up, you may reveal 1 Threat from your hand to "Threaten" other players during their turns.  When you are threatened, you trigger an effect per the instructions of the Threat card during your turn.  The Threat card remains revealed in the player's hand.  If the card is removed from your hand, its Threat effect no longer applies.

(https://i.imgur.com/V35ketV.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/dxyGJay.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/TlUCSCo.jpg)

Quote

Cloister
Types: Action, Threat
Cost: $2
+2 Actions. You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, set this aside and at the start of Clean-Up put it on top of your deck.

---

When the threatened player trashes a card costing at most $2 this turn, they put it into their discard pile.

Quote

Phylactery
Types: Treasure, Threat
Cost: $3
$1, +1 Buy. When you play this, you may put a card from your discard pile on top of your deck.

---

When the threatened player gains a second card this turn, they gain a Copper and a Curse.

Quote

Dam
Types: Action, Threat
Cost: $4
+$3. Discard a card. If you do, you may put this on top of your deck

---

When the threatened player plays a third Treasure this turn, they discard their hand.

Cloister is a splitter with a trashing ability that lets you keep it every turn.  Its threat disables trashing cheap cards.
Phylactery is a Copper with a Buy that lets you top-deck a thing.  You could top-deck a Threat with it if you wanted.  Its threat discourages players from gaining multiple cards in a turn.
Dam is a sifting terminal payload that can jump on top of your deck.  Its threat requires players to use big Treasures as only 3 can be played.

Do threats threaten everyone? I assume they do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on February 09, 2020, 06:44:17 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on February 09, 2020, 07:41:16 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on February 08, 2020, 08:40:19 pm

Mine is simpleish but is kinda similar to other ideas seen here.
Introducing Equipment cards. These are cards that have an on play effect and can cycle round your deck as usual. However, once you play them, you have the option to Carry them, putting them in front of you in a fashion similar to Duration cards. While carried, these cards have a small lingering effect, like Hireling or Champion, that happens at regular intervals. At any time during your turn, you can stop carrying them and put them in your discard pile to be shuffled back into your deck. Basically, they are like Durations that can be kept out for as long as you want until you want them back. Of course, you can keep them out permanently...

Villager's Backpack
$4
Action
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: At the start of each of your turns, +1 Action.

Blacksmith's Hammer
$7
Action
+2 Cards
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: At the start of each of your turns, +1 Card.

Woodcutter's Axe
$5
Action
+1 Buy
+$2
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: At the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy, +$1

The King's Letter
$5
Treasure
$2
You may Carry this.
-------
While carried: When you gain a card, you may put it onto your deck.

Drunkard's Bottle
$4
Action
+1 Action
+$3
Carry this.
-------
While carried: You may not discard this until you buy a Copper in one of your turns.

Hopefully this makes sense.

This mechanic seems like it's being misused. None of the cards have any reason for you to not just permanently carry them, other than Villager's Backpack, and that's because it has a penalty. There should be at least some Equipment cards with a reason to carry and a reason to not carry. Also, is Equipment a card type? It isn't on the cards and probably should be.

Yeah, I didn't think too hard about this one. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on February 10, 2020, 01:39:49 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 09, 2020, 11:59:23 am

Threat cards (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=&description=When%20the%20threatened%20player&type=Threat&credit=&creator=&price=&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=2.2&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=&c0.0=0.85&c0.1=0.3&c0.2=0.5&color1=0&size=0):
At the end of your Clean-Up, you may reveal 1 Threat from your hand to "Threaten" other players during their turns.  When you are threatened, you trigger an effect per the instructions of the Threat card during your turn.  The Threat card remains revealed in the player's hand.  If the card is removed from your hand, its Threat effect no longer applies.

(https://i.imgur.com/V35ketV.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/dxyGJay.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/TlUCSCo.jpg)

Quote

Cloister
Types: Action, Threat
Cost: $2
+2 Actions. You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, set this aside and at the start of Clean-Up put it on top of your deck.

---

When the threatened player trashes a card costing at most $2 this turn, they put it into their discard pile.

Quote

Phylactery
Types: Treasure, Threat
Cost: $3
$1, +1 Buy. When you play this, you may put a card from your discard pile on top of your deck.

---

When the threatened player gains a second card this turn, they gain a Copper and a Curse.

Quote

Dam
Types: Action, Threat
Cost: $4
+$3. Discard a card. If you do, you may put this on top of your deck

---

When the threatened player plays a third Treasure this turn, they discard their hand.

Cloister is a splitter with a trashing ability that lets you keep it every turn.  Its threat disables trashing cheap cards.
Phylactery is a Copper with a Buy that lets you top-deck a thing.  You could top-deck a Threat with it if you wanted.  Its threat discourages players from gaining multiple cards in a turn.
Dam is a sifting terminal payload that can jump on top of your deck.  Its threat requires players to use big Treasures as only 3 can be played.

I don't like attacks that can't be blocked. Maybe say in the rules for this mechanic that revealing a threat counts as playing an attack?
Another thing: This is something that happens after the clean up phase. When we play IRL, we almost always start our turn when the previous person ends their buy phase (or night phase if applicable). The previous player finishes their clean-up phase while I take my turn. I assume a lot of people do this when playing IRL. In this case, the Threat mechanic would slow the game down a lot by making the other players wait while the current player shuffles and draws a new hand just so they can see if they have a Threat card in their hand. yuk.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on February 10, 2020, 08:55:31 am

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on February 09, 2020, 06:13:07 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 09, 2020, 11:59:23 am

Threat cards (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html?title=&description=When%20the%20threatened%20player&type=Threat&credit=&creator=&price=&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=2.2&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=&c0.0=0.85&c0.1=0.3&c0.2=0.5&color1=0&size=0):
At the end of your Clean-Up, you may reveal 1 Threat from your hand to "Threaten" other players during their turns.  When you are threatened, you trigger an effect per the instructions of the Threat card during your turn.  The Threat card remains revealed in the player's hand.  If the card is removed from your hand, its Threat effect no longer applies.

Do threats threaten everyone? I assume they do.

You decide at the end of your Clean-Up if you want to threaten each other player on their turn with 1 Threat card from your hand (even if you have multiple Threat cards in your hand).  All other players are "threatened," but only on their turn.  The only way a Threat stops between turns is if it leaves your hand via some other effect.

This is similar to Duration Attacks, but limited to one-per-player and it doesn't come with all the inherent shuffle-timing implications and design limitations of being a Duration card.

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 09, 2020, 11:59:23 am

Quote

Cloister
Types: Action, Threat
Cost: $2
+2 Actions. You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, set this aside and at the start of Clean-Up put it on top of your deck.

---

When the threatened player trashes a card costing at most $2 this turn, they put it into their discard pile.

Quote

Phylactery
Types: Treasure, Threat
Cost: $3
$1, +1 Buy. When you play this, you may put a card from your discard pile on top of your deck.

---

When the threatened player gains a second card this turn, they gain a Copper and a Curse.

Quote

Dam
Types: Action, Threat
Cost: $4
+$3. Discard a card. If you do, you may put this on top of your deck

---

When the threatened player plays a third Treasure this turn, they discard their hand.

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on February 10, 2020, 01:39:49 am

I don't like attacks that can't be blocked. Maybe say in the rules for this mechanic that revealing a threat counts as playing an attack?

This is a kind of silly standard in the first place considering there are 4 cards that block Attacks directly (and the things that do so indirectly interact with Threat cards the same way).  98% of Kingdoms are Kingdoms in which you can't block Attacks.  I'll address the point anyway.  Threats are things you can avoid regardless by not leaning on trashing (Cloister), not gaining many cards at once (Phylactery), and not playing many Treasures (Dam).  This is the design principle of Threat cards: Don't do this thing, or else (compared to cards like Swamp Hag, in which "don't buy any cards" is not often a reasonable solution, Events and Projects notwithstanding).

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on February 10, 2020, 01:39:49 am

Another thing: This is something that happens after the clean up phase. When we play IRL, we almost always start our turn when the previous person ends their buy phase (or night phase if applicable). The previous player finishes their clean-up phase while I take my turn. I assume a lot of people do this when playing IRL. In this case, the Threat mechanic would slow the game down a lot by making the other players wait while the current player shuffles and draws a new hand just so they can see if they have a Threat card in their hand. yuk.

Yes, which is why the Threat cards here care about things that don't occur at the start of your turn. Dam and Phylactery largely apply in the Buy phase, while Cloister cares about trashing cheap cards─a thing you typically do at the end of your Action phase.  You could design a Threat card that slows the game down in this way (in much the same way that a Reaction could be designed in this fashion), but these specific cards do not.

---

Quote from: spineflu on February 07, 2020, 05:47:17 pm

Morning Cards
Morning cards are kingdom cards. They can be thought of as temporary projects or artifacts that affect everyone simultaneously.
Morning cards are a Kingdom card; they're playable in your Morning Phase, which happens after the start of your turn but before your Action Phase.
You may play as many Morning cards as you like.
There can only be one Morning card in play at a time.
When a new Morning card is played, any in-play Morning cards are discarded and stop doing things. Morning cards are assumed to have "While this is in play:" at the top of their text.

In order to play a Morning card, I have to draw it at the start of my turn, because if I draw it mid-turn then I can't play it because I'm no longer in my morning phase.  That's pretty bad, especially considering that I would never buy more than one Morning card because there can only be 1 in play (across all players, if I'm understanding correctly).

Quote from: spineflu on February 07, 2020, 05:47:17 pm

Each pile of Morning cards has four distinct cards in it; in a 2 player game, use two of each (8 total to the pile); otherwise use three of each (12 total to the pile, like Victory cards). The piles are mixed/shuffled, and all but the top card are kept face-down (like Knights).
...

Quote

Quote

Dawn Chorus • $3 • Morning - Sunrise
Now and at the start of each players turn, they get +1 Card
Now and at the start of your turn, +1 Action

Quote

Dew • $3 • Morning - Sunrise
Now and at the start of each players turn, +$1
Now and at the start of your turn, +1 Buy

Quote

Rooster • $3 • Morning - Sunrise
Now and at the start of each players turn, they may discard a card for +1 Card.
Now and at the start of your turn, if the card you discard for this costs $5 or more, +$1

Quote

Sunrise • $3 • Morning - Sunrise
Now and at the start of each players turn, +1 Action
Now and at the start of your turn, +1 Buy

Why are you putting four different cards in each Morning pile? There being 2 of each seems like it just adds a major luck-based element.  If Sunrise/Dew is the only way to get +Buys, I have a 4/7 chance that we flip Dawn Chorus/Rooster and then I don't get to have +Buys or else have to eat multiple unplayable Morning cards (because only 1 can be played!) trying to find that source of +Buy.

---

Quote from: X-tra on February 08, 2020, 05:10:51 pm

So how do you compare your number of (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) against other players’? First, this comparison happens IMMEDIATELY when you play a Strength card. Do whatever the card says and then, when you reach the “If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)” part, you do the comparison. Each Strength card in play from any player (most of the time, that’ll only be you) have their (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) added to their (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total. Then, each player, starting from you and going clockwise, may or may not reveal additional Strength cards from their hand. This number is not limited, players may reveal any number of Strength cards from their hand. If a player does not wish to reveal Strength cards from their hand (for instance, knowing that they cannot beat the active player’s total), then they do not have to do it. All additionally revealed Strength cards have their (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) added to their player's (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total. The moment another player beats your (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total, then you fail the “If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)” clause of your card and must perform the “Otherwise” part, if there is any. Your (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total must be compared again each time you play a Strength card, even in the same turn.

These Strength cards face a similar problem LibraryAdventurer was complaining about above that the design can easily result in cards that force players to wait until other players have finished their Clean-Up to be able to start your turn.  You can get around that by designing only payload cards, but you've already submit 4 cantrips (or pseudo-cantrips) in Pikemen, Strategic Village, Palisade, and Plunderer.

Quote from: X-tra on February 08, 2020, 05:10:51 pm

Suddenly, playing cards is fiddlier. There is a thought-process invoked in how you’re going to use that Strength, how much you can have of it, how to best optimise it in your hand, etc. This is especially true for cards of varying strength.

If all the Strength cards I have in play count towards my Strength total, how will playing my Strength cards change my thought process at all?  I still play cards to maximize my hand-size and then am further rewarded for doing this with overbearing Strength cards that my 8-card hand and 3 cards in play will bully out anyone from possibly competing with their 5 random cards.  Is Strength meant to be a resource that is spent, or is Strength a flat value accrued by the Strength cards I have in play and in my hand?  I mean, you write in Strategic Village's blurb:

Quote from: X-tra on February 08, 2020, 05:10:51 pm

The other side of the medal is... the more Strategic Villages you play on the same turn, the weaker in terms of (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) they all become.

which patently disagrees with this

Quote from: X-tra on February 08, 2020, 05:10:51 pm

Each Strength card in play from any player (most of the time, that’ll only be you) have their (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) added to their (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total...

---

Quote from: 4est on February 09, 2020, 02:04:13 pm

Greaves: still cantrip on play, but now acts as a one-turn Lost Arts on the card it equips
Gauntlets: terminal silver on play, with a draw-to-X effect equipping ability
Helm: still a Gold-gainer on play; equipping lets you trash copies of the treasure after you play it to gain cheaper cards (e.g. play your Golds for +$3 then trash them to gain $5s)
Halberd: Smithy with mild discard attack, equip another Attack to add a Copper junking effect
Cuirass: same as before, Market Square on play with Ferry equipping effect

Do you "play" the copy of the card after the Armor is equipped, thereby triggering the Armor's effect? Will Greaves make all my Smithies non-terminal immediately, or do I need to equip a Greaves to a Smithy and then play a second Smithy to get +1 Action?  Either way, Greaves is a slightly worse Lost Arts, but you can stack multiple on your most common card to get multiple +Actions per play.  I'd cost it at $4 at least if not go back to the drawing board.
The "Armor" concepts is thematically weird now, because it is upgrading all copies of a card even though all my Smithies are sharing the same leggings.

---

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on February 09, 2020, 06:44:17 pm

Yeah, I didn't think too hard about this one. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

The Carry concept is totally workable, but your cards need to have more niche Carry effects or generally reason to not carry them every turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 10, 2020, 10:26:49 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 10, 2020, 08:55:31 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 07, 2020, 05:47:17 pm

Morning Cards
Morning cards are kingdom cards. They can be thought of as temporary projects or artifacts that affect everyone simultaneously.
Morning cards are a Kingdom card; they're playable in your Morning Phase, which happens after the start of your turn but before your Action Phase.
You may play as many Morning cards as you like.
There can only be one Morning card in play at a time.
When a new Morning card is played, any in-play Morning cards are discarded and stop doing things. Morning cards are assumed to have "While this is in play:" at the top of their text.

In order to play a Morning card, I have to draw it at the start of my turn, because if I draw it mid-turn then I can't play it because I'm no longer in my morning phase.  That's pretty bad, especially considering that I would never buy more than one Morning card because there can only be 1 in play (across all players, if I'm understanding correctly).

the drawing part and across-all-players-one-in-play is correct and the former of those is probably something I should look at changing - maybe a "at the start of clean up, you may set aside a morning card from your hand and add it to your hand after drawing a new hand" type idea - as far as "why would i ever buy more than one" - you still get the benefits from playing one regardless of whether it ends up staying in play or not.

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 10, 2020, 08:55:31 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 07, 2020, 05:47:17 pm

Each pile of Morning cards has four distinct cards in it; in a 2 player game, use two of each (8 total to the pile); otherwise use three of each (12 total to the pile, like Victory cards). The piles are mixed/shuffled, and all but the top card are kept face-down (like Knights).
...

Quote

Quote

Dawn Chorus • $3 • Morning - Sunrise
Now and at the start of each players turn, they get +1 Card
Now and at the start of your turn, +1 Action

Quote

Dew • $3 • Morning - Sunrise
Now and at the start of each players turn, +$1
Now and at the start of your turn, +1 Buy

Quote

Rooster • $3 • Morning - Sunrise
Now and at the start of each players turn, they may discard a card for +1 Card.
Now and at the start of your turn, if the card you discard for this costs $5 or more, +$1

Quote

Sunrise • $3 • Morning - Sunrise
Now and at the start of each players turn, +1 Action
Now and at the start of your turn, +1 Buy

Why are you putting four different cards in each Morning pile? There being 2 of each seems like it just adds a major luck-based element.  If Sunrise/Dew is the only way to get +Buys, I have a 4/7 chance that we flip Dawn Chorus/Rooster and then I don't get to have +Buys or else have to eat multiple unplayable Morning cards (because only 1 can be played!) trying to find that source of +Buy.

I like the variety. I think it makes for a more interesting game. I think having two per pile could make it so the other players feel like their mini-benefit from the morning card is fine, that the morning-card-player isn't getting a great bonus, and it's just left in play the whole game, which is not interesting - by providing a plethora of "my bonus/your bonus" options, players will be more incentivized to contest them. They can be trashed and remodeled and what have you same as any other card so the notion of "eating unplayable morning cards" is nonsense.


edit: I've added a way to save a Morning card if one is drawn dead during your action phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 10, 2020, 10:33:04 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 10, 2020, 08:55:31 am

Quote from: X-tra on February 08, 2020, 05:10:51 pm

So how do you compare your number of (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) against other players’? First, this comparison happens IMMEDIATELY when you play a Strength card. Do whatever the card says and then, when you reach the “If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)” part, you do the comparison. Each Strength card in play from any player (most of the time, that’ll only be you) have their (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) added to their (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total. Then, each player, starting from you and going clockwise, may or may not reveal additional Strength cards from their hand. This number is not limited, players may reveal any number of Strength cards from their hand. If a player does not wish to reveal Strength cards from their hand (for instance, knowing that they cannot beat the active player’s total), then they do not have to do it. All additionally revealed Strength cards have their (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) added to their player's (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total. The moment another player beats your (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total, then you fail the “If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)” clause of your card and must perform the “Otherwise” part, if there is any. Your (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total must be compared again each time you play a Strength card, even in the same turn.

These Strength cards face a similar problem LibraryAdventurer was complaining about above that the design can easily result in cards that force players to wait until other players have finished their Clean-Up to be able to start your turn.  You can get around that by designing only payload cards, but you've already submit 4 cantrips (or pseudo-cantrips) in Pikemen, Strategic Village, Palisade, and Plunderer.

That is true. At first, I was in agreement with LibraryAdventurer, but then, I withdrew said agreement. Cards like Militia, Saboteur, Mountebank, Bureaucrat... or pretty much almost all Attack cards require players before you to be done with their Clean-up. And this is just it: Cards with direct interaction with other players, such as these aforementioned Attack cards, require your opponents to have their next hand ready. Therefore, adding a new mechanic that directly involves player-to-player interaction will be doomed to be worthy of that criticism. But I don’t see any other way to avoid that drawback. People sometimes accuse Dominion of being a multiplayer solitaire (I disagree with that statement, but yeah). Well, if you want to reduce that factor, then you’ll have another mob of people telling you that you’re sabotaging the idea of taking your turn without having to worry about the downtime induced by waiting for other players to discard their play area, (sometimes) to shuffle their deck and then to draw their cards.

So, is it worth taking the risk of creating a new game mechanic to up that player interaction at the cost of slightly increasing downtime between turns? I say yes. Let’s get crazy here. We’re asked to come up with a new mechanic for this week’s contest and I think that it’s worth exploring ideas involving games with increased player interactions. That was the essence behind my entry. And I believe it was for yours too! This is why I like what you’ve presented here.

Quote from: Fragasnap on February 10, 2020, 08:55:31 am

Quote from: X-tra on February 08, 2020, 05:10:51 pm

Suddenly, playing cards is fiddlier. There is a thought-process invoked in how you’re going to use that Strength, how much you can have of it, how to best optimise it in your hand, etc. This is especially true for cards of varying strength.

If all the Strength cards I have in play count towards my Strength total, how will playing my Strength cards change my thought process at all?  I still play cards to maximize my hand-size and then am further rewarded for doing this with overbearing Strength cards that my 8-card hand and 3 cards in play will bully out anyone from possibly competing with their 5 random cards.  Is Strength meant to be a resource that is spent, or is Strength a flat value accrued by the Strength cards I have in play and in my hand?  I mean, you write in Strategic Village's blurb:

Quote from: X-tra on February 08, 2020, 05:10:51 pm

The other side of the medal is... the more Strategic Villages you play on the same turn, the weaker in terms of (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) they all become.

which patently disagrees with this

Quote from: X-tra on February 08, 2020, 05:10:51 pm

Each Strength card in play from any player (most of the time, that’ll only be you) have their (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) added to their (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total...

Strength is a flat value. It is not “spend”. It is however re-evaluated when you play another Strength card. And by that time, your Strength total might’ve changed. I will remove that part about how Strategic Villages get weaker the more you play them (they are removed from your hand and so you have less cards in hand. They are worth 1 Strength per 2 cards in your hand, so playing more of them reduces your hand size, decreasing their Strength value. However, I failed to consider that they make you draw a card, so it circumvents this drawback).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: 4est on February 10, 2020, 03:50:46 pm

Quote

Quote from: 4est on February 09, 2020, 02:04:13 pm

Greaves: still cantrip on play, but now acts as a one-turn Lost Arts on the card it equips
Gauntlets: terminal silver on play, with a draw-to-X effect equipping ability
Helm: still a Gold-gainer on play; equipping lets you trash copies of the treasure after you play it to gain cheaper cards (e.g. play your Golds for +$3 then trash them to gain $5s)
Halberd: Smithy with mild discard attack, equip another Attack to add a Copper junking effect
Cuirass: same as before, Market Square on play with Ferry equipping effect

Do you "play" the copy of the card after the Armor is equipped, thereby triggering the Armor's effect? Will Greaves make all my Smithies non-terminal immediately, or do I need to equip a Greaves to a Smithy and then play a second Smithy to get +1 Action?  Either way, Greaves is a slightly worse Lost Arts, but you can stack multiple on your most common card to get multiple +Actions per play.  I'd cost it at $4 at least if not go back to the drawing board.
The "Armor" concepts is thematically weird now, because it is upgrading all copies of a card even though all my Smithies are sharing the same leggings.

Yes, you do play the copy of the card after the Armor is equipped, so both your equipped Smithy and all other Smithies would get +1 Action in your example.  One of the main downsides of Armor cards (compared with e.g. Adventures token events) is lining them up with their respective targets: Greaves doesn't help you quite as much if you don't draw it with your Smithy early.  As for the theme, well, can't really help you there :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on February 10, 2020, 04:42:03 pm

Roundabout cards

When you use these cards, pay close attention to the order that you dealt out the Supply piles. They don't exist in a shapeless vacuum any more: they can look at the piles adjacent to them, or even further away! They all have the type "Roundabout", but that's just so you don't forget to pay attention to the words "to the left" and "to the right". There's no rules meaning to it. And they all share a common theme.

(https://i.imgur.com/ft2A2b6.png?1)(https://i.imgur.com/k0Bxr80.png?1)(https://i.imgur.com/5XTYxKL.png?1)(https://i.imgur.com/v8uDXeX.png?1)(https://i.imgur.com/wf5jkuA.png?1)(https://i.imgur.com/2peRj2l.png?1)

Quote

Pearl • $4 • Treasure - Roundabout
+$2
Cards from the three piles to the left of this cost $1 less this turn.

Quote

Circlet • $2 • Treasure - Roundabout
Choose one: +$2 , or gain a copy of the card to the left of this.
-
When you buy this, you may discard a card of the pile to the left of this. If you don't, trash this.

Quote

Smuggling Ring • $5 • Victory - Roundabout
Worth 1VP per 2 cards of the pile to the left of this in your deck.

Quote

Round Table • $6 • Action - Command - Roundabout
Play the next non-Command Action to the left of this costing up to $3, leaving it in the Supply.
Play the next non-Command Action to the right of this costing up to $3, leaving it in the Supply.

Quote

Calliope • $3 • Action - Roundabout
Trash a card from your hand. Gain the next card to its left that costs $0 to $2 more than it.

Quote

Waterwheel • $3 • Project - Roundabout
After you play an Action card, if the pile to its left is an Action, you may play a card of that pile from your hand.

Notional FAQ:
During Setup, deal out the piles from left to right. Every Kingdom card has one card to its left and one to its right, because the order is a circle; even if you've arranged your cards in a line, consider the rightmost card to be one step left of the leftmost card. (That's why they're Roundabout cards, and not Straightforward cards.)
Only Kingdom cards have an ordering; Base cards, non-Supply cards, Events, Projects, tokens, and any other things that have wandered onto the gaming table do not have anything to their left or right.
"The pile to the left of this" means that Supply pile, even if it's empty. "A card of a pile" means a card that started the game in that pile.
"The next non-Command Action to the left of this" means keep looking to the left until you find a card on top of its Supply pile that qualifies. This may refer to a different card over the course of the game, as the contents of piles change. It may loop around and refer to the pile itself, if no other card qualifies, and failing that it'll refer to nothing at all.

Design Notes:
These cards aren't really balanced. But they show off what's possible with this mechanic.
Sorry about the grammar in "a card of that pile". "From" is more correct, but unfortunately "play a card from a pile" already means something in Dominion.
The design space of Dominion is constrained by the fact that any particular card can only rely on having itself and the Base Cards available. Duke can count the number of Duchies you have - but you can't make a card like it that counts Villages, because what happens in a game without Villages? Roundabouts provide a loophole: put Smuggling Ring to the right of Village, and you're done!
The card in Dominion that almost uses this mechanic is Young Witch. Although she couldn't quite be errata'd to a Roundabout card as I've written them here, since her behaviour around split piles and empty piles is different.

Smuggling Ring's name definitely 100% fits the "circle" theme. Rings are circles.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on February 10, 2020, 08:01:20 pm

I am completely mystified by how you guys are coming up with ideas.  I was/am completely stumped on this challenge. I

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on February 11, 2020, 06:26:32 am

I had a think about my "Blockade" card added previously. It's problematic if someone uses it to deny another player one of their buys in the first turns. I thought about making it cost debt so that didn't happen but that complicates things and feels thematically wrong.
Now I've upped the cost and tweaked the effect. That should make it play quite differently. In case nobody noticed by the way you can blockade curses so that you don't receive them from a witch.
Do people think it could be super irritating to have games prolonged by this? Ie By having provinces blocked. Or is it simply another tactical element to work around. I hope the latter.

(https://i.imgur.com/Ca59PHf.png)

If this link works it should show the earlier and current versions next to each other. https://imgur.com/a/WxR3aqU (Current costs 5 not 3)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 11, 2020, 09:46:32 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on February 11, 2020, 06:26:32 am

I had a think about my "Blockade" card added previously. It's problematic if someone uses it to deny another player one of their buys in the first turns. I thought about making it cost debt so that didn't happen but that complicates things and feels thematically wrong.
Now I've upped the cost and tweaked the effect. That should make it play quite differently. In case nobody noticed by the way you can blockade curses so that you don't receive them from a witch.
Do people think it could be super irritating to have games prolonged by this? Ie By having provinces blocked. Or is it simply another tactical element to work around. I hope the latter.

(https://i.imgur.com/Ca59PHf.png)

If this link works it should show the earlier and current versions next to each other. https://imgur.com/a/WxR3aqU (Current costs 5 not 3)

You could just have it affect Kingdom cards and keep it at $3; that way you can't blockade Silvers, Curses, etc. Or have it only affect non-Treasure piles. That'd keep Silvers in play but allow curse-blockades.

At $5, its still buyable in the opening and a first-player $5 hand can still screw over everyone else. It also seems way overpriced at $5, but maybe that's just me.

As far as blocking gains, you'll probably want errata about a blockaded supply pile should be treated as though the supply pile was empty - this keeps adventures tokens, inheritance, rats, etc working normally.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 11, 2020, 11:13:04 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 11, 2020, 09:46:32 am

At $5, its still buyable in the opening and a first-player $5 hand can still screw over everyone else. It also seems way overpriced at $5, but maybe that's just me.

Does it though? You start 5/2 and blockade a pile. Other player can will still buy something for 3 and 4, while you only get a 2.

The other alternative is if you start 2/5 and bought chapel, then blockaded it. But other players will still get a turn - while they might have to use their 4 for chapel instead of 3, they'd still be at an advantage after the first 2 turns.

Note: it may still be overpriced at 5, I just don't see it as a first two turns buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on February 11, 2020, 04:27:13 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on February 11, 2020, 11:13:04 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 11, 2020, 09:46:32 am

At $5, its still buyable in the opening and a first-player $5 hand can still screw over everyone else. It also seems way overpriced at $5, but maybe that's just me.

Does it though? You start 5/2 and blockade a pile. Other player can will still buy something for 3 and 4, while you only get a 2.

The other alternative is if you start 2/5 and bought chapel, then blockaded it. But other players will still get a turn - while they might have to use their 4 for chapel instead of 3, they'd still be at an advantage after the first 2 turns.

Note: it may still be overpriced at 5, I just don't see it as a first two turns buy.

I'm going to agree with scolapasta here in that the cost makes it a poor first turn buy. You might stop someone else making a buy but because thats at best a 5 dollar buy you hurt yourself as much or more by buying blockade.

Quote from: spineflu on February 11, 2020, 09:46:32 am

As far as blocking gains, you'll probably want errata about a blockaded supply pile should be treated as though the supply pile was empty - this keeps adventures tokens, inheritance, rats, etc working normally.

I don't want to do this because I don't want to have the game end from a pile being blockaded. I guess I want the pile to be as if empty for gaining and buying but not for ending the game.
Is that a reasonable implication or does it need more detail on the card?

I do want it to block gains though and affect cards like curses because I think that justifies the price. It would be well worth paying 5 in a number of scenarios to switch a blockade from one card to the next.

I also just thought of a different problem. Cards like swindler. And anything that returns things to the supply. In my head they returned their cards to beneath the face down top card. That isn't intuitive at all. 
Man, aiming for a simple new mechanic is hard.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on February 11, 2020, 04:30:31 pm

Quote from: spineflu on February 11, 2020, 09:46:32 am

You could just have it affect Kingdom cards and keep it at $3; that way you can't blockade Silvers, Curses, etc. Or have it only affect non-Treasure piles. That'd keep Silvers in play but allow curse-blockades.

It does feel thematic that it doesn't stop treasures by the way. Its always possible to smuggle coin past a blockade. That might be a useful tweak.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 11, 2020, 04:59:29 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on February 11, 2020, 04:27:13 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on February 11, 2020, 11:13:04 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 11, 2020, 09:46:32 am

At $5, its still buyable in the opening and a first-player $5 hand can still screw over everyone else. It also seems way overpriced at $5, but maybe that's just me.

Does it though? You start 5/2 and blockade a pile. Other player can will still buy something for 3 and 4, while you only get a 2.

The other alternative is if you start 2/5 and bought chapel, then blockaded it. But other players will still get a turn - while they might have to use their 4 for chapel instead of 3, they'd still be at an advantage after the first 2 turns.

Note: it may still be overpriced at 5, I just don't see it as a first two turns buy.

I'm going to agree with scolapasta here in that the cost makes it a poor first turn buy. You might stop someone else making a buy but because thats at best a 5 dollar buy you hurt yourself as much or more by buying blockade.

Quote from: spineflu on February 11, 2020, 09:46:32 am

As far as blocking gains, you'll probably want errata about a blockaded supply pile should be treated as though the supply pile was empty - this keeps adventures tokens, inheritance, rats, etc working normally.

I don't want to do this because I don't want to have the game end from a pile being blockaded. I guess I want the pile to be as if empty for gaining and buying but not for ending the game.
Is that a reasonable implication or does it need more detail on the card?

I do want it to block gains though and affect cards like curses because I think that justifies the price. It would be well worth paying 5 in a number of scenarios to switch a blockade from one card to the next.

I also just thought of a different problem. Cards like swindler. And anything that returns things to the supply. In my head they returned their cards to beneath the face down top card. That isn't intuitive at all. 
Man, aiming for a simple new mechanic is hard.

I think that's a reasonable implication - have it be empty for all purposes except game end. Makes City better, for sure.
As far as returning things to the supply, have an errata/FAQ for the card that returned-to-the-supply stuff goes to the bottom of the pile?

Or, change Blockade so it flips the whole supply pile - cards being returned go face-up on top of the pile, and are available to be bought, and that pile is no longer blockaded until someone buys the available cards.

Not seeing what the Swindler interaction is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on February 11, 2020, 05:09:55 pm

Quote from: spineflu on February 11, 2020, 04:59:29 pm

Not seeing what the Swindler interaction is.

Obviously by Swindler I meant Ambassador. All the cool kids are using Swindler to mean Ambassador now.  :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on February 11, 2020, 10:58:38 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on February 11, 2020, 05:09:55 pm

Quote from: spineflu on February 11, 2020, 04:59:29 pm

Not seeing what the Swindler interaction is.

Obviously by Swindler I meant Ambassador. All the cool kids are using Swindler to mean Ambassador now.  :)

Hmm... yes. Lemme just uh... Swindle you a Colony for the win.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 11, 2020, 11:35:48 pm

Quote from: spineflu on February 11, 2020, 04:59:29 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on February 11, 2020, 04:27:13 pm

I also just thought of a different problem. Cards like swindler. And anything that returns things to the supply. In my head they returned their cards to beneath the face down top card. That isn't intuitive at all. 
Man, aiming for a simple new mechanic is hard.

I think that's a reasonable implication - have it be empty for all purposes except game end. Makes City better, for sure.
As far as returning things to the supply, have an errata/FAQ for the card that returned-to-the-supply stuff goes to the bottom of the pile?

Or, change Blockade so it flips the whole supply pile - cards being returned go face-up on top of the pile, and are available to be bought, and that pile is no longer blockaded until someone buys the available cards.

Not seeing what the Swindler interaction is.

What if a card attempting to return to a blockaded pile is trashed? (I also was going to suggest that it goes back to where it came from, but that might still be weird for cards like encampment or experiment)

I know later you said you mean Ambassador, but I do think Swindler could be an issue, in that Blockade does strengthen it. Normally, when you swindle a Province with no other $8 pile, you have to give back a Province, whereas if it's Blockaded, you can't. (so they would get nothing?). Obviously, it's not a mechanics concern, but it does make this a very "random" combo.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 12, 2020, 12:07:07 am

i mean, if you flip the whole pile, then return a card face-up, if you blockade the pile again, it stays un-blockaded bc the bottom card-stack is face-up.

but yeah, Swindler on blockaded Provinces (and no Princes) is problemy. Indicator that Blockade should only hit Kingdom cards, prolly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 12, 2020, 12:22:26 am

Sorry, maybe it wasn't clear, I was suggesting that the rule could be "If a card attempts to return to a supply pile that is blockaded, it can't and is trashed instead."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 12, 2020, 07:07:19 am

maybe it should be like getting an experiment from the black market - it tries to return to its pile, but can't, and so you keep it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 12, 2020, 09:21:03 am

I’m doing a round of correction to my custom Strength game mechanic. After a couple of tests, it was apparent to me that Strength warmongers had it a little bit too easy to fully trigger powerful (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) cards. This is because other players trying to prevent the active player to fully power his or her Strength card could only do so with 5 cards in hand. If the active player buys a lot of +Cards, +Actions cards, then their odds of successfully triggering their Strength cards in their entirety was ridiculously high. Nothing other players could do to deter that, even if they had a deck loaded with (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) cards. And then, having successfully played, say, a Strategic Village, the active player could then continue to play Strength card after Strength card, knowing they wouldn't be stopped, having the best time of their life.

No, I say. Dominion is supposed to make you weep. And weep you shall! The rules about comparing your amount of (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) against other players’ therefore now goes as follow:

“First, this comparison happens IMMEDIATELY when you play a Strength card. Do whatever the card says and then, when you reach the “If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) ” part, you do the comparison. Each Strength card in play from THE ACTIVE PLAYER have their (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) added up. This is the ACTIVE PLAYER’S (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) TOTAL. Then, each OTHER PLAYER, starting from the left of the active player and going clockwise, may or may not reveal additional Strength cards from their hand. This number is not limited, players may reveal any number of Strength cards from their hand. These other players then add up all of their own revealed (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png), and this is their own (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total.”

Again, the moment some else matches or surpasses your number of (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png), then you fail the “if most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)” condition. The bolded parts above are highlighting what changed in that rule. So, in a nutshell, only other players can reveal Strength card from their hand. The active player only has whatever he or she has in play at that moment to compare. This simple subtelty creates two beautiful effects:

• It is harder for the active player to reap the benefits of a Strength card. A more meticulous way to go about Strength cards must now be employed.
• Downtime is reduced. The active player’s hand size and their Strength cards with conditional (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) values changes constantly during their turn. Recalculating their total amount of (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) from their hand each time was a little tedious. No more of that. Other players’ total amount of (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) is static. Therefore, it is way easier to calculate everything with this rule change.

I know balance was not that much of an important criteria for this week's challenge, but dangit if some of my cards need it. So here's some that I change:

---

(https://i.postimg.cc/Snc297Zx/02-Flamethrowers-V2-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/Snc297Zx)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Flamethrowers (Action – Attack – Strength) If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): +2 Cards. You may trash up to 5 cards from your hand. Each other player with 5 or more cards reveal their hand and you may discard 1 of their cards costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) or less. 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)

Flamethrowers was bonkers before! 3 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) on a single card is just too much. It should never get that overpowered. Especially if you’re the first one to afford one. This is how you nullify your competition, pretty much. So now it is worth 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png). Secondly, you can now trash up to 5, not 6. Small change, but eh. Finally, it doesn’t trash a card of your choice from your opponents’ hands costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) anymore, it discards it. Still mean, but it’s not a deck killer at least.

(https://i.postimg.cc/QVVFmr6P/05-Trenches-V2-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/QVVFmr6P)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Trenches (Action – Reaction – Strength) Discard 1 card and +2 Cards. When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this once, after the Attack. If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): +2 Cards. 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)

Trenches simply doesn’t make you discard anymore when you use it as a Reaction. Why would you want to actively hurt yourself when Reacting is supposed to help you? Isn’t the Attack you’re Reacting to enough?

(https://i.postimg.cc/YhZYYSMb/07-Strategic-Village-V2-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/YhZYYSMb)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Strategic Village (Action – Strength) +1 Card If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): +2 Actions, +1 Buy and + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) Worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) if this is in play. Otherwise, worth 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)

It is now a riskier Village. I changed this because chaining these was too easy. Besides, it’s more thematically coherent now. This village represents a bastion of safety. Thus, using it as a sort of “defense” against someone who’s doing a display of strength should be what Strategic Village tries to accomplish. And now it does. It is weaker in play than it is in hand. Other players can block your little engine with less trouble with this new version.

(https://i.postimg.cc/zL5LFbMS/08-Gunpowder-Barrel-V2-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/zL5LFbMS)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) Gunpowder Barrel (Action – Reserve – Strength) +1 Action Put this on your Tavern mat. At the start of your turn, you may call this. If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) Worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) per Gunpowder Barrel on your Tavern mat.

This, a cantrip? No. Suffered the “it was too easy to get there” syndrome, again. So now it just does “+1 Action” before being put on your Tavern Mat.

(https://i.postimg.cc/8Jzjq8T7/09-Archers-V2-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/8Jzjq8T7)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) Archers (Action – Attack – Duration – Strength) Choose: +1 Card; or + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) You may discard any number of Palisades, each for + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png). If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): Each other player has – (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) until the start of your next turn.

And then, we have Archers, again. I mentioned in my original post that I was the most unsure about this card. I still am. But this looks... better, now? Discarding Palisades will give you your money, but will drive you further away from the Attack part. And you have the choice of +1 Card or + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png). Choices, man.

(https://i.postimg.cc/vcJxDStK/09-Palisade-V2-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/vcJxDStK)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) Palisade (Action – Strength) +1 Card +1 Action When you buy this, you may trash a card from your hand. Worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) if you have another Palisade in play. Otherwise, worth 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png).

Hey, speaking of Palisades. Now, it goes like this: You play a Palisade. Congrats, you have 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png). Now you play another one. Your (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) total is still 2. Because they are now worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) each. Other people’s Palisades are still packing their full 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) punch. And this is what Palisades should do: Be used more as a defense than as an attack. This new scaling is pretty neat, I think.

(https://i.postimg.cc/jw3LT8jZ/10-Plunderer-V2-EN.png) (https://postimg.cc/jw3LT8jZ)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Plunderer (Action – Strength) +1 Card +1 Action If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png): Choose up to 2: + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png); or trash 1 card from your hand; or gain a card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png). Worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) if there is another Plunderer in play, or worth 1 (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) if the turn isn’t yours.

He had a hard time, so now, if this is catharsis enough, he can pick up to 2 things in the list of things he can do. Trivially superior to what it was before, in my opinion.

---

I will edit my original post soon enough. Hopefully things are a little more on track now!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 12, 2020, 10:45:17 am

Quote from: scolapasta on February 11, 2020, 11:35:48 pm

What if a card attempting to return to a blockaded pile is trashed? (I also was going to suggest that it goes back to where it came from, but that might still be weird for cards like encampment or experiment)

Quote from: spineflu on February 12, 2020, 07:07:19 am

maybe it should be like getting an experiment from the black market - it tries to return to its pile, but can't, and so you keep it.

Right, that was my second suggestion, I was just worried about cards like Experiment and Encampment. But you're absolutely right, there are rules for these cards with Black Market that already suggest a solution.

For encampment:

Quote

If you cannot return Encampment to the Supply (e.g. you bought it from the Black Market), then if it is set aside it will stay there but will still count as one of your cards at the end of the game.

So I think either trashing the card or following Black Market like rules both seem more intuitive that putting back on the pile in some way. Really depends on if you want Blockades to be stronger (trash) or weaker (BM rules) against these types of cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on February 12, 2020, 06:14:08 pm

Challenge 61: Create a New Simple Mechanic Submission:

First of all, I'm not sure this submission qualifies as it adds an extra game setup step. If it doesn't I'm happy to remove it!

Leader Cards: These play exactly like Projects. The big difference is each player may chooses one and only one Leader for free before the start of the game. All Leaders are available to be chosen and they are not pile limited (so multiple players may choose the same Leader). All Leaders provide a benefit, but beware, all Leaders also have drawbacks. If the Kingdom lacks an extra Action, the Industrious Leader might look appealing, but all non-terminal Actions will cost you $1 extra for the whole game!

(https://i.imgur.com/HQnopNh.jpg)   (https://i.imgur.com/5s63LUR.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/9SHxRCB.jpg)   (https://i.imgur.com/IlHnMMb.jpg)

These may not be exactly balanced, but again these are just to highlight the concept. Thanks for looking!

Quote from: Kudasai on February 12, 2020, 06:14:08 pm

Challenge 61: Create a New Simple Mechanic Submission:
Industrious: At the start of your turn, +1 Action. During your turns, cards with +Action amounts in their text cost $1 more.

Devout: During your turns, once per phase, when you discard a card (from anywhere), you may trash it. At the end of each turn you trashed any cards with this, each other player gets +1VP.

Political: During your turns, Victory cards cost $1 more. When you gain a Victory card, +1VP.

Tactical: At the start of the game, take 9debt. At the start of your turn, +$1.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on February 13, 2020, 02:09:12 am

Enchantments

Enchantments are a new card type.

When you gain a card, you may optionally enchant it with an Enchantment card in your hand or one that you have in play. You may only enchant each gained card once. Some Enchantments might have restrictions what cards they can enchant.

When you enchant a card, immediately set aside the Enchantment card along with the card being enchanted. Both cards will remain there for the rest of the game, and the Enchantment will provide some permanent effect based on the card enchanted. Neither the Enchantment nor the card enchanted is considered in play. Return them to your deck at the end of the game.

Enchantment/card combos do not stack; you may set an Enchantment aside with a card if you already have a copy of that Enchantment set aside with a copy of that card, but it will have no effect.

(https://i.imgur.com/mfyNN0z.png) (https://i.imgur.com/NjFilG7.png) (https://i.imgur.com/SaBAsAt.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/2MBrqkn.png) (https://i.imgur.com/L57nvnI.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 13, 2020, 03:57:10 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on February 13, 2020, 02:09:12 am

Enchantments

Enchantments are a new card type.

When you gain a card, you may optionally enchant it with an Enchantment card in your hand or one that you have in play. You may only enchant each gained card once. Some Enchantments might have restrictions what cards they can enchant.

When you enchant a card, immediately set aside the Enchantment card along with the card being enchanted. Both cards will remain there for the rest of the game, and the Enchantment will provide some permanent effect based on the card enchanted. Neither the Enchantment nor the card enchanted is considered in play.

both the enchantment & the gained card are still in your deck?
and do you gain an additional copy of it to mske up for the set-aside one?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on February 13, 2020, 08:24:47 am

Posting this in case I miss the deadline.

(https://i.imgur.com/GcKZCUK.png)


 Also Kudasai those Leader cards are fun. I want to choose Tactical which is perhaps why I'm actually seldom winning my games.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on February 13, 2020, 10:35:48 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 13, 2020, 03:57:10 am

both the enchantment & the gained card are still in your deck?

Yes.

Quote

and do you gain an additional copy of it to mske up for the set-aside one?

No, the idea was that you don't gain another copy. If you did, I think they'd be too similar to the token Events or Projects.

They're supposed to be slow but powerful; if you think any of them are too weak, the feedback would be welcome. Keystone does seem a little weak in retrospect, maybe it should be allowed to target any card rather than just Treasures.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 13, 2020, 10:42:52 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on February 13, 2020, 10:35:48 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 13, 2020, 03:57:10 am

both the enchantment & the gained card are still in your deck?

Yes.

Quote

and do you gain an additional copy of it to mske up for the set-aside one?

No, the idea was that you don't gain another copy. If you did, I think they'd be too similar to the token Events or Projects.

They're supposed to be slow but powerful; if you think any of them are too weak, the feedback would be welcome. Keystone does seem a little weak in retrospect, maybe it should be allowed to target any card rather than just Treasures.

i mean, you gotta buy the card you're enchanting twice to get the benefit of it, which is non-trivial (tempo-wise) with, say, Prince or Expand, but automatic with Experiment or Port.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 13, 2020, 12:44:07 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on February 13, 2020, 10:35:48 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 13, 2020, 03:57:10 am

both the enchantment & the gained card are still in your deck?

Yes.

Quote

and do you gain an additional copy of it to mske up for the set-aside one?

No, the idea was that you don't gain another copy. If you did, I think they'd be too similar to the token Events or Projects.

They're supposed to be slow but powerful; if you think any of them are too weak, the feedback would be welcome. Keystone does seem a little weak in retrospect, maybe it should be allowed to target any card rather than just Treasures.

Keystone is extremely weak; it only makes sense in overdrawing deck and to Coin-ify Potion.
I like the general idea quite a bit but like spineflu I worry that this is too weak. For example Future Sight looks at first pretty sweet, now those Mountebanks stop being terminal Silvers and draw. Great stuff! Then you realize that you gotta quasi-trash two $5s to do so and realize that this price is too large.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on February 13, 2020, 02:43:55 pm

Keystone's kinda interesting, if you put it on Copper then you'll have 1 less card in hand each turn. So you can draw an extra with draw-to-X effects. Which you conveniently have, as Keystone is one.

.. still kinda weak even then, paying 4 for an effective draw-to-6 sometimes is not that interesting, even if it does cantrip.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 13, 2020, 03:13:26 pm

So, (probable) final updates to Jewelry cards.

First, some cosmetic changes - I decided to give them a different, brighter color than regular treasure. And I had forgotten the top corner amounts in the original versions.

Other changes / comments:

Ring - stays the same; demonstrates cards that will encourage spending more buys
Bracelet - changed cost from $4 to $5; demonstrates cards that care about other cards you bought
Necklace - while I liked the idea of a self contraband, but this seemed too limiting (and the wording was awkward). So now it only self-contrabands if you play before buying and you can still buy cards up to 5.

(https://i.imgur.com/Bm1uZIj.png)(https://i.imgur.com/llPKamK.png)(https://i.imgur.com/bPlY8tS.png)

And I've added a new card, Earrings: a treasure card that (effectively) produces $4 per turn; however it does this by making you gain a silver and first make a buy (so either you have to split your $ for multiple good buys OR buy a copper; i.e. you get $4 to spend, but gain a copper and a silver)

(https://i.imgur.com/HxwXH9s.png)

I'm also adding this blurb to the original post:

Ring - uses mechanic to encourage spending more buys
Bracelet - uses mechanic to care about other cards you bought
Necklace - uses mechanic to limit buy power of the card
Earrings - uses mechanic to interact with other cards that draw after you buy (and limits buy power of the card)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 13, 2020, 03:16:49 pm

we at 24 hours to go?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on February 13, 2020, 05:01:46 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on February 13, 2020, 03:13:26 pm

So, (probable) final updates to Jewelry cards.

First, some cosmetic changes - I decided to give them a different, brighter color than regular treasure. And I had forgotten the top corner amounts in the original versions.

Other changes / comments:

Ring - stays the same; demonstrates cards that will encourage spending more buys
Bracelet - changed cost from $4 to $5; demonstrates cards that care about other cards you bought
Necklace - while I liked the idea of a self contraband, but this seemed too limiting (and the wording was awkward). So now it only self-contrabands if you play before buying and you can still buy cards up to 5.

(https://i.imgur.com/Bm1uZIj.png)(https://i.imgur.com/llPKamK.png)(https://i.imgur.com/bPlY8tS.png)

And I've added a new card, Earrings: a treasure card that (effectively) produces $4 per turn; however it does this by making you gain a silver and first make a buy (so either you have to split your $ for multiple good buys OR buy a copper; i.e. you get $4 to spend, but gain a copper and a silver)

(https://i.imgur.com/HxwXH9s.png)

I'm also adding this blurb to the original post:

Ring - uses mechanic to encourage spending more buys
Bracelet - uses mechanic to care about other cards you bought
Necklace - uses mechanic to limit buy power of the card
Earrings - uses mechanic to interact with other cards that draw after you buy (and limits buy power of the card)

Bracelet at the moment seems like it is only decreasing the cost in the moment you play it. I'm fairly sure that you meant it to decrease the cost either for the rest of the turn or for the duration that it stays in play (this matters for Crown), based on which cards you have bought before you played it.

That being said, it's fairly clear what Bracelet is meant to do, and since the judging is based on the mechanic rather than the cards themselves, that should be fine. I just thought I would point it out. These all look really cool (and I like how they all have +1 Buy - not necessary for the mechanic, but a clear synergy with it).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on February 13, 2020, 06:06:23 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on February 13, 2020, 08:24:47 am

Posting this in case I miss the deadline.

(https://i.imgur.com/GcKZCUK.png)


 Also Kudasai those Leader cards are fun. I want to choose Tactical which is perhaps why I'm actually seldom winning my games.

I appreciate the comment! I'm torn on Tactical. It seems strictly better than a double Silver opening, which I don't like. Not that double Silver is especially strong. It is however the ever present strategy that allows a player to hit higher price points. Tactical does the same thing, but without adding 2 stop cards into your deck. It probably needs to give enough debt to make you skip around 2.5 to 3.0 turns. Or just straight up say, "skip your first 3 turns of the game."

Anyways, I'm glad you think they're fun and I think you've chosen the strongest of the 4 Leaders. So it's probably not your card assessment that's losing you games! :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 13, 2020, 06:11:19 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on February 13, 2020, 06:06:23 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on February 13, 2020, 08:24:47 am

Posting this in case I miss the deadline.

(https://i.imgur.com/GcKZCUK.png)


 Also Kudasai those Leader cards are fun. I want to choose Tactical which is perhaps why I'm actually seldom winning my games.

I appreciate the comment! I'm torn on Tactical. It seems strictly better than a double Silver opening, which I don't like. Not that double Silver is especially strong. It is however the ever present strategy that allows a player to hit higher price points. Tactical does the same thing, but without adding 2 stop cards into your deck. It probably needs to give enough debt to make you skip around 2.5 to 3.0 turns. Or just straight up say, "skip your first 3 turns of the game."

Anyways, I'm glad you think they're fun and I think you've chosen the strongest of the 4 Leaders. So it's probably not your card assessment that's losing you games! :P

Saying "Skip your first 3 turns", in my opinion, could totally work. It isn't in Dominion's traditional jargon, but why not create the term specifically for your card? Not unlike Masquerade which is the only card that uses the unique "pass" command, Tactical could own the exclusivity of the "skip" command. Explanation on what to do when encountering a "skip" effect would be laid out in the rulebook of the set introducing that card anyway.  :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 13, 2020, 06:18:16 pm

Tactical is better (not strictly, but mostly) than opening Treasury/-, a decent but not outstanding opening, so it will depend on the board

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 13, 2020, 07:55:24 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on February 13, 2020, 05:01:46 pm

Bracelet at the moment seems like it is only decreasing the cost in the moment you play it. I'm fairly sure that you meant it to decrease the cost either for the rest of the turn or for the duration that it stays in play (this matters for Crown), based on which cards you have bought before you played it.

That being said, it's fairly clear what Bracelet is meant to do, and since the judging is based on the mechanic rather than the cards themselves, that should be fine. I just thought I would point it out. These all look really cool (and I like how they all have +1 Buy - not necessary for the mechanic, but a clear synergy with it).

You're right about the intention. It needs a "for the rest of your turn" clause.

One challenge with the Jewelry mechanic (and any new mechanic, of course) is making sure that the same or similar effect can't be equally or more effectively achieved with existing mechanics.

A regular treasure with a "while this is in play, cards that share a type with cards you've bought this turn cost $1 less", while not the same, might be similar enough to what Bracelet is trying to do.
 
Hmm, now I'm wondering about the other cards:
Earrings compares to a regular treasure that said "When you play this, the next time you buy a card this turn, +$2 and gain a silver.", but that's different enough - you'd be able to spend the first $2 on the first buy and then get the $2 (and silver). Earrings on the other hand is one or the other - play it first for the $2 with no bonus, or buy something without it, then get all $4. So it feels like a good use of the mechanic, I think.

(though I might still remove the "then play any number of treasures" , just letting you play the silver. And have a new card with
+ Cards based on cards you've bought and then play any number of treasures...)

Ring (as a hybrid Treasure - Night type mechanic) and Necklace (limitation only if you play as a regular treasure) also show that there's some versatility for this mechanic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 14, 2020, 12:19:08 am

Did I say final update?? Ha.

Here are a couple more tweaks, and a new card!

• Bracelet: added "this turn"
• Earrings: tightened up, as I realized multiple earrings could benefit from that 1st buy, and moved the "then play all Treasures" clause to ->

Jewelry Box, the more you've bought the more you draw, and then you can play any Treasures (and as before, combos with other ways of drawing Treasures when buying)

(https://i.imgur.com/SWIjrKk.png)(https://i.imgur.com/kB1lKPr.png)(https://i.imgur.com/TrGo7VM.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on February 14, 2020, 12:58:52 am

Updated my Enchantment cards to make them more powerful. I tried to make them more self-synergistic, as well, just to make sure there's something that combos with them to some extent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on February 14, 2020, 05:47:48 am

Scolapasta, since you're tightening up the wording, do you need "When you play this" in there? By default, cards take effect when played.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on February 14, 2020, 09:36:21 am

Quote from: Snowyowl on February 14, 2020, 05:47:48 am

Scolapasta, since you're tightening up the wording, do you need "When you play this" in there? By default, cards take effect when played.

A lot of (possibly all?) official Treasures with special effects say that, so it was probably just to be consistent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on February 14, 2020, 11:38:17 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on February 14, 2020, 09:36:21 am

Quote from: Snowyowl on February 14, 2020, 05:47:48 am

Scolapasta, since you're tightening up the wording, do you need "When you play this" in there? By default, cards take effect when played.

A lot of (possibly all?) official Treasures with special effects say that, so it was probably just to be consistent.

Fool's Gold and Crown don't specify their "when you play this" trigger. Crown is also an Action card, so maybe that's why. I don't know about Fool's Gold. Maybe it just has too much text already? As far as I can tell, those are the only two exceptions. (Ducat, Plunder, etc. don't count; they have only vanilla effects.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 14, 2020, 12:36:31 pm

Took me a while to hunt this down, but this was asked to DXV in the interview thread. I chose to stay with that consistency.

Quote from: Donald X. on June 12, 2015, 06:21:09 pm

Quote from: werothegreat on June 12, 2015, 03:38:42 pm

Why do Treasures say "When you play this" before listing their on play effects?

It's kind of a bummer that they do - it adds all that text to those cards, and they already use a bunch of space on the giant coin.

They say it because it seemed important for clarity when special treasures first appeared. The first one was Philosopher's Stone (due to Alchemy sneaking ahead of Prosperity) and it had to be clear, when does the number of cards in your deck matter. It matters right when you play the treasure; you count the cards then and only then.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 14, 2020, 01:26:25 pm

Like I said in the original post, this contest is gonna run slightly more than a week. I'm going to start judging the submissions on Sunday morning. The last time to submit will be Saturday night (my time). I would give a 24 hour warning, but can't because I'll be observing Sabbath at that point. So here's your 36 hour warning.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 14, 2020, 01:32:51 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on February 12, 2020, 06:14:08 pm

Challenge 61: Create a New Simple Mechanic Submission:

First of all, I'm not sure this submission qualifies as it adds an extra game setup step. If it doesn't I'm happy to remove it!

Leader Cards: These play exactly like Projects. The big difference is each player may chooses one and only one Leader for free before the start of the game. All Leaders are available to be chosen and they are not pile limited (so multiple players may choose the same Leader). All Leaders provide a benefit, but beware, all Leaders also have drawbacks. If the Kingdom lacks an extra Action, the Industrious Leader might look appealing, but all non-terminal Actions will cost you $1 extra for the whole game!

(https://i.imgur.com/HQnopNh.jpg)   (https://i.imgur.com/5s63LUR.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/9SHxRCB.jpg)   (https://i.imgur.com/IlHnMMb.jpg)

These may not be exactly balanced, but again these are just to highlight the concept. Thanks for looking!

Quote from: Kudasai on February 12, 2020, 06:14:08 pm

Challenge 61: Create a New Simple Mechanic Submission:
Industrious: At the start of your turn, +1 Action. During your turns, cards with +Action amounts in their text cost $1 more.

Devout: During your turns, once per phase, when you discard a card (from anywhere), you may trash it. At the end of each turn you trashed any cards with this, each other player gets +1VP.

Political: During your turns, Victory cards cost $1 more. When you gain a Victory card, +1VP.

Tactical: At the start of the game, take 9debt. At the start of your turn, +$1.

Not Sure if I understand correctly, but it sounds like you'd use cubes to denote who has which leader. In that case, it wouldn't work because of the extra components needed.

I'm kind of on the fence if you would use 4 copies of each card, and each player would take one before the game. It feels pretty similar to shelters and heirlooms (maybe even a little worse, since setup takes a little extra time while you wait for everyone to make their leader choice). I think I'm going to rule that it won't count. Sorry for the delay in getting to you on this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 14, 2020, 02:24:41 pm

Not cool, dude. Kudasai‘s concept is one of the best ones posted, exists for quit some time so quite some thought went into it ... and whether you use cubes or several copies of each card is fairly trivial and only relevant for choosing between a secret or open setup.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 14, 2020, 02:36:49 pm

Quote from: segura on February 14, 2020, 02:24:41 pm

Not cool, dude. Kudasai‘s concept is one of the best ones posted, exists for quit some time so quite some thought went into it ... and whether you use cubes or several copies of each card is fairly trivial and only relevant for choosing between a secret or open setup.

I mean I think he's doing Kudasai a favour saying this in advance because he obviously wouldn't have had a chance at winning with this entry anyway. Now Kudasai gets another chance.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 14, 2020, 02:56:53 pm

Nothing obvious about this decision. Seems arbitrarily bureaucratic to me. Who cares about how you implement a particular idea?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 14, 2020, 03:09:46 pm

Quote from: segura on February 14, 2020, 02:56:53 pm

Nothing obvious about this decision. Seems arbitrarily bureaucratic to me. Who cares about how you implement a particular idea?

It's pretty obvious to me that even if Leaders weren't disqualified naitchman wouldn't have chosen them as the winner.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 14, 2020, 03:12:28 pm

Quote from: segura on February 14, 2020, 02:56:53 pm

Nothing obvious about this decision. Seems arbitrarily bureaucratic to me. Who cares about how you implement a particular idea?

This challenge's rules, for one, cares about that.

It was clearly stipulated in the limits imposed by this challenge:

“By simple mechanic I mean the mechanic must have no extra setup (beyond the pile itself) - No tokens, Mats, extra piles/cards that have to be pulled from the box (even if they are exclusive to that pile like Hermit, Urchin, Young Witch, travelers, or Artifacts etc.), or cards to replace starting deck (Heirlooms/Shelters).”

Quote from: Kudasai on February 12, 2020, 06:14:08 pm

These play exactly like Projects. The big difference is each player may chooses one and only one Leader for free before the start of the game.

This is in direct contradiction with the rules of this challenge. Everyone had to abide by them and the difficulty of it was to work within the limits of said rules. Otherwise, it would have been easier for us all to find alternatives. The moment you start being lenient toward a particular user, then you open a whole can of worm. If it is okay for someone to overstretch the rules of the challenge, then it should be okay for everyone else to abuse as well.

Now, truthfully, I'd be glad if this (very awesome, by the way) submission gets accepted regardless. The whole idea of this thread is to have fun, after all! But I can’t help but think that calling someone who’s going to spend hours to judge our creations uncool is what’s really uncool about this situation. Booing from the sideline as both parties are in agreement anyway is kind of out of place. Kudasai himself said that he could change his entry or work around it, if needed. So what’s the issue here?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 14, 2020, 03:15:49 pm

Huh? You print one card per player, period. No issue at all.

This is about ideas, not about excluding cool ideas because of utterly irrelevant implementation trivia.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 14, 2020, 03:41:35 pm

Based on naitchman's comment I was under the impression the issue was more about choosing between the 4 Leaders at the start of the game. That seems quite against the no setup part of this week's challenge to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 14, 2020, 03:44:17 pm

Quote from: segura on February 14, 2020, 03:15:49 pm

Huh? You print one card per player, period. No issue at all.

This is about ideas, not about excluding cool ideas because of utterly irrelevant implementation trivia.

It’s not « utterly » (lol) irrelevant implementation: Implementation IS the challenge! I dunno why you make it a point to dismiss that. If I make a challenge that says “Create a card that costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)” and someone creates a really neat card that involves a novel and never-seen-before concept, but prices it at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), then it would be disqualified regardless because it did not follow what the hearth of this challenge was. Sure, the card is awesome and the ideas behind it are excellent, but it wasn’t implemented correctly for that week’s challenge. Then, imagine getting deemed “uncool” because you let that person know about the error. Yeesh.

I’ve been enamored by Kudasai’s idea as well. But don’t trivialize this incoherence just because your favourite candidate’s creation has a problematic implementation. Anyway, this is for naitchman to decide. I will stand by his decision and whether Kudasai’s submission makes it in or not is not important: I just thought your disgruntled attitude toward him was really not within the good vibes one can usually find in this thread.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 14, 2020, 03:47:38 pm

Dude, implementation refers to whether you do this via one copy of each Leader and cubes or via several copies. But only few people here use fan cards IRL which is why the focus should be on the idea. When somebody posts a split pile and claims that it should be 4-4 or 6-6 folks should not sweat that: it only matter if you print the card and then you can still change that very parameter.
And before you claim that Kudasai‘s idea that he has worked on for some time is „incoherent“, you might wanna check the inconsistent wording on your own cards first.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 14, 2020, 03:53:14 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on February 14, 2020, 03:41:35 pm

Based on naitchman's comment I was under the impression the issue was more about choosing between the 4 Leaders at the start of the game. That seems quite against the no setup part of this week's challenge to me.

I don’t know, every new mechanism takes up setup time as you gotta explain it. Ironically overwrought mechanics swallow up more setup time than formal setup stuff like Baker or sideway cards. For example choosing Leaders would take far less time in my gaming group than explaining them how Strength is supposed to work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 14, 2020, 03:58:05 pm

I don’t think bringing “learning the rules of a new mechanic” is arguing in good faith. It simply is not part of the setup. It isn’t something that’s required to do before you start a game. You read the rules and learn the mechanics once and then you’re good to go for all subsequent plays. The mechanics we implemented do not force the players to go over the rules when a game begins.

Otherwise, learning about how to play an Action card, for instance, would be, according to you, an extra setup step too, since it’s a mechanic that requires the rules to be read at least once before. That’s a broken logic.

As a quick reminder, “Create a new mechanic with quick to explain rules” was not part of this challenge. “Create a new mechanic with no extra setup steps”, however, is very much in naitchman’s post.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 14, 2020, 04:03:26 pm

Quote from: X-tra on February 14, 2020, 03:58:05 pm

I don’t think bringing “learning the rules of a new mechanic” is arguing in good faith. It simply is not part of the setup. It isn’t something that’s required to do before you start a game. You read the rules and learn the mechanics once and then you’re good to go for all subsequent plays. The mechanics we implemented do not force the players to go over the rules when a game begins.

Does not sound like you play the same game I do. Or your gaming group features players of equal strength / rule knowledge.

We always read all the cards and talk about them before we play a game of Dominion in my gaming group such that everybody is on an equal footing ... and if there are cards with complex mechanics or interactions that takes far more time than grabbing for some Shelters.

So yeah, IRL complex mechanics take more setup time than formal setup stuff. Like grabbing for some cards or cubes or whatever.

You can of course try to argue that you could simply pull out some of your Strength cards and let the other suckers figure them out for themselves. But you know very well that this is not how you would behave, you would explain them and answer all rule questions before you started the game. And you would explain rule ambiguities or even make a new ruling during the game. And if folks forgot some stuff, you would explain it again before the next game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 14, 2020, 04:14:13 pm

No rules stipulated anywhere forces you to explain cards and go over the game board with your group. This is not part of setting the game up. You are welcome to chat and help players with game concepts and understanding cards, but again, this isn’t something a rulebook forces you to do everytime before a game starts.
This strawman of an argument is going too far; If we are deriving into “Welp explaining the rules are part of the setup anyway so everything submitted thus far disqualifies harr harr” territory, then I’ll quiet down. Deep down, I’m sure you know what naitchman meant.

In the end, I just wished naitchman’s decision wouldn’t have been met with open negativity like that. Especially since, to me, it seems kinda unjustified.

Let us reestablish this thread’s status quo of friendliness. It’s good for everyone. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 14, 2020, 04:20:49 pm

Quote from: X-tra on February 14, 2020, 04:14:13 pm

No rules stipulated anywhere forces you to explain cards and go over the game board with your group. This is not part of setting the game up. You are welcome to chat and help players with game concepts and understanding cards, but again, this isn’t something a rulebook forces you to do everytime before a game starts.

You really wanna claim that you would behave like a total jerk and make the other players read the rules about your Strength cards and not explain them to them? Dude, we talk about board games, as in social stuff, not algorithms.
Wherever and with whomever I have played, whoever knew more about a particular game has always explained it. And that happened while/before/after we set up the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on February 14, 2020, 05:29:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/6vzrCAE.png) (https://i.imgur.com/wvhAJGB.png) (https://i.imgur.com/tdgGXM2.png)

Inventions are cards which you can play as one-shots by meeting some condition which is described for each card below the dividing line. You can also buy and play them as normal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 14, 2020, 07:01:54 pm

Quote from: segura on February 14, 2020, 04:20:49 pm

Quote from: X-tra on February 14, 2020, 04:14:13 pm

No rules stipulated anywhere forces you to explain cards and go over the game board with your group. This is not part of setting the game up. You are welcome to chat and help players with game concepts and understanding cards, but again, this isn’t something a rulebook forces you to do everytime before a game starts.

You really wanna claim that you would behave like a total jerk and make the other players read the rules about your Strength cards and not explain them to them? Dude, we talk about board games, as in social stuff, not algorithms.
Wherever and with whomever I have played, whoever knew more about a particular game has always explained it. And that happened while/before/after we set up the game.

And would you then play the exact same set with the exact same people and still explain the same things you just explained to them the previous game? According to your "logic," you should, since that's apparently a set up rule. According to your reasoning, all possible entries for this contest would be disqualified.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 14, 2020, 07:19:33 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 14, 2020, 07:01:54 pm

Quote from: segura on February 14, 2020, 04:20:49 pm

Quote from: X-tra on February 14, 2020, 04:14:13 pm

No rules stipulated anywhere forces you to explain cards and go over the game board with your group. This is not part of setting the game up. You are welcome to chat and help players with game concepts and understanding cards, but again, this isn’t something a rulebook forces you to do everytime before a game starts.

You really wanna claim that you would behave like a total jerk and make the other players read the rules about your Strength cards and not explain them to them? Dude, we talk about board games, as in social stuff, not algorithms.
Wherever and with whomever I have played, whoever knew more about a particular game has always explained it. And that happened while/before/after we set up the game.

And would you then play the exact same set with the exact same people and still explain the same things you just explained to them the previous game? According to your "logic," you should, since that's apparently a set up rule. According to your reasoning, all possible entries for this contest would be disqualified.

I never play the same Kingdom again. You seem to confuse rules with common decency, algorithms with what actually happens when people play a boardgame.

IRL some messy mechanic like Strength swallows up far more time during setup than Leaders.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 14, 2020, 07:37:11 pm

Due to the excellent points segura has brought up I've decided to change my entry. Introducing Blank cards:
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/e/eb/Blank.jpg)
Blank cards are a new card type with zero rules text. This innovation means that Blank cards add no extra set up time, in fact they don't even have a randomizer card! I demand that naitchman disqualifies all other entries this week as all of them add extensive extra setup to games by virtue of having rules text.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thre
Post by: segura on February 14, 2020, 07:53:21 pm

Quite ironic that your sarcasm misses that I this entire discussion started with my arguing for INCLUSION of a good card idea and not for the exclusion or disqualification of anything.
And your point is still factually wrong. Setting up stuff is quicker than explaining stuff, taking out Potions takes a fraction of the time it takes to understand and explain Possession.

Leaders are good and simple, kinda like Preludes in TM but with downsides. But if folks care more about rigid contest rules (why do I get such heavy autistic vibes?) than how things work IRL games, who am I to object and defend a good card design against the algorithmic crowd.

User was temp banned for this post

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 14, 2020, 08:19:59 pm

Report and move on, people. Trolls tend to do that: they swallow up a good portion of a thread and gain self-gratification as any ounce remaining of common sense in a would-be civilised debate gets obliterated. Golden rule of the Internet: When we have a very good moment together, this is where people with self-destructive behaviour chimes in.

All I can say, Kudasai, is that I’m sorry that you must bear the awkwardness of that disruptive follower of yours. I know his thinking doesn’t mirror yours and don’t think for a second that we think any lesser of you because of that. Same with you, naitchman. Your week’s contest, your rules. It is an excellent contest and yielded a lot of really cool ideas from the community (even if, apparently, understanding the instructions of that challenge was errr... hard to grasp for some, lol). Everyone is giving their best here and I can’t say that there has been one single effortless entry since the start (well, maybe the blank card, but again: lol). Keep up the good and hard work, people!

Let’s get back on track now. 😊

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on February 15, 2020, 04:40:21 am

Quote from: hypercube on February 14, 2020, 05:29:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZeKBuPe.png) (https://i.imgur.com/0H33yzb.png) (https://i.imgur.com/29HEVxV.png)

Inventions are cards which you can play as one-shots by meeting some condition which is described for each card below the dividing line. You can also buy and play them as normal.

Looks pretty awesome, but I'd certainly give it a different color, as a reminder that these cards provide extra options during your turns by virtue of being in the kingdom. Reactions are having a different color for similar reasons - to remind that they have an effect on moments other cards typically have no interaction.

Also, two of the entries say "you may you may".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on February 15, 2020, 07:28:01 am

Quote from: X-tra on February 14, 2020, 08:19:59 pm

Report and move on, people. Trolls tend to do that: they swallow up a good portion of a thread and gain self-gratification as any ounce remaining of common sense in a would-be civilised debate gets obliterated. Golden rule of the Internet: When we have a very good moment together, this is where people with self-destructive behaviour chimes in.

All I can say, Kudasai, is that I’m sorry that you must bear the awkwardness of that disruptive follower of yours. I know his thinking doesn’t mirror yours and don’t think for a second that we think any lesser of you because of that. Same with you, naitchman. Your week’s contest, your rules. It is an excellent contest and yielded a lot of really cool ideas from the community (even if, apparently, understanding the instructions of that challenge was errr... hard to grasp for some, lol). Everyone is giving their best here and I can’t say that there has been one single effortless entry since the start (well, maybe the blank card, but again: lol). Keep up the good and hard work, people!

Let’s get back on track now. 😊

Well said.  Speaking of getting back on track, when is this going to be judged? 

I was completely stumped by this contest.  If I had known I could enter a Blank Card, I would have done so.  I am eager for the next challenge!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hypercube on February 15, 2020, 07:54:49 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on February 15, 2020, 04:40:21 am

Looks pretty awesome, but I'd certainly give it a different color, as a reminder that these cards provide extra options during your turns by virtue of being in the kingdom. Reactions are having a different color for similar reasons - to remind that they have an effect on moments other cards typically have no interaction.

Also, two of the entries say "you may you may".

Good points!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on February 15, 2020, 05:22:54 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on February 15, 2020, 07:28:01 am

I was completely stumped by this contest.  If I had known I could enter a Blank Card, I would have done so.  I am eager for the next challenge!

I'm coming up with ideas, just not good ones. *sigh*. Guess I'll just wait until next challenge. This was really difficult.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 16, 2020, 01:44:21 am

Wow! Seems like a lot has happened since I was gone. I guess I want to say a couple of things:

As far as judging: It is currently 1:30 am where I am, so I am going to go to bed and judge the entries in the morning. I think there's still a bit of time left of my 36 hour warning, so if anything comes in the next couple of hours I'll count it. That being said, I'm guessing there probably won't be anymore entries. Because of the large number of individual cards (I think there might be close to 100), I'm not going to comment on every single card, however I might comment on interesting/intriguing cards and give suggestions if something catches my eye. My plan is to comment more on the general mechanic and give suggestions if I think of any.

Kudasai: Sorry for the judgement that didn't go your way. I think X-tra said it well; it's unfortunate you're put into this awkward situation and most of us know that your thinking doesn't necessarily mirror segura's. Like I said, the decision was not so clear cut, and I was on the fence; but I ultimately felt it didn't count. I didn't explain my reasoning at length in the original post, but I felt if heirlooms didn't count, than leaders couldn't either. Many people keep cursed gold in the same stack as pooka meaning setup is minimal (especially considering there is no decision time), so heirlooms have less setup than leaders. I didn't say this in the original post, but I was planning on giving feedback on leaders if you didn't change your submission (Perhaps saying this might have made the situation not blow up as much).

Segura: I'm sorry this judgement has bothered you so much. It's also unfortunate that I wasn't able to respond to your comments (due to Shabbat) because I feel that might have deescalated the situation. I've explained my reasoning in the paragraph above in more detail than I did in the original post. Judgements sometimes don't go your way but as a general rule, we need to accept judgements (even those we don't like) so the system can work. On the flip side, judging is sometimes hard; you have to aware of the inevitable ramifications. In this case I was aware of the downside of disqualifying kudasai's card; however, if I had allowed it, some people might have complained saying they held back ideas that were similar because they didn't think it would qualify. In the end, I had to go with my gut, and what I felt fit within the framework of the contest. I would like to state that I hold no ill will towards you because of this; everyone makes mistakes and everyone has bad days. You've been on this thread for quite some time and have contributed many good ideas, and I know that you are usually respectful and considerate. I don't take this personally at all and look forward to you joining us again soon.

To all entrants: Wow! Great job. I thought this week was going to be hard and was worried there would be too few entries, but you guys definitely did deliver. I think there's at least 18 new mechanics. What's great about this is we can all use these ideas for future card ideas (I probably will). Also, as Gazbag has pointed out, you are all disqualified and Gazbag wins with blank cards. 😜 (As an aside, I burst out laughing when I read that)

To those who felt this week was a little harder than normal, sorry about that; hopefully you'll get back on the train next week.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on February 16, 2020, 10:37:07 am

Quote from: naitchman on February 16, 2020, 01:44:21 am

To those who felt this week was a little harder than normal, sorry about that; hopefully you'll get back on the train next week.

Wow.  I mean, it's always been obvious to me that anything too hard for me is unequivocally wrong, period.  But I have never had anyone actually apologize for it.  #HealingMoments

 ;) ;D ;) ;D

(Seriously: great challenge!  And great job to all the entrants, even the ones that were DQd.  I was amazed!)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 16, 2020, 11:33:03 am

Quote from: Gazbag on February 14, 2020, 07:37:11 pm

Due to the excellent points segura has brought up I've decided to change my entry. Introducing Blank cards:
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/e/eb/Blank.jpg)
Blank cards are a new card type with zero rules text. This innovation means that Blank cards add no extra set up time, in fact they don't even have a randomizer card! I demand that naitchman disqualifies all other entries this week as all of them add extensive extra setup to games by virtue of having rules text.

I know this is a joke post but i'm pretty sure i have randomizers for blank cards - the blank card promo packs from BGG come with them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on February 16, 2020, 02:30:47 pm

Quote from: naitchman on February 16, 2020, 01:44:21 am

Wow! Seems like a lot has happened since I was gone. I guess I want to say a couple of things:

As far as judging: It is currently 1:30 am where I am, so I am going to go to bed and judge the entries in the morning. I think there's still a bit of time left of my 36 hour warning, so if anything comes in the next couple of hours I'll count it. That being said, I'm guessing there probably won't be anymore entries. Because of the large number of individual cards (I think there might be close to 100), I'm not going to comment on every single card, however I might comment on interesting/intriguing cards and give suggestions if something catches my eye. My plan is to comment more on the general mechanic and give suggestions if I think of any.

Kudasai: Sorry for the judgement that didn't go your way. I think X-tra said it well; it's unfortunate you're put into this awkward situation and most of us know that your thinking doesn't necessarily mirror segura's. Like I said, the decision was not so clear cut, and I was on the fence; but I ultimately felt it didn't count. I didn't explain my reasoning at length in the original post, but I felt if heirlooms didn't count, than leaders couldn't either. Many people keep cursed gold in the same stack as pooka meaning setup is minimal (especially considering there is no decision time), so heirlooms have less setup than leaders. I didn't say this in the original post, but I was planning on giving feedback on leaders if you didn't change your submission (Perhaps saying this might have made the situation not blow up as much).

Segura: I'm sorry this judgement has bothered you so much. It's also unfortunate that I wasn't able to respond to your comments (due to Shabbat) because I feel that might have deescalated the situation. I've explained my reasoning in the paragraph above in more detail than I did in the original post. Judgements sometimes don't go your way but as a general rule, we need to accept judgements (even those we don't like) so the system can work. On the flip side, judging is sometimes hard; you have to aware of the inevitable ramifications. In this case I was aware of the downside of disqualifying kudasai's card; however, if I had allowed it, some people might have complained saying they held back ideas that were similar because they didn't think it would qualify. In the end, I had to go with my gut, and what I felt fit within the framework of the contest. I would like to state that I hold no ill will towards you because of this; everyone makes mistakes and everyone has bad days. You've been on this thread for quite some time and have contributed many good ideas, and I know that you are usually respectful and considerate. I don't take this personally at all and look forward to you joining us again soon.

To all entrants: Wow! Great job. I thought this week was going to be hard and was worried there would be too few entries, but you guys definitely did deliver. I think there's at least 18 new mechanics. What's great about this is we can all use these ideas for future card ideas (I probably will). Also, as Gazbag has pointed out, you are all disqualified and Gazbag wins with blank cards. 😜 (As an aside, I burst out laughing when I read that)

To those who felt this week was a little harder than normal, sorry about that; hopefully you'll get back on the train next week.

I 100% understand. For the two contested I created I immediately wished I had rephrased things once submitted! :)

Also, don't worry about leaving comments for Leaders. You already have a lot of judging ahead of you!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 16, 2020, 08:15:19 pm

As I said before, I'm very impressed by the quality and quantity of entries this week. Props to all of you.

With that out of the way: It's Judging Time!

---

2 sided events (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823309#msg823309) by grep
When I first saw the idea of 2 sided events, I was a bit skeptical. My main concern was that this would become a game of figuring out if you should buy the event and open up the other side to your opponent, which might work well in 2p but feels more random in 3 or 4 player games. I think you handled this well by giving the events +buys, keeping the price low, and making the 2 sides synergize with each other. This makes it likely (and worth it) to buy both sides in one turn, meaning the side that starts face up on your turn is less relevant. Overall, it's simple yet interesting; I like it.

---

Morning Cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823329#msg823329) by Spineflu
The idea of Morning Cards (cards that are played at the beginning of your turn as opposed to night cards) has been suggested before (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823329#msg823329) (not a negative, just pointing it out). I have a couple of issues with this implementation.
1) This one gives effects to all players, and only a slightly better effect to the person who actually played it. In many cases, it feels like buying a morning card is a sucker move, because you waste the time and money buying it and playing it (which takes 1 card if you draw it naturally at the start of your turn, and 2 cards if you hold onto it from one turn to the next), and your benefit doesn't seem to be worth all the trouble.
2) You can only get the recurring benefit of one card (which can stop if someone else plays a morning card). This means you can't even stack the benefit. And if someone else gets a morning card, getting one yourself becomes even less worth it; The only extra thing you get by playing it is the bottom half. In addition when your opponent plays his morning card again, your morning card goes back in your discard to clog up your deck again.
3) Rather than having a homogeneous pile, you have 4 different types of cards in each pile. Most of the time I think the personal benefit is marginal, but in some case, like if there's no other +buy, getting Dew or Sunrise becomes really strong. If it was a homogeneous pile, it wouldn't be as bad, because everyone would buy one. But because this is a mix, it can lopside things.Player 1 might buy Dew turn one and have little reason to buy any other morning cards (since only 1 will stay in play). Meanwhile, Player 2 needs a +buy to be competitive but the top card of the morning pile is now Dawn Chorus. Does he buy it with the hopes of hitting a Dew or Sunrise? He might have to buy 3 or 4 junk morning cards before he hits the morning card he's actually going to use.

I think allowing someone to hold onto a morning card in addition to their new 5 cards as opposed to as part of their new 5 cards would help a little bit (since it wouldn't clog your deck as much every time you play it) but there are still some kinks to work out on this one.

---

2 sided events (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823340#msg823340) by Majiponi
I'm not sure whether you independently thought of the same idea as grep, or saw his idea and decided to add some more cards. I'll assume the former.

Suggestions: I don't think you should have the duration type on these events. Duration usually goes on things that stay in play, but events never really go in play. You can just leave the next turn effects above the line (like expedition does)

Ignoring the duration thing, I liked grep's implementation of the idea a bit more; his usually went for some synergy between the 2 sides when bought in one turn and gave +buys to many of them which meant buying both sides in one turn was very likely. Without the +buy it becomes a game of trying to figure out if you should buy the event and thus open up the other side to your opponent. In 2p this could be interesting, but in 3p or 4p games this starts to fall apart and feels more random and dependant on who's sitting to your left.

---

Single Cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823341#msg823341) by NoMoreFun
I've tried in the past making cards with only one in the game and it is definitely hard to do. If it's too powerful, it just becomes a race to get it. Also, if it stays in one players deck, whoever gets it is going to have an edge. Overall I like the way you did many of these cards, allowing them to return to the piles or transfer to other people. They're also done in such a way that it's still worth it for the first person who actually buys it. The only card I think doesn't work is Communion; why buy it if everyone's going to share in the benefit? I could see some situations, but in general I could see games where no one buys it because it doesn't give you enough of an edge over your opponents. That aside, I do like the mechanic in general (it's interesting to see cards passed around and affect the game in interesting ways); well done.

---

Blockade (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823343#msg823343) by somekindoftony
I'm not sure exactly what the new mechanic is; this seems like a single card not a general mechanic. I'm guessing the mechanic is blocking piles? I would be interested to see some more examples of cards that could use this. That being said, I imagine there is only so much you can do with mechanic; it would pretty much be used to strategically block your opponent from getting cards you don't want them to. Other cards with this mechanic would probably feel similar. Besides the questions of how returning cards/cards that tell you to gain the card specifically work, I'm also not a fan of completely blocking the pile. Embargo doesn't block the pile, it just makes you take a hit to buy from it (and it doesn't affect gaining). Also the lack of +buy on this card means that if I want to unblock piles my opponent blocked (let's say provinces), I might have to wait another turn to actually start buying the cards (compare this to Doorman by NoMoreFun). Overall, I think this needs some work.

---

Armor (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823345#msg823345) by 4est
Suggestion: I think a dividing line with the equip part on the bottom would look a little nicer

That being said, I like the idea of this, beefing up cards for the rest of the turn. I can definitely see how this could be used in plenty of different situations (and you did a good job showing a few). Nice job.

---

Reload (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823371#msg823371) by mandioca15
Suggestion: Rather than +1 reload, I think plain "reload" would be better since you're not getting a new reload (and there's no such thing as +2 reload, so the 1 is really unnecessary).

At first I thought this was very similar to "discard your deck", but I see the difference now. It's a new shorthand that allows you to gain cards and kind of topdeck them (but not completely). It's cute, but I think the uses will feel pretty similar (put something in your discard pile, then reload to have a chance at getting it on the top of your deck).

---

Workers (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823375#msg823375) by D782802859
I think you did a pretty good job of showing how these can really shine. There's a lot of ways you go with these cards (which I like). Some of these can be used in a coffer/villager way (get something to be held onto for later time). I particularly like the cards that can untap themselves (which gives you the decision of keeping the card for more uses or getting the moreful effect). Pretty good.

---

Rules (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823410#msg823410) by grrgrrgrr
Suggestion: Golden era should probably say that Gold costs $1 less (because then it doesn't get confusing with bridge). Fair start has some problems with shelters and heirlooms as pointed out by scolapasta.

Overall these are nice and versatile. While it is new to the official game, I've definitely seen different iterations of these with the same idea over the forums (I know someone called them Edicts).

---

Jewelry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823411#msg823411) by scolapasta
I think the idea it's good that you attached a +buy to all these cards. You have some interesting effects. I don't know how I feel about adding yet another phase to the turn (and messing up the easily understood ABC acronym), but in general the idea is pretty good. It allows treasures to care about buys and yet still give $; something we couldn't previously have.

---

Strength (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823417#msg823417) by X-tra
A bit of rules for this one but I think I get it. I think the 2nd iteration (not allowing you to use cards from your hand) definitely fixed some issues. To some degree, I can picture some fun battles for strength, but on the other hand, I can see some problems coming from it.

1) Very strong attack that have a likely chance of not hitting; and by that I mean not hitting at all, not just one person who has a moat. This means there's quite a swing to these; most attacks in dominion have a positive benfit to the person who plays it, meaning that even if it's blocked by all players, you still get something. And it's possible to only be blocked by some of the players and not others. Some of these cards have quite a swinginess depending if you win the battle or not (flamethrowers, Experimental Magic, Gunpowder Barrel).
2) Forced to go for it: I'm not such a fan of cards that demand you buy them because of their mere presence (regardless of the rest of the kingdom). I've never played with these cards, but my hunch is that (at least in a 2p) if one person goes for them and the other doesn't, the "stronger" player will have a huge edge because of how powerful these cards are when they "hit".
3) 3 or 4p interactions: I could see games where 2 out of 3 players go for these and knock each other out because they keep preventing the other from using their cards to the full extent. I can also see this making dominion more political (something many players don't like); A and B decide to not block each others pikemen while they both block C's pikemen.

I also feel that this a lot to learn and will probably slow the game down.

---

Equipment (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823429#msg823429) by [TP] Inferno
I feel this has potential, I just don't think you showcased this well. Like others have said, many of the cards don't really have an interesting choice of when to hold them and when to discard them (the strategy is to just hold). I'm sure it's possible to come up with cards that will work with this and make it interesting; like you said, it's back to the drawing board.

---

Card Costs (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823480#msg823480) by Aquila
I really like this one. It has the benefit of making non $ costs without the downsides of potions. And unlike debt (which is pretty much strictly cheaper than $), this is a different category of cost altogether (BTW, I'm assuming 2 different cards with card cost are uncomparable cost-wise). You did a great job showcasing how this could be implemented in different ways (especially including your "musings"). One of my favorites from the contest.

---

Mount Cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823491#msg823491) by Gazbag
An ability you can keep using until it becomes too much. I think you did a great job on this one, and it can really add a lot to the game.

---

Threat Cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823497#msg823497) by Fragasnap
These seem like a reactionish attack on top of an action card (since you can do both). To me, it doesn't feel like it adds more than already exists. It's kind of like a duration attack that gets to be played early. It would seem that the things you could do with these cards could be replicated pretty similarly with the existing mechanics. I'd probably have fun playing with some of these cards, I just don't know if the whole new type feels justified. Also, I do think having an unblockable attack is something that shouldn't be done, but that's just me. All that being said, cool cards.

---

Roundabout Cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823598#msg823598) by Snowyowl
I have a couple issues with this:
1) Extra Setup: This doesn't technically add any extra setup, but when I draw a roundabout card, I'm going to have be more careful with the order of the kingdom cards. Imagine you're drawing kingdom cards for the kingdom and the 5th one is Pearl. Oh shoot! what was the order of the other ones? And once you figure that out, you gotta be careful to not lose track of the order of the next 5. If anything, the mere presence of this in your box (not even in the kindgom) can add setup time, because I'll have to be careful about the order of any kingdom for fear of drawing a roundabout card. Of course, you could instead randomize an order after you draw all kingdom cards (if there's a roundabout card), but then it's still more setup time.
2) Putting cards in an arbitrary order can be annoying to some players. I don't know how other people setup their table, but I usually order the kingdom cards based on price (like they do online). Having them in a circle with real order would drive me nuts.
3) This whole thing seems like a roundabout (pun intended) way of avoiding tokens which would probably be more appropriate here. Many of the piles could just use some tokens or pile markers (like young witch's bane marker). Pearl could use 3, smuggling ring could use 1, and with some differences in rules many of the others could too.

---

Enchantments (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823829#msg823829) by Something_Smart
I like the idea. It feels a great way to build up your cards and engine. I can see the depth of strategy and the versatility of the mechanic. Great job!

Side note: I think Arcane tower might be a little broken as a defense against cursers. Buy one arcane tower and buy a curse with it in hand; you are now impervious to curses (of course you do get 1 curse but it's not in your deck).

---

Leaders (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823795#msg823795) by Kudasai
Like I said earlier, this is technically dq, but here are my thoughts. I really like the idea. It adds a bit of personality to each person's deck. I'm assuming the idea would be to have different sets of leaders that would sometimes be available. I don't know if the ones you showcased would be balanced but the idea in general seems fun.

---

---

Final Results: Among the top contenders were (in order of posting) Single Cards, Armor, Workers, Card Costs, Mount Cards, and Enchantments.

Runners Up: Single Cards and Workers. Both have so much potential and flavor to add to a game.

Winner: Card Costs by Aquila. I really think this opens a new avenue on ways to acquire and alot could be done with this. Congrats Aquila.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on February 17, 2020, 03:33:16 am

Thanks naitchman, terrific work in judging and choosing a great contest. This got a lot more popularity than other recent ones, and there were plenty of upvotes all round! Hard to better.

Here's something that's easy but hopefully quite an open design space:

Contest #62: a card that has +1 Buy and uses it well

They're relatively scarce in the official game, so there's plenty that can be done, plenty of effects that need a +buy to work. Make this +Buy the core focus of your design; something like Margrave isn't going to win, but Goons could. Forum would count, and it might do well too. Any card-shaped thing will qualify.

I should be able to judge in a week's time, so the projected close time is Monday 24th February 3:30am forum time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on February 17, 2020, 04:46:50 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 17, 2020, 03:33:16 am

Terrific work and contest choice, naitchman. This got a lot more popularity than other recent ones, and there were plenty of upvotes all round! Hard to better.

Here's something that's easy but hopefully quite an open design space:

Contest #62: a card that has +1 Buy and uses it well

They're relatively scarce in the official game, so there's plenty that can be done, plenty of effects that need a +buy to work. Make this +Buy the core focus of your design; something like Margrave isn't going to win, but Goons could. Forum would count, and it might do well too. Any card-shaped thing will qualify.

I should be able to judge in a week's time, so the projected close time is Monday 24th February 3:30am forum time.

Contraband and Merchant Guild would be more examples, yes? Anyway, hopefully this is better than my last entry.

Social Experiment (don't judge, I couldn't think of anything better)
$5
Action
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
-------
When you discard this from play, if you bought 2 or more cards this turn, +2 Villagers.

So it's not great early on. And it remains so if you don't buy multiple things with it. But, if you use the +Buy that it gives you, you get some Villagers for your trouble. Maybe worth an extra Copper to turn this into a potential Lab. Tweaking might be in issue if balance issues arise.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on February 17, 2020, 07:45:17 am

Edit: I'm a little bored by this as I look at it so I'm working on a new idea and will post later.

(https://i.imgur.com/9mKLTou.png)

Getting in early again. The easiest to imagine use of this card is that you can pick up a copper with that extra buy and it will be at least a silver instead (not a great five card at that point) but it can (if supported by actual coin) also turn a purchase of two silvers into a gain of two golds meaning that you just picked up an effective +6 off this card.
The problem is that it doesn't generate any coin itself and if you need to buy a province it is useless. In this way its a bit like quarry but that card would be devestating with a + Buy attached. Minters Token however needs it to be any good.

I've tried to write it by the way so that its ability wont stack. You can't turn a buy of a copper into a gain of a gold with two of these in play. That's intentional. I hope I succeeded.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 17, 2020, 09:37:23 am

Quote from: naitchman on February 16, 2020, 08:15:19 pm

Strength (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823417#msg823417) by X-tra
A bit of rules for this one but I think I get it. I think the 2nd iteration (not allowing you to use cards from your hand) definitely fixed some issues. To some degree, I can picture some fun battles for strength, but on the other hand, I can see some problems coming from it.

1) Very strong attack that have a likely chance of not hitting; and by that I mean not hitting at all, not just one person who has a moat. This means there's quite a swing to these; most attacks in dominion have a positive benfit to the person who plays it, meaning that even if it's blocked by all players, you still get something. And it's possible to only be blocked by some of the players and not others. Some of these cards have quite a swinginess depending if you win the battle or not (flamethrowers, Experimental Magic, Gunpowder Barrel).
2) Forced to go for it: I'm not such a fan of cards that demand you buy them because of their mere presence (regardless of the rest of the kingdom). I've never played with these cards, but my hunch is that (at least in a 2p) if one person goes for them and the other doesn't, the "stronger" player will have a huge edge because of how powerful these cards are when they "hit".
3) 3 or 4p interactions: I could see games where 2 out of 3 players go for these and knock each other out because they keep preventing the other from using their cards to the full extent. I can also see this making dominion more political (something many players don't like); A and B decide to not block each others pikemen while they both block C's pikemen.

I also feel that this a lot to learn and will probably slow the game down.
 

Thanks for this very well-put and in-dept review of my submission! The points you’ve raised definitely resonate through the concepts I’ve presented. I will answer your 4 concerns.

1. All cards presented as examples of the Strength concept gives something to whomever uses it, regardless of the "If most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png)" part and even if an "Otherwise" hits you back. Well, except for the Flamethrowers and the Gunpowder Barrel. Flamethrowers has been designed as such, because it is pretty powerful when it does hit. Gundpowder Barrel, well... it should probably be changed so that it gives you (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) when called and if you have the most (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png), then it’d give you an additional (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png). That’d be fairer, yeah. Still, there’s always a good reason to play Strength cards. Even with Experimental Magic, you get to trash something, at least.

2. I know this sounds like I shot myself in the foot with these, but that was the idea :) . This may seems displeasing because it sort of shatters the status-quo of Dominion, but I really did want to include a system in which players must go head-to-head to prove that you’re not just playing cards alone, but are in fact directly competing with your opponents. The stress of seeing that one player buying red cards after red cards should give you that little adrenaline rush that forces you to counter-react, something I was yearning to create with my entry.

3. Ah, but that is something I didn’t consider ! You are very right to say that, by design, not being forced to reveal your Strength cards as a reaction to a certain player may create a situation where players in losing positions do not block each other’s Strength cards, but pool against the winning player. If I make it so that everyone has to reveal their hand whenever a Strength card is played, then it’d be incredibly tedious, especially if don’t have any (https://i.postimg.cc/rFyqZbhD/Strength.png) in your hand in the first place. I think the political aspect is alright, though. Makes it for an interesting game, maybe? Sort of an “invisible” pact between losing parties. That’s pretty funny imo, and I think it adds not only to the flavor of Strength cards, but to the player interaction as well. I definitely understand why that might be considered a detriment, but uhhh... I think I like it? I dunno, I have dumb tastes in me games. :)

4. The learning process of that mechanism isn’t too hard, strangely enough. I’ve taught it to some of my (no expert by any means) friends and they caught onto the idea pretty quickly. It’s a trivial anecdote, I know, but it might be worth considering. As for slowing down the game, I think that’d be the biggest problem with my entry. Used to be worst though. More tests are needed!

Anyway, thank you for your comments! This was a very exciting week!

Quote from: Aquila on February 17, 2020, 03:33:16 am

Contest #62: a card that has +1 Buy and uses it well

Question for this contest: Can we present, say, a card that gives more than +1 Buy? Like +2 Buys, for instance?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 17, 2020, 09:57:28 am

EDIT: This is withdrawn
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e4aa902ae35408c802f82bb/883737a2697c1c3ea673a0fb4fe211e1/image.png)

Revisiting an old entry from contest 41 that I liked.
Dropped the price by a buck and changed it so the coffers trigger only happened on the second gain. No more potentially unbounded coffers from an opponent doing a copper buy/t-fair/watchtower/priest thing.

---

Quote from: somekindoftony on February 17, 2020, 07:45:17 am

(https://i.imgur.com/9mKLTou.png)

Getting in early again. The easiest to imagine use of this card is that you can pick up a copper with that extra buy and it will be at least a silver instead (not a great five card at that point) but it can (if supported by actual coin) also turn a purchase of two silvers into a gain of two golds meaning that you just picked up an effective +6 off this card.
The problem is that it doesn't generate any coin itself and if you need to buy a province it is useless. In this way its a bit like quarry but that card would be devestating with a + Buy attached. Minters Token however needs it to be any good.

I've tried to write it by the way so that its ability wont stack. You can't turn a buy of a copper into a gain of a gold with two of these in play. That's intentional. I hope I succeeded.

I think the way you've got this phrased you can still stack them but in parallel, rather than in series - if you've got two in play and you buy a single copper, you can gain two silvers out of it instead. May want to consider like... Changeling wording, something like, "When you buy a treasure this turn, you may exchange it for a treasure costing up to $3 more than it."

i dont think silver-flooding as-is with this wording would be problematic, but Harem flooding off a single Silver buy certainly would be

woo post #400 - thank you all for putting up with my nonsense

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on February 17, 2020, 10:26:43 am

Quote from: X-tra on February 17, 2020, 09:37:23 am

Question for this contest: Can we present, say, a card that gives more than +1 Buy? Like +2 Buys, for instance?

You can, but a word of warning: there's a reason the official game doesn't have lots of +buy cards, and that is to prevent the supply emptying and decks progressing too quickly in the average game. So avoid letting your card give too many buys away unless something is really limiting it. Travelling Fair has you spend $2 for each extra buy, and there's no way around it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on February 17, 2020, 01:43:17 pm

Credit (Treasure, $4)

+$2
When you play this, you may set aside 2 debt tokens from the supply. If you did, +1 Buy.
---
When you discard this from play, take any set aside debt tokens, then you may pay off debt.


Effectively, this allows you to use your buy from your next turn now, at the cost of having a worse one next turn. The money it generates, however, can be used to pay off the debt, if you have enough left over.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 17, 2020, 02:04:40 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0B9zeCD.jpg)

Royal Docks
Action/Duration - $5
+1 Buy
This turn, when you gain an Action card, you may set it aside under this.
While any cards remain under this, at the start of each of your turns, play one twice.

Note: Royal Docks remains in play until it doesn't have any cards under it and all the cards it plays are discarded from play, same as other Throne Room variants. If you play the same royal docks twice (with Throne Room), it's all set aside under the same docks, and you can play 2 cards from under it at the start of every turn. There is no way to set cards aside under a Royal Docks other than on the turn you play it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on February 17, 2020, 02:34:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rcV4qQS.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 17, 2020, 03:01:56 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/Jn8RCmLP/Savings-v1b.png)

The idea was originally like this. However the card above seems better. (https://i.postimg.cc/WbFC8CR3/Savings-v1a.png)

Tally up all your Buys this turn and if it is bellow 0, then you have 0 Buys. 0 Buys means you can't Buy anything during your Buy phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on February 17, 2020, 04:07:37 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/UaVhuWR.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on February 17, 2020, 07:15:24 pm

Quote from: forkofnature on February 17, 2020, 04:07:37 pm

Deed
$2 • Treasure
$0
When this is your first buy in a turn or when you trash this, +$3 and +1 Buy

Cheap card with a trashing theme? This has clearly just escaped from Dark Ages. But the name and art give it a fiscal flavour, like something from Prosperity or Empires.

It has some compelling uses. e.g. with Watchtower, you can buy it and immediately trash it for a net +$4 and +1 Buy just for having Watchtower in hand.

Cards that give a large-font 0 of something are just intrinsically hilarious. (Overgrown Estate.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on February 17, 2020, 08:35:12 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/DDdcwd8/download.png)
Bourse
$6 - Project
At start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.
When you buy a second card in a turn, +2 Coffers.


Pretty straightforward way to incentivize buying multiple cards, even when they are not really needed

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 17, 2020, 09:00:35 pm

It's a gold with a +buy. The Catch? You must use the buy. This means using this to spike high points doesn't work as well (you can do it, it will just come with a copper).
(https://i.imgur.com/1eoloGt.png)
It took a long time to get the wording right but here's what I got. I wanted only the buys from this and your orginal buy to be mandatory (or else worker's villages/ Market Sqaures would really mess with this). If anyone has a better way of saying it please feel free to say so.

Update: fixed wording a bit so it is a little less ambiguous.
Update 2: Fixed wording to allow buying events or Projects

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on February 17, 2020, 09:58:43 pm

Shanty Market
cost $3 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
The second time you gain a card in this turn, +$1.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 17, 2020, 11:39:33 pm

[Replaced by Gondolier v.0.3 below; which took the central reserve buy aspect of Shopper and put it on a Night card instead]

---

Entry for the week, Shopper, a terminal copper that lets you save a buy for when you need it.

(https://i.imgur.com/ArDL3OZ.png)

This idea for this card started with me thinking about +Buy tokens. It occurred to me that a) they might be too powerful to have them on a card as just +1 Buy token (I called them Shoppers), and b) clearly you can't have then be on buy, because then you could just buy the whole pile (with Bridges in play). So why not reserve buys?

I'm very curious what people think of this card. As a terminal copper*, you really don't want it, but that reserve buy can be very powerful. And once you play it and goes onto the tavern mat, it's out of your deck (until you need that buy, of course).

* there's a reason that there are only a handful of official terminal coppers

I also liked the idea of my +1 Buy card costing just $1, since you might often have an extra $1 to buy a 2nd card - so the non reserve part needs to be weak. And it makes it interesting to Upgrade your coppers to this...

So what do you think?

Some (not mutually exclusive) possible tweaks:
• forget the $1 cost and make it $2
• add +1 Action, or alternatively make it a treasure
• make it +$2 (though this would then
 have to cost $4 to compare with woodcutter)
• give an additional +$1 when you call it

Lastly, official (all $2) cards to compare this to:
• Coin of the realm - it's a treasure that reserves +2 Actions
• Peasant - $1, and +1 Buy (though not reserve) - of course it's real strength is that it travels
• Herbalist - $1, and +1 Buy (though not reserve) - it's extra is saving a treasure
• Squire - one of the options is +2 Buys

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on February 17, 2020, 11:50:24 pm

Quote from: naitchman on February 17, 2020, 09:00:35 pm

It's a gold with a +buy. The Catch? You must use the buy. This means using this to spike high points doesn't work as well (you can do it, it will just come with a copper).
(https://i.imgur.com/NmIs4Eg.png)
It took a long time to get the wording right but here's what I got. I wanted only the buys from this and your orginal buy to be mandatory (or else worker's villages/ Market Sqaures would really mess with this). If anyone has a better way of saying it please feel free to say so.

This doesn't really work as-is, mostly thanks to the fact that Villa can provide an uncertain future to your turn, which can prevent you from saying for sure whether it's possible for you to use all the necessary Buys if, say, the Coppers and Curses are gone.

I came up with the following: "At the end of your Buy phase, if this is in play, gain a Copper unless you've gained more cards this turn than you have Bulk Orders in play."

Since people were just going to take Coppers with their spare Buys anyway, this is mostly the same but uses less text and is easier to parse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on February 17, 2020, 11:57:06 pm

My submission for the +1 Buy contest.

(https://i.imgur.com/qrVZThB.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on February 18, 2020, 12:34:47 am

Quote from: scolapasta on February 17, 2020, 11:39:33 pm

Entry for the week, Shopper, a terminal copper that lets you save a buy for when you need it.

(https://i.imgur.com/ArDL3OZ.png)

This idea for this card started with me thinking about +Buy tokens. It occurred to me that a) they might be too powerful to have them on a card as just +1 Buy token (I called them Shoppers), and b) clearly you can't have then be on buy, because then you could just buy the whole pile (with Bridges in play). So why not reserve buys?

I'm very curious what people think of this card. As a terminal copper*, you really don't want it, but that reserve buy can be very powerful. And once you play it and goes onto the tavern mat, it's out of your deck (until you need that buy, of course).

* there's a reason that there are only a handful of official terminal coppers

I also liked the idea of my +1 Buy card costing just $1, since you might often have an extra $1 to buy a 2nd card - so the non reserve part needs to be weak. And it makes it interesting to Upgrade your coppers to this...

So what do you think?

Some (not mutually exclusive) possible tweaks:
• forget the $1 cost and make it $2
• add +1 Action, or alternatively make it a treasure
• make it +$2 (though this would have to cost $4 to copper to woodcutter)
• give an additional +$1 when you call it

Lastly, official (all $2) cards to compare this to:
• Coin of the realm - it's a treasure that reserves +2 Actions
• Peasant - $1, and +1 Buy (though not reserve) - of course it's real strength is that it travels
• Herbalist - $1, and +1 Buy (though not reserve) - it's extra is saving a treasure
• Squire - one of the options is +2 Buys

This is a cool idea but needs some work. Costing $1 is a little awkward because if you want this there probably isn't regular +Buy on the board, so you have to waste a bunch of coins on it even if you're responsible and pick it up early.

Honestly I think you could just make this give +$2 and have it cost $3. As far as I'm concerned Woodcutter lost its right to complain about being strictly worse than anything when it got excommunicated from the game.

But let's say you're an empathetic stickler. In that case, I'd make this cost $3 and either be a treasure or else give +2 Buys.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 18, 2020, 12:44:04 am

Quote from: forkofnature on February 17, 2020, 11:50:24 pm

Quote from: naitchman on February 17, 2020, 09:00:35 pm

It's a gold with a +buy. The Catch? You must use the buy. This means using this to spike high points doesn't work as well (you can do it, it will just come with a copper).
(https://i.imgur.com/NmIs4Eg.png)
It took a long time to get the wording right but here's what I got. I wanted only the buys from this and your orginal buy to be mandatory (or else worker's villages/ Market Sqaures would really mess with this). If anyone has a better way of saying it please feel free to say so.

This doesn't really work as-is, mostly thanks to the fact that Villa can provide an uncertain future to your turn, which can prevent you from saying for sure whether it's possible for you to use all the necessary Buys if, say, the Coppers and Curses are gone.

I came up with the following: "At the end of your Buy phase, if this is in play, gain a Copper unless you've gained more cards this turn than you have Bulk Orders in play."

Since people were just going to take Coppers with their spare Buys anyway, this is mostly the same but uses less text and is easier to parse.

1) Not sure how villa makes a difference. Could you explain in more detail.
2) if coppers and curses are gone (which almost never happens) and you have no coins you can end your buy phase because of the part at the end "or you cannot buy any cards in the supply".
3) i thought of using something like that, however, first i feel it's a little clunky. Second this would have differences when stacking multiples. If you play 5 bulk orders and buy 5 cards, my version forces you to buy one copper, your version gains you 5 coppers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 18, 2020, 12:49:46 am

Quote from: mail-mi on February 17, 2020, 02:34:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rcV4qQS.jpg)

This is a great card, but why limit the below the line to Action phases? I don't think it would be too strong as a buy-cantrip (like Forum)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: forkofnature on February 18, 2020, 01:09:17 am

Quote from: naitchman on February 18, 2020, 12:44:04 am

1) Not sure how villa makes a difference. Could you explain in more detail.
2) if coppers and curses are gone (which almost never happens) and you have no coins you can end your buy phase because of the part at the end "or you cannot buy any cards in the supply".
3) i thought of using something like that, however, first i feel it's a little clunky. Second this would have differences when stacking multiples. If you play 5 bulk orders and buy 5 cards, my version forces you to buy one copper, your version gains you 5 coppers.

1 & 2) Ah, there was a miscommunication here. As written, the clause, "or you cannot buy any cards in the supply," presents an alternative to "you can't end your buy phase," rather than "you've gained x cards." That is, it says: "if you can't use all the necessary buys, you can't buy anything at all," rather than: "if you can't buy anything, the game is allowed to continue." You seem to be intending the latter, which makes a lot more sense  ;). Technically, you can fix this by removing the comma before "or you cannot buy any cards"; however, this would leave the sense ambiguous rather than clarifying your intended meaning, so I would still try something else.

3) As I understand it, once you've gained one copper, the rider, "unless you've gained more cards this turn than you have Bulk Orders in play" should block the other four triggers in your scenario. Is this not the case?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on February 18, 2020, 02:59:58 am

I'm back again! Here's something probably not balanced that I slapped together at almost 2 am

(https://i.imgur.com/rUv9tOz.png)

Market Square's top with a minor trasher/spy thing below the line triggered by purchasing cards. Could probably use a cost adjustment. Original idea had just the spy bit and costed less, I decided it was lackluster and added the trashing option. Might go back to the original still, not sure yet, but it's 2 am where I live and I'm going to bed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 18, 2020, 05:24:58 am

Quote from: scolapasta on February 17, 2020, 11:39:33 pm

Entry for the week, Shopper, a terminal copper that lets you save a buy for when you need it.

(https://i.imgur.com/ArDL3OZ.png)

How about making it a cantrip - not strictly better than Market Square as it doesn't have the reaction so you could cost it at $2 or $3 (at $4 you can get Fair which is like playing this every turn)

I think it's more interesting to have a card that invites you to play it multiple times than a card you would almost always want out of your deck until the endgame. Being "harmless" to your deck aids with that.

Another option is +2 Cards for $3 (which doesn't technically step on Woodcutter's toes even though it's probably a better card)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 18, 2020, 08:06:58 am

Quote from: forkofnature on February 18, 2020, 01:09:17 am

Quote from: naitchman on February 18, 2020, 12:44:04 am

1) Not sure how villa makes a difference. Could you explain in more detail.
2) if coppers and curses are gone (which almost never happens) and you have no coins you can end your buy phase because of the part at the end "or you cannot buy any cards in the supply".
3) i thought of using something like that, however, first i feel it's a little clunky. Second this would have differences when stacking multiples. If you play 5 bulk orders and buy 5 cards, my version forces you to buy one copper, your version gains you 5 coppers.

1 & 2) Ah, there was a miscommunication here. As written, the clause, "or you cannot buy any cards in the supply," presents an alternative to "you can't end your buy phase," rather than "you've gained x cards." That is, it says: "if you can't use all the necessary buys, you can't buy anything at all," rather than: "if you can't buy anything, the game is allowed to continue." You seem to be intending the latter, which makes a lot more sense  ;). Technically, you can fix this by removing the comma before "or you cannot buy any cards"; however, this would leave the sense ambiguous rather than clarifying your intended meaning, so I would still try something else.

3) As I understand it, once you've gained one copper, the rider, "unless you've gained more cards this turn than you have Bulk Orders in play" should block the other four triggers in your scenario. Is this not the case?

1 and 2) I woke up this morning with a sudden epiphany of our miscommunication and the technical ambiguity of my wording. Lemme see if I could phase it a little better.

3) You are correct. I'd assumed it would use buys and didn't notice you used gains instead. This creates it's own problems however, since you then aren't forced to use the buys if you gain cards during the turn with cards like magpie or workshop. The idea is to have a non optional buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 18, 2020, 10:05:44 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 17, 2020, 02:04:40 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0B9zeCD.jpg)

Royal Docks
Action/Duration - $5
+1 Buy
This turn, when you gain an Action card, you may set it aside under this.
While any cards remain under this, at the start of each of your turns, play one twice.

Note: Royal Docks remains in play until it doesn't have any cards under it and all the cards it plays are discarded from play, same as other Throne Room variants. If you play the same royal docks twice (with Throne Room), it's all set aside under the same docks, and you can play 2 cards from under it at the start of every turn. There is no way to set cards aside under a Royal Docks other than on the turn you play it.

This is a really cool card;
Also the computer programmer in me is very happy that you withdrew Queue because that's how a Collection-Iterator design pattern works, not a Queue.

---

Quote from: scolapasta on February 17, 2020, 11:39:33 pm

Entry for the week, Shopper, a terminal copper that lets you save a buy for when you need it.

(https://i.imgur.com/ArDL3OZ.png)

This idea for this card started with me thinking about +Buy tokens. It occurred to me that a) they might be too powerful to have them on a card as just +1 Buy token (I called them Shoppers), and b) clearly you can't have then be on buy, because then you could just buy the whole pile (with Bridges in play). So why not reserve buys?

I'm very curious what people think of this card. As a terminal copper*, you really don't want it, but that reserve buy can be very powerful. And once you play it and goes onto the tavern mat, it's out of your deck (until you need that buy, of course).

* there's a reason that there are only a handful of official terminal coppers

I also liked the idea of my +1 Buy card costing just $1, since you might often have an extra $1 to buy a 2nd card - so the non reserve part needs to be weak. And it makes it interesting to Upgrade your coppers to this...

So what do you think?

Some (not mutually exclusive) possible tweaks:
• forget the $1 cost and make it $2
• add +1 Action, or alternatively make it a treasure
• make it +$2 (though this would then
 have to cost $4 to compare with woodcutter)
• give an additional +$1 when you call it

Lastly, official (all $2) cards to compare this to:
• Coin of the realm - it's a treasure that reserves +2 Actions
• Peasant - $1, and +1 Buy (though not reserve) - of course it's real strength is that it travels
• Herbalist - $1, and +1 Buy (though not reserve) - it's extra is saving a treasure
• Squire - one of the options is +2 Buys

I think it's interesting the cards you picked to compare it to because when I read it, I immediately thought it was a reverse-Ducat - this gives $1 now and +1 Buy later, Ducat is +1 Buy now and a $1 later.

I think it's a hard sell as-is with it being terminal, especially on a board with no +Buys; Maybe do a reverse-Candlestick Maker and have it give +1 Action on play.

---

Quote from: naitchman on February 17, 2020, 09:00:35 pm

It's a gold with a +buy. The Catch? You must use the buy. This means using this to spike high points doesn't work as well (you can do it, it will just come with a copper).
(https://i.imgur.com/NmIs4Eg.png)
It took a long time to get the wording right but here's what I got. I wanted only the buys from this and your orginal buy to be mandatory (or else worker's villages/ Market Sqaures would really mess with this). If anyone has a better way of saying it please feel free to say so.

Wording suggestion that changes the card a little but also streamlines it:

Quote

"If you have unused Buys at the start of Clean up, choose one: gain a Copper for each Bulk Order in play; gain a Copper for each unused Buy. (Do this once, rather than once per Bulk Order.)"

This changes its interaction with
• other +buy cards
• debt
• Counting House - maybe you want more coppers - you can elect to do that with this.
• removes ambiguity from "when is the end of your Buy phase?" with Villa.
• buys used where you didn't buy cards - you bought events, etc. Less tracking for paper players.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on February 18, 2020, 10:24:20 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 18, 2020, 12:49:46 am

Quote from: mail-mi on February 17, 2020, 02:34:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rcV4qQS.jpg)

This is a great card, but why limit the below the line to Action phases? I don't think it would be too strong as a buy-cantrip (like Forum)

I was going for the self-synergy and uniqueness, you don't think it would be too strong?.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on February 18, 2020, 11:10:09 am

Quote from: mail-mi on February 18, 2020, 10:24:20 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 18, 2020, 12:49:46 am

Quote from: mail-mi on February 17, 2020, 02:34:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rcV4qQS.jpg)

This is a great card, but why limit the below the line to Action phases? I don't think it would be too strong as a buy-cantrip (like Forum)

I was going for the self-synergy and uniqueness, you don't think it would be too strong?.

I dunno, playing 4 Highways might be too easy compared to playing 5 which is what's required to instant-drain Forum. Although on the other hand, instant-draining Forum is something you would want to do more often than you would want to instant-drain Atelier.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 18, 2020, 12:10:09 pm

Quote from: spineflu on February 18, 2020, 10:05:44 am

Quote from: naitchman on February 17, 2020, 09:00:35 pm

It's a gold with a +buy. The Catch? You must use the buy. This means using this to spike high points doesn't work as well (you can do it, it will just come with a copper).
(https://i.imgur.com/NmIs4Eg.png)
It took a long time to get the wording right but here's what I got. I wanted only the buys from this and your orginal buy to be mandatory (or else worker's villages/ Market Sqaures would really mess with this). If anyone has a better way of saying it please feel free to say so.

Wording suggestion that changes the card a little but also streamlines it:

Quote

"If you have unused Buys at the start of Clean up, choose one: gain a Copper for each Bulk Order in play; gain a Copper for each unused Buy. (Do this once, rather than once per Bulk Order.)"

This changes its interaction with
• other +buy cards
• debt
• Counting House - maybe you want more coppers - you can elect to do that with this.
• removes ambiguity from "when is the end of your Buy phase?" with Villa.
• buys used where you didn't buy cards - you bought events, etc. Less tracking for paper players.

I want to avoid this for 2 reasons.

1) The interaction with other buy cards. This card would become almost unusable if you had workers villages. The idea is to make it's own +buy mandatory, and leave your other + buys optional.
2) I want this to be used for its coin and buy not for a copper gaining ability. This could be used in conjunction with gardens to gain a lot of coppers (play 5 bulk orders, buy 5 cards, gain 5 coppers).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 18, 2020, 12:43:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4dxobAw.png)
Pretty self explanatory I hope. This can make you think about the order you buy things which is pretty cool (e.g. if you have $13 and are buying a Province and a $5 Action you should probably buy the Action first.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 18, 2020, 12:53:26 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on February 18, 2020, 12:43:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4dxobAw.png)
Pretty self explanatory I hope. This can make you think about the order you buy things which is pretty cool (e.g. if you have $13 and are buying a Province and a $5 Action you should probably buy the Action first.)

Actually, if not a lot of Provinces are gone from the Supply (by the time I get to have something like (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/0/02/Coin14.png/16px-Coin14.png), I doubt that'd be true, but eh), I'd Buy the Province first just to force my opponents to reveal their hand, allowing me to more carefully select my second Buy in order to hurt them the most.  :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 18, 2020, 06:08:17 pm

Ok, so here is an updated version of my card which hopefully is a little more clear.
(https://i.imgur.com/PXocrag.png)

Technically if you can't buy curses or coppers (due to contraband or empty piles) and you have too few coins to buy something and you have coffers, you would be forced to use the coffers if it would allow you to buy cards. Not a likely case though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: bitwise on February 18, 2020, 06:21:33 pm

Quote from: X-tra on February 18, 2020, 12:53:26 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on February 18, 2020, 12:43:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4dxobAw.png)
Pretty self explanatory I hope. This can make you think about the order you buy things which is pretty cool (e.g. if you have $13 and are buying a Province and a $5 Action you should probably buy the Action first.)

Actually, if not a lot of Provinces are gone from the Supply (by the time I get to have something like (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/0/02/Coin14.png/16px-Coin14.png), I doubt that'd be true, but eh), I'd Buy the Province first just to force my opponents to reveal their hand, allowing me to more carefully select my second Buy in order to hurt them the most.  :P

I would buy the Province first with 3 Crooks in play, revealing a hand of 5 Patrons and giving them 15 coffers, but that's just me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 18, 2020, 06:29:54 pm

Quote from: bitwise on February 18, 2020, 06:21:33 pm

I would buy the Province first with 3 Crooks in play, revealing a hand of 5 Patrons and giving them 15 coffers, but that's just me.

If there is a game with both Crook and Patron in it, then I'd definitely buy a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) card first with one or more Crook in play to ensure that no Patron from any player can ever be revealed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on February 18, 2020, 06:43:32 pm

Quote from: naitchman on February 18, 2020, 06:08:17 pm

Ok, so here is an updated version of my card which hopefully is a little more clear.
(https://i.imgur.com/PXocrag.png)

Technically if you can't buy curses or coppers (due to contraband or empty piles) and you have too few coins to buy something and you have coffers, you would be forced to use the coffers if it would allow you to buy cards. Not a likely case though.

How does this work with having debt?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 18, 2020, 10:14:42 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on February 18, 2020, 06:43:32 pm

Quote from: naitchman on February 18, 2020, 06:08:17 pm

Ok, so here is an updated version of my card which hopefully is a little more clear.
(https://i.imgur.com/PXocrag.png)

Technically if you can't buy curses or coppers (due to contraband or empty piles) and you have too few coins to buy something and you have coffers, you would be forced to use the coffers if it would allow you to buy cards. Not a likely case though.

How does this work with having debt?

I'm not 100% certain of your question. Can you give a specific case?
You would have to pay off debt and buy a card if possible. If not, you wouldn't have to pay off debt (but then again why would you not pay off debt?

Technically you could do cute tricks with debt to avoid the mandatory buy. If you have $6, you could buy one overlord and then end your buy phase (because you can't buy any cards). It's uncommon enough that I'm okay with it (like capital's loophole with Mandarin or herbalist).

Random aside:
I think I'm going to update the wording to count buys used rather than cards bought to include events and projects.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on February 18, 2020, 11:32:45 pm

Quote from: naitchman on February 18, 2020, 10:14:42 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on February 18, 2020, 06:43:32 pm

Quote from: naitchman on February 18, 2020, 06:08:17 pm

Ok, so here is an updated version of my card which hopefully is a little more clear.
(https://i.imgur.com/PXocrag.png)

Technically if you can't buy curses or coppers (due to contraband or empty piles) and you have too few coins to buy something and you have coffers, you would be forced to use the coffers if it would allow you to buy cards. Not a likely case though.

How does this work with having debt?

I'm not 100% certain of your question. Can you give a specific case?
You would have to pay off debt and buy a card if possible. If not, you wouldn't have to pay off debt (but then again why would you not pay off debt?

Technically you could do cute tricks with debt to avoid the mandatory buy. If you have $6, you could buy one overlord and then end your buy phase (because you can't buy any cards). It's uncommon enough that I'm okay with it (like capital's loophole with Mandarin or herbalist).

Random aside:
I think I'm going to update the wording to count buys used rather than cards bought to include events and projects.

I was just wondering how it works with debt and your explanation makes sense.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on February 19, 2020, 08:54:33 am

New Idea.
The buy on this card is a little less crucial than I'd like, but having it there enables you to grab one of these in order to dump a province in the trash and then buy that province that turn. Or similar. Just in case the trash is empty of cards you want.
(https://i.imgur.com/P5XjHQ7.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Saul Goodman on February 19, 2020, 09:16:47 am

Quote from: Gazbag on February 18, 2020, 12:43:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4dxobAw.png)
Pretty self explanatory I hope. This can make you think about the order you buy things which is pretty cool (e.g. if you have $13 and are buying a Province and a $5 Action you should probably buy the Action first.)

I like this.  Wonder if it is too powerful the way it is written.  Maybe limit to the first buy?  Or the first two?  On a heavy buy turn, this could gut the opponent's hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on February 19, 2020, 11:17:11 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on February 19, 2020, 08:54:33 am

New Idea.
The buy on this card is a little less crucial than I'd like, but having it there enables you to grab one of these in order to dump a province in the trash and then buy that province that turn. Or similar. Just in case the trash is empty of cards you want.
(https://i.imgur.com/P5XjHQ7.png)

It's "+3 Coffers, you cannot buy cards this turn" most of the time. This might be great for megaturns, comparable to Tactician, but only having another source of +Buys. This card itself could be an enabler if it had "+2 Buys" on buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 19, 2020, 12:35:49 pm

i'm upset that i looked up what "Gongfermor" meant while I was eating my lunch.

card looks good tho. don't think I'd play with it IRL bc my IRL playgroup would be all in on the "there's some lovely filth over here" jokes, but online, where I dont have to listen to that, I'd play w it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 19, 2020, 12:48:03 pm

Quote from: Saul Goodman on February 19, 2020, 09:16:47 am

Quote from: Gazbag on February 18, 2020, 12:43:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/4dxobAw.png)
Pretty self explanatory I hope. This can make you think about the order you buy things which is pretty cool (e.g. if you have $13 and are buying a Province and a $5 Action you should probably buy the Action first.)

I like this.  Wonder if it is too powerful the way it is written.  Maybe limit to the first buy?  Or the first two?  On a heavy buy turn, this could gut the opponent's hand.

It can't make people go below 4 cards in hand so unless Council Roomy things are happening you can only discard 1 card. It's rarely going to be as nasty as Pillage, even if you see what's in your opponent's hand first they still choose what to discard if they have multiple cards with the same cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 19, 2020, 12:55:16 pm

Updating the wording on my card to allow for buying events or projects:
(https://i.imgur.com/1eoloGt.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 19, 2020, 04:59:32 pm

[Updated v.0.3 is below - no functional change - just fixed type to Night-Reserve and formatting]

---

Quote from: scolapasta on February 17, 2020, 11:39:33 pm

Entry for the week, Shopper, a terminal copper that lets you save a buy for when you need it.

(https://i.imgur.com/ArDL3OZ.png)

Quote from: forkofnature on February 18, 2020, 12:34:47 am

This is a cool idea but needs some work. Costing $1 is a little awkward because if you want this there probably isn't regular +Buy on the board, so you have to waste a bunch of coins on it even if you're responsible and pick it up early.

Honestly I think you could just make this give +$2 and have it cost $3. As far as I'm concerned Woodcutter lost its right to complain about being strictly worse than anything when it got excommunicated from the game.

But let's say you're an empathetic stickler. In that case, I'd make this cost $3 and either be a treasure or else give +2 Buys.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 18, 2020, 05:24:58 am

How about making it a cantrip - not strictly better than Market Square as it doesn't have the reaction so you could cost it at $2 or $3 (at $4 you can get Fair which is like playing this every turn)

I think it's more interesting to have a card that invites you to play it multiple times than a card you would almost always want out of your deck until the endgame. Being "harmless" to your deck aids with that.

Another option is +2 Cards for $3 (which doesn't technically step on Woodcutter's toes even though it's probably a better card)

Quote from: spineflu on February 18, 2020, 10:05:44 am

I think it's interesting the cards you picked to compare it to because when I read it, I immediately thought it was a reverse-Ducat - this gives $1 now and +1 Buy later, Ducat is +1 Buy now and a $1 later.

I think it's a hard sell as-is with it being terminal, especially on a board with no +Buys; Maybe do a reverse-Candlestick Maker and have it give +1 Action on play.

Some good feedback here. General consensus seems to be it needs to be stronger and/or cost more. I had wanted to keep it costing (at most) $2, which meant not much stronger, so I had some possibilities:

• it could actually pair with the Pouch heirloom guaranteeing that you start with a + Buy card.
• it could give +$1 now and $1 when you call it.
• I could switch $1 to +1 Coffers.
• I could go with option 2 or 3, and make it a Night card, so the buy is for future turns (now more like CotR)

And then I had an epiphany: I have another, as yet unposted card, a Night card that gives Coffers for each card you've bought (an after the fact Bridge, if you will). But it was missing something and in some ways already covered by Merchant Guild.

So here's my new, re-themed (Shopper doesn't make sense as a Night card) reserve buy, Gondolier:

(https://i.imgur.com/qM46Iat.png)

Notes:
- like Coin of the Realm, you can't call it the same turn that you play it
- calling them produces buys that other gondoliers can use for additional coffers
- as a night-reserve, it's a unique combination of types that doesn't exist in official cards

Thoughts?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 19, 2020, 05:49:24 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on February 19, 2020, 04:59:32 pm

So here's my new, re-themed (Shopper doesn't make sense as a Night card) reserve buy, Gondolier:

(https://i.imgur.com/qM46Iat.png)

Notes:
- like Coin of the Realm, you usually can't call it the same turn that you play it
- calling them produces buys that other gondoliers can use for additional coffers
- as a night-reserve, it's a unique combination of types that doesn't exist in official cards

Thoughts?

nailed it, imo. maybe add gaining-to-hand on buy so you can get some immediate synergy, but this is quality.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 19, 2020, 06:14:23 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on February 19, 2020, 04:59:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/qM46Iat.png)

Notes:
- like Coin of the Realm, you usually can't call it the same turn that you play it
- calling them produces buys that other gondoliers can use for additional coffers
- as a night-reserve, it's a unique combination of types that doesn't exist in official cards

Thoughts?

Just a small nitpick, but it needs a "Reserve" label on the bottom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 20, 2020, 02:01:56 am

Quote from: scolapasta on February 19, 2020, 04:59:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/qM46Iat.png)

Notes:
- like Coin of the Realm, you can't call it the same turn that you play it
- calling them produces buys that other gondoliers can use for additional coffers
- as a night-reserve, it's a unique combination of types that doesn't exist in official cards

Thoughts?

Quote from: spineflu on February 19, 2020, 05:49:24 pm

nailed it, imo. maybe add gaining-to-hand on buy so you can get some immediate synergy, but this is quality.

Thanks! I was especially pleased when I realized that these two independent ideas that were both missing something, went so well together! Like those old reese's peanut butter cup ads ! 8))

v0.1 of Gondolier (before the mashup) did have the gain-to-hand, but as this version gained the below the line reserve text, I removed it for simplicity. Also, I do still want keep the cost down, and that instant coffers rebate feels like it should cost 1 more. I probably will playtest it both ways, eventually.

Quote from: X-tra on February 19, 2020, 06:14:23 pm

Just a small nitpick, but it needs a "Reserve" label on the bottom.

You're absolutely right! V.0.1 of Gondolier was just a Night card and while I copied the new text over and changed the color, I forgot to update the type. I'll get that into a v0.3 before the contest ends.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 20, 2020, 11:33:55 am

I'm changing out my entry
to a riff on Spices
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e4eb528b37610195aec6482/4e2fa21a7876b83a99b7f583b61a6dd2/image.png)

Quote

Choose one:
$2 and +1 Buy;
or $1 and +2 Buys
-
When you buy this, you may overbuy. For each extra buy you spend, +1 Card when drawing your next hand during Clean up

overbuy is like overpay but you spend buys rather than $+potions. Should be pretty straightforward from that explanation but if you've got any questions, let me know.

Made some revisions based on feedback from the discord#variants

---

v1:(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e42ebce1181de1d515adb5b/5e4b0765b28575353edbfe68/4feb7403b930c1940c58b3f555b1f8c4/image.png)

Title: Re: Contest #62: +1 Buy and Use It Well
Post by: Gubump on February 20, 2020, 04:12:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/V02CKgF.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on February 20, 2020, 05:35:35 pm

Quote from: grep on February 19, 2020, 11:17:11 am

It's "+3 Coffers, you cannot buy cards this turn" most of the time. This might be great for megaturns, comparable to Tactician, but only having another source of +Buys. This card itself could be an enabler if it had "+2 Buys" on buy.

I'm also aware that buying gongfermors lets you empty potentially three piles in a turn. If you have six you can buy a gongfermor, trash a duchy and buy a crossroads for example. That's why I had to make it cost 4 so that its not viable to buy multiple gongfermors a turn. For this reason I'm reluctant to make it +2 buys.

I'd rather see this really shine in kingdoms where you might have other trashers especially knights (you can gongfermor for the knights who die in batttles) or when there's a strategic value to parking cards from the supply before your opponents buy them (like City). And occasionally it can be used to bring on the three pile ending too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 20, 2020, 05:59:47 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on February 20, 2020, 05:35:35 pm

Quote from: grep on February 19, 2020, 11:17:11 am

It's "+3 Coffers, you cannot buy cards this turn" most of the time. This might be great for megaturns, comparable to Tactician, but only having another source of +Buys. This card itself could be an enabler if it had "+2 Buys" on buy.

I'm also aware that buying gongfermors lets you empty potentially three piles in a turn. If you have six you can buy a gongfermor, trash a duchy and buy a crossroads for example. That's why I had to make it cost 4 so that its not viable to buy multiple gongfermors a turn. For this reason I'm reluctant to make it +2 buys.

I'd rather see this really shine in kingdoms where you might have other trashers especially knights (you can gongfermor for the knights who die in batttles) or when there's a strategic value to parking cards from the supply before your opponents buy them (like City). And occasionally it can be used to bring on the three pile ending too.

Rather than fully relying on Gongfermors to put cards from the supply into the trash, what if it started with some kinda basic cards _in_ the trash, like Necromancer does? Maybe like a Porcelain shop (https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e14d62f64ea8724c2e1dafa/300x460/de896f5c67289008ca49911f455aa1fc/kfsOVsfl.jpg) variant and a "+2 Actions. Trash a card from your hand." per player?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on February 20, 2020, 06:27:25 pm

Contest #62: A card that has +1 Buy and uses it well.

(https://i.imgur.com/jwTAsH8.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/RqcNsyZ.jpg)     (https://i.imgur.com/VQoQYOV.jpg)

[v0.2] Thanks everyone for the feedback! I was leaning towards a $2 cost stop card for Lumber Camp, but ultimately I went with GendoIkari's idea as it seems a little more forgiving if people accidentally overload on these early. I considered preventing interference from cards like Ill-Gotten Gains and Messenger, but I do believe a few hard counters is fine and does make the card overall more interesting. So this is likely more viable and stronger than I'd like it to be, but I do think it's in a good spot for testing and will likely be a lot of fun to try.

[v0.3] Okay, so I caved and removed the negative interactions with Messenger and Ill-Gotten Gains, etc. Thanks to grrgrrgrr for the suggestion.

Quote from: Kudasai on February 20, 2020, 06:27:25 pm

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg824582#msg824582

Lumber Camp: Action - $4
+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, When this is gained during one of your first two turns of the game, if you: don't have Innovative, take Innovative; do have Innovative, flip it over to Twice Innovative.

Innovative: State
At the start of your turn, +1 Card per empty Supply pile.

Twice Innovative: State
At the start of your turn, +2 Cards per empty Supply pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 20, 2020, 07:32:59 pm

So when my opponent, who went first, gets their witch on turn 3, they can wreck my ability to be Twice Industrious?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: naitchman on February 20, 2020, 08:41:30 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on February 20, 2020, 06:27:25 pm

Contest #62: A card that has +1 Buy and uses it well.

(https://i.imgur.com/c2hdxZT.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/AniPXpe.jpg)     (https://i.imgur.com/FOF6Rlz.jpg)

A more expensive Woodcutter with potential draw rewards down the road. The +1 Buy helps empty piles, but will mostly get in the way early game. Skipping turns can net you Twice Industrious, but that is risky. Any feedback is always welcome!

Quote from: Kudasai on February 20, 2020, 06:27:25 pm

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg824582#msg824582

Lumber Camp: Action - $4
+1 Buy, +$2, When this is one of your first two gains of the game and you: don't have Industrious, take Industrious; do have Industrious, flip it over to Twice Industrious.

Industrious: State
At the start of your turn, +1 Card per empty Supply pile.

Twice Industrious: State
At the start of your turn, +2 Cards per empty Supply pile.

I think the whole twice industrious seems to add swingyness and doesn't need to be there. I imagine going for it and getting $3 on turn 3. With just one Industrious it's more straightforward what your tradeoff is.

Maybe change first 2 gains to first 2 buys so weird interactions don't screw with this (someone opens Ill-Gotten-Gains).

As a whole, I wonder how many I'd buy. Unless there was absence of other +buy, I'd probably only ever buy one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on February 21, 2020, 12:34:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 20, 2020, 07:32:59 pm

So when my opponent, who went first, gets their witch on turn 3, they can wreck my ability to be Twice Industrious?

I don't think Witch effects getting Twice Industrious, but even without that interaction it's probably a bad design anyways. I think I'll change its abilities to reflect a cost $2 card or make it a debt card. This way you don't have to rely on taking a chance and getting lucky. Thanks to you and Naitchman for the feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on February 21, 2020, 08:50:39 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 20, 2020, 07:32:59 pm

So when my opponent, who went first, gets their witch on turn 3, they can wreck my ability to be Twice Industrious?

If witch is on the kingdom, you are second, and your opponent opens 2/5 or 5/2, maybe lumber camp is not your best choice.
Your opponent is also foregoing their posibility of take twice industrious by going for witch.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 21, 2020, 08:51:55 am

Quote from: Kudasai on February 21, 2020, 12:34:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 20, 2020, 07:32:59 pm

So when my opponent, who went first, gets their witch on turn 3, they can wreck my ability to be Twice Industrious?

I don't think Witch effects getting Twice Industrious, but even without that interaction it's probably a bad design anyways. I think I'll change its abilities to reflect a cost $2 card or make it a debt card. This way you don't have to rely on taking a chance and getting lucky. Thanks to you and Naitchman for the feedback.

I mean, Witch, Marauder, even Messenger have the ability to mess that up for other players - rather than a cost wording, change it to "When this is one of your first two cards you gain during your turns" and you're fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on February 21, 2020, 09:01:17 am

My attempt at a Traveller line

(https://i.imgur.com/eydX3Lm.png) (https://i.imgur.com/qLLoY7k.png) (https://i.imgur.com/1fFPmHh.png) (https://i.imgur.com/C8eivku.png) (https://i.imgur.com/VnIVzWk.png)

Update: Altered the wording of Top Executive

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on February 21, 2020, 09:29:58 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 21, 2020, 08:51:55 am

Quote from: Kudasai on February 21, 2020, 12:34:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 20, 2020, 07:32:59 pm

So when my opponent, who went first, gets their witch on turn 3, they can wreck my ability to be Twice Industrious?

I don't think Witch effects getting Twice Industrious, but even without that interaction it's probably a bad design anyways. I think I'll change its abilities to reflect a cost $2 card or make it a debt card. This way you don't have to rely on taking a chance and getting lucky. Thanks to you and Naitchman for the feedback.

I mean, Witch, Marauder, even Messenger have the ability to mess that up for other players - rather than a cost wording, change it to "When this is one of your first two cards you gain during your turns" and you're fine.

I'd say: When you gain this during your first two turns,...
EDIT: and not bother with Twice Indistruous.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on February 21, 2020, 09:41:41 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 21, 2020, 08:51:55 am

Quote from: Kudasai on February 21, 2020, 12:34:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 20, 2020, 07:32:59 pm

So when my opponent, who went first, gets their witch on turn 3, they can wreck my ability to be Twice Industrious?

I don't think Witch effects getting Twice Industrious, but even without that interaction it's probably a bad design anyways. I think I'll change its abilities to reflect a cost $2 card or make it a debt card. This way you don't have to rely on taking a chance and getting lucky. Thanks to you and Naitchman for the feedback.

I mean, Witch, Marauder, even Messenger have the ability to mess that up for other players - rather than a cost wording, change it to "When this is one of your first two cards you gain during your turns" and you're fine.

What i think is that is not something that is bad per-se. Your opponent is also foregoing their "twice industrious" (maybe i'm only thinking on 2 players games). I think it becomes a little swingy with some heirlooms,

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on February 21, 2020, 10:32:25 am

I think it would work much better if Lumber Camp cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} and gave +1 card, +1 action, +1 buy. This helps drain piles better (A Woodcutter barely helps drain piles), and costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} makes getting 2 of them your first 2 gains much more realistic. It's still a weak opening at the cost of a benefit later in the game.

But I think as worded, it's far too poor of an opening to ever consider buying 2 of them right away.... completely skipping your _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} turn; hoping that you get another _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} next? No one will do that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on February 21, 2020, 05:22:38 pm

Edit: New version here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg824758#msg824758)

(https://i.imgur.com/fSYnU8Z.png?1)

Quote

Nickel Silver
$0 • Treasure
+$2
+1 Buy
While this is in play, cards cost $1 more.

Nickel Silver or German Silver doesn't actually contain any silver, it's an alloy of 60% copper, 20% nickel, and 20% zinc. It was used to make jewelry and cutlery that imitated the appearance of silver, but much cheaper (and lighter). It was only made in the West from the 18th century onwards, but it was known as "white copper" in China much earlier than that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on February 21, 2020, 06:04:11 pm

Quote from: spineflu on February 20, 2020, 05:59:47 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on February 20, 2020, 05:35:35 pm

Quote from: grep on February 19, 2020, 11:17:11 am

It's "+3 Coffers, you cannot buy cards this turn" most of the time. This might be great for megaturns, comparable to Tactician, but only having another source of +Buys. This card itself could be an enabler if it had "+2 Buys" on buy.

I'm also aware that buying gongfermors lets you empty potentially three piles in a turn. If you have six you can buy a gongfermor, trash a duchy and buy a crossroads for example. That's why I had to make it cost 4 so that its not viable to buy multiple gongfermors a turn. For this reason I'm reluctant to make it +2 buys.

I'd rather see this really shine in kingdoms where you might have other trashers especially knights (you can gongfermor for the knights who die in batttles) or when there's a strategic value to parking cards from the supply before your opponents buy them (like City). And occasionally it can be used to bring on the three pile ending too.

Rather than fully relying on Gongfermors to put cards from the supply into the trash, what if it started with some kinda basic cards _in_ the trash, like Necromancer does? Maybe like a Porcelain shop (https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e14d62f64ea8724c2e1dafa/300x460/de896f5c67289008ca49911f455aa1fc/kfsOVsfl.jpg) variant and a "+2 Actions. Trash a card from your hand." per player?

I actually thought about giving a set up rule that had players choose one or two 5 cost kingdom cards not in the supply and put a single copy of them into the trash. This would make a mini Black Market for the Gongfermor. But it felt like way too much decision making at the start of a game.

It could be possible to put a single card that gets retrashed like the following in the trash:
$6 Lost Ring - Treasure - +6, +1 Buy, When this would be discarded from play during clean up, put this into the trash instead.

But that would add to the original card text and moves me away from the focus of the competition I thought.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on February 22, 2020, 04:42:00 am

Quote from: Snowyowl on February 21, 2020, 05:22:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/fSYnU8Z.png?1)

Quote

Nickel Silver
$0 • Treasure
+$2
+1 Buy
While this is in play, cards cost $1 more.

Nickel Silver or German Silver doesn't actually contain any silver, it's an alloy of 60% copper, 20% nickel, and 20% zinc. It was used to make jewelry and cutlery that imitated the appearance of silver, but much cheaper (and lighter). It was only made in the West from the 18th century onwards, but it was known as "white copper" in China much earlier than that.

I'd prefer if it were an Action card, so it could cooperate with stuff like Apprentice. Right now, it seems to be really weak, even worse than Herbalist.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 22, 2020, 05:33:33 am

Apprentice does not care about types and Nickel Silver is often better than Herbalist due to its non-terminality.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MiX on February 22, 2020, 06:08:37 am

Isn't nickel silver a copper that can turn into 0$ +1 buy if there's no other buy in the kingdom? It could be good with TfB if it weren't a treasure, but right now it's just a worse copper, and presumably you have to spend a buy getting it.

In the niche of "I need to buy this because there's no other +buy in the kingdom" I think this would be much better if you could gain it for free once per turn, it would create more interesting decisions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on February 22, 2020, 11:22:11 am

Yep, it doesn't really work well with other +Buys, including itself. Sometimes you don't care about the downside because you're buying Events or using money for non-buy purposes, and sometimes the +1 Buy is worthwhile on its own (at the very least there's a 0-cost card in the kingdom that you can buy with it). And there are trashers that can make use of it, like Counterfeit.

Still, this does raise the question of when you're buying it in the first place - there's little reason to get a 0-cost card unless you're spending several Buys this turn, and that's its weakness.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on February 22, 2020, 12:12:29 pm

Nickel Silver needs a dividing line above "while this is in play."

Also, I agree with the people who have said it's weak and usually not useful. While I like the flavor justification, mechanics should always come first and it seems much better as a non-terminal action to interact with TfB's like Apprentice, Research, and Raze. (Raze in particular can become super fast at getting rid of Coppers.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 22, 2020, 01:10:36 pm

Quote from: segura on February 22, 2020, 05:33:33 am

Apprentice does not care about types and Nickel Silver is often better than Herbalist due to its non-terminality.

He means so that you can play the Nickel Silver and then play the Apprentice, so that whatever you trash costs more and gives more +Cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 22, 2020, 01:23:29 pm

Quote from: Gubump on February 22, 2020, 01:10:36 pm

Quote from: segura on February 22, 2020, 05:33:33 am

Apprentice does not care about types and Nickel Silver is often better than Herbalist due to its non-terminality.

He means so that you can play the Nickel Silver and then play the Apprentice, so that whatever you trash costs more and gives more +Cards.

Ah, OK. Hardly a buff though, e.g. with terminal Workshop variants the card becomes worse as a non-terminal Action. But it would be more interesting. Stuff like playing it twice and killing a Province with a Knight and other funky combos could arise.

Another idea would be to make it yields 3 Coins. Then it is either a Gold for landscape stuff, a Silver at one Buy or a Pouch if you use both Buys and so on. Smells like a $4 but it is a hard to judge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on February 23, 2020, 03:47:48 am

24 hours left. If you need to buy out the time to get your entries in, do so!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on February 23, 2020, 11:06:39 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 23, 2020, 03:47:48 am

24 hours left. If you need to buy out the time to get your entries in, do so!

I see what you did there...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 23, 2020, 03:08:35 pm

OK, here's the final version of Gondolier for the challenge - no functional change, just fixed the type and improved some formatting:

(https://i.imgur.com/SL1tKb7.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on February 23, 2020, 04:09:11 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZXCCjSR.png?1)
I haven't had much time to work on this due to being away so it's on the simpler side. Sawmill is a woodcutter variant that can trash on buys, which is facilitated by the second buy. Usually it's one at a time early on, but maybe you want to trade that curse or estate for a copper. This might be a bit strong, but comparing it to Priest, it seems fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on February 23, 2020, 04:24:40 pm

The point about making it an Action so it works with trash-for-benefit like Raze is a good one. I've also tweaked it so that it synergises with itself, at least. Oh, and renamed it so it's not a Treasure. How's this version?

(https://i.imgur.com/QREsSdq.png?1)

(Illustration: a detail from The Watchmaker 2 by Maja Stosic, released here under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on February 23, 2020, 06:33:53 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on February 23, 2020, 04:09:11 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZXCCjSR.png?1)
I haven't had much time to work on this due to being away so it's on the simpler side. Sawmill is a woodcutter variant that can trash on buys, which is facilitated by the second buy. Usually it's one at a time early on, but maybe you want to trade that curse or estate for a copper. This might be a bit strong, but comparing it to Priest, it seems fine.

Huh. I had a card called Sawmill that won me a contest a while back. But no worries, I'm fine with you using the name.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on February 24, 2020, 12:48:37 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ZLMrgwv.png)

Yes, I see the Fortress interaction. I don't think it even cracks the list of top 5 dumbest Fortress interactions, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on February 24, 2020, 04:43:53 am

Contest #62: results

Quote

Social experiment ([TP] Inferno)
Action, $5 cost.
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
-
When you discard this during Clean-up, if you bought 2 or more cards this turn, +2 Villagers.

If you're adding more cards to your deck, be they Actions, Treasures or junk, you'll always like Villagers, so this is an elegant bonus to using the buy. It favours buying several terminals including copies of itself, as the potential number of Villagers you get can be very high (2 bought cards makes 2 Villagers per Social Experiment in play). This is going to be reached late game, which makes for quite a different way to build a deck.
But I feel that the times when you buy junk just to keep your Action supply up won't be pleasant. You may not use those Villagers, especially if said junk gets in the way; yet, you had to do it. You don't mind junking for Goons or Merchant Guild so much; when they don't work out it doesn't sting so strongly as when deck functionality fails.
A lower cost giving 1 Villager could be a consistency aid also during the building process, and there would be less pressure when this is the only source of Actions.

Quote

Gongfermor (somekindoftony)
Action, $4 cost.
+3 Coffers
This turn, you may only buy cards in the trash (as if they were in the Supply).
-
When you buy this, trash a card from the Supply and +1 Buy.

There basically has to be some kind of trash-for-benefit for this to be buying cards from the trash in the long term. The province trash-and-buy you mentioned will only work if there's a Gongfermor in the trash or you Innovate one. Even with tfb you can't get any further ahead afterward on VP without a source of VP tokens or Salt the Earth. Also, with 4 bridge variants in play this can instantly empty 2 piles, itself and Curses in 2-player games.
So, this is mostly like a Tactician variant carrying 3 Coffers over to later turns. There might be a cool idea to be made out of this if the +Buy were better implemented; I thought maybe a Duration with +1 Buy at the start of next turn instead of the when-buy bit.

Quote

Tea (spineflu)
Treasure, $5 cost.
$2
+1 Buy
-
When you buy this, you may spend any number of extra buys on it. For each, draw an extra card for your next hand at Clean-up.

Converting buys into another resource is a nice concept, but it has to compete with Events for viability. In this case it's Expedition. Each buy with $3 becomes 2 cards, whereas this is $5 needing at least 2 buys so less accessible. Each time you're also adding a Silver with +buy to the deck, so not a move to use in engines. Overall, awkward to use outside of markets/Worker's Village and other Spices lookalikes are favourable.

Quote

Credit (mandioca15)
Treasure, $4 cost.
$2
When you play this, you may set aside <2> for +1 Buy. When you discard this from play, take any set aside <>, and then you may pay off <>.

Travelling Fair (without the top-deck) attached to a Silver, but you pay for it later. The result is just a Capital worth $2, but the option is the advantage here. Get a big $5 or $6 sometimes, get a crucial buy other times. It's quite a steep cost for just an extra buy, so it's only mildly useful, mildly nice, nothing too exciting.

Quote

Royal Docks (NoMoreFun)
Action Duration, $5 cost.
+1 Buy
This turn, when you gain an Action card, you may set it aside under this. While any cards are set aside under this, at the start of each of your turns, play one twice.

Your buys can immediately prepare your next turns. That's a neat premise for a building card. It does a lot more to the Actions than Cargo Ship, but in balance it gives no payload of its own (I saw it nearly did, but it's good that it doesn't since there's no incentive to then choose not to use the extra buy to get it back into the deck sooner. Elegant). To really start going with it you need to get that payload first. So if it doesn't prove imbalanced, it's good and I like it.

Quote

Atelier (mail-mi)
Action, $4 cost.
Choose one: + $2; or gain a card costing up to $4.
-
When you gain this during your Action phase, +1 Buy.

It can get lots of cards in your deck, perfect for Gardens, but… I'm not seeing what else it's good with. You're not often going to want the extra buy from gaining this when that buy could often be a different $4 gained; you add a fairly weak, terminal stop card into the deck, needing plenty of villages and draw to use the + $2s. Forum is non-terminal and it isn't a stop card, and that I feel is rather crucial to its having the bottom-line bit. If this had 2 Actions instead of $2…?
(For newer people here, a stop card is one that doesn't help you draw more of your deck.)

Quote

Savings (X-tra)
Treasure, $5 cost
$2
When you play this, choose one: -1 Buy and + $2; or +1 Buy.

At one time I may have thought, 'you can't do -1 Buy, it's never going to be interesting'. But this has trumped that in very simple fashion. The balance also looks spot on; it's a bit more than $2 +Buy, just like Charm and Spices, and 2 together with no other buys can become 2 Golds, a fine worst case. Markets and Worker's Village are the best cases, which feels about right for a kingdom Treasure. A sound design.

Quote

Deed (forkofnature)
Treasure, $2 cost.
$0
-
When this is your first buy in a turn or when you trash this, + $3 and +1 Buy.

A free + $1 boost like Borrow, but the downside is a junk card in the deck. Only rarely worth it, but with a trasher in the game, definitely worth it. It's great if it's balanced.

Quote

Bourse (grep)
Project, $6 cost.
At the start of each of your turns, +1 Buy.
When you buy a second card in a turn, +2 Coffers.

Fair with a boost, and a sensible one at that. It keeps giving you incentive to use the buy, giving more $ for better buys on later turns, yet because it's a Project at $6 cost and you can't get copies of it, there's no pressuring game speed and pile emptying. Simple and sound, it's always a useful pickup but it might not be an especially interesting play experience.

Quote

Bulk Order (naitchman)
Treasure, $5 cost.
$3
+1 Buy
-
While this is in play, you may only end your Buy phase if you cannot use a Buy, or if you've bought more cards this turn than Bulk Orders in play.

It's like Contraband but with a different setback. You can't overload on these unless you're after deck inflation. Most of the time then it's just there when you need the buy, and there's not much strategy to it otherwise.

Quote

Shanty Market (majiponi)
Action, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
The second time you gain a card this turn, + $1.

Either the second card effectively costs less per Shanty Market in play, or you can increase your $ for the 3rd gain. Unless you have a Workshop variant it's going to be hard to make all 3 buys meaningful. I think it would be more interesting, even if more expensive, triggering after the first gain.

Quote

Gondolier (scolapasta)
Night Reserve, $4 cost.
+1 Coffers per card you've bought this turn. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
At the start of your Buy phase, you may call this for +1 Buy.

With other sources of buys, it can generate a lot of Coffers because it's non-terminal, but in balance you can't do it every turn. Without other +buys, you can cycle 2 of these every turn in an engine and get 6 Coffers, or if you get 6 copies then 3 for 12 Coffers. This takes a bit of work to put together and sustain though. So there's high potential. When you can't really reach that potential, it's principally about the buy on demand, so not useless.
Pretty good overall, but something's holding me back from really liking it. I think it's because this is only strong in decks that are already strong? As a payload card it isn't standing out over others, just the buys on demand bit and that could better fit on a cheaper card.
I'm comparing it to Bridge and Merchant Guild. They're terminal, but they generate their own buys immediately and their total payload can be varied to suit the player's needs. This is non-terminal, but lesser flexibility is implied; buying several cards is less of an option if you want to make your investment in these count, since if ever you don't buy much you have to wait at least a turn until you can go for it again. Also, Bridge and MG's payload is immediate, whereas these Coffers aren't, so you have to handle all the extra purchases before going in with the mega turn.
So: it's not as pleasant a card to use as Bridge or MG, and it seems to be rather weak. So I've drawn a very long-winded conclusion that just says 'it should be cheaper'. If balance says it can't be, then it can't really exist.

Quote

Crate (kru5h)
Action Duration, $4 cost.
At the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game, if this is still in play, +1 Buy and + $1. (This stays in play.)
-
At the end of your Buy phase, discard this if you have any Buys left.

A payload effect in the form of Key coming with a constant Buy you must use, where if you don't buy you lose the Key and get a terminal stop card back into the deck. It's a reliable deck strategy option. It can encourage pile emptying, but not absolutely, so this looks sound.
Bulk Order is also doing enforced buys, but with getting either $3 and +Buy or nothing, and no middle option like this has in Peddler but the card re-enters deck, it's less flexible. So this feels like a better execution. That said, this will be cwazy with Triumph or Goons.

Quote

Inspector (Doom_Shark)
Action, $5 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card, look at the top card of your deck. Trash it, discard it, or put it back.

This is a nice new way to trim your deck and sift through it. It can do similar to Sentry, but it comes in at the Buy phase so it plays differently and involves different strategies. There's a possibility that a cheaper variant without the +Buy would be better, but this looks fine and interesting.

Quote

Crook (Gazbag)
Action Attack, $5 cost.
+1 Buy
+$2
This turn, whenever you buy a card, each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards one with the same cost as that card (or reveals they can't).

At first I thought, since you can only discard once usually, what's the +Buy doing? Now I see of course, the first buy can scout for the second. That's a fun spin to add to the buy process, although potentially political with it; 'you could've got a $5, but you chose a $4 just to hit me'. If players don't mind that, they've got a pretty nice card here.

Quote

Adventurers' Guild (gubump)
Action, $6 cost.
+1 Buy
+ $2
You may play an Action from your hand that you don't have a copy of in play.
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card, +1 Villager.

On-buy Villagers is similar to Social Experiment, but to me here the on-play effect is a better fit. Because the bonus is $ rather than +Cards, and because it's sometimes non-terminal, there is less pressure to buy just to keep Action supply up. The Villagers are still useful though, since this goes with the Conclave effect rather than +1 Action; a good move.
Overall this is a nice blend of Actions and payload together, like Festival but more reliable as a Village.

Quote

Lumber Camp (Kudasai)
Action, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
-
When this is one of your first 2 gains of the game: take Innovative, or if you already have it, flip it over to Twice Innovative.
(Twice) Innovative, two-sided State: at the start of your turn, +1 (2) Cards per empty Supply pile.

This seems to have similarities to a Gardens rush strategy. Once someone does the right opening, what strategy they're going for becomes obvious. Others can try to avoid the piles they're most likely to empty, but either way they're committed to their course. If you open with one or two of these, you've got to get emptying piles for your investment to pay off. That won't be easy seeing that these don't give any payload, and once they are empty you have to then win within a limited amount of time. It's hard to call if this is worthwhile often enough to be interesting.

Quote

Top Executive traveller line (grrgrrgrr)
All stages are Actions, upgrading as the official ones do.
Young Merchant - Discard any number of cards for + $1 each.
Teen Merchant - put your -1 Card token on your deck. If you do, gain a Gold.
Local Manager - +2 Cards. At the start of Clean-up, +1 Villager per $1 unspent.
Entrepreneur - +3 Cards. This turn, cards cost $1 less.
Top Executive - Duration. For the rest of the game: when you buy a card costing $1 or more, +1 Buy, and at the start of each of your turns, draw until you have 6 cards in hand. (This stays in play.)

You progress towards getting infinite buys, which I suppose if Champion can exist so can this. From here you can buy lots of Young Merchants and progress them into a near complete engine strategy. The problem here is that if a Traveller line can win all by itself, it's not interacting with the rest of the kingdom. Teacher and Champion are support cards, but Top Executive is payload with the rest of its line. This does seem to appreciate trashing and cycling like the others, being quite slow with the -card token and needing unspent $ for Villagers, but it would still need testing for speed.

Quote

Lapidary (snowyowl)
Action, $0 cost.
+1 Action
+ $2
+1 Buy
This turn, cards cost $1 more.

The only reasons to use this are if there's some kind of trash-for-benefit involving $ cost, or there are Events you don't mind repeatedly buying like Expedition. Too narrow to be interesting.

Quote

Sawmill (D782802859)
Action, $4 cost.
+1 Buy
+ $2
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card, you may trash a card from your hand.

Similar to Inspector, but here the trash has to be from hand rather than the deck so losing Coppers can mean weaker purchases. You do get some payload to make up for this though. It's a simple but powerful builder that will be an appealing addition to many decks, possibly too powerful.

Quote

Exchange (Something_Smart)
Action, $5 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
-
While this is in play, when you gain a card, you may trash a card from your hand for +1 Buy.

The buy lets you exchange again. This feels a little weird. It's a $5 cantrip, yet you don't want that many as you won't have many cards in hand to trash. It could be a Project, or maybe a terminal with +2 or 3 Cards, and it would have a more defined purpose.

---

Shortlist: Royal Docks, Savings, Deed, Bourse, Crate, Inspector, Crook, Adventurers' Guild, Sawmill.

Plenty of good designs in this contest, and many more were nearly good, so well done all. To choose a winner from these though…

Runner-up: Royal Docks by NoMoreFun
Winner: Savings by X-tra.

Royal Docks has high potential to be fun, but Savings is a card that seems good to go, has some interesting strategizing with how many buys you actually want this turn, and it covers a new mechanic. Simple but effective, congrats!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 24, 2020, 09:56:34 am

Hey, thanks a lot, Aquila! The problem about winning though is that now I have to match up you guys’ level of professionalism when it comes to judge each participant’s entry. And even in my wildest dreams, I could never hope to achieve such a thing. Still, I’ll try my best and we shall see in a week. :D

CHALLENGE 63: GOLD IS THE CURRENCY OF PEASANTS
Create a card-shaped thing with a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) cost.

I know I already used this challenge as an example during a rhetorical argument I had earlier in this thread, but I grew fond of the simplicity of this idea, akin to Aquila's last contest of the week. This challenge involves creating a card-shaped thing that costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png). Therefore, it has to be an alternative to Gold. If you have (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) in play, then you might consider paying for whatever you will enter for this competition. Should be simple enough. Biggest pitfall would make your entry exclusively better than Gold, or exclusively weaker. This is mostly how this challenge will be judged.

Here are a couple of additional rules to follow:

• Your card-shaped thing musn't have any (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/10px-Potion.png) or (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) in their cost. Only (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) currency is accepted, and it must cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png).
  
• Your card-shaped thing can be an Event or a Project.
  
• Your card-shaped thing cannot be a Traveller line, even if a card that is part of it costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) (like Champion or Teacher). That is unless, of course, you make the first card of your Traveller line cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png). It is a weird and potentially dangerous idea, it has never been done before, but maybe you can pull it off?
  
• Cards with fluctuating costs are a bit of a puzzler. Peddler, for instance, is priced at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png), but can cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) if you have 1 Action in play. Argh. My advice here is to avoid such cards. Making a flat (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) cost will be simpler for everyone.
  
• Cards with conditional buys are likewise troublesome. Grand Market comes to mind first. It costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png), but can only be bought if you have no Coppers in play. If you have, for instance, 4 Coppers and 1 Silver in play, then you could buy a Gold, but not a Grand Market. Thus, Grand Market would be disqualified as an entry for this challenge. You can make a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) card with a conditional buy, so long as you can buy your card shaped-thing if you can buy a Gold, and vice-versa. This is probably not a safe way to go about this challenge, however.
  
• Your card shaped-thing can be or involve never-seen before concepts. You can create, for instance, a new card type specifically for this challenge. Go crazy, tiger! As long as you must pay exactly (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) for it, then you're good to go.
  
• Overpaying is disallowed. Can you overpay for a Gold? No? Then you shouldn't for your entry either.
  
• You can make a Kingdom composed of different cards in it, such as Knights or split piles, so long as everything in there is priced at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png).
  

This seems like a lot of rules for something so simple, but I want this challenge to be correctly bounded. And yet I'm sure I'm forgetting some rules to make sure the heart of this challenge truly gets respected. In case of doubt, just ask if what you want to do is fine. I'll be happy to help. But overall, the idea to follow is that if you can buy a Gold, then you can pay for your card-shaped thing as well. It must be on-par with the price of Gold. No more, no less.

Example of cards that would be disqualified:

• Adventurer: Well, not disqualified per say. It DOES cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png). But most of the time, you'll want a Gold over this. You wouldn't win if you registered Adventurer for this week's contest.
  
• Laboratory: Costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), not (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png).
  
• Possession: Costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png), but has (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/10px-Potion.png) in its cost.
  
• Grand Market: Its conditional buy makes it so there are times where you couldn't buy this while you could buy a Gold.
  
• Peddler: There are times where you could buy a Gold, but not this (for instance: having only Treasures in play).
  

Judging will be done on 2020-03-02, around 8 PM EST, to leave me a little bit of time that day to complete everything before posting the results. Thank you and have at it!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 24, 2020, 10:02:16 am

@X-tra - clarification on yr contest - split piles - both cards should cost $6 for it to qualify?

---

My entry, at least initially: Withdrawing this; see downthread

Quote

Toll Road • $6 • Action - Duration
This card stays in play.
Whenever another player shuffles their discard pile into their deck, they discard the top card of their deck. If that card is a type other than Treasure, you gain +1 Coffers. If it is a Treasure, they gain +1 Coffers.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e42ebce1181de1d515adb5b/5e42eda64d860860295a669c/631117344c99c215db7a05ee628fb1f8/image.png)

---

Quote from: Aquila on February 24, 2020, 04:43:53 am

Contest #62: results

Quote

Tea (spineflu)
Treasure, $5 cost.
$2
+1 Buy
-
When you buy this, you may spend any number of extra buys on it. For each, draw an extra card for your next hand at Clean-up.

Converting buys into another resource is a nice concept, but it has to compete with Events for viability. In this case it's Expedition. Each buy with $3 becomes 2 cards, whereas this is $5 needing at least 2 buys so less accessible. Each time you're also adding a Silver with +buy to the deck, so not a move to use in engines. Overall, awkward to use outside of markets/Worker's Village and other Spices lookalikes are favourable.

I don't disagree with your assessment (nor your winners - my projected list looked basically identical except i liked gondolier more) but I do want to point out that my card had a revision prior to judging

Quote from: spineflu on February 20, 2020, 11:33:55 am

[...]
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e4eb528b37610195aec6482/4e2fa21a7876b83a99b7f583b61a6dd2/image.png)

Quote

Choose one:
$2 and +1 Buy;
or $1 and +2 Buys
-
When you buy this, you may overbuy. For each extra buy you spend, +1 Card when drawing your next hand during Clean up

overbuy is like overpay but you spend buys rather than $+potions. Should be pretty straightforward from that explanation but if you've got any questions, let me know.

Made some revisions based on feedback from the discord#variants
[...]

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 24, 2020, 10:35:43 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 24, 2020, 10:02:16 am

@X-tra - clarification on yr contest - split piles - both cards should cost $6 for it to qualify?

I knew I was forgetting stuff, hahaha! I'll edit my contest post. But yeah, both cards should be worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 24, 2020, 12:22:11 pm

Quote from: X-tra on February 24, 2020, 09:56:34 am

Laboratory: Worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), not (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png).

Saome elemenary confusion. Lab costs $5. Doesn't imply anything about its worth, you do more often than not buy it when you hit $6 instead of Gold. Same with many other decent $5 Actions.
This is also why there is no official Lab+ that costs $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on February 24, 2020, 12:26:19 pm

Eh, I think people get the idea. It's a small nitpick but yeah, I'll edit the contest post to make that clearer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on February 24, 2020, 01:47:03 pm

Tiara (Treasure, $6)

+$4
+1 Buy
---
When you discard this from play, if you have unused Buys, trash this.

This gives you more spending power than Gold, but forces you to use its extra Buy if you want to keep it. Maybe there are lots of good cheap cards in the Kingdom. Maybe you have to keep buying Copper - can your deck sustain all of those Coppers? Or maybe you're glad to let it go once you've purchased the cards you want.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 24, 2020, 03:14:06 pm

Leaning hard into the theme for this one!

(https://i.imgur.com/GwuEaFU.png)

Quote

Beast
Action - $6
Reveal any number of cards from your hand. If their added cost in $ is exactly 6, gain a card costing up to $1 per card revealed. Discard the revealed cards and draw until you have 6 cards in hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on February 24, 2020, 10:48:21 pm

Hmm... How about this:

Lone Knight
$6
Action-Attack
+$3
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes any costing from $3 to $6, and discards the rest.

So at first glance, it looks better than Gold at the same price. Oh dear. But it is lacking that all-important +Action that Treasures have, can be drawn dead, etc. But it still has the Attack part though. Wouldn't that make up for the lack of a +Action? Maybe, but it is in range of its own attack. So you would see from time to time, these Lone Knights popping each other off, meaning that you might not get many uses out of your Lone Knight. Also, there are a couple of official cards that can give +$3 that cost $5, eg. Treasurer, Explorer, Courtier, Mandarin, Count, etc. so I believe it is balanced at this price.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on February 24, 2020, 11:09:31 pm

Quote from: Aquila on February 24, 2020, 04:43:53 am

Contest #62: results

Quote

Social experiment ([TP] Inferno)
Action, $5 cost.
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
-
When you discard this during Clean-up, if you bought 2 or more cards this turn, +2 Villagers.

If you're adding more cards to your deck, be they Actions, Treasures or junk, you'll always like Villagers, so this is an elegant bonus to using the buy. It favours buying several terminals including copies of itself, as the potential number of Villagers you get can be very high (2 bought cards makes 2 Villagers per Social Experiment in play). This is going to be reached late game, which makes for quite a different way to build a deck.
But I feel that the times when you buy junk just to keep your Action supply up won't be pleasant. You may not use those Villagers, especially if said junk gets in the way; yet, you had to do it. You don't mind junking for Goons or Merchant Guild so much; when they don't work out it doesn't sting so strongly as when deck functionality fails.
A lower cost giving 1 Villager could be a consistency aid also during the building process, and there would be less pressure when this is the only source of Actions.

Okay, nice feedback. You are right about the need to buy junk to get Villagers, but my thought process was, this is a Lab+ if you use a Villager on it, so it might not be so bad, but yeah, to keep up the Villager supply, you need to buy multiple cards every turn, probably Copper. Your suggestions are quite reasonable, so how's this:

Social Experiment
$3
Action
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
-------
When you discard this during Clean-up, if you have bought 2 or more cards this turn, +1 Villager.

This means that this card itself is slightly easier to use up your second +Buy on, and even though it only gives 1, it is overall better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on February 24, 2020, 11:33:04 pm

CHALLENGE 63: GOLD IS THE CURRENCY OF PEASANTS
Trying to be concise in my submission

(https://i.ibb.co/BLTLKtf/image.png)
Weaver
$6 - Action
Gain a card into your hand cheaper than this.
If you gained an Action card, play it.


I find it more like an Overlord than like an Altar. You probably want it over Gold as a deck builder, but it's just a terminal Silver or Duchy gainer when you go greening. Not sure about cost, probably should be nerfed with not allowing gaining Victory cards.

Upd: WITHDRAWED for now
As Gubump noticed, it is much stronger than Artisan. Even if limited to gaining Action cards, probably still too strong

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on February 25, 2020, 12:18:55 am

Quote

Bridge Builder
$6 - Action
+3 Cards.
-
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

I'd be a little surprised if someone hasn't thought of something like this before, but I don't remember seeing it before.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Barbarossa41 on February 25, 2020, 12:19:01 am

My submission for Contest #63


Real Estate agent
Action
Cost: $6


+1 Card
+1 Action
Discard a card from your hand.
If it was a Victory card, +1 Coffers for each $2 it cost.
If it was a Treasure card, +1VP for each $3 it cost.


Turn your base cards into  the other type of resource!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 25, 2020, 02:26:42 am

Quote from: grep on February 24, 2020, 11:33:04 pm

CHALLENGE 63: GOLD IS THE CURRENCY OF PEASANTS
Trying to be concise in my submission

(https://i.ibb.co/BLTLKtf/image.png)
Weaver
$6 - Action
Gain a card into your hand cheaper than this.
If you gained an Action card, play it.


I find it more like an Overlord than like an Altar. You probably want it over Gold as a deck builder, but it's just a terminal Silver or Duchy gainer when you go greening. Not sure about cost, probably should be nerfed with not allowing gaining Victory cards.

This compares way too favorably to Artisan.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on February 25, 2020, 03:09:01 am

Study Group
Action - $6
Gain an Action card costing less than this.
For each $1 it costs less than this, +1 Villager

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on February 25, 2020, 05:33:16 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 24, 2020, 10:02:16 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 24, 2020, 04:43:53 am

Contest #62: results
...

...
I don't disagree with your assessment (nor your winners - my projected list looked basically identical except i liked gondolier more) but I do want to point out that my card had a revision prior to judging

Quote from: spineflu on February 20, 2020, 11:33:55 am

[...]
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e4eb528b37610195aec6482/4e2fa21a7876b83a99b7f583b61a6dd2/image.png)

Quote

Choose one:
$2 and +1 Buy;
or $1 and +2 Buys
-
When you buy this, you may overbuy. For each extra buy you spend, +1 Card when drawing your next hand during Clean up

overbuy is like overpay but you spend buys rather than $+potions. Should be pretty straightforward from that explanation but if you've got any questions, let me know.

Made some revisions based on feedback from the discord#variants
[...]

Sorry, so you did. This is a distinct improvement; now you can choose less $ if you don't need it and instead get more cards in your next hand, but again, if you don't mind another Tea in the deck.

---

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on February 24, 2020, 11:09:31 pm

Quote from: Aquila on February 24, 2020, 04:43:53 am

Contest #62: results

Quote

Social experiment ([TP] Inferno)
...

Okay, nice feedback. You are right about the need to buy junk to get Villagers, but my thought process was, this is a Lab+ if you use a Villager on it, so it might not be so bad, but yeah, to keep up the Villager supply, you need to buy multiple cards every turn, probably Copper. Your suggestions are quite reasonable, so how's this:

Social Experiment
$3
Action
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
-------
When you discard this during Clean-up, if you have bought 2 or more cards this turn, +1 Villager.

This means that this card itself is slightly easier to use up your second +Buy on, and even though it only gives 1, it is overall better.

Pretty much what I thought, hopefully it works out in games and is different enough from Lackeys.

---

My entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/5HcK7mo.jpg)

Quote

Bridleway - Action, $6 cost.
+1 Buy
This turn, cards cost $2 less unless you've gained a copy of them during the turn.

Edit: changed entry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on February 25, 2020, 10:53:11 am

Battleship
cost $6 - Action - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn, +$2, +1 Buy.
---
While this is in play, when other player plays an Attack card, you are unaffected by that Attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 25, 2020, 04:05:56 pm

EDIT: this is withdrawn
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e558a23b024910f72f6ea45/e996aadb6e2e647430bd2e495ac81e04/image.png)

Quote

Brazier • $6 • Treasure
$2


Copper produces an extra $1.

I wanted to see what a $6 coppersmith would look like. After a couple more uh, convoluted options - a reserve card, a few different durations, an action that was way too strong - I settled on this. nice and simple.

I think it's an interesting card because you generally aren't going to hit $6 with just copper (unless there's a peddler/equivalent). The extra linebreaks are because otherwise the card generator makes the $1 very large as well.

I guess this is kind of goofy for this contest since this would imply Brass is better than Gold and it improves the actual Currency of Peasants but well, they can't all be winners thematically.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on February 25, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

CHALLENGE #63 - GOLD IS THE CURRENCY OF PEASANTS

(https://i.imgur.com/CvQLnII.jpg)

Kind of a tough challenge as I don't think Gold is particularly strong for its cost. Of course every game has to have a way to reliably hit $8 and up and that is Gold's job, but generally there are better alternatives. So this makes the $6 cost space a bit tricky as these cards can't be exclusively better than Gold (a not so good card), but they can be situationally better.

With this all in mind, this is my attempt at such a card. Army can be very, very good, but it takes a bit of time to build up. You may build the greatest Army card known, but how long will that actually take? So it can be better than Gold, but not always.

Thanks for looking!

Quote from: Kudasai on February 25, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

CHALLENGE #63 - GOLD IS THE CURRENCY OF PEASANTS
ARMY - ACTION - $6
Choose one: Put a non-Command Action card onto your Army mat; or play this as if it were all the cards on your Army mat (played in any order).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on February 25, 2020, 05:26:13 pm

Quote from: spineflu on February 25, 2020, 04:05:56 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e558a23b024910f72f6ea45/e996aadb6e2e647430bd2e495ac81e04/image.png)

Seems stronger than Bank. At least early on when Bank relies mainly on Coppers for coin generation. Bank does have more versatility, but I don't think enough to make it stronger than Brazier's unconditional +$2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on February 25, 2020, 09:27:56 pm

New submission - a mixed pile of Gems, each of them comparable to Gold. There are two Gems of each kind in the pile, total 10. The pile should be shuffled before the game.

Ruby
$6 - Treasure - Gem
$3, +1 Buy
You cannot buy Gems this turn.

Diamond
$6 - Treasure - Gem
$4
While this is in play, Victory cards cost $2 more.

Pearl
$6 - Treasure - Gem
$2
You may gain a Silver into your hand.

Sapphire
$6 - Treasure - Reaction - Gem
$2
When another player gains a Gem, you may discard this to gain a Gem.

Emerald
$6 - Treasure - Victory - Gem
$2
Worth 2VP per three Gems you own, rounded down

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on February 26, 2020, 05:43:32 am

It's an alternative to Gold that makes you want a deck full of golds. Ha!  The intention by the way is that if you have no deck to draw (or discard pile to shuffle into your deck of course) then the card will also be discarded. So you really want a fat deck of treasures. If you have that this is a potential +2 cards every turn including the turn you play it. If you're broke.... no more credit for you.

(https://i.imgur.com/QipBNWk.png)

This is a fun challenge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 26, 2020, 09:37:56 am

Quote from: grep on February 25, 2020, 09:27:56 pm

New submission - a mixed pile of Gems, each of them comparable to Gold. There are two Gems of each kind in the pile, total 10. The pile should be shuffled before the game.

Ruby
$6 - Treasure - Gem
$3, +1 Buy
You cannot buy Gems this turn.

Diamond
$6 - Treasure - Gem
$4
While this is in play, Victory cards cost $2 more.

Pearl
$6 - Treasure - Gem
$2
You may gain a Silver into your hand.

Sapphire
$6 - Treasure - Reaction - Gem
$2
When another player gains a Gem, you may discard this to gain a Gem.

Emerald
$6 - Treasure - Victory - Gem
$2
Worth 2VP per three Gems you own, rounded down

I'd say Ruby is too strong; not being able to buy Gems isn't much of a downside when buying a Gold is almost always a decent alternative. I'd consider having it say "You may not buy Treasures" instead, and even then it might be too strong. The others are probably fine, but I'm not convinced that these offer a sufficiently interesting alternative to Gold; they might be very cool as a pile to replace the Gold pile, but having both around is going to be redundant more often than not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on February 26, 2020, 09:44:50 am

Quote from: Kudasai on February 25, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

Thanks for looking!

Quote from: Kudasai on February 25, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

CHALLENGE #63 - GOLD IS THE CURRENCY OF PEASANTS
ARMY - ACTION - $6
Choose one: Put a non-Command Action card onto your Army mat; or play this as if it were all the cards on your Army mat (played in any order).

The "play this as if it were" phrasing was phased out with the introduction of Command cards, and anyways makes no sense here. The card should just say "play the cards on your Army mat in any order, leaving them there." Even then, it is unclear to me whether you determine the order when you play Army or if you can switch things around once you played the first card from the mat. If it's the latter, maybe you want the wording "As often as you like: Play a card from your Army mat that you haven't played yet with this, leaving it there."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on February 26, 2020, 10:58:54 am

Quote from: faust on February 26, 2020, 09:44:50 am

Quote from: Kudasai on February 25, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

Thanks for looking!

Quote from: Kudasai on February 25, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

CHALLENGE #63 - GOLD IS THE CURRENCY OF PEASANTS
ARMY - ACTION - $6
Choose one: Put a non-Command Action card onto your Army mat; or play this as if it were all the cards on your Army mat (played in any order).

The "play this as if it were" phrasing was phased out with the introduction of Command cards, and anyways makes no sense here. The card should just say "play the cards on your Army mat in any order, leaving them there." Even then, it is unclear to me whether you determine the order when you play Army or if you can switch things around once you played the first card from the mat. If it's the latter, maybe you want the wording "As often as you like: Play a card from your Army mat that you haven't played yet with this, leaving it there."

I think the way you resolve the 3 Boons with Fool makes it clear that when you have 3 or more things you choose the order as you go along.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on February 26, 2020, 02:14:37 pm

Quote from: faust on February 26, 2020, 09:44:50 am

Quote from: Kudasai on February 25, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

Thanks for looking!

Quote from: Kudasai on February 25, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

CHALLENGE #63 - GOLD IS THE CURRENCY OF PEASANTS
ARMY - ACTION - $6
Choose one: Put a non-Command Action card onto your Army mat; or play this as if it were all the cards on your Army mat (played in any order).

The "play this as if it were" phrasing was phased out with the introduction of Command cards, and anyways makes no sense here. The card should just say "play the cards on your Army mat in any order, leaving them there." Even then, it is unclear to me whether you determine the order when you play Army or if you can switch things around once you played the first card from the mat. If it's the latter, maybe you want the wording "As often as you like: Play a card from your Army mat that you haven't played yet with this, leaving it there."

I believe I phrased it the former way to avoid strong interactions with Encampment. Encampments on your Army mat can never be returned to the Supply with "leaving it there" phrasing. But this still requires that you line up Encampments with a $6 cost card (An Army instead of a Gold) to keep your Encampment. The Encampment is then permanently safe, but the window to line it up is generally 4 other cards versus 6 other cards when Encampment is actually played.

All in all I now think it's a cool interaction and isn't as strong as I once believed. It's very thematic as well. Thanks for the feedback!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on February 27, 2020, 01:57:11 am

Quote from: Kudasai on February 25, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

CHALLENGE #63 - GOLD IS THE CURRENCY OF PEASANTS

(https://i.imgur.com/vw0pNYQ.jpg)

Kind of a tough challenge as I don't think Gold is particularly strong for its cost. Of course every game has to have a way to reliably hit $8 and up and that is Gold's job, but generally there are better alternatives. So this makes the $6 cost space a bit tricky as these cards can't be exclusively better than Gold (a not so good card), but they can be situationally better.

With this all in mind, this is my attempt at such a card. Army can be very, very good, but it takes a bit of time to build up. You may build the greatest Army card known, but how long will that actually take? So it can be better than Gold, but not always.

Thanks for looking!

Quote from: Kudasai on February 25, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

CHALLENGE #63 - GOLD IS THE CURRENCY OF PEASANTS
ARMY - ACTION - $6
Choose one: Put a non-Command Action card onto your Army mat; or play this as if it were all the cards on your Army mat (played in any order).

Unless you mean for this to remove all the cards from your Army mat, it should say "leaving them there."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on February 27, 2020, 12:08:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/XyGftuy.png)

Like a better Band of Misfits. You get to keep the card you play it as and you can do it with more than just actions.

(Note: I came up with this card independent of grep's weaver. I promise I wasn't copying!)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 27, 2020, 12:43:27 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on February 27, 2020, 12:08:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/UVuFqqG.png)

Like a better Band of Misfits. You get to keep the card you play it as and you can do it with more than just actions.

(Note: I came up with this card independent of grep's weaver. I promise I wasn't copying!)

I like this, as it is such a clean design.
There are already cantrip gainers, but Ironworks-Mill draws any card, not the gained card, Cobbler is delayed and Sculptor is only sometimes non-terminal. Also, all of them miss the mid-turn play element which can lead to funky interactions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 27, 2020, 12:52:48 pm

EDIT: this is also withdrawn. Sorry to keep flip-flopping. See downthread.

Thanks, Kudasai, that was a little too close to Bank. I'm changing my entry up to a slightly more convoluted one.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e5800ca6bdfd7062d9010c9/c3e634531f34bbd4dbe7e6df5db178ca/image.png)

Quote

Tamrakar • $6 • Action - Duration
While this is in play, Copper produces an additional $1 and at the start of your turn +1 Buy.

This stays in play until the Clean up phase of your next turn during which you shuffle your deck.

I didn't want to make this a full-on hireling style duration-coppersmith; If an opponent makes you shuffle (via oracle or minion or whatever), this stays out, because you didn't do the shuffle on your turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 27, 2020, 01:06:42 pm

Quote from: spineflu on February 27, 2020, 12:52:48 pm

Thanks, Kudasai, that was a little too close to Bank. I'm changing my entry up to a slightly more convoluted one.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e5800ca6bdfd7062d9010c9/c3e634531f34bbd4dbe7e6df5db178ca/image.png)

Quote

Tamrakar • $6 • Action - Duration
While this is in play, Copper produces an additional $1 and at the start of your turn +1 Buy.

This stays in play until the Clean up phase of your next turn during which you shuffle your deck.

I didn't want to make this a full-on hireling style duration-coppersmith; If an opponent makes you shuffle (via oracle or minion or whatever), this stays out, because you didn't do the shuffle on your turn.

If you shuffle during your Action, Buy or Night phase this is pretty clear - you would discard this during clean up.

But what about if you have to shuffle during cleanup? I always think of cleanup phase as two sub phases:
• cleanup
• draw (and shuffle, if necessary)

i.e. by the time you shuffle, you've already discarded cards that should be cleaned up.

From the wiki:

Quote

All cards gained this turn should already be in the player’s discard pile. The player places any cards that are in their play area (...) and any cards remaining in their hand onto their discard pile... Then, the player draws a new hand of 5 cards from their deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 27, 2020, 01:19:38 pm

Why not simplify the wording to something like "This stays in play until your shuffle." ?

Perhaps it is too weak then, and of course you can imagine Kingdoms without trashing yet good drawing/sifting in which you shuffle often in spite of 7 Coppers in your deck. But my hunch is that this favours money decks in which you shuffle less frequently.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 27, 2020, 01:25:33 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on February 27, 2020, 01:06:42 pm

Quote from: spineflu on February 27, 2020, 12:52:48 pm

Thanks, Kudasai, that was a little too close to Bank. I'm changing my entry up to a slightly more convoluted one.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e5800ca6bdfd7062d9010c9/c3e634531f34bbd4dbe7e6df5db178ca/image.png)

Quote

Tamrakar • $6 • Action - Duration
While this is in play, Copper produces an additional $1 and at the start of your turn +1 Buy.

This stays in play until the Clean up phase of your next turn during which you shuffle your deck.

I didn't want to make this a full-on hireling style duration-coppersmith; If an opponent makes you shuffle (via oracle or minion or whatever), this stays out, because you didn't do the shuffle on your turn.

If you shuffle during your Action, Buy or Night phase this is pretty clear - you would discard this during clean up.

But what about if you have to shuffle during cleanup? I always think of cleanup phase as two sub phases:
• cleanup
• draw (and shuffle, if necessary)

i.e. by the time you shuffle, you've already discarded cards that should be cleaned up.

From the wiki:

Quote

All cards gained this turn should already be in the player’s discard pile. The player places any cards that are in their play area (...) and any cards remaining in their hand onto their discard pile... Then, the player draws a new hand of 5 cards from their deck.

Then it misses the shuffle (as it always does), as it's still the clean up phase of the turn you shuffle when you discard it; it's just discarded at a different time than the cards that are cleaned up normally.

Quote from: segura on February 27, 2020, 01:19:38 pm

Why not simplify the wording to something like "This stays in play until your shuffle." ?

Perhaps it is too weak then, and of course you can imagine Kingdoms without trashing yet good drawing/sifting in which you shuffle often in spite of 7 Coppers in your deck. But my hunch is that this favours money decks in which you shuffle less frequently.

It's definitely intended for use in slogs, copper-floods, and other less-shufflesome decks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 27, 2020, 01:34:44 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rJj8IBR.jpg)

This is a Den of Sin variant with Horses. I expect that they will work like Villagers, i.e. you can spend them during your Action phase (before or after executing an Action card) for +1 Card.
The card could be too Kingdom-sensitive, e.g. it obviously sucks in Kingdoms that do not enable more than one gain per turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on February 27, 2020, 04:40:39 pm

I'll add a name and an image later (if anyone has any suggestions?):

TBD
$6 - Treasure
$0
Gain two Silvers to your hand.


Secret History:
• In a recent contest, I had a Treasure-Jewelry mechanic that allowed you to play them after you made buys in the buy phase. One of these cards was a treasure that produced $2 and conditionally (based on buys that turn) gained a silver to hand, i.e. a Treasure that produces $4.
• Similar (and more importantly simpler) alternatives are possible as straight Treasures; in this case, this also meant dropping the conditional. However "+$2, gain a silver to your hand" seems too strong for a $6.
• In order to balance I went to gaining two (weakened) silvers, "+$2, you may gain two silvers; while this is in play, silvers produce $1 less this turn."
• And that got simplified to this - ultimately, it's stronger when playing multiples, of course, but significantly simpler.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on February 27, 2020, 06:35:12 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on February 27, 2020, 12:08:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/UVuFqqG.png)

Like a better Band of Misfits. You get to keep the card you play it as and you can do it with more than just actions.

(Note: I came up with this card independent of grep's weaver. I promise I wasn't copying!)

This can be looped with cost reduction to gain the whole Commissioner pile in one turn (That's what I tried to avoid with my design  :) )
Playing Night cards during daytime sounds bold, but seemingly not devastating, at least with official cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 27, 2020, 07:11:02 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on February 27, 2020, 04:40:39 pm

I'll add a name and an image later (if anyone has any suggestions?):

TBD
$6 - Treasure
$0
Gain two Silvers to your hand.

"Till"? as in a Trader/Merchant's cash box, since they seem to be the ones giving out / caring about Silvers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on February 28, 2020, 11:58:27 am

Quote from: Kudasai on February 25, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/CvQLnII.jpg)

Interesting. It never does anything on its first play. The second play, it's likely not to do anything either -- but it can do something as insurance if you dud. After the second play, it becomes incredibly strong -- you have to weigh the advantage of making future plays stronger against playing the card which is now likely to already be strictly better than Lost City. I wonder where you stop -- do you upgrade it every time once you draw your deck, using the command function before then?

It might be too strong for $6, though.
Overall, I think there are very few times when you will prefer Gold over Army -- the only situation I can think of is if there is no +Action on the board.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 28, 2020, 12:31:14 pm

There was some talk about MTG in the discord that got me thinking about my favorite MTG card (https://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=439518) and it made me realize it's well-suited to being a reverse-Crypt:


(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e594c994ca3575fd93053da/ecbdc25ec1980a142fe999f3594ff495/image.png)

Quote

Sepulcher • $6 • Night
While this is in play, at the start of your Clean up phase, if there are fewer than 7 cards on this, set aside 2 cards you have in play on this. At the start of your turn, if there are 3 or more cards on this, you may put them into your hand and discard this.

FAQ: When this leaves play (via Bonfire or what have you), the cards set aside remain set aside as though it were in play (same as Archive, Crypt, etc); if there are 3 or more, you can still put them in your hand at the start of your turn, otherwise they're in set aside limbo.

---

version 0.11
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e594c994ca3575fd93053da/e1b7cee2eaa7b9827b947c7a37ec422e/image.png)

---

version 0.01
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e594c994ca3575fd93053da/759e70054033a780a3f7ea4cafa62c01/image.png)

The Attack blocking is because this'd really suck to get hit with a handsize attack with.
I think the most you could get with this is 7 treasures? Someone better at geometry can probably figure out a better pattern; however you'll probably want to  be inefficient since the game can change a lot in 7/8 turns

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on February 28, 2020, 02:06:04 pm

Quote from: grep on February 27, 2020, 06:35:12 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on February 27, 2020, 12:08:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/UVuFqqG.png)

Like a better Band of Misfits. You get to keep the card you play it as and you can do it with more than just actions.

(Note: I came up with this card independent of grep's weaver. I promise I wasn't copying!)

This can be looped with cost reduction to gain the whole Commissioner pile in one turn (That's what I tried to avoid with my design  :) )
Playing Night cards during daytime sounds bold, but seemingly not devastating, at least with official cards.

Thanks for pointing that out! I think I'll try the blunt-force solution and just say "non-commissioner card"

(https://i.imgur.com/XyGftuy.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on February 28, 2020, 03:38:45 pm

A Band of Misfits variant
(https://i.imgur.com/RIZD9ur.png)

EDIT: Also included Horses, provided that the conjecture about them is true (i.e. they are the +Card versions of Coffers/Villagers).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on February 28, 2020, 04:56:30 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on February 28, 2020, 11:58:27 am

Quote from: Kudasai on February 25, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/CvQLnII.jpg)

Interesting. It never does anything on its first play. The second play, it's likely not to do anything either -- but it can do something as insurance if you dud. After the second play, it becomes incredibly strong -- you have to weigh the advantage of making future plays stronger against playing the card which is now likely to already be strictly better than Lost City. I wonder where you stop -- do you upgrade it every time once you draw your deck, using the command function before then?

It might be too strong for $6, though.
Overall, I think there are very few times when you will prefer Gold over Army -- the only situation I can think of is if there is no +Action on the board.

I don't think that it is too strong. Pearl Diver being in the Kingdom to make Captain better than a delayed Lost City whereas Army is like a Prince that you have to play twice before it works, i.e. there is the matching problem plus dealing with two dead cards for two turns.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Snowyowl on February 28, 2020, 05:29:19 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on February 28, 2020, 02:06:04 pm

Thanks for pointing that out! I think I'll try the blunt-force solution and just say "non-commissioner card"

You can still loop it if there's cost reduction and a suitable Command in the supply, like Captain. Perhaps that's convoluted enough that it's OK.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on February 28, 2020, 07:47:15 pm

Quote from: Snowyowl on February 28, 2020, 05:29:19 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on February 28, 2020, 02:06:04 pm

Thanks for pointing that out! I think I'll try the blunt-force solution and just say "non-commissioner card"

You can still loop it if there's cost reduction and a suitable Command in the supply, like Captain. Perhaps that's convoluted enough that it's OK.

Hm, you're right. I think I'll just make it a Command card. It breaks convention a little bit, but Command is just there for avoiding loops so it still works.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on February 29, 2020, 05:00:58 am

I just played a game with Obelisk-Church, which would be very similar to my entry Farm. The comparison makes it feel a tad on the weak side, so I'll withdraw it and think what will be the best fix. Here's my new entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/5HcK7mo.jpg)

Quote

Bridleway - Action, $6 cost.
+1 Buy
This turn, cards cost $2 less unless you've gained a copy of them during the turn.

Everything gets Princess'd until a copy of them is gained. Even if you gain a card then play a Bridleway the cost of the gained card isn't reduced. So it's good at collecting different cards, and it can close cost gaps for Remodel variants too.

---

Quote from: spineflu on February 28, 2020, 12:31:14 pm

There was some talk about MTG in the discord that got me thinking about my favorite MTG card (https://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=439518) and it made me realize it's well-suited to being a reverse-Crypt:

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e594c994ca3575fd93053da/759e70054033a780a3f7ea4cafa62c01/image.png)

Quote

Sepulcher • $6 • Night
At the start of your Clean up phase, move a Treasure you have in play to be touching this and no other cards. If you cannot, after drawing your new hand, put all cards touching this into your hand and discard this; until the start of your next turn, when another player plays an Attack, it doesn't affect you.

The Attack blocking is because this'd really suck to get hit with a handsize attack with.
I think the most you could get with this is 7 treasures? Someone better at geometry can probably figure out a better pattern; however you'll probably want to  be inefficient since the game can change a lot in 7/8 turns

This has a lot of ambiguity to me; I've never played mtg. It would be simpler in many ways to set Treasures aside under it until you have seven. There's also no implication that this stays in play until you put everything in hand. And how long is the attack block lasting? The turn you play it, the turn you put everything in hand or for all the time it's out?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on February 29, 2020, 06:29:08 am

Quote from: Aquila on February 29, 2020, 05:00:58 am

Quote from: spineflu on February 28, 2020, 12:31:14 pm

There was some talk about MTG in the discord that got me thinking about my favorite MTG card (https://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=439518) and it made me realize it's well-suited to being a reverse-Crypt:

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e594c994ca3575fd93053da/759e70054033a780a3f7ea4cafa62c01/image.png)

Quote

Sepulcher • $6 • Night
At the start of your Clean up phase, move a Treasure you have in play to be touching this and no other cards. If you cannot, after drawing your new hand, put all cards touching this into your hand and discard this; until the start of your next turn, when another player plays an Attack, it doesn't affect you.

The Attack blocking is because this'd really suck to get hit with a handsize attack with.
I think the most you could get with this is 7 treasures? Someone better at geometry can probably figure out a better pattern; however you'll probably want to  be inefficient since the game can change a lot in 7/8 turns

This has a lot of ambiguity to me; I've never played mtg. It would be simpler in many ways to set Treasures aside under it until you have seven. There's also no implication that this stays in play until you put everything in hand. And how long is the attack block lasting? The turn you play it, the turn you put everything in hand or for all the time it's out?

Yeah, I'd do something like this.

Quote

While this is in play, at the start of the Clean-up phase of your turns, set aside a Treasure you have in play under this. If you can't, turn this sideways. Then, at the start of your next turn, put all those set-aside Treasures into your hand and discard this from play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on February 29, 2020, 09:26:36 am

revised to

Quote

Sepulcher • $6 • Night - Duration
While this is in play, at the start of your Clean up phase, if there are fewer than 7 cards on this, set aside 2 cards you have in play on this. At the start of your turn, if there are 3 or more cards on this, you may put them into your hand and discard this.

(also revised upthread)
clearer?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on March 01, 2020, 03:40:49 pm

Quote from: spineflu on February 29, 2020, 09:26:36 am

revised to

Quote

Sepulcher • $6 • Night - Duration
While this is in play, at the start of your Clean up phase, if there are fewer than 7 cards on this, set aside 2 cards you have in play on this. At the start of your turn, if there are 3 or more cards on this, you may put them into your hand and discard this.

(also revised upthread)
clearer?

Much clearer. You did buff its effect quite a bit though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 01, 2020, 05:52:21 pm

yeah; it was too slow before.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on March 01, 2020, 08:19:44 pm

24 hour warning everyone!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on March 02, 2020, 08:21:06 pm

CONTEST 63 RESULTS

Since all eyes are on the Menagerie preview today, this leaves me a little bit of breathing room to properly judge the entries for this week’s contest. :P
Note however that my analysis may be imperfect or outright flawed. If you have any disagreement with my comments, if there is something I didn’t see with your card or even if you want to counter argue with the points I layed out, please, feel free to do so. I’ll take any help I can to improve my judging skills! If you want to talk about the results and stuff, I dunno if this should be done on this thread or elsewhere; I’ll let the elders of this thread decide! But yeah, overall, this is my first time doing this, so bear that in mind. Also, if you guys made edits and I completely missed them, by all means, let me know!

Anyhow, onto the judging:

Quote from: mandioca15 on February 24, 2020, 01:47:03 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Tiara (Treasure)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)
+1 Buy
-----
When you discard this from play, if you have unused Buys, trash this.

This’ll give Harem and Hoard (two usually “meh” cards) some company up in the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Kingdom Treasure cards club! This probably does what it aims to do well, although I’d probably be tempted to get this over Gold most of the time. Hey, at worse, it’s 2 Estates, no? Then I get to keep this! There has been countless times where I’ve had the dreaded Silver-Silver-Gold hand, which only gets me to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png). The versatility brought by Tiara makes it almost too exciting, even if you want to dilute your deck with Coppers to keep this. Plus, it is an excellent contender for Counterfeit. Still, nobody likes to have a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) investment trashed, so the consequence of not taking your extra Buys is pretty harsh. All in all, I think this card has a right to exist and probably makes your life easier when you use it.

Quote from: faust on February 24, 2020, 03:14:06 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Beast (Action)

Reveal any number of cards from your hand. If their added cost in (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) is exactly (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png), gain a card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) per card revealed. Discard the revealed cards and draw until you have 6 cards in hand.

Holy mother, this one does everything! It’s a sifter, a gainer and a hand-size increaser. And there’s a lot of strategy involved here. Most notably, the dissonance between the number of cards revealed and their cost. I like that the combined price of the reveal cards must be (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png), no more, no less. This is a very smart way of limiting where Beast can take you. Technically, you could reveal Coppers to increase the cost of the card you’ll receive, which is a pretty neat strategy. Likewise, if this is a Curse or Ruins game, their null cost means you can reveal more cards for a more expensive gained card. So Beast gives some usefulness to those very cheap cards. However, you need to have a big hand size to reveal enough cards to gain a more expensive card. It being terminal too makes me suspect that most of the time, you’ll only reach for a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) or (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) card. In which case… shouldn’t you just Cellar then Workshop for a similar effect? You can always open Cellar/Workshop and are not limited to the puzzler of discarding cards that add up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png).

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on February 24, 2020, 10:48:21 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Lone Knight (Action - Attack)

+ (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes any costing from (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) and discards the rest.

Yup, a Knight that escaped from the Knights pile and decided to create its own Kingdom pile. This one is worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than (almost) all of the other Knights, because it gives (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than Dame Sylvia AND can potentially trash 2 cards from your opponents, not just 1. That last point is why it irks me though. Getting 2 cards trashed from an opponent is not really fun. It can potentially kill your deck at incredible speed. If you didn’t set up your deck correctly, and if you are playing a game with multiple opponents, then Lone Knights can kill your deck quicker than you can build it back up! There is also a reason why Knights get trashed if they reveal another Knight; to potentially stop this endless cycle of trashing and deck annihilation. Here, a Lone Knight can just trump everything. And even if you add that self trashing clause to Lone Knight, then why invest in an unsafe (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) card? At (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png), you do not want to buy something that can just vanish from your hand, out of randomness.

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on February 25, 2020, 12:18:55 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Bridge Builder (Action)

+3 Cards
-----
While this is in play, cards costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) less, but no less than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png).

Edit: So I completely overlooked this entry when I did the judging yesterday. You done did it, X-tra! Shame too because I love the simplicity and elegance of this card. It is a Smithy that costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) more because of the cost reducer aspect. I was thinking that this was overpriced somewhat, that it should’ve been a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) instead, but that’d make it only (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than Birdge.  And “+3 cards” is an effect that should, in my opinion, at least be worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) over a “+1 Buy, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)”. So the pricing here is justified. Big Money goers will probably take this at least once over a Gold when they hit (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png), since it gives them their much-needed Smithy and tosses in a neat bonus that works for them. Maybe at their 2nd or 3rd Gold purchase, they’ll opt for a Bridge Builder instead. Which fits right it in the spirit of this contest! So a pretty cool card that could probably find a spot in an actual Dominion box.

Quote from: Barbarossa41 on February 25, 2020, 12:19:01 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Real Estate Agent (Action)

+1 Card
+1 Action
Discard a card from your hand. If it was a victory card, +1 Coffers for each (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) it costs. If it was a Treasure card, +1 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) for each (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) it costs.

Once you start buying Provinces, this card says: +1 Card, +1 Action, +4 Coffers. Get 2 Real Estate Agent (they cantrip, so you can play 2 per turn), discard 2 Provinces and you’ll happily afford another. I feel like that part is awfully strong compared to the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) per Treasure part. Maybe this card should’ve been a simple +2 Cards (or +3 Cards, not unlike Nobles)? More chance of getting something to discard, no +Actions to chain these powerhouses.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 25, 2020, 03:09:01 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Study Group (Action)

Gain an Action card costing less than this. For each (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) it costs less than this, +1 Villager.

First of all, maybe I’m missing something, but is the “less than this” statement necessary there? You are already gaining a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) or under card, soooo... Anyway, this card is an Altar that gives Villagers instead of trashing a card. But you can go up to 5 Villagers. As opposed to trash 1 card. Are those 2 effects worth the same price? I don’t believe so... I think that Study Group is stronger than Altar with that clause.

Edit: I was indeed missing the point of this, like the big doofus that I am. Freddy10 helped me understand what I was missing. You gain as many Villagers as the difference in cost between Study Group and the gained card. So at worse, you'll gain 1 Villager and at best, 6 Villagers if you junk yourself with, say, a Copper. Still, I think my initial commentary stands about how I see this card.

Quote from: majiponi on February 25, 2020, 10:53:11 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Battleship (Action – Duration)

Now and at the start of your next turn, + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) and +1 Buy.
-----
While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack card, you are unaffected by that Attack.

Here, we have a Merchant Ship that that grants an extra Buy for 2 turns, with a Lighthouse tossed in. For (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than Merchant Ship, I believe that this card is correctly priced. I… don’t really have more to say about this? This card is fine. If I have (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) in play, I’d actually be torn between getting this or a Wharf. If there are a couple of Attacks in the Kingdom, then I’d probably go for Battleship.

Quote from: Kudasai on February 25, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Army (Action – Command)

Choose one: Put a non-Command Action card from your hand onto your Army mat; or play all cards on your Army mat in any order, leaving them there.

A card named Army’s got to be big, epic and serious. And this is a big, epic and serious card! Militia thematically sounds lesser than the big monster that is Army and this is reflected when you compare those 2 cards’ cost. This is just me talking about the name of this card, but I can’t help but love it, lol.
So first of all, I agree with all the changes you’ve applied to this card. I think this card could’ve benefited from rejecting Duration cards on the Army mat too. There’s a case where you could play an Army and have unresolved Duration effects queued for your next turn on your mat. On that very same turn, you could play another Army (if you have another Action to do so), to add another Duration card on your Army mat. Then, on your next turn, it’d be hard to track which Duration cards have still-to-be-resolved effects, and which ones do not. I mean, granted, you can keep track of that yourself, but I feel like this could get messy. Otherwise, if we forget my out-of-place enquiry with Duration cards, Army is awesome! You bet I’d buy it and try all sort of crazy stuff with it!

Quote from: grep on February 25, 2020, 09:27:56 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Ruby (Treasure - Gem)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)
+1 Buy
You cannot buy Gems this turn.


(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Diamond (Treasure - Gem)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)
While this is in play, Victory cards cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) more.


(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Pearl (Treasure - Gem)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)
You may gain a Silver to your hand.


(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Sapphire (Treasure - Reaction - Gem)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)
-----
When another player gains a Gem, you may discard this to gain a Gem.


(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Emerald (Treasure - Victory - Gem)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)
-----
Worth 2(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) per 3 Gems you have (rounded down).

Strong theming with this one! I love the extra effort you took to have the card type match the color of the Gem printed on the card. Reaction for a Sapphire because it is blue and Victory for Emerald because it is green. That’s really cute (in a non-patronizing way)! Faust said that Ruby looks too strong and I agree. Seems strictly better than Gold. Pearl is also too strong imo and scolapasta did a preferable take on that concept with their card, which appears further down this list. Emerald is swingy because of the randomness of the pile. Someone nabs one on their turn, then you’re stuck not receiving those sweet sweet (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) because the top card is now a Pearl. Then you buy a Pearl and reveal the last Emerald, ready to be taken by your competition! Castles are like that too somehow, though less random because of the set order. Diamond and Sapphire, though, to me, seems a-okay! The whole randomness of the pile makes this a little luck-based for players though. Especially getting that Emerald, which justifies some heavy-investing in Gems (unless, again, Pearl was on top on your turn!).

Quote from: somekindoftony on February 26, 2020, 05:43:32 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Creditors (Action - Duration)

At the start of your Buy phase, reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Put any revealed Treasures to your hand and discard the rest. If you did not reveal any Treasures, discard this (Otherwise, this stays in play).

If this isn’t a card that wants a deck full of money, I don’t know what is! The idea here is really interesting. I wonder why this activates at the beginning of your Buy phase and not at the start of your turn. Maybe so you can get your deck ready in time for you Buy phase so you draw your Treasures? There are cards, like Scavenger, that can do that well. Anyway, Adventurer does the same thing and guarantees 2 Treasures. Except that this can stay longer, and does not require an Action after the first time you play it. But it can fail. And both have the same price. Seems balanced.

Quote from: segura on February 27, 2020, 01:34:44 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Horselord (Night)

+1 Horse per card you have gained this turn.
-----
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).

Welp, I suppose Horses are (probably) not what we expected them to be seeing as Donald confirmed today that they are cards and not token. But let’s pretend here that they act as +1 Card tokens. You’ve raised the main concern that comes with this card yourself: its Strength varies too intensively depending on what cards are available in a given game. Sometimes, you’ll have this in a game without +Buys and with no gainers. In that scenario, investing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) is a really bad use of your hard-earned money. There are cards that are Kingdom-sensitive in Dominion, granted. But here, the high price of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) makes that aspect even worse, imo. But, if the conditions are right, then this card could be pretty awesome, I believe. +Cards token are better spent immediately, oftentimes. It’s hard to see why you’d hold onto them, but there are scenarios where you already reached your payoff or where you’ve drawn your deck. So there is some value to those tokens.

Quote from: scolapasta on February 27, 2020, 04:40:39 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) [UNNAMED] (Treasure)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)
Gain 2 Silvers to your hand.

For the same price, better than Gold in the moment, worse than it in the long term (usually, because of the deck diluter aspect). This won’t be the most in-dept commentary of this post, but this is because, to me, it is fine where it is. There could be a funny variant to weaken it that could give you 1 Silver and 2 Coppers to your hand. Same net gain of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) but for a more diluted deck. More consideration needed when taking this card. Just an idea though!

Quote from: spineflu on February 28, 2020, 12:31:14 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Sepulcher (Night - Duration)

While this is in play, at the start of your Clean-up phase, if there are fewer than 7 cards on this, set aside 2 cards you have in play on this. At the start of your turn, if there are 3 or more cards on this, you may put them into your hand and discard this.

I’m glad you changed the wording on this. Before, it was really ambiguous (as kindly put by Aquila). But I still think it’s missing the necessary “each” in the first part of this card (“While this is in play, at the start of each of your Clean-up phases, […]”). Maybe adding an “otherwise, this stays in play” clause in the second part of the card would’ve helped too. I dunno. This card looks fun, but involves a lot of counting. It doesn’t seem like much. More than 3 cards, you may take ‘em. Less than 7, put some onto this. But... it could potentially slow the game down if each player must do some book keeping for their Sepulchers. Especially if some (or all) players have more than 1 of them in play. In a way, Sepulcher acts like a more efficient Native Village, and this is reflected by its price. I wonder what sort of crazy combos you could pull of with this! How about putting a bunch of Coppers in play under this + a Coppersmith and doubling their value the turn you pick ‘em up for an easy Province? That sounds cool!

Quote from: mail-mi on February 27, 2020, 12:08:47 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Commissioner (Action)

Gain a non-Commissioner card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). If it is an Action, Treasure, or Night card, play it.

It is true that it can still be looped, a concern raised by Snowyowl. Making it a Command type would indeed fix the potential loops. I also believe playing a Night card shouldn’t have been included. I like my phases to be clearly distinct from one another and Commissioner breaks this convention. A Treasure can be played on your Buy phase anyway, so Commissioner could drop the “play that Treasure” clause too. So all in all, I believe this should’ve simply said “Gain a non-Command Action card from the Supply, costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) and play it”.
But anyway. In a way, this card fits right into the Workshop “gain a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) or under card” lineup. At...
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png): We have the Workshop itself who simply gains a card.
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png): We’ve got the Armory and now, the card goes onto your deck, ready to be played next turn.
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png): The gainer is now Cobbler, which allows you to analyze your next hand before gaining a card to it.
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png): At the top of the line, we now have Commissioner, who does the same as Cobbler (essentially), but allows you to play the gained card the very same turn you play this.
So all in all, I believe this to be priced correctly. It’s simple, efficient. It works.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on February 28, 2020, 03:38:45 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Wizard (Action - Command)

Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), leaving it there.
+1 Horse per +1 Card it produces.
+1 Villager per +1 Action it produces.
+1 Coffers per (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) it produces.
(You do not get the Cards, Actions, or (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)).

Another Horse mishap! But that’s okay, let’s pretend, again, that they act as +1 Card tokens. Hum, this card’s got a lot going on. But the idea is pretty neat! My concern is as to what is being “produced” by a card. Vanilla bonuses are okay, that’s easy enough to understand. But when the card becomes conditional... Poor House gives you -(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) per Treasure in hand, is that -1 Coffers if played with Wizard? Storeroom tells you to “draw” as many card as you’ve discarded, are these draws converted into Horses? Dominion says that “drawing” is synonymous to “+ Cards”, but will that be obvious in practice? Despite my enquiries, this seems like a fun Emulator and I’d like toying a bit with it, see how far we can take it.

Quote from: Aquila on February 29, 2020, 05:00:58 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Bridleway (Action)

+1 Buy
This turn, card costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) less, unless you’ve gained a copy of them during the turn.

Ach, I did a big commentary on Farm before you changed it, haha!
Anyway, for Bridleway: The usage of the word “unless” is strange. I could be wrong (and correct me if I am), but I believe no other Dominion card employs this word. But I get it, I’m not trying to be dense on purpose, lol. Bridleway is a cool cost reducer. Fits right into this page (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Cost_reduction) for a cost reducer that does something else than what already exists. If you get some sort of Village in a game using this, I wonder what kind of ramifications playing 2 Bridleways would entitle (although, Bridleway costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png), I suppose this wouldn’t happen often). I like that card, I’ll say that much!

---

Semifinalists: [UNNAMED] ; Wizard ; Bridleway ; Commissioner ; Edit: Bridge Builder

Finalists: Creditors ; Battleship

Winner: Army

Congrats Kudasai! There might be a bit of personal bias because to me, Army seems like a really fun idea and triggers that “little kid in front of a candy store” feeling. I’ll say however that it was a struggle to pick this card over the other finalists as they all charmed me so much. This isn’t fair that we’ve got to pick only one card for a winner, hahaha!

And now the anxiety of correctly doing this judging thingy is slowly fading away from my body. Oof! I need a drink dangit. :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on March 02, 2020, 08:47:27 pm

Quote from: X-tra on March 02, 2020, 08:21:06 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 25, 2020, 03:09:01 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Study Group (Action)

Gain an Action card costing less than this. For each (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) it costs less than this, +1 Villager.

First of all, maybe I’m missing something, but is the “less than this” statement necessary there? You are already gaining a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) or under card, soooo... Anyway, this card is an Altar that gives Villagers instead of trashing a card. But you can go up to 5 Villagers. As opposed to trash 1 card. Are those 2 effects worth the same price? I don’t believe so... I think that Study Group is stronger than Altar with that clause.

I think that "less than this" means that you can gain a $5 cost card and 1 villager, or a $4 cost card and 2 villager, and so on (the $ and the villager must sum 6 if there is no cost reduction)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on March 02, 2020, 09:23:09 pm

CONTEST #64: MAKE IT COUNT

Hey thanks for the win! Judging can be quite the task, but the community greatly appreciates everyone putting in the time. I believe it's the core of why the Weekly Design Contest is still going strong. Now let's see if I'm up to the task!

This weeks contest: Design a card that has a once per turn effect. No Projects, Landmarks, Events or Artifacts please. The effect can encompass the whole card text or just be a part of it. Split piles and Travelers (if you for some reason hate me) are both fine. The card does not specifically have to say "once per turn", but should limit it's use in one way or another.

Official card examples: Fortune, Crossroads, Outpost, Messenger, and Fool (among possible others). Other cards like Tormentor, Leprechaun and Tactician are nearly always once per turn, but situationally can be more. I would accept them as-is, but would prefer a "once per turn" added.

Judging: I'm always partial to existing mechanics being used in new and creative ways. Today's five Menagerie card previews are good examples of this. I'll try and judge more on cool factor versus balance, but if something is far out of whack I will have to consider that.

Good luck and I look forward to seeing what people come up with!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on March 02, 2020, 10:19:11 pm

Quote from: X-tra on March 02, 2020, 08:21:06 pm

<CONTEST 63 RESULTS>
<...imcomplete>

My entry "Bridge Builder" seems to have been overlooked. Did you miss it?
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg824826#msg824826

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on March 02, 2020, 10:41:34 pm

And I'd like to clarify by "cool factor" I mean interesting and original, not necessarily big and bold. Crossroads is just as cool as Fortune in my book!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on March 02, 2020, 10:51:46 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on March 02, 2020, 08:47:27 pm

Quote from: X-tra on March 02, 2020, 08:21:06 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on February 25, 2020, 03:09:01 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Study Group (Action)

Gain an Action card costing less than this. For each (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) it costs less than this, +1 Villager.

First of all, maybe I’m missing something, but is the “less than this” statement necessary there? You are already gaining a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) or under card, soooo... Anyway, this card is an Altar that gives Villagers instead of trashing a card. But you can go up to 5 Villagers. As opposed to trash 1 card. Are those 2 effects worth the same price? I don’t believe so... I think that Study Group is stronger than Altar with that clause.

I think that "less than this" means that you can gain a $5 cost card and 1 villager, or a $4 cost card and 2 villager, and so on (the $ and the villager must sum 6 if there is no cost reduction)

That's correct - the cheaper the Action, the more Villagers you get (thematically the less hard the group works making an Action, the more free time they have to do other things)

Also you can only get 6 Villagers if there's an Action costing $0 in the supply (eg Ruins), not with Copper as suggested.

"Less than this" means you can't gain Study Groups with Study Group, even with cost reduction. I decided to do that with Vampire in mind as the other non terminal $5 gainer. It also works elegantly with the Villager wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on March 02, 2020, 11:02:02 pm

Spectacle
Action - $3
+2 Actions
The first time you play a Spectacle this turn, +2 Cards

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on March 02, 2020, 11:44:05 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on March 02, 2020, 10:19:11 pm

Quote from: X-tra on March 02, 2020, 08:21:06 pm

<CONTEST 63 RESULTS>
<...imcomplete>

My entry "Bridge Builder" seems to have been overlooked. Did you miss it?
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg824826#msg824826

I feel like crawling into a ball and disappearing forever. Yes, I missed it. I did. Sorry.  :-[
I will judge it tomorrow (seeing as it is 11:40 PM where I am from) and give it a very in dept review to make up for my stupid overlook. I will not be able to change the winner of last week's contest, out of fairness, but the least I can do is give you my thoughts about your entry. Look for my result post, I will edit it. Sorry once again, I feel like less than nothing right now. Had I been put in that situation, I would've been a little less than disgruntled. Waiting a whole week to be ignorned? Please.

(don't make me win again please, I can't do this right.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on March 02, 2020, 11:58:48 pm

Quote from: X-tra on March 02, 2020, 11:44:05 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on March 02, 2020, 10:19:11 pm

My entry "Bridge Builder" seems to have been overlooked. Did you miss it?
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg824826#msg824826

I feel like crawling into a ball and disappearing forever. Yes, I missed it. I did. Sorry.  :-[
I will judge it tomorrow (seeing as it is 11:40 PM where I am from) and give it a very in dept review to make up for my stupid overlook. I will not be able to change the winner of last week's contest, out of fairness, but the least I can do is give you my thoughts about your entry. Look for my result post, I will edit it. Sorry once again, I feel like less than nothing right now. Had I been put in that situation, I would've been a little less than disgruntled. Waiting a whole week to be ignorned? Please.

(don't make me win again please, I can't do this right.)

Don't feel bad about it. just give me feedback!  :D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 03, 2020, 02:28:19 am

Quote from: X-tra on March 02, 2020, 08:21:06 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on February 24, 2020, 10:48:21 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Lone Knight (Action - Attack)

+ (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes any costing from (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) and discards the rest.

Yup, a Knight that escaped from the Knights pile and decided to create its own Kingdom pile. This one is worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than (almost) all of the other Knights, because it gives (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than Dame Sylvia AND can potentially trash 2 cards from your opponents, not just 1. That last point is why it irks me though. Getting 2 cards trashed from an opponent is not really fun. It can potentially kill your deck at incredible speed. If you didn’t set up your deck correctly, and if you are playing a game with multiple opponents, then Lone Knights can kill your deck quicker than you can build it back up! There is also a reason why Knights get trashed if they reveal another Knight; to potentially stop this endless cycle of trashing and deck annihilation. Here, a Lone Knight can just trump everything. And even if you add that self trashing clause to Lone Knight, then why invest in an unsafe (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) card? At (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png), you do not want to buy something that can just vanish from your hand, out of randomness.

Oops! I meant for it to trash 1 card, like the other Knights! Ah well, too late now. Nice job Kudsai!
But good point about the trash itself clause. Probably would've been good to include that sorta thing in it as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 03, 2020, 02:44:43 am

As for my entry, how's this:

Mountaintop Outpost
$4
Action-Duration
Once per turn: If the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one, during which, whenever you play an Action card, ignore all of its effects.

(i think this includes while in play effects and the like)
It's an Outpost, that's pretty obvious. But it has a different twist. You can't play Action cards. No sir, only Treasures for you. Use it sparingly to take a turn to buy components, or if you're running Big Money and you didn't draw your Smithy. I decided to use the Mission wording instead of the 2E Outpost wording because I think it is way simpler. I'm not quite sure about the balance of this card, but hopefully it is fine at 4. (let me know otherwise if I need to make it 3 or 5!) I took inspiration for this card from the new Snowy Village card from Menagerie, the one that nullifies Villagers, Champion, COTR and all that, except this one denies Actions outright.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 03, 2020, 04:03:06 am

Quote from: X-tra on March 02, 2020, 08:21:06 pm

Quote from: faust on February 24, 2020, 03:14:06 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Beast (Action)

Reveal any number of cards from your hand. If their added cost in (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) is exactly (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png), gain a card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) per card revealed. Discard the revealed cards and draw until you have 6 cards in hand.

Holy mother, this one does everything! It’s a sifter, a gainer and a hand-size increaser. And there’s a lot of strategy involved here. Most notably, the dissonance between the number of cards revealed and their cost. I like that the combined price of the reveal cards must be (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png), no more, no less. This is a very smart way of limiting where Beast can take you. Technically, you could reveal Coppers to increase the cost of the card you’ll receive, which is a pretty neat strategy. Likewise, if this is a Curse or Ruins game, their null cost means you can reveal more cards for a more expensive gained card. So Beast gives some usefulness to those very cheap cards. However, you need to have a big hand size to reveal enough cards to gain a more expensive card. It being terminal too makes me suspect that most of the time, you’ll only reach for a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) or (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) card. In which case… shouldn’t you just Cellar then Workshop for a similar effect? You can always open Cellar/Workshop and are not limited to the puzzler of discarding cards that add up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png).

It saddens me that my exquisit joke of having a card with three 6s named Beast did not get a mention. Also the card still allows you to sift a number of cards that doesn't add up to $6, you just don"t gain anything, not sure if that became clear. The reason you'd want this over Cellar/Workshop I thought was clear - you can use it to build a draw-to-X engine. It functions as a more flexible Scholar if you ignore the gaining part.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 03, 2020, 04:06:01 am

Quote from: Kudasai on March 02, 2020, 09:23:09 pm

This weeks contest: Design a card that has a once per turn effect. No Projects, Landmarks, Events or Artifacts please. The effect can encompass the whole card text or just be a part of it. Split piles and Travelers (if you for some reason hate me) are both fine. The card does not specifically have to say "once per turn", but should limit it's use in one way or another.

Official card examples: Fortune, Crossroads, Outpost, Messenger, Cargo Ship and Fool (among possible others). Other cards like Tormentor, Leprechaun and Tactician are nearly always once per turn, but situationally can be more. I would accept them as-is, but would prefer a "once per turn" added.

Does Snowy Village qualify as a "once per turn" effect? Effectively, you can only get its +actions once per turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 03, 2020, 06:28:40 am

Quote from: X-tra on March 02, 2020, 08:21:06 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on February 26, 2020, 05:43:32 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Creditors (Action - Duration)

At the start of your Buy phase, reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Put any revealed Treasures to your hand and discard the rest. If you did not reveal any Treasures, discard this (Otherwise, this stays in play).

If this isn’t a card that wants a deck full of money, I don’t know what is! The idea here is really interesting. I wonder why this activates at the beginning of your Buy phase and not at the start of your turn. Maybe so you can get your deck ready in time for you Buy phase so you draw your Treasures? There are cards, like Scavenger, that can do that well. Anyway, Adventurer does the same thing and guarantees 2 Treasures. Except that this can stay longer, and does not require an Action after the first time you play it. But it can fail. And both have the same price. Seems balanced.

Yay! Runner Up is awesome for me. Thrilled. Tah.
I mainly chose it to activate at the start of your buy phase so that it would activate the turn it was played which I thought was essential given that it would get discarded sometimes. But I also liked how having it activate then made it possible to use your action phase to set up your deck so it wouldn't crash.

This weeks challenge is another interesting one and the brains already ticking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 03, 2020, 09:03:13 am

Hey X-tra, what was your commentary for Aquila's Farm (if you've got it handy)? I'm curious bc I really liked that card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on March 03, 2020, 09:47:59 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer link=topic=18987.msg825197#msg825197

Don't feel bad about it. just give me feedback!  :D

I edited my result post. Bridge Builder is there now (and is a semifinalist)!

Quote from: faust on March 03, 2020, 04:03:06 am

It saddens me that my exquisit joke of having a card with three 6s named Beast did not get a mention. Also the card still allows you to sift a number of cards that doesn't add up to $6, you just don"t gain anything, not sure if that became clear. The reason you'd want this over Cellar/Workshop I thought was clear - you can use it to build a draw-to-X engine. It functions as a more flexible Scholar if you ignore the gaining part.

Faust, don't worry, the 6-6-6 joke didn't go over my head  :D . The quirkiness of it did make me giggle when I first saw your entry. I also understood the "not gaining anything" part. I guess I over-focused on the gaining aspect of Beast and less about the draw-to-x factor. Still a really cool idea you've had!

Quote from: spineflu on March 03, 2020, 09:03:13 am

Hey X-tra, what was your commentary for Aquila's Farm (if you've got it handy)? I'm curious bc I really liked that card.

Sure thing! This is what I had:

Quote from: Aquila on February 25, 2020, 05:33:16 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Farm (Action – Duration - Victory)

Set aside any number of Victory cards from your hand face up (on this). At the start of your next turn, put them into your hand.
-----
2 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)

How is there not a card named “Farm” in Dominion yet? Preposterous.
Anyway. At first, I was scratchin’ my head, trying to understand why you’d just take back the Victory cards in your hand. Then, I realized that if you set a Farm on your first Farm, or if you draw another one in your next hand, then that second Farm can set aside more and more Victory cards from your hand. This can go on until your shuffle, where your previously used and discarded Farms come back into your hand. So this can chain pretty neatly. But you need a couple of Farms for this to work. And each Farm is a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) investment. It seems hard to set up for something so expensive. Another 2 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) card, Nobles, goes *BAM*, +3 Cards, like, immediately. Having just 1 already gives you some goodies. Here, a lone Farm will only be worth it if you can make your Victory cards miss the shuffle. Sure, the Victory cards in hand can, in itself, combo with other cool cards, but these niche cases shouldn’t be what’s upfront about Farm. Farm’s main idea is to get lotsa them to create a Farm chain. But that is one expensive chain! I wonder if maybe adding a +1 or +2 Cards would’ve helped. Despite it all however, that is a really cool idea. Duration/Victory hybrids are nowhere to be found in Dominion, and those orange/green colors look very pretty together.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on March 03, 2020, 11:40:09 am

Quote from: faust on March 03, 2020, 04:06:01 am

Quote from: Kudasai on March 02, 2020, 09:23:09 pm

This weeks contest: Design a card that has a once per turn effect. No Projects, Landmarks, Events or Artifacts please. The effect can encompass the whole card text or just be a part of it. Split piles and Travelers (if you for some reason hate me) are both fine. The card does not specifically have to say "once per turn", but should limit it's use in one way or another.

Official card examples: Fortune, Crossroads, Outpost, Messenger, Cargo Ship and Fool (among possible others). Other cards like Tormentor, Leprechaun and Tactician are nearly always once per turn, but situationally can be more. I would accept them as-is, but would prefer a "once per turn" added.

Does Snowy Village qualify as a "once per turn" effect? Effectively, you can only get its +actions once per turn.

Oh yes, nice catch! The +4 Actions can only occur once per turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on March 03, 2020, 11:58:41 am

Quote from: Kudasai on March 02, 2020, 09:23:09 pm

This weeks contest: Design a card that has a once per turn effect. No Projects, Landmarks, Events or Artifacts please. The effect can encompass the whole card text or just be a part of it. Split piles and Travelers (if you for some reason hate me) are both fine. The card does not specifically have to say "once per turn", but should limit it's use in one way or another.

Official card examples: Fortune, Crossroads, Outpost, Messenger, Cargo Ship and Fool (among possible others). Other cards like Tormentor, Leprechaun and Tactician are nearly always once per turn, but situationally can be more. I would accept them as-is, but would prefer a "once per turn" added.

Does Cargo Ship qualify? It carries a card per Cargo Ship in play, so it's efficiently an effect per card, not a single effect in a turn.

Does Merchant qualify? What about Fool's Gold (which has a negative effect once per turn)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 03, 2020, 12:43:20 pm

Quote from: X-tra on March 02, 2020, 08:21:06 pm

Semifinalists: [UNNAMED] ; Wizard ; Bridleway ; Commissioner ; Edit: Bridge Builder

Cool - I didn't expect such a vanilla-ish card to do so well - I'll definitely have to come up with a name now. (once I do, I'll edit the above post)

---

For this week:

I have a double whammy - Meadow, an Action-Victory card with a once per turn effect that can gain a Unicorn, a Night-Reserve, also with a once per turn effect. Boom!

(https://i.imgur.com/G6g5aF2.png)(https://i.imgur.com/powsMSJ.png)

Original versions (notes below, correspond to these):

(https://i.imgur.com/YHoRFnF.png)(https://i.imgur.com/KdeCNBL.png)

As always, I'm open to feedback and there's definitely room for some tweaking:

Meadow:
• it just felt like it should be some sort of Victory, like Pasture, but 1 VP per Unicorn was too strong, so am trying 1/2 a VP.
• Is it OK as a cantrip?
• Gain the unicorn to discard, deck, or hand
• is $4 too cheap? I guess it depends on the final strength of Unicorn.

Unicorn:
• should it do something (small) if you can't put it on your Tavern mat? I kind of like that if you have multiple, the second is a stop card. (especially considering they make your meadows more VP)
• I considered only allowing calling Unicorn on your turn, but I like the idea that you might use it as defense against some attacks. If you call on another players turn, like Caravan Guard, the +1 Action does not do anything for you. (also if you call during Buy phase, barring Villa, or Night phase)
• [EDIT] on 2nd thought: is +2 Cards, +1 Action too strong for a card you call (i.e. is this effectively the same as playing +3 cards, +2 actions?) The challenge is I want to Keep the flexibility that you can a) call it when you have no actions to get another actions, b) get two cards when you call it during Treasure phase, Night phase, or someone else's turn. While still keeping the text simple! Maybe something like "You may call this for +1 Card. If it's your Action phase +1 Action; otherwise, +1 Card."

Secret History:
• I like the idea of Night-Reserves (see my recent Gondolier), and thought the idea of a powerful Reserve that could only uniquely be set aside was interesting. Thematically, I liked the idea of a Unicorn, but clearly, you shouldn't be able to buy a Unicorn, so it became a non supply pile.
• I honestly can't remember if I came up with the called benefit before or after the Horses preview (I think maybe at first it was going to be +2 Cards, +2 Actions), but once the preview came out, I was very happy with the serendipity and changed to +1 Action.
• After that it has been a matter of tweaking Meadow, which as you can see from the questions above is still ongoing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on March 03, 2020, 12:56:15 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on March 03, 2020, 02:44:43 am

As for my entry, how's this:

Mountaintop Outpost
$4
Action-Duration
Once per turn: If the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one, in which you can't play Action cards.

It's an Outpost, that's pretty obvious. But it has a different twist. You can't play Action cards. No sir, only Treasures for you. Use it sparingly to take a turn to buy components, or if you're running Big Money and you didn't draw your Smithy. I decided to use the Mission wording instead of the 2E Outpost wording because I think it is way simpler. I'm not quite sure about the balance of this card, but hopefully it is fine at 4. (let me know otherwise if I need to make it 3 or 5!) I took inspiration for this card from the new Snowy Village card from Menagerie, the one that nullifies Villagers, Champion, COTR and all that, except this one denies Actions outright.

I don't think you need the "if the previous turn wasn't yours" clause: if you play Mountaintop Outpost, you automatically can't play it on your extra turn, because you can't play Action cards. The only case where you could play two Mountaintop Outposts is if you play a Mountaintop Outpost and a regular Outpost/Mission, and then play the second Mountaintop Outpost on the Outpost/Mission turn. But that's rare enough that it shouldn't matter.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 03, 2020, 01:33:46 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on March 03, 2020, 12:56:15 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on March 03, 2020, 02:44:43 am

As for my entry, how's this:

Mountaintop Outpost
$4
Action-Duration
Once per turn: If the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one, in which you can't play Action cards.

It's an Outpost, that's pretty obvious. But it has a different twist. You can't play Action cards. No sir, only Treasures for you. Use it sparingly to take a turn to buy components, or if you're running Big Money and you didn't draw your Smithy. I decided to use the Mission wording instead of the 2E Outpost wording because I think it is way simpler. I'm not quite sure about the balance of this card, but hopefully it is fine at 4. (let me know otherwise if I need to make it 3 or 5!) I took inspiration for this card from the new Snowy Village card from Menagerie, the one that nullifies Villagers, Champion, COTR and all that, except this one denies Actions outright.

I don't think you need the "if the previous turn wasn't yours" clause: if you play Mountaintop Outpost, you automatically can't play it on your extra turn, because you can't play Action cards. The only case where you could play two Mountaintop Outposts is if you play a Mountaintop Outpost and a regular Outpost/Mission, and then play the second Mountaintop Outpost on the Outpost/Mission turn. But that's rare enough that it shouldn't matter.

It'd be trivial to line up a (normal turn) + (M.O. + mission, both played/bought that turn) + M.O for four turns in a row; when we did contest 44 (extra turns) this was something we quickly realized needed to be a feature.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: hhelibebcnofnena on March 03, 2020, 01:37:26 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 03, 2020, 01:33:46 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on March 03, 2020, 12:56:15 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on March 03, 2020, 02:44:43 am

As for my entry, how's this:

Mountaintop Outpost
$4
Action-Duration
Once per turn: If the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one, in which you can't play Action cards.

It's an Outpost, that's pretty obvious. But it has a different twist. You can't play Action cards. No sir, only Treasures for you. Use it sparingly to take a turn to buy components, or if you're running Big Money and you didn't draw your Smithy. I decided to use the Mission wording instead of the 2E Outpost wording because I think it is way simpler. I'm not quite sure about the balance of this card, but hopefully it is fine at 4. (let me know otherwise if I need to make it 3 or 5!) I took inspiration for this card from the new Snowy Village card from Menagerie, the one that nullifies Villagers, Champion, COTR and all that, except this one denies Actions outright.

I don't think you need the "if the previous turn wasn't yours" clause: if you play Mountaintop Outpost, you automatically can't play it on your extra turn, because you can't play Action cards. The only case where you could play two Mountaintop Outposts is if you play a Mountaintop Outpost and a regular Outpost/Mission, and then play the second Mountaintop Outpost on the Outpost/Mission turn. But that's rare enough that it shouldn't matter.

It'd be trivial to line up a (normal turn) + (M.O. + mission, both played/bought that turn) + M.O for four turns in a row; when we did contest 44 (extra turns) this was something we quickly realized needed to be a feature.

I just meant that you need to have Mission or Regular Outpost in the kingdom for it to matter, and usually cards aren't built with one or two specific interactions in mind. If neither of those two cards are in the kingdom, which is most of the time, that clause never makes a difference.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 03, 2020, 01:39:22 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on March 03, 2020, 01:37:26 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 03, 2020, 01:33:46 pm

Quote from: hhelibebcnofnena on March 03, 2020, 12:56:15 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on March 03, 2020, 02:44:43 am

As for my entry, how's this:

Mountaintop Outpost
$4
Action-Duration
Once per turn: If the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one, in which you can't play Action cards.

It's an Outpost, that's pretty obvious. But it has a different twist. You can't play Action cards. No sir, only Treasures for you. Use it sparingly to take a turn to buy components, or if you're running Big Money and you didn't draw your Smithy. I decided to use the Mission wording instead of the 2E Outpost wording because I think it is way simpler. I'm not quite sure about the balance of this card, but hopefully it is fine at 4. (let me know otherwise if I need to make it 3 or 5!) I took inspiration for this card from the new Snowy Village card from Menagerie, the one that nullifies Villagers, Champion, COTR and all that, except this one denies Actions outright.

I don't think you need the "if the previous turn wasn't yours" clause: if you play Mountaintop Outpost, you automatically can't play it on your extra turn, because you can't play Action cards. The only case where you could play two Mountaintop Outposts is if you play a Mountaintop Outpost and a regular Outpost/Mission, and then play the second Mountaintop Outpost on the Outpost/Mission turn. But that's rare enough that it shouldn't matter.

It'd be trivial to line up a (normal turn) + (M.O. + mission, both played/bought that turn) + M.O for four turns in a row; when we did contest 44 (extra turns) this was something we quickly realized needed to be a feature.

I just meant that you need to have Mission or Regular Outpost in the kingdom for it to matter, and usually cards aren't built with one or two specific interactions in mind. If neither of those two cards are in the kingdom, which is most of the time, that clause never makes a difference.

I'd still include it in case we ever get like... a Night-outpost, or what have you; it's good practise for futureproofing, and it's not like Mountain Outpost is hurting for space.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on March 03, 2020, 01:47:22 pm

Barter (Action, $4)

+$2

This turn, when you next gain a card, gain a card costing up to $2 less than it.


This is a mini-Haggler: it only applies to your next gain, and the card must be significantly cheaper.

For example, suppose you play Barter, then Gold. Buying a Duchy means you also gain a card costing up to $3 (e.g. Silver).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on March 03, 2020, 02:38:25 pm

My submission:
(https://i.ibb.co/2Fq96RZ/download.png)
Craftsman
$3 - Action
If you haven't gained any cards this turn, you may gain a card costing up to $1 per card in play.
+1 Card
+1 Action

Clarification:
The player decides whether or not to gain before the next card is drawn. There is a bit of gambling when you a trying to draw another Craftsman to get a better craft. On the bright side, with support of Watchtower or with empty deck/discard, the gained card is immediately drawn.

This is designed as a not very desirable cantrip, comparable to Merchant, which shines as a supplement for engines, in the same category as Peddler. Made it cheap enough to gain itself on early stages.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on March 03, 2020, 02:55:11 pm

Quote from: grep on March 03, 2020, 11:58:41 am

Quote from: Kudasai on March 02, 2020, 09:23:09 pm

This weeks contest: Design a card that has a once per turn effect. No Projects, Landmarks, Events or Artifacts please. The effect can encompass the whole card text or just be a part of it. Split piles and Travelers (if you for some reason hate me) are both fine. The card does not specifically have to say "once per turn", but should limit it's use in one way or another.

Official card examples: Fortune, Crossroads, Outpost, Messenger, Cargo Ship and Fool (among possible others). Other cards like Tormentor, Leprechaun and Tactician are nearly always once per turn, but situationally can be more. I would accept them as-is, but would prefer a "once per turn" added.

Does Cargo Ship qualify? It carries a card per Cargo Ship in play, so it's efficiently an effect per card, not a single effect in a turn.

Does Merchant qualify? What about Fool's Gold (which has a negative effect once per turn)

Cargo Ship specifically says "once this turn" so it qualifies. I hadn't considered Fool's Gold, but yes it would qualify. Merchant would not qualify. Although you only get +$1 on one Silver played, you can get the +$1 more than once per turn.

EDIT: You raise an interesting question about Cargo Ship. I was certain the setting aside only can happen once per turn, but now I'm not so certain. Can anyone confirm this? If you have 2 Cargo Ships in play do you get to set aside 2 cards that turn? I'm guessing no.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 03, 2020, 03:20:56 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on March 03, 2020, 02:55:11 pm

Quote from: grep on March 03, 2020, 11:58:41 am

Quote from: Kudasai on March 02, 2020, 09:23:09 pm

This weeks contest: Design a card that has a once per turn effect. No Projects, Landmarks, Events or Artifacts please. The effect can encompass the whole card text or just be a part of it. Split piles and Travelers (if you for some reason hate me) are both fine. The card does not specifically have to say "once per turn", but should limit it's use in one way or another.

Official card examples: Fortune, Crossroads, Outpost, Messenger, Cargo Ship and Fool (among possible others). Other cards like Tormentor, Leprechaun and Tactician are nearly always once per turn, but situationally can be more. I would accept them as-is, but would prefer a "once per turn" added.

Does Cargo Ship qualify? It carries a card per Cargo Ship in play, so it's efficiently an effect per card, not a single effect in a turn.

Does Merchant qualify? What about Fool's Gold (which has a negative effect once per turn)

Cargo Ship specifically says "once this turn" so it qualifies. I hadn't considered Fool's Gold, but yes it would qualify. Merchant would not qualify. Although you only get +$1 on one Silver played, you can get the +$1 more than once per turn.

EDIT: You raise an interesting question about Cargo Ship. I was certain the setting aside only can happen once per turn, but now I'm not so certain. Can anyone confirm this? If you have 2 Cargo Ships in play do you get to set aside 2 cards that turn? I'm guessing no.

I'm fairly certain it's per Cargo Ship played.

Found a reference (in relation to TR / Processioning a Cargo Ship): https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2106825/article/30647520#30647520

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 03, 2020, 03:39:08 pm

(https://trello.com/1/cards/5e5eb6a1a3625264d3c1614b/attachments/5e5ec02a418cc72e0c3f5bf1/previews/download?backingUrl=https%3A%2F%2Ftrello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com%2F5e42ebce1181de1d515adb5b%2F5e5eb6a1a3625264d3c1614b%2Fdf9b5c443bb76d937629c7e0cc05144b%2Fimage.png)

Quote

Samoyed • $3 • Action
+2 Cards
If this is the first Samoyed you've played this turn, +1 Card, +1 Action

It's a superlab. But only one. after that it is just a doggo. not even a blue doggo.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on March 03, 2020, 04:00:24 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on March 03, 2020, 02:44:43 am

As for my entry, how's this:

Mountaintop Outpost
$4
Action-Duration
Once per turn: If the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one, in which you can't play Action cards.

What happens if piazza/ghost/innovation/venture instructs you to play an action?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on March 03, 2020, 04:32:01 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on March 03, 2020, 04:00:24 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on March 03, 2020, 02:44:43 am

As for my entry, how's this:

Mountaintop Outpost
$4
Action-Duration
Once per turn: If the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one, in which you can't play Action cards.

What happens if piazza/ghost/innovation/venture instructs you to play an action?

An Enchantress-like wording may help here.
For my entry, here's Vizier.
(https://i.imgur.com/IHIKFck.jpg?1)
Vizier gives you a choice between a few effects, each of which is individually a once per turn effect. You can superlab, but only once a turn, so it's probably fine, or expand, or grab a few extra vp. The vp choice may be a bit too much since it's unlimited, but 3 per turn isn't that much and a money deck can probably outpace you if you don't  do anything else. This used to be cantrip, choose a pawn choice that you haven't yet, but that was too boring.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 03, 2020, 04:37:02 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on March 03, 2020, 04:32:01 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on March 03, 2020, 04:00:24 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on March 03, 2020, 02:44:43 am

As for my entry, how's this:

Mountaintop Outpost
$4
Action-Duration
Once per turn: If the previous turn wasn't yours, then take an extra turn after this one, in which you can't play Action cards.

What happens if piazza/ghost/innovation/venture instructs you to play an action?

An Enchantress-like wording may help here.

Good point. I'll edit the wording to account for that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on March 03, 2020, 05:01:26 pm

Quote from: X-tra on March 03, 2020, 09:47:59 am

Quote from: spineflu on March 03, 2020, 09:03:13 am

Hey X-tra, what was your commentary for Aquila's Farm (if you've got it handy)? I'm curious bc I really liked that card.

Sure thing! This is what I had:

Quote from: Aquila on February 25, 2020, 05:33:16 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Farm (Action – Duration - Victory)

Set aside any number of Victory cards from your hand face up (on this). At the start of your next turn, put them into your hand.
-----
2 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)

How is there not a card named “Farm” in Dominion yet? Preposterous.
Anyway. At first, I was scratchin’ my head, trying to understand why you’d just take back the Victory cards in your hand. Then, I realized that if you set a Farm on your first Farm, or if you draw another one in your next hand, then that second Farm can set aside more and more Victory cards from your hand. This can go on until your shuffle, where your previously used and discarded Farms come back into your hand. So this can chain pretty neatly. But you need a couple of Farms for this to work. And each Farm is a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) investment. It seems hard to set up for something so expensive. Another 2 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) card, Nobles, goes *BAM*, +3 Cards, like, immediately. Having just 1 already gives you some goodies. Here, a lone Farm will only be worth it if you can make your Victory cards miss the shuffle. Sure, the Victory cards in hand can, in itself, combo with other cool cards, but these niche cases shouldn’t be what’s upfront about Farm. Farm’s main idea is to get lotsa them to create a Farm chain. But that is one expensive chain! I wonder if maybe adding a +1 or +2 Cards would’ve helped. Despite it all however, that is a really cool idea. Duration/Victory hybrids are nowhere to be found in Dominion, and those orange/green colors look very pretty together.

Nice, a more positive view than I anticipated. I half thought either +2 Cards or +1 Action might help it, or maybe because you're getting VP as well it's worth every bit of $6. Thanks for this!

---

I liked the Snowy Village idea of once per turn and I'm glad it counts, so my entry goes that way (sorry if it's treading on your toes Faust):

(https://i.imgur.com/Vskt6Bv.jpg)

Quote

Bell Tower - Action, $5 cost.
+4 Cards
Change +Card amounts into +$ for the rest of the turn.

Broken combos with this...I can't think of any? Storyteller basically just plays Treasures. Barge would only become $3 if used this turn. There is of course Bell Tower itself, play 3 of these (with the first drawing the other 2) and there's a Province. That's why there isn't a +Buy, but is the need for 3 Actions enough work for this to be balanced? Does this self-synergy make it uninteresting?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on March 03, 2020, 08:37:51 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on March 03, 2020, 02:55:11 pm

Quote from: grep on March 03, 2020, 11:58:41 am

Quote from: Kudasai on March 02, 2020, 09:23:09 pm

This weeks contest: Design a card that has a once per turn effect. No Projects, Landmarks, Events or Artifacts please. The effect can encompass the whole card text or just be a part of it. Split piles and Travelers (if you for some reason hate me) are both fine. The card does not specifically have to say "once per turn", but should limit it's use in one way or another.

Official card examples: Fortune, Crossroads, Outpost, Messenger, Cargo Ship and Fool (among possible others). Other cards like Tormentor, Leprechaun and Tactician are nearly always once per turn, but situationally can be more. I would accept them as-is, but would prefer a "once per turn" added.

Does Cargo Ship qualify? It carries a card per Cargo Ship in play, so it's efficiently an effect per card, not a single effect in a turn.

Does Merchant qualify? What about Fool's Gold (which has a negative effect once per turn)

Cargo Ship specifically says "once this turn" so it qualifies. I hadn't considered Fool's Gold, but yes it would qualify. Merchant would not qualify. Although you only get +$1 on one Silver played, you can get the +$1 more than once per turn.

EDIT: You raise an interesting question about Cargo Ship. I was certain the setting aside only can happen once per turn, but now I'm not so certain. Can anyone confirm this? If you have 2 Cargo Ships in play do you get to set aside 2 cards that turn? I'm guessing no.

I've thought more on Merchant and I will except cards worded that way. In it's current wording it was a bit hard for me to parse, but when changed to "The first time you play a Silver this turn, +$1 per Merchant you have in play." it seems more clear to me that it actually fits the challenge requirements.

Sorry for the back and forth. Hopefully I'm not creating a precedent here for some convoluted entries. I think everyone has a good sense of what "once per turn" means though. Thanks for all the questions!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on March 03, 2020, 08:42:17 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on March 03, 2020, 04:32:01 pm

For my entry, here's Vizier.
(https://i.imgur.com/IHIKFck.jpg?1)
Vizier gives you a choice between a few effects, each of which is individually a once per turn effect. You can superlab, but only once a turn, so it's probably fine, or expand, or grab a few extra vp. The vp choice may be a bit too much since it's unlimited, but 3 per turn isn't that much and a money deck can probably outpace you if you don't  do anything else. This used to be cantrip, choose a pawn choice that you haven't yet, but that was too boring.

Neat idea, though the implementation looks horribly overpowered. Each alternative is much stronger than a corresponding plain card, and unless you got the fourth Vizier (or was it Regent) the drawback of playing once per turn is negligible. I would nerf everything (+1VP, +1 Card, remodel by 1) and set price to 4

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on March 03, 2020, 09:59:09 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 03, 2020, 03:39:08 pm

Quote

Samoyed • $3 • Action
+2 Cards
If this is the first Samoyed you've played this turn, +1 Card, +1 Action

It's a superlab. But only one. after that it is just a doggo. not even a blue doggo.

But it's still the best doggo (although that picture weirds me out a little).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on March 03, 2020, 11:13:01 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on March 03, 2020, 03:20:56 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on March 03, 2020, 02:55:11 pm

Quote from: grep on March 03, 2020, 11:58:41 am

Quote from: Kudasai on March 02, 2020, 09:23:09 pm

This weeks contest: Design a card that has a once per turn effect. No Projects, Landmarks, Events or Artifacts please. The effect can encompass the whole card text or just be a part of it. Split piles and Travelers (if you for some reason hate me) are both fine. The card does not specifically have to say "once per turn", but should limit it's use in one way or another.

Official card examples: Fortune, Crossroads, Outpost, Messenger, Cargo Ship and Fool (among possible others). Other cards like Tormentor, Leprechaun and Tactician are nearly always once per turn, but situationally can be more. I would accept them as-is, but would prefer a "once per turn" added.

Does Cargo Ship qualify? It carries a card per Cargo Ship in play, so it's efficiently an effect per card, not a single effect in a turn.

Does Merchant qualify? What about Fool's Gold (which has a negative effect once per turn)

Cargo Ship specifically says "once this turn" so it qualifies. I hadn't considered Fool's Gold, but yes it would qualify. Merchant would not qualify. Although you only get +$1 on one Silver played, you can get the +$1 more than once per turn.

EDIT: You raise an interesting question about Cargo Ship. I was certain the setting aside only can happen once per turn, but now I'm not so certain. Can anyone confirm this? If you have 2 Cargo Ships in play do you get to set aside 2 cards that turn? I'm guessing no.

I'm fairly certain it's per Cargo Ship played.

Found a reference (in relation to TR / Processioning a Cargo Ship): https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2106825/article/30647520#30647520

Wow. I thought Cargo Ship was strong capped at one set aside card per turn. My mind is blown!

Apologies for yet more back and forth, but Cargo Ship would not be applicable to this contest. It would if it only allowed one card overall to be set aside.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 03, 2020, 11:24:13 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on March 03, 2020, 08:37:51 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on March 03, 2020, 02:55:11 pm

Quote from: grep on March 03, 2020, 11:58:41 am

Quote from: Kudasai on March 02, 2020, 09:23:09 pm

This weeks contest: Design a card that has a once per turn effect. No Projects, Landmarks, Events or Artifacts please. The effect can encompass the whole card text or just be a part of it. Split piles and Travelers (if you for some reason hate me) are both fine. The card does not specifically have to say "once per turn", but should limit it's use in one way or another.

Official card examples: Fortune, Crossroads, Outpost, Messenger, Cargo Ship and Fool (among possible others). Other cards like Tormentor, Leprechaun and Tactician are nearly always once per turn, but situationally can be more. I would accept them as-is, but would prefer a "once per turn" added.

Does Cargo Ship qualify? It carries a card per Cargo Ship in play, so it's efficiently an effect per card, not a single effect in a turn.

Does Merchant qualify? What about Fool's Gold (which has a negative effect once per turn)

Cargo Ship specifically says "once this turn" so it qualifies. I hadn't considered Fool's Gold, but yes it would qualify. Merchant would not qualify. Although you only get +$1 on one Silver played, you can get the +$1 more than once per turn.

EDIT: You raise an interesting question about Cargo Ship. I was certain the setting aside only can happen once per turn, but now I'm not so certain. Can anyone confirm this? If you have 2 Cargo Ships in play do you get to set aside 2 cards that turn? I'm guessing no.

I've thought more on Merchant and I will except cards worded that way. In it's current wording it was a bit hard for me to parse, but when changed to "The first time you play a Silver this turn, +$1 per Merchant you have in play." it seems more clear to me that it actually fits the challenge requirements.

Sorry for the back and forth. Hopefully I'm not creating a precedent here for some convoluted entries. I think everyone has a good sense of what "once per turn" means though. Thanks for all the questions!

Still feels lile Merchant shouldn't count - "The first time you play a Silver this turn, +$1 per Merchant you have in play." isn't really accurate, if you consider TR-Merchant gets you +$2 with only one Merchant in play.

Could that be one way to validate whether a cards qualifies - does TR-card do something only once? (the equivalent for Treasures would be Crown or Counterfeit, and my own custom Cabal  8)* for Night cards)

* I wear my sunglasses at Night...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 04, 2020, 01:39:24 am

Quote from: scolapasta on March 03, 2020, 12:43:20 pm

Quote from: X-tra on March 02, 2020, 08:21:06 pm

Semifinalists: [UNNAMED] ; Wizard ; Bridleway ; Commissioner ; Edit: Bridge Builder

Cool - I didn't expect such a vanilla-ish card to do so well - I'll definitely have to come up with a name now. (once I do, I'll edit the above post)

---

For this week:

I have a double whammy - Meadow, an Action-Victory card with a once per turn effect that can gain a Unicorn, a Night-Reserve, also with a once per turn effect. Boom!

(https://i.imgur.com/YHoRFnF.png)(https://i.imgur.com/KdeCNBL.png)

As always, I'm open to feedback and there's definitely room for some tweaking:

Meadow:
• it just felt like it should be some sort of Victory, like Pasture, but 1 VP per Unicorn was too strong, so am trying 1/2 a VP.
• Is it OK as a cantrip?
• Gain the unicorn to discard, deck, or hand
• is $4 too cheap? I guess it depends on the final strength of Unicorn.

Unicorn:
• should it do something (small) if you can't put it on your Tavern mat? I kind of like that if you have multiple, the second is a stop card. (especially considering they make your meadows more VP)
• I considered only allowing calling Unicorn on your turn, but I like the idea that you might use it as defense against some attacks. If you call on another players turn, like Caravan Guard, the +1 Action does not do anything for you. (also if you call during Buy phase, barring Villa, or Night phase)
• [EDIT] on 2nd thought: is +2 Cards, +1 Action too strong for a card you call (i.e. is this effectively the same as playing +3 cards, +2 actions?) The challenge is I want to Keep the flexibility that you can a) call it when you have no actions to get another actions, b) get two cards when you call it during Treasure phase, Night phase, or someone else's turn. While still keeping the text simple! Maybe something like "You may call this for +1 Card. If it's your Action phase +1 Action; otherwise, +1 Card."

Secret History:
• I like the idea of Night-Reserves (see my recent Gondolier), and thought the idea of a powerful Reserve that could only uniquely be set aside was interesting. Thematically, I liked the idea of a Unicorn, but clearly, you shouldn't be able to buy a Unicorn, so it became a non supply pile.
• I honestly can't remember if I came up with the called benefit before or after the Horses preview (I think maybe at first it was going to be +2 Cards, +2 Actions), but once the preview came out, I was very happy with the serendipity and changed to +1 Action.
• After that it has been a matter of tweaking Meadow, which as you can see from the questions above is still ongoing.

I like this a lot, especially the combination of an Action-Victory with a Night-Reserve. But it is likely too strong. It is basically a cantrip that handgains a next turn (or later) Lost City.  The only downside is that you do not want too many Meadows lest the Unicorns become dead.
Perhaps make Unicorn just +1 Card and +1 Action or +2 Cards ?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on March 04, 2020, 01:45:00 am

Quote from: scolapasta on March 03, 2020, 11:24:13 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on March 03, 2020, 08:37:51 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on March 03, 2020, 02:55:11 pm

Quote from: grep on March 03, 2020, 11:58:41 am

Quote from: Kudasai on March 02, 2020, 09:23:09 pm

This weeks contest: Design a card that has a once per turn effect. No Projects, Landmarks, Events or Artifacts please. The effect can encompass the whole card text or just be a part of it. Split piles and Travelers (if you for some reason hate me) are both fine. The card does not specifically have to say "once per turn", but should limit it's use in one way or another.

Official card examples: Fortune, Crossroads, Outpost, Messenger, Cargo Ship and Fool (among possible others). Other cards like Tormentor, Leprechaun and Tactician are nearly always once per turn, but situationally can be more. I would accept them as-is, but would prefer a "once per turn" added.

Does Cargo Ship qualify? It carries a card per Cargo Ship in play, so it's efficiently an effect per card, not a single effect in a turn.

Does Merchant qualify? What about Fool's Gold (which has a negative effect once per turn)

Cargo Ship specifically says "once this turn" so it qualifies. I hadn't considered Fool's Gold, but yes it would qualify. Merchant would not qualify. Although you only get +$1 on one Silver played, you can get the +$1 more than once per turn.

EDIT: You raise an interesting question about Cargo Ship. I was certain the setting aside only can happen once per turn, but now I'm not so certain. Can anyone confirm this? If you have 2 Cargo Ships in play do you get to set aside 2 cards that turn? I'm guessing no.

I've thought more on Merchant and I will except cards worded that way. In it's current wording it was a bit hard for me to parse, but when changed to "The first time you play a Silver this turn, +$1 per Merchant you have in play." it seems more clear to me that it actually fits the challenge requirements.

Sorry for the back and forth. Hopefully I'm not creating a precedent here for some convoluted entries. I think everyone has a good sense of what "once per turn" means though. Thanks for all the questions!

Still feels lile Merchant shouldn't count - "The first time you play a Silver this turn, +$1 per Merchant you have in play." isn't really accurate, if you consider TR-Merchant gets you +$2 with only one Merchant in play.

Could that be one way to validate whether a cards qualifies - does TR-card do something only once? (the equivalent for Treasures would be Crown or Counterfeit, and my own custom Cabal  8)* for Night cards)

* I wear my sunglasses at Night...

Yeah, I like this idea. So Merchant-esque cards won't count unless worded in such a way that Throning it does not produce the effect more than once.

I swear I thought I had all the kinks figured out for this thing. Thanks for your help.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on March 04, 2020, 02:04:08 am

My entry for the one-shot contest:

(https://i.imgur.com/nHpByzj.png)

Changed to King:

(https://i.imgur.com/ICdjhcl.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 04, 2020, 07:03:25 am

Sycophants.
They provide a cheap way to gain gold. You have to buy one, play it and then gain another Sycophant that turn, but doing so gives you the chance to also pick up a gold at effectively half price or with the use of a workshop. The problem is that it comes with a Sycophant. One Sycophant is a handy enabler but several are a nuisance. Because the second ability still applies you may want to play two Sycophants in a  turn in order to gain two golds when you buy a Sycophant, but you'll still have to add more Sycophants to your deck.
That might be gibberish. I've had a long day.
I've priced this to be on par with other 3 cards like Market Square but also Tunnel that can gain golds but its different enough that I am not sure 3 is right.

(https://i.imgur.com/bH4Wst4.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on March 04, 2020, 01:16:51 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OGpVayd.png)

The first play is a bad sifty thing, but then subsequent plays are like double Masquerades. The idea being it can be an absurd trasher with some village support but it takes a while to get it going so you still might be better off just opening with a normal trasher, it might have to cost $3 but I don't think that's a huge deal. It's also trying to be different by having the first play be weaker.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on March 04, 2020, 02:07:55 pm

My idea, Lessor/Bogus Lands. Bogus Lands are not in the Supply and can be gained through a Lessor (although you probably don't want 'em), just like an out-of-Supply Madman can be gained through an Hermit.

(https://i.postimg.cc/tywt3h1g/Lessor-V1-EN.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/5fGnRwGj/Bogus-Lands-V1-EN.png)

The "one shot" ability here is that playing a second Lessor will fail the "If it isn't a Victory card" clause and will trash itself, because the top card of all of your opponents will now be a Victory-typed Bogus Lands. So, you can't overload your opponent's next hand with Bogus Lands. You can only do that once per turn.


Edit: Thought about this overnight. Technically, Lessor can lose its one-shot ability and be played multiple times a turn if you do something like this: Village > Lessor > Spy > Lessor.
You’d have to discard at least one of your opponents’ Bogus Lands that’s been top decked with your first Lessor with the aid of Spy. Then, your second Lessor could hit a non-Victory card and be used twice (or more) in the same round. Those situations, however, are rare and most of the time, Lessor will be a one-shot. If this is something you are willing to accept, Kudasai, then I’ll leave the Lessor as it is. Otherwise, I will reword it, or change my entry entirely if it becomes too heavy and/or too complicated. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 04, 2020, 02:42:29 pm

Quote from: segura on March 04, 2020, 01:39:24 am

Quote from: scolapasta on March 03, 2020, 12:43:20 pm

I have a double whammy - Meadow, an Action-Victory card with a once per turn effect that can gain a Unicorn, a Night-Reserve, also with a once per turn effect. Boom!

(https://i.imgur.com/YHoRFnF.png)(https://i.imgur.com/KdeCNBL.png)

As always, I'm open to feedback and there's definitely room for some tweaking:

Meadow:
• it just felt like it should be some sort of Victory, like Pasture, but 1 VP per Unicorn was too strong, so am trying 1/2 a VP.
• Is it OK as a cantrip?
• Gain the unicorn to discard, deck, or hand
• is $4 too cheap? I guess it depends on the final strength of Unicorn.

Unicorn:
• should it do something (small) if you can't put it on your Tavern mat? I kind of like that if you have multiple, the second is a stop card. (especially considering they make your meadows more VP)
• I considered only allowing calling Unicorn on your turn, but I like the idea that you might use it as defense against some attacks. If you call on another players turn, like Caravan Guard, the +1 Action does not do anything for you. (also if you call during Buy phase, barring Villa, or Night phase)
• [EDIT] on 2nd thought: is +2 Cards, +1 Action too strong for a card you call (i.e. is this effectively the same as playing +3 cards, +2 actions?) The challenge is I want to Keep the flexibility that you can a) call it when you have no actions to get another actions, b) get two cards when you call it during Treasure phase, Night phase, or someone else's turn. While still keeping the text simple! Maybe something like "You may call this for +1 Card. If it's your Action phase +1 Action; otherwise, +1 Card."

Secret History:
• I like the idea of Night-Reserves (see my recent Gondolier), and thought the idea of a powerful Reserve that could only uniquely be set aside was interesting. Thematically, I liked the idea of a Unicorn, but clearly, you shouldn't be able to buy a Unicorn, so it became a non supply pile.
• I honestly can't remember if I came up with the called benefit before or after the Horses preview (I think maybe at first it was going to be +2 Cards, +2 Actions), but once the preview came out, I was very happy with the serendipity and changed to +1 Action.
• After that it has been a matter of tweaking Meadow, which as you can see from the questions above is still ongoing.

I like this a lot, especially the combination of an Action-Victory with a Night-Reserve. But it is likely too strong. It is basically a cantrip that handgains a next turn (or later) Lost City.  The only downside is that you do not want too many Meadows lest the Unicorns become dead.
Perhaps make Unicorn just +1 Card and +1 Action or +2 Cards ?

Yeah, after posting (see the EDIT), I realized that the idea of Horse's "+2 Cards, +1 Action" is way too strong when calling a card (i.e. not using either an action or a card from your hand). It's the equivalent of +3 Cards, +2 Actions, even better than Lost City! To match Horse, really it should be just +1 Card, which is a factor in the change I made (see below). I did also consider both your options and even had a hybrid depending on phase, but ultimately decided I didn't need the action.

I am not sure what you meant by not too many Meadows making Unicorns dead (the Unicorn gain is optional). You still may not want too many Meadows, but assuming you end up with 2 Unicorns, it's a slightly weaker Mill - and you could at some point make a run to get two more Unicorns. (actually this could combo well with the new Bounty Hunter)

Anyway, here's the latest Unicorn:

(https://i.imgur.com/EV8V3SA.png)

So, now:
• no longer gives an action (horses, other than Trust Steed, don't either)
• you have to trash a victory card
• how many cards you get depends on the cost of that trashed card

Early on, you can use it to replace Estates with a card. BUT if you choose to trash a Meadow, you get +2 cards. (maybe you even try to pull something crazy like trash a Province for +4? Rare, but imagine a scenario where getting the +4 cards would allow you to buy the two remaining provinces, instead of just 1)

Thematically, Meadows allow you to lure Unicorns to your Dominion. You can them tame one by "reserving" it. And when it's time to use their power, the more land they use up, the more benefit they provide!

Some things I considered but (at least for now) decided against:
• changing Meadow to be 1 VP per unicorn (now that you're likely need to trash Meadows); still seems too much, but maybe worth playtesting
• changing Meadow to $3 so you could start double Meadow - might be worth it, but then Meadows would only give +1 card
• allowing you to reserve more than one Unicorn - Meadow would still be once per turn for the contest, but I still like the double whammy, plus the theme of only being able to tame one Unicorn at a time.

Hopefully this makes this better; at the vey least, it's more interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Violet CLM on March 04, 2020, 07:57:13 pm

Cask of Amontillado - $2 - Action

---

Exile your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on March 06, 2020, 12:36:58 am

My old card was kind of boring. I'm changing my entry to King.

(https://i.imgur.com/7AuZPeL.png)

Edit: I had to fix the wording:

(https://i.imgur.com/ICdjhcl.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on March 07, 2020, 02:29:31 am

Quote from: kru5h on March 06, 2020, 12:36:58 am

My old card was kind of boring. I'm changing my entry to King.

(https://i.imgur.com/7AuZPeL.png)

This is the first* new card I saw this week that fixed the problem** with King's Court. I like it.
Honestly, though, I think it'd be better if it cost 7 and each option was once per turn instead of the card doing nothing if you've played a King already, but then I don't know if it would qualify for this week's contest...
(*The second obviously is Mastermind)
(**Some call it the 'fun' of King's Court. I disagree strongly enough to never play with it IRL.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on March 07, 2020, 06:06:50 pm

Just a heads up. I have to judge this weeks contest a little earlier than normal, so expect that to happen sometime Sunday (3/8/20) around 18:00 boardtime (EST). Which I guess is about 24 hours from now. So 24 hour warning everybody! Sorry for any inconvenience.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 07, 2020, 07:53:27 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on March 07, 2020, 06:06:50 pm

Just a heads up. I have to judge this weeks contest a little earlier than normal, so expect that to happen sometime Sunday (3/8/20) around 18:00 boardtime (EST). Which I guess is about 24 hours from now. So 24 hour warning everybody! Sorry for any inconvenience.

No worries. I'm happy with my card (Sycophant). I'm also aware that while handy at the start of the game it's second effect wont even work once the Sycophant pile empties because more can't be gained (except, I guess, from the trash if possible). I like that. Makes it a stepping stone card that you don't actually want to keep and one which you have to seriously consider if you want to trigger the second ability more than once per game.
And I find it funny when I accidentally wreck my own decks which this card could feasibly do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on March 08, 2020, 12:37:30 am

Mad Fairy
cost $2 - Action
Once per turn: +1 card per a card you have in hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 08, 2020, 12:38:59 pm

Final tweaks for Meadow / Unicorn:

I went from Unicorn being too strong to too weak (albeit I hope more interesting). With Estate it's just replaces the Estate from your hand, which is fine enough. With Meadows it's effectively just +1 Card (outside of the trashing), since Meadow is a cantrip.

I considered discarding, making a no brainer to discard a duchy or province. But I still prefer trashing so:

(https://i.imgur.com/G6g5aF2.png)(https://i.imgur.com/powsMSJ.png)

So now, it will replace Estate +1 card, replace Meadow (again, which is meaningless) and +2 Cards, and significantly more powerful for duchies and provinces. Of course, you'd still need to use a buy to get that duchy* in the first place.

* I can imagine this scenario, which I think sounds interesting: you buy a duchy, not wanting to buy the 2nd to last province. On a future turn, do you consider trashing that duchy for +5 cards and try to double province?

Put another way, it's a reserve Apprentice that's restricted to Victory cards.

And Meadow drops to $3 so as to not give too many +cards. If someone wants to open double Meadow, so be it. (They risk getting them both together and only being able to get 1 Unicorn, and even if not, they might still get both Unicorns in the same turn.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on March 08, 2020, 06:20:55 pm

Apologies, but judging is going to be delayed for about 7 hours. I'm just about wrapped up here, but wanna give each card one last good look. Also, I think the site has been having some issues, so I wanna make sure people have had a chance to get their last minute entries in!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 08, 2020, 07:12:02 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on March 08, 2020, 06:20:55 pm

Apologies, but judging is going to be delayed for about 7 hours. I'm just about wrapped up here, but wanna give each card one last good look. Also, I think the site has been having some issues, so I wanna make sure people have had a chance to get their last minute entries in!

All good. Take as much time as you need.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Kudasai on March 09, 2020, 03:32:53 pm

CONTEST #64 RESULTS

Another round of apologies are in order for yet another delay. I’ve suddenly come down with an illness and thought it best to rest last night versus finish this up. But even with the delays I’m still coming in at just under 7 days from the last results posting! Ultimately I didn’t get to write as comprehensive of a review for each entry as I would have liked, but hopefully there is enough here to work off of. If anyone is looking for more feedback please just personal message me!


Spectacle - NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825192#msg825192)
$3 cost Lost City on first play, but with a very sharp power drop-off on all future plays. Generally this will lead to players only grabbing 1 or 2 of these. Clever players who can avoid collisions may try for 3. The rewards may be worth the risk. In general though I believe if a card is going to offer a big pay-off it has to be earned and not given immediately. Crossroads is a good example. The big pay-off is good drawing power, which potentially gets better with each play. The once per turn effect of getting Actions is just there to help with that.

Mountaintop Outpost - [TP] Inferno (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825206#msg825206)
Certainly feels like it favors Big Money. Could help accelerate Engine play, but you’d need a decent mix of Treasures to make that work. This could be fun if two things happen: (1) BM isn’t sped up too much and (2) this works with some sort of hybrid Treasure-Action engine. I can only speculate, but I think this will almost only ever work with the former. Maybe if it gave a bit of base coin to spend for your next turn? This might expand the number of ways players can use this.

Barter - mandioca15 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825280#msg825280)
This can occur more than once per turn. Play Barter, gain a card through an Action that comes with a cheaper card from Barter, play another Barter, etc, etc. But barring that this is just a cheaper, weaker Haggler. The cheaper gain happening once per turn could be a buff though. Hagglers forced, cheaper gain on every card gained can be a bit rough.

Craftsman - grep (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825291#msg825291)
A cheap cantrip with no immediate benefit, but with potential rewards later on in the game. I think the key to pulling cards like this off is making sure they are only viable at most 50% of the time and I think this achieves that. Players will have to think hard about if the buildup is worth it. Even when this isn’t viable as a gainer, cantrips have a wide range of uses now-a-days. “Ways” being the most recent! Throwing the cantrip portion on the bottom is clever and really accentuates the once per turn aspect.

Samoyed - spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825298#msg825298)
Strong first play and then a big fall-off. Similar issues could arise as with NoMoreFun’s Spectacle. Please see that for more info!

Regent - D782802859 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825303#msg825303)
Clever use of the once per turn effect! Being able to do three good things only once is interesting, but I wish the choice being made had more of an impact. For instance, maybe the first time you play this you get an enhanced version of whatever choice you make. As it stands though, there is certainly incentive to grab 3-5 of these to make sure you’re getting all of the effects. I didn’t factor this into my judgement, but the effects do seem too strong.

Bell Tower - Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825306#msg825306)
Always ahead of the curb. First with Villager tokens and now with converting +Cards into +Coin. You generally want draw power early in your turn and coin later, but the fun part about this is trying to get the timing on that transition correct. Affecting all draw from all cards seems a bit hard to work around, but it does give 4 cards or 4 coins. Knocking it down to 3 each and having it only effect itself might be more manageable. 

King - Kru5h (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825351#msg825351)
As with a few other cards on here, the main issue with this is that it has limited functionality after it’s first play. You probably only really want 1 for this reason, but being a $6 cost you might only want 1 anyways. The fact that it can gain itself really pushes a player to try and run a deck with more than one. I do enjoy this aspect.

Sycophant - somekindoftony (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825373#msg825373)
An interesting twist on a card that wants to avoid collisions with itself. The influx of Golds makes that statistically more viable. Although I have had some issues with cards that have limited functionality after the first play, I do like the Gold gaining aspect of this and that it is contingent on gaining more Sycophants Certainly fancy, but the hope is that it’s also functional.

Hierophant - Gazbag (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825409#msg825409)
I think you summed your card up nicely! I really like the power arch of this throughout the game. Starts off mediocre, gets really good, but then weaker than it started. How fast you go through that progression is completely up to you the player as well. Even with no ability to get extra Actions, this is just useful enough that you might get it for $2. What I really enjoy is that no matter how the card is functioning, it will always be deck neutral. A little touch that helps with developing strategies around it.

Lessor/Bogus Lands - X-tra (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825412#msg825412)
As you pointed out, this can technically be played more than once, but I’ll judge it as if it could not be. :) Bogus Lands is quite brutal. A stop card you can’t trash, although now there are options to get rid of them via Exciling. Even so, players will generally have no answer for dealing with all the Bogus Lands they are getting. They do sort of self defend, but I’m not sure how that will play out. Building anything around Lessor’s Victory card cost reduction seems wonky as you can lose them at any point, so you probably only want 1 or 2 Lessors purely to junk your opponents. I appreciate all the subtle interactions the mechanics of Lessor and Bogus Lands offer, but I don’t really see all the un-trashable junking and emphasis on building a mega-turn with that junk in your deck working out. If you’ve done any playtesting I’d love to hear how it went though!

Cask of Amontillado - Violet CLM (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825451#msg825451)
A severely buffed Chapel. Could be some opportunities to build a bit of an engine in an attempt to get more than 4 cards on your Exile mat per turn. Mainly I think you just get this early and play it as often as possible. Where Chapel falls off and can have some collision issues early on this has none of those problems. Probably too good to be fun.

Mad Fairy - majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825925#msg825925)
Powerful, even for a once per use, but ultimately I believe it runs into issues not having any functionality afterwards.

Meadow / Unicorn - scolapasta (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825964#msg825964)
There’s a lot of good early game functionality here. Trashing an Estate at the start of your turn gives you a 7 card hand. A nice reward given getting Unicorns can take awhile. I think the most interesting decision comes when your Estates are gone. Do you immediately go for a Unicorn per turn to try and the maximum VP, or do you hold off, keeping your deck clean. Interesting choice!



Thank you all for participating, especially during previews week!



RESULTS:

3: Hierophant - Gazbag (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825409#msg825409)
2: Sycophant - somekindoftony (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825373#msg825373)
1: Craftsman - grep (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825291#msg825291)       <-------WINNER!!!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 09, 2020, 07:33:01 pm

Craftsman is a cool design but man, it needs to say non-Victory card lest it becomes a cantrip Province gainer in many Kingdoms.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 09, 2020, 09:08:49 pm

Well done, grep! I look forward to the next challenge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on March 10, 2020, 01:32:01 am

Wow! Thanks Kudasai!
There was a strong temptation to dedicate the next challenge to the upcoming Menagerie, but let's wait for the release.

Contest 65 - Get Money Fast
Design a card(-shaped object) that gives a chance to gain a Province not later than at turn 3 (but still does not break the balance)
Official examples: Pooka/Cursed Gold ; Capital ; Fool's Gold (thanks Freddy10)

Upd: To expand the design space, simple combos with official cards are acceptable, but less desirable than pure solutions that need nothing but basic cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on March 10, 2020, 04:31:43 am

Vestry (Action, $2)

Trash any number of cards from your hand. +$2 per card trashed.

Return this to the Supply.


A great way to get money quickly while pruning your deck, provided you have enough things to feed it...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 10, 2020, 06:37:02 am

Woohoo Runner up again. Its better than winning because I don't have the pressure of judging.  ;D

Here's my idea for this challenge but anyone have thoughts on the wording? I want it to be that if you end the turn with it in your hand (prior to clean up) you will gain a second one and this may lead to you choking on the little blighters if you can't find sifters at least. If however you can distract them from breeding, with a nice big cheesey 5 or more cost card, you could get that province.
It's like an Expand for $2 except its absolutely not.
So it gets you a province on turn 3, if you are completely insane enough to do that off a 5-2 split.


(https://i.imgur.com/hpqANSb.png)

Edit: I'm actually already thinking of changing the above. The way its worded has a bunch of rules problems (can you do it if you have no 5+ cost card in hand? Can you choose not to find the card if its in hand?)
My new thoughts are probably the following, which is both weaker and stronger. You'll always gain a Pet Mouse if you play one.
(https://i.imgur.com/OVfA6Je.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 10, 2020, 06:48:25 am

Quote from: grep on March 10, 2020, 01:32:01 am

Wow! Thanks Kudasai!
There was a strong temptation to dedicate the next challenge to the upcoming Menagerie, but let's wait for the release.

Contest 65 - Get Money Fast
Design a card(-shaped object) that gives a chance to gain a Province not later than at turn 3 (but still does not break the balance)
Official examples: Pooka/Cursed Gold ; Capital.

Oh gosh. This is a difficult one. Uhhhhh............ how about this?

Strategist
$5
Action-Duration
Discard any number of cards. If you discarded at least 4, then at the start of your next turn, +$5.
-------
This is gained onto your deck (instead of your discard pile)

Hopefully it is different enough from Tactician to be worthwhile. So it's kinda like a Tactician, but its next turn effect is Chameleoned. Could be more useful than Tactician for spiking big price points like Province or another $5, but at at the cost of 5 cards this turn. This is going to be more useful in sloggy games or games that lack trashing, but the fact that it's a Duration means that it won't be able to be played more frequently in an engine as it misses shuffles. If there are any balance issues please let me know.

Edit: Made it a gain-to-hand Night card and lowered the discard requirement.
Edit 2: Turned it back into an Action and gave it Nomad Camp's effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 10, 2020, 07:25:30 am

This cannot spike before T4 and only with a Lab, so gotta open Encampment-Strategist. Ignoring the contest rules, this looks far weaker (discontinuous) than Secret Chamber, which was already quite weak.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on March 10, 2020, 08:01:32 am

Quote

Stocks - Event, $1+ cost.
Once per game: you may overpay for this. +1 Coffers per $1 overpaid.

Overpay for Coffers, but only once per game. Turn 3 province is possible, but it's a terrible move as you never get this again. Wait until you get a big enough amount of $ spare or deliberately make a big spike and then you're good for the rest of the game.

Edit: just to add that you would use a cube with this to track that you've bought it and can't buy it again. (This is one of my ideas I've had for a while, and I've made a new type for it since it's neither an Event nor a Project. I posted it here in this format to make clear what it does.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on March 10, 2020, 11:14:17 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on March 10, 2020, 04:31:43 am

Vestry (Action, $2)

Trash any number of cards from your hand. +$2 per card trashed.

Return this to the Supply.


A great way to get money quickly while pruning your deck, provided you have enough things to feed it...

It's interesting you can get a province on T3 by buying two fool's golds, that is a 2/2 open

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 10, 2020, 02:30:40 pm

clarification q: does our card have to work regardless of shelters/estates/heirloom situation?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on March 10, 2020, 03:22:16 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 10, 2020, 02:30:40 pm

clarification q: does our card have to work regardless of shelters/estates/heirloom situation?

Relying on the existence or non-existence of shelters, or on something generic as $5 Actions in the kingdom is fine.
Relying on not having heirlooms is fine; relying on having a specific heirloom not bound with the card is marginal; your own heirloom would be a part of the card design, so it is fine.
Relying on drawing a specific Boon or Hex is good as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 10, 2020, 03:25:13 pm

Quote from: grep on March 10, 2020, 03:22:16 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 10, 2020, 02:30:40 pm

clarification q: does our card have to work regardless of shelters/estates/heirloom situation?

Relying on the existence or non-existence of shelters, or on something generic as $5 Actions in the kingdom is fine. Heirloom is a part of the card, so it is allowed. Relying on drawing a specific Boon or Hex is good as well.

How about relying on Baker being in the setup (for +1 Coffers)?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on March 10, 2020, 03:34:49 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on March 10, 2020, 03:25:13 pm

Quote from: grep on March 10, 2020, 03:22:16 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 10, 2020, 02:30:40 pm

clarification q: does our card have to work regardless of shelters/estates/heirloom situation?

Relying on the existence or non-existence of shelters, or on something generic as $5 Actions in the kingdom is fine. Heirloom is a part of the card, so it is allowed. Relying on drawing a specific Boon or Hex is good as well.

How about relying on Baker being in the setup (for +1 Coffers)?

If +1 Coffer is a part of your card setup, that is fine. Relying on other specific cards is at least marginal

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on March 10, 2020, 04:02:44 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/T2Jw0jc.jpg?1)
Here's Merchant Village, a village with a bit of coin that also Mints on gain. However, it does decrease hand size, so don't go nuts.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 10, 2020, 04:19:45 pm

Quote from: segura on March 10, 2020, 07:25:30 am

This cannot spike before T4 and only with a Lab, so gotta open Encampment-Strategist. Ignoring the contest rules, this looks far weaker (discontinuous) than Secret Chamber, which was already quite weak.

Alright then. Thanks for the feedback. How about I increase the money reward and/or decrease the discard requirement? Say, discard 4 cards to get $6 next turn? Or maybe make it a Night card that is gained to hand?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 10, 2020, 04:52:10 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on March 10, 2020, 04:19:45 pm

Quote from: segura on March 10, 2020, 07:25:30 am

This cannot spike before T4 and only with a Lab, so gotta open Encampment-Strategist. Ignoring the contest rules, this looks far weaker (discontinuous) than Secret Chamber, which was already quite weak.

Alright then. Thanks for the feedback. How about I increase the money reward and/or decrease the discard requirement? Say, discard 4 cards to get $6 next turn? Or maybe make it a Night card that is gained to hand?

i mean the problem is the soonest you can get/play the card is turn 3, meaning the soonest you get the payoff of the card is turn 4, which is also the soonest you can buy the province.

If it was a night card that gained to hand, you wouldn't have the cards to trigger its secret cave effect because you played them to buy the card.

if it was an action that did the Nomad Camp thing, that might work, maybe?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 10, 2020, 04:57:14 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 10, 2020, 04:52:10 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on March 10, 2020, 04:19:45 pm

Quote from: segura on March 10, 2020, 07:25:30 am

This cannot spike before T4 and only with a Lab, so gotta open Encampment-Strategist. Ignoring the contest rules, this looks far weaker (discontinuous) than Secret Chamber, which was already quite weak.

Alright then. Thanks for the feedback. How about I increase the money reward and/or decrease the discard requirement? Say, discard 4 cards to get $6 next turn? Or maybe make it a Night card that is gained to hand?

i mean the problem is the soonest you can get/play the card is turn 3, meaning the soonest you get the payoff of the card is turn 4, which is also the soonest you can buy the province.

If it was a night card that gained to hand, you wouldn't have the cards to trigger its secret cave effect because you played them to buy the card.

if it was an action that did the Nomad Camp thing, that might work, maybe?

Ok, maybe that would work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 10, 2020, 05:09:02 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on March 10, 2020, 04:02:44 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/T2Jw0jc.jpg?1)
Here's Merchant Village, a village with a bit of coin that also Mints on gain. However, it does decrease hand size, so don't go nuts.

I like it, a $4.5 with a powerful on-gain effect. But it is pretty nuts in 5/2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on March 10, 2020, 05:14:42 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on March 09, 2020, 03:32:53 pm

Lessor/Bogus Lands - X-tra (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg825412#msg825412)
As you pointed out, this can technically be played more than once, but I’ll judge it as if it could not be. :) Bogus Lands is quite brutal. A stop card you can’t trash, although now there are options to get rid of them via Exciling. Even so, players will generally have no answer for dealing with all the Bogus Lands they are getting. They do sort of self defend, but I’m not sure how that will play out. Building anything around Lessor’s Victory card cost reduction seems wonky as you can lose them at any point, so you probably only want 1 or 2 Lessors purely to junk your opponents. I appreciate all the subtle interactions the mechanics of Lessor and Bogus Lands offer, but I don’t really see all the un-trashable junking and emphasis on building a mega-turn with that junk in your deck working out. If you’ve done any playtesting I’d love to hear how it went though!

Thank you for the feedback! We actually did playtest Lessor/Bogus Lands, but only in 2-player games. Here’s what we discovered:

• Lessor shapes the game. Its mere presence makes you think twice before trashing those starting Estates. Lessor makes you want to grab alt-VP cards to further protect your deck against Bogus Lands attacks.
  
• Lessor is even more powerful when the starting cards are Shelters. It’s way more likely to hit a non-Victory card with them (unless you hit an Overgrown Estate, in which case all you want to do is eat your hat).
  
• Lessor is swingy. You hit your opponent’s Copper? Great! They gain a Bogus Lands. Now they play theirs and hit one of your starting Estates? To the trash he goes. No hard feelings, right?
  
• Lessor is way more powerful in 3-players or more games. He has less chances of being trashed. Because of that, this is a card whose value changes depending on the number of players.
  
• Bogus Lands would benefit indeed from the Exile mechanism. Or Native Village. Or Island. Anything to get them away, lol.
  

Anyway, thanks again!

---

Alright, onto my entry:

(https://i.postimg.cc/RZZyBRmC/Lease-V1-EN.png)

A Baron-Moneylender hybrid. You have more Coppers in your starting deck, so Moneylender has more things to trash. Takes more Actions to get all of those (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png), but eh.

Compared to Baron (they have the same cost):

+ Gets an extra (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) for interacting with a Victory card (most of the time, an Estate, just like the Baron).
+ Trashes the Estates so that they do not clog your deck anymore.
- Since it doesn't simply discard the Estates and cannot auto-regain them like Baron does, your supply of trashing Estates is limited and you'll have to regain new ones (or any other Victory card) to give Lease more ammo.
- Speaking of which, Lease has no +Buy, unlike Baron.

Do you guys believe that this should be priced at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) instead? Death Cart can be a good comparison. It gives +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) as well and is also priced at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on March 10, 2020, 05:28:18 pm

Quote from: X-tra on March 10, 2020, 05:14:42 pm

Quote from: Kudasai on March 09, 2020, 03:32:53 pm

Do you guys believe that this should be priced at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) instead? Death Cart can be a good comparison. It gives +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) as well and is also priced at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)

This isn't going to get bought at 5 unless it's buffed in other areas, I think the fact that it can't normally trash non-estates balances it out, and we've seen similarly strong cards. I'm not even sure if it's more ridiculous than the official card Bounty Hunter.

Quote from: segura on March 10, 2020, 05:09:02 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on March 10, 2020, 04:02:44 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/T2Jw0jc.jpg?1)
Here's Merchant Village, a village with a bit of coin that also Mints on gain. However, it does decrease hand size, so don't go nuts.

I like it, a $4.5 with a powerful on-gain effect. But it is pretty nuts in 5/2.

I'm considering reining back the on-gain to 3 cards trashed, it would still be a strong card but perhaps a bit less powerful.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on March 10, 2020, 06:50:03 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on March 10, 2020, 04:02:44 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/T2Jw0jc.jpg?1)
Here's Merchant Village, a village with a bit of coin that also Mints on gain. However, it does decrease hand size, so don't go nuts.

This has to specify "trash up to 4 cards you have in play." As worded, you can trash other people's Duration cards with this.

EDIT: It's also way too strong for its cost. Way of the Chameleon and the lack of +Buy are the only things preventing it from being strictly better than Festival, and everything else about it much more than makes up for that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 10, 2020, 10:01:11 pm

Who doesn't want to Cheat at Dominion:

(https://i.imgur.com/b97GfRg.png)

Of course, if you do, you will get Caught in the Act:

(https://i.imgur.com/LVl97d9.png)

Cheat is basically a double sized Borrow* and therefore has double the penalty. One difference is that you can defer the penalty by "laying low", only having 1 Action and 1 Buy per turn (not including start of turn Actions as from Prince, Ghost, Captain, etc). Early game you may not care, but eventually you'll definitely want those bonuses. (and you can't cheat again, until you pay the penalty)

* in the rare game that has both Cheat and Borrow you can do both for +$3, with the penalties stacking.

Questions:
• is drawing two fewer cards per turn enough of a penalty? (i.e $2 is likely better than double $1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on March 10, 2020, 10:49:14 pm

Exhibition
cost $5 - Action
Reveal your hand.
For each 2 cards with different names, +$2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on March 11, 2020, 12:05:29 am

A super-Contraband with a super-penalty.

(https://i.imgur.com/D9j8tR9.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on March 11, 2020, 12:57:11 am

I've posted this one before at some point, but not for a contest:

<image deleted because images are a pain.>

Quote

House Brew
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} Treasure - Reserve - Looter
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}
+2 Buys.
When you play this, put it on your tavern mat.
-
When you buy a Ruins, +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}. When you buy any zero-cost card, discard this from your tavern mat.

EDIT: added the looter type.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on March 11, 2020, 02:56:01 am

New World
Event - $3
Gain a Victory card with a cost in $ less than the number of tokens on this, then remove a token from this.
---
Setup: Put 9 tokens on this

You can open province - but is that a good idea?

This is no longer my entry

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 11, 2020, 07:29:24 am

This runs into player count issues (unless you want this to be asymmetric). In my opinion this (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13796.msg520502#msg520502) is a better implementation of the early Province idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on March 11, 2020, 11:01:28 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on March 11, 2020, 12:57:11 am

I've posted this one before at some point, but not for a contest:

(https://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/my-pathfinder-setting-stuff/character-classes/House_Brew.jpg)

Quote

House Brew
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} Treasure - Reserve
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}
+2 Buys.
When you play this, put it on your tavern mat.
-
When you buy a Ruins, +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}. When you buy any zero-cost card, discard this from your tavern mat.

EDIT: I don't know why the image looks like it says -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. That is, of course, supposed to be a + sign. ...And the image doesn't say reserve. Seems like I always make mistakes when making images. That's probably why I often don't bother with images.

Should also have the looter type, since you mention ruins

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on March 11, 2020, 01:46:15 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on March 11, 2020, 11:01:28 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on March 11, 2020, 12:57:11 am

I've posted this one before at some point, but not for a contest:

(https://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/my-pathfinder-setting-stuff/character-classes/House_Brew.jpg)

Quote

House Brew
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} Treasure - Reserve
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}
+2 Buys.
When you play this, put it on your tavern mat.
-
When you buy a Ruins, +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}. When you buy any zero-cost card, discard this from your tavern mat.

EDIT: I don't know why the image looks like it says -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. That is, of course, supposed to be a + sign. ...And the image doesn't say reserve. Seems like I always make mistakes when making images. That's probably why I often don't bother with images.

Should also have the looter type, since you mention ruins

And the reserve type

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on March 11, 2020, 01:50:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ud1EX1n.png)

One province (or colony) for each player actually costs $4 instead of $8. You can use this t3, but probably more useful for endgame.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 11, 2020, 01:54:10 pm

Foreclosure is basically a BM enabler. With only 3 „real“ Provinces per player on average in 2P and 3P games, building up an engine becomes weaker whereas greening early via money and then later spending $4 on a Province (once your deck becomes crappy) becomes stronger.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on March 11, 2020, 02:41:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/UUq9zQD.png)

I chose Horse because it fits well with the newfound Dominion canon. Way of the Chicken, Way of the Cow and Way of the Chinese Animal would fit as well.

EDIT: Replaced it by Way of the Cow cause, y'know, Way of the Horse has been revealed (to have the predictable effect).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on March 11, 2020, 03:50:36 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on March 11, 2020, 01:46:15 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on March 11, 2020, 11:01:28 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on March 11, 2020, 12:57:11 am

I've posted this one before at some point, but not for a contest:
<snip image>

Quote

House Brew
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} Treasure - Reserve
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}
+2 Buys.
When you play this, put it on your tavern mat.
-
When you buy a Ruins, +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}. When you buy any zero-cost card, discard this from your tavern mat.

EDIT: I don't know why the image looks like it says -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. That is, of course, supposed to be a + sign. ...And the image doesn't say reserve. Seems like I always make mistakes when making images. That's probably why I often don't bother with images.

Should also have the looter type, since you mention ruins

And the reserve type

It does have the reserve type, and I can add the looter type.
I don't think I'll bother making images anymore...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 11, 2020, 05:55:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/bBjnwjf.png)

Who cares about eternally paying back debt when you can own the Kingdom after 13 turns?

This uses the Season mechanic (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14570.0) to scale well. First I wanted to do this as an Event but you gotta track the Debt anyway. Furthermore an Event or a hand-gaining Night or a "play this when you gain it" (an idea I briefly considered) are too automatic in the endgame, you simply go for them if you cannot hit $8 in one of the latest turns in order to reach it next turn.
I have absolutely no idea about the parameters. It should very likely be terminal but how many Coffers it should yield is a wild guess; this requires testing with many numbers to see whether it works (or is broken no matter what values you use).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 12, 2020, 01:50:09 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e6a72131fdd160444a4e784/5057ecdb626ad5341d2ad970719c971c/image.png)

Quote

Glazier • $4 • Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal and discard from your hand any number of cards that cost more than $0. You may gain a card costing up to $2 per card discarded. If you did, take your -$1 token.

It's a riff on Artificer - no peddler action this time, just 💪gains🏋️. The reveal is there for accountability and to sidestep the ongoing militia discussion (see the General Discussion forum). Originally this required this to gain the same type of card that you discarded (and that all discarded cards share a type); that would make it bad for gaining actions.
The penalty token is there for a small nerf - it's very good in overdraw situations but needs a little something to balance it out, lest it be too good of a gainer. The somethings don't get much littler than the -$1 token.

Obvs this is bad with significant cost reduction.

The route to a turn 3 province with this is to open this + a card that costs more than $0, and get all 3 estates + the other card between the starting t3 hand + the card you draw from this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on March 13, 2020, 06:45:04 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wyNtQrF.jpg)

Quote

Physician

Reveal the top three cards of your deck. You may trash any number of them. For each one you trashed, +$1. Discard the others.

Action
$4

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on March 14, 2020, 05:00:31 am

Quote from: alion8me on March 13, 2020, 06:45:04 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wyNtQrF.jpg)

Quote

Physician

Reveal the top three cards of your deck. You may trash any number of them. For each one you trashed, +$1. Discard the others.

Action
$4

Looks pretty overpowered, especially in comparison with Doctor.

Quote from: mail-mi on March 11, 2020, 01:50:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ud1EX1n.png)

One province (or colony) for each player actually costs $4 instead of $8. You can use this t3, but probably more useful for endgame.

This probably should be a Project, saying: when you buy this, gain a Victory Card costing up to $4. (cause, you know, cubes)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on March 14, 2020, 01:52:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/k1GrsEP.png)
Wasn't feeling particularly inspired this week. It's a terminal Counterfeit thing, gives less money than Moneylender for trashing Copper but can blow up bigger Treasures for a bunch.

Oops I'm stupid new version:
(https://i.imgur.com/s1aZ3OU.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 14, 2020, 02:32:05 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 14, 2020, 01:52:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/k1GrsEP.png)
Wasn't feeling particularly inspired this week. It's a terminal Counterfeit thing, gives less money than Moneylender for trashing Copper but can blow up bigger Treasures for a bunch.

It gives the same amount of money as Moneylender?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on March 14, 2020, 03:05:31 pm

Quote from: faust on March 14, 2020, 02:32:05 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 14, 2020, 01:52:14 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/k1GrsEP.png)
Wasn't feeling particularly inspired this week. It's a terminal Counterfeit thing, gives less money than Moneylender for trashing Copper but can blow up bigger Treasures for a bunch.

It gives the same amount of money as Moneylender?

Yeah so originally it didn't trash and was supposed to be a terminal Gold with a bonus at $5, but I thought that stunk and it didn't even really work for the contest so I changed it and thought because it trashes the Copper now it gives $1 less... So basically I'm an idiot.

Let's change it to this:
(https://i.imgur.com/s1aZ3OU.png)
Do you really want to triple that Cursed Gold?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on March 14, 2020, 10:27:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rSMc2MT.png)

Cesspool
Action - $4
+$4
Each other player may trash a card from their hand

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 15, 2020, 07:27:16 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on March 14, 2020, 10:27:15 pm

Trash Collector
Action - $4
+$4
Each other player may trash a card from their hand

My hunch is that this is better than Bishop without being crazy: in non-mirrors you need another trasher.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on March 15, 2020, 12:48:49 pm

Quote from: segura on March 15, 2020, 07:27:16 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on March 14, 2020, 10:27:15 pm

Trash Collector
Action - $4
+$4
Each other player may trash a card from their hand

My hunch is that this is better than Bishop without being crazy: in non-mirrors you need another trasher.

This isn't really like Bishop, the point of Bishop is to get vp, not to get money. Bishop doesn't help you hit 5, this very much does.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on March 15, 2020, 01:34:08 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on March 15, 2020, 12:48:49 pm

Quote from: segura on March 15, 2020, 07:27:16 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on March 14, 2020, 10:27:15 pm

Trash Collector
Action - $4
+$4
Each other player may trash a card from their hand

My hunch is that this is better than Bishop without being crazy: in non-mirrors you need another trasher.

This isn't really like Bishop, the point of Bishop is to get vp, not to get money. Bishop doesn't help you hit 5, this very much does.

I think they were comparing the cards due to the "each other player may trash" clause.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 15, 2020, 01:44:59 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on March 15, 2020, 12:48:49 pm

Quote from: segura on March 15, 2020, 07:27:16 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on March 14, 2020, 10:27:15 pm

Trash Collector
Action - $4
+$4
Each other player may trash a card from their hand

My hunch is that this is better than Bishop without being crazy: in non-mirrors you need another trasher.

This isn't really like Bishop, the point of Bishop is to get vp, not to get money. Bishop doesn't help you hit 5, this very much does.

True that. It is nonetheless natural to compare Cesspool with Bishop as they have an identical cost as well as an identical benefit for the other players.
Do you think that there is better card to compare Cesspool with?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on March 15, 2020, 06:01:00 pm

24 hour warning

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on March 16, 2020, 05:20:11 pm

Super late post.  Feel free to disregard.

(https://i.imgur.com/IpMQLdw.jpg)

Quote

Consolidate
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Look at the top 4 cards of your deck. Trash up to 2 of them. If you trash 2 that share a type, gain a card sharing a type with them that is differently named than either of them. Discard any number of the others, and put the rest back in any order.

Trash 2 Estates for a Province, trash Treasures for Golds, or maybe you'll want to trash Copper+Estate to reduce stop cards.
It trashes from the top so it's harder to align cards to get it to behave. It can't gain a card with the same name so you can't drain the Province pile with Province\Estate→Province.  Estate\Consolidate rush looks pretty dodgy in a quick test because Consolidate has to find 2 Estates in the top 4 to trash (and, if contested, there are only 7 Estates per player).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 16, 2020, 06:04:13 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on March 16, 2020, 05:20:11 pm

Super late post.  Feel free to disregard.

(https://i.imgur.com/IpMQLdw.jpg)

Quote

Consolidate
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Look at the top 4 cards of your deck. Trash up to 2 of them. If you trash 2 that share a type, gain a card sharing a type with them that is differently named than either of them. Discard any number of the others, and put the rest back in any order.

Trash 2 Estates for a Province, trash Treasures for Golds, or maybe you'll want to trash Copper+Estate to reduce stop cards.
It trashes from the top so it's harder to align cards to get it to behave. It can't gain a card with the same name so you can't drain the Province pile with Province\Estate→Province.  Estate\Consolidate rush looks pretty dodgy in a quick test because Consolidate has to find 2 Estates in the top 4 to trash (and, if contested, there are only 7 Estates per player).

If you trash 2 Shelters, then would you be forced to attempt to gain the other Shelter but fail, right?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BlueHairedMeerkat on March 16, 2020, 08:01:13 pm

I don't know what time zone these forums are on but here goes:

Overflowing Riches
Treasure - $5
+$4
+1 Buy
Each other player gains +2 Coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on March 16, 2020, 08:32:42 pm

Consolidate and Overflowing Riches included
I've got more work than expected today, will finish judging closer to midnight Pacific time

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 16, 2020, 09:25:09 pm

I haven't been overly impressed with my own entry this time around but if I do rank then I'll fix up that pesky capital T where it shouldn't be. Otherwise just to be clear I'm going with the second pet mouse of my last entry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on March 17, 2020, 02:07:32 am

Thanks everyone. This one was pretty hard to judge, many decent submissions and no obvious leader.

Content #65 "Get Money Fast" Results
Vestry by mandioca15
Replace your initial Coppers and Estates with a Province. More likely, you want to replace three crappy cards with a Gold or some decent $5, or even trash two cards and get a replacement Vestry. One shot is more strength than weakness, as you don't have to deal with a dead Chapel.

Pet Mouse by somekindoftony
Situative beast great you have a supply of $5s like Count or Vampire. Probably you will want it when you start greening, but it's pretty swingy as it has to be drawn with some cheese. Unlike Rats, mice are happy to eat mice, which make them more controllable

Strategist by [TP] Inferno
It's a mega Secret Cave, but without cantrip effect. The on gain effect is a desperado for clogs, when you need that last province badly but don't think that the hand can ever produce $8 - sacrifice two turns for $5 boost.

Stocks by Aquila
You probably want that Goons on turn two, you got it regardless of the initial copper split - for the cost of not buying Stocks when you don't know what to do with $7 at the endgame. Pretty disruptive but balanced and fun. FINALIST

Merchant Village by D782802859
With a powerful on gain effect, it's unbeatable at the opening, which make it too good for 5/2. Maybe without a +$ it is not bad for $4.

Lease by X-tra
It's a Chameleoned Pooka for Estates, essentially. As there are fewer Estates in the deck initially, and fewer ways to gain them, the payoff looks reasonable. FINALIST

Cheat by scolapasta
Nice and concise, and gives early access to $6 cards to everyone. The delayed penalty concept is neat, but the penalty is too mild, this card is strictly better than double Borrow.

Exhibition by majiponi
Is it quadratic? For example, if there are four cards with different names, will it give $12? Probably the author meant pairs of cards with the same name, e.g. Exhibition + 4 Coppers will sum up as $8

Bootleg by kru5h
During development time it's a self-Delusion forcing you to buy a Gold instead of an engine part (or vice versa in Action-poor kingdoms). At the final stage it's a poisonous pill not letting you buy Victory cards when you need them the most. Unlike Contraband, the +Buy support seems unwarranted

House Brew by LibraryAdventurer
Treasure Wine Merchant! Buying a Ruins as a recovery cost is neat - if it was the only option, it would open some extra strategic deepness of running out of Ruins

Foreclosure by mail-mi
Nice minimalistic design. In a kingdom with plenty of money and no extra buys it's a hard decision when to buy, not unlike trashing a Hovel.

Way of the Cow by grrgrrgrr
Self-Salvaging might seem overpowered for a Way, but as it's limited to Actions, it's fine. I would not be surprised if a similar Way exists in the upcoming release. FINALIST

Debt Bondage by segura
This will probably work even in the world of eternal spring, as later purchase means generally larger deck and longer time to play. It's a bold commitment comparable to Cathedral. FINALIST

Glazier by spineflu
Chameleoned Shepherd disguised as Artificer. In the beginning it's an unreliable $4 gainer, similar to Ironworks which occasionally rewards with a Gold. Later in the game it is not overpowered as most of the nonzero cost cards are better than Silver. I understand the need for a small penalty, but -1 Card would probably work better.

Physician by alion8me
Strong trasher than does not reduce the hand and gives some benefit - this costs more than $5 to me.

Fabricator by Gazbag
The original Fabricator was strictly better than Moneylender, and this one is crazy. Would be fine with trashing for $5. The Cursed Gold kludge to fit the content seems too artificial, probably "when you gain this gain a Silver" would work.

Cesspool by NoMoreFun
Tough decision when it's the only trasher, but no-brainer in a trasher rich kingdom. You probably want to grab this out of curiosity. Special thanks for not giving +Buy. FINALIST

Consolidate by Fragasnap
A smart twist of Sentry. One of a few cards where gaining an early Province is actually useful. Turning two Coppers into a Gold is extremely strong too, and it keeps the treasures in hand intact, so you still can buy your engine part. This card starts super strong, but turns into a scout by midgame.  FINALIST

Overflowing Riches by BlueHairedMeerkat
It's a Council Room for money in a treasure format. Probably as much fun as the original Council Room, but with a stronger taste of optionality, not every deck will equally win from it. Encourages asymmetric strategies, which is cool. FINALIST

---

Short list: Stocks, Lease, Way of the Cow, Debt Bondage, Cesspool, Consolidate, Overflowing Riches
Runner up: Stocks by Aquila, Debt Bondage by segura
Winner: Way of the Cow by grrgrrgrr

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on March 17, 2020, 06:28:22 am

Quote from: grep on March 17, 2020, 02:07:32 am

Exhibition by majiponi
Is it quadratic? For example, if there are four cards with different names, will it give $12? Probably the author meant pairs of cards with the same name, e.g. Exhibition + 4 Coppers will sum up as $8

No. You earn $0 if you reveal 4 Coppers. $2 if you reveal 4 Coppers and 2 Estates. $4 if you reveal Copper, Necropolis, Overgrown Estate, and Hovel.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on March 17, 2020, 06:29:51 am

Ow wow, didn't expect tbh. Anyway, next contest is:

Contest #66 Design a split pile that uses an official card

That's right, this week's challenge is to design a card that shares its pile with a specified official card.

Example of a nomination:
Card: Ocean Treasure
Comes with: Pearl Diver
Order: First Pearl Diver, then Ocean Treasure

Then I interpret this as a split pile, having 5 copies of Pearl Diver above, and 5 copies of Ocean Treasure below. A kingdom cannot have this split pile, and a pile of 10 Pearl Divers.

Of course, you can also specify this by showcasing the randomizer of the pile.

Removed cards are allowed as well, and so are cards from the upcoming expansion.

EDIT: You can also use cards that already appear in a split pile (like Patrician), and you don't have to use the other cards of the pile.
EDIT2: Non-supply cards are NOT permitted. This includes Zombies.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on March 17, 2020, 06:39:20 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on March 17, 2020, 06:29:51 am

Contest #66 Design a split pile that uses an official card

Can you use a card that is already part of a split pile?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on March 17, 2020, 07:18:54 am

Quote from: faust on March 17, 2020, 06:39:20 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on March 17, 2020, 06:29:51 am

Contest #66 Design a split pile that uses an official card

Can you use a card that is already part of a split pile?

Yes. I edited the OP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on March 17, 2020, 07:57:18 am

Bookkeeper
Action - $3
+2 Actions
+1 Buy
You may discard any number of cards for +$1 each

Setup: Place 5 copies of Bookkeeper on top of 5 copies of Counting House

Concept: Bookkeeper ensures a few of the things that make Counting House work are in the kingdom with it, and it provides a nice synergy, but both it and Counting House combo better with other cards

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 17, 2020, 09:38:41 am

Edit: this was disqualified. New entry downthread.

Card: Zombie Architect (below)
Comes with: Zombie Mason
Order: first Zombie Mason, then Zombie Architect


(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e42ebce1181de1d515adb5b/5e70ce02e6fb537abdecb564/4d4525c57417c3fbfb3a4e3effae2674/image.png)

Quote

Zombie Architect • $4 • Action - Zombie
+1 Action
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. You may trash or discard any of them. Put the rest back in any order.
-
While this is in play, Copper costs $2 more.
(This happens after any cost reduction)

Its a setup card for Zombie Mason, basically;
Theres actually no great reason for it to be a zombie other than to keep the pile consistent, or if you wanna toss one of these in with your Necromancer prep cards.

The cost increase specifies "more" so if you get four of these in play, copper costs $8 and can be remodeled accordingly; also I specified how/when the cost increase would work.

---

Revisions:
removed +1 Card

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on March 17, 2020, 09:53:33 am

Quote from: spineflu on March 17, 2020, 09:38:41 am

Split pile with Zombie Mason (which goes on top of this)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e42ebce1181de1d515adb5b/5e70ce02e6fb537abdecb564/e2928d152a8a7934208d7b508a8f444c/image.png)

Quote

Zombie Architect • $4 • Action - Zombie
+1 Card
+1 Action
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. You may trash or discard any of them. Put the rest back in any order.
-
While this is in play, Copper costs $2 more.
(This happens after any cost reduction)

Its a setup card for Zombie Mason, basically; Theres actually no great reason for it to be a zombie other than to keep the pile consistent, or if you wanna toss one of these in with your Necromancer prep cards. The cost increase specifies "more" so if you get four of these in play, copper costs $8 and can be remodeled accordingly; also I specified how the cost increase would work.

I like the idea here, but this is strictly better than Sentry, which has the same ability but with only two cards, unless you're buying copper for some reason.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 17, 2020, 09:59:03 am

Quote from: D782802859 on March 17, 2020, 09:53:33 am

Quote from: spineflu on March 17, 2020, 09:38:41 am

Split pile with Zombie Mason (which goes on top of this)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e42ebce1181de1d515adb5b/5e70ce02e6fb537abdecb564/e2928d152a8a7934208d7b508a8f444c/image.png)

Quote

Zombie Architect • $4 • Action - Zombie
+1 Card
+1 Action
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. You may trash or discard any of them. Put the rest back in any order.
-
While this is in play, Copper costs $2 more.
(This happens after any cost reduction)

Its a setup card for Zombie Mason, basically; Theres actually no great reason for it to be a zombie other than to keep the pile consistent, or if you wanna toss one of these in with your Necromancer prep cards. The cost increase specifies "more" so if you get four of these in play, copper costs $8 and can be remodeled accordingly; also I specified how the cost increase would work.

I like the idea here, but this is strictly better than Sentry, which has the same ability but with only two cards, unless you're buying copper for some reason.

you gotta clear out five Zombie Masons first, a card that on its own is not very good.
Altho I suppose I could drop the +card. That'd probably even bump the font size up.

edit: I did that

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on March 17, 2020, 10:53:16 am

Diary (/Secret Chamber)
cost $0 - Treasure - Reaction
$1
---
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may reveal this. If you do, each other player gains a Curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on March 17, 2020, 10:59:52 am

Quote from: spineflu on March 17, 2020, 09:38:41 am

Card: Zombie Architect (below)
Comes with: Zombie Mason
Order: first Zombie Mason, then Zombie Architect


(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e42ebce1181de1d515adb5b/5e70ce02e6fb537abdecb564/4d4525c57417c3fbfb3a4e3effae2674/image.png)

Quote

Zombie Architect • $4 • Action - Zombie
+1 Action
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. You may trash or discard any of them. Put the rest back in any order.
-
While this is in play, Copper costs $2 more.
(This happens after any cost reduction)

Its a setup card for Zombie Mason, basically;
Theres actually no great reason for it to be a zombie other than to keep the pile consistent, or if you wanna toss one of these in with your Necromancer prep cards.

The cost increase specifies "more" so if you get four of these in play, copper costs $8 and can be remodeled accordingly; also I specified how/when the cost increase would work.

---

Revisions:
removed +1 Card

I think I'm not going to allow this, and limit the options to Supply cards only; i.e. it has to appear in a Kingdom pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on March 17, 2020, 11:20:55 am

Here is my split pile:

(https://i.postimg.cc/c1dJmppx/Rascals-Night-Watchman-V1-EN.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/PhMJxqDP/Rascals-V1-EN.png)

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/7/75/Night_Watchman.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 17, 2020, 11:33:11 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on March 17, 2020, 10:59:52 am

Quote from: spineflu on March 17, 2020, 09:38:41 am

Card: Zombie Architect (below)
Comes with: Zombie Mason
Order: first Zombie Mason, then Zombie Architect


(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e42ebce1181de1d515adb5b/5e70ce02e6fb537abdecb564/4d4525c57417c3fbfb3a4e3effae2674/image.png)

Quote

Zombie Architect • $4 • Action - Zombie
+1 Action
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. You may trash or discard any of them. Put the rest back in any order.
-
While this is in play, Copper costs $2 more.
(This happens after any cost reduction)

Its a setup card for Zombie Mason, basically;
Theres actually no great reason for it to be a zombie other than to keep the pile consistent, or if you wanna toss one of these in with your Necromancer prep cards.

The cost increase specifies "more" so if you get four of these in play, copper costs $8 and can be remodeled accordingly; also I specified how/when the cost increase would work.

---

Revisions:
removed +1 Card

I think I'm not going to allow this, and limit the options to Supply cards only; i.e. it has to appear in a Kingdom pile.

oh? I was looking forward to someone pulling the same stunt with Diadem, but yeah that's fair, I'll change it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on March 17, 2020, 11:48:39 am

(https://i.imgur.com/BhqVw5T.png)

These start under Mine. Use as many copies as you would any other victory card - 8 in two player.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on March 17, 2020, 11:50:21 am

(https://i.imgur.com/Tn1uOZc.png)

Split pile with Coppersmith, 5 cards of each, Accountant goes on top. I don't think it's too strong for $3, compared to market square and its reaction.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 17, 2020, 12:04:28 pm

EDIT: I'm withdrawing this - see downthread

Card: Mantle (below)
Comes with: Dismantle (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Dismantle)
Order: Mantle (5 copies) then Dismantle (5 copies)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e42ebce1181de1d515adb5b/5e70f01f25aab569cac5c7a1/6c5a7fe56cc0c8e77e1b5d6b5227c447/image.png)

Quote

Mantle • $4 • Treasure
$2
When you trash this, you may trash a card from your hand for +$2; if you do, return this to the Supply.

Dismantle is fine, I guess, but the fun part about it (gaining gold!) doesn't happen when you use it on Copper. Now it can (when you dismantle this and then use the bonus trash on this on the copper)!

(thematically i'm picturing like a magic cape but I don't have a good painting floating around for that)

---

Quote from: pubby on March 17, 2020, 11:48:39 am

(https://i.imgur.com/BhqVw5T.png)

These start under Mine. Use as many copies as you would any other victory card - 8 in two player.

do we still use all 10 copies of Mine?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on March 17, 2020, 12:12:01 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/dd/Navigator.jpg/200px-Navigator.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/ar0ERKE.png?1)
This is in a split pile with Navigator, with five copies of Navigator above five copies of this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on March 17, 2020, 12:43:14 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 17, 2020, 12:04:28 pm

do we still use all 10 copies of Mine?

Nah just 5

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 17, 2020, 04:50:26 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on March 10, 2020, 10:01:11 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/b97GfRg.png) (https://i.imgur.com/LVl97d9.png)

Questions:
• is drawing two fewer cards per turn enough of a penalty? (i.e $2 is likely better than double $1)

Do we get any bonus points for designing a card that was effectively designed as an Official Card :):

(http://imgur.com/oTYZPXR.png)

I had actually considered curse gaining as the penalty, but thought it might be too close to Cursed Gold (what do I know?). I do have a new v0.2. with a stronger penalty, though I think I'll have to change the benefit too, to differentiate it from Desperation.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on March 17, 2020, 07:19:16 pm

Scribe/King's Court

Quote

Scribe - Action, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
+ $1
When you next gain a card this turn, gain a cheaper non-Victory card. If you do, return this to the Supply.

5 of this on top of 5 KCs, the standard setup. I thought cutting down the number of KCs would help cool down their dominance, but it might make them irrelevant. Their timing won't be that different. Scribe tries to interact well with them, getting you 3 cheaper cards at once for a big building spike: buying Province could get you a KC first, then the scribe would return to the Supply, so you'd next need to gain the Scribe back in order to uncover another KC. Hope that's right.
Gaining a cheaper card is mandatory, so to keep hold of Scribes you need to avoid gaining or buying anything with one in play.
I'd imagine an illustration for it would be the blue guy with a scroll on the KC illustration. He's why I chose the name Scribe anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 17, 2020, 07:23:27 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on March 17, 2020, 07:57:18 am

Bookkeeper
Action - $3
+2 Actions
+1 Buy
You may discard any number of cards for +$1 each

Setup: Place 5 copies of Bookkeeper on top of 5 copies of Counting House

Concept: Bookkeeper ensures a few of the things that make Counting House work are in the kingdom with it, and it provides a nice synergy, but both it and Counting House combo better with other cards

I, as the only person I know of to date who has Counting House as their favourite card, I wholeheartedly support this card. As for my entry, let's try to improve one of the worst cards in all of Dominion.

Path/Scout

Path
$3
Action-Victory
+1 Action
+$1
Gain a Path. If you do, +$1.
-------
0VP

Scout
You know what Scout does.

5 copies of Path on top of 5 copies of Scout. Guarantees an Action-Victory for Scout to work with, and synergizes with Scout. Path gains copies of itself and runs out its pile so that Scout can be uncovered most games. Hopefully this improves Scout enough for you to actually want one.

Edit: Made Path give +$1 instead of +1 Card, making it more useful as payload for Scout to draw. Hopefully that improves it in a similar way that choosing +1 Action +$1 is often better than choosing +1 Card +1 Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on March 17, 2020, 07:26:06 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on March 17, 2020, 07:23:27 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on March 17, 2020, 07:57:18 am

Bookkeeper
Action - $3
+2 Actions
+1 Buy
You may discard any number of cards for +$1 each

Setup: Place 5 copies of Bookkeeper on top of 5 copies of Counting House

Concept: Bookkeeper ensures a few of the things that make Counting House work are in the kingdom with it, and it provides a nice synergy, but both it and Counting House combo better with other cards

I, as the only person I know of to date who has Counting House as their favourite card, I wholeheartedly support this card. As for my entry, let's try to improve one of the worst cards in all of Dominion.

Path/Scout

Path
$3
Action-Victory
+1 Card
+1 Action
Gain a Path. If you do, +$1.
-------
0VP

Scout
You know what Scout does.

5 copies of Path on top of 5 copies of Scout. Guarantees an Action-Victory for Scout to work with, and synergizes with Scout. Path gains copies of itself and runs out its pile so that Scout can be uncovered most games. Hopefully this improves Scout enough for you to actually want one.

Is it an intentional part of the design that Path does nothing once the Paths run out? It still make Scout pretty weak.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 17, 2020, 07:30:31 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on March 17, 2020, 07:26:06 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on March 17, 2020, 07:23:27 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on March 17, 2020, 07:57:18 am

Bookkeeper
Action - $3
+2 Actions
+1 Buy
You may discard any number of cards for +$1 each

Setup: Place 5 copies of Bookkeeper on top of 5 copies of Counting House

Concept: Bookkeeper ensures a few of the things that make Counting House work are in the kingdom with it, and it provides a nice synergy, but both it and Counting House combo better with other cards

I, as the only person I know of to date who has Counting House as their favourite card, I wholeheartedly support this card. As for my entry, let's try to improve one of the worst cards in all of Dominion.

Path/Scout

Path
$3
Action-Victory
+1 Card
+1 Action
Gain a Path. If you do, +$1.
-------
0VP

Scout
You know what Scout does.

5 copies of Path on top of 5 copies of Scout. Guarantees an Action-Victory for Scout to work with, and synergizes with Scout. Path gains copies of itself and runs out its pile so that Scout can be uncovered most games. Hopefully this improves Scout enough for you to actually want one.

Is it an intentional part of the design that Path does nothing once the Paths run out? It still make Scout pretty weak.

It was to make sure it wasn't strictly better than Poacher. Would +2 Cards be better instead of +1 Card +1 Action?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on March 18, 2020, 04:59:00 am

Too fiddly to be a good submission but I had a fun time thinking about it:

2$ Surveyor
Action - Attack
+2 Actions
+1$
Each player reveals the top card of their deck.  Discard all Treasures revealed this way and gain a copy of the highest costing one.  If you revealed an Attack or Victory card, put it into your hand.
___________________________________________________________________
While this is in play, if you would gain a Treasure you may gain a cheaper card instead.

5 copies of surveyor on top of five copies of Explorer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 18, 2020, 05:24:27 am

Have a guess as to what the other top half of my split is?

(https://i.imgur.com/WGeRvYF.png)


Click this link to know the answer...
https://tinyurl.com/uthqnp8 (https://tinyurl.com/uthqnp8)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 18, 2020, 06:28:21 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on March 18, 2020, 05:24:27 am

Before I reveal (by editing this post) anyone want to hazard a guess as to what the other half of my split is?

(https://i.imgur.com/WGeRvYF.png)

Uhhhhh...... Treasure Map? Adventurer?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 18, 2020, 06:48:17 am

@ [TP] Inferno  I amended my post to enable you to click when ready.

I am not sure I have entirely worded it right either. I want it to happen that if Golden Egg is the top card of its supply pile then each other player gains a gold to the top of their deck at the start of your turn. So the under the line effect triggers at the start of each players turn from the supply. Is that even possible?

The hope is that its like a wonderful present for everyone... unless someone buys them up (which would be the equivalent of killing the goose that laid the golden egg).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 18, 2020, 02:29:42 pm

I go for the obvious one:

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/5/56/Pearl_Diver.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/S82dC6B.png)

5 Pearl Divers on top, 5 Pearls below. Or print 6 Pearls such that you can use 4/4 in 2P and 6/6 in 3P.

First I bottom-decked this on discard such that Pearl Diver could dig for it several times per shuffle, but that felt too good.

Also, I first had this without the extra Buy. But I think it needs it to become more interesting and without it, it might just be a weaker Gold for $5 which is unattractive if there are other Coin sources.

Not sure whether it needs the discard nerf, the fact that this appears late and misses shuffles without Pearl Diver support might be enough.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 18, 2020, 03:27:36 pm

Quote from: segura on March 18, 2020, 02:29:42 pm

I go for the obvious one:

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/5/56/Pearl_Diver.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/CwChkPv.png)

5 Pearl Divers on top, 5 Pearls below. Or print 6 Pearls such that you can use 4/4 in 2P and 6/6 in 3P.

First I bottom-decked this on discard such that Pearl Diver could dig for it several times per shuffle, but that felt too good.

Also, I first had this without the extra Buy. But I think it needs it to become more interesting and without it, it might just be a weaker Gold for $5 which is unattractive if there are other Coin sources.

Not sure whether it needs the discard nerf, the fact that this appears late and misses shuffles without Pearl Diver support might be enough.

I'm confused, why would you use 4/4 or 6/6, instead of the normal 5/5?

Anyway, does Pearl have a different back, like Stash, to support the shuffle rule?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 18, 2020, 03:54:17 pm

Because it scales and splits better, average number of cards per player becomes an integer which does not vary with player count.

I don‘t think that you need differently colored backs. Unless you play with cheating jerks, which you really shouldnˋt.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 18, 2020, 03:58:20 pm

Quote from: segura on March 18, 2020, 03:54:17 pm

Because it scales and splits better, average number of cards per player becomes an integer which does not vary with player count.

I don‘t think that you need differently colored backs. Unless you play with cheating jerks, which you really shouldnˋt.

Cheating isn't the issue... the issue is how do you actually take the action of putting them on the bottom while shuffling? You aren't allowed to look at the front of your cards while shuffling in general. And even if you add a clause saying "while shuffling, look through your deck and put this on the bottom", you still have the issue of what it would take to carry out those instructions... look through your deck finding all Pearls, setting them aside. Then shuffle the rest of the cards normally, then put the Pearls on the bottom. The different backs in Stash are necessary to make it possible to use the ability; it seems like the same would be needed here.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on March 18, 2020, 04:38:47 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 18, 2020, 03:58:20 pm

Quote from: segura on March 18, 2020, 03:54:17 pm

Because it scales and splits better, average number of cards per player becomes an integer which does not vary with player count.

I don‘t think that you need differently colored backs. Unless you play with cheating jerks, which you really shouldnˋt.

Cheating isn't the issue... the issue is how do you actually take the action of putting them on the bottom while shuffling? You aren't allowed to look at the front of your cards while shuffling in general. And even if you add a clause saying "while shuffling, look through your deck and put this on the bottom", you still have the issue of what it would take to carry out those instructions... look through your deck finding all Pearls, setting them aside. Then shuffle the rest of the cards normally, then put the Pearls on the bottom. The different backs in Stash are necessary to make it possible to use the ability; it seems like the same would be needed here.

You could argue that the current wording implies that you ignore the "don't look through your deck when you shuffle" rule (and it is a general standard with card games that stuff on cards dominates stuff in the rulebook). I mean, you gotta do it, otherwise you could not do what the card tells you to do.
But of course you are technically right, with differently coloured backs this is a cleaner design rule-wise. And differently coloured backs are cool anyway.

By the way, I wonder how many people enforce the "don't look through your discard pile when you shuffle" rule. I never do it, I want my games to be relaxed and not micromanage my playing group such that a rule, whose only purpose is to reward memorization and deck-tracking, is strictly implemented.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 18, 2020, 04:43:04 pm

Quote from: segura on March 18, 2020, 04:35:01 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 18, 2020, 03:58:20 pm

Quote from: segura on March 18, 2020, 03:54:17 pm

Because it scales and splits better, average number of cards per player becomes an integer which does not vary with player count.

I don‘t think that you need differently colored backs. Unless you play with cheating jerks, which you really shouldnˋt.

Cheating isn't the issue... the issue is how do you actually take the action of putting them on the bottom while shuffling? You aren't allowed to look at the front of your cards while shuffling in general. And even if you add a clause saying "while shuffling, look through your deck and put this on the bottom", you still have the issue of what it would take to carry out those instructions... look through your deck finding all Pearls, setting them aside. Then shuffle the rest of the cards normally, then put the Pearls on the bottom. The different backs in Stash are necessary to make it possible to use the ability; it seems like the same would be needed here.

You argue that the current wording implies that you ignore the "don't look through your deck when you shuffle" rule (and it is a general standard with card games that stuff on cards dominates stuff in the rulebook). I mean, you gotta do it, otherwise you could not do what the card tells you to do.
But of course you are technically right, with differently coloured backs this is a cleaner design rule-wise. And differently coloured backs are cool anyway.

True that card instructions can and almost always do break rules written in rulebooks. But only to the extend that you follow just the instruction you are given; they don't generally allow you to do whatever it takes to do what the card says. The "do as much as possible" rule still comes into play. For example, if a card says to draw 3 cards, and you have less than 3 cards in your deck/discard, you aren't allowed to do anything that it takes to make it so that you can still draw 3 cards; you can't just take cards from the supply and add them to your deck so that you have 3 cards to draw.

The recent ruling on revealing Tunnel after it has been shuffled into your deck actually is the same thing. Tunnel says you're allowed to reveal it, but that doesn't implicitly give you permission to look through your deck to find it. If you can't find it without breaking the "no looking through your deck" rule, then you can't follow its "reveal this" instructions, so you just don't. Pearl would be the same way, the instruction to put it on the bottom doesn't give you permission to do whatever is required to follow that instruction.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on March 18, 2020, 04:51:16 pm

Quote from: segura on March 18, 2020, 02:29:42 pm

I go for the obvious one:

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/5/56/Pearl_Diver.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/CwChkPv.png)

5 Pearl Divers on top, 5 Pearls below. Or print 6 Pearls such that you can use 4/4 in 2P and 6/6 in 3P.

First I bottom-decked this on discard such that Pearl Diver could dig for it several times per shuffle, but that felt too good.

Also, I first had this without the extra Buy. But I think it needs it to become more interesting and without it, it might just be a weaker Gold for $5 which is unattractive if there are other Coin sources.

Not sure whether it needs the discard nerf, the fact that this appears late and misses shuffles without Pearl Diver support might be enough.

Minor quibble: Pearl should have _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} in the corners, rather than the ? symbol, as it produces _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} every time you play it, whether or not it's trashed. See Contraband (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Contraband).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on March 18, 2020, 05:22:53 pm

My submission is the upper half of Black Market to make it less accessible.

(https://i.ibb.co/tcSZwys/Snitch.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/fa/Black_Market.jpg/374px-Black_Market.jpg)

Snitch
$2 - Action
+1 Action
Look at the top card of the Black Market deck. You may trash this to gain that card on top of your deck; if you don't, put that card on the bottom of the Black Market deck.

Setup: 5 Snitches on top of 5 Black Markets; the Black Market deck is set up as usual.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 18, 2020, 05:56:43 pm

Quote from: segura on March 18, 2020, 05:21:37 pm

Stash doesn't specify explicitly that you may look through your discard before shuffling either as it crystal clear anyway, so I roll with that. And the funky coloured backs.

You seem to be under the impression that with Stash, you're allowed to look through your discard before shuffling? You definitely aren't. With Stash you aren't allowed to find all your Stashes by looking at the fronts of cards. That's the reason it has a different back; so that you can find your Stashes by only looking at the backs of cards. If Stash allowed you to look at the front of cards when shuffling; it wouldn't have a different back.

*Edit* It's in the Official FAQ for Stash: "You can't look at the fronts of the cards you're shuffling; Stash has a different card back so you know where it is."

Quote

Nah, I disagree. Rulebook says you cannot look through your discard, card implies that you gotta do it ... so you do it. I mean, that's how literally everybody I play Dominion with would do it without any second thought ... as it is not something funky like your example, drawing cards from some weird place once your deck is empty.

With the errata, rulebook says you CAN look through your discard IF an effect tells you you to get a card from discard. This is why Tunnel from discard works. Tunnel from deck does not work because there's no equivalent rule saying that if you need a card from your deck to resolve an effect then you're allowed to look through your deck. If Pearl dealt with pulling itself out of the discard, then you could look through your discard like you can with Tunnel. But once you have begun shuffling; you aren't dealing with a discard pile anymore.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 18, 2020, 07:29:42 pm

Quote from: segura on March 18, 2020, 07:23:34 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 18, 2020, 05:56:43 pm

With the errata, rulebook says you CAN look through your discard IF an effect tells you you to get a card from discard.

Pearl says, put me at the bottom of your deck. Card text trumps rulebook. Funny thing being that the Errata that you mentioned imply that it is totally fine to go through your discard if you are told to do so and Pearl does this. Not explicitly but there is only so much text you wanna put on a card.
So yeah, "Before you shuffle, look through your discard pile, put all the Pearls on the bottom of your deck, shuffle the remaining cards and put them on top of your deck." might be totally rule-tight but no sane person would put this wall of text on a card which already has a lot of text on it.
Basically, what LostPhoenix said over there (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20166.msg826591#msg826591). It is a game, not fine print.

Pearl's wording is exactly the same as Stash's wording though, and we know from this that such wording doesn’t allow you to see the contents of your deck. Why reason would there be to think that Pearl and Stash would work differently, when they both have the same wording?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 18, 2020, 07:47:20 pm

Quote from: segura on March 18, 2020, 07:38:31 pm

I do not see identical wording. Also, Stash is pretty unclear without FAQs. Look through your deck. Man, that could mean a whole lot of thing. Clarifying ambiguities that arise naturally because you only want to put that much text on a card is that is what rulebooks are for. The notion that you can totally prevent them is a pipedream. Well, perhaps you can with flow charts and logic operators or whatever but not if you use plain English on a little card.

What is unclear about “You can't look at the fronts of the cards you're shuffling”? It says “look through your remaining deck”, which was added after the shuffle rule change because before that, the remaining deck would already be in your hand when you shuffled. This isn’t just a theoretical fan card question, this is a normal interaction with how Stash works. And the rules are completely clear: “You can't look at the fronts of the cards you're shuffling.” If you look at the front of the cards when shuffling, you are absolutely cheating.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on March 19, 2020, 12:47:36 am

Pearl doesn't ask you to do the impossible though, it just asks you to do something you don't naturally have the necessary information for.  Therefore you ask a judge to come to the table, look through your discard pile for all the Pearls, and put them on the bottom for you, without you seeing all the cards in your discard.  "Trash the top Curse from your deck" would work the same way.

In a casual setting with people who don't want to play Memorize Subsequences Of Pi Simulator the card plays fine when no one I interact with in real life actually wants to outplay me based on deck tracking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on March 19, 2020, 03:25:53 am

Image later maybe

Quote

Observatory - $5 - Action

+1 Action, +$1. You may play a Treasure from your hand. If you don't, draw until you have 5 cards in hand.

Pile starts with 5 copies of Oasis on top and 5 copies of Observatory on the bottom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 19, 2020, 07:28:38 am

Quote from: popsofctown on March 19, 2020, 12:47:36 am

Pearl doesn't ask you to do the impossible though, it just asks you to do something you don't naturally have the necessary information for.  Therefore you ask a judge to come to the table, look through your discard pile for all the Pearls, and put them on the bottom for you, without you seeing all the cards in your discard.  "Trash the top Curse from your deck" would work the same way.

In a casual setting with people who don't want to play Memorize Subsequences Of Pi Simulator the card plays fine when no one I interact with in real life actually wants to outplay me based on deck tracking.

This isn't correct based on the ruling for Tunnel that's been shuffled into your deck. Donald said you can't reveal it because you physically can't find it; he didn't say you should call a judge to have the judge find and reveal it for you.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on March 19, 2020, 08:36:30 am

I have thoughts on that but I'm gonna make my previous words on the topic my last

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 19, 2020, 09:08:22 am

Do people prefer this wording or the one below? (https://i.imgur.com/9qKj2JP.png)

Quote from: somekindoftony on March 18, 2020, 05:24:27 am

Have a guess as to what the other top half of my split is?

(https://i.imgur.com/WGeRvYF.png)


Click this link to know the answer...
https://tinyurl.com/uthqnp8 (https://tinyurl.com/uthqnp8)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BlueHairedMeerkat on March 19, 2020, 09:23:59 am

Split pile is 5 copies of Chariot Race, then 5 copies of Spectators.

Spectators
Action
$7*

+2 Cards
+1 Action
You may reveal an action from your hand and put it onto your deck for +1VP
---------
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may spend 2VP.

Win at Chariot Races to attract Spectators; having lots of fans helps you win races, and they can stack the deck for you too. Or they're a lab in a pinch, which is not too shabby.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on March 19, 2020, 06:35:59 pm

Goods (Action-Reaction, $5)

+$3
+1 Buy
---
When you discard this other than during Cleanup, you may play it.


This is paired with Warehouse (5 copies of Warehouse atop 5 copies of this).

Obviously this plays well with any discarder, with Warehouse being a great example.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on March 19, 2020, 07:23:24 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on March 19, 2020, 06:35:59 pm

Goods (Action, $5)
[...]
Obviously this plays well with any discarder, with Warehouse being a great example.

It's also strictly better than gold. Cheaper, has +buy, and plays itself on discard.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 19, 2020, 08:54:04 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on March 19, 2020, 07:23:24 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on March 19, 2020, 06:35:59 pm

Goods (Action, $5)
[...]
Obviously this plays well with any discarder, with Warehouse being a great example.

It's also strictly better than gold. Cheaper, has +buy, and plays itself on discard.

I agree. I think you could make it a 7 cost Treasure and drop the buy and it would be balanced. The +buy makes it more interesting though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on March 19, 2020, 08:59:37 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on March 19, 2020, 07:23:24 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on March 19, 2020, 06:35:59 pm

Goods (Action, $5)
[...]
Obviously this plays well with any discarder, with Warehouse being a great example.

It's also strictly better than gold. Cheaper, has +buy, and plays itself on discard.

It's an Action, not a Treasure.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on March 19, 2020, 10:50:09 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 19, 2020, 08:59:37 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on March 19, 2020, 07:23:24 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on March 19, 2020, 06:35:59 pm

Goods (Action, $5)
[...]
Obviously this plays well with any discarder, with Warehouse being a great example.

It's also strictly better than gold. Cheaper, has +buy, and plays itself on discard.

It's an Action, not a Treasure.

Whoops. Still probably worth _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}, though you could probably justify _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} in that case

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 19, 2020, 11:21:40 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on March 19, 2020, 08:59:37 pm

It's an Action, not a Treasure.

I appreciate that and maybe that is enough of a drawback but given it completely ignores that drawback when discarded I don't think so.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BlueHairedMeerkat on March 20, 2020, 07:13:30 am

Quote from: segura on March 19, 2020, 02:52:54 pm

With a decent Action density, this becomes very similar to a cantrip that yields a VP, something that’s DXV nixed while designing Prosperity because it can lead to simple Golden decks that do not lead the game towards an end.

I can see that, but then in Empires we got Plunder, which isn't quite a cantrip but does similarly. In practice, 2.5 copies of this or Plunder aren't enough to make a good Golden deck, and if you have all 5 then your opponent has a very good incentive to end the game ASAP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on March 20, 2020, 07:16:04 am

Quote from: segura on March 20, 2020, 02:09:29 am

It is a Courtier variant. And while it is hard to judge whether this is better or worse than Courier, it is definitely not that much better that it is worth $6.
Furthermore, the below-card in a split pile can always be a bit stronger than a card which is immediately available. See Plunder.

Alright, let's make the plunder comparison:

Plunder (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Plunder) is a treasure that has the same abilities as a terminal action (Monument (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Monument)) and costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} more than that action.

Your card is a terminal action that, if it were a treasure, would cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}. By this comparison, making it cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} makes sense.

Also, I would say it's really not a courtier variant, as courtier has, well, variance. You're not guaranteed to be able to make more than one choice in any given kingdom. And in (albeit very rare, depending on what expansions you're using) others, you might be able to get all four (Dame Josephine (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Dame_Josephine) or Werewolf (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Werewolf)).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on March 20, 2020, 08:25:56 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on March 20, 2020, 07:16:04 am

Quote from: segura on March 20, 2020, 02:09:29 am

It is a Courtier variant. And while it is hard to judge whether this is better or worse than Courier, it is definitely not that much better that it is worth $6.
Furthermore, the below-card in a split pile can always be a bit stronger than a card which is immediately available. See Plunder.

Alright, let's make the plunder comparison:

Plunder (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Plunder) is a treasure that has the same abilities as a terminal action (Monument (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Monument)) and costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} more than that action.

Your card is a terminal action that, if it were a treasure, would cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}. By this comparison, making it cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} makes sense.

Also, I would say it's really not a courtier variant, as courtier has, well, variance. You're not guaranteed to be able to make more than one choice in any given kingdom. And in (albeit very rare, depending on what expansions you're using) others, you might be able to get all four (Dame Josephine (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Dame_Josephine) or Werewolf (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Werewolf)).

By this logic shouldn't like Sacred Grove and Legionary and all the other $5 terminal Golds cost $6? Card power doesn't increase linearly with cost so this sort of comparison doesn't really make sense.
I think Goods is fine, is it a bit stronger than other similar cards? Probably. But Courtier or Gold or whatever similar card we can compare it to are all mediocre cards at best so it really isn't a problem to make something that's a little better (but not strictly better). This is also buried under 5 Warehouses which does make it harder to get.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on March 20, 2020, 09:15:56 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on March 18, 2020, 06:48:17 am

@ [TP] Inferno  I amended my post to enable you to click when ready.

I am not sure I have entirely worded it right either. I want it to happen that if Golden Egg is the top card of its supply pile then each other player gains a gold to the top of their deck at the start of your turn. So the under the line effect triggers at the start of each players turn from the supply. Is that even possible?

The hope is that its like a wonderful present for everyone... unless someone buys them up (which would be the equivalent of killing the goose that laid the golden egg).

wouldn't it be better if it is at the end of the turn, so you have some incentive to "kill the goose"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 20, 2020, 10:30:19 am

Quote from: Freddy10 on March 20, 2020, 09:15:56 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on March 18, 2020, 06:48:17 am

@ [TP] Inferno  I amended my post to enable you to click when ready.

I am not sure I have entirely worded it right either. I want it to happen that if Golden Egg is the top card of its supply pile then each other player gains a gold to the top of their deck at the start of your turn. So the under the line effect triggers at the start of each players turn from the supply. Is that even possible?

The hope is that its like a wonderful present for everyone... unless someone buys them up (which would be the equivalent of killing the goose that laid the golden egg).

wouldn't it be better if it is at the end of the turn, so you have some incentive to "kill the goose"?

Because its a split card with Thief (sorry to those who were still guessing) I want it to happen at the start of the turn. This means it makes Thief a little better (which I feel it needs to be) because it puts gold on top of your opponents decks for you to steal that turn. If successful, in a 2 player game at least, for the player with Thieves, your opponents wont ever actually see that gold.
To be fair though Golden Egg might not make Thief entirely better - if you are using it to deny your opponent treasures - as there are going to be extra golds you don't always catch especially in a multiplayer game. But Thief becomes ineffective in games where there simply isnt any big money to steal, because opponents can get their money from actions instead of treasures for example. That at least is fixed by Golden Egg.
I guess the twist I am hoping for is that the players who buy Thief will want to uncover the Golden Egg but not necessarily buy it. The people without Theives might want to though. But whoever buys the last Egg will also be missing out on their own free gold after having just given one away to their opponents.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on March 20, 2020, 03:25:29 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on March 20, 2020, 07:16:04 am

Quote from: segura on March 20, 2020, 02:09:29 am

It is a Courtier variant. And while it is hard to judge whether this is better or worse than Courier, it is definitely not that much better that it is worth $6.
Furthermore, the below-card in a split pile can always be a bit stronger than a card which is immediately available. See Plunder.

Alright, let's make the plunder comparison:

Plunder (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Plunder) is a treasure that has the same abilities as a terminal action (Monument (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Monument)) and costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} more than that action.

Your card is a terminal action that, if it were a treasure, would cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}. By this comparison, making it cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} makes sense.

Also, I would say it's really not a courtier variant, as courtier has, well, variance. You're not guaranteed to be able to make more than one choice in any given kingdom. And in (albeit very rare, depending on what expansions you're using) others, you might be able to get all four (Dame Josephine (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Dame_Josephine) or Werewolf (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Werewolf)).

This is incorrect for reasons pointed out by other posters but also because it treats the cost scale as linear. Fives are much easier to buy than fours, but sixes aren't much easier to get than fives. It's a fine 5 and balanced as such, especially in regards to Courtier. Small nitpick: this should be a reaction.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on March 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on March 20, 2020, 03:25:29 pm

This is incorrect for reasons pointed out by other posters but also because it treats the cost scale as linear. Fives are much easier to buy than fours, but sixes aren't much easier to get than fives. It's a fine 5 and balanced as such, especially in regards to Courtier. Small nitpick: this should be a reaction.

I think you mean harder.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 20, 2020, 10:39:12 pm

I'm changing up my entry because Mantle was kind of convoluted and also not a great plan to force relying on both split cards collision.
the wordplay was very good tho

new entry is
Confidant
split pile with Advisor
setup is 5 copies of Advisor on top of 5 copies of Confidant

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e42ebce1181de1d515adb5b/5e757b1c6dd76208cfbd47e0/622997439224a17582b8114fdee273ca/image.png)

Quote

Confidant • $4 • Action
+1 Action
Pass a card from your hand to the player on your left.
You may trash a card from your hand; if you do, +2 Cards; Otherwise, +$1.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on March 21, 2020, 09:45:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/q7mioFl.jpg)

Quote

Mineral Deposit

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash this. If you do, +$2.
-
When this is your first buy in a turn, +$2 and +1 Buy.

Action
$4

This is in a split pile with Grand Market, with five copies of Mineral Deposit on top and five copies of Grand Market underneath.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on March 23, 2020, 12:20:11 pm

24 hours left!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Supernova888 on March 23, 2020, 02:50:29 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/HfC0fWd.png)

Split pile with Harvest. Harvest has 5 copies on the top; 5 copies of this on the bottom.

Quote

Yield • $5 • Treasure-Reaction
$2
+1 Buy
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may reveal it to put it into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on March 23, 2020, 04:02:32 pm

Quote from: Supernova888 on March 23, 2020, 02:50:29 pm

Yield • $5 • Treasure-Reaction
$2
+1 Buy
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may reveal it to put it into your hand.

Can be used with Diplomat's reaction to cycle through your entire deck and pick out exactly the cards you want (even worse if Tunnel's in the game as you can autopile Golds). Probably safer to do it like either Faithful Hound or Village Green.

Title: Re: Contest #66: Split Pile w/ Official Card
Post by: Gubump on March 23, 2020, 07:14:50 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/vfE9Plu.png)

Split pile with Coppersmith (Copper Mine goes on top, ofc).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on March 23, 2020, 07:17:09 pm

Quote from: Supernova888 on March 23, 2020, 02:50:29 pm

Yield • $5 • Treasure-Reaction
$2
+1 Buy
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may reveal it to put it into your hand.

In addition to what Something_Smart said, I think it would be better to have this on top of Harvest instead of the other way around. I don't think this would ever see the light of day due to Harvest being on top, but if this were on top, people might actually buy Harvests.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on March 23, 2020, 07:36:22 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on March 23, 2020, 04:02:32 pm

Quote from: Supernova888 on March 23, 2020, 02:50:29 pm

Yield • $5 • Treasure-Reaction
$2
+1 Buy
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may reveal it to put it into your hand.

Can be used with Diplomat's reaction to cycle through your entire deck and pick out exactly the cards you want (even worse if Tunnel's in the game as you can autopile Golds). Probably safer to do it like either Faithful Hound or Village Green.

Except you'd never see the card. When's the last game you played where 5 Harvests were bought?
(PPE'd due to thinking about my card...)

My submission:

Quote

Wisdom Scroll
$5 Action
+1 Action
+$4
+1 Buy
Reveal your hand. -$1 per card revealed that costs less than $3 (You can't go below $0.).

A Poor House variant.
5 Copies of Sage on top of 5 Wisdom Scrolls.

(EDIT: Changed to an action to make coppers hurt the $ amount. This was the version I posted first: )

Quote

Wisdom Scroll
$5 Treasure
+$4
+1 Buy
Reveal your hand. -$1 per card revealed that costs less than $3 (You can't go below $0.).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on March 23, 2020, 09:10:01 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on March 23, 2020, 07:36:22 pm

Quote

Wisdom Scroll
$5 Treasure
+$4
+1 Buy
Reveal your hand. -$1 per card revealed that costs less than $3 (You can't go below $0.).

A Poor House variant.
5 Copies of Sage on top of 5 Wisdom Scrolls.

This seems really strong to me - the only thing that it would trigger on in an ordinary game is estates (because you can play out your coppers), if you trash those then this becomes way better than a gold for $1 less. Even without trashing this is almost certainly a gold unless you're able to draw a lot.

Probably a lot less attractive in a game with cursers, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on March 23, 2020, 10:22:52 pm

Quote from: alion8me on March 23, 2020, 09:10:01 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on March 23, 2020, 07:36:22 pm

Quote

Wisdom Scroll
$5 Treasure
+$4
+1 Buy
Reveal your hand. -$1 per card revealed that costs less than $3 (You can't go below $0.).

A Poor House variant.
5 Copies of Sage on top of 5 Wisdom Scrolls.

This seems really strong to me - the only thing that it would trigger on in an ordinary game is estates (because you can play out your coppers), if you trash those then this becomes way better than a gold for $1 less. Even without trashing this is almost certainly a gold unless you're able to draw a lot.

Probably a lot less attractive in a game with cursers, though.

Oh, I meant for coppers to hurt it too. I guess I'll make it an action with +1 Action on it.
(Originally, it was a terminal action. Then I looked at it and thought "that's just poor house with +buy", so I made it a treasure, forgetting that that would allow coppers to not affect it.)
EDIT: Fixed in my OP

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 23, 2020, 11:09:18 pm

So, with each any every expansion, we get more and more villages. Making regular village look pretty boring. So, let's get rid of a few, and make you want to buy it to get to the cards underneath!

Split Pile: Village / Urban Planner:

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5a/Village.jpg/373px-Village.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/q7nx9zR.png)

Feel free to suggest (among other improvements) better wording. The challenge was having it be optional, while still keeping "+1 Card" for Way of Chameleon interactions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on March 23, 2020, 11:16:24 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on March 23, 2020, 11:09:18 pm

So, with each any every expansion, we get more and more villages. Making regular village look pretty boring. So, let's get rid of a few, and make you want to buy it to get to the cards underneath!

Split Pile: Village / Urban Planner:

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5a/Village.jpg/373px-Village.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/q7nx9zR.png)

Feel free to suggest (among other improvements) better wording. The challenge was having it be optional, while still keeping "+1 Card" for Way of Chameleon interactions.

I always use the "you may spend an Action" wording.

+3 Cards
You may spend any number of Actions. +1 Card per Action spent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on March 24, 2020, 02:37:19 am

Quote from: segura on March 24, 2020, 02:27:03 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on March 23, 2020, 10:22:52 pm

Quote from: alion8me on March 23, 2020, 09:10:01 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on March 23, 2020, 07:36:22 pm

Quote

Wisdom Scroll
$5 Treasure
+$4
+1 Buy
Reveal your hand. -$1 per card revealed that costs less than $3 (You can't go below $0.).

A Poor House variant.
5 Copies of Sage on top of 5 Wisdom Scrolls.

This seems really strong to me - the only thing that it would trigger on in an ordinary game is estates (because you can play out your coppers), if you trash those then this becomes way better than a gold for $1 less. Even without trashing this is almost certainly a gold unless you're able to draw a lot.

Probably a lot less attractive in a game with cursers, though.

Oh, I meant for coppers to hurt it too. I guess I'll make it an action with +1 Action on it.
(Originally, it was a terminal action. Then I looked at it and thought "that's just poor house with +buy", so I made it a treasure, forgetting that that would allow coppers to not affect it.)
EDIT: Fixed in my OP

Seems broken in any engine. Even if you have 2 Coppers in hand it is OKish as a nonterminal Woodcutter and beyond that it is simply too good.

I rather think it's about on par with Spices.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on March 24, 2020, 12:52:07 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on March 23, 2020, 07:36:22 pm

Quote

Wisdom Scroll
$5 Action
+1 Action
+$4
+1 Buy
Reveal your hand. -$1 per card revealed that costs less than $3 (You can't go below $0.).

Wild idea - make Wisdom Scroll a cost reducer (+1 Action, +$2, cards cost $1 less, -$1 per card costing $0). This will also empower Sage to grab more expensive stuff

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on March 24, 2020, 03:42:00 pm

CHALLENGE #66 RESULTS

Bookkeeper/Counting House by NoMoreFun
This card obviously synergises with Counting House, but shines the most with Draw-to-X. In those situations, having only 5 of these can be immensely frustrating, since it is very easy to get your second or third copy of this, given it costs only $3 and has +Buy. For these reasons, I think this card works better as a separate pile, rather than part of a split pile. Secret Chamber was terrible, but adding +Actions makes it quite powerfull, probably too good for $3.

Diary/Secret Chamber by majipony
Diaries are going to need an external trigger pretty much 100% of the time, since Secret Chamber itself is just far too weak to pull it of. And even then, it's not going to be worth it most of the time I'm afraid. Sea Hag is gone out of favor because it essentially junks the player by being in the deck, and this card has that problem times 1000. I'm not sold, sorry.

Rascals/Night Watchman by X-tra
The attack looks OK-ish, since it makes buying them when hitting lots of $$ less unappealing. The only problem is that this duo functions the best when your deck has lots Rascals/Night Watchmans, but little else. In these scenario, the deck can produce lots of VP per turn, but is completely unable to put an end to the game. Donald X avoids such scenario like a plague.
Another problem is that Racals are absolute garbage without triggers. And that Night Watchman is pretty horrible when locked behind 5 cards. So there is that.
Kudos for making the randomizer, though. I like that a lot.

Mine/Diamond by Pubby
I adore the idea of putting a "lvl 4" treasure below Mine. Mine are always pretty good in Colony games, so having a card like that is a great way of making Mine consistently better.
I'm not keen on Diamond, however. 8 VP is just way too much. It becomes nearly impossible to overcome losing the Diamond split, especially considering Diamonds are not dead cards. I also don't like that that it cannot be bought: Mine is already pretty convenient at getting lvl 4 Treasures anyway. If you wanna improve this card, my suggestion is to tweak it into a Treasure that is balanced at $9.

Accountant/Coppersmith by mail-mi
Accountant is alright for trashing and +Buy, although it is a little bland. However, if you wanna make it share a pile with Coppersmith, you really have make it enhance Coppersmith. Coppersmith really needs a card that helps it connect Coppers with itself. Otherwise, it just fails to be viable, Accountant or not.
You could consider it making it draw another card if you have a Copper in hand and price it at $4. Not sure if that is balanced though.

Navigator/Explorer Ship by D782802859
Explorer Ship is going to be somewhat bad on its own, but with Navigator, it can be quite fearsome. It can be somewhat clunky though, because playing Explorer when not drawn by Navigator is quite taxing on the terminal space. Especially if drawn at the start of a shuffle. That said, it can be phenominal at reactivating a stalling deck. Needs playtesting to see how things balance out, but I like the nom a lot. FINALIST

Scribe/King's Court by Aquila
I don't mind cutting the King's Court count to 5, but Scribe looks rather broken. This is cheaper than Poach, which is actively a nuissance at some point. This on the other hand can always act as a Peddler unless you really whiff, since you can always regain this with your $4 costing component. The idea of denying a King's Court when you are already in the lead doesn't amuse me either.

Path/Scout by [TP] Inferno
One of the most important things to remember about Scout is that it's not only absolutely misserable on average, but that its ceiling is absurdly low as well. It never comboed with anything; even the "amazing" Scout/Ironworks/Great Hall trio was actualy very mediocre in practice.
With that said, I am not sold at this making Scout viable. Making matters worse, you butchered its vanilla quite heavily, as it is essentially a Copper when all Paths are gone. Something I would not want in my deck, even less in multiples. Not even with Groom or Ironworks. It tempts me to say that this is actually going to be the weaker part of the pile, but I guess it can escape that fate. Sorry, but this didn't work out. Better luck next time.

Surveyor/Explorer by popsofctown
I really fail to see how this qualifies as a $2 cost; $3 or $4 would be better. It also works poorly with Explorer, since that card gains Treasures to hand, while the exchanged card would not go to hand. Indeed, too fiddly.

Thief/Golden Egg by somekindoftony
Very wacky, but definitely way of improving the Thief. With two players, Thief is still beyond terrible, especially since you don't wanna burn through 5 Thieves in order to activate Golden Egg. In 3+ player games, the flow of Gold becomes a little too automatic, especially when players won't play Thief every turn (not unlikely, as there are only 5 in the game). Definitely fun in casual play.

Pearl Diver/Pearl by Segura
Pearl Diver is indeed a straightforward card to use in this contest, as it's very similar to Patrician or Settlers. Pearl looks like a pretty strong card, as it's always in the right position for engines. And if your deck stalls, you can use those Pearl divers to draw it prematurely. Great use of Pearl Divers ability. It is powerful, but you have to get past those Pearl Divers first in order to get it in the first place, so it seems balanced. FINALIST

Snitch/Black Market by grep
Snitch looks extremely swingy. If it gains you a King's Court or Possession, you have gotten yourself a very powerful card for free.  And if it reveals a crap card, you have devoted your handsize on nothing. Black Market at least produces $2, and with revealing 3 cards, it is more consistent at revealing viable stuff. Plus, getting stuff from Black Market diminishes your buying power or this turn.
I honestly also don't see the appeal in locking Black Market till lategame either.

Oasis/Observatory by Something_Smart
Looks like a decent Peddler variant that interacts nicely with Oasis. It is obviously not very good when you have drawn a lot, but it is otherwise quite nice. I don't see why the drawing and Treasure playing should be mutually exclusive. If you don't want to enable it before drawing, enable it afterwards. That said, solid idea overall. FINALIST

Chariot Race/Spectators by BlueHairedMeerkat
Designing a card that gives VP without gaining or trashing needs to be done with extremely great care. We don't want strategies were you can generate a gigantic amount of VP per turn, without working towards an end. Chariot Race counteracts that by not (or less likely) producing VP when the opponent has expensive cards, such as Province. Spectators doesn't counteract this possibility at all, and it will be way too easy to ensure VP out of each play, without neutering your deck.

Warehouse/Goods by mandioca15
I don't think Goods works very well in a split pile, since you are essentially forcing the player to use Warehouse as a trigger, and not, for instance, Dungeon. Also, having only 5 Warehouses in the supply means that the strategy itself won't be good if you don't win the split. For the card itself, it's alright, but terminal gold is kinda lame. And I feel that Village Green makes a card like this kinda unnecessary.

Advisor/Confidant by spineflu
You revisited your entry quite a few times, and I can say for sure that each entry has been much better than the previous one. Confidant would be horribly overpowered as a top card, but as a bottom card, I can see it working out. It also works nicely with Advisor, because having a Confidant in your deck means the left player has to think twice before choosing the best card. Especially when Advisor reveals a Curse. Very elegant design. FINALIST

Mineral Deposit/Grand Market by alion8me
This is very hard to judge on face value.  Shrinking the Grand Market count to 5 nerfs it a lot, as it's no longer possible to really snowball on it. It also means that when one player gets access to the first Grand Market, the other player has extremely little time to catch up.  I think the most common scenario will be buying the fifth Mineral Deposit when hitting $8, and buying earlier Mineral Depositis when you have $2 left to spend. I'm just not sold that this is a recipe for fun, though that might be more  a problem of Grand Market.

Harvest/Yield by Supernova888
Yield is going to be very awesome with Tactician or Vault, but this awesomeness will be completely offset when it is covered by 5 of those crappy Harvests. The interaction with Harvest is going to be rather poor, especially when Harvest cares about diversity. And honestly, being a $5 costing silver is kinda boring as well. Also, unlocking this just to get a +Buy will be rather awkward, as the player with less Harvests will be likely in an advantage.

Copper Mine/Coppersmith by Gubumb
This can definitely improve Coppersmith, as this is helpful for increasing the Copper density. That said, I don't recall Copper/Beggar being a thing, as the support Coppersmith primarily needs, is the ability to aligh Coppersmith with your Coppersmiths, while also making sure Coppersmith gets played often. Since Coppersmith was an extremely narrow card, this kind of support is to be expected from a card that shares its pile. As a card on its own, it's definitely likeable with Gardens or Counting House, but it is rather unlikely that you'd also pick up a Coppersmith in those situations.

Sage/Wisdom Scroll by LibraryAdventurer
The problem with Wisdom Scroll is that whenever the Coppers and Estates are gone, this card can consistently hit $4. That is very strong, especially since it is also nonterminal (and gives +Buy!). The worst part is that when this scenario occurs, Sage is worthless. And then, the player who bought Sage the most often gets punished for his good “deed” of unlocking Wisdom Scroll. As a result, I'm afraid this card wouldn't be able to survive an audition of testing.

Village/Urban Planner by scolapasta
The problem of putting a Village and a Smithy variant in one pile is that you strip the ability to choose the order in which the parts are obtained. The supply of either is much more limited as well. This turns engine building more into a race of getting as many cards of that pile as possible. Also, when there are only 5 Villages, it is far more unlikely for Urban Planner's ability to have any relevance.
I also prefer if you don't cater the wording to Way of the Chameleon, and instead say something like “you may spend any amount of unused actions, to draw that many”.

So the top 4 is:
4) Oasis/Observatory by Something_Smart
3) Navigator/Explorer Ship by D782802859
2) Pearl Diver/Pearl by Segura
1) Advisor/Confidant by spineflu

Congratulations, spineflu, for winning this weak's challenge!
EDIT: And thanks to all participants for the many good submissions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 24, 2020, 03:51:50 pm

Thanks for the positive comments for my card in a week of really cool ideas.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 24, 2020, 05:24:49 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on March 24, 2020, 03:42:00 pm

CHALLENGE #66 RESULTS
Path/Scout by [TP] Inferno
One of the most important things to remember about Scout is that it's not only absolutely misserable on average, but that its ceiling is absurdly low as well. It never comboed with anything; even the "amazing" Scout/Ironworks/Great Hall trio was actualy very mediocre in practice.
With that said, I am not sold at this making Scout viable. Making matters worse, you butchered its vanilla quite heavily, as it is essentially a Copper when all Paths are gone. Something I would not want in my deck, even less in multiples. Not even with Groom or Ironworks. It tempts me to say that this is actually going to be the weaker part of the pile, but I guess it can escape that fate. Sorry, but this didn't work out. Better luck next time.

Auch, should have seen that Scout was a lost cause. Anyway, congrats spineflu!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 24, 2020, 05:33:32 pm

oh wild. I was not expecting to win, there were a lot of really good entries out there.

Contest #67 - Design a card/card-shaped-thing that uses the Exchange mechanic
Exchanging: it's not gaining, it's similar to returning, and the card you get ends up in your discard (by default - you're free to do like, an exchange-to-hand or something). Design a card that does it. Or that exchanges something else.

Official cards that do this are the traveller lines (Page et al, Peasant et al), Vampire/Bat, and Changeling.

If you use out of supply cards for this, post those too; if you use an outside-of-canon mechanic or rule (like, Seasons, or Worshippers, or what have you), include a link to the rules for it (or if they're short, repost them in their entirety).

Judgement will be next week tues at like, 5pm est. I'll try to remember to 24 hour warn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 24, 2020, 05:41:13 pm

Interesting challenge. I like it. How about this:

Sell
$5
Treasure
$1
You may exchange a card you have in play for a card costing up to $2 more than it.

It's an exchange-remodel. Not much to it, it effectively gives +1 Card +$1 more than its base cousin, but at the cost of not activating on-trash abilities and being unable to mulligan Provinces. Let me know if it needs tweaking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on March 24, 2020, 07:29:14 pm

Dinner
cost $4 - Night
Exchange this to a card costing up to $5 onto your deck.
---
When games using this, add an extra Kingdom Action pile costing $6 - $8 to the Supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on March 24, 2020, 10:09:03 pm

Atoner
Action - $4
+$2
Each player (including you) may exchange a Curse for a Horse. If anyone did, you may exchange this for 2 Horses.
-
When you gain or trash this, each other player gains a Curse

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 24, 2020, 10:51:17 pm

Would I be right in thinking this is also the sort of thing Hermit and Madman or Urchin and Mercenary get up to?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 24, 2020, 11:16:00 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on March 24, 2020, 10:51:17 pm

Would I be right in thinking this is also the sort of thing Hermit and Madman or Urchin and Mercenary get up to?

nope! they're similar but Hermit + Urchin trash themselves rather than exchange; exchange is its own keyword (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Exchange)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on March 25, 2020, 12:19:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/VGq0MjQ.png)

First idea I came up with. Probably not balanced.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on March 25, 2020, 01:40:33 am

Quote from: majiponi on March 24, 2020, 07:29:14 pm

Dinner
cost $4 - Night
Exchange this to a card costing up to $5 onto your deck.
---
When games using this, add an extra Kingdom Action pile costing $6 - $8 to the Supply.

There aren't that many official cards that would fit this setup rule

Base: Artisan (Adventurer from first edition)
Intrigue: Nobles
Prosperity: Goons, Grand Market, Expand, Forge, King's Court, Peddler
Hinterlands: Border Village
Dark Ages: Altar, Hunting Grounds
Adventures: Hireling
Menagerie: Destrier, Wayfarer, Animal Fair
Promos: Captain, Prince

Seaside, Alchemy, Cornucopia, Guilds, Empires, Nocturne and Renaissance have no such cards in them.

I'm not sure what the setup rule is achieving, but just a note that it calls on a surprisingly small pool of cards (especially if you don't own Prosperity or Menagerie).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on March 25, 2020, 04:07:18 am

Import (Action, $3)

Choose one: Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply; or exchange this for a card on your Exile mat.


This lets you get expensive Supply cards, but in delayed fashion. Of course, you can continue Exiling cards if you’ve got other ways to release them...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Supernova888 on March 25, 2020, 04:54:10 am

Love the exchange mechanic, even if it's tricky to implement. Here's my stab at it:

(https://i.imgur.com/90Hdq59.png) (https://i.imgur.com/pr7NI2k.png)

The idea is that an Angel is often a much, much stronger Lab, which gets taken down a notch by the fact that you get a very weak card in its stead every other shuffle. But hey, sometimes your Devils can help you ensure an Angel will trash a card you want to pitch.

CHANGE #1: Modified Devil's wording to be more clear/in line with Dominion wording.

Quote

Angel • $5 • Action
+1 Action
Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Trash one and put the others into your hand.
At the start of Clean-Up, exchange this for a Devil.

Devil • $0* • Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may put a card from your hand onto your deck.
At the start of Clean-Up, exchange this for an Angel.
(This is not in the Supply).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on March 25, 2020, 06:00:52 am

Quote

Entrepreneur - Action Reaction, $2 cost.
+1 Action
+ $1
If the Entrepreneur pile is empty, +1 Card.
-
When another player trashes a card, you may exchange this for a card costing up to $5.

Counter opposing trashing with strong building. Or if there's no trashing in the game, you consider whether trying to empty the pile is worth it, if others will play along. If the pile is empty though, and someone trashes and another reacts with this, suddenly the pile isn't empty and all your Entrepreneurs are just Coppers again; that's the risk you take. An interactive card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on March 25, 2020, 08:42:12 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on March 25, 2020, 01:40:33 am

Quote from: majiponi on March 24, 2020, 07:29:14 pm

Dinner
cost $4 - Night
Exchange this to a card costing up to $5 onto your deck.
---
When games using this, add an extra Kingdom Action pile costing $6 - $8 to the Supply.

There aren't that many official cards that would fit this setup rule

Base: Artisan (Adventurer from first edition)
Intrigue: Nobles
Prosperity: Goons, Grand Market, Expand, Forge, King's Court, Peddler
Hinterlands: Border Village
Dark Ages: Altar, Hunting Grounds
Adventures: Hireling
Menagerie: Destrier, Wayfarer, Animal Fair
Promos: Captain, Prince

Seaside, Alchemy, Cornucopia, Guilds, Empires, Nocturne and Renaissance have no such cards in them.

I'm not sure what the setup rule is achieving, but just a note that it calls on a surprisingly small pool of cards (especially if you don't own Prosperity or Menagerie).

The official Feast is removed because it adds little to the game, Donald says.  I added 6-8 clause so that the extra card gives you a choice whether you take 100% of getting $5-cost cards, or some possibility to reach $6 or more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on March 25, 2020, 09:53:32 am

SUBMISSION MODIFIED (UP TO DATE VERSION ON PAGE 207)


I swore not to do anything overly convoluted anymore, and yet here I am again with my 3 cards package.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Nt4FK68C/Notary-V1-EN.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/0P6yXhTh/Heir-V1-EN.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/9W2XM0Dj/Letter-V1-EN.png)

Originally, Notary exchanged itself with an Heir, but then I figured that there was no reason for it to be that way and it instead works à la Hermit or Urchin.

Now, the idea here is to have a little Gold making factory in your deck. Probably not the best way to get to a Gold on average (it is a slow chain), unless you hold onto the Letter, in which case getting 2 Golds by exchanging an Heir becomes more attractive. And if someone takes it from you, you can always try to play a Notary to reclaim it and use its extra +1 Action to play your Heir right after.

This was not tested. Probably needs it to get a better feel though.


EDIT: 5 out-of-Supply copies of Heir exist.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on March 25, 2020, 10:40:00 am

(https://i.imgur.com/3CETCb6.png?1)
For my entry, here's Inheritor. He's going to rule the kingdom someday. But how will he rule? Will he rule with the help of the people as a Minister? Will he wage war as a General? Or will he bring prosperity to the kingdom as a King? That's all up to you.
(https://i.imgur.com/orLx74W.png?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/X9o2AKI.png?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/r8FWelL.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on March 25, 2020, 01:52:07 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on March 25, 2020, 10:40:00 am

General is too weak compared to the others. Minister is a Remodeling Festival probably worth _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}, King is a high-value Victory card probably also worth _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}, whereas General is somewhere between Witch and Ghost Ship, which places its value at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}. That said, they're all too strong for how easy they are to get. Minister and King are on par with the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} Travellers, so Inheritor is kind of like getting a Page and paying just _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} extra to be able to upgrade three tiers instead of just one. And you can open with two of them. (General is stronger than either of the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} Travellers, but it's not as strong as Hero or Disciple IMO.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on March 25, 2020, 02:05:26 pm

Quote from: Gubump on March 25, 2020, 01:52:07 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on March 25, 2020, 10:40:00 am

General is too weak compared to the others. Minister is a Remodeling Festival probably worth _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}, King is a high-value Victory card probably also worth _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png)}, whereas General is somewhere between Witch and Ghost Ship, which places its value at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}. That said, they're all too strong for how easy they are to get. Minister and King are on par with the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} Travellers, so Inheritor is kind of like getting a Page and paying just _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} extra to be able to upgrade three tiers instead of just one. And you can open with two of them. (General is stronger than either of the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} Travellers, but it's not as strong as Hero or Disciple IMO.)

I do agree that it isn't as well balanced as it could be. I'm changing the the text of Inheritor to this.
(https://i.imgur.com/lxL7Edu.png?1)
The effects of the other three cards remain the same. If you can line it up with a 5-cost action or victory, you get one of the three strong cards. Is this too weak now? If so, I may strengthen the effects of the other 3 cards somewhat. Since i also forgot to mention it in the original post, there are five copies each of Minister, General, and King.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 25, 2020, 03:11:38 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on March 25, 2020, 04:07:18 am

Import (Action, $3)

Choose one: Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply; or exchange this for a card on your Exile mat.


This lets you get expensive Supply cards, but in delayed fashion. Of course, you can continue Exiling cards if you’ve got other ways to release them...

Well, you can always release any exiled card by gaining a copy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on March 25, 2020, 06:55:46 pm

Lol, spineflu theming this challenge on me not knowing the game's rules well enough about my last entry X_X

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 25, 2020, 07:54:15 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on March 25, 2020, 06:55:46 pm

Lol, spineflu theming this challenge on me not knowing the game's rules well enough about my last entry X_X

lol nah i've got a trello board that i keep WDC prompts on, this was the next sensible one in the list, after "Design an Iron card" (i think i was thinking like an ironworks/ironmonger? but that's not an official card designation and i got tripped up writing the rules of what I was looking for so I scrapped it) and "Design a Dog" ( ? ? ? )

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 25, 2020, 08:13:09 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 25, 2020, 07:54:15 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on March 25, 2020, 06:55:46 pm

Lol, spineflu theming this challenge on me not knowing the game's rules well enough about my last entry X_X

lol nah i've got a trello board that i keep WDC prompts on, this was the next sensible one in the list, after "Design an Iron card" (i think i was thinking like an ironworks/ironmonger? but that's not an official card designation and i got tripped up writing the rules of what I was looking for so I scrapped it) and "Design a Dog" ( ? ? ? )

Ha - I've also got a Trello board with some WDC ideas - I just need to win one of these weeks...

I also both an Iron card and a Dog all ready, so I'll cheer for you to win again soon too!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 25, 2020, 08:32:45 pm

Scrap this. New entry coming. This is not the time for mediocre!
These cards are no longer my entry. Instead look for Balance and its offshoots Discord and Order.


(https://i.imgur.com/cUMJmqq.png)   (https://i.imgur.com/LQJBBDn.png)      (https://i.imgur.com/lyNamJo.png)   

I am hoping its a bit of an effort to get past Entrepreneur. But with deck thinning or just multiple Entrepreneurs (slogging through that debt) you can have a life of idle pleasure. Only momentarily though when you have to sober up and start toiling again.
Eventually the sobrieties will run out and you will have learnt to have fun without the hangover. The theme is a little shaky but its there if you squint.

(I just realised I will need to make changes. It might be that you only "may" exchange an Entrepreneur so that players can choose not to).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on March 25, 2020, 09:16:32 pm

Coupon
$3 - Reaction - Endgame
When another player gains a card costing $5 or more, you may reveal this from your hand to exchange it for a cheaper card.
--
At the end of the game, you may reveal this from your deck to exchange it for an Estate.

In case it isn't clear, "it" in both cases refers to the Coupon itself - if your opponent buys a Province you can turn your Coupon in for a Duchy, or a Gold, or whatever you need; or if the game ends then you can squeeze an extra point in, as long as there are enough Estates to go around (you would do the exchanges in turn order, starting with the person whose turn ended the game).

I know that this causes some slowdown, which is its main drawback, which is why I made the trigger something that hopefully is unusual enough that it's easy to do a quick whip-round and check if anyone wants to use their Coupon when it happens.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on March 25, 2020, 09:35:22 pm

Quote from: ConMan on March 25, 2020, 09:16:32 pm

Coupon
$3 - Reaction - Endgame
When another player gains a card costing $5 or more, you may reveal this from your hand to exchange it for a cheaper card.
--
At the end of the game, you may reveal this from your deck to exchange it for an Estate.

In case it isn't clear, "it" in both cases refers to the Coupon itself - if your opponent buys a Province you can turn your Coupon in for a Duchy, or a Gold, or whatever you need; or if the game ends then you can squeeze an extra point in, as long as there are enough Estates to go around (you would do the exchanges in turn order, starting with the person whose turn ended the game).

I know that this causes some slowdown, which is its main drawback, which is why I made the trigger something that hopefully is unusual enough that it's easy to do a quick whip-round and check if anyone wants to use their Coupon when it happens.

Why did you use "it" instead of "this"? I thought this meant you would exchange the opponent's card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 25, 2020, 10:36:18 pm

Gonna post with some pre-judgement notes because I don't wanna get to the end of the contest and have to tell people they missed stuff that was correctable. (I'll do this throughout the week as well).

Quote from: mandioca15 on March 25, 2020, 04:07:18 am

Import (Action, $3)

Choose one: Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply; or exchange this for a card on your Exile mat.


This lets you get expensive Supply cards, but in delayed fashion. Of course, you can continue Exiling cards if you’ve got other ways to release them...

This doesn't work/is a technical DQ / this isn't what exchanging is - from the wiki: (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Exchange)

Quote

To exchange a card is to return it to its pile (Supply or otherwise) and put another card in the discard pile in its place.

You'll want to probably revise.

---

Quote from: Supernova888 on March 25, 2020, 04:54:10 am

Love the exchange mechanic, even if it's tricky to implement. Here's my stab at it:

 (https://i.imgur.com/blmtVFz.png)
Devil • $0* • Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may topdeck a card.
At the start of Clean-Up, exchange this for an Angel.
(This is not in the Supply).

Where are we topdecking a card from? our hand? in play? Also can you rephrase this? - "topdeck" isn't a keyword.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on March 25, 2020, 11:12:21 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on March 25, 2020, 09:35:22 pm

Quote from: ConMan on March 25, 2020, 09:16:32 pm

Coupon
$3 - Reaction - Endgame
When another player gains a card costing $5 or more, you may reveal this from your hand to exchange it for a cheaper card.
--
At the end of the game, you may reveal this from your deck to exchange it for an Estate.

In case it isn't clear, "it" in both cases refers to the Coupon itself - if your opponent buys a Province you can turn your Coupon in for a Duchy, or a Gold, or whatever you need; or if the game ends then you can squeeze an extra point in, as long as there are enough Estates to go around (you would do the exchanges in turn order, starting with the person whose turn ended the game).

I know that this causes some slowdown, which is its main drawback, which is why I made the trigger something that hopefully is unusual enough that it's easy to do a quick whip-round and check if anyone wants to use their Coupon when it happens.

Why did you use "it" instead of "this"? I thought this meant you would exchange the opponent's card.

It's a fair question. I feel like "you may reveal this ... to exchange this" sounds like bad (or at least awkward) English. How about "You may reveal and exchange this for ..."?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 25, 2020, 11:21:38 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 25, 2020, 10:36:18 pm

Gonna post with some pre-judgement notes because I don't wanna get to the end of the contest and have to tell people they missed stuff that was correctable. (I'll do this throughout the week as well).

Quote from: mandioca15 on March 25, 2020, 04:07:18 am

Import (Action, $3)

Choose one: Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply; or exchange this for a card on your Exile mat.


This lets you get expensive Supply cards, but in delayed fashion. Of course, you can continue Exiling cards if you’ve got other ways to release them...

This doesn't work/is a technical DQ / this isn't what exchanging is - from the wiki: (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Exchange)

Quote

To exchange a card is to return it to its pile (Supply or otherwise) and put another card in the discard pile in its place.

You'll want to probably revise.

This isn't my card, but as I'm also considering an Exile related card, can you clarify?

From the wiki quote, Exchange has two aspects:
• To exchange a card is to return it to its pile (Supply or otherwise)
I guess this depends in how you read this card. Does the exchanged card go to the Exile mat (since the target card is from there) or does it return to its pile? While the former is more natural language, other exchange cards do go back to their piles without specifying, so I think that is a valid way to read. If that is the case, this should be fine.

• put another card in the discard pile in its place.
The target card comes from the Exile mat. But technically, the clause above doesn't specify that the card you acquire comes from a pile (only that there has to be a card to acquire). Are you saying (for this week's challenge) that it has to?

Lastly, cards acquired from exchanging go to discard. Is this a requirement? Gained cards also go to discard, unless they don't.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 26, 2020, 09:03:44 am

i read that as you put Import on the Exile mat, put the card from the Exile mat in your discard.

The otherwise in the pullquote refers to where a card's pile exists, whether thats in the supply, the kingdom, or outside of both.

I am requiring the obtained card come from a pile, so no exchanging from the trash or any other zone; otherwise its just returning a card to the supply and gaining a card from <zone>, instead of exchanging. The pile you're getting a card from can be Supply or non-Supply.

As far as obtained cards going to the discard, thats the default; you can feel free to move them in the same way you would gained cards - to hand, to the top of your deck, what have you - just be clear with what you're intending.

please let me know if there are followup questions

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on March 26, 2020, 02:29:02 pm

Very well, then: I'll withdraw Import, and try to think of something else.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on March 26, 2020, 05:27:24 pm

Brass (Treasure-Reaction, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy
---
When one of your cards is trashed, you may discard this from your hand to exchange it for a card costing up to $2 more.

For clarification, "it" refers to the card that would have been trashed. Instead of trashing it, you return it to its pile, before gaining a card costing up to $2 more than the returned card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 26, 2020, 06:02:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/69pyKlv.png)    (https://i.imgur.com/iDjR6sr.png)    (https://i.imgur.com/DsmqZ2u.png)   

This is my entry. Not the previous set of three cards. They will definitely return some day in some form but not for an exchange challenge.
Exchange was tacked on there but here it allows you to have "Balance" which is actually slightly better than it should be for cost. Barring shenanigans with cards like "Procession" Balance will become a card that is slightly weak for cost with the upside that you get a choice of which slightly bad card to get. Discord and Order can even be situationally good. They aren't hideous.

The set could have 10 balance cards but only 5 Discord and 5 Order. This also means that as numbers dwindle you don't get a choice. Or a full 10 of each (Discord and Order). I think I like the former of those options.

Theme:
The Taoist leader has right principles but their government inevitably becomes excessive in creating discord or order. Will they try again - perhaps erring in the other direction - or have they learnt that the will of Heaven cannot be imposed from above?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 26, 2020, 06:46:40 pm

Quote from: segura on March 26, 2020, 06:28:16 pm

They are all too good. Discord is a great trasher (sure, Order nerfs it) and while Order does not do anything for you, a double Militia is pretty nasty.

Open Double Peddler, be pretty certain to get a $5 after the first shuffle, get a discard attack and a trasher after the second shuffle. That's too straightforward.

Would you really pay more than $2 for Order if you were buying it straight out?
Discord is possibly worth getting one but when you play it you will be reducing your hand to two cards. Its even worse than chapel in many situations (trash 4 crap cards but then have to regain two of them). I'd rate it as worth $2.5 at absolute best.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on March 26, 2020, 07:32:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/QT7AEG1.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/Ift50pt.jpg)

A Student that gets more knowledgeable as he Studies. What's more, tuition costs more as the student moves on through undergrad, graduate, and doctorate study.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 26, 2020, 09:30:42 pm

Quote from: segura on March 26, 2020, 08:08:29 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on March 26, 2020, 06:46:40 pm

Quote from: segura on March 26, 2020, 06:28:16 pm

They are all too good. Discord is a great trasher (sure, Order nerfs it) and while Order does not do anything for you, a double Militia is pretty nasty.

Open Double Peddler, be pretty certain to get a $5 after the first shuffle, get a discard attack and a trasher after the second shuffle. That's too straightforward.

Would you really pay more than $2 for Order if you were buying it straight out?
Discord is possibly worth getting one but when you play it you will be reducing your hand to two cards. Its even worse than chapel in many situations (trash 4 crap cards but then have to regain two of them). I'd rate it as worth $2.5 at absolute best.

A nonterminal trasher that trashes 2 is on the same power level as Steward and Remake.

There are a ton of variables that make the cards hard to compare and I'm not saying I know for sure what I'm saying at all. You might be right. But for me its a real drawback to have to trash your whole hand with discord. It means that if you have the elements of an engine (a village and a smithy perhaps) in hand you have to play discord first and then recover those elements for little gain. You could play Steward or Remake last and only trash the curses you draw into. Do that with Discord and you will probably be worse off. Situationally you might draw 5 curses and Discord becomes awesome, better than Steward or Remake. And you could even gain really good cards from the trash. But generally I think it will be worse than other trashers because its your whole hand or nothing.
Its actually enough for me to consider never wanting to buy more than one or two Balances in a game. If you draw a Discord and an Order along with 2 coppers and an estate at the end of that turn you will have trashed an estate and copper, made others discard (with a repeat on your next turn) and have one to spend. That's not a great turn for drawing both your $3 purchases from previous turns.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on March 27, 2020, 01:40:45 am

Probably not remotely balanced, but I love States and Artifacts and wish more had been done with them. And I love the theme of Nocturne.

(https://i.imgur.com/hVE6mdS.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Yw860gU.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/DXm7hHi.png) (https://i.imgur.com/JmeCc6R.png) (https://i.imgur.com/PvAPizZ.png)

(One copy of each State, like Lost in the Woods.)

Quote

Companion - Action - $5: Exchange this for a Toy. If you did, take Loyal, Friendly, or Naive.

Toy - Action - $1*: +1 Card, +1 Action. While this is in play, when you gain a Companion, you may exchange this for a Companion. (This is not in the Supply.)

Loyal - State: When you play an Action card, you may ignore its instructions and instead get +1 Card and +1 Action.

Friendly - State: When another player gains a card, you may discard a copy of it for +2 Cards.

Naive - State: At the start of your turn, you may discard any number of cards for +$1 each.

(One copy of each State, like Lost in the Woods.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BlueHairedMeerkat on March 27, 2020, 06:46:14 am

Split pile ahoy! 5 copies of Pact atop 5 copies of Fiend.

Pact
Action - Reserve
$5

Exchange a card from your hand for a Gold. Place this on your Tavern mat.
----------
At the end of your Buy phase, you may exchange a card from your hand for a card costing at most $2 less than it to discard this from your Tavern mat.

Fiend
Night - Reaction
$4

This turn, you may put one of your Treasure cards onto your deck when you discard it from play.
----------
When another player exchanges a card, you may reveal and discard this to gain a copy of either exchanged card.


Making a pact with an infernal entity will get you riches, but beware the cost. Said infernal entity is probably off scheming somewhere, and profiting off whatever shady things you do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on March 27, 2020, 07:43:53 am

(https://i.imgur.com/wytCXMs.png) (https://i.imgur.com/DZOxaLU.png) (https://i.imgur.com/hwr3icr.png)

You need two to get one.

Piles:
10 Small Slimes
8 Big Slimes
4 Titanic slimes

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 27, 2020, 09:34:19 am

Quote from: pubby on March 27, 2020, 07:43:53 am

(https://i.imgur.com/wytCXMs.png) (https://i.imgur.com/DZOxaLU.png) (https://i.imgur.com/hwr3icr.png)

You need two to get one.

I really like the idea here but I am not sure Titanic Slime is better than two Big Slimes. Maybe give Titanic Slime an attack? If it was +2 Cards, +2 Actions, Each other player gains a curse, it would truly be horrific.
I am also not sure if Big Slime isn't too strong a card to get of two small slimes but it might be given you have to pull off a Treasure Map like combo.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Supernova888 on March 27, 2020, 10:19:56 am

Quote from: spineflu on March 25, 2020, 10:36:18 pm

Quote from: Supernova888 on March 25, 2020, 04:54:10 am

Love the exchange mechanic, even if it's tricky to implement. Here's my stab at it:

 (https://i.imgur.com/blmtVFz.png)
Devil • $0* • Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may topdeck a card.
At the start of Clean-Up, exchange this for an Angel.
(This is not in the Supply).

Where are we topdecking a card from? our hand? in play? Also can you rephrase this? - "topdeck" isn't a keyword.

Thank you for the feedback! Always forget that "Topdeck" isn't a Dominion term - I used it with the intention of topdecking a card from your hand. (I realize that isn't good, but it can help if you have an Angel in your hand - thus "may.") Devil has been updated in my original post to reflect this.

Title: Re: Contest #67: Exchange
Post by: Gubump on March 27, 2020, 01:50:41 pm

EDIT: This is no longer my submission.

(https://i.imgur.com/TZMCdUs.png)

Lets you gain Horses or upgrade your Horses with better equipment, letting you make use of them more much longer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on March 27, 2020, 03:05:48 pm

Quote from: Gubump on March 27, 2020, 01:50:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/TZMCdUs.png)

Lets you gain Horses or upgrade your Horses with better equipment, letting you make use of them more much longer.

This isn't a reaction. This doesn't really seem like worth using to exchange, it's usually not that hard to grab a bunch of Destriers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 27, 2020, 03:50:28 pm

Way of the Bat:

(https://i.imgur.com/HSBmNsQ.png)

Previous version: (https://i.imgur.com/QMzTQmS.png)

Quote

Way of the Bat
Once per turn: +1 Action. Exchange this for a differently named card from the Supply with the same cost, putting it in your hand.

Exchange fits better than gain, so you can't use it to get on gain benefits or discards from Exile mat.

Once per turn, because otherwise you could just exchange any action for any other action, willy-nilly. But as a one time per turn, seems like it could be interesting.

Early game, you can start with a $3 action and if you need a silver instead, exchange it.
Mid game, draw two terminals, an exchange one for a cantrip.
Late game, maybe you exchange one of your actions for an extra Victory card.

(miscellaneous note: I picked upside down bats, because somehow that seemed more fitting for "exchange")

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 27, 2020, 04:17:46 pm

I dunno how I feel about once-per-turn on a Way; just because it's different than all existing Ways. It feels like a weird exception to the normal rule for Ways.. "When you play an action, you can choose to follow the instructions on a Way instead of following the instructions on the card. Unless that Way says once per turn and you've already used it this turn".

You could get around it with the "if you haven't yet this turn" language like Fortune.

But I could be completely wrong; it's not actually different from the exception that exists on once-per-turn Events. Recommend saying "differently-named" though; to prevent just the silly "free" action you could take for no reason every single turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 27, 2020, 04:57:53 pm

Quote from: segura on March 27, 2020, 04:20:18 pm

The obvious way to get rid of the weird once per turn clause, whose only purpose is to prevent loops, is to make the Way nonterminal.

But isn't it already nonterminal?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 27, 2020, 05:00:33 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 27, 2020, 04:17:46 pm

I dunno how I feel about once-per-turn on a Way; just because it's different than all existing Ways. It feels like a weird exception to the normal rule for Ways.. "When you play an action, you can choose to follow the instructions on a Way instead of following the instructions on the card. Unless that Way says once per turn and you've already used it this turn".

You could get around it with the "if you haven't yet this turn" language like Fortune.

But I could be completely wrong; it's not actually different from the exception that exists on once-per-turn Events. Recommend saying "differently-named" though; to prevent just the silly "free" action you could take for no reason every single turn.

Quote from: segura on March 27, 2020, 04:20:18 pm

The obvious way to get rid of the weird once per turn clause, whose only purpose is to prevent loops, is to make the Way nonterminal.

It wasn't actually to prevent loops* - it was to prevent (outside of on buy / gain effects) just buying any card that costs $x. i.e. if I could always exchange it, then when I have $5 I don't really need to be picky about which $5 action I buy. Sure it becomes a concern later as piles empty, but definitely not early. Also, I wanted to avoid something like getting several peddlers and being able to exchange all of them for Provinces in one turn. While that is also avoidable by specifying "non-Victory" I did want you to be able to use it for 1 Victory.

* this is a side benefit, of course; which is why I didn't worry about adding "differently named" and opted for less text. I guess it could make a difference with Conspirator - does anything else care about how many actions you've played?

I didn't consider "If you haven't yet this turn", that would work too. I think that's still different than all official Ways, as it usually has the same effect*,  so not sure we get away from that. I actually have a few "once per turn" Ways I'm in process of designing, so I *think* I'm ok with it as a new sub mechanic.

* with +Actions it would let you play actions you may not want to play that turn (e.g. Forager, Death Cart Scholar) just to play them, for Peddler.

I also considered making it terminal, but wanted you to be able to play the exchanged card without needing +Actions from before.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 27, 2020, 05:04:01 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on March 27, 2020, 05:00:33 pm

* this is a side benefit, of course; which is why I didn't worry about adding "differently named" and opted for less text. I guess it could make a difference with Conspirator - does anything else care about how many actions you've played?

Any + tokens you might have on the pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 27, 2020, 05:14:43 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 27, 2020, 05:04:01 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on March 27, 2020, 05:00:33 pm

* this is a side benefit, of course; which is why I didn't worry about adding "differently named" and opted for less text. I guess it could make a difference with Conspirator - does anything else care about how many actions you've played?

Any + tokens you might have on the pile.

Oh yeah, +tokens. I'll likely add differently named then. I did just noticed this would be fun with Knights. Don't like the one you have, exchange it for the next one! (barring of course, poor Sir Martin)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on March 27, 2020, 05:27:08 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on March 27, 2020, 05:14:43 pm

Oh yeah, +tokens. I'll likely add differently named then. I did just noticed this would be fun with Knights. Don't like the one you have, exchange it for the next one! (barring of course, poor Sir Martin)

Would that even work? Wouldn't the Knight you're returning cover up the one you're trying to take, and then you end up getting nothing?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on March 27, 2020, 05:38:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Mo92x3i.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on March 27, 2020, 06:16:24 pm

Quote from: segura on March 27, 2020, 01:26:15 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on March 27, 2020, 09:34:19 am

I am not sure Titanic Slime is better than two Big Slimes.

You are onto something. The net effects of 2 Titanic Slimes are +2 Cards and +2 Actions whereas the net effects of Titanic Slime are +3 Cards and +1 Action. So from this perspective it is better, a Lab is better than a Village.
But 2 Titanic Slimes are better in terms of engine consistency.

You mostly want the Titanic Slimes when the Big Slime pile is empty because it replenishes the Big Slime pile for you to gain again. I'm going to cap the Big Slime pile at 8 cards, so chances are you'll get at least one Titanic slime when playing the deck.

Besides that, it's intended that Titanic is a little weak compared to two Bigs because that makes the decision to get one more interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 27, 2020, 06:45:29 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on March 27, 2020, 05:27:08 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on March 27, 2020, 05:14:43 pm

Oh yeah, +tokens. I'll likely add differently named then. I did just noticed this would be fun with Knights. Don't like the one you have, exchange it for the next one! (barring of course, poor Sir Martin)

Would that even work? Wouldn't the Knight you're returning cover up the one you're trying to take, and then you end up getting nothing?

Meh, you're right. It doesn't matter for any of the official cards, since the always exchange with a different card (well, except changeling).

I've thought more about the "Once per turn":

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 27, 2020, 04:17:46 pm

But I could be completely wrong; it's not actually different from the exception that exists on once-per-turn Events.

Right. If the initial batch of events hadn't had once per turns, then we'd be debating whether a "Once per turn" event were weirdly worded. I think the parallel with "you can spend a buy on an Event, unless it says once per turn" is apt.

An I would prefer to avoid the play an Action as a way and have it do nothing weirdness.

So here's v0.2 with the "differently named" modifier:

(https://i.imgur.com/HSBmNsQ.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 27, 2020, 10:34:42 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on March 27, 2020, 06:45:29 pm

Meh, you're right. It doesn't matter for any of the official cards, since the always exchange with a different card (well, except changeling).

Now I'm curious what happens in actual rules when you choose to use Changeling's text when you gain a Changeling... Can you exchange a Changeling for a different Changeling? Of course it doesn't matter as nothing official triggers "when you exchange a card". My guess is that you can; you first return the card you just gained, and then you take the top Changeling (which happens to be the one you just returned).

Theoretically it can matter actually... if you are gaining the Changeling to somewhere other than your discard pile, like with Artisan. If you could exchange it, then the new Changeling would be in your discard pile instead. Rarely what you would want, but it's an edge case.

Title: Re: Contest #67: Exchange
Post by: Gubump on March 27, 2020, 10:39:45 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/OhFxpvU.png)

The free-if-it's-your-first-buy effect is there to prevent it from being too terrible while also preventing you from being able to run out the pile too easily.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on March 27, 2020, 11:49:31 pm

[Sorry, the image has outdated wording]
(https://i.ibb.co/py24Q3v/Job-Fair.png)
Job Fair
$4 - Night
Look at top 3 cards of your deck. You may exchange one of them for a card from the Supply costing exactly $1 more or $1 less. Put the rest and the exchanged card on you deck in any order.


Adjuster for the next draw similar to Transmogrify, but unable to get rid of Coppers (unless there are $1 cards in the supply)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on March 28, 2020, 08:31:27 am

Hey folks, this is my first entry to the Weekly Design Contest and to the forum in general  :)

   (https://i.imgur.com/M5ItZ8Z.png)     (https://i.imgur.com/o7tkcYA.png)

So there is the idea that you may upgrade the Guest Room into a Pension by paying for it. This gives you access the this very strong draw, since you don't have to peak 7$ to get it. Also, this combination of cards can provide good deck control on their own, while sometimes you may just want the villagers from Guest Room and keep it.

So what about the art for the cards, might one take images found on google? What about the license or permission to do so?

As I am new, please tell me if I did something wrong. I am willing to learn and improve.

Greetings :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 28, 2020, 10:46:10 am

Welcome!

Your idea seems interesting and balanced, at least at a glance.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on March 28, 2020, 05:02:06 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tRSTT6J.jpg)

Quote

Township
Types: Action
Cost: <8>
+1 Card, +2 Actions, +1 Buy, +$1.

---

In games using this, when you gain a Gold, you may exchange it for a Township.

Tried a couple variations on this concept of "exchange Gold you gain" before I decided that Gold-gainers really suck because you have to gain a buncha stop cards to use them.  This lets you use Gold gainers to gain engine components (quickly in comparison to Changeling) instead of Golds.  You can also buy Township directly for 8 Debt or indirectly for $6 by buying Gold and exchanging it.  It's the marriage of Bazaar and Market.
Mine Silvers into Townships.  Enclave a Duchy and get a Township.  Make a deal with a Leprechaun for the deed to a Township.  Complete a Treasure Map to find a promised land of 4 Townships.  Skulk comes with a Township to wander around.  The Swashbuckler's booty is actually the friends we made along the way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on March 29, 2020, 02:03:09 am

Quote

Way of the Recession

Follow this card's instructions, then exchange it for a card costing less than it.

It definitely has ways to create infinte combos, since it gets your cards out of play, but they are pretty hard to pull off so I think it is fine.

The exchanging (versus trash and gain) should make it harder to use this on the last turn to empty piles which is needed since it allows you to "gain" many cards in one turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on March 29, 2020, 02:22:57 am

All cards that exchange cards for other cards other than specific ones need to say from the Supply. Exchanging isn't limited to cards in the Supply like gaining is, so a lot of the entries let you exchange Estates for Prizes or something similar as they are worded now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 29, 2020, 04:27:08 am

Quote from: Gubump on March 29, 2020, 02:22:57 am

All cards that exchange cards for other cards other than specific ones need to say from the Supply. Exchanging isn't limited to cards in the Supply like gaining is, so a lot of the entries let you exchange Estates for Prizes or something similar as they are worded now.

good catch. yeah i shouldve been more clear on that. in the interest of not making everyone re-do their card, i'll be assuming an implicit "from the supply" on cards that don't specify a pile - this is on me & my bad instructions - but yeah if you print these off at home you may want to reword them first.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on March 29, 2020, 08:01:54 am

Bread should be a reaction. The whole package here is kinda weak especially since you have to use Harvest for any of it to work. I do like the flavor here.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on March 29, 2020, 12:19:30 pm

I got to test my entry a little bit and in the light of what I’ve seen, I’d like to apply a small modification to the Heir card. So this is what my entry looks like now:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Nt4FK68C/Notary-V1-EN.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/1RHppvjB/Heir-v2.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/9W2XM0Dj/Letter-V1-EN.png)

Heir now produces +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) and has an extra option for the player to trade another Action card for a Gold. This allows you to keep your Heir if you want to wait to have the Letter to double Gold.

These changes have been applied because this whole Notary/Heir thingy was waayyy too slow to be competitive. Especially when you factor in the tug-of-war for the Letter. But now, I’d say it is a little bit more worth it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 29, 2020, 02:26:47 pm

Popping in with more pre-judging stuff -

if you make a revision to your card, please also make a new post in this thread telling me you did so.

Quote from: Something_Smart on March 27, 2020, 01:40:45 am

Probably not remotely balanced, but I love States and Artifacts and wish more had been done with them. And I love the theme of Nocturne.

(https://i.imgur.com/hVE6mdS.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Yw860gU.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/DXm7hHi.png) (https://i.imgur.com/JmeCc6R.png) (https://i.imgur.com/PvAPizZ.png)

(One copy of each State, like Lost in the Woods.)

Quote

Companion - Action - $5: Exchange this for a Toy. If you did, take Loyal, Friendly, or Naive.

Toy - Action - $1*: +1 Card, +1 Action. While this is in play, when you gain a Companion, you may exchange this for a Companion. (This is not in the Supply.)

Loyal - State: When you play an Action card, you may ignore its instructions and instead get +1 Card and +1 Action.

Friendly - State: When another player gains a card, you may discard a copy of it for +2 Cards.

Naive - State: At the start of your turn, you may discard any number of cards for +$1 each.

(One copy of each State, like Lost in the Woods.)

How many copies of Toy are there?
Can you explain the use case for the Loyal state? Why would I want to have that?

---

Quote from: X-tra on March 29, 2020, 12:19:30 pm

I got to test my entry a little bit and in the light of what I’ve seen, I’d like to apply a small modification to the Heir card. So this is what my entry looks like now:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Nt4FK68C/Notary-V1-EN.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/1RHppvjB/Heir-v2.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/9W2XM0Dj/Letter-V1-EN.png)

Heir now produces +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) and has an extra option for the player to trade another Action card for a Gold. This allows you to keep your Heir if you want to wait to have the Letter to double Gold.

These changes have been applied because this whole Notary/Heir thingy was waayyy too slow to be competitive. Especially when you factor in the tug-of-war for the Letter. But now, I’d say it is a little bit more worth it.

Is it intentional that Letter no longer works with Heir when you aren't exchanging the Heir themselves?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 29, 2020, 03:39:37 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 29, 2020, 02:26:47 pm

Popping in with more pre-judging stuff -

Kudos for the proactive pre judging.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 29, 2020, 03:40:47 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on March 29, 2020, 03:39:37 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 29, 2020, 02:26:47 pm

Popping in with more pre-judging stuff -

Kudos for the proactive pre judging.

Inside baseball look at this? I'm procrastinating on things I should Actually Be Doing

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on March 29, 2020, 05:01:10 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 29, 2020, 02:26:47 pm

Is it intentional that Letter no longer works with Heir when you aren't exchanging the Heir themselves?

It is. The Letter only works when you are exchanging the Heir.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on March 29, 2020, 06:17:28 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 28, 2020, 10:46:10 am

Welcome!

Your idea seems interesting and balanced, at least at a glance.

Quote from: segura on March 28, 2020, 03:25:39 pm

I like the "pay to upgrade" idea. Pension is a powerful terminal draw, slightly better than Hunting Grounds and often also better than Royal Blacksmith. And in Kingdoms without other splitters, Guest Room and Pension have the net effects of 2 Labs or Village + Smithy. That sucks in comparison, but if there are other villages, you can ignore Guest Room.

So yeah, pretty great design overall.

Thanks for the nice feedback!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 30, 2020, 02:04:31 am

Quote from: spheremonk on March 30, 2020, 01:42:58 am

We've tried several versions of this concept in our game with an Event, Artifacts, Smuggle tokens and trashing for a non-Supply card (like Hermit or Urchin). But I saw this contest and really wanted to jump in. So exchange? Sure. And who doesn't love Embargo tokens? 

(https://abload.de/img/siegeexchangeppj37.png) (https://abload.de/image.php?img=siegeexchangeppj37.png)

(https://abload.de/img/battlementexchange49ky6.png) (https://abload.de/image.php?img=battlementexchange49ky6.png)

(https://abload.de/img/portcullisexchangejej0p.png) (https://abload.de/image.php?img=portcullisexchangejej0p.png)

add "width=250" in the starting img tag (or click "quote" on this post to see what i did)

welcome to the board

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on March 30, 2020, 02:07:51 am

Thank you!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on March 30, 2020, 02:27:11 am

Quote from: spineflu on March 29, 2020, 02:26:47 pm

How many copies of Toy are there?
Can you explain the use case for the Loyal state? Why would I want to have that?

Hadn't thought about the number of Toys, probably just 10.

As for Loyal, the use case is the same as Way of the Pig-- it mitigates terminal collisions and lets you put more copies of a terminal in your deck than you need without clogging it up. Remember that using Loyal is optional.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Supernova888 on March 30, 2020, 10:12:37 am

I know I technically posted something saying I would revise my card, but here's an explicit message saying I revised my card idea just in case!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: navical on March 30, 2020, 10:16:41 am

(https://i.imgur.com/9EDNfch.png)

Collier, Action $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may gain a Copper to your hand.
Once this turn, when you discard a Copper from play, you may exchange it for a Silver.

Slowly turn your Coppers into Silvers. Or, play it as a Peddler that gains Silvers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 30, 2020, 10:42:19 am

Quote from: Gubump on March 29, 2020, 02:22:57 am

All cards that exchange cards for other cards other than specific ones need to say from the Supply. Exchanging isn't limited to cards in the Supply like gaining is, so a lot of the entries let you exchange Estates for Prizes or something similar as they are worded now.

Maybe? The rules are silent on this, because there are no official cards that use Exchange without saying "Exchange for a [specific card]". Basically "exchange for a cheaper card" or "exchange for an action card" are undefined concepts in official Dominion. A fan-card rule of "Exchanging must be from the supply unless it is naming a specific card" seems just as good, if not better, than "exchanging can be from anywhere unless it is limited by the instruction". It seems likely to me that if Donald ever did create a "exchange for a card" type text; then he would create a rule worded the same as the rule for gaining.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 30, 2020, 10:44:17 am

Quote from: spheremonk on March 30, 2020, 09:05:48 am

Here they are again, with a couple of minor language tweaks and in the right format. Please let me know what you think.

(https://abload.de/img/siegeexchangeztkhx.png)


(https://abload.de/img/battlementexchangeh5jmf.png)      (https://abload.de/img/portcullisexchangergkym.png)

Please either remove the other post with the giant images; or use the edit feature to replace the giant images with smaller ones. Thanks!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 30, 2020, 12:29:53 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 30, 2020, 10:42:19 am

Quote from: Gubump on March 29, 2020, 02:22:57 am

All cards that exchange cards for other cards other than specific ones need to say from the Supply. Exchanging isn't limited to cards in the Supply like gaining is, so a lot of the entries let you exchange Estates for Prizes or something similar as they are worded now.

Maybe? The rules are silent on this, because there are no official cards that use Exchange without saying "Exchange for a [specific card]". Basically "exchange for a cheaper card" or "exchange for an action card" are undefined concepts in official Dominion. A fan-card rule of "Exchanging must be from the supply unless it is naming a specific card" seems just as good, if not better, than "exchanging can be from anywhere unless it is limited by the instruction". It seems likely to me that if Donald ever did create a "exchange for a card" type text; then he would create a rule worded the same as the rule for gaining.

Right, just like default gaining.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on March 30, 2020, 12:55:40 pm

We've tried several versions of this concept in our game with an Event, Artifacts, Smuggle tokens and trashing for a non-Supply card (like Hermit or Urchin). But I saw this contest and really wanted to jump in. So exchange? Sure. And who doesn't love Embargo tokens? 

Please let me know what you think.

(https://abload.de/img/siegeexchangeztkhx.png)


(https://abload.de/img/battlementexchangeh5jmf.png)      (https://abload.de/img/portcullisexchangergkym.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on March 30, 2020, 12:57:38 pm

My apologies, Gendo. I'm new to this. I think I fixed it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on March 30, 2020, 01:34:14 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on March 30, 2020, 12:57:38 pm

My apologies, Gendo. I'm new to this. I think I fixed it.

One advice: if you wonder how other people format things, just use the quote option. Then you see it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 30, 2020, 03:08:52 pm

26 hour warning.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Optimal_Inefficiency on March 31, 2020, 09:20:40 am

Set up:
Place the General pile in the Supply. Set aside 7 Military piles and the Resupply pile (Resupply pile has 30 cards) (these piles are not in the Supply.)
2-3 player games:
General pile: 10 cards
Each Military pile : 5 cards
4-6 player games:
General pile: 20 cards
Each Military pile : 10 cards

Military card rules:
1. If you cannot exchange a Military card, because there are no Generals remaining in the Supply, return the Military card to its pile and gain a card from the Supply costing up to $1 more than the General.
Aside from the Reactions, all Military cards are required to be exchanged for a General when discarded from play. If the General pile runs empty, players still need to return the Military cards. Gaining a more expensive card is your compensation for not being able to get your General back.
2. Whenever a player plays a Military card that forces any number of other players to trash Military card(s), the player who played that card gains a Resupply.
Think of Resupply as things your troops need, but normal folks don’t really need.
3. When a player is forced to discard a Duration card out of turn, any cards set aside on or under the Duration card are also discarded. 
This a clarification for Surprise.

(https://i.imgur.com/SXS2yIL_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium) (https://i.imgur.com/JmsMBEi_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Recommended Set-Up #1
(https://i.imgur.com/KmYlhgt_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium) (https://i.imgur.com/njFfUBa_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
(https://i.imgur.com/cz2ix3a_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium) (https://i.imgur.com/SHeuOB2_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
(https://i.imgur.com/V22yg3X_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium) (https://i.imgur.com/NrES3Jn_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
(https://i.imgur.com/Mi0b3nU_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Recommended Set-Up #2
(https://i.imgur.com/IQBaeh1_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium) (https://i.imgur.com/57x8WyU_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
(https://i.imgur.com/XB6b8DD_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium) (https://i.imgur.com/BFCLFO5_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
(https://i.imgur.com/wdoysnH_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium) (https://i.imgur.com/nUyHstP_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
(https://i.imgur.com/4JgQhzP_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

General ($4) - (Action)
+1 Action
+$2
You may play a Military card from your hand.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a card from one of the set aside Military piles. If this card is trashed, return it to the General pile.
- You, the ruler of your kingdom, can appoint a general to lead your military campaigns. Your general sends out troops, who complete objectives, then return to camp. (The asterisk in the cost in the image is a mistake.)

(?) Resupply (?) ($3*) - Treasure
$3
+$1 if you have at least one Military card in play.
When you play this, it’s worth $1 less per Resupply in play (counting this).
(This is not in the Supply.)
-What is Resupply? It could be supplies you bring (Supply Line), supplies you commandeer (Captives), or supplies you loot (when trashing another player’s Military card). Your army needs supplies, but the more you have, the less you need and the more cumbersome it all becomes. And these supplies are more valuable to your army than to your regular folk (hence the +$1 line). I struggled to find the right way to word this card, but this is what I settled on.

Officers ($4*) - (Action - Military)
+$2
+1 VP Token
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for any 2 different cards from the set aside Military piles. If you don’t, exchange this for a General.
(This is not in the Supply.)
-Officers have money, hence the +$. And they are like nobles, hence the VP. Officers also set your deck up for future success.

Sergeants ($4*) - (Action - Military)
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may choose a Military card from your hand. Play it twice.
-
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a General.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Sergeants make sure things get done. They inspire their troops complete tasks, and better than could be done otherwise.

War Council ($4*) - (Night - Duration - Attack - Military)
While this is in play, cards (everywhere) cost $1 more for all players. At the start of your next turn, gain a card from the Supply costing up to $5, then exchange this for a General.
(This is not in the Supply.)
The results of good planning are a hard time for your enemies and future boon.

Secret Delegation ($4*) - (Night - Attack - Military)
Gain a Silver onto your deck.
Each other player reveals cards from their deck until revealing an Action card, trashes it, discards the rest, and gains a Silver per $2 it costs (rounding up).
Exchange this for a General.
(This is not in the Supply.)
In the dead of night, your delegation bribes the enemy into standing down.

Rear Guard ($3*) - (Action - Military)
Look through your discard pile. Choose one: trash exactly 2 cards from your discard pile; or +1 Action and put a card from your discard pile into your hand.
-
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a General.
(This is not in the Supply.)
The Rear Guard appropriately lets you check and manipulate what is behind you, your discard.

Vanguard ($3*) - (Action - Military)
+1 Card
Look at the top 4 cards of your deck. You may trash one of them. Discard two of them. Put the rest back on top of your deck in any order.
-
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a General.
(This is not in the Supply.)
The Vanguard appropriately lets you check and manipulate what is ahead of you, your deck.

Surprise ($4*) - (Action - Attack - Military)
Each other player discards a Resupply or Silver from their hand, their choice, or reveals they can’t.
If nobody does, gain a Silver.
-
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a General.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Carefully laid plans are cast asunder when hit by a surprise attack. Just don’t mess up and ambush a spice merchant by mistake.

Maneuver ($4*) - (Action - Attack - Military)
Each other player discards a Military card from their hand or reveals they can’t. If nobody does, +1 Buy and cards cost $1 less this turn.
-
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a General.
(This is not in the Supply.)
A strategic movement to give your army an advantage. One way or another, this card will do the same for you.

Longbowmen ($3*) - (Action - Attack - Military)
+2 Cards
Each other player reveals the top card of their deck. If its cost is $3 to $6, they trash it.
-
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a General.
(This is not in the Supply.)
This card does not “discard the rest,” and that’s on purpose. In most kingdoms, that card left on top will be a Copper, Estate, Province, or cheap Action card. Also interesting, this card only affects cards ranging from $3 to $6. Bowmen also have effective ranges...

Foot Soldiers ($3*) - (Action - Attack - Military)
+$2
+1 Buy
Each other player with at least 4 cards in hand discards 2 cards and draws 1.
-
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a General.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Similar to Militia, but with a weaker attack. However, if you link Foot Soldiers with Sergeants, the attacking affect is akin to Legionary.

Garrison ($2*) - (Action - Reaction - Military)
+4 Cards
Put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck.
-
When another player plays an Attack card, you may first play this from your hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Initially, I dropped the “exchange this for a General” text from the reaction cards just for lack of room, but now I think it adds flavor. When you build a garrison or sign a treaty, you are giving up on offensive war, and transitioning your troops to a defensive posture. For Garrison, I drew on the reaction of the Secret Chamber, but gave it an upgrade. 

Treaty ($2*) - (Action - Reaction - Military)
+1 Card
+1 VP Token
-
When another player plays an Attack card, you may first play this from your hand.
(This is not in the Supply.)
Ending wars by signing treaties in medieval Europe normally included redrawing borders, so you virtually gain an estate each time you play a Treaty.

Supply Line ($4*) - (Action - Duration - Military)
Gain a Resupply from the Resupply pile. 
Now and at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy and + $1.
-
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a General.
(This is not in the Supply.)
An army needs supplies, and here is the supply train. Beware the Surprise card.

Captives ($4*) - (Action - Military)
+2 Actions
You may discard a card, for +$1.
Gain a Resupply from the Resupply pile. 
-
When you discard this from play, exchange it for a General.
(This is not in the Supply.)
So you capture some enemy forces... You could use them for labor (+2 Actions), you could sell/ransom them (discard for $), or you could commandeer their weapons and provisions (gain a Resupply).

Edit #1: to fix the post so the pictures are visible.
Edit #2: rewrite the Surprise; a strong attack cantrip seemed overpowered.
Edit #3: rewrite Surprise again to make it no longer “attack” Duration cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Optimal_Inefficiency on March 31, 2020, 09:25:03 am

Can anyone tell me what I did wrong with the images?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on March 31, 2020, 09:32:39 am

You linked to the imgur webpage, not the actual image URL. Right click on each image and select "Copy Image Address" or "Copy URL", then paste that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Optimal_Inefficiency on March 31, 2020, 09:47:02 am

Quote from: pubby on March 31, 2020, 09:32:39 am

You linked to the imgur webpage, not the actual image URL. Right click on each image and select "Copy Image Address" or "Copy URL", then paste that.

Thank you, kind sir, for the assistance.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on March 31, 2020, 12:54:29 pm

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on March 31, 2020, 09:20:40 am

3. When a player is forced to discard a Duration card out of turn, any cards set aside on or under the Duration card are also discarded. 
This a clarification for Surprise.

Recommended Set-Up #1
(https://i.imgur.com/kUrEGNB_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Surprise showcases a common mistake I've seen in fan cards. Duration cards only stay in play for tracking reasons, not to prolong their effects. Durations' next turn effects still take place even if that Duration is no longer in play; if you use Bonfire to trash a Hireling, for example, you still get the +1 Card every turn even though the Hireling isn't in play anymore. As worded, this "Attack" mostly helps your opponents my helping prevent their Durations from missing the reshuffle, among other things.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 31, 2020, 01:00:04 pm

Quote from: Gubump on March 31, 2020, 12:54:29 pm

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on March 31, 2020, 09:20:40 am

3. When a player is forced to discard a Duration card out of turn, any cards set aside on or under the Duration card are also discarded. 
This a clarification for Surprise.

Recommended Set-Up #1
(https://i.imgur.com/kUrEGNB_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Surprise showcases a common mistake I've seen in fan cards. Duration cards only stay in play for tracking reasons, not to prolong their effects. Durations' next turn effects still take place even if that Duration is no longer in play; if you use Bonfire to trash a Hireling, for example, you still get the +1 Card every turn even though the Hireling isn't in play anymore. As worded, this "Attack" mostly helps your opponents my helping prevent their Durations from missing the reshuffle, among other things.

An example of those "among other things", your opponents would be able to use their Hirelings multiple times!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 31, 2020, 01:24:19 pm

Last minute pre-judgment question:

Quote from: navical on March 30, 2020, 10:16:41 am

(https://i.imgur.com/9EDNfch.png)

Collier, Action $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may gain a Copper to your hand.
Once this turn, when you discard a Copper from play, you may exchange it for a Silver.

Slowly turn your Coppers into Silvers. Or, play it as a Peddler that gains Silvers.

"Once this turn" = once per Collier you've played or once period?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on March 31, 2020, 01:39:27 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 31, 2020, 01:24:19 pm

Last minute pre-judgment question:

Quote from: navical on March 30, 2020, 10:16:41 am

(https://i.imgur.com/9EDNfch.png)

Collier, Action $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may gain a Copper to your hand.
Once this turn, when you discard a Copper from play, you may exchange it for a Silver.

Slowly turn your Coppers into Silvers. Or, play it as a Peddler that gains Silvers.

"Once this turn" = once per Collier you've played or once period?

If it means per Collier; then recommend just using Scheme's wording:

Quote

This turn, you may exchange one of your Coppers for a Silver when you discard it from play.

If you choose to gain a Copper, then this is Peddler/Poacher + Gain a Silver. And you have the option to just be a Cantrip "gain a Peddler/Poacher" (exchanging Copper for Silver is basically gaining a Peddler).

In other words, while not technically strictly better than Poacher/Peddler; it's definitely just about strictly better. Should cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Unless the "once this turn" was meant to prevent multiples from stacking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on March 31, 2020, 02:12:06 pm

Quote from: segura on March 31, 2020, 02:06:01 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on March 31, 2020, 01:39:27 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 31, 2020, 01:24:19 pm

Last minute pre-judgment question:

Quote from: navical on March 30, 2020, 10:16:41 am

(https://i.imgur.com/9EDNfch.png)

Collier, Action $4
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may gain a Copper to your hand.
Once this turn, when you discard a Copper from play, you may exchange it for a Silver.

Slowly turn your Coppers into Silvers. Or, play it as a Peddler that gains Silvers.

"Once this turn" = once per Collier you've played or once period?

If it means per Collier; then recommend just using Scheme's wording:

Quote

This turn, you may exchange one of your Coppers for a Silver when you discard it from play.

If you choose to gain a Copper, then this is Peddler/Poacher + Gain a Silver. And you have the option to just be a Cantrip "gain a Peddler/Poacher" (exchanging Copper for Silver is basically gaining a Peddler).

In other words, while not technically strictly better than Poacher/Peddler; it's definitely just about strictly better. Should cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Unless the "once this turn" was meant to prevent multiples from stacking.

I disagree with this analysis. Silver is a stop card and you rarely want many of them. Mining a Copper into Silver is only comparable to gaining a Peddler if the Kingdom features no trashing. If there is trashing, getting rid of that Copper is obviously most of the times superior over mining it into Silver.

Agreed, but I also agree with GendoIkari that Collier as worded should cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 31, 2020, 05:11:38 pm

judgment is occurring, please do not expect me to see/rate any changes from here onward.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 31, 2020, 05:16:31 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 31, 2020, 05:11:38 pm

judgment is occurring, please do not expect me to see/rate any changes from here onward.

Sounds so ominous...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 31, 2020, 05:39:56 pm

Alright, here comes the judge. If I missed anything, feel free to correct me; who knows, maybe i'm way off base on some of my judgements here. I think yall did a great job with the contest, so pat yourselves on the back, gain a Duchy or a card from the Prize Pile, etc.


Contest #67 Judging
Sell • [TP] Inferno
So I've got two concerns with the viability of this.

The first and smaller one is a Copper at $5. Like technically Venture is also this but in practise it isn't - it finds some other treasure so it's randomly between $2 and whatever bank gives you, provided you aren't playing with Ducat. It's just kind of a bad plan for money-stuff.

The second (and larger one) is this moves stuff that's in play. That makes it prone to loops, especially when Villa and Cavalry exist. Since it's exchanging that makes it easy to return those to the supply and reap that benefit repeatedly.

---

Dinner • majiponi
I'm not sure why the set up instruction is like that?
It seems like a non-sequitur, like it doesn't follow from what the card does.

The top part seems decent - a little narrower than Changeling, better than Feast.
If this made the extra kingdom action pile not-in-supply and had the option to exchange for that or a card costing up to $5, that would make this more interesting.

not sure what you mean by

Quote

100% of getting $5-cost cards, or some possibility to reach $6 or more.

- like why you'd buy Dinner instead of Silver?

---

Atoner • NoMoreFun Honorable Mention
I really like this but it needs to be in a Cursing kingdom to work.
You could probably broaden this to "each player may exchange a card from their hand for a horse" and then cover all junk scenarios, including Curses.

Otherwise, this is really great.

---

Deed • Doom_Shark
Slight mechanical quibble but you shouldn't need to full on discard this, you can just reveal it from your hand.
This is good. I like it. A little plain (and kind of similar to Con Man's entry in effect) but good.

---

Entrepreneur • Aquila Finalist
I really like this. Very clever peddler that makes great use of the fact that its supply pile can refill.
Side note, i'm always surprised by the number of 'R's in Entrepreneur. I for sure skip like half of them when I say it aloud.

---

Notary, Heir + Letter • X-tra Honorable Mention
This is really great. It's a non-terminal silver at $3, but only the first time you use it in a turn. It's got serious potential as a gold gainer as well. Good stuff. I think I'd change Letter to be "When you play an Heir, gain a Gold".

---

Inheritor, Minister, General, King • D782802859
The revision to Inheritor was well-needed. Still, I think it might be too cheap to have at $3, or too easy to pop off several in a turn; I largely agree with Gubump's critique. If you make General +3 Cards instead of +2, that would probably fix that; likewise if you changed Inheritor to be terminal (even leave on the +1 Card because it's awkward and makes for some awkward misses), I think it'd be better.

---

Angel, Devil • Supernova888
This is good. I like that Angel gets around the -1 Card token. I like the synergy where Devil encourages you to toss your bad cards on top of your deck (provided you have sufficient Angels next turn). Feel like a deck based around Angels will run into the "Lord Rattington's Junk Dealer problem", where you eventually end up trashing too much Good Stuff, entirely on accident. Feel like maybe you could've done more with Devil, like maybe make it Courtyard? As a cantrip it's kind of lackluster for its name.
Still, this is solid.

---

Coupon • ConMan Honorable Mention
Endgame as a mechanic is surprisingly straightforward (and could be retroactively applied to "Fleet"). What color would you make it? I feel like a Teal might be nice.

The concept on this is solid. It's a Smuggled Wish.
I'd play with the wording a bit though - I kept misreading it as you'd exchange Coupon for a card cheaper than Coupon, not a Card cheaper than the card they gained.
This is an honorable mention.

---

Brass • mandioca15
Sorry I made you change your first entry, I know that can be rough, trying to scramble and come up with something else. You did good with it though.
This is a neat spices/remodel variant. It's going to have kingdoms where it's mostly an overpriced silver, but it's good. I could see this being an actual card in an expansion whose focus is 'exchanging'. If I'd change one thing, I'd bump the "up to $ more" value to $3 (or change the cost of this to $4) - as-is, $7 is kind of a weird hole in the pricing number line. Would put this on par with like, Farmlands.

---

Balance, Discord, Order • somekindoftony
Balance is Very Good for its price.
Discord I don't know how many I'd want in my deck. Probably one. Maybe two if there's literally no other trashing.
Order is ... oof. Probably not fun to play against.

I'd take notes from Count for fixing Discord. Or like, have it set a card (any card? just actions or treasures? what would it mean to have a curse in play?) aside and play it at the start of your next turn in addition to everything else.

Order, it doesn't do anything directly for you (something all but three canon attacks do) and I can see it just kinda dragging out the game. It doesn't have a good counter in these cards really, which is just going to grind everything to a halt as people have to pad their decks with silvers from the 3 copper they could scrounge together. In 4+ player games, players could - from like, turn 5 on - never have a 5 card hand. Too brutal.

Order would definitely earn a place in my banlist next to Possession and Wall for changing the game in an unfun way.

---

Student, Study • mail-mi
This is incredibly centralizing.
I like the idea of Student becoming a Mega Market but idk if I agree with your price adjustment scheme here - probably just make it "costs $1 more per token on it.", because otherwise Student maxes out at $6.

I do like the flavor of Studying more than 4 times being pointless though. Feels accurate to real life.

---

Companion, Toy + Loyal + Friendly + Naive • Something_Smart
So I'm mostly going to judge your states - the Companion/Toy exchange seems to mostly be a way to obtain those.

I'm not sure if I understand why you'd ever want to have "Loyal" other than a hypothetical "oops all smithies" problem, or like, edge cases with throne rooms. The only time you'd 100% want it is when you build a deck that's (accidentally?) all terminals and even then it probably can't be counted on to stay yours.

Friendly and Naive are good, I can see use cases for those that aren't trying to bail out of a slog.

I think probably the easiest way to make this more viable would be have Toys be more limited than Companions - have maybe 5 of them - which would make it harder to take the states away from other players.

---

Pact / Fiend (split pile) • BlueHairedMeerkat Honorable Mention
This has a neat flow to it. Copper -> Gold -> Fiend is Very Good.

It encourages Gold flooding, which will earn no love on the strategy minded parts of this forum that have decided that Gold is a Bad Card; I like it, although competitively speaking, I'm kind of a scrub.

Fiend as a gainer is potentially Really Good, especially in games with some of these other cards. I can see this being an actual pile in an 'exchange'-focused kingdom.

Nice job, and welcome to the forum.

---

Small Slime, Big Slime, Titanic Slime • pubby Finalist
Two for one exchanging is Novel as Heck, the Flavor on this rules (I especially like the doubling costs - very nice). I think the only tweak I'd make is make Titanic Slime also give four actions, because you probably won't use all of them if your deck is slime-flooding anyway (and Diadem is the only thing that'd care about it.)

This is Extremely Good.

---

Way of the Bat • scolapasta
Just as a disclaimer, I don't think I've played enough with Ways to be a super-competent judge of them.

I can see this having its uses though, for sure, especially as a late-game Duchy gainer or to pull plenty of cards from the bottom half of a split pile (well, Plunder anyway) once it gets fully exposed.
However, I can also see it being ignored a lot. This probably isn't game shaping in the way Way of the Worm or Way of the Chameleon are.

The art is very good on this.

---

Way of the Spirit • grrgrrgrr Finalist
This might be too good. Like, this potentially exchanges any $5 (or even $5*s like Fisherman) into a Ghost. Again, not a super competent judge of Ways. I'd love to play a game with this and see what happens when one person goes all in on getting Hella Ghosts.

---

Abandoned Laboratory • Gubump

I feel like this has too narrow a use case. Like, compare this to Experiment.
You buy two of these for $2. They turn into garbage in your deck. The only salvaging that garbage is either trashing (not always present) or a helpful way (super not always present).

You buy a single experiment for $3, it comes with a second. They turn into blank spaces in your deck. Maybe you have to buy more but maybe that's fine.

A neat idea, but needs some revisions. Maybe make these a superlab.

---

Job Fair • grep Finalist
At first I didn't like this. It's got all the things that are frustrating about +|-$1 remodeling.
Then I reconsidered that all the cards go to the top of your deck. And this is non-terminal.
This is very good and cool, actually. This is a finalist.

---

Guest Room, Pension • Rhodos Finalist
Pension is fantastic. Hopefully you'd have enough Villagers from your Guest Room to play the cards you draw this way.
Pay for exchange is a neat idea. I hope I'd remember to set aside enough $ in my buy phase to do this.
Welcome to the board.

---

Township • Fragasnap Finalist
This is awesome. I don't know if I'd ever out-and-out buy one rather than buying Gold and swapping it right away - I guess I can see cases where you've got enough money but not this turn - but this is Very Good.

---

Way of the Recession • mad4math
Again, novice with ways here.
However I don't know why you'd ever do this - maybe if it's a card that moves anyway but doesn't go back to the Supply, like Treasure Map or Prince?
Seems very edge-case-y. Probably good with Reserve cards.

---

Grain, Flour, Bread • segura
I know you entered this as a half-joke, but I'm very glad you did, because I really appreciate the flavor. Of bread. and also the other cards.

I think (given that you're deciding 3/10ths of a kingdom (whether that's Harvest/Mill/Baker or Grain/Mill/Baker) any time you're including these) that you should make them more powerful; I've judged these as "effect and exchange" as you advised, and with the kingdom set up having Grain/Mill/Baker (no Harvest).

(to be clear - the version I'm judging:
• Grain reads "Gain 3 Horses. If you have a Mill in play, you may exchange this for a Flour."
• Flour reads "Reveal the top card of your deck. +1 Villager per $1 it costs. If you have a Baker in play, you may exchange this for a Bread. (This is not in the Supply.)"
• no change to Bread.

I think Bread in general is very hard to judge. I get that it has to collide with Baker in order to even get to your deck, and the odds + cost of making that happen are fairly well documented with things like Treasure Map. However, this exists in a deck with Grain, which means those horses will help make that collision happen.
It's also a golden-deck enabling card. I think especially with things like Shepherd that lead to deck-cycling overdraw, this is way too good. I'd say make it "when you discard this from your hand during clean up, +2VP / 2VP per Bread you have" - turns are still going to be a limited resource; number of times you discard a card may not be. The buff to +2VP is to account for how late you'd likely get it.

Grain and Flour, I'd maybe try to include buys or trashing in some way? you're eating 3x the normal size of the kingdom with these, decreasing the odds for either of those mechanics to show up. Even like a weak Hamlet style "discard for Buy" on Grain or a "If you have no Villagers, you may trash the revealed card" on Flour (after the reveal but before exchanging). If these all only took up one kingdom pile, they'd be fine as-is.

As a side note, it was kind of frustrating to have to decide "how" your entry looked - the "if this is too weak, do this; otherwise" part - it's probably going to get you better results (vis a vis not inducing consternation on the judge) if your entry isn't 'choose your own adventure' for the judge.

---

Collier • navical Honorable Mention
This is a very good $4 card.
I'm tempted to say it's too good for $4. I'm not going to, but it'd probably still be bought a lot at $5.
Like it's either a nonterminal copper remodeler (compare with Taxman or Mine, accounting for the terminality shift) or a nonterminal silver gainer (compare with Treasure Hunter, if that also gave a card and got rid of some junk).
I'd wager this is a game shaping card on the same level as Remodel or Sauna/Avanto.
I judged this assuming the exchange only happened if you had any number of Colliers in play, not assuming each one in play could exchange its own copper.

---

Siege, Battlement, Portcullis • spheremonk

Interesting use of Embargo tokens! I especially like the setup instructions.
I think you can get the font size larger if you change "This turn, you may buy one card from an Embargoed pile without gaining any Curses." to "The first time you buy a card this turn, ignore Embargo tokens". Granted there's a little change in functionality if there's, say, only one buy and you buy Forum or Cavalry first, but those are very edge-case-y.

I think you can probably condense Battlement and Portcullis into a single card - I don't know why you'd ever remove embargo tokens with Battlement, seeing as that'd mostly help other players - which would remove each of their below-the-line portion. Something like "Choose one: +$2; or trash a card from your hand costing up to $2. The first time you buy a card this turn, ignore Embargo tokens. (This is not in the Supply)". Make it so I don't have to bust out the reading glasses.

Welcome to the board.

---

General, Resupply, Military cards • Optimal_Inefficiency

This is a lot.
I didn't attempt to fully read and internalize every military card - I skimmed - seems like a lot of them mimic existing cards (Longbowmen = Knights, Officers = Monument, and so on). Some of them seem like they could be viable cards on their own (Garrison). Some of them seem maybe too golden-deck potential-y (Treaty).

I'm going to talk in generalities here - I don't love the "most of these turn back into a general" part. Adding seven (seven!) cards to pick from every time you play a General is going to cause some serious analysis paralysis if you're playing with these IRL. Some of these attacks do nothing (Surprise - the only time this will "hit" is when a player has both a resupply and a silver, otherwise they can just choose one they can't do - see Torturer) and some of them exhibit undefined behavior (War Council - does that cost adjustment happen before or after any cost reduction? This makes Livery gain the entire Horse pile - is that ok?). Resupply is going to straight up confuse new players - "whys this worth $3 sometimes and $2 other times?" - and the rules for gaining it should really be on the cards that gain it (Longbowmen et al). You've got some inconsistencies with when things should be italic or have a line.

Your military card rule #3 goes against an existing rule - try trashing an Archive or Crypt you have in play some time using Bonfire, those cards stay out.

I'd try to edit this down quite a bit before any sort of paper playtesting - maybe have a military pile (similar to Tournament's Prize pile) and players reveal the top three cards of the military pile to exchange a general for?

Welcome to the board.

---

in no particular order....
Honorable Mentions:
• Atoner (NoMoreFun)
• Notary, Heir + Letter (X-tra)
• Coupon (ConMan)
• Pact / Fiend split pile (BlueHairedMeerkat)
• Collier (navical)

Runners Up:

• Way of the Demon (grrgrrgrr)
• Entrepreneur (Aquila)
• Guest Room, Pension (Rhodos)
• Township (Fragasnap)
• Job Fair (grep)

Winner:
Small Slime, Big Slime, Titanic Slime by pubby.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on March 31, 2020, 06:07:58 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 31, 2020, 05:39:56 pm

Contest #67 Judging
Sell • [TP] Inferno
So I've got two concerns with the viability of this.

The first and smaller one is a Copper at $5. Like technically Venture is also this but in practise it isn't - it finds some other treasure so it's randomly between $2 and whatever bank gives you, provided you aren't playing with Ducat. It's just kind of a bad plan for money-stuff.

The second (and larger one) is this moves stuff that's in play. That makes it prone to loops, especially when Villa and Cavalry exist. Since it's exchanging that makes it easy to return those to the supply and reap that benefit repeatedly.

Ok, good feedback. Your point about loops is a good one, I'll try to keep that in mind.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on March 31, 2020, 06:26:09 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 31, 2020, 05:39:56 pm

Student, Study • mail-mi
This is incredibly centralizing.
I like the idea of Student becoming a Mega Market but idk if I agree with your price adjustment scheme here - probably just make it "costs $1 more per token on it.", because otherwise Student maxes out at $6.

I do like the flavor of Studying more than 4 times being pointless though. Feels accurate to real life.

I don't know if you missed this or just didn't see fit to comment on it, but you only get to play Student once every 2 shuffles because you have to exchange it with a Study every play, which I think weakens it dramatically.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Optimal_Inefficiency on March 31, 2020, 07:20:05 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 31, 2020, 05:39:56 pm

General, Resupply, Military cards • Optimal_Inefficiency

This is a lot.
I didn't attempt to fully read and internalize every military card - I skimmed...

I understand; it was a lot. The point of the set is the versatility / unreliability of the cards. Also, I appreciate the input.

I’m not considering playing with these cards. I started by looking at the Vampire/Bat combo, then imagining a ‘Vampire’ that could turn into any of a series of set-aside ‘Bats.’ I definitely went overboard with the size. It may be something I revisit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on March 31, 2020, 08:52:12 pm

Thanks for judging, spineflu!

Contest #68

Create a card, event, or project costing $2.

If you make a card, it must cost $2 in the supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on March 31, 2020, 09:07:01 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 31, 2020, 05:39:56 pm

Siege, Battlement, Portcullis • spheremonk

Interesting use of Embargo tokens! I especially like the setup instructions.
I think you can get the font size larger if you change "This turn, you may buy one card from an Embargoed pile without gaining any Curses." to "The first time you buy a card this turn, ignore Embargo tokens". Granted there's a little change in functionality if there's, say, only one buy and you buy Forum or Cavalry first, but those are very edge-case-y.

I think you can probably condense Battlement and Portcullis into a single card - I don't know why you'd ever remove embargo tokens with Battlement, seeing as that'd mostly help other players - which would remove each of their below-the-line portion. Something like "Choose one: +$2; or trash a card from your hand costing up to $2. The first time you buy a card this turn, ignore Embargo tokens. (This is not in the Supply)". Make it so I don't have to bust out the reading glasses.

Welcome to the board.

Thanks for your ideas — I really appreciate the help. A few thoughts:

You’re absolutely right that Battlement/Portcullis should be one card. They were in all prior incarnations, but unfortunately, I just learned the word “Portcullis” last week, and it's a pretty cool word, so . . .

You are right that removing tokens is fairly weak, but I don’t agree entirely that in a non-mirror there aren’t times you would use it to effectuate Curse-less buys over multiple turns. The very existence of Embargo tokens implies that cards have different values to different players. 

Where I disagree is about the “first time” language. I considered that language and also “while this is in play,” but wanted to enable multiple plays. Maybe I’m missing something, but is that really edge-casey? Doesn’t it matter anytime there is +Buy and Village or Throne variants?

All of that said, I hate small type too and your suggestions do a great job of solving that problem. Thanks again!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on March 31, 2020, 09:25:13 pm

OMG I just made this for fun last night. Proof I'm psychic? Sure I'll take it.

(https://i.imgur.com/51s7f2z.png)

Now I hope this works like I want; When you play an Augur you can gain the Augur and trigger its on-gaining ability before drawing your cards so that you set up the draw.
This makes it a useful effect to trigger at the right time but you can end up with too many Augurs too quickly as well. Once the Augur pile is empty they are worse than moats.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on March 31, 2020, 09:27:45 pm

[EDIT: I've playtested this some now, and it turns out it really needs a +Buy to get the dynamic going. I have added that (not on its own line – the type gets too small). EMBARGO TOKENS ARE LOTS MORE FUN THAN THEY FIRST SEEM!]

I can't help loving those Embargo tokens:

(https://abload.de/img/naval_blockadecontestwmk3j.png)

FAQ: At the start of games using this card, choose four Supply piles randomly and place one Embargo token on each. You may want to choose those piles by taking the top card off each Supply pile (including Kingdom cards, basic Victory cards, basic Treasure cards and Curses), shuffling them, and choosing four. If you choose “+1 Smuggle,” add a token to your Smuggle mat. Immediately before you buy a card with one or more Embargo tokens on it (paying its cost) you may remove a token from your Smuggles to not gain any Curses. Smuggles come from the supply of Smuggles, and return there; they are not taken from other mats or other players. Smuggles are not component-limited: players may use a substitute if they run out.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on March 31, 2020, 09:46:22 pm

edit: withdrawing this

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e42ebce1181de1d515adb5b/5e83f19e52c1f8238886c3c9/775cf480fbf2c42d7b6fdaa13d269335/image.png)

Quote

Daymark • $2 • Project
Play with your deck face up.
At the end of your buy phase, you may pay $1 to discard the top card of your deck.

FAQ: you still shuffle face-down; when you buy this, flip your deck fully face up without re-ordering it. You can still count your deck, but you must flip it face down first to do that. You can only do this once per turn (like Pageant)

---

Quote from: mail-mi on March 31, 2020, 06:26:09 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 31, 2020, 05:39:56 pm

Student, Study • mail-mi
This is incredibly centralizing.
I like the idea of Student becoming a Mega Market but idk if I agree with your price adjustment scheme here - probably just make it "costs $1 more per token on it.", because otherwise Student maxes out at $6.

I do like the flavor of Studying more than 4 times being pointless though. Feels accurate to real life.

I don't know if you missed this or just didn't see fit to comment on it, but you only get to play Student once every 2 shuffles because you have to exchange it with a Study every play, which I think weakens it dramatically.

ah. I take back the "this is centralizing" comment then.

---

Quote from: spheremonk on March 31, 2020, 09:07:01 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 31, 2020, 05:39:56 pm

Siege, Battlement, Portcullis • spheremonk

Interesting use of Embargo tokens! I especially like the setup instructions.
I think you can get the font size larger if you change "This turn, you may buy one card from an Embargoed pile without gaining any Curses." to "The first time you buy a card this turn, ignore Embargo tokens". Granted there's a little change in functionality if there's, say, only one buy and you buy Forum or Cavalry first, but those are very edge-case-y.

I think you can probably condense Battlement and Portcullis into a single card - I don't know why you'd ever remove embargo tokens with Battlement, seeing as that'd mostly help other players - which would remove each of their below-the-line portion. Something like "Choose one: +$2; or trash a card from your hand costing up to $2. The first time you buy a card this turn, ignore Embargo tokens. (This is not in the Supply)". Make it so I don't have to bust out the reading glasses.

Welcome to the board.

Thanks for your ideas — I really appreciate the help. A few thoughts:

You’re absolutely right that Battlement/Portcullis should be one card. They were in all prior incarnations, but unfortunately, I just learned the word “Portcullis” last week, and it's a pretty cool word, so . . .

You are right that removing tokens is fairly weak, but I don’t agree entirely that in a non-mirror there aren’t times you would use it to effectuate Curse-less buys over multiple turns. The very existence of Embargo tokens implies that cards have different values to different players. 

Where I disagree is about the “first time” language. I considered that language and also “while this is in play,” but wanted to enable multiple plays. Maybe I’m missing something, but is that really edge-casey? Doesn’t it matter anytime there is +Buy and Village or Throne variants?

All of that said, I hate small type too and your suggestions do a great job of solving that problem. Thanks again!

ah i guess I misread your cards intent (re: the first time language) - i thought it only happened once during your buy phase, not once per Portcullis/Battlement. You know your card better than me - i've interacted with it for like 20 min tops, you've been working on it for presumably longer than that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 31, 2020, 10:11:01 pm

Quote from: spineflu on March 31, 2020, 05:39:56 pm

Way of the Bat • scolapasta
Just as a disclaimer, I don't think I've played enough with Ways to be a super-competent judge of them.

I can see this having its uses though, for sure, especially as a late-game Duchy gainer or to pull plenty of cards from the bottom half of a split pile (well, Plunder anyway) once it gets fully exposed.
However, I can also see it being ignored a lot. This probably isn't game shaping in the way Way of the Worm or Way of the Chameleon are.

The art is very good on this.

Thanks for the feedback. I also haven't played much with Ways, but my assumption for a good design is ot should be something you use occasionally, but not frequently. Clearly, I arbitrarily limited that by making it once per turn,  but I still think that one use will be infrequent enough as to make it interesting. But who know? clearly needs testing. (which is one great thing about landscapes, you don't even need to print them to play with them!)

Last thing, in some ways it's similar to Way of the Butterfly - get rid of a card, get a different card. In Way of the Bat's case the card you get costs $1 less than Butterfly's BUT you get it now, i.e. can play immediately.

I'll post my entry for this week in a different post, to make easier for anyone quoting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 31, 2020, 10:26:15 pm

This is no longer my entry for this week's challenge - I will likely make this cost $3, disqualifying it.

---

OK this week - MAN, I've got a few $2 cards lined up for posting. Good thing is of this one doesn't get much traction, I can always switch it up! :) (one interesting thing about this challenge is if we post a card that is over or under priced, you can't just change the price!)

Here's Colosseum:

You build a Colosseum and now it's cheaper than ever to host Events! And some Events can only be hosted in such a grand structure.

(https://i.imgur.com/NJJCCcI.png)

Quote

Colosseum - Project - $2

During your turns, Events cost $1 less.
-
Setup: Add two additional Events to the Kingdom.
These can only be bought if you have bought Colosseum.

Notes:
• The set up guarantees there are at least two Events.
• The set up, by making the Events exclusive, is (hopefully) more interesting than just setting up 2 extra events.
• Plus even if the Events cost $0, the exclusivity means there's still a reason to buy the Colosseum.

Secret History:
• A "Bridge for events" doesn't really work as a card:
- There are too few events in a Kingdom to make you want to buy the card and hope it hits when you want the event
- You can't lower cost more than $1, even playing multiples as that would not work with Travelling Fair, Delve, or other $2 +1 Buy events.
• As a project, however, it's a one time buy with a lasting effect, so now becomes more interesting.
• I considered putting the "these can only be bought..." above the line, but this way seemed clearer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on March 31, 2020, 10:44:27 pm

Insurance
cost $2 - Project
When any player plays an Attack card, gain a Silver.

Gaining a Silver when YOU play an Attack is to play an Attack less often.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on March 31, 2020, 11:35:15 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on March 31, 2020, 10:26:15 pm

Coliseum has one l (if you choose that spelling), not two. Also, Colosseum is the more common spelling.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on March 31, 2020, 11:53:58 pm

Quote from: Gubump on March 31, 2020, 11:35:15 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on March 31, 2020, 10:26:15 pm

Coliseum has one l (if you choose that spelling), not two. Also, Colosseum is the more common spelling.

Thank you! Fixed on the card and in the post. Funny thing is I had it right* in the set up clause!

* the one l version, Coliseum, but I switched them both to Colosseum

Update: ha, I just spent a bunch of time reading up on the difference between Coliseum and Colosseum. Seems like Coliseum is the generic term, while Colosseum is specifically the one in Roma. (so now I'm not sure if I should go back to the more generic one)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on April 01, 2020, 12:09:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fiUKmd5.png)

Rules clarification: You can gain one Horse per condition per turn (So, for example, you gain 2 Horses if you Remodel a Horse into a Duchy - one for trashing an Action, and one for gaining a Victory Card). You can gain Horses on turns other than yours.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on April 01, 2020, 12:21:50 am

Quote from: pubby on March 31, 2020, 08:52:12 pm

Create a card, event, or project costing $2.
If you make a card, it must cost $2 in the supply.

Are overpays allowed? What about buying preconditions like Grand Market has?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on April 01, 2020, 12:25:07 am

Quote from: grep on April 01, 2020, 12:21:50 am

Are overpays allowed? What about buying preconditions like Grand Market has?

Both are allowed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on April 01, 2020, 12:39:01 am

Turtle
$2 Night - Duration

Set aside any number of action cards from your hand. At the start of your next turn, play them in any order.
-----
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).


It can both save you from terminal collisions, and act as a village by setting aside cards with +Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on April 01, 2020, 12:49:18 am

EDIT: Add a buy restriction, to make it more of a decision.

What if Pearl Diver, but Project? What if also could just throw away junk?

Diving School
Project $2

At the start of your turn, look at the bottom card of your deck. You may place it on top of your deck or discard it.
---
You can't buy this if you have any cards in hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on April 01, 2020, 12:49:56 am

(https://i.ibb.co/LvcsVRb/image.png)
Bagpiper
$2 - Action - Attack
+1 Action
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a card or gains a copper, their choice.
-
While this is in play, when you play another Attack card, +$2


A guy to encourage your army and to scare the enemies - and an army of Bagpipers is a folk band generating lots of money. Scale: 1 Bagpiper = no money, 2 Bagpipers = 2 Coppers; 3 Bagpipers = 3 Silvers; 4 Bagpipers = 4 Golds

Update: reworded and changed bonus.
Previous versions:
(https://i.ibb.co/QCNrbmv/image.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on April 01, 2020, 03:26:46 am

Racetrack (Project, $2)

When you gain a card, you may gain a Horse instead.

A Horse equivalent for Trader. A good defence against junking attacks, or a useful way to use spare buys.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on April 01, 2020, 04:13:32 am

(https://i.imgur.com/FGddtlu.jpg)

Quote

Caver - Action, $2 cost.
+2 Cards
If your deck is empty, + $2.

A super simple approach. The discard pile can have any number of cards in it. Either time playing this right or use other things to draw your deck so this changes function.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on April 01, 2020, 05:31:08 am

For the want of better ideas at the moment, I'll go with this one.

Rook
$2
Action
Choose one: +2 Cards; or +2 Actions; or +2 Buys; or +$2.

All I can say is, heavily inspired by Pawn. Does it compare too favourably to Steward and Squire?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on April 01, 2020, 05:51:03 am

Quote from: grep on April 01, 2020, 12:49:56 am

(https://i.ibb.co/QCNrbmv/image.png)
Bagpiper
$2 - Action - Attack
+1 Action
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a card or gains a copper, their choice.
-
While this is in play, when you play an Attack card, +$1


A guy to encourage your army and to scare the enemies - and an army of Bagpipers is a folk band generating lots of money

Do I earn $1 if I play the first Bagpiper in this turn?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on April 01, 2020, 06:05:59 am

An old card, but hasn't been in a design contest yet.

Lost Coins
(https://i.imgur.com/XpImSvN.png)

Simple money when you need it, cantrip when you don't. Or you can do both once. Besides, it's not often a card says "Choose one or both."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on April 01, 2020, 06:43:42 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on April 01, 2020, 03:26:46 am

Racetrack (Project, $2)

When you gain a card, you may gain a Horse instead.

A Horse equivalent for Trader. A good defence against junking attacks, or a useful way to use spare buys.

You probably want this to say "you may exchange it for a Horse".

Also, this is way too strong. Would be more reasonable with a cost restriction, i.e. "if you gain a card costing at least $2".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on April 01, 2020, 07:42:52 am

(https://i.imgur.com/S4KjJt5.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on April 01, 2020, 09:36:28 am

Yay, thank you Spineflu for including my entry in the honourable mentions. It is... an honour.  :D

This contest's flavour is the lower end of my own contest of the week where one had to come up with a card costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png). Now we are doing just that, but for a card costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) instead. This should open up more options, I think!

And here is my entry:

(https://i.postimg.cc/sD5vkqwY/Smithing-Tools-v3.png)

And yes. This does mean any Smithing Tools in play. Including those of other players. Putting a Smithing Tools first when there are none in play should put you in an advantageous position and might deter your opponent to put theirs to not boost your next turn. So the card is pretty interactive.


Edit: Fixed typos.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on April 01, 2020, 10:26:04 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on April 01, 2020, 12:09:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fiUKmd5.png)

Rules clarification: You can gain one Horse per condition per turn (So, for example, you gain 2 Horses if you Remodel a Horse into a Duchy - one for trashing an Action, and one for gaining a Victory Card). You can gain Horses on turns other than yours.

I think "any" implies that you could gain only one horse per turn. I would try "each", even if that means you use it twice in a sentence. Or maybe you can walkaround that by saying "the first time during your turn".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on April 01, 2020, 11:18:46 am

Quote from: majiponi on April 01, 2020, 05:51:03 am

Quote from: grep on April 01, 2020, 12:49:56 am

(https://i.ibb.co/QCNrbmv/image.png)
Bagpiper
$2 - Action - Attack
+1 Action
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a card or gains a copper, their choice.
-
While this is in play, when you play an Attack card, +$1


A guy to encourage your army and to scare the enemies - and an army of Bagpipers is a folk band generating lots of money

Do I earn $1 if I play the first Bagpiper in this turn?

Bagpiper doesn't give coins for itself, because it is not "in play" at the moment of playing.
Now I feel that the card is too weak to be interesting, increased the bonus to $2 and reworded to avoid confusion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on April 01, 2020, 12:12:08 pm

Quote from: faust on April 01, 2020, 06:43:42 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on April 01, 2020, 03:26:46 am

Racetrack (Project, $2)

When you gain a card, you may gain a Horse instead.

A Horse equivalent for Trader. A good defence against junking attacks, or a useful way to use spare buys.

You probably want this to say "you may exchange it for a Horse".

Also, this is way too strong. Would be more reasonable with a cost restriction, i.e. "if you gain a card costing at least $2".

I did wonder if it was too good for the price. Will amend as suggested (thanks):

Racetrack (Project, $2)

When you gain a card costing $2 or more, you may exchange it for a Horse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on April 01, 2020, 12:13:54 pm

I think I want to point out that Donald X specifically did not do $2 projects because they're too much of an automatic buy--you might as well just have a Landmark or other card that changes the rules instead of having a $2 project.

So that's something to think about.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on April 01, 2020, 12:20:03 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on April 01, 2020, 12:13:54 pm

I think I want to point out that Donald X specifically did not do $2 projects because they're too much of an automatic buy--you might as well just have a Landmark or other card that changes the rules instead of having a $2 project.

So that's something to think about.

Interesting... found the quote on the secret history:

Quote

Pageant: This cost $2 at first, but a Project can't cost $2 (unless it has a penalty) - you just automatically buy it sometimes.

So options:
• keep it anyway
• change price to $3 or more (making it invalid for this challenge, of course)
• add a penalty

In my case, adding a penalty might be tough with the setup text already there. Hmmm... I might need to switch to one of my other $2 ideas.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on April 01, 2020, 01:32:30 pm

Seeing as how $2 Projects are supposedly bad, I will withdraw Racetrack and replace it with this:

Mule (Action, $2)

+2 Cards
If you have 4 cards or fewer in your hand, +1 Action.

A simple card that becomes a Lab if your hand is small enough when you play it. It offers a good defence against the likes of Militia and Ghost Ship. To be clear, the handsize check is made after you have drawn 2 cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: curtis on April 01, 2020, 03:49:09 pm

Quote

Town Charter (Event, $2)

Once Per Turn: +1 Buy, +1 Action
If it's your Buy Phase, return to your Action Phase.

Not terribly creative, but adds a limited version of what Villa and Calvary do to a game, without being dependent on piles.
I'm not sure if the "If it's your Buy Phase" part is necessary since it's an event.

(https://i.imgur.com/irNrZFql.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on April 01, 2020, 04:46:32 pm

Quote

Tally
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} Event
Set aside any number of coppers you have in play. Put them in your hand at the start of your next turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on April 01, 2020, 06:22:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Ht61ure.png)

So you can chain Rabbits like you can chain Cultists. I like the idea that you get rewarded for having multiple copies of the same card, without the card being terrible if you don't draw them together.

I thought it is quite strong for $2, so I wanted to give the other players a little bonus, when you gain a Rabbit. Since drawing a card like with Lost City is too much, I decided for a little cycle. Which also, should not be underrated. The "non-empty" deck clause is there to prevent it from triggering a shuffle. Especially triggering the first shuffle, when the oppenent has 3/4 or 2/5 is way to annoying and it is not meant be an attack.

Changelog:
Changed the on-gain effect from giving your opponents a cycle (draw one, discard one) to giving your opponents a Coffer.
That makes the card way easier to understand, in the sense that the advantage for your opponent is clearer to see. Also your opponent does not have to react on your turn and it is less wordy, both of which is always good.
And I think it is more balanced now. You get a strong card, they get a strong effect (hey, your playing a Baker for them!). Sounds fair.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on April 01, 2020, 06:39:51 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on April 01, 2020, 05:31:08 am

For the want of better ideas at the moment, I'll go with this one.

Rook
$2
Action
Choose one: +2 Cards; or +2 Actions; or +2 Buys; or +$2.

All I can say is, heavily inspired by Pawn. Does it compare too favourably to Steward and Squire?

I think that card just fine. Since Steward is mainly used for trashing, i would say it is quite different. It is similar to Squire, but still different. And after all it is not problem to be similar to something existing, since most of the time they will not be in the kingdom together. I mean how many Village variants do we have!? And that is for good reason.

And nice name, I see what you did there  ;)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on April 01, 2020, 06:45:48 pm

Quote from: Rhodos on April 01, 2020, 06:39:51 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on April 01, 2020, 05:31:08 am

For the want of better ideas at the moment, I'll go with this one.

Rook
$2
Action
Choose one: +2 Cards; or +2 Actions; or +2 Buys; or +$2.

All I can say is, heavily inspired by Pawn. Does it compare too favourably to Steward and Squire?

I think that card just fine. Since Steward is mainly used for trashing, i would say it is quite different. It is similar to Squire, but still different. And after all it is not problem to be similar to something existing, since most of the time they will not be in the kingdom together. I mean how many Village variants do we have!? And that is for good reason.

And nice name, I see what you did there  ;)

Nice feedback, thanks. And yes, I do play chess and thoroughly enjoy it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on April 01, 2020, 08:37:07 pm

Given the very valid point about $2 Projects being too much an auto-buy in many cases, I've added a buy restriction to my entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg830198#msg830198).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on April 02, 2020, 07:54:09 am

(https://i.imgur.com/5sfwgHp.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on April 02, 2020, 12:11:25 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/6gvkcG4.png)

An old card of mine, made before Patron, but now I have the right wording for it (because of Patron).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on April 02, 2020, 01:03:05 pm

So, after some deliberation, I think my plan will be to make Colosseum cost $3. Which disqualifies it for this week.  So here's my new entry:

Sometimes Retrievers will take things you give them and bury them. Other times they'll take buried things and bring them back to you. Arf!

(https://i.imgur.com/YN2b4fq.png)

Notes:
• Works as a possible defense against some trashing and discarding attacks (depending, of course on what is trashed / discarded)
• Can also be used to trash bad cards for something like Cellar (Cellar / Retriever becomes Chapel+)
• Can also be used when you don't want to trash a card for something like Junk Dealer
• it's "would trash/discard" so "when you trash/discard" triggers don't happen, i.e. you can't Remodel a gold, discard it, and get a province

Questions:
Is it overpowered that you can use multiple times? (I considered making you discard it so could only "retrieve/bury" one card per Retriever)


Secret History:
• this was inspired by the Menagerie teaser of "instead, and vice-versa" and was originally phrased that way. It seemed clearer to spell it out.
• I had a Retriever in the pure reaction contest which needed help; seemed like the perfect flavor for this idea. It got the Action type, and +2 Cards since it's a dog (he's a good boy, yes, he is).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on April 02, 2020, 01:13:55 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on April 02, 2020, 01:03:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YN2b4fq.png)

To shrink down the wording of the Reaction part of that card, I would use the "and vice-versa" term introduced with Way of the Chameleon.

"When you would discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may reveal this from your hand to trash it instead, and vice-versa."

I dunno if this is a "legal" way of wording things, but it'd be neat if it was.

Also, Retriever should probably be discarded on use, since you could infinitely trash-to-discard and then discard-to-trash.


Edit: Oops. Just read your Secret History in which you explain why you did not use the term "vice-versa". Sorry about me butting in.  :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on April 02, 2020, 01:46:47 pm

Quote from: X-tra on April 02, 2020, 01:13:55 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on April 02, 2020, 01:03:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YN2b4fq.png)

To shrink down the wording of the Reaction part of that card, I would use the "and vice-versa" term introduced with Way of the Chameleon.

"When you would discard a card other than during Clean-up, you may reveal this from your hand to trash it instead, and vice-versa."

I dunno if this is a "legal" way of wording things, but it'd be neat if it was.

...

Edit: Oops. Just read your Secret History in which you explain why you did not use the term "vice-versa". Sorry about me butting in.  :)

Thanks for the feedback!

So, more specifically, if it were "when you trash, discard and vice versa" it would allow trashing when discarding during cleanup. And if it where "when you discard other than Clean-up, trash and vice versa", it *might* allow reacting when trashing from supply which I didn't want (hence "trash one of your cards"). Additionally, it would clash with my Worshippers token design, that allows for trashing during cleanup.

Quote from: X-tra on April 02, 2020, 01:13:55 pm

Also, Retriever should probably be discarded on use, since you could infinitely trash-to-discard and then discard-to-trash.

I'm not so worried about this. You can reveal Moat infinitely as it is. Since it's "would trash / discard" there's not benefit here to doing this. That said, I might make this change if this version is overpowered.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 02, 2020, 04:03:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EArOE42.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 02, 2020, 04:10:37 pm

Quote from: segura on April 02, 2020, 04:03:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EArOE42.png)

As worded, if you remove more tokens than you have cards in hand; you will be allowed to choose to trash from an empty hand and not give your opponents _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}. Is this your intent?

I know this costs less than Cathedral, but _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} instead of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} doesn't seem like enough of a difference for such a huge difference in power level.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 02, 2020, 04:21:47 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 02, 2020, 04:10:37 pm

Quote from: segura on April 02, 2020, 04:03:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EArOE42.png)

As worded, if you remove more tokens than you have cards in hand; you will be allowed to choose to trash from an empty hand and not give your opponents _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}. Is this your intent?

That's not how it works, you gotta pick a do-able option. For each token that you remove, you either have to trash a card from your hand or gift a VP. If your hand is empty, you gotta gift the VP.

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 02, 2020, 04:10:37 pm

I know this costs less than Cathedral, but _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} instead of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} doesn't seem like enough of a difference for such a huge difference in power level.

It is not meant to be a powerful trasher like Cathedral or Chapel which you can, from a pragmatic point of view, savely pick without actullay thinking about whether that choice is good as it is very often the right choice.

So yeah, as it does not strive to be as centralizing as Cathedral the price is fine. It is just the old chapel vs. weaker trasher that costs more discussion but with landscape cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 02, 2020, 04:23:27 pm

Quote from: segura on April 02, 2020, 04:17:58 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 02, 2020, 04:10:37 pm

Quote from: segura on April 02, 2020, 04:03:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EArOE42.png)

As worded, if you remove more tokens than you have cards in hand; you will be allowed to choose to trash from an empty hand and not give your opponents _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}. Is this your intent?

That's not how it works, you gotta pick a do-able option. For each token that you remove, you either have to trash a card from your hand or gift a VP. If your hand is empty, you gotta gift the VP.

From the Torturer official FAQ:

Quote

A player can choose to gain a Curse even with no Curses left (and thus not gain one), or to discard 2 cards even with one or zero cards in hand (discarding their only card if they have one).

This applies to everything in Dominion. Any time you are given a choice; you are allowed to pick either one, even if one of them is impossible.

If you want to force the player to always do one, you can say "You may trash a card from your hand. If you don't, each other player gets +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}".

But it probably doesn't really matter in this case; you normally start your turn with 5 cards; so you would need 6 tokens built up on the pile, as well as being willing to trash your entire hand, before it's an issue. And spending more than 6 turns doing nothing just to trash your entire hand at the start of a later turn doesn't sound too strong that you need to also give a VP penalty.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 02, 2020, 04:43:22 pm

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh?  :o

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20150.msg826107#msg826107). And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: curtis on April 02, 2020, 04:51:14 pm

well that escalated quickly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 02, 2020, 05:05:05 pm

Quote from: segura on April 02, 2020, 04:43:22 pm

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh?  :o

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20150.msg826107#msg826107). And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

Allowing a player to trash their entire 5 card hand by removing 6-7 tokens without a VP penalty doesn't harm the balance of this Project.

A FAQ can't / doesn't override normal card wording rules. If a card says "+3 cards", it can't mean something other than "draw 3 cards" just because a FAQ comes along and says that "on this card, +3 cards actually means discard 3 cards".

Quote

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly

This part is especially ironic, since you yourself interpreted the card wrongly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 02, 2020, 05:16:21 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 02, 2020, 05:05:05 pm

Quote from: segura on April 02, 2020, 04:43:22 pm

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh?  :o

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20150.msg826107#msg826107). And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

A FAQ can't / doesn't override normal card wording rules. If a card says "+3 cards", it can't mean something other than "draw 3 cards" just because a FAQ comes along and says that "on this card, +3 cards actually means discard 3 cards".

The problem of people like you is that you think too algorithmically and fail to use common sense.

Torturer is a card which was frequently misplayed precisely because it is counterintutitive. From your perspective, the extra line in the 2nd edition that told people that their intution is wrong would be totally unncessary. From the perspective of the large majority of players, i.e. ordinary folks who have a good understanding of the games they play but don't know trivial details, it was absolutely necessary (I also palyed Torturer wrongly and it is not like I am not oewning a lot of games, reading a lot of game rulebooks and explaining rules often). Common sense, designing stuff in an intuitive way, matters.

Ironically my card is the inverse, it would be played intuitively correctly by nearly everybody although it is indeed worded not correctly. Because formatting issues also matter. Try yourself, mock up a card. Rule consistency is one among many factors that matter for this game. Pretending that it is the only one is utterly myopic.

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 02, 2020, 05:05:05 pm

Quote

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly

This part is especially ironic, since you yourself interpreted the card wrongly.

Hardly possible as I designed the card. In your rules myopia you were just not caring at all about how the card is meant to work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on April 02, 2020, 05:17:02 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 02, 2020, 05:05:05 pm

Quote from: segura on April 02, 2020, 04:43:22 pm

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh?  :o

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20150.msg826107#msg826107). And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

Allowing a player to trash their entire 5 card hand by removing 6-7 tokens without a VP penalty doesn't harm the balance of this Project.

It would have a significant effect on the desired design, though. Because for each turn you add a token, you're getting into riskier territory. I don't trash 1 card, I will have to trash at least 2 (or give at least 1 VP). At some point if you get more than 5 tokens, then there's no reason not to wait until you have the right hand to trash since discarding 10 tokens is the same as discarding 5. But if you had to give the VP, if you can't trash, it's a 5 VP difference.

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 02, 2020, 05:05:05 pm

A FAQ can't / doesn't override normal card wording rules. If a card says "+3 cards", it can't mean something other than "draw 3 cards" just because a FAQ comes along and says that "on this card, +3 cards actually means discard 3 cards".

This ^^^. Choosing an option you cannot do is an established rule. Having to look up an FAQ for each card where this could make a difference to see which alternative it followed is not scalable.

Note the suggesting isn't you can't make this card work the way you want, just that the wording should be different.

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 02, 2020, 05:05:05 pm

Quote

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly

This part is especially ironic, since you yourself interpreted the card wrongly.

This made me laugh. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 02, 2020, 05:33:45 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on April 02, 2020, 05:17:02 pm

Note the suggesting isn't you can't make this card work the way you want, just that the wording should be different.

I don't do dubious cards with a giant wall of text without thinking about the wording. This card needs to be more word-compact, and so far I failed at that. Making it even more wordy is totally out of the question, then it would be even more ripe for the bin than it already is due to its wordiness.
To people like GendoIkari there is only one criterium. But the real world is full of trade-offs. One of them during card design is clarity / rule consistency vs. wordiness / unreadability / lack of memorizability

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 02, 2020, 07:16:02 pm

Quote from: segura on April 02, 2020, 05:33:45 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on April 02, 2020, 05:17:02 pm

Note the suggesting isn't you can't make this card work the way you want, just that the wording should be different.

I don't do dubious cards with a giant wall of text without thinking about the wording. This card needs to be more word-compact, and so far I failed at that. Making it even more wordy is totally out of the question, then it would be even more ripe for the bin than it already is due to its wordiness.
To people like GendoIkari there is only one criterium. But the real world is full of trade-offs. One of them during card design is clarity / rule consistency vs. wordiness / unreadability / lack of memorizability

"For each token removed: You may trash a card from your hand; if you didn't, each other player gets +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}" only increases the total word count from 51 to 55, while making it much more consistent with other cards, and functioning the way you want it to. And would actually make it more memorizable than just remembering that it functions differently from literally every other card in existence that gives you choices.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: curtis on April 02, 2020, 08:31:11 pm

Quote from: segura on April 02, 2020, 05:33:45 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on April 02, 2020, 05:17:02 pm

Note the suggesting isn't you can't make this card work the way you want, just that the wording should be different.

I don't do dubious cards with a giant wall of text without thinking about the wording. This card needs to be more word-compact, and so far I failed at that. Making it even more wordy is totally out of the question, then it would be even more ripe for the bin than it already is due to its wordiness.
To people like GendoIkari there is only one criterium. But the real world is full of trade-offs. One of them during card design is clarity / rule consistency vs. wordiness / unreadability / lack of memorizability

What do you think about this, Segura?

Quote

At the start of your turn, choose one: place a token here; or you may trash one card per token, remove one token per card trashed, and remove the remaining tokens, giving each other player +1(VP) per remaining token removed. Your tokens left here are worth +1(VP) for each other player.

This also lets you consider making it "remove one token per card trashed this turn" to enable potential interactions with sewers-like effects.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Optimal_Inefficiency on April 02, 2020, 08:32:59 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sa5T2T8_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Quote

Choose one: gain 2 Horses;
or add 2 Debt Tokens to a Supply pile;
or remove 2 Debt Tokens from a Supply pile.
-
(When a player buys a card, they take the Debt Tokens from its pile.)

I am a big fan of Steward and Squire, so I definitely wanted to create a card that gives options in the same manner. Gain 2 Horses is a desirable choice, similar to Sleigh. The last two options could be thought of as an amalgamation of Embargo and Tax. Embargo tokens are such fun, it is a real shame there is only one card that uses them. The same could be said of Tax, but as an Event that gives neither +Buy nor a direct benefit to me, I find myself not often taking advantage of this Embargo-esque Event.

The choices boil down to:
+2 Cards (at some point in the future), or
Give someone their -$1 token twice or make them discard 2 Coppers (if you know what they want), or
+$2 (essentially) if you use it to clear some debt tokens.

The beauty in the last two options is even if you do not plan on trying to strap your opponents with debt, you still need to have a plan for if they try to do it to you. The assault and the counter are the same card.

Explanation of the theme, if case you missed it:
- Stealing horses gets you horses (gain 2 Horses).
- Stealing horses puts you at an advantage (remove 2 Debt Tokens).
- Stealing horses puts your opponent at a disadvantage (add 2 Debt Tokens).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on April 02, 2020, 10:30:39 pm

Quote from: segura on April 02, 2020, 04:43:22 pm

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh?  :o

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20150.msg826107#msg826107). And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

It is common sense to think that a card would work like every other card in Dominion. Torturer, Native Village, Charm, Lurker, Pawn, Steward, Courtier, Nobles, Squire, Count, Amulet, Miser, Wild Hunt, Treasurer and Governor all work one way. Yours works the opposite way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 03, 2020, 01:21:31 am

Quote from: spheremonk on April 02, 2020, 10:30:39 pm

Quote from: segura on April 02, 2020, 04:43:22 pm

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh?  :o

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20150.msg826107#msg826107). And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

It is common sense to think that a card would work like every other card in Dominion. Torturer, Native Village, Charm, Lurker, Pawn, Steward, Courtier, Nobles, Squire, Count, Amulet, Miser, Wild Hunt, Treasurer and Governor all work one way. Yours works the opposite way.

Not really, it works totally fine. If you want it to. If you are direly and myopically set on finding rule issues, well, then naturally it does not.

Torturer might be official but it is extremely counterintuitive. As I already said, my playing group would immediately get that the VPs are a punishment which you is not avoidable. They would also play Torturer wrong or at least ask (I own the first version).

I totally agree that my wording is officially wrong. But it is far mor intuitive than Torturer and as I don’t play with robots that kinda matters.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 03, 2020, 01:27:36 am

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on April 02, 2020, 08:32:59 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sa5T2T8_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Quote

Choose one: gain 2 Horses;
or add 2 Debt Tokens to a Supply pile;
or remove 2 Debt Tokens from a Supply pile.
-
(When a player buys a card, they take the Debt Tokens from its pile.)

I am a big fan of Steward and Squire, so I definitely wanted to create a card that gives options in the same manner. Gain 2 Horses is a desirable choice, similar to Sleigh. The last two options could be thought of as an amalgamation of Embargo and Tax. Embargo tokens are such fun, it is a real shame there is only one card that uses them. The same could be said of Tax, but as an Event that gives neither +Buy nor a direct benefit to me, I find myself not often taking advantage of this Embargo-esque Event.

The choices boil down to:
+2 Cards (at some point in the future), or
Give someone their -$1 token twice or make them discard 2 Coppers (if you know what they want), or
+$2 (essentially) if you use it to clear some debt tokens.

The beauty in the last two options is even if you do not plan on trying to strap your opponents with debt, you still need to have a plan for if they try to do it to you. The assault and the counter are the same card.

Explanation of the theme, if case you missed it:
- Stealing horses gets you horses (gain 2 Horses).
- Stealing horses puts you at an advantage (remove 2 Debt Tokens).
- Stealing horses puts your opponent at a disadvantage (add 2 Debt Tokens).

I am fairly certain that the first option will be used more often, but if you need to get a card, you will remove Debt and if there is a bottleneck card that the opponents need (e.g. the only trasher or junker in the Kingdom), the Tax attack sounds good.
I like it, simple stuff that immediately works.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on April 03, 2020, 02:04:09 am

Quote from: segura on April 03, 2020, 01:21:31 am

Quote from: spheremonk on April 02, 2020, 10:30:39 pm

Quote from: segura on April 02, 2020, 04:43:22 pm

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh?  :o

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20150.msg826107#msg826107). And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

It is common sense to think that a card would work like every other card in Dominion. Torturer, Native Village, Charm, Lurker, Pawn, Steward, Courtier, Nobles, Squire, Count, Amulet, Miser, Wild Hunt, Treasurer and Governor all work one way. Yours works the opposite way.

Not really, it works totally fine. If you want it to. If you are direly and myopically set on finding rule issues, well, then naturally it does not.

Torturer might be official but it is extremely counterintuitive. As I already said, my playing group would immediately get that the VPs are a punishment which you is not avoidable. They would also play Torturer wrong or at least ask (I own the first version).

I totally agree that my wording is officially wrong. But it is far mor intuitive than Torturer and as I don’t play with robots that kinda matters.

Wow. I guess you’ve won me over. I have two new entries for this week’s contest.

(https://abload.de/img/ville3vjzp.png)     (https://abload.de/img/smithdckxp.png)
 
FAQ:

Ville: You get plus two Actions, including the one you used to play this.

Smith: Draw three cards, counting this (i.e., leave this card in your play area, not in your hand, and draw two cards off the top of your deck).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 03, 2020, 02:18:04 am

Quote from: segura on April 03, 2020, 01:21:31 am

Quote from: spheremonk on April 02, 2020, 10:30:39 pm

Quote from: segura on April 02, 2020, 04:43:22 pm

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh?  :o

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20150.msg826107#msg826107). And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

It is common sense to think that a card would work like every other card in Dominion. Torturer, Native Village, Charm, Lurker, Pawn, Steward, Courtier, Nobles, Squire, Count, Amulet, Miser, Wild Hunt, Treasurer and Governor all work one way. Yours works the opposite way.

Not really, it works totally fine. If you want it to. If you are direly and myopically set on finding rule issues, well, then naturally it does not.

Torturer might be official but it is extremely counterintuitive. As I already said, my playing group would immediately get that the VPs are a punishment which you is not avoidable. They would also play Torturer wrong or at least ask (I own the first version).

I totally agree that my wording is officially wrong. But it is far mor intuitive than Torturer and as I don’t play with robots that kinda matters.

Sure, YOUR playgroup may find Torturer counter-intuitive and assume correctly that your card functions the opposite way of every other card just because you said so, but literally nobody on this forum agrees with you or your playgroup. Contrary to what you seem to believe, the world doesn't revolve around you and your playgroup.

I'm beginning to wonder why you even bother posting your cards here when you absolutely refuse to ever take any feedback and seem adamantly dead-set on setting every card you make in stone.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on April 03, 2020, 02:48:08 am

Yeah okay, this argument about intuitiveness has served its course and the quality of discourse is dropping. As the god-king-judge of this week's contest I'm going to start disqualifying people who don't tone it down.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on April 03, 2020, 03:43:52 am

Quote from: Rhodos on April 01, 2020, 06:22:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Ht61ure.png)

So you can chain Rabbits like you can chain Cultists. I like the idea that you get rewarded for having multiple copies of the same card, without the card being terrible if you don't draw them together.

I thought it is quite strong for $2, so I wanted to give the other players a little bonus, when you gain a Rabbit. Since drawing a card like with Lost City is too much, I decided for a little cycle. Which also, should not be underrated. The "non-empty" deck clause is there to prevent it from triggering a shuffle. Especially triggering the first shuffle, when the oppenent has 3/4 or 2/5 is way to annoying and it is not meant be an attack.

Changelog:
Changed the on-gain effect from giving your opponents a cycle (draw one, discard one) to giving your opponents a Coffer.
That makes the card way easier to understand, in the sense that the advantage for your opponent is clearer to see. Also your opponent does not have to react on your turn and it is less wordy, both of which is always good.
And I think it is more balanced now. You get a strong card, they get a strong effect (hey, your playing a Baker for them!). Sounds fair.

I changed my card to make it more balanced and easier.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 03, 2020, 11:42:22 am

Quote from: Gubump on April 03, 2020, 02:18:04 am

Quote from: segura on April 03, 2020, 01:21:31 am

Quote from: spheremonk on April 02, 2020, 10:30:39 pm

Quote from: segura on April 02, 2020, 04:43:22 pm

If you don't like that my card has rules that explain how it is meant to work, like all official cards, well, duh?  :o

In my playing group, nobody would interpret this card wrongly (as opposed to Torturer, which is a card that is counterintuitive and was often misplayed before it got the explicit 2nd edition wording that specified that you can pick an option which you cannot execute). Not everybody is as obsessed with the rules as you are, some folks use common sense (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20150.msg826107#msg826107). And card designers also care about other stuff, like keeping wordiness in check, especially on cards which are already far too wordy (that's a far bigger issue). And above all, how interesting, balanced and fun to play a card is.

It is common sense to think that a card would work like every other card in Dominion. Torturer, Native Village, Charm, Lurker, Pawn, Steward, Courtier, Nobles, Squire, Count, Amulet, Miser, Wild Hunt, Treasurer and Governor all work one way. Yours works the opposite way.

Not really, it works totally fine. If you want it to. If you are direly and myopically set on finding rule issues, well, then naturally it does not.

Torturer might be official but it is extremely counterintuitive. As I already said, my playing group would immediately get that the VPs are a punishment which you is not avoidable. They would also play Torturer wrong or at least ask (I own the first version).

I totally agree that my wording is officially wrong. But it is far mor intuitive than Torturer and as I don’t play with robots that kinda matters.

Sure, YOUR playgroup may find Torturer counter-intuitive and assume correctly that your card functions the opposite way of every other card just because you said so, but literally nobody on this forum agrees with you or your playgroup. Contrary to what you seem to believe, the world doesn't revolve around you and your playgroup.

True that, my gaming group consists of hardcore gamers and is thus haedly representative. The average Dominion player will be less familiar with the rules than my gaming group and rely more on common sense.
You can of course pretend that the average Joe always played Torturer correctly or That the 2nd Edition wording of Torturer does not exist. It had nothing to do with reality though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 03, 2020, 12:40:27 pm

Quote from: pubby on April 03, 2020, 02:48:08 am

Yeah okay, this argument about intuitiveness has served its course and the quality of discourse is dropping. As the god-king-judge of this week's contest I'm going to start disqualifying people who don't tone it down.

Joke's on you, I don't have a card to submit to the contest, do your worst!  ;)

Title: Re: Contest #68: $2 Cost
Post by: Gubump on April 03, 2020, 01:22:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jRc0iKS.png)

Slower at getting rid of your cards than Chapel, but is useful much later in the game since it can get rid of your Victory cards without losing any of their VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on April 03, 2020, 04:36:18 pm

(https://imgur.com/bGQqLhL.png) (https://i.imgur.com/EUVQsSQ.png)

The idea is give you some shifting if you can play the cards in a certain way. The original idea of rope didn't had the discard effect, (and no draw on Climber), but it felt to strong for a $2 card.
Edit 1: fixed typos
Edit 2: removing rope at the end of the turn

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 03, 2020, 04:42:28 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on April 03, 2020, 04:36:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/gZPFtPm.png)

1. You left out the "m" in Climber.
2. "Take" and "Rope" should both be capitalized.
Typos aside, this is my favorite entry so far.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on April 03, 2020, 05:05:10 pm

Changing my entry in light of the $2 Project info.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e42ebce1181de1d515adb5b/5e42ee2deebdb7794ac074b6/b3862962ec8040bd2a400f723a670e81/image.png)

Quote

Oyster Farmer • $2 • Action
+1 Action.
Reveal the top and bottom cards of your deck. You may play a Treasure revealed this way. Discard the cards that were revealed but not played.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on April 03, 2020, 05:35:07 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 03, 2020, 12:40:27 pm

Quote from: pubby on April 03, 2020, 02:48:08 am

Yeah okay, this argument about intuitiveness has served its course and the quality of discourse is dropping. As the god-king-judge of this week's contest I'm going to start disqualifying people who don't tone it down.

Joke's on you, I don't have a card to submit to the contest, do your worst!  ;)

And my card isn't going to win either way. But you're right about the quality and tone, so I'll shut up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on April 03, 2020, 05:44:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 03, 2020, 04:42:28 pm

1. You left out the "m" in Climber.
2. "Take" and "Rope" should both be capitalized.
Typos aside, this is my favorite entry so far.

Fixed. Thank you :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 03, 2020, 07:36:53 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on April 03, 2020, 04:36:18 pm

(https://imgur.com/bGQqLhL.png) (https://imgur.com/qDQx9HF.png)

The idea is give you some shifting if you can play the cards in a certain way. The original idea of rope didn't had the discard effect, (and no draw on Climber), but it felt to strong for a $2 card.

Is this supposed to say “previously card played this turn”? Or is it supposed to count the last turn, which it would as worded? Counting the last turn seems weird; since the last card played will usually be a treasure, often a copper.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on April 03, 2020, 11:15:38 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 03, 2020, 07:36:53 pm

Is this supposed to say “previously card played this turn”? Or is it supposed to count the last turn, which it would as worded? Counting the last turn seems weird; since the last card played will usually be a treasure, often a copper.

You take the rope after you played the climber, so if you play copper latter (should I change "Take the rope" for "after you play this, take the rope"?)
Anyway, yes maybe it should, to avoid tracking issues with silver or gold

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: popsofctown on April 04, 2020, 12:05:48 am

I fear it will be correct to take Horses with horse thief too often.  The horses will net you two nonterminal cards, the debt will deprive another player of 2$ when you can perfectly predict what they want to buy and they have to go through with that purchase anyway.  It's the general case that cards are more valuable than $, and since both effects are delayed away to a point where it's hard to judge their situational impact, it's hard to make a Steward-style assessment that you've you've hit the odd spot that $ is more valuable than cards. 
I think maybe it's not too pushed to add a vanilla $ to the debt options.  Increasing their debt instead would run counter to the "let's not do Sea Hag and Saboteur anymore" rule, although I'm not sure you definitely need to honor that rule when the card can cure its own ill.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 04, 2020, 02:50:06 am

Quote from: Freddy10 on April 03, 2020, 11:15:38 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 03, 2020, 07:36:53 pm

Is this supposed to say “previously card played this turn”? Or is it supposed to count the last turn, which it would as worded? Counting the last turn seems weird; since the last card played will usually be a treasure, often a copper.

You take the rope after you played the climber, so if you play copper latter (should I change "Take the rope" for "after you play this, take the rope"?)
Anyway, yes maybe it should, to avoid tracking issues with silver or gold

I’m talking about the situation when you start your turn with the Rope; the last card played would be what your opponent played last; not what you played last.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on April 04, 2020, 09:37:32 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 04, 2020, 02:50:06 am

Quote from: Freddy10 on April 03, 2020, 11:15:38 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 03, 2020, 07:36:53 pm

Is this supposed to say “previously card played this turn”? Or is it supposed to count the last turn, which it would as worded? Counting the last turn seems weird; since the last card played will usually be a treasure, often a copper.

You take the rope after you played the climber, so if you play copper latter (should I change "Take the rope" for "after you play this, take the rope"?)
Anyway, yes maybe it should, to avoid tracking issues with silver or gold

I’m talking about the situation when you start your turn with the Rope; the last card played would be what your opponent played last; not what you played last.

True. I hope there are no more edge cases now. It became a little heavy on words, but i think the idea is still simple. Maybe it can be done without an artifact or something similar

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on April 04, 2020, 02:22:51 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on April 03, 2020, 04:36:18 pm

(https://imgur.com/bGQqLhL.png) (https://i.imgur.com/EUVQsSQ.png)

The idea is give you some shifting if you can play the cards in a certain way. The original idea of rope didn't had the discard effect, (and no draw on Climber), but it felt to strong for a $2 card.
Edit 1: fixed typos
Edit 2: removing rope at the end of the turn

Really cool design idea! :)

I would say it is a bit too strong for $2. I assume that, in most cases, you will be able to trigger the Rope twice (village variant -> smithy variant in engine or silver -> gold in big money). That means you are playing a forum that costs only $2. And even triggering it ones is pretty good considering the fact that you don't take risks when you put Climber in your deck. I would say it is more interesting at $3, where it competes with other good cards and it is harder to trigger twice.
That said, I like the card and I would keep it like that for the contest. But maybe that is something to consider for later.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: curtis on April 04, 2020, 06:10:12 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on April 03, 2020, 04:36:18 pm

(https://imgur.com/bGQqLhL.png) (https://i.imgur.com/EUVQsSQ.png)

The idea is give you some shifting if you can play the cards in a certain way. The original idea of rope didn't had the discard effect, (and no draw on Climber), but it felt to strong for a $2 card.
Edit 1: fixed typos
Edit 2: removing rope at the end of the turn

 Climber, village, smithy, village, smithy, market, artisan, Copper, silver, copper, silver, gold.
 
Receives the effect 8 times right? Seems kinda strong for $2 to me too. What if it only applied to actions? Or cost 5 and was also a lab with anoth +1 card? I think it would still be an auto pick in all three configurations

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on April 04, 2020, 07:07:53 pm

Quote from: curtis on April 04, 2020, 06:10:12 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on April 03, 2020, 04:36:18 pm

(https://imgur.com/bGQqLhL.png) (https://i.imgur.com/EUVQsSQ.png)

The idea is give you some shifting if you can play the cards in a certain way. The original idea of rope didn't had the discard effect, (and no draw on Climber), but it felt to strong for a $2 card.
Edit 1: fixed typos
Edit 2: removing rope at the end of the turn

 Climber, village, smithy, village, smithy, market, artisan, Copper, silver, copper, silver, gold.
 
Receives the effect 8 times right? Seems kinda strong for $2 to me too. What if it only applied to actions? Or cost 5 and was also a lab with anoth +1 card? I think it would still be an auto pick in all three configurations

No, when you play the village after the smithy, you have to return the rope. You'd have to play another climber to take it back.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: curtis on April 04, 2020, 11:06:26 pm

Ahhhh, I should read better. Now it seems much more balanced lol

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 05, 2020, 12:23:52 am

This is obviously far too strong. It’s is not hard to make this trigger at least once and in this case it is a very slightly delayed (if delay is the appropriate term, it happens after all in the same turn) Fugitive which is a $4.5

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on April 05, 2020, 07:24:05 am

A Fugitive that only works if you draw your cards in the correct order isn't that strong. Say you're playing any engine with Border Village as your main village. This becomes pretty weak. Same with any 5 cost village paired with a 4 cost Smithy. You don't really want multiple, and cost reduction screws it up. I think it has enough downside to be balanced at 2 or 3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on April 05, 2020, 08:41:39 am

If you play with the Border Village you still get the Fugitive effect, since it is higher cost than the Climber which you played before. And I don't see how cost reduction will screw it up, since it will also reduce the Climber cost. And if you play like a Highway after Climber you still get to trigger the Rope at least once, which makes Climber a Fugitive.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on April 05, 2020, 08:51:02 am

The problem is playing cost reduction before the Climber. This isn't quite as likely with Bridge and Highway, but with Bridge Troll, Climber is going to cost the same as most of your other cards if you have just 3 or 4 in play which isn't unlikely in a deck using the card, and it can happen with other reducers, such as the self-cost reducers from Menagerie and Highway if you draw the Highways early.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 05, 2020, 09:03:53 am

Quote from: D782802859 on April 05, 2020, 07:24:05 am

A Fugitive that only works if you draw your cards in the correct order isn't that strong. Say you're playing any engine with Border Village as your main village. This becomes pretty weak. Same with any 5 cost village paired with a 4 cost Smithy. You don't really want multiple, and cost reduction screws it up. I think it has enough downside to be balanced at 2 or 3.

I do not understand this at all. The net effect of Rope is the same as that of Fugitive, and as already mentioned, Fugitive is between a $4 and a $5. It is of course a possibility that you can only play $2s or Coppers after Climber, or that you have several Highways in play, but not very likely. It is much more likely that you will play, as you mentioned, a $5 and a $4 and even if this is the end of your Action phase, you might still get some sifting during your Buy phase. This particular situation would make Climber better than Forum.

So no, not nearly balanced at $2. Definitely a $5. But then the more expensive thingy does not work anymore.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on April 05, 2020, 09:30:39 am

Quote from: segura on April 05, 2020, 09:03:53 am

Quote from: D782802859 on April 05, 2020, 07:24:05 am

A Fugitive that only works if you draw your cards in the correct order isn't that strong. Say you're playing any engine with Border Village as your main village. This becomes pretty weak. Same with any 5 cost village paired with a 4 cost Smithy. You don't really want multiple, and cost reduction screws it up. I think it has enough downside to be balanced at 2 or 3.

I do not understand this at all. The net effect of Rope is the same as that of Fugitive, and as already mentioned, Fugitive is between a $4 and a $5. It is of course a possibility that you can only play $2s or Coppers after Climber, or that you have several Highways in play, but not very likely. It is much more likely that you will play, as you mentioned, a $5 and a $4 and even if this is the end of your Action phase, you might still get some sifting during your Buy phase. This particular situation would make Climber better than Forum.

So no, not nearly balanced at $2. Definitely a $5. But then the more expensive thingy does not work anymore.

I don't think it's a 5, you do have to jump through hoops to make it work, but it's probably too strong at 2. I think 4 would be better, similar to Conspirator. Like Conspirator, it has a fairly powerful effect that requires outside support for it to function.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 05, 2020, 10:25:21 am

Balance aside; with the version that returns rope at the end of turn; seems weird to use an artifact. Artifacts are things that you have until another player takes it from you; this is just a way of splitting the wordy “until the end of turn” effect across 2 separate card-shaped things. Though it also causes it to be limited to one per turn. Which is like adding “if this is the first time you played climber this turn”.

Which actually is another reason it’s not as strong as Fugitive and doesn’t matter if it’s cheap.. because only the first one you play each turn is a Fugitive... the rest are cantrips that do nothing at all. The only reason to buy multiple Climbers is to increase your chances of having one every turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 05, 2020, 10:47:25 am

(https://i.imgur.com/RTHjaID.png)
A Reserve that can turn everything into a Cemetery. An old card from the Ice Age expansion so it's had a decent amount of testing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 05, 2020, 10:54:21 am

Quote from: Gazbag on April 05, 2020, 10:47:25 am

(https://i.imgur.com/RTHjaID.png)
A Reserve that can turn everything into a Cemetery. An old card from the Ice Age expansion so it's had a decent amount of testing.

I don’t know a good fix off-hand, but the wording is a bit tricky; when I first read “per $1 it costs” I thought it meant the trashed card. Which doesn’t make any sense, so on a second reading, I got it. Maybe replace “it” with “the gained card”?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 05, 2020, 11:00:30 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 05, 2020, 10:25:21 am

Balance aside; with the version that returns rope at the end of turn; seems weird to use an artifact. Artifacts are things that you have until another player takes it from you; this is just a way of splitting the wordy “until the end of turn” effect across 2 separate card-shaped things. Though it also causes it to be limited to one per turn. Which is like adding “if this is the first time you played climber this turn”.

Which actually is another reason it’s not as strong as Fugitive and doesn’t matter if it’s cheap.. because only the first one you play each turn is a Fugitive... the rest are cantrips that do nothing at all. The only reason to buy multiple Climbers is to increase your chances of having one every turn.

Agreed that the Rope no longer feels like an Artifact. You can also still play Climber on your opponent's turn using Way of the Mouse and one of the reactions that plays itself and have the Rope be carried over between turns that way so that issue hasn't been fixed.

You can return the Rope by playing a cheaper card and retake it multiple times in a turn so multiple Climbers can be Fugitives.

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 05, 2020, 10:54:21 am

Quote from: Gazbag on April 05, 2020, 10:47:25 am

(https://i.imgur.com/RTHjaID.png)
A Reserve that can turn everything into a Cemetery. An old card from the Ice Age expansion so it's had a decent amount of testing.

I don’t know a good fix off-hand, but the wording is a bit tricky; when I first read “per $1 it costs” I thought it meant the trashed card. Which doesn’t make any sense, so on a second reading, I got it. Maybe replace “it” with “the gained card”?

I think that's probably because you've been conditioned to think that because of all the trash for benefit cards that use similar wording? I can't really see anyone misinterpreting the wording of this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 05, 2020, 11:26:08 am

Yeah I’m not saying there’s a reasonable incorrect interpretation. Just that I had to read it twice to get it. You’re probably correct that it’s because we see similar wording on other trash for benefit cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 05, 2020, 11:48:18 am

Quote from: D782802859 on April 05, 2020, 09:30:39 am

you do have to jump through hoops to make it work

Playing a card with Coin costing larger than 2 is the very opposite of jumping through hoops, it occurs most of the times no matter what: if you play money you get some sifting (read twice: Gold, Silver) while playing Treasures, so you can sift through green and if you play an engine it is highly unlikely that you have only engine pieces that cost $2 in hand after having played Climber.
It is fairly trivial to make this sift at least twice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on April 05, 2020, 11:52:53 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 05, 2020, 11:26:08 am

Yeah I’m not saying there’s a reasonable incorrect interpretation. Just that I had to read it twice to get it. You’re probably correct that it’s because we see similar wording on other trash for benefit cards.

Yeah I'm sure there is a better wording, I didn't mean to be so dismissive. Really I just didn't want to redo the card image.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 05, 2020, 11:58:06 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 05, 2020, 10:25:21 am

Which actually is another reason it’s not as strong as Fugitive and doesn’t matter if it’s cheap.. because only the first one you play each turn is a Fugitive... the rest are cantrips that do nothing at all.

You cannot make unconditional statements about Climber. One Climber could lead to several Fugitive effects in a row, one Climber could be a mere cantrip, one Climber could re-take the Rope after you were forced to return it in the very same turn.

The key question is rather: how often will one Climber in your deck allow you to sift on average? I think it is larger than one (=1 would suffice for a price of $5 as well), hence a price of $5.
The only counterargument I see is that Climber underperforms in junky decks, i.e. at the very moment when you need a sifter most.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on April 05, 2020, 12:02:07 pm

Quote from: segura on April 05, 2020, 11:58:06 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 05, 2020, 10:25:21 am

Which actually is another reason it’s not as strong as Fugitive and doesn’t matter if it’s cheap.. because only the first one you play each turn is a Fugitive... the rest are cantrips that do nothing at all.

You cannot make unconditional statements about Climber. One Climber could lead to several Fugitive effects in a row, one Climber could be a mere cantrip, one Climber could re-take the Rope after you were forced to return it in the very same turn.

The key question is rather: how often will one Climber in your deck allow you to sift on average? I think it is larger than one (=1 would suffice for a price of $5 as well), hence a price of $5.
The only counterargument I see is that Climber underperforms in junky decks, i.e. at the very moment when you need a sifter most.

I think the pure factor of how variable and somewhat inconsistent it is as a sifter means it shouldn't have a price point of 5, and is justified in being less, although it is definitely undercosted.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 05, 2020, 12:28:55 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on April 05, 2020, 12:02:07 pm

Quote from: segura on April 05, 2020, 11:58:06 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 05, 2020, 10:25:21 am

Which actually is another reason it’s not as strong as Fugitive and doesn’t matter if it’s cheap.. because only the first one you play each turn is a Fugitive... the rest are cantrips that do nothing at all.

You cannot make unconditional statements about Climber. One Climber could lead to several Fugitive effects in a row, one Climber could be a mere cantrip, one Climber could re-take the Rope after you were forced to return it in the very same turn.

The key question is rather: how often will one Climber in your deck allow you to sift on average? I think it is larger than one (=1 would suffice for a price of $5 as well), hence a price of $5.
The only counterargument I see is that Climber underperforms in junky decks, i.e. at the very moment when you need a sifter most.

I think the pure factor of how variable and somewhat inconsistent it is as a sifter means it shouldn't have a price point of 5, and is justified in being less, although it is definitely undercosted.

Of course the problem of making this more expensive is that the likelihood of the Fugitive effect occuring decreases. So at a price of $2 it is undercosted and should be a $5 ... but at $5 the effect never occurs so it is underpowered.
I don't wanna diss the card but due to this feedback effect between price and power level, I don't think that the idea is salvagable. Of course I could be wrong and this might totally work at $3 or $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on April 05, 2020, 02:37:39 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/BZDYg9Z.png?1)
I'm changing my entry a little, to simplify the wording. It now doesn't set itself aside like Encampment does because it doesn't really need to and that just makes it more confusing, and it doesn't go to your hand anymore because it already has an on-gain, and it isn't good to have two on-gain effects.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on April 06, 2020, 01:35:47 am

Whoever wins really should propose the following contest:

Create a card-shaped object or objects that would qualify for five prior Weekly Design Contests.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on April 06, 2020, 01:57:59 am

Quote from: segura on April 05, 2020, 12:28:55 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 05, 2020, 10:25:21 am

Which actually is another reason it’s not as strong as Fugitive and doesn’t matter if it’s cheap.. because only the first one you play each turn is a Fugitive... the rest are cantrips that do nothing at all.

You cannot make unconditional statements about Climber. One Climber could lead to several Fugitive effects in a row, one Climber could be a mere cantrip, one Climber could re-take the Rope after you were forced to return it in the very same turn.

The key question is rather: how often will one Climber in your deck allow you to sift on average? I think it is larger than one (=1 would suffice for a price of $5 as well), hence a price of $5.
The only counterargument I see is that Climber underperforms in junky decks, i.e. at the very moment when you need a sifter most.

Of course the problem of making this more expensive is that the likelihood of the Fugitive effect occuring decreases. So at a price of $2 it is undercosted and should be a $5 ... but at $5 the effect never occurs so it is underpowered.
I don't wanna diss the card but due to this feedback effect between price and power level, I don't think that the idea is salvagable. Of course I could be wrong and this might totally work at $3 or $4.

Just take the +1 Card off the Climber. That way you have to activate its ability twice in order to get a fugitive effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 06, 2020, 02:16:08 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 06, 2020, 01:57:59 am

Quote from: segura on April 05, 2020, 12:28:55 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 05, 2020, 10:25:21 am

Which actually is another reason it’s not as strong as Fugitive and doesn’t matter if it’s cheap.. because only the first one you play each turn is a Fugitive... the rest are cantrips that do nothing at all.

You cannot make unconditional statements about Climber. One Climber could lead to several Fugitive effects in a row, one Climber could be a mere cantrip, one Climber could re-take the Rope after you were forced to return it in the very same turn.

The key question is rather: how often will one Climber in your deck allow you to sift on average? I think it is larger than one (=1 would suffice for a price of $5 as well), hence a price of $5.
The only counterargument I see is that Climber underperforms in junky decks, i.e. at the very moment when you need a sifter most.

Of course the problem of making this more expensive is that the likelihood of the Fugitive effect occuring decreases. So at a price of $2 it is undercosted and should be a $5 ... but at $5 the effect never occurs so it is underpowered.
I don't wanna diss the card but due to this feedback effect between price and power level, I don't think that the idea is salvagable. Of course I could be wrong and this might totally work at $3 or $4.

Just take the +1 Card off the Climber. That way you have to activate its ability twice in order to get a fugitive effect.

That would be a first-turn Dungeon effect, not a Fugitive effect, because you'd have to discard two cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: curtis on April 06, 2020, 03:22:13 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 06, 2020, 02:16:08 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 06, 2020, 01:57:59 am

Quote from: segura on April 05, 2020, 12:28:55 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 05, 2020, 10:25:21 am

Which actually is another reason it’s not as strong as Fugitive and doesn’t matter if it’s cheap.. because only the first one you play each turn is a Fugitive... the rest are cantrips that do nothing at all.

You cannot make unconditional statements about Climber. One Climber could lead to several Fugitive effects in a row, one Climber could be a mere cantrip, one Climber could re-take the Rope after you were forced to return it in the very same turn.

The key question is rather: how often will one Climber in your deck allow you to sift on average? I think it is larger than one (=1 would suffice for a price of $5 as well), hence a price of $5.
The only counterargument I see is that Climber underperforms in junky decks, i.e. at the very moment when you need a sifter most.

Of course the problem of making this more expensive is that the likelihood of the Fugitive effect occuring decreases. So at a price of $2 it is undercosted and should be a $5 ... but at $5 the effect never occurs so it is underpowered.
I don't wanna diss the card but due to this feedback effect between price and power level, I don't think that the idea is salvagable. Of course I could be wrong and this might totally work at $3 or $4.

Just take the +1 Card off the Climber. That way you have to activate its ability twice in order to get a fugitive effect.

That would be a first-turn Dungeon effect, not a Fugitive effect, because you'd have to discard two cards.

What about +1 action, +1 card, discard one card, take the rope? Then it's almost always a first-turn dungeon (that costs less) and has the chance to be a full warehouse+. The +1/-1 card fits with the role of the card too, but idk about the theme of it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on April 06, 2020, 09:46:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/SEdCJdv.jpg)

Quote

Lady
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Buy, +$1. If you have unused Actions (Actions, not Action cards), +1 Card. Otherwise, +1 Action.

A Market-. She always gives you the +1 Buy and +$1, but gives either the +1 Card or the +1 Action based on whether or not you already have the +action to use the Actions you will inevitably draw.  If +buys are your need, Lady can get them to you non-terminally.  If +actions are plentiful, Lady turns them into +card and +$ cheaply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on April 06, 2020, 11:56:00 pm

Deadline is sometime tomorrow

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on April 08, 2020, 08:27:48 am

Augur by somekindoftony
An interesting take on +2 cards. I'm always worried about self-gaining cards leading to swingy games, but this one's non-terminal so that shouldn't be an issue most of the time. The on-gain seems like the strongest part. Sifting through 4 then drawing 2 is about as good as embassy, and the first time you buy it it's is almost as good as night watchman. You don't want to fill your deck with these and that's an elegant downside, but IMO 4 card sifting is a little strong for a $2 card.

Naval Blockade by spheremonk
Embargo is kinda a crappy card, but making it an event means it's much easier to play with. I agree with your decision to add +Buy to the card, as otherwise this wouldn't get bought so often. Smuggles are needed to counterbalance people who spam this event, but at the same time reduces the effect from "gain a curse" to the more boring "spend $2 more per card". This is a big improvement over Embargo, but still not the most exciting card in the world.

Insurance by majiponi
I like silver gainers and this card counters junking and trashing attacks in a neat way. I know I'd have tons of fun if I managed to win a game because of this. The card does have an obvious downside though - if you buy this card the silver gaining is mandatory. It turns the card into a noob trap, which is a concern, but it's an interesting downside for players who know how to play.

Stud by NoMoreFun
The effect seems reasonable and at the right power level, and I really like how it requries card synergies to become good. I know Donald X didn't like $2 projects for being "auto buys", but this one seems docile enough to not cause issues (plus, it's not like vagrant and pearl diver aren't "auto buys on $2 hands" either). Pretty good card!

Turtle by mad4mathf
I think this card is too strong because of the words "any number". Village is $3 and gives you two actions, while this is $2 and gives you infinite. The downside is that your cards are set aside for a turn, halving your effective payload. With that said, I think this card has a great idea behind it. If it only let you set aside 2 actions (maybe 3) then I would be a big fan.

Diving School by ConMan
This card reminds me of City Gate and Silos, and I think it's a similar power level. The buy restriction does make it more interesting, but it also makes it way more expensive without +Buy. But if you do have +Buy, then the decision to buy this becomes uninteresting again. Haha, I dunno. It's alright, but I think City Gate and Silos covers enough ground in this area.

Bagpiper by grep
Bagpiper looks a lot like Soldier. The attack is intentionally weak, but I find the copper gaining unnecssary - "discard down to 4" would be my preference for the top. The bottom text is more interesting than the top albeit similar to Soldier. It seems nuts on a few boards - with Minion or Scrying Pool the card can easily push +$10 as a $2 non-terminal, which is busted.

Mule by mandioca15
This is like a weaker version of Diplomat. +2 cards at $2 is not a bad effect per se, but it seems overly hard to activate the +1 Action effect and doesn't work against "discard 1" attacks. I think it needs a buff.

Caver by Aquila
I love the simplicity here and think it's a perfect $2 card to play in an engine. BUT... there's a problem. This card is too good if drawn on turn 4. Getting +2 cards and +$2 on turn 4 can be a strong advantage on certain boards and I believe this overshadows Caver's use elsewhere. Maybe +2 Actions instead of +$2 would work better? That would be similar to Shanty Town in terms of power.

Rook by [TP] Inferno
Seems about as powerful as squire or hamlet, but the +2 Cards is a strong perk. Not all that exciting but not offensive either.

Lost Coins by Krush
This reminds me a lot of Mining Village. It feels like an obvious buy to me. If you have an extra $2 left over, just buy this and save the money for next turn. It's roughly equivalent to 2 coin tokens on gain, which is perhaps too strong for costing $2 and should instead cost $3 (or have a tweaked effect). But I still like the card a lot and would enjoy using it with Remodel.

Angel of Death by D782802859
Cursing everybody on gain is interesting, but it hurts yourself badly and I'm not sure if this effect is worth it. Most boards won't have a way to ensure your hand starts with a curse, meaning your Angel will return to the supply and be very sad. Making the Angel a laboratory-like action would be better - it's easier and more tactical to reveal curses that way.

Smithing Tools by X-tra
Really cool card. This little guy can draw a ton of cards if enough are in play, but I'm not sold on the player interaction bit. It seems like you'd want to play them regardless unless you didn't have enough +Actions to begin with. Personally, I'd prefer if this only counted your own Smithing Tools in play and leave the player interaction to controlling the split (like Fool's Gold). Good card nonetheless.

Town Charter by curtis
Cool card and it seems balanced, but it's very similar to Toil. To me, I'd rather play with Toil because it has more contrast with Villa, but this card's certainly alright.

Tally by LibraryAdventurer
Dunno if this was intended, but the strategy here is to use it every turn and keep your coppers out of your deck. If you open with a +Buy card on turn 1, you can do this every turn beginning on turn 2 and build extremely quickly from there. I think it's stronger than chapel, and maybe beats donate on some boards because you keep your buying power while simultaneously thinning. It's kinda cool for that reason and I'd love to play a few games with it, but I can't select it for being so powerful. P.S. I did the math and this+travelling fair alone drains provinces in 9 turns while also buying a duchy and estate

Rabbit by Rhodos
I love the top effect on a $2 card and like the design a lot, but the bottom text is too good for your opponents. It's a big enough penalty that if there's any other draw cards on the board you should use those instead of rabbit, and if rabbit is the only draw, you're probably better off skipping it. I can make a suggestion: give a villager instead of a coffer. Villagers aren't as dangerous to give to your opponent.

Cleaning Crew by grrgrrgrr
If you can play two of these per turn you get a cantrip trasher - that's cute! I guess it's a bit lucky if you line it up early on, but really you're better off waiting until you can draw deck before going for these. Besides the luck factor it's a nice card.

Sorcerer's Apprentice by mail-mi
A nice, decent $2 trasher, but I'm not sold on the bottom half. I don't think there are enough cards to activate it with and ironically it's bad against trashing attacks. I know you can react it with another copy of itself, but that doesn't seem reliable enough to shoot for.

Retreiver by scolapasta
Another reaction! This one seems easier to activate than Sorcerer's Apprentice because there's plenty of discarding effects in the game. The reaction is cute, but problematic. If you and your opponent open Retreiver/Cellar, and you line them up on turn 3/4 while your opponent doesn't, you're miles and miles ahead of them. The benefit to having this in hand with a discarder on turn 3 or 4 is too massive to be fair.

Shipyard by segura
It's the child of Cathedral and Sinister Plot! I suspect the game will be over long before the token points actually matter. In this regard I think Cathedral has a more relevant downside, but I do like the concept of this one.

Horse Thief by Optimal_Inefficiency
The debt effects are too weak. Tax itself is very weak, but Tax can be used instantly. Most players will simply use this for horses and only horse, which is fine, but still rather weak. To buff it, I'd suggest having only two choices: "+2 horses and add 2 debt to a pile; or remove all debt from a pile". Nice theme.

Nun by Gubump
A simple, inoffensive exiler. I'm sure it's a powerful card, though a bit slower than Bounty Hunter because it wrecks your spending power. Overall a good, albeit obvious design.

Climber by Freddy10
This one's a really clever and thematic take on sifting. A few have argued that it's too strong. I dunno about that, but I think it would be better at $3. That way, silver can't activate it so easily. I'm also not convinced it needs to use an artifact - you could probably phrase it to all be on one card. Good job with this one.

Oyster Farmer by spineflu
Hmm this one seems very weak in its current state and looks inferior compared to Border Guard. The idea is cute and I love money support but it needs to be much, much stronger to be worth buying over silver.

Sanctum by Gazbag
Interesting. You want to buy big cards to trash with this, but if you spend all your coppers you won't be able to trash them. It reminds me of cemetary and banish in a good way. The fact that it's a terminal reserve card make it a bit lucky to use though.

Lady by Fragasnap
This is a really elegant way to make a $2 market. It seems like a very reasonable design for a $2 card, while not being strictly better than herbalist or CM. This is a very good $2 card design.

---

Results:

It's always hard to pick winners. There were lots of interesting card designs submitted, but right now I can think of four entries that are excellent enough to be printed and played with now.

Winner:
Lady by Fragasnap

Runner ups:
Stud by NoMoreFun
Sanctum by Gazbag
Smithing Tools by X-tra

And as a bonus:

Will be excellent with tweaks:
Turtle by mad4math
Rabbit by Rhodos
Climber by Freddy10

Thanks to all that participated.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on April 08, 2020, 12:46:06 pm

Quote from: pubby on April 08, 2020, 08:27:48 am

Rabbit by Rhodos
I love the top effect on a $2 card and like the design a lot, but the bottom text is too good for your opponents. It's a big enough penalty that if there's any other draw cards on the board you should use those instead of rabbit, and if rabbit is the only draw, you're probably better off skipping it. I can make a suggestion: give a villager instead of a coffer. Villagers aren't as dangerous to give to your opponent.

Thanks for the great feedback!
I was rather concerned that Rabbit is too strong, so I put a stronger penalty down there. Might be too much of a penalty, I don't know. Maybe villager is a good take; since horse is there now, that could also be a try. Definitely need to test different versions some day.

Thanks for judging :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on April 08, 2020, 04:59:27 pm

Quote from: pubby on April 08, 2020, 08:27:48 am

Tally by LibraryAdventurer
Dunno if this was intended, but the strategy here is to use it every turn and keep your coppers out of your deck. If you open with a +Buy card on turn 1, you can do this every turn beginning on turn 2 and build extremely quickly from there. I think it's stronger than chapel, and maybe beats donate on some boards because you keep your buying power while simultaneously thinning. It's kinda cool for that reason and I'd love to play a few games with it, but I can't select it for being so powerful. P.S. I did the math and this+travelling fair alone drains provinces in 9 turns while also buying a duchy and estate.

Wow, really?  (not sarcastic)
We've used this several times and always treated as a consolation buy when we ended up with only 2 or 3 coin with nothing worth buying at that cost, or later with an extra buy and a few coins left over after half my coppers are trashed (which is exactly what it's meant for). I actually find it hard to believe it can empty provinces in 9 turns with Travelling Fair. Maybe it'd work better if it said "up to 3 coppers"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on April 08, 2020, 05:16:26 pm

Quote from: pubby on April 08, 2020, 08:27:48 am

Retreiver by scolapasta
Another reaction! This one seems easier to activate than Sorcerer's Apprentice because there's plenty of discarding effects in the game. The reaction is cute, but problematic. If you and your opponent open Retreiver/Cellar, and you line them up on turn 3/4 while your opponent doesn't, you're miles and miles ahead of them. The benefit to having this in hand with a discarder on turn 3 or 4 is too massive to be fair.

:( This is one of my cards I was most excited to share, as I think it's a neat idea. But I think you bring up a very good point about lining them up that could create an unfair imbalance (unfair because both players did the right strategy, so luck should try to be especially minimized).

I still think the idea has potential, so I have a few options on possible fixes. Could it be as simple as making you discard Retriever? Sure it is now weaker, but it's only a $2 anyway, and now if one person gets cellar/retriever earlier than the other, the imbalance is far lesser?

(alternatively, I've thought of making it a reserve? or moving the effect to a project)

Anyway, thanks for the judgement, and seeing that flaw.

(I'll plan on posting this over the weekend in my personal thread to continue discussion there)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: navical on April 09, 2020, 05:18:09 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 08, 2020, 04:59:27 pm

Quote from: pubby on April 08, 2020, 08:27:48 am

Tally by LibraryAdventurer
Dunno if this was intended, but the strategy here is to use it every turn and keep your coppers out of your deck. If you open with a +Buy card on turn 1, you can do this every turn beginning on turn 2 and build extremely quickly from there. I think it's stronger than chapel, and maybe beats donate on some boards because you keep your buying power while simultaneously thinning. It's kinda cool for that reason and I'd love to play a few games with it, but I can't select it for being so powerful. P.S. I did the math and this+travelling fair alone drains provinces in 9 turns while also buying a duchy and estate.

Wow, really?  (not sarcastic)
We've used this several times and always treated as a consolation buy when we ended up with only 2 or 3 coin with nothing worth buying at that cost, or later with an extra buy and a few coins left over after half my coppers are trashed (which is exactly what it's meant for). I actually find it hard to believe it can empty provinces in 9 turns with Travelling Fair. Maybe it'd work better if it said "up to 3 coppers"?

T1: play some coppers, buy Tally
T2: play 7 coppers, buy 2x Travelling Fair, Tally, 2x Copper.
T3: play 9 coppers, buy 3x Travelling Fair, Tally, 3x Copper.
T4: play 12 coppers, buy 5x Travelling Fair, Tally, 5x Copper.
T5: play 17 coppers, buy 3x Travelling Fair, Tally, Province, 2x Copper.
T6: play 19 coppers, buy 4x Travelling Fair, Tally, Province, 3x Copper.
T7: play 22 coppers, buy 6x Travelling Fair, Tally, Province, 5x Copper.
T8: play 27 coppers, buy 4x Travelling Fair, Tally, 2x Province, 2x Copper.
T9: play 29 coppers, buy 2x Travelling Fair, 3x Province.

If you have 4 or 5 T1 and get lucky with your T2 hand (ie have an Estate on the bottom of your deck) then you can buy an extra Copper T1 and an extra Copper T2, and you get the Duchy and Estate pubby mentions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on April 09, 2020, 07:09:22 am

Quote from: pubby on April 08, 2020, 08:27:48 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on March 31, 2020, 09:25:13 pm

Augur
Types: Action
Cost: $2
You may gain an Augur. +2 Cards.

---

When you gain this, looks at the top 4 cards of your deck. Choose any number of them to discard and return the remainder to the top of your deck in any order.

An interesting take on +2 cards. I'm always worried about self-gaining cards leading to swingy games, but this one's non-terminal so that shouldn't be an issue most of the time. The on-gain seems like the strongest part. Sifting through 4 then drawing 2 is about as good as embassy, and the first time you buy it it's is almost as good as night watchman. You don't want to fill your deck with these and that's an elegant downside, but IMO 4 card sifting is a little strong for a $2 card.

I don't think I agree here simply because you have to fill your deck with Augurs to get the powerful sifting.  You typically won't be able to afford gaining additional Augurs until your deck is partially setup (and using Augurs to sift your Augurs sounds like a losing game).  Otherwise it's just "+2 Cards" which is a fairly middling $2 effect.

Quote from: Rhodos on April 08, 2020, 12:46:06 pm

Quote from: pubby on April 08, 2020, 08:27:48 am

Quote from: Rhodos on April 01, 2020, 06:22:13 pm

Rabbit
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Cards. You may play a Rabbit from your hand.

---

When you gain this, each other player gains a Coffer.

I love the top effect on a $2 card and like the design a lot, but the bottom text is too good for your opponents. It's a big enough penalty that if there's any other draw cards on the board you should use those instead of rabbit, and if rabbit is the only draw, you're probably better off skipping it. I can make a suggestion: give a villager instead of a coffer. Villagers aren't as dangerous to give to your opponent.

I was rather concerned that Rabbit is too strong, so I put a stronger penalty down there. Might be too much of a penalty, I don't know. Maybe villager is a good take; since horse is there now, that could also be a try. Definitely need to test different versions some day.

I agree with Rhodos here: If Rabbit is the only Action in my deck, it is a Laboratory at $2.  While I agree that giving +Coffers to other players is a bad idea (mostly because of tempo implications in multiplayer games), the Cultist chain effect alone is worth at least $4 to avoid utterly dominating the board.

Quote from: pubby on April 08, 2020, 08:27:48 am

Quote from: ConMan on April 01, 2020, 12:49:18 am

Diving School
Types: Project
Cost: $2
At the start of your turn, look at the bottom card of your deck. You may place it on top of your deck or discard it.

---

You can't buy this if you have any cards in hand.

This card reminds me of City Gate and Silos, and I think it's a similar power level. The buy restriction does make it more interesting, but it also makes it way more expensive without +Buy. But if you do have +Buy, then the decision to buy this becomes uninteresting again. Haha, I dunno. It's alright, but I think City Gate and Silos covers enough ground in this area.

Without +Buy, this buy restriction makes Diving School effectively cost ~$5, so I think you want to make this into a stronger $3-cost Project to normalize its behavior.  I think there is plenty of room around City Gate and Silos though.  City Gate gives organization and Silos gives sifting while this gives less of both.

Quote from: pubby on April 08, 2020, 08:27:48 am

Quote from: Aquila on April 01, 2020, 04:13:32 am

Caver
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Cards. If your deck is empty, +$2.

I love the simplicity here and think it's a perfect $2 card to play in an engine. BUT... there's a problem. This card is too good if drawn on turn 4. Getting +2 cards and +$2 on turn 4 can be a strong advantage on certain boards and I believe this overshadows Caver's use elsewhere. Maybe +2 Actions instead of +$2 would work better? That would be similar to Shanty Town in terms of power.

Giving it a non-draw benefit substitutes one issue for another.  The current version chancing into the ~$6 effect of "+2 Cards and +$2" on turn 4 is a big problem, but a version that allows every one of them to be played as "+2 Actions and +$2" so long your deck is randomly empty is a problem its own.  I think this would work better as "+1 Card, +2 Actions; If your deck is empty, +$2" at a cost of $4.

Quote from: pubby on April 08, 2020, 08:27:48 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 06, 2020, 09:46:10 pm

Lady
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Buy, +$1. If you have unused Actions (Actions, not Action cards), +1 Card. Otherwise, +1 Action.

This is a really elegant way to make a $2 market. It seems like a very reasonable design for a $2 card, while not being strictly better than herbalist or CM. This is a very good $2 card design.

Thank you for the recognition.
I will post the next design challenge shortly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on April 09, 2020, 07:09:37 am

Contest 69: Pseudo-terminal Create a pseudo-terminal Action card.  A pseudo-terminal card is a card that can be terminal or non-terminal depending on circumstances.  Gratuitous details and clarification below (card names color coded blue for applicable cards and red for non-applicable cards):

• The card can be conditionally terminal or non-terminal (such as Conspirator, Crossroads, Ironworks, or Scrap).
• The card can be "randomly" terminal or non-terminal (such as Tribute or Vassal).
• The card can be terminal or non-terminal by the choice of the player (such as Pawn and Squire).
• The card must be an Action, but can have additional types (such as Diplomat, Nobles, and Sheepdog).
  • A Duration will only count as pseudo-terminal if it can be terminal or non-terminal on-play, regardless of later turn effects (Village Green applies; Archive, Dungeon, Fishing Village, and Research do not apply because they are only ever non-terminal on-play; Barge, Enchantress, Haunted Woods, and Tactician do not apply because they are only ever terminal on-play (+1 Action token excepted)).
  • An Action-Treasure or Action-Night card could be pseudo-terminal, just ensure the card is capable of consuming your last +action (Werewolf applies).
  • A Command or Command-alike card is pseudo-terminal so long as there is no condition or setup that prevents them from being variably terminal and non-terminal (Band of Misfits, Captain, and Overlord apply even though there is no guarantee that there will exist both terminal and non-terminal targets; Necromancer also applies).
• The card can use Villagers so long as they are not given unconditionally (Recruiter and Sculptor apply; Acting Troupe and Patron do not).
• The card can be in a split pile so long as at least 1 card in it is pseudo-terminal (Sauna/Avanto applies because Avanto is pseudo-terminal).
• The card can allow playing other cards so long as it is not largely blanket permission (Conclave, Cultist, and Imp apply; Crown, Procession (most cards aren't Durations), Royal Carriage, and Throne Room do not). Blanket permission is effectively the same as +actions.
  • The card could give blanket permission to play another card outside the current turn so long as it can be terminal or non-terminal this turn (Mastermind and Prince do not apply only because they are always terminal on-play).
  • The card could theoretically give a choice between some terminal effect and blanket permission to play another card.
• The pseudo-terminal effect should be with respect to playing the card, not gaining, buying, or trashing the card (Lackeys and Silk Merchant do not apply; Peasant does not apply as there is no requirement to move the +1 Action token onto Peasant).
• Special exception: Please don't make a Traveller line.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BlueHairedMeerkat on April 09, 2020, 10:23:20 am

Coronation
Action
$5
-----------
If this is the first Coronation you have played this turn, gain a Gold onto your deck. Otherwise, you may play an Action card from your hand three times.


Put a golden crown on your head; if you're already wearing one, great! Time to hold court. It's a very cheap King's Court if you can get it to fire, but you need two of them, a village, and a payload, which is going to be a toughie.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on April 09, 2020, 10:26:47 am

Stockade (Action, $4)

+2 Cards
+1 Buy

You may trash this, for +1 Action.

A Silk Merchant that can become a one shot Lab once you’re done with it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on April 09, 2020, 10:57:50 am

Quote from: pubby on April 08, 2020, 08:27:48 am

Smithing Tools by X-tra
Really cool card. This little guy can draw a ton of cards if enough are in play, but I'm not sold on the player interaction bit. It seems like you'd want to play them regardless unless you didn't have enough +Actions to begin with. Personally, I'd prefer if this only counted your own Smithing Tools in play and leave the player interaction to controlling the split (like Fool's Gold). Good card nonetheless.

Hey, thanks a lot! I’ve been trying to limit the amount of words on my suggested cards for the past couple contests so that only the “big” font is used. Seems like it’s been doing well for my cards. And uhhh yeah I’m a big sucker for player interaction, be it direct or indirect, and I know this tanks some of my entries. But I can’t help it hahahaha! :D
Thanks again for the kind comments!

THIS ENTRY IS OBSOLETE (UP TO DATE VERSION ON PAGE 214)

Speaking of player interaction, let me repeat the same mistakes I keep doing once more with my card for this week’s challenge:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Nf0StXCR/Informer-V1-EN.png)

A little reminiscent of Tribute, don’tcha think ? But hey, at least it doesn’t discard other players’ revealed cards, so that’s not as annoying, I suppose. Also, you get a nice consolidation price of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) if ya don’t reveal anything good (or anything at all, for that matter).

Since this card scales to be much better the more players there are, do you guys believe that this effect should only reveal cards from the player to your left?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on April 09, 2020, 10:59:47 am

Fool's Laboratory
cost $2 - Action
+2 Cards
If you don't have another copy of this in play, +1 Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on April 09, 2020, 11:52:29 am

Would this sort of thing work?
(https://i.imgur.com/DzDd4vq.png)

I already think its a bit weak and should be triggered by any player so that you can trigger it yourself but just wondering if its in the rules. Is a free play enough like a non-terminal play?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on April 09, 2020, 12:10:43 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on April 09, 2020, 11:52:29 am

Would this sort of thing work?
(https://i.imgur.com/DzDd4vq.png)

I already think its a bit weak and should be triggered by any player so that you can trigger it yourself but just wondering if its in the rules. Is a free play enough like a non-terminal play?

This works like Sheepdog, which is allowed in the rules post, so you should be fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on April 09, 2020, 12:32:18 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on April 09, 2020, 12:10:43 pm

This works like Sheepdog, which is allowed in the rules post, so you should be fine.

I actually don't follow how Sheepdog is allowed. The rules state:

Quote

The pseudo-terminal effect should be with respect to playing the card, not gaining, buying, or trashing the card...

On play, Sheepdog is always terminal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 09, 2020, 12:45:02 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on April 09, 2020, 12:32:18 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on April 09, 2020, 12:10:43 pm

This works like Sheepdog, which is allowed in the rules post, so you should be fine.

I actually don't follow how Sheepdog is allowed. The rules state:

Quote

The pseudo-terminal effect should be with respect to playing the card, not gaining, buying, or trashing the card...

On play, Sheepdog is always terminal.

Not if you play it using its Reaction.

Quote from: X-tra on April 09, 2020, 10:57:50 am

Quote from: pubby on April 08, 2020, 08:27:48 am

Smithing Tools by X-tra
Really cool card. This little guy can draw a ton of cards if enough are in play, but I'm not sold on the player interaction bit. It seems like you'd want to play them regardless unless you didn't have enough +Actions to begin with. Personally, I'd prefer if this only counted your own Smithing Tools in play and leave the player interaction to controlling the split (like Fool's Gold). Good card nonetheless.

Hey, thanks a lot! I’ve been trying to limit the amount of words on my suggested cards for the past couple contests so that only the “big” font is used. Seems like it’s been doing well for my cards. And uhhh yeah I’m a big sucker for player interaction, be it direct or indirect, and I know this tanks some of my entries. But I can’t help it hahahaha! :D
Thanks again for the kind comments!

Speaking of player interaction, let me repeat the same mistakes I keep doing once more with my card for this week’s challenge:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Nf0StXCR/Informer-V1-EN.png)

A little reminiscent of Tribute, don’tcha think ? But hey, at least it doesn’t discard other players’ revealed cards, so that’s not as annoying, I suppose. Also, you get a nice consolidation price of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) if ya don’t reveal anything good (or anything at all, for that matter).

Since this card scales to be much better the more players there are, do you guys believe that this effect should only reveal cards from the player to your left?

I have a similar card that I posted a while back that plays cards from your opponents' hands, and it was fine that it scaled with more players, and it's one of my most play-tested cards. That said, it revealed more cards and cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}, so this could probably be cheaper and stronger.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 09, 2020, 01:16:27 pm

Quote from: majiponi on April 09, 2020, 10:59:47 am

Fool's Laboratory
cost $2 - Action
+2 Cards
If you don't have another copy of this in play, +1 Action.

Would this be better with Crossroads or Fool's Gold wording, "if this is the first time you played Fool's Laboratory this turn"? Or are you intentionally making it stronger when combo'd with Throne Room, Band of Misfits, Way of the Mouse, etc?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on April 09, 2020, 01:36:58 pm

EDIT: This nom has been replaced. See post #5315.

(https://i.imgur.com/CDs3igD.png)

Quote

Play a non-Command Action card from the supply costing up to $4, leaving it there. If the card's text has amounts of...
... +Cards, gain a Horse
... +Actions, +1 Action
... +Buys, gain a Will-o-Wisp
... +$, +1 Buy

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on April 09, 2020, 05:02:07 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 09, 2020, 07:09:22 am

Quote from: pubby on April 08, 2020, 08:27:48 am

Quote from: Aquila on April 01, 2020, 04:13:32 am

Caver
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Cards. If your deck is empty, +$2.

I love the simplicity here and think it's a perfect $2 card to play in an engine. BUT... there's a problem. This card is too good if drawn on turn 4. Getting +2 cards and +$2 on turn 4 can be a strong advantage on certain boards and I believe this overshadows Caver's use elsewhere. Maybe +2 Actions instead of +$2 would work better? That would be similar to Shanty Town in terms of power.

Giving it a non-draw benefit substitutes one issue for another.  The current version chancing into the ~$6 effect of "+2 Cards and +$2" on turn 4 is a big problem, but a version that allows every one of them to be played as "+2 Actions and +$2" so long your deck is randomly empty is a problem its own.  I think this would work better as "+1 Card, +2 Actions; If your deck is empty, +$2" at a cost of $4.

Thanks for judging, this is exactly as expected. It's helped me think of a fix though, 'when you gain this, discard the top card of your deck'. If you gain it mid Action phase it could help trigger a later Caver, so it's not entirely inelegant.

My entry:

Quote

Courier - Action Reaction, $4 cost.
+2 Cards
You may play an Action that costs more than this from your hand.
-
Directly after resolving an Action that costs less than this on your turn, you may play this from your hand.

I could have called this climber, but that felt a bit cheeky after the last contest's nice entry. This is not based on it, purely off my own ideas. I really hope this is balanced at $4, as that's the price it really wants to be.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on April 09, 2020, 05:46:22 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/q20s1af8.png)

Quote

Bridle Craftsman - $4 - Action
+2 Cards

If you have played a Horse this turn, +1 Action. Otherwise, gain a Horse.

I'm back to this contest, with an uncharacteristically simple card that has no player interaction. How unlike me!

 My attempt to make a super simple horse card. One of those 4s that become better when you buy multiple of them. It's probably most interesting to analyze when there aren't other horse gaining cards on the table, which, given how large Dominion is, is pretty likely. With only a non-terminal gaining one horse at a time, it might be hard to get enough to turn your Bridle Craftsmans into labs. But, eventually you'll amass enough horses that you can activate them. Horses at the end of a shuffle become tricky ... what if you hold onto this horse at the hope of activating your Bridle Craftsmans next shuffle? Etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 09, 2020, 05:52:02 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on April 09, 2020, 05:46:22 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/q20s1af8.png)

Quote

Bridle Craftsman - $4 - Action
+2 Cards

If you have played a Horse this turn, +1 Action. Otherwise, gain a Horse.

I'm back to this contest, with an uncharacteristically simple card that has no player interaction. How unlike me!

 My attempt to make a super simple horse card. One of those 4s that become better when you buy multiple of them. It's probably most interesting to analyze when there aren't other horse gaining cards on the table, which, given how large Dominion is, is pretty likely. With only a non-terminal gaining one horse at a time, it might be hard to get enough to turn your Bridle Craftsmans into labs. But, eventually you'll amass enough horses that you can activate them. Horses at the end of a shuffle become tricky ... what if you hold onto this horse at the hope of activating your Bridle Craftsmans next shuffle? Etc.

I dunno about balance, etc, but I love this design.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on April 09, 2020, 06:11:30 pm

My entry this challenge also involves Horses. Let's see if this dog does better than last week's:

(https://i.imgur.com/Fswpf3j.png)

Quote

Dalmatian
Action - Reaction $3

Gain 2 Horses. You may play a Horse from your hand.
-
When another player plays a Horse, you may discard this to gain a Horse to your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on April 09, 2020, 07:08:28 pm

Trying a simplified version of a card I posted a while ago in here.

(https://i.imgur.com/ydMVO0u.png)

Had to specify non-Command because with 2 Highways in play, this can empty the Captain pile or its own pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on April 09, 2020, 08:26:36 pm

Quote from: navical on April 09, 2020, 05:18:09 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 08, 2020, 04:59:27 pm

Quote from: pubby on April 08, 2020, 08:27:48 am

Tally by LibraryAdventurer
Dunno if this was intended, but the strategy here is to use it every turn and keep your coppers out of your deck. If you open with a +Buy card on turn 1, you can do this every turn beginning on turn 2 and build extremely quickly from there. I think it's stronger than chapel, and maybe beats donate on some boards because you keep your buying power while simultaneously thinning. It's kinda cool for that reason and I'd love to play a few games with it, but I can't select it for being so powerful. P.S. I did the math and this+travelling fair alone drains provinces in 9 turns while also buying a duchy and estate.

Wow, really?  (not sarcastic)
We've used this several times and always treated as a consolation buy when we ended up with only 2 or 3 coin with nothing worth buying at that cost, or later with an extra buy and a few coins left over after half my coppers are trashed (which is exactly what it's meant for). I actually find it hard to believe it can empty provinces in 9 turns with Travelling Fair. Maybe it'd work better if it said "up to 3 coppers"?

T1: play some coppers, buy Tally
T2: play 7 coppers, buy 2x Travelling Fair, Tally, 2x Copper.
T3: play 9 coppers, buy 3x Travelling Fair, Tally, 3x Copper.
T4: play 12 coppers, buy 5x Travelling Fair, Tally, 5x Copper.
T5: play 17 coppers, buy 3x Travelling Fair, Tally, Province, 2x Copper.
T6: play 19 coppers, buy 4x Travelling Fair, Tally, Province, 3x Copper.
T7: play 22 coppers, buy 6x Travelling Fair, Tally, Province, 5x Copper.
T8: play 27 coppers, buy 4x Travelling Fair, Tally, 2x Province, 2x Copper.
T9: play 29 coppers, buy 2x Travelling Fair, 3x Province.

If you have 4 or 5 T1 and get lucky with your T2 hand (ie have an Estate on the bottom of your deck) then you can buy an extra Copper T1 and an extra Copper T2, and you get the Duchy and Estate pubby mentions.

How did I never see that?  Anyway, it can be fixed easily by saying "up to 3 coppers".

My entry for this week:
(which is the other one I was considering entering for last week. I may have entered this one at some point before, but I don't think I have for one of these weekly contests at least.)

Quote

Mysterious Door
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} - Action
The player to your left discards the bottom card of their deck. If it's an action card, play it, leaving it there. Otherwise if it's... a victory card, +2 Cards; anything else, +$2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on April 09, 2020, 09:20:46 pm

(https://trello.com/1/cards/5e8fc923a3c5a38413e79c37/attachments/5e8fc9509f5ff08c8030a73b/previews/download?backingUrl=https%3A%2F%2Ftrello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com%2F5e42ebce1181de1d515adb5b%2F5e8fc923a3c5a38413e79c37%2Fcf91148ebbbcb870e27fbbe164e0420d%2Fimage.png)

Quote

Beachcomber • @5 • Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck and put them in your hand. If there were no Treasures, Actions, or Nights revealed, +1 Action.

Smithy/Vagrant variant that turns superlab when you dud. Gets around the -1 Card token but v0v, i'm not super worried about it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on April 09, 2020, 11:06:15 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 09, 2020, 01:16:27 pm

Quote from: majiponi on April 09, 2020, 10:59:47 am

Fool's Laboratory
cost $2 - Action
+2 Cards
If you don't have another copy of this in play, +1 Action.

Would this be better with Crossroads or Fool's Gold wording, "if this is the first time you played Fool's Laboratory this turn"? Or are you intentionally making it stronger when combo'd with Throne Room, Band of Misfits, Way of the Mouse, etc?

Yes. Intentional.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on April 10, 2020, 02:01:36 am

Outlaw
$5
Action
+3 Cards
You may discard 3 cards. If you do, +1 Action.

It's a Smithy that can optionally be a Warehouse instead. Let me know if balance issues arise.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 10, 2020, 07:16:36 am

(https://i.imgur.com/bboLsRI.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on April 10, 2020, 09:54:15 am

(https://i.imgur.com/eFXRomI.png?1)
Ironworker, the filterer that's sometimes a Lab, sometimes a Smithy, and sometimes a Silk Merchant. Originally it gave you +$2 for treasures but that's too easy of a condition for Big Money to get for a very strong benefit. If you get a card that's a mix of the three types, then hurrah, you can get more than one of the bonuses. It also once let you et all three easy because it only took one discard out of four, that's clearly broken. Then it took two but still revealed four, and I didn't want this to be a superlab too often. Now you can normally only get one bonus, and maybe it's too strong on actions because you get a somewhat better lab, but sometimes that's hard to line up and you can't pay those actions this turn. It's also strong on mixed type cards (and with capitalism) but I'm fine with that because it isn't common.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on April 10, 2020, 07:09:52 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on April 09, 2020, 07:08:28 pm

Trying a simplified version of a card I posted a while ago in here.

(https://i.imgur.com/ydMVO0u.png)

Had to specify non-Command because with 2 Highways in play, this can empty the Captain pile or its own pile.

Damn, this is pretty close to the idea I had.

But luckily I have another idea and I could not decide which one to take. Now that makes it easier :D

Anyway, cool card!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Barbarossa41 on April 11, 2020, 05:22:15 am

Quote from: mail-mi on April 09, 2020, 07:08:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ydMVO0u.png)

Suggestion for wording simplification:
Play a non-Command card costing up to $4 from the Supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on April 11, 2020, 05:25:43 am

Newer, simplified version of my nom.

(https://i.imgur.com/w83YppI.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on April 11, 2020, 09:14:28 am

Quote from: Barbarossa41 on April 11, 2020, 05:22:15 am

Quote from: mail-mi on April 09, 2020, 07:08:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ydMVO0u.png)

Suggestion for wording simplification:
Play a non-Command card costing up to $4 from the Supply.

that doesn't gain the card tho and is only worth like.. $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on April 11, 2020, 11:01:58 am

Quote from: spineflu on April 11, 2020, 09:14:28 am

Quote from: Barbarossa41 on April 11, 2020, 05:22:15 am

Quote from: mail-mi on April 09, 2020, 07:08:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ydMVO0u.png)

Suggestion for wording simplification:
Play a non-Command card costing up to $4 from the Supply.

that doesn't gain the card tho and is only worth like.. $5.

It would put the card into your play area though, which would then presumably get discarded along with everything else and end up in your deck. The only difference is the alternate wording doesn't trigger when-gain effects

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on April 11, 2020, 11:03:41 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on April 11, 2020, 11:01:58 am

Quote from: spineflu on April 11, 2020, 09:14:28 am

Quote from: Barbarossa41 on April 11, 2020, 05:22:15 am

Quote from: mail-mi on April 09, 2020, 07:08:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ydMVO0u.png)

Suggestion for wording simplification:
Play a non-Command card costing up to $4 from the Supply.

that doesn't gain the card tho and is only worth like.. $5.

It would put the card into your play area though, which would then presumably get discarded along with everything else and end up in your deck. The only difference is the alternate wording doesn't trigger when-gain effects

which would likely make it more confusing than it is now. So I think I'll keep the "gain...play" wording, but thanks for the suggestions!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on April 11, 2020, 03:19:17 pm

My submission
(https://i.ibb.co/VttF78C/image.png)
Angry Mob
$5 - Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player gains a Curse into hand, and if they did, discards a card. If anyone of them discards a Curse, +1 Action

Update: Made discard conditional to avoid pinning - thanks NoMoreFun

Old version:
(https://i.ibb.co/6BhyH9N/image.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on April 11, 2020, 06:39:42 pm

Quote from: grep on April 11, 2020, 03:19:17 pm

My submission
(https://i.ibb.co/6BhyH9N/image.png)
Angry Mob
$5 - Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player gains a Curse into their hand and then discards a card. If anyone of them discards a Curse, +1 Action

This is a great design, but it currently has pin potential once the Curse pile runs out. You could either make the discard conditional on gaining the curse, or have the attack/discard only affect people with a certain number of cards in hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on April 12, 2020, 12:51:20 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on April 11, 2020, 06:39:42 pm

Quote from: grep on April 11, 2020, 03:19:17 pm

My submission
(https://i.ibb.co/6BhyH9N/image.png)
Angry Mob
$5 - Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player gains a Curse into their hand and then discards a card. If anyone of them discards a Curse, +1 Action

This is a great design, but it currently has pin potential once the Curse pile runs out. You could either make the discard conditional on gaining the curse, or have the attack/discard only affect people with a certain number of cards in hand.

Good point. I will make discard conditional of gaining the Curse

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on April 12, 2020, 02:42:29 am

Here is an upgraded version of my previous card. You can buy a treasure yourself if this card is in your hand for a free play of it in your next turn. There's a sort of tension in that Prospectors are like Peddlers most useful for building treasure-less decks but you need someone to buy treasures to benefit from the non-terminal version of Prospector.
I am leaning towards thinking that "buy" is a necessary hobbling rather than simply "gain" but gain would open up a lot of possibilities... so open to thinking about it.

(https://i.imgur.com/MZi9jkN.png)

Oh poo. It should say set this aside from your hand. I'll fix it soon.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Optimal_Inefficiency on April 12, 2020, 06:11:38 am

This submission has been rescinded.
The new card is posted later in the thread.

(https://i.imgur.com/93TAc6v_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Quote

Sexton — ($4)(Action)
Look through your discard pile. Choose one: trash exactly 2 cards from your discard pile; or +1 Action and put a card from your discard pile into your hand.

Trasher or very nice cantrip, your choice. The only times (I can think of) this card would not be valuable would be if your discard pile is empty; or if there is just a Curse and a Province in the discard pile; or if the only Action/Treasure in the discard is another Sexton or a Harbinger. Would the card be better & equally balanced by starting with “Discard a card from your deck.”?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on April 12, 2020, 07:01:08 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on April 12, 2020, 02:42:29 am

Here is an upgraded version of my previous card. You can buy a treasure yourself if this card is in your hand for a free play of it in your next turn. There's a sort of tension in that Prospectors are like Peddlers most useful for building treasure-less decks but you need someone to buy treasures to benefit from the non-terminal version of Prospector.
I am leaning towards thinking that "buy" is a necessary hobbling rather than simply "gain" but gain would open up a lot of possibilities... so open to thinking about it.

(https://i.imgur.com/MZi9jkN.png)

Oh poo. It should say set this aside from your hand. I'll fix it soon.

I guess you should also say that you reveal the card, before you set it aside.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on April 12, 2020, 07:55:57 am

Sexton

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on April 12, 2020, 06:11:38 am

Quote

Sexton — ($4)(Action)
Look through your discard pile. Choose one: trash exactly 2 cards from your discard pile; or +1 Action and put a card from your discard pile into your hand.

Sexton seems really weak. Your discard pile is empty way too often. With the discard the top card of your deck it is much stronger, but probably still weak.
I think it is also a bit too swingy as an opener: With about 40% chance you draw it turn 4 and trash 2 from discard, better than steward; otherwise it is a worse lookout with the buff and a ruined village without.

Quote from: somekindoftony on April 12, 2020, 02:42:29 am

Here is an upgraded version of my previous card. You can buy a treasure yourself if this card is in your hand for a free play of it in your next turn. There's a sort of tension in that Prospectors are like Peddlers most useful for building treasure-less decks but you need someone to buy treasures to benefit from the non-terminal version of Prospector.
I am leaning towards thinking that "buy" is a necessary hobbling rather than simply "gain" but gain would open up a lot of possibilities... so open to thinking about it.

(https://i.imgur.com/MZi9jkN.png)

Oh poo. It should say set this aside from your hand. I'll fix it soon.

I think Prospector is probably weak and better with on gain instead of on buy; you really don't want to buy treasures much and a $2 caravan guard isn't that strong anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: kru5h on April 12, 2020, 08:21:20 pm

Cooper
(https://i.imgur.com/tmycCjU.png)
These are cumulative, so getting a Copper from a Cooper gives you a Card, Action, Buy, and Coin.
This card is very flexible. It can be a Workshop. It can be a cantrip Silver gainer. It can be a Market that comes with a Copper as a penalty. Whatever you need at the moment.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 13, 2020, 03:37:05 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/01kci3mh.png)

Sparrow
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Choose one:
+2 Cards or +1 VP.

You may play a Sparrow from your hand.
-
When you buy this, put all Sparrows from your discard pile on the top of your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Optimal_Inefficiency on April 13, 2020, 04:25:51 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yhSyZbW_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Quote

Sexton — ($3)(Action)
You may discard a card from your deck. Look through your discard pile. Choose one: trash exactly 2 cards from your discard pile; or +1 Action and put a card from your discard pile into your hand.

Trasher or very nice cantrip, your choice. The only times (I can think of) this card would not be valuable would be if there are just a couple misfit cards in your discard (e.g. Curse and Province); or if the only Action/Treasure in the discard is another Sexton or a Harbinger.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 13, 2020, 05:17:20 pm

Quote from: King Leon on April 13, 2020, 03:37:05 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/01kci3mh.png)

Sparrow
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Choose one:
+2 Cards or +1 VP.

You may play a Sparrow from your hand.
-
When you buy this, put all Sparrows from your discard pile on the top of your deck.

Nonterminal unconditional VP tokens have an obvious Golden Deck abuse potential. Sure, it is no cantrip but with some draw power you can get more than 5VPs per turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on April 14, 2020, 01:50:18 am

(https://abload.de/img/fixedhorseracecontestt5jsq.png)

FAQ: Each other player turns their hand over, shuffles it, and deals a card off the top (or maybe best practice would be for you to pick a card from their face-down hand?). Rules for highest cost use the FAQ for Chariot Race (including the rule that if you tie, you lose).

I KNOW: That’s a lot of words! And what’s with players shuffling their HANDS?

I would greatly appreciate any other feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on April 14, 2020, 06:11:36 am

If you play 5, your opponent has a 0 card hand?  ???

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on April 14, 2020, 07:34:50 am

(https://i.imgur.com/j4H0ql3.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/CSqffxq.png)

A non-terminal trasher, that works similar to Sentry. If you trash something more valuable, it turns into a better Lab until someone else takes the Tunic.

(I wanted the Tunic to also effect the Friar that took the Tunic. But this version seems easier to understand and probably causes less confusion.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on April 14, 2020, 10:56:00 am

This entry has been modified as of 2020-04-16

Modifying my entry a little bit. It is now, in my opinion, less swingy and now plays the same regardless of the number of players. So overall, I believe this is better.

(https://i.postimg.cc/dQ5kR25c/Informer-V3-EN.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on April 14, 2020, 11:39:48 am

Quote from: pubby on April 14, 2020, 06:11:36 am

If you play 5, your opponent has a 0 card hand?  ???

Yup, that's awful.  Amazing how many times I changed the card and still missed the obvious. I'll fix it. Thinking . . .
 
Thanks for the help, pubby!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on April 14, 2020, 12:04:24 pm

THIS REPLACES THE VERSION ABOVE


(https://abload.de/img/fixed_horse_racey2ky6.png)


FAQ: Rules for highest cost use the FAQ for Chariot Race (including the rule that if you tie, you lose). If no other player reveals a card, your card cost the most (you win).

Substantially edited thanks to pubby setting me straight. Discard is now optional and selected by opponent (potentially setting up some tortured decisions), and the cost has been reduced to $3. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 14, 2020, 12:40:52 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on April 14, 2020, 12:04:24 pm

THIS REPLACES THE VERSION ABOVE


(https://abload.de/img/fixedhorseracecontest5okjm.png)


FAQ: Rules for highest cost use the FAQ for Chariot Race (including the rule that if you tie, you lose). If no other player reveals a card, your card cost the most (you win).

Substantially edited thanks to pubby setting me straight. Discard is now optional and selected by opponent (potentially setting up some tortured decisions), and the cost has been reduced to $3.

This shouldn't be an Attack anymore.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on April 14, 2020, 01:23:23 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 14, 2020, 12:40:52 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on April 14, 2020, 12:04:24 pm

Substantially edited thanks to pubby setting me straight. Discard is now optional and selected by opponent (potentially setting up some tortured decisions), and the cost has been reduced to $3.

This shouldn't be an Attack anymore.

I thought about it before I reposted, believed I could argue either side (still do), and wanted Reactions to play. That said, out of respect for your opinion (I’ve been reading this blog for a while and do respect it), I have removed the Attack type. Thanks a bunch for your input.   

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on April 14, 2020, 01:32:16 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on April 14, 2020, 01:23:23 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 14, 2020, 12:40:52 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on April 14, 2020, 12:04:24 pm

Substantially edited thanks to pubby setting me straight. Discard is now optional and selected by opponent (potentially setting up some tortured decisions), and the cost has been reduced to $3.

This shouldn't be an Attack anymore.

I thought about it before I reposted, believed I could argue either side (still do), and wanted Reactions to play. That said, out of respect for your opinion (I’ve been reading this blog for a while and do respect it), I have removed the Attack type. Thanks a bunch for your input.

Well, it's optional, so it's like making Vault an Attack. And it would make Champion and Lighthouse harmful because you wouldn't be able to discard to it if you had a Lighthouse or Champion in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Supernova888 on April 14, 2020, 01:39:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wmlINCN.png)

Pseudo-terminal due to it being Command. I've had an idea for a card like this for a while; glad I get a chance to take a crack at it!
(You discard the card after you play the card from the Supply; goes by the convention of card instructions happening in order.)

Quote

Palm Reader • $4 • Action-Command
---
Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $5 (leaving it there).
If it costs $4 or more, discard a card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on April 14, 2020, 02:04:32 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 14, 2020, 01:32:16 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on April 14, 2020, 01:23:23 pm

Quote from: Gubump on April 14, 2020, 12:40:52 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on April 14, 2020, 12:04:24 pm

Substantially edited thanks to pubby setting me straight. Discard is now optional and selected by opponent (potentially setting up some tortured decisions), and the cost has been reduced to $3.

This shouldn't be an Attack anymore.

I thought about it before I reposted, believed I could argue either side (still do), and wanted Reactions to play. That said, out of respect for your opinion (I’ve been reading this blog for a while and do respect it), I have removed the Attack type. Thanks a bunch for your input.

Well, it's optional, so it's like making Vault an Attack. And it would make Champion and Lighthouse harmful because you wouldn't be able to discard to it if you had a Lighthouse or Champion in play.

There is no clear definition of the Attack type and the decision you give your opponent is certainly attack-ish. It’s not like Vault  – with Vault the opponent never has two bad options, as there is no consequence for not discarding.

That said, your point about Champion and Lighthouse makes my version of the card silly under those circumstances. You’re right: the card is better without the Attack type. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 14, 2020, 02:15:48 pm

Quote from: Supernova888 on April 14, 2020, 01:39:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wmlINCN.png)

Pseudo-terminal due to it being Command. I've had an idea for a card like this for a while; glad I get a chance to take a crack at it!
(You discard the card after you play the card from the Supply; goes by the convention of card instructions happening in order.)

Quote

Palm Reader • $4 • Action-Command
---
Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $5 (leaving it there).
If it costs $4 or more, discard a card.

This inverse BoM is obviously far too good. For example, if Laboratory is in the Kingdom, Palm Reader is strictly better (well, not really, the Lab pile could be empty) than Fugitive.
It is cool to try an emulator that emulates more expensive cards but the downside has to be far harsher than merely discarding a card. Gee, you gotta compensate for the jump from $4 to $5 as well as the flexibility.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 14, 2020, 02:39:51 pm

Quote from: segura on April 14, 2020, 02:15:48 pm

Quote from: Supernova888 on April 14, 2020, 01:39:42 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wmlINCN.png)

Pseudo-terminal due to it being Command. I've had an idea for a card like this for a while; glad I get a chance to take a crack at it!
(You discard the card after you play the card from the Supply; goes by the convention of card instructions happening in order.)

Quote

Palm Reader • $4 • Action-Command
---
Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $5 (leaving it there).
If it costs $4 or more, discard a card.

This inverse BoM is obviously far too good. For example, if Laboratory is in the Kingdom, Palm Reader is strictly better (well, not really, the Lab pile could be empty) than Fugitive.
It is cool to try an emulator that emulates more expensive cards but the downside has to be far harsher than merely discarding a card. Gee, you gotta compensate for the jump from $4 to $5 as well as the flexibility.

I think this would work at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}; and be pretty similar in strength to BoM.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on April 15, 2020, 02:48:27 am

Interchange
Action - $4
+2 Cards
If you have Actions remaining, +2 Actions

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on April 15, 2020, 08:34:06 am

(https://i.imgur.com/c8Ztvi4.jpg)
24-ish hours for submissions.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on April 11, 2020, 05:25:43 am

Sorcerer
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $6
Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $4, leaving it there. If the card has no +Cards amount in its text, +1 Action.

Are both "+1 Card" and "+2 Cards" "+Cards amount"? I will assume yes.

Quote from: X-tra on April 14, 2020, 10:56:00 am

Informer
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $4
The player to your left reveals cards from their deck until they reveal a non-Command, non-Duration Action card. You may play it, leaving it there. If you didn't, +$2.

What does the player to your left do with the cards they revealed? Because it is not an Attack, I will assume the Action is put on top and the rest are discarded.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on April 15, 2020, 08:53:33 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 15, 2020, 08:34:06 am

Quote from: X-tra on April 14, 2020, 10:56:00 am

Informer
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $4
The player to your left reveals cards from their deck until they reveal a non-Command, non-Duration Action card. You may play it, leaving it there. If you didn't, +$2.

What does the player to your left do with the cards they revealed? Because it is not an Attack, I will assume the Action is put on top and the rest are discarded.

The default case of not mentioning where the card goes is them being put back where they were revealed from; in this case, it's back onto the deck. But your question actually raised alarms in my head. In practice, it'll be tedious to put everything back how it was, especially if there is a reshuffle. I will edit my entry once more to make sure that awkward reveal scenario plays better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 15, 2020, 01:25:47 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on April 15, 2020, 02:48:27 am

Interchange
Action - $4
+$2
If you have Actions remaining, +2 Actions

This seems weaker than Conclave as it needs another village to work. With another village and this as „sidekick“ or „spicer“ it is situationally stronger than Conclave.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on April 15, 2020, 02:44:02 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 15, 2020, 08:34:06 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on April 11, 2020, 05:25:43 am

Sorcerer
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $6
Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $4, leaving it there. If the card has no +Cards amount in its text, +1 Action.

Are both "+1 Card" and "+2 Cards" "+Cards amount"? I will assume yes.

Your assumption is correct.

Title: Re: Contest #69: Pseudo-terminal
Post by: Gubump on April 15, 2020, 07:18:02 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/PL3b3FT.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: King Leon on April 16, 2020, 07:22:38 am

Quote from: segura on April 13, 2020, 05:17:20 pm

Quote from: King Leon on April 13, 2020, 03:37:05 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/01kci3mh.png)

Sparrow
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Choose one:
+2 Cards or +1 VP.

You may play a Sparrow from your hand.
-
When you buy this, put all Sparrows from your discard pile on the top of your deck.

Nonterminal unconditional VP tokens have an obvious Golden Deck abuse potential. Sure, it is no cantrip but with some draw power you can get more than 5VPs per turn.

It is easier to buy a Duchy than to play a Sparrow three times. The VP token is a small unique vanilla bonus to adjust the $4 price tag ($ 3 wonʼt work and I did not want just a stripped-down Cultist for $ 4, so choose one was obvious). I believe, + 1VP is a novel addition for a pseudo terminal (better than, e. g. +1 Buy, which is heavily overused). If you have drawn enough cards to buy a Province, you can use your remaining Sparrows for extra VPs. Plunder / Monument in Capitalism / Groundskeeper are a way more abusable.

Quote from: Gubump on April 15, 2020, 07:18:02 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/PL3b3FT.png)

This looks like an early prototype of Sculptor, maybe too strong, because gaining Silver + Villager is already very good.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on April 16, 2020, 11:02:04 am

(https://i.imgur.com/A5sTmYj.png)
Yes I know two highways can autopile them. You get a really awesome next turn (though you can't set it up to include any cards you have in play!), but then you have a deck full of these.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 16, 2020, 01:52:14 pm

Quote from: King Leon on April 16, 2020, 07:22:38 am

Quote from: segura on April 13, 2020, 05:17:20 pm

Quote from: King Leon on April 13, 2020, 03:37:05 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/01kci3mh.png)

Sparrow
Type: Action
Cost: $4

Choose one:
+2 Cards or +1 VP.

You may play a Sparrow from your hand.
-
When you buy this, put all Sparrows from your discard pile on the top of your deck.

Nonterminal unconditional VP tokens have an obvious Golden Deck abuse potential. Sure, it is no cantrip but with some draw power you can get more than 5VPs per turn.

It is easier to buy a Duchy than to play a Sparrow three times.

True that. But it is harder to gain a Duchy and (the equivalent of) a Laboratory than it is to play 3 Sparrows. If you compare green and VP tokens, you have to take into account that the former takes space in your deck whereas the latter does not.

Quote

Plunder / Monument in Capitalism / Groundskeeper are a way more abusable.

I agree that some cards like Groundskeeper or, probably the worst culprit, Goons can be very centralizing. But all cards and landscape cards that produce VP tokens either feature a limited supply of them (many Landmarks, Farmer's Market) or lead the game towards the end, either because they produce Coins (all Prosperity cards) or because they require gaining (directly like Groundskeeper or indirectly because they require stuff to trash like Tomb and Temple).

I don't think that one should violate this very design principle, it is obviously not accidental.

Back to the actual Golden deck potential of Sparrow, while I don't think that the card is centralizing in many Kingdoms, the Golden deck is easy to set up. For example a deck that consists of 9 Sparrows (theoretically obviously not possible, you do at least need a gainer) yields 7VPs per turn (play 2 Sparrows to draw, 7 for the VPs).

Title: Re: Contest #69: Pseudo-terminal
Post by: Fragasnap on April 16, 2020, 01:57:30 pm

With apologies for the delays (writing this up has taken more time than I expected, and even then I haven't edited nearly as much as I'd like to):

Quote from: BlueHairedMeerkat on April 09, 2020, 10:23:20 am

Coronation
Types: Action
Cost: $5
If this is the first Coronation you have played this turn, gain a Gold onto your deck. Otherwise, you may play an Action card from your hand three times.

I like this one a fair bit because it introduces a meaningful and unique problem to what is otherwise a very powerful card.  You need to build a bit before you want to start using Coronation to get its King's Court effect, while the Gold-to-deck function is new and passable on $5 and causes you to use its

Quote from: mandioca15 on April 09, 2020, 10:26:47 am

Stockade
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards, +1 Buy. You may trash this, for +1 Action.

+Buy is something you don't really want to throw away, so the trashing effect seems like a get-out-of-jail function to toss it when its draw works poorly otherwise, but that "+2 Cards and +1 Buy" function is rare enough and likely well balanced at $4.  Pretty good.

Quote from: majiponi on April 09, 2020, 10:59:47 am

Fool's Laboratory
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Cards. If you don't have another copy of this in play, +1 Action.

I do not like the esoteric wording here to combo with Throne Room variants and Command cards.
The first is a Laboratory which is a bit silly, while the second is a Moat which is middling to bad (depending on trashing and junking).  So buying the first is trivial, but the question of whether you should buy more than one is virtually identical to every other +2 Cards card. I wouldn't call the card broken, but it's not very interesting.

Quote from: Aquila on April 09, 2020, 05:02:07 pm

Courier
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. You may play an Action that costs more than this from your hand.

---

Directly after resolving an Action that costs less than this on your turn, you may play this from your hand.

Getting +2 Actions from it via a $3-cost and $5-cost Action might be difficult enough, but I'm not sure this needs to do both as Laboratory at $4 is already very strong, let alone that it can be even stronger than that.  I mostly get into my head how frustrating this card would be, trying to draw it with such a variety of Action costs: The payout for doing so is so large that you might have to try regardless.  The paradigm shift of whether the more or less expensive card is the on-play and which is the Reaction also isn't very memorable which could lead to misplaying the card: I would much prefer a name that implies the direction, like Climber as you suggested.

Quote from: anordinaryman on April 09, 2020, 05:46:22 pm

Bridle Craftsman
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards. If you have played a Horse this turn, +1 Action. Otherwise, gain a Horse.

The trick here is that you want to be able to play at least one of your Bridle Craftsman terminally so that you don't run out of Horses and end up with a deck full of terminal Bridle Craftsman cards.  It seems like trying to find a Horse to turn the other Bridle Craftsman cards into Laboratories will be difficult enough to make over-buying Bridle Craftsman a real concern.  I like it.

Quote from: scolapasta on April 09, 2020, 06:11:30 pm

Dalmatian
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $3
Gain 2 Horses. You may play a Horse from your hand.

---

When another player plays a Horse, you may discard this to gain a Horse to your hand.

Another 2-Horser along with Cavalry, Paddock, and Sleigh.  The reaction is a tad fiddly because you have to pause the first time you play a Horse and ultimately pointless due to the raw strength of Dalmatian.  By the time you play Dalmatian 3 times, even without significant support, you can probably expect to trigger the Dalmatian→Horse every time which increases the number of Horses you have.  This will drain the Horse pile rapidly, especially in multiplayer, which gives it a dynamic that doesn't seem to be a consideration in other Horsers: Horses being unlimited seems to be the intent of them (regardless of how Livery goes).  I don't hate it, but I'm leery to put it out as I think it will be too game dominating, especially if any Way appears with it.

Quote from: mail-mi on April 09, 2020, 07:08:28 pm

Commissioner
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $6
Gain a non-Command Action card costing up to $4 and play it.

Unfortunately, having played with cards like this, I can confirm that they don't work well in multiplayer games due to the limitation of the Supply.  There needs to be some strong bounding that prevents this from draining piles to nothing (for example Dominion: Season's Ballroom).  I might recommend gaining "a non-Command Action card costing up to $4 from a pile with at least 4 cards in it."

Quote from: spineflu on April 09, 2020, 09:20:46 pm

Beachcomber
Types: Action
Cost: <5>
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck and put them in your hand. If there were no Treasures, Actions, or Nights revealed, +1 Action.

I'm not sure this giving +1 Action will virtually ever change anything about the way it plays. You typically won't play your Smithy if you have other Actions in hand because those Actions are either non-terminal or payload from which you would expect to gain more benefit than drawing 3 dead cards from your misfiring deck.  I guess maybe it would be better in money-focused deck where drawing 2 Beachcombers together has some ghost of a chance of being played non-terminally which would allow you to play the other Beachcomber.  If that assumption is correct, this will virtually only be different than Smithy by virtue of costing debt.

This entry was erased and replaced with Interchange, but I captured it before and wrote a bit on it before it was removed, so it is maintained for posterity.

Quote

Quote from: NoMoreFun on April 09, 2020, 11:30:57 pm

Terrier
Types: Action, Treasure
Cost: $4
When you gain or play this, +2 Cards, and you may put a card from your hand onto your deck.

This one is very technically terminal, because if you use it as an Action it is a Courtyard- being both more expensive and less effective. I imagine the primary use of Terrier is to simply act as a Laboratory in Treasure form, which is probably too strong at a cost of $4.

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on April 10, 2020, 02:01:36 am

Outlaw
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may discard 3 cards. If you do, +1 Action.

I've played with a card named Alehouse since 2015 that did this for a bit.  It was decent but quite boring and very, very weak whenever you did discard cards.  Doing more than acting as a Warehouse when discarding would make it much more interesting.

Quote from: segura on April 10, 2020, 07:16:36 am

Hearth
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Choose one: +2 Cards and add a Villager to the Hearth Supply pile; or take the Villagers from the pile.

---

When you gain or trash this, add a Villager to the Hearth Supply pile.

This has shades of Wild Hunt, providing a repeating and communal source of Villagers, which sounds much more fun than Wild Hunt's often explosive VP. 

Quote from: D782802859 on April 10, 2020, 09:54:15 am

Ironworker
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+2 Cards. Reveal the top three cards of your deck. You may discard any number of them. If you discarded at least two... Action cards, +1 Action; Treasure cards, +1 Buy and +$1, Victory cards, +1 Card.

The ability to sift Treasures is probably alright to make this a source of +Buy.  Discarding Actions for +Actions seems like such a non-starter of a function though.

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on April 11, 2020, 05:25:43 am

Sorcerer
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $6
Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $4, leaving it there. If the card has no +Cards amount in its text, +1 Action.

So Sorcerer turns the stop-cards it plays either non-terminal or anti-terminal.  This seems like a fairly marginal benefit due to the proliferation of cantrips at $3 and $4.  Spinning up a few Kingdoms, its only change from Band of Misfits is that you can often target terminal Silvers or some tempo-trashers at <$4-cost.  Unless it appear with cards like Watchtower or Envoy that don't "+Cards" but do "Draw" cards (which is a problem Donald X. wrote about under Seize the Day in the Menagerie Secret History (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20260.0)), this seems like it will play largely as a weaker version of Band of Misfits.

Quote from: grep on April 11, 2020, 03:19:17 pm

Angry Mob
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $5
+$2. Each other player gains a Curse into hand, and if they did, discards a card. If anyone of them discards a Curse, +1 Action

This has political issues in multiplayer games because discards are asynchronous, but they probably don't matter.  Much like Bard, you likely can't play Angry Mob with the assumption that it will be non-terminal, which makes its non-terminal function circumstantial.  I think you want this function on a thing that would be happier to have the +Action.

Quote from: somekindoftony on April 12, 2020, 02:42:29 am

Prospector
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $2
+1 Card, +$1

---

Whenever any player buys a treasure you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, play it at the start of your next turn.

"+1 Card and +$1" is really bad.  The ability to play it later by buying a Treasure doesn't make it a whole lot better: In the situation that players would buy a lot of Treasures, there won't be enough +actions on the board to justify buying Prospectors.  The only way it really functions is triggering it yourself to get the additional +Cards next turn, but then it needs additional Buys and the ability to weather accumulating many Treasures, which not many decks can do very well.

Quote from: kru5h on April 12, 2020, 08:21:20 pm

Cooper
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card costing up to $4. If it costs $3 or less: +1 Card and +1 Action. If it costs $1 or less, +1 Buy and +$1.

Having played with $4 Workshop variants that can quickly drain $3 cards, the size of the Supply is a rather unpredictable problem in multiplayer games: If there are good Workshop targets a $3, the game ends so fast on piles with such blanket gaining on a cantrip.  I'd recommend shifting the benefits incurred so that it only becomes non-terminal when gaining those super cheap cards.

Quote from: King Leon on April 13, 2020, 03:37:05 pm

Sparrow
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Choose one: +2 Cards or +1 VP. You may play a Sparrow from your hand.

---

When you buy this, put all Sparrows from your discard pile on the top of your deck.

I imagine it is typically correct to assume "+1VP play another of this" will be very slow in the average case, the abuse case of a golden "+4VP to +7VP per turn forever," leaves me wondering why this even has +VP attached to it.  While the +2 Cards chain is a fairly powerful effect on its own, the ability to shift to +VP attached to it doubles-down the incentive to build a deck that is made of nothing but Sparrows, and that doesn't sound very fun.  The top-decking thing is cute though.

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on April 13, 2020, 04:25:51 pm

Sexton
Types: Action
Cost: $3
You may discard a card from your deck. Look through your discard pile. Choose one: trash exactly 2 cards from your discard pile; or +1 Action and put a card from your discard pile into your hand.

Per the 2019 Errata, you can omit "look through your discard pile."  I like the idea of a blanket discard trasher, but as someone who considers Chapel's turn 3\4 variance a bit much, Sexton's is even worse, varying from "trash a Copper out of hand (or +1 Card and +1 Action if you flip your turn 2 buy)" to "trash 2 Estates out of hand".  The deck-discard effect is a neat improvement, but I'd much rather it buff itself to a $4-cost that can "discard up to 2" and "trash up to 2".

Quote from: Rhodos on April 14, 2020, 07:34:50 am

Quote Friar Types: Action Cost: $4 Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Trash any number of them and put the rest back in any order. If you trashed a card costing $3 or more and you don't have the Tunic: +1 Card, +1 Action and take the Tunic.

Quote Tunic Types: Artifact When you play a Friar: +1 Action and put the cards you don't trash into your hand instead of onto your deck.

Friar begins its life as a terminal Sentry, but can be upgraded into a Laboratory+Sentry.  The cost of taking the Tunic is a sort of counter-point to Flag Bearer: Instead of buying\trashing a terminal Silver, you trash another Silver at minimum.  Because you can take the Tunic from a player, it likely pulls Friar back into a moderately reasonable position: If someone takes the Tunic from you, you can trash one of your otherwise troublesome terminal Friars to make the rest non-terminal.  It is easier to draw your deck with Laboratories, so fast-trashing with Laboratory Friars is probably a bad idea.
This is clever. I like it.

Quote from: X-tra on April 14, 2020, 10:56:00 am

Informer
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $4
The player to your left reveals cards from their deck until they reveal a non-Command, non-Duration Action card, discarding the rest. You may play it, leaving it there. If you didn't, +$2.

The cards that don't specify that the card goes back are all cards that look at or reveal exactly 1 card (even Oracle says how the 2 go back), so this still reads funny.  I won't hold that against the card, though.  So the ideal of Informer is randomly flipping up a powerful $5-cost Action to play, as otherwise you could have bought and played the Action yourself (because Informer costs $4) without garnering a sifting benefit to the player to your left.  I like the player interaction idea, but this just seems terribly weak.

Quote from: spheremonk on April 14, 2020, 12:04:24 pm

Fixed Horse Race
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Each other player may set aside a card from their hand face down. Reveal a card from your hand. Each other player reveals their set aside card and discards it. If your card costs the most: +3 Coffers, +1 Villager. Otherwise, gain a Curse.

This probably wants to act as a payload to a deck that can already draw itself (or almost draw itself) so you can justify discarding a high-cost card to it or consistently align it with a Province.  Even then, that pass-fail to huge: If anyone else has a Province to discard to it, you gain a Curse while it awkwardly holds down other players' Fixed Horse Races.  I think the cost of having a terminal dead card that consumes another of your cards is already a big cost without making it Curse yourself.

Quote from: Supernova888 on April 14, 2020, 01:39:42 pm

Palm Reader
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $4
Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $5 (leaving it there). If it costs $4 or more, discard a card.

The value of Palm Reader contrasted to Band of Misfits is a function of the $4 and $5 cards available: Palm Reader is better at playing cheaper Actions, which vary so wildly from game to game, but is much worse at playing $4 Village-variants (often premier Band of Misfits targets).  The ability to play a $5-card at the cost of discarding a card is mostly reasonable: There are games with Laboratory-variants (like Lost City) where Palm Reader will be a powerhouse, but most games will make it middling.  This is a unique enough Command card.  I like it.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on April 15, 2020, 02:48:27 am

Interchange
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$2. If you have Actions remaining, +2 Actions

Similarities to Conclave are not to be missed, where Conclave is guaranteed to act as a splitter if there are any other Actions in the game, Interchange can only act as a splitter if there is another splitter.  It's like a finickier Conspirator in that way, where it will act as a terminal Silver unless it is supported.  You will rarely buy more than one (maybe two) Interchanges, and likely early in the game when you need economy, lest its pass-fail paradigm become frustrating.  Seems fine.

Quote from: Gubump on April 15, 2020, 07:18:02 pm

Builder
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Gain a card costing up to $4. If it doesn't cost $4, +1 Villager.

As King Leon points out, this seems quite familiar to Sculptor, though it gains the card to your discard pile and non-terminally gains any card costing at most $3.  Playing with $4 Workshop variants that can quickly drain $3 cards, the size of the Supply is a rather unpredictable problem in multiplayer games: If there are good Workshop targets a $3, the game ends so fast on piles with such blanket non-terminal gaining.  It is likely not too much of a problem, but its similarities to Sculptor are ultimately far too close as far as I'm concerned.  Sculptor asks similar questions, but in a more interesting way.

Quote from: Something_Smart on April 16, 2020, 11:02:04 am

Investigator
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Cards. Put any number of cards from your hand on top of your deck.

---

When you gain this, put it into your hand and +1 Buy.

Setting aside the admitted problem of +1 Buy on-gain auto-piling them with decent cost reduction (which is a serious problem: multiplayer games that end on Provinces still often have 2 empty Supply piles) (you could fix this with a Messenger-like clause), putting "any number" of cards on top of your deck could be a problem as you can theoretically setup further than your next hand with it: I'd "put up to 4 cards from your hand on top of your deck in any order".  In play, this seems to adjust the on-play problems of Terrier being so similar to Laboratory at $4 because it can only be played non-terminally during your Night phase, when +2 Cards is not wildly useful.  The larger function of the card is likely to save otherwise missed cards, which is a function handled similarly by Save and Delay, but this does it at a theoretical cost of adding a middling card to your deck.  It is a solid variation.


Show: BlueHairedMeerkat's Coronation

Quote from: BlueHairedMeerkat on April 09, 2020, 10:23:20 am

Coronation
Types: Action
Cost: $5
If this is the first Coronation you have played this turn, gain a Gold onto your deck. Otherwise, you may play an Action card from your hand three times.

Place: segura's Hearth

Quote from: segura on April 10, 2020, 07:16:36 am

Hearth
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Choose one: +2 Cards and add a Villager to the Hearth Supply pile; or take the Villagers from the pile.

---

When you gain or trash this, add a Villager to the Hearth Supply pile.

Win: Rhodos' Friar and Tunic

Quote from: Rhodos on April 14, 2020, 07:34:50 am

Quote Friar Types: Action Cost: $4 Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Trash any number of them and put the rest back in any order. If you trashed a card costing $3 or more and you don't have the Tunic: +1 Card, +1 Action and take the Tunic.

Quote Tunic Types: Artifact When you play a Friar: +1 Action and put the cards you don't trash into your hand instead of onto your deck.

The interaction of this card and artifact pairing is novel and ties into itself to theoretically hold itself in check, as opposed to being a brainless piledrive.  If it proves to centralizing to have Friar trash Friar, you could always put an awkward on-trash effect (like gaining a Duchy or some such).

You may post the next challenge when you would, Rhodos.

Title: Re: Contest #69: Pseudo-terminal
Post by: scolapasta on April 16, 2020, 02:34:25 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 16, 2020, 01:57:30 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on April 09, 2020, 06:11:30 pm

Dalmatian
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $3
Gain 2 Horses. You may play a Horse from your hand.

---

When another player plays a Horse, you may discard this to gain a Horse to your hand.

Another 2-Horser along with Cavalry, Paddock, and Sleigh.  The reaction is a tad fiddly because you have to pause the first time you play a Horse and ultimately pointless due to the raw strength of Dalmatian.  By the time you play Dalmatian 3 times, even without significant support, you can probably expect to trigger the Dalmatian→Horse every time which increases the number of Horses you have.  This will drain the Horse pile rapidly, especially in multiplayer, which gives it a dynamic that doesn't seem to be a consideration in other Horsers: Horses being unlimited seems to be the intent of them (regardless of how Livery goes).  I don't hate it, but I'm leery to put it out as I think it will be too game dominating, especially if any Way appears with it.

Thanks, as always for the thorough judging. (and congrats to Rhodos!)

Would you mind explaining a little more about the "draining the Horse pile rapidly"? My intent was that on play, you either gain two horses, or you effectively play a cantrip and gain one horse (since the one you play would return to its pile).

i.e. the same effect would be achieved by "Gain a Horse. Discard a Horse from your hand for +2 Cards, +1 Action." (with a minor difference if the Horse pile only had 1 Horse in it)

The reaction was so, among other things, with two Dalmatians in hand you could discard one to guarantee a Horse in your hand.

(I'm also unsure how a Way would make it particularly dominating)

Title: Re: Contest #69: Pseudo-terminal
Post by: Fragasnap on April 16, 2020, 03:01:57 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on April 16, 2020, 02:34:25 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 16, 2020, 01:57:30 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on April 09, 2020, 06:11:30 pm

Dalmatian
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $3
Gain 2 Horses. You may play a Horse from your hand.

---

When another player plays a Horse, you may discard this to gain a Horse to your hand.

Another 2-Horser along with Cavalry, Paddock, and Sleigh.  The reaction is a tad fiddly because you have to pause the first time you play a Horse and ultimately pointless due to the raw strength of Dalmatian.  By the time you play Dalmatian 3 times, even without significant support, you can probably expect to trigger the Dalmatian→Horse every time which increases the number of Horses you have.  This will drain the Horse pile rapidly, especially in multiplayer, which gives it a dynamic that doesn't seem to be a consideration in other Horsers: Horses being unlimited seems to be the intent of them (regardless of how Livery goes).  I don't hate it, but I'm leery to put it out as I think it will be too game dominating, especially if any Way appears with it.

Would you mind explaining a little more about the "draining the Horse pile rapidly"? My intent was that on play, you either gain two horses, or you effectively play a cantrip and gain one horse (since the one you play would return to its pile). i.e. the same effect would be achieved by "Gain a Horse. Discard a Horse from your hand for +2 Cards, +1 Action." (with a minor difference if the Horse pile only had 1 Horse in it)
The reaction was so, among other things, with two Dalmatians in hand you could discard one to guarantee a Horse in your hand.
(I'm also unsure how a Way would make it particularly dominating)

Dalmatian reduces the number of Horses in its pile as a "cantrip" where the other Horsers do so in a much more limited fashion (Supplies is also a Copper, Scrap has to trash stuff, Paddock turns non-terminal only in the late-game, others are terminal).  Most games where I have Horses I find it easy and beneficial to hang on to one or more Horses to get a bigger benefit from the draw later.  I am likely leery of new tech, as I did not dislike either of the Horse entries (Bridle Craftsman and Dalmatian)  (and am probably playing the new tech very poorly as well) but did not include them in my top 3.  Perhaps greater experience would lead me to feel otherwise about it.
I have found Horses to generally be a strong way to improve the consistency of a deck mid construction between cards like Scrap, Sleigh, and Demand (which I have used more than others), so a cantrip that gains a Horse looks pretty crazy at a cost of $3.  A decent Way target makes it easier to hang on to your Horses for big benefits because unplayed Horses don't drag in your deck: You can Way them.  Considering the way Ways affect Horses feels very relevant as they both appear in Menagerie.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on April 16, 2020, 04:18:20 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 09, 2020, 08:26:36 pm

My entry for this week:
(which is the other one I was considering entering for last week. I may have entered this one at some point before, but I don't think I have for one of these weekly contests at least.)

Quote

Mysterious Door
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} - Action
The player to your left discards the bottom card of their deck. If it's an action card, play it, leaving it there. Otherwise if it's... a victory card, +2 Cards; anything else, +$2.

I didn't even make the list. This is the second time this happened.  :(
I even made the text size bigger...

Title: Re: Contest #69: Pseudo-terminal
Post by: scolapasta on April 16, 2020, 05:36:46 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 16, 2020, 03:01:57 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on April 16, 2020, 02:34:25 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 16, 2020, 01:57:30 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on April 09, 2020, 06:11:30 pm

Dalmatian
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $3
Gain 2 Horses. You may play a Horse from your hand.

---

When another player plays a Horse, you may discard this to gain a Horse to your hand.

Another 2-Horser along with Cavalry, Paddock, and Sleigh.  The reaction is a tad fiddly because you have to pause the first time you play a Horse and ultimately pointless due to the raw strength of Dalmatian.  By the time you play Dalmatian 3 times, even without significant support, you can probably expect to trigger the Dalmatian→Horse every time which increases the number of Horses you have.  This will drain the Horse pile rapidly, especially in multiplayer, which gives it a dynamic that doesn't seem to be a consideration in other Horsers: Horses being unlimited seems to be the intent of them (regardless of how Livery goes).  I don't hate it, but I'm leery to put it out as I think it will be too game dominating, especially if any Way appears with it.

Would you mind explaining a little more about the "draining the Horse pile rapidly"? My intent was that on play, you either gain two horses, or you effectively play a cantrip and gain one horse (since the one you play would return to its pile). i.e. the same effect would be achieved by "Gain a Horse. Discard a Horse from your hand for +2 Cards, +1 Action." (with a minor difference if the Horse pile only had 1 Horse in it)
The reaction was so, among other things, with two Dalmatians in hand you could discard one to guarantee a Horse in your hand.
(I'm also unsure how a Way would make it particularly dominating)

Dalmatian reduces the number of Horses in its pile as a "cantrip" where the other Horsers do so in a much more limited fashion (Supplies is also a Copper, Scrap has to trash stuff, Paddock turns non-terminal only in the late-game, others are terminal).  Most games where I have Horses I find it easy and beneficial to hang on to one or more Horses to get a bigger benefit from the draw later.  I am likely leery of new tech, as I did not dislike either of the Horse entries (Bridle Craftsman and Dalmatian)  (and am probably playing the new tech very poorly as well) but did not include them in my top 3.  Perhaps greater experience would lead me to feel otherwise about it.
I have found Horses to generally be a strong way to improve the consistency of a deck mid construction between cards like Scrap, Sleigh, and Demand (which I have used more than others), so a cantrip that gains a Horse looks pretty crazy at a cost of $3.  A decent Way target makes it easier to hang on to your Horses for big benefits because unplayed Horses don't drag in your deck: You can Way them.  Considering the way Ways affect Horses feels very relevant as they both appear in Menagerie.

OK, all good points. I'll have to play test some to see if it's as crazy as you think and/or if it can be fixed with a straightforward tweak (e.g. cost $4, gain just one Horse, add some penalty for playing the horse, like discarding or trashing).

One thing I'm realizing now is that if it were "Gain a Horse to your Hand. You may play a Horse from your hand", it's pretty much just a Lab* so in its current state, as the odds increase of having that horse in your hand, that'll happen clearly happen more frequently**. Which again points me back to considering it gain just the one Horse.

* maybe even better, since it gets discarded then, and can get redrawn that same turn
** which I guess is what you're saying

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on April 16, 2020, 05:50:53 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 16, 2020, 04:18:20 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 09, 2020, 08:26:36 pm

My entry for this week:
(which is the other one I was considering entering for last week. I may have entered this one at some point before, but I don't think I have for one of these weekly contests at least.)

Quote

Mysterious Door
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} - Action
The player to your left discards the bottom card of their deck. If it's an action card, play it, leaving it there. Otherwise if it's... a victory card, +2 Cards; anything else, +$2.

I didn't even make the list. This is the second time this happened.  :(
I even made the text size bigger...

My sincere apologies.  I'm not even sure how I missed it. I noted your post when you posted it and yet it didn't end up in the quote repository I build throughout the week.  I recommend posting an artless mock-up using the Dominion Card Image Generator (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16622.0) and uploading the result to Imgur (https://imgur.com/), as my final sweep would certainly not have missed an image.

Regardless,

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 09, 2020, 08:26:36 pm

Mysterious Door
Types: Action
Cost: $2
The player to your left discards the bottom card of their deck. If it's an action card, play it, leaving it there. Otherwise if it's... a victory card, +2 Cards; anything else, +$2.

Mysterious Door discarding is sure to make some players dislike it much as players disliked Tribute.  The effect is a nice fix to X-tra's Informer, as it costs less than the things you want to play with it and even gives better benefits when it cycles a Victory card in the form of +2 Cards.  It is ultimately falling into the same hole as Tribute, where its pseudo-terminal effect is so volatile that you end up playing it like it's terminal.  Ultimately I imagine that it would be better priced at $3, as the current effect is something I wouldn't want shoved so randomly into a game as it would be on an easy-to-buy $2-cost card, but it might end up being too weak for $3 in the average Kingdom.  I like it, though.  It's not on the shortlist, but it's a high 2/3.

Title: Re: Contest #69: Pseudo-terminal
Post by: spheremonk on April 16, 2020, 06:27:30 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 16, 2020, 01:57:30 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on April 14, 2020, 12:04:24 pm

Fixed Horse Race
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Each other player may set aside a card from their hand face down. Reveal a card from your hand. Each other player reveals their set aside card and discards it. If your card costs the most: +3 Coffers, +1 Villager. Otherwise, gain a Curse.

This probably wants to act as a payload to a deck that can already draw itself (or almost draw itself) so you can justify discarding a high-cost card to it

 

You don't discard a card.

Title: Re: Contest #69: Pseudo-terminal
Post by: Rhodos on April 17, 2020, 05:23:04 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on April 16, 2020, 01:57:30 pm

Win: Rhodos' Friar and Tunic

Quote from: Rhodos on April 14, 2020, 07:34:50 am

Quote Friar Types: Action Cost: $4 Look at the top 2 cards of your deck. Trash any number of them and put the rest back in any order. If you trashed a card costing $3 or more and you don't have the Tunic: +1 Card, +1 Action and take the Tunic.

Quote Tunic Types: Artifact When you play a Friar: +1 Action and put the cards you don't trash into your hand instead of onto your deck.

The interaction of this card and artifact pairing is novel and ties into itself to theoretically hold itself in check, as opposed to being a brainless piledrive.  If it proves to centralizing to have Friar trash Friar, you could always put an awkward on-trash effect (like gaining a Duchy or some such).

You may post the next challenge when you would, Rhodos.

Thanks a lot, it is an honor for me. And also, thanks for feedback and judging!

I will post the next contest within the next hour.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on April 17, 2020, 06:23:32 am

Contest 70 Variable Cost
Create a card (available in the supply) or an Event, that has variable cost. This could be
1) a cost that depends on the current state of the game (like Peddler, Wayfarer, Fisherman, Destrier), or
2) an alternative way to pay for it (like Animal Fair)

It should still be a buy and consume one of your buys. It should still have a "base price" and at any point of the game, it should be clear what the cost of the card is. (As for things like Trash for Benefit or Chariot Race.) For consistency, please put a star on the price tag, unless there is a good reason to not do so.

Things that by themself do not qualify for this contest:
- overpay
- debt
- buying restrivtions, i.e. Grand Market or Stampede
- special gaining, that is not a buy, i.e. Duchess or Changeling
(of course this things can still be used on the card/event)

As a last note: The variable cost should matter in some way or at least have the chance to do so. This can also be achieved by a small change of cost, for example 5->4 or 6->5 for a card that you want early on in the game and that you might miss without the cheaper price.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on April 17, 2020, 08:06:01 am

Quote from: Rhodos on April 17, 2020, 06:23:32 am

Contest 70 Variable Cost
Create a card (available in the supply) or an Event, that has variable cost. This could be
1) a cost that depends on the current state of the game (like Peddler, Wayfarer, Fisherman, Destrier), or
2) an alternative way to pay for it (like Animal Fair)

It should still be a buy and consume one of your buys. It should still have a "base price" and at any point of the game, it should be clear what the cost of the card is. (As for things like Trash for Benefit or Chariot Race.) For consistency, please put a star on the price tag, unless there is a good reason to not do so.

Things that by themself do not qualify for this contest:
- overpay
- debt
- buying restrivtions, i.e. Grand Market or Stampede
- special gaining, that is not a buy, i.e. Duchess or Changeling
(of course this things can still be used on the card/event)

As a last note: The variable cost should matter in some way or at least have the chance to do so. This can also be achieved by a small change of cost, for example 5->4 or 6->5 for a card that you want early on in the game and that you might miss without the cheaper price.

Renovate
$5*
Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain 2 cards each costing exactly $1 more than it.
-------
This costs $1 more per empty Supply pile.

It's an Upgrade variant that gets 2 cards instead of 1. Later on, as piles empty, it costs $6, then $7, then maybe on the final turn it costs $8. This means that, later on, you can trash one of these to another one for more value. If 1 pile is empty, you can turn one into 2 King's Courts. You get the gist. And the card itself is good for emptying piles, in case that's an issue. Please feel free to give me feedback, as it is much appreciated.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on April 17, 2020, 08:28:35 am

Nitori
cost $3* - Event
Put a Nitori token on this.
Gain a Silver per a Nitori token on this.
---
This costs $1 more per a Nitori token on this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on April 17, 2020, 09:09:18 am

Guild (Action-Command, $3*)

+1 Action
Choose one: put a non-Duration Action card from your hand on your Guild mat; or play one of the Action cards on your Guild mat, leaving it there.
———
During your turns, this has the same cost at the highest costing card on your Guild mat, if any.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on April 17, 2020, 11:26:36 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on April 17, 2020, 09:09:18 am

Guild (Action-Command, $3*)

+1 Action
Choose one: put a non-Duration Action card from your hand on your Guild mat; or play one of the Action cards on your Guild mat, leaving it there.
———
During your turns, this has the same cost at the highest costing card on your Guild mat, if any.

What happens when I put Workshop, Transmute, Engineer?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on April 17, 2020, 12:14:17 pm

Quote from: majiponi on April 17, 2020, 11:26:36 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on April 17, 2020, 09:09:18 am

Guild (Action-Command, $3*)

+1 Action
Choose one: put a non-Duration Action card from your hand on your Guild mat; or play one of the Action cards on your Guild mat, leaving it there.
———
During your turns, this has the same cost at the highest costing card on your Guild mat, if any.

What happens when I put Workshop, Transmute, Engineer?

Perhaps it should say highest costing card in coins, for clarity. If there are no cards on the mat with a cost in coins, Guild’s price remains at £3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on April 17, 2020, 12:23:41 pm

I had a card, Student*, that had an earlier iteration with a similar mechanic. One issue that was pointed out is that you could use it to get several cheap Kings Courts.

* if I can't think of anything new, I might post the latest version this week again

In Guild's case, you would get several guilds cheap first (even making it cheaper by putting a $2 cost on it, especially one with a +Buy, e.g. Pawn), then set aside a King's Court after.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on April 17, 2020, 01:16:23 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/ZKTtJtsk/Grand-Laboratory-V1-EN.png)

I believe a card posted on this thread not too long ago tried to do something similar to Grand Laboratory. This could be tweaked so that it costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png) while having a cost reduction of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) during one's Action phase. Decided to go against that since investing into the first Grand Laboratory would be a pain.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on April 17, 2020, 03:34:40 pm

(https://abload.de/img/patissierkejo6.png)

Should the sentence immediately above the line be replaced with “If you have another Patissier in play, +1 Coffers”? I was choosing between facilitating acquisition of more Patissiers in the short run (the language I didn’t use) or incentivizing acquisition of more Patissiers in the long run (the language I did use). The language I didn’t choose seemed to speed things up too quickly. Thoughts?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread #70: varying cost
Post by: Aquila on April 17, 2020, 04:03:19 pm

This is the first repeat contest, if I'm not mistaken. This was done right the way back in contest #4. It's good to have repeats, we have new participants and there are lots of possible ideas for some briefs, so it's nice to see the time has come.

My entry:

Quote

Elite - Action, $5* cost.
+1 Buy
+ $2
When you next buy a card costing $1 or more, double your $ if you haven't yet this turn.
-
This costs $1 more per Treasure you have in play, after cost reductions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on April 17, 2020, 05:09:56 pm

Quote

Workshop of Plenty
Treasure $0*
Gain a card costing less than this.
-
This costs $1 more per card you have in play.

It's a weird Horn of Plenty variant.
It gains provinces, and you don't even have to trash it, but you need 9 cards in play (which admittedly is easier than HoP's 8 distinct). But it has the catch that if you are doing that, it also costs at least $9 to buy another one, so they are quite hard to get. Note that a big difference between this and HoP is that it can't gain itself, since it never costs less than itself.
Early game it is basically a workshop, although you have to draw a lot of coppers with it to gain $4s.
It might be OP; the main fix I would have then is to make it an Action, which nerfs it quite hard I think. If people just think the province gaining is OP, it could have HoP's trashing restriction.
I want a better name if anyone has a suggestion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Optimal_Inefficiency on April 17, 2020, 07:30:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/fG2zXtb_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Quote

(?) Signet Ring (?) — ($7*)(Treasure)
When you play this, chose one: +1 Buy and +$2; or +1 Action, and if it’s your Buy phase return to your Action phase.
-
During your turn, if you have no Actions in play, this costs $3 less.

Costing $4 when you play no Actions means everyone will have the opportunity to buy one within the first 2 turns. If you have enough terminals to needs (another) one later in the games, there’s a good chance you’ll have an Action in each hand and have to take the short term loss for a long term gain.
 
[I know I accidentally capitalized the word “phase” on the card, but I don’t feel like redoing it...]

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on April 18, 2020, 12:01:25 am

(https://i.imgur.com/pMmdrrc.png)

A round is whenever the starting player begins his turn (if he takes multiple turns in a row, only count the first). You increase the price at the start of each round.

e.g. on your 4th turn it costs $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Optimal_Inefficiency on April 18, 2020, 04:18:08 am

Quote from: pubby on April 18, 2020, 12:01:25 am

(https://i.imgur.com/mS7MkeN.png)

e.g. on your 4th turn it costs $4.

Might I suggest a counter to help keep track? It could look something like this:

Quote

Boomtown — ($1*) (Victory)
Sum the total cost of your deck. Worth 1 VP per $20 (round down).
-
At the start of each of the first player’s turns, put a token on the Boomtown pile. This costs $1 more per token token on its pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on April 18, 2020, 06:52:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/itLnbNp.jpg)

Quote

Rovers
Types: Action
Cost: $6*
+2 Cards. Turn your Journey token over (it starts face up). Then if it's face up, +3 Actions.

---

During your turns, if your Journey token is face up, this costs $2 less.

A Lost City variant using the Journey token that costs $6 when it's ready to go and $4 when it isn't. You want to setup your next turn by leaving your Journey token face down, except then Rovers costs $6, so you leave it face up so you can buy a cheap Rovers, but now, whoops, your first Rovers next turn is terminal.  Note that it functionally starts the game costing $4.  +2 Cards is a stronger benefit attached to flipping your token face down than Giant's +$1, Ranger's +1 Buy, and Pilgrimage's nothing-event if Rovers appears with them.
Maybe +3 Actions is too much?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on April 18, 2020, 08:57:38 am

(https://i.imgur.com/lIHdamn.jpg)

Quote

Appraiser
$2* Treasure
-
When you play this, trash this and gain two cards with a combined cost exactly equal to this in $.
-
This costs $1 more per card you have in play.

A far stronger and more versatile Horn of Plenty. Impossible to buy with Coppers, easy to buy with a single Gold, which hopefully makes its rewarding ridiculous engine turns (Play 10 cards+ this for a Colony and a Copper, or 15+ this for two Provinces) balanced!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on April 18, 2020, 01:12:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oHes4lZ.png?1)
A simple trasher and terminal draw combo, that costs more if you want to trash your treasures, with an added dash of player interaction. Harder to grab as your main draw, so it's really more of a utility car for thinning. Three might be too many, but an outtake version of Chapel trashed only up to three and was much slower, so it should be balanced.
Edit: Card effect changed, it is now this.
(https://i.imgur.com/ydnR8iG.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on April 18, 2020, 04:49:57 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5e9b65d3b188e002ad7bf071/9b3a7cc4527f4db1864e59133d7fff3a/image.png)

Quote

Merry Men • $5* • Action - Attack
Each other player gets +4 Cards and divides their hand into 2 piles, face down; You choose a pile for each player to discard and the other pile goes back to their hand.

When drawing a new hand at the end of your turn, +2 Cards.
-
This costs $1 per card in your hand at the start of your turn.

FAQ:
• each other player can look at the contents of their piles at any time prior to announcing their dividing is done;
• Piles do not have to be evenly split;
• Cards discarded in a pile are not considered discarded from your hand;
• Deciding the price on this card is a lowercase-e event that can happen before or after other "at the start of your turn" events like tavern mat calling, hireling, etc;
• I tried to balance unambiguity with not needing to bust out the reading glasses but just to be clear, you don't get to tell Player B to discard Player A's pile - there is no card swapping between players that occurs with this.

Secret History:
Was thinking about "you cut / I choose" gameplay, then about this week's challenge, and had a reese's peanut butter cup moment.
Originally had this at '+2 Cards' instead of way-of-squirrel but figured this made it more interesting/was a better counter to itself. Font size stayed roughly the same either way so i went with the more exotic option.
The name on this came from the mini bluffing game you get to do as part of it, which reminded me of the bluffing in "Sheriff of Nottingham"; thus, "Merry Men".

Also gave me an excuse to bust out the sharpies and doodle up the art (it can't be worse than shanty town, right?).

---

Quote from: pubby on April 18, 2020, 12:01:25 am

(https://i.imgur.com/mS7MkeN.png)

e.g. on your 4th turn it costs $4.

My immediate reaction to this card:
(https://pics.me.me/boo-we-didnt-come-to-do-math-boo-just-say-23353117.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on April 19, 2020, 10:17:38 am

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on April 18, 2020, 04:18:08 am

Might I suggest a counter to help keep track? It could look something like this:

Quote

Boomtown — ($1*) (Victory)
Sum the total cost of your deck. Worth 1 VP per $20 (round down).
-
At the start of each of the first player’s turns, put a token on the Boomtown pile. This costs $1 more per token token on its pile.

Yeah I considered doing that originally, but man it's hard to get a good wording without A) being overly long B) having the right semantics. It has to work when the first player takes multiple turns, and also it has to work when other token types (tax, embargo) are placed on its pile.

Anyway I edited it with a new version that tries to be as concise as possible. Let me know if it's confusing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holger on April 19, 2020, 03:49:50 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on April 18, 2020, 01:12:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oHes4lZ.png?1)
A simple trasher and terminal draw combo, that costs more if you want to trash your treasures, with an added dash of player interaction. Harder to grab as your main draw, so it's really more of a utility car for thinning. Three might be too many, but an outtake version of Chapel trashed only up to three and was much slower, so it should be balanced.

It only costs more after you've trashed your first Coppers. So if you open with it and your opponent doesn't, you'll gladly trash three Coppers the first time you draw it, increasing the cost to $7. That's harsh for your opponent whenever it's the only good trasher on the board...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holger on April 19, 2020, 04:09:07 pm

Quote from: spineflu on April 18, 2020, 04:49:57 pm

---

Quote from: pubby on April 18, 2020, 12:01:25 am

(https://i.imgur.com/mS7MkeN.png)

e.g. on your 4th turn it costs $4.

My immediate reaction to this card:
(https://pics.me.me/boo-we-didnt-come-to-do-math-boo-just-say-23353117.png)

 ;D ;D But don't tell that to the French, for them 4*20+7 IS a number   ;)


I agree that the VPs are quite hard to calculate IRL, especially with the Boomtowns boosting themselves.  What about:

"Worth 1 VP per 10 VPs you have from any non-Boomtown sources (rounded down), but not less than 0 VP."

This essentially gives "interest" on your other VPs, and since you have to count those anyway at the end of the game, there's no extra math necessary for this card. (Too bad that the card names "Bank" and "Capitalism" are already in use...)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 19, 2020, 04:09:45 pm

Quote from: Holger on April 19, 2020, 03:49:50 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on April 18, 2020, 01:12:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oHes4lZ.png?1)
A simple trasher and terminal draw combo, that costs more if you want to trash your treasures, with an added dash of player interaction. Harder to grab as your main draw, so it's really more of a utility car for thinning. Three might be too many, but an outtake version of Chapel trashed only up to three and was much slower, so it should be balanced.

It only costs more after you've trashed your first Coppers. So if you open with it and your opponent doesn't, you'll gladly trash three Coppers the first time you draw it, increasing the cost to $7. That's harsh for your opponent whenever it's the only good trasher on the board...

If it is the only good trasher (and how is "trash up to 3 cards" not likely the best trasher on the board?) he would deserve to lose even without the second shuffle increase.
You could argue that the card is boring as it hard to get more than one copy, or that the first player has a higher chance to get a second copy ... but then again if you have two Smithy/Chapels in your deck after the second shuffle that could easily backfire.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 19, 2020, 04:21:21 pm

I first tried some Enclave style event with Silver love, but it leads to boring strategies (trash down to 5 Silvers, only buy Provinces):
Event - $13*
Exile a Province from the Supply. This cost $1 less per Silver in play.

As did not work out, I lazily submit an old one:

(https://i.imgur.com/t76IgQO.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Barbarossa41 on April 19, 2020, 07:14:47 pm

Quote from: segura on April 19, 2020, 04:21:21 pm

I first tried some Enclave style event with Silver love, but it leads to boring strategies (trash down to 5 Silvers, only buy Provinces):
Event - $13*
Exile a Province from the Supply. This cost $1 less per Silver in play.

As did not work out, I lazily submit an old one:

(https://i.imgur.com/t76IgQO.png)

Does Treasure/Victory Mean a card with at least one type, or a card with both types?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on April 19, 2020, 07:30:22 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa41 on April 19, 2020, 07:14:47 pm

Quote from: segura on April 19, 2020, 04:21:21 pm

I first tried some Enclave style event with Silver love, but it leads to boring strategies (trash down to 5 Silvers, only buy Provinces):
Event - $13*
Exile a Province from the Supply. This cost $1 less per Silver in play.

As did not work out, I lazily submit an old one:

(https://i.imgur.com/t76IgQO.png)

Does Treasure/Victory Mean a card with at least one type, or a card with both types?

I'd assume either type, otherwise only Harem and maybe the Castles(Humble Castle) pile would work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on April 19, 2020, 08:29:31 pm

Quote from: segura on April 19, 2020, 04:21:21 pm

I first tried some Enclave style event with Silver love, but it leads to boring strategies (trash down to 5 Silvers, only buy Provinces):
Event - $13*
Exile a Province from the Supply. This cost $1 less per Silver in play.

As did not work out, I lazily submit an old one:

(https://i.imgur.com/t76IgQO.png)

you might wanna revise the wording on the cost to $1 per differently named Treasure or Victory pile in the supply, otherwise this gets expensive in Castles games

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 19, 2020, 08:35:15 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa41 on April 19, 2020, 07:14:47 pm

Quote from: segura on April 19, 2020, 04:21:21 pm

I first tried some Enclave style event with Silver love, but it leads to boring strategies (trash down to 5 Silvers, only buy Provinces):
Event - $13*
Exile a Province from the Supply. This cost $1 less per Silver in play.

As did not work out, I lazily submit an old one:

(https://i.imgur.com/t76IgQO.png)

Does Treasure/Victory Mean a card with at least one type, or a card with both types?

Read / as and. So at least one type.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on April 19, 2020, 09:13:45 pm

Tulip
Treasure - $11*
Worth $1
When you play this, you may gain a card costing up to $1 more than this. If you did, return this to its pile when it leaves play.
-
This costs $1 less per Tulip remaining in the supply

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on April 20, 2020, 11:02:24 am

Is a treasure-duration impossible? UPGRADED VERSION ADDED BELOW but I might have missed the cut off. :(

(https://i.imgur.com/y0n3qCL.png)

I figure the cost reduction rewards early greening and compensates for being cursed or ruined a little by making all those junk cards still worth an effective $1.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on April 20, 2020, 11:49:52 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on April 20, 2020, 11:02:24 am

Is a treasure-duration impossible?

There's nothing wrong with a treasure-duration rules-wise. Donald said that he has avoided making one because there are too many ways to remove treasures from play, which causes tracking issues.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 20, 2020, 12:09:26 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on April 20, 2020, 11:02:24 am

Is a treasure-duration impossible?

(https://i.imgur.com/y0n3qCL.png)

I figure the cost reduction rewards early greening and compensates for being cursed or ruined a little by making all those junk cards still worth an effective $1.

I like the idea but it is bonkers in 5/2 and very likely broken.

As you can always open with it, and always buy it in the absence of handsize attacks, I'd nerf it down to 3 Coins. I am pretty sure that this will win by itself otherwise in a boring money strategy.
It could even be broken with 3 Coins; being able to buy a delayed Gold every turn sounds strong as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on April 20, 2020, 12:24:09 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on April 20, 2020, 11:49:52 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on April 20, 2020, 11:02:24 am

Is a treasure-duration impossible?

There's nothing wrong with a treasure-duration rules-wise. Donald said that he has avoided making one because there are too many ways to remove treasures from play, which causes tracking issues.

You could actually solve those for this specific card by adding a "if this is still in play" clause to the next turn portion

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Barbarossa41 on April 20, 2020, 06:13:21 pm

Investments  $2
Action-Duration-Reserve
Put this on your Tavern Mat.
-------------------------------
At the start of each turn this is on your Tavern mat, +1 Coffers.
At the end of your Buy phase, if you have less $ than copies of this on your Tavern Mat, Exile all copies of this from your Tavern Mat.
-------------------------------
This costs $1 more per copy of this in Exile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 21, 2020, 12:46:29 pm

I don't know. If you want to use it consistently (and otherwise it does not seem to be worthwhile except for the last turn) it is Coin-> Coffers.
Plaza does the same job for a bargain and without delay.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: arishipshape on April 21, 2020, 02:58:21 pm

This is the first time I've ever participated in one of these contests, so please excuse any mistakes I make thanks to my noobness. Anyways, here's my idea. Probably needs some tweaks but I think it's interesting.

(https://i.imgur.com/ptNoshq.png?1)

EDIT: changed the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on April 21, 2020, 03:11:11 pm

Quote from: arishipshape on April 21, 2020, 02:58:21 pm

This is the first time I've ever participated in one of these contests, so please excuse any mistakes I make thanks to my noobness. Anyways, here's my idea. Probably needs some tweaks but I think it's interesting.

(https://i.imgur.com/qiAabzl.png?1)

Welcome! I'd say the card looks pretty balanced, at least compared to Experiment. Gets confusing with Procession but hey, plenty of real cards do too.
(You can put coin symbols into card text with the $ symbol by the way... unless the plan was for '1 coin' to mean Coffers, in which case, woah)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: arishipshape on April 21, 2020, 03:25:58 pm

Quote from: FlyerBeast on April 21, 2020, 03:11:11 pm

Welcome! I'd say the card looks pretty balanced, at least compared to Experiment. Gets confusing with Procession but hey, plenty of real cards do too.
(You can put coin symbols into card text with the $ symbol by the way... unless the plan was for '1 coin' to mean Coffers, in which case, woah)

Thanks for the kind welcome, and the tip! I had a better idea for this card, which I've now updated the original post to reflect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on April 21, 2020, 03:51:14 pm

Quote from: arishipshape on April 21, 2020, 02:58:21 pm

This is the first time I've ever participated in one of these contests, so please excuse any mistakes I make thanks to my noobness. Anyways, here's my idea. Probably needs some tweaks but I think it's interesting.

(https://i.imgur.com/ptNoshq.png?1)

EDIT: changed the card.

This adds a good amount of strategic nuance, and elegantly solves the double lab problem. I like it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on April 21, 2020, 11:26:57 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/aomh3kei.png)

Quote

Metalsmith - Action - $3*
Trash a card you have in play or a Treasure from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 more per unique card in the trash.
-
This costs $1 more per unique card in the trash.

I wanted to make a card that got stronger as its price increased. Pairing that with a remodeler variant worked well. As you play a Metalsmith, it is in play, so you can self-trash it. You can even think of it like a Feast, although, this is Dominion, there are a ton of scenarios in which Feast is better at doing that, still. Trashing cards in play is a bit exotic-- You can trash your night durations if you want, even. It does not do well clearing out Victory Cards or Curses. And it can only trash ruins if you have the spare actions to play the ruin first. So, it plays differently than other remodels for sure: Metalsmith is all about improving cards. It's quite possible to super charge this so that it costs $7 and can turn itself into a Colony. But along the way you'll have to trash quite a bit (at the bare minimum: a copper, a silver or an action card, a different action card, *and* itself). And you've open up the flood gates for your opponents to do the same.

Another interesting fact, the card becomes more powerful later in the game, but later in the game it's liable to cost a lot more. Are you willing to pay $5 for something that just remodels? Hard to justify that. Therefore there's a tension between investing in this earlier or waiting and paying high.

I'm open to feedback!

Secret History:
Pricing the concept of a strengthening remodeler was difficult. For example, if I made it simply "Trash a card from your hand, gain a card costing up to $1 more ..." then there's no good way to price it. If I price it at 4, then it's simply far too weak when compared to remodel. And if I price it at a 3 it becomes easier to get a lot of and power up to a cheap expand that still costs 6 when it's as powerful as expand. I don't like that there could be a card in the supply that acted as an Expand and cost 1 less. So I had to create a way to slightly change it.
I tried adding benefits to opponents but then the card text got very wordy and there didn't seem like a good thematic benefit to give opponents. An earlier version of the card tried to be way stronger than remodel and allowed self-trashing. I played with that a bit and realized I could have fun with trashing any card that's in play. Now we got to this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on April 22, 2020, 01:15:11 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on April 21, 2020, 11:26:57 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/aomh3kei.png)

Quote

Metalsmith - Action - $3*
Trash a card you have in play or a Treasure from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 more per unique card in the trash.
-
This costs $1 more per unique card in the trash.

I wanted to make a card that got stronger as its price increased. Pairing that with a remodeler variant worked well. As you play a Metalsmith, it is in play, so you can self-trash it. You can even think of it like a Feast, although, this is Dominion, there are a ton of scenarios in which Feast is better at doing that, still. Trashing cards in play is a bit exotic-- You can trash your night durations if you want, even. It does not do well clearing out Victory Cards or Curses. And it can only trash ruins if you have the spare actions to play the ruin first. So, it plays differently than other remodels for sure: Metalsmith is all about improving cards. It's quite possible to super charge this so that it costs $7 and can turn itself into a Colony. But along the way you'll have to trash quite a bit (at the bare minimum: a copper, a silver or an action card, a different action card, *and* itself). And you've open up the flood gates for your opponents to do the same.

Another interesting fact, the card becomes more powerful later in the game, but later in the game it's liable to cost a lot more. Are you willing to pay $5 for something that just remodels? Hard to justify that. Therefore there's a tension between investing in this earlier or waiting and paying high.

I'm open to feedback!

Secret History:
Pricing the concept of a strengthening remodeler was difficult. For example, if I made it simply "Trash a card from your hand, gain a card costing up to $1 more ..." then there's no good way to price it. If I price it at 4, then it's simply far too weak when compared to remodel. And if I price it at a 3 it becomes easier to get a lot of and power up to a cheap expand that still costs 6 when it's as powerful as expand. I don't like that there could be a card in the supply that acted as an Expand and cost 1 less. So I had to create a way to slightly change it.
I tried adding benefits to opponents but then the card text got very wordy and there didn't seem like a good thematic benefit to give opponents. An earlier version of the card tried to be way stronger than remodel and allowed self-trashing. I played with that a bit and realized I could have fun with trashing any card that's in play. Now we got to this.

Does unique mean "differently named", or cards in the trash with only one copy?
Also it has a similar wording problem to Artificer, but it's a bit more of a problem as gaining multiple cards costing $1 more than what you trash is a more common scenario than gaining a bunch of Poor Houses. Not sure how to resolve it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on April 22, 2020, 02:46:50 am

(https://i.ibb.co/tqPVhLQ/image.png)
Archipelago
$6* - Victory
3VP
When you buy this, Exile a Treasure card from play, and you can Exile a Victory card from hand.
(This costs $2 less if you have no Coppers in Exile)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on April 22, 2020, 09:10:20 am

Quote from: grep on April 22, 2020, 02:46:50 am

(https://i.ibb.co/tqPVhLQ/image.png)
Archipelago
$6* - Victory
3VP
When you buy this, Exile a Treasure card from play, and you can Exile a Victory card from hand.
(This costs $2 less if you have no Coppers in Exile)

There should be a dividing line between the victory points and the on buy. Also, the fact that the effect is on buy means you can gain it with workshop variants and never have to increase the price. Nitpicks aside, it's a good concept.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on April 22, 2020, 10:18:24 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on April 22, 2020, 01:15:11 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on April 21, 2020, 11:26:57 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/aomh3kei.png)

Quote

Metalsmith - Action - $3*
Trash a card you have in play or a Treasure from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 more per unique card in the trash.
-
This costs $1 more per unique card in the trash.

[i emitted this out to make this when quoting smaller]

I'm open to feedback!

Does unique mean "differently named", or cards in the trash with only one copy?
Also it has a similar wording problem to Artificer, but it's a bit more of a problem as gaining multiple cards costing $1 more than what you trash is a more common scenario than gaining a bunch of Poor Houses. Not sure how to resolve it.

Unique meant to be a more succinct stand in for differently named.

What’s the wording problem with artificer? Ah, do you mean you believe
The phrasing ambiguous between, gain 2 cards each costing 1 more and vs gain 1 card costing up to 2 more? Yeah, quirk of the English language. I believe it’s fair to use the same wording as artificer and have it do the same thing. Do you disagree?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on April 22, 2020, 11:11:29 am

Quote from: D782802859 on April 22, 2020, 09:10:20 am

Quote from: grep on April 22, 2020, 02:46:50 am

(https://i.ibb.co/tqPVhLQ/image.png)
Archipelago
$6* - Victory
3VP
When you buy this, Exile a Treasure card from play, and you can Exile a Victory card from hand.
(This costs $2 less if you have no Coppers in Exile)

There should be a dividing line between the victory points and the on buy. Also, the fact that the effect is on buy means you can gain it with workshop variants and never have to increase the price. Nitpicks aside, it's a good concept.

That's the best I could get from the card generator (with a vertical line the font is too small). Yes, you can gain it with workshop but then you won't get the Island benefit - this is by design.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 22, 2020, 01:52:03 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on April 22, 2020, 09:10:20 am

Also, the fact that the effect is on buy means you can gain it with workshop variants and never have to increase the price.

You also do not get the benefits so it is a Duchy for $5.
The only situation (concerning the gain without Buy scenario) in which you prefer this over Duchy is late game for Remodel: you Remodel a $4, are unsure that you will be able to Remodel it again into a Province, i.e. don't want to gamble on Gold, and prefer Archipelago over Duchy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on April 22, 2020, 06:51:51 pm

Quote from: grep on April 22, 2020, 11:11:29 am

Quote from: D782802859 on April 22, 2020, 09:10:20 am

Quote from: grep on April 22, 2020, 02:46:50 am

(https://i.ibb.co/tqPVhLQ/image.png)
Archipelago
$6* - Victory
3VP
When you buy this, Exile a Treasure card from play, and you can Exile a Victory card from hand.
(This costs $2 less if you have no Coppers in Exile)

There should be a dividing line between the victory points and the on buy. Also, the fact that the effect is on buy means you can gain it with workshop variants and never have to increase the price. Nitpicks aside, it's a good concept.

That's the best I could get from the card generator (with a vertical line the font is too small). Yes, you can gain it with workshop but then you won't get the Island benefit - this is by design.

What happens when buying this without any Treasures in play? Can I still exile a Victory?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on April 22, 2020, 09:34:18 pm

Quote from: majiponi on April 22, 2020, 06:51:51 pm

Quote from: grep on April 22, 2020, 11:11:29 am

Quote from: D782802859 on April 22, 2020, 09:10:20 am

Quote from: grep on April 22, 2020, 02:46:50 am

(https://i.ibb.co/tqPVhLQ/image.png)
Archipelago
$6* - Victory
3VP
When you buy this, Exile a Treasure card from play, and you can Exile a Victory card from hand.
(This costs $2 less if you have no Coppers in Exile)

There should be a dividing line between the victory points and the on buy. Also, the fact that the effect is on buy means you can gain it with workshop variants and never have to increase the price. Nitpicks aside, it's a good concept.

That's the best I could get from the card generator (with a vertical line the font is too small). Yes, you can gain it with workshop but then you won't get the Island benefit - this is by design.

What happens when buying this without any Treasures in play? Can I still exile a Victory?

Sure. There is no "If you did" condition, and the general rule says "Do everything you can do"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on April 22, 2020, 10:05:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/DGJqrP2.jpg)

Quote

Fields

3 VP
-
When you gain this, gain a non-Victory card costing up to $3.
-
If the province pile is full, this costs $4 less.
Action

$7*
Victory

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holger on April 23, 2020, 06:46:03 am

Quote from: segura on April 19, 2020, 04:09:45 pm

Quote from: Holger on April 19, 2020, 03:49:50 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on April 18, 2020, 01:12:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oHes4lZ.png?1)
A simple trasher and terminal draw combo, that costs more if you want to trash your treasures, with an added dash of player interaction. Harder to grab as your main draw, so it's really more of a utility car for thinning. Three might be too many, but an outtake version of Chapel trashed only up to three and was much slower, so it should be balanced.

It only costs more after you've trashed your first Coppers. So if you open with it and your opponent doesn't, you'll gladly trash three Coppers the first time you draw it, increasing the cost to $7. That's harsh for your opponent whenever it's the only good trasher on the board...

If it is the only good trasher (and how is "trash up to 3 cards" not likely the best trasher on the board?) he would deserve to lose even without the second shuffle increase.

You could argue that the card is boring as it hard to get more than one copy, or that the first player has a higher chance to get a second copy ... but then again if you have two Smithy/Chapels in your deck after the second shuffle that could easily backfire.

Sure, a good opponent would usually try to buy it T1/2 anyway. But there's situations where you can increase the cost before your opponent has had any chance to buy a $4 Monk: E.g. if there's Summon and player 1 has a 5/2 start and player 2 has 3/4 (in that order), player 1 can Summon a Monk to play in their 2nd turn, so that player 2 can't buy it at all on their first two turns (Monk already costs $6 after player 1 has trashed their two Coppers). Then player 1 can continue to trash Coppers on their further shuffles, increasing Monk's price much faster than player 2 can increase the economy of their deck (which remains full of Coppers).

Another problem: Since it's rarely good to buy several Chapels, buying another Monk essentially means buying an overpriced Smithy after turn 2, as soon as the first few Coppers have been trashed. I would suggest Monk to only count different Treasures in the trash for the cost increase, so that it is still affordable after the Coppers have been trashed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 23, 2020, 01:17:24 pm

This sounds sensible. The current version could e.g. cost $25 in a 3P game after all Coppers have been trashed. Salvager loves this and you are totally right that this sharp cost increase is too crazy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on April 23, 2020, 02:57:12 pm

I'm making somewhat of a rework of my original card, to make it more reasonable in power and to create a more interesting play experience.
(https://i.imgur.com/ydnR8iG.png?1)
It now has a decreasing variable cost in debt based on treasures trashed. The cost decrease is in debt both so that it doesn't decrease in cost too much, and so that it has a minimal first-mover problem. It now lacks the first-player/opening advantage of before while also adding more interesting strategy than prior.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on April 24, 2020, 07:18:31 am

24 hour warning

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on April 24, 2020, 10:08:26 am

Quote

Deed ($4, Action)
+1 Card
+1 Action
-
Instead of paying this card’s cost, you may trash a Deed from your hand.
-
When you trash this, +1 VP

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: FlyerBeast on April 24, 2020, 10:41:49 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on April 24, 2020, 10:08:26 am

Quote

Deed ($4, Action)
+1 Card
+1 Action
-
Instead of paying this card’s cost, you may trash a Deed from your hand.
-
When you trash this, +1 VP

Simple but interesting! I wanna play a game with this and Lurker...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on April 25, 2020, 10:07:23 am

(https://i.imgur.com/9sJOw7X.png)

Hope I'm not too late.

Cost increased by 2 but other benefits added. It can't be a first turn buy now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on April 25, 2020, 10:56:15 am

(https://i.imgur.com/CjdKMsS.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on April 25, 2020, 03:10:03 pm

Sorry for the delay. It much longer than I thought.


Renovate
This is a strong gainer. I would compare it mainly to Develop or Duplicate, although there are obvious differences. When 2 piles are empty you can Renovate a Renovate into 2 Provinces, which is crazy, but some work has to be done before. I like it.

Nitori
This can give you huge amount of Silver, so it is obviously good in Big Money. Otherwise I am not sure you want that many, maybe early on to get some economy. This has interesting player interaction, although having it to build it up on your own (each player has his own Nitori tokens) could also be interesting. Probably you considered both ways. It has strong synergy with Guild Hall, Triumph, Feodum and maybe even more. An easy and interesting concept.

Guild
Personally, I think the Tavern Mat is not the right place for it. I would create a new Mat for it. There is some abuse of this, where you buy a lot of Guilds, put a good, high-cost card on your mat and all your Guilds become that card. That might be okay, as it requires some setup. Still I would probably put the cost at $4 or even $5, which would give you the choice of putting a cheap card on your mat, just to make Guilds cheaper to buy. The real issue with the card is the +1 Action. If you put a Moat on your mat, now you have $2 Labs; put a Smithy there and you get $4 super Labs. That is insane.

Grand Laboratory
A Lab that can give you more Labs or function as a Workshop. Therefore you pay a higher price, I like that concept. Though I think, it is too easy to get with Workshop/Remodel variants. I would like it without the cost reduction, but that can gain another Grand Laboratory (which then would not fit the contest anymore). Might be a matter of taste. I like it anyway.

Patissier
Without support it is super hard to empty this pile. And the cost reduction is hard to benefit from during your buy phase, since most of the time, you have $2 or more in Treasures. You would sometimes pay $6 for a Baker, but if that's all what would that card add to the game. So it gets more interesting when there is a way to get it with actions mainly Workshop/Remodel Variants. But then it seems too good and I just get as many of them as possible, kind of a race then. I like the idea of it caring about its own pile, but I would think another cost structure would do better on this card.

Elite
Fortune says hi. I would like to see another version of it, but one always has to be careful and make it really hard to get. This gets the job done and gives an interesting way of doubling your money. It comes on a terminal action and has an elegant way to say when to double your money. It also makes further Elites worth to play and gives choices on the first card to buy. Could be an Estate then Elite effectivly doubles your money, or something better, but then you get less out of the doubling. Interesting! The one issue I have is with $5-gainers like Artisan, University, Vampire, etc. With those it is too easy to get, so maybe make it $6* to get it out of this range.

Workshop of Plenty
This is just way too strong. You can always buy it without playing any cards. It is okay early on, but it gets better so fast. Midgame, it can give you engine pieces so reliable and later on it gives you Provinces or Colonies so easy. The fact that it is a Treasure and thus also counts the Treasure you have in play makes it too good. As an action it might be more interesting. Also crazy increase of cost is just insane with Bishop or Ritual.

Signet Ring
First of all +$2, +1Buy is often good enough to justify buying it for $4. Then it also gives you the choice of a Necropolis effect, that also lets you play your Treasures and return to Action Phase. That is really good with Draw-to-X and Tactician. But does not give you the possibility of Buy-and-Play shenanigains. For $7 you really need a good reason to buy it. I guess it is balanced, you get one easy early on, if you want one, but is harder to get multiple of them for Draw-to-X engines. I like it.

Boomtown
You really don't want to buy green cards early on and I don't think this is an exception. And later on it is just overpriced. It is really a pain to calculate the cost of your deck, during the game. Even more so as you also want to know, how many points you opponent has and thus how much his deck costs. It is even tricky, to get an idea of how many points it will be worth. And this applies especially to newer players, who will not know how to evaluate that card. Also it is broken with Ritual or Bishop.

Rovers
I really like that concept of cost depending on your Journey token. Especially as you have that conflict between having it face down for your next turn and face up for the cheaper price. That is neat. (I think a good idea is to get the second before playing the first one, so both are cheap.) But I am not that happy with the effect. I think it is too strong. Playing 2 during your turn is like Lost City + Lab, which is a lot. And is easy to do, since the first one on gives you the actions. The actions are usually a problem, one needs to solve, when playing Ranger or Giant. I would change the Journey Token effect to +2 Actions or even +1 Card, +1 Action, which makes the first one a super Lab, but it will not help to play the second one -with actions left over- anymore. There might be other ways to fix. Still, I love the concept.

Appraiser
I really like the design of this. Appraiser is really hard to get, but its high reward will make up for it. It is also really good at giving you a Province + engine piece, so that you do not stall. I really like the concept. I have to issues though. The first one is that it is still easy to get with Workshop/Remodel variants. Especially if you play a Village beforehand, you get Appraiser and can still have a good turn. The second one is that it is broken with Ritual or Bishop and limits the Trash-for-Benefit cards one can create. Other than that I really like the card.

Monk
The cost structure is interesting. But I don't think the reduction plays that big of a role. I really want to buy one on the first shuffle, preferable on turn 2. The trashing effect is really strong and later it turns into a Smithy, which is a strong card. The flexibility makes it really strong (like with Steward), but it comes at a cost. Most of the time Copper will be the only Treasure in the trash, but I might still pay the price for a Smithy, if I lack of alternatives. Interesting card.

Merry Men
This is a neat idea. Though I think it slows the game quite a lot, due to all the decisions you have to make. I like the "I split, you choose" mechanic, but I think it just does not fit into Dominion. Also I think, it is just way to weak. The first attack is worse than discard down to 4, though it scales when played multiple times, but it does not help itself to play multiple times. And +2 cards next turn, is also not that amazing.

Treasuer Cove
So, without any additional Treasured or Victory cards, this costs $7. I assume that, most of the time and on average, you also have Provinces and Duchies at the end of the game and when you play Treasure Cove, you have played 2 Treasures before. That would make it +$3 and 3VP. Which is pretty strong at $7 and you would always buy it over Gold. It has a variance, but I think more likely to even get a stronger effect that it is to get a worse effect, compared to the above case. If there are even other Treasures or VP cards, the cost of Treasure Cove increases, but I guess the benefit not so often. Because some Treasures or Victory cards you don't want at all, and with others you don't want to have a great mix with them and the standard ones. Of course this depends highly on the specific cards. I would also change it, to say Supply pile, but that is a minor thing. I think it is a little bit too strong, but I can't do other than to say I love that concept and would like to playtest Treasure Cove and see how it does.

Tulip
I guess you miscorrected yourself here. With $1* cost it seems weird, it will almost always cost 0. I think it was $12* before and I will judge that on, if you don't mind. So if uncontested it gives you +$1 and you may return this, to get a card costing up to $x+2, where x is what you paid for Tulip. And it does not cost you an action like Feast would. In total that seems a little too strong. Maybe you could nerf it a little. Despite this, it brings player interaction, without beeing an attack. Returning it should always be good, but buying has the potential to make your opponent's next Tulip better. It is an interesting way of a Feast.

Cunning Plans
With $7* it is still quite cheap, when you consider the cost reduction. +Cards on a treasure is kind of weird, by itself not problematic though. But the card is just insane in Big Money decks. It makes this turn and the next one so much better. Since with no actions you have nothing to draw dead. And in Big Money, I come to the point, where I can buy this quite quickly. I think this enables Big Money just a little bit too much.

Investments
Coffers are strong, no doubt. But you invest a lot here to get them. I don't think you ever want more then one of them. This implies when the first one is in Exile, it will stay there. But then to keep the Investment on the Tavern Mat, I need to spend one less per turn than I could, which is costy. The strength of Pageant for example is that it gives you that effect optionally. Over all I cannot think of the point in a game, where I want to buy this.

Irrigation
This idea is new and interesting. The first one for $3 compares to Experiment, which you often want to have. And you often willing to pay $4 for the effect. At $5 it is not good enough anymore by itself. So the question is do you go all the way up to $8. I guess you don't want to buy a super Lab for 8$ all that often and enabling it is also costy. Sure, you can buy multiple cheap ones and keep the last and thus never paid $8, but then you probably need to skip playing some, which is also a high cost. After all I really like the idea, but I would make it 4 tokens instead of 5.

Metalsmith
This is really bad at trashing/remodeling the cards you begin with. But it does a good job at turning actions into stronger ones, and you even got to play your actions before that. Kind of like Procession. It starts weak, but can get pretty strong at the end, turning actions you played into Provinces. This is really interesting.

Archipelago
Exiling a Victory card is really good, as it keeps your deck consistent. Exiling a Copper is also good, but makes further Archipelagos more expensive. When you have to exile a Treasure you would like to keep, that hurts of course. The fact that the Copper goes to Exile, might give you the opportunity to discard the Coppers, to get Archipelago cheaper, in case you need it. I like that. It enables strategies where you buy a lot of those and keep Exiling them, to maintain a playable deck. It also loves Trash-for-Benefit: Buy one early for $4, exile an Estate and a Copper, then trash it at $6 with Salvager for example. I really like the design! (I would let it say "may" instead of "can").

Fields
At the point, where I want a "free" Duchy in my deck, usually Provinces have been bought already. Maybe I grap 1 or 2 Fields before that And at this point I never want Fields over a Province. If I hit $7 then, I almost always buy Fields over a Duchy. So I does not really give interesting decisions all that much. The thing that makes games with this more interesting is Duchy Dancing. I would suggest changing it to giving you a card that costs up to $5. That you make it similar to Banquete, but only giving you one bad card. And later on when you go green, it is not that cheap anymore, but has the potential to provide points, while also giving you a good card, that can help to protect you from dud turns.

Deed
This is like: Cantrip or +1Action,-1Buy,+1VP, which is pretty weak. And the VPs on this are limited (which in general is a really good idea). Of course there are Trash-for-Benefit interactions, but I don't think it is worth the VP to buy this card only to trash it.

Sellsword
A card that helps you trashing, while also junking your opponent. And, by doing so, it also gives your opponent the opportunity to get a cheap Sellsword himself. Interesting concept. Maybe with reliable +Buys on the board, you just wait until you get cursed and then pick up a cheap Sellsword, but it comes quite late then. I like it.


The final results:


Cards I would love too see with little changes:
Rovers
Irrigation
Elite


Runners Up:
segura's Treasure Cove

Quote from: segura on April 19, 2020, 04:21:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/t76IgQO.png)

Inferno's Renovate

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on April 17, 2020, 08:06:01 am

Renovate
$5*
Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain 2 cards each costing exactly $1 more than it.
-------
This costs $1 more per empty Supply pile.

X-tra's Grand Laboratory

Quote from: X-tra on April 17, 2020, 01:16:23 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/ZKTtJtsk/Grand-Laboratory-V1-EN.png)

Winner:
grep's Archipelago

Quote from: grep on April 22, 2020, 02:46:50 am

(https://i.ibb.co/tqPVhLQ/image.png)
Archipelago
$6* - Victory
3VP
When you buy this, Exile a Treasure card from play, and you can Exile a Victory card from hand.
(This costs $2 less if you have no Coppers in Exile)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on April 25, 2020, 05:58:20 pm

Quote from: Rhodos on April 25, 2020, 03:10:03 pm

Runners Up:

Inferno's Renovate

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on April 17, 2020, 08:06:01 am

Renovate
$5*
Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain 2 cards each costing exactly $1 more than it.
-------
This costs $1 more per empty Supply pile.

Nice. I will definitely take runner up. Congrats grep!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on April 25, 2020, 08:35:25 pm

Quote from: Rhodos on April 25, 2020, 03:10:03 pm

Tulip
I guess you miscorrected yourself here. With $1* cost it seems weird, it will almost always cost 0. I think it was $12* before and I will judge that on, if you don't mind. So if uncontested it gives you +$1 and you may return this, to get a card costing up to $x+2, where x is what you paid for Tulip. And it does not cost you an action like Feast would. In total that seems a little too strong. Maybe you could nerf it a little. Despite this, it brings player interaction, without beeing an attack. Returning it should always be good, but buying has the potential to make your opponent's next Tulip better. It is an interesting way of a Feast.

Good guess - I meant to change it to $11 (ie the first Tulip costs $1), which would also "nerf it a little" (uncontested, you need to buy 3 tulips before you can use it to gain a $5). The wording also allows you to return multiple Tulips on the same turn for the same (higher) value.

Congratulations to grep

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on April 26, 2020, 10:18:21 am

Thanks Rhodos!

Contest #71. Equestrian Revolution
Create a card (-shaped object) making use of the Horses pile

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on April 26, 2020, 12:47:47 pm

Farrier (Treasure, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy
------
While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a Horse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on April 26, 2020, 01:19:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iyyAkxS.png)

Quote

Way of the Zebra

Follow this card's instructions: each time that would give you +Cards this turn, you get "gain X horses" instead.

Way

I feel like there must be a better way to word this...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 26, 2020, 05:00:06 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/GlqrpIz.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on April 26, 2020, 05:26:45 pm

EDIT: this is updated downthread
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ea5fbc751494f863c9f6443/9248274a616da5def947b0ab6e6afaad/image.png)

Quote

Horde • $6+ • Action - Attack
+$3
When you buy, play, or trash this, each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpay, gain a Horse.

wording-wise, i think i have that as succinctly as i can manage. pricing, it felt more reasonable at $6+ than at $5+ but idk I'd like to test this out a lil.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on April 26, 2020, 05:47:23 pm

Feed
cost $2 - Action
Trash a card from your hand.
Gain a Horse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on April 26, 2020, 06:24:55 pm

Corral
$5
Treasure
+1 Buy
Gain 2 Horses.

Kind of like a delayed Lab. 'Nuff said.

Edit: Changed the name because scolapasta's Saddle was way more thematic. Also gave it a +Buy because I tested it and it seems a little boring.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on April 26, 2020, 06:50:54 pm

Hey, I can use the card I thought of too late for last week's contest:
(I might replace Destrier with this in my games.)

Quote

Stallion
$7* - Action
+2 Cards.
+1 Action.
Gain a Horse.
-
In games using this, at the start of your buy phase, you may reveal and discard the top three cards of your deck. This turn, this costs $1 less for each treasure card revealed.

EDIT: wording tweaked slightly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on April 26, 2020, 07:43:30 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on April 26, 2020, 12:47:47 pm

Farrier (Treasure, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy
------
While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a Horse.

Seems very OP. It's nearly strictly better than grand market and way better than livery, which is already pretty busted on the right board. This card makes up for livery's main two weaknesses (terminal and lack of +buy) making it spammable and super strong on every board.

I would suggest maybe make it produce $1 instead of $2 and raise the price to $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Barbarossa41 on April 26, 2020, 08:02:02 pm

Farrier (name taken I know but..)
$6 Action
Gain 3 horses to your hand
It's like a Smithy, but for later, unless you have a village.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on April 26, 2020, 09:00:23 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa41 on April 26, 2020, 08:02:02 pm

Farrier (name taken I know but..)
$6 Action
Gain 3 horses to your hand
It's like a Smithy, but for later, unless you have a village.

I think Aquila warned against Horse gaining to hand in his guide, because it has the same problems as +1 Card tokens; you would just always use them immediately if you could. That said, this is a neat idea imo.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on April 26, 2020, 09:04:19 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on April 26, 2020, 09:00:23 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa41 on April 26, 2020, 08:02:02 pm

Farrier (name taken I know but..)
$6 Action
Gain 3 horses to your hand
It's like a Smithy, but for later, unless you have a village.

I think Aquila warned against Horse gaining to hand in his guide, because it has the same problems as +1 Card tokens; you would just always use them immediately if you could. That said, this is a neat idea imo.

It's more than a smithy, it's a double smithy. If you have an action left, it is +6 cards effectively, which is pretty OP. I think 2 instead of 3 is probably more balanced.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Barbarossa41 on April 26, 2020, 09:47:48 pm

In response to mad4math's suggestion:


Revised version
Farrier (name taken I know but...)
[/size]$6 Action
[/size]Gain 3 horses, then topdeck one and Exile one (in that order)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on April 26, 2020, 09:52:55 pm

Breeder
Action - $3
+$2
Gain a Horse, then reveal your hand. Gain a Horse per Horse revealed

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on April 27, 2020, 12:09:04 am

[This has been modified in both functionality (States rather than Artifacts) and names, so please see that post for my official entry]

---

You visit the Tack Shop to get equipment that makes your Horses better. Or you gain a horse to use this equipment on. (this is still a work in progress*, but I wanted to get some feedback early on, especially since there are a few artifacts):

* also, card images will be added to this post

Quote

Tack Shop - Action - $5
+1 Action
+1 Card
Choose one: Exile this to take the Saddle, Reins, or Stirrups; or gain a Horse to your deck.

Quote

Saddle - Artifact
The first time you would return a horse to its pile this turn, leave it in play instead.

Quote

Stirrups - Artifact
The first time you play a horse this turn, +1 Card.

Quote

Reins - Artifact
During your turns, Horses are also Reserve cards that read: +1 Card, +1 Action, put this on your Tavern mat. You may call this for +1 Card, return this to its pile.

Notes / Questions:
• I'm a little worried about the cantrip horse gainer, so that part may have to change. Maybe you always exile it?
• Each piece of Tack makes your horses stronger: Saddle lets you "tame" one horse and keep it around; Stirrups let you speed up a horse and get an extra card; and Reins let you control your horses, making them more like +1 Card tokens.
• I'm not sure I love that two of them are for the first horse, while Reins is all horses. But making Reins only for one horse seemed week, and making the others for all horses too strong
• Saddle is worded as is (on return instead of on play) so that it can work with Reins
• Horses on your Tavern mat can only be called on your turns, because when it's not, they don't have the "you can call" text!
• Do you think 3 different types of Tack is good? I can imagine I can think of others, but it seems like too many to "compete" over.


 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on April 27, 2020, 04:36:27 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on April 26, 2020, 09:00:23 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa41 on April 26, 2020, 08:02:02 pm

$6 Action
Gain 3 Horses to your hand

I think Aquila warned against Horse gaining to hand in his guide, because it has the same problems as +1 Card tokens; you would just always use them immediately if you could. That said, this is a neat idea imo.

So gaining horses to hand with a terminal Action is like a draw card needing another Action to unlock this turn (if you then made the player reveal and return all his horses in hand at Clean-up, it would be just this and no later effect; could be quite cool, or swingy. Barbarossa's card could be good if gaining 2 horses; 2 or 4 cards now if an extra Action, otherwise the horses for later). If it were non-terminal there would be almost no point to the horses. So I've now specified non-terminal to the guide, thanks for helping me see that mistake.

My entry:

Quote

Community Farm - Project, $5 cost.
When you buy a card, choose one: discard a card for +1 Villager; or spend an unused Action for +1 Coffers; or pay $1 to gain a Horse.

Resource conversion. Triggering on buys looked like the best time to work, otherwise pay $1 for a Horse was a bit strong.

---

Former entry:

Quote

Night Market - Night, $5 cost.
+1 Coffers
+1 Villager
Gain a Horse.
-
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).

Slow starting Bazaar sped up a bit with gain to hand, which may not be needed. It's either elegant or boring; I tried to remove the boring with my new entry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 27, 2020, 09:22:03 am

It is a Bazaar variant and likely too good.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on April 27, 2020, 10:11:00 am

Quote from: segura on April 27, 2020, 09:22:03 am

It is a Bazaar variant and likely too good.

I think it's probably delayed enough that it's balanced. It doesn't benefit you at all until the turn after you play it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on April 27, 2020, 10:21:19 am

(https://i.imgur.com/2ifQCqC.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on April 27, 2020, 10:31:15 am

Quote from: Rhodos on April 25, 2020, 03:10:03 pm

Grand Laboratory
A Lab that can give you more Labs or function as a Workshop. Therefore you pay a higher price, I like that concept. Though I think, it is too easy to get with Workshop/Remodel variants. I would like it without the cost reduction, but that can gain another Grand Laboratory (which then would not fit the contest anymore). Might be a matter of taste. I like it anyway.

Yay baby, thank you very much for putting my card as a finalist! It is a little easy to nab a lab with a Workshop or its variants, but at least Grand Laboratory’s cost being down during one’s Action phase makes it less attractive for Remodel cards (can’t turn a Grand Laboratory into a Province, for instance).

---

Now, onto the contest at hand:

So uuuh I had a bunch of pre-made cards dealing with Horses prior to this week’s challenge. I really love the new Horse mechanism and went over my head with ‘em. So now I gotta pick only one of them to submit it here. However, it made me sad to leave the others behind. Soooo I kinda thought of Castles and well, I decided to do something akin to that. So here’s what I got:

(https://i.postimg.cc/4dDVVCXM/1-Stallions-V1.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/L84dD9Lf/2-Shetland-Pony-V1.png)		(https://i.postimg.cc/DygH89Hz/3-Clydesdale-V1.png)		(https://i.postimg.cc/SQLtP0yG/4-Appaloosa-V1.png)		(https://i.postimg.cc/GtRgpKjY/5-Paint-Horse-V1.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3Rmb7V2Y/6-Gypsy-Vanner-V1.png)		(https://i.postimg.cc/JzYFQb1V/7-Mustang-V1.png)		(https://i.postimg.cc/0N6BXbQ6/8-Friesian-V1.png)		(https://i.postimg.cc/q79ZP4h1/9-Arabian-Horse-V1.png)

I’m probably shooting myself in the foot here. This many cards means a higher chance to have off-balance stuff. And it very much gives a “this is too much” vibe. Moreover, I personally usually prefer modest and well-balanced cards over overly intricate stuff that ends up being somewhat messy. This is a prime example of quantity over quality here.
That being said, I think the idea of a Castle-like Horse line was too good to pass. Some of them Stallions, I’m not so sure about. Mainly Appaloosa and Gypsy Vanner. Balancing stuff correctly is kinda hard without outside perspective. So if you guys would like to point obvious stuff that went straight over my head with these Stallions, please do tell. I'd like to add that this was not tested yet.

Source for the horse breeds. (https://www.therichest.com/luxury/horse-breeds-most-expensive-ranked/)


Edit: Played with this with me soulmate. I was nervous about this, but this played better than I anticipated. All Stallions seemed to interact nicely with each other and I didn't really see anything overly broken upfront. In that game, I had Clydesdale, Appaloosa and Paint Horse and she had Shetland Pony, Gypsy Vanner, Mustang and Friesian. We both managed to snatch an Arabian Horse, both worth 6 VP at the end of the game (turns out we kept less Horses than we imagined). Shetland Pony did seem a lil' strong, but in a very okay-ish kinda way.

There is a very sly play where you can deny your opponent's Arabian Horse by buying their copy before they get a chance to get to it, trashing it afterwards with, say, Clydesdale or Appaloosa. Or even with a Friesian for an extra 5 Horses! That way, you can keep your Arabian Horse's points and your opponent gets nothing. Though it is a 9$ investment. It's an expensive way of denying VPs, but it's fun regardless. It's a feature, not a bug!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on April 27, 2020, 11:26:57 am

edit: withdrawn. See downthread.

changing up my entry a little - realized i can make the discard attack more punishing and add more horses.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ea5fbc751494f863c9f6443/6b4addcefab5c5082fc44f08be20a76e/image.png)

Quote

Horde • $6+ • Action - Attack
+$3
When you buy, play, or trash this, each other player discards down to 2 cards in hand and gains a Horse to their hand.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpay, gain a Horse.

I'm keeping this at $6 bc it leans into the "when you [...] trash this" portion for remodeling into provinces

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on April 27, 2020, 12:12:06 pm

Quote from: mad4math on April 26, 2020, 07:43:30 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on April 26, 2020, 12:47:47 pm

Farrier (Treasure, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy
------
While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a Horse.

Seems very OP. It's nearly strictly better than grand market and way better than livery, which is already pretty busted on the right board. This card makes up for livery's main two weaknesses (terminal and lack of +buy) making it spammable and super strong on every board.

I would suggest maybe make it produce $1 instead of $2 and raise the price to $6.

I like the idea of a Treasure costing $6 yet only producing $1, so I will make that change, thanks! Hopefully it’s now more balanced.

Farrier (Treasure, $6)

+$1
+1 Buy
------
While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a Horse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 27, 2020, 01:19:59 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on April 27, 2020, 10:11:00 am

Quote from: segura on April 27, 2020, 09:22:03 am

It is a Bazaar variant and likely too good.

I think it's probably delayed enough that it's balanced. It doesn't benefit you at all until the turn after you play it.

I think that the tokens (Horses are roughly similar in strength to drawing a card) more than make up for them being delayed. The card can never be drawn dead, unlike Durations it does not stay out and we know from Nocturne and Renaissance the strength of consistency that tokens or delayed effects provide.

Ii is nothing crazy though. What makes the card overpowered is the hand-gaining. Note that the on-gain stuff is of roughly similar strength as Den of Sins (I'd argue that it is slightly better) but without any of the Duration downsides (staying out, missing shuffles, being only a "half-card" in deck-drawing engines).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 27, 2020, 01:21:45 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on April 27, 2020, 10:21:19 am

(https://i.imgur.com/2ifQCqC.png?1)

This has to cost $4. Otherwise opening double Forest Hag will occur too often.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on April 27, 2020, 01:28:36 pm

Quote from: X-tra on April 27, 2020, 10:31:15 am

Quote from: Rhodos on April 25, 2020, 03:10:03 pm

Grand Laboratory
A Lab that can give you more Labs or function as a Workshop. Therefore you pay a higher price, I like that concept. Though I think, it is too easy to get with Workshop/Remodel variants. I would like it without the cost reduction, but that can gain another Grand Laboratory (which then would not fit the contest anymore). Might be a matter of taste. I like it anyway.

Yay baby, thank you very much for putting my card as a finalist! It is a little easy to nab a lab with a Workshop or its variants, but at least Grand Laboratory’s cost being down during one’s Action phase makes it less attractive for Remodel cards (can’t turn a Grand Laboratory into a Province, for instance).

---

Now, onto the contest at hand:

So uuuh I had a bunch of pre-made cards dealing with Horses prior to this week’s challenge. I really love the new Horse mechanism and went over my head with ‘em. So now I gotta pick only one of them to submit it here. However, it made me sad to leave the others behind. Soooo I kinda thought of Castles and well, I decided to do something akin to that. So here’s what I got:

(https://i.postimg.cc/4dDVVCXM/1-Stallions-V1.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/L84dD9Lf/2-Shetland-Pony-V1.png)		(https://i.postimg.cc/DygH89Hz/3-Clydesdale-V1.png)		(https://i.postimg.cc/SQLtP0yG/4-Appaloosa-V1.png)		(https://i.postimg.cc/GtRgpKjY/5-Paint-Horse-V1.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3Rmb7V2Y/6-Gypsy-Vanner-V1.png)		(https://i.postimg.cc/JzYFQb1V/7-Mustang-V1.png)		(https://i.postimg.cc/0N6BXbQ6/8-Friesian-V1.png)		(https://i.postimg.cc/q79ZP4h1/9-Arabian-Horse-V1.png)

I’m probably shooting myself in the foot here. This many cards means a higher chance to have off-balance stuff. And it very much gives a “this is too much” vibe. Moreover, I personally usually prefer modest and well-balanced cards over overly intricate stuff that ends up being somewhat messy. This is a prime example of quantity over quality here.
That being said, I think the idea of a Castle-like Horse line was too good to pass. Some of them Stallions, I’m not so sure about. Mainly Appaloosa and Gypsy Vanner. Balancing stuff correctly is kinda hard without outside perspective. So if you guys would like to point obvious stuff that went straight over my head with these Stallions, please do tell. I'd like to add that this was not tested yet.

Source for the horse breeds. (https://www.therichest.com/luxury/horse-breeds-most-expensive-ranked/)

This is plain beautiful.
Did you make Shetland Pony intentionally so strong (basically, Smithy) to bootstrap the whole thing respectively to prevent a stalemate situation in Kingdoms without trashers (nobody wants to go for the first Stallion lest the next player gains the only trasher in the Kingdom, Clydesdale)?
On the other hand, as draw power is a substitute for trashing and as the trashing power of that card is weak, it is probably nothing to worry about (Dame Anna being random is far worse and definitely does screw up games).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on April 27, 2020, 02:03:12 pm

Quote from: segura on April 27, 2020, 01:28:36 pm

This is plain beautiful.
Did you make Shetland Pony intentionally so strong (basically, Smithy) to bootstrap the whole thing respectively to prevent a stalemate situation in Kingdoms without trashers (nobody wants to go for the first Stallion lest the next player gains the only trasher in the Kingdom, Clydesdale)?
On the other hand, as draw power is a substitute for trashing and as the trashing power of that card is weak, it is probably nothing to worry about (Dame Anna being random is far worse and definitely does screw up games).

At first, Shetland Pony simply said "Gain a Horse to your hand". I felt confident that this was an okay (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) card. Then I read this thread and saw the warnings about gaining Horses to your hand. So I had to change it. I tried to base it off those little (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) cards that does +2 Cards plus something else, like Moat or Sheepdog. Here, the something else is gaining a Horse. Again, havin' a hard time determining whether this is overpowered or not. :S

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on April 27, 2020, 07:06:29 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/q20s1af8.png)

Quote

Bridle Craftsman - $4 - Action
+2 Cards

If you have played a Horse this turn, +1 Action. Otherwise, gain a Horse.

I am submitting the one I submitted two contests ago. I still like it, and didn't receive any feedback to change it, so it's the exact same. I am definitely open to feedback, still.

I actually debated putting the +2 cards at the end, to make it more difficult to activate. But then I realized that actually the math works out that it's still fairly difficult to activate. And flooding your deck with Bridle Craftsman to help line them up with horses actually can work against you significantly since it's hard to have a functioning deck full of moats.

I also debated having you reveal a horse from hand to activate it. But one of the cool things about this is it's either on or off. I like that the turn you have played a horse, you can't get any more horses from Bridle Craftsman, so next turn it might be harder to activate them again. Then, every horse you play is now less of a chance to activate next turn. But if you don't play a horse, it's kind of like one of your Bridle Craftsman just became a cantrip. Not very useful. I like this complexity and trade off.

So yeah, the exact same card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on April 27, 2020, 09:02:26 pm

Quote

Mail system ($5+, Action)
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
-
When you buy this, you may overpay up to $3 for it. For each $1 you overpaid, gain a Horse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on April 28, 2020, 12:44:01 am

(https://i.imgur.com/JsRFOXB.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/vtCd8qN.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/EzyCWyA.png)

I see your Gain X horses and I raise...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on April 28, 2020, 07:20:38 am

(https://i.imgur.com/cDAxc6B.png)

Quote

Horse Meadow - $5 - Project
At the end of each of your turns Exile a Horse. When you buy a Victory Card, discard your Exiled Horses.

It makes your deck more reliable while greening and even gives a boost on the first Victory card you buy. It can also set up one power turn, similar to Madman, if that is what your looking for.
The earlier you get it, the more you get from the benefit. But it does not give you immediate benefit and you could instead buy a $5 card, that improves your deck right away.
Horse Meadow gets a boost, when there is another Horse gainer, as you get way better access to the Exiled Horses.

And don't ingore the theme there: You have those Horses around, but you can only put them somewhere, when you have a piece of land. If you ignore theme, it will lose you games ;)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Optimal_Inefficiency on April 28, 2020, 02:57:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Qohg3ko_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

(https://i.imgur.com/uowwJzL_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Quote

Farrier — ($5)(Action)
Choose one: +3 Cards; or +1 Action, and trash up to 2 cards from your hand.
-
When you gain or trash this, gain a Horse to your hand and take the Horseshoes.

Quote

Horseshoes — (Artifact)
Once per turn, you may put this on a Horse you play; don’t return that Horse to its pile.

Now some backstory: A farrier makes and fastens horseshoes. He was very similar to a blacksmith, and sometimes both roles were held by the same person (hence +3 Cards). The farrier also cared for the health of a horse’s legs and hooves, making him akin to a veterinarian (hence the trash cards [think Doctor]).

Farrier works well with itself. If you have two in hand, you can use the first Farrier to non-terminally trash the second. That will gain you a Horse to hand, which you can play and keep.

Edit: I did not realize the name ‘Farrier’ had already been taken, twice (I specifically did not look at posts until I came up with my submission because I did lot want to be influenced). Same applies to the Artifact that keeps one Horse in your possession.  :-[

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on April 28, 2020, 07:29:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/SqjcSUC.jpg)

Quote

Stable Master
Types: Action
Cost: $6
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck and put them into your hand. Gain a Horse for each Action card revealed.

Hunting Grounds variant with a draw that modulates from 3 to 6-ish based upon how many Actions it draws.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on April 29, 2020, 06:07:47 am

Just to say I've revised my entry:

Quote

Community Farm - Project, $5 cost.
When you buy a card, choose one: discard a card for +1 Villager; or spend an unused Action for +1 Coffers; or pay $1 to gain a Horse.

Resource conversion. Triggering on buys looked like the best time to work, otherwise pay $1 for a Horse was a bit strong.

I guess I was looking for first impressions with Night Market. It would either be elegant or boring, and it seems like it's boring (0 upvotes). Compared to this new entry it's boring to me too, so there we are.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on April 29, 2020, 09:54:12 am

Circus
$3 Action

+1 Action
Gain a horse.
The next time you play a horse this turn, +$1

---

A $3 peddler with a slow set up and self-synergy should be fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BlueHairedMeerkat on April 29, 2020, 10:31:12 am

Split pile - Racetrack/Abbatoir
---------------
Racetrack
Action
$3

+$2
Reveal a card from your hand, putting it onto your deck. If you revealed an...
Horse, +1 Coffer.
Treasure card, gain a Horse onto your deck.
Victory card, gain a Silver onto your deck.
---------------
Abbatoir
Action
$5

+2 Cards
You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand. For each Horse you trash, +1 VP and +$1.
---------------
Take a trip to the races! If you want a piece of the action, you can buy a Horse for yourself, and if it wends its way to Victory you could win big!

Just... don't ask what happens to the racehorses afterward. You're happier not knowing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on April 29, 2020, 10:43:14 am

Quote from: artless on April 29, 2020, 09:54:12 am

A $3 market with a slow set up should be fine.

You would consider this a Peddler (variant). Market has a +buy and that is the main reason to buy it. (I don't try to be a smartass, I think it is good to know.)

It's a cool card. Similar to Merchant, but it gives you what you need to trigger the money effect. But of course not to hand, so you get a higher chance to connect it, if you have multiple copies of Circus. I like that.

Quote from: somekindoftony on April 28, 2020, 12:44:01 am

(https://i.imgur.com/JsRFOXB.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/vtCd8qN.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/EzyCWyA.png)

The idea of a short Traveller line with a final card that is a one-shot, is a unique idea and the returning fits well into the Horse. But at the current state Liberated Herd is broken. The effect is just way too strong, especially as you get it so quick. And what is even worse is that the second player who gets to the point where he can play it will get little to nothing. This shapes the game in a very unfun way, as it involves a lot of luck to get to play it first.

 I would suggest to make it "gain x Horses", which removes both problems. Going with my gut, I would say something like 7 would appropiate.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on April 29, 2020, 08:06:28 pm

Regarding my cards above...

Quote from: Rhodos on April 29, 2020, 10:43:14 am

The idea of a short Traveller line with a final card that is a one-shot, is a unique idea and the returning fits well into the Horse. But at the current state Liberated Herd is broken. The effect is just way too strong, especially as you get it so quick. And what is even worse is that the second player who gets to the point where he can play it will get little to nothing. This shapes the game in a very unfun way, as it involves a lot of luck to get to play it first.

 I would suggest to make it "gain x Horses", which removes both problems. Going with my gut, I would say something like 7 would appropiate.

I am fond of the idea of Gain all horses but I agree it seems too easy to get to, I am thinking I will add an extra step to the traveller line. Escaped Foal will stay the same, then there can be a Evasive Colt ("+2 cards, -2 cards, +1 action", so slightly weaker than a Horse) Wild Brumby will get better ("+2 cards, Trash 2 cards in your hand, +1 Action") and then Liberated herd. I think if you are behind in playing the chain then it would be wise to hold on to Wild Brumby for a turn (not exchange it) so that when the horse come back you can free them. This only makes sense to do if Wild Brumby is a good enough card and being a trasher when they might be rare would make that so.
What makes this interesting to time for me is that having a deck of horses is not game winning unless you have a good fat deck to draw. This line doesn't get you that so you need to spend turns getting it elsewhere, including multiples buys to pick up another escaped foal sometime.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on May 01, 2020, 02:23:49 am

The card I really wanted to submit this week is called Horse F***er (you know, Horse Farmer!). Since I couldn’t, I kept it simple.


(https://abload.de/img/horsefarmcontestfinaljfkta.png)


Edit #1: lowered cost from $5 to $4.
Edit #2: non-substantive edit to fix a typo.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 01, 2020, 06:13:32 am

NoMoreFun had the very same idea (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9978.msg828161#msg828161) and I think that this is more of a $4 than a $5. Gain a Horse is very similar to +1 Card but in the case of Apprentice I think you more often than not prefer to draw the cards immediately.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on May 01, 2020, 06:30:20 am

Quote from: segura on May 01, 2020, 06:13:32 am

NoMoreFun had the very same idea (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9978.msg828161#msg828161) and I think that this is more of a $5 than a $4. Gain a Horse is very similar to +1 Card but in the case of Apprentice I think you more often than not prefer to draw the cards immediately.

I don't care if anyone enters card ideas similar to anything I've ever posted (including in this thread).

It's probably better than Research (which really isn't a good card), but it would be worse than a version of Research that didn't set aside cards from your deck and didn't stay in play. It's definitely not as good as Apprentice (though trashing a Horse for 3 Horses would be nice sometimes).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 01, 2020, 10:14:50 am

I'm changing my entry again - typing up yall's entries for the trello board gave me a better idea (revised version)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eac2e7e0fad9713a894466b/24e56e1f2730f06fc138f0371de0a11b/image.png)

Quote

Badlands • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn: +2 Cards. Gain 2 Horses.
-
While this is in play, when another player plays a Horse, instead of following its instructions, they get +1 Card, +1 Action, and return the Horse to its pile.

(old version):
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eac2e7e0fad9713a894466b/24e56e1f2730f06fc138f0371de0a11b/image.png)

---

Quote from: Barbarossa41 on April 26, 2020, 09:47:48 pm

In response to mad4math's suggestion:


Revised version
Farrier (name taken I know but...)
[/size]$6 Action
[/size]Gain 3 horses, then topdeck one and Exile one (in that order)

I'd break this out to individual cases, just to be clear and reinforce the notion that Exiling is not Gaining (and also topdeck is not a keyword)
so like

Quote

Gain a Horse.
Gain a Horse to the top of your deck.
Exile a Horse.

---

Quote from: scolapasta on April 27, 2020, 12:09:04 am

You visit the Tack Shop to get equipment that makes your Horses better. Or you gain a horse to use this equipment on. (this is still a work in progress*, but I wanted to get some feedback early on, especially since there are a few artifacts):

* also, card images will be added to this post

Quote

Tack Shop - Action - $5
+1 Action
+1 Card
Choose one: Exile this to take the Saddle, Reins, or Stirrups; or gain a Horse to your deck.

Quote

Saddle - Artifact
The first time you would return a horse to its pile this turn, leave it in play instead.

Quote

Stirrups - Artifact
The first time you play a horse this turn, +1 Card.

Quote

Reins - Artifact
During your turns, Horses are also Reserve cards that read: +1 Card, +1 Action, put this on your Tavern mat. You may call this for +1 Card, return this to its pile.

Notes / Questions:
• I'm a little worried about the cantrip horse gainer, so that part may have to change. Maybe you always exile it?
• Each piece of Tack makes your horses stronger: Saddle lets you "tame" one horse and keep it around; Stirrups let you speed up a horse and get an extra card; and Reins let you control your horses, making them more like +1 Card tokens.
• I'm not sure I love that two of them are for the first horse, while Reins is all horses. But making Reins only for one horse seemed week, and making the others for all horses too strong
• Saddle is worded as is (on return instead of on play) so that it can work with Reins
• Horses on your Tavern mat can only be called on your turns, because when it's not, they don't have the "you can call" text!
• Do you think 3 different types of Tack is good? I can imagine I can think of others, but it seems like too many to "compete" over.

I'd change Reins to give a (non-competitive) state for the remainder of the game something like

Quote

Reins • Artifact
During your turns, Horses are also Reserve cards that read: "+1 Card, +1 Action, Put this on your Tavern Mat." If you don't have "Tame", take "Tame"

Quote

Tame • State
Horses on your tavern mat can be called on your turn for +1 Card and return it to its pile

That way you don't have orphaned horses when someone steals the reins away from you, reducing the amount of feelsbadness when this is in play. Tame would have 6 copies, one per player (like Deluded or whatever).

Also three types of tack might be a bit much - if I'd cut one, it's either Reins (for the complexity) or Stirrups (since it's the least likely to cause contention)

---

Quote from: BlueHairedMeerkat on April 29, 2020, 10:31:12 am

Split pile - Farmstead/Abbatoir
---------------
Racetrack
Action
$3

+$2
Reveal a card from your hand, putting it onto your deck. If you revealed an...
Horse, +1 Coffer.
Treasure card, gain a Horse onto your deck.
Victory card, gain a Silver onto your deck.
---------------
Abbatoir
Action
$5

+2 Cards
You may trash up to 2 cards from your hand. For each Horse you trash, +1 VP and +$1.
---------------
Take a trip to the races! If you want a piece of the action, you can buy a Horse for yourself, and if it wends its way to Victory you could win big!

Just... don't ask what happens to the racehorses afterward. You're happier not knowing.

Farmstead? or Racetrack?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on May 01, 2020, 11:26:42 am

Quote from: segura on May 01, 2020, 06:13:32 am

NoMoreFun had the very same idea (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9978.msg828161#msg828161) and I think that this is more of a $4 than a $5. Gain a Horse is very similar to +1 Card but in the case of Apprentice I think you more often than not prefer to draw the cards immediately.

Thanks for the help. I went back-and-forth on $4/$5 before I submitted. Though, of course, Apprentice is what I was thinking of, you are certainly correct that Apprentice is better in more situations (including most engines). Keeping it simple, and not wanting to jump into the "Horses to your hand" quagmire, do you think it fits better into a price category if I either cantrip it at $5 (adding +1 Card) or remove the +1 Action at $4? Or a I overthinking, and is it simply best as-is at $4?

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 01, 2020, 06:30:20 am

I don't care if anyone enters card ideas similar to anything I've ever posted (including in this thread).

It's probably better than Research (which really isn't a good card), but it would be worse than a version of Research that didn't set aside cards from your deck and didn't stay in play. It's definitely not as good as Apprentice (though trashing a Horse for 3 Horses would be nice sometimes).

Thanks for the latitude and your additional thoughts on price. I tried to flip through the thread, since my card seemed like something that might have already been submitted. I’m sorry I missed your entry and don’t want to step on toes. If you change your mind, I would be happy to delete my entry (though that might force me back to Horse F***er).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BlueHairedMeerkat on May 01, 2020, 12:35:16 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 01, 2020, 10:14:50 am

Farmstead? or Racetrack?

Good spot, thanks!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 01, 2020, 12:52:39 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on May 01, 2020, 11:26:42 am

Quote from: segura on May 01, 2020, 06:13:32 am

NoMoreFun had the very same idea (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9978.msg828161#msg828161) and I think that this is more of a $4 than a $5. Gain a Horse is very similar to +1 Card but in the case of Apprentice I think you more often than not prefer to draw the cards immediately.

Thanks for the help. I went back-and-forth on $4/$5 before I submitted. Though, of course, Apprentice is what I was thinking of, you are certainly correct that Apprentice is better in more situations (including most engines). Keeping it simple, and not wanting to jump into the "Horses to your hand" quagmire, do you think it fits better into a price category if I either cantrip it at $5 (adding +1 Card) or remove the +1 Action at $4? Or a I overthinking, and is it simply best as-is at $4?

As cantrip it is too good. Compare it with Upgrade in the case of an Estate: instead of 1 Silver you get 2 Horses (Upgrade could achieve the same if Experiment is in the Kingdom).

Adding +1 Card to non-terminals usually implies a strong increase of the power level. For example Cellar as a cantrip would be a $5 and Candlestick Maker would even be a $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on May 01, 2020, 02:03:40 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 01, 2020, 10:14:50 am

...

Quote

Badlands • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
Gain 2 Horses. At the start of your next turn, +1 Buy, +$1
-
While this is in play, when another player plays a Horse, instead of following its instructions, they choose two: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1 (The choices may be the same); then return that Horse to its pile.

...

I feel like this won't often be bought. The non-attack portion doesn't seem very appealing compared to most other $5 cards. On many boards, this will be the only Horse gainer, so the attack won't do anything unless your opponent buys a Badlands, which they probably won't because the non-attack part of the card is weak. It also has a thing where you might want to be attacked by it if Horse-Necropolis from Badlands is the only way to get + Actions on the board.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 01, 2020, 02:29:05 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 01, 2020, 02:03:40 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 01, 2020, 10:14:50 am

...

Quote

Badlands • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
Gain 2 Horses. At the start of your next turn, +1 Buy, +$1
-
While this is in play, when another player plays a Horse, instead of following its instructions, they choose two: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1 (The choices may be the same); then return that Horse to its pile.

...

I feel like this won't often be bought. The non-attack portion doesn't seem very appealing compared to most other $5 cards. On many boards, this will be the only Horse gainer, so the attack won't do anything unless your opponent buys a Badlands, which they probably won't because the non-attack part of the card is weak. It also has a thing where you might want to be attacked by it if Horse-Necropolis from Badlands is the only way to get + Actions on the board.

Better at $3 with no +buy, like enchantress? but yeah i revised it to make it a little more attractive.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 01, 2020, 04:26:18 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 01, 2020, 10:14:50 am

I'm changing my entry again - typing up yall's entries for the trello board gave me a better idea (revised version)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eac2e7e0fad9713a894466b/24e56e1f2730f06fc138f0371de0a11b/image.png)

Quote

Badlands • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn: +2 Cards. Gain 2 Horses.
-
While this is in play, when another player plays a Horse, instead of following its instructions, they choose two: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1 (The choices must be different); then return that Horse to its pile.

Bur or no buy, it is basically a Wharf so everybody will go for it, there will always be copies in play, Horses will never do anything.

So absent action density sensitive cards like Golem or Scrying Pool, this will play very similarly to a Wharf without Buys. Which is totally OK, Wharf is after all crazily overpowered. But you could achieve the same thing in a far more straightforward fashion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holger on May 02, 2020, 04:54:38 pm

Quote from: segura on May 01, 2020, 04:26:18 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 01, 2020, 10:14:50 am

I'm changing my entry again - typing up yall's entries for the trello board gave me a better idea (revised version)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eac2e7e0fad9713a894466b/24e56e1f2730f06fc138f0371de0a11b/image.png)

Quote

Badlands • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn: +2 Cards. Gain 2 Horses.
-
While this is in play, when another player plays a Horse, instead of following its instructions, they choose two: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1 (The choices must be different); then return that Horse to its pile.

Bur or no buy, it is basically a Wharf so everybody will go for it, there will always be copies in play, Horses will never do anything.

So absent action density sensitive cards like Golem or Scrying Pool, this will play very similarly to a Wharf without Buys. Which is totally OK, Wharf is after all crazily overpowered. But you could achieve the same thing in a far more straightforward fashion.

But unlike Wharf, you absolutely have to contest this to prevent your opponent from drawing a total of six cards from a single $5 card, in addition to being attacked. So Badlands should be nerfed or cost at least $6 IMO.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Supernova888 on May 02, 2020, 06:32:01 pm

Here's my entry, a standard Horse-gainer that gives you a way to use your horses without losing them (for a slight nerf to your hand).
(https://i.imgur.com/SSy5OBd.png)

Quote

Jockey • $3 • Action - Reaction
Gain 2 Horses.
-
When you play a Horse, before returning it to its pile, you may reveal this from your hand and discard a card to keep it in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Supernova888 on May 02, 2020, 06:59:49 pm

Quote from: Holger on May 02, 2020, 04:54:38 pm

Quote from: segura on May 01, 2020, 04:26:18 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 01, 2020, 10:14:50 am

I'm changing my entry again - typing up yall's entries for the trello board gave me a better idea (revised version)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eac2e7e0fad9713a894466b/24e56e1f2730f06fc138f0371de0a11b/image.png)

Quote

Badlands • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn: +2 Cards. Gain 2 Horses.
-
While this is in play, when another player plays a Horse, instead of following its instructions, they choose two: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1 (The choices must be different); then return that Horse to its pile.

Bur or no buy, it is basically a Wharf so everybody will go for it, there will always be copies in play, Horses will never do anything.

So absent action density sensitive cards like Golem or Scrying Pool, this will play very similarly to a Wharf without Buys. Which is totally OK, Wharf is after all crazily overpowered. But you could achieve the same thing in a far more straightforward fashion.

But unlike Wharf, you absolutely have to contest this to prevent your opponent from drawing a total of six cards from a single $5 card, in addition to being attacked. So Badlands should be nerfed or cost at least $6 IMO.

Making the Horses a choice seems unnecessarily wordy. Plus you get major tracking issues if you pick +$1 and then return it to the Horses pile. While I suppose it technically makes Horses even worse without the choice, +1 Card +1 Action would be much simpler.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 02, 2020, 07:40:56 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 01, 2020, 10:14:50 am

Quote from: scolapasta on April 27, 2020, 12:09:04 am

You visit the Tack Shop to get equipment that makes your Horses better. Or you gain a horse to use this equipment on. (this is still a work in progress*, but I wanted to get some feedback early on, especially since there are a few artifacts):

* also, card images will be added to this post

Quote

Tack Shop - Action - $5
+1 Action
+1 Card
Choose one: Exile this to take the Saddle, Reins, or Stirrups; or gain a Horse to your deck.

Quote

Saddle - Artifact
The first time you would return a horse to its pile this turn, leave it in play instead.

Quote

Stirrups - Artifact
The first time you play a horse this turn, +1 Card.

Quote

Reins - Artifact
During your turns, Horses are also Reserve cards that read: +1 Card, +1 Action, put this on your Tavern mat. You may call this for +1 Card, return this to its pile.

Notes / Questions:
• I'm a little worried about the cantrip horse gainer, so that part may have to change. Maybe you always exile it?
• Each piece of Tack makes your horses stronger: Saddle lets you "tame" one horse and keep it around; Stirrups let you speed up a horse and get an extra card; and Reins let you control your horses, making them more like +1 Card tokens.
• I'm not sure I love that two of them are for the first horse, while Reins is all horses. But making Reins only for one horse seemed week, and making the others for all horses too strong
• Saddle is worded as is (on return instead of on play) so that it can work with Reins
• Horses on your Tavern mat can only be called on your turns, because when it's not, they don't have the "you can call" text!
• Do you think 3 different types of Tack is good? I can imagine I can think of others, but it seems like too many to "compete" over.

I'd change Reins to give a (non-competitive) state for the remainder of the game something like

Quote

Reins • Artifact
During your turns, Horses are also Reserve cards that read: "+1 Card, +1 Action, Put this on your Tavern Mat." If you don't have "Tame", take "Tame"

Quote

Tame • State
Horses on your tavern mat can be called on your turn for +1 Card and return it to its pile

That way you don't have orphaned horses when someone steals the reins away from you, reducing the amount of feelsbadness when this is in play. Tame would have 6 copies, one per player (like Deluded or whatever).

Also three types of tack might be a bit much - if I'd cut one, it's either Reins (for the complexity) or Stirrups (since it's the least likely to cause contention)

Thanks for the feedback! I completely missed that you could orphan horses if someone stole the reins. Which since the current design involves exiling tack shop seems especially bad (i.e. permanent).

I'm actually thinking that maybe instead of artifacts, all 3 should be states (I'll need some new names*). So you empower your horses for the rest of the game, and so can other players.  If so, I'll have to weaken Tack Shop for sure. Maybe removing the on deck gaining** and also maybe / maybe not the +1 Card?

* Saddled instead of Saddle lets you keep the Horse, Corralled instead of Reins lets you reserve the horse, and Trained instead of Reins, lets you ride the horse further (i.e. +1 Card). Open to other ideas for naming, please. (I also might rename Tack Shop them to Stablehand or Equerry since now the states wouldn't all be tack.)

** I was likely going to do this anyone, as 2 Tack Shops together, are at least as good as 2 labs.

I would like to keep at 3 (maybe even add a 4th?) as this way its more interesting to decision to exile. i.e if you strengthen your horses more, you risk losing these forever which could be your only source of horses.

Anyway lots of details to parse over, but I wanted to see what you and the forum thought about having these be States instead?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 02, 2020, 08:19:20 pm

24 hour warning

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on May 02, 2020, 08:48:04 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Ax1b69s.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 02, 2020, 10:53:24 pm

Quote from: Supernova888 on May 02, 2020, 06:59:49 pm

Quote from: Holger on May 02, 2020, 04:54:38 pm

Quote from: segura on May 01, 2020, 04:26:18 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 01, 2020, 10:14:50 am

I'm changing my entry again - typing up yall's entries for the trello board gave me a better idea (revised version)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eac2e7e0fad9713a894466b/24e56e1f2730f06fc138f0371de0a11b/image.png)

Quote

Badlands • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn: +2 Cards. Gain 2 Horses.
-
While this is in play, when another player plays a Horse, instead of following its instructions, they choose two: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1 (The choices must be different); then return that Horse to its pile.

Bur or no buy, it is basically a Wharf so everybody will go for it, there will always be copies in play, Horses will never do anything.

So absent action density sensitive cards like Golem or Scrying Pool, this will play very similarly to a Wharf without Buys. Which is totally OK, Wharf is after all crazily overpowered. But you could achieve the same thing in a far more straightforward fashion.

But unlike Wharf, you absolutely have to contest this to prevent your opponent from drawing a total of six cards from a single $5 card, in addition to being attacked. So Badlands should be nerfed or cost at least $6 IMO.

Making the Horses a choice seems unnecessarily wordy. Plus you get major tracking issues if you pick +$1 and then return it to the Horses pile. While I suppose it technically makes Horses even worse without the choice, +1 Card +1 Action would be much simpler.

there are no such tracking issues with spoils

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Supernova888 on May 03, 2020, 02:57:35 am

Quote from: spineflu on May 02, 2020, 10:53:24 pm

Quote from: Supernova888 on May 02, 2020, 06:59:49 pm

Quote from: Holger on May 02, 2020, 04:54:38 pm

Quote from: segura on May 01, 2020, 04:26:18 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 01, 2020, 10:14:50 am

I'm changing my entry again - typing up yall's entries for the trello board gave me a better idea (revised version)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eac2e7e0fad9713a894466b/24e56e1f2730f06fc138f0371de0a11b/image.png)

Quote

Badlands • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn: +2 Cards. Gain 2 Horses.
-
While this is in play, when another player plays a Horse, instead of following its instructions, they choose two: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1 (The choices must be different); then return that Horse to its pile.

Bur or no buy, it is basically a Wharf so everybody will go for it, there will always be copies in play, Horses will never do anything.

So absent action density sensitive cards like Golem or Scrying Pool, this will play very similarly to a Wharf without Buys. Which is totally OK, Wharf is after all crazily overpowered. But you could achieve the same thing in a far more straightforward fashion.

But unlike Wharf, you absolutely have to contest this to prevent your opponent from drawing a total of six cards from a single $5 card, in addition to being attacked. So Badlands should be nerfed or cost at least $6 IMO.

Making the Horses a choice seems unnecessarily wordy. Plus you get major tracking issues if you pick +$1 and then return it to the Horses pile. While I suppose it technically makes Horses even worse without the choice, +1 Card +1 Action would be much simpler.

there are no such tracking issues with spoils

That's because Spoils doesn't give you a choice, and you often play your spoils all at once. The problem with having cards that give you +$ that move is that people usually count up their money produced after their action phase. Sure, vault and storehouse have variable money, but they stay in play so you have a trigger to remember how much you made.

I didn't even think about this, but this is compounded by the fact that +1 Action can NOT be a part of the effect if you choose +1 Card +$1. Having a card that returns immediately that gives you no actions will be confusing because if you're trying to remember how many actions you have during a large turn, it will be very easy to miss the fact that you played a nerfed Horse there.

Either of these situations might be suboptimal but okay if they were consistent, however my argument that it's a major tracking issue because of the choice. Not only do you have to remember that you played that horse and had something vital changed there, you have to remember what changed - two things you want to avoid about hard-to-track cards put together.

Also, sorry - while I'm nitpicking, if I understand it correctly, the new wording as of Menagerie would be "choose 2 different things" rather than "Choose two [...] (the choices must be different)."

(Btw, I don't mean to just be negative about your card. The concept at its core is really cool! There are just a lot of moving parts imo.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 03, 2020, 03:04:00 am

Quote from: Supernova888 on May 02, 2020, 06:32:01 pm

Here's my entry, a standard Horse-gainer that gives you a way to use your horses without losing them (for a slight nerf to your hand).
(https://i.imgur.com/SSy5OBd.png)

Quote

Jockey • $3 • Action - Reaction
Gain 2 Horses.
-
When you play a Horse, before returning it to its pile, you may reveal this from your hand and discard a card to keep it in play.

I like this a lot. Fugitives are strong but do not net draw, so Jockey cannot become too crazy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Supernova888 on May 03, 2020, 03:51:52 am

Quote from: segura on May 03, 2020, 03:04:00 am

Quote from: Supernova888 on May 02, 2020, 06:32:01 pm

Here's my entry, a standard Horse-gainer that gives you a way to use your horses without losing them (for a slight nerf to your hand).
(https://i.imgur.com/SSy5OBd.png)

Quote

Jockey • $3 • Action - Reaction
Gain 2 Horses.
-
When you play a Horse, before returning it to its pile, you may reveal this from your hand and discard a card to keep it in play.

I like this a lot. Fugitives are strong but do not net draw, so Jockey cannot become too crazy.

Thanks so much!! That balance was my goal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 03, 2020, 03:59:08 am

Quote

Cowboy • $3 • Action - Reaction
+1 Action
Gain a Horse
-
While this is in play, when you play a Horse, exile it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on May 03, 2020, 05:18:27 am

Quote from: Carline on May 03, 2020, 03:59:08 am

Quote

Cowboy • $3 • Action - Reaction
+1 Action
Gain a Horse
-
While this is in play, when you play a Horse, exile it.

This doesn't need to be a Reaction. See Highway, Lighthouse, etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 03, 2020, 05:31:27 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on May 03, 2020, 05:18:27 am

quote author=[TP] Inferno link=topic=18987.msg836399#msg836399 date=1588497507]

Quote from: Carline on May 03, 2020, 03:59:08 am

Quote

Cowboy • $3 • Action - Reaction
+1 Action
Gain a Horse
-
While this is in play, when you play a Horse, exile it.

This doesn't need to be a Reaction. See Highway, Lighthouse, etc.

Yes, thank you!

So, I'm changing my entry to exclude reaction type:

Quote

Cowboy • $3 • Action
+1 Action
Gain a Horse
-
While this is in play, when you play a Horse, exile it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 03, 2020, 10:22:54 am

Quote from: Supernova888 on May 03, 2020, 02:57:35 am

Quote from: spineflu on May 02, 2020, 10:53:24 pm

Quote from: Supernova888 on May 02, 2020, 06:59:49 pm

Quote from: Holger on May 02, 2020, 04:54:38 pm

Quote from: segura on May 01, 2020, 04:26:18 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 01, 2020, 10:14:50 am

I'm changing my entry again - typing up yall's entries for the trello board gave me a better idea (revised version)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eac2e7e0fad9713a894466b/24e56e1f2730f06fc138f0371de0a11b/image.png)

Quote

Badlands • $5 • Action - Attack - Duration
Now and at the start of your next turn: +2 Cards. Gain 2 Horses.
-
While this is in play, when another player plays a Horse, instead of following its instructions, they choose two: +1 Card; +1 Action; or +$1 (The choices must be different); then return that Horse to its pile.

Bur or no buy, it is basically a Wharf so everybody will go for it, there will always be copies in play, Horses will never do anything.

So absent action density sensitive cards like Golem or Scrying Pool, this will play very similarly to a Wharf without Buys. Which is totally OK, Wharf is after all crazily overpowered. But you could achieve the same thing in a far more straightforward fashion.

But unlike Wharf, you absolutely have to contest this to prevent your opponent from drawing a total of six cards from a single $5 card, in addition to being attacked. So Badlands should be nerfed or cost at least $6 IMO.

Making the Horses a choice seems unnecessarily wordy. Plus you get major tracking issues if you pick +$1 and then return it to the Horses pile. While I suppose it technically makes Horses even worse without the choice, +1 Card +1 Action would be much simpler.

there are no such tracking issues with spoils

That's because Spoils doesn't give you a choice, and you often play your spoils all at once. The problem with having cards that give you +$ that move is that people usually count up their money produced after their action phase. Sure, vault and storehouse have variable money, but they stay in play so you have a trigger to remember how much you made.

I didn't even think about this, but this is compounded by the fact that +1 Action can NOT be a part of the effect if you choose +1 Card +$1. Having a card that returns immediately that gives you no actions will be confusing because if you're trying to remember how many actions you have during a large turn, it will be very easy to miss the fact that you played a nerfed Horse there.

Either of these situations might be suboptimal but okay if they were consistent, however my argument that it's a major tracking issue because of the choice. Not only do you have to remember that you played that horse and had something vital changed there, you have to remember what changed - two things you want to avoid about hard-to-track cards put together.

Also, sorry - while I'm nitpicking, if I understand it correctly, the new wording as of Menagerie would be "choose 2 different things" rather than "Choose two [...] (the choices must be different)."

(Btw, I don't mean to just be negative about your card. The concept at its core is really cool! There are just a lot of moving parts imo.)

noted, but also all of these are fixed if i remove the virtual coin. So i did that. turns horses into vanishing cantrips, no choices.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 03, 2020, 04:34:54 pm

OK, so here is the modified version of my entry using States instead of Artifacts:

I think there's likely some tweaking to be done one I get to play test, but I think the general idea is solid, and does work better as States. And you may remember, I wasn't in love with the idea that one affected all Horses, and the other two just one - well, thematically, at least I solved that, since if you build a Corral you can use that for multiple, but Training and Saddling are really individual horse concepts (and I even captured that with the images!).

Anyway, feedback still (as always) welcome!

(https://i.imgur.com/dVJHsOh.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/8NNeQnc.png) (https://i.imgur.com/pyToXmv.png) (https://i.imgur.com/PFCgblK.png)

Quote

Equerry - Action - $4
+1 Card
+1 Action

Choose one: gain a Horse; or Exile this to take one of Corralled, Trained, or Saddled (that you don't already have).

Quote

Corralled - State
During your turns, Horses are also Reserve cards that read:
+1 Card, +1 Action, put this on your Tavern mat.
You may call this for +1 Card, then return this to its pile.

Quote

Trained - State
The first time you play a horse this turn, +1 Card.

Quote

Saddled - State
The first time you would return a Horse to its pile this turn, leave it in play instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 03, 2020, 07:02:34 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 03, 2020, 05:31:27 am

Quote

Cowboy • $3 • Action
+1 Action
Gain a Horse
-
While this is in play, when you play a Horse, exile it.

A better name is Cowherd, wich is the word for the same occupation in old english.

So, I'm changing my entry to change card name:

Quote

Cowherd • $3 • Action
+1 Action
Gain a Horse
-
While this is in play, when you play a Horse, exile it.

It can chain with horses: play a Cowherd, play any Horses, play another Cowherd, release all Horses from exile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 03, 2020, 08:11:26 pm

My same entry, now with image:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/628/717/original/Cowherd.jpg?1588550397)

Quote

Cowherd • $3 • Action
+1 Action
Gain a Horse
-
While this is in play, when you play a Horse, exile it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 03, 2020, 08:17:30 pm

Sending again my entry with image, fixing word "ACTION"

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/628/745/full/Cowerd_2.jpg?1588551344)

Quote

Cowherd • $3 • Action
+1 Action
Gain a Horse
-
While this is in play, when you play a Horse, exile it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 03, 2020, 08:20:50 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 03, 2020, 08:17:30 pm

Sending again my entry with image, fixing word "ACTION"

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/628/745/full/Cowerd_2.jpg?1588551344)

Quote

Cowherd • $3 • Action
+1 Action
Gain a Horse
-
While this is in play, when you play a Horse, exile it.

This image could be better. Do you know where there are good templates and fonts to do these images?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 03, 2020, 08:25:57 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 03, 2020, 08:20:50 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 03, 2020, 08:17:30 pm

Sending again my entry with image, fixing word "ACTION"

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/628/745/full/Cowerd_2.jpg?1588551344)

Quote

Cowherd • $3 • Action
+1 Action
Gain a Horse
-
While this is in play, when you play a Horse, exile it.

This image could be better. Do you know where there are good templates and fonts to do these images?

The Shard of Honor / VioletCLM generator is pretty good (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/?title=&description=&type=&credit=&creator=&price=&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1&picture=&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0). it's what most of the rest of us use; as far as fonts, this'll use the actual dominion fonts if they're installed on your machine and similar fonts if they aren't.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 03, 2020, 08:26:04 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 03, 2020, 08:20:50 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 03, 2020, 08:17:30 pm

Sending again my entry with image, fixing word "ACTION"

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/628/745/full/Cowerd_2.jpg?1588551344)

Quote

Cowherd • $3 • Action
+1 Action
Gain a Horse
-
While this is in play, when you play a Horse, exile it.

This image could be better. Do you know where there are good templates and fonts to do these images?

Also, the word "horse" below the line should be with initial uppercase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 03, 2020, 08:41:01 pm

I think there's no more time to change entry. Anyway, I'm posting my card again , now with image done in Shard of Honor Violet CLM generator.

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/628/778/full/Cowherd.png?1588552507)

Quote

Cowherd • $3 • Action
+1 Action
Gain a Horse
-
While this is in play, when you play a Horse, exile it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 03, 2020, 09:04:23 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 03, 2020, 08:41:01 pm

I think there's no more time to change entry. Anyway, I'm posting my card again , now with image done in Shard of Honor Violet CLM generator.

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/628/778/full/Cowherd.png?1588552507)

Quote

Cowherd • $3 • Action
+1 Action
Gain a Horse
-
While this is in play, when you play a Horse, exile it.

The deadline is exactly 24 hours after warning or in the end of the day?

If you could, please consider this last image I send as the right one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 03, 2020, 10:49:46 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wpuV9Sl.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 03, 2020, 11:19:33 pm

Official Cut
Hopefully I'll finish with judging in a few hours

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on May 04, 2020, 02:32:13 am

...Just to be safe and make sure it doesn't happen again, I will point out that I posted an entry for this contest...

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on April 26, 2020, 06:50:54 pm

Hey, I can use the card I thought of too late for last week's contest:
(I might replace Destrier with this in my games.)

Quote

Stallion
$7* - Action
+2 Cards.
+1 Action.
Gain a Horse.
-
In games using this, at the start of your buy phase, you may reveal and discard the top three cards of your deck. This turn, this costs $1 less for each treasure card revealed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on May 04, 2020, 06:22:00 pm

Quote from: grep on May 02, 2020, 08:19:20 pm

24 hour warning

It has now been 46 hours since this so-called “24-hour warning”. Some may chalk this up to human error, but I suspect something more sinister to be at hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on May 04, 2020, 06:34:09 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 04, 2020, 06:22:00 pm

Quote from: grep on May 02, 2020, 08:19:20 pm

24 hour warning

It has now been 46 hours since this so-called “24-hour warning”. Some may chalk this up to human error, but I suspect something more sinister to be at hand.

Judging these contests is very time consuming and hard work. I don't know what this is a reference to but this is a very mean spirited comment even as a quote.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Barbarossa41 on May 04, 2020, 06:45:58 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 04, 2020, 06:34:09 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 04, 2020, 06:22:00 pm

Quote from: grep on May 02, 2020, 08:19:20 pm

24 hour warning

It has now been 46 hours since this so-called “24-hour warning”. Some may chalk this up to human error, but I suspect something more sinister to be at hand.

Judging these contests is very time consuming and hard work. I don't know what this is a reference to but this is a very mean spirited comment even as a quote.

It's a pun. Sinister originally meant left-handed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 04, 2020, 07:49:45 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 04, 2020, 06:34:09 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 04, 2020, 06:22:00 pm

Quote from: grep on May 02, 2020, 08:19:20 pm

24 hour warning

It has now been 46 hours since this so-called “24-hour warning”. Some may chalk this up to human error, but I suspect something more sinister to be at hand.

Judging these contests is very time consuming and hard work. I don't know what this is a reference to but this is a very mean spirited comment even as a quote.

Agree - I've spent like up to an hour considering some entries, and if i did it all at once, it'd be brutal. Grep can take as much time as he needs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 04, 2020, 08:07:09 pm

The contest is growing exponentially - last time I judged 19 contestors and now it's 27.
Sorry for the delay.

Contest #71. Equestrian Revolution
Create a card (-shaped object) making use of the Horses pile

Farrier (Treasure) by mandioca15
Livery as a Treasure, but unlike Livery, it triggers on cheap buys and gives extra buys itself. When used in numbers, it can grab the whole Horse supply - not sure if it's great or broken

Way of the Zebra by alion8me
Variant Chameleon converting +Cards into +Horses. There must be some infinite loops with it

Horselord by segura
Night gainer might be pretty strong in the setups with cheap cards and +Buys. "Per gained non-Horse card" prevents it from being exponential - neat design trick  Short List

Feed by majiponi
Nice little trasher. Probably too slow to deal with junking attacks, but good for keeping the shape of the deck. The only problem is that there is quite a few nice little trashers around. Honorable Mention

Corral by [TP] Inferno
A Treasure that doesn't give any buying power but instead gives an Experiment - this is somewhat worse than Horn of Plenty, but an extra +Buy makes it a reasonable purchase in Buy-poor kingdoms.

Stallion by LibraryAdventurer
Technically it's a double Lab with the third card delayed. The sifting will be done most of the time even if the player doesn't currently hunt for Stallions - to my taste, a dubious rules change.

Farrier by Barbarossa41
Hopefully I've parsed this correctly (with a little reordering): Topdeck a Horse, Gain a Horse and Exile a Horse. This looks overpriced, as a two horses gainer costs $2

Breeder by NoMoreFun
With some skill and luck, this can be used for exponential breeding. I don't know why someone would need all the horses in the world though. Honorable Mention

Equerry by scolapasta
An Artifact tug-of-war similar to Border Guard, but the prizes are modest and even could be negative (Horses stuck in a stolen Corral). Exiling as a payment makes interesting dynamics. Honorable Mention

Community Farm by Aquila
A more flexible Academy which is also a bit of Diadem and a cheap Horse generator. Everyone will build it, but it needs some skill to choose among the alternatives, so I like it. Honorable Mention

Forest Hag by D782802859
Baba Yaga curses the hero but supports him with a good horse. When the curses are over, she is just nice. Probably a little overpriced. Short List

Stallions (pile) by X-tra
This is gorgeous - all those nice stallions in one pile. It's hard to understand the balance; the "single Arabian" clause makes it a little too political in multiplayer games. Short List

Bridle Craftsman by anordinaryman
It will turn the deck into something extremely swingy. This turn it's a Moat, but with the Horse gained it turns into a Lab. Not very manageable without support.

Mail System by MrHiTech
Expensive peddler which only makes sense when overpaid. Mostly useful when your engine stumbled at $7 and needs some grease.

Escaped Foul (ladder) by somekindoftony
"Gain all the Horses" is bold. Unfortunately it deprives the other player from gaining anything, potentially for several turns. I would probably topdeck all the gained Horses similar to Stampede to make some horses escape next turn. Honorable Mention

Horse Meadow by Rhodos
An elegant and thematic Project, similar to Sinister Plot. Everyone would like to buy it, so it should cost $4 or $6 to eliminate the 5/2 advantage. Short List

Farrier/Horseshoes by Optimal_Inefficiency
A smithy with a Horse on gain is interesting by itself, and the Horseshoe makes it even more valuable, especially with no other source of Horses, A trashing option makes this card even more versatile. Honorable Mention

Stable Master by Fragasnap
A desirable non-Gold for villageful engines - very likely to give 5-6 cards in total, but you likely need some cash to get it, and treasures slow it down.

Circus by artless
It's a peddler made of two cards, not unlike Merchant. You need a decent density to make it work, and it is still not very strong.

Racetrack/Abbatoir by BlueHairedMeerkat
Racetrack is a self-crippling terminal silver - topdecking a card from hand is too brutal, doesn't worth the compensation. I doubt someone will ever see Abbatoir.

Horse Farm(er) by spheremonk
Apprentice with a delayed payout, similar to Research. It needs some boost (+Buy?) to be likable

Badlands by spineflu
When one player buys a Badlands it's enormous advantage, like +8 draws per play. Anyone else has to follow the suit just to hobble the opponent's Horses. Without Villages in the kingdom, this will spoil the party for everyone.

Jockey by Supernova888
Feeding the horse with a discard for let it stay is neat and balanced. Honorable Mention

Wrastler by mail-mi
Terminal Silver with a nice delayed cashback. Three horses look just right, taking into account the slowness of the process (two shuffles to use the horse). Honorable Mention

Cowherd by Carline
An ultimate tool for horse management. With a little help of deck control (like Scheme), your Horses will never run away. Sounds pretty strong, but just comparable with a Ferry on labs, so I think it's not extreme. Short List

Tinkerer by Something_Smart
Probably not very strong by itself, this card has a great potential of megaturn combos. So great that it might be broken.

Short List
Horselord, Forest Hag, Stallions (pile), Horse Meadow, Cowherd

Runners Up
Forest Hag by D782802859
Horse Meadow by Rhodos

Winner
Stallions by X-tra

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 04, 2020, 08:21:55 pm

Quote from: grep on May 04, 2020, 08:07:09 pm

The contest is growing exponentially - last time I judged 19 contestors and now it's 27.
Sorry for the delay.
Equerry by scolapasta
An Artifact tug-of-war similar to Border Guard, but the prizes are modest and even could be negative (Horses stuck in a stolen Corral). Exiling as a payment makes interesting dynamics. Honorable Mention

Thanks for judging - you're right 27 is a lot!

I do want to point out that you got the new name for the card, but missed the key change - States instead of Artifacts, removing the tug-of-war since I agree the prizes are (purposefully*) modest. Also removes the negative.

* partially, because getting multiple would add up: imagine a Corralled, Saddled, Trained Horse - a lab on play, that you can call for an additional card, and that you get to keep.

While too late for this week's contest, I'd love to hear your opinion on these changes and how they might have improved my chances. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on May 04, 2020, 08:56:15 pm

Woah, 27 entries! What happened to this thread :D ? Anyway, thank you for taking the time to analyze everything. Seeing the judge put their thoughts on the table is always captivating to me. My favourite entry was Horse Meadow, so I’m glad you put it as a finalist. Horses seems like a natural fit with the nature of Projects and if they came out with Renaissance, I’m sure we would have seen something really close to Horse Meadow.

Still, thanks for choosing my Stallions as winners. It's true that I didn't make it obvious how they play in practice, so thanks for having faith in 'em regardless. Now, I wonder now if the number of participants will increase once more; in which case I’m in trouble, haha! :D

So for this week’s contest, I had 2 ideas. One is on the very straight-forward, simple side. The other one is a little trickier. But could be neat. I dunno. I’ll go for the simple one for now. Don’t wanna scare all those beautiful 27 persons away. :)

---

CONTEST 72: UNTIL I SEE YOU AGAIN
Utilize the Exile mechanic.

Rules are pretty simple for that one. Anything goes. So long as you make use of the newly introduced Exiling mechanic from Menagerie. Wanna do a Traveller line where only the last card of that line Exiles something? S’fine by me. A project that Exiles stuff? You go champ! An Action card which offers you a choice of Exiling something or doing other stuff? I’m telling you mate, you’re fine and dandy.
I invite you to read this page (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Exile) of the Dominion Wiki for more info on Exiling. Otherwise, if you have any enquiries, as always, do not be afraid of asking.

Judging will be done on the 20-05-11 at 8PM EST.


(and yes this contest is very much in the same spirit as Grep's previous one. We ain't done with Menagerie shenanigans anytime soon  8) )

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Barbarossa41 on May 04, 2020, 09:34:29 pm

Manufacturer (Name still in flux)
Action $6
+1 Action
Choose 1:
Exile a non-Victory card from the supply
OR
Gain a copy of a card you have at least 3 copies of in Exile.
-------------------------------
In games using this, you may not buy cards you have copies of in Exile

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on May 04, 2020, 10:06:30 pm

Quote from: X-tra on May 04, 2020, 08:56:15 pm

Judging will be done on the 20-05-11 at 8PM EST.

I read this as the 5th day of the 20th month, 2011. Then may 20th, 2011. Am I correct in assuming this is May 11th, 2020?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on May 04, 2020, 10:08:35 pm

Oki
cost $5 - Action
Exile up to 2 cards from your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 04, 2020, 10:36:06 pm

Quote from: grep on May 04, 2020, 08:07:09 pm

Cowherd by Carline
An ultimate tool for horse management. With a little help of deck control (like Scheme), your Horses will never run away. Sounds pretty strong, but just comparable with a Ferry on labs, so I think it's not extreme. Short List

Thank you for your comments. I'm happy to be in the short list in my first attempt to create a card. Congratulations to X-tra for the win and for such a beautiful set of cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on May 04, 2020, 10:53:15 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 04, 2020, 10:06:30 pm

Quote from: X-tra on May 04, 2020, 08:56:15 pm

Judging will be done on the 20-05-11 at 8PM EST.

I read this as the 5th day of the 20th month, 2011. Then may 20th, 2011. Am I correct in assuming this is May 11th, 2020?

Ah yes, your last assumption is the correct one. I always have this habit of writing my dates with the YY-MM-DD format. ;D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on May 05, 2020, 01:03:13 am

Edit: This entry has been replaced. See further downthread.

Disgraced Salesman
$5
Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Exile this. +$1 per copy of this you have in Exile.

New entry:

Toolsmith
$4
Action
Exile 2 non-Victory cards from the Supply costing up to $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on May 05, 2020, 03:36:11 am

EDIT: I turned the Way into a project as that is a lot cleaner.
EDIT2: Added an on-buy effect to make the card less narrow and reduce the opportunity cost.

(https://i.imgur.com/riGQrHk.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on May 05, 2020, 04:36:30 am

It seems prudent to mention that Donald's testing found that it's bad to Exile useful cards. I guess it feels awful when another player empties that pile out or something.

Anyhow, my entry:

Quote

Escapist - Action Attack, $4 cost.
+ $2
Each other player gains a Curse. They may reveal a Curse from their hand; if anyone does, Exile this.

Opponents can get a bit of payback, but hopefully not enough to avoid getting this at all.


Former entry:

Quote

Relief Aid - Action Victory, $4 cost.
You may trash a Copper from your hand. If you do, each other player may trash a Copper from their hand. Exile up to 2 Coppers from the trash.
-
Worth 1VP per 3 Coppers you have in Exile (round down).

Edit: made the copper trashing optional, using wording that doesn't appear on any official card. Does it make sense? Each player has the option to trash if you let them, they aren't forced to.

Edit 2: removed 'either way' as per Rhodos' observation.

Edit 3: made the copper trashing clearer. Then changed entry to Escapist. (Relief Aid would probably cause mirror games.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on May 05, 2020, 04:46:38 am

Quote from: Aquila on May 05, 2020, 04:36:30 am

It seems prudent to mention that Donald's testing found that it's bad to Exile useful cards. I guess it feels awful when another player empties that pile out or something.

This is a good point. Thus, I am withdrawing my entry and entering this one:

Toolsmith
$4
Action
Exile 2 non-Victory cards from the Supply costing up to $4.

Let me know if this should cost $5, or if there are other balance issues.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on May 05, 2020, 07:15:09 am

Quote from: grep on May 04, 2020, 08:07:09 pm

Runners Up
Forest Hag by D782802859
Horse Meadow by Rhodos

Winner
Stallions by X-tra

Thanks, Runner Up is great :) Congrats to X-tra! And also to D782802859.

And yes I agree, it takes forever to judge and give feedback on so many contestants. (And don't get me wrong, I am happy the WDC is so active!)
So don't worry about delay and thanks for judging, Grep!

Quote from: grep on May 04, 2020, 08:07:09 pm

Horse Meadow by Rhodos
An elegant and thematic Project, similar to Sinister Plot. Everyone would like to buy it, so it should cost $4 or $6 to eliminate the 5/2 advantage. Short List

I have to disagree with the buying in the opening. The first few turns are so important and most 5 cost cards are so good that you should not skip them for Horse Meadow. As you likely won't buy a $2 or that $2 would not do much for you, you are 2 turns behind which is really bad. The only card that would change it is chapel, but chapel is just chapel. It's easier to get away with some good $3 trasher (Steward, Masquerade, Ambassador) plus Horse Meadow, that's why I priced it at $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on May 05, 2020, 07:27:09 am

Quote from: X-tra on May 04, 2020, 08:56:15 pm

My favourite entry was Horse Meadow, so I’m glad you put it as a finalist. Horses seems like a natural fit with the nature of Projects and if they came out with Renaissance, I’m sure we would have seen something really close to Horse Meadow.

Thanks for the nice words :) I have to admit that I myself was too lazy to take a look at all the Stallions cards. But I guess, I will take the time to do so, since if they are implemented nicely, they can add to the game.

Quote from: X-tra on May 04, 2020, 08:56:15 pm

Still, thanks for choosing my Stallions as winners. It's true that I didn't make it obvious how they play in practice, so thanks for having faith in 'em regardless. Now, I wonder now if the number of participants will increase once more; in which case I’m in trouble, haha! :D

Good luck with this one :D

I guess I could submit my last entry and have good chances, but really that is not why I am here :D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on May 05, 2020, 08:31:39 am

Recompense (Treasure, $5)

+$0

When you play this, gain a card costing up to $1 per differently named card you have on your Exile mat. If it’s a Victory card, trash this.
———
When you gain this, Exile a card from your hand.

A Horn of Plenty variant that cares about your Exile mat. As well as a gainer, it can be used to free cards from Exile, if you want that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on May 05, 2020, 08:38:56 am

Quote from: Rhodos on May 05, 2020, 07:15:09 am

Quote from: grep on May 04, 2020, 08:07:09 pm

Runners Up
Forest Hag by D782802859
Horse Meadow by Rhodos

Winner
Stallions by X-tra

Thanks, Runner Up is great :) Congrats to X-tra! And also to D782802859.

And yes I agree, it takes forever to judge and give feedback on so many contestants. (And don't get me wrong, I am happy the WDC is so active!)
So don't worry about delay and thanks for judging, Grep!

Quote from: grep on May 04, 2020, 08:07:09 pm

Horse Meadow by Rhodos
An elegant and thematic Project, similar to Sinister Plot. Everyone would like to buy it, so it should cost $4 or $6 to eliminate the 5/2 advantage. Short List

I have to disagree with the buying in the opening. The first few turns are so important and most 5 cost cards are so good that you should not skip them for Horse Meadow. As you likely won't buy a $2 or that $2 would not do much for you, you are 2 turns behind which is really bad. The only card that would change it is chapel, but chapel is just chapel. It's easier to get away with some good $3 trasher (Steward, Masquerade, Ambassador) plus Horse Meadow, that's why I priced it at $5.

I’ll have you know I had a heart attack when I read this. I’d just gone through that whole thing with the date this round was done and everything!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 05, 2020, 09:39:39 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on May 05, 2020, 08:31:39 am

Recompense (Treasure, $5)

+$0

When you play this, gain a card costing up to $1 per differently named card you have on your Exile mat. If it’s a Victory card, trash this.
———
When you gain this, Exile a card from your hand.

A Horn of Plenty variant that cares about your Exile mat. As well as a gainer, it can be used to free cards from Exile, if you want that.

If this is the only card in kingdom related to exile mat, you have to gain four Recompenses before it works as a Workshop. Seems weak to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on May 05, 2020, 10:33:56 am

Quote from: Aquila on May 05, 2020, 04:36:30 am

It seems prudent to mention that Donald's testing found that it's bad to Exile useful cards. I guess it feels awful when another player empties that pile out or something.

Anyhow, my entry:

Quote

Relief Aid - Action Victory, $4 cost.
You may let each player (including yourself) trash a Copper from their hand. Either way, Exile up to 2 Coppers from the trash.
-
Worth 1VP per 3 Coppers you have in Exile (round down).

Edit: made the copper trashing optional, using wording that doesn't appear on any official card. Does it make sense? Each player has the option to trash if you let them, they aren't forced to.

Just use Bishop's wording: Each player (including you) may trash a Copper from their hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 05, 2020, 11:19:44 am

EDIT: This is withdrawn; new entry downthread.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eb182cf6d6e0432bd5dbada/656cc310be6f4e50de949893f47398c9/image.png)

Quote

Studio • $4 • Action
Gain or Exile a card costing up to $4.
-
When this is discarded from Exile, +1 Coffers.

I don't think this needs to be a reaction. It's sort of a joke about how long it can take to finish paintings, i guess. Also sort of a counterpart to Sculptor, although a little cheaper because it takes more farting around to get its bonus.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 05, 2020, 11:25:19 am

Discarded
See below the new version

(https://i.ibb.co/9bzwgbb/image.png)
Way of the Cicada
Exile this and a copy of this from the Supply.
-
If you discard any cards from Exile this turn, put them on top of the deck.


Flavor: Periodical Cicadas stay underground for years, and then all the swarm flies out

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on May 05, 2020, 12:11:18 pm

Quote from: grep on May 05, 2020, 11:25:19 am

(https://i.ibb.co/9bzwgbb/image.png)
Way of the Cicada
Exile this and a copy of this from the Supply.
-
If you discard any cards from Exile this turn, put them on top of the deck.


Flavor: Periodical Cicadas stay underground for years, and then all the swarm flies out

I guess you get tracking issues with the part below the line.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on May 05, 2020, 12:23:42 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on May 05, 2020, 10:33:56 am

Quote from: Aquila on May 05, 2020, 04:36:30 am

It seems prudent to mention that Donald's testing found that it's bad to Exile useful cards. I guess it feels awful when another player empties that pile out or something.

Anyhow, my entry:

Quote

Relief Aid - Action Victory, $4 cost.
You may let each player (including yourself) trash a Copper from their hand. Either way, Exile up to 2 Coppers from the trash.
-
Worth 1VP per 3 Coppers you have in Exile (round down).

Edit: made the copper trashing optional, using wording that doesn't appear on any official card. Does it make sense? Each player has the option to trash if you let them, they aren't forced to.

Just use Bishop's wording: Each player (including you) may trash a Copper from their hand.

It would do something slightly different than Aquila's wording, since with the wording as is, you could deny them the trashing, if you skip it yourself.

I would drop the "Either way". What does it do on the card? There is no dependency between the sentences, that would suggest you exile the Coppers only in one of the cases.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 05, 2020, 01:04:01 pm

Still massaging my card to fit the idea of releasing the swarm

(https://i.ibb.co/w6p7L1x/image.png)
Way of the Cicada
Exile this and a copy of this from the Supply.
Once per game: you may set aside all copies of this you have in Exile. If you did, play them all.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 05, 2020, 01:12:19 pm

Quote from: grep on May 05, 2020, 01:04:01 pm

Still massaging my card to fit the idea of releasing the swarm

(https://i.ibb.co/w6p7L1x/image.png)
Way of the Cicada
Exile this and a copy of this from the Supply.
Once per game: you may set aside all copies of this you have in Exile. If you did, play them all.

As soon as you buy and play your fourth Bridge in a game, you buy all Provinces. Or even on just your third play of a Bridge, you have _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} + other coins to spend and Provinces cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. This is WAY overpowered.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 05, 2020, 01:28:19 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 05, 2020, 01:12:19 pm

Quote from: grep on May 05, 2020, 01:04:01 pm

Still massaging my card to fit the idea of releasing the swarm

(https://i.ibb.co/w6p7L1x/image.png)
Way of the Cicada
Exile this and a copy of this from the Supply.
Once per game: you may set aside all copies of this you have in Exile. If you did, play them all.

As soon as you buy and play your fourth Bridge in a game, you buy all Provinces. Or even on just your third play of a Bridge, you have _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} + other coins to spend and Provinces cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}. This is WAY overpowered.

To set up 8 Bridges, you need ~12 turns, this is not the fastest possible combo rush.
And the whole plan will be ruined if the opponent gains 4 Bridges.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 05, 2020, 01:36:23 pm

Most likely a 3-Bridge megaturn will be more optimal. But even so, you should be able to expect to buy a Bridge about once every-other turn. You could easily play Bridge on turn 3 or 4, then 5 or 6, then 7 or 8... So on turn 7 or 8 you get 6 Bridges in play all at once. And it's not just Bridge, but any terminal that you want to play several of, like Goons, etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 05, 2020, 02:02:43 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 05, 2020, 01:36:23 pm

Most likely a 3-Bridge megaturn will be more optimal. But even so, you should be able to expect to buy a Bridge about once every-other turn. You could easily play Bridge on turn 3 or 4, then 5 or 6, then 7 or 8... So on turn 7 or 8 you get 6 Bridges in play all at once. And it's not just Bridge, but any terminal that you want to play several of, like Goons, etc.

When you play the Bridge for Exile, you give up the opportunity to play it in a normal way, and it's very likely that you will be unable to buy a Bridge this turn - this slows down and lets the opponent win the split by buying and *using* Bridges. So it is not that easy - if your megablow does not immediately win, you will end up with a deck overburdened with terminals.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on May 05, 2020, 02:27:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/M876pJR.png)

Quote

Sanctum

+1 Card
+1 Action

Choose one: put a card from Exile into your hand; or you may Exile a card from your hand that you do not already have a copy of in Exile.

Action
$4

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 05, 2020, 03:03:08 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 05, 2020, 02:27:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/M876pJR.png)

Quote

Sanctum

+1 Card
+1 Action

Choose one: put a card from Exile into your hand; or you may Exile a card from your hand that you do not already have a copy of in Exile.

Action
$4

If this is the only card related to exile mat in Kingdom, you probably won't have a good card in exile mat to use first option, since almost always is better play it in the first time it's in your hand. The exception is if you draw dead a good action, but in this case it seems like a more expensive Save with more delay.

It's not so good also to exile junk, since you can exile only one copy of each.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on May 05, 2020, 05:03:09 pm

Quote from: Rhodos on May 05, 2020, 12:23:42 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on May 05, 2020, 10:33:56 am

Quote from: Aquila on May 05, 2020, 04:36:30 am

It seems prudent to mention that Donald's testing found that it's bad to Exile useful cards. I guess it feels awful when another player empties that pile out or something.

Anyhow, my entry:

Quote

Relief Aid - Action Victory, $4 cost.
You may let each player (including yourself) trash a Copper from their hand. Either way, Exile up to 2 Coppers from the trash.
-
Worth 1VP per 3 Coppers you have in Exile (round down).

Edit: made the copper trashing optional, using wording that doesn't appear on any official card. Does it make sense? Each player has the option to trash if you let them, they aren't forced to.

...

It would do something slightly different than Aquila's wording, since with the wording as is, you could deny them the trashing, if you skip it yourself.

I would drop the "Either way". What does it do on the card? There is no dependency between the sentences, that would suggest you exile the Coppers only in one of the cases.

Rhodos is correct on both accounts, thanks for this. I've removed 'either way'. Sometimes there are plenty of Coppers in the trash and you don't want to give them the trashing gift. The whole everyone trash bit is there to be thematic (will they contribute to the charitable cause?) and to allow other copper trashing in games to be superior (the main role of this is VP).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on May 05, 2020, 09:15:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/E3tswEq.jpg)

Quote

New World
Types: Event
Cost: $6
Once per game: Put the cards you have in Exile into your hand. Exile all cards from your deck, your discard pile, and that you have in play.

---

Setup: Each player Exiles 2 Coppers, 1 Gold, and 2 Curses from the Supply, and the same set of 4 different unused Action cards.

Clarification: Each players' Exile mat begins containing copies of the same cards with the same set of 4 Action cards.  If Monument, Scheme, Sheepdog, and Torturer were chosen, each player Exiles copies of that same collection of 4 Action cards (along with the 2 Coppers, 1 Gold, and 2 Curses).

A silly setup Event.  You lose all your deck that you don't have in your hand (unfortunate happenstance that Duration cards still in effect get Exiled from play too, but that only applies for one turn per game (and should happen pretty early in games you want to trigger New World), so it shouldn't get too hairy).  You have an extra deck of 9 cards waiting for you in the New World with otherwise unavailable Action cards.  Because of the way the Exile mat works, you can of course bring the Gold from the New World back to the old world (the unused Action cards cannot be brought over without buying either New World or Transport because you won't be able to gain copies of them), or you can swap over to the New World and then start bringing lost cards from the old world over.  You could also grab an extra Copper or Curse before getting New World to clean up Exile first before making the swap.

The numbers might be all wrong for this thing to work.  Let me know if you think it's interesting or salvageable.  I'm not sure if it is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on May 05, 2020, 09:51:53 pm

Coyote
Action - $5
Exile this or a card from your hand. +1 Card per $1 it costs.
-
When you gain or trash this, you may play it

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Optimal_Inefficiency on May 06, 2020, 02:13:03 am

This entry has been superseded by another.
See reply 5558.

(https://i.imgur.com/0mJ4jvi_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

I’ll save you all the google and tell you the definition of thelony is, “A toll or custom required from travelling merchants as a tax on doing business.” (Source: Wikipedia)

Quote

Thelony — ($6)(Action - Attack - Duration)(005v2)
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1. While this is in play, when any other player discards a card from their Exile mat, they take 1 [Debt Token].

The attack half of this card never changed, though I have considered limiting it by saying “While this is in play, the first time each other player discards a card from their Exile mat, they take 1 [Debt Token].”

The tricky part was the other half. I considered just about everything (adjusting card cost as I did). I started to settle on the idea of a delayed City (after all, if a Caravan is a delayed Lab, adding an Action would make a delayed City). But it didn’t quite fit the theme of taxing merchants, so I added the +1 Buy & +$1. Now, on the surface it looks like a Market, but it is really taxing merchants to build up to a delayed lvl 3 City.

Now for the cost. This is the part I have been most uncertain of. I considered Caravan, a $4-costing cantrip & delayed Lab. I imagined adding the +1 Action to Caravan would likely make it worth $5; and adding +1 Buy & +$1 would likely make it worth $6. But Caravan starts as a cantrip where Thelony does nothing on play; I hope that difference justifies the attack portion being there.

Open to suggestions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 06, 2020, 03:09:15 am

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on May 06, 2020, 02:13:03 am

(https://i.imgur.com/0mJ4jvi_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

I’ll save you all the google and tell you the definition of thelony is, “A toll or custom required from travelling merchants as a tax on doing business.” (Source: Wikipedia)

Quote

Thelony — ($6)(Action - Attack - Duration)(005v2)
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1. While this is in play, when any other player discards a card from their Exile mat, they take 1 [Debt Token].

The attack half of this card never changed, though I have considered limiting it by saying “While this is in play, the first time each other player discards a card from their Exile mat, they take 1 [Debt Token].”

The tricky part was the other half. I considered just about everything (adjusting card cost as I did). I started to settle on the idea of a delayed City (after all, if a Caravan is a delayed Lab, adding an Action would make a delayed City). But it didn’t quite fit the theme of taxing merchants, so I added the +1 Buy & +$1. Now, on the surface it looks like a Market, but it is really taxing merchants to build up to a delayed lvl 3 City.

Now for the cost. This is the part I have been most uncertain of. I considered Caravan, a $4-costing cantrip & delayed Lab. I imagined adding the +1 Action to Caravan would likely make it worth $5; and adding +1 Buy & +$1 would likely make it worth $6. But Caravan starts as a cantrip where Thelony does nothing on play; I hope that difference justifies the attack portion being there.

Open to suggestions.

If this would be the only card in kingdom related to exile mat, the attack part won't work. Your opponents will never discard a card from exile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 06, 2020, 06:00:03 am

My entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/633/554/full/Great_Cathedral_%286%29.png?1588754477)

Quote

Great Cathedral • $4 • Project

At the start of your turn, choose one: exile a card from your hand; or put a non-treasure card from exile into your hand.

Cathedral meets Island and Save.

It brings a lot of versatility at the start of your turn.

The first option (exile a card from your hand):

- For junk or weak cards, works in a similar way as Cathedral, getting rid of one per turn (Cathedral to trash, Great Cathedral to exile).

- For VP cards, works as a permanently princed Island, put them away without lose them. This enables start greening earlier.

The second option (put a non-treasure card from exile into your hand):

- Makes exiling not compulsory. If you don’t want to unmake a good hand, you can choose get a card from exile, even if it is a junk, like sometimes we choose gain a curse when attacked by Torturer.

- With a hand with terminal collision, enables Great Cathedral act as Save, with more control: exile one terminal, get it back in a turn you want to use it.

Many good options, but you can do only one per turn, so it’s not overpowered.

Cathedral effect is better in first turns, Save effect in midgame and Island effect after start greening.

Since the Cathedral effect is better when starts early, I made it $4. If it costs $6, it would be slow in cleaning comparing to good cheap trashers. If $5, a player with 5-2 could take advantage. So $4 and all players could open with it, if they want.

Open with Transport –  Great Cathedral could seem too strong at first, you can play a Goons at turn 3, for example, but also you can do it if you open Transport-Transport. So, I think it’s fine at $4.

It speeds up Transport and Camel Train, since you can play in your next turn cards exiled by them. It’s also very good but not extreme, effect is similar to when you topdeck a gained card.

Great Cathedral can’t put treasures from exile into your hand, so you can’t use it as a kind of an early Crypt, can’t get to hand the golds exiled from Camel Train gain (which could be too strong in first turns) and can’t combo it with Way of the Camel or Stockpile  (which could be also too strong, a Hireling that always gives a gold or a gold with +buy).

-- Edited to change cost of the card to <8> (see post below) --

New changed entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/635/198/full/Great_Cathedral_%288%29.png?1588798708)

Quote

Great Cathedral • <8> • Project

At the start of your turn, choose one: exile a card from your hand; or put a non-treasure card from exile into your hand.

The cost at <8> make it available to all players on turn 1 and make it not strictly better than Cathedral. Also it leaves <1> to be paid on turn 3 if bought on turn 1, so the cost to buy it on turn 1 would be: buy nothing more on turns 1 and 2 and reduce your payload on turn 3. I think it makes it a less obvious opening strategy over others available on kingdom, especially if it has good trashers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Supernova888 on May 06, 2020, 06:07:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ws4CzK3.png)
Here's my entry! A workshop that would be very powerful, but it has some exiling mechanics to slow it down. It's designed to help most with actions, but it can help out with any sort of board setup. Not sure if it's too good with Victory cards, though I feel like at that point it's usually just a groundskeeper; I'm willing to add a "non-Victory" clause. I'd love to hear any suggestions!

Quote

Commissioner • $5 • Action
If you have any Action cards in Exile, put one into your hand. Otherwise, +1 Card, Exile a card from the Supply costing up to $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 06, 2020, 06:25:03 am

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on May 06, 2020, 02:13:03 am

(https://i.imgur.com/0mJ4jvi_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

I’ll save you all the google and tell you the definition of thelony is, “A toll or custom required from travelling merchants as a tax on doing business.” (Source: Wikipedia)

Quote

Thelony — ($6)(Action - Attack - Duration)(005v2)
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1. While this is in play, when any other player discards a card from their Exile mat, they take 1 [Debt Token].

The attack half of this card never changed, though I have considered limiting it by saying “While this is in play, the first time each other player discards a card from their Exile mat, they take 1 [Debt Token].”

The tricky part was the other half. I considered just about everything (adjusting card cost as I did). I started to settle on the idea of a delayed City (after all, if a Caravan is a delayed Lab, adding an Action would make a delayed City). But it didn’t quite fit the theme of taxing merchants, so I added the +1 Buy & +$1. Now, on the surface it looks like a Market, but it is really taxing merchants to build up to a delayed lvl 3 City.

Now for the cost. This is the part I have been most uncertain of. I considered Caravan, a $4-costing cantrip & delayed Lab. I imagined adding the +1 Action to Caravan would likely make it worth $5; and adding +1 Buy & +$1 would likely make it worth $6. But Caravan starts as a cantrip where Thelony does nothing on play; I hope that difference justifies the attack portion being there.

Open to suggestions.

up to now debt has always been voluntary for a player to take - they choose when to buy a debt-giving card or event - but with Coven this could compel debt for other players.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Optimal_Inefficiency on May 06, 2020, 08:06:17 am

I had not considered the interaction with Coven. That would be a crushing blow. I’ll have to redo this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on May 06, 2020, 09:22:34 am

Quote from: Carline on May 06, 2020, 06:00:03 am

Quote

Great Cathedral • $4 • Project

At the start of your turn, choose one: exile a card from your hand; or put a non-treasure card from exile into your hand.

Cathedral is already the 2nd strongest card-shaped thing in the game and not only is this way stronger, there's a 50% chance that only one player can buy it on turn 1 which puts the other at a severe disadvantage.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on May 06, 2020, 09:31:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/NA4TIQz.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 06, 2020, 09:39:29 am

(https://i.imgur.com/XiY5vGt.png?1)
Rebel is a bit like Coven, but friendly. It's got that buildup effect like Coven, but with Silver instead. And when you reach your threshold, you get to Expand a card, hooray. You discard all the silvers even if you have more than 3 exiled, I'm not sure if that was clear enough.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on May 06, 2020, 09:53:39 am

Quote

Pony (Action, Cost $4)
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Exile a card from your hand

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 10:53:24 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 06, 2020, 09:53:39 am

Quote

Pony (Action, Cost $4)
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Exile a card from your hand

Stronger than Laboratory, for less cost. Also compare to Junk Dealer; stronger than that for less cost. This Pony as written could possibly work at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 06, 2020, 12:15:47 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 06, 2020, 09:39:29 am

(https://i.imgur.com/om8wBXH.png?1)

Did you mean "Exiles a Silver from Supply"? Otherwise it is not that friendly and has an accountability problem.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 06, 2020, 12:22:40 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 10:53:24 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 06, 2020, 09:53:39 am

Quote

Pony (Action, Cost $4)
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Exile a card from your hand

Stronger than Laboratory, for less cost. Also compare to Junk Dealer; stronger than that for less cost. This Pony as written could possibly work at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}.

While you are correct, a small detail is that this is not strictly better than Lab. A Lab never hurts whereas this might. Or in others words, although Pony is better than Lab, you want more Labs than Ponies.

Of course practically speaking, just like you can trash the second Junk Dealer via the first, you can exile the second Pony via the first. And as Pony can exile green, it is longer useful than Junk Dealer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 06, 2020, 12:25:03 pm

Quote from: grep on May 06, 2020, 12:15:47 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 06, 2020, 09:39:29 am

(https://i.imgur.com/om8wBXH.png?1)

Did you mean "Exiles a Silver from Supply"? Otherwise it is not that friendly and has an accountability problem.

Yes, that's a wording issue. I'll fix that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 06, 2020, 12:27:12 pm

Quote from: segura on May 06, 2020, 12:22:40 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 10:53:24 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 06, 2020, 09:53:39 am

Quote

Pony (Action, Cost $4)
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Exile a card from your hand

Stronger than Laboratory, for less cost. Also compare to Junk Dealer; stronger than that for less cost. This Pony as written could possibly work at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}.

While you are correct, a small detail is that this is not strictly better than Lab. A Lab never hurts whereas this might. Or in others words, although Pony is better than Lab, you want more Labs than Ponies.

Of course practically speaking, just like you can trash the second Junk Dealer via the first, you can exile the second Pony via the first. And as Pony can exile green, it is longer useful than Junk Dealer.

It's also better, albeit not strictly, than Junk Dealer because it has no treasure restriction and Exiles cards which is very usually better than trashing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 06, 2020, 12:29:55 pm

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on May 06, 2020, 02:13:03 am

I’ll save you all the google and tell you the definition of thelony is, “A toll or custom required from travelling merchants as a tax on doing business.” (Source: Wikipedia)

Quote

Thelony — ($6)(Action - Attack - Duration)(005v2)
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1. While this is in play, when any other player discards a card from their Exile mat, they take 1 [Debt Token].

First of all, I love the name!
On interaction with Coven, the issue is that two rarely involuntary actions collide: Coven is the only official card that forces discarding from Exile.
It can be solved with only taxing on the player's own turn.
The cost looks too high to me: a delayed Marked is a weak $4 (similar to Caravan which is $1 less than Lab), and a relatively weak attack brings the cost to $5 (similar to Smithy -> Rabble). It still can be a reasonable purchase in absence of exilers, for example, for +Buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 06, 2020, 12:38:22 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 05, 2020, 09:51:53 pm

Coyote
Action - $4
Exile this or a card from your hand. +1 Card per $1 it costs.
-
When you gain or trash this, you may play it

Exiling a Province for +8 Cards is way too strong. For sanity, it should be limited to non-Victory cards (with "You may" for accountability), or alternatively don't give a bonus for exiling Victory cards

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 01:25:36 pm

Quote from: segura on May 06, 2020, 12:22:40 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 10:53:24 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 06, 2020, 09:53:39 am

Quote

Pony (Action, Cost $4)
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Exile a card from your hand

Stronger than Laboratory, for less cost. Also compare to Junk Dealer; stronger than that for less cost. This Pony as written could possibly work at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}.

While you are correct, a small detail is that this is not strictly better than Lab. A Lab never hurts whereas this might. Or in others words, although Pony is better than Lab, you want more Labs than Ponies.

Of course practically speaking, just like you can trash the second Junk Dealer via the first, you can exile the second Pony via the first. And as Pony can exile green, it is longer useful than Junk Dealer.

I don't think that matters here; Junk Dealer is not strictly better than Poacher either, but it costs more for a very good reason. Forced trashing is not going to be an issue with a game that has an option as strong as strong as Lab + trash... just like Cathedral, the forced trashing barely works are a drawback. And with Exile instead of Trash, that effect is even more true; I don't see you ever wishing you hadn't played that Pony.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 01:25:53 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 06, 2020, 12:27:12 pm

Quote from: segura on May 06, 2020, 12:22:40 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 10:53:24 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 06, 2020, 09:53:39 am

Quote

Pony (Action, Cost $4)
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Exile a card from your hand

Stronger than Laboratory, for less cost. Also compare to Junk Dealer; stronger than that for less cost. This Pony as written could possibly work at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}.

While you are correct, a small detail is that this is not strictly better than Lab. A Lab never hurts whereas this might. Or in others words, although Pony is better than Lab, you want more Labs than Ponies.

Of course practically speaking, just like you can trash the second Junk Dealer via the first, you can exile the second Pony via the first. And as Pony can exile green, it is longer useful than Junk Dealer.

It's also better, albeit not strictly, than Junk Dealer because it has no treasure restriction and Exiles cards which is very usually better than trashing.

Did you mean to say Junk Dealer?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on May 06, 2020, 01:59:18 pm

Updating my entry:

Quote

Pony (Action, Cost $4)
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Exile an Action card from your hand (or reveal a hand with no Action cards)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 02:04:16 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 06, 2020, 01:59:18 pm

Updating my entry:

Quote

Pony (Action, Cost $4)
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Exile an Action card from your hand (or reveal a hand with no Action cards)

I like this. It also makes better use of the fact that it's Exile; while the old version was just a slight variant on Trash.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 06, 2020, 02:26:38 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 01:25:53 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 06, 2020, 12:27:12 pm

Quote from: segura on May 06, 2020, 12:22:40 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 10:53:24 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 06, 2020, 09:53:39 am

Quote

Pony (Action, Cost $4)
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Exile a card from your hand

Stronger than Laboratory, for less cost. Also compare to Junk Dealer; stronger than that for less cost. This Pony as written could possibly work at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}.

While you are correct, a small detail is that this is not strictly better than Lab. A Lab never hurts whereas this might. Or in others words, although Pony is better than Lab, you want more Labs than Ponies.

Of course practically speaking, just like you can trash the second Junk Dealer via the first, you can exile the second Pony via the first. And as Pony can exile green, it is longer useful than Junk Dealer.

It's also better, albeit not strictly, than Junk Dealer because it has no treasure restriction and Exiles cards which is very usually better than trashing.

Did you mean to say Junk Dealer?

My mistake, I meant Spice Merchant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 06, 2020, 03:17:45 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on May 06, 2020, 09:22:34 am

Cathedral is already the 2nd strongest card-shaped thing in the game and not only is this way stronger, there's a 50% chance that only one player can buy it on turn 1 which puts the other at a severe disadvantage.

The only situation one player can buy it on turn 1 and the other not is if only one player have a hand with two coppers and three estates on turn 1. I think this chance is smaller than 50%, doesn't?

Anyway, the other player always can buy it on turn 2, so the first buyer wiil be only one trash ahead. Is it really so severe? I mean, the same situation could occur with any trasher depending on hands.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 03:20:55 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 06, 2020, 03:17:45 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on May 06, 2020, 09:22:34 am

Cathedral is already the 2nd strongest card-shaped thing in the game and not only is this way stronger, there's a 50% chance that only one player can buy it on turn 1 which puts the other at a severe disadvantage.

The only situation one player can buy it on turn 1 and the other not is if only one player have a hand with two coppers and three estates on turn 1. I think this chance is smaller than 50%, doesn't?

No, this project costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, not _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}.

Quote

Anyway, the other player always can buy it on turn 2, so the first buyer wiil be only one trash ahead. Is it really so severe? I mean, the same situation could occur with any trasher depending on hands.

Yes, it's severe, it's like one player starting the game with a Laboratory in their starting deck. It's not like other trashers (except Cathedral) because with other trashers you have to draw and play the card to trash it, you don't actually get to trash something on turn 2. It doesn't matter whether you buy Chapel on turn 1 or turn 2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 06, 2020, 03:28:04 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 06, 2020, 01:59:18 pm

Updating my entry:

Quote

Pony (Action, Cost $4)
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Exile an Action card from your hand (or reveal a hand with no Action cards)

This is obviously too weak. If a Fugitive variant made you discard an Action it would likely already be too weak at $4 as you want to sift through non-Actions. Exiling from hand is far harsher than discarding.
So this is only good for money decks or as defense against Ruins junking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 06, 2020, 03:28:26 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 03:20:55 pm

No, this project costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, not _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}.

Oh, yeah, of course. I thought Awaclus was talking about Cathedral itself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 06, 2020, 04:00:34 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 03:20:55 pm

Yes, it's severe, it's like one player starting the game with a Laboratory in their starting deck. It's not like other trashers (except Cathedral) because with other trashers you have to draw and play the card to trash it, you don't actually get to trash something on turn 2. It doesn't matter whether you buy Chapel on turn 1 or turn 2.

Please tell me, I want to learn from you, more advanced players:

With my project at $4, if player A buys it on turn 1 and player B on turn 2, in first shuffle decks will be:

Player A – 7 Coppers, 2 Estates and a $3 cost card

Player B – 7 Coppers, 3 Estates and a $3 cost card

Of course player A has more chances to draw a hand without an Estate, but in this case he would have to exile a copper, decreasing his buy power this turn, or get an Estate back. Even with this factor, is player A advantage so enormous?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 06, 2020, 04:05:52 pm

It is significant but so is opening 5/2 on a board with Mountebank. Many cards can semi decide the game in the opening without anybody calling them broken. If opening sensitivity should always be low, a card like Fisherman would have no right to exist.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holger on May 06, 2020, 04:13:28 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 03:20:55 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 06, 2020, 03:17:45 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on May 06, 2020, 09:22:34 am

Cathedral is already the 2nd strongest card-shaped thing in the game and not only is this way stronger, there's a 50% chance that only one player can buy it on turn 1 which puts the other at a severe disadvantage.

The only situation one player can buy it on turn 1 and the other not is if only one player have a hand with two coppers and three estates on turn 1. I think this chance is smaller than 50%, doesn't?

No, this project costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, not _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}.

Quote

Anyway, the other player always can buy it on turn 2, so the first buyer wiil be only one trash ahead. Is it really so severe? I mean, the same situation could occur with any trasher depending on hands.

Yes, it's severe, it's like one player starting the game with a Laboratory in their starting deck. It's not like other trashers (except Cathedral) because with other trashers you have to draw and play the card to trash it, you don't actually get to trash something on turn 2. It doesn't matter whether you buy Chapel on turn 1 or turn 2.

Apart from Cathedral, there's several other trashers that can trash cards before turn 3; of these, at least with Doctor and Donate I'd also rather have $4 or $5 on turn 1 than on turn 2. Moreover, any good $5 trasher gives a similar (if not bigger) advantage to a player that has a $5/$2 start. (Edit: as segura already posted while I wrote this.) So I don't think this problem is severe enough to destroy Grand Cathedral's concept.

However, Grand Cathedral is much stronger than Cathedral ("strictly better" in the absence of cursers), and it's hard to imagine a kingdom where you wouldn't buy it on turn 1 or 2, even e.g. in a Gardens rush. Therefore I'd consider increasing its price, maybe to <8> like Donate. (This would also have the positive side effect of making it available to everyone on turn 1.)  Or restrict the Exiling to non-Treasure cards as well...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holger on May 06, 2020, 04:22:34 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on May 05, 2020, 09:15:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/E3tswEq.jpg)

Quote

New World
Types: Event
Cost: $6
Once per game: Put the cards you have in Exile into your hand. Exile all cards from your deck, your discard pile, and that you have in play.

---

Setup: Each player Exiles 2 Coppers, 1 Gold, and 2 Curses from the Supply, and the same set of 4 different unused Action cards.

Clarification: Each players' Exile mat begins containing copies of the same cards with the same set of 4 Action cards.  If Monument, Scheme, Sheepdog, and Torturer were chosen, each player Exiles copies of that same collection of 4 Action cards (along with the 2 Coppers, 1 Gold, and 2 Curses).

A silly setup Event.  You lose all your deck that you don't have in your hand (unfortunate happenstance that Duration cards still in effect get Exiled from play too, but that only applies for one turn per game (and should happen pretty early in games you want to trigger New World), so it shouldn't get too hairy).  You have an extra deck of 9 cards waiting for you in the New World with otherwise unavailable Action cards.  Because of the way the Exile mat works, you can of course bring the Gold from the New World back to the old world (the unused Action cards cannot be brought over without buying either New World or Transport because you won't be able to gain copies of them), or you can swap over to the New World and then start bringing lost cards from the old world over.  You could also grab an extra Copper or Curse before getting New World to clean up Exile first before making the swap.

The numbers might be all wrong for this thing to work.  Let me know if you think it's interesting or salvageable.  I'm not sure if it is.

I really like this concept, though it's probably even more game-warping than Donate... :D :D

When the New World's Action cards are decent, this likely makes the early game a race to get $6, while trying to gain a Copper and maybe a Curse before making the "crossing"...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 06, 2020, 05:17:06 pm

Quote from: Holger on May 06, 2020, 04:13:28 pm

Apart from Cathedral, there's several other trashers that can trash cards before turn 3; of these, at least with Doctor and Donate I'd also rather have $4 or $5 on turn 1 than on turn 2. Moreover, any good $5 trasher gives a similar (if not bigger) advantage to a player that has a $5/$2 start. (Edit: as segura already posted while I wrote this.) So I don't think this problem is severe enough to destroy Grand Cathedral's concept.

However, Grand Cathedral is much stronger than Cathedral ("strictly better" in the absence of cursers), and it's hard to imagine a kingdom where you wouldn't buy it on turn 1 or 2, even e.g. in a Gardens rush. Therefore I'd consider increasing its price, maybe to <8> like Donate. (This would also have the positive side effect of making it available to everyone on turn 1.)  Or restrict the Exiling to non-Treasure cards as well...

Thank you, so much! I like the suggestion of make it <8>. It fixes these two things, as you said: make it available to all players on turn 1 and make it not strictly better than Cathedral. Also it leaves <1> to be paid on turn 3 if bought on turn 1, so the cost to buy it on turn 1 would be: buy nothing more on turns 1 and 2 and reduce your payload on turn 3. I think it makes it a less obvious opening strategy over others available on kingdom, especially if it has good trashers.

So, I’m changing my entry, to modify cost:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/635/198/full/Great_Cathedral_%288%29.png?1588798708)

Quote

Great Cathedral • <8> • Project

At the start of your turn, choose one: exile a card from your hand; or put a non-treasure card from exile into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Optimal_Inefficiency on May 06, 2020, 05:49:04 pm

Quote from: grep on May 06, 2020, 12:29:55 pm

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on May 06, 2020, 02:13:03 am

I’ll save you all the google and tell you the definition of thelony is, “A toll or custom required from travelling merchants as a tax on doing business.” (Source: Wikipedia)

Quote

Thelony — ($6)(Action - Attack - Duration)(005v2)
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1. While this is in play, when any other player discards a card from their Exile mat, they take 1 [Debt Token].

First of all, I love the name!
On interaction with Coven, the issue is that two rarely involuntary actions collide: Coven is the only official card that forces discarding from Exile.
It can be solved with only taxing on the player's own turn.
The cost looks too high to me: a delayed Marked is a weak $4 (similar to Caravan which is $1 less than Lab), and a relatively weak attack brings the cost to $5 (similar to Smithy -> Rabble). It still can be a reasonable purchase in absence of exilers, for example, for +Buy.

Thank you! And thank you for the simple fix. However, I think I need to leave the price at $6. Even though the card says +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1, it being at the start of your next turn makes it worth more. If a Caravan this turn is a Laboratory next turn, then a Thelony this turn is a level 3 City next turn.

Update to my entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/i3uhS9U_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Quote

Thelony — ($6)(Action - Attack - Duration)
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1. While this is in play, when any other player discards a card from their Exile mat on their turn, they take 1 [Debt Token].

All in all, I think this would be a valuable card in any kingdom, and it would likely be highly sought after if the attack can gain traction via other cards in the kingdom (like Camel Train).

[Edit] FYI: the definition of thelony is, “A toll or custom required from travelling merchants as a tax on doing business.” (Source: Wikipedia)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 05:52:54 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on May 06, 2020, 09:22:34 am

Quote from: Carline on May 06, 2020, 06:00:03 am

Quote

Great Cathedral • $4 • Project

At the start of your turn, choose one: exile a card from your hand; or put a non-treasure card from exile into your hand.

Cathedral is already the 2nd strongest card-shaped thing in the game and not only is this way stronger, there's a 50% chance that only one player can buy it on turn 1 which puts the other at a severe disadvantage.

I just realized that this 50% is wrong... each player has a 50% chance of being able to afford it on turn 1; which is a 25% chance that one player but not both players will be able to buy it turn 1.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 06, 2020, 05:59:03 pm

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on May 06, 2020, 05:49:04 pm

Quote from: grep on May 06, 2020, 12:29:55 pm

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on May 06, 2020, 02:13:03 am

I’ll save you all the google and tell you the definition of thelony is, “A toll or custom required from travelling merchants as a tax on doing business.” (Source: Wikipedia)

Quote

Thelony — ($6)(Action - Attack - Duration)(005v2)
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1. While this is in play, when any other player discards a card from their Exile mat, they take 1 [Debt Token].

First of all, I love the name!
On interaction with Coven, the issue is that two rarely involuntary actions collide: Coven is the only official card that forces discarding from Exile.
It can be solved with only taxing on the player's own turn.
The cost looks too high to me: a delayed Marked is a weak $4 (similar to Caravan which is $1 less than Lab), and a relatively weak attack brings the cost to $5 (similar to Smithy -> Rabble). It still can be a reasonable purchase in absence of exilers, for example, for +Buy.

Thank you! And thank you for the simple fix. However, I think I need to leave the price at $6. Even though the card says +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1, it being at the start of your next turn makes it worth more. If a Caravan this turn is a Laboratory next turn, then a Thelony this turn is a level 3 City next turn.

Update to my entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/i3uhS9U_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Quote

Thelony — ($6)(Action - Attack - Duration)
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1. While this is in play, when any other player discards a card from their Exile mat on their turn, they take 1 [Debt Token].

All in all, I think this would be a valuable card in any kingdom, and it would likely be highly sought after if the attack can gain traction via other cards in the kingdom (like Camel Train).

[Edit] FYI: the definition of thelony is, “A toll or custom required from travelling merchants as a tax on doing business.” (Source: Wikipedia)

Quote from: Carline on May 06, 2020, 03:09:15 am

If this would be the only card in kingdom related to exile mat, the attack part won't work. Your opponents will never discard a card from exile.

And what about this thing I pointed about the attack, don't you think it's important?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 06, 2020, 06:05:32 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 05:52:54 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on May 06, 2020, 09:22:34 am

Quote from: Carline on May 06, 2020, 06:00:03 am

Quote

Great Cathedral • $4 • Project

At the start of your turn, choose one: exile a card from your hand; or put a non-treasure card from exile into your hand.

Cathedral is already the 2nd strongest card-shaped thing in the game and not only is this way stronger, there's a 50% chance that only one player can buy it on turn 1 which puts the other at a severe disadvantage.

I just realized that this 50% is wrong... each player has a 50% chance of being able to afford it on turn 1; which is a 25% chance that one player but not both players will be able to buy it turn 1.

Yes, but even 25% is a high percentual of matches with some advantage for a player (thank you for pointing this to me), so, accepting Holger suggestion I made it debt cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on May 06, 2020, 09:19:23 pm

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on May 06, 2020, 05:49:04 pm

Quote from: grep on May 06, 2020, 12:29:55 pm

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on May 06, 2020, 02:13:03 am

I’ll save you all the google and tell you the definition of thelony is, “A toll or custom required from travelling merchants as a tax on doing business.” (Source: Wikipedia)

Quote

Thelony — ($6)(Action - Attack - Duration)(005v2)
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1. While this is in play, when any other player discards a card from their Exile mat, they take 1 [Debt Token].

First of all, I love the name!
On interaction with Coven, the issue is that two rarely involuntary actions collide: Coven is the only official card that forces discarding from Exile.
It can be solved with only taxing on the player's own turn.
The cost looks too high to me: a delayed Marked is a weak $4 (similar to Caravan which is $1 less than Lab), and a relatively weak attack brings the cost to $5 (similar to Smithy -> Rabble). It still can be a reasonable purchase in absence of exilers, for example, for +Buy.

Thank you! And thank you for the simple fix. However, I think I need to leave the price at $6. Even though the card says +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1, it being at the start of your next turn makes it worth more. If a Caravan this turn is a Laboratory next turn, then a Thelony this turn is a level 3 City next turn.

Update to my entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/i3uhS9U_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Quote

Thelony — ($6)(Action - Attack - Duration)
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1. While this is in play, when any other player discards a card from their Exile mat on their turn, they take 1 [Debt Token].

All in all, I think this would be a valuable card in any kingdom, and it would likely be highly sought after if the attack can gain traction via other cards in the kingdom (like Camel Train).

[Edit] FYI: the definition of thelony is, “A toll or custom required from travelling merchants as a tax on doing business.” (Source: Wikipedia)

This would be valuable, but I feel it would lose much of its value if there weren’t any exiling cards in the supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 06, 2020, 10:12:18 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa41 on May 04, 2020, 09:34:29 pm

Manufacturer (Name still in flux)
Action $6
+1 Action
Choose 1:
Exile a non-Victory card from the supply
OR
Gain a copy of a card you have at least 3 copies of in Exile.
-------------------------------
In games using this, you may not buy cards you have copies of in Exile

I think player would be in trouble if pile run out before he gains the 4th copy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Barbarossa41 on May 06, 2020, 10:55:06 pm

The point is to use gainers (e.g. Workshop) instead.
you could also do a Gold spam situation

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 07, 2020, 12:33:16 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 05:52:54 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on May 06, 2020, 09:22:34 am

Quote from: Carline on May 06, 2020, 06:00:03 am

Quote

Great Cathedral • $4 • Project

At the start of your turn, choose one: exile a card from your hand; or put a non-treasure card from exile into your hand.

Cathedral is already the 2nd strongest card-shaped thing in the game and not only is this way stronger, there's a 50% chance that only one player can buy it on turn 1 which puts the other at a severe disadvantage.

I just realized that this 50% is wrong... each player has a 50% chance of being able to afford it on turn 1; which is a 25% chance that one player but not both players will be able to buy it turn 1.

No, Awaclus is right. The chance that Alice gets heads and Bob tails is indeed 0.25. But the chance that one of them gets heads while the other gets tails is 0.5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 07, 2020, 12:36:39 am

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on May 06, 2020, 05:49:04 pm

Thank you! And thank you for the simple fix. However, I think I need to leave the price at $6. Even though the card says +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1, it being at the start of your next turn makes it worth more. If a Caravan this turn is a Laboratory next turn, then a Thelony this turn is a level 3 City next turn.

That would be the case if Thelony were a cantrip on the current turn.
But it is not, it is a totally delayed Market and thus weaker than Caravan in two respects: Lab is better than Market and totally delayed is worse than only the non-cantrip part being delayed (like in the case of Caravan).

We know from the Night-Durations that delaying the card draw is OK. But the card being terminal on the current term is definitely not something you want, you want the +1 Action now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 07, 2020, 11:45:17 am

Quote from: Aquila on May 05, 2020, 04:36:30 am

It seems prudent to mention that Donald's testing found that it's bad to Exile useful cards. I guess it feels awful when another player empties that pile out or something.

Anyhow, my entry:

Quote

Relief Aid - Action Victory, $4 cost.
You may let each player (including yourself) trash a Copper from their hand. Exile up to 2 Coppers from the trash.
-
Worth 1VP per 3 Coppers you have in Exile (round down).

Edit: made the copper trashing optional, using wording that doesn't appear on any official card. Does it make sense? Each player has the option to trash if you let them, they aren't forced to.

It almost reads like you choose per-other-player whether they can or not?
Like if I'm playing against Aquila, Barbarossa41, and ConMan, I can say, hey, Aquila, you get to trash a copper this turn, and i get to, but not Barbarossa41 or ConMan.
I know you're more experienced of a designer than to make that political of a card but someone newer to the game may see it that way.

You may want to do something like

Quote

Choose one or both:
Each other player may trash a Copper from their hand; or Trash a Copper from your hand.

Exile up to 2 Coppers from the trash
-
Worth 1% per 3 Coppers you have Exiled (round down).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 07, 2020, 12:04:13 pm

Quote from: segura on May 07, 2020, 12:33:16 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 05:52:54 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on May 06, 2020, 09:22:34 am

Quote from: Carline on May 06, 2020, 06:00:03 am

Quote

Great Cathedral • $4 • Project

At the start of your turn, choose one: exile a card from your hand; or put a non-treasure card from exile into your hand.

Cathedral is already the 2nd strongest card-shaped thing in the game and not only is this way stronger, there's a 50% chance that only one player can buy it on turn 1 which puts the other at a severe disadvantage.

I just realized that this 50% is wrong... each player has a 50% chance of being able to afford it on turn 1; which is a 25% chance that one player but not both players will be able to buy it turn 1.

No, Awaclus is right. The chance that Alice gets heads and Bob tails is indeed 0.25. But the chance that one of them gets heads while the other gets tails is 0.5.

Oh oops. Or maybe I'll just pretend it wasn't a mistake, and I actually only cared about the chances of me getting screwed, not of my opponent getting screwed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holger on May 07, 2020, 12:54:14 pm

Quote from: segura on May 07, 2020, 12:33:16 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 06, 2020, 05:52:54 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on May 06, 2020, 09:22:34 am

Quote from: Carline on May 06, 2020, 06:00:03 am

Quote

Great Cathedral • $4 • Project

At the start of your turn, choose one: exile a card from your hand; or put a non-treasure card from exile into your hand.

Cathedral is already the 2nd strongest card-shaped thing in the game and not only is this way stronger, there's a 50% chance that only one player can buy it on turn 1 which puts the other at a severe disadvantage.

I just realized that this 50% is wrong... each player has a 50% chance of being able to afford it on turn 1; which is a 25% chance that one player but not both players will be able to buy it turn 1.

No, Awaclus is right. The chance that Alice gets heads and Bob tails is indeed 0.25. But the chance that one of them gets heads while the other gets tails is 0.5.

Indeed. For comparison, the chance that one player has a 5/2 start and the other has a 4/3 start (ignoring the order in both cases) is 10/36, or about 28%.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on May 07, 2020, 05:30:04 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 07, 2020, 11:45:17 am

Quote from: Aquila on May 05, 2020, 04:36:30 am

It seems prudent to mention that Donald's testing found that it's bad to Exile useful cards. I guess it feels awful when another player empties that pile out or something.

Anyhow, my entry:

Quote

Relief Aid - Action Victory, $4 cost.
You may let each player (including yourself) trash a Copper from their hand. Exile up to 2 Coppers from the trash.
-
Worth 1VP per 3 Coppers you have in Exile (round down).

Edit: made the copper trashing optional, using wording that doesn't appear on any official card. Does it make sense? Each player has the option to trash if you let them, they aren't forced to.

It almost reads like you choose per-other-player whether they can or not?
Like if I'm playing against Aquila, Barbarossa41, and ConMan, I can say, hey, Aquila, you get to trash a copper this turn, and i get to, but not Barbarossa41 or ConMan.
I know you're more experienced of a designer than to make that political of a card but someone newer to the game may see it that way.

You may want to do something like

Quote

Choose one or both:
Each other player may trash a Copper from their hand; or Trash a Copper from your hand.

Exile up to 2 Coppers from the trash
-
Worth 1% per 3 Coppers you have Exiled (round down).

OK, let's try avoiding fancy wording:

Quote

Relief Aid - Action Victory, $4 cost.
You may trash a Copper from your hand. If you do, each other player may trash a Copper from their hand. Exile up to 2 Coppers from the trash.
-
Worth 1VP per 3 Coppers you have in Exile (round down).

It just looks clumsy, but I guess it's fine. Either everyone may trash or nobody does, your choice. I hope it's an interesting choice for the opponents; sometimes you need to keep a Copper, sometimes you don't want to give VP away even though you're thinning the deck.
Although actually, there's not much that can be done to counter an opposing Relief Aid other than going with your own and contesting the Coppers, you're not going to hold them back and keep them in deck, so it might just cause mirror games...

Alright, here's a new entry:

Quote

Escapist - Action Attack, $4 cost.
+ $2
Each other player gains a Curse. They may reveal a Curse from their hand; if anyone does, Exile this.

Opponents can get a bit of payback, but hopefully not enough to avoid getting this at all.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on May 09, 2020, 05:25:22 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/courier.png)

Quote

Courier - Action - $4
+2$
Gain an Action card to the top of your Deck. Each other player may Exile a copy of the card from the Supply.

Anyone else's favorite part of Messenger the on-buy part? This card builds on that idea by making it the main focus. Everyone gets this card, but the player of the Courier gets it very soon (next turn, or even this turn) while everyone else needs to buy a copy first.

There's a bunch of clever ways to use Courier. You want to courier a card that people don't want more than one copy of. Stop cards could be good. The problem is, Courier is already a stop card, so you have to keep that in mind.

Open to feedback! The general mechanic of gain to top of deck, other people exile, is the fixed and important (and I think fun) concept of the card. The bonus (in this case, +2$ but it has to be terminal for sure), the limit of what cards you can gain (limiting to action vs limiting by price?) could change for sure.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on May 09, 2020, 06:49:06 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on May 09, 2020, 05:25:22 pm

Quote

Courier - Action - $4
+2$
Gain an Action card to the top of your Deck. Each other player may Exile a copy of the card from the Supply.

I really like this. Not sure about the balance, but seems reasonable as is. It might actually be quite strong.
The main uses will probably be the "only I get a copy" use that messenger has, where you play it, gaining something whose pile you empty by the end of the turn. Notably, it is much easier than messenger to be the only person who gets a copy - all you have to do in run the pile this turn, and their cards are stuck in exile forever.

Any reason why there is a "may"? Seems unnecessary; it is very hard for an Exiled Action to hurt you.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on May 09, 2020, 07:41:23 pm

Quote from: mad4math on May 09, 2020, 06:49:06 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on May 09, 2020, 05:25:22 pm

Quote

Courier - Action - $4
+2$
Gain an Action card to the top of your Deck. Each other player may Exile a copy of the card from the Supply.

I really like this. Not sure about the balance, but seems reasonable as is. It might actually be quite strong.
The main uses will probably be the "only I get a copy" use that messenger has, where you play it, gaining something whose pile you empty by the end of the turn. Notably, it is much easier than messenger to be the only person who gets a copy - all you have to do in run the pile this turn, and their cards are stuck in exile forever.

Any reason why there is a "may"? Seems unnecessary; it is very hard for an Exiled Action to hurt you.

The reason for the "may" is to weaken it in ways I think are interesting. Namely, it combats the issue you mentioned how it's easier than messenger to be the only person with a copy. The player to the left can choose to not exile a copy so there is one more in the supply for them to gain on their next turn. You're right, for the vast majority of time, the other players will probably exile a copy. Even if they don't want the card, they lose nothing by having it exiled (except for Wall, etc). But giving them the choice helps out a bit to weaken the card, and I agree it seems like one of the stronger 4s, so I'd like to keep the may clause. If you think it would add too much AP or complexity, I could be persuaded to drop the may, it would be simpler. But that was my reasoning.

Thanks for the thoughts!

I didn't "may" the gaining though, and I don't plan on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on May 09, 2020, 08:10:01 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on May 09, 2020, 05:25:22 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/courier.png)

Quote

Courier - Action - $4
+2$
Gain an Action card to the top of your Deck. Each other player may Exile a copy of the card from the Supply.

Anyone else's favorite part of Messenger the on-buy part? This card builds on that idea by making it the main focus. Everyone gets this card, but the player of the Courier gets it very soon (next turn, or even this turn) while everyone else needs to buy a copy first.

There's a bunch of clever ways to use Courier. You want to courier a card that people don't want more than one copy of. Stop cards could be good. The problem is, Courier is already a stop card, so you have to keep that in mind.

Open to feedback! The general mechanic of gain to top of deck, other people exile, is the fixed and important (and I think fun) concept of the card. The bonus (in this case, +2$ but it has to be terminal for sure), the limit of what cards you can gain (limiting to action vs limiting by price?) could change for sure.

This is gonna run out piles real quick... There's a reason messenger is on buy, and only your first one at that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on May 10, 2020, 02:12:18 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on May 09, 2020, 05:25:22 pm

Anyone else's favorite part of Messenger the on-buy part? This card builds on that idea by making it the main focus. Everyone gets this card, but the player of the Courier gets it very soon (next turn, or even this turn) while everyone else needs to buy a copy first.
...

Or they just get their own Courier and gain a copy. That might emphasise pile emptying even more, and the lock in Exile forever bit depending on seating order.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 10, 2020, 02:36:54 am

Seems too strong and too centralizing to me. I'd make it a $5 or leave it at $4 but as terminal Copper or without virtual Coins. Being able to gain a $5 onto your deck after the first shuffle is already pretty strong (there is a reason DXV priced Artisan at $6).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on May 10, 2020, 03:00:00 am

This is potentially quite powerful. A 3 cost card that does more than an Overlord. However it is slowed down by the fact that you have to put the card it copies onto your Exile mat. Is that enough to weaken it? I hope so.

(https://i.imgur.com/hz3ASIx.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Optimal_Inefficiency on May 10, 2020, 08:26:32 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 10, 2020, 03:00:00 am

This is potentially quite powerful. A 3 cost card that does more than an Overlord. However it is slowed down by the fact that you have to put the card it copies onto your Exile mat. Is that enough to weaken it? I hope so.

(https://i.imgur.com/hz3ASIx.png)

I thought about doing something like this. I really like the exiling reaction!

I do wonder if $3 is too low of a cost...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Optimal_Inefficiency on May 10, 2020, 09:49:23 am

Quote from: Carline on May 06, 2020, 05:59:03 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 06, 2020, 03:09:15 am

If this would be the only card in kingdom related to exile mat, the attack part won't work. Your opponents will never discard a card from exile.

And what about this thing I pointed about the attack, don't you think it's important?

I saw this and considered it. I’m sorry I didn’t explicitly reply to your comment, but my plan is to make the card valuable enough to justify the cost even if the attack is meaningless (i.e. exiling is not in the kingdom).

I would like to update my entry, but first I’d like some forum feedback. Which of those two do you all think would be better?

(https://i.imgur.com/29ihhRQ_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)   (https://i.imgur.com/n3X6nC7_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

Quote

Revision #1
Thelony — ($5)(Action - Attack - Reaction)
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1. While this is in play, when any other player discards a card from their Exile mat on their turn, they take <1>.

Quote

Revision #2
Thelony — ($6)(Action - Attack - Reaction)
+1 Card
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy, and +$1. While this is in play, the first time any other player discards a card from their Exile mat on their turn, they take <1>.

I’ll save you all the google and tell you the definition of thelony is, “A toll or custom required from travelling merchants as a tax on doing business.” (Source: Wikipedia)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 10, 2020, 01:54:03 pm

I think the second works better. Even if your opponents opt to not proc the attack, you get more immediate benefits and it doesn't terminal in your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 10, 2020, 02:34:02 pm

While it lacks the versatility of Captain, a delayed level 3 City is nonetheless slightly stronger and too straightforward. You get all you need for an engine via one card alone.
Also, the power difference between those two cards is enormous.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on May 10, 2020, 04:06:46 pm

What about a halfway one, where it just gives the action, not the card?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 10, 2020, 04:35:10 pm

I neither get the Attack which does nothing in most Kingdoms nor the appeal of a random collection of vanilla bonuses which is entirely unrelated to the Attack. Nor am I a friend of cantrip Attacks, even if they are highly Kingdom sensitive.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BlueHairedMeerkat on May 10, 2020, 06:26:49 pm

Okay, let's get weird:

Export
Event
$0
-------------
Once per turn: +1 Buy. Exile a Gold you have in play. If you do, +1VP and you cards cannot leave your Exile mat this turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on May 10, 2020, 07:44:46 pm

24 HOUR WARNING

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on May 10, 2020, 10:08:06 pm

Xanadu
Action - Victory
$6
Exile a non-victory card from your hand.
---
Worth 1 VP per different named card in your exile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 10, 2020, 10:59:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jAqJE17.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on May 11, 2020, 12:14:27 am

Update of previous entry

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/courierduration.png)

Quote

Courier - Action Duration - $5
Gain an Action card and set it aside. Each other player may Exile a copy of that card from the Supply. At the start of your next turn, play the set aside card.

I decided to update Courier. I agreed it was a little bit too fast in causing pile-outs. There's a few solutions to slowing it down while keeping the core mechanic. (1) It can self-exile. (2) It can not "work" on piles that are low or when any pile is gone. (3) It can use the journey token and only gain every other play (4) or it can be a duration so it can only work on second play. (there's actually another solution, but happening on-gain or on-buy is well covered by messenger and not worth revisiting). Self exile(1) is interesting but it's hard to make a one-shot version powerful enough. I wanted this to remain big font, and couldn't easily do that with changing its behavior based on pile size (2). (3) Journey token seemed okay but kind of wordy. I decided to go with Duration to make the gain a little stronger, with the problem that it does absolutely nothing on this turn. It also slows down the pile-out by being a duration.

There's only 24 hours left, so I may not be able to make any changes, but I'm curious if any of y'all think that any of the 1-3 choices could have been better to explore.

Of course let me know your thoughts.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on May 11, 2020, 12:29:01 am

THIS IS THE SILLY VERSION. FOR MY REAL CURRENT SUBMISSION, SEE REPLY #5605 BELOW.

I’ve been staring at this card for two or three weeks and can’t fix it. Broken? Maybe. Infinite loops? Could be. Golden decks? Sure looks like it. But what about fun? FUN!!!

Anyone have a fix? It could return Treasures to hand instead of Actions, and be optional to still leave room for Copper trashing, but that doesn’t seem like nearly as much . . . fun?


(https://abload.de/img/papalbullcontest3ekj3.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 11, 2020, 01:57:50 am

Quote from: spheremonk on May 11, 2020, 12:29:01 am

(https://abload.de/img/papalbullcontest3ekj3.png)

God, so many infinite combos...
Mining Village, Raze, any other self-trasher with Champion or Adventures tokens (Death Cart, Pillage, Engineer, Treasure Map), Procession is maybe not infinite but certainly absurd, Apprentice is crazy, Rebuild is crazy, Bishop is pretty crazy, Salt the Earth is disgusting, Lurker is disgusting.

Although, in the absence of these cards, and the presence of more reasonable trashing like Remodel variants or other TfB, it seems pretty fun, but those seem like a minority of boards. I assume that's why Fortress is a village; to make it so you want it even if its below-line isn't relevant.

I think you could fix the worst problems by making it "the first time each turn that you trash...", though that doesn't fix Salt which is probably the worst non-infinite combo. Maybe you could also word it like Market Square, where the trashed card has to be YOURS.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 11, 2020, 05:07:32 am

This is a great design!

I like the Salvager combo: take one Province out of your deck and get the payload for another one.  8)
The Lurker combo is pretty crazy too.

If I get stop-move correctly, Action-Victories land in your hand but are not Exiled.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on May 11, 2020, 05:10:15 am

Updated my nom. With the on-buy effect, the card is less narrow and TfB strategies are a little stronger when two of the starter cards are gone.

(https://i.imgur.com/riGQrHk.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 11, 2020, 05:42:15 am

(https://i.imgur.com/NPRCkve.png)
I thought Exile would be a good fit for a Lookout-ish trasher because it means it's much less of a disaster if you hit 3 good cards. This is a last minute attempt at something along those lines.

Quote from: Aquila on May 05, 2020, 04:36:30 am

It seems prudent to mention that Donald's testing found that it's bad to Exile useful cards. I guess it feels awful when another player empties that pile out or something.

I know it's a bit last minute to bring this up, but where are you getting this from? A bunch of the official cards are exclusively used to, or give incentive to Exiling useful cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on May 11, 2020, 07:38:57 am

Here is my entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/UbBeEAp.png)

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on May 05, 2020, 03:36:11 am

(https://i.imgur.com/riGQrHk.png)

I came up with that idea independ from your card. Well, I did see your Green Network before, but between that and making Repair there were some days and so I did not remember it anymore.
I first refused to submit my card, because it was too similar to yours. (At that point the second sentence did not exist.) Plus you I figured you could still TfB Province into Province, if you immediatly discard the Exiled Province, and I did not like it.
Then I came up with that "break the rules of Projects" part and I think now it is both different enough from yours and hard enough to TfB Province into Province (still possible with more efford, and for that efford its fair). So here it is.
I hope you don't mind :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 11, 2020, 08:39:43 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 10, 2020, 03:00:00 am

This is potentially quite powerful. A 3 cost card that does more than an Overlord. However it is slowed down by the fact that you have to put the card it copies onto your Exile mat. Is that enough to weaken it? I hope so.

(https://i.imgur.com/hz3ASIx.png)

Some Watchtower vibes in terms of the versatility of the Reaction. You can use it to build up the emulator power or you can use it to Exile green or purple.
There is funky stuff like Exiling several cards per copy of Portal in a Garden game (Sanctuary or Bounty Hunter can only Exile one) imaginable, e.g. Beggar-Gardens-Portal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on May 11, 2020, 09:07:33 am

Quote from: Gazbag on May 11, 2020, 05:42:15 am

(https://i.imgur.com/NPRCkve.png)
I thought Exile would be a good fit for a Lookout-ish trasher because it means it's much less of a disaster if you hit 3 good cards. This is a last minute attempt at something along those lines.

Quote from: Aquila on May 05, 2020, 04:36:30 am

It seems prudent to mention that Donald's testing found that it's bad to Exile useful cards. I guess it feels awful when another player empties that pile out or something.

I know it's a bit last minute to bring this up, but where are you getting this from? A bunch of the official cards are exclusively used to, or give incentive to Exiling useful cards.

Yeah, I remembered Displace after I posted this. This is from the Menagerie Secret History:

Quote

The cards that tried to save cards for later in Exile included one suggested by Matt, that seeded Exile with something and always made you swap. Initially it was Silver but that was nuts; then it was Copper and well, did I mention you don't really want to put your good cards into Exile for later? You just don't.

So it's just the choice of saving for later that's bad, and being forced to Exile something good for a bonus or penalty is fine. I should have read this twice and been more specific, sorry if I misled anyone.

Gaoler is nice in that you could save for later if you really wanted to, but it's not its primary function. Clean and elegant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on May 11, 2020, 10:03:08 am

Quote from: Rhodos on May 11, 2020, 07:38:57 am

Here is my entry:

(https://i.imgur.com/UbBeEAp.png)

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on May 05, 2020, 03:36:11 am

(https://i.imgur.com/riGQrHk.png)

I came up with that idea independ from your card. Well, I did see your Green Network before, but between that and making Repair there were some days and so I did not remember it anymore.
I first refused to submit my card, because it was too similar to yours. (At that point the second sentence did not exist.) Plus you I figured you could still TfB Province into Province, if you immediatly discard the Exiled Province, and I did not like it.
Then I came up with that "break the rules of Projects" part and I think now it is both different enough from yours and hard enough to TfB Province into Province (still possible with more efford, and for that efford its fair). So here it is.
I hope you don't mind :)

It's definitely different enough  ;)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 11, 2020, 10:12:11 am

i think i'm gonna do a last minute change to my entry. (sorry Xtra if you've typed up a response on it already); i think this is more novel and the other not as interesting.

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eb95d661524185f79d54758/246787cbfb965e7bb8f4e5adf7bf16fc/image.png)

Quote

Agitator • $4 • Action - Attack - Reaction
Exile up to 2 cards from your hand. You may choose a card on each other player's Exile mat; they discard it.
-
When you gain, trash, Exile, or reveal this (using the word "reveal"), you may Exile a card from your hand.

Instead of the usual exile-attack route of 'good card denial', this attacks the usual exile strategy of 'de-junking', putting bad cards back in opponent decks. It has the reaction/on gain/on trash to keep the flow of cards going towards your exile mat in a mirror situation.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on May 11, 2020, 10:16:53 am

Quote from: segura on May 11, 2020, 08:39:43 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 10, 2020, 03:00:00 am

This is potentially quite powerful. A 3 cost card that does more than an Overlord. However it is slowed down by the fact that you have to put the card it copies onto your Exile mat. Is that enough to weaken it? I hope so.

(https://i.imgur.com/hz3ASIx.png)

Some Watchtower vibes in terms of the versatility of the Reaction. You can use it to build up the emulator power or you can use it to Exile green or purple.
There is funky stuff like Exiling several cards per copy of Portal in a Garden game (Sanctuary or Bounty Hunter can only Exile one) imaginable, e.g. Beggar-Gardens-Portal.

I agree. I would make it so that you have discard it, when you react with it. If that seems too weak you could make it draw a card afterwards. Or one could limit that effect to the first time you gain a card.
However it might be a matter of taste, the cases where you could abuse it are narrow (I guess). If you put several Action cards there for flexibility, you don't get them into your deck. And Beggar-Gardens-Portal are already 3 specific cards, I would rarely blame a card for being in a 3-card combo.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 11, 2020, 10:24:34 am

Quote from: spineflu on May 11, 2020, 10:12:11 am

i think i'm gonna do a last minute change to my entry. (sorry Xtra if you've typed up a response on it already)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e42ebce1181de1d515adb5b/5eb43fdc0da2471d6661a500/e4a9eb93377ea7bcfeb0a6b21b2b3b11/image.png)

Quote

Agitator • $5 • Action - Attack - Reaction
Exile up to 2 cards from your hand.
Choose up to 2 cards on each other player's Exile mat; they discard them.
-
When you gain, trash, or reveal this (using the word "reveal"), you may Exile a card from your hand.

Instead of the usual exile-attack route of 'good card denial', this attacks the usual exile strategy of 'de-junking', putting bad cards back in opponent decks. It has the reaction/on gain/on trash to keep the flow of cards going towards your exile mat in a mirror situation.

You are basically forced to mirror this in a 2P game, implying a stalemate like situation in which both players have a terminal in their deck which net-achieves nothing. This is OK, it only leads to a forced "resource wastage" situation but does not impact gameplayer negatively.

Not so in 3P games. I fear that there is a first-to-get advantage:
Consider the "freerider" equilibrium: Alice and Bob buy Agitator while Charlie does not. Can this arise? Probably not. If Alice gets Agitator, Bob realizes that him getting Agitator will hurt Alice and help Charlie while it will do nothing for him (Attacks cancel each other out). So why should he waste a precious $5 Buy?

If my analysis is correct, only one player will have Agitators in multiplayer games. That's a serious issue and it will make the game highly swingy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 11, 2020, 10:31:03 am

Quote from: Rhodos on May 11, 2020, 10:16:53 am

Quote from: segura on May 11, 2020, 08:39:43 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 10, 2020, 03:00:00 am

This is potentially quite powerful. A 3 cost card that does more than an Overlord. However it is slowed down by the fact that you have to put the card it copies onto your Exile mat. Is that enough to weaken it? I hope so.

(https://i.imgur.com/hz3ASIx.png)

Some Watchtower vibes in terms of the versatility of the Reaction. You can use it to build up the emulator power or you can use it to Exile green or purple.
There is funky stuff like Exiling several cards per copy of Portal in a Garden game (Sanctuary or Bounty Hunter can only Exile one) imaginable, e.g. Beggar-Gardens-Portal.

I agree. I would make it so that you have discard it, when you react with it. If that seems too weak you could make it draw a card afterwards. Or one could limit that effect to the first time you gain a card.
However it might be a matter of taste, the cases where you could abuse it are narrow (I guess). If you put several Action cards there for flexibility, you don't get them into your deck. And Beggar-Gardens-Portal are already 3 specific cards, I would rarely blame a card for being in a 3-card combo.

I don't think that it is overpowered. As you pointed out, building this up what is a an Overlord in Kingdom without funky Action card costs (Debt, Potion, >5) is very costly so its main source of power is likely Exiling green and purple.

Sure, in an engine a card that Exiles the very 2 Provinces you just gained sounds brilliant, but you still had to gain a terminal which did nothing during build-up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 11, 2020, 10:37:45 am

Quote from: segura on May 11, 2020, 10:24:34 am

Quote from: spineflu on May 11, 2020, 10:12:11 am

i think i'm gonna do a last minute change to my entry. (sorry Xtra if you've typed up a response on it already)

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e42ebce1181de1d515adb5b/5eb43fdc0da2471d6661a500/e4a9eb93377ea7bcfeb0a6b21b2b3b11/image.png)

Quote

Agitator • $5 • Action - Attack - Reaction
Exile up to 2 cards from your hand.
Choose up to 2 cards on each other player's Exile mat; they discard them.
-
When you gain, trash, or reveal this (using the word "reveal"), you may Exile a card from your hand.

Instead of the usual exile-attack route of 'good card denial', this attacks the usual exile strategy of 'de-junking', putting bad cards back in opponent decks. It has the reaction/on gain/on trash to keep the flow of cards going towards your exile mat in a mirror situation.

You are basically forced to mirror this in a 2P game, implying a stalemate like situation in which both players have a terminal in their deck which net-achieves nothing. This is OK, it only leads to a forced "resource wastage" situation but does not impact gameplayer negatively.

Not so in 3P games. I fear that there is a first-to-get advantage:
Consider the "freerider" equilibrium: Alice and Bob buy Agitator while Charlie does not. Can this arise? Probably not. If Alice gets Agitator, Bob realizes that him getting Agitator will hurt Alice and help Charlie while it will do nothing for him (Attacks cancel each other out). So why should he waste a precious $5 Buy?

If my analysis is correct, only one player will have Agitators in multiplayer games. That's a serious issue and it will make the game highly swingy.

If it de-exiled one card rather than two, this problem goes away, yes? I changed it (and turned it into a $4)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on May 11, 2020, 10:42:38 am

Quote from: segura on May 11, 2020, 10:31:03 am

Quote from: Rhodos on May 11, 2020, 10:16:53 am

Quote from: segura on May 11, 2020, 08:39:43 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 10, 2020, 03:00:00 am

This is potentially quite powerful. A 3 cost card that does more than an Overlord. However it is slowed down by the fact that you have to put the card it copies onto your Exile mat. Is that enough to weaken it? I hope so.

(https://i.imgur.com/hz3ASIx.png)

Some Watchtower vibes in terms of the versatility of the Reaction. You can use it to build up the emulator power or you can use it to Exile green or purple.
There is funky stuff like Exiling several cards per copy of Portal in a Garden game (Sanctuary or Bounty Hunter can only Exile one) imaginable, e.g. Beggar-Gardens-Portal.

I agree. I would make it so that you have discard it, when you react with it. If that seems too weak you could make it draw a card afterwards. Or one could limit that effect to the first time you gain a card.
However it might be a matter of taste, the cases where you could abuse it are narrow (I guess). If you put several Action cards there for flexibility, you don't get them into your deck. And Beggar-Gardens-Portal are already 3 specific cards, I would rarely blame a card for being in a 3-card combo.

I don't think that it is overpowered. As you pointed out, building this up what is a an Overlord in Kingdom without funky Action card costs (Debt, Potion, >5) is very costly so its main source of power is likely Exiling green and purple.

Sure, in an engine a card that Exiles the very 2 Provinces you just gained sounds brilliant, but you still had to gain a terminal which did nothing during build-up.

Okay, got you wrong there.
So yes, I think it can stay as is, I just wanted to give possible tweaks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 11, 2020, 11:57:39 am

(https://i.imgur.com/v1UtBdB.png)

Quote

Viceroy -$4
Action/Command

Name an Action card. Each other player Exiles a copy of it. If they did, play it twice, leaving it there.

Clarification: It fails if at least one opponent didn't gain a copy. The copy that is played is the one from the player to your left's Exlie mat, in case that matters.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on May 11, 2020, 12:05:45 pm

Thanks for the thoughts. I have substantially modified the silly version of my card above. Something_Smart’s suggestions were similar in several ways to what my son and I have been discussing on this end. I considered simply limiting the effect to first time on your turn, and not to “your card,”  thinking the Lurker interaction might be a “trick” but not quite abusive, but putting together Lurker/Salt and repeating them, even only once a turn, seemed bad. Here is my current submission:


(https://abload.de/img/papalbullcontestv2ijk5k.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on May 11, 2020, 12:06:45 pm

Quote from: segura on May 11, 2020, 05:07:32 am

If I get stop-move correctly, Action-Victories land in your hand but are not Exiled.

That is my understanding as well. I had written an FAQ for laughs, but it seemed too silly to publish on top of the silly card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 11, 2020, 12:10:28 pm

Quote from: faust on May 11, 2020, 11:57:39 am

Quote

Viceroy -$4
Action/Command

Name an Action card. Each other player Exiles a copy of it. If they did, play it twice, leaving it there.

I think a card played has to be in a specified place... maybe say "if the player to your right Exiled a copy of it, play it, leaving it there."

I guess that's not actually true a la Vassal/Village Green (and Vassal/Faithful Hound I suppose), but it certainly seems simpler to refer to a specific copy of the card as being played.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 11, 2020, 12:15:39 pm

You're right though that in practice it shouldn't matter, but I could hypothetically imagine a card that can instantly discard a card from Exile as a Reaction or something, and then you can have a case where you play Viceroy to empty a pile and your opponent uses this effect and then you have to play a card despite it not being visible anywhere on the table.

I guess my version doesn't really fix that though, and the problem already exists with something like Crown on Crown on Artisan for Mandarin. So maybe it's not a big deal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: bitwise on May 11, 2020, 01:37:07 pm

My submission:

Trophy Collector
Action - $4 cost

Choose one: Exile a card from your hand, or +$1 per two differently named cards on your Exile mat, rounded down.
---
Setup: In games using this, each player starts with a Silver and a Gold on their Exile mat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on May 11, 2020, 02:13:05 pm

Quote from: bitwise on May 11, 2020, 01:37:07 pm

My submission:

Trophy Collector
Action - $4 cost

Choose one: Exile a card from your hand, or +$1 per two differently named cards on your Exile mat, rounded down.
---
Setup: In games using this, each player starts with a Silver and a Gold on their Exile mat.

This is cool, especially how the setup interacts with the card and is nevertheless interesting on its own!

But I would at least give the second option a +1 Action, or maybe even both parts. The reason being, that you might get to 4 different cards in Exile soon, but more than that is quite difficult without Exiling good cards (Shelters are an exception). And this even implies that you keep your Silver and Gold there. So then you have a terminal +$2 which is pretty bad, so why would you go for it in the first place. Also most trasher/Exilers are better than the first part.
I know that flexibility is a big upside, but here each part is so weak that the combination of both does not make up for it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 11, 2020, 06:48:36 pm

Quote from: faust on May 11, 2020, 11:57:39 am

(https://i.imgur.com/v1UtBdB.png)

Quote

Viceroy -$4
Action/Command

Name an Action card. Each other player Exiles a copy of it. If they did, play it twice, leaving it there.

Clarification: It fails if at least one opponent didn't gain a copy. The copy that is played is the one from the player to your left's Exlie mat, in case that matters.

Since you said that opponents gain a copy, I Think you want them to exile from supply. But if pile is out, have they to exile a copy from their hand, if any? Or also, can they choose to exile from their hand if it is an action they don't want to use anymore or don't want to pile out? If you don't want these options, I think you would better write "Each other player Exiles a copy of it from supply" in the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on May 11, 2020, 07:00:11 pm

Alright guys, at this point, if you make any modifications on your entries or add new ones, they might not make the cut for this week's judging. Also, Optimal_Inefficiency, I don’t know which one of your 2 cards you wish to enter, so I’ll arbitrary choose the latter. Sorry in advance if I picked the wrong card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 11, 2020, 07:20:59 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 11, 2020, 06:48:36 pm

Quote from: faust on May 11, 2020, 11:57:39 am

(https://i.imgur.com/v1UtBdB.png)

Quote

Viceroy -$4
Action/Command

Name an Action card. Each other player Exiles a copy of it. If they did, play it twice, leaving it there.

Clarification: It fails if at least one opponent didn't gain a copy. The copy that is played is the one from the player to your left's Exlie mat, in case that matters.

Since you said that opponents gain a copy, I Think you want them to exile from supply. But if pile is out, have they to exile a copy from their hand, if any? Or also, can they choose to exile from their hand if it is an action they don't want to use anymore or don't want to pile out? If you don't want these options, I think you would better write "Each other player Exiles a copy of it from supply" in the card.

As it is, I think opponents can choose even to exile a copy from your play area. Is that (what I'm saying) correct?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on May 11, 2020, 09:31:40 pm

CONTEST 72 RESULTS

Alright, time to judge. As always, if you’d like to have a rebuttal against what I’ve written, please do so. It’s all about helping one get better at judging. So yeah, I encourage you to show me where you have disagreements and stuff. It’s all in good spirit!

Now, seems like this week’s contest isn’t as a “ball in the park” as I thought it was. Exiling is a new mechanic and this makes it a little harder to judge what is balanced and what isn’t. Especially when it comes to the price of a card. Plus, we only have a short list (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Exile) of existing Exiling cards to deal with. Grep’s contest of doing Horse stuff also had that same consequence, but I believe that Horse cards are more straight-forward in their usage than Exiling. This is highly reflected by the sheer amount of discussion about balance this week’s contest generated. But I’m glad you guys did so. It really shows an obvious desire to create; and to create well. So good job everyone for making the most of that Exiling contest!

And now, let’s see the entries. We’ve got 27, just like last week! I feel you, Grep, lol. Uhhh so yeah. Two things I’ve noticed: Lots of cards priced at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) and a lot of Projects! Anyway, let’s take a look:

Quote from: Barbarossa41 on May 04, 2020, 09:34:29 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Manufacturer (Action)
Choose one: Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply; or gain a copy of a card you have at least 3 copies of in Exile.
-----
In games using this, you may not buy cards you have copies of in Exile.

Because this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) and is your only way of un-Exiling stuff in a game using this, I believe there is an edge case to be made in which a player could get stuck not being able to compete if other Exiling Attacks exist in the Kingdom, such as Cardinal or Gatekeeper. Beside that, I don’t know if I want to spend my hard earned (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) on a terminal card which does nothing but eat up my Action phase the first 3 times I use it. Feels like a trap to fall behind. Beside that, you kinda shut yourself off a particular card the first and second time you Exile it with Manufacturer, whereas players who didn’t do that can still freely buy it and laugh at the stuck player who spent (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) to be in that position.

Quote from: majiponi on May 04, 2020, 10:08:35 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) Oki (Action)
Exile up to 2 cards from your hand.

Yes. I like stuff like this. Players see that and immediately go: “Oh okay, I get it. Neat.” Though this card might be a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). I’m comparing it to Sanctuary. Sanctuary replaces 1 of the 2 Exiles of Oki with a “+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy”. A cantrip Buy is, in my opinion, way stronger than a simple Exile. And so, I think in comparison to Sanctuary, Oki should cost less. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) would be my go to. But still, this is a clean and efficient card.

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on May 05, 2020, 04:46:38 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Toolsmith (Action)
Exile 2 non-Victory cards from the Supply costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png).

Hehehe, a rush game card. A quick way to absolutely murder the cheap Action card piles. In truth, this is even faster than Lurker to speed up a game. Like, I can’t exactly calculate how fast a game using Toolsmith would be. But imagine if each player opens with Toolsmith in a 4-player game. Since it’s something that “gains” things in bulk, yeah, I think Toolsmith should be in the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) club, with the other big boys. Cool card though!

Quote from: mandioca15 on May 05, 2020, 08:31:39 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) Recompense (Treasure)
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png)
When you play this, gain a card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) per differently named cards you have in Exile. If it’s a Victory card, trash this.
-----
When you gain this, Exile a card from your hand.

Beside flavor with the name of that card, I don’t see why this needs to be a Treasure. Is it because it was meant to not suck up an Action to be played? If so, I would have removed the big fat (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png) on the card and would have made it a Night card instead. As it is, printed on a card, the text would be super tiny and aesthetically unpleasing. But anyway. So, if this is the only Exiling card in the Kingdom, I hardly see the point on spending (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) to have the possibility of gaining a card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png). At least you’ve Exiled, like, an Estate? Then next time you gain a Recompense, you need to Exile a Copper to gain stuff costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) now? This seems too slow and too expensive to beat a simple (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) costing Workshop that gains you (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) cards right off the bat, even if you have to spend an Action to do so.

Quote from: grep on May 05, 2020, 01:04:01 pm

Way of the Cicada (Way)
Exile this and a copy of this from the Supply. Once per game: You may set aside all copies of this you have in Exile. If you did, play them all.

Wouldn’t this make it too easy to gain duplicates of stuff you really want, such as Nobles or stuff like that? There could be a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) limit on which Action card can make use of this Way. Probably would make this too wordy though. But a cool Way nonetheless! Definitely goes hand-in-hand with other wild ways such as Way of the Chameleon and Way of the Mouse!

Quote from: alion8me on May 05, 2020, 02:27:05 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Sanctum (Action)
+1 Card
+1 Action
Choose one: Put a card from Exile into your hand; or you may Exile a card from your hand that you do not already have a copy of in Exile.

This is nice. A utility card where its power is not-so-obvious at first. This makes it so your deck can handle more terminal Actions than it usually would. It’s sort of a nicely controlled Native Village and I love that. Always had bad luck with Native Village. I’d feel luckier with Sanctum.

Quote from: Fragasnap on May 05, 2020, 09:15:34 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) New World (Event)
Once per game: Put the cards you have in Exile into your hand. Exile all cards from your deck, your discard pile and that you have in play.
-----
Setup: Each player Exiles 2 Coppers, 1 Gold and 2 Curses from the Supply and the same set of 4 different unused Action cards.

There are a lot of words on this card. In my opinion, horizontal cards should not have more than 3 lines of text. I know this sounds like something I shouldn’t focus on, but to me that is part of the whole package that is card design. For instance, I don’t think Donald X. would include a card with so much text on it without scrapping the idea entirely. This is definitely a hard hurdle when designing stuff and seriously limits one’s creativity, but that just makes having to work around it a fun little puzzle! Now, I definitely do not want you to think that because you made a card art for this, I immediately spotted the squished text as opposed to those who simply write their card in quote boxes here. That’d be unfair. In fact, check out “Recompense” and “Trophy Collector” on this list, where I once more raise this concern. These cards only came in text form.

But anyway. Cool card name, fits right with the theme of Exiling! This to me wins brownie points. Again, part of the whole card designing package. The idea behind the card is super neat. Originality is oozing from New World and man, do I respect that. This might shift the game entirely toward New World though. Like, it’s gotta be bought at some point. Either at the beginning when you don’t want to invest in stuff you’ll Exile anyway, or when you have bought a sufficient amount of Victory cards toward mid-end game when you don’t want to have ‘em in your hands anymore. But it’s gotta be bought at some point. Otherwise, you’re behind. Kinda like with Donate. The 2 Curses Exiled by default also makes it so that the Curse pile is super small during a game using New World. Almost invalidating certain Cursing Attacks. Hard to judge how much of an impact this would have.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on May 05, 2020, 09:51:53 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Coyote (Action)
Exile this or a card from your hand. +1 Card per (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) it costs.
---
When you gain or trash this, you may play it.

Exile a Province. Draw 8 cards. Be happy you’ve Exiled something you didn’t need/want in your deck in the first place. That’s bonkers. When you have a Province in your hand and (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) to spare, just buy a Coyote and immediately play it, exiling said Province. That’s bonkers (think I already said that though). Grep is right, this should only Exile non-Victory cards. Cuz you want those little buggers Exiled anyway. So this’d make the choice harder. Still unsure whether the bottom part of the card should exist though.

Quote from: Supernova888 on May 06, 2020, 06:07:26 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) Commissioner (Action)
+1 Action
If you have any Action card in Exile, put one into your hand. Otherwise, +1 Card and Exile a card from the Supply costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png).

Well that’s a Workshop indeed. Pretty good one too. I think the +1 Card making this a cantrip on Exiling is a little too much though. Just the +1 Action and Exiling clauses together would have been sufficient imo. Otherwise, this is really powerful. Exiling without sacrificing your turn, or gaining to your hand a card you’ve Exiled with a spare Action to play it is just like… Workshop+++. So yeah, maybe that’d be the only thing I’d change. Dropping that +1 Card. S’already a good card anyway!

Quote from: pubby on May 06, 2020, 09:31:58 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Captive Village (Action)
You may Exile an Action card from your hand. Draw until you have 5 cards in hand. +1 Action per unique Action card in your Exile.

My first instinct here is that it takes a lot to setup that card to be worthy. The first time you use it while Exiling something, for instance, this is simply… well, a cantrip. You’d need to open Captive Village + another cheap Action card to power your Captive Villages early. And this is not boding well for you if you’re sacrificing critical early game time for that. Even if you get this up to +4 Actions, I still think it would not have been worth the effort as opposed to simply buying 2/3 Villages (which are also worth  (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)!)

Quote from: D782802859 on May 06, 2020, 09:39:29 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Rebel (Action)
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
Each player (including you) Exiles a Silver from the Supply. If you have at least 3 Silvers in Exile, you may discard them. If you did, you may trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) more.

Player interaction, Silver gaining, Exiling, +Cards, +Buys, trashing, gainer... this is a little much. I don’t think it’s a good idea to have a card with more than one ‘if’ statement. Otherwise, it becomes overly conditional and thus overly convoluted. A card like this would be better broken into two or more smaller cards, maybe even in a split pile! So this card wants you to wait until you have 3 Silvers without discarding them from Exile to be rewarded with a nice trash for benefit. That’s a neat idea. I’m unsure if the player interaction part adds all that much here, but I welcome the intent. I often do lots of non-Attack player interaction stuff for this thread and so I appreciate it when others do so as well!

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 06, 2020, 01:59:18 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Pony (Action)
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Exile an Action card from your hand (or reveal a hand with no Action cards).

I disagree with people who said that this was too weak; from my point of view, this is just right with that cost. So it is a Laboratory that costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) less. Why? Because it Exiles, of course. But is it so much of a consequence? Early game, this is absolutely lovely to open with. If you open Pony/Silver, you’re in a pretty good spot (nothing to Exile; except possibly a Necropolis, but meh). Exiling may not be as much of a torn as we make it out to be; it isn’t particularly hard to retrieve an Exiled card, depending on the candidate. Plus, Pony makes you go through your deck at quite an okay speed, so you’ll see them discarded Exiled cards soon enough anyway. This card is neat.

Quote from: Carline on May 06, 2020, 05:17:06 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png) Great Cathedral (Project)
At the start of your turn, choose one: Exile a card from your hand; or put a non-Treasure card from Exile into your hand

That one’s funny. It’ll be like playing with a 3rd pile of card: Your deck, your discard pile and your Exile pile. I like the Donate mirror price because while it is slower than it, it does stuff forever ‘til you win/lose. So it’s a nice comparison. Great Cathedral is one of those big cards though, so I’m scratching my head figuring out if it’s overpowered. In a way, you’ll get rid of those Victory cards real quick while reaping their benefit, so that’s strong. Once you start greening with Provinces, Great Cathedral will take care of them for you. You won’t slow down too much. You’ll be as clean end game as you are mid game, which can mess up with the tempo of the game. However, that’s not enough for me to say “nah” to this card. I still like it a lot.

Quote from: Aquila on May 07, 2020, 05:30:04 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Escapist (Action – Attack)
+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)
Each other player gains a Curse. They may reveal a Curse from their hand; if anyone does, Exile this.

Eyyy baby, an Attack! This is very Old Witch-y, in the sense that it’s a Cursing Attack that might not always work. Seems like a card that doesn’t scale so well the more players there are. It’s easier to be caught when you are facing 3 opponents rather than just 1. I don’t know if it’s worth un-exiling an Escapist, since it’s mean you’ll be stuck with 2 terminals. But the choice makes it interesting. Neat little Attack.

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 10, 2020, 03:00:00 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Portal (Action – Reaction – Command)
Play this as I it was any non-Command Action card on your Exile mat.
-----
Whenever you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand to Exile the gained card.

Allow me to be super annoying and nitpick on the wording. The top part of the card would be better worded as such: “Play a non-Command Action card you have in Exile, leaving it there”, just to be more consistent with the way other emulators work. Now that we have the formalities out of the way, let me just say: I like this. You guys are all so creative. It’s a slow Emulator, it requires a little bit of setup, but once in place, da-yum! It’s stronger than Band of Misfits AND Overlord since it does not have a cost limit on what card it can emulate. The sluggishness of having to invest in a card you want to Emulate beforehand while having the Portal in your hand is enough to justify a lower price though. I dunno, maybe this should’ve been a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)? There is a little bit of swingy-ness here. But then, that case can be made for stuff like Prince and yet it exists in Dominion. Look. Point is: I like this.

Quote from: Optimal_Inefficiency on May 10, 2020, 09:49:23 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Thelony (Action – Attack – Duration)
+1 Card
+1 Action
At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy and +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png). While this is in play, the first time any other player discards a card from their Exile mat on their turn, they take (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png).

Well, as others have mentioned, the Attack part can be completely invalidated most games Thelony appears in. Now. One could say: “But X-tra, stuff like Hunting Grounds and Squire’s got some stuff that can be impossible to activate in some Kingdoms!” S’true. However, it is but a small part of those cards, it takes very little space text-wise on the card and it is activable in a lot of games. Trashing or Attack cards are so much more common than cards that can Exile, which is only but a small fraction of Dominion. So the whole bottom part of Thelony only serve to make the text of the card smaller and harder to read. As for the top part, it seems really strong. You start your next turn with a Lost City and then some? And you cantriped to get those bonuses? Incredibly strong, even for a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) card!

Quote from: BlueHairedMeerkat on May 10, 2020, 06:26:49 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png) Export (Event)
Once per turn: +1 Buy. Exile a Gold you have in play. If you did, +1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) and your cards cannot leave your Exile mat this turn.

Weird indeed! This card brings forth a lot of conditions for it to essentially award you with 2(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) to Exile 2 Golds. Mind you, that’s an interesting idea. It’s a tough choice to make. The novelty of it is thrilling and brings the realm of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) into Exiling for benefit, something we haven’t seen in Menagerie.

Quote from: artless on May 10, 2020, 10:08:06 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Xanadu (Action – Victory)
Exile a card from your hand.
-----
Worth 1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) per differently named card you have in Exile.

Did not expect anyone to sneak a Victory card in here. Glad you did though, ‘cuz what we have here is pretty bitchin’. It’s actually a very clever way to amass alternate (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) and like cards like the similarly-priced Fairgrounds, it can really shine depending on the Kingdom. But it’s also good on its own. And so it gets a good thumbs up from me. Get some Villages, a source of +Buy and 2 or more Xanadu and you’ll have a nice alt-(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) engine.

Quote from: Something_Smart on May 10, 2020, 10:59:26 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Valley Town (Action)
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may Exile this for +1 Card.

Excellent idea here. Simple, but, in my opinion, it works. I love Villages that costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more because they do a little something else. Not unlike Mining Village, a card which is also a Village with a “You may” thingy in it. This fits right into the spirit of what Exiling should add to Dominion. Sorry I can’t comment more than this for this card, but I won’t invent flaws where there are none (that I can see at least).

Quote from: anordinaryman on May 11, 2020, 12:14:27 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) Courrier (Action - Duration)
Gain an Action card and set it aside. Each other player may Exile a copy of that card from the Supply. At the start of your next turn, play the set aside card.

Summon says hi. Of same cost, this is the best thing to compare this to. Summon is limited in the sense that it can only gain up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). This does not. But it has the consequence of setting your opponents up with a (delayed) copy of the card you’re trying to play. You’ll have to forfeit a Buy to use Summon, but here you must use an Action to use Courrier. Thus, in my book, the cost is justified. Thumbs up to a balanced card!

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on May 11, 2020, 05:10:15 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Green Network (Project)
When you trash a non-Victory card, you may Exile it.
-----
When you buy this, Exile up to 2 cards you have in play.

Thank God for the “non-Victory” clause here! Lots of cards in this list have that but boy is it necessary. Anyway, cool Project.  I like the initial auto-Exile thingy, it’s cute. Probably everyone will acquire this project. Not as urgently as stuff like Star Chart though. So it’s priced correctly, I think. This can be abused with stuff like Lurker though, to auto claim a card you trash from the Supply. In fact, this might be an infinite turn enabler.

Quote from: Gazbag on May 11, 2020, 05:42:15 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) Gaoler (Action)
Exile the top 3 cards of your deck, then put 2 cards you have in Exile into your hand.

Cool idea! A +2 Cards where you can pull them from a pool of set aside cards you’ve stockpiled before. But see, that’s the thing. That’s... essentially a +2 Cards in essence, no? Yeah, there’s some deck culling attributes with Galoer. But when you play it, the immediate effect is that it’s going to feel like a +2 Cards. Therefore, I believe this is overpriced. I think maybe a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) or even maybe a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) would have suited this card.

Quote from: Rhodos on May 11, 2020, 07:38:57 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Repair (Project)
The first time you trash a card during a turn, you may Exile it instead if you don’t have a copy of it in Exile. When you Exile a Province or a Colony with this, take back your Cube from the Project.

Interesting. One of each green card can be Exiled to be out of your deck, with Provinces and Colonies slowing that ability down. This seems fair, imo. It is very limited in its use, but it seems like a “hey, why not” Project when you hit (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). Cool concept, interesting tied-in limiters.

Quote from: spineflu on May 11, 2020, 10:12:11 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Agitator (Action – Attack – Reaction)
Exile up to 2 cards from your hand. You may choose a card on each other player’s Exile mat; they discard it.
-----
When you gain, trash, Exile or reveal this (using the word “reveal”), you may Exile a card from your hand.

I don’t know if the Reaction part is all that necessary. Honestly, if this was left as it is with just the Exiling/Attacking part, I would have already been enamored by the idea presented here. It’s funny, ‘cuz when you think of an Exiling Attack, we’re all like “oh yeah, other players must Exile stuff to make it hard for them to retrieve it harr harr”. Yet here, it’s the opposite; the Attack is all about un-Exiling. Which is neat and novel! Though uuhhh yeah. I feel like if one opts for an Agitator to clean their deck without sacrificing their Estates, yeah, your opponents are pretty much obliged to follow suit, especially if there are no cards like Bounty Hunter in the Kingdom. This becomes sort of the go-to strategy and could potentially create a tug-of-war that shapes the game too much into investing in that one particular card.

Quote from: faust on May 11, 2020, 11:57:39 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Viceroy (Action – Command)
Name an Action card. Each other player Exiles a copy of it. If they did, play it twice, leaving it there.

The wording is a little confusing here. One could interpret that all other players need to Exile the named Action card, which would make Viceroy worse the more players there are (probably worthless in a 4-player game). Or, you could say that at least one other player must’ve Exiled the named card in order for you to play it. That seems more in the spirit of what this card is trying to achieve. In that case, I’d say: “If at least one other player did”, or “If another player did”, etc. Anyway. This emulator is rather risky. You’d have to sort of keep track of your opponents’ Buys, discard pile and stuff. Because if it fails, it’s frustrating. But then, so is a lone Throne Room in a hand.

Quote from: spheremonk on May 11, 2020, 12:05:45 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Papal Bull (Project)
The first time you trash your card during each of your turns, if it is an...
Action card, put it into your hand.
Victory card, Exile it.

“One of your cards” would be clearer, but that’s me nitpicking (as usual). I feel like this Project’s overpowered. Imagine that: It’d be one of the only time in Dominion where you would purposefully trash a Province. That thought makes me giggle, lol. Imagine this with trash for benefit cards, like Remake or Upgrade. That’s insane. Remodel a Province, exile it and gain... a Province! You will need this Project in a game where there’s trashing involved. Repair, a little higher, tried to deal with the problem of Exiling big green cards.

Quote from: bitwise on May 11, 2020, 01:37:07 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Trophy Collector (Action)
Choose one: Exile a card from your hand, or +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) per 2 differently named cards on your Exile mat (rounded down).
-----
Setup: In games using this, each player starts with a Silver and a Gold on their Exile mat.

A way to reduce wordiness of that card would be to simply cut the “In games using this” part (Baker doesn’t use that statement, for instance). That card sort of remind me of Miser. Seems more reliable than it though, since it starts with stuff that gives it (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) already. It is slower than Miser though (needs 2 cards for +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png); Miser needs just one Copper). Overall, this seems slow, like… Miser! You’ll probably just want to use this for simply Exiling unattractive stuff in your deck. In which case, other Exiling cards like Bounty Hunter, for the same cost, seems more interesting. And hey. Hey. I wanna see that FAQ. Nothing’s silly here. Silliness would be to think that such things are silly. :)

---

(Keep in mind, there was 27 cards to choose from, it was impossible for me to cram everything down the finalists bellow)

Semifinalists: Sanctum ; Pony ; Great Cathedral ; Portal ; Escapist

Finalists: Oki ; Xanadu

Winner: Valley Town

'Grats Something_Smart! Valley Town, though how deceptively simple it may seem on the surface, honestly really shines with the Exiling mechanic. It feels like a perfect match for that mechanic. It really brings forth what Exiling adds to Dominion and this neat little card could’ve snuck its way into Menagerie, imo. So congrats!

And hey, congrats to everyone else also! You guys really did put extra effort this week, debating and arguing about your entries with admirable seriousness. You rock :) ! And uhhh yeah. All I ask is that if y'all are gonna throw stones at me, please have the decency of doing so one at a time, hahaha! :D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 12, 2020, 12:10:53 am

Quote from: X-tra on May 11, 2020, 09:31:40 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 06, 2020, 05:17:06 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png) Great Cathedral (Project)
At the start of your turn, choose one: Exile a card from your hand; or put a non-Treasure card from Exile into your hand

That one’s funny. It’ll be like playing with a 3rd pile of card: Your deck, your discard pile and your Exile pile. I like the Donate mirror price because while it is slower than it, it does stuff forever ‘til you win/lose. So it’s a nice comparison. Great Cathedral is one of those big cards though, so I’m scratching my head figuring out if it’s overpowered. In a way, you’ll get rid of those Victory cards real quick while reaping their benefit, so that’s strong. Once you start greening with Provinces, Great Cathedral will take care of them for you. You won’t slow down too much. You’ll be as clean end game as you are mid game, which can mess up with the tempo of the game. However, that’s not enough for me to say “nah” to this card. I still like it a lot.

Thank you very much for your comments. I also asked myself if it’s not overpowered or too fast when greening. Donate mirror price is a suggestion of Holger, which is the one who deserves the credits for this part.

Quote from: X-tra on May 11, 2020, 09:31:40 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 11, 2020, 05:42:15 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) Gaoler (Action)
Exile the top 3 cards of your deck, then put 2 cards you have in Exile into your hand.

Cool idea! A +2 Cards where you can pull them from a pool of set aside cards you’ve stockpiled before. But see, that’s the thing. That’s... essentially a +2 Cards in essence, no? Yeah, there’s some deck culling attributes with Galoer. But when you play it, the immediate effect is that it’s going to feel like a +2 Cards. Therefore, I believe this is overpriced. I think maybe a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) or even maybe a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) would have suited this card.

I would like to point in favour of this card that besides being a better controlled Moat it also puts one card more in exile at each play and you can filter which cards will remain there, so I think it’s also good at cleaning and at the Island effect. If it's cost would be reduced, I think that with +1 Action available it would be so much better than Advisor or Lookout or, at some cases, even Sentry. If it costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), I think it would be also much better than Island: you could play the same copy many times, you would have 2 cards each play instead of  2VP once and you could Island a card from a range of 3 cards more.

Quote from: X-tra on May 11, 2020, 09:31:40 pm

'Grats Something_Smart! Valley Town, though how deceptively simple it may seem on the surface, honestly really shines with the Exiling mechanic. It feels like a perfect match for that mechanic. It really brings forth what Exiling adds to Dominion and this neat little card could’ve snuck its way into Menagerie, imo. So congrats!

Congratulations Something_Smart! Valley Town is a cool and elegant card. I also like very much Xanadu by artless. I tried to think about an Alt-VP exiler, but didn't find so good solution.

Quote from: X-tra on May 11, 2020, 09:31:40 pm

And hey, congrats to everyone else also! You guys really did put extra effort this week, debating and arguing about your entries with admirable seriousness. You rock :)

Thank you, X-tra! I enjoyed so much your comments. And also congrats for your promptness.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on May 12, 2020, 02:42:38 am

Quote from: X-tra on May 11, 2020, 09:31:40 pm

CONTEST 72 RESULTS

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on May 05, 2020, 04:46:38 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Toolsmith (Action)
Exile 2 non-Victory cards from the Supply costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png).

Hehehe, a rush game card. A quick way to absolutely murder the cheap Action card piles. In truth, this is even faster than Lurker to speed up a game. Like, I can’t exactly calculate how fast a game using Toolsmith would be. But imagine if each player opens with Toolsmith in a 4-player game. Since it’s something that “gains” things in bulk, yeah, I think Toolsmith should be in the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) club, with the other big boys. Cool card though!

That is a good point. Upon hindsight, it does seem like it needs to cost $5. Thanks for the feedback though!

Quote from: X-tra on May 11, 2020, 09:31:40 pm

And hey, congrats to everyone else also! You guys really did put extra effort this week, debating and arguing about your entries with admirable seriousness. You rock :) !

Thanks man. You rock too! ;D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 12, 2020, 03:14:29 am

Quote from: Carline on May 11, 2020, 06:48:36 pm

Since you said that opponents gain a copy, I Think you want them to exile from supply. But if pile is out, have they to exile a copy from their hand, if any? Or also, can they choose to exile from their hand if it is an action they don't want to use anymore or don't want to pile out? If you don't want these options, I think you would better write "Each other player Exiles a copy of it from supply" in the card.

Ah yes, it should have included a "from the supply"; that was the intention. That#s what you get for making a late submission with no time to review.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 12, 2020, 03:36:59 am

Eyy thank you! I personally feel Valley Town is a little too powerful after thinking about it, but it's probably in reasonable range and it would be fun to play with. Congrats to the runners-up, I liked those cards as well.

Anyway, moving on.

CHALLENGE #73: Mancap Redux
Design two card-shaped objects that have very interesting interactions-- either a powerful synergy, or one providing a very strong counter to the other. For examples of this, well, go look at the wiki under Combos and Counters. It doesn't have to be as flashy as those though, I would accept something as simple as Ironworks/Mill.

If you don't feel like designing two cards, you can reuse one card you've previously designed, but the other one should be new.

Judging will be approximately 7 days + 12 hours from this post because I'm up at an ungodly hour and I definitely don't want to force myself to judge at 3am next week :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on May 12, 2020, 04:39:50 am

Ruffians
$5
Action-Attack
+$1
+1 Buy
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand, then reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes one costing $3 or $4, and discards the rest.

Guard Tower
$4
Action-Reaction
Discard a card, then draw until you have 6 cards in hand.
-------
When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand to put a card from your hand onto your deck.

So basically, Ruffians is a take on Sir Michael, combining a handsize attack with a trashing attack. Ruffians, however, does supply a bonus for the attacker, but as a result, both attacks are weaker. Guard Tower is intended to be a counter to Ruffians. The top half draws loads of cards if you get attacked, and while with stronger handsize attacks it may hurt to discard a card, the attack of Ruffians leaves you no worse that if you played a Watchtower against a Militia. The bottom half of Guard Tower also serves to combat trashing attacks by topdecking fodder for it to hit, or using it twice to topdecking 2 cards outside of the cost range. It can also help against handsize attacks by potentially saving a terminal that collided, or lining up a combo piece, instead of discarding the cards. And you can decide not to, in case you don't want to Ghost Ship yourself. Apologies for the long paragraph, and feedback is wanted as usual. Looking forward to the other entries!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 12, 2020, 04:45:35 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on May 12, 2020, 03:36:59 am

Eyy thank you! I personally feel Valley Town is a little too powerful after thinking about it, but it's probably in reasonable range and it would be fun to play with.

It is strong but unlikely to be Village Green or Port level crazy. Precisely because it is strong, the Valley Town pile will soon run out and you might not want to Exile a Valley Town if you are unsure about whether you gain one this turn.

On a Smithy+ for $5 the idea is probably fairly balanced (if not a bit weakish).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on May 12, 2020, 08:18:07 am

Split pile: Golden Ages / Dark Ages

Golden Ages
cost $2 - Treasure - Victory
+1 Buy
Choose one: Exile a Gold from Supply; or discard a card from your Exile mat.
---
Worth 1vp per 2 Treasures you have on your Exile mat.

Dark Ages
cost $5 - Action
Exile any number of cards from your hand.
---
When this is in Supply, when you play a Treasure, +$1 instead of following its effect.


I wanted to do Poacher-like thing.

EDIT: Changed their types.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on May 12, 2020, 09:08:34 am

Quote

Instruct - Action, $5 cost.
Do these in any order:
gain a Silver;
put a card from your discard pile into your hand;
trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.

Quote

Quicksilver - Action Reaction, $4 cost.
+2 Cards
-
When you gain a card, you may discard this to exchange the gained card for one costing up to $2 more than it.

I made Instruct before, though it's now at $5 to be balanced. Quicksilver is a simple thing that's often just a Silver but does crazy stuff here.
Edit: just to reiterate more, each is designed to be a separate, unrelated kingdom pile. If you select them both, wild times; if you select just Instruct, a diverse, flexible, adaptable card; just Quicksilver, something you'll often pick up over Silver.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 12, 2020, 09:55:00 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ebaa74ee6bb2185c7dd887a/667083855d10bb4a8c502ca7b365de1f/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ebaa74ee6bb2185c7dd887a/6a82fcc7fac9f88b6e520c0b96cf0ae3/image.png)

Quote

Porter • $3 • Action - Reaction
+1 Buy
This turn, Action cards cost $1 less.
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, reveal it and choose one: +1 Card; or +1 Action

Quote

Athenaeum • $5 • Action
Draw until you have 8 cards in hand.
Discard 3 cards.

The combo is discarding Porters when you Athenaeum to get non-terminality out of the card (or extra cards after the draw). Also works with, say, Warehouse, but I like how Cursed Village works and want that draw-to-x+action feature out of other cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 12, 2020, 11:10:08 am

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/645/136/original/Village_Peddler_%287%29.png?1589295779)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/645/135/full/Rag_Dealer_%284%29.png?1589295703)

Quote

Village Peddler • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action

+ 1 Action
+ 1  Card
+ $1
-
The next time you play a Rag Dealer this turn, choose one: you first get +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png); or you first may trash a card from your hand.

Rag Dealer • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action

+ 1 Action
+ 1  Card
+ $1
-
The next time you play a Village Peddler this turn, choose one: you first get +1 Action; or you first get +1 Buy.

Setup: Whenever Village Peddler is in the kingdom, add an extra supply pile with Rag Dealer.

Two Peddlers, each one alone being nothing more than a Peddler. Play one after the other and Village Peddler becomes a Market or a Bazaar (you choose) or Rag Dealer becomes a Junk Dealer or an activated Conspirator (you choose).

With one of each in hand, you have a lot of versatility, with these four options of playing:

- Peddler and Market
- Peddler and Bazaar
- Peddler and Junk Dealer
- Peddler and activated Conspirator

Chain them alternated and every one after the first played will be more than a Peddler.

None of the bonus gives + Cards. I think it would be too strong. There’s a reason for Pathfinding be the most expensive of the events that give vanilla bonuses.

I think when two cards mention each other specifically, to it makes sense you have to find a way to one never be in the game without the other. The options are:

- One in supply and the other not, being gained by the first in some way.
- A split pile
- A specific setup rule

With first option, one card will be gained in a different way than the other. It would break the symmetry between them and make it hard to balance their gains. Gain one when gain the other seems too strong, gain when play seems slow and probably would give you more copies of the second card than the first. Also, in any case this option would put a lot of text into the cards.

With a split pile, whatever would be its order, only one of them would be available at one time, making it harder to gain the card you need to activate the bonus and also swinging .

So I choose the latter option, a specific setup rule. It ensures that both cards will be always available and enables to activate the bonus earlier. I think it’s not a big deal a kingdom with 11 supply piles, we already have it with Young Witch.

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) seems to be the right cost for Peddlers with a bonus (see Market, Bazaar, Junk Dealer, Artificer, Treasury or Emporium), even if you don’t always get the bonus (it happens sometimes with Artificer, Treasury or Emporium). At (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) there’s a Peddler with a penalty (Poacher) and at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) there's a Peddler with two vanilla bonuses (Grand Market).

Any feedback will be very welcome.

EDIT: I WITHDREW THIS ENTRY AND DID ANOTHER ONE. SEE POST BELOW.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on May 12, 2020, 11:10:54 am

Quote from: Carline on May 12, 2020, 11:10:08 am

Village Peddler • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action

+ 1 Action
+ 1  Card
+ $1
-
The next time you play a Rag Dealer this turn, choose one: you first get +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png); or you first may trash a card from your hand.

Rag Dealer • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action

+ 1 Action
+ 1  Card
+ $1
-
The next time you play a Village Peddler this turn, choose one: you first get +1 Action; or you first get +1 Buy.

Setup: Whenever Village Peddler is in the kingdom, add an extra supply pile with Rag Dealer.

As worded, your specific setup rule only goes one-way; I assume you want it to go both ways?

There's also the issue that this rule isn't on the card, and would be too wordy to fit on the cards nicely. So I would suggest a new mechanic similar to Heirlooms. At the bottom of Village Peddler, have a special bar where the Heirloom bar is on Nocturne cards that says "Partner: Rag Dealer". And vice-versa on Rag Dealer.

Then have a new general rule explaining how Partner works, that if a card has a Partner, then those 2 cards must always appear in the Kingdom together; choosing one of them for the randomizer gives you both of them. Still only 10 cards total; unless you feel like it's better for balance to contain 11 cards, but then you have to deal with the fact that theoretically both of them could already have been chosen within the initial 10 cards; at which point you basically are saying to add a random 11th pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 12, 2020, 11:13:35 am

I thought the idea was to create cards that can also stand on their own. That's what I did, anyways. There is unfortunately no flavor connection, but what can you do? Maybe the tribe breeds horses, who knows.

(https://i.imgur.com/ESHqkl9.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/ujyfMJb.png)

Quote

Tribal Village
Action -$4

+2 Actions
Set your $ to $3.

Quote

Stud Farm
Action - $2

+2 Buys
Pay all your $ and gain a Horse per $1 you paid.

Tribal Village is a very simple concept that Dominion does not have so far. Stud Farm is a Storyteller variant, but it plays quite differently. Both have a +2 Vanilla bonus, which is neat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 12, 2020, 11:18:15 am

Quote from: spineflu on May 12, 2020, 09:55:00 am

Quote

Porter • $3 • Action - Reaction
+1 Buy
This turn, Action cards cost $1 less.
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, choose one: +1 Card; or +1 Action

Porter should probably say reveal, since if you discard multiple cards, you don't actually need to show it to your opponent as worded. Also maybe make the bonus optional, for those cases where you don't want to trigger a reshuffle by playing Diadem with Storyteller :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 12, 2020, 11:21:43 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 12, 2020, 11:10:54 am

Quote from: Carline on May 12, 2020, 11:10:08 am

Village Peddler • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action

+ 1 Action
+ 1  Card
+ $1
-
The next time you play a Rag Dealer this turn, choose one: you first get +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png); or you first may trash a card from your hand.

Rag Dealer • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action

+ 1 Action
+ 1  Card
+ $1
-
The next time you play a Village Peddler this turn, choose one: you first get +1 Action; or you first get +1 Buy.

Setup: Whenever Village Peddler is in the kingdom, add an extra supply pile with Rag Dealer.

As worded, your specific setup rule only goes one-way; I assume you want it to go both ways?

There's also the issue that this rule isn't on the card, and would be too wordy to fit on the cards nicely. So I would suggest a new mechanic similar to Heirlooms. At the bottom of Village Peddler, have a special bar where the Heirloom bar is on Nocturne cards that says "Partner: Rag Dealer". And vice-versa on Rag Dealer.

Then have a new general rule explaining how Partner works, that if a card has a Partner, then those 2 cards must always appear in the Kingdom together; choosing one of them for the randomizer gives you both of them. Still only 10 cards total; unless you feel like it's better for balance to contain 11 cards, but then you have to deal with the fact that theoretically both of them could already have been chosen within the initial 10 cards; at which point you basically are saying to add a random 11th pile.

Thank you! I like this Partner idea, it fixes the issue about don't mention the specific rule in the cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 12, 2020, 11:29:25 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on May 12, 2020, 11:10:54 am

Quote from: Carline on May 12, 2020, 11:10:08 am

Village Peddler • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action

+ 1 Action
+ 1  Card
+ $1
-
The next time you play a Rag Dealer this turn, choose one: you first get +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png); or you first may trash a card from your hand.

Rag Dealer • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action

+ 1 Action
+ 1  Card
+ $1
-
The next time you play a Village Peddler this turn, choose one: you first get +1 Action; or you first get +1 Buy.

Setup: Whenever Village Peddler is in the kingdom, add an extra supply pile with Rag Dealer.

As worded, your specific setup rule only goes one-way; I assume you want it to go both ways?

What I thought is to have a randomizer only for Village Peddler. Anyway, your suggestion of Partner rule also fix it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 12, 2020, 11:49:29 am

Quote from: faust on May 12, 2020, 11:13:35 am

I thought the idea was to create cards that can also stand on their own.

Something_Smart, please clarify this point: Is the idea to create cards that can also stand on their own or it's ok to create mutually dependent cards as I did?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 12, 2020, 11:56:49 am

Quote from: faust on May 12, 2020, 11:13:35 am

I thought the idea was to create cards that can also stand on their own. That's what I did, anyways. There is unfortunately no flavor connection, but what can you do? Maybe the tribe breeds horses, who knows.

(https://i.imgur.com/ESHqkl9.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/ujyfMJb.png)

Quote

Tribal Village
Action -$4

+2 Actions
Set your $ to $3.

Quote

Stud Farm
Action - $2

+2 Buys
Pay all your $ and gain a Horse per $1 you paid.

Tribal Village is a very simple concept that Dominion does not have so far. Stud Farm is a Storyteller variant, but it plays quite differently. Both have a +2 Vanilla bonus, which is neat.

Stud Farm should probably let you play treasures so it's not dead on certain boards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 12, 2020, 12:08:28 pm

Quote from: faust on May 12, 2020, 11:18:15 am

Quote from: spineflu on May 12, 2020, 09:55:00 am

Quote

Porter • $3 • Action - Reaction
+1 Buy
This turn, Action cards cost $1 less.
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, choose one: +1 Card; or +1 Action

Porter should probably say reveal, since if you discard multiple cards, you don't actually need to show it to your opponent as worded. Also maybe make the bonus optional, for those cases where you don't want to trigger a reshuffle by playing Diadem with Storyteller :)

ah good point - i was following Faithful Hound's wording, which has an implicit reveal. I'll add one. The full optional will be available when you discard it and opt not to reveal it - if you somehow mess that up and trigger a reshuffle on Diadem + Storyteller + Porter + something that makes you discard, that's not gonna be my incredibly specific problem.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on May 12, 2020, 01:06:33 pm

How about these two cards? A fun coffers/villagers interaction with victory tokens:

Privatize (Event) $5:
Remove your coffers for +1VP each. Move all of your villager tokens to your coffers mat, they are coffers now.

[no name yet] (Action-Duration) $4:
Whenever you remove coffers for any reason, put them here. At the start of your next turn, +1 Villager and +1$ for every two coffers here.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 12, 2020, 01:11:41 pm

Quote from: X-tra on May 11, 2020, 09:31:40 pm

Alright, time to judge. As always, if you’d like to have a rebuttal against what I’ve written, please do so. It’s all about helping one get better at judging. So yeah, I encourage you to show me where you have disagreements and stuff. It’s all in good spirit!

Quote from: Gazbag on May 11, 2020, 05:42:15 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) Gaoler (Action)
Exile the top 3 cards of your deck, then put 2 cards you have in Exile into your hand.

Cool idea! A +2 Cards where you can pull them from a pool of set aside cards you’ve stockpiled before. But see, that’s the thing. That’s... essentially a +2 Cards in essence, no? Yeah, there’s some deck culling attributes with Galoer. But when you play it, the immediate effect is that it’s going to feel like a +2 Cards. Therefore, I believe this is overpriced. I think maybe a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) or even maybe a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) would have suited this card.

I have a rebuttal against this judgement. I did write a big ranty paragraph but really it boils down to you severely undervaluing the deck culling attributes. The net effect of this card is to increase your hand size by 1 and Exile a (usually) bad card from your deck. Which is significantly more than just +2 cards. The whole bringing cards back from Exile part is just a mechanism to do this Lookout-esque effect, it's much more succinct than "reveal the top 3 cards..." wording and has the added benefit of allowing the Exiley swappy stuff and interacting nicely with other Exile effects.

To hopefully make a constructive point about judging I would suggest that judges don't put so much weight on whether they think a card is over or under costed a little. We aren't play testing these cards and evaluating Dominion card strength just by reading them is really difficult.


I hope this isn't too cheeky but given I wasn't very happy with the judging of Gaoler last week, it's back! If that isn't okay I'll withdraw it.

(https://i.imgur.com/NPRCkve.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/nHeCh6b.png)


Gold Mine was a reject from last week which I guess doesn't bode well for it, but I think it's fine. It has obvious applications for a money deck but I think it could be useful in an engine situation to inject a bunch of payload at once after you've got your deck under control. Similar to Windfall but hopefully with a bit more decision making, when to buy it, when to pull the trigger and such.

Usually you'll have to wait till you can gain a Gold before you get anything from Gold Mine but Gaolor can take those Exiled Golds directly into your hand, while potentially removing 3 junkers from the top of your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on May 12, 2020, 01:12:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EP0iSuC.png) (https://i.imgur.com/zeYATqe.png)

Quote

Fertile Village (Action, $4)
+1 Card
+2 Actions

You may discard an Action, to gain another Fertile Village.

Quote

Midwife (Action - Reaction, $5)
+3 Cards
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may play it.

Fertile Village is actually a card I used several contests ago.

EDIT: In case it isn't obvious, this is not a split pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on May 12, 2020, 01:49:59 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 12, 2020, 01:11:41 pm

I have a rebuttal against this judgement. I did write a big ranty paragraph but really it boils down to you severely undervaluing the deck culling attributes. The net effect of this card is to increase your hand size by 1 and Exile a (usually) bad card from your deck. Which is significantly more than just +2 cards. The whole bringing cards back from Exile part is just a mechanism to do this Lookout-esque effect, it's much more succinct than "reveal the top 3 cards..." wording and has the added benefit of allowing the Exiley swappy stuff and interacting nicely with other Exile effects.

Thank you for making me see something I clearly did not. You are not the first person who questioned what I wrote for Gaoler; Carline also argued in this card's favour. Right off the bat, I'll say that there was a lot of cards to judge this week and I was already running late. But most importantly, I'll say that I ain't no professional. Mostly just an amateur who's here to have a good time. I don't go too far into Excel sheets filled with Dominion analysis and stuff like that. So yeah, chances are, my thoughts should be taken with a (big) grain of salt.

That being said, I do try to compare proposed stuff here with already existing cards. Here I was thinking like: "Oh yeah. So Masquerade makes you draw 2 and trash something. Gaoler's kinda like that, but it Exiles instead. It has a better controlled draw, but it doesn't junk your opponents". Or I was thinking about Lookout too and how it also gives a +1 Action where this does not. It's a little bit of information overload. So this is how I came to the conclusion that the card was overpriced. I couldn't put an extra 2 lines of text on my feedback here, because, well, there was still 26 other cards to skim through.

Quote from: Gazbag on May 12, 2020, 01:11:41 pm

To hopefully make a constructive point about judging I would suggest that judges don't put so much weight on whether they think a card is over or under costed a little. We aren't play testing these cards and evaluating Dominion card strength just by reading them is really difficult.

I'd argue that it's worth evaluating a card as a whole. Name, flavour, cost, effect, etc. To me, I see that as something that's all tied in together. Like, if someone, for instance, figure out a really cool effect for a card and just name it "Whatever" since they figure "hey, the effect's where it's at anyway", then I think it lowers the overall quality of what they are presenting. Likewise, the cost of a card is part of the integral idea. I think it's challenging that, balance wise, this part requires extra care and effort. Especially when we have existing Dominion cards we can compare them to. It becomes sort of a mini puzzle on itself. If we were to (mostly) discredit parts such as a card's cost, then there would be no need to put one in the first place.

Mind you, a card whose cost I thought was off-balanced was never enough for me to completely ignore it. Look at the card Oki from last week. I argued that it was somewhat overpriced, yet it is one of the finalists. This proves that all my attention did not just go into that factor.

Quote from: Gazbag on May 12, 2020, 01:11:41 pm

I hope this isn't too cheeky but given I wasn't very happy with the judging of Gaoler last week, it's back! If that isn't okay I'll withdraw it.

Given the fact that we are allowed to re-enter a previous entry for this week's contest, I don't see why this would be a problem at all. It's all within the rules.  ;)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 12, 2020, 02:06:00 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 12, 2020, 11:49:29 am

Quote from: faust on May 12, 2020, 11:13:35 am

I thought the idea was to create cards that can also stand on their own.

Something_Smart, please clarify this point: Is the idea to create cards that can also stand on their own or it's ok to create mutually dependent cards as I did?

I was thinking that people would create cards that can stand on their own, but you don't have to-- split piles are fine, and this Partner idea is creative and cool as well. Go for it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 12, 2020, 02:11:27 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 12, 2020, 01:11:41 pm

I hope this isn't too cheeky but given I wasn't very happy with the judging of Gaoler last week, it's back! If that isn't okay I'll withdraw it.

You're fine!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on May 12, 2020, 07:13:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/p5GRs25.png)   (https://i.imgur.com/jjfLOXC.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on May 12, 2020, 07:17:28 pm

Recycle (Action, $5)

Draw until you have 8 cards in hand.
You may trash 2 cards from your hand; if you didn’t, trash this.


Goblet (Treasure-Reaction, $5)

+$2
———
When one of your cards is trashed, you may discard this from your hand, to gain a card costing up to $3 more than the trashed card.


With Goblet in hand, play and trash Recycle and use the reaction to gain an expensive card - maybe even a Province, if you want it...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 12, 2020, 08:27:50 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0zSiyNq.png?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/wUdAapi.png?1)
Schoolteacher, an Ironworks-Secret Chamber-Hamlet mishmash. It can do lots of things! But none of them great, and it needs a discard. Dullahan gives you your discard pile on the next turn and you can reduce its cost by discarding.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 12, 2020, 08:50:03 pm

Quote from: majiponi on May 12, 2020, 08:18:07 am

Split pile: Golden Ages / Dark Ages

Golden Ages
cost $2 - Treasure
+1 Buy
Choose one: Exile a Gold from Supply; or discard a card from your Exile mat.
---
Worth 1vp per 2 Treasures you have on your Exile mat.

Dark Ages
cost $5 - Treasure
Exile any number of cards from your hand.
---
When this is in Supply, when you play a Treasure, +$1 instead of following its effect.


I wanted to do Poacher-like thing.

I think this clause under the line in Dark Ages makes all treasures in kingdom become coppers, doesn't? If what I'm saying is correct, these two cards won't work, since they are treasures themselves.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 12, 2020, 09:05:42 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 12, 2020, 11:56:49 am

Quote from: faust on May 12, 2020, 11:13:35 am

I thought the idea was to create cards that can also stand on their own. That's what I did, anyways. There is unfortunately no flavor connection, but what can you do? Maybe the tribe breeds horses, who knows.

(https://i.imgur.com/ESHqkl9.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/ujyfMJb.png)

Quote

Tribal Village
Action -$4

+2 Actions
Set your $ to $3.

Quote

Stud Farm
Action - $2

+2 Buys
Pay all your $ and gain a Horse per $1 you paid.

Tribal Village is a very simple concept that Dominion does not have so far. Stud Farm is a Storyteller variant, but it plays quite differently. Both have a +2 Vanilla bonus, which is neat.

Stud Farm should probably let you play treasures so it's not dead on certain boards.

Or maybe it would give +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) like Storyteller, so you would gain at least one Horse at each play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 12, 2020, 09:30:50 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 12, 2020, 07:13:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/p5GRs25.png)   (https://i.imgur.com/jjfLOXC.png)

library?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on May 12, 2020, 09:34:08 pm

Spineflu, my brain is polluted by other card games. I'll switch it out for deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 13, 2020, 01:44:37 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 12, 2020, 07:13:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/p5GRs25.png)   (https://i.imgur.com/jjfLOXC.png)

I like the theme, Cats getting rid of Mice.

Functionally, I think they would be possibly weak even at their best.

If both are in kingdom and you are lucky or has deck control to always hit the right card, trash you first Copper will leave you with two Mice. If you trash then with two Cat plays, in net total:

- You spend 2 Buys (or gains), $6 and 3 plays to get 3 draws (play mouse spend one), 1 Action and 1 Cooper trashed.

With three plays of Spice Merchant:

- You spend 1 Buy (or gain), $4 and 3 plays to get 3 draws and 3 copper trashed (with option of $ and Buy instead of draws, spending actions in this case).

You only have to have a Cooper in hand with Spice Merchant which is easier than hit the right card in the top of the deck.

Some suggestions of things I think could make them stronger if you add some:

- Put them in a split pile or find other way to always have both when one of them is in the kingdom

- Make Cat trashes cards up to $2

- Add to Mouse a bonus when trashed, like Rats

- Only gain a Mouse with Mouse if you trash a card

- Make one of them or both reveal two cards instead of one

I think also it would be better to use "Reveal" in Mouse instead of "Look at".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 13, 2020, 02:04:35 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on May 12, 2020, 01:12:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/EP0iSuC.png) (https://i.imgur.com/zeYATqe.png)

Quote

Fertile Village (Action, $4)
+1 Card
+2 Actions

You may discard an Action, to gain another Fertile Village.

Quote

Midwife (Action - Reaction, $5)
+3 Cards
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may play it.

Fertile Village is actually a card I used several contests ago.

I like Fertile Village, any action becomes a specific gainer.

A Vault and a Midwife in hand is a guaranteed $9. I don't know, maybe it's too strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 13, 2020, 02:20:09 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on May 12, 2020, 07:17:28 pm

Recycle (Action, $5)

Draw until you have 8 cards in hand.
You may trash 2 cards from your hand; if you didn’t, trash this.


Goblet (Treasure-Reaction, $5)

+$2
———
When one of your cards is trashed, you may discard this from your hand, to gain a card costing up to $3 more than the trashed card.


With Goblet in hand, play and trash Recycle and use the reaction to gain an expensive card - maybe even a Province, if you want it...

It would be too insane if you have many Goblets in hand and trash a $5 card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on May 13, 2020, 02:36:01 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on May 12, 2020, 07:17:28 pm

Recycle (Action, $5)

Draw until you have 8 cards in hand.
You may trash 2 cards from your hand; if you didn’t, trash this.

This is too strong. Consider that masquerade and recruiter are two of the strongest trashers in the game, for drawing 2 and trashing one. This draws 4 and trashes 2, which is way OP!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 13, 2020, 03:00:35 am

Quote from: D782802859 on May 12, 2020, 11:56:49 am

Stud Farm should probably let you play treasures so it's not dead on certain boards.

Meh, I disagree. It's a $2 card, it can be situational, and if it let you play Treasures or gave +$1 it would have to cost more. It provides +2 buys on boards without virtual coin, that's already valuable by itself.

Plus playing Treasures is always a bit wonky. THis card doesn't need it, and I prefer the simplicity.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 13, 2020, 03:02:22 am

Quote from: D782802859 on May 12, 2020, 08:27:50 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0zSiyNq.png?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/wUdAapi.png?1)
Schoolteacher, an Ironworks-Secret Chamber-Hamlet mishmash. It can do lots of things! But none of them great, and it needs a discard. Dullahan gives you your discard pile on the next turn and you can reduce its cost by discarding.

I think Dulllahan is broken or almost broken by itself. With a couple of them and a Vault or a Storeroom you can start all your turns with almost entire deck in hand and discard all cards for coins.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on May 13, 2020, 11:19:43 am

Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but how do you insert pictures into a reply?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on May 13, 2020, 11:25:37 am

Assembly Shop
Project
Cost: $7

Once per turn, during your action phase (when no card is resolving), you may discard any number of cards and gain a card onto your deck costing exactly $1 per card discarded.

Monk's Village
Action
Cost: $4

+2 Actions
+1 Card
---
While this is in play, when your hand becomes empty, if it is:
Action phase: +1 card
Buy phase: +$1

---
Edit:
Assembly Shop replaces Engrave

Reworked both cards

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 13, 2020, 12:33:05 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on May 13, 2020, 11:19:43 am

Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but how do you insert pictures into a reply?

use the [ img ] [/ img ] tags (without spaces) around the url to the image file.
Better yet, press the "Quote" button on a post with an image and see how they did it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 13, 2020, 12:35:56 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 13, 2020, 12:33:05 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on May 13, 2020, 11:19:43 am

Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but how do you insert pictures into a reply?

use the [ img ] [/ img ] tags (without spaces) around the url to the image file.
Better yet, pretty the "Quote" button on a post with an image and see how they did it.

Just make sure to preview your image. Sometimes they're very large, but you can control that by adding a width="200" attribute (or other reasonable width) in the img tag:

Code: [Select]

[img width=200]https://yourimage.url[/img]


Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on May 13, 2020, 12:56:13 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 13, 2020, 12:33:05 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on May 13, 2020, 11:19:43 am

Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but how do you insert pictures into a reply?

use the [ img ] [/ img ] tags (without spaces) around the url to the image file.
Better yet, press the "Quote" button on a post with an image and see how they did it.

Where do I get this url? I am using https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator to make the cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 13, 2020, 01:05:16 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on May 13, 2020, 12:56:13 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 13, 2020, 12:33:05 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on May 13, 2020, 11:19:43 am

Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but how do you insert pictures into a reply?

use the [ img ] [/ img ] tags (without spaces) around the url to the image file.
Better yet, press the "Quote" button on a post with an image and see how they did it.

Where do I get this url? I am using https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator to make the cards.

Download the image and put it into Imgur, then copy the address of the image in Imgur and put that in.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 13, 2020, 01:10:52 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 13, 2020, 01:05:16 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on May 13, 2020, 12:56:13 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 13, 2020, 12:33:05 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on May 13, 2020, 11:19:43 am

Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but how do you insert pictures into a reply?

use the [ img ] [/ img ] tags (without spaces) around the url to the image file.
Better yet, press the "Quote" button on a post with an image and see how they did it.

Where do I get this url? I am using https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator to make the cards.

Download the image and put it into Imgur, then copy the address of the image in Imgur and put that in.

you can skip downloading and just copy from the generator / paste to imgur. less clutter on the desktop.

---

Quote from: Carline on May 13, 2020, 03:02:22 am

Quote from: D782802859 on May 12, 2020, 08:27:50 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0zSiyNq.png?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/wUdAapi.png?1)
Schoolteacher, an Ironworks-Secret Chamber-Hamlet mishmash. It can do lots of things! But none of them great, and it needs a discard. Dullahan gives you your discard pile on the next turn and you can reduce its cost by discarding.

I think Dulllahan is broken or almost broken by itself. With a couple of them and a Vault or a Storeroom you can start all your turns with almost entire deck in hand and discard all cards for coins.

Dullahan also has a problem with its cost fluctuation - namely, you can't look through your discard pile

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 13, 2020, 02:21:15 pm

Quote from: artless on May 13, 2020, 11:25:37 am

Engrave
Event
Cost: $1

Discard any number of cards, gain a card costing exactly $1 per card discarded.

Monk's Village
Action
Cost: $4

+2 Actions
+1 Card
When you discard this from play, if your hand is empty, +1 coffer.

---
Engrave is an event version of Artificer.
It reduces the pain of drawing a hand of dead cards.
Also, it enables new open strategies (like Alms).

Monk's Village is a 4 cost village plus.
Its bonus can be achieved either by trash, play actions with discard effects, be attacked by opponent, draw the right cards, or buy an Engrave event.
What makes the combo better is: engrave enables 4-4 open.

Artless, I'm asking myself if this end-turn Artificer is not too fast. I mean, in any engine you have to balance between draw power and payload. With Engrave, you can be focused only in get draw power and not worrying about payload during the whole game. What do you think about this?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on May 13, 2020, 06:16:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/68IUxFQ.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/c0JPQZN.jpg)

Quote

Comptroller
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $2
+$1. Put this on your Tavern mat.

---

At the start of your Buy phase, you may call this. If you do, +2 Buys, Ignore any further +Buys you get this turn, and Events cost $1 less this turn.

Quote

Market Day
Types: Event
Cost: $9
+$11

Comptroller: A Reserve that gives +Buys when you need it and Event cost-reduction.  Comptroller also causes you to ignore further +Buys so you can't go infinite with any +Buy Events like Delve, Gamble, and Travelling Fair.
Market Day: An Event that turns each extra +1 Buy into +$2 provided you meet the $9 threshold.  Most spammable +Buy doesn't build your economy much compared to competing cards, so there's a push and pull to that.
Combo: Comptroller + Market Day nets you +$6 from Comptroller's buys. You could get more coins by calling more Comptrollers, but the growth is only +$2 per Comptroller called as only the first Comptroller gives you +Buys.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on May 13, 2020, 07:12:32 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 12, 2020, 08:50:03 pm

Quote from: majiponi on May 12, 2020, 08:18:07 am

Split pile: Golden Ages / Dark Ages

Golden Ages
cost $2 - Treasure
+1 Buy
Choose one: Exile a Gold from Supply; or discard a card from your Exile mat.
---
Worth 1vp per 2 Treasures you have on your Exile mat.

Dark Ages
cost $5 - Treasure
Exile any number of cards from your hand.
---
When this is in Supply, when you play a Treasure, +$1 instead of following its effect.


I wanted to do Poacher-like thing.

I think this clause under the line in Dark Ages makes all treasures in kingdom become coppers, doesn't? If what I'm saying is correct, these two cards won't work, since they are treasures themselves.

Yes, intended. (I forgot to put Victory type on Golden Ages)

First, Dark Ages is not in Supply (as Golden Ages is covering).  So someone will buy Golden Ages to get Golds. After Golden Ages are gone, all Treasures are Copper. Now is the Dark Ages. Everyone cannot buy Province, so someone buys Dark Ages. After Dark Ages are gone, now you can play Treasures as usual.

But yes, I'll change Dark Ages to Action card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 13, 2020, 08:40:46 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on May 13, 2020, 06:16:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/68IUxFQ.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/c0JPQZN.jpg)

Quote

Comptroller
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $2
+$1. Put this on your Tavern mat.

---

At the start of your Buy phase, you may call this. If you do, +2 Buys, Ignore any further +Buys you get this turn, and Events cost $1 less this turn.

Quote

Market Day
Types: Event
Cost: $9
+$11

Comptroller: A Reserve that gives +Buys when you need it and Event cost-reduction.  Comptroller also causes you to ignore further +Buys so you can't go infinite with any +Buy Events like Delve, Gamble, and Travelling Fair.
Market Day: An Event that turns each extra +1 Buy into +$2 provided you meet the $9 threshold.  Most spammable +Buy doesn't build your economy much compared to competing cards, so there's a push and pull to that.
Combo: Comptroller + Market Day nets you +$6 from Comptroller's buys. You could get more coins by calling more Comptrollers, but the growth is only +$2 per Comptroller called as only the first Comptroller gives you +Buys.

Maybe some events would be too powerful with cost reduction. For instance, if you play a single Squire for +2 Buys and call three Comptrollers, you can buy Expedition five times at $0 each and will start your next turn with 15 cards in hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 13, 2020, 08:58:12 pm

Hey guys, I’m talking here about almost all cards posted. I’m just wanting to give feedback, the same way I want feedback from you about my entries. Please tell me if in some way I’m bothering you with this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on May 13, 2020, 09:11:11 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 13, 2020, 08:58:12 pm

Hey guys, I’m talking here about almost all cards posted. I’m just wanting to give feedback, the same way I want feedback from you about my entries. Please tell me if in some way I’m bothering you with this.

Not me. I like the feedback. I don't have a lot of time to give my own sorry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on May 13, 2020, 10:37:36 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 13, 2020, 02:21:15 pm

Quote from: artless on May 13, 2020, 11:25:37 am

Engrave
Event
Cost: $1

Discard any number of cards, gain a card costing exactly $1 per card discarded.

Monk's Village
Action
Cost: $4

+2 Actions
+1 Card
When you discard this from play, if your hand is empty, +1 coffer.

---
Engrave is an event version of Artificer.
It reduces the pain of drawing a hand of dead cards.
Also, it enables new open strategies (like Alms).

Monk's Village is a 4 cost village plus.
Its bonus can be achieved either by trash, play actions with discard effects, be attacked by opponent, draw the right cards, or buy an Engrave event.
What makes the combo better is: engrave enables 4-4 open.

Artless, I'm asking myself if this end-turn Artificer is not too fast. I mean, in any engine you have to balance between draw power and payload. With Engrave, you can be focused only in get draw power and not worrying about payload during the whole game. What do you think about this?

You are right. A default payload makes it too easy to build an engine. Even if being nerfed, the card would still be problematic.

And...

Quote from: Carline on May 12, 2020, 11:10:08 am

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/645/136/original/Village_Peddler_%287%29.png?1589295779)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/645/135/full/Rag_Dealer_%284%29.png?1589295703)

Quote

Village Peddler • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action

+ 1 Action
+ 1  Card
+ $1
-
The next time you play a Rag Dealer this turn, choose one: you first get +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png); or you first may trash a card from your hand.

Rag Dealer • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action

+ 1 Action
+ 1  Card
+ $1
-
The next time you play a Village Peddler this turn, choose one: you first get +1 Action; or you first get +1 Buy.

Setup: Whenever Village Peddler is in the kingdom, add an extra supply pile with Rag Dealer.

Two Peddlers, each one alone being nothing more than a Peddler. Play one after the other and Village Peddler becomes a Market or a Bazaar (you choose) or Rag Dealer becomes a Junk Dealer or an activated Conspirator (you choose).

With one of each in hand, you have a lot of versatility, with these four options of playing:

- Peddler and Market
- Peddler and Bazaar
- Peddler and Junk Dealer
- Peddler and activated Conspirator

Chain them alternated and every one after the first played will be more than a Peddler.

None of the bonus gives + Cards. I think it would be too strong. There’s a reason for Pathfinding be the most expensive of the events that give vanilla bonuses.

I think when two cards mention each other specifically, to it makes sense you have to find a way to one never be in the game without the other. The options are:

- One in supply and the other not, being gained by the first in some way.
- A split pile
- A specific setup rule

With first option, one card will be gained in a different way than the other. It would break the symmetry between them and make it hard to balance their gains. Gain one when gain the other seems too strong, gain when play seems slow and probably would give you more copies of the second card than the first. Also, in any case this option would put a lot of text into the cards.

With a split pile, whatever would be its order, only one of them would be available at one time, making it harder to gain the card you need to activate the bonus and also swinging .

So I choose the latter option, a specific setup rule. It ensures that both cards will be always available and enables to activate the bonus earlier. I think it’s not a big deal a kingdom with 11 supply piles, we already have it with Young Witch.

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) seems to be the right cost for Peddlers with a bonus (see Market, Bazaar, Junk Dealer, Artificer, Treasury or Emporium), even if you don’t always get the bonus (it happens sometimes with Artificer, Treasury or Emporium). At (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) there’s a Peddler with a penalty (Poacher) and at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) there's a Peddler with two vanilla bonuses (Grand Market).

Any feedback will be very welcome.

I don't think naming another card is the intended way of this contest ("interesting interactions").
But breaking intended way is the intended way of designing fan cards. So it should be fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on May 13, 2020, 11:01:56 pm

Quote from: majiponi on May 13, 2020, 07:12:32 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 12, 2020, 08:50:03 pm

Quote from: majiponi on May 12, 2020, 08:18:07 am

Split pile: Golden Ages / Dark Ages

Golden Ages
cost $2 - Treasure
+1 Buy
Choose one: Exile a Gold from Supply; or discard a card from your Exile mat.
---
Worth 1vp per 2 Treasures you have on your Exile mat.

Dark Ages
cost $5 - Treasure
Exile any number of cards from your hand.
---
When this is in Supply, when you play a Treasure, +$1 instead of following its effect.


I wanted to do Poacher-like thing.

I think this clause under the line in Dark Ages makes all treasures in kingdom become coppers, doesn't? If what I'm saying is correct, these two cards won't work, since they are treasures themselves.

Yes, intended. (I forgot to put Victory type on Golden Ages)

First, Dark Ages is not in Supply (as Golden Ages is covering).  So someone will buy Golden Ages to get Golds. After Golden Ages are gone, all Treasures are Copper. Now is the Dark Ages. Everyone cannot buy Province, so someone buys Dark Ages. After Dark Ages are gone, now you can play Treasures as usual.

But yes, I'll change Dark Ages to Action card.

I see the intention, however once the golden ages are gone people will just ignore treasures forever and never get dark ages. The problem is that dark ages is not a good card, and more importantly buying the last one is terrible because then your opponent gets the first turn where treasures are turned on. I don't think that any reasonable form of dark ages will cause the pile to empty the way you want except maybe a gladiator-style thing that forces them to leave the supply without buying them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 13, 2020, 11:05:19 pm

Quote from: artless on May 13, 2020, 10:37:36 pm

I don't think naming another card is the intended way of this contest ("interesting interactions").
But breaking intended way is the intended way of designing fan cards. So it should be fine.

I asked Something_Smart about this:

Quote from: Something_Smart on May 12, 2020, 02:06:00 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 12, 2020, 11:49:29 am

Quote from: faust on May 12, 2020, 11:13:35 am

I thought the idea was to create cards that can also stand on their own.

Something_Smart, please clarify this point: Is the idea to create cards that can also stand on their own or it's ok to create mutually dependent cards as I did?

I was thinking that people would create cards that can stand on their own, but you don't have to-- split piles are fine, and this Partner idea is creative and cool as well. Go for it.

He said it's ok, but even so I don't know if I'm very comfortable in deviate from initial scope. That's why I didn't post yet the fixed version I intended to post. I will think about it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 14, 2020, 12:30:52 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on May 12, 2020, 01:06:33 pm

How about these two cards? A fun coffers/villagers interaction with victory tokens:

Privatize (Event) $5:
Remove your coffers for +1VP each. Move all of your villager tokens to your coffers mat, they are coffers now.

[no name yet] (Action-Duration) $4:
Whenever you remove coffers for any reason, put them here. At the start of your next turn, +1 Villager and +1$ for every two coffers here.

I like very much this transmuting idea, but, since the cards produce Coffers only from Villagers and Villagers only from Coffers, they won't work if there's no other source of Coffers and Villagers in kingdom. Suggestion: make Privatize give a Villager and The Card With No Name Yet give a Coffers when played. This way, each card can also cycle with itself and not only with the other.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 14, 2020, 01:11:42 am

Quote from: artless on May 13, 2020, 11:25:37 am

Assembly Shop
Project
Cost: $6

At the end of your buy phase, you may discard any number of cards and gain a card costing exactly $1 per card discarded.

Monk's Village
Action
Cost: $4

+2 Actions
+1 Card
When you discard this from play, if your hand is empty, +1 coffer.

---
Assembly Shop is an alternate payload to combo decks.
Monk's Village is a 4 cost village plus.
Its bonus can be achieved by multiple ways, buy an Assembly Shop is the most reliable one.

Edit:
Assembly Shop replaces Engrave

Yes, Assembly Shop is nice. I don't know, maybe it would better don't give victory cards. With a Hounting Grounds or a Council Room in hand, it's a guaranteed Province in that turn.

About Monk's Village bonus, I have a rule doubt.

From Dominion rulebook:

The player places any cards that are in his play area (Action cards that have been played in the Action phase as well as Treasure cards that have been played in the Buy phase) and any cards remaining in his hand onto his Discard pile.

Does it mean that you must discard from play area before discard from hand? Or you can choose discard from hand before discard from play area?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 14, 2020, 01:37:25 am

Quote from: Carline on May 13, 2020, 08:40:46 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on May 13, 2020, 06:16:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/68IUxFQ.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/c0JPQZN.jpg)

Quote

Comptroller
Types: Action, Reserve
Cost: $2
+$1. Put this on your Tavern mat.

---

At the start of your Buy phase, you may call this. If you do, +2 Buys, Ignore any further +Buys you get this turn, and Events cost $1 less this turn.

Quote

Market Day
Types: Event
Cost: $9
+$11

Comptroller: A Reserve that gives +Buys when you need it and Event cost-reduction.  Comptroller also causes you to ignore further +Buys so you can't go infinite with any +Buy Events like Delve, Gamble, and Travelling Fair.
Market Day: An Event that turns each extra +1 Buy into +$2 provided you meet the $9 threshold.  Most spammable +Buy doesn't build your economy much compared to competing cards, so there's a push and pull to that.
Combo: Comptroller + Market Day nets you +$6 from Comptroller's buys. You could get more coins by calling more Comptrollers, but the growth is only +$2 per Comptroller called as only the first Comptroller gives you +Buys.

Maybe some events would be too powerful with cost reduction. For instance, if you play a single Squire for +2 Buys and call three Comptrollers, you can buy Expedition five times at $0 each and will start your next turn with 15 cards in hand.

Read the card: „ignore any further Buys you get this turn“

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 14, 2020, 01:58:21 am

The buys would come from Squire before the Comptrollers (multiple Comptrollers just get the cost down of Expedition to $0).

1 Buy +2 Buys (from Squire) +2 (from the first Comptroller) = 5 buys

* obviously would have to first play a bunch of villages first, but with 15 card hands, probably not so hard, once you get this done the first time.

I do agree this would be an issue - when I designed a cost reducer for Events, it was a Project so that they could at most be $1 less.

[Edits: this is what I get for posting late at night - wrote Scout instead of Squire, and ignored the fact that the cost reduction happens when you call them, so you wouldn't necessarily need all the villages]

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 14, 2020, 02:43:14 am

Quote from: scolapasta on May 14, 2020, 01:58:21 am

The buys would come from Scout before the Comptrollers (multiple Comptrollers just get the cost down of Expedition to $0).

1 Buy +2 Buys (from Scout) +2 (from the first Comptroller) = 5 buys*

* obviously would have to first play a bunch of villages first, but with 15 card hands, probably not so hard, once you get this done the first time.

I do agree this would be an issue - when designed a cost reducer for Events, it was a Project so that they could at most be $1 less.

And to do it the first time, the Comptrollers could have been played in previous turns.

(nitpick: of course, you do mean "Squire" instead of "Scout")

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 14, 2020, 07:52:45 am

I don't see the brokenness, you gotta work quite a bit (terminal space to play a bunch of terminal Coppers, further extra Buys in the Kingdom) to pull this off. Gamble on the other hand requires no splitters or further extra Buys in the Kingdom to be broken with this.

A simple way to get around horrible broken combos is to either check once you revealed the second Event whether such a combo exists or to simple choose a non-Event as second landscape card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on May 14, 2020, 08:32:15 am

Quote from: scolapasta on May 14, 2020, 01:58:21 am

I do agree this would be an issue - when designed a cost reducer for Events, it was a Project so that they could at most be $1 less.

The argument that reduced-costs are abusive is a reasonable argument against Bridge existing, too.
There are some instances that Comptroller will be very powerful, but those instances don't seem arbitrary: I think there's still plenty of playing to be done around the combos.

Quote from: segura on May 14, 2020, 07:52:45 am

Gamble on the other hand requires no splitters or further extra Buys in the Kingdom to be broken with this.

Could you elaborate here? Without other +Buys, Comptroller + Gamble would let you flip the top 3 cards of your deck and play the Treasures and Actions before you run out of Buys, as you ignore Gamble's +Buys.

Can I get opinions on nixing the Reserve part of Comptroller and making it all on play? The "Events cost $1 less" can only appear alongside "Ignore any further +Buys" to avoid Event infinites. I'm not immediately convinced that it would make the card more fun looking at available sets of vanilla bonuses.

• "+2 Buys, +$1" looks really bad next to Squire in the case that a Kingdom doesn't have a repeatable Event to abuse.
• "+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy" could be workable, but the "ignore any further +Buys" becomes immediately oppressive and puts a big dampener on the Market Day combo.
• "+1 Action, +2 Buys" is passable in stronger engines and makes terminal +Buys play worse with it, but the lack of real economy on that makes it even more niche.
• "+1 Card, +1 Action, +2 Buys" sounds like too much.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 14, 2020, 08:52:42 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on May 14, 2020, 08:32:15 am

Could you elaborate here? Without other +Buys, Comptroller + Gamble would let you flip the top 3 cards of your deck and play the Treasures and Actions before you run out of Buys, as you ignore Gamble's +Buys.

Sorry, that was dumb, I totally forgot that your card makes Gamble a "terminal" Event.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 14, 2020, 09:17:39 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on May 14, 2020, 08:32:15 am

Can I get opinions on nixing the Reserve part of Comptroller and making it all on play? The "Events cost $1 less" can only appear alongside "Ignore any further +Buys" to avoid Event infinites. I'm not immediately convinced that it would make the card more fun looking at available sets of vanilla bonuses.

• "+2 Buys, +$1" looks really bad next to Squire in the case that a Kingdom doesn't have a repeatable Event to abuse.
• "+1 Card, +1 Action, +1 Buy" could be workable, but the "ignore any further +Buys" becomes immediately oppressive and puts a big dampener on the Market Day combo.
• "+1 Action, +2 Buys" is passable in stronger engines and makes terminal +Buys play worse with it, but the lack of real economy on that makes it even more niche.
• "+1 Card, +1 Action, +2 Buys" sounds like too much.

I mean, as-is you can call it the turn you play it, but without it being a reserve it's going to be so situational if you can't time (or build a deck with which to time) the reserved effect.
If you were aiming to make it a little less controllable (but still stackable without splitters in the kingdom), you could have it be a Duration and use the Barge "this turn or next:" type wording

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on May 14, 2020, 11:11:09 am

VP/Coffers/Villagers interaction:

(https://i.imgur.com/495OX0x.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/hEmfgxT.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 14, 2020, 11:29:27 am

(https://i.ibb.co/W0rrpDF/image.png)  (https://i.ibb.co/Kjqw9bG/image.png)

Quote

Ledger
$3 - Action
+1 Buy
+$1 per card type in play.
-
When you gain this, if you don't have any Ledgers in play, you may play this immediately.

Favorite
$5 - Action - Attack - Doom - Fate
+1 Card
+1 Action
Discard the top Boon and the top Hex. Choose one: receive the Boon or each other player receives the Hex.

Update: Increased the price of Favorite to $5

A card that loves card types and a companion cantrip with a ridiculous number of types.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 14, 2020, 11:44:06 am

Quote from: grep on May 14, 2020, 11:29:27 am

(https://i.ibb.co/W0rrpDF/image.png)  (https://i.ibb.co/DfL8X4V/image.png)

Quote

Ledger
$3 - Action
+1 Buy
+$1 per card type in play.
-
When you gain this, if you don't have any Ledgers in play, you may play this immediately.

Favorite
$4 - Action - Attack - Doom - Fate
+1 Card
+1 Action
Discard the top Boon and the top Hex. Choose one: receive the Boon or each other player receives the Hex.

A card that loves card types and a companion cantrip with a ridiculous number of types.

ooh and ledger is cheap enough that you can grab it with the not-usually-worth-it Earth's gift

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 14, 2020, 12:02:26 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on May 14, 2020, 11:11:09 am

VP/Coffers/Villagers interaction:

(https://i.imgur.com/495OX0x.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/hEmfgxT.png)

I assume that it's a physical "move", and Customs House cannot multiply the tokens (otherwise it's crazy).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on May 14, 2020, 12:04:04 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on May 14, 2020, 11:11:09 am

(https://i.imgur.com/495OX0x.png)

Wouldn't this be a dead Event in a Kingdom with no Coffers/Villagers cards?

Quote from: grep on May 14, 2020, 11:29:27 am

(https://i.ibb.co/W0rrpDF/image.png)  (https://i.ibb.co/DfL8X4V/image.png)

Really love Ledger. Stuff like Courtier which deals with card types needs some love in Dominion. However, I dunno if a cantrip Hex giving Attack wouldn't result in a player's turn being completely demolished.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on May 14, 2020, 12:12:52 pm

Quote from: grep on May 14, 2020, 12:02:26 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on May 14, 2020, 11:11:09 am

VP/Coffers/Villagers interaction:

(https://i.imgur.com/495OX0x.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/hEmfgxT.png)

I assume that it's a physical "move", and Customs House cannot multiply the tokens (otherwise it's crazy).

Yes, it is a physical move. I'll get around to updating the wording to make that clear

Quote from: X-tra on May 14, 2020, 12:04:04 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on May 14, 2020, 11:11:09 am

(https://i.imgur.com/495OX0x.png)

Wouldn't this be a dead Event in a Kingdom with no Coffers/Villagers cards?

Quote from: grep on May 14, 2020, 11:29:27 am

(https://i.ibb.co/W0rrpDF/image.png)  (https://i.ibb.co/DfL8X4V/image.png)

Really love Ledger. Stuff like Courtier which deals with card types needs some love in Dominion. However, I dunno if a cantrip Hex giving Attack wouldn't result in a player's turn being completely demolished.

Maybe Privatize should give you villagers? Would two be good?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 14, 2020, 12:15:25 pm

Quote from: grep on May 14, 2020, 11:29:27 am

(https://i.ibb.co/W0rrpDF/image.png)  (https://i.ibb.co/DfL8X4V/image.png)

Quote

Ledger
$3 - Action
+1 Buy
+$1 per card type in play.
-
When you gain this, if you don't have any Ledgers in play, you may play this immediately.

Favorite
$4 - Action - Attack - Doom - Fate
+1 Card
+1 Action
Discard the top Boon and the top Hex. Choose one: receive the Boon or each other player receives the Hex.

A card that loves card types and a companion cantrip with a ridiculous number of types.

Favorite is a $5. If you take a look at the Boons, you realize that they are all of $5 level power: Field is Bazaar, Sea is Lab, Forest is Market.
Now on a pure cantrip that gets a Boon, you would have to discount the randomness. It would either be balanced at $4 or unbalanaced as $4.5.

But Favorite does 3 things more: interact with Ledger, potentiall cantrip Attack (which isn't something you should do at Coin costs yet might be OK because Hexes are weak) and above all offer you the choice between Boon and Hex.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 14, 2020, 12:33:32 pm

Quote from: segura on May 14, 2020, 12:15:25 pm

Quote from: grep on May 14, 2020, 11:29:27 am

(https://i.ibb.co/W0rrpDF/image.png)  (https://i.ibb.co/DfL8X4V/image.png)

Quote

Ledger
$3 - Action
+1 Buy
+$1 per card type in play.
-
When you gain this, if you don't have any Ledgers in play, you may play this immediately.

Favorite
$4 - Action - Attack - Doom - Fate
+1 Card
+1 Action
Discard the top Boon and the top Hex. Choose one: receive the Boon or each other player receives the Hex.

A card that loves card types and a companion cantrip with a ridiculous number of types.

Favorite is a $5. If you take a look at the Boons, you realize that they are all of $5 level power: Field is Bazaar, Sea is Lab, Forest is Market.
Now on a pure cantrip that gets a Boon, you would have to discount the randomness. It would either be balanced at $4 or unbalanaced as $4.5.

But Favorite does 3 things more: interact with Ledger, potentiall cantrip Attack (which isn't something you should do at Coin costs yet might be OK because Hexes are weak) and above all offer you the choice between Boon and Hex.

Ledger is not expected to be in the same Kingdom as Favorite (it is not a split pile), and very strong interaction is a feature. However having a choice between two weak effects is probably strong enough for extra $1 cost, and it's probably too wild for Favorites to bring more Favorites with Earth's gift. I agree to increase the price.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on May 14, 2020, 02:10:02 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/7wDpjBN7/House-v1.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/08637h8g/Merchandise-v1.png)

Thought a long time before entering these 2.
House: House simply used to be "+2 Actions, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)" which, for its cost, was favourable compared to Necropolis, but unfavourable compared to Fishing Village. So I added that last sentence after.
Merchandise: Merchandise is a weak-ish (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) without a Village (it always gives at least (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) since it can always name itself). Aided by one, it powers up quite a bit.

So now, you can do stuff like: House → Merchandise → House, which sums up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), allowing you to purchase 2 more Houses straight up. From there on, your deck should pretty much explode. House complements Merchandise nicely, because it is such a cheap (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) giving Village (Hamlet being cheap as well) and Merchandise's extra Buy paired with the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) it gives you will allow you to gain lotsa Houses. Then, Merchandise can name House and oops, you're suddenly rich. A 5/2 split with House and Merchandise in the Kingdom makes for a happy player.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 14, 2020, 02:29:03 pm

Quote from: grep on May 14, 2020, 11:29:27 am

(https://i.ibb.co/W0rrpDF/image.png)  (https://i.ibb.co/Kjqw9bG/image.png)

Quote

Ledger
$3 - Action
+1 Buy
+$1 per card type in play.
-
When you gain this, if you don't have any Ledgers in play, you may play this immediately.

Favorite
$5 - Action - Attack - Doom - Fate
+1 Card
+1 Action
Discard the top Boon and the top Hex. Choose one: receive the Boon or each other player receives the Hex.

Update: Increased the price of Favorite to $5

A card that loves card types and a companion cantrip with a ridiculous number of types.

Non-terminal boon givers don't play well, they tend to slow down games, especially as cantrips.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on May 14, 2020, 02:47:53 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on May 14, 2020, 12:12:52 pm

Maybe Privatize should give you villagers? Would two be good?

Hmmm. In that scenario, I suppose Privatize would turn into an "infinite (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) token generator that doesn't push the game toward an end condition", not unlike Monument. However, because of the high cost of Privatize paired with the slowness of it on its own, maybe this isn't so much of an issue? I've always struggled with (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) tokens and their balance.

I think the experts need to chime in here. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on May 14, 2020, 02:58:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/kqPKcik.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/7UEPhqb.png) (https://i.imgur.com/4P91183.png) There are 12 Accommodations in the pile.

Small Market
It does a bit of everything, but nothing really good. Kind of  Squire in that regard. It guarantees that both Actions and Buys are available in the Kingdom, which often is enough of a reason to pick it up. When you are able to discard it, that is where it starts getting fun.

Innkeeper
Most comparable to Exorcist, but still quite different. So first you want to trash Estates with it, and later you trash this together with a Copper to put those beautiful Accommodations, you where sitting on, into your deck. The last sentence is what makes the card so interesting to me: It is a Trasher that can trash itself, to not be a bad card in your deck later in the game. But you cannot trash your Coppers effectivly with it, only one per Innkeeper. So you want to wait before blowing it up. But again, not to long as you do not want to wait for your Accommodations.

Accommodation itself is also interesting. It has high potential, but how long do you want to keep it alive? As your Actions are probably the best cards in your deck, discarding one is a great price. Maybe just use it as a One-shot...

And that is where Small Market comes into play. It loves to get discarded, and especially with Accommodation, since unlike most other cards it is restricted in what you can discard. So it's not Small Market instead of Copper, but Small Market instead of that lovely Smithy you'd like to play.
This combination can go pretty wild! :D


And of course the theme: You get the Accommodation for one night, but you can use it for longer, if you keep paying for. :)

Edit: Changed the Accommodation pile to contain 12 cards. With 4 players everyone can trash their starting Estates and get 3 Accomodations. That sounds fair to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 14, 2020, 03:32:26 pm

how many Accomodations are in the pile?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 14, 2020, 03:45:34 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 14, 2020, 02:29:03 pm

Quote from: grep on May 14, 2020, 11:29:27 am

(https://i.ibb.co/W0rrpDF/image.png)  (https://i.ibb.co/Kjqw9bG/image.png)

Quote

Ledger
$3 - Action
+1 Buy
+$1 per card type in play.
-
When you gain this, if you don't have any Ledgers in play, you may play this immediately.

Favorite
$5 - Action - Attack - Doom - Fate
+1 Card
+1 Action
Discard the top Boon and the top Hex. Choose one: receive the Boon or each other player receives the Hex.

Update: Increased the price of Favorite to $5

A card that loves card types and a companion cantrip with a ridiculous number of types.

Non-terminal boon givers don't play well, they tend to slow down games, especially as cantrips.

Why did you not shred all your copies of Scrying Pool then which takes far longer to execute?

Just because DXV did not like the cantrip that yielded Boons during playtesting Nocturne does not mean that all Dominion players in the world feel the same about it. I certainly don’t, as long as a design is sound (cannot be said about the aforementioned Scrying Pool) and interesting I don’t care whether it prolongs games.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on May 14, 2020, 04:26:08 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 14, 2020, 03:32:26 pm

how many Accomodations are in the pile?

Good catch!
There are 10. The idea is to have enough, so that you don't have to fight for them, even when you play with more players. So I guess 10 will do it, but it is quite tough to say without playtesting. I might change my mind later on and make it 12.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 14, 2020, 08:08:15 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 14, 2020, 01:11:42 am

Quote from: artless on May 13, 2020, 11:25:37 am

Assembly Shop
Project
Cost: $6

At the end of your buy phase, you may discard any number of cards and gain a card costing exactly $1 per card discarded.

Monk's Village
Action
Cost: $4

+2 Actions
+1 Card
When you discard this from play, if your hand is empty, +1 coffer.

---
Assembly Shop is an alternate payload to combo decks.
Monk's Village is a 4 cost village plus.
Its bonus can be achieved by multiple ways, buy an Assembly Shop is the most reliable one.

Edit:
Assembly Shop replaces Engrave

Yes, Assembly Shop is nice. I don't know, maybe it would better don't give victory cards. With a Hounting Grounds or a Council Room in hand, it's a guaranteed Province in that turn.

About Monk's Village bonus, I have a rule doubt.

From Dominion rulebook:

The player places any cards that are in his play area (Action cards that have been played in the Action phase as well as Treasure cards that have been played in the Buy phase) and any cards remaining in his hand onto his Discard pile.

Does it mean that you must discard from play area before discard from hand? Or you can choose discard from hand before discard from play area?

The official rules are unclear but Jeebus's comprehensive compiled rulebook says discard cards in play, then discard hand (and then you can swap the order of the discarded hand/in-play cards so people don't know what you discarded from your hand).
I only know that because I had to look it up, I had this same question.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on May 14, 2020, 11:32:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wZzzqB8.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/KvIhYCS.png)

Quote

Deacon

+1 Card
+1 Action

Once this turn, when you play a card, you may trash it afterwards.

Action
$4

Quote

Knave

+$1
+1 Buy
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
-
When you trash this, each other player gains a Curse.

Action
$2

---

Quote from: X-tra on May 14, 2020, 02:10:02 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/7wDpjBN7/House-v1.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/08637h8g/Merchandise-v1.png)
...

Merchandise seems really strong in general to me. In any engine-y deck you'll be playing multiple villages a turn, making this a great payload card in addition to drawing for you already. (The +Buy makes having other payload cards even more unnecessary.)

House sounds pretty good, but probably not too good because you won't always get to play it for the bonus, especially in the early game when it matters most.

---

Quote from: artless on May 13, 2020, 10:37:36 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 13, 2020, 02:21:15 pm

Quote from: artless on May 13, 2020, 11:25:37 am

Engrave
Event
Cost: $1

Discard any number of cards, gain a card costing exactly $1 per card discarded.

Monk's Village
Action
Cost: $4

+2 Actions
+1 Card
When you discard this from play, if your hand is empty, +1 coffer.

---
Engrave is an event version of Artificer.
It reduces the pain of drawing a hand of dead cards.
Also, it enables new open strategies (like Alms).

Monk's Village is a 4 cost village plus.
Its bonus can be achieved either by trash, play actions with discard effects, be attacked by opponent, draw the right cards, or buy an Engrave event.
What makes the combo better is: engrave enables 4-4 open.

Artless, I'm asking myself if this end-turn Artificer is not too fast. I mean, in any engine you have to balance between draw power and payload. With Engrave, you can be focused only in get draw power and not worrying about payload during the whole game. What do you think about this?

You are right. A default payload makes it too easy to build an engine. Even if being nerfed, the card would still be problematic.

...

Isn't Engrave pretty weak for a payload option though? It's really good at getting you $5/$6 cards if you have a little draw but not great at scaling past that as it effectively only gives you $1 per card in hand. The reason Artisan can be explosive sometimes is because it gains to the top of your deck mid-turn, Engrave does neither of these and also costs a buy (the fact that it costs a buy makes it much worse than Artisan at gaining cheap cards as well). I agree that it can be somewhat powerful but I don't think it promotes boring strategies/overshadows other cards very much.

---

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on May 14, 2020, 11:43:47 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 14, 2020, 08:08:15 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 14, 2020, 01:11:42 am

Quote from: artless on May 13, 2020, 11:25:37 am

Assembly Shop
Project
Cost: $6

At the end of your buy phase, you may discard any number of cards and gain a card costing exactly $1 per card discarded.

Monk's Village
Action
Cost: $4

+2 Actions
+1 Card
When you discard this from play, if your hand is empty, +1 coffer.

---
Assembly Shop is an alternate payload to combo decks.
Monk's Village is a 4 cost village plus.
Its bonus can be achieved by multiple ways, buy an Assembly Shop is the most reliable one.

Edit:
Assembly Shop replaces Engrave

Yes, Assembly Shop is nice. I don't know, maybe it would better don't give victory cards. With a Hounting Grounds or a Council Room in hand, it's a guaranteed Province in that turn.

About Monk's Village bonus, I have a rule doubt.

From Dominion rulebook:

The player places any cards that are in his play area (Action cards that have been played in the Action phase as well as Treasure cards that have been played in the Buy phase) and any cards remaining in his hand onto his Discard pile.

Does it mean that you must discard from play area before discard from hand? Or you can choose discard from hand before discard from play area?

The official rules are unclear but Jeebus's comprehensive compiled rulebook says discard cards in play, then discard hand (and then you can swap the order of the discarded hand/in-play cards so people don't know what you discarded from your hand).
I only know that because I had to look it up, I had this same question.

Thanks. I need a new wording.
To avoid anti-synergy with night cards, I can't say "at the start of your upkeep".
"After playing night cards" is also not the right wording, as night phase is not available all the time.
Maybe I should skip the phase stuffs and use "when you empty your hand" instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 15, 2020, 01:54:10 am

Quote from: alion8me on May 14, 2020, 11:32:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wZzzqB8.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/KvIhYCS.png)

Quote

Deacon

+1 Card
+1 Action

Once this turn, when you play a card, you may trash it afterwards.

Action
$4

Quote

Knave

+$1
+1 Buy
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
-
When you trash this, each other player gains a Curse.

Action
$2

The Knave card you posted says something different from the text version.

I think both versions are pretty weak, and trashing is not an ideal trigger for cursing, since that implies there is already a counter available.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 15, 2020, 06:35:08 am

Quote from: Carline on May 15, 2020, 05:51:44 am

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/651/525/full/Cargo_Vessel_%281%29.png?1589533308)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/651/513/full/Cargo_Bales_%281%29.png?1589523252)

Quote

Cargo Vessel • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action - Duration

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a non-duration action card from your hand. If you did, set it aside (on this) and put it into your hand at the start of your next turn.

Cargo Bales • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
If this is in play and it's the first play of it after put it in play:
+ (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)
- (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) for each Cargo Bales you have in play.

Cargo Vessel plays pretty much like a Caravan + Scheme, except it's somewhat weaker (as you already need to have the card you want to save in hand, and with Caravan + Scheme you could play the Scheme every turn). For cantrips, I think $5 costs that have the effect of playing a $4 and a $3 are fine powerwise - see Bazaar, Market, if a little on the weak side.

For Cargo Bales, you you phrase it as "if you played this from your hand", which deals with Throning and Command cards, and makes it have a little less text, but it introduces new interaction with stuff like Herald.

Both cards are probably fine if a little unexciting. The interaction is definitely there, but would probably be more pronounced if Cargo Bales did something with a little more impact than just +$.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 15, 2020, 08:18:48 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on May 12, 2020, 02:06:00 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 12, 2020, 11:49:29 am

Something_Smart, please clarify this point: Is the idea to create cards that can also stand on their own or it's ok to create mutually dependent cards as I did?

I was thinking that people would create cards that can stand on their own, but you don't have to-- split piles are fine, and this Partner idea is creative and cool as well. Go for it.

Something_Smart allowed me to participate with the partner cards I created, which mention each other.

However, I still wasn’t feeling comfortable with it, since it doesn’t fit completely the initial scope of the contest. In some way, it’s easier to create an interesting interaction between two cards which mention each other than create two cards that are strong by themselves and also has a cool special interaction.

So, I’m withdrawing my first entry. Though I like the partner idea, I will leave it for an occasion it fits better.

This is my new entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/651/525/full/Cargo_Vessel_%281%29.png?1589533308)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/651/513/full/Cargo_Bales_%281%29.png?1589523252)

Quote

Cargo Vessel • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action - Duration

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a non-duration action card from your hand. If you did, set it aside (on this) and put it into your hand at the start of your next turn.

Cargo Bales • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
If this is in play and it's the first play of it after put it in play:
+ (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)
- (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) for each Cargo Bales you have in play.

CARGO VESSEL

A kind of Cargo Ship or Haven for the actions you play with it. Like those cards, it increases your next initial hand by one card. It also has a kind of a Scheme effect, enabling better deck control and reliability. It’s also a Village. All these features make it a strong card in an engine. However, since you can play each copy of it only once at each two turns and it may miss shuffles, I think it's not extreme.

It plays only non-duration cards to avoid tracking issues.

Comparing the similar and different features of it to Haven, Cargo Ship, Scheme, Throne Room, Village and Wharf it seems good to me at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png).

CARGO BALES

A cantrip payload, which makes it especially good in engines. It decreases its power at each play, so it’s not broken.

The first one played is a cantrip Gold, a very good card.

The second played is a cantrip Silver.

The third, a cantrip Copper (a Peddler).

The fourth, only a cantrip.

After the fourth, you pay to play it if you want to draw with it.

The clause “If this is in play and it's the first play of it after put it in play” is intended to make only the cantrip part be affected by throne cards and command cards. Otherwise, it could be too strong. I don’t know if it’s the best wording for it, but I couldn’t find better.

Thinking of it as a Peddler with a bonus in first plays and a penalty in late plays, I think it’s ok at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), which is the habitual price for peddlers with bonus (Market, Bazaar, Artificer, Treasury, Junk Dealer, Emporium, Fisherman).

INTERACTION

Cargo Vessel can play Cargo Bales and remove it from play, so the next copy of Cargo Bales you would play would also be a cantrip Gold. Besides that, the first Cargo Bales you have played would be returned to your hand in your next turn. And cantrip payload is maybe the best thing to return to hand with Cargo Vessel, it's non terminal and doesn't depend on good draw, it's always free money, a very reliable thing. It’s a strong combo but not extreme, since you need a copy of each card every time you do the trick. It is helped by returning Cargo Bales to hand in your next turn, but counterbalanced by Cargo Vessel being a duration, needing two turns to leave play.

Thematically, they fit each other very well. Cargo Bales gives you money and Cargo Vessel transports Cargo Bales to your hand in the next turn. Also they fit thematically Cargo Ship and Haven, which have some similar abilities to Cargo Vessel.

Feedbacks are always very welcome.

EDIT: DUE TO FEEDBACKS, I CHANGED MY ENTRY AGAIN. SEE POST FORWARD.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 15, 2020, 08:52:06 am

Quote from: alion8me on May 14, 2020, 11:32:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wZzzqB8.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/KvIhYCS.png)

Quote

Deacon

+1 Card
+1 Action

Once this turn, when you play a card, you may trash it afterwards.

Action
$4

Quote

Knave

+$1
+1 Buy
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand.
-
When you trash this, each other player gains a Curse.

Action
$2

should knave be an attack

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on May 15, 2020, 09:05:15 am

Quote from: Rhodos on May 14, 2020, 02:58:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/kqPKcik.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/7UEPhqb.png) (https://i.imgur.com/4P91183.png) There are 10 Accommodations in the pile.

Interesting little triangle of cards! So if I'm reading this correctly, the only way to get the Accommodations in your deck is by trashing an Innkeeper to un-Exile them?

Quote from: alion8me on May 14, 2020, 11:32:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wZzzqB8.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/KvIhYCS.png)

Knave not being of Attack type is by design? Because it does hinder the other players unconditionally with the “discard down to 2 cards” part, regardless if you Curse ‘em or not. And like Faust said, your quote text for Knave says +1 Buy instead of the +1 Action printed on the card image.

Quote from: alion8me on May 14, 2020, 11:32:47 pm

Merchandise seems really strong in general to me. In any engine-y deck you'll be playing multiple villages a turn, making this a great payload card in addition to drawing for you already. (The +Buy makes having other payload cards even more unnecessary.)

Merchandise, in its default state, can be seen as a Market that replaces its +1 Action with a +1 Card. That, by default, seems like a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) to me. Not cantriping into your next good Engine components is a serious penalty indeed. That missing +1 Action, I think, limits the potential of that card, which, in a vacuum, makes it seems like something on the lower end of the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) cards. However, yeah. It does get more potent paired with the right cards. If you chain 3 cheap cantrips before a Merchandise like, say, Pearl Diver (I don’t recommend buying 3+ Pearl Divers, but that’s another topic :D), then if you end your Action phase by playing a terminal Merchandise thereafter, you’ll reap a nice +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png). This makes the card worth more. I think it is somewhat Kingdom dependent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 15, 2020, 09:40:31 am

Quote from: Carline on May 15, 2020, 08:18:48 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on May 12, 2020, 02:06:00 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 12, 2020, 11:49:29 am

Something_Smart, please clarify this point: Is the idea to create cards that can also stand on their own or it's ok to create mutually dependent cards as I did?

I was thinking that people would create cards that can stand on their own, but you don't have to-- split piles are fine, and this Partner idea is creative and cool as well. Go for it.

Something_Smart allowed me to participate with the partner cards I created, which mention each other.

However, I still wasn’t feeling comfortable with it, since it doesn’t fit completely the initial scope of the contest. In some way, it’s easier to create an interesting interaction between two cards which mention each other than create two cards that are strong by themselves and also has a cool special interaction.

So, I’m withdrawing my first entry. Though I like the partner idea, I will leave it for an occasion it fits better.

This is my new entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/651/525/full/Cargo_Vessel_%281%29.png?1589533308)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/651/513/full/Cargo_Bales_%281%29.png?1589523252)

Quote

Cargo Vessel • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action - Duration

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a non-duration action card from your hand. If you did, set it aside (on this) and put it into your hand at the start of your next turn.

Cargo Bales • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
If this is in play and it's the first play of it after put it in play:
+ (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)
- (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) for each Cargo Bales you have in play.

CARGO VESSEL

A kind of Cargo Ship or Haven for the actions you play with it. Like those cards, it increases your next initial hand by one card. It also has a kind of a Scheme effect, enabling better deck control and reliability. It’s also a Village. All these features make it a strong card in an engine. However, since you can play each copy of it only once at each two turns and it may miss shuffles, I think it's not extreme.

It plays only non-duration cards to avoid tracking issues.

Comparing the similar and different features of it to Haven, Cargo Ship, Scheme, Throne Room, Village and Wharf it seems good to me at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png).

CARGO BALES

A cantrip payload, which makes it especially good in engines. It decreases its power at each play, so it’s not broken.

The first one played is a cantrip Gold, a very good card.

The second played is a cantrip Silver.

The third, a cantrip Copper (a Peddler).

The fourth, only a cantrip.

After the fourth, you pay to play it if you want to draw with it.

The clause “If this is in play and it's the first play of it after put it in play” is intended to make only the cantrip part be affected by throne cards and command cards. Otherwise, it could be too strong. I don’t know if it’s the best wording for it, but I couldn’t find better.

Thinking of it as a Peddler with a bonus in first plays and a penalty in late plays, I think it’s ok at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), which is the habitual price for peddlers with bonus (Market, Bazaar, Artificer, Treasury, Junk Dealer, Emporium, Fisherman).

INTERACTION

Cargo Vessel can play Cargo Bales and remove it from play, so the next copy of Cargo Bales you would play would also be a cantrip Gold. Besides that, the first Cargo Bales you have played would be returned to your hand in your next turn. And cantrip payload is maybe the best thing to return to hand with Cargo Vessel, it's non terminal and doesn't depend on good draw, it's always free money, a very reliable thing. It’s a strong combo but not extreme, since you need a copy of each card every time you do the trick. It is helped by returning Cargo Bales to hand in your next turn, but counterbalanced by Cargo Vessel being a duration, needing two turns to leave play.

Thematically, they fit each other very well. Cargo Bales gives you money and Cargo Vessel transports Cargo Bales to your hand in the next turn. Also they fit thematically Cargo Ship and Haven, which have some similar abilities to Cargo Vessel.

Feedbacks are always very welcome.

On second thought, maybe the first two plays of Cargo Bales are too strong. I don’t know for sure if it’s well counterbalanced by its decrease.

First play is like to play three Peddlers or to play a Village + a Legionary (without the attack). Second play is like two Peddlers or an activated Conspirator or an activated Mystic.

Maybe I would make it a $6 cost or remove the +1 Card. What do you think?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 15, 2020, 09:48:57 am

Quote from: Carline on May 15, 2020, 09:40:31 am

Quote from: Carline on May 15, 2020, 08:18:48 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on May 12, 2020, 02:06:00 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 12, 2020, 11:49:29 am

Something_Smart, please clarify this point: Is the idea to create cards that can also stand on their own or it's ok to create mutually dependent cards as I did?

I was thinking that people would create cards that can stand on their own, but you don't have to-- split piles are fine, and this Partner idea is creative and cool as well. Go for it.

Something_Smart allowed me to participate with the partner cards I created, which mention each other.

However, I still wasn’t feeling comfortable with it, since it doesn’t fit completely the initial scope of the contest. In some way, it’s easier to create an interesting interaction between two cards which mention each other than create two cards that are strong by themselves and also has a cool special interaction.

So, I’m withdrawing my first entry. Though I like the partner idea, I will leave it for an occasion it fits better.

This is my new entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/651/525/full/Cargo_Vessel_%281%29.png?1589533308)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/651/513/full/Cargo_Bales_%281%29.png?1589523252)

Quote

Cargo Vessel • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action - Duration

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a non-duration action card from your hand. If you did, set it aside (on this) and put it into your hand at the start of your next turn.

Cargo Bales • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
If this is in play and it's the first play of it after put it in play:
+ (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)
- (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) for each Cargo Bales you have in play.

CARGO VESSEL

A kind of Cargo Ship or Haven for the actions you play with it. Like those cards, it increases your next initial hand by one card. It also has a kind of a Scheme effect, enabling better deck control and reliability. It’s also a Village. All these features make it a strong card in an engine. However, since you can play each copy of it only once at each two turns and it may miss shuffles, I think it's not extreme.

It plays only non-duration cards to avoid tracking issues.

Comparing the similar and different features of it to Haven, Cargo Ship, Scheme, Throne Room, Village and Wharf it seems good to me at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png).

CARGO BALES

A cantrip payload, which makes it especially good in engines. It decreases its power at each play, so it’s not broken.

The first one played is a cantrip Gold, a very good card.

The second played is a cantrip Silver.

The third, a cantrip Copper (a Peddler).

The fourth, only a cantrip.

After the fourth, you pay to play it if you want to draw with it.

The clause “If this is in play and it's the first play of it after put it in play” is intended to make only the cantrip part be affected by throne cards and command cards. Otherwise, it could be too strong. I don’t know if it’s the best wording for it, but I couldn’t find better.

Thinking of it as a Peddler with a bonus in first plays and a penalty in late plays, I think it’s ok at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), which is the habitual price for peddlers with bonus (Market, Bazaar, Artificer, Treasury, Junk Dealer, Emporium, Fisherman).

INTERACTION

Cargo Vessel can play Cargo Bales and remove it from play, so the next copy of Cargo Bales you would play would also be a cantrip Gold. Besides that, the first Cargo Bales you have played would be returned to your hand in your next turn. And cantrip payload is maybe the best thing to return to hand with Cargo Vessel, it's non terminal and doesn't depend on good draw, it's always free money, a very reliable thing. It’s a strong combo but not extreme, since you need a copy of each card every time you do the trick. It is helped by returning Cargo Bales to hand in your next turn, but counterbalanced by Cargo Vessel being a duration, needing two turns to leave play.

Thematically, they fit each other very well. Cargo Bales gives you money and Cargo Vessel transports Cargo Bales to your hand in the next turn. Also they fit thematically Cargo Ship and Haven, which have some similar abilities to Cargo Vessel.

Feedbacks are always very welcome.

On second thought, maybe the first two plays of Cargo Bales are too strong. I don’t know for sure if it’s well counterbalanced by its decrease.

First play is like to play three Peddlers or to play a Village + a Legionary (without the attack). Second play is like two Peddlers or an activated Conspirator or an activated Mystic.

Maybe I would make it a $6 cost or remove the +1 Card. What do you think?

Cargo Bales has an odd, somewhat confusing phrasing that doesn't follow the phrasing of any other in the game. It also pretty much boils down to always buying a single copy and always playing it, and maybe a second one, because most decks don't want any after the third, which makes it a bit uninteresting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 15, 2020, 12:57:34 pm

Quote from: faust on May 15, 2020, 06:35:08 am

Quote from: Carline on May 15, 2020, 05:51:44 am

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/651/525/full/Cargo_Vessel_%281%29.png?1589533308)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/651/513/full/Cargo_Bales_%281%29.png?1589523252)

Quote

Cargo Vessel • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action - Duration

+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a non-duration action card from your hand. If you did, set it aside (on this) and put it into your hand at the start of your next turn.

Cargo Bales • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
If this is in play and it's the first play of it after put it in play:
+ (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)
- (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) for each Cargo Bales you have in play.

Cargo Vessel plays pretty much like a Caravan + Scheme, except it's somewhat weaker (as you already need to have the card you want to save in hand, and with Caravan + Scheme you could play the Scheme every turn). For cantrips, I think $5 costs that have the effect of playing a $4 and a $3 are fine powerwise - see Bazaar, Market, if a little on the weak side.

For Cargo Bales, you you phrase it as "if you played this from your hand", which deals with Throning and Command cards, and makes it have a little less text, but it introduces new interaction with stuff like Herald.

Both cards are probably fine if a little unexciting. The interaction is definitely there, but would probably be more pronounced if Cargo Bales did something with a little more impact than just +$.

Faust, excuse me, I removed the post you commented to replace with a better version that wouldn't be marked as edited. I didn't see you had already commented it. if I did, I wouldn't remove it.

Anyway, from one post to another I only change writing, so it's the same, except for my post being after yours.

I like your comments and will take them into account to improve my entry. Thank you!

Quote from: D782802859 on May 15, 2020, 09:48:57 am

Cargo Bales has an odd, somewhat confusing phrasing that doesn't follow the phrasing of any other in the game. It also pretty much boils down to always buying a single copy and always playing it, and maybe a second one, because most decks don't want any after the third, which makes it a bit uninteresting.

Thank you, D782802859! You’re right about the two issues. I will change my entry to fix them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on May 15, 2020, 09:57:49 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 15, 2020, 12:57:34 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 15, 2020, 09:48:57 am

Cargo Bales has an odd, somewhat confusing phrasing that doesn't follow the phrasing of any other in the game. It also pretty much boils down to always buying a single copy and always playing it, and maybe a second one, because most decks don't want any after the third, which makes it a bit uninteresting.

Thank you, D782802859! You’re right about the two issues. I will change my entry to fix them.

I would recommend removing the whole "first play after put into play" wording. Just let the throne combo exist. It's not that great anyway; throne room is a good card in lots of situations. Any wording for this is horribly awkward and generally it is bad to add a lot of text just to affect a single interaction.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 16, 2020, 03:28:15 am

Quote from: mad4math on May 15, 2020, 09:57:49 pm

I would recommend removing the whole "first play after put into play" wording. Just let the throne combo exist. It's not that great anyway; throne room is a good card in lots of situations. Any wording for this is horribly awkward and generally it is bad to add a lot of text just to affect a single interaction.

Quote from: D782802859 on May 15, 2020, 09:48:57 am

Cargo Bales has an odd, somewhat confusing phrasing that doesn't follow the phrasing of any other in the game. It also pretty much boils down to always buying a single copy and always playing it, and maybe a second one, because most decks don't want any after the third, which makes it a bit uninteresting.

Quote from: faust on May 15, 2020, 06:35:08 am

Cargo Vessel plays pretty much like a Caravan + Scheme, except it's somewhat weaker (as you already need to have the card you want to save in hand, and with Caravan + Scheme you could play the Scheme every turn). For cantrips, I think $5 costs that have the effect of playing a $4 and a $3 are fine powerwise - see Bazaar, Market, if a little on the weak side.

For Cargo Bales, you you phrase it as "if you played this from your hand", which deals with Throning and Command cards, and makes it have a little less text, but it introduces new interaction with stuff like Herald.

Both cards are probably fine if a little unexciting. The interaction is definitely there, but would probably be more pronounced if Cargo Bales did something with a little more impact than just +$.

Thank you all for feedbacks. I think I was so worried about cards being unbalanced that I made them quite weak and, in the case of Cargo Bales, a lot confusing.

So, I redesign the cards to make them more attractive to buy during all the game and also to make the combo worths more.

Since Cargo Vessel had already the combined effect of three cards (Scheme and Caravan as pointed, but also Village), I think it could work very well in engines. I just remove the duration type, which was slowing it so much. So now it gets you an action card back to hand in the end of this turn instead of at the start of next turn.

About Cargo Bales, I made it more diversified, giving many kinds of vanilla bonus. I also remove decrease factor, which was making it uninteresting to buy more copies. I keep only the difference between first play and the following plays. With the new version I also don’t have to worry so much about throne and command cards, so its wording is so much better.

The new version becomes a kind of Market variant with Village abilities, so to express this and fit better thematically the cards families in the game, I rename it to Port Market.

With these modifications and respective changes in comments about cards and interaction, my new entry is this:


(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/653/477/original/Cargo_Vessel_%283%29.png?1589610918)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/653/481/full/Port_Market_%282%29.png?1589611983)

Quote

CARGO VESSEL • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play a non-duration action card from your hand. If you did, set it aside and put it into your hand at the end of this turn.

PORT MARKET • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) • Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Choose one: +1 Action; or +1 Buy; or +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png).
If there's no other Port Market in play:
+1 Buy and +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png).
 

CARGO VESSEL

A kind of Cargo Ship or Haven for the actions you play with it. Like those cards or Caravan, it increases your next initial hand by one card. It also has a Scheme effect, enabling better deck control and reliability. It’s also a Village. All these features make it a strong card in an engine.

Once you have it and another action in hand, play Cargo Vessel and make it play that action has an effect similar to play at same time a Scheme, a Caravan and a Village: you will add that played action to your next hand as an extra card and have +1 action available.

It plays only non-duration cards to avoid tracking issues.

Once it is a cantrip, in the worst case that you don’t have another action to play, it doesn’t have the Throne Room issue of doing nothing some turns. In this aspect it is more like a Village, you have one draw more to get an action card (If you don’t get it often, maybe you are playing a non action based strategy that doesn’t need a Village).

Since it has a combined effect of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) and (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) cost cards, it seems ok at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png).

PORT MARKET

A cantrip with a chosen bonus and an extra bonus at its first play in a turn.

The first Port Market played is a Market with a bonus. Depending on your choice, it could be:

- Market + Village

- Market + Peddler (= Grand Market)

- Market + Market Square

In the following plays it could be a Village, a Peddler or a Market Square, you choose.

This choice between free payload, free buy or free actions, makes it a very interesting option in engines, with big versatility. The bonus at first play make it a very good card in the initial turns to boost your deck.

Thinking of it as a Peddler, Market Square or Village with a bonus, I think it’s ok at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), which is the habitual price for peddlers with bonus (Market, Bazaar, Artificer, Treasury, Junk Dealer, Emporium, Fisherman).

INTERACTION

Cargo Vessel can play Port Market and remove it from play, so the next copy of Port Market you’d play would also receive the extra bonus. Besides that, the first Port Market you have played would be returned to your hand in your next turn as an extra card. And Port Market is one of the best cards to have in your initial hand, due its largesse and versatility. The first play of it give you a free one of each vanilla payload resources and you can choose as a bonus whatever you need more this turn, + $, + Action or + Buy.

Thematically, they fit each other very well, as well as they fit with Cargo Ship, Haven, Market, Port and many cards in the game which have some similar abilities.

As always, Feedbacks are very welcome. I learn so much with them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on May 16, 2020, 04:46:28 am

Updated. I'm hoping unused actions carry over into the buy phase.

There are 15 Mice on top of 5 cats. in a split pile. Note thought that Cat also works really well with Squire if there is a pricey attack on the board and Mouse can get rid of curses so its not entirely awful. Cat is potentially better than Lab with the risk it will just fizz out and do nothing.

(https://i.imgur.com/Z5sdPbJ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/2ElPqER.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 16, 2020, 05:15:50 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 16, 2020, 04:46:28 am

Updated. I'm hoping unused actions carry over into the buy phase.

There are 15 Mice on top of 5 cats. in a split pile. Note thought that Cat also works really well with Squire if there is a pricey attack on the board and Mouse can get rid of curses so its not entirely awful. Cat is potentially better than Lab with the risk it will just fizz out and do nothing.

(https://i.imgur.com/Z5sdPbJ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/2ElPqER.png)

In Cat the text above the line should be below it and vice versa.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 16, 2020, 05:35:17 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 16, 2020, 04:46:28 am

Updated. I'm hoping unused actions carry over into the buy phase.

There are 15 Mice on top of 5 cats. in a split pile. Note thought that Cat also works really well with Squire if there is a pricey attack on the board and Mouse can get rid of curses so its not entirely awful. Cat is potentially better than Lab with the risk it will just fizz out and do nothing.

(https://i.imgur.com/Z5sdPbJ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/2ElPqER.png)

In kingdoms without cursers or other trasher, I think I wouldn't want to buy Mouse to trash Coppers, since until Cat shows up what I would have is a deck full of Necropolis. In kingdoms with other trasher except for Jack of All Trades or Hermit I could use that trasher to trash the Coppers. So, Mouse seems to me to be very limited in uses.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 16, 2020, 10:03:59 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 16, 2020, 04:46:28 am

Updated. I'm hoping unused actions carry over into the buy phase.

they do. Diadem, Villa, and Cavalry care about this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 17, 2020, 01:36:10 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 16, 2020, 04:46:28 am

Updated. I'm hoping unused actions carry over into the buy phase.

There are 15 Mice on top of 5 cats. in a split pile. Note thought that Cat also works really well with Squire if there is a pricey attack on the board and Mouse can get rid of curses so its not entirely awful. Cat is potentially better than Lab with the risk it will just fizz out and do nothing.

(https://i.imgur.com/Z5sdPbJ.png) (https://i.imgur.com/2ElPqER.png)

A Mouse can eat a Cat having a few Villages in play - is it intended?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on May 17, 2020, 09:23:35 am

Ha grep, nope totally unintended.
I'm actually going to make some significant changes to these two. Firstly I don't like the idea of split cards for this challenge. I want to make two pieces that fit together and can stand apart.
For the fitting together I need the benefit of the mouse (upgrading coppers to a 2 cost card) to be appreciated by the cat. If Cat trashes 0 cost cards the same as 2 cost cards that benefit isn't there. But if it trashes only 2 cost cards its benefit is too narrow. Hence I went with being able to trash up to 2 cost but only benefiting if the cost is above zero.
These are two separate normal sized piles (only ten mice) that might not turn up in a kingdom together. This makes the Mouse a tough choice in kingdoms without trashers or other +Actions. I am tempted to up the Mouse to +3 actions but I don't think its necessary. Mouse is a trasher that will never hit anything bad and compares favourably, in some lights, to Lookout. There is a risk you will be the only player to gain all 10 but thats part of the fun of timing when you pick one up. If there is no better source of +Actions your opponents will probably want some of the Mice before they run out.
The Cat is strong regardless. Even if you only convert 3 estates into +2 cards at different times its worth it. Mice make Cats awesome. But Cats are still worth picking.

(https://i.imgur.com/Z5sdPbJ.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/0vuqZXn.png)

I'm a little worried Cat is too strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Vengil on May 17, 2020, 10:57:03 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 17, 2020, 09:23:35 am

Firstly I don't like the idea of split cards for this challenge.

The split pile was a good idea. Maybe 5 Mouses and 5 Cats ?

Maybe :
Cat : +1 Action, +1 carte. You may trash a Mouse in your hand for draw 2 cards.
Mousse : +2 Action. Réveal the top card of you deck. If it Costs 0 trash it. Otherwise discard it. Gain a Mouse or Cat if avaible.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on May 17, 2020, 02:11:28 pm

Quote from: X-tra on May 15, 2020, 09:05:15 am

Quote from: Rhodos on May 14, 2020, 02:58:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/kqPKcik.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/7UEPhqb.png) (https://i.imgur.com/4P91183.png) There are 10 Accommodations in the pile.

Interesting little triangle of cards! So if I'm reading this correctly, the only way to get the Accommodations in your deck is by trashing an Innkeeper to un-Exile them?

Thank you!
Yes that and Transport I guess :D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on May 19, 2020, 12:55:32 am

My entry is an old card I submitted before, and a new card that combos with it.
The old card is Turtle.
(https://i.imgur.com/xg8VY6u.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/IdePY97.jpg)

Quote

Turtle
$2 Night - Duration

Set aside any number of action cards from your hand. At the start of your next turn, play them in any order.
-----
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).

Quote

Road
$4 Action
+2 buys
You may trash this for +$5. If you didn't, discard your hand.
----
While this is in play, cards cost $2 less.

This card is pretty weird. It's a choice between a princess variant and a death cart variant. Note that if you choose the trash option, cards won't cost $2 less because it's not in play.
I am very unconfident about the balance of this card. I think that something reasonable can be made by tweaking the cost and the $ for trashing it. The original version I was thinking of didn't have the death cart option, but I was worried it would be a dead card too often since it required virtual coin to do anything at all. Now it has a built-in way of giving virtual coin, making both options relevant always.

With Turtle, you can get a megaturn by setting aside 4 Roads, and then choosing the discard option on all of them at the start of your turn. Now cards cost $8 less and you have 9 buys, enough to empty the provinces.

The earlier judging claimed that Turtle was too strong in cases where it sets aside 3+ cards, however I think it is fine as it is a big downside to duration you actions and only get them every other turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 19, 2020, 03:16:01 am

Quote from: mad4math on May 19, 2020, 12:55:32 am

My entry is an old card I submitted before, and a new card that combos with it.
The old card is Turtle.
(https://i.imgur.com/xg8VY6u.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/IdePY97.jpg)

Quote

Turtle
$2 Night - Duration

Set aside any number of action cards from your hand. At the start of your next turn, play them in any order.
-----
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).

Quote

Road
$4 Action
+2 buys
You may trash this for +$5. If you didn't, discard your hand.
----
While this is in play, cards cost $2 less.

I think Turtle could stand to be more expensive, it is pretty powerful aas it can act as a weird source of +actions on boards without other sources, thus enabling engines. Especially good since you can buy it just when you need it.

Road is too powerful as written with the trashing I think. It's a no-brainer any time you want to spike early, compared to Death Cart which at least comes with some drawbacks, and if you don't want to spike it's still a Feast+. Hard to tell how good it would be if you reduced the bonus to +$4, I think it would still see plenty of uses. I would also try to make the non-trashing option a bit more viable, not sure what the best way for that would be though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 19, 2020, 03:45:53 am

Quote from: faust on May 19, 2020, 03:16:01 am

I think Turtle could stand to be more expensive, it is pretty powerful aas it can act as a weird source of +actions on boards without other sources, thus enabling engines. Especially good since you can buy it just when you need it.

Yes, comparing to Tactician, which also sacrifices a turn for the next one, Turtle seems really too strong at $2, since you play the saved actions for free next turn.

It enables you to have a high density of terminal draw in your deck that you can play for free, making it easier to draw your whole deck. With deck in hand, you can just separate a couple of other terminals to turtle again. So, all of your turns could be a Turtle turn, with a lot of cards and free good actions.

For instance, if you have two Turtles and two Catacombs in deck and turtle a Catacombs, you would have a range of 11 cards to find the other Turtle and the other Catacombs to do it again. If you didn’t draw the Turtle, you still can buy one and play. With four Catacombs in deck, if you Turtle two, you would have a range of 17 cards to find the other two Catacombs to turtle again.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on May 19, 2020, 07:31:28 am

Quote from: Carline on May 19, 2020, 03:45:53 am

Quote from: faust on May 19, 2020, 03:16:01 am

I think Turtle could stand to be more expensive, it is pretty powerful aas it can act as a weird source of +actions on boards without other sources, thus enabling engines. Especially good since you can buy it just when you need it.

Yes, comparing to Tactician, which also sacrifices a turn for the next one, Turtle seems really too strong at $2, since you play the saved actions for free next turn.

It enables you to have a high density of terminal draw in your deck that you can play for free, making it easier to draw your whole deck. With deck in hand, you can just separate a couple of other terminals to turtle again. So, all of your turns could be a Turtle turn, with a lot of cards and free good actions.

For instance, if you have two Turtles and two Catacombs in deck and turtle a Catacombs, you would have a range of 11 cards to find the other Turtle and the other Catacombs to do it again. If you didn’t draw the Turtle, you still can buy one and play. With four Catacombs in deck, if you Turtle two, you would have a range of 17 cards to find the other two Catacombs to turtle again.

I still find it hard to see how it can actually be that strong. In terms of vanilla bonuses it is basically +(X+1) Actions, where X is the number of action cards you delayed. Necropolis is a bad card, and that's X=1; Crossroads without the draw part is one copy of X=2 and isn't considered a very good $2 either. Delaying cards a turn is a very big downside; for example the delayed options of barge and village green are not very good. In the catacombs example, if you replace the 2 Turtles with e.g. 3 squires, your engine draws 2 more cards each turn at the cost of some reliability.

Tactician is also not a very good card unless you have good virtual coin so the downside is minimal. +5 cards +1 action +1 buy, discard say 3 cards is also a lot better than say +3 actions.

I agree that when there aren't any other +Actions it can be very strong as an engine enabler, but I think that is fine as that is true of any good village.

I suppose I would be willing to make it $3 if people still think it's too good, but I think it does compare quite unfavorably to villa at $3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 19, 2020, 08:22:32 am

Quote from: mad4math on May 19, 2020, 07:31:28 am

I still find it hard to see how it can actually be that strong. In terms of vanilla bonuses it is basically +(X+1) Actions, where X is the number of action cards you delayed. Necropolis is a bad card, and that's X=1; Crossroads without the draw part is one copy of X=2 and isn't considered a very good $2 either. Delaying cards a turn is a very big downside; for example the delayed options of barge and village green are not very good. In the catacombs example, if you replace the 2 Turtles with e.g. 3 squires, your engine draws 2 more cards each turn at the cost of some reliability.

Tactician is also not a very good card unless you have good virtual coin so the downside is minimal. +5 cards +1 action +1 buy, discard say 3 cards is also a lot better than say +3 actions.

I agree that when there aren't any other +Actions it can be very strong as an engine enabler, but I think that is fine as that is true of any good village.

I suppose I would be willing to make it $3 if people still think it's too good, but I think it does compare quite unfavorably to villa at $3.

I disagree that the delayed option on Barge is weak; there is a reason that Haunted Woods costs $5 while Smithy costs $4, and it's only party due to the attack - delayed draw is pretty strong. Engines often have surplus draw or actions lying around; saving that for later is a big boost towards reliability.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on May 19, 2020, 08:35:49 am

I guess a simple way of seeing how good Turtle is, is to compare it to a straightforward delayed play and that means imagining a different card for a bit.
Imagine the Turtle was an action - duration card that could only turtle one other action.
If you Turtle a Market you start next turn with +1 card, +1 Action, and +$1. You will have at the start of next turn 2 actions, an effect you wont get from playing the market normally. This allows you to play a smithy in that turn and then play subsequent actions.
I would almost always keep an action like market, or any cantrip, back to turtle it the next turn with this version.
Now all of this  feels like its just no net gain because this alternative Turtle takes an action itself to be played but the effect of smoothing out an engine involving villages, and draw card is still good enough to consider especially once your sweet engine has gotten greener or filled with curses.
So that's a 2 cost Turtle that can only play one card and takes an action itself.
Its arguably not worth buying. But give it a reaction effect and it would be fine.
Your turtle though can delay play multiple cards and doesn't take an action itself and goes straight to work as soon as I buy it. It actually might be pretty sweet as a 4 cost Event. I think four seems reasonable, but just my opinion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 19, 2020, 09:14:01 am

Sorry for the lack of 24-hour warning; I was out of town and couldn't post it.

Judging will be in about 6 hours.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 19, 2020, 09:35:59 am

Quote from: faust on May 19, 2020, 08:22:32 am

Quote from: mad4math on May 19, 2020, 07:31:28 am

I still find it hard to see how it can actually be that strong. In terms of vanilla bonuses it is basically +(X+1) Actions, where X is the number of action cards you delayed. Necropolis is a bad card, and that's X=1; Crossroads without the draw part is one copy of X=2 and isn't considered a very good $2 either. Delaying cards a turn is a very big downside; for example the delayed options of barge and village green are not very good. In the catacombs example, if you replace the 2 Turtles with e.g. 3 squires, your engine draws 2 more cards each turn at the cost of some reliability.

Tactician is also not a very good card unless you have good virtual coin so the downside is minimal. +5 cards +1 action +1 buy, discard say 3 cards is also a lot better than say +3 actions.

I agree that when there aren't any other +Actions it can be very strong as an engine enabler, but I think that is fine as that is true of any good village.

I suppose I would be willing to make it $3 if people still think it's too good, but I think it does compare quite unfavorably to villa at $3.

I disagree that the delayed option on Barge is weak; there is a reason that Haunted Woods costs $5 while Smithy costs $4, and it's only party due to the attack - delayed draw is pretty strong. Engines often have surplus draw or actions lying around; saving that for later is a big boost towards reliability.

Sure, delaying stuff is good for consistency. But playing stuff only half of the time is bad for efficiency. Mastermind is just a half KC and without the Horse combos not that crazy.

The downside of Turtle is  that it sets itself as well as the Actions aside and does not draw (which decreases consistency as we know from Village vs Festival).
That is a biggie and justifies the cheap price tag.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 19, 2020, 09:39:17 am

Quote from: segura on May 19, 2020, 09:35:59 am

Quote from: faust on May 19, 2020, 08:22:32 am

Quote from: mad4math on May 19, 2020, 07:31:28 am

I still find it hard to see how it can actually be that strong. In terms of vanilla bonuses it is basically +(X+1) Actions, where X is the number of action cards you delayed. Necropolis is a bad card, and that's X=1; Crossroads without the draw part is one copy of X=2 and isn't considered a very good $2 either. Delaying cards a turn is a very big downside; for example the delayed options of barge and village green are not very good. In the catacombs example, if you replace the 2 Turtles with e.g. 3 squires, your engine draws 2 more cards each turn at the cost of some reliability.

Tactician is also not a very good card unless you have good virtual coin so the downside is minimal. +5 cards +1 action +1 buy, discard say 3 cards is also a lot better than say +3 actions.

I agree that when there aren't any other +Actions it can be very strong as an engine enabler, but I think that is fine as that is true of any good village.

I suppose I would be willing to make it $3 if people still think it's too good, but I think it does compare quite unfavorably to villa at $3.

I disagree that the delayed option on Barge is weak; there is a reason that Haunted Woods costs $5 while Smithy costs $4, and it's only party due to the attack - delayed draw is pretty strong. Engines often have surplus draw or actions lying around; saving that for later is a big boost towards reliability.

Sure, delaying stuff is good for consistency. But playing stuff only half of the time is bad for efficiency. Mastermind is just a half KC and without the Horse combos not that crazy.

The downside of Turtle is  that it sets itself as well as the Actions aside and does not draw (which decreases consistency as we know from Village vs Festival).
That is a biggie and justifies the cheap price tag.

I would agree if it wasn't gained to your hand. But the fact that it is I think should justify a price increase, similar to how Den of Sin would probably cost $4 or even $3 if it wasn't for the gain to hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holger on May 19, 2020, 11:11:16 am

Quote from: faust on May 19, 2020, 03:16:01 am

Quote from: mad4math on May 19, 2020, 12:55:32 am

My entry is an old card I submitted before, and a new card that combos with it.
The old card is Turtle.
(https://i.imgur.com/xg8VY6u.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/IdePY97.jpg)

Quote

Turtle
$2 Night - Duration

Set aside any number of action cards from your hand. At the start of your next turn, play them in any order.
-----
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).

Quote

Road
$4 Action
+2 buys
You may trash this for +$5. If you didn't, discard your hand.
----
While this is in play, cards cost $2 less.

I think Turtle could stand to be more expensive, it is pretty powerful aas it can act as a weird source of +actions on boards without other sources, thus enabling engines. Especially good since you can buy it just when you need it.

Road is too powerful as written with the trashing I think. It's a no-brainer any time you want to spike early, compared to Death Cart which at least comes with some drawbacks, and if you don't want to spike it's still a Feast+. Hard to tell how good it would be if you reduced the bonus to +$4, I think it would still see plenty of uses. I would also try to make the non-trashing option a bit more viable, not sure what the best way for that would be though.

Yes, Road's trashing option makes it essentially strictly better than Feast, with a lot more flexibility what you want to gain from it and when to trigger it. But the non-trashing option can also be strong - in a deck without Treasures and Night cards it's better than Princess.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 19, 2020, 05:31:33 pm

Contest 73: Mancap Redux Judging
Ruffians & Guard Tower by [TP] Inferno (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838519#msg838519)
So Ruffians is kind of a mini-Knight combined with a weak discard attack. Urchin shows us that discard-down-to-4 is very rarely relevant, and War not usually being that bad shows us that the main strengths of Knights is in hitting $5's and $6's. I probably wouldn't go out of my way to add a Ruffians to my deck unless I needed the +Buy.
Guard Tower, on the other hand, is a pretty strong card on its own and is a pretty underwhelming counter to most attacks. Contrasted with Beggar, Diplomat, and Horse Traders, this reaction is pretty much objectively bad in a vacuum. It's only good against attacks that care about the top of your deck, but even with those, it isn't great-- it doesn't stop Fortune Teller or Scrying Pool from hurting, it can neutralize Swindler but that's it, it can lower your chance of getting hit by a Knight or a Cardinal (or a Ruffians). I'm not sure I'd even care about the Ruffians attack enough to get a Guard Tower if these two cards popped up together, unless I wanted it for the DtX (and I might, because that part of it is cool).

Golden Ages & Dark Ages by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838529#msg838529)
Hey, wait, you can't have a card and an expansion with the same name, that's illega-- oh, right. What a weird combo. The Golden Ages rush to me seems really good-- rush out all the Golden Ages, then use Dark Ages to stuff all the treasures you can on your Exile mat. This seems to be the only strat with a chance of succeeding on board where there are no non-treasure payloads. If there are non-treasure payloads, well, it's likely that this pile gets mostly ignored if nobody is going for it and then Dark Ages never triggers. But it's a really cool and creative synergy nonetheless.

Instruct & Quicksilver by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838533#msg838533)
Instruct is a pretty cool idea. It seems even worse than Pawn in terms of analysis paralysis; I'm sitting here scratching my head thinking of all the different use cases for it. Quicksilver seems really good for a $4-- it's basically a Silver+ under most circumstances and there's some good reasoning about why those should always cost at least $5. Especially since it's reusable with gainers and Instruct specifically allows you to use it twice in one turn, Quicksilver has a very strong synergy with pretty much every gainer, and an insane synergy with Instruct. The combo would be fun to play for sure, though there might be a lot of calculation required.

Porter & Athenaeum by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838540#msg838540)
Both of these seem pretty unimpressive on their own. Porter is barely a Woodcutter and while you could probably set up a Porter megaturn the same as you could with Bridge, it just doesn't seem worth the effort (unless there are things that give VP's for filling your deck with actions, like Vineyard or Triumphal Arch). Athenaeum is very unlikely to be better than Embassy, but hey, it's DtX, we like DtX. (I like DtX anyway.) Together they're... slightly less unimpressive? Porter is a village or a lab when discarded. Not bad, but nothing to write home about. I think Village Green probably does what Porter does better.

Tribal Village & Stud Farm by faust (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838559#msg838559)
Tribal Village is cool! This is a cool card. It's like Snowy Village but for money. First one's a Gold + Village, the rest are necropolises or worse. Unless you have some way to lower your $ during the turn-- Black Market, Storyteller, Villa, Cavalry... or Stud Farm. But Stud Farm feels pretty weak; when it works out, it's kinda like Storyteller, but terminal, but you can't even play treasures so you might not be able to do anything with it at all. And if you have a deck that can make use of the +2 Buys, you probably don't need the horses to draw consistently (and you'd rather have the money). Putting it all together, this combo would be fun to play, but it would be hard because the two cards don't draw at all until you collide them, but if you add too much external draw then Stud Farm's horses aren't really doing anything for you.

Gaoler & Gold Mine by Gazbag (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838575#msg838575)
The biggest downside of Gaoler is that you're gonna be forced to put bad cards from Exile into your hand a lot. On its own it strikes me as a Trade Route type, "if this is the only thinning I GUESS I'll take it" kind of card. It's very hard to use for tucking away green cards once you have deck control-- even harder than Native Village-- because you can't make any progress unless you can discard at least three cards for it to exile. Gold Mine does solve the main problem, for sure. This combo will very quickly swap out your bad cards for Golds-- that seems like a money deck that's pretty hard to beat. Although, the question is, is this that much better than just big money with Gold Mine + some other thinner? My intuition says it's not that different, because in big money you are buying Gold a lot anyway. Gold Mine is gonna be a very fast money card in any event, especially since you can open with it and by the time you can afford a Gold you'll probably have all the Golds you need in Exile.

Fertile Village & Midwife by grrgrrgrr (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838576#msg838576)
Fertile Village is pretty unimpressive, but it's a Village+ for $4. Sometimes you buy Village Green or Fortress when you can't trigger them, because a village for $4 is still worthwhile. You can maybe use it to grab a few extra copies of itself by the time you have overdraw.
Midwife, on the other hand, is even worse when you can't trigger it. Sometimes you take the Smithy+ for $5 when you need the draw, but you're really not going to be happy about it. On the other hand, with pretty much any trigger at all, this becomes +4 Cards +1 Action which is mega nuts. I guess the Fortress comparison is apt-- either you can't trigger it and it's meh, or you can, and triggering it is probably gonna be centralizing. The synergy between the two cards is there, though I think Midwife synergizes more with non-terminal discarders like Artificer and Mill, because then the fact that revealing it is nonterminal matters more.

Recycle & Goblet by mandioca15 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838615#msg838615)
Both of these are kinda nuts. Recycle is a trasher with Recruiter/Sentry levels of unskippableness, and you can keep it as a powerful DtX if you can't feed it, or you can just toss it out once you've thinned. Goblet is just insane with pretty much any trasher. It's reminiscent of HoP; it can gain copies of itself, but it's a LOT easier to trigger a megaturn-- rather than having 8 unique cards in play, you just need to trash a $5 and with enough Goblets in hand you can empty the Provinces. These cards do work well together, insomuch as they are both extremely powerful.

Schoolteacher & Dullahan by D782802859 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838630#msg838630)
Schoolteacher's pretty cool. A terminal silver for $2 means that even if it doesn't happen to hit it still helps. The Victory effect is by far the strongest, the Action one is okay if you desperately need a village, and the Treasure one will almost never be useful. Dullahan, aside from having accountability issues (you can't look through your discard), is incredibly swingy, and is certainly worth buying on a board where you can't draw deck without it, but the game will probably be determined by whoever draws their Dullahans at the bottom of the shuffle more often. Schoolteacher does definitely help it, especially if you're trying for a megaturn, so that interaction is pretty cool.

Assembly Shop & Monk's Village by artless (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838726#msg838726)
Aside from certain boards where consistently hitting $5 is important (Duke comes to mind, but Minion as well, especially because Minion is DtX that likes discard-for-benefit), this feels very slow-- if you can draw enough of your deck to make the discarding possible, then it might be equivalent to adding like an Artisan or a HoP, but you can only get one, and you have to spike all the way up to $7. Monk's Village is a cool concept, rewarding you for emptying your hand, but I don't know how good this synergy even is. If you use Assembly Shop in the Action phase, Monk's Village will draw you a card before Assembly Shop gains you one, so you can't even predict it, and you've basically given up your turn anyway so the card you draw probably won't matter. In the Buy phase, it's a little better, but you're unlikely to have enough cards to discard there.

Comptroller & Market Day by Fragasnap (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838774#msg838774)
Comptroller reads as pretty unlikely to trigger. Even if it comes up with an Event, most Events aren't ones you want to buy a lot, especially late in the game. And if you have a big enough deck to want +Buy, you probably have enough deck control that its reserve nature doesn't help THAT much. (Or you're in a Gardens rush, and you don't care when the +Buys come because they're going to be Coppers anyway.) Market Day is really good, though not really game-warping, on boards where +Buy is plentiful (Worker's Village, Margrave, Spices, etc.). Which I guess is the case for Comptroller, but it doesn't have to be. If Comptroller isn't worth getting because you can't build to where the +Buys matter, Market Day probably isn't going to change that.

Privatize & Customs House by LordBaphomet (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838899#msg838899)
Privatize doesn't do anything without Villagers/Coffers already in the game; this is a problem. It's not unfixable, but a fix would be awkward (a setup line saying to include a Villager or Coffer card, maybe, but that would make the text smaller than it already is). As for a viable source of alt-VP, well it probably isn't? Sure in Masterpiece/Guildhall or Merchant Guild madness, but the majority of the time it's too slow. And converting your villagers to coffers means that you can't even rely on villagers for deck control. Customs House is a Silver with extra steps, as each coffer that goes on due to it probably comes off when one is in play and grants a villager and a coin. It's kinda cool. The synergy lets you bounce them around forever, which is also cool, but Privatize is just so unlikely to be useful at all in a random kingdom.

Ledger & Favorite by grep (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838901#msg838901)
Ledger's neat, it scales similar to Courtier based on the number of different types available. There's probably some silliness with Bonfire? There's also silliness with gain moving (Watchtower, Royal Seal, etc.) because I think as written if Ledger loses track of itself it can still be played (similar to how Vassal/Faithful Hound can set aside the Hound and still play it), and then it can be looped. That's a bit of a problem, and I would probably rather word Ledger like Outpost where "if you haven't yet played a Ledger this turn." Favorite's a card with a lot of types, that's cool. Cantrip receive a Boon is probably balanced/on the weak side at $5, but it also slows the game down a ton. This one's probably even worse in terms of game enjoyability? But it seems pretty balanced; you lose some of the power for the flexibility. The synergy is great and makes a deck that would be very powerful and also interesting to play. Until you have six Favorites and are flipping over the Boon and Hex piles every two turns... maybe Favorite would also want to have a "if this is the first time you played a Favorite this turn" clause. There's a reason Donald X. didn't do cantrip Boons, aside from Pixie which is one-shot.

House & Merchandise by X-tra (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838931#msg838931)
House is cool, a weak village with some payload built in. Sometimes you'd take a necropolis, and you're happy to have one that also gives some cash. Merchandise is really abusable. Anything that lets you load up on a cantrip is gonna make this explode and fast. House is almost certainly not the best target for it-- pretty much any cantrip is better-- but the synergy is there because both cards want you to have a lot of cards in play, and Merchandise does need a village. But it would prefer a drawing village, for sure, so that synergy is pretty weak.

Small Market & Innkeeper by Rhodos (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838939#msg838939)
Small Market is fine. It's a Moat with a buy, sometimes you'd pay $2 for that. (Sometimes I pay $2 for a Moat on a board with no attacks.) The reaction is a nice boost that's distinct from the other on-discard reactions. Innkeeper is cool but it seems like more trouble than it's worth to get and hold onto Accommodations, though I will admit that it synergizes with Small Market nicely-- Small Market's reaction lets you keep up a steady supply of Innkeepers to continue to add Accommodations. Accommodation requires a very high action density to be that useful, but even when it's one-shot, it is two horses, so maybe it's worth going for. But it's gonna get pretty awkward when you run out of Estates and each Innkeeper is one-shot.

Deacon & Knave by alion8me (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838984#msg838984)
Deacon is a Sauna variant, not contingent on any other card, but it can only trash cards that are played. It's basically a Junk Dealer on trashing a Copper, but in return it can't get rid of Estates or Curses. Seems all right. Knave is a pretty weak attack, it doesn't really seem worthwhile unless you can trigger its on-trash. Oh well. Deacon makes it easier to trash, though it would be cooler if Knave's on-play attack would synergize with its on-trash attack so that it meant more that you would get them both in the same turn. Knave will probably be most useful in a rush similar to IGG-- you don't have to hit $5 this way, but you do have to line up the Knave with the trasher. Also pretty good with Lurker.

Cargo Vessel & Port Market by Carline (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg839211#msg839211)
Cargo Vessel is essentially a Lost City. That's very good. The fact that its first draw doesn't come until next turn slows it down a bit, but it's made up for by the fact that you get to pick what the card will be. I expect this pile to disappear rapidly in every game it's in. Is that fun? Maybe, but there's really no downside to stuffing your deck full of these. You get actions, draw, reliability, basically an engine handed to you. As for Port Market, it's a neat Peddler variant with an extra once-per-turn bonus unless you can evade the bonus by removing it from play. Seems reasonably strong, you certainly want one, and the synergy with Cargo Vessel is definitely there, though I think the overpowering strength of Cargo Vessel mostly overshadows it.

Mouse & Cat by somekindoftony (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg839311#msg839311)
A Mouse that eats your Coppers and gives extra actions, and a Cat that eats cards costing $2 of which Mouse is one. Cute! Your fear is justified, though-- Cat is very good. Probably better than Apprentice, at least in the early game. Mouse does give it a small boost, but you almost certainly can't skip it anyway. Mouse is good when there is strong terminal draw; I'd be fine swapping my coppers all for necropolises as long as I had the draw to back it up. The synergy works similarly to Rats, because Cat likes to have $2's rather than $0's and Mouse turns all your $0's into $2's. Cat is already very strong and this makes is that much stronger.

Turtle & Road by mad4math (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg839522#msg839522)
So Turtle is just as many +Actions as you can muster. Seems pretty reasonable, albeit obviously very good with strong draw, similar to Coin of the Realm. Road is very annoying to work with, and it's good with other cost reducers and other +Buy. I agree with people saying the +$5 is too strong; it gives you way too much flexibility as a payload. As for the synergy, I guess the idea is that you draw enough to get four Roads in hand, then buy a Turtle and win next turn a la KC/KC/Bridge/Bridge/Bridge. Like KC and Bridge, it's pretty swingy depending on who manages to collide the right cards at the right time first. But they are pretty creative cards, with a pretty creative synergy.

Winner: Mouse & Cat by somekindoftony

Runner-up: Schoolteacher & Dullahan by D782802859

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on May 19, 2020, 06:05:45 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on May 19, 2020, 05:31:33 pm

Contest 73: Mancap Redux Judging
Ruffians & Guard Tower by [TP] Inferno (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838519#msg838519)
So Ruffians is kind of a mini-Knight combined with a weak discard attack. Urchin shows us that discard-down-to-4 is very rarely relevant, and War not usually being that bad shows us that the main strengths of Knights is in hitting $5's and $6's. I probably wouldn't go out of my way to add a Ruffians to my deck unless I needed the +Buy.
Guard Tower, on the other hand, is a pretty strong card on its own and is a pretty underwhelming counter to most attacks. Contrasted with Beggar, Diplomat, and Horse Traders, this reaction is pretty much objectively bad in a vacuum. It's only good against attacks that care about the top of your deck, but even with those, it isn't great-- it doesn't stop Fortune Teller or Scrying Pool from hurting, it can neutralize Swindler but that's it, it can lower your chance of getting hit by a Knight or a Cardinal (or a Ruffians). I'm not sure I'd even care about the Ruffians attack enough to get a Guard Tower if these two cards popped up together, unless I wanted it for the DtX (and I might, because that part of it is cool).

Hmm. Looks like I overestimated the strength of Ruffians' attack. Would it be better with +2 Cards?
As for Guard Tower, maybe I could drop the Reaction and make it a $3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on May 20, 2020, 12:53:06 am

Wow. I'm flabbergasted. And thrilled. And mildly scared I'll stuff up the judging.
Thanks for the judging Something_Smart. I'm glad you could see the benefits of Mouse.

Now for this challenge, and I have a bunch of ideas but the one I am going to go with is.....

Contest 74: A lovely pair of coconuts.

Not everyone trades in coins. On Tropical Islands, or in Savage Lands or in times of hyperinflation and hunger when bread is more valuable than rubies, who knows what might be the measure of wealth instead; anything from exotic birds eggs to hot skewered rats. Your challenge is to come up with a Treasure which isn't standard currency but is instead a barterable good of some kind.
If it feels odd out of context feel free to explain how it comes in an expansion where a half-eaten doughnut makes perfect sense as a legitimate trading good (the Seagulls expansion perhaps?).

What is permitted....
A treasure card that is not in the supply and the cards if necessary that get to it.
A treasure card that is at the bottom of a split pile (and the card above it)
A treasure card that is also an action or victory card.
A treasure card with special set up rules (like it replaces starting coppers or whatnot).

But please no precious gems/metals, coins or paper money or generic terms like Spoils or Contraband. Instead unleash the oddly specific!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on May 20, 2020, 01:23:44 am

Just to be clear, this is the name and theme of a treasure card right? We don't have to come up with an alternate currency like potion, right?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on May 20, 2020, 03:20:24 am

Quote from: mail-mi on May 20, 2020, 01:23:44 am

Just to be clear, this is the name and theme of a treasure card right? We don't have to come up with an alternate currency like potion, right?

Your card could produce a unique currency like Potion does but it doesn't have to. It can just as easily use the standard $ or refer to debt or coffers or variations on these. The only real limitation is that it is a Treasure.

A unique currency will be frustrating to judge if it depends on heaps of secondary cards you have to create in order for the treasure card to be evaluated. Please don't do this. DON'T create something like Donkeypoo and then a whole set of 14 cards which cost so much Donkeypoo. I will cry.

However if you came up with a card which generates a new kind of currency called an Elixir and then explained that Elixir was like coffers but for Potions that would be fine. Elixir is technically a new currency but it slots into existing cards. I wont cry. I can judge this. A new currency that works with current cards is ok. It's not required but it's ok.

Just not a whole new set of cards. Judging will be focused on the treasure card in relative isolation.

Hope that helps.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on May 20, 2020, 05:29:53 am

Credit tokens are essentially like coffers. During your turn, you may return N credit tokens to the supply, to gain a card from the supply costing exactly $N. You can do this whenever you are not resolving a played card. The longer you let your Credits build up,the bigger the potential reward - but don't wait too long! For example, suppose you have built up 6 Credit tokens. You could return 4 to the supply to gain a Smithy, or return 6 to gain a Gold. There's also the question of when exactly during your turn you should gain the card - maybe you can time it to get the card you really want at exactly the right time.

Gaining a card via Credits does not count as a buy.

Credit Note (Treasure, $5)

+$2
+1 Credit
+1 Buy
---
When you gain this, +1 Credit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 20, 2020, 06:13:24 am

I think in this contest flavor has an important role.

I’m from Brazil, so I chose the currency to be fruits of my country. They really were one of the currencies here in barter times, at the same time of castles and knights in Europe. So, they have a similar flavor to Hinterlands expansion cards.

Here’s my entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/692/full/Fruit_Mix.png?1589966914)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
$1
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
+1 Buy
When you play this, it's worth $1 per different named treasure you have in play (including this).

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

EDIT: DUE TO FEEDBACKS, I CHANGED MY ENTRY TO:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/666/374/full/Fruit_Mix_%283%29.png?1590182756)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
When you play this, it's worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) per different named treasure you have in play (including this).
If it's worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) or more:
+2 Buys.

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

(Following comments also edited to reflect the new version)

TROPICAL FRUITS
A Copper with a chosen bonus, a Coffers or a Villagers, which has big versatility, enabling good resources control. You can choose either use payload now, save payload or save actions.

Though it is a Silver+ at $4, since it is in a split pile with a more expensive card, it doesn’t have the main problem of Silver+ at $4, according to DXV:

Quote from: Donald X. on June 24, 2018, 02:27:20 pm

The main problem with Silver-with-a-bonus for $4 (for games where people want Silver and aren't gaining it with a Silver-gainer) is that the pile just automatically empties. It's also not great that then you have that bonus in your deck, but didn't care about it at all, weren't making a decision there.

Besides that, it is only a Silver+ because the choice you have. When played it’s not a Silver plus something, it is either only a Silver or a Copper plus something.

Anyway, this issue about Silver+ at 4 seems overcome since Patron.

And in this case, you still may want to buy a silver to give variety to Fruit Mix. Tropical Fruits being a better choice than Silver in many cases also helps to buy them fast to reveal Fruit Mix sooner.

FRUIT MIX

A Bank variant which cares for treasure names and gives an extra bonus of +2 buys if you align four different treasures. The split pile itself has two different named treasures, so without other alternative treasures in kingdom it may worth up to $5. It may shine with these other treasures in kingdom, with Platinum and even sometimes be very strong with Capitalism, but it’s the same with Bank.

It’s a Bank variant but plays very different from Bank, since variety is tough to achieve. With four Coppers and Bank your Bank worth $5. For the same result with Fruit Mix, you would need five different treasures. It is more in the spirit of Cornucopia cards than Prosperity cards.

The +Buy bonus ensures you a best benefit from your additional money if it’s worth $4 or more. It is given only from $4 to more to avoid the situations in which it could be a clearly better option than Gold at the sime price. Being a card that prizes variety, this feature of an extra bonus for the challenge to achieve more variety seems to fit it very well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on May 20, 2020, 06:47:10 am

Trash Heap
$5
Treasure
$2
Gain a Scrap Metal.
-------
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

Scrap Metal
$0*
Action
+1 Card
+1 Buy
Return this to its pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)

So, Trash Heap doesn't just deal in $, it gives some pieces of Scrap Metal. This Scrap Metal isn't valuable enough to give $, but it essentially acts as a +Buy token. It's a Treasure so that it is redeemable in the Buy phase. Trash Heap is a Bridge variant where the +Buy is saved, but it isn't Throneable and it's more expensive. Hopefully there's no glaring problem with these cards that I haven't picked up on.
Oh, and by the way, there are 30 Scrap Metal cards in the pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on May 20, 2020, 08:06:49 am

Rice Bag
cost $4 - Treasure
+$2
You may Exile this for another +$1 per a Rice Bag on your Exile mat.

Japanese old currency.

EDIT: Fixed undesired behaviour. Now you have to exile to boost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BlueHairedMeerkat on May 20, 2020, 12:22:31 pm

Rai Stone
Treasure
$5
------------
+$3
+1 Buy
At the end of the Buy phase, if you did not buy a Victory card, gain a Curse.

Rai Stones are fascinating - they're limestone discs used by the people of Yap as a currency. They vary widely in size though, with diameters up to 4 metres, so often when they're traded it's in name only, and the object physically stays where it is. In one case, one was dropped into the ocean and was never seen again, but everyone agrees it's probably still there, so it's still traded.

I'm not completely happy with this card - thematically, I've skipped over most of the things that are interesting about rai stones and focussed on their ceremonial nature - they're primarily used for big, important transactions. I suspect something more geared towards them being cumbersome, or staying in one place, wants to be something more akin to a Project or Artefact. But it's mechanically cute, so I'll go with it for now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on May 20, 2020, 12:44:13 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on May 19, 2020, 05:31:33 pm

Small Market & Innkeeper by Rhodos (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg838939#msg838939)
Small Market is fine. It's a Moat with a buy, sometimes you'd pay $2 for that. (Sometimes I pay $2 for a Moat on a board with no attacks.) The reaction is a nice boost that's distinct from the other on-discard reactions. Innkeeper is cool but it seems like more trouble than it's worth to get and hold onto Accommodations, though I will admit that it synergizes with Small Market nicely-- Small Market's reaction lets you keep up a steady supply of Innkeepers to continue to add Accommodations. Accommodation requires a very high action density to be that useful, but even when it's one-shot, it is two horses, so maybe it's worth going for. But it's gonna get pretty awkward when you run out of Estates and each Innkeeper is one-shot.

Thanks for your feedback and jugding  :)

I both agree and disagree on some parts. First, I guess you misread Small Market, it gives Actions and not Cards. Then I agree on that you probably don't want another Innkeeper after the first one. But I don't see how that makes it weak or bad designwise. There are some cards in the game that are mainly singleton (Marauder, Moneylender, Loan, Trading Post,...) and that's fine. Though there is the option to make Accommodations go to your Exile instead of back onto the pile, to make additional Innkeepers more interesting. I gotta think about that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 20, 2020, 03:12:32 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/MSVBtwB/image.png)
Cow
$5 - Treasure
Worth $2
When you discard this from play during Clean-up, if you haven't bought any Victory cards this turn, you may put this on top of the deck.


The "no victory card" clause prevents gaining a Province per turn with 4 Cows.
Flavor: Cows are the main measure of wealth in many agricultural societies. "Cash cow" is a kind of business that generates steady profit.
Art: This "Cash Cow" sculpture is located at the entrance to the Happy Hollow park in San Jose, CA.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 20, 2020, 03:25:37 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 06:13:24 am

I think in this contest flavor has an important role.

I’m from Brazil, so I chose the currency to be fruits of my country. They really were one of the currencies here in barter times, at the same time of castles and knights in Europe. So, they have a similar flavor to Hinterlands expansion cards.

Here’s my entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/692/full/Fruit_Mix.png?1589966914)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
$1
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
+1 Buy
When you play this, it's worth $1 per different named treasure you have in play (including this).

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

TROPICAL FRUITS
A Copper with a chosen bonus, a Coffers or a Villagers, which has big versatility, enabling good resources control. You can choose either use payload now, save payload or save actions.

FRUIT MIX
A Bank variant which cares for treasure names and give +buy. The split pile itself has two different named treasures, so without other alternative treasures in kingdom it may worth up to $5. It may shine with these other treasures in kingdom and even sometimes be very strong with Capitalism, but it’s the same with Bank. The +Buy feature ensures you won’t lose your additional money.

With $4 in hand it’s (almost) strictly better to buy Tropical Fruits than Silver, but you still may want to buy some Silver for more diversity to Fruit Mix. Tropical Fruits being a better choice than Silver in most cases also helps to buy them fast to reveal Fruit Mix sooner.

Feedbacks are always welcome.

Tropical Fruits is a silver+ at 4, which is usually a bad idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 20, 2020, 03:52:31 pm

Quote from: Rhodos on May 20, 2020, 12:44:13 pm

First, I guess you misread Small Market, it gives Actions and not Cards.

Oh I totally did, haha, my bad. Sorry :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 20, 2020, 04:31:17 pm

Quote from: majiponi on May 20, 2020, 08:06:49 am

Rice Bag
cost $4 - Treasure
+$2
Another +$1 per a Rice Bag on your Exile mat.
You may Exile this.

Japanese old currency.

Looks extremely overpowered - it's growing into a Gold very easily, and has a good potential to grow into a Platinum. Comparing to Pirate Ship, this is non-terminal, and starts from $2. I would set the price to $5 and either limit the Exile bonus to total +$1 or made it discard from Exile to get the bonus.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

Edit: Changed entry, see version later in the thread.

Wow, I sure did forget to come back and clean up my entry for last week; I kept meaning to but always got myself sidetracked somehow.

Anyways...

(https://i.imgur.com/RinJPd7.jpg)

Quote

Seeds
Trash this. If you did, gain an Action card costing differently from any card you have in play onto your deck.

Treasure
$4

---

Quote from: mandioca15 on May 20, 2020, 05:29:53 am

Credit tokens are essentially like coffers. During your turn, you may return N credit tokens to the supply, to gain a card from the supply costing exactly $N. You can do this whenever you are not resolving a played card. The longer you let your Credits build up,the bigger the potential reward - but don't wait too long! For example, suppose you have built up 6 Credit tokens. You could return 4 to the supply to gain a Smithy, or return 6 to gain a Gold. There's also the question of when exactly during your turn you should gain the card - maybe you can time it to get the card you really want at exactly the right time.

Gaining a card via Credits does not count as a buy.

Credit Note (Treasure, $5)

+$2
+1 Credit
+1 Buy
---
When you gain this, +1 Credit.

I like the idea of the credit tokens. However, I'm worried that Credit Note is a bit weak (it seems unlikely that you would gain more than one card per credit note in your deck most of the time).

---

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on May 20, 2020, 06:47:10 am

Trash Heap
$5
Treasure
$1
Gain a Scrap Metal.
-------
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

Scrap Metal
$0*
Treasure
+1 Card
+1 Buy
(This is not in the Supply.)

So, Trash Heap doesn't just deal in $, it gives some pieces of Scrap Metal. This Scrap Metal isn't valuable enough to give $, but it essentially acts as a +Buy token. It's a Treasure so that it is redeemable in the Buy phase. Trash Heap is a Bridge variant where the +Buy is saved, but it isn't Throneable and it's more expensive. Hopefully there's no glaring problem with these cards that I haven't picked up on.
Oh, and by the way, there are 30 Scrap Metal cards in the pile.

Is Scrap Metal supposed to return itself to its pile? You make a comparison with a +Buy token that doesn't make sense to me otherwise. Either way, this seems a bit weak to me based on comparison with Highway. The +1 Card on Scrap Metal can also make it feel pretty bad because it always draws actions dead.

---

Quote from: grep on May 20, 2020, 03:12:32 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/MSVBtwB/image.png)
Cow
$5 - Treasure
Worth $2
When you discard this from play during Clean-up, if you haven't bought any Victory cards this turn, you may put this on top of the deck.


The "no victory card" clause prevents gaining a Province per turn with 4 Cows.
Flavor: Cows are the main measure of wealth in many agricultural societies. "Cash cow" is a kind of business that generates steady profit.
Art: This "Cash Cow" sculpture is located at the entrance to the Happy Hollow park in San Jose, CA.

I feel like this encourages money strategies too much, as it seems strong in a money context and weak for other types of decks.

---

Quote from: BlueHairedMeerkat on May 20, 2020, 12:22:31 pm

Rai Stone
Treasure
$5
------------
+$3
+1 Buy
At the end of the Buy phase, if you did not buy a Victory card, gain a Curse.

Rai Stones are fascinating - they're limestone discs used by the people of Yap as a currency. They vary widely in size though, with diameters up to 4 metres, so often when they're traded it's in name only, and the object physically stays where it is. In one case, one was dropped into the ocean and was never seen again, but everyone agrees it's probably still there, so it's still traded.

I'm not completely happy with this card - thematically, I've skipped over most of the things that are interesting about rai stones and focussed on their ceremonial nature - they're primarily used for big, important transactions. I suspect something more geared towards them being cumbersome, or staying in one place, wants to be something more akin to a Project or Artefact. But it's mechanically cute, so I'll go with it for now.

This card also feels very money-ish to me.

---

Quote from: D782802859 on May 20, 2020, 03:25:37 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 06:13:24 am

I think in this contest flavor has an important role.

I’m from Brazil, so I chose the currency to be fruits of my country. They really were one of the currencies here in barter times, at the same time of castles and knights in Europe. So, they have a similar flavor to Hinterlands expansion cards.

Here’s my entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/692/full/Fruit_Mix.png?1589966914)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
$1
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
+1 Buy
When you play this, it's worth $1 per different named treasure you have in play (including this).

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

TROPICAL FRUITS
A Copper with a chosen bonus, a Coffers or a Villagers, which has big versatility, enabling good resources control. You can choose either use payload now, save payload or save actions.

FRUIT MIX
A Bank variant which cares for treasure names and give +buy. The split pile itself has two different named treasures, so without other alternative treasures in kingdom it may worth up to $5. It may shine with these other treasures in kingdom and even sometimes be very strong with Capitalism, but it’s the same with Bank. The +Buy feature ensures you won’t lose your additional money.

With $4 in hand it’s (almost) strictly better to buy Tropical Fruits than Silver, but you still may want to buy some Silver for more diversity to Fruit Mix. Tropical Fruits being a better choice than Silver in most cases also helps to buy them fast to reveal Fruit Mix sooner.

Feedbacks are always welcome.

Tropical Fruits is a silver+ at 4, which is usually a bad idea.

Fruit Mix feels very similar to Bank to me.

---

Quote from: majiponi on May 20, 2020, 08:06:49 am

Rice Bag
cost $4 - Treasure
+$2
Another +$1 per a Rice Bag on your Exile mat.
You may Exile this.

Japanese old currency.

This seems really strong to me, it's like a stronger Stockpile that only removes itself from your deck if you want it to. Getting both the normal effect of the card and being able to Exile it on the same turn make it relatively low-opportunity cost to scale when compared to cards like Miser and Pirate Ship, which are both terminal and require you to spend an entire play of the card just to power it up (granted, both of those cards are pretty weak).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 20, 2020, 04:33:07 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 20, 2020, 03:25:37 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 06:13:24 am

I think in this contest flavor has an important role.

I’m from Brazil, so I chose the currency to be fruits of my country. They really were one of the currencies here in barter times, at the same time of castles and knights in Europe. So, they have a similar flavor to Hinterlands expansion cards.

Here’s my entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/692/full/Fruit_Mix.png?1589966914)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
$1
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
+1 Buy
When you play this, it's worth $1 per different named treasure you have in play (including this).

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

TROPICAL FRUITS
A Copper with a chosen bonus, a Coffers or a Villagers, which has big versatility, enabling good resources control. You can choose either use payload now, save payload or save actions.

FRUIT MIX
A Bank variant which cares for treasure names and give +buy. The split pile itself has two different named treasures, so without other alternative treasures in kingdom it may worth up to $5. It may shine with these other treasures in kingdom and even sometimes be very strong with Capitalism, but it’s the same with Bank. The +Buy feature ensures you won’t lose your additional money.

With $4 in hand it’s (almost) strictly better to buy Tropical Fruits than Silver, but you still may want to buy some Silver for more diversity to Fruit Mix. Tropical Fruits being a better choice than Silver in most cases also helps to buy them fast to reveal Fruit Mix sooner.

Feedbacks are always welcome.

Tropical Fruits is a silver+ at 4, which is usually a bad idea.

Quote from: Donald X. on June 24, 2018, 02:27:20 pm

The main problem with Silver-with-a-bonus for $4 (for games where people want Silver and aren't gaining it with a Silver-gainer) is that the pile just automatically empties. It's also not great that then you have that bonus in your deck, but didn't care about it at all, weren't making a decision there.

Thank you! Yes, usually it is, but I think in a split pile with an expensive card it don't have what is the main problem of it, which is automatically empty pile, as pointed by DXV in above quote.

Also, as I said in my post, there would be still interest in buying Silver to give variety to Fruit Mix.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 20, 2020, 04:51:00 pm

I made sort of a reverse heirloom.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ec59627f57f20597646c505/f4d29470d069d277c7cf3996d443dded/image.png)

Quote

Bee • $0 • Treasure
Choose one:
Cards cost $1 less this turn;
or +1 Buy.
-
Setup: Replace the top 12 cards of the Coppers Supply pile with as many Bees.

When a card tells you to gain a Copper, gain a Bee instead.

It's not a kingdom card but instead a change up to the starting setup like shelters, heirlooms, etc.

The "gain a bee instead" clause is because these are still like 80% a "junk" card but they can still enable some shenanigans (similar to how Survivors or Ruined Market have some non-terrible use cases.)

Pile includes twelve bees and a randomizer.

Also it's definitely named after the simpsons bit where Abe Simpson took the ferry over to shelbyville
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rzao52ndNA

edit: made some wording changes to get the font size a little bigger; no real functional changes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 20, 2020, 04:58:07 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 06:13:24 am

I think in this contest flavor has an important role.

I’m from Brazil, so I chose the currency to be fruits of my country. They really were one of the currencies here in barter times, at the same time of castles and knights in Europe. So, they have a similar flavor to Hinterlands expansion cards.

Here’s my entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/692/full/Fruit_Mix.png?1589966914)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
$1
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
+1 Buy
When you play this, it's worth $1 per different named treasure you have in play (including this).

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

TROPICAL FRUITS
A Copper with a chosen bonus, a Coffers or a Villagers, which has big versatility, enabling good resources control. You can choose either use payload now, save payload or save actions.

FRUIT MIX
A Bank variant which cares for treasure names and give +buy. The split pile itself has two different named treasures, so without other alternative treasures in kingdom it may worth up to $5. It may shine with these other treasures in kingdom and even sometimes be very strong with Capitalism, but it’s the same with Bank. The +Buy feature ensures you won’t lose your additional money.

With $4 in hand it’s (almost) strictly better to buy Tropical Fruits than Silver, but you still may want to buy some Silver for more diversity to Fruit Mix. Tropical Fruits being a better choice than Silver in most cases also helps to buy them fast to reveal Fruit Mix sooner.

Feedbacks are always welcome.

Fruit Mix feels very similar to Bank to me.

Thank you! As I said it's a Bank variant, but I think it plays very different from Bank, since variety is tough to achieve. With four Coppers and Bank your Bank worth $5. For the same result with Fruit Mix, you would need five different treasures. It is more in the spirit of Cornucopia cards than Prosperity cards. It also has +Buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 05:29:52 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 04:58:07 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 06:13:24 am

I think in this contest flavor has an important role.

I’m from Brazil, so I chose the currency to be fruits of my country. They really were one of the currencies here in barter times, at the same time of castles and knights in Europe. So, they have a similar flavor to Hinterlands expansion cards.

Here’s my entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/692/full/Fruit_Mix.png?1589966914)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
$1
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
+1 Buy
When you play this, it's worth $1 per different named treasure you have in play (including this).

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

TROPICAL FRUITS
A Copper with a chosen bonus, a Coffers or a Villagers, which has big versatility, enabling good resources control. You can choose either use payload now, save payload or save actions.

FRUIT MIX
A Bank variant which cares for treasure names and give +buy. The split pile itself has two different named treasures, so without other alternative treasures in kingdom it may worth up to $5. It may shine with these other treasures in kingdom and even sometimes be very strong with Capitalism, but it’s the same with Bank. The +Buy feature ensures you won’t lose your additional money.

With $4 in hand it’s (almost) strictly better to buy Tropical Fruits than Silver, but you still may want to buy some Silver for more diversity to Fruit Mix. Tropical Fruits being a better choice than Silver in most cases also helps to buy them fast to reveal Fruit Mix sooner.

Feedbacks are always welcome.

Fruit Mix feels very similar to Bank to me.

Thank you! As I said it's a Bank variant, but I think it plays very different from Bank, since variety is tough to achieve. With four Coppers and Bank your Bank worth $5. For the same result with Fruit Mix, you would need five different treasures. It is more in the spirit of Cornucopia cards than Prosperity cards. It also has +Buy.

I suppose it's a bit harder to get it to "pop off" like Bank. I guess I'm worried that this becomes a far superior alternative to Gold most of the time because it will almost always be worth at least $3 and it has a +Buy on it too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 20, 2020, 05:39:29 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 05:29:52 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 04:58:07 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 06:13:24 am

I think in this contest flavor has an important role.

I’m from Brazil, so I chose the currency to be fruits of my country. They really were one of the currencies here in barter times, at the same time of castles and knights in Europe. So, they have a similar flavor to Hinterlands expansion cards.

Here’s my entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/692/full/Fruit_Mix.png?1589966914)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
$1
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
+1 Buy
When you play this, it's worth $1 per different named treasure you have in play (including this).

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

TROPICAL FRUITS
A Copper with a chosen bonus, a Coffers or a Villagers, which has big versatility, enabling good resources control. You can choose either use payload now, save payload or save actions.

FRUIT MIX
A Bank variant which cares for treasure names and give +buy. The split pile itself has two different named treasures, so without other alternative treasures in kingdom it may worth up to $5. It may shine with these other treasures in kingdom and even sometimes be very strong with Capitalism, but it’s the same with Bank. The +Buy feature ensures you won’t lose your additional money.

With $4 in hand it’s (almost) strictly better to buy Tropical Fruits than Silver, but you still may want to buy some Silver for more diversity to Fruit Mix. Tropical Fruits being a better choice than Silver in most cases also helps to buy them fast to reveal Fruit Mix sooner.

Feedbacks are always welcome.

Fruit Mix feels very similar to Bank to me.

Thank you! As I said it's a Bank variant, but I think it plays very different from Bank, since variety is tough to achieve. With four Coppers and Bank your Bank worth $5. For the same result with Fruit Mix, you would need five different treasures. It is more in the spirit of Cornucopia cards than Prosperity cards. It also has +Buy.

I suppose it's a bit harder to get it to "pop off" like Bank. I guess I'm worried that this becomes a far superior alternative to Gold most of the time because it will almost always be worth at least $3 and it has a +Buy on it too.

Yes, but it's not an automatic Gold+, you have to align three different treasures for it to be. Also, it's the second card of a split pile, not available all the time and with the extra cost of buying top cards first. Besides that, you probably would want to buy Gold anyway to give the variety needed by Fruit Mix.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on May 20, 2020, 06:02:01 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on May 20, 2020, 06:47:10 am

Trash Heap
$5
Treasure
$1
Gain a Scrap Metal.
-------
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

Scrap Metal
$0*
Treasure
+1 Card
+1 Buy
(This is not in the Supply.)

So, Trash Heap doesn't just deal in $, it gives some pieces of Scrap Metal. This Scrap Metal isn't valuable enough to give $, but it essentially acts as a +Buy token. It's a Treasure so that it is redeemable in the Buy phase. Trash Heap is a Bridge variant where the +Buy is saved, but it isn't Throneable and it's more expensive. Hopefully there's no glaring problem with these cards that I haven't picked up on.
Oh, and by the way, there are 30 Scrap Metal cards in the pile.

Is Scrap Metal supposed to return itself to its pile? You make a comparison with a +Buy token that doesn't make sense to me otherwise. Either way, this seems a bit weak to me based on comparison with Highway. The +1 Card on Scrap Metal can also make it feel pretty bad because it always draws actions dead.

Oops! Yeah, I totally meant for it to return to its pile. Also, thanks for the feedback. I will make Trash Heap better.

Am I allowed, contest wise, to make Scrap Metal an Action?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 06:46:07 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 05:39:29 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 05:29:52 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 04:58:07 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 06:13:24 am

I think in this contest flavor has an important role.

I’m from Brazil, so I chose the currency to be fruits of my country. They really were one of the currencies here in barter times, at the same time of castles and knights in Europe. So, they have a similar flavor to Hinterlands expansion cards.

Here’s my entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/692/full/Fruit_Mix.png?1589966914)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
$1
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
+1 Buy
When you play this, it's worth $1 per different named treasure you have in play (including this).

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

TROPICAL FRUITS
A Copper with a chosen bonus, a Coffers or a Villagers, which has big versatility, enabling good resources control. You can choose either use payload now, save payload or save actions.

FRUIT MIX
A Bank variant which cares for treasure names and give +buy. The split pile itself has two different named treasures, so without other alternative treasures in kingdom it may worth up to $5. It may shine with these other treasures in kingdom and even sometimes be very strong with Capitalism, but it’s the same with Bank. The +Buy feature ensures you won’t lose your additional money.

With $4 in hand it’s (almost) strictly better to buy Tropical Fruits than Silver, but you still may want to buy some Silver for more diversity to Fruit Mix. Tropical Fruits being a better choice than Silver in most cases also helps to buy them fast to reveal Fruit Mix sooner.

Feedbacks are always welcome.

Fruit Mix feels very similar to Bank to me.

Thank you! As I said it's a Bank variant, but I think it plays very different from Bank, since variety is tough to achieve. With four Coppers and Bank your Bank worth $5. For the same result with Fruit Mix, you would need five different treasures. It is more in the spirit of Cornucopia cards than Prosperity cards. It also has +Buy.

I suppose it's a bit harder to get it to "pop off" like Bank. I guess I'm worried that this becomes a far superior alternative to Gold most of the time because it will almost always be worth at least $3 and it has a +Buy on it too.

Yes, but it's not an automatic Gold+, you have to align three different treasures for it to be. Also, it's the second card of a split pile, not available all the time and with the extra cost of buying top cards first. Besides that, you probably would want to buy Gold anyway to give the variety needed by Fruit Mix.

Aligning three different treasures is not very difficult. Fruit Mix counts as one of those three so you really only need a copper + something else (which you almost certainly have a lot of thanks to the strength of Tropical Fruits).

It is true that it isn't available all the time; however, the strength of Fruit Mix makes me think that this will almost always be available when you want it in the games where you would buy it anyways. I don't see myself picking up a gold in Fruit Mix games most of the time because by the time I have a Fruit Mix either a) I'm drawing my deck and getting +$4 from each fruit mix is enough (assuming copper, silver, tropical fruits) or b) I'm not drawing that much so it's unlikely that buying a gold actually increases variety.

It's definitely worse than Gold in sloggy games but I don't think that's enough to make it not too good in the average case.

---

Quote from: spineflu on May 20, 2020, 04:51:00 pm

I made sort of a reverse heirloom.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ec59627f57f20597646c505/d9efd058ec522786087dab7a3897fa57/image.png)

Quote

Bee • $0 • Treasure
Choose one:
Cards cost $1 less this turn;
or +1 Buy.
-
Setup: Remove the top 3 cards of the Coppers Supply pile per player; replace them with as many Bees.

When a card tells you to gain a Copper, gain a Bee instead if it is available in the Supply.

It's not a kingdom card but instead a change up to the starting setup like shelters, heirlooms, etc.

The "gain a bee instead" clause is because these are still like 80% a "junk" card but they can still enable some shenanigans (similar to how Survivors or Ruined Market have some non-terrible use cases.)

...

How do you decide whether or not to play with Bee? It sounds interesting but I feel that it will usually end up not being gained at all. There are a fair number of official cards that I think end up being gained/bought less often than this though, so that's probably OK.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 20, 2020, 06:48:44 pm

Quote from: grep on May 20, 2020, 03:12:32 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/MSVBtwB/image.png)
Cow
$5 - Treasure
Worth $2
When you discard this from play during Clean-up, if you haven't bought any Victory cards this turn, you may put this on top of the deck.


The "no victory card" clause prevents gaining a Province per turn with 4 Cows.
Flavor: Cows are the main measure of wealth in many agricultural societies. "Cash cow" is a kind of business that generates steady profit.
Art: This "Cash Cow" sculpture is located at the entrance to the Happy Hollow park in San Jose, CA.

Treasury is to Cow what Poacher (without empty pile) is to Silver. If your average card is better than Copper, Treasury is better than Cow.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on May 20, 2020, 07:00:27 pm

The Treasure:

Quote

Swan - Treasure, $0* cost.
$2
When you next buy a non-Victory card this turn, exchange this for a copy of the bought card.
(This is not in the Supply.)

And 2 gainers:

Quote

Swannery - Project, $5 cost.
When you shuffle to make a new deck, first gain a Swan.

Quote

Swanherd - Action, $5 cost.
Gain a Swan. You may trash a card from your hand, then +1 Card per card you've trashed this turn.

Swans could be eaten for meat during medieval times, and monks could keep a swannery to sustain themselves or provide a meal for important guests. Their feathers could also be used for hats and quill pens. And yes, someone appointed to manage the swannery was/is called a swanherd.

Swan is similar to Feast to reflect those distinguished meals they made, becoming a copy of a bought card and giving $2 towards that card. That can speed the game up a fair bit, so its gainers need to not be too fast themselves.

Swannery gets you one Swan per shuffle. As you get more Swans the deck usually gets thicker, decreasing the gain rate; unless of course you gain drawing power, so there could be a better gain trigger here.

Swanherd likes having a lot of cards to trash (to have a kind of connection to Goatherd), and Swans help there. I could've just made it 'gain a Swan' but that's a bit boring. Adding +Action is tempting but feels a bit crazy. It's trashing, payload and a bit of draw already.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 20, 2020, 07:21:14 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

Wow, I sure did forget to come back and clean up my entry for last week; I kept meaning to but always got myself sidetracked somehow.

Anyways...

(https://i.imgur.com/RinJPd7.jpg)

Quote

Seeds
Trash this. If you did, gain an Action card costing differently from any card you have in play onto your deck.

Treasure
$4

In first turns it's a Feast+ which topdecks, maybe too powerful with $6 or $7 actions in kingdom or even strong $5 actions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 20, 2020, 08:43:13 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 06:46:07 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 20, 2020, 04:51:00 pm

I made sort of a reverse heirloom.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ec59627f57f20597646c505/d9efd058ec522786087dab7a3897fa57/image.png)

Quote

Bee • $0 • Treasure
Choose one:
Cards cost $1 less this turn;
or +1 Buy.
-
Setup: Remove the top 3 cards of the Coppers Supply pile per player; replace them with as many Bees.

When a card tells you to gain a Copper, gain a Bee instead if it is available in the Supply.

It's not a kingdom card but instead a change up to the starting setup like shelters, heirlooms, etc.

The "gain a bee instead" clause is because these are still like 80% a "junk" card but they can still enable some shenanigans (similar to how Survivors or Ruined Market have some non-terrible use cases.)

...

How do you decide whether or not to play with Bee? It sounds interesting but I feel that it will usually end up not being gained at all. There are a fair number of official cards that I think end up being gained/bought less often than this though, so that's probably OK.

It includes a randomizer; when you draw it / draft it / etc, you draw an additional kingdom card so you still have 10 kingdom cards.
re: use, I can see them being opted for when there's 1: sufficient draw and 2: +Buys (part of why these have +Buy as an option). They're slightly more powerful than a copper but yknow, still a stop card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on May 20, 2020, 09:22:39 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on May 20, 2020, 06:02:01 pm

Am I allowed, contest wise, to make Scrap Metal an Action?

I wont have a problem with that. You're not making up a whole lot of potential kingdom cards to justify a new currency. You're kind of making a new token (a +Buy token would also be ok along the lines of a villager for buys) but just presenting said token on a card. The real subject for judging is the original treasure.

I am trying to stay out of giving subjective feedback but I will also try and answer any of these sorts of questions. Repeat them in big font if I miss them. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on May 21, 2020, 05:39:02 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 20, 2020, 09:22:39 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on May 20, 2020, 06:02:01 pm

Am I allowed, contest wise, to make Scrap Metal an Action?

I wont have a problem with that. You're not making up a whole lot of potential kingdom cards to justify a new currency. You're kind of making a new token (a +Buy token would also be ok along the lines of a villager for buys) but just presenting said token on a card. The real subject for judging is the original treasure.

I am trying to stay out of giving subjective feedback but I will also try and answer any of these sorts of questions. Repeat them in big font if I miss them. :)

Ok, thanks very much. Scrap Metal is now an Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mad4math on May 21, 2020, 07:50:35 am

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 06:48:44 pm

Quote from: grep on May 20, 2020, 03:12:32 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/MSVBtwB/image.png)
Cow
$5 - Treasure
Worth $2
When you discard this from play during Clean-up, if you haven't bought any Victory cards this turn, you may put this on top of the deck.


The "no victory card" clause prevents gaining a Province per turn with 4 Cows.
Flavor: Cows are the main measure of wealth in many agricultural societies. "Cash cow" is a kind of business that generates steady profit.
Art: This "Cash Cow" sculpture is located at the entrance to the Happy Hollow park in San Jose, CA.

Treasury is to Cow what Poacher (without empty pile) is to Silver. If your average card is better than Copper, Treasury is better than Cow.

I agree with this comparison, or at least it's conclusion that treasury is better than Cow. Cow seems extremely weak, like bottom 1% of $5 cost cards weak. It is unbuyable in an engine because you don't want silver anyway and its ability is useless to engines. In money even it is super weak because you will never prefer it to gold at $6, and the few times you hit $5 you will usually prefer any terminal action to Cow.

I would suggest lowering the cost to $4, and maybe considering some minor change to make it not strictly better than silver. I think it is balanced (but still on the weak side) at $4 but there is a weak rule against silver+ at $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 21, 2020, 08:55:48 am

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 06:46:07 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 05:39:29 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 05:29:52 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 04:58:07 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 06:13:24 am

I think in this contest flavor has an important role.

I’m from Brazil, so I chose the currency to be fruits of my country. They really were one of the currencies here in barter times, at the same time of castles and knights in Europe. So, they have a similar flavor to Hinterlands expansion cards.

Here’s my entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/692/full/Fruit_Mix.png?1589966914)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
$1
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
+1 Buy
When you play this, it's worth $1 per different named treasure you have in play (including this).

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

TROPICAL FRUITS
A Copper with a chosen bonus, a Coffers or a Villagers, which has big versatility, enabling good resources control. You can choose either use payload now, save payload or save actions.

FRUIT MIX
A Bank variant which cares for treasure names and give +buy. The split pile itself has two different named treasures, so without other alternative treasures in kingdom it may worth up to $5. It may shine with these other treasures in kingdom and even sometimes be very strong with Capitalism, but it’s the same with Bank. The +Buy feature ensures you won’t lose your additional money.

With $4 in hand it’s (almost) strictly better to buy Tropical Fruits than Silver, but you still may want to buy some Silver for more diversity to Fruit Mix. Tropical Fruits being a better choice than Silver in most cases also helps to buy them fast to reveal Fruit Mix sooner.

Feedbacks are always welcome.

Fruit Mix feels very similar to Bank to me.

Thank you! As I said it's a Bank variant, but I think it plays very different from Bank, since variety is tough to achieve. With four Coppers and Bank your Bank worth $5. For the same result with Fruit Mix, you would need five different treasures. It is more in the spirit of Cornucopia cards than Prosperity cards. It also has +Buy.

I suppose it's a bit harder to get it to "pop off" like Bank. I guess I'm worried that this becomes a far superior alternative to Gold most of the time because it will almost always be worth at least $3 and it has a +Buy on it too.

Yes, but it's not an automatic Gold+, you have to align three different treasures for it to be. Also, it's the second card of a split pile, not available all the time and with the extra cost of buying top cards first. Besides that, you probably would want to buy Gold anyway to give the variety needed by Fruit Mix.

Aligning three different treasures is not very difficult. Fruit Mix counts as one of those three so you really only need a copper + something else (which you almost certainly have a lot of thanks to the strength of Tropical Fruits).

It is true that it isn't available all the time; however, the strength of Fruit Mix makes me think that this will almost always be available when you want it in the games where you would buy it anyways. I don't see myself picking up a gold in Fruit Mix games most of the time because by the time I have a Fruit Mix either a) I'm drawing my deck and getting +$4 from each fruit mix is enough (assuming copper, silver, tropical fruits) or b) I'm not drawing that much so it's unlikely that buying a gold actually increases variety.

It's definitely worse than Gold in sloggy games but I don't think that's enough to make it not too good in the average case.

A Gold is a guaranteed $3 with only one card, so in your situation B (not drawing so much) it’s not obvious that a Fruit Mix is better than it.

In situations with good draw and deck control of course it’s easier to align 3 cards, but I think it’s counterbalanced by the fact that the cards needed to be aligned in this case are treasures, a type of card which presence in deck hinder good draw and deck control.

In many situations Fruit Mix is not automatically better than Gold:

- with junkers or cursers.

- without trashers.

- without good draw.

- with handsize attacks.

- with cards which care about Gold.

- in situations you could buy a Gold without the step of buy a Silver first.

- in decks you may want only one or two treasures which give some payload and don’t clog your engine.

- after start greening (it’s harder either to draw deck or align cards in start hand).

- when it collides with other copies of itself without other treasures (Gold + Gold + Gold = $9 – Fruit Mix + Fruit Mix = Fruit Mix = $3). This also makes it a card that is not always automatically good to overbuy.

In your example A, Fruit Mix is better of course, but it’s the kind of situation in which you also always activate your Conspirators or other cards that need some cards to be played before to do its better. Even in this situation A, I think I would want to buy a Gold, either to replace that Copper or to make my Fruit Mix worth $5 (since I have +Buy, why I would want produce only $8 per turn?).

Anyway, it’s possible to include a clause that you get +Buy only if it worth $4 or more, but I really don’t know if it’s necessary. What do you think?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on May 21, 2020, 09:13:10 am

Alright, let's give this a shot. I've got this wacky idea, let's see how unbalanced that whole shtick is. :D

(https://i.postimg.cc/JRz8jkzs/Meat-Salt-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/gzGWVBDV/Meat-V3-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/YtDHRCvb/Salt-V1-EN.png)

There would be 4 of each player colour Spoilage tokens. So 4 red ones, 4 green ones, etc. This is what a Spoilage token would look like:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Tf9Gy9f8/000-Spoil-token-example.png)
Example of a Spoilage token for the blue player

Flavour wise: Pretty straight forward here. Salt (among other spices) was used to extend the shelf life of various food back before refrigeration was invented. Thus, it reduces the spoilage of your Meat cards.
Function wise: Meat always gives you as much (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) as your current number of "taken" Spoilage tokens. "Removed" Spoilage tokens makes them "un-taken". This includes the 4th Spoilage token that you have not taken at the beginning of the game. Thus, playing your first Meat will grant you (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png), aka a Silver.
Balance wise: My biggest concern would be whether Meat should cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) instead.


EDIT: V1 version of Meat before Carline helped to better word it. (https://i.postimg.cc/J1yW2CJm/Meat-V1-EN.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on May 21, 2020, 02:40:12 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

Wow, I sure did forget to come back and clean up my entry for last week; I kept meaning to but always got myself sidetracked somehow.

Anyways...

(https://i.imgur.com/RinJPd7.jpg)

Quote

Seeds
Trash this. If you did, gain an Action card costing differently from any card you have in play onto your deck.

Treasure
$4

---

Quote from: mandioca15 on May 20, 2020, 05:29:53 am

Credit tokens are essentially like coffers. During your turn, you may return N credit tokens to the supply, to gain a card from the supply costing exactly $N. You can do this whenever you are not resolving a played card. The longer you let your Credits build up,the bigger the potential reward - but don't wait too long! For example, suppose you have built up 6 Credit tokens. You could return 4 to the supply to gain a Smithy, or return 6 to gain a Gold. There's also the question of when exactly during your turn you should gain the card - maybe you can time it to get the card you really want at exactly the right time.

Gaining a card via Credits does not count as a buy.

Credit Note (Treasure, $5)

+$2
+1 Credit
+1 Buy
---
When you gain this, +1 Credit.

I like the idea of the credit tokens. However, I'm worried that Credit Note is a bit weak (it seems unlikely that you would gain more than one card per credit note in your deck most of the time).

---

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on May 20, 2020, 06:47:10 am

Trash Heap
$5
Treasure
$1
Gain a Scrap Metal.
-------
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

Scrap Metal
$0*
Treasure
+1 Card
+1 Buy
(This is not in the Supply.)

So, Trash Heap doesn't just deal in $, it gives some pieces of Scrap Metal. This Scrap Metal isn't valuable enough to give $, but it essentially acts as a +Buy token. It's a Treasure so that it is redeemable in the Buy phase. Trash Heap is a Bridge variant where the +Buy is saved, but it isn't Throneable and it's more expensive. Hopefully there's no glaring problem with these cards that I haven't picked up on.
Oh, and by the way, there are 30 Scrap Metal cards in the pile.

Is Scrap Metal supposed to return itself to its pile? You make a comparison with a +Buy token that doesn't make sense to me otherwise. Either way, this seems a bit weak to me based on comparison with Highway. The +1 Card on Scrap Metal can also make it feel pretty bad because it always draws actions dead.

---

Quote from: grep on May 20, 2020, 03:12:32 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/MSVBtwB/image.png)
Cow
$5 - Treasure
Worth $2
When you discard this from play during Clean-up, if you haven't bought any Victory cards this turn, you may put this on top of the deck.


The "no victory card" clause prevents gaining a Province per turn with 4 Cows.
Flavor: Cows are the main measure of wealth in many agricultural societies. "Cash cow" is a kind of business that generates steady profit.
Art: This "Cash Cow" sculpture is located at the entrance to the Happy Hollow park in San Jose, CA.

I feel like this encourages money strategies too much, as it seems strong in a money context and weak for other types of decks.

---

Quote from: BlueHairedMeerkat on May 20, 2020, 12:22:31 pm

Rai Stone
Treasure
$5
------------
+$3
+1 Buy
At the end of the Buy phase, if you did not buy a Victory card, gain a Curse.

Rai Stones are fascinating - they're limestone discs used by the people of Yap as a currency. They vary widely in size though, with diameters up to 4 metres, so often when they're traded it's in name only, and the object physically stays where it is. In one case, one was dropped into the ocean and was never seen again, but everyone agrees it's probably still there, so it's still traded.

I'm not completely happy with this card - thematically, I've skipped over most of the things that are interesting about rai stones and focussed on their ceremonial nature - they're primarily used for big, important transactions. I suspect something more geared towards them being cumbersome, or staying in one place, wants to be something more akin to a Project or Artefact. But it's mechanically cute, so I'll go with it for now.

This card also feels very money-ish to me.

---

Quote from: D782802859 on May 20, 2020, 03:25:37 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 06:13:24 am

I think in this contest flavor has an important role.

I’m from Brazil, so I chose the currency to be fruits of my country. They really were one of the currencies here in barter times, at the same time of castles and knights in Europe. So, they have a similar flavor to Hinterlands expansion cards.

Here’s my entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/692/full/Fruit_Mix.png?1589966914)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
$1
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
+1 Buy
When you play this, it's worth $1 per different named treasure you have in play (including this).

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

TROPICAL FRUITS
A Copper with a chosen bonus, a Coffers or a Villagers, which has big versatility, enabling good resources control. You can choose either use payload now, save payload or save actions.

FRUIT MIX
A Bank variant which cares for treasure names and give +buy. The split pile itself has two different named treasures, so without other alternative treasures in kingdom it may worth up to $5. It may shine with these other treasures in kingdom and even sometimes be very strong with Capitalism, but it’s the same with Bank. The +Buy feature ensures you won’t lose your additional money.

With $4 in hand it’s (almost) strictly better to buy Tropical Fruits than Silver, but you still may want to buy some Silver for more diversity to Fruit Mix. Tropical Fruits being a better choice than Silver in most cases also helps to buy them fast to reveal Fruit Mix sooner.

Feedbacks are always welcome.

Tropical Fruits is a silver+ at 4, which is usually a bad idea.

Fruit Mix feels very similar to Bank to me.

---

Quote from: majiponi on May 20, 2020, 08:06:49 am

Rice Bag
cost $4 - Treasure
+$2
Another +$1 per a Rice Bag on your Exile mat.
You may Exile this.

Japanese old currency.

This seems really strong to me, it's like a stronger Stockpile that only removes itself from your deck if you want it to. Getting both the normal effect of the card and being able to Exile it on the same turn make it relatively low-opportunity cost to scale when compared to cards like Miser and Pirate Ship, which are both terminal and require you to spend an entire play of the card just to power it up (granted, both of those cards are pretty weak).

Would this version work better, or is it too powerful?

Credit Note (Treasure, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy
---
While this is in play, when you buy a card, +1 Credit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 21, 2020, 03:30:29 pm

Quote from: X-tra on May 21, 2020, 09:13:10 am

Alright, let's give this a shot. I've got this wacky idea, let's see how unbalanced that whole shtick is. :D

(https://i.postimg.cc/JRz8jkzs/Meat-Salt-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/J1yW2CJm/Meat-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/YtDHRCvb/Salt-V1-EN.png)

There would be 4 of each player colour Spoilage tokens. So 4 red ones, 4 green ones, etc. This is what a Spoilage token would look like:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Tf9Gy9f8/000-Spoil-token-example.png)
Example of a Spoilage token for the blue player

Flavour wise: Pretty straight forward here. Salt (among other spices) was used to extend the shelf life of various food back before refrigeration was invented. Thus, it reduces the spoilage of your Meat cards.
Function wise: Meat always gives you as much (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) as your current number of "taken" Spoilage tokens. "Removed" Spoilage tokens makes them "un-taken". This includes the 4th Spoilage token that you have not taken at the beginning of the game. Thus, playing your first Meat will grant you (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png), aka a Silver.
Balance wise: My biggest concern would be whether Meat should cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) instead.

I like this idea very much, it has an interesting interaction between mechanic and flavor.

If you play a second Meat in a turn, you can’t remove a token because of the clause of one removal by turn. So, you take four tokens. Is it intended? In this way, I think Salt loses importance.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on May 21, 2020, 03:48:54 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 21, 2020, 03:30:29 pm

I like this idea very much, it has an interesting interaction between mechanic and flavor.

If you play a second Meat in a turn, you can’t remove a token because of the clause of one removal by turn. So, you take four tokens. Is it intended? In this way, I think Salt loses importance.

Good call. This is not intended. It should say "or take 4 Spoilage tokens if you have none". I had not seen the potential confusion that the "if you can't" part can create until you pointed it out. Thanks for that, will update my post above !

EDIT: Actually, V3 of Meat is already out since I figured an even better way of wording the damn thing. And it reduces the amount of text on the card, yay!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 21, 2020, 03:59:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iiJjBrn.png?1)
I've always been interested in the idea of a treasure that can draw you cards, and Cowrie gives you a way to do it. Of course, it has a way to save actions so that it doesn't feel too bad to draw into an action, and you can save your other stuff if you want. Since it's a treasure, you can bild a neat little engine based on using a treasure as draw or have it as a utility.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on May 21, 2020, 04:08:40 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 07:21:14 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

Wow, I sure did forget to come back and clean up my entry for last week; I kept meaning to but always got myself sidetracked somehow.

Anyways...

(https://i.imgur.com/RinJPd7.jpg)

Quote

Seeds
Trash this. If you did, gain an Action card costing differently from any card you have in play onto your deck.

Treasure
$4

In first turns it's a Feast+ which topdecks, maybe too powerful with $6 or $7 actions in kingdom or even strong $5 actions.

This is purposely much better than Feast; this is because Feast was so bad that you could just not consider its existence on the majority of boards. I wondered if the top-decking might make it too good though (probably will think about that more). It is intended to shake up the early game like Chapel or Stockpile do (though hopefully in a way that feels different, and maybe not quite as insane) while not trivializing the problem of building up your deck.

---

Quote from: Carline on May 21, 2020, 08:55:48 am

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 06:46:07 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 05:39:29 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 05:29:52 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 04:58:07 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 06:13:24 am

I think in this contest flavor has an important role.

I’m from Brazil, so I chose the currency to be fruits of my country. They really were one of the currencies here in barter times, at the same time of castles and knights in Europe. So, they have a similar flavor to Hinterlands expansion cards.

Here’s my entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/692/full/Fruit_Mix.png?1589966914)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
$1
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
+1 Buy
When you play this, it's worth $1 per different named treasure you have in play (including this).

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

TROPICAL FRUITS
A Copper with a chosen bonus, a Coffers or a Villagers, which has big versatility, enabling good resources control. You can choose either use payload now, save payload or save actions.

FRUIT MIX
A Bank variant which cares for treasure names and give +buy. The split pile itself has two different named treasures, so without other alternative treasures in kingdom it may worth up to $5. It may shine with these other treasures in kingdom and even sometimes be very strong with Capitalism, but it’s the same with Bank. The +Buy feature ensures you won’t lose your additional money.

With $4 in hand it’s (almost) strictly better to buy Tropical Fruits than Silver, but you still may want to buy some Silver for more diversity to Fruit Mix. Tropical Fruits being a better choice than Silver in most cases also helps to buy them fast to reveal Fruit Mix sooner.

Feedbacks are always welcome.

Fruit Mix feels very similar to Bank to me.

Thank you! As I said it's a Bank variant, but I think it plays very different from Bank, since variety is tough to achieve. With four Coppers and Bank your Bank worth $5. For the same result with Fruit Mix, you would need five different treasures. It is more in the spirit of Cornucopia cards than Prosperity cards. It also has +Buy.

I suppose it's a bit harder to get it to "pop off" like Bank. I guess I'm worried that this becomes a far superior alternative to Gold most of the time because it will almost always be worth at least $3 and it has a +Buy on it too.

Yes, but it's not an automatic Gold+, you have to align three different treasures for it to be. Also, it's the second card of a split pile, not available all the time and with the extra cost of buying top cards first. Besides that, you probably would want to buy Gold anyway to give the variety needed by Fruit Mix.

Aligning three different treasures is not very difficult. Fruit Mix counts as one of those three so you really only need a copper + something else (which you almost certainly have a lot of thanks to the strength of Tropical Fruits).

It is true that it isn't available all the time; however, the strength of Fruit Mix makes me think that this will almost always be available when you want it in the games where you would buy it anyways. I don't see myself picking up a gold in Fruit Mix games most of the time because by the time I have a Fruit Mix either a) I'm drawing my deck and getting +$4 from each fruit mix is enough (assuming copper, silver, tropical fruits) or b) I'm not drawing that much so it's unlikely that buying a gold actually increases variety.

It's definitely worse than Gold in sloggy games but I don't think that's enough to make it not too good in the average case.

A Gold is a guaranteed $3 with only one card, so in your situation B (not drawing so much) it’s not obvious that a Fruit Mix is better than it.

In situations with good draw and deck control of course it’s easier to align 3 cards, but I think it’s counterbalanced by the fact that the cards needed to be aligned in this case are treasures, a type of card which presence in deck hinder good draw and deck control.

In many situations Fruit Mix is not automatically better than Gold:

- with junkers or cursers.

- without trashers.

- without good draw.

- with handsize attacks.

- with cards which care about Gold.

- in situations you could buy a Gold without the step of buy a Silver first.

- in decks you may want only one or two treasures which give some payload and don’t clog your engine.

- after start greening (it’s harder either to draw deck or align cards in start hand).

- when it collides with other copies of itself without other treasures (Gold + Gold + Gold = $9 – Fruit Mix + Fruit Mix = Fruit Mix = $3). This also makes it a card that is not always automatically good to overbuy.

In your example A, Fruit Mix is better of course, but it’s the kind of situation in which you also always activate your Conspirators or other cards that need some cards to be played before to do its better. Even in this situation A, I think I would want to buy a Gold, either to replace that Copper or to make my Fruit Mix worth $5 (since I have +Buy, why I would want produce only $8 per turn?).

Anyway, it’s possible to include a clause that you get +Buy only if it worth $4 or more, but I really don’t know if it’s necessary. What do you think?

I like that a lot. It makes it evoke those cards from nocturne like Magic Lamp and Leprechaun that force you to do things you normally wouldn't for a reward (although in this case the challenge and reward aren't as large in magnitude).

Also I don't disagree that there are situations where Fruit Mix is worse than a Gold+, I just think those situations aren't particularly common in the games where you uncover Fruit Mix in the first place. I think I might be overestimating how many games are engine games though.

---

Quote from: X-tra on May 21, 2020, 09:13:10 am

Alright, let's give this a shot. I've got this wacky idea, let's see how unbalanced that whole shtick is. :D

(https://i.postimg.cc/JRz8jkzs/Meat-Salt-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/J1yW2CJm/Meat-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/YtDHRCvb/Salt-V1-EN.png)

There would be 4 of each player colour Spoilage tokens. So 4 red ones, 4 green ones, etc. This is what a Spoilage token would look like:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Tf9Gy9f8/000-Spoil-token-example.png)
Example of a Spoilage token for the blue player

Flavour wise: Pretty straight forward here. Salt (among other spices) was used to extend the shelf life of various food back before refrigeration was invented. Thus, it reduces the spoilage of your Meat cards.
Function wise: Meat always gives you as much (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) as your current number of "taken" Spoilage tokens. "Removed" Spoilage tokens makes them "un-taken". This includes the 4th Spoilage token that you have not taken at the beginning of the game. Thus, playing your first Meat will grant you (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png), aka a Silver.
Balance wise: My biggest concern would be whether Meat should cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) instead.

I think Meat is a bit on the weak side because of the turns that you play it for $1 and $0, so it's probably fine costing $3 (even though the average coin generated is the same as silver this has a very different distribution).

I feel like Salt might play awkwardly. Ideally you only want to play Salt if you currently have 0 or 4 spoilage tokens, as you probably want the strongest version of meat possible. This might end up being really compelling as a strategic element though; it's really hard to tell just from reading it.

---

Quote from: mandioca15 on May 21, 2020, 02:40:12 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

...

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on May 20, 2020, 06:47:10 am

Trash Heap
$5
Treasure
$1
Gain a Scrap Metal.
-------
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

Scrap Metal
$0*
Treasure
+1 Card
+1 Buy
(This is not in the Supply.)

So, Trash Heap doesn't just deal in $, it gives some pieces of Scrap Metal. This Scrap Metal isn't valuable enough to give $, but it essentially acts as a +Buy token. It's a Treasure so that it is redeemable in the Buy phase. Trash Heap is a Bridge variant where the +Buy is saved, but it isn't Throneable and it's more expensive. Hopefully there's no glaring problem with these cards that I haven't picked up on.
Oh, and by the way, there are 30 Scrap Metal cards in the pile.

Is Scrap Metal supposed to return itself to its pile? You make a comparison with a +Buy token that doesn't make sense to me otherwise. Either way, this seems a bit weak to me based on comparison with Highway. The +1 Card on Scrap Metal can also make it feel pretty bad because it always draws actions dead.
...

Would this version work better, or is it too powerful?

Credit Note (Treasure, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy
---
While this is in play, when you buy a card, +1 Credit.

I like this a lot. It seems like it would play like a weaker version of cost-reduction cards in this form (which is fine given that the rest of the stuff on the card is much stronger than on cost reducers).

---

Quote from: D782802859 on May 21, 2020, 03:59:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/S620zNf.png?1)
I've always been interested in the idea of a treasure that can draw you cards, and Cowrie gives you a way to do it. Of course, it has a way to save actions so that it doesn't feel too bad to draw into an action, and you can save your other stuff if you want. Since it's a treasure, you can bild a neat little engine based on using a treasure as draw or have it as a utility.

As the card is written, there is no way to get this onto your tavern mat.

Assuming that it is supposed to be put on your tavern mat on play, I think that this is pretty strong for its cost. It's also a Silver+ so it should probably cost $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 21, 2020, 04:29:00 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 21, 2020, 04:08:40 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 07:21:14 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

Wow, I sure did forget to come back and clean up my entry for last week; I kept meaning to but always got myself sidetracked somehow.

Anyways...

(https://i.imgur.com/RinJPd7.jpg)

Quote

Seeds
Trash this. If you did, gain an Action card costing differently from any card you have in play onto your deck.

Treasure
$4

In first turns it's a Feast+ which topdecks, maybe too powerful with $6 or $7 actions in kingdom or even strong $5 actions.

This is purposely much better than Feast; this is because Feast was so bad that you could just not consider its existence on the majority of boards. I wondered if the top-decking might make it too good though (probably will think about that more). It is intended to shake up the early game like Chapel or Stockpile do (though hopefully in a way that feels different, and maybe not quite as insane) while not trivializing the problem of building up your deck.

---

Quote from: Carline on May 21, 2020, 08:55:48 am

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 06:46:07 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 05:39:29 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 05:29:52 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 04:58:07 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 20, 2020, 06:13:24 am

I think in this contest flavor has an important role.

I’m from Brazil, so I chose the currency to be fruits of my country. They really were one of the currencies here in barter times, at the same time of castles and knights in Europe. So, they have a similar flavor to Hinterlands expansion cards.

Here’s my entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/692/full/Fruit_Mix.png?1589966914)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
$1
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
+1 Buy
When you play this, it's worth $1 per different named treasure you have in play (including this).

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

TROPICAL FRUITS
A Copper with a chosen bonus, a Coffers or a Villagers, which has big versatility, enabling good resources control. You can choose either use payload now, save payload or save actions.

FRUIT MIX
A Bank variant which cares for treasure names and give +buy. The split pile itself has two different named treasures, so without other alternative treasures in kingdom it may worth up to $5. It may shine with these other treasures in kingdom and even sometimes be very strong with Capitalism, but it’s the same with Bank. The +Buy feature ensures you won’t lose your additional money.

With $4 in hand it’s (almost) strictly better to buy Tropical Fruits than Silver, but you still may want to buy some Silver for more diversity to Fruit Mix. Tropical Fruits being a better choice than Silver in most cases also helps to buy them fast to reveal Fruit Mix sooner.

Feedbacks are always welcome.

Fruit Mix feels very similar to Bank to me.

Thank you! As I said it's a Bank variant, but I think it plays very different from Bank, since variety is tough to achieve. With four Coppers and Bank your Bank worth $5. For the same result with Fruit Mix, you would need five different treasures. It is more in the spirit of Cornucopia cards than Prosperity cards. It also has +Buy.

I suppose it's a bit harder to get it to "pop off" like Bank. I guess I'm worried that this becomes a far superior alternative to Gold most of the time because it will almost always be worth at least $3 and it has a +Buy on it too.

Yes, but it's not an automatic Gold+, you have to align three different treasures for it to be. Also, it's the second card of a split pile, not available all the time and with the extra cost of buying top cards first. Besides that, you probably would want to buy Gold anyway to give the variety needed by Fruit Mix.

Aligning three different treasures is not very difficult. Fruit Mix counts as one of those three so you really only need a copper + something else (which you almost certainly have a lot of thanks to the strength of Tropical Fruits).

It is true that it isn't available all the time; however, the strength of Fruit Mix makes me think that this will almost always be available when you want it in the games where you would buy it anyways. I don't see myself picking up a gold in Fruit Mix games most of the time because by the time I have a Fruit Mix either a) I'm drawing my deck and getting +$4 from each fruit mix is enough (assuming copper, silver, tropical fruits) or b) I'm not drawing that much so it's unlikely that buying a gold actually increases variety.

It's definitely worse than Gold in sloggy games but I don't think that's enough to make it not too good in the average case.

A Gold is a guaranteed $3 with only one card, so in your situation B (not drawing so much) it’s not obvious that a Fruit Mix is better than it.

In situations with good draw and deck control of course it’s easier to align 3 cards, but I think it’s counterbalanced by the fact that the cards needed to be aligned in this case are treasures, a type of card which presence in deck hinder good draw and deck control.

In many situations Fruit Mix is not automatically better than Gold:

- with junkers or cursers.

- without trashers.

- without good draw.

- with handsize attacks.

- with cards which care about Gold.

- in situations you could buy a Gold without the step of buy a Silver first.

- in decks you may want only one or two treasures which give some payload and don’t clog your engine.

- after start greening (it’s harder either to draw deck or align cards in start hand).

- when it collides with other copies of itself without other treasures (Gold + Gold + Gold = $9 – Fruit Mix + Fruit Mix = Fruit Mix = $3). This also makes it a card that is not always automatically good to overbuy.

In your example A, Fruit Mix is better of course, but it’s the kind of situation in which you also always activate your Conspirators or other cards that need some cards to be played before to do its better. Even in this situation A, I think I would want to buy a Gold, either to replace that Copper or to make my Fruit Mix worth $5 (since I have +Buy, why I would want produce only $8 per turn?).

Anyway, it’s possible to include a clause that you get +Buy only if it worth $4 or more, but I really don’t know if it’s necessary. What do you think?

I like that a lot. It makes it evoke those cards from nocturne like Magic Lamp and Leprechaun that force you to do things you normally wouldn't for a reward (although in this case the challenge and reward aren't as large in magnitude).

Also I don't disagree that there are situations where Fruit Mix is worse than a Gold+, I just think those situations aren't particularly common in the games where you uncover Fruit Mix in the first place. I think I might be overestimating how many games are engine games though.

---

Quote from: X-tra on May 21, 2020, 09:13:10 am

Alright, let's give this a shot. I've got this wacky idea, let's see how unbalanced that whole shtick is. :D

(https://i.postimg.cc/JRz8jkzs/Meat-Salt-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/J1yW2CJm/Meat-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/YtDHRCvb/Salt-V1-EN.png)

There would be 4 of each player colour Spoilage tokens. So 4 red ones, 4 green ones, etc. This is what a Spoilage token would look like:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Tf9Gy9f8/000-Spoil-token-example.png)
Example of a Spoilage token for the blue player

Flavour wise: Pretty straight forward here. Salt (among other spices) was used to extend the shelf life of various food back before refrigeration was invented. Thus, it reduces the spoilage of your Meat cards.
Function wise: Meat always gives you as much (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) as your current number of "taken" Spoilage tokens. "Removed" Spoilage tokens makes them "un-taken". This includes the 4th Spoilage token that you have not taken at the beginning of the game. Thus, playing your first Meat will grant you (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png), aka a Silver.
Balance wise: My biggest concern would be whether Meat should cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) instead.

I think Meat is a bit on the weak side because of the turns that you play it for $1 and $0, so it's probably fine costing $3 (even though the average coin generated is the same as silver this has a very different distribution).

I feel like Salt might play awkwardly. Ideally you only want to play Salt if you currently have 0 or 4 spoilage tokens, as you probably want the strongest version of meat possible. This might end up being really compelling as a strategic element though; it's really hard to tell just from reading it.

---

Quote from: mandioca15 on May 21, 2020, 02:40:12 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 20, 2020, 04:32:04 pm

...

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on May 20, 2020, 06:47:10 am

Trash Heap
$5
Treasure
$1
Gain a Scrap Metal.
-------
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

Scrap Metal
$0*
Treasure
+1 Card
+1 Buy
(This is not in the Supply.)

So, Trash Heap doesn't just deal in $, it gives some pieces of Scrap Metal. This Scrap Metal isn't valuable enough to give $, but it essentially acts as a +Buy token. It's a Treasure so that it is redeemable in the Buy phase. Trash Heap is a Bridge variant where the +Buy is saved, but it isn't Throneable and it's more expensive. Hopefully there's no glaring problem with these cards that I haven't picked up on.
Oh, and by the way, there are 30 Scrap Metal cards in the pile.

Is Scrap Metal supposed to return itself to its pile? You make a comparison with a +Buy token that doesn't make sense to me otherwise. Either way, this seems a bit weak to me based on comparison with Highway. The +1 Card on Scrap Metal can also make it feel pretty bad because it always draws actions dead.
...

Would this version work better, or is it too powerful?

Credit Note (Treasure, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy
---
While this is in play, when you buy a card, +1 Credit.

I like this a lot. It seems like it would play like a weaker version of cost-reduction cards in this form (which is fine given that the rest of the stuff on the card is much stronger than on cost reducers).

---

Quote from: D782802859 on May 21, 2020, 03:59:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/S620zNf.png?1)
I've always been interested in the idea of a treasure that can draw you cards, and Cowrie gives you a way to do it. Of course, it has a way to save actions so that it doesn't feel too bad to draw into an action, and you can save your other stuff if you want. Since it's a treasure, you can bild a neat little engine based on using a treasure as draw or have it as a utility.

As the card is written, there is no way to get this onto your tavern mat.

Assuming that it is supposed to be put on your tavern mat on play, I think that this is pretty strong for its cost. It's also a Silver+ so it should probably cost $5.

It honestly slipped my mind to include the clause to put it on your tavern mat. I'll fix that. It's not quite a silver+, as it's only a silver every other turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 21, 2020, 04:31:07 pm

Why do people in a world in which Patron exists, a card that is better than Silver in 3 ways (Action, Villagers, Coffers), pretend that the „no Silver+ for $4“ rule still exists?
Cowrie is fine, it’s is only a Silver every second play and the call effect is significantly weaker than Secret Passage  (depending on how you count, you can also view it as Lab plus topdecking Secret Passage). Drawing stuff in your Buy phase is rarely very good. It sucks in an engine so we get a card which slightly favors money. Buffing money rarely leads to broken stuff.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on May 21, 2020, 05:30:06 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 21, 2020, 04:29:00 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 21, 2020, 04:08:40 pm

...

Quote from: D782802859 on May 21, 2020, 03:59:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/S620zNf.png?1)
I've always been interested in the idea of a treasure that can draw you cards, and Cowrie gives you a way to do it. Of course, it has a way to save actions so that it doesn't feel too bad to draw into an action, and you can save your other stuff if you want. Since it's a treasure, you can bild a neat little engine based on using a treasure as draw or have it as a utility.

As the card is written, there is no way to get this onto your tavern mat.

Assuming that it is supposed to be put on your tavern mat on play, I think that this is pretty strong for its cost. It's also a Silver+ so it should probably cost $5.

It honestly slipped my mind to include the clause to put it on your tavern mat. I'll fix that. It's not quite a silver+, as it's only a silver every other turn.

I didn't consider how it would play in a "draw your deck" scenario, it's definitely worse than Silver there. I still think it's too strong to be $4 in a deck that doesn't draw itself though.

---

Quote from: segura on May 21, 2020, 04:31:07 pm

Why do people in a world in which Patron exists, a card that is better than Silver in 3 ways (Action, Villagers, Coffers), pretend that the „no Silver+ for $4“ rule still exists?
Cowrie is fine, it’s is only a Silver every second play and the call effect is significantly weaker than Secret Passage  (depending on how you count, you can also view it as Lab plus topdecking Secret Passage). Drawing stuff in your Buy phase is rarely very good. It sucks in an engine so we get a card which slightly favors money. Buffing money rarely leads to broken stuff.

The "no Silver+ for $4" rule isn't a strict rule, it's more of a "this is something you better have a good reason to be breaking" rule. I think Patron works because, even though buying Patron VS Silver isn't much of a decision, the existence of Patron in the kingdom often makes you reconsider the power level of other cards in a way that a lot of proposed Silver+'s don't. For an example, there's the hypothetical Royal Seal at $4. I don't think that the power level of such a card is problematic but the card doesn't introduce any interesting decisions into the game most of the time, the ability to topdeck gained cards doesn't make you want different types of cards like the Villager or the reveal-effect on Patron can.

I disagree that Cowrie is always a bad buy in an engine. If you're playing a deck that doesn't draw itself, then Cowrie is really good at helping you set up your next hand. Of course it's bad as payload, but I would rather have Cowrie than Silver while I'm setting things up.

---

Quote from: Aquila on May 20, 2020, 07:00:27 pm

The Treasure:

Quote

Swan - Treasure, $0* cost.
$2
When you next buy a non-Victory card this turn, exchange this for a copy of the bought card.
(This is not in the Supply.)

And 2 gainers:

Quote

Swannery - Project, $5 cost.
When you shuffle to make a new deck, first gain a Swan.

Quote

Swanherd - Action, $5 cost.
Gain a Swan. You may trash a card from your hand, then +1 Card per card you've trashed this turn.

Swans could be eaten for meat during medieval times, and monks could keep a swannery to sustain themselves or provide a meal for important guests. Their feathers could also be used for hats and quill pens. And yes, someone appointed to manage the swannery was/is called a swanherd.

Swan is similar to Feast to reflect those distinguished meals they made, becoming a copy of a bought card and giving $2 towards that card. That can speed the game up a fair bit, so its gainers need to not be too fast themselves.

Swannery gets you one Swan per shuffle. As you get more Swans the deck usually gets thicker, decreasing the gain rate; unless of course you gain drawing power, so there could be a better gain trigger here.

Swanherd likes having a lot of cards to trash (to have a kind of connection to Goatherd), and Swans help there. I could've just made it 'gain a Swan' but that's a bit boring. Adding +Action is tempting but feels a bit crazy. It's trashing, payload and a bit of draw already.

I like Swannery, it feels like the cost might be a bit high but it's hard to tell how it actually plays out.

Adding +Action to Swanherd would definitely be interesting. It would definitely be strong but I think this would be strong in a way that makes kingdoms more interesting. If you were to do that I would change the trashing to be mandatory to prevent it from being too easy to use.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 21, 2020, 05:52:10 pm

The point is that DXV broke his own rule when he designed Patron so it makes absolutely no sense to continue to apply a non–existing design guideline to fan cards.
Also, you undervalue Patron and overvalue Cowrie which unlike Cowrie is not even virtually always superior to Silver as it is out of your deck for at least one turn.


About the usefulness of Cowrie in an engine, buy Haven for $2 instead of Cowrie for the supposed appropriate price of $5. Would you mind to point out again why Cowrie should cost $5?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MiX on May 21, 2020, 06:03:23 pm

Quote from: segura on May 21, 2020, 05:52:10 pm

The point is that DXV broke his own rule when he designed Patron so it makes absolutely no sense to continue to apply a non–existing design guideline to fan cards.
Also, you undervalue Patron and overvalue Cowrie which unlike Cowrie is not even virtually always superior to Silver as it is out of your deck for at least one turn.


About the usefulness of Cowrie in an engine, buy Haven for $2 instead of Cowrie for the supposed appropriate price of $5. Would you mind to point out again why Cowrie should cost $5?

Haven that comes with a Silver is about $5, yeah. Cowrie's basically at least +1 coin when called, as it's pretty hard not to draw a treasure with it and you can topdeck whatever you want. Seems much better than Silver. It's worth 5 when you draw 2 treasures and topdeck a village for next turn, which is harder to happen if it costs 5, but there's definitely an argument for that cost. I'd make it better somehow for a higher price, however.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 21, 2020, 06:16:05 pm

I don’t know what decks you play but mine rarely feature a high chance that one of 2 cards is a Treasure unless I play money. Which happens pretty rarely.
So make up you mind. Either the card draws a Treasure in a money deck (hey, I drew a Silver, that Card is just so better than Silver!) or you drew your village and topdecked it in an engine. Like Haven does. For $2.

Yeah, still don’t see how this is better than Patron (which, while we talk about topdecking villages, sometimes does a better job, produce a villager) or even a $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on May 21, 2020, 06:39:10 pm

Quote from: MiX on May 21, 2020, 06:03:23 pm

Quote from: segura on May 21, 2020, 05:52:10 pm

The point is that DXV broke his own rule when he designed Patron so it makes absolutely no sense to continue to apply a non–existing design guideline to fan cards.
Also, you undervalue Patron and overvalue Cowrie which unlike Cowrie is not even virtually always superior to Silver as it is out of your deck for at least one turn.


About the usefulness of Cowrie in an engine, buy Haven for $2 instead of Cowrie for the supposed appropriate price of $5. Would you mind to point out again why Cowrie should cost $5?

Haven that comes with a Silver is about $5, yeah. Cowrie's basically at least +1 coin when called, as it's pretty hard not to draw a treasure with it and you can topdeck whatever you want. Seems much better than Silver. It's worth 5 when you draw 2 treasures and topdeck a village for next turn, which is harder to happen if it costs 5, but there's definitely an argument for that cost. I'd make it better somehow for a higher price, however.

I'm not convinced that it needs to be better than it is to cost $5. That being said, I don't think that it's so strong that it couldn't take a buff and still be acceptable.

---

Quote from: segura on May 21, 2020, 05:52:10 pm

The point is that DXV broke his own rule when he designed Patron so it makes absolutely no sense to continue to apply a non–existing design guideline to fan cards.
Also, you undervalue Patron and overvalue Cowrie which unlike Cowrie is not even virtually always superior to Silver as it is out of your deck for at least one turn.


About the usefulness of Cowrie in an engine, buy Haven for $2 instead of Cowrie for the supposed appropriate price of $5. Would you mind to point out again why Cowrie should cost $5?

There's a reason Patron is the only Silver+ for $4 in the game still. Even though the "no Silver+ for $4" rule isn't always correct, I still think its a useful heuristic because it forces you to look at the reasons why a Silver+ at $4 might be interesting, which are usually different reasons than for other cards (with most cards, you want the interesting decision to be whether or not to gain them / how many to gain; with a Silver+ at $4, you want to consider how the presence of the card changes how much you want the other cards in the kingdom.)

The reason I think Cowrie should be $5 is not only because of the reasons that MiX gave, but that its status as a Reserve card guarantees that the bottom part of the card is called in a situation that you want it most.

---

Quote from: segura on May 21, 2020, 06:16:05 pm

I don’t know what decks you play but mine rarely feature a high chance that one of 2 cards is a Treasure unless I play money. Which happens pretty rarely.
So make up you mind. Either the card draws a Treasure in a money deck (hey, I drew a Silver, that Card is just so better than Silver!) or you drew your village and topdecked it in an engine. Like Haven does. For $2.

Yeah, still don’t see how this is better than Patron (which, while we talk about topdecking villages, sometimes does a better job, produce a villager) or even a $5.

This is an incredibly common situation early game, when every deck is a money deck. This is at its weakest as a payload for engine cards, I don't think that focusing on cards at their weakest is helpful to determine balance.

I agree that Patron is often a better buy than Cowrie, every $5 in dominion isn't stronger than every $4. Patron for $4 makes the game more strategically interesting than Cowrie for $4 does though because I don't think the presence of Cowrie makes me change how I play my deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on May 22, 2020, 07:34:40 am

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $6)
$2
Gain a Wish from its pile. You may trash this, to put the gained Wish on your deck.

Okay. This card needs a little explaining. I’m assuming Dominion is in a fantasy, D&D-esque world where the gods give favors in exchange for temple service. Favors are probably the currency of gods to mortals.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 22, 2020, 12:25:05 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 22, 2020, 07:34:40 am

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $6)
$2
Gain a Wish from its pile. You may trash this, to put the gained Wish on your deck.

Okay. This card needs a little explaining. I’m assuming Dominion is in a fantasy, D&D-esque world where the gods give favors in exchange for temple service. Favors are probably the currency of gods to mortals.

Looks far too strong compared to other >$4 gainers. It might even be overpowered if it did not yield any Coins.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on May 22, 2020, 01:22:08 pm

Here's my shot at a unique treasure: Livestock.

(https://i.imgur.com/NBunri2.jpg)

It's a lab, but a treasure! I feel like you could do some interesting things with this. It seems pretty much inferior to Lab which is why I put it at $4.

Updates: Changed price to $5, seeing as it has some advantages over Lost City and Lab but also some drawbacks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 22, 2020, 01:31:01 pm

Not that it matters except for Villa and Calalry but technically it is a Lost City.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on May 22, 2020, 02:29:17 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on May 22, 2020, 01:22:08 pm

Here's my shot at a unique treasure: Livestock.

(https://i.imgur.com/AfdkOBg.jpg)

It's a lab, but a treasure! I feel like you could do some interesting things with this. It seems pretty much inferior to Lab which is why I put it at $4.

Quote from: segura on May 22, 2020, 01:31:01 pm

Not that it matters except for Villa and Calalry but technically it is a Lost City.

This isn't even only a Lost City - it has the advantage that it cannot be drawn dead. (Of course, it does have the disadvantage of being bad with non-terminal actions, and requiring slightly more finesse to play.) This could be $5 and I would still buy it often; at $4 I think it is stronger than any other village at that price point given there are no dominant non-terminal cards (i.e. Grand Market). Even then I can still imagine this being a stronger move on certain boards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on May 22, 2020, 03:18:35 pm

Quote from: segura on May 22, 2020, 12:25:05 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 22, 2020, 07:34:40 am

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $6)
$2
Gain a Wish from its pile. You may trash this, to put the gained Wish on your deck.

Okay. This card needs a little explaining. I’m assuming Dominion is in a fantasy, D&D-esque world where the gods give favors in exchange for temple service. Favors are probably the currency of gods to mortals.

Looks far too strong compared to other >$4 gainers. It might even be overpowered if it did not yield any Coins.

Updating my entry:

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $4)
$2
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you overpaid $1, gain a Wish from its pile. If you overpaid $2 or more, you may put the gained Wish on top of your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on May 22, 2020, 03:35:24 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 22, 2020, 03:18:35 pm

Quote from: segura on May 22, 2020, 12:25:05 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 22, 2020, 07:34:40 am

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $6)
$2
Gain a Wish from its pile. You may trash this, to put the gained Wish on your deck.

Okay. This card needs a little explaining. I’m assuming Dominion is in a fantasy, D&D-esque world where the gods give favors in exchange for temple service. Favors are probably the currency of gods to mortals.

Looks far too strong compared to other >$4 gainers. It might even be overpowered if it did not yield any Coins.

Updating my entry:

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $4)
$2
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you overpaid $1, gain a Wish from its pile. If you overpaid $2 or more, you may put the gained Wish on top of your deck.

Why not just make it cost $5, and tie the topdecking to overpaying at all?

Also paying $5 for a wish is crazy, even if you don't want the silver.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on May 22, 2020, 04:23:58 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 22, 2020, 02:29:17 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on May 22, 2020, 01:22:08 pm

Here's my shot at a unique treasure: Livestock.

It's a lab, but a treasure! I feel like you could do some interesting things with this. It seems pretty much inferior to Lab which is why I put it at $4.

Quote from: segura on May 22, 2020, 01:31:01 pm

Not that it matters except for Villa and Calalry but technically it is a Lost City.

This isn't even only a Lost City - it has the advantage that it cannot be drawn dead. (Of course, it does have the disadvantage of being bad with non-terminal actions, and requiring slightly more finesse to play.) This could be $5 and I would still buy it often; at $4 I think it is stronger than any other village at that price point given there are no dominant non-terminal cards (i.e. Grand Market). Even then I can still imagine this being a stronger move on certain boards.

Thanks for the feedback! I upped the cost to $5, but I don't think it needs a drawback like Lost City's, since it does still have disadvantages.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 22, 2020, 04:51:03 pm

Due to the feedback of alion8me (thank you!), I think it’s better to avoid the situations in which Fruit Mix is clearly a better buy over Gold at the same price. So, I made the +Buy bonus to be given only if it’s worth $4 or more and made it +2Buys to be a better reward for to align four different treasures.

Being a card that prizes variety, this feature of an extra bonus for the challenge to achieve more variety seems to fit very well.

So I’m changing my entry to:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/666/284/full/Fruit_Mix_%282%29.png?1590180087)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
$1
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
When you play this, it's worth $1 per different named treasure you have in play (including this).
If it's worth at least $4:
+2 Buys.

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

I will edit my original post to add this change.

More feedbacks are always welcome!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on May 22, 2020, 05:21:54 pm

Quote from: alion8me on May 22, 2020, 03:35:24 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 22, 2020, 03:18:35 pm

Quote from: segura on May 22, 2020, 12:25:05 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 22, 2020, 07:34:40 am

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $6)
$2
Gain a Wish from its pile. You may trash this, to put the gained Wish on your deck.

Okay. This card needs a little explaining. I’m assuming Dominion is in a fantasy, D&D-esque world where the gods give favors in exchange for temple service. Favors are probably the currency of gods to mortals.

Looks far too strong compared to other >$4 gainers. It might even be overpowered if it did not yield any Coins.

Updating my entry:

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $4)
$2
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you overpaid $1, gain a Wish from its pile. If you overpaid $2 or more, you may put the gained Wish on top of your deck.

Why not just make it cost $5, and tie the topdecking to overpaying at all?

Also paying $5 for a wish is crazy, even if you don't want the silver.

Great idea. thanks!
Update:

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $5)
$2
-
When you buy this, you may overpay $1 for it, to gain a Wish from its pile to the top of your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 22, 2020, 05:40:37 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 22, 2020, 04:51:03 pm

Due to the feedback of alion8me (thank you!), I think it’s better to avoid the situations in which Fruit Mix is clearly a better buy over Gold at the same price. So, I made the +Buy bonus to be given only if it’s worth $4 or more and made it +2Buys to be a better reward for to align four different treasures.

Being a card that prizes variety, this feature of an extra bonus for the challenge to achieve more variety seems to fit very well.

So I’m changing my entry to:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/666/284/full/Fruit_Mix_%282%29.png?1590180087)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
$1
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
When you play this, it's worth $1 per different named treasure you have in play (including this).
If it's worth at least $4:
+2 Buys.

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

I will edit my original post to add this change.

More feedbacks are always welcome!

To fit better the wording of Dominion cards (like Villain and Patrician) I’m changing the wording of the new version of Fruit Mix from “at least (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)” to “(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) or more”.

So my modified new entry is:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/660/691/full/Tropical_Fruits.png?1589966687)    (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/666/374/full/Fruit_Mix_%283%29.png?1590182756)

Quote

TROPICAL FRUITS • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)• Treasure
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) • Treasure
When you play this, it's worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) per different named treasure you have in play (including this).
If it's worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) or more:
+2 Buys.

It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 22, 2020, 05:57:00 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 22, 2020, 05:21:54 pm

Update:

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $5)
$2
-
When you buy this, you may overpay $1 for it, to gain a Wish from its pile to the top of your deck.

This way it's the same to it costs $6, since no one would spend $5 to buy a Silver.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on May 22, 2020, 06:54:38 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 22, 2020, 05:57:00 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 22, 2020, 05:21:54 pm

Update:

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $5)
$2
-
When you buy this, you may overpay $1 for it, to gain a Wish from its pile to the top of your deck.

This way it's the same to it costs $6, since no one would spend $5 to buy a Silver.

That’s fair.
Update:

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $5)
+2 Coffers
-
When you buy this, you may overpay $1 for it, to gain a Wish from its pile to the top of your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2020, 01:52:02 am

The previous version was fine, you pay $6 to get a $6 onto your deck and a Silver. Might favour BM but it might also be situationally OK for engines.
The new version is crazy, you pay $6 and get a $6 onto your deck plus a card which is worth $5. Although you don’t want too any copies of it, +2 Coffers is pretty strong on a Treasure and you definitely want it far more often than a Silver.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 23, 2020, 07:39:22 am

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2020, 01:52:02 am

The previous version was fine, you pay $6 to get a $6 onto your deck and a Silver. Might favour BM but it might also be situationally OK for engines.
The new version is crazy, you pay $6 and get a $6 onto your deck plus a card which is worth $5. Although you don’t want too any copies of it, +2 Coffers is pretty strong on a Treasure and you definitely want it far more often than a Silver.

What I said about previous version is that there's no need to it be a card with overpay in cost, since there would be no demand for a buy without overpay. It could simply cost $6 with the same results.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MiX on May 23, 2020, 07:43:09 am

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 07:39:22 am

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2020, 01:52:02 am

The previous version was fine, you pay $6 to get a $6 onto your deck and a Silver. Might favour BM but it might also be situationally OK for engines.
The new version is crazy, you pay $6 and get a $6 onto your deck plus a card which is worth $5. Although you don’t want too any copies of it, +2 Coffers is pretty strong on a Treasure and you definitely want it far more often than a Silver.

What I said about previous version is that there's no need to it be a card with overpay in cost, since there would be no demand for a buy without overpay. It could simply cost $6 with the same results.

The overpay stops Wish from being able to gain Divine Favors for more Wishes, although there's no real problem with being able to gain a silver each turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 23, 2020, 08:16:03 am

Quote from: MiX on May 23, 2020, 07:43:09 am

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 07:39:22 am

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2020, 01:52:02 am

The previous version was fine, you pay $6 to get a $6 onto your deck and a Silver. Might favour BM but it might also be situationally OK for engines.
The new version is crazy, you pay $6 and get a $6 onto your deck plus a card which is worth $5. Although you don’t want too any copies of it, +2 Coffers is pretty strong on a Treasure and you definitely want it far more often than a Silver.

What I said about previous version is that there's no need to it be a card with overpay in cost, since there would be no demand for a buy without overpay. It could simply cost $6 with the same results.

The overpay stops Wish from being able to gain Divine Favors for more Wishes, although there's no real problem with being able to gain a silver each turn.

Yes, you're right and it also is different with TFB.

What I think is that is better if the card would be also good to buy without overpay. But Masterpiece is there to prove it doesn't need to be this way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: stechafle on May 23, 2020, 10:18:53 am

My entry is Wool, a commodity with a slight tie in with Way of the Sheep. The main premise was a Treasure that was worth more when you cornered the market so I made it a Duration to track that. I struggled with what it should do at the start of your next turn. Putting a card back on your deck could help you avoid playing Wool for only $2.

$? Wool $?
Worth $4 if no other player has Wool in play. Otherwise worth $2.
At the start of your next turn, +2 Cards, and put a card from your hand onto your deck.
$5 Treasure Duration

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on May 23, 2020, 03:29:43 pm

After some consideration, I've decided to make a change to my entry re: concerns about power level:

(https://i.imgur.com/PD9za6G.png)

Quote

Seeds
Trash this. If you did, gain an Action card costing differently from any card you have in play. You may discard a Treasure card from your hand, to put the gained card on top of your deck.

Treasure
$4

It's a little bit more complicated but I think it makes the card more interesting in terms of when to buy it / how to play it.

---

Quote from: stechafle on May 23, 2020, 10:18:53 am

My entry is Wool, a commodity with a slight tie in with Way of the Sheep. The main premise was a Treasure that was worth more when you cornered the market so I made it a Duration to track that. I struggled with what it should do at the start of your next turn. Putting a card back on your deck could help you avoid playing Wool for only $2.

$? Wool $?
Worth $4 if no other player has Wool in play. Otherwise worth $2.
At the start of your next turn, +2 Cards, and put a card from your hand onto your deck.
$5 Treasure Duration

Ignoring the possibility that this might be worth $4, this is like a more powerful version of Supplies (it plays notably different when you draw your deck, though). $5 seems like a reasonable cost for that effect.

The "worth $4" part either forces you to get two copies of this in games where you can draw to it consistently, or makes it very swingy in games where you can't. I'm also concerned about 1P advantage, especially in 3P+ games where there are no other options to spike key expensive cards early.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 23, 2020, 05:35:57 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 07:39:22 am

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2020, 01:52:02 am

The previous version was fine, you pay $6 to get a $6 onto your deck and a Silver. Might favour BM but it might also be situationally OK for engines.
The new version is crazy, you pay $6 and get a $6 onto your deck plus a card which is worth $5. Although you don’t want too any copies of it, +2 Coffers is pretty strong on a Treasure and you definitely want it far more often than a Silver.

What I said about previous version is that there's no need to it be a card with overpay in cost, since there would be no demand for a buy without overpay. It could simply cost $6 with the same results.

That is not correct. Without the overpay mechanism the card is much stronger with TfB cards, especially Remodel variants which can directly transform it into a Province. This is why I think that the overpay variant is superior.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 23, 2020, 06:52:25 pm

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2020, 05:35:57 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 07:39:22 am

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2020, 01:52:02 am

The previous version was fine, you pay $6 to get a $6 onto your deck and a Silver. Might favour BM but it might also be situationally OK for engines.
The new version is crazy, you pay $6 and get a $6 onto your deck plus a card which is worth $5. Although you don’t want too any copies of it, +2 Coffers is pretty strong on a Treasure and you definitely want it far more often than a Silver.

What I said about previous version is that there's no need to it be a card with overpay in cost, since there would be no demand for a buy without overpay. It could simply cost $6 with the same results.

That is not correct. Without the overpay mechanism the card is much stronger with TfB cards, especially Remodel variants which can directly transform it into a Province. This is why I think that the overpay variant is superior.

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 08:16:03 am

Quote from: MiX on May 23, 2020, 07:43:09 am

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 07:39:22 am

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2020, 01:52:02 am

The previous version was fine, you pay $6 to get a $6 onto your deck and a Silver. Might favour BM but it might also be situationally OK for engines.
The new version is crazy, you pay $6 and get a $6 onto your deck plus a card which is worth $5. Although you don’t want too any copies of it, +2 Coffers is pretty strong on a Treasure and you definitely want it far more often than a Silver.

What I said about previous version is that there's no need to it be a card with overpay in cost, since there would be no demand for a buy without overpay. It could simply cost $6 with the same results.

The overpay stops Wish from being able to gain Divine Favors for more Wishes, although there's no real problem with being able to gain a silver each turn.

Yes, you're right and it also is different with TFB.

What I think is that is better if the card would be also good to buy without overpay. But Masterpiece is there to prove it doesn't need to be this way.

Yeah, as you can see, right after I realized it and said about TFB.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on May 23, 2020, 09:58:12 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 06:52:25 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 08:16:03 am

Quote from: MiX on May 23, 2020, 07:43:09 am

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 07:39:22 am

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2020, 01:52:02 am

The previous version was fine, you pay $6 to get a $6 onto your deck and a Silver. Might favour BM but it might also be situationally OK for engines.
The new version is crazy, you pay $6 and get a $6 onto your deck plus a card which is worth $5. Although you don’t want too any copies of it, +2 Coffers is pretty strong on a Treasure and you definitely want it far more often than a Silver.

What I said about previous version is that there's no need to it be a card with overpay in cost, since there would be no demand for a buy without overpay. It could simply cost $6 with the same results.

The overpay stops Wish from being able to gain Divine Favors for more Wishes, although there's no real problem with being able to gain a silver each turn.

Yes, you're right and it also is different with TFB.

What I think is that is better if the card would be also good to buy without overpay. But Masterpiece is there to prove it doesn't need to be this way.

Yeah, as you can see, right after I realized it and said about TFB.

Thanks for the feedback! Here’s my card now.

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $6+)
$2
-
When you buy this, gain a Wish from its pile. You may also overpay $1 for this, to put the gained Wish on top of your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 23, 2020, 11:41:01 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 23, 2020, 09:58:12 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 06:52:25 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 08:16:03 am

Quote from: MiX on May 23, 2020, 07:43:09 am

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 07:39:22 am

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2020, 01:52:02 am

The previous version was fine, you pay $6 to get a $6 onto your deck and a Silver. Might favour BM but it might also be situationally OK for engines.
The new version is crazy, you pay $6 and get a $6 onto your deck plus a card which is worth $5. Although you don’t want too any copies of it, +2 Coffers is pretty strong on a Treasure and you definitely want it far more often than a Silver.

What I said about previous version is that there's no need to it be a card with overpay in cost, since there would be no demand for a buy without overpay. It could simply cost $6 with the same results.

The overpay stops Wish from being able to gain Divine Favors for more Wishes, although there's no real problem with being able to gain a silver each turn.

Yes, you're right and it also is different with TFB.

What I think is that is better if the card would be also good to buy without overpay. But Masterpiece is there to prove it doesn't need to be this way.

Yeah, as you can see, right after I realized it and said about TFB.

Thanks for the feedback! Here’s my card now.

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $6+)
$2
-
When you buy this, gain a Wish from its pile. You may also overpay $1 for this, to put the gained Wish on top of your deck.

Suggestion of a more concise wording to fit better the space for it in the card:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/668/449/full/Divine_Favor_%281%29.png?15902915834)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on May 24, 2020, 08:05:12 am

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 11:41:01 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 23, 2020, 09:58:12 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 06:52:25 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 08:16:03 am

Quote from: MiX on May 23, 2020, 07:43:09 am

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 07:39:22 am

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2020, 01:52:02 am

The previous version was fine, you pay $6 to get a $6 onto your deck and a Silver. Might favour BM but it might also be situationally OK for engines.
The new version is crazy, you pay $6 and get a $6 onto your deck plus a card which is worth $5. Although you don’t want too any copies of it, +2 Coffers is pretty strong on a Treasure and you definitely want it far more often than a Silver.

What I said about previous version is that there's no need to it be a card with overpay in cost, since there would be no demand for a buy without overpay. It could simply cost $6 with the same results.

The overpay stops Wish from being able to gain Divine Favors for more Wishes, although there's no real problem with being able to gain a silver each turn.

Yes, you're right and it also is different with TFB.

What I think is that is better if the card would be also good to buy without overpay. But Masterpiece is there to prove it doesn't need to be this way.

Yeah, as you can see, right after I realized it and said about TFB.

Thanks for the feedback! Here’s my card now.

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $6+)
$2
-
When you buy this, gain a Wish from its pile. You may also overpay $1 for this, to put the gained Wish on top of your deck.

Suggestion of a more concise wording to fit better the space for it in the card:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/668/449/full/Divine_Favor_%281%29.png?15902915834)

That’s a good suggestion, but it goes against how the other overpay cards are worded (“When you buy this...you may overpay for it”). I think I’ll stick with the one I have, but thanks anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 24, 2020, 10:38:03 am

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 24, 2020, 08:05:12 am

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 11:41:01 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 23, 2020, 09:58:12 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 06:52:25 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 08:16:03 am

Quote from: MiX on May 23, 2020, 07:43:09 am

Quote from: Carline on May 23, 2020, 07:39:22 am

Quote from: segura on May 23, 2020, 01:52:02 am

The previous version was fine, you pay $6 to get a $6 onto your deck and a Silver. Might favour BM but it might also be situationally OK for engines.
The new version is crazy, you pay $6 and get a $6 onto your deck plus a card which is worth $5. Although you don’t want too any copies of it, +2 Coffers is pretty strong on a Treasure and you definitely want it far more often than a Silver.

What I said about previous version is that there's no need to it be a card with overpay in cost, since there would be no demand for a buy without overpay. It could simply cost $6 with the same results.

The overpay stops Wish from being able to gain Divine Favors for more Wishes, although there's no real problem with being able to gain a silver each turn.

Yes, you're right and it also is different with TFB.

What I think is that is better if the card would be also good to buy without overpay. But Masterpiece is there to prove it doesn't need to be this way.

Yeah, as you can see, right after I realized it and said about TFB.

Thanks for the feedback! Here’s my card now.

Quote

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $6+)
$2
-
When you buy this, gain a Wish from its pile. You may also overpay $1 for this, to put the gained Wish on top of your deck.

Suggestion of a more concise wording to fit better the space for it in the card:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/668/449/full/Divine_Favor_%281%29.png?15902915834)

That’s a good suggestion, but it goes against how the other overpay cards are worded (“When you buy this...you may overpay for it”). I think I’ll stick with the one I have, but thanks anyway.

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/668/697/full/Divine_Favor_%284%29.png?1590330152)

Yes, you're right about this. Maybe it would be a bit more concise without the word "also" and changing "on top of your deck" to "onto your deck" (as the wording in Herald, for instance).

I hope I'm not being too intrusive. Please excuse me if I am.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 24, 2020, 05:32:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3DlKHE6.png) (https://i.imgur.com/R8PRUsu.png)

Edit: 10 Mystic Stones in the pile.

This might be tough to play with online because it introduces a situation where you can't track your opponent's points exactly (and intentionally so). You could get around that by showing the range of possible points the opponent could have, but it would be janky. If people think that's too against the spirit of Dominion, I can change Mystic Stone to simply Exile cards. I don't think it would play out that differently.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on May 24, 2020, 08:24:53 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on May 24, 2020, 05:32:09 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3DlKHE6.png) (https://i.imgur.com/R8PRUsu.png)
This might be tough to play with online because it introduces a situation where you can't track your opponent's points exactly (and intentionally so). You could get around that by showing the range of possible points the opponent could have, but it would be janky. If people think that's too against the spirit of Dominion, I can change Mystic Stone to simply Exile cards. I don't think it would play out that differently.

How many Shamans/Mystic Stones are there?

It also seems pretty difficult to obtain a Mystic Stone given that you probably need to sacrifice a lot of money on the turn you obtain it (as worded Treasure cards count toward the condition).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 25, 2020, 02:32:23 am

Shaman has 10 of course because it's a Supply pile. Mystic Stone having 10 is also fine because like you said it's hard enough to get them.

I don't think it's too hard, though. Like you might have to forgo playing one or two coppers, but I think Mystic Stone is strong enough to justify that. I originally had it as 1 VP per unique on the mat but I compared that to Fairgrounds and it was nuts; as it is, you can still do some serious damage with it, and given that it thins and can also pseudo-Exile provinces, there's a decent amount of boards where you want one no matter the cost. And hey, you have to pass an entire turn to get a Madman, and it still is often worth it.

I'm open to suggestions though, if you have an idea for modifying the way that you gain it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 25, 2020, 12:26:59 pm

Is a Harem (hard to achieve more than 2 VPs with this) that Exiles worth giving up a Fugitive and perhaps even a Buy?
Perhaps, but it is weak and sifting and Exiling and partial substitutes. I like the Cornucopia flavor though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on May 25, 2020, 10:11:16 pm

A lot of interesting and diverse cards to choose from. I feel like I should be calling 24hour warning time about now. That means it's going to be about 48hours until I finish judging, given that I will need at least a day to ponder the cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 25, 2020, 10:50:08 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 25, 2020, 10:11:16 pm

A lot of interesting and diverse cards to choose from. I feel like I should be calling 24hour warning time about now. That means it's going to be about 48hours until I finish judging, given that I will need at least a day to ponder the cards.

Thank you. I edited my original post to show the new version of Fruit Mix and add more comments to it. Please see there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on May 26, 2020, 07:44:02 am

(https://i.imgur.com/p9YzA6c.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/wwbr061.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/5KOFlZQ.jpg)
This is a split pile. There are 5 Kitsune on top of 5 Aburaage.

Quote Kitsune Types: Action, Doom Cost: $3 +1 Card, +1 Action. You may discard the top Hex. If you do, choose one: Trash this and a card from your hand; or +1 Buy and +$2 and receive that Hex.

Quote Aburaage Types: Treasure Cost: $5 This is worth $1 for each type among the cards you have in play (Action, Attack, etc.).

Kitsune are the servants of Inari Okami, a Shinto god.  They are shape-shifting spirits known in latter-day folklore for being tricksters who prey on the prideful, and so, mirroring Pixies, are cantrips that possibly cost a Hex.  You can play them as cantrips with no effect, or otherwise flip a Hex on a gamble in which you'll either lose the Kitsune as a one-shot cantrip-trasher or get a Grand Market for the cost of receiving that Hex.

Aburaage is a special type of deep-fried tofu.  It is said to be a Kitsune's favorite food and is thus given in offerings to the gods.  Seeing that tofu is fairly bland on its own, it counts the types of cards you have in play. That will always include Treasure and will virtually always include Action: Maybe you'll have a Doom card as well?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on May 26, 2020, 07:45:08 am

Will fix my entry as the following.

Credit tokens are essentially like coffers. During your turn, you may return N credit tokens to the supply, to gain a card from the supply costing exactly $N. You can do this whenever you are not resolving a played card. The longer you let your Credits build up,the bigger the potential reward - but don't wait too long! For example, suppose you have built up 6 Credit tokens. You could return 4 to the supply to gain a Smithy, or return 6 to gain a Gold. There's also the question of when exactly during your turn you should gain the card - maybe you can time it to get the card you really want at exactly the right time.

Note that you can't return 0 Credit tokens to the supply to gain a card, so you can't use that to empty the Coppers pile (or things like Wayfarer or Destrier, if they cost 0).

Gaining a card via Credits does not count as a buy.

Credit Note (Treasure, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy
---
While this is in play, when you buy a card, +1 Credit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on May 27, 2020, 10:16:29 pm

2 entries left to judge....
Cowrie and Meat/Salt.

Gods, I will always provide text of my cards as well as images in the future I promise.

I may be a little late on this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on May 28, 2020, 10:42:12 am

mandioca15

Credit Note (Treasure, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy
---
While this is in play, when you buy a card, +1 Credit.

Credit tokens are essentially like coffers. During your turn, you may return N credit tokens to the supply, to gain a card from the supply costing exactly $N. You can do this whenever you are not resolving a played card. The longer you let your Credits build up,the bigger the potential reward - but don't wait too long! For example, suppose you have built up 6 Credit tokens. You could return 4 to the supply to gain a Smithy, or return 6 to gain a Gold. There's also the question of when exactly during your turn you should gain the card - maybe you can time it to get the card you really want at exactly the right time.

Note that you can't return 0 Credit tokens to the supply to gain a card, so you can't use that to empty the Coppers pile (or things like Wayfarer or Destrier, if they cost 0).

Gaining a card via Credits does not count as a buy.


Might be too strong when compared to the similar Merchant Guild (which takes an action and only generates $1). Credits are both more flexible than coffers because they gain cards without using buys and less because they can’t be combined with coffers or standard coin or used in any way other than to gain cards. On balance I’d say they are weaker than coffers so the card as a whole is probably fairly costed.
I am left wondering though if there just isn’t too much complexity for the gain here. Also thematically I was hoping things like Credit Notes would be avoided.


Fragasnap

Kitsune
Types: Action, Doom
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +1 Action. You may discard the top Hex. If you do, choose one: Trash this and a card from your hand; or +1 Buy and +$2 and receive that Hex.

Aburaage
Types: Treasure
Cost: $5
This is worth $1 for each type among the cards you have in play (Action, Attack, etc.).

 I really like this. Thematically it’s novel. Mechanically it’s interesting. Is it balanced? That’s tricky. Kitsune might be a bit strong but my focus has to be on Aburaage for this competition.  Here I think it’s fair. It could be worth $1 or it could be worth more than $3. It’s kingdom dependant and that’s not a bad thing. So balance, flavour and interesting mechanics, well done. I could see this spawning Aburaage decks that would be fun to play and play against.


Mr. Hitech

Divine Favor (Treasure, cost $6+)
$2
-
When you buy this, gain a Wish from its pile. You may also overpay $1 for this, to put the gained Wish on top of your deck.

Nice and simple while still giving me choice. The flavour makes sense and while I was hoping for more concrete objects like fish heads, Divine Favor works conceptually too. Balance is a possible problem because you are basically paying 6 for a silver and a card costing 6 (or less) with the bonus of avoiding things like embargoes and tax on that second card and with the benefit of having a big chunky card in Divine Favour you can trash for gain. Also wishes grant incredible flexibility when used.
So would you ever buy that 6 cost card normally? Yes, if you really didn’t want the bonus “silver” clogging up an engine or it was a duchy you wanted and the game might end before you draw your wish or other rare scenarios.
All in all a solid effort but I have reservations about whether it is a must buy over gold in too many scenarios.

mad4math


Cow
$5 - Treasure
Worth $2
When you discard this from play during Clean-up, if you haven't bought any Victory cards this turn, you may put this on top of the deck.

This reminds me of Stash. A consistent silver is not bad but if I hit 5 I like the gooey feeling of gaining something generally better. I know its design laziness to do so but I think sticking a +Buy on this would make it more viable. Or if Port could give you two villages for 4 maybe this card could give you two for one as well. I like the theme.


Xtra

Meat/Salt

Meat Cost:$3 Treasure
When you play this, once a turn; remove a Spoilage token if you have any or take 4 of them if you don’t. This is worth $1 per Spoilage token you have.

Salt Cost: $2 Treasure
$2
When you play this you cannot remove your spoilage tokens this turn. You can still take them.

This is a fun pair of cards. I just don’t like how you gain Spoilage tokens out of thin air just because you have none though. It has to happen for the card to be useful but thematically… well thematically it’s no worse than a whole bunch of dominion cards I guess… but it grates on me.
I feel like a great idea is here and needs further refinement.  Perhaps a better plan would be have the Meat cost 4 minus the number of spoilage tokens you have (and you start with none) and then playing a meat gains you one and playing a salt removes one.
The core of the idea – of a treasure that ebbs and flows in value - is really cool. It reminds me a little of all those Gathering cards which are fun to play with.


Something_Smart

SHAMAN Cost 5 Action
+2 Cards, +1 Action, Discard a card.
-
At the start of clean up , if this is in play and there are no cards you have more than one copy of in play , trash this and gain a Mystic Stone

MYSTIC STONE
Cost  5* Treasure - Victory
$2 Set aside a card from your hand face-down on your Mystic Stone mat
_
Worth 1VP per 2 differently named cards on your Mystic Stone Mat.


My real doubts about this is whether it is overpriced. Its not too hard to get a Mystic stone as I can forgo two turns (one buying the Shaman and one playing the Shaman and only one treasure) to pick the Mystic Stone up. For a good enough prize forgoing two turns is ok. Its about what an Overlord costs early game.
But the Mystic stone is not going to be worth it if all I remove are estates, coppers and curses and the odd silver. And if I remove other better cards I will be hurting myself. I also do wish you had changed it to Exile. I didn’t feel I should say anything during the competition but it would clear up the confusion about whether cards on the Mystic stone count towards victory at the end (as curses or provinces for example). I get from your comments they do. Also it would give me other ways to put cards towards its value without having to draw them with my Mystic Stone first.
Nice to see a bit of druidic flavour too.


D782802859
Cowrie Cost
$2 Put this on your Tavern mat.
____
At the start of your buy phase you may call this for +2 cards then you may put a card from your hand on top of your deck.

I really like this. Its novel and it retaught me a word I had forgotten. Also I think it really rises to the challenge of the treasure that costs 4 and makes $2. (which is only slightly less difficult than the challenge of designing a new treasure that costs 3 and makes $2). You need to make something that isn’t a silver but is remarkably close to silver because in dominion the difference between a 3 card and 4 card is minimal. Did you do it? Or did you fly too close to the sun, young Icarus?
I think you did it. I don’t want a Cowrie more than I want a silver in every buy that I have 4. If I am drawing my deck anyway I would rather have a silver.  I do want a Cowrie slightly more – enough to land it nicely in 4? I think so.
To put it succintly an action less +2 cards is probably a $5 cost once you factor in that it happens in your buy phase on a turn you didn’t draw it and the whole reshuffle thing. And an actionless $2 is a silver at $3. So given this can alternate between the two its just right at 4.

Carline

TROPICAL FRUITS • Cost:4 • Treasure
$1
Choose one:
+1 Coffers; or
+1 Villager.

FRUIT MIX • Cost: 6 • Treasure
When you play this, it's worth $1 per different named treasure you have in play (including this).
If it's worth at least $4:
+2 Buys.
 
It’s a split pile with 5 Tropical Fruits over 5 Fruit Mix.

Two card submission (both treasures) is a risky strategy because one could drag the other down. I don’t think that’s the case here as both are good and despite all the discussion both are well balanced in my book.
Something about Tropical Fruits niggles at me though. Perhaps it is just that I really like the way it can gain a villager which is so novel for a treasure and I feel like that novelty is almost let down by being able to gain a coffer instead.
Overall though I like both of these cards and the synergy between them is great too. I think you found the right price point for Fruit Mix.


mail-mi
Livestock Cost 5 Treasure
+2 Cards
You may play an Action from your hand.

What a fun challenge you’ve given me to evaluate this card. You could draw two actions or an action that simply gives you more actions you can’t use (because its now your buy phase) so there is a chance it will be a dud but mostly its going to be a very effective way to fix a kingdom with a lack of + actions or even just draw past junk. I’m leaning towards considering this too strong but then because its strength is as an enabler of other cards it might not be such a problem that it’s too strong. After all this card alone isn’t going to win you anything and on a board with Witch if I start 5-2 I will probably still want to get a Witch before a Livestock.
I want to applaud its boldness but I also find myself worried. I think the decent bonus of playing an action its just too good for the cost especially with cards that can set up your deck.


[TP] Inferno

Trash Heap
$5
Treasure
$2
Gain a Scrap Metal.
-------
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

Scrap Metal
$0*
Action
+1 Card
+1 Buy
Return this to its pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)

You know I would have found this so much easier to judge if you had made Trash Heap cost 6 and Scrap Metal was a straight up cantrip with a +Action as well. As it is I don’t know if I want a Scrap metal. Maybe I still do, especially given its synergy with Trash heap but aside from big money decks I probably don’t want to spend an action in this way.
Ah but that’s good isn’t it because Trash Heap only costs 5 so maybe Scrap metal is actually a drawback to stop players from going all mass Market, Forager, Trash heap for the win. Is it a drawback though? Is it a big enough one?
So my real question is, why do you hate me?
Seriously I’m going to give this a double thumbs up because if I have to think this hard while judging then I’ll have to do the same in a game which is fun.
Honestly very well balanced.


Swan - Treasure, $0* cost.
$2
When you next buy a non-Victory card this turn, exchange this for a copy of the bought card.
(This is not in the Supply.)

And 2 gainers:

Swannery - Project, $5 cost.
When you shuffle to make a new deck, first gain a Swan.


Swanherd - Action, $5 cost.
Gain a Swan. You may trash a card from your hand, then +1 Card per card you've trashed this turn.

I really like the Swan mechanic and love the theme. It is necessary to consider both Swannery and Swanherd in order to properly evaluate Swan though and that isn’t easy. A Swan is at my best quess worth between $4 and $5 if I bought it outright from the supply. But that guess is based on a lot of assumptions. I can envisage times when a swan is played and nets you nothing more than a second village for your trouble. Or is no more than a silver that turn.
With that in mind I turn to the gainers . If you dont have access to it before your first shuffle Swannery won’t always be worth investing in later but I think that’s alright for projects. If you can thin your deck it becomes much better. The problem is that it probably gives people with a 5-2 start too much of an advantage – even if all their first swan gains them is a village. Because Swans don’t require actions they can even be drawn into by smithys which also increases your number of shuffles. If only there was an elegant way of preventing its super early purchase. Maybe when you buy the project you also gain an estate?
Swanherd on the other hand almost feels overpriced but probably only because it reminds me of Priest. It’s probably good at 5.
Definitely a great effort.

spineflu

Bee • $0 • Treasure
Choose one:
Cards cost $1 less this turn;
or +1 Buy.
-
Setup: Remove the top 3 cards of the Coppers Supply pile per player; replace them with as many Bees.

When a card tells you to gain a Copper, gain a Bee instead if it is available in the Supply.

Given that Bee is being used as slang for a coin I am not sure this stays inside the challenges parameters but I like the card enough to consider it as if they were actual bees (which are delicacies in some cultures).
I like the way you could try and buy up all the bees for a bee strategy and I like how this leaves you with a choice about how to play each one. Ultimately though I don’t see bees being bought unless there are other +buys on the board, not because they are too weak for their cost but because you generally don’t want more 0 cost cards at all. Its therefore good you gave players other ways to gain them (with Count comes to mind).
I’m honestly torn about this. On one hand a great little game changer but often I fear it will lay there untouched. A worthy contender that I would slip into the right kingdoms.


alionme

Seeds Cost $4 Treasure

Trash this. If you did, gain an Action card costing differently from any card you have in play. You may discard a Treasure card from your hand, to put the gained card on top of your deck.


There’s a lot to like here. The mechanic fits the theme elegantly but I’m concerned this is still too strong. It does have a nice fix though to prevent it being a regular investment through something like workshop gaining seeds to become whatever, as gradually it will be able to gain nothing at all. My concern is those high costing actions including ones with potion costs or debt which now become easy to gain but you could argue this card is no different from Lurker in that regard.   
Ultimately this idea is going to suffer this week from my very subjective dislike of Lurker’s work around high card costs.   


stechafle

$? Wool $?
Worth $4 if no other player has Wool in play. Otherwise worth $2.
At the start of your next turn, +2 Cards, and put a card from your hand onto your deck.
$5 Treasure Duration

Dominion can lack interactivity. I enjoy cards that bring more into the game by obliging me to watch what you buy and change what I buy accordingly. I guess there’s still the question whether I need to nerf your Wool with my own or whether that costs me as much as it costs you. Great questions to grapple with in a game. Nothing like hearing your opponent groan based on your purchase. The more I ponder this card the more I find it surprisingly well costed too. A lot of balancing going on.
The flavour connection is a little thin but I get it. There’s scope here for a whole Settlers of Catan themed expansion.


Wool, Cowrie and Trash heap/Scrap Metal are my super close top three. And that's from a group of amazing cards.

Literally because I have to pick one I choose Cowrie by the thinnest of hairs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BlueHairedMeerkat on May 28, 2020, 11:41:17 am

Rai Stone's not my favourite submission, but I'd hoped it would at least get judged  :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 28, 2020, 12:45:35 pm

somekindoftony: Cow was mine :)
I like you Port idea for fixing the Cow. I was considering a different fix to make it more attractive for engines, but was too lazy/busy to submit it in time.

Quote

Cow
$5 - Treasure
Worth $2
You may exchange this for a cheaper card.
When you discard this from play during Clean-up, if you haven't bought any Victory cards this turn, you may put this on top of the deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 28, 2020, 01:10:02 pm

Quote from: BlueHairedMeerkat on May 28, 2020, 11:41:17 am

Rai Stone's not my favourite submission, but I'd hoped it would at least get judged  :P

Also there's no comment about Rice Bag by majiponi.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 28, 2020, 01:33:30 pm

Quote from: grep on May 28, 2020, 12:45:35 pm

Cow
$5 - Treasure
Worth $2
You may exchange this for a cheaper card.
When you discard this from play during Clean-up, if you haven't bought any Victory cards this turn, you may put this on top of the deck.

This solution which you thought about could give you Prizes, Wishes, Madmen, Horses, cards of Travellers line and other non-supply cards. I don't know, maybe it's not according to the intention of these cards being non-supply.

I think that's why cards that use exchange mechanism only do it exchanging for nominated cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 28, 2020, 02:24:45 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 28, 2020, 01:33:30 pm

Quote from: grep on May 28, 2020, 12:45:35 pm

Cow
$5 - Treasure
Worth $2
You may exchange this for a cheaper card.
When you discard this from play during Clean-up, if you haven't bought any Victory cards this turn, you may put this on top of the deck.

This solution which you thought about could give you Prizes, Wishes, Madmen, Horses, cards of Travellers line and other non-supply cards. I don't know, maybe it's not according to the intention of these cards being non-supply.

I think that's why cards that use exchange mechanism only do it exchanging for nominated cards.

I meant "from the supply". As there is no precedent of exchanging for an arbitrary card, that should be specified explicitly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 03:01:02 pm

Thanks for the win, somekindoftony. THere were a lot of good ideas this week.
Challenge # 75: Spice of Life
Design a card that uses one of the Menagerie exclusive mechanic, those being Ways, Exile, and Horses, as well as another set exclusive mechanic, those being ones that have only appeared in their original sets.
Edit: Alternate costs, as in Animal Fair, a Snowy Village type "ignore" effect, the Black Cat ability that only works on other player's turns and "now or at the start of your next turn" duration cards would be fine too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 28, 2020, 03:14:16 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 03:01:02 pm

Thanks for the win, somekindoftony. THere were a lot of good ideas this week.
Challenge # 75: Spice of Life
Design a card that uses one of the Menagerie exclusive mechanic, those being Ways, Exile, and Horses, as well as another set exclusive mechanic, those being ones that have only appeared in their original sets.

can we use the "things stop working" menagerie exclusive mechanic (from Snowy Village) as the menagerie mechanic?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 03:18:43 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 28, 2020, 03:14:16 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 03:01:02 pm

Thanks for the win, somekindoftony. THere were a lot of good ideas this week.
Challenge # 75: Spice of Life
Design a card that uses one of the Menagerie exclusive mechanic, those being Ways, Exile, and Horses, as well as another set exclusive mechanic, those being ones that have only appeared in their original sets.

can we use the "things stop working" menagerie exclusive mechanic (from Snowy Village) as the menagerie mechanic?

I think that would be OK, since it isn't on any other cards. The Black Cat ability that only works on other player's turns and "now or at the start of your next turn" duration cards would be fine too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 28, 2020, 03:19:16 pm

Non–static costs is also a theme in Menagerie.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 28, 2020, 03:21:47 pm

Quote from: segura on May 28, 2020, 03:19:16 pm

Non–static costs is also a theme in Menagerie.

yeah but that's not exclusive

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 28, 2020, 03:30:58 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/w0Syvqm/image.png)
Way of the Magpie
Discard a card. Gain a Spoils.

Keeping it super simple - Ways + Spoils from Dark Ages

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 28, 2020, 04:02:29 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 28, 2020, 03:21:47 pm

Quote from: segura on May 28, 2020, 03:19:16 pm

Non–static costs is also a theme in Menagerie.

yeah but that's not exclusive

As far as I can remember, alternate cost (Animal Fair) is exclusive, isn't?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 28, 2020, 04:02:29 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 28, 2020, 03:21:47 pm

Quote from: segura on May 28, 2020, 03:19:16 pm

Non–static costs is also a theme in Menagerie.

yeah but that's not exclusive

As far as I can remember, alternate cost (Animal Fair) is exclusive, isn't?

Some types of alternate cost, Fisherman and Destrier, aren't exclusive, while some, Wayfinder and Animal Fair, are. Peddler and Overpay cards also have variable cards that increase and decrease by fixed amounts, and cost reducers apply it to other cards. Cost increase and decrease are not exclusive, but Animal Fair style cost variations are.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 28, 2020, 04:32:14 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 28, 2020, 04:02:29 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 28, 2020, 03:21:47 pm

Quote from: segura on May 28, 2020, 03:19:16 pm

Non–static costs is also a theme in Menagerie.

yeah but that's not exclusive

As far as I can remember, alternate cost (Animal Fair) is exclusive, isn't?

Some types of alternate cost, Fisherman and Destrier, aren't exclusive, while some, Wayfinder and Animal Fair, are. Peddler and Overpay cards also have variable cards that increase and decrease by fixed amounts, and cost reducers apply it to other cards. Cost increase and decrease are not exclusive, but Animal Fair style cost variations are.

I think we can call "alternate cost" in a strict sense only the case of Animal Fair in which you have two different ways to pay for the card. The other cases I think are more "variable costs".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 04:34:43 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 28, 2020, 04:32:14 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 04:06:38 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 28, 2020, 04:02:29 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 28, 2020, 03:21:47 pm

Quote from: segura on May 28, 2020, 03:19:16 pm

Non–static costs is also a theme in Menagerie.

yeah but that's not exclusive

As far as I can remember, alternate cost (Animal Fair) is exclusive, isn't?

Some types of alternate cost, Fisherman and Destrier, aren't exclusive, while some, Wayfinder and Animal Fair, are. Peddler and Overpay cards also have variable cards that increase and decrease by fixed amounts, and cost reducers apply it to other cards. Cost increase and decrease are not exclusive, but Animal Fair style cost variations are.

I think we can call "alternate cost" in a strict sense only the case of Animal Fair in which you have two different ways to pay for the card. The other cases I think are more "variable costs".

Yeah, they don't function the same.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 28, 2020, 05:12:57 pm

Animal Fair is most definitely about playing with costs. Whether it is about a secondary cost or reducing the variable seems trivial. But like Ways the card is also about doing other stuff with Actions. Menagerie basically has the best defenses against Looters.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 28, 2020, 05:37:40 pm

Quote from: segura on May 28, 2020, 05:12:57 pm

Animal Fair is most definitely about playing with costs. Whether it is about a secondary cost or reducing the variable seems trivial. But like Ways the card is also about doing other stuff with Actions. Menagerie basically has the best defenses against Looters.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20260.0

Donald X. in the topic above:

"Animal Fair: The premise was the alternate cost"

I think "alternate cost" there is what you are calling "secondary cost" here. So it's not a trivial difference, it's in the essence of the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on May 28, 2020, 05:37:58 pm

Way of the Chipmunk (Way)

+1 Buy
+1 Villager

Turn your spare Action cards into Buys, or stock up on Villagers if you need them.

(Ways from Menagerie, Villagers from Renaissance)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on May 28, 2020, 05:47:42 pm

This may be crazy:

Quote

Way of the Hedgehog
Choose one: put this on your Tavern mat and +1 Action; or play a non-Reserve Action on your Tavern mat (which can't follow a Way), and if you did return this to your hand.

Your Actions can hibernate in the Tavern until their optimal time, and you only need to have an Action in hand to call them off (only not 'call' them). They're literally put in reserve, so the Tavern mat is the one to use for this effect over Exile, cleanly avoiding all the Exile interactions. Reserve combos, I think it's just Distant Lands and Teacher, and I'll let those slip by.

+1 Action on the move to the mat, or no +1 Action? That is my current question. It's not clever too often to terminally put an Action in reserve, but trashers you're done with, Ruins, terminal draw at a bad time... Adventures tokens working twice too, on the reserving and the call off (the Way use limitation is there to stop infinite Hedgehog-ing for infinite token boosts).
Overall the cases for keeping it there are strong enough, and these mentioned combos are safe in the light of some mousey and chameleonic combos we already have.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on May 28, 2020, 06:50:13 pm

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 28, 2020, 10:42:12 am

[TP] Inferno

Trash Heap
$5
Treasure
$2
Gain a Scrap Metal.
-------
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

Scrap Metal
$0*
Action
+1 Card
+1 Buy
Return this to its pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)

You know I would have found this so much easier to judge if you had made Trash Heap cost 6 and Scrap Metal was a straight up cantrip with a +Action as well. As it is I don’t know if I want a Scrap metal. Maybe I still do, especially given its synergy with Trash heap but aside from big money decks I probably don’t want to spend an action in this way.
Ah but that’s good isn’t it because Trash Heap only costs 5 so maybe Scrap metal is actually a drawback to stop players from going all mass Market, Forager, Trash heap for the win. Is it a drawback though? Is it a big enough one?
So my real question is, why do you hate me?
Seriously I’m going to give this a double thumbs up because if I have to think this hard while judging then I’ll have to do the same in a game which is fun.
Honestly very well balanced.


Wool, Cowrie and Trash heap/Scrap Metal are my super close top three. And that's from a group of amazing cards.

Literally because I have to pick one I choose Cowrie by the thinnest of hairs.

So close, but yet so far... congrats anyway to D782802859, though!

Also, I totally actually messed up with making Scrap Metal an Action. I did mean to make it a cantrip Action after all, but I just forgot. Oops. But I didn't expect it to turn out well, that was... unexpected. Cool!

So as for the next challenge, here is my entry:

Horse Market
$3+
Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may play an Action card from your hand that you don't have a copy of in play.
-------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, gain a Horse.

It's a cheaper Workers Village if you can play an Action with it. Horses work well with it, you will, barring edge cases, always be able to play one with it. And when you do, you get +3 Cards, +2 Actions, +1 Buy spread over 2 cards. And even if there are no Horse gainers, this gives you a source of them using its overpay function. As always, feedback is welcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: somekindoftony on May 28, 2020, 06:54:02 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 28, 2020, 01:10:02 pm

Quote from: BlueHairedMeerkat on May 28, 2020, 11:41:17 am

Rai Stone's not my favourite submission, but I'd hoped it would at least get judged  :P

Also there's no comment about Rice Bag by majiponi.

Oh crap bum.
So sorry. I tried to be super careful not to miss anyone or judge an earlier entry.  Feel bad.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 28, 2020, 07:19:08 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 03:01:02 pm

Thanks for the win, somekindoftony. THere were a lot of good ideas this week.
Challenge # 75: Spice of Life
Design a card that uses one of the Menagerie exclusive mechanic, those being Ways, Exile, and Horses, as well as another set exclusive mechanic, those being ones that have only appeared in their original sets.
Edit: Alternate costs, as in Animal Fair, a Snowy Village type "ignore" effect, the Black Cat ability that only works on other player's turns and "now or at the start of your next turn" duration cards would be fine too.

Black Cat ability weren't antecipated by Caravan Guard?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 07:24:44 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 28, 2020, 07:19:08 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 03:01:02 pm

Thanks for the win, somekindoftony. THere were a lot of good ideas this week.
Challenge # 75: Spice of Life
Design a card that uses one of the Menagerie exclusive mechanic, those being Ways, Exile, and Horses, as well as another set exclusive mechanic, those being ones that have only appeared in their original sets.
Edit: Alternate costs, as in Animal Fair, a Snowy Village type "ignore" effect, the Black Cat ability that only works on other player's turns and "now or at the start of your next turn" duration cards would be fine too.

Black Cat ability weren't antecipated by Caravan Guard?

I'm not referring to the self-playing, I'm referring to the clause "If it isn't your turn".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 28, 2020, 07:36:28 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 07:24:44 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 28, 2020, 07:19:08 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 03:01:02 pm

Thanks for the win, somekindoftony. THere were a lot of good ideas this week.
Challenge # 75: Spice of Life
Design a card that uses one of the Menagerie exclusive mechanic, those being Ways, Exile, and Horses, as well as another set exclusive mechanic, those being ones that have only appeared in their original sets.
Edit: Alternate costs, as in Animal Fair, a Snowy Village type "ignore" effect, the Black Cat ability that only works on other player's turns and "now or at the start of your next turn" duration cards would be fine too.

Black Cat ability weren't antecipated by Caravan Guard?

I'm not referring to the self-playing, I'm referring to the clause "If it isn't your turn".

Oh yes, thank you!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 28, 2020, 08:07:55 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 03:01:02 pm

Thanks for the win, somekindoftony. THere were a lot of good ideas this week.
Challenge # 75: Spice of Life
Design a card that uses one of the Menagerie exclusive mechanic, those being Ways, Exile, and Horses, as well as another set exclusive mechanic, those being ones that have only appeared in their original sets.
Edit: Alternate costs, as in Animal Fair, a Snowy Village type "ignore" effect, the Black Cat ability that only works on other player's turns and "now or at the start of your next turn" duration cards would be fine too.

Trying to map the exclusive mechanics of each set:

Intrigue
- Pass card to other player (Masquerade)
- A card which cares about different types of a card (Courtier)

Seaside
- Embargo a pile (Embargo)
- A mat which you can choose you put a card on or take of it (Native Village)
- A mat in which you put cards for the rest of the game without way of returning (Island)
- A card which cares about cards gained by other player (Smugglers)
- A card which needs two copies of itself to produce effects (Treasure Map)
- A card which cares about the type of bought cards (Treasury)

Alchemy
- A new currency (Potion)
- A card which cares about if some specific card is in play (Alchemist)
- A card that lets you take decisions for other player (Possession)

Prosperity
- New basic supply cards (Platinum and Colony)
- Other player can restrict your buys (Contraband)
- Card that put a condition to be bought (Grand Market)

Cornucopia
- A cards that cares about different named cards you have in hand (Menagerie)
- Prizes
- Card which adds an extra supply pile (Young Witch)
- A card which cares about unused actions (Diadem)

Dark Ages
- Shelters
- Ruins
- Spoils
- Card with an effect that needs you don’t buy in turn (Hermit)
- A card which trashes from discard pile (Hermit)
- A card which chains with itself (Cultist)
 - Cards that care about a specific type of card being trashed (Knights)

Guilds
- Overpay
- A card which changes initial amount of payload of each player (Baker)

Adventures
- Reserve cards
- Adventures tokens
- Traveller cards
- Cards that can be in play for the rest of the game
- A card which play treasures in action phase (Storyteller - exclusive of this set, since promos don't count)

Empires
- Debt cost
- Landmarks
- Gathering
- Split piles (exclusive in terms of sets, since there's a promo card)
- A pile with different proportion between amount of cards according to number of players (Castles)
- A card which introduces a contend between two players (Chariot Race)
- A card which introduces a between turns phase (Donate)
- Tax a pile (Tax)

Nocturne
- Night Phase
- Boons
- Hexes
- States
- Heirlooms
- Spirits
- Cards that are gained to hand
- A card which plays actions from trash (Necromancer)
- A card which cares about how many of them are in play (Idol)
- A card which cares about being the unique in play (Tormentor)
- A pair of cards that each one can be exchanged by each other (Vampire/Bat)

Renaissance
- Villagers
- Projects
- Artifacts
- Set aside gained cards (Cargo Ship, Innovation)
- Cards that enables actions to be played in “playing treasures” sub-phase of buy phase (Scepter, Capitalism)
- A card-shaped thing that stockpiles a resource (Sinister Plot)

Menagerie
- Ways
- Exile
- Horses
- Ignore further effects (snowy Village)
- Alternate Cost (Animal Fair)
- Duration cards with choice between now or next turn
- A card which cares about if it’s your turn or not when played (Black Cat)

I think there are two others exclusive mechanic in Menagerie, D782802859 please tell me if they are valid to this contest:

- Card shaped-things that enables actions to be played in “buy things” sub-phase of buy phase (Gamble, Toil, March)
- A card which cares about cards trashed by other player (Goatherd)

About promo cards I think its special mechanics (like Black Market) don’t count for this contest since they aren’t in a set, is it right?

On the other hand, I think a mechanic in a set can’t be called exclusive if it is in a promo card, is it right? (example: in terms of expansions, split piles are exclusive of Empires, but it is also in the promo Sauna/Avanto).

I’m not sure if this list is complete, if all things listed are exactly mechanics and if all of them are really exclusive of a set. Please help me, pointing any mistake.

Edited to fix some mistakes pointed by Something_Smart (thank you!)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 08:27:45 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 28, 2020, 08:07:55 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 03:01:02 pm

Thanks for the win, somekindoftony. THere were a lot of good ideas this week.
Challenge # 75: Spice of Life
Design a card that uses one of the Menagerie exclusive mechanic, those being Ways, Exile, and Horses, as well as another set exclusive mechanic, those being ones that have only appeared in their original sets.
Edit: Alternate costs, as in Animal Fair, a Snowy Village type "ignore" effect, the Black Cat ability that only works on other player's turns and "now or at the start of your next turn" duration cards would be fine too.

Trying to map the exclusive mechanics of each set:

Intrigue
- Pass card to other player (Masquerade)
- A card which cares about different types of a card (Courtier)

Seaside
- Embargo a pile (Embargo)
- A mat which you can choose you put a card on or take of it (Native Village)
- A mat in which you put cards for the rest of the game without way of returning (Island)
- A card which cares about cards gained by other player (Smugglers)
- A card which needs two copies of itself to produce effects (Treasure Map)
- A card which cares about the type of bought cards (Treasury)

Alchemy
- A new currency (Potion)
- A card which cares about if some specific card is in play (Alchemist)
- A card that lets you play with other player deck (Possession)

Prosperity
- New basic supply cards (Platinum and Colony)
- Other player can restrict your buys (Contraband)
- Card that put a condition to be bought (Grand Market)

Cornucopia
- Cards that cares about different named cards you have in play, hand or deck
- Prizes
- Card which adds an extra supply pile (Young Witch)
- A card which cares about unused actions (Diadem)

Dark Ages
- Shelters
- Ruins
- Card with an effect that needs you don’t buy in turn (Hermit)
- A card which trashes from discard pile (Hermit)
- An action card with more copies in supply (Rats)
- A treasure which returns to pile when played (Spoils)
- A card which chains with itself (Cultist)
 - Cards that care about a specific type of card being trashed (Knights)

Guilds
- Overpay
- A card which changes initial amount of payload of each player (Baker)

Adventures
- Reserve cards
- Adventures tokens
- Traveller cards
- Cards that can be in play for the rest of the game

Empires
- Debt cost
- Landmarks
- Gathering
- A pile with different proportion between amount of cards according to number of players (Castles)
- A card which introduces a contend between two players (Chariot Race)
- A card which introduces a between turns phase (Donate)
- Tax a pile (Tax)

Nocturne
- Night Phase
- Boons
- Hexes
- States
- Heirlooms
- Spirits
- Cards that are gained to hand
- A card which plays actions from trash (Necromancer)
- A card which cares about how many of them are in play (Idol)
- A card which cares about being the unique in play (Tormentor)
- A pair of cards that each one can be exchanged by each other (Vampire/Bat)

Renaissance
- Villagers
- Projects
- Artifacts
- Set aside gained cards (Cargo Ship, Innovation)
- Cards that enables actions to be played in “playing treasures” sub-phase of buy phase (Scepter, Capitalism)
- A card-shaped thing that stockpiles a resource (Sinister Plot)

Menagerie
- Ways
- Exile
- Horses
- Ignore further effects (snowy Village)
- Alternate Cost (Animal Fair)
- Duration cards with choice between now or next turn
- A card which cares about if it’s your turn or not when played (Black Cat)

I think there are two others exclusive mechanic in Menagerie, D782802859 please tell me if they are valid to this contest:

- Card shaped-things that enables actions to be played in “buy things” sub-phase of buy phase (Gamble, Toil, March)
- A card which cares about cards trashed by other player (Goatherd)

About promo cards I think its special mechanics (like Black Market) don’t count for this contest since they aren’t in a set, is it right?

On the other hand, I think a mechanic in a set can’t be called exclusive if it is in a promo card, is it right? (example: in terms of expansions, split piles are exclusive of Empires, but it is also in the promo Sauna/Avanto).

I’m not sure if this list is complete, if all things listed are exactly mechanics and if all of them are really exclusive of a set. Please help me, pointing any mistake.

Goatherd falls into the broader category of "cares abut what other players did on their turn" which isn't set exclusive, and Gamble, Toil, and March fall into the same category as Capitalism and Scepter. I am not going to count Promo as a set, since the fact that there is a split pile would restrict design space and none of the other cards really have mechanics that would work other than as a one-off.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 28, 2020, 08:47:02 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 08:27:45 pm

Goatherd falls into the broader category of "cares abut what other players did on their turn" which isn't set exclusive, and Gamble, Toil, and March fall into the same category as Capitalism and Scepter. I am not going to count Promo as a set, since the fact that there is a split pile would restrict design space and none of the other cards really have mechanics that would work other than as a one-off.

Thinking in terms of broader categories, which mechanic is exclusive to Horse?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 28, 2020, 10:06:03 pm

Nitpick mode engaged. Sorry in advance.

Quote from: Carline on May 28, 2020, 08:07:55 pm

- A card that lets you play with other player deck (Possession)

Technically Possession only lets you control another player's decisions; it is unique in that regard, however.

Quote

- Cards that cares about different named cards you have in play, hand or deck

Magic Lamp for in play and Museum for in deck, I'll give you in hand though.

Quote

- An action card with more copies in supply (Rats)

There's also Port.

Quote

- A treasure which returns to pile when played (Spoils)

This doesn't really seem different from an action that does this (Experiment); they don't seem fundamentally different to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 28, 2020, 10:16:08 pm

EDIT: updated entry downthread
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ed06ef123fac865c90474d2/993da7c4ac67959e4a2b7c0407ce4b85/image.png)

Quote

Aonbarr • $4P • Action
Choose one or both:
+3 Cards; or +2 Actions.
If you chose both, return this to its pile.

Choose one: Gain a Horse; or
Exile a card from your hand.
-
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may pay PP

Alchemy + Menagerie. Named after a thing i found on the wikipedia list of mythical horses. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbarr).
Does a little of everything in exchange for being either annoying to buy ($4P) or bad for your deck to buy (2 potions).

Thinking about changing the order of the choices so that exiling happens before you draw.
May still be too good for this price point. Maybe a potion + 8 debt (or two potions)?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 28, 2020, 10:26:51 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on May 28, 2020, 10:06:03 pm

Quote

- A treasure which returns to pile when played (Spoils)

This doesn't really seem different from an action that does this (Experiment); they don't seem fundamentally different to me.

Thank you! This comment leads to what I asked above: Which exclusive mechanic Horse has?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 28, 2020, 10:32:24 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on May 28, 2020, 10:06:03 pm

Nitpick mode engaged. Sorry in advance.

Quote from: Carline on May 28, 2020, 08:07:55 pm

- A card that lets you play with other player deck (Possession)

Technically Possession only lets you control another player's decisions; it is unique in that regard, however.

Quote

- Cards that cares about different named cards you have in play, hand or deck

Magic Lamp for in play and Museum for in deck, I'll give you in hand though.

Quote

- An action card with more copies in supply (Rats)

There's also Port.

Quote

- A treasure which returns to pile when played (Spoils)

This doesn't really seem different from an action that does this (Experiment); they don't seem fundamentally different to me.

I don't mind about nitpick mode. I like when my mistakes are fixed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 29, 2020, 01:21:14 am

Quote from: Carline on May 28, 2020, 05:37:40 pm

Quote from: segura on May 28, 2020, 05:12:57 pm

Animal Fair is most definitely about playing with costs. Whether it is about a secondary cost or reducing the variable seems trivial. But like Ways the card is also about doing other stuff with Actions. Menagerie basically has the best defenses against Looters.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20260.0

Donald X. in the topic above:

"Animal Fair: The premise was the alternate cost"

I think "alternate cost" there is what you are calling "secondary cost" here. So it's not a trivial difference, it's in the essence of the card.

Not in the general context, here Animal Fair is a card that plays around with costs and can very well be put into one category with Fisherman and Destrier. That’s what Menagerie does, stuff with costs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on May 29, 2020, 04:09:01 am

Quote from: Aquila on May 28, 2020, 05:47:42 pm

This may be crazy:

Quote

Way of the Hedgehog
Choose one: put this on your Tavern mat and +1 Action; or play a non-Reserve Action on your Tavern mat (which can't follow a Way), and if you did return this to your hand.

Your Actions can hibernate in the Tavern until their optimal time, and you only need to have an Action in hand to call them off (only not 'call' them). They're literally put in reserve, so the Tavern mat is the one to use for this effect over Exile, cleanly avoiding all the Exile interactions. Reserve combos, I think it's just Distant Lands and Teacher, and I'll let those slip by.

+1 Action on the move to the mat, or no +1 Action? That is my current question. It's not clever too often to terminally put an Action in reserve, but trashers you're done with, Ruins, terminal draw at a bad time... Adventures tokens working twice too, on the reserving and the call off (the Way use limitation is there to stop infinite Hedgehog-ing for infinite token boosts).
Overall the cases for keeping it there are strong enough, and these mentioned combos are safe in the light of some mousey and chameleonic combos we already have.

This Way could for the most part use the Exile mat (or the Island mat even) and be hardly different, so it's a bit of a stretch to say that it uses an exclusive mechanic.

Also it's probably too strong, in that it's not usually an interesting decision whether to play things in the Way of the Hedgehog, you just do when you're playing an engine. The only times it's interesting are the same times Way of the Turtle is interestng, when saving up for a future turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on May 29, 2020, 09:14:42 am

Quote from: somekindoftony on May 28, 2020, 10:42:12 am

This is a fun pair of cards. I just don’t like how you gain Spoilage tokens out of thin air just because you have none though. It has to happen for the card to be useful but thematically… well thematically it’s no worse than a whole bunch of dominion cards I guess… but it grates on me.
I feel like a great idea is here and needs further refinement.  Perhaps a better plan would be have the Meat cost 4 minus the number of spoilage tokens you have (and you start with none) and then playing a meat gains you one and playing a salt removes one.
The core of the idea – of a treasure that ebbs and flows in value - is really cool. It reminds me a little of all those Gathering cards which are fun to play with.

Thematically, you can think of taking 4 Spoilage tokens as your food suppliers restocking a new batch of fresh meat since your old stockpile spoiled too much and became totally rotten and inedible.

The idea was to have all Meat cards be worth the same amount of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) on a given turn. This has the immediate benefit of being easier to track how much (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) you have in play. Since people have a tendency of playing all of their Treasure cards at once during their Buy phase, having Meat and Salt respectively add and remove Spoilage tokens as per your suggestion would surely lead to some weird tracking of what Meat is worth how much. Moreover, strategically, a huge part of the idea being this split pile was to make usage of Salt whenever the right time presents itself. IE, trying to keep your Meats at their highest values.

Thank you for your comments!

---

THIS ENTRY IS OBSOLETE (UP TO DATE VERSION ON PAGE 236)

Here’s what I have for this week:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Ch8ZRyYG/The-Meadow-s-Gift-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/CFXBMMyM/Rivalry-V1-EN.png)

Super easy stuff to understand. A new set of Boon/Hex. At first, I just made the Boon, but I decided to add the Hex to make sure the number of Boons and Hexes remained the same. Obviously, the two-set fusion here is Menagerie (Horses) and Nocturne (Boons/Hexes). Rivalry might be a very tame Hex, but I like the idea of it being the first Hex directly helping your opponents instead of immediately hindering you. A new approach to Hexes if ya want.

Yes. With these, it means that having Boons/Hexes out add an out-of-Supply Horse pile. But then again, Boons add Will-O'-Wisps and Hexes add Deluded/Envy.  :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 29, 2020, 09:41:05 am

Quote from: X-tra on May 29, 2020, 09:14:42 am

Here’s what I have for this week:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Ch8ZRyYG/The-Meadow-s-Gift-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/CFXBMMyM/Rivalry-V1-EN.png)

Super easy stuff to understand. A new set of Boon/Hex. At first, I just made the Boon, but I decided to add the Hex to make sure the number of Boons and Hexes remained the same. Obviously, the two-set fusion here is Menagerie (Horses) and Nocturne (Boons/Hexes). Rivalry might be a very tame Hex, but I like the idea of it being the first Hex directly helping your opponents instead of immediately hindering you. A new approach to Hexes if ya want.

Yes. With these, it means that having Boons/Hexes out add an out-of-Supply Horse pile. But then again, Boons add Will-O'-Wisps and Hexes add Deluded/Envy.  :P

The Meadow's Gift is too strong. Bear in mind, the Sea's Gift and the River's Gift are only +1 Card, while their respective Ways (Otter, Squirrel) are +2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on May 29, 2020, 09:46:14 am

I've decided to change my entry. I like Landmarks, so let's have one that cares about Horses:

Racetrack (Landmark)

When scoring, +1VP per Horse in your deck.
---
Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile to the Supply. That pile must be capable of gaining Horses.


Now when you draw a Horse, you have a dilemma: do I play it to keep my turn going, or keep it for VP at the end of the game? It's a tricky balancing act.

I thought of having some kind of cost restriction on the extra Horse-generating pile, but there aren't that many of them anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on May 29, 2020, 09:53:10 am

Quote from: spineflu on May 29, 2020, 09:41:05 am

Quote from: X-tra on May 29, 2020, 09:14:42 am

Here’s what I have for this week:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Ch8ZRyYG/The-Meadow-s-Gift-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/CFXBMMyM/Rivalry-V1-EN.png)

Super easy stuff to understand. A new set of Boon/Hex. At first, I just made the Boon, but I decided to add the Hex to make sure the number of Boons and Hexes remained the same. Obviously, the two-set fusion here is Menagerie (Horses) and Nocturne (Boons/Hexes). Rivalry might be a very tame Hex, but I like the idea of it being the first Hex directly helping your opponents instead of immediately hindering you. A new approach to Hexes if ya want.

Yes. With these, it means that having Boons/Hexes out add an out-of-Supply Horse pile. But then again, Boons add Will-O'-Wisps and Hexes add Deluded/Envy.  :P

The Meadow's Gift is too strong. Bear in mind, the Sea's Gift and the River's Gift are only +1 Card, while their respective Ways (Otter, Squirrel) are +2.

I disagree that it’s too strong. Sleigh from Menagerie teaches us that gaining 2 Horses + a lil’ something else (a Reaction in this case) costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png). This Boon does less than that. Therefore, The Meadow’s Gift would be a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)-. That seems like the right cost evaluation for a Boon.

Keep in mind that you do not immediately get something when you receive that Boon. The +Cards Boons you speak of give you an immediate benefit the very same turn you receive them. There lies the difference. If you would compare The Meadow’s gift, I would do it to the Swamp’s Gift instead, which also gives you a card not ready to use. Granted it only gives you just the one Will-O’-Wisp, but at least it stays in your deck forever. The 2 Horses will return to their pile after use. And then you’re going to have to go through the whole Boon deck until you can receive The Meadow’s gift once again.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 29, 2020, 09:55:20 am

Quote from: Carline on May 28, 2020, 10:26:51 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on May 28, 2020, 10:06:03 pm

Quote

- A treasure which returns to pile when played (Spoils)

This doesn't really seem different from an action that does this (Experiment); they don't seem fundamentally different to me.

Thank you! This comment leads to what I asked above: Which exclusive mechanic Horse has?

It's an exclusive pile gained only by cards from Menagerie. The pile and the ability to gain it are exclusive.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 29, 2020, 10:18:42 am

Quote from: X-tra on May 29, 2020, 09:53:10 am

Quote from: spineflu on May 29, 2020, 09:41:05 am

Quote from: X-tra on May 29, 2020, 09:14:42 am

Here’s what I have for this week:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Ch8ZRyYG/The-Meadow-s-Gift-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/CFXBMMyM/Rivalry-V1-EN.png)

Super easy stuff to understand. A new set of Boon/Hex. At first, I just made the Boon, but I decided to add the Hex to make sure the number of Boons and Hexes remained the same. Obviously, the two-set fusion here is Menagerie (Horses) and Nocturne (Boons/Hexes). Rivalry might be a very tame Hex, but I like the idea of it being the first Hex directly helping your opponents instead of immediately hindering you. A new approach to Hexes if ya want.

Yes. With these, it means that having Boons/Hexes out add an out-of-Supply Horse pile. But then again, Boons add Will-O'-Wisps and Hexes add Deluded/Envy.  :P

The Meadow's Gift is too strong. Bear in mind, the Sea's Gift and the River's Gift are only +1 Card, while their respective Ways (Otter, Squirrel) are +2.

I disagree that it’s too strong. Sleigh from Menagerie teaches us that gaining 2 Horses + a lil’ something else (a Reaction in this case) costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png). This Boon does less than that. Therefore, The Meadow’s Gift would be a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)-. That seems like the right cost evaluation for a Boon.

Keep in mind that you do not immediately get something when you receive that Boon. The +Cards Boons you speak of give you an immediate benefit the very same turn you receive them. There lies the difference. If you would compare The Meadow’s gift, I would do it to the Swamp’s Gift instead, which also gives you a card not ready to use. Granted it only gives you just the one Will-O’-Wisp, but at least it stays in your deck forever. The 2 Horses will return to their pile after use. And then you’re going to have to go through the whole Boon deck until you can receive The Meadow’s gift once again.

Right, but it's infrequent enough that it's probably only going to be hit by one player, once in a game. That sort of asymmetry is going to be unbalancing - you want Boons weaker so there's not a "here's a free, game wrecking advantage in our RNG"; it's why there's no Way of the Sheep boon

Like, this is probably in a weird venn diagram area of "this boon is fine for Druid" and "this boon is OP with Pixie"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on May 29, 2020, 10:55:49 am

+2 horses is better than +1 card, but the difference in power between the two is less than say, The Moon's Gift vs The Swamp's Gift or Delusion vs Famine.

In other words, Boons/Hexes are already unbalanced random garbage.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on May 29, 2020, 11:11:20 am

Actually, the initial idea for The Meadow's Gift was for it to be: "+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png). Gain a Horse". I thought it was too weak, but maybe it's worth re-exploring that idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on May 29, 2020, 11:34:16 am

I'm pretty sure a Boon that just gained a Horse would already be a little better overall than Sea or River. Sea is awkward because most of the Fates are terminal actions or Idol so it often draws a dead action and the flexibility and tricks you can do with Horses gives it a higher ceiling than River. At least they seems similar enough that adding anything on top of a Horse seems out of line with the others.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on May 29, 2020, 12:03:12 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 08:27:45 pm

I am not going to count Promo as a set, since the fact that there is a split pile would restrict design space and none of the other cards really have mechanics that would work other than as a one-off.

So we can ignore Promos relating to exclusivity, e.g. a split pile would work? More specifically, I'm considering cards that let you play Treasures on your Action phase. I think (but I well could be forgetting something*) that Storyteller is the only non promo (Black Market) one.

* even if there's another, Storyteller is the only one that allows that converts coins into something else, no?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on May 29, 2020, 12:04:56 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on May 29, 2020, 12:03:12 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on May 28, 2020, 08:27:45 pm

I am not going to count Promo as a set, since the fact that there is a split pile would restrict design space and none of the other cards really have mechanics that would work other than as a one-off.

So we can ignore Promos relating to exclusivity, e.g. a split pile would work? More specifically, I'm considering cards that let you play Treasures on your Action phase. I think (but I well could be forgetting something*) that Storyteller is the only non promo (Black Market) one.

* even if there's another, Storyteller is the only one that allows that converts coins into something else, no?

A split pile or treasure playing would count.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 29, 2020, 02:51:17 pm

Quote from: Aquila on May 28, 2020, 05:47:42 pm

This may be crazy:

Quote

Way of the Hedgehog
Choose one: put this on your Tavern mat and +1 Action; or play a non-Reserve Action on your Tavern mat (which can't follow a Way), and if you did return this to your hand.

Your Actions can hibernate in the Tavern until their optimal time, and you only need to have an Action in hand to call them off (only not 'call' them). They're literally put in reserve, so the Tavern mat is the one to use for this effect over Exile, cleanly avoiding all the Exile interactions. Reserve combos, I think it's just Distant Lands and Teacher, and I'll let those slip by.

+1 Action on the move to the mat, or no +1 Action? That is my current question. It's not clever too often to terminally put an Action in reserve, but trashers you're done with, Ruins, terminal draw at a bad time... Adventures tokens working twice too, on the reserving and the call off (the Way use limitation is there to stop infinite Hedgehog-ing for infinite token boosts).
Overall the cases for keeping it there are strong enough, and these mentioned combos are safe in the light of some mousey and chameleonic combos we already have.

Hey Aquila, my english is not so good, so please help me to understand: when you say "which can't follow a way", do you mean "the card can't be played as a way" or "the card can't be played right after a card played as a way"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 29, 2020, 02:54:10 pm

Quote from: Gazbag on May 29, 2020, 11:34:16 am

I'm pretty sure a Boon that just gained a Horse would already be a little better overall than Sea or River. Sea is awkward because most of the Fates are terminal actions or Idol so it often draws a dead action and the flexibility and tricks you can do with Horses gives it a higher ceiling than River. At least they seems similar enough that adding anything on top of a Horse seems out of line with the others.

This. The net effects of Boons are often precisely on a $5 level power. But in the case of drawing cards, there is a huge difference between terminality and non–terminality.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 29, 2020, 03:04:29 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 28, 2020, 10:16:08 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ed06ef123fac865c90474d2/993da7c4ac67959e4a2b7c0407ce4b85/image.png)

Quote

Aonbarr • $4P • Action
Choose one or both:
+3 Cards; or +2 Actions.
If you chose both, return this to its pile.

Choose one: Gain a Horse; or
Exile a card from your hand.
-
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may pay PP

Alchemy + Menagerie. Named after a thing i found on the wikipedia list of mythical horses. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbarr).
Does a little of everything in exchange for being either annoying to buy ($4P) or bad for your deck to buy (2 potions).

Thinking about changing the order of the choices so that exiling happens before you draw.
May still be too good for this price point. Maybe a potion + 8 debt (or two potions)?

I like the card and guess it is balanced. But I do not see the appeal of the double Potion costs as decks which want 2 Potions are extremely rare (occurs only with Alchemist or Vineyard).
Also, 8DP is arguably cheaper than $4P as there is no risk of not hitting the critical price point (which is one of the 3 downsides of Potion cards, the other being an extra dead card and the opportunity cost of spending a gain/Buy on Potion).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 29, 2020, 03:51:53 pm

Quote from: segura on May 29, 2020, 03:04:29 pm

Quote from: spineflu on May 28, 2020, 10:16:08 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ed06ef123fac865c90474d2/993da7c4ac67959e4a2b7c0407ce4b85/image.png)

Quote

Aonbarr • $4P • Action
Choose one or both:
+3 Cards; or +2 Actions.
If you chose both, return this to its pile.

Choose one: Gain a Horse; or
Exile a card from your hand.
-
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may pay PP

Alchemy + Menagerie. Named after a thing i found on the wikipedia list of mythical horses. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbarr).
Does a little of everything in exchange for being either annoying to buy ($4P) or bad for your deck to buy (2 potions).

Thinking about changing the order of the choices so that exiling happens before you draw.
May still be too good for this price point. Maybe a potion + 8 debt (or two potions)?

I like the card and guess it is balanced. But I do not see the appeal of the double Potion costs as decks which want 2 Potions are extremely rare (occurs only with Alchemist or Vineyard).
Also, 8DP is arguably cheaper than $4P as there is no risk of not hitting the critical price point (which is one of the 3 downsides of Potion cards, the other being an extra dead card and the opportunity cost of spending a gain/Buy on Potion).

I mean the double potion cost is because you can hit that on 2 cards, as opposed to $4P which requires usually three; i'm gonna play with it a little, see if I can't figure out how to make that more of a forefront idea.

got any thoughts on changing the order for the choices? I feel like it'd weaken the Exile option and strengthen the Horse option (since you could now draw into the horse if you trigger a shuffle for a net +4 cards) but idk if that's a change i want to make or not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 29, 2020, 04:39:18 pm

I think it is fine as it is but I would delete the PP thing. You would never ever go for PP just to get this cheaper precisely because it is not cheaper.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on May 29, 2020, 05:06:48 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on May 29, 2020, 09:46:14 am

Racetrack (Landmark)

When scoring, +1VP per Horse in your deck.
---
Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile to the Supply. That pile must be capable of gaining Horses.

"In your deck" sounds weird: does it mean that the Horses in hand, in discard, and in other locations like exile and mats don't count? Should be simply "you have".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on May 29, 2020, 05:15:45 pm

Quote from: grep on May 29, 2020, 05:06:48 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on May 29, 2020, 09:46:14 am

Racetrack (Landmark)

When scoring, +1VP per Horse in your deck.
---
Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile to the Supply. That pile must be capable of gaining Horses.

"In your deck" sounds weird: does it mean that the Horses in hand, in discard, and in other locations like exile and mats don't count? Should be simply "you have".

Yes, “you have” is what I mean. I thought the other “when scoring” Landmarks used that wording, but I misremembered.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on May 29, 2020, 06:49:47 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 29, 2020, 02:51:17 pm

Quote from: Aquila on May 28, 2020, 05:47:42 pm

This may be crazy:

Quote

Way of the Hedgehog
Choose one: put this on your Tavern mat and +1 Action; or play a non-Reserve Action on your Tavern mat (which can't follow a Way), and if you did return this to your hand.

Your Actions can hibernate in the Tavern until their optimal time, and you only need to have an Action in hand to call them off (only not 'call' them). They're literally put in reserve, so the Tavern mat is the one to use for this effect over Exile, cleanly avoiding all the Exile interactions. Reserve combos, I think it's just Distant Lands and Teacher, and I'll let those slip by.

+1 Action on the move to the mat, or no +1 Action? That is my current question. It's not clever too often to terminally put an Action in reserve, but trashers you're done with, Ruins, terminal draw at a bad time... Adventures tokens working twice too, on the reserving and the call off (the Way use limitation is there to stop infinite Hedgehog-ing for infinite token boosts).
Overall the cases for keeping it there are strong enough, and these mentioned combos are safe in the light of some mousey and chameleonic combos we already have.

Hey Aquila, my english is not so good, so please help me to understand: when you say "which can't follow a way", do you mean "the card can't be played as a way" or "the card can't be played right after a card played as a way"?

The first one, the card can't be played using a Way if you play it from the Tavern mat. It seemed the most natural and clean wording to use; you follow a path, you follow the way.

Still, Faust brought out what I needed to see about this, it is crazy in that it does too much, you do indeed use it in any kind of engine to make shuffle luck much less of a thing. Way of the Turtle covers just the interesting field. This may be made to work as a kingdom card for reduced accessibility, but not as a Way.

So a new entry:

Quote

Saddler/Bridle - Action type split pile, 5 Saddlers on top of 5 Bridles.

Saddler - Action, $3 cost.
+1 Action
Choose one: gain a Horse; or draw until you have 5 cards in hand.

Bridle - Treasure, $5 cost.
$2
When you play this, you may play a Horse from your hand. If you do, return to your Action phase.

Inspired by Watno's Wages/Day Labourer from contest #9, which I regret underrating. I worry a little bit that there's swinginess in lining Bridles and Horses up, especially if you have several Treasures in deck to play down with the Bridle for reducing hand size for Saddler.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 29, 2020, 10:41:42 pm

Quote from: Aquila on May 29, 2020, 06:49:47 pm

Quote from: Carline on May 29, 2020, 02:51:17 pm

Quote from: Aquila on May 28, 2020, 05:47:42 pm

This may be crazy:

Quote

Way of the Hedgehog
Choose one: put this on your Tavern mat and +1 Action; or play a non-Reserve Action on your Tavern mat (which can't follow a Way), and if you did return this to your hand.

Your Actions can hibernate in the Tavern until their optimal time, and you only need to have an Action in hand to call them off (only not 'call' them). They're literally put in reserve, so the Tavern mat is the one to use for this effect over Exile, cleanly avoiding all the Exile interactions. Reserve combos, I think it's just Distant Lands and Teacher, and I'll let those slip by.

+1 Action on the move to the mat, or no +1 Action? That is my current question. It's not clever too often to terminally put an Action in reserve, but trashers you're done with, Ruins, terminal draw at a bad time... Adventures tokens working twice too, on the reserving and the call off (the Way use limitation is there to stop infinite Hedgehog-ing for infinite token boosts).
Overall the cases for keeping it there are strong enough, and these mentioned combos are safe in the light of some mousey and chameleonic combos we already have.

Hey Aquila, my english is not so good, so please help me to understand: when you say "which can't follow a way", do you mean "the card can't be played as a way" or "the card can't be played right after a card played as a way"?

The first one, the card can't be played using a Way if you play it from the Tavern mat. It seemed the most natural and clean wording to use; you follow a path, you follow the way.

Still, Faust brought out what I needed to see about this, it is crazy in that it does too much, you do indeed use it in any kind of engine to make shuffle luck much less of a thing. Way of the Turtle covers just the interesting field. This may be made to work as a kingdom card for reduced accessibility, but not as a Way.

If I understood correct how Way of the Hedgehog works , you could, for instance, put a Market on Tavern Mat and play any action from your hand as a Market; this action would return to your hand and you could play it again infinite times for infinite _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} and buys.

Anyway, you had already changed you entry. I think Saddler/Bridle is a very intersting pair of cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 30, 2020, 12:33:38 am

There is no „leaving it there“ clause so the card on the Tavern mat is played normally, i.e. it leaves the mat and is in your play area.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on May 30, 2020, 01:27:59 am

(https://i.imgur.com/mroWXnI.png)

UPDATE: Raised cost to $5, added "non-Horse" so you can't go crazy with more than 1 copy.

Here's my shot. I was thinking it might be too good at $3, but most of the time it'll only gain you 1-2 Horses, which is a less-than $2 ability. Works well with its combos, is weakish without them.

Quote

Spurs - $5 Night
For each non-Horse card you gained this turn, choose one: gain a Horse, or put a card from your hand onto your deck.

FAQ: No, you can't gain 1 horse with this card, then choose to gain a horse because of that horse, etc. The number of cards you gained is set by the first instruction before you gain the horses.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on May 30, 2020, 02:03:53 am

Quote from: segura on May 30, 2020, 12:33:38 am

There is no „leaving it there“ clause so the card on the Tavern mat is played normally, i.e. it leaves the mat and is in your play area.

Yes, maybe is my difficulty with language subtleties. I just thought that "play an action on your Tavern Mat" instead of "play an action from ..." (the habitual wording in Dominion cards) would mean that it would stay there.

Anyway, if I did read with more attention Aquila's comments about "call" the card, I would know I was wrong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 30, 2020, 02:23:32 am

(https://i.imgur.com/Ld5Sn2z.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 30, 2020, 02:26:49 am

Quote from: mail-mi on May 30, 2020, 01:27:59 am

(https://i.imgur.com/sCPyd58.jpg)

Here's my shot. I was thinking it might be too good at $3, but most of the time it'll only gain you 1-2 Horses, which is a less-than $2 ability. Works well with its combos, is weakish without them.

Quote

Spurs - $4 Night
For each card you gained this turn, choose one: gain a Horse, or put a card from your hand onto your deck.

FAQ: No, you can't gain 1 horse with this card, then choose to gain a horse because of that horse, etc. The number of cards you gained is set by the first instruction before you gain the horses.

This is far too strong. Your mistake was that you ignored that Nights are non-terminal, and non-terminally gaining 2 Horses is similar to a Lab. I play with a similar card (https://i.imgur.com/GlqrpIz.jpg) which says "for each non-Horse card", otherwise lining them up quickly becomes crazy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on May 30, 2020, 10:04:38 am

Secret Land
cost 0* - Action - Prize
+1 Action
Exile a Duchy.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on May 30, 2020, 11:36:27 am

My entry of a split pile with horses and weird costs:
(https://i.imgur.com/W1IaUOV.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/1B6AxMh.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 30, 2020, 06:33:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/mPANl1r.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on May 30, 2020, 08:27:19 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on May 30, 2020, 11:36:27 am

My entry of a split pile with horses and weird costs:
(https://i.imgur.com/W1IaUOV.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/1B6AxMh.png)

As written, you would buy Breeder, return the Mule to the Supply, and then be unable to gain the Breeder you bought as there would be no pile with Breeder as its top card. Maybe you could do an Encampment-style "set this aside and return it to the Supply at the start of Clean-up"?

(Also, Split isn't a type, and Mule should say "when you would gain a Horse".)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on May 30, 2020, 08:52:17 pm

Quote from: segura on May 30, 2020, 02:26:49 am

Quote from: mail-mi on May 30, 2020, 01:27:59 am

(https://i.imgur.com/sCPyd58.jpg)

Here's my shot. I was thinking it might be too good at $3, but most of the time it'll only gain you 1-2 Horses, which is a less-than $2 ability. Works well with its combos, is weakish without them.

Quote

Spurs - $4 Night
For each card you gained this turn, choose one: gain a Horse, or put a card from your hand onto your deck.

FAQ: No, you can't gain 1 horse with this card, then choose to gain a horse because of that horse, etc. The number of cards you gained is set by the first instruction before you gain the horses.

This is far too strong. Your mistake was that you ignored that Nights are non-terminal, and non-terminally gaining 2 Horses is similar to a Lab. I play with a similar card (https://i.imgur.com/GlqrpIz.jpg) which says "for each non-Horse card", otherwise lining them up quickly becomes crazy.

Thank you! I'll bump the card to five, since it seems a little stronger than the one you posted but doesn't get gained to hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrHiTech on May 31, 2020, 08:21:38 am

Quote

Recession (Action-Reaction, cost $4)
+$3
-
When a player gains a card costing $6 or more, you may reveal this, for each other player to discard down to 4 cards in hand. If it isn’t your turn, and you haven’t revealed a Recession since the start of your last turn, each other player takes their -1 Card token.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on May 31, 2020, 01:19:06 pm

Edit: revised downthread (again)
Revised my entry a bit; gave an actual reason to go the 2-potion route. also swapped the order of choices (which makes the "return this to its pile" the last thing it does, so as to not be obnoxious with things you do After returning it).

Having the choices in this order slightly weakens the Exile option (since you can't exile a card you drew), while slightly strengthening the Horse option (if you trigger a shuffle, you can draw into it and play it).
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ed06ef123fac865c90474d2/8b41f88f7999ef7d910ff531b9995c08/image.png)

Quote

Aonbarr • $4P • Action
Choose one: Gain a Horse; or Exile a card from your hand.

Choose one or both: +3 Cards; or +2 Actions. If you chose both, return this to its pile.
-
Instead of paying this cards cost, you may pay PP; if you do, +1 Buy and +$2

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on May 31, 2020, 04:16:05 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 31, 2020, 08:21:38 am

Quote

Recession (Action-Reaction, cost $4)
+$3
-
When a player gains a card costing $6 or more, you may reveal this, for each other player to discard down to 4 cards in hand. If it isn’t your turn, and you haven’t revealed a Recession since the start of your last turn, each other player takes their -1 Card token.

I like this. Terminal Gold is more or less a $4 and the Reaction (should it be an Attack like Black Cat?) is weak enough such that it is not overpowered.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on May 31, 2020, 06:04:34 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 31, 2020, 08:21:38 am

Quote

Recession (Action-Reaction, cost $4)
+$3
-
When a player gains a card costing $6 or more, you may reveal this, for each other player to discard down to 4 cards in hand. If it isn’t your turn, and you haven’t revealed a Recession since the start of your last turn, each other player takes their -1 Card token.

I like the idea, but it doesn't work well in multiplayer. If Player 1 buys a $6+ card and Player 2 reveals Recession, Player 1 discards down to $4 before ending his buy phase. So at the end of his turn, he will have a hand of four cards and will have already used the -Card token drawing his new hand, while Player 3 and Player 4 will have both a four card hand and their -Card token.
Also, I disagree about the cost. I think it's too strong for $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on June 01, 2020, 09:12:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/CcNJZiy.jpg)

Quote

Way of the Kingfisher
Types: Way
Turn your Journey token over (it starts face-up). Then, if it's face-up, you may play an Action from your hand twice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 02, 2020, 05:32:54 am

My entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/685/543/full/Zombie_Workshop_%2826%29.png?1591082526)

Quote

ZOMBIE WORKSHOP - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/54/Coin4star.png/16px-Coin4star.png)} – NIGHT
Choose one: trash a card from your hand or discard pile; or gain a card costing up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} per each differently named card in the trash. If it's a Victory Card, trash this.
-
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may trash a card from your hand costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} or more.

Exclusive mechanic from Menagerie: Alternate cost
Exclusive mechanic from other set: Night Card (Nocturne)
Other elements are to care about variety like Cornucopia cards and to care about trash like Dark Ages cards.
Also from Dark Ages, the mechanic exclusive to Hermit of trashing from hand or discard pile.

ZOMBIE WORKSHOP

It’s a trasher and a gainer. At the same time that you use it as a trasher, you are also building to it be a better gainer, adding different cards to trash.

Trashing from discard pile besides from hand helps to find those differently named cards to trash. Also enables to trash cards gained in the same turn.

The alternate cost of trashing a card also helps to achieve variety in the trash. However, the card trashed has to cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} or more. You can't  pay for it by trashing Coppers or Estates, otherwise it would be too powerrful.  So, you can't pay the alternate cost in the first two turns, except in edge cases like with Cursed Gold or Lucky Coin.

Like Horn of Plenty, to not be overpowered, it trashes itself if you gain a Victory Card with it. You may use this feature as a tactic, gaining an Estate or other VP card to trash Zombie Workshop, which would be one more different card in the trash.

It’s a good card for engines and money strategies but also it's a good counter in slog games with cursers or junkers, since you can use the junk cards as fuel to diversify the trash and gain better cards.

It has strong synergies with Necromancer and Ruins (and fit them thematically). Also with Shelters, Lurker, Salt the Earth, other trashers and good cheap cards. Cost reducers are good for the gaining part but not for the alternate cost.

I think its regular price is OK at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. This way you can gain one of them in the first two turns, but not two (edge cases apart).

As always, feedbacks are very welcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BlueHairedMeerkat on June 02, 2020, 08:03:18 am

Zoo
Landmark
------------
When you play an Action as a Way, take 1vp from this.
--------
Setup: Put 6vp here per player. Add an extra Way to the Supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holger on June 02, 2020, 12:23:26 pm

Quote from: segura on May 31, 2020, 04:16:05 pm

Quote from: MrHiTech on May 31, 2020, 08:21:38 am

Quote

Recession (Action-Reaction, cost $4)
+$3
-
When a player gains a card costing $6 or more, you may reveal this, for each other player to discard down to 4 cards in hand. If it isn’t your turn, and you haven’t revealed a Recession since the start of your last turn, each other player takes their -1 Card token.

I like this. Terminal Gold is more or less a $4 and the Reaction (should it be an Attack like Black Cat?) is weak enough such that it is not overpowered.

Weak enough? It can be pretty devastating when a player has to discard down to four in the middle of their action phase (e.g. due to playing a gold gainer). A free Urchin play whenever any player gains a Gold or Province, plus a free "cantrip-Minion" attack when it's another player who gains it, seems extremely strong to me, for a Reaction (at least in multi-player games - the discarding rarely hurts the active player when it's their buy phase, but it hurts everyone else). I would try this at $5 or possibly even $6...

I'm also not sure if a vanilla terminal gold alone would be fine at $4 - it might make for a dominant one-card BM strategy like Rebuild. (Has someone done a simulation for terminal gold at different price points?)

FWIW, the condition "and you haven’t revealed a Recession since the start of your last turn," seems unnecessary since the -1 Card token doesn't stack. (Edit: That was wrong - while you couldn't give out the token twice with the same gain, you could do it several times during a round without that condition, potentially hurting other players several times.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 02, 2020, 01:54:14 pm

Bounty Hunter seemed utterly crazy when it came out but it’s not. So a terminal Gold is most definitely fine at $4. Also, if you play money and gain lots of Golds, discarding does not hurt. If you play an engine, you are unlikely to gain cards that costs more than $6. So all the card mainly hurts in an engine are Remodel strategies.

At $5 it can hardly compete with all the other terminal Golds.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on June 02, 2020, 02:33:05 pm

The discard doesn't matter very often but the -1 card token hurts almost every deck.

I'm not a fan of how random the attack is. You have to have it in hand during your opponent's turn, which is something you often can't control. And if you were hit by the -1 card token, the odds of drawing it are even worse.

Black Cat has some problems too, but Black Cat is easier to spam, being both cheaper, and having an effect you want lots of (+Cards). Terminal money is difficult to spam unless you have tons of +Action, and it's rarely worth it without +Buy, meaning most decks will play with only 1 copy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 02, 2020, 02:51:43 pm

[This entry has been swapped out for Consignor, see below]

---

My card for this week - a revamped (from a past contest*) Inquisitor.

Uses Exile from Menagerie and Storyteller's unique "play Treasures during Action phase, then pay your all your coins" mechanic.

(https://i.imgur.com/UsdbqPx.png)

Quote

Inquisitor - Action - $4
+$1

Choose one: Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply; or you may play a Treasure from your hand, then pay all of your $ (including the $1 from this) to play a card from your Exile mat costing up to $2 more than the $ you paid.

* amusingly, at the time, Menagerie had been announced, and this was my attempt to predict what the Exile mat could be used for. Now it just uses the exile mat.

Any feedback is welcome - I think this will definitely need some play testing to see if it's actually interesting, but I hope the ability to play and effectively gain your Exiled cards from this is useful. Without playing a treasure, you can play a $3 from your Exile, and it would just taker a silver to play a $5 card in Exile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 02, 2020, 04:32:23 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 02, 2020, 02:51:43 pm

My card for this week - a revamped (from a past contest*) Inquisitor.

Uses Exile from Menagerie and Storyteller's unique "play Treasures during Action phase, then pay your all your coins" mechanic.

(https://i.imgur.com/UsdbqPx.png)

Quote

Inquisitor - Action - $4
+$1

Choose one: Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply; or you may play a Treasure from your hand, then pay all of your $ (including the $1 from this) to play a card from your Exile mat costing up to $2 more than the $ you paid.

* amusingly, at the time, Menagerie had been announced, and this was my attempt to predict what the Exile mat could be used for. Now it just uses the exile mat.

Any feedback is welcome - I think this will definitely need some play testing to see if it's actually interesting, but I hope the ability to play and effectively gain your Exiled cards from this is useful. Without playing a treasure, you can play a $3 from your Exile, and it would just taker a silver to play a $5 card in Exile.

Turn X – Spend a buy and $4 to buy inquisitor
Turn X+1 – Play Inquisitor to exile a card and give $1. In this play it is terminal.
Turn X+2 – Play Inquisitor and maybe a Treasure to play that card from exile.

If the card you exiled costs $4 or less you could buy it at turn X instead of Inquisitor and play it both at turns X+1 and X+2, without the cost of a terminal space in turn X+1.
If the card exiled costs $5, you have to play a Silver at turn X+2. With this Silver in deck, you probably would be able to buy that $5 card at turn X or X+1 and play at turn X+2. The same for a Gold and a $6 card.
You don’t have to pay for the cards you gain with Inquisitor, but each time you need two plays of Inquisitor and a play of a Treasure. The final effect is of a $3 cost reducer which needs two plays to trigger, being one of them paired with a Treasure, and is vaild only for one card.
In general, it seems to me to be very slow to begin to produce benefits. Maybe it could even end up without produce them at all.
It changes a bit with other cards that care about exile, but would be better if Inquisitor would be stronger by itself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MiX on June 02, 2020, 04:38:32 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 02, 2020, 04:32:23 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 02, 2020, 02:51:43 pm

My card for this week - a revamped (from a past contest*) Inquisitor.

Uses Exile from Menagerie and Storyteller's unique "play Treasures during Action phase, then pay your all your coins" mechanic.

(https://i.imgur.com/UsdbqPx.png)

Quote

Inquisitor - Action - $4
+$1

Choose one: Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply; or you may play a Treasure from your hand, then pay all of your $ (including the $1 from this) to play a card from your Exile mat costing up to $2 more than the $ you paid.

* amusingly, at the time, Menagerie had been announced, and this was my attempt to predict what the Exile mat could be used for. Now it just uses the exile mat.

Any feedback is welcome - I think this will definitely need some play testing to see if it's actually interesting, but I hope the ability to play and effectively gain your Exiled cards from this is useful. Without playing a treasure, you can play a $3 from your Exile, and it would just taker a silver to play a $5 card in Exile.

Turn X – Spend a buy and $4 to buy inquisitor
Turn X+1 – Play Inquisitor to exile a card and give $1. In this play it is terminal.
Turn X+2 – Play Inquisitor and maybe a Treasure to play that card from exile.

If the card you exiled costs $4 or less you could buy it at turn X instead of Inquisitor and play it both at turns X+1 and X+2, without the cost of a terminal space in turn X+1.
If the card exiled costs $5, you have to play a Silver at turn X+2. With this Silver in deck, you probably would be able to buy that $5 card at turn X or X+1 and play at turn X+2. The same for a Gold and a $6 card.
You don’t have to pay for the cards you gain with Inquisitor, but each time you need two plays of Inquisitor and a play of a Treasure. The final effect is of a $3 cost reducer which needs two plays to trigger, being one of them paired with a Treasure, and is vaild only for one card.
In general, it seems to me to be very slow to begin to produce benefits. Maybe it could even end up without produce them at all.
It changes a bit with other cards that care about exile, but would be better if Inquisitor would be stronger by itself.

It's Camel Train with +1 money and without a free gold at worst. I think that alone would be enough to be worth 4$, the fact that you don't need to buy the exiled card to gain it by using the second option (and it plays it so you're not losing much by doing this) makes it flexible enough to be a good 4$.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 02, 2020, 09:58:04 pm

Quote from: MiX on June 02, 2020, 04:38:32 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 02, 2020, 04:32:23 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 02, 2020, 02:51:43 pm

My card for this week - a revamped (from a past contest*) Inquisitor.

Uses Exile from Menagerie and Storyteller's unique "play Treasures during Action phase, then pay your all your coins" mechanic.

(https://i.imgur.com/UsdbqPx.png)

Quote

Inquisitor - Action - $4
+$1

Choose one: Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply; or you may play a Treasure from your hand, then pay all of your $ (including the $1 from this) to play a card from your Exile mat costing up to $2 more than the $ you paid.

* amusingly, at the time, Menagerie had been announced, and this was my attempt to predict what the Exile mat could be used for. Now it just uses the exile mat.

Any feedback is welcome - I think this will definitely need some play testing to see if it's actually interesting, but I hope the ability to play and effectively gain your Exiled cards from this is useful. Without playing a treasure, you can play a $3 from your Exile, and it would just taker a silver to play a $5 card in Exile.

Turn X – Spend a buy and $4 to buy inquisitor
Turn X+1 – Play Inquisitor to exile a card and give $1. In this play it is terminal.
Turn X+2 – Play Inquisitor and maybe a Treasure to play that card from exile.

If the card you exiled costs $4 or less you could buy it at turn X instead of Inquisitor and play it both at turns X+1 and X+2, without the cost of a terminal space in turn X+1.
If the card exiled costs $5, you have to play a Silver at turn X+2. With this Silver in deck, you probably would be able to buy that $5 card at turn X or X+1 and play at turn X+2. The same for a Gold and a $6 card.
You don’t have to pay for the cards you gain with Inquisitor, but each time you need two plays of Inquisitor and a play of a Treasure. The final effect is of a $3 cost reducer which needs two plays to trigger, being one of them paired with a Treasure, and is vaild only for one card.
In general, it seems to me to be very slow to begin to produce benefits. Maybe it could even end up without produce them at all.
It changes a bit with other cards that care about exile, but would be better if Inquisitor would be stronger by itself.

It's Camel Train with +1 money and without a free gold at worst. I think that alone would be enough to be worth 4$, the fact that you don't need to buy the exiled card to gain it by using the second option (and it plays it so you're not losing much by doing this) makes it flexible enough to be a good 4$.

Yes, I think you're right. I was thinking about the card as you always want the play part to release the gained card from exile, but it's a plus, so it's really better than I was thinking.

In the Secret History, DXV says that he thought that Camel Train wasn't good enough without that free Gold, but the flexibilty you pointed about Inquisitor I think indeed makes it a good card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 02, 2020, 10:51:10 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 02, 2020, 09:58:04 pm

Quote from: MiX on June 02, 2020, 04:38:32 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 02, 2020, 04:32:23 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 02, 2020, 02:51:43 pm

My card for this week - a revamped (from a past contest*) Inquisitor.

Uses Exile from Menagerie and Storyteller's unique "play Treasures during Action phase, then pay your all your coins" mechanic.

(https://i.imgur.com/UsdbqPx.png)

Quote

Inquisitor - Action - $4
+$1

Choose one: Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply; or you may play a Treasure from your hand, then pay all of your $ (including the $1 from this) to play a card from your Exile mat costing up to $2 more than the $ you paid.

* amusingly, at the time, Menagerie had been announced, and this was my attempt to predict what the Exile mat could be used for. Now it just uses the exile mat.

Any feedback is welcome - I think this will definitely need some play testing to see if it's actually interesting, but I hope the ability to play and effectively gain your Exiled cards from this is useful. Without playing a treasure, you can play a $3 from your Exile, and it would just taker a silver to play a $5 card in Exile.

Turn X – Spend a buy and $4 to buy inquisitor
Turn X+1 – Play Inquisitor to exile a card and give $1. In this play it is terminal.
Turn X+2 – Play Inquisitor and maybe a Treasure to play that card from exile.

If the card you exiled costs $4 or less you could buy it at turn X instead of Inquisitor and play it both at turns X+1 and X+2, without the cost of a terminal space in turn X+1.
If the card exiled costs $5, you have to play a Silver at turn X+2. With this Silver in deck, you probably would be able to buy that $5 card at turn X or X+1 and play at turn X+2. The same for a Gold and a $6 card.
You don’t have to pay for the cards you gain with Inquisitor, but each time you need two plays of Inquisitor and a play of a Treasure. The final effect is of a $3 cost reducer which needs two plays to trigger, being one of them paired with a Treasure, and is vaild only for one card.
In general, it seems to me to be very slow to begin to produce benefits. Maybe it could even end up without produce them at all.
It changes a bit with other cards that care about exile, but would be better if Inquisitor would be stronger by itself.

It's Camel Train with +1 money and without a free gold at worst. I think that alone would be enough to be worth 4$, the fact that you don't need to buy the exiled card to gain it by using the second option (and it plays it so you're not losing much by doing this) makes it flexible enough to be a good 4$.

Yes, I think you're right. I was thinking about the card as you always want the play part to release the gained card from exile, but it's a plus, so it's really better than I was thinking.

In the Secret History, DXV says that he thought that Camel Train wasn't good enough without that free Gold, but the flexibilty you pointed about Inquisitor I think indeed makes it a good card.

Now I'm realizing that the card you exile and play with it could be a Treasure that you play in action phase after play two cards, so it has an intersting synergy with Draw-to-X (of course needing Villages). Other good interaction is with cantrip money. Play a Poacher before Inquisitor and you don't need to play a Treasure to play another Poacher from exile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holger on June 03, 2020, 08:09:30 am

Quote from: segura on June 02, 2020, 01:54:14 pm

Bounty Hunter seemed utterly crazy when it came out but it’s not. So a terminal Gold is most definitely fine at $4. Also, if you play money and gain lots of Golds, discarding does not hurt. If you play an engine, you are unlikely to gain cards that costs more than $6. So all the card mainly hurts in an engine are Remodel strategies.

At $5 it can hardly compete with all the other terminal Golds.

Bounty Hunter is neither terminal nor a Gold, as it does not give +$3 unconditionally. IMO it's worse than a terminal Gold in Big Money games: It gives you +$3 only a single time (when exiling the first Estate; assuming no Shelters) until at least a shuffle after you have started greening. And even then, it only gives you +$3 when you're lucky to have it collide with a Victory card you haven't exiled yet.
(Exiling the first Copper only nets you +$2, and exiling further Coppers/Estates gives no economy at all.)

Also, there's several engine cards that cost $6 or more - Grand Market, Goons, King's Court,...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 03, 2020, 09:05:17 am

per the recommendations of the discord variants channel, i've pared this down a bit.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ed06ef123fac865c90474d2/81d8d8019ec04706d730c971bcdfb932/image.png)

Quote

Aonbarr • $4P • Action
+4 Cards
You may Exile a card
from your hand.
You may return this to its pile
for +2 Actions.
-
Instead of paying this cards cost, you may pay PP;
if you do, +1 Buy and +$2

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on June 03, 2020, 10:00:49 am

My updated mule/breeder entry:
(https://i.imgur.com/toO8iGV.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/pSttbBu.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 03, 2020, 11:04:34 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on June 03, 2020, 10:00:49 am

My updated mule/breeder entry:
(https://i.imgur.com/toO8iGV.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/pSttbBu.png)

Maybe it's better to say "return the set aside Mule back to the supply" instead of "return all set asides mules back to the suuply". Otherwise, it would return to supply Mules set aside by other cards like Cargo Ship or Research.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 03, 2020, 11:48:15 am

Quote from: Holger on June 03, 2020, 08:09:30 am

Quote from: segura on June 02, 2020, 01:54:14 pm

Bounty Hunter seemed utterly crazy when it came out but it’s not. So a terminal Gold is most definitely fine at $4. Also, if you play money and gain lots of Golds, discarding does not hurt. If you play an engine, you are unlikely to gain cards that costs more than $6. So all the card mainly hurts in an engine are Remodel strategies.

At $5 it can hardly compete with all the other terminal Golds.

Bounty Hunter is neither terminal nor a Gold, as it does not give +$3 unconditionally. IMO it's worse than a terminal Gold in Big Money games: It gives you +$3 only a single time (when exiling the first Estate; assuming no Shelters) until at least a shuffle after you have started greening. And even then, it only gives you +$3 when you're lucky to have it collide with a Victory card you haven't exiled yet.
(Exiling the first Copper only nets you +$2, and exiling further Coppers/Estates gives no economy at all.)

Also, there's several engine cards that cost $6 or more - Grand Market, Goons, King's Court,...

Bounty Hunter non-terminally yields 3 Coins at least 3 times in a standard Kingdom (Copper, Estate, Province) which ignores stuff like Duchies, Curses, Shelters or situationally Exiling a card you don't want anymore. It thins, sets aside Green, non-terminally provides Coins (which means that it is better than terminal Gold in SEVERAL WAYS the first 2 times you play it and yeah, I did intentionally ignore your weird argument that it is only a net 2 Coins as that implies that you do not want to thin Copper which is pretty much never the case; it is like saying that using Chapel to trash 4 Coppers is like taking 4D and thus worse than not killing those Coppers) and yet it is not broken.

If an Action card is only good in BM where terminal space is not used, well, that is not really particularly impressive (especially not if the handsize Attack does not hurt that much unless you wanna talk about BM-Remodel games which is frankly far too specific/rare to be relevant). The very reason all those terminal Golds have been introduced during the later expansion is due the realization that terminal space is limited and that you rather use it to draw than to do something which Gold always does.

I was pretty sure that terminal Gold is OK at $4 before Menagerie. But after Bounty Hunter, it is pretty much definitely the case. The effects of all those terminal Golds at $5 are usually so good that they do not justify terminal Gold being in the $4.5 price space (familar from Fugitive, i.e. the card is too good at $4, that it is too weak at $5 is obvious).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on June 03, 2020, 01:23:26 pm

24 hour warning

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on June 03, 2020, 04:51:46 pm

Here's my entry:

Barn
Project $4
When you gain a Victory card, gain a Horse.

If you're going to have all that land you might as well ride on it. I figured it should cost less than crop rotation and just felt as though $4 was right. I've not playtested this in any way so it might play better at $3, and you'd probably go for duchies before this if it cost $5.

(https://imgur.com/664UOgz)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on June 03, 2020, 05:54:21 pm

This entry has been modified as of 2020-06-03

Updated my entry:

(https://i.postimg.cc/QhnMjKhW/The-Meadow-s-Gift-V2-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/2kmk04Fg/Rivalry-V1-EN.png)

You guys were right; 2 Horses is too strong for a Boon. Playtesting this lil' fella quickly revealed that. So now, The Meadow's gift is simply Ride in Boon form. Rivalry remains unchanged. It worked well imo.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on June 04, 2020, 01:19:51 am

(https://i.imgur.com/bYmbcQy.png)

Quote

Evacuate
+1 Buy
Once per turn: Gain a Ruins. If you did, gain 3 Horses.

Event
$0

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Holger on June 04, 2020, 11:41:20 am

Quote from: segura on June 03, 2020, 11:48:15 am

Quote from: Holger on June 03, 2020, 08:09:30 am

Quote from: segura on June 02, 2020, 01:54:14 pm

Bounty Hunter seemed utterly crazy when it came out but it’s not. So a terminal Gold is most definitely fine at $4. Also, if you play money and gain lots of Golds, discarding does not hurt. If you play an engine, you are unlikely to gain cards that costs more than $6. So all the card mainly hurts in an engine are Remodel strategies.

At $5 it can hardly compete with all the other terminal Golds.

Bounty Hunter is neither terminal nor a Gold, as it does not give +$3 unconditionally. IMO it's worse than a terminal Gold in Big Money games: It gives you +$3 only a single time (when exiling the first Estate; assuming no Shelters) until at least a shuffle after you have started greening. And even then, it only gives you +$3 when you're lucky to have it collide with a Victory card you haven't exiled yet.
(Exiling the first Copper only nets you +$2, and exiling further Coppers/Estates gives no economy at all.)

Also, there's several engine cards that cost $6 or more - Grand Market, Goons, King's Court,...

Bounty Hunter non-terminally yields 3 Coins at least 3 times in a standard Kingdom (Copper, Estate, Province) which ignores stuff like Duchies, Curses, Shelters or situationally Exiling a card you don't want anymore. It thins, sets aside Green, non-terminally provides Coins (which means that it is better than terminal Gold in SEVERAL WAYS the first 2 times you play it and yeah, I did intentionally ignore your weird argument that it is only a net 2 Coins as that implies that you do not want to thin Copper which is pretty much never the case; it is like saying that using Chapel to trash 4 Coppers is like taking 4D and thus worse than not killing those Coppers) and yet it is not broken.


If an Action card is only good in BM where terminal space is not used, well, that is not really particularly impressive (especially not if the handsize Attack does not hurt that much unless you wanna talk about BM-Remodel games which is frankly far too specific/rare to be relevant). The very reason all those terminal Golds have been introduced during the later expansion is due the realization that terminal space is limited and that you rather use it to draw than to do something which Gold always does.

I was pretty sure that terminal Gold is OK at $4 before Menagerie. But after Bounty Hunter, it is pretty much definitely the case. The effects of all those terminal Golds at $5 are usually so good that they do not justify terminal Gold being in the $4.5 price space (familar from Fugitive, i.e. the card is too good at $4, that it is too weak at $5 is obvious).

I was only talking about Big Money in my posts, where Chapel is indeed not a good card, and trashing/exiling Coppers is at best marginally good. What's weird about saying that 3-1 equals 2? Using Bounty Hunter on the first Copper is like playing Moneylender in terms of economy, but I haven't seen anybody call Moneylender a "terminal Gold", as it clearly only increases your economy by $2 the turn you play it.

Of course Bounty Hunter is much better than a terminal Gold in most engine games, but since it does not consistently give $3 when played, in can be worse im BM games where exiling doesn't help that much. (Moneylender might well be better for pure BM games than Bounty Hunter because it effectively gives +$2 seven times per game, instead of giving +$3 only two or three times and +$2 once.)

And for a card to be balanced at a given price point, it should not only be balanced in engine games, but it should also not give rise to a dominant one-card BM strategy (like Rebuild does/did). I agree that a terminal Gold for $4 would be fine or even weak in engines, but I am not so sure about its BM strength. For deciding about the latter, comparing it to engine cards like Bounty Hunter does not really help IMO. Of the existing cards, the closest to a terminal Gold is probably Livery, which does cost $5. Its extra Horse bonus is fine but not that huge (you can gain a Horse for $2 with Ride, or two Horses for $3 with Experiment).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 04, 2020, 12:06:55 pm

I disagree with basically everything:
- BM is faster with Chapel than BM without it. The simulation dudes have probably proved this ages ago.
- If a card is strong in BM that is not an issue as money is rarer/weaker than engine play. For example Guildhall is crazy in and of itself but fine from a meta perspective as the strategy it supports is relatively weak in general.
- Livery is one of the strongest $5 Golds.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 04, 2020, 01:09:07 pm

Very late change, but going to change from Inquisitor to Consignor (if it doesn't get judged because of being on the late end, no worries, then Inquisitor can be my entry):

Exile from Menagerie, and Debt from Empires

(https://i.imgur.com/pWiN5Md.png)

Quote

Consigner - Action - $4
Take any number of @.
Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply costing $1 per @1 you took.
You may play a cheaper Action or Treasure card from your Exile mat.

Previous version:
(https://i.imgur.com/gXLIp9U.png)

Feedback always welcome (even if too late for tweaking for this week.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 04, 2020, 01:26:36 pm

I like this a lot. Hard to say how good it is but I don‘T think that it is crazy.
If that is the case, you could slightly buff it via making the discarding non-mandatory (only matters if there is junk in Exile due to Coven, Sanctuary, Bounty Hunter or Worm).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on June 04, 2020, 02:00:25 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 04, 2020, 01:09:07 pm

Very late change, but going to change from Inquisitor to Consignor (if it doesn't get judged because of being on the late end, no worries, then Inquisitor can be my entry):

Exile from Menagerie, and Debt from Empires

(https://i.imgur.com/gXLIp9U.png)

Quote

Consigner - Action - $4
Take any number of @. Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply costing $1 per @1 you took. Put a cheaper card from your Exile mat onto your discard pile.

Feedback always welcome (even if too late for tweaking for this week.

Quote from: segura on June 04, 2020, 01:26:36 pm

I like this a lot. Hard to say how good it is but I don‘T think that it is crazy.
If that is the case, you could slightly buff it via making the discarding non-mandatory (only matters if there is junk in Exile due to Coven, Sanctuary, Bounty Hunter or Worm).

Am I missing something? This feels pretty weak when compared with Camel Train.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 04, 2020, 02:09:50 pm

Camel Train does not discard stuff from Exile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MiX on June 04, 2020, 02:14:19 pm

Even then most of the time this acts as +1 buy since you need to pay for the card you're exiling anyway.

And it doesn't really do anything other than +1 buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 04, 2020, 02:17:35 pm

Quote from: segura on June 04, 2020, 02:09:50 pm

Camel Train does not discard stuff from Exile.

Right - it costs more to exile (you have to take the debt), but it does more - if you have something on your exile mat.

I'm sure there's room for tweaking - for example, segura's suggestion to make the discarding optional.

Also wording - I could just say "You may discard a cheaper card from your Exile mat."

I've considered also making it a card of the same cost (making the discard happen first) or adopting Inquisitor's "play a a cheaper card from your Exile mat." (i've also wondered if It doesn't have to be non victory, and if it's victory you trash this).

I think all these versions have merit, but being a late entry, I wanted to at least get the first version out there with the general concept - taking debt to acquire a card you can't yet afford by consigning it to your exile mat.

i.e. if I had more time, I'm sure this could be tweaked just right - but deadline has passed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MiX on June 04, 2020, 02:21:01 pm

Oooooh this is capital, I think I get it now.

I think this can easily get away with +1 Action as it doesn't seem too good, and it's fairly hard to use the discard from exile in a meaningful way. Could prove to be really good with anything that can gain Provinces but it locks you into always having debt.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 04, 2020, 02:25:27 pm

Quote from: MiX on June 04, 2020, 02:21:01 pm

Oooooh this is capital, I think I get it now.

I think this can easily get away with +1 Action as it doesn't seem too good, and it's fairly hard to use the discard from exile in a meaningful way. Could prove to be really good with anything that can gain Provinces but it locks you into always having debt.

Hmm, good point re: Capital, maybe this kind of already exists. Which maybe makes the version that plays the card more interesting?

Quote

Take any number of @. Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply costing $1 per @1 you took. Play a cheaper non-Victory card from your Exile mat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 04, 2020, 02:31:52 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 04, 2020, 02:25:27 pm

Quote from: MiX on June 04, 2020, 02:21:01 pm

Oooooh this is capital, I think I get it now.

I think this can easily get away with +1 Action as it doesn't seem too good, and it's fairly hard to use the discard from exile in a meaningful way. Could prove to be really good with anything that can gain Provinces but it locks you into always having debt.

Hmm, good point re: Capital, maybe this kind of already exists. Which maybe makes the version that plays the card more interesting?

Quote

Take any number of @. Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply costing $1 per @1 you took. Play a cheaper non-Victory card from your Exile mat.

how do i play a curse

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 04, 2020, 02:34:37 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 04, 2020, 02:31:52 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 04, 2020, 02:25:27 pm

Quote from: MiX on June 04, 2020, 02:21:01 pm

Oooooh this is capital, I think I get it now.

I think this can easily get away with +1 Action as it doesn't seem too good, and it's fairly hard to use the discard from exile in a meaningful way. Could prove to be really good with anything that can gain Provinces but it locks you into always having debt.

Hmm, good point re: Capital, maybe this kind of already exists. Which maybe makes the version that plays the card more interesting?

Quote

Take any number of @. Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply costing $1 per @1 you took. Play a cheaper non-Victory card from your Exile mat.

how do i play a curse

Right, I added non-Victory, but should have made it Action or Treasure. (I'd like it to be able to play spoils, or if you're in need enough, play a Copper, though then it would be unexiled).

So, now we have:

(https://i.imgur.com/pWiN5Md.png)

At the very least, it expands on Capital in an interesting (I hope) way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on June 04, 2020, 03:34:29 pm

Way of the Magpie by grep
An interesting early game option to build up coin and hit price points. It lets you buy villages and the like earlier tan you need them for a benefit. However, it feels a bit weak. It's definitely on the slow side, especially next to Way of the Sheep, which serves a similar purpose. I'm not sure the discard is needed, but testing would be required
Horse Market by [TP] Inferno
This is much too strong. The on-play effect is strong as-is, and the horse overpay is often very relevant especially on boards where draw is lower, since it's basically a better version of Hostelry's effect. I'd suggest bumping it to 4 or removing the conditional village.
Racetrack by mandioca15
Keeping or playing your horses offers some theoretically interesting strategy, but this is rendered moot by how easily the horses are to regain. With how semi-boundless the victory points can be, it's likely to quickly take over games.
Saddler/Bridle by Aquila
Saddler is often a functional cantrip, so it's going to get bought most of the time. It might be a bit strong, since it can quite often be a lab or better. Bridle is too weak/inflexible to get bought without other horse gainers, especially since you usually want Saddler for draw instead of Horses. It's hard to say how appealing it will be.
Spurs by mail-mi
The card this resembles most closely is Livery. This trades the coin for being non-terminal and gaining more horses. It's a quite interesting source of raw in some decks without being too strong.
Way of the Alligator by segura
A stronger than usual Way with a Hex as a downside. It's very interesting, especially early on. However, it has an almost fatal problem with variance. Sometimes you get Plague, which can be deadly to your deck, or Delusion, slowing you down majorly, but sometimes you get something ineffective like Famine.
Secret Land by maji-poni
Distinctly under-powered for a prize. It's slow to gain a meaningful amount of VP and depleting the Duchy pile is sometimes a downside, especially when you're behind, which is when this is theoretically strongest.
Recession by MrHiTech
A terminal gold at 4 with a slight upside is a tad strong. The attack might have odd timing issues.
Way of the Kingfisher by fragasnap
This is an interesting option as a Way. A throne room, but only every other time. The issue is that it may interact poorly with other journey token cards, removing their slowness and making them basically always work.
Zombie Workshop by Carline
A unique Horn of Plenty/Necromancer combo, although not as strong as either. The alt cost plays quite well with the on-play. I worry that the alt cost isn't worth using since it's already quite cheap.
Zoo by Blue Haired Meercat
It's quite disconnected from whether or not you're going to use Ways. If the Way is good, it will get used, and if it isn't it won't. The points are slow and minimal.
Aonbarr by spineflu
This is a notable card partially on the basis that it actually makes a double potion cost work, something that fan cards have failed to do for years. A big Masquerade is strong enough to build towards, and you can use it as a one-shot triple lab, which is often quite useful if it can be gained back.
Mule/Breeder by Lord Baphomet
Breeder seems strong for how easy it is to gain, especially since any other horse gainer drains the mule pile. Mule's reaction simply has strange timing. It might be more interesting if it was akin to Duchess, where it was at any point, not just when you have one in hand. Quite interesting conceptually, but there's too much going on here.
Barn by Marpharos
Presents interesting strategy. Do you want to buy it early? How early? Do you want to green earlier because of it? Well done, although maybe too strong with action vp.
The Meadow’s Gift/ Rivalry- X-tra
The Meadow's Gift got changed, but it seems a bit undertuned to the point it's almost strictly worse than the river's and the sea's gifts. Rivalry is odd too since a hex that helps everyone else is poor. It's unclear how this would work with moat and is very potent in games with three or more players, since it gives tons of horses.
Evacuate by alion8me
This should definitely have the +1 buy as a once per turn. Not only is gaining 30 horses and 10 ruins not unappealing, draining a pile is strong. It is quite compelling otherwise.
Consignor by scolapasta
I caught this update right before I started judging, so it will be included. As-is, it's quite weak. However, the suggested change is compelling and makes it much more information.
HONORABLE MENTIONS
Zombie Workshop
Aonbarr
Evacuate
WINNER
Spurs by mail-mi

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 04, 2020, 03:52:15 pm

Hey, thanks for the win!

CHALLENGE #76: All That Glitters

Every expansion has one, and now it's our turn. Design a Gold-gainer. The card may gain a Gold unconditionally (like Bandit), conditionally (like Explorer), or optionally (like Courtier), but it must be able to gain Gold specifically. Abilities like "gain a card costing up to $6," "gain a Treasure," or "Exile a Gold from the supply" would not qualify.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on June 04, 2020, 05:20:28 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 04, 2020, 03:52:15 pm

Hey, thanks for the win!

CHALLENGE #76: All That Glitters

Every expansion has one, and now it's our turn. Design a Gold-gainer. The card may gain a Gold unconditionally (like Bandit), conditionally (like Explorer), or optionally (like Courtier), but it must be able to gain Gold specifically. Abilities like "gain a card costing up to $6," "gain a Treasure," or "Exile a Gold from the supply" would not qualify.

My entry:

Hoarder
$6
Action
Trash a card from your hand. For each $2 it costs (round down), choose one: +1 Card, +1 Action; +2 Cards; gain a Gold.

Edit: It was too strong at $5. Now it costs $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 04, 2020, 07:21:58 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 04, 2020, 03:34:29 pm

Zombie Workshop by Carline
A unique Horn of Plenty/Necromancer combo, although not as strong as either. The alt cost plays quite well with the on-play. I worry that the alt cost isn't worth using since it's already quite cheap.

Thanks for comments and honorable mention. The alt cost is intended more to make it faster to be a better gainer than to save money. It's similar to play it once when buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on June 04, 2020, 07:28:20 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on June 04, 2020, 05:20:28 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 04, 2020, 03:52:15 pm

Hey, thanks for the win!

CHALLENGE #76: All That Glitters

Every expansion has one, and now it's our turn. Design a Gold-gainer. The card may gain a Gold unconditionally (like Bandit), conditionally (like Explorer), or optionally (like Courtier), but it must be able to gain Gold specifically. Abilities like "gain a card costing up to $6," "gain a Treasure," or "Exile a Gold from the supply" would not qualify.

My entry:

Hoarder
$5
Action
Trash a card from your hand. For each $2 it costs (round down), choose one: +1 Card, +1 Action; +2 Cards; gain a Gold.

Let me know if I need to bump it up to $6.

I think Hoarder is almost strictly better than Transmute.  You can gain Gold on turn 3 or 4, no extra card-gains like Dismantle, no gaining useless card when trashing Copper.  Gaining Duchy is usually unused or once, so it doesn't matter the strength so much.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on June 04, 2020, 07:48:29 pm

Quote from: majiponi on June 04, 2020, 07:28:20 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on June 04, 2020, 05:20:28 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 04, 2020, 03:52:15 pm

Hey, thanks for the win!

CHALLENGE #76: All That Glitters

Every expansion has one, and now it's our turn. Design a Gold-gainer. The card may gain a Gold unconditionally (like Bandit), conditionally (like Explorer), or optionally (like Courtier), but it must be able to gain Gold specifically. Abilities like "gain a card costing up to $6," "gain a Treasure," or "Exile a Gold from the supply" would not qualify.

My entry:

Hoarder
$5
Action
Trash a card from your hand. For each $2 it costs (round down), choose one: +1 Card, +1 Action; +2 Cards; gain a Gold.

Let me know if I need to bump it up to $6.

I think Hoarder is almost strictly better than Transmute.  You can gain Gold on turn 3 or 4, no extra card-gains like Dismantle, no gaining useless card when trashing Copper.  Gaining Duchy is usually unused or once, so it doesn't matter the strength so much.

Thanks for the feedback. To solve this problem, I might make it cost $6, then it isn't able to be opened with, but also has more value in trashing itself. If it is still too strong, let me know and I can add a Copper onto the Gold gain or something.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 04, 2020, 08:32:17 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 04, 2020, 03:34:29 pm

Way of the Magpie by grep
An interesting early game option to build up coin and hit price points. It lets you buy villages and the like earlier tan you need them for a benefit. However, it feels a bit weak. It's definitely on the slow side, especially next to Way of the Sheep, which serves a similar purpose. I'm not sure the discard is needed, but testing would be required
Horse Market by [TP] Inferno
This is much too strong. The on-play effect is strong as-is, and the horse overpay is often very relevant especially on boards where draw is lower, since it's basically a better version of Hostelry's effect. I'd suggest bumping it to 4 or removing the conditional village.
Racetrack by mandioca15
Keeping or playing your horses offers some theoretically interesting strategy, but this is rendered moot by how easily the horses are to regain. With how semi-boundless the victory points can be, it's likely to quickly take over games.
Saddler/Bridle by Aquila
Saddler is often a functional cantrip, so it's going to get bought most of the time. It might be a bit strong, since it can quite often be a lab or better. Bridle is too weak/inflexible to get bought without other horse gainers, especially since you usually want Saddler for draw instead of Horses. It's hard to say how appealing it will be.
Spurs by mail-mi
The card this resembles most closely is Livery. This trades the coin for being non-terminal and gaining more horses. It's a quite interesting source of raw in some decks without being too strong.
Way of the Alligator by segura
A stronger than usual Way with a Hex as a downside. It's very interesting, especially early on. However, it has an almost fatal problem with variance. Sometimes you get Plague, which can be deadly to your deck, or Delusion, slowing you down majorly, but sometimes you get something ineffective like Famine.
Secret Land by maji-poni
Distinctly under-powered for a prize. It's slow to gain a meaningful amount of VP and depleting the Duchy pile is sometimes a downside, especially when you're behind, which is when this is theoretically strongest.
Recession by MrHiTech
A terminal gold at 4 with a slight upside is a tad strong. The attack might have odd timing issues.
Way of the Kingfisher by fragasnap
This is an interesting option as a Way. A throne room, but only every other time. The issue is that it may interact poorly with other journey token cards, removing their slowness and making them basically always work.
Zombie Workshop by Carline
A unique Horn of Plenty/Necromancer combo, although not as strong as either. The alt cost plays quite well with the on-play. I worry that the alt cost isn't worth using since it's already quite cheap.
Zoo by Blue Haired Meercat
It's quite disconnected from whether or not you're going to use Ways. If the Way is good, it will get used, and if it isn't it won't. The points are slow and minimal.
Aonbarr by spineflu
This is a notable card partially on the basis that it actually makes a double potion cost work, something that fan cards have failed to do for years. A big Masquerade is strong enough to build towards, and you can use it as a one-shot triple lab, which is often quite useful if it can be gained back.
Mule/Breeder by Lord Baphomet
Breeder seems strong for how easy it is to gain, especially since any other horse gainer drains the mule pile. Mule's reaction simply has strange timing. It might be more interesting if it was akin to Duchess, where it was at any point, not just when you have one in hand. Quite interesting conceptually, but there's too much going on here.
Barn by Marpharos
Presents interesting strategy. Do you want to buy it early? How early? Do you want to green earlier because of it? Well done, although maybe too strong with action vp.
The Meadow’s Gift/ Rivalry- X-tra
The Meadow's Gift got changed, but it seems a bit undertuned to the point it's almost strictly worse than the river's and the sea's gifts. Rivalry is odd too since a hex that helps everyone else is poor. It's unclear how this would work with moat and is very potent in games with three or more players, since it gives tons of horses.
Evacuate by alion8me
This should definitely have the +1 buy as a once per turn. Not only is gaining 30 horses and 10 ruins not unappealing, draining a pile is strong. It is quite compelling otherwise.
Consignor by scolapasta
I caught this update right before I started judging, so it will be included. As-is, it's quite weak. However, the suggested change is compelling and makes it much more information.
HONORABLE MENTIONS
Zombie Workshop
Aonbarr
Evacuate
WINNER
Spurs by mail-mi

There's no comment about General by Something_Smart.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on June 04, 2020, 08:45:01 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 04, 2020, 08:32:17 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 04, 2020, 03:34:29 pm

Way of the Magpie by grep
An interesting early game option to build up coin and hit price points. It lets you buy villages and the like earlier tan you need them for a benefit. However, it feels a bit weak. It's definitely on the slow side, especially next to Way of the Sheep, which serves a similar purpose. I'm not sure the discard is needed, but testing would be required
Horse Market by [TP] Inferno
This is much too strong. The on-play effect is strong as-is, and the horse overpay is often very relevant especially on boards where draw is lower, since it's basically a better version of Hostelry's effect. I'd suggest bumping it to 4 or removing the conditional village.
Racetrack by mandioca15
Keeping or playing your horses offers some theoretically interesting strategy, but this is rendered moot by how easily the horses are to regain. With how semi-boundless the victory points can be, it's likely to quickly take over games.
Saddler/Bridle by Aquila
Saddler is often a functional cantrip, so it's going to get bought most of the time. It might be a bit strong, since it can quite often be a lab or better. Bridle is too weak/inflexible to get bought without other horse gainers, especially since you usually want Saddler for draw instead of Horses. It's hard to say how appealing it will be.
Spurs by mail-mi
The card this resembles most closely is Livery. This trades the coin for being non-terminal and gaining more horses. It's a quite interesting source of raw in some decks without being too strong.
Way of the Alligator by segura
A stronger than usual Way with a Hex as a downside. It's very interesting, especially early on. However, it has an almost fatal problem with variance. Sometimes you get Plague, which can be deadly to your deck, or Delusion, slowing you down majorly, but sometimes you get something ineffective like Famine.
Secret Land by maji-poni
Distinctly under-powered for a prize. It's slow to gain a meaningful amount of VP and depleting the Duchy pile is sometimes a downside, especially when you're behind, which is when this is theoretically strongest.
Recession by MrHiTech
A terminal gold at 4 with a slight upside is a tad strong. The attack might have odd timing issues.
Way of the Kingfisher by fragasnap
This is an interesting option as a Way. A throne room, but only every other time. The issue is that it may interact poorly with other journey token cards, removing their slowness and making them basically always work.
Zombie Workshop by Carline
A unique Horn of Plenty/Necromancer combo, although not as strong as either. The alt cost plays quite well with the on-play. I worry that the alt cost isn't worth using since it's already quite cheap.
Zoo by Blue Haired Meercat
It's quite disconnected from whether or not you're going to use Ways. If the Way is good, it will get used, and if it isn't it won't. The points are slow and minimal.
Aonbarr by spineflu
This is a notable card partially on the basis that it actually makes a double potion cost work, something that fan cards have failed to do for years. A big Masquerade is strong enough to build towards, and you can use it as a one-shot triple lab, which is often quite useful if it can be gained back.
Mule/Breeder by Lord Baphomet
Breeder seems strong for how easy it is to gain, especially since any other horse gainer drains the mule pile. Mule's reaction simply has strange timing. It might be more interesting if it was akin to Duchess, where it was at any point, not just when you have one in hand. Quite interesting conceptually, but there's too much going on here.
Barn by Marpharos
Presents interesting strategy. Do you want to buy it early? How early? Do you want to green earlier because of it? Well done, although maybe too strong with action vp.
The Meadow’s Gift/ Rivalry- X-tra
The Meadow's Gift got changed, but it seems a bit undertuned to the point it's almost strictly worse than the river's and the sea's gifts. Rivalry is odd too since a hex that helps everyone else is poor. It's unclear how this would work with moat and is very potent in games with three or more players, since it gives tons of horses.
Evacuate by alion8me
This should definitely have the +1 buy as a once per turn. Not only is gaining 30 horses and 10 ruins not unappealing, draining a pile is strong. It is quite compelling otherwise.
Consignor by scolapasta
I caught this update right before I started judging, so it will be included. As-is, it's quite weak. However, the suggested change is compelling and makes it much more information.
HONORABLE MENTIONS
Zombie Workshop
Aonbarr
Evacuate
WINNER
Spurs by mail-mi

There's no comment about General by Something_Smart.

My bad! It's a shame, because it was a pretty good card, definitely honorable mention-worthy, although Spurs still takes it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 04, 2020, 09:49:18 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 04, 2020, 03:34:29 pm

Aonbarr by spineflu
This is a notable card partially on the basis that it actually makes a double potion cost work, something that fan cards have failed to do for years.

ayyyy i completed the sidequest literally no-one asked me to do! nice!

Congrats mail-mi!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 05, 2020, 01:46:40 am

My entry (edited in 06/06/2020 for better wording):

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/694/407/full/Raiser_%287%29.png?1591484946)

Quote

RAISER • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Night
If you have more Action cards in play than Treasure cards, +2 Villagers.
If don't, gain a Gold.

Treasure gainers are not always good. Many times they are skippable if you are playing an engine.

So, I tried to make a card which would be good whatever strategy you are playing. If you are playing some kind of BM with none or few action support, you probably have more Treasures in play than Actions (or equal), then you gain a Gold. If you are playing an action based strategy, you gain two Villagers to help with the reliability of your deck. Maybe while you are building your engine and your deck is not yet too action dense you would want to gain a Gold to boost your payload. After that, you go for Villagers. This way, this card would be interesting during all game, which doesn’t happen with many of treasure gainers.

Raiser gives you more of what you have and want to raise: money or working hands for actions.

It’s non-terminal, so it’s strong. On the other hand, it’s a stop card that doesn’t draw, so you have to be careful to not overspam it through your deck. That said, it seems to me to be fine at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Feedbacks are always welcome!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on June 05, 2020, 05:27:15 am

Quote

Bounty - Event, $5 cost.
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. If there's no other copy of it in the trash, gain a Gold.
-
Setup: trash a Copper and an Estate from the Supply.

It can make races to trash unusual cards, but are those races fun? Or will they be too random?
And you can of course Bounty the Golds into Provinces. The first to do this, putting the first Gold into the trash, essentially gets a Province for $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 05, 2020, 07:49:54 am

Quote from: mail-mi on June 04, 2020, 03:52:15 pm

Hey, thanks for the win!

CHALLENGE #76: All That Glitters

Every expansion has one, and now it's our turn. Design a Gold-gainer. The card may gain a Gold unconditionally (like Bandit), conditionally (like Explorer), or optionally (like Courtier), but it must be able to gain Gold specifically. Abilities like "gain a card costing up to $6," "gain a Treasure," or "Exile a Gold from the supply" would not qualify.

would Swashbuckler qualify for this

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on June 05, 2020, 09:00:49 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 05, 2020, 07:49:54 am

Quote from: mail-mi on June 04, 2020, 03:52:15 pm

Hey, thanks for the win!

CHALLENGE #76: All That Glitters

Every expansion has one, and now it's our turn. Design a Gold-gainer. The card may gain a Gold unconditionally (like Bandit), conditionally (like Explorer), or optionally (like Courtier), but it must be able to gain Gold specifically. Abilities like "gain a card costing up to $6," "gain a Treasure," or "Exile a Gold from the supply" would not qualify.

would Swashbuckler qualify for this

Additionally, if Swashbuckler does qualify would a card that gives you the treasure chest count towards the challenge?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 05, 2020, 10:16:30 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on June 05, 2020, 09:00:49 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 05, 2020, 07:49:54 am

Quote from: mail-mi on June 04, 2020, 03:52:15 pm

Hey, thanks for the win!

CHALLENGE #76: All That Glitters

Every expansion has one, and now it's our turn. Design a Gold-gainer. The card may gain a Gold unconditionally (like Bandit), conditionally (like Explorer), or optionally (like Courtier), but it must be able to gain Gold specifically. Abilities like "gain a card costing up to $6," "gain a Treasure," or "Exile a Gold from the supply" would not qualify.

would Swashbuckler qualify for this

Additionally, if Swashbuckler does qualify would a card that gives you the treasure chest count towards the challenge?

Hm. I think I'll say yes on both counts.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 05, 2020, 11:36:21 am

Quote from: mail-mi on June 04, 2020, 03:52:15 pm

Every expansion has one, and now it's our turn. Design a Gold-gainer.

Wow, I never would have guessed that every expansion has one, but you are indeed correct! I wonder if this was intentional by Donald. Looking through all cards for "gain a Gold", there are actually 22 card-shaped things that say "gain a Gold" on them. Original Dominion didn't have one; in fact Explorer in Seaside was the first. But both Base and Intrigue got one with the second edition updates.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 05, 2020, 11:45:17 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 05, 2020, 11:36:21 am

Quote from: mail-mi on June 04, 2020, 03:52:15 pm

Every expansion has one, and now it's our turn. Design a Gold-gainer.

Wow, I never would have guessed that every expansion has one, but you are indeed correct! I wonder if this was intentional by Donald. Looking through all cards for "gain a Gold", there are actually 22 card-shaped things that say "gain a Gold" on them. Original Dominion didn't have one; in fact Explorer in Seaside was the first. But both Base and Intrigue got one with the second edition updates.

I think in the secret history for the Second editions, he says every expansion until then has one? Not sure about it now though...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on June 05, 2020, 11:54:46 am

Split pile sow/reap

(https://i.imgur.com/sdIuuh3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/PbHF49V.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 05, 2020, 12:03:38 pm

Compared to other Peddlers and sifters, Sow is incredibly weak. Reap is too cheap. Not only because of strength issues (dude, it is stronger than Gold while one of its point is gaining Golds; that is anything but coherent) which is not that relevant in a split pile but because Workshop variants make the Buy restriction pointless.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 05, 2020, 12:24:35 pm

EDIT: Modified downthread
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eda7021d82b080b4230e364/aaffb761444b6bb2c89c22fc33f180b9/image.png)

Quote

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure from your hand to gain a Gold.
You may trash a Gold from your hand to choose one: +4 Cards; or +2 Actions.

Pooka + Moneylender + Nobles variant that's worse than either, i think. I feel like i'm forgetting something. It's +4 cards because you're down a card bc the gold.
I think $4 is the right price for this so that a $5/$2 opening doesn't just utterly wreck shop on cleaning out Coppers.

(small edit to add "from your hand" to the gold-trashing clause)
Thematically kind of a Rumplestiltzkin thing (and I already had art for "Goblin" made)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on June 05, 2020, 12:36:28 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/bzscVGv8/Barman-V1-EN.png)

The +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) clause didn't used to be there. Felt like it was incredibly slow for a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) card. But now, it might compare too favourably to Explorer with that extra +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png). Thinking about dropping that.

Barman thus works 2 times out of 3. Explorer might work every time, but that's locked behind a condition. Eh. Gold gainers are usually weak imo.


(By the way, I used that picture before back when I was first making custom Dominion cards and I was lacking experience. Nice call-back  :) .)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on June 05, 2020, 01:38:22 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Hkd0Q6d.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 05, 2020, 02:10:45 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 05, 2020, 12:24:35 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eda7021d82b080b4230e364/aaffb761444b6bb2c89c22fc33f180b9/image.png)

Quote

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure from your hand to gain a Gold.
You may trash a Gold from your hand to choose one: +4 Cards; or +2 Actions.

Pooka + Moneylender + Nobles variant that's worse than either, i think. I feel like i'm forgetting something. It's +4 cards because you're down a card bc the gold.
I think $4 is the right price for this so that a $5/$2 opening doesn't just utterly wreck shop on cleaning out Coppers.

(small edit to add "from your hand" to the gold-trashing clause)
Thematically kind of a Rumplestiltzkin thing (and I already had art for "Goblin" made)

Doesn't this need to be compared to Mine? It seems way better than Mine, and for a cheaper cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 05, 2020, 02:12:18 pm

A gold gaining Project - Bursary:

(https://i.imgur.com/nGIkfdz.png)

Quote

Bursary - Project - $6
At the start of your turn, you may trash a Silver from your hand to gain a Gold.

So rather than use a $6 to buy a Gold, why not a Bursary, that will let you invest (trash) you Silvers, for greater future returns (Gold)?

When not drawing your deck, it effectively makes Golds cost $5, $3 for the Silver, then $2 for the opportunity cost of trashing the silver. Though once you can draw your deck and draw the newly acquired Gold, that formula changes.

And it clearly combos with Silver gainers.

If it needs a buff, I could have it gain the gold to your hand?

Note: A bursary is "the treasury of an institution, especially a religious one.", so I like that I managed to get the religious mechanic of trashing here.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 05, 2020, 02:13:37 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 05, 2020, 02:10:45 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 05, 2020, 12:24:35 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eda7021d82b080b4230e364/aaffb761444b6bb2c89c22fc33f180b9/image.png)

Quote

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure from your hand to gain a Gold.
You may trash a Gold from your hand to choose one: +4 Cards; or +2 Actions.

Pooka + Moneylender + Nobles variant that's worse than either, i think. I feel like i'm forgetting something. It's +4 cards because you're down a card bc the gold.
I think $4 is the right price for this so that a $5/$2 opening doesn't just utterly wreck shop on cleaning out Coppers.

(small edit to add "from your hand" to the gold-trashing clause)
Thematically kind of a Rumplestiltzkin thing (and I already had art for "Goblin" made)

Doesn't this need to be compared to Mine? It seems way better than Mine, and for a cheaper cost.

Hardly given that Mine produces at least 2 more Coins on play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 05, 2020, 02:24:13 pm

probably closer to a no-attack taxman in that respect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on June 05, 2020, 02:31:36 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 05, 2020, 02:12:18 pm

A gold gaining Project - Bursary:

(https://i.imgur.com/nGIkfdz.png)

Quote

Bursary - Project - $6
At the start of your turn, you may trash a Silver from your hand to gain a Gold.

So rather than use a $6 to buy a Gold, why not a Bursary, that will let you invest (trash) you Silvers, for greater future returns (Gold)?

When not drawing your deck, it effectively makes Golds cost $5, $3 for the Silver, then $2 for the opportunity cost of trashing the silver. Though once you can draw your deck and draw the newly acquired Gold, that formula changes.

And it clearly combos with Silver gainers.

If it needs a buff, I could have it gain the gold to your hand?

Note: A bursary is "the treasury of an institution, especially a religious one.", so I like that I managed to get the religious mechanic of trashing here.

This should gain to hand, otherwise it's way too slow and inconsistent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 05, 2020, 02:41:12 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 05, 2020, 02:12:18 pm

A gold gaining Project - Bursary:

(https://i.imgur.com/nGIkfdz.png)

Quote

Bursary - Project - $6
At the start of your turn, you may trash a Silver from your hand to gain a Gold.

So rather than use a $6 to buy a Gold, why not a Bursary, that will let you invest (trash) you Silvers, for greater future returns (Gold)?

When not drawing your deck, it effectively makes Golds cost $5, $3 for the Silver, then $2 for the opportunity cost of trashing the silver. Though once you can draw your deck and draw the newly acquired Gold, that formula changes.

And it clearly combos with Silver gainers.

If it needs a buff, I could have it gain the gold to your hand?

Note: A bursary is "the treasury of an institution, especially a religious one.", so I like that I managed to get the religious mechanic of trashing here.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19203.0

DXV in The Secret History of Dominion: Renaissance:

"Projects, I have outtakes there too. (...)
- Buy phase, may trash hand Silver for hand Gold. Makes the game too much about the boring cards."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 05, 2020, 02:44:37 pm

Reverend (Action, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy

Trash a card from your hand. For the rest of this turn, when you trash a card, gain a Gold.


A Priest variant that gains Gold when you trash further cards, instead of virtual money. Not sure if this is too strong for $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 05, 2020, 03:04:05 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 05, 2020, 02:24:13 pm

probably closer to a no-attack taxman in that respect.

Good point; I forgot about Taxman. And if Taxman can be _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, then I must have been underestimating the gain to hand strength.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 05, 2020, 03:13:33 pm

Mine is not really a $5, it would be relatively weak at $4 so it is hardly a benchmark for anything. It is like Adventurer, just because it costs $6 doesn’t mean that it is better (more often it is worse) than any other terminal that draws 2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 05, 2020, 03:30:50 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 05, 2020, 03:04:05 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 05, 2020, 02:24:13 pm

probably closer to a no-attack taxman in that respect.

Good point; I forgot about Taxman. And if Taxman can be _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, then I must have been underestimating the gain to hand strength.

You need two plays of Taxman to go from Copper to Gold and only one play of Goblin. Since you may use both abilities of Goblin at the same play, it seems to me really a bit too strong at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 05, 2020, 03:31:58 pm

Taxman gains to top and attacks. That is kinda non-trivial. Also, Taxman is weak. Which is unsurprising, it is the only Mine variant and Mine is weak as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on June 05, 2020, 04:02:35 pm

Gold Miner $4
+1 action
+1 buy
You may gain a copper to your hand
If 1 supply pile is empty, you may gain a silver to your hand instead
If 2 supply pile is empty, you may gain a gold to your hand instead

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 05, 2020, 04:30:00 pm

Quote from: lompeluiten on June 05, 2020, 04:02:35 pm

Gold Miner $4
+1 action
+1 buy
You may gain a copper to your hand
If 1 supply pile is empty, you may gain a silver to your hand instead
If 2 supply pile is empty, you may gain a gold to your hand instead

Until first pile be empty, Candlestick Maker is virtually strictly better than it (except edge cases, like Bank).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 05, 2020, 05:54:00 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 05, 2020, 03:30:50 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 05, 2020, 03:04:05 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 05, 2020, 02:24:13 pm

probably closer to a no-attack taxman in that respect.

Good point; I forgot about Taxman. And if Taxman can be _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, then I must have been underestimating the gain to hand strength.

You need two plays of Taxman to go from Copper to Gold and only one play of Goblin. Since you may use both abilities of Goblin at the same play, it seems to me really a bit too strong at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

yeah thats a good call; i'll change the 2nd clause to be "if you didnt"

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eda7021d82b080b4230e364/37898fd23bfad4e83840626fb2800fc2/image.png)

Quote

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure from your hand to gain a Gold.
If you didn't, you may trash a Gold to choose one: +4 Cards; or +2 Actions.

EDIT: updated downthread

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on June 06, 2020, 12:12:02 am

Forecast
Event - $3
+1 Buy
Gain a Gold. Each other player gains a Spoils.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 06, 2020, 01:09:21 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on June 06, 2020, 12:12:02 am

Forecast
Event - $3
Gain a Gold. Each other player gains a Spoils.

Sometimes a vanishing Gold would be better than Gold, if you want it only to kickstart your engine in an action based strategy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 06, 2020, 03:40:46 am

(https://i.imgur.com/tqbsHeu.png)

Quote

Secluded Village
$5 - Action/Reserve

+1 Card
+3 Actions
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you have no Actions left during your Action phase, you may call this, to gain a Gold.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on June 06, 2020, 12:08:58 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/Z8Xb9gM/image.png)

Quote

Amalgam
Event - $0
Trash an Action card and a Treasure card from play. If you did, gain a Gold.

Basically an amalgam of Quest and Animal Fair. Trashing from play rather than from hand makes it both more accessible and more costly

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on June 06, 2020, 01:19:09 pm

Quote from: faust on June 06, 2020, 03:40:46 am

Quote

Secluded Village
$5 - Action/Reserve

+1 Card
+3 Actions
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you have no Actions left during your Action phase, you may call this, to gain a Gold.

I think this would be fine at $4. It really looks weak for $5.  Also, a village is supposed to support actions, not encourage a treasure-based strategy. You have to gain a gold every time you want to play this after the first.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on June 06, 2020, 04:43:30 pm

Sow/Reap update: no longer a split pile, reap is now a card outside of the supply. Additionally, the cards have been vastly simplified.

(https://i.imgur.com/gonhBup.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/H96jkZv.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 06, 2020, 05:47:55 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on June 06, 2020, 01:19:09 pm

Quote from: faust on June 06, 2020, 03:40:46 am

Quote

Secluded Village
$5 - Action/Reserve

+1 Card
+3 Actions
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you have no Actions left during your Action phase, you may call this, to gain a Gold.

I think this would be fine at $4. It really looks weak for $5.  Also, a village is supposed to support actions, not encourage a treasure-based strategy. You have to gain a gold every time you want to play this after the first.

Indeed. Bandit Camp is the obvious benchmark and even those one-shot Golds sometimes hurt you so perma-Gold gaining seems far worse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 06, 2020, 06:27:10 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 05, 2020, 01:46:40 am

My entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/691/767/original/Raiser_%285%29.png?1591333258)

Quote

RAISER • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Night
If you have more Actions than Treasures in play, +2 Villagers.
If don't, gain a Gold.

Treasure gainers are not always good. Many times they are skippable if you are playing an engine.

So, I tried to make a card which would be good whatever strategy you are playing. If you are playing some kind of BM with none or few action support, you probably have more Treasures in play than Actions (or equal), then you gain a Gold. If you are playing an action based strategy, you gain two Villagers to help with the reliability of your deck. Maybe while you are building your engine and your deck is not yet too action dense you would want to gain a Gold to boost your payload. After that, you go for Villagers. This way, this card would be interesting during all game, which doesn’t happen with many of treasure gainers.

Raiser gives you more of what you have and want to raise: money or working hands for actions.

It’s non-terminal, so it’s strong. On the other hand, it’s a stop card that doesn’t draw, so you have to be careful to not overspam it through your deck. That said, it seems to me to be fine at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Feedbacks are always welcome!

Changing the wording, to make it clear that it's referring to action cards in play, the same way cards like Peddler do.

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/694/338/full/Raiser_%286%29.png?1591481027)

Quote

RAISER • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Night
If you have in play more Actions cards than Treasures, +2 Villagers.
If don't, gain a Gold.

I'm editing my original post to add this change.

EDITED: I change the wording again, see post ahead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 06, 2020, 06:37:55 pm

The first version is clear whereas the second wording is stylistically awkward.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on June 06, 2020, 06:55:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Cuehui2.png?1)
Kinda like governor but not really. You pick independently for yourself and everyone else, so you can choose the weakest option for others, but it's weaker for you in general.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 06, 2020, 06:57:33 pm

Quote from: segura on June 06, 2020, 06:37:55 pm

The first version is clear whereas the second wording is stylistically awkward.

Thank you for your feedback.

As I saw in Dominion cards, every time you are referring to action cards, you need to include the word "cards' to make it clear that you are not talking about remaining rights to do actions.

So, I thougt to write:

(1) "If you have more Actions cards than Treasures in play..."

However, I was in doubt if with this wording it was clear that the "in play' is referring to the action cards or only to the treasures. So, I thought to write:

(2) "If you have more Actions cards in play than Treasures in play..."

I didn't like the repetition of "in play' in this version, so I came with:

(3) "if you have in play more Action cards than Treasures..."

Please help me with this, what is the better wording to make clear the idea without being ambiguous? As I said, english is not my native language.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on June 06, 2020, 06:59:36 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 06, 2020, 06:57:33 pm

Quote from: segura on June 06, 2020, 06:37:55 pm

The first version is clear whereas the second wording is stylistically awkward.

Thank you for your feedback.

As I saw in Dominion cards, every time you are referring to action cards, you need to include the word "cards' to make it clear that you are not talking about remaining rights to do actions.

So, I thougt to write:

(1) "If you have more Actions cards than Treasures in play..."

However, I was in doubt if with this wording it was clear that the "in play' is referring to the action cards or only to the treasures. So, I thought to write:

(2) "If you have more Actions cards in play than Treasures in play..."

I didn't like the repetition of "in play' in this version, so I came with:

(3) "if you have in play more Action cards than Treasures..."

Please help me with this, what is the better wording to make clear the idea without being ambiguous? As I said, english is not my native language.

I think the best wording here is "If you have more Action cards in play than Treasure cards."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 06, 2020, 07:15:33 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 06, 2020, 06:59:36 pm

I think the best wording here is "If you have more Action cards in play than Treasure cards."

Thank you! So, I'm changing to this wording:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/694/407/full/Raiser_%287%29.png?1591484946)

Quote

RAISER • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Night
If you have more Action cards in play than Treasure cards, +2 Villagers.
If don't, gain a Gold.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 06, 2020, 09:31:57 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on June 06, 2020, 04:43:30 pm

Sow/Reap update: no longer a split pile, reap is now a card outside of the supply. Additionally, the cards have been vastly simplified.

(https://i.imgur.com/gonhBup.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/H96jkZv.png)

The way it is, if you align three Sows, you gain three Reaps (one for each Sow in play, due to the effect of each copie). So, next turn you have _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} more in hand and gain three Golds. Is this the effect you intended?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 07, 2020, 03:20:08 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on June 06, 2020, 01:19:09 pm

Quote from: faust on June 06, 2020, 03:40:46 am

Quote

Secluded Village
$5 - Action/Reserve

+1 Card
+3 Actions
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you have no Actions left during your Action phase, you may call this, to gain a Gold.

I think this would be fine at $4. It really looks weak for $5.  Also, a village is supposed to support actions, not encourage a treasure-based strategy. You have to gain a gold every time you want to play this after the first.

Well I'm not sure, all the Gold gainers are at $5, and even if this will most of the time be delayed Gold gaining, it seems a bit powerful at $4, being nonterminal. Of course it's clear to me that it incentivizes different strategies with its bonuses, that's because I like cards that are a bit harder to use effectively and make for interesting decisions. And obviously it's absolutely amazing with TfB.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 07, 2020, 04:50:23 am

Quote

Dwarf Miner  • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action
You may gain a Gold. If you did not, trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} more.

---

In games using this, when you play a Gold, return it to the Supply and gain a Spoils.

The idea is to incentivize Remodeling Golds instead of playing them and the global rule is based on an outtake from Dark Ages: A two-use Gold (you trash it and gain a Spoils). (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4318.0)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on June 07, 2020, 05:51:21 am

Quote from: grep on June 06, 2020, 12:08:58 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/Z8Xb9gM/image.png)

Quote

Amalgam
Event - $0
Trash an Action card and a Treasure card from play. If you did, gain a Gold.

Basically an amalgam of Quest and Animal Fair. Trashing from play rather than from hand makes it both more accessible and more costly

It is a cheap Bonfire. Use this to draw Militia 100% on turn 3 or 4. Use this to trash Necropolis on turn 1 or 2. Feed Rats!

Seems to make boring games too much.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 07, 2020, 12:08:45 pm

Quote from: majiponi on June 07, 2020, 05:51:21 am

Quote from: grep on June 06, 2020, 12:08:58 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/Z8Xb9gM/image.png)

Quote

Amalgam
Event - $0
Trash an Action card and a Treasure card from play. If you did, gain a Gold.

Basically an amalgam of Quest and Animal Fair. Trashing from play rather than from hand makes it both more accessible and more costly

It is a cheap Bonfire. Use this to draw Militia 100% on turn 3 or 4. Use this to trash Necropolis on turn 1 or 2. Feed Rats!

Seems to make boring games too much.

I agree that this is better than Bonfire in Shelter games. And obviously it is also decent to get rid of Ruins.

But in all other situations, which makes up the huge majority, it is totally unrelated to Bonfire and cannot only be used very situationally (how often do you wanna waste a Buy and kill an Action to DoubleMine a Copper into a Gold?) to thin.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on June 07, 2020, 12:22:21 pm

Quote from: segura on June 07, 2020, 12:08:45 pm

Quote from: majiponi on June 07, 2020, 05:51:21 am

Quote from: grep on June 06, 2020, 12:08:58 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/Z8Xb9gM/image.png)

Quote

Amalgam
Event - $0
Trash an Action card and a Treasure card from play. If you did, gain a Gold.

Basically an amalgam of Quest and Animal Fair. Trashing from play rather than from hand makes it both more accessible and more costly

It is a cheap Bonfire. Use this to draw Militia 100% on turn 3 or 4. Use this to trash Necropolis on turn 1 or 2. Feed Rats!

Seems to make boring games too much.

I agree that this is better than Bonfire in Shelter games. And obviously it is also decent to get rid of Ruins.

But in all other situations, which makes up the huge majority, it is totally unrelated to Bonfire and cannot only be used very situationally (how often do you wanna waste a Buy and kill an Action to DoubleMine a Copper into a Gold?) to thin.

Another problem is that as worded, Amalgam lets you trash other people's Duration cards because it just says "from play," not "that you have in play."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on June 07, 2020, 04:52:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/nDmEksW.png)

Legit designed this and then couldn't remember whether I intended it to cost $4 or $5. Thoughts on that would be appreciated.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on June 07, 2020, 06:53:49 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on June 07, 2020, 04:52:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/nDmEksW.png)

Legit designed this and then couldn't remember whether I intended it to cost $4 or $5. Thoughts on that would be appreciated.

$4 would be too cheap. It looks super duper strong in big money and can produce some insane amount of coin in an engine. Like, just playing 2 and drawing gives you $21, plus whatever golds/silvers you gained previously. If anything, I think the card could be made worse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on June 07, 2020, 08:29:46 pm

(https://imgur.com/a/lIZnIrc)

Loom - $4
Action - Attack - Reaction
+$2
At the start of Clean-up, reveal a card from your discard pile and put it onto your deck. If the revealed card is an Attack card, each other player gains a Curse.
-
When you gain a Curse, you may discard this, to gain a Gold.


I think the wording on this is correct?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on June 07, 2020, 08:52:05 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on June 07, 2020, 08:29:46 pm

(https://imgur.com/a/lIZnIrc)

Loom - $4
Action - Attack - Reaction
+$2
At the start of Clean-up, reveal a card from your discard pile and put it onto your deck. If the revealed card is an Attack card, each other player gains a Curse.
-
When you gain a Curse, you may discard this, to gain a Gold.


I think the wording on this is correct?

Why is the effect activated during cleanup? The effect is mostly the same if it's immediate.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on June 07, 2020, 11:31:37 pm

Quote from: faust on June 07, 2020, 03:20:08 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on June 06, 2020, 01:19:09 pm

Quote from: faust on June 06, 2020, 03:40:46 am

Quote

Secluded Village
$5 - Action/Reserve

+1 Card
+3 Actions
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you have no Actions left during your Action phase, you may call this, to gain a Gold.

I think this would be fine at $4. It really looks weak for $5.  Also, a village is supposed to support actions, not encourage a treasure-based strategy. You have to gain a gold every time you want to play this after the first.

Well I'm not sure, all the Gold gainers are at $5, and even if this will most of the time be delayed Gold gaining, it seems a bit powerful at $4, being nonterminal. Of course it's clear to me that it incentivizes different strategies with its bonuses, that's because I like cards that are a bit harder to use effectively and make for interesting decisions. And obviously it's absolutely amazing with TfB.

Not all Gold gainers are $5. There's also Leprechaun and Dismantle that I think of offhand (and kind of Skulk. I think there's at least one more I'm forgetting). And this is a village that can easily miss shuffles because it's stuck on the tavern mat. You don't want villages to miss shuffles. You also usually want multiple villages, so you're going to be flooding yourself with Gold which isn't really a bad thing except it makes villages less useful. So it anti-synergizes with itself. I guess, it's probably fine at $5, but I think it'd be among the weaker ones. It would be very nice with most TfB.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 09:22:43 am

I changed my card again when I realized trashing a Gold for +2 Actions was uh
kind of a bad bargain.

it's still bad but now it's got a new trick.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eda7021d82b080b4230e364/ac4cf80be38b868135085208e4293637/image.png)

Quote

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure from your hand to gain a Gold.
If you trashed a Gold, you may choose one of the following instead of gaining a Gold:
+4 Cards ;
or +3 Actions;
or +1 Buy and +$3.

edit: changed how it works a little again, for clarity and brevity.
edit 2: cleaned up downthread

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 08, 2020, 10:41:25 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 09:22:43 am

I changed my card again when I realized trashing a Gold for +2 Actions was uh
kind of a bad bargain.

it's still bad but now it's got a new trick.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eda7021d82b080b4230e364/53064625a68188b1b8e292c31043a002/image.png)

Quote

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure from your hand to gain a Gold.
If you didn't, you may trash a Gold to choose one: +4 Cards; or +3 Actions; or +1 Buy and +$3.

I think this might be answered somewhere on an official card, but in this wording, what does "if you didn't" refer to... if you didn't trash a Treasure from your hand, if you didn't gain a Gold, or if you didn't choose to trash a Treasure from your hand? All 3 seem like possible options, and all 3 could act differently if you play it when the Gold pile is empty or you have no treasures in hand.

If there isn't an official card that deals with this, then to me the clearest interpretation is that it refers to the entire thing; if you trash a Treasure but don't gain a Gold because the pile is empty, then "you didn't trash a Treasure to Gain a Gold" therefore you get the second part.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 11:02:18 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 08, 2020, 10:41:25 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 09:22:43 am

I changed my card again when I realized trashing a Gold for +2 Actions was uh
kind of a bad bargain.

it's still bad but now it's got a new trick.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eda7021d82b080b4230e364/53064625a68188b1b8e292c31043a002/image.png)

Quote

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure from your hand to gain a Gold.
If you didn't, you may trash a Gold to choose one: +4 Cards; or +3 Actions; or +1 Buy and +$3.

I think this might be answered somewhere on an official card, but in this wording, what does "if you didn't" refer to... if you didn't trash a Treasure from your hand, if you didn't gain a Gold, or if you didn't choose to trash a Treasure from your hand? All 3 seem like possible options, and all 3 could act differently if you play it when the Gold pile is empty or you have no treasures in hand.

If there isn't an official card that deals with this, then to me the clearest interpretation is that it refers to the entire thing; if you trash a Treasure but don't gain a Gold because the pile is empty, then "you didn't trash a Treasure to Gain a Gold" therefore you get the second part.

How about combine all of it? "If you trashed a Gold, "

EDIT: did this. see here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg841859#msg841859)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 08, 2020, 11:47:38 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 11:02:18 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 08, 2020, 10:41:25 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 09:22:43 am

I changed my card again when I realized trashing a Gold for +2 Actions was uh
kind of a bad bargain.

it's still bad but now it's got a new trick.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eda7021d82b080b4230e364/53064625a68188b1b8e292c31043a002/image.png)

Quote

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure from your hand to gain a Gold.
If you didn't, you may trash a Gold to choose one: +4 Cards; or +3 Actions; or +1 Buy and +$3.

I think this might be answered somewhere on an official card, but in this wording, what does "if you didn't" refer to... if you didn't trash a Treasure from your hand, if you didn't gain a Gold, or if you didn't choose to trash a Treasure from your hand? All 3 seem like possible options, and all 3 could act differently if you play it when the Gold pile is empty or you have no treasures in hand.

If there isn't an official card that deals with this, then to me the clearest interpretation is that it refers to the entire thing; if you trash a Treasure but don't gain a Gold because the pile is empty, then "you didn't trash a Treasure to Gain a Gold" therefore you get the second part.

How about combine all of it? "If you trashed a Gold, "

EDIT: did this. see here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg841859#msg841859)

This version is a good bit stronger though; because now you can get all of the bottom benefits without losing your Gold... you trash a Gold, get a Gold back, and get the bottom choice. Could still be ok because you basically have to discard a Gold from hand, but it's a lot stronger than you had before.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 12:00:03 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 08, 2020, 11:47:38 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 11:02:18 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 08, 2020, 10:41:25 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 09:22:43 am

I changed my card again when I realized trashing a Gold for +2 Actions was uh
kind of a bad bargain.

it's still bad but now it's got a new trick.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eda7021d82b080b4230e364/53064625a68188b1b8e292c31043a002/image.png)

Quote

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure from your hand to gain a Gold.
If you didn't, you may trash a Gold to choose one: +4 Cards; or +3 Actions; or +1 Buy and +$3.

I think this might be answered somewhere on an official card, but in this wording, what does "if you didn't" refer to... if you didn't trash a Treasure from your hand, if you didn't gain a Gold, or if you didn't choose to trash a Treasure from your hand? All 3 seem like possible options, and all 3 could act differently if you play it when the Gold pile is empty or you have no treasures in hand.

If there isn't an official card that deals with this, then to me the clearest interpretation is that it refers to the entire thing; if you trash a Treasure but don't gain a Gold because the pile is empty, then "you didn't trash a Treasure to Gain a Gold" therefore you get the second part.

How about combine all of it? "If you trashed a Gold, "

EDIT: did this. see here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg841859#msg841859)

This version is a good bit stronger though; because now you can get all of the bottom benefits without losing your Gold... you trash a Gold, get a Gold back, and get the bottom choice. Could still be ok because you basically have to discard a Gold from hand, but it's a lot stronger than you had before.

Yeah good point; modified it again upthread

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on June 08, 2020, 01:33:39 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 07, 2020, 08:52:05 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on June 07, 2020, 08:29:46 pm

(https://imgur.com/a/lIZnIrc)

Loom - $4
Action - Attack - Reaction
+$2
At the start of Clean-up, reveal a card from your discard pile and put it onto your deck. If the revealed card is an Attack card, each other player gains a Curse.
-
When you gain a Curse, you may discard this, to gain a Gold.


I think the wording on this is correct?

Why is the effect activated during cleanup? The effect is mostly the same if it's immediate.

Good point, I think I’d just been looking at improve for some fun timing things but it’s not really necessary.

Here’s it updated then:
Loom - $4
Action - Attack - Reaction
+$2
You may reveal a card from your discard pile and put it onto your deck. If the revealed card is an Attack card, each other player gains a Curse.
-
When you gain a Curse, you may discard this, to gain a Gold.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 08, 2020, 02:42:34 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on June 08, 2020, 01:33:39 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 07, 2020, 08:52:05 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on June 07, 2020, 08:29:46 pm

(https://imgur.com/a/lIZnIrc)

Loom - $4
Action - Attack - Reaction
+$2
At the start of Clean-up, reveal a card from your discard pile and put it onto your deck. If the revealed card is an Attack card, each other player gains a Curse.
-
When you gain a Curse, you may discard this, to gain a Gold.


I think the wording on this is correct?

Why is the effect activated during cleanup? The effect is mostly the same if it's immediate.

Good point, I think I’d just been looking at improve for some fun timing things but it’s not really necessary.

Here’s it updated then:
Loom - $4
Action - Attack - Reaction
+$2
You may reveal a card from your discard pile and put it onto your deck. If the revealed card is an Attack card, each other player gains a Curse.
-
When you gain a Curse, you may discard this, to gain a Gold.

I think you should add from where the card is discarded, like the wording in Market Square.

I presume it's from the hand, so it would be:

"When you gain a Curse, you may discard this from your hand to gain a Gold."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on June 08, 2020, 02:53:16 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 12:00:03 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 08, 2020, 11:47:38 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 11:02:18 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 08, 2020, 10:41:25 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 09:22:43 am

I changed my card again when I realized trashing a Gold for +2 Actions was uh
kind of a bad bargain.

it's still bad but now it's got a new trick.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eda7021d82b080b4230e364/53064625a68188b1b8e292c31043a002/image.png)

Quote

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure from your hand to gain a Gold.
If you didn't, you may trash a Gold to choose one: +4 Cards; or +3 Actions; or +1 Buy and +$3.

I think this might be answered somewhere on an official card, but in this wording, what does "if you didn't" refer to... if you didn't trash a Treasure from your hand, if you didn't gain a Gold, or if you didn't choose to trash a Treasure from your hand? All 3 seem like possible options, and all 3 could act differently if you play it when the Gold pile is empty or you have no treasures in hand.

If there isn't an official card that deals with this, then to me the clearest interpretation is that it refers to the entire thing; if you trash a Treasure but don't gain a Gold because the pile is empty, then "you didn't trash a Treasure to Gain a Gold" therefore you get the second part.

How about combine all of it? "If you trashed a Gold, "

EDIT: did this. see here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg841859#msg841859)

This version is a good bit stronger though; because now you can get all of the bottom benefits without losing your Gold... you trash a Gold, get a Gold back, and get the bottom choice. Could still be ok because you basically have to discard a Gold from hand, but it's a lot stronger than you had before.

Yeah good point; modified it again upthread

Although the intent of the wording as written seems clear, it requires a strange fudging of the regular rules of Dominion. Since you do everything in the card as written, in order, you would first trash a Gold to gain a Gold, and then go on to the next instruction and see that you actually do something else instead of gaining a Gold. But you've already gained the Gold by the time you ever get to that instruction, it's too late to go and do something else instead.

Can't think of a simple fix though. Seems like it wants to start with "Choose one: " Because really you're choosing between trashing a Treasure for a Gold vs trashing a Gold for a different benefit. Only problem there is that you'd have a second Choose One within the second choice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 03:02:06 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 08, 2020, 02:53:16 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 12:00:03 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 08, 2020, 11:47:38 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 11:02:18 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on June 08, 2020, 10:41:25 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 09:22:43 am

I changed my card again when I realized trashing a Gold for +2 Actions was uh
kind of a bad bargain.

it's still bad but now it's got a new trick.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eda7021d82b080b4230e364/53064625a68188b1b8e292c31043a002/image.png)

Quote

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure from your hand to gain a Gold.
If you didn't, you may trash a Gold to choose one: +4 Cards; or +3 Actions; or +1 Buy and +$3.

I think this might be answered somewhere on an official card, but in this wording, what does "if you didn't" refer to... if you didn't trash a Treasure from your hand, if you didn't gain a Gold, or if you didn't choose to trash a Treasure from your hand? All 3 seem like possible options, and all 3 could act differently if you play it when the Gold pile is empty or you have no treasures in hand.

If there isn't an official card that deals with this, then to me the clearest interpretation is that it refers to the entire thing; if you trash a Treasure but don't gain a Gold because the pile is empty, then "you didn't trash a Treasure to Gain a Gold" therefore you get the second part.

How about combine all of it? "If you trashed a Gold, "

EDIT: did this. see here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg841859#msg841859)

This version is a good bit stronger though; because now you can get all of the bottom benefits without losing your Gold... you trash a Gold, get a Gold back, and get the bottom choice. Could still be ok because you basically have to discard a Gold from hand, but it's a lot stronger than you had before.

Yeah good point; modified it again upthread

Although the intent of the wording as written seems clear, it requires a strange fudging of the regular rules of Dominion. Since you do everything in the card as written, in order, you would first trash a Gold to gain a Gold, and then go on to the next instruction and see that you actually do something else instead of gaining a Gold. But you've already gained the Gold by the time you ever get to that instruction, it's too late to go and do something else instead.

Can't think of a simple fix though. Seems like it wants to start with "Choose one: " Because really you're choosing between trashing a Treasure for a Gold vs trashing a Gold for a different benefit. Only problem there is that you'd have a second Choose One within the second choice.

honestly it's fine; it's at the same level of fudge as "and vice-versa" on chameleon. It's written for humans to understand, not computers, right?

edit: for funzies, i tried a rewording and it didn't make the textsize reading glasses-sized, so here's one that works with existing "do things in order" wording

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eda7021d82b080b4230e364/2f82e917c011e8b48698fbb5f7e92fb8/image.png)

Quote

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure
from your hand.
If you trashed a Gold,
choose one: +4 Cards; or +3 Actions; or +1 Buy and +$3; or gain a Gold.

If you trashed something other than Gold, gain a Gold.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on June 08, 2020, 05:48:37 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 05, 2020, 04:30:00 pm

Quote from: lompeluiten on June 05, 2020, 04:02:35 pm

Gold Miner $4
+1 action
+1 buy
You may gain a copper to your hand
If 1 supply pile is empty, you may gain a silver to your hand instead
If 2 supply pile is empty, you may gain a gold to your hand instead

Until first pile be empty, Candlestick Maker is virtually strictly better than it (except edge cases, like Bank).

Have you seen the City. That one goes from the worst village to the best laboratory.

Now I also wonder when I would pick it. A buy in an engine is never wrong. Would you buy it if you expect 1 pile going out fast... maybe. Defintly if you could upgrade it immidialty with another card. If you get attacked a lot, burn down a pile and get silver to keep roling. And if you expect that 2 piles will be empty quickly you would by it.

The question is, are there enough edge cases that you can make it work. I don't know yet.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MiX on June 08, 2020, 05:51:54 pm

Quote from: lompeluiten on June 08, 2020, 05:48:37 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 05, 2020, 04:30:00 pm

Quote from: lompeluiten on June 05, 2020, 04:02:35 pm

Gold Miner $4
+1 action
+1 buy
You may gain a copper to your hand
If 1 supply pile is empty, you may gain a silver to your hand instead
If 2 supply pile is empty, you may gain a gold to your hand instead

Until first pile be empty, Candlestick Maker is virtually strictly better than it (except edge cases, like Bank).

Have you seen the City. That one goes from the worst village to the best laboratory.

Now I also wonder when I would pick it. A buy in an engine is never wrong. Would you buy it if you expect 1 pile going out fast... maybe. Defintly if you could upgrade it immidialty with another card. If you get attacked a lot, burn down a pile and get silver to keep roling. And if you expect that 2 piles will be empty quickly you would by it.

The question is, are there enough edge cases that you can make it work. I don't know yet.

You can at least stack Cities as a makeshift village before they become labs. Gold Miner feels it's only useful in a slog, buying it when the curses are about to run out. It's really a non-terminal silver that gains silvers, not exactly amazing, and when you're gaining Golds it's a bit too late in the game to use them anyway.

Can it go to $3? I think it's too weak at $4 but it might be more interesting at that price point.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 09, 2020, 12:41:18 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on June 08, 2020, 05:48:37 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 05, 2020, 04:30:00 pm

Quote from: lompeluiten on June 05, 2020, 04:02:35 pm

Gold Miner $4
+1 action
+1 buy
You may gain a copper to your hand
If 1 supply pile is empty, you may gain a silver to your hand instead
If 2 supply pile is empty, you may gain a gold to your hand instead

Until first pile be empty, Candlestick Maker is virtually strictly better than it (except edge cases, like Bank).

A buy in an engine is never wrong.

Huh? Flooding yourself with junk for half of the game and then with semi-useful stop cards is nearly always wrong in an engine. The only potentiall good stuff this does for engine play is the non-varible Treasure stuff, i.e. the non-terminal Buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on June 09, 2020, 09:44:59 am

Quote from: Carline on June 08, 2020, 02:42:34 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on June 08, 2020, 01:33:39 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 07, 2020, 08:52:05 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on June 07, 2020, 08:29:46 pm

(https://imgur.com/a/lIZnIrc)

Loom - $4
Action - Attack - Reaction
+$2
At the start of Clean-up, reveal a card from your discard pile and put it onto your deck. If the revealed card is an Attack card, each other player gains a Curse.
-
When you gain a Curse, you may discard this, to gain a Gold.


I think the wording on this is correct?

Why is the effect activated during cleanup? The effect is mostly the same if it's immediate.

Good point, I think I’d just been looking at improve for some fun timing things but it’s not really necessary.

Here’s it updated then:
Loom - $4
Action - Attack - Reaction
+$2
You may reveal a card from your discard pile and put it onto your deck. If the revealed card is an Attack card, each other player gains a Curse.
-
When you gain a Curse, you may discard this, to gain a Gold.

I think you should add from where the card is discarded, like the wording in Market Square.

I presume it's from the hand, so it would be:

"When you gain a Curse, you may discard this from your hand to gain a Gold."

I was following the wording used on Sleigh and Beggar but I think you might be right. The wording as it appears for Market Square and Trader both apply to gaining a card whereas the two I looked at required discarding effects. I can’t imagine leaving of wording out will result in many issues - how could you discard it if it’s in your deck/discard? Even still, here is my updated entry:

Loom - $4
Action - Attack - Reaction
+$2
You may reveal a card from your discard pile and put it onto your deck. If the revealed card is an Attack card, each other player gains a Curse.
-
When you gain a Curse, you may discard this from your hand to gain a Gold.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on June 09, 2020, 10:09:44 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 03:02:06 pm

Quote

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure
from your hand.
If you trashed a Gold,
choose one: +4 Cards; or +3 Actions; or +1 Buy and +$3; or gain a Gold.

If you trashed something other than Gold, gain a Gold.

Why does it let you trash a Gold to gain a Gold? You're never going to do it and it adds an extra line of text.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 09, 2020, 10:20:24 am

Quote from: Awaclus on June 09, 2020, 10:09:44 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 03:02:06 pm

Quote

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure
from your hand.
If you trashed a Gold,
choose one: +4 Cards; or +3 Actions; or +1 Buy and +$3; or gain a Gold.

If you trashed something other than Gold, gain a Gold.

Why does it let you trash a Gold to gain a Gold? You're never going to do it and it adds an extra line of text.

Because that's the truest to the original implementation of the card.
Because I want it to.
Because the text is a reasonable size with that extra line of text and players aren't required to choose it.
Maybe you're using it with Livery or Labyrinth or Devils Workshop, where something cares about how many cards you've gained this turn.
Maybe you wanna run out the Gold pile to win a Keep or Palace balance.
Maybe you're obligated to play it via Herald or Piazza and want to keep your deck balance as-is.
Maybe you're behind in a Possession + Keep game and you want to catch up on Golds.
There's weird little edge cases where it'll matter and most of the time you can ignore it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on June 09, 2020, 01:20:26 pm

Sow/Reap update: sow is actually useful if you don't manage to get three, wording updated so you can only get one reap per turn.

(https://i.imgur.com/NwoDFsy.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/eVqpng7.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 09, 2020, 01:35:59 pm

I don’t see the appeal of Reap in a world in which Hoard and Treasure Trove exist.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 09, 2020, 02:04:30 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on June 09, 2020, 09:44:59 am

Quote from: Carline on June 08, 2020, 02:42:34 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on June 08, 2020, 01:33:39 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 07, 2020, 08:52:05 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on June 07, 2020, 08:29:46 pm

(https://imgur.com/a/lIZnIrc)

Loom - $4
Action - Attack - Reaction
+$2
At the start of Clean-up, reveal a card from your discard pile and put it onto your deck. If the revealed card is an Attack card, each other player gains a Curse.
-
When you gain a Curse, you may discard this, to gain a Gold.


I think the wording on this is correct?

Why is the effect activated during cleanup? The effect is mostly the same if it's immediate.

Good point, I think I’d just been looking at improve for some fun timing things but it’s not really necessary.

Here’s it updated then:
Loom - $4
Action - Attack - Reaction
+$2
You may reveal a card from your discard pile and put it onto your deck. If the revealed card is an Attack card, each other player gains a Curse.
-
When you gain a Curse, you may discard this, to gain a Gold.

I think you should add from where the card is discarded, like the wording in Market Square.

I presume it's from the hand, so it would be:

"When you gain a Curse, you may discard this from your hand to gain a Gold."

I was following the wording used on Sleigh and Beggar but I think you might be right. The wording as it appears for Market Square and Trader both apply to gaining a card whereas the two I looked at required discarding effects. I can’t imagine leaving of wording out will result in many issues - how could you discard it if it’s in your deck/discard? Even still, here is my updated entry:

Loom - $4
Action - Attack - Reaction
+$2
You may reveal a card from your discard pile and put it onto your deck. If the revealed card is an Attack card, each other player gains a Curse.
-
When you gain a Curse, you may discard this from your hand to gain a Gold.

You are right, the text "from your hand" is not needed. However, not exactly for the reasons you pointed. You could discard a card from many places, including your deck, and it indeed would be an issue, but now I realize that Dominion rulebook makes it clear:

Quote

"Discard" – unless otherwise specified, discarded cards come from the player’s hand."

So, I don't know for sure why Market Square has the wording "from your hand". Maybe to make it clear you can't discard it if it is the trashed card?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on June 10, 2020, 09:15:54 am

Quote from: MiX on June 08, 2020, 05:51:54 pm

Quote from: lompeluiten on June 08, 2020, 05:48:37 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 05, 2020, 04:30:00 pm

Quote from: lompeluiten on June 05, 2020, 04:02:35 pm

Gold Miner $4
+1 action
+1 buy
You may gain a copper to your hand
If 1 supply pile is empty, you may gain a silver to your hand instead
If 2 supply pile is empty, you may gain a gold to your hand instead

Until first pile be empty, Candlestick Maker is virtually strictly better than it (except edge cases, like Bank).

Have you seen the City. That one goes from the worst village to the best laboratory.

Now I also wonder when I would pick it. A buy in an engine is never wrong. Would you buy it if you expect 1 pile going out fast... maybe. Defintly if you could upgrade it immidialty with another card. If you get attacked a lot, burn down a pile and get silver to keep roling. And if you expect that 2 piles will be empty quickly you would by it.

The question is, are there enough edge cases that you can make it work. I don't know yet.

You can at least stack Cities as a makeshift village before they become labs. Gold Miner feels it's only useful in a slog, buying it when the curses are about to run out. It's really a non-terminal silver that gains silvers, not exactly amazing, and when you're gaining Golds it's a bit too late in the game to use them anyway.

Can it go to $3? I think it's too weak at $4 but it might be more interesting at that price point.

$3 would be better. Changed the wording also a bit and changed they buy into a card

Gold Miner $3
+1 action
+1 card
You may take one of the following cards in hand:
a Copper
a Silver if 1 supply pile is empty
a Gold if 2 supply piles are empty.

I think that change would be better. Without support card you get the choice: "Would I delude my deck for just that 1 cash I need now...".

It still draws you out of a sloth, helps with alternate VP like gardens and Feadoms, and helps if you have a little too much to trash with cards like catapult or improve.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 10, 2020, 10:48:24 am

24-hour (ish) warning!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 10, 2020, 11:57:58 pm

OK, here's v2 of my card:

(https://i.imgur.com/OC38Kth.png)

The feedback on the card was that it was too slow and boring (based on DVX outback).

So now you can trash any $3 (so you don't need to buy silvers) and it gains to the hand. I had also considered to make at start of buy, but feel the above two changes are enough of a buff.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on June 11, 2020, 12:33:55 am

(https://i.imgur.com/RpOEAAP.jpg)

Quote

Midas Touch
When you gain an Action card, gain a Gold. When you play a Gold, return it to its pile.

Project
$5

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 11, 2020, 01:45:35 am

This would be nearly identical and simpler via Spoils. It also would not brute force the game into engine play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on June 11, 2020, 12:16:59 pm

Also, it instapiles golds and horses with Livery :X

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 11, 2020, 03:47:00 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on June 04, 2020, 05:20:28 pm

Hoarder
$6
Action
Trash a card from your hand. For each $2 it costs (round down), choose one: +1 Card, +1 Action; +2 Cards; gain a Gold.

I like this as a Salvager-family TFB. I like the flexibility this gives you over Upgrade as well. The Gold-gaining synergizes with itself because Golds give you quite the nice benefit with this card. Trashing starting Estates for Gold is unlike any card except transmute, but I think at $6 it’s balanced.

Quote from: Carline on June 05, 2020, 01:46:40 am

Quote

RAISER • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Night
If you have more Action cards in play than Treasure cards, +2 Villagers.
If don't, gain a Gold.

I’m not sure how I feel about this card. +2 Villagers seems weak for a $5 card, and in an engine this is what you’re going to get out of it. It seems like a good BM enabler as well, it’s something nice you can pick up when you have $5 that isn’t a silver. Overall I think it’s a little weak? Not bad though.

Quote from: Aquila on June 05, 2020, 05:27:15 am

Quote

Bounty - Event, $5 cost.
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it. If there's no other copy of it in the trash, gain a Gold.
-
Setup: trash a Copper and an Estate from the Supply.

At first, I missed that this was an event. I think it works much better as an event than an Action card. I worry that this covers some of the same ground that Enhance already covers. Also it seems a little bit too easy to mill Provinces with it. I like the “no other copy in the trash” clause, though, it is unique and I think it works here.

Quote from: X-tra on June 05, 2020, 12:36:28 pm

Barman - Action $5
If you have a Gold on your tavern mat, put it into your hand. Otherwise, +$1 and gain 2 Golds onto your tavern mat.

I think your self-critique is right--this is a little too-much better than Explorer. This works 2/3 times, and even when it doesn’t work you still get +$1. I wonder if there’s a different bonus you can give instead of +$1 to make it a little weaker but still good--maybe +1 Buy?

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on June 05, 2020, 01:38:22 pm

Way of the Buffalo - Way
You may discard a Gold from your hand to gain a Gold.

I like this one. This essentially gives you a Gold for the price of Silver, as long as you already have a Gold in-hand. It’s weak, but most ways are supposed to be weakish, and it’s unique. I like it.

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 05, 2020, 02:44:37 pm

Reverend (Action, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy

Trash a card from your hand. For the rest of this turn, when you trash a card, gain a Gold.

I like this card as well. It is a nice priest variant, and I like that it doesn’t work on its first trash. I wonder if stacking it is too good of a payoff, but it’s hard to stack due to its terminalness. I think it’s balanced for its price though.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on June 06, 2020, 12:12:02 am

Forecast
Event - $3
+1 Buy
Gain a Gold. Each other player gains a Spoils.

I think this would be good enough without the +1 Buy. Gold for $3 is already pretty cheap. Also, as was noted in the thread, sometimes a vanishing Gold is better than a real Gold. I do like the concept though, and it’s pretty simple too, which is good.

Quote from: faust on June 06, 2020, 03:40:46 am

Quote

Secluded Village
$5 - Action/Reserve

+1 Card
+3 Actions
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you have no Actions left during your Action phase, you may call this, to gain a Gold.

This seems pretty weak. This has the same cost as Bustling Village (granted, it’s not part of a split pile) and is much weaker. You usually want more Villages than Golds in your deck, but this makes you gain Gold every time you want to get your village back. I almost wonder if it would work the other way around. But then it’s a lot like Coin of the Realm, so maybe not. I like the concept though.

Quote from: grep on June 06, 2020, 12:08:58 pm

Quote

Amalgam
Event - $0
Trash an Action card and a Treasure card from play. If you did, gain a Gold.

This is really nice with Necropolis (well, so are Ways and a few Events) and other cheap actions. I would happily trash a Pearl Diver and a Copper for a Gold. I think giving Gold this alternate cost is cool and I like the concept and it seems balanced.

Quote from: D782802859 on June 06, 2020, 06:55:10 pm

Opera House - Action $4
+2 Cards
Choose one twice, you get the first option, each other player gets the second option: gain a Gold; or +1 Coffers; or reveal the top 2 cards of your deck and add one to your hand.

I think this is balanced. I really don’t have much else to say about it. I like that it’s not as game-dominating as Governor.

Quote from: segura on June 07, 2020, 04:50:23 am

Quote

Dwarf Miner  • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action
You may gain a Gold. If you did not, trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} more.

---

In games using this, when you play a Gold, return it to the Supply and gain a Spoils.

I’m not sure how I feel about the “in games using this” clause. I feel like it would be better as a “while this is in play” so that other strategies that involve using golds for money aren’t completely crushed, especially if there is no other virtual money in the game. The card on top is strong, but the below-the-line weakens it enough so that I think it’s good.

Quote from: Something_Smart on June 07, 2020, 04:52:26 pm

Minecart - Action $5
You may discard 2 cards to gain a Gold.
You may gain a Silver.
You may gain a Copper to your hand.
Then, +$1 per card you’ve gained this turn.

This seems bonkers. It also seems like a huge BM enabler, because with taking every option you’re up +$4 for this turn and you have added $6 to your deck. I could see it being used in an engine for TFB purposes, but overall I think it’s a little too powerful, especially if you can stack it.

Quote from: Marpharos on June 07, 2020, 08:29:46 pm

Loom - $4
Action - Attack - Reaction
+$2
You may reveal a card from your discard pile and put it onto your deck. If the revealed card is an Attack card, each other player gains a Curse.
-
When you gain a Curse, you may discard this, to gain a Gold.

The attack card that only works if you have more than 1. I’ve always liked this idea and think this is a good implementation. I like the reaction too; I misread it at first to be a “when you would gain a Curse... instead gain a Gold” but I like that the gold comes with the curse instead of instead of.

Quote from: LordBaphomet on June 09, 2020, 01:20:26 pm

Sow - Action-Duration, $4
+1 Card
+1 Action

At the start of your next turn, if there are three or more of this in play, discard all Sow in play and gain a Reap to your hand. Otherwise, +$1

Reap - Treasure $6
Worth $2
Gain a Gold.
(This is not in the supply)

As worded, you still get 1 Reap per Sow in play, which is crazy. It’s way too easy to line up 3 cantrips (or more!) and get +$6 to your current hand. It also feels like Reap is treading over what Hoard and Treasure Trove have already done better.

Quote from: lompeluiten on June 10, 2020, 09:15:54 am

Gold Miner $3
+1 action
+1 card
You may take one of the following cards in hand:
a Copper
a Silver if 1 supply pile is empty
a Gold if 2 supply piles are empty.

A cantrip Copper-gainer. Ehhh.... seems weakish at best. I don’t think I’d want this outside of slog games like IGG rushes which aren’t really a thing anymore. The gold-gaining never ends up meaning much I think because the game is so close to over by the time 2 supply piles are empty.

Quote from: scolapasta on June 10, 2020, 11:57:58 pm

Bursary - Project $6
At the start of your turn, you may trash a card costing $3 from your hand to gain a Gold to your hand.

I like that you don’t just have to trash Silvers now. It seems decent, though I don’t know how many times I’d actually use it in a game. I think most of the time when I’d buy this, I’d rather just buy the Gold right out.

Quote from: alion8me on June 11, 2020, 12:33:55 am

Quote

Midas Touch
When you gain an Action card, gain a Gold. When you play a Gold, return it to its pile.

Project
$5

Seems cool, but as someone else pointed out, this instapiles the Golds and Horses with Livery. And as another person pointed out, I wonder if this wouldn’t work just as well with “when you gain an Action card, gain a Spoils.” That solves both problems, I think.

Quote from: spineflu on June 08, 2020, 03:02:06 pm

Quote

Goblin • $4 • Action
You may trash a Treasure
from your hand.
If you trashed a Gold,
choose one: +4 Cards; or +3 Actions; or +1 Buy and +$3; or gain a Gold.

If you trashed something other than Gold, gain a Gold.

This has a lot of stuff going on. I think the "gain a gold" option on the Gold-trashing is just extra words that could easily be removed. I like the options that you have for trashing a Gold because none of them are particularly strong, but the versatility is good. This seems a little too strong for $4 and too weak for $5. Maybe get rid of the actions option? Not sure at this point how to weaken it without making it too weak though. I like the concept!

Runners-up
Way of the Buffalo, by grrgrrgrr
Amalgam, by grep
Reverend, by mandioca15

Winner
Loom, by Marpharos! I’ve always loved the concept of the attack that doesn’t attack all the time, and this does that very well. And I think the reaction is well-balanced and fun. Congrats!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 11, 2020, 04:22:29 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 11, 2020, 03:47:00 pm

I’m not sure how I feel about this card. +2 Villagers seems weak for a $5 card, and in an engine this is what you’re going to get out of it. It seems like a good BM enabler as well, it’s something nice you can pick up when you have $5 that isn’t a silver. Overall I think it’s a little weak? Not bad though.

I don't think two Villagers given by a non-terminal  every time you play it is weak at $5, due to the reliability Villagers bring to your deck, enabling you to draw your deck even with only terminals in starting hand.

See this quote of DXV in Secret History about a Renaissance outtake:

Quote

There was a village that was, cantrip, +1 Villager; man it's fine, you can argue about, does it need to cost $5, but it's nice. The village that's always there when you need it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 11, 2020, 05:13:04 pm

Dude, a cantrip that gains a Villager and a Treasure that gains 2 Villagers are far from the same.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on June 11, 2020, 05:24:46 pm

Awesome, thanks for the win mail-mi!

Challenge #77 - You're just my type!

I like cards that do things with other cards - specifically naming a type to interact with so that's what we'll be looking for this time! Design a card that interacts with card types. The card may reveal (like Courtier or Magpie), gain (like Ironworks), discard (like Beggar or Crop Rotation), trash (like Forager or Catapult), or something else for a benefit. Landscape-shaped things qualify too. As long as there is a dependence on another card's type, we're good to go. Abilities that name a specific card would not qualify (Curse is the exception to this though).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 11, 2020, 05:43:29 pm

Quote from: segura on June 11, 2020, 05:13:04 pm

Dude, a cantrip that gains a Villager and a Treasure that gains 2 Villagers are far from the same.

Yeah, I know. I only use this example to show how good Villagers uses in future turns are. The only difference between cantrip Villager and regular Village is that you can spend that action in a future turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on June 11, 2020, 06:17:10 pm

I'm pretty sure this qualifies for what you said, but let me know if it doesn't.

Quote

Goblin City
$5 Action-Atttack-Looter
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player may discard an Action card from their hand. If they don't, they gain a Ruins into their hand.
-
This costs $1 less if you have any Ruins in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 11, 2020, 07:06:06 pm

modified downthread
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ee2b886b10e434cde1a7f36/d1e62ed18c7df07bb5640ff9751ef3f6/image.png)
I made a Harvest variant that gives you a VP when you dud. In base-set-only games it maxes out @ $6 (Moat, Curse, Treasure, Victory, Action-Attack) but uh with Empires or Nocturne or sets with more types, you can get a little more out of it.

Quote

Larder • $5 • Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card with an already revealed type.
+$1 per unique type revealed. Discard the revealed cards.

If only one type was revealed, +1%.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on June 11, 2020, 07:37:26 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 11, 2020, 03:47:00 pm

I think your self-critique is right--this is a little too-much better than Explorer. This works 2/3 times, and even when it doesn’t work you still get +$1. I wonder if there’s a different bonus you can give instead of +$1 to make it a little weaker but still good--maybe +1 Buy?

Heh. In retrospect, it seems way too good in comparison to Explorer, even more so than when I first made that assumption! Y’know what, I think even without a little bonus during the buffer turns in which Barman doesn’t gain a Gold, the card would've been a-okay. But thanks for the comments!

And congrats to Marpharos! Still relatively new here and already snatching a win like that. Awesome! :)

---

Here, for this week, I propose a kind-of Horn of Plenty variant:

(https://i.postimg.cc/KFLW01fy/Hoarder-V1-EN.png)

This one doesn’t care about the number of differently named cards in play, but rather draws the appeal from the differently named types in play. As a basic Action → Treasure → Night + Attack turn, Hoarder will grant you a card costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), aka a Workshop. But toss in a lil’ Reaction or perhaps a Victory-hybrid card, and you’ve already got yourself a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) gainer, plus a neat Attack on the side! Takes some setup though. Yes, you may gain a Province free of charge with this if you’re crazy enough to put in play a nice collection of cards with 8 different types. Action, Ruin, Duration, Reaction, Victory, Treasure, Night, Attack might be such an example (Ruined Village into Caravan Guard into Harem into Hoarder, for instance). But at this point, you kinda deserve it for that insane setup.

That too good or...?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on June 11, 2020, 08:20:49 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on June 11, 2020, 07:00:47 pm

Blacksmith
Action - $5
+3 Cards
Discard a card. If it's a(n)...
Action, +2 Actions
Treasure, +$2
Victory Card, +2 Cards
-
You can only buy this if you have an Action in play

This could easily cost $6 (or <8>) IMO. It reminds me of an outtake which was $5cost, +2 Cards, +$2 which (IIRC) Donald said seemed strong and uninteresting. This is definitely more interesting, but if that outtake was strong, this is super strong. "Discard one victory card for a total of +5 Cards" can sometimes be big on its own, and this is way more flexible than that, so it will always be big.

-
X-tra's Hoarder seems a little too strong also (not as much as Blacksmith). Vampire has the drawback of only being able to gain and attack every other time you play it (kind of, but you know what I mean. -and its attack is usually not as strong). With one Action-Duration or Action-Reaction (etc.), this can easily gain $5 cards and give out curses every time you play it, all without spending an action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on June 11, 2020, 08:30:26 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on June 11, 2020, 08:20:49 pm

X-tra's Hoarder seems a little too strong also (not as much as Blacksmith). Vampire has the drawback of only being able to gain and attack every other time you play it (kind of, but you know what I mean. -and its attack is usually not as strong). With one Action-Duration or Action-Reaction (etc.), this can easily gain $5 cards and give out curses every time you play it, all without spending an action.

My biggest fear is the Cursing part indeed. I think I might cull the Attack so it is more tame. But I definitely do not want to drop the Attack part altogether. I need Hoarder to have two types so that it helps itself to gain stuff. I could make it a discard Attack to deter other players' Hoarders (they'll have less cards on their turn to collect different card types). I might do a V2 if I'm further convinced that it really is too strong as it is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 11, 2020, 09:38:29 pm

[v0.4 (and official contest entry) posted here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg844288#msg844288)]

---

Here's a card I actually created a long time ago and have been saving for the right week, Iron Bridge:

(https://i.imgur.com/V1PoNTe.png)

Quote

Iron Bridge - Action - $5

Gain a card costing up to $4.
-
While this is in play, cards that share a type with the gained card cost $2 less.

It's "While this in play", so it's not too strong with TR variants.

(sharp eyed readers may notice its v0.2; the unposted v0.1 had only a $1 reduction and cost $4, but it felt much more interesting to have a $2 reduction, since the buy type was restricted.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on June 11, 2020, 10:39:18 pm

Quote from: X-tra on June 11, 2020, 08:30:26 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on June 11, 2020, 08:20:49 pm

X-tra's Hoarder seems a little too strong also (not as much as Blacksmith). Vampire has the drawback of only being able to gain and attack every other time you play it (kind of, but you know what I mean. -and its attack is usually not as strong). With one Action-Duration or Action-Reaction (etc.), this can easily gain $5 cards and give out curses every time you play it, all without spending an action.

My biggest fear is the Cursing part indeed. I think I might cull the Attack so it is more tame. But I definitely do not want to drop the Attack part altogether. I need Hoarder to have two types so that it helps itself to gain stuff. I could make it a discard Attack to deter other players' Hoarders (they'll have less cards on their turn to collect different card types). I might do a V2 if I'm further convinced that it really is too strong as it is.

I'm not sure, but would this need an anti-Victory card clause as well? There is a reason Horn Of Plenty has one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on June 11, 2020, 10:50:31 pm

As for my entry:

Repurpose
$4
Action-Duration
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. For each card type it had (Action, Attack etc.), +1 Card now and at the start of your next turn.

If you trash a card with one type, it's a Caravan. If you trash a card with 2 types, it's a Lab-Wharf. 3 types and it gets crazy. Feedback is welcome as always, lemme know if it needs to cost $5 or not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 11, 2020, 11:39:56 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on June 11, 2020, 10:50:31 pm

As for my entry:

Repurpose
$4
Action-Duration
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. For each card type it had (Action, Attack etc.), +1 Card now and at the start of your next turn.

If you trash a card with one type, it's a Caravan. If you trash a card with 2 types, it's a Lab-Wharf. 3 types and it gets crazy. Feedback is welcome as always, lemme know if it needs to cost $5 or not.

I mean, this feels significantly better than caravan, yeah ? It's a caravan and you get to trash, and sometimes it's  better than caravan.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on June 11, 2020, 11:43:11 pm

I guess once you run out of stuff to trash, it becomes worse than caravan.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on June 12, 2020, 03:18:35 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 11, 2020, 09:38:29 pm

Here's a card I actually created a long time ago and have been saving for the right week, Iron Bridge:

(https://i.imgur.com/V1PoNTe.png)

Quote

Iron Bridge - Action - $5

Gain a card costing up to $4.
-
While this is in play, cards that share a type with the gained card cost $2 less.

It's "While this in play", so it's not too strong with TR variants.

(sharp eyed readers may notice its v0.2; the unposted v0.1 had only a $1 reduction and cost $4, but it felt much more interesting to have a $2 reduction, since the buy type was restricted.)

If you throne this, which card's types are being reduced?

---

My entry:

Quote

Tutor - Action Duration, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may set aside a card from your hand. At the start of your next turn, if it is a...
Victory, discard it and +1 Card;
Action, play it;
Neither type, trash it.

My oldest fan card in its newest form. It does everything an engine likes (apart from trashing Nights but you don't have to do that) but it's slow. With Action Victories, I'm hoping I'm right in saying that they would be discarded, then stop-move applies and they can't then be played.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on June 12, 2020, 05:56:30 am

Plumber
cost $5 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top of your deck. If it is not a Victory card, you may gain a copy of it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 12, 2020, 06:47:27 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 11, 2020, 09:38:29 pm

Here's a card I actually created a long time ago and have been saving for the right week, Iron Bridge:

(https://i.imgur.com/V1PoNTe.png)

Quote

Iron Bridge - Action - $5

Gain a card costing up to $4.
-
While this is in play, cards that share a type with the gained card cost $2 less.

It's "While this in play", so it's not too strong with TR variants.

(sharp eyed readers may notice its v0.2; the unposted v0.1 had only a $1 reduction and cost $4, but it felt much more interesting to have a $2 reduction, since the buy type was restricted.)

I don't think this works. The restriction isn't much of a restriction as you only want to gain Actions in the early-mid game anyways, and only Victory cards on your megaturn. It's way, way stronger than Inventor, and the $1 cost increase isn't enough to justify this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 12, 2020, 07:05:40 am

(https://i.imgur.com/oPNVSvn.png)

Quote

Caravansary
Landmark

When you buy a card that does not share a type with the pile with the Caravansary token, +1% and put the Caravansary token onto its pile.
-
Setup: The last player in player order puts the Caravansary token on any supply pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on June 12, 2020, 08:50:11 am

(https://i.imgur.com/mcP8LdT.png)

Quote

+1 Action
Discard any number of cards, then draw that many. Then, if you discarded at least one...
... Action, +2 Actions
... Treasure, +$1
... Victory Card, gain a Horse

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on June 12, 2020, 10:07:40 am

I mused on Hoarder overnight and with a cleared head this morning, I conclude that, yes, Cursing is too strong on this Night card (can be stacked too easily). So instead, I'll change this junker into... yet another junker. But this time, it's nicer to your opponents ! Let's take a look at Hoarder, V2:

(https://i.postimg.cc/J1vBtwFs/Hoarder-V2-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/vYnxVqR3/Junk-V1-EN.png)

Ouch, a one-time terminal Copper. It's funny 'cuz it's a nice counter to your opponents' Hoarders. If they use their Action phase to trash their Junk, then they'll have no Action cards in play. Thus, should they play any Treasure, their Hoarders could only grab something costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) or less. Hehehe.

(And yes, it is the art of the trash mat, lmao.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gazbag on June 12, 2020, 12:40:42 pm

Quote from: Aquila on June 12, 2020, 03:18:35 am

My entry:

Quote

Tutor - Action Duration, $3 cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may set aside a card from your hand. At the start of your next turn, if it is a...
Victory, discard it and +1 Card;
Action, play it;
Neither type, trash it.

My oldest fan card in its newest form. It does everything an engine likes (apart from trashing Nights but you don't have to do that) but it's slow. With Action Victories, I'm hoping I'm right in saying that they would be discarded, then stop-move applies and they can't then be played.

The stop-moving rule has nothing to do with whether you can play a card, it just stops cards from moving. So with an Action Victory you'll discard it and get +1 Card and then play it, but because the card is now in your discard pile Tutor loses track of it and stop-moving will come into effect and you won't move it to your play area.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 12, 2020, 01:32:18 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on June 11, 2020, 07:00:47 pm

Blacksmith
Action - $5
+3 Cards
Discard a card. If it's a(n)...
Action, +2 Actions
Treasure, +$2
Victory Card, +2 Cards
-
You can only buy this if you have an Action in play

Action option is better than Forum, Victory option is similar to Hunting Grounds. The buy condition is easy to setup. So it seems to me a bit too strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 12, 2020, 03:08:27 pm

Quote from: majiponi on June 12, 2020, 05:56:30 am

Plumber
cost $5 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top of your deck. If it is not a Victory card, you may gain it.

Do you mean gain a copy of it from supply?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 12, 2020, 03:28:51 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 11, 2020, 09:38:29 pm

Here's a card I actually created a long time ago and have been saving for the right week, Iron Bridge:

(https://i.imgur.com/V1PoNTe.png)

Quote

Iron Bridge - Action - $5

Gain a card costing up to $4.
-
While this is in play, cards that share a type with the gained card cost $2 less.

It's "While this in play", so it's not too strong with TR variants.

(sharp eyed readers may notice its v0.2; the unposted v0.1 had only a $1 reduction and cost $4, but it felt much more interesting to have a $2 reduction, since the buy type was restricted.)

---

Quote from: Aquila on June 12, 2020, 03:18:35 am

If you throne this, which card's types are being reduced?

The intent is of all types of any gained card (but only once per type) - would better working be "any of the cards gained this way" or something like that be better. (I also guess I need to figure out if it affects things gain a (cost reduced) Border Village, and with it's on gain a Silver. Any thoughts?

Quote from: faust on June 12, 2020, 06:47:27 am

I don't think this works. The restriction isn't much of a restriction as you only want to gain Actions in the early-mid game anyways, and only Victory cards on your megaturn. It's way, way stronger than Inventor, and the $1 cost increase isn't enough to justify this.

Inventor is a good card to compare to - thanks! I do think the restriction could matter, though, no? Early on you may not want two actions, but a Silver and an Action? (and can't) or when it comes to Victory cards, with Inventor the gained card doesn't have to be a stop card. I mean I get when it's very late and buying one of the last Provinces, but what about Provinces 1-6?

Sure for a megaturn where you use a couple of these to buy multiple (>2)? Is that super common? (I might just not be at a level where it is for me)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on June 12, 2020, 06:00:04 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 12, 2020, 03:08:27 pm

Quote from: majiponi on June 12, 2020, 05:56:30 am

Plumber
cost $5 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top of your deck. If it is not a Victory card, you may gain it.

Do you mean gain a copy of it from supply?

Yes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on June 12, 2020, 06:07:44 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 12, 2020, 03:28:51 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 11, 2020, 09:38:29 pm

Here's a card I actually created a long time ago and have been saving for the right week, Iron Bridge:

(https://i.imgur.com/V1PoNTe.png)

Quote

Iron Bridge - Action - $5

Gain a card costing up to $4.
-
While this is in play, cards that share a type with the gained card cost $2 less.

It's "While this in play", so it's not too strong with TR variants.

(sharp eyed readers may notice its v0.2; the unposted v0.1 had only a $1 reduction and cost $4, but it felt much more interesting to have a $2 reduction, since the buy type was restricted.)

---

Quote from: Aquila on June 12, 2020, 03:18:35 am

If you throne this, which card's types are being reduced?

The intent is of all types of any gained card (but only once per type) - would better working be "any of the cards gained this way" or something like that be better. (I also guess I need to figure out if it affects things gain a (cost reduced) Border Village, and with it's on gain a Silver. Any thoughts?

Quote from: faust on June 12, 2020, 06:47:27 am

I don't think this works. The restriction isn't much of a restriction as you only want to gain Actions in the early-mid game anyways, and only Victory cards on your megaturn. It's way, way stronger than Inventor, and the $1 cost increase isn't enough to justify this.

Inventor is a good card to compare to - thanks! I do think the restriction could matter, though, no? Early on you may not want two actions, but a Silver and an Action? (and can't) or when it comes to Victory cards, with Inventor the gained card doesn't have to be a stop card. I mean I get when it's very late and buying one of the last Provinces, but what about Provinces 1-6?

Sure for a megaturn where you use a couple of these to buy multiple (>2)? Is that super common? (I might just not be at a level where it is for me)

What about the opposite: "cards that doesn't share a type". That will be weaker than inventor and will encourage things like action/silver or duchy

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 12, 2020, 06:31:37 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on June 12, 2020, 06:07:44 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 12, 2020, 03:28:51 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 11, 2020, 09:38:29 pm

Here's a card I actually created a long time ago and have been saving for the right week, Iron Bridge:

(https://i.imgur.com/V1PoNTe.png)

Quote

Iron Bridge - Action - $5

Gain a card costing up to $4.
-
While this is in play, cards that share a type with the gained card cost $2 less.

It's "While this in play", so it's not too strong with TR variants.

(sharp eyed readers may notice its v0.2; the unposted v0.1 had only a $1 reduction and cost $4, but it felt much more interesting to have a $2 reduction, since the buy type was restricted.)

---

Quote from: Aquila on June 12, 2020, 03:18:35 am

If you throne this, which card's types are being reduced?

The intent is of all types of any gained card (but only once per type) - would better working be "any of the cards gained this way" or something like that be better. (I also guess I need to figure out if it affects things gain a (cost reduced) Border Village, and with it's on gain a Silver. Any thoughts?

Quote from: faust on June 12, 2020, 06:47:27 am

I don't think this works. The restriction isn't much of a restriction as you only want to gain Actions in the early-mid game anyways, and only Victory cards on your megaturn. It's way, way stronger than Inventor, and the $1 cost increase isn't enough to justify this.

Inventor is a good card to compare to - thanks! I do think the restriction could matter, though, no? Early on you may not want two actions, but a Silver and an Action? (and can't) or when it comes to Victory cards, with Inventor the gained card doesn't have to be a stop card. I mean I get when it's very late and buying one of the last Provinces, but what about Provinces 1-6?

Sure for a megaturn where you use a couple of these to buy multiple (>2)? Is that super common? (I might just not be at a level where it is for me)

What about the opposite: "cards that doesn't share a type". That will be weaker than inventor and will encourage things like action/silver or duchy

Yeah, I did consider that (and still am), though I think it might be off brand for an "iron" card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on June 12, 2020, 08:39:09 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/WDMn2f0/image.png)
Crusader
$5 - Action - Attack
+2 Cards
You may trash a card from hand. If you did, +1VP, and each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a card sharing a type with it, or reveals a hand with no such cards.

A mix of Catapult and Bishop. The harm inflicted on your opponents depends on what you sacrifice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 13, 2020, 02:21:33 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 12, 2020, 03:28:51 pm

Sure for a megaturn where you use a couple of these to buy multiple (>2)? Is that super common? (I might just not be at a level where it is for me)

Megaturns are the standard build for cost-reducers like Bridge, Bridge Troll, Inventor, if there is engine potential. And with Iron Bridge, it's very easy to achieve - all you need is 4 of them and already you gained Estate, Duchy, 2*Province, and any further Provinces cost $0.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 13, 2020, 02:37:01 am

My entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/704/992/full/Wishing_Fountain_%2810%29.png?1592027983)

Quote

Wishing Fountain - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card type, then reveal the top card of your deck.
If it has the named type, put it into your hand. Otherwise, you may either trash it, discard it or leave it on top.

A much generous Wishing Well mixed with Sentry.

It’s much easier to activate than Wishing Well, you only have to name correctly the type of the top card of your deck. So, many times it will be a Lab.

However, if you fail to name the right type, Wishing Fountain still has a gift for you (so, sometimes you may want to fail). In this case, it works as a half Sentry, giving you the choice to trash the top card, discard it or leave it in the top.

It’s very good when you are building an engine and want to draw your Actions and trash Coppers and Estates. After, if you manage to have an Action based engine, it’s virtually a guaranteed Lab until you start greening.

It also works in money based strategies. Name Treasure type and it would be a Lab most of the time, like Magpie does in such decks.

If you have deck inspection or good deck control, it becomes a “do what you want” with the second card of your deck, after you draw the first. You can put it in hand, trash it, discard it or leave it there. Filtering by type gives you good control and versatility if you have different goals for different types of cards.

Lab is better than it only when the top card doesn’t have the named type but even so it is a card you would want to have in hand. When it is a card of a type you would better trash than put in hand, Wishing Fountain is better than Lab. It is more versatile and could help to build your deck even faster than Lab, so I think it’s good at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Feedbacks are always welcome!

EDIT: DUE TO FEEDBACKS, I'M CHANGING MY ENTRY TO:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/713/880/full/Wishing_Fountain_%2812%29.png?1592450814)

Quote

Wishing Fountain - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card type, then reveal the top card of your deck.
If it has the named type, put it into your hand or trash it. Otherwise, you  may discard it..

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 13, 2020, 02:38:40 am

Looks borderline broken but it is not utterly crazy like Cultist or Recruiter or other ridiculous 5s.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on June 13, 2020, 03:16:49 am

Quadrangle
Action - $7
+3 Cards
Reveal a card from your hand.
If it's a(n)...
Action: +2 Actions
Treasure: +$2
Victory Card: +2 Cards
Then, put the revealed card onto your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 13, 2020, 03:46:36 am

There is no reason for the setting aside. Just reveal and topdeck, that is clearer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on June 13, 2020, 10:04:35 am

Quote from: segura on June 13, 2020, 03:46:36 am

There is no reason for the setting aside. Just reveal and topdeck, that is clearer.

No, he wants not to draw the revealed Victory.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 13, 2020, 11:27:50 am

Quote from: faust on June 13, 2020, 02:21:33 am

Quote from: scolapasta on June 12, 2020, 03:28:51 pm

Sure for a megaturn where you use a couple of these to buy multiple (>2)? Is that super common? (I might just not be at a level where it is for me)

Megaturns are the standard build for cost-reducers like Bridge, Bridge Troll, Inventor, if there is engine potential. And with Iron Bridge, it's very easy to achieve - all you need is 4 of them and already you gained Estate, Duchy, 2*Province, and any further Provinces cost $0.

OK, makes sense - let me think how to tweak.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 13, 2020, 11:37:55 am

Quote from: Carline on June 13, 2020, 02:37:01 am

My entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/704/992/full/Wishing_Fountain_%2810%29.png?1592027983)

Quote

Wishing Fountain - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card type, then reveal the top card of your deck.
If it has the named type, put it into your hand. Otherwise, you may either trash it, discard it or leave it on top.

A much generous Wishing Well mixed with Sentry.

It’s much easier to activate than Wishing Well, you only have to name correctly the type of the top card of your deck. So, many times it will be a Lab.

However, if you fail to name the right type, Wishing Fountain still has a gift for you (so, sometimes you may want to fail). In this case, it works as a half Sentry, giving you the choice to trash the top card, discard it or leave it in the top.

It’s very good when you are building an engine and want to draw your Actions and trash Coppers and Estates. After, if you manage to have an Action based engine, it’s virtually a guaranteed Lab until you start greening.

It also works in money based strategies. Name Treasure type and it would be a Lab most of the time, like Magpie does in such decks.

If you have deck inspection or good deck control, it becomes a “do what you want” with the second card of your deck, after you draw the first. You can put it in hand, trash it, discard it or leave it there. Filtering by type gives you good control and versatility if you have different goals for different types of cards.

Lab is better than it only when the top card doesn’t have the named type but even so it is a card you would want to have in hand. When it is a card of a type you would better trash than put in hand, Wishing Fountain is better than Lab. It is more versatile and could help to build your deck even faster than Lab, so I think it’s good at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Feedbacks are always welcome!

I feel like this is too strong. If you wish for an Action, you either get an Action in your hand, trash an Estate or Copper (which is the same as getting to your hand and then trashing), discard other Victory or Treasure (same as getting to your hand and discarding).

So in games where you don't actually buy Silver or Gold, this is better than a Lab (outside the late case edge case of discarding Victory cards that you might then draw again).

What if instead the "Otherwise", the trashing option is also for wishing the right type (it also simplifies it in that you can get rid of the discard and leaving it there):

"If it has the named type, put it into your hand or trash it."

So early on you might want to name Action to be able to use it, or Victory or Treasure to trash it.

Still might be too strong, but I think it could at least make for some more interesting decisions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 13, 2020, 11:57:26 am

Decree (Action, $5)

You may play an Action card from your hand three times. If you do, trash it.


A King's Court variant that trashes its target. Not sure if $5 is the right price for this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 13, 2020, 12:02:48 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 13, 2020, 11:57:26 am

Decree (Action, $5)

You may play an Action card from your hand three times. If you do, trash it.


A King's Court variant that trashes its target. Not sure if $5 is the right price for this.

A suggestion - what if it TRed always, and then you could trash for a 3rd play?

I would also consider adding an in play check - Decree-ing a horse and KCing a Horse (or other card that removed itself from play) are identical.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 13, 2020, 12:07:20 pm

Quote from: segura on June 13, 2020, 02:38:40 am

Looks borderline broken but it is not utterly crazy like Cultist or Recruiter or other ridiculous 5s.

Quote from: scolapasta on June 13, 2020, 11:37:55 am

Quote from: Carline on June 13, 2020, 02:37:01 am

My entry:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/704/992/full/Wishing_Fountain_%2810%29.png?1592027983)

Quote

Wishing Fountain - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card type, then reveal the top card of your deck.
If it has the named type, put it into your hand. Otherwise, you may either trash it, discard it or leave it on top.

A much generous Wishing Well mixed with Sentry.

It’s much easier to activate than Wishing Well, you only have to name correctly the type of the top card of your deck. So, many times it will be a Lab.

However, if you fail to name the right type, Wishing Fountain still has a gift for you (so, sometimes you may want to fail). In this case, it works as a half Sentry, giving you the choice to trash the top card, discard it or leave it in the top.

It’s very good when you are building an engine and want to draw your Actions and trash Coppers and Estates. After, if you manage to have an Action based engine, it’s virtually a guaranteed Lab until you start greening.

It also works in money based strategies. Name Treasure type and it would be a Lab most of the time, like Magpie does in such decks.

If you have deck inspection or good deck control, it becomes a “do what you want” with the second card of your deck, after you draw the first. You can put it in hand, trash it, discard it or leave it there. Filtering by type gives you good control and versatility if you have different goals for different types of cards.

Lab is better than it only when the top card doesn’t have the named type but even so it is a card you would want to have in hand. When it is a card of a type you would better trash than put in hand, Wishing Fountain is better than Lab. It is more versatile and could help to build your deck even faster than Lab, so I think it’s good at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Feedbacks are always welcome!

I feel like this is too strong. If you wish for an Action, you either get an Action in your hand, trash an Estate or Copper (which is the same as getting to your hand and then trashing), discard other Victory or Treasure (same as getting to your hand and discarding).

So in games where you don't actually buy Silver or Gold, this is better than a Lab (outside the late case edge case of discarding Victory cards that you might then draw again).

What if instead the "Otherwise", the trashing option is also for wishing the right type (it also simplifies it in that you can get rid of the discard and leaving it there):

"If it has the named type, put it into your hand or trash it."

So early on you might want to name Action to be able to use it, or Victory or Treasure to trash it.

Still might be too strong, but I think it could at least make for some more interesting decisions.

Thank you! When you play it, it is either a Lab or a half Sentry, not both at the same play. Filtering by type helps you to use the best of these effects to the revealed card. This feature makes it a strong card, but none of its effects is broken by itself.

As I said, there are situations in which it is not better than Lab, but you are right, these are the situations you want to play with Silver and Gold. So, maybe it would be good to change something.

The suggested version is intersting, I will think about it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 13, 2020, 12:25:10 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 13, 2020, 11:37:55 am

I feel like this is too strong. If you wish for an Action, you either get an Action in your hand, trash an Estate or Copper (which is the same as getting to your hand and then trashing), discard other Victory or Treasure (same as getting to your hand and discarding).

So in games where you don't actually buy Silver or Gold, this is better than a Lab (outside the late case edge case of discarding Victory cards that you might then draw again).

What if instead the "Otherwise", the trashing option is also for wishing the right type (it also simplifies it in that you can get rid of the discard and leaving it there):

"If it has the named type, put it into your hand or trash it."

So early on you might want to name Action to be able to use it, or Victory or Treasure to trash it.

Still might be too strong, but I think it could at least make for some more interesting decisions.

I'm not sure this is too strong. It's either a Lab (if you're right), a worse sentry (if you're wrong and trash), or an Ironmonger without the bonus (if you're wrong and discard) So I think $5 is the right price point.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 13, 2020, 12:31:46 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 13, 2020, 12:02:48 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 13, 2020, 11:57:26 am

Decree (Action, $5)

You may play an Action card from your hand three times. If you do, trash it.


A King's Court variant that trashes its target. Not sure if $5 is the right price for this.

A suggestion - what if it TRed always, and then you could trash for a 3rd play?

I would also consider adding an in play check - Decree-ing a horse and KCing a Horse (or other card that removed itself from play) are identical.

Fair. Does this seem better?

Decree (Action, $5)

You may play an Action card from your hand twice. If it is still in play, you may play it a third time; if you do, trash it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on June 13, 2020, 03:46:45 pm

Quote from: segura on June 13, 2020, 03:46:36 am

There is no reason for the setting aside. Just reveal and topdeck, that is clearer.

There might be effects that mean the revealed card isn't still in your hand after you reveal it and get the bonuses, though I can't think of any.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on June 13, 2020, 05:06:41 pm

Thank you to everyone who commented on my card last week; it was kind of last-minute and I suspected I might have missed something while writing it up. If I were to have revised it I would have made it gain a Gold only when you gain an Action Supply card and kept everything else the same. (Changing the functionality of Gold rather than using Spoils was an important point as it would prevent money strategies from being too good with it.)

---

For this week,
(https://i.imgur.com/pkLtXCD.png) (https://i.imgur.com/tm0Stm0.png)

Quote

Novice

Trash a card from your hand. If you did, gain a card costing less than it. +1 Coffers per $1 less the gained card costs. If you trashed an Action card, you may exchange this for an Adept.

$4
Action

Quote

Adept

Reveal an Action card from your hand. Gain and play a copy of it.

(This is not in the supply.)

$0*
Action

---

Old versions:

Quote

Adept v2

Reveal a non-Command Action card from your hand. Gain and play a copy of it.
-
When you gain this, gain a Copper.

8 Debt
Action-Command

Quote

Adept v1

Reveal a non-Command Action card from your hand. Gain and play a copy of it.
-
When you gain this, gain a Copper onto your deck.

$5
Action-Command

edit: Added Command type and wording to prevent easy piling. I know that this isn't exactly what the Command type has been used for previously but this fixes all of the broken combos I saw that would come up with them cleanly.

edit2: Updated card to new version.

edit3: Updated card to new version.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 13, 2020, 05:29:20 pm

Disciple variants are fun but this is far stronger than Kiln. In vanilla terms, you get a cantrip instead of a terminal Silver (it is of course even stronger as the card you quasi-draw is the just gained card). This is very strong as you don’t need the extra terminal space that you need for Kiln and the self-junking is unlikely to compensate for this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 14, 2020, 12:43:55 pm

Quote

Fish Monger  • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. Discard it or put it back. If it is an...
Action card, +1 Villager
Treasure card, + 1 Coffers
Victory card, gain a Horse

Nothing fancy, just a straightforward Ironmonger variant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 14, 2020, 12:48:37 pm

Quote from: segura on June 14, 2020, 12:43:55 pm

Quote

Fish Monger  • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. Discard it or put it back. If it is an...
Action card, +1 Villager
Treasure card, + 1 Coffers
Victory card, gain a Horse

Nothing fancy, just a straightforward Ironmonger variant.

Seems weak for $5? You're either getting 1 villager, 1 coffer, or 1 horse which are all less than $2 effects, and you can't even choose which one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on June 14, 2020, 01:29:51 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/CMwf6Dv.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 14, 2020, 02:05:17 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 14, 2020, 12:48:37 pm

Quote from: segura on June 14, 2020, 12:43:55 pm

Quote

Fish Monger  • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. Discard it or put it back. If it is an...
Action card, +1 Villager
Treasure card, + 1 Coffers
Victory card, gain a Horse

Nothing fancy, just a straightforward Ironmonger variant.

Seems weak for $5? You're either getting 1 villager, 1 coffer, or 1 horse which are all less than $2 effects, and you can't even choose which one.

I forgot the cantrip part.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 14, 2020, 03:14:49 pm

Quote from: segura on June 14, 2020, 02:05:17 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 14, 2020, 12:48:37 pm

Quote from: segura on June 14, 2020, 12:43:55 pm

Quote

Fish Monger  • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. Discard it or put it back. If it is an...
Action card, +1 Villager
Treasure card, + 1 Coffers
Victory card, gain a Horse

Nothing fancy, just a straightforward Ironmonger variant.

Seems weak for $5? You're either getting 1 villager, 1 coffer, or 1 horse which are all less than $2 effects, and you can't even choose which one.

I forgot the cantrip part.

It's not a cantrip, you don't draw a card with it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on June 14, 2020, 04:26:59 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/8U7M4z3.jpg)

Quote

Redistrict
Types: Action, Looter
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. If the trashed card has at least 2 types: +1 Action and gain a card with only one type costing up to $5, putting it on top of your deck. Otherwise, gain a Ruins and play the Ruins twice.

Tempo-trashing Workshop like Altar, caring about the number of types (instead of specific types a la Sacrifice).  If you trash a card with a single type (like your starting Coppers and Estates), you gain a Ruins and play it twice.
If you trash a card with multiple types (like Heirlooms, Redistrict, or the Ruins you've gained from Redistrict) then you gain a single-type card costing up to $5 to your next hand.  It has to be only a single type so you can't run piles as easily (especially Redistrict into Redistrict into Redistrict... into Redistrict).  (Of particular note, that one-type restriction also prevents it from gaining $5-cost Attacks like Coven, Cultist, and Minion.)

History:
Nerf "putting it on top of your deck" from "putting it into your hand" per discussion below.
...Makes choice of trashing more tactical and balances behavior of a missing Redistrict.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 14, 2020, 04:42:08 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 14, 2020, 03:14:49 pm

Quote from: segura on June 14, 2020, 02:05:17 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 14, 2020, 12:48:37 pm

Quote from: segura on June 14, 2020, 12:43:55 pm

Quote

Fish Monger  • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. Discard it or put it back. If it is an...
Action card, +1 Villager
Treasure card, + 1 Coffers
Victory card, gain a Horse

Nothing fancy, just a straightforward Ironmonger variant.

Seems weak for $5? You're either getting 1 villager, 1 coffer, or 1 horse which are all less than $2 effects, and you can't even choose which one.

I forgot the cantrip part.

It's not a cantrip, you don't draw a card with it.

Read the fixed version.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on June 15, 2020, 01:16:17 am

This version of my card is outdated. Please look at the original post or the one further downthread for the current version.

Quote from: segura on June 13, 2020, 05:29:20 pm

Disciple variants are fun but this is far stronger than Kiln. In vanilla terms, you get a cantrip instead of a terminal Silver (it is of course even stronger as the card you quasi-draw is the just gained card). This is very strong as you don’t need the extra terminal space that you need for Kiln and the self-junking is unlikely to compensate for this.

There is another crucial difference between Adept and Kiln; Kiln can gain Treasures. In addition, if you draw Adept without something you want to clone that has copies left in the supply, it is completely dead, whereas Kiln has a lower bound of +$2. You are probably right that it is too strong for its cost though.

Quote

Adept

Reveal a non-Command Action card from your hand. Gain and play a copy of it.
-
When you gain this, gain a Copper.

8 Debt
Action-Command

I feel like this revision is priced better for the effect, probably. I changed the Copper-gain to make it land in your discard because it's just too mean of an effect with the debt, and it's plenty expensive now.

---

Quote from: Something_Smart on June 14, 2020, 01:29:51 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/CMwf6Dv.png)

I think this is really strong, because it effectively cannot be drawn dead. It's worse if you start with all of these in hand, of course, but I feel like the decks where you aren't able to connect this with terminals wouldn't work any better (and perhaps worse) with normal villages.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 15, 2020, 01:45:06 am

I disagree. There is a trade-off between potentially being better than Village in combination with terminal draw (pulling of the Saunavanto trick) and being worse because you are not down to zero Actions. I don’t see that one automatically and always outweighs the other.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 15, 2020, 03:37:09 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 14, 2020, 04:26:59 pm

Quote

Redistrict
Types: Action, Looter
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. If the trashed card has at least 2 types: +1 Action and gain a card with only one type costing up to $5, putting it into your hand. Otherwise, gain a Ruins and play the Ruins twice.

Tempo-trashing Workshop like Altar, caring about the number of types (instead of specific types a la Sacrifice).  If you trash a card with a single type (like your starting Coppers and Estates), you gain a Ruins and play it twice.
If you trash a card with multiple types (like Heirlooms, Redistrict, or the Ruins you've gained from Redistrict) then you gain a single-type card costing up to $5 straight to hand.  It has to be only a single type so you can't run piles as easily (especially Redistrict into Redistrict into Redistrict... into Redistrict).  (Of particular note, that one-type restriction also nixes gaining $5-cost Attacks like Coven, Cultist, and Minion.)

I like this design, but it is absolutely bonkers with Shelters. I can't think of a good fix for this, but it seems generally that you wouldn't want this to work on your starting cards - if you use it on Estate/Copper, then its power level seems comparable to Remodel.

A working restriction would be to only make the first option work on Ruins, but that also takes some of the fun out of it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Threa
Post by: segura on June 15, 2020, 03:40:05 am

With Shelters, this is on the power level of Artisan, plus the trashing. Sounds similar to Bounty Hunter, that is on the power level of Gold, plus the Exiling.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Threa
Post by: faust on June 15, 2020, 03:45:38 am

Quote from: segura on June 15, 2020, 03:40:05 am

With Shelters, this is on the power level of Artisan, plus the trashing. Sounds similar to Bounty Hunter, that is on the power level of Gold, plus the Exiling.

Well, it also gives you +Action, so you can immediately play the gained card. (I also think Bounty Hunter is too strong, FWIW.) Also Artisan > Gold.

An issue is also that it's very swingy in that case - if you draw it with 4 Coppers, that's basically game over.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 15, 2020, 04:11:47 am

Shelters is no issue. Both player open with it and are on equal footing with a strong effect that is similar to Bounty Hunter (and as Bounty Hunter is not broken, that is a decent rough benchmark for how broken Redistrict is or not).
The bigger issue is probably the swinginess in the non-Shelters case. Either the Ruins you previously gained is dead or you manage to convert it into an insta-5. That is a huge difference.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on June 15, 2020, 12:59:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/KppahYh.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 15, 2020, 01:01:36 pm

I am not aware of how other players could gain green during your Night phase, so you could word it as "reveal this" instead of "reveal a card" (I guess this was intended as reveal another cards besides Phantom).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on June 15, 2020, 01:17:49 pm

Quote from: segura on June 15, 2020, 01:01:36 pm

I am not aware of how other players could gain green during your Night phase, so you could word it as "reveal this" instead of "reveal a card" (I guess this was intended as reveal another cards besides Phantom).

That was a phrasing mistake. It should say "this", I'll fix it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on June 15, 2020, 01:38:11 pm

Quote from: segura on June 15, 2020, 01:45:06 am

I disagree. There is a trade-off between potentially being better than Village in combination with terminal draw (pulling of the Saunavanto trick) and being worse because you are not down to zero Actions. I don’t see that one automatically and always outweighs the other.

It's true that Cabin isn't strictly better than village, but the case where you terminal-draw into Cabin and it lets you continue your turn seems like it would come up far more than the case where you urgently need the draw from Cabin. The worst case of playing it for +1 card +1 action is also far better than that of Village, which can be drawn completely dead.

---

Quote from: D782802859 on June 15, 2020, 12:59:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/KppahYh.png?1)

This sounds potentially very swingy, as the reaction "attack" is very strong in games where you want to buy multiple victory cards in a turn and there's often no way to control if you draw it in your starting hand or not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 15, 2020, 02:48:51 pm

Quote from: alion8me on June 15, 2020, 01:38:11 pm

It's true that Cabin isn't strictly better than village, but the case where you terminal-draw into Cabin and it lets you continue your turn seems like it would come up far more than the case where you urgently need the draw from Cabin. The worst case of playing it for +1 card +1 action is also far better than that of Village, which can be drawn completely dead.

Not all boards have terminal draw, you also want splitters if there are $5 terminal Silvers. Also, if you play Cabin and then draw into ANY terminal, it was a worthless cantrip. Something like Village, Village, Smithy, Smithy is also not that uncommon; you are not guaranteed to have equally distributed villages, something that Cabin wants.

So, no, I simply don't see any support for your claim that one effect is always and clearly dominating the other. It is much more unclear and Kingdom-sensitive which is why I don't think that a price of $4 is necessary (not that there is a huge difference between $3 and $4).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on June 15, 2020, 03:08:58 pm

This one's a bit messy. (I have a lengthy FAQ, but won't bore you with it.)


(https://abload.de/img/rebellioncontestb3koz.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 15, 2020, 03:26:11 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on June 15, 2020, 03:08:58 pm

This one's a bit messy. (I have a lengthy FAQ, but won't bore you with it.)


(https://abload.de/img/rebellioncontestb3koz.png)

a couple points:
• 1: should this have the command type? should this specify non-command actions?
• 2: recursive cursing is painful - should this (rather than "neither") specify Victory cards only for its cursing?
• 3: you could probably make the card a little less straightforward if you change the treasure option to "you or they may trash it;", which'd make it less straightforward (am i going to let them trash a copper with this attack?)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 15, 2020, 03:44:15 pm

Either you have a a Cursing Attack that is weaker than Sea Hag or Bandit's trashing Attack (without Bandit's gaining). So both effects are below $5 strength.
Or you have a random Action emulator which has two issues. First, one rarely has Actions in one's deck that cost more than $5, or in other words, the average cost of an Action card is one's deck is below $5. Second, the random emulation is hurting the active player due to the lack of control.

In short, there is the old Tribute issue, i.e. lack of control for the active player, plus individual effects which are nearly always weaker than that of a $5. This makes the card bad (I have no idea though if it would be overpowered at $4). A simple way to fix it might be the addition of some vanilla stuff.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on June 15, 2020, 03:57:16 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on June 15, 2020, 03:08:58 pm

(https://abload.de/img/rebellioncontestb3koz.png)

Isn't the Treasure card reveal clause a little political too? Technically, with 2 other players both revealing a Gold, you could make one of them trash theirs and have the other keep the Gold. I know why the active player has that choice; it's to not accidentally aid your opponents by trashing their Coppers. Maybe then, to fix this problem, it could be worded like Bandit, which excludes Copper from being trashed? But then, this could make the card too wordy. I dunno.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on June 15, 2020, 04:06:13 pm

Quote from: segura on June 15, 2020, 02:48:51 pm

Quote from: alion8me on June 15, 2020, 01:38:11 pm

It's true that Cabin isn't strictly better than village, but the case where you terminal-draw into Cabin and it lets you continue your turn seems like it would come up far more than the case where you urgently need the draw from Cabin. The worst case of playing it for +1 card +1 action is also far better than that of Village, which can be drawn completely dead.

Not all boards have terminal draw, you also want splitters if there are $5 terminal Silvers.

With $5 terminal Silvers only, Cabin is functionally identical to Village. Either you have a terminal Silver in hand, in which case you play it and then Cabin, or you don't, and even if you draw into a terminal silver it's the same as if you had played Village as you weren't going to get to use the extra action anyways. (This is the scenario in which you would rather have a normal Village than a Cabin with terminal draw; however, this is more than compensated by the situation where you draw terminal draw with no village because you have a higher chance of drawing Cabin with terminal draw than vice-versa).

Quote from: segura on June 15, 2020, 02:48:51 pm

Also, if you play Cabin and then draw into ANY terminal, it was a worthless cantrip.

There are two cases here. Either you started with X-X-X-X-Cabin, in which case having a Village wouldn't have let you play another action anyways; or you started with X-X-X-Terminal-Cabin, in which case you should play the terminal action followed by Cabin's reaction and it acts like a Village.

As I can see it, this doesn't hold true in two situations:

a) Cabin draws into a terminal draw card. In that case, you just got unlucky; a hand of X-X-X-X-Terminal Draw pulling up a Cabin counterbalances this effect though, because your terminal draw presumably draws more than one card. (In addition, X-X-X-X-Terminal Draw could have any terminal action replacing the 'X's, so it is more likely to appear than X-X-X-X-Cabin in most decks).

b) You draw Cabin with a terminal action you don't want to play right now, but would later in the turn. The only way that Cabin VS Village makes a difference in this case is if the Cabin draws you a draw card (if the Cabin drew up whatever you wanted to have in your hand when playing your terminal, then this is identical to Village as you only had one terminal come through your hand that turn anyways). This seems like a rare situation to me, because cards that you care about the order of play with are relatively uncommon, and you usually don't want many of them in your deck. I can see an argument for Village being better than Cabin being true on a board with these sorts of Actions and good non-terminal draw, but there are significantly fewer non-terminal draw cards than terminal ones.

Quote from: segura on June 15, 2020, 02:48:51 pm

Something like Village, Village, Smithy, Smithy is also not that uncommon; you are not guaranteed to have equally distributed villages, something that Cabin wants.

X-Cabin-Cabin-Smithy-Smithy plays the same as X-Village-Village-Smithy-Smithy. With X-Cabin-Cabin-Smithy-Smithy you just play Smithy --> Cabin --> Smithy --> Cabin and it ends up giving you the same net effect as Village --> Village --> Smithy --> Smithy. (This might not be true if you decide to stop drawing because of what you drew up with your first Smithy, but in general, you want to play your draw cards.)

Quote from: segura on June 15, 2020, 02:48:51 pm

So, no, I simply don't see any support for your claim that one effect is always and clearly dominating the other. It is much more unclear and Kingdom-sensitive which is why I don't think that a price of $4 is necessary (not that there is a huge difference between $3 and $4).

I don't mean to claim that Cabin is always better than Village. My claim is that Cabin is significantly stronger than village a large percentage of the time. Even though $4 isn't strictly necessary, it feels bad to me to have two cards at the same price that have such a similar effect where one does its job significantly better than the other.

---

Quote from: spheremonk on June 15, 2020, 03:08:58 pm

This one's a bit messy. (I have a lengthy FAQ, but won't bore you with it.)
(https://abload.de/img/rebellioncontestb3koz.png)

This is potentially wacky in multiplayer games, in 4P with trashing this can get really crazy, especially if they can play each other as the current iteration of the card can (I think spineflu's suggestion of a Command type would fix that problem elegantly though). As long as it can't play itself though, it sounds like it wouldn't get out of hand; Jester exists and that doesn't cause problems.

It also feels really sad when you hit a Copper with this in its current iteration, and I don't think the rest of the card makes up for that. The effect for revealing an Action is often weaker than Jester's, and Jester's worst case early game is "+$2, give your opponent a Copper" which is a lot better than the complete dud you can get with Rebellion. You could probably add vanilla effects as segura suggested to make up for some of this, although I think that changing what revealing a Treasure does might also be a good idea.

edit: Was just thinking about this, it should probably not let you play durations either because of tracking issues.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 15, 2020, 04:43:18 pm

Quote from: alion8me on June 15, 2020, 04:06:13 pm

Cabin draws into a terminal draw card. In that case, you just got unlucky

What you call "unlucky" I call significant downside that compensates the strength of the card.

That's precisely the old situation that illustrates why Festival-Smithy, which superficially looks so brilliant, can suck: Festival does not draw whereas Village can.

Drawing into terminals (or non-Actions, a situation in which you can accumulate Actions with Village but not with Cabin) with Villages matters. A lot.
An unequal distribution of villages, like having several in your hand, that you gotta play before you draw into any Actions, also matters a lot. It happens in all of my games frequently. I'd even guess that it happens more often than drawing into a splitter without having any Actions left.

Perhaps Cabin is a $4 though, I don't know. But it is certainly not a top level $4 village like Ministrel or Port or whatever and if you can do a village at $3, I'd first try it at that. We have lots of Village+ at $4 but very few, better and worse than Village at $3.

You can emulate this stuff. Just play Saunavanto but skip the stuff the quasi-Action that Avanto yields. It does not sound that exciting in theory (this ignores that Sauna comes with some trashing on top and it ignores the other stuff that Cabin does, but it is the best benchmark that comes to mind). So yeah, my totally uneducated hunch is that Cabin is a $3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 15, 2020, 05:25:59 pm

Quote from: alion8me on June 15, 2020, 01:38:11 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 15, 2020, 12:59:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/KppahYh.png?1)

This sounds potentially very swingy, as the reaction "attack" is very strong in games where you want to buy multiple victory cards in a turn and there's often no way to control if you draw it in your starting hand or not.

A card which targets a specific player with its reaction could have political issues in  a multiplayer game. One can choose to react to a player and not react to another player.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on June 15, 2020, 05:40:55 pm

Quote from: segura on June 15, 2020, 04:43:18 pm

Quote from: alion8me on June 15, 2020, 04:06:13 pm

Cabin draws into a terminal draw card. In that case, you just got unlucky

What you call "unlucky" I call significant downside that compensates the strength of the card.

That's precisely the old situation that illustrates why Festival-Smithy, which superficially looks so brilliant, can suck: Festival does not draw whereas Village can.

Drawing into terminals (or non-Actions, a situation in which you can accumulate Actions with Village but not with Cabin) with Villages matters. A lot.
An unequal distribution of villages, like having several in your hand, that you gotta play before you draw into any Actions, also matters a lot. It happens in all of my games frequently. I'd even guess that it happens more often than drawing into a splitter without having any Actions left.

Perhaps Cabin is a $4 though, I don't know. But it is certainly not a top level $4 village like Ministrel or Port or whatever and if you can do a village at $3, I'd first try it at that. We have lots of Village+ at $4 but very few, better and worse than Village at $3.

You can emulate this stuff. Just play Saunavanto but skip the stuff the quasi-Action that Avanto yields. It does not sound that exciting in theory (this ignores that Sauna comes with some trashing on top and it ignores the other stuff that Cabin does, but it is the best benchmark that comes to mind). So yeah, my totally uneducated hunch is that Cabin is a $3.

I would argue that the opposite situation, drawing into a Village dead, is quite a bit more common. That more than makes up for this situation in my opinion.

There's an important difference between this and Festival-Smithy: Cabin does draw eventually, whereas Festival never does.

The only case where you're sad about Cabin is when you don't have a terminal in hand to play with it. My argument is that this happens somewhat infrequently, and that the case where Cabin saves you is notably more common.

I don't think this would be unbalanced at $3, it just feels bad to me when Village already exists.

I feel like Saunavanto is significantly weaker than this if you ignore the extra action from Avanto. All the other terminal draw is either cheaper than Avanto or it does something better than +3 Cards. (as we're ignoring the extra action). This also neglects the case where you draw 2X terminals + Cabin.

---

Quote from: Carline on June 15, 2020, 05:25:59 pm

Quote from: alion8me on June 15, 2020, 01:38:11 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 15, 2020, 12:59:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/KppahYh.png?1)

This sounds potentially very swingy, as the reaction "attack" is very strong in games where you want to buy multiple victory cards in a turn and there's often no way to control if you draw it in your starting hand or not.

A card which targets a specific player with its reaction could have political issues in  a multiplayer game. One can choose to react to a player and not react to another player.

This seems about as political as Jester/Pillage/Contraband/Advisor/Envoy are to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 16, 2020, 01:39:03 am

Quote from: Carline on June 15, 2020, 05:25:59 pm

Quote from: alion8me on June 15, 2020, 01:38:11 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 15, 2020, 12:59:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/KppahYh.png?1)

This sounds potentially very swingy, as the reaction "attack" is very strong in games where you want to buy multiple victory cards in a turn and there's often no way to control if you draw it in your starting hand or not.

A card which targets a specific player with its reaction could have political issues in  a multiplayer game. One can choose to react to a player and not react to another player.

As if anybody would ever do that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 16, 2020, 09:36:02 am

revised downthread
I'm changing mine up to better match the flavor/title
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ee2b886b10e434cde1a7f36/3664e462bc1d8924a8a8978af5791b88/image.png)

Quote

Larder • $5 • Action
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card with an already revealed type.

+$1 per unique type revealed.

Put one of the revealed cards in your hand and discard the rest.
art: Adriaen von Utrecht / "the Pantry" via wikimedia commons. DFCv0.11

you know how when you get a little hungery and you go stand in front of the fridge with the door open, rummaging through to figure out what to snack on? That's what I'm trying to emulate here.

edit: also this might be horrifically underpriced when compared/contrasted with like, mystic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 16, 2020, 05:19:09 pm

Quote from: segura on June 16, 2020, 01:39:03 am

Quote from: Carline on June 15, 2020, 05:25:59 pm

Quote from: alion8me on June 15, 2020, 01:38:11 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 15, 2020, 12:59:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/KppahYh.png?1)

This sounds potentially very swingy, as the reaction "attack" is very strong in games where you want to buy multiple victory cards in a turn and there's often no way to control if you draw it in your starting hand or not.

A card which targets a specific player with its reaction could have political issues in  a multiplayer game. One can choose to react to a player and not react to another player.

As if anybody would ever do that.

Maybe you don't play many multiplayer games IRL with casual players. People have a lot of other resasons for their decisions than win the game. Political decisions often come from this kind of misrepresented playing. Maybe are couples in love that don't want hurt each other, maybe two players go into a metagame of hurt only each other just for the fun of it, etc.

I saw some situations like that happen with the cards alion8me listed (quote below) or also Swindler and Oracle. Of course, it's not optimal play, but may happen if the card gives room for that. However, that's not a big problem, as the cards pointed prove.

Other situation is when players play a kind of tournament in which the winner is the person who wins more games that day. I have seen many groups playing that way. If someone is ahead in the matches score but is lost in that specific game, maybe he wants to kingmaking. In our groups, we don't allow it and anyway no one of us wants to kingmake, but these cards that make you decide about other player deck have this potential.

Anyway, as I said, no big deal.

Quote from: alion8me on June 15, 2020, 05:40:55 pm

This seems about as political as Jester/Pillage/Contraband/Advisor/Envoy are to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 16, 2020, 05:28:28 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 16, 2020, 05:19:09 pm

Maybe you don't play many multiplayer games IRL with casual players.

I mainly play 3P games. And none of us would ever Swindle one guy a Curse and another guy a Copper. That's simply irrational, it is a game and friendship has nothing to do with optimal play. I'd be insulted if a fellow player "gifted" me something in a game.
If fsome people behave like that, blame them and not the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 16, 2020, 05:41:33 pm

Quote from: segura on June 16, 2020, 01:39:03 am

Quote from: Carline on June 15, 2020, 05:25:59 pm

Quote from: alion8me on June 15, 2020, 01:38:11 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 15, 2020, 12:59:18 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/KppahYh.png?1)

This sounds potentially very swingy, as the reaction "attack" is very strong in games where you want to buy multiple victory cards in a turn and there's often no way to control if you draw it in your starting hand or not.

A card which targets a specific player with its reaction could have political issues in  a multiplayer game. One can choose to react to a player and not react to another player.

As if anybody would ever do that.

People also make different choices for each other player when the playing group includes a child, as a kind of handicap. In general, players agree about this being a praiseworthy use of these political decision feature.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 16, 2020, 05:48:48 pm

Quote from: segura on June 16, 2020, 05:28:28 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 16, 2020, 05:19:09 pm

Maybe you don't play many multiplayer games IRL with casual players.

I mainly play 3P games. And none of us would ever Swindle one guy a Curse and another guy a Copper. That's simply irrational, it is a game and friendship has nothing to do with optimal play. I'd be insulted if a fellow player "gifted" me something in a game.
If fsome people behave like that, blame them and not the game.

Of course, as I said, it's misrepresented playing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on June 16, 2020, 08:45:22 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 14, 2020, 04:26:59 pm

Redistrict
Types: Action, Looter
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. If the trashed card has at least 2 types: +1 Action and gain a card with only one type costing up to $5, putting it into your hand. Otherwise, gain a Ruins and play the Ruins twice.

Quote from: faust on June 15, 2020, 03:45:38 am

An issue is also that it's very swingy in that case - if you draw it with 4 Coppers, that's basically game over.

Quote from: segura on June 15, 2020, 04:11:47 am

The bigger issue is probably the swinginess in the non-Shelters case. Either the Ruins you previously gained is dead or you manage to convert it into an insta-5. That is a huge difference.

Thank you both for the commentary.
While I think Redistrict is held back fairly well through being unable to gain Attacks, putting the gained card straight into hand is a no-brainer benefit compared to receiving the circumstantial Ruins effect twice.  The card would be much more tactical if the benefit garnered when trashing a multi-type card was less immediate, so I will change it from a gain to hand to a gain to the top of the deck.  That way a hand of "Redistrict, Estate, Abandoned Mine, 2 Copper" will be choosing between doubling whatever Ruins by trashing an Estate or trashing the Abandoned Mine for a $5-cost card next turn.

Quote

Redistrict v2
Types: Action, Looter
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. If the trashed card has at least 2 types: +1 Action and gain a card with only one type costing up to $5, putting it into your hand on top of your deck. Otherwise, gain a Ruins and play the Ruins twice.

---

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on June 11, 2020, 06:17:10 pm

Goblin City
$5 Action-Atttack-Looter
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player may discard an Action card from their hand. If they don't, they gain a Ruins into their hand.
-
This costs $1 less if you have any Ruins in play.

I think making splitters strong junking Attacks is a bad idea.  I have a weaker junking Village, but it self-junks to hold it back.

Quote from: Carline on June 13, 2020, 02:37:01 am

Wishing Fountain - $5 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card type, then reveal the top card of your deck.
If it has the named type, put it into your hand. Otherwise, you may either trash it, discard it or leave it on top.

This has a lot of additional words and complexity when it may as well just automatically name the Action type.

Quote from: X-tra on June 12, 2020, 10:07:40 am

Quote Hoarder Types: Night, Attack Cost: $5 Gain a card costing up to $1 per different card type (Action, Attack, etc.) you have in play. Each other player gains a Junk. Setup: The Junk pile has as many cards as the Curse pile.

Quote Junk Types: Action Cost: $0* +$1. Trash this. (This is not in the Supply

Hoarder is fun, but the Junk cards are so many cards that have to be printed for a single thing.  I agree that Cursing is too strong, and making it a Looter won't work on account of the number of types that sticks into it.  I don't know the solution, but I don't like the Junk one.

Quote from: alion8me on June 13, 2020, 05:06:41 pm

Adept
Types: Action, Command
Cost: <8>
Reveal a non-Command Action card from your hand. Gain and play a copy of it.

---

When you gain this, gain a Copper.

You could clean up the self-piling problem and reel in its general strength by taking a page from Imp and wording it "you may reveal an Action from your hand you have no copies of in play."  Then it can't target itself and further has a harder time gaining and playing whatever it wants: It could then lose the clumsy on-gain draw-back.

Quote from: alion8me on June 15, 2020, 04:06:13 pm

Quote from: segura on June 15, 2020, 02:48:51 pm

So, no, I simply don't see any support for your claim that one effect is always and clearly dominating the other. It is much more unclear and Kingdom-sensitive which is why I don't think that a price of $4 is necessary (not that there is a huge difference between $3 and $4).

I don't mean to claim that Cabin is always better than Village. My claim is that Cabin is significantly stronger than village a large percentage of the time. Even though $4 isn't strictly necessary, it feels bad to me to have two cards at the same price that have such a similar effect where one does its job significantly better than the other.

I agree with alion8me.  Shanty Town versus Village is a fair argument: Where most Kingdoms I prefer Village, sometimes I can get +Actions from other sources and leverage that to use Shanty Town as a less-consistent Lost City.  The only intrinsic reason (obviously pile control, differently named cards, and differently typed cards matter) I would buy Villages ahead of Cabins is because I am reliant mostly upon non-terminal draw, except that then I will likely have fewer terminal Actions in my deck and will therefore not buy many splitters anyway.

Quote from: segura on June 16, 2020, 05:28:28 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 16, 2020, 05:19:09 pm

Quote from: segura on June 16, 2020, 01:39:03 am

Quote from: Carline on June 15, 2020, 05:25:59 pm

A card which targets a specific player with its reaction could have political issues in  a multiplayer game. One can choose to react to a player and not react to another player.

As if anybody would ever do that.

Maybe you don't play many multiplayer games IRL with casual players.

I mainly play 3P games. And none of us would ever Swindle one guy a Curse and another guy a Copper. That's simply irrational, it is a game and friendship has nothing to do with optimal play. I'd be insulted if a fellow player "gifted" me something in a game.
If fsome people behave like that, blame them and not the game.

Allowing a trailing player to accelerate the end-game puts the leading player in a better position.  I often take such things into account in multiplayer games, and people have certainly gotten mad at me before for such decisions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 17, 2020, 04:34:20 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 16, 2020, 09:36:02 am

I'm changing mine up to better match the flavor/title
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ee2b886b10e434cde1a7f36/3664e462bc1d8924a8a8978af5791b88/image.png)

Quote

Larder • $5 • Action
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card with an already revealed type.

+$1 per unique type revealed.

Put one of the revealed cards in your hand and discard the rest.
art: Adriaen von Utrecht / "the Pantry" via wikimedia commons. DFCv0.11

you know how when you get a little hungery and you go stand in front of the fridge with the door open, rummaging through to figure out what to snack on? That's what I'm trying to emulate here.

edit: also this might be horrifically underpriced when compared/contrasted with like, mystic.

It is a very cool idea but it might be too strong. Selecting one of the revealed cards would like already suffices to make this a Peddler+ at $5 but it might too often be a Double- or TriplePeddler. Hard to say in theory though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 17, 2020, 09:03:49 am

Quote from: segura on June 17, 2020, 04:34:20 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 16, 2020, 09:36:02 am

I'm changing mine up to better match the flavor/title
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ee2b886b10e434cde1a7f36/3664e462bc1d8924a8a8978af5791b88/image.png)

Quote

Larder • $5 • Action
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card with an already revealed type.

+$1 per unique type revealed.

Put one of the revealed cards in your hand and discard the rest.
art: Adriaen von Utrecht / "the Pantry" via wikimedia commons. DFCv0.11

you know how when you get a little hungery and you go stand in front of the fridge with the door open, rummaging through to figure out what to snack on? That's what I'm trying to emulate here.

edit: also this might be horrifically underpriced when compared/contrasted with like, mystic.

It is a very cool idea but it might be too strong. Selecting one of the revealed cards would like already suffices to make this a Peddler+ at $5 but it might too often be a Double- or TriplePeddler. Hard to say in theory though.

Yeah it's tough like
on the one hand, it could reveal two estates and be a pretty bad peddler/sifter.
on the other, it could reveal like.... werewolf (+$4), haunted mirror (+$2), hovel (+$2), curse (+$1), crumbling castle (+$2), ghost (+$2) and be a nonterminal +$13, and you get one of the cards that were revealed.
I think it's really going to award bibimbap play but do poorly in a more consistent deck.
I think figuring out what the middle cases look like is going to really influence the pricing and that's gonna be super kingdom-dependent.

Potential Fixes:
• add a "discard a card from your hand" clause to the top so that it also costs some handsize
• drop the $ aspect entirely (although that was the impetus behind its naming, coming from the cellar/storeroom family)
• limit the $ by changing the $ clause to "If you revealed at least three types, +$X" ($3? $2?)
• leave wording as-is and change it to a $6 or $7 cost?
• Potion-cost? like $2P or something? The more i think about it the more it reminds me of Scrying Pool.
I'm open to suggestions

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on June 17, 2020, 09:28:29 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 16, 2020, 08:45:22 pm

Hoarder is fun, but the Junk cards are so many cards that have to be printed for a single thing.  I agree that Cursing is too strong, and making it a Looter won't work on account of the number of types that sticks into it.  I don't know the solution, but I don't like the Junk one.

Agree'd. Seeing as Dominion accommodates up to 6 players, this would mean that 60 Junk cards would need to be printed. Plus the 10 Hoarders. That's 70 cards just for one specific Kingdom. Now, in this thread, we assume that these cards are not to be printed, but rather act as simple ideas for what could be. Or at best, we can imagine a scenario where these cards could be played online, in which case a lot of real life problems go away. But I don't like being sloppy and always prefer looking at the bigger picture; what if these cards truly existed? What would be the actual real pitfalls these cards would entitle? So like I said, I agree. Having 70 cards for not much is asinine. A fix is needed !

Here's what I have for the V3 version of Hoarder:

(https://i.postimg.cc/hDmytDXZ/Hoarder-v3.png)

This fix junks with Copper this time. However, not unlike Mountebank, your adversaries have an option of discarding a Copper in hand to avoid the junking. Thus, if you play, say, 2 Hoarders in your night phase, at best they'll only gain one Copper in their hand and discard it right after, numbing the power of this Night Attack card. Early game, anyway, it's not too hard to just, y'know, discard a Copper to say nay to Hoarder's attack, in which case you just got Cutpurse'd. And I dunno. Sometimes you hit (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png) and you want that Copper anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on June 17, 2020, 05:17:33 pm

Quote from: X-tra on June 11, 2020, 07:37:26 pm

And congrats to Marpharos! Still relatively new here and already snatching a win like that. Awesome! :)

Thank you! I've been playing this game since about 2009 I think and would be lying if I said I hadn't lurked around here on and off for a few years. I'm enjoying seeing all the submissions and measuring them against each other, more fun than I'd anticipated honestly!

-

24-hour (ish) warning everyone!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 17, 2020, 10:31:01 pm

last minute revision:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ee2b886b10e434cde1a7f36/a4678bf3516e726efb6c7239535fd4f3/image.png)

Quote

Larder • $5 • Action
+1 Action
Discard a card from your hand.
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card with an already revealed type.

+$1 per unique type revealed.

Put one of the revealed cards in your hand and discard the rest.

I went with it costing a card in advance, i guess making this an Oasis variant.
Early on that's whatever, it'll cost a copper or an estate. Later in the game, it may hurt more. Either way, there's a -1 card penalty to playing it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 17, 2020, 11:32:19 pm

Following scolapasta suggestion to the card have more intersting decisions, I'm changing my entry to:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/713/880/full/Wishing_Fountain_%2812%29.png?1592450814)

Quote

Wishing Fountain - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card type, then reveal the top card of your deck.
If it has the named type, put it into your hand or trash it. Otherwise, you  may discard it..

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on June 18, 2020, 01:51:59 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 16, 2020, 08:45:22 pm

...

Quote from: alion8me on June 13, 2020, 05:06:41 pm

Adept
Types: Action, Command
Cost: <8>
Reveal a non-Command Action card from your hand. Gain and play a copy of it.

---

When you gain this, gain a Copper.

You could clean up the self-piling problem and reel in its general strength by taking a page from Imp and wording it "you may reveal an Action from your hand you have no copies of in play."  Then it can't target itself and further has a harder time gaining and playing whatever it wants: It could then lose the clumsy on-gain draw-back.
...

This suggestion sounds like it would make a good card, but it would also be fundamentally different from the concept I originally had in mind when making Adept, which was to be a very powerful Action gainer with some drawback that prevents you from getting too many of them.

I think my newest solution fulfills these requirements.

Quote

Novice

Trash a card from your hand. If you did, gain a card costing less than it. +1 Coffers per $1 less the gained card costs. If you trashed an Action card, you may exchange this for an Adept.

$4
Action

Quote

Adept

Reveal an Action card from your hand. Gain and play a copy of it.

(This is not in the supply.)

$0*
Action

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 18, 2020, 05:01:18 am

Just so there's no ambiguity, I will declare my entry to be as follows:

Decree (Action, $5)

You may play an Action card from your hand twice. If it is still in play, you may play it a third time; if you do, trash it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 18, 2020, 10:27:49 am

(Virtual) work conference this week, so I haven't had much time as I'd like to post / revise this, but here is the updated v0.3 of Iron Bridge:

(https://i.imgur.com/ruIEnXF.png)

Quote

Iron Bridge - Action - $4

Gain a card costing up to $4.

This turn, cards that do not share a type with any cards gained this turn cost $2 less.

So based on feedback I modifed (mostly weakening) the cost reducing effect.
• changed from sharing type to NOT sharing a type (based on Freddy10's suggestion)
• now cares about any gained cards, not just from this (in order to weaken for megaturns)
• changed from While in Play to this turn (so can now be TRed) to help mitigate 1st two changes
• reduced to cost to $4

Hopefully I didn't weaken it TOO much, but I also did make some mitigating changes to balance those.

It can still be used to gain a silver, buy an Action for $3; or gain an action, buy a Gold for $4. So I think could be interesting.

I also hope it still fits the "Iron" theme, as it still is a Bridge that cares about types.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 18, 2020, 12:25:33 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 18, 2020, 10:27:49 am

(Virtual) work conference this week, so I haven't had much time as I'd like to post / revise this, but here is the updated v0.3 of Iron Bridge:

(https://i.imgur.com/ruIEnXF.png)

Quote

Iron Bridge - Action - $4

Gain a card costing up to $4.

This turn, cards that do not share a type with any cards gained this turn cost $2 less.

So based on feedback I modifed (mostly weakening) the cost reducing effect.
• changed from sharing type to NOT sharing a type (based on Freddy10's suggestion)
• now cares about any gained cards, not just from this (in order to weaken for megaturns)
• changed from While in Play to this turn (so can now be TRed) to help mitigate 1st two changes
• reduced to cost to $4

Hopefully I didn't weaken it TOO much, but I also did make some mitigating changes to balance those.

It can still be used to gain a silver, buy an Action for $3; or gain an action, buy a Gold for $4. So I think could be interesting.

I also hope it still fits the "Iron" theme, as it still is a Bridge that cares about types.

Actually, feedback question:

One thing I don't love about the v0.3 is that you can only gain one card of a type at a discount (which, while by design, is not as fun).

Another idea is to use similar wording to Wayfarer:

"This turn, cards that do not share a type with the last gained card this turn cost $2 less."

So you can't just gain a bunch of provinces by themselves, but you could alternate between them and something else. (for example with copper, but you would need a lot of buys)

What do people think of this? And should this version go back to $5? (also does it need the word "other" like Wayfarer - I can't remember exactly why it had it)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 18, 2020, 12:51:31 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 18, 2020, 12:25:33 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 18, 2020, 10:27:49 am

(Virtual) work conference this week, so I haven't had much time as I'd like to post / revise this, but here is the updated v0.3 of Iron Bridge:

(https://i.imgur.com/ruIEnXF.png)

Quote

Iron Bridge - Action - $4

Gain a card costing up to $4.

This turn, cards that do not share a type with any cards gained this turn cost $2 less.

So based on feedback I modifed (mostly weakening) the cost reducing effect.
• changed from sharing type to NOT sharing a type (based on Freddy10's suggestion)
• now cares about any gained cards, not just from this (in order to weaken for megaturns)
• changed from While in Play to this turn (so can now be TRed) to help mitigate 1st two changes
• reduced to cost to $4

Hopefully I didn't weaken it TOO much, but I also did make some mitigating changes to balance those.

It can still be used to gain a silver, buy an Action for $3; or gain an action, buy a Gold for $4. So I think could be interesting.

I also hope it still fits the "Iron" theme, as it still is a Bridge that cares about types.

Actually, feedback question:

One thing I don't love about the v0.3 is that you can only gain one card of a type at a discount (which, while by design, is not as fun).

Another idea is to use similar wording to Wayfarer:

"This turn, cards that do not share a type with the last gained card this turn cost $2 less."

So you can't just gain a bunch of provinces by themselves, but you could alternate between them and something else. (for example with copper, but you would need a lot of buys)

What do people think of this? (also does it need the word "other" like Wayfarer - I can't remember exactly why it had it)

I think the existing v0.3 makes more sense / is less cheesable than the "last gained" option.
also what do you think about the name "Rusted Bridge" since its sort of a reverse-iron

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 18, 2020, 03:11:59 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 18, 2020, 12:51:31 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 18, 2020, 12:25:33 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 18, 2020, 10:27:49 am

(Virtual) work conference this week, so I haven't had much time as I'd like to post / revise this, but here is the updated v0.3 of Iron Bridge:

(https://i.imgur.com/ruIEnXF.png)

Quote

Iron Bridge - Action - $4

Gain a card costing up to $4.

This turn, cards that do not share a type with any cards gained this turn cost $2 less.

So based on feedback I modifed (mostly weakening) the cost reducing effect.
• changed from sharing type to NOT sharing a type (based on Freddy10's suggestion)
• now cares about any gained cards, not just from this (in order to weaken for megaturns)
• changed from While in Play to this turn (so can now be TRed) to help mitigate 1st two changes
• reduced to cost to $4

Hopefully I didn't weaken it TOO much, but I also did make some mitigating changes to balance those.

It can still be used to gain a silver, buy an Action for $3; or gain an action, buy a Gold for $4. So I think could be interesting.

I also hope it still fits the "Iron" theme, as it still is a Bridge that cares about types.

Actually, feedback question:

One thing I don't love about the v0.3 is that you can only gain one card of a type at a discount (which, while by design, is not as fun).

Another idea is to use similar wording to Wayfarer:

"This turn, cards that do not share a type with the last gained card this turn cost $2 less."

So you can't just gain a bunch of provinces by themselves, but you could alternate between them and something else. (for example with copper, but you would need a lot of buys)

What do people think of this? (also does it need the word "other" like Wayfarer - I can't remember exactly why it had it)

I think the existing v0.3 makes more sense / is less cheesable than the "last gained" option.
also what do you think about the name "Rusted Bridge" since its sort of a reverse-iron

Thanks for the feedback.  For playtesting*, I'll want to try both ways, but for the contest, I feel the Wayfarered Iron Bridge is more interesting. It does however get the cost back to $5.

* if I ever get to playtesting, IRL games are from the before times

So here it is, v0.4:

(https://i.imgur.com/s8xhwaG.png)

Quote

Iron Bridge - Action - $5

Gain a card costing up to $4.

This turn, cards that do not share a type with the last card gained this turn cost $2 less.

Oh, and "Rusted Bridge" is clever, but feels better suited for a Ruined version of Bridge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on June 18, 2020, 05:14:52 pm

Results are in, here we go.

LibraryAdventurer

Quote

Goblin City
$5 Action-Attack-Looter
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Each other player may discard an Action card from their hand. If they don't, they gain a Ruins into their hand.
-
This costs $1 less if you have any Ruins in play.

I like the theme of this, and having a village that attacks seems fun and unique to me! Forcing others to discard their actions is tough, but if multiples are played then you can at least discard the Ruins you previously gained. I enjoy the variable cost of this too, making it cheaper for you if you’ve just been hit by it. A fun card.


NoMoreFun

Quote

Quadrangle
$7 – Action
+3 Cards
Reveal a card from your hand.
If it’s an…
Action: +2 Actions
Treasure: +$2
Victory: +2 Cards
Then, put the revealed card onto your deck.

Definitely an improvement on the original idea. I like that the card you revealed is placed back on top of your deck – sure you didn’t get to play it this turn, but you can have it again next! It makes you question whether you really want to reveal a Victory card too which is a fun decision.  And sure, you revealed an Action card for +2 Actions, but you can’t play it yet. I can’t tell if $7 is a bit much or not enough for this.


spineflu

Quote

Larder
Action - $5
+1 Action
Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a card with an already revealed type.
+$1 per unique type revealed.
Put one of the revealed cards in your hand and discard the rest.

This improved as before it was almost like a worse Monument when it duds. Even if you dud quickly it doesn’t seem to hurt too bad. If you’re lucky this could be worth up to $8 within 5 cards in very specific kingdoms, but I’d guess this’d be $2 or $3 fairly consistently. And getting to play that Swamp Hag you just revealed makes that trip to the fridge that little bit tastier.


X-tra

Quote

Hoarder 
Night - Attack - $5
Gain a card costing up to $1 per different card type (Action, Attack, etc.) you have in play. Each other player may discard a Copper, or gain a Copper to their hand if they don’t.

Definitely an improvement on what it was. I enjoyed the disappearing Junk effect a lot, but it wasn’t without its issues. Now though, it’s attack is much more consistent and stacks much more nicely. I really like that its own types help power up this card too.


scolapasta

Quote

Iron Bridge  
Action - $5
Gain a card costing up to $4.
This turn, cards that do not share a type with the last card gained this turn cost $2 less.

This is a really neat gainer. For previous versions of this I wondered if setting the gained card aside purely for tracking purposes might make it easier to follow, but with the current wording this helps fix that to some extent. Ofc, playing multiple of these will likely end in some headaches over the maths, but this card does seem really fun to play with and brings some very interesting decisions over what to gain.


[TP] Inferno

Quote

Repurpose 
$4
Action-Duration
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. For each card type it had (Action, Attack etc.), +1 Card now and at the start of your next turn.

This is nice, but I think it should cost $5. Yes, it’s better than Caravan for the trashing ability, it gets rid of your opening hand nice and quickly, and then it really wants to trash itself which I like. I can imagine very late into the game this might become dead weight, but overall I think this is great!


Aquila

Quote

Tutor 
Action - Duration - $3.
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may set aside a card from your hand. At the start of your next turn, if it is a...
Victory, discard it and +1 Card;
Action, play it;
Neither type, trash it.

Unlike a lot of cards that use “if it is a…”, I like that this allows for if the card type does not fit the mould. A nice way to trash Coppers and Curses, helps when a kingdom lacks villages and sifts unwanted Victory cards. I might even remove the Action from it.


majiponi

Quote

Plumber 
$5 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top of your deck. If it is not a Victory card, you may gain it.

Simple and effective, if a little weak. Sure, it will gain you a Gold but when it reveals a Victory card and does nothing I’d feel a little disappointed, especially when chaining them. I think even just adding a clause for discarding Victory cards would make this a solid $5. Also, I think it should read “you may gain a copy of it from the supply.”


faust

Quote

Caravansary 
Landmark
When you buy a card that does not share a type with the pile with the Caravansary token, +1% and put the Caravansary token onto its pile.
   -
Setup: The last player in player order puts the Caravansary token on any supply pile.

I like that this is a wandering victory point and the setup clause looks real nice. Simple, but provokes plenty extra levels of strategy – if I buy a Duchy and gain a VP, does my opponent then buy a Province or should they go for something else to second guess me? My one criticism is that if you have multiple +buys, does alternating treasure-action keep getting you +1VP or is it limited to gaining 1 per turn?


grrgrrgrr

Quote

Weapon Storage 
$4 – Action
+1 Action
Discard any number of cards, then draw that many. Then, if you discarded at least one...
... Action, +2 Actions
... Treasure, +$1
... Victory Card, gain a Horse

I’m a little confused by this one. Discarding action cards for +3 actions? The other two effects seem right to me but that one seems off somehow.


grep

Quote

Crusader 
$5 - Action - Attack
+2 Cards
You may trash a card from hand. If you did, +1VP, and each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a card sharing a type with it, or reveals a hand with no such cards.

I really like this. Trashing a Curse? Everyone else discards and has to wait for it to come round again to trash theirs. Trashing an Action? That definitely hurts an engine. Trashing a Treasure? Dang, now I’m on $7. This is great!


Carline

Quote

Wishing Fountain
$5 – Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card type, then reveal the top card of your deck. If it has the named type, put it into your hand or trash it. Otherwise, you may discard it.

This is now a really solid card. There’s not much more to really say - versatile in just the right way at just the right time.


mandioca15

Quote

Decree
$5 – Action
You may play an Action card from your hand twice. If it is still in play, you may play it a third time; if you do, trash it.

I like that this is a TR most of the time, but when you really need it it’s a KC. Having it trash for the extra benefit is great, and the wording really doesn’t let you mess around too much.


alion8me

Quote

Novice / Adept
        Novice
$4 – Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you did, gain a card costing less than it. +1 Coffers per $1 less the gained card costs. If you trashed an Action card, you may exchange this for an Adept.
   
   Adept
$0* - Action
Reveal an Action card from your hand. Gain a copy of it.
(This is not in the supply.)

A great pair of cards. The coffers are a nice consolidation if you do choose to gain a Copper (or a Curse, I’ll always remind you that option is available!) Having the Adept available to provide more things to trash definitely makes this though.


segura

Quote

Fish Monger 
$5 – Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck. Discard it or put it back. If it is an…
Action card, +1 Villager
Treasure card, +1 Coffers
Victory card, gain a Horse

Nice and simple. Gives you a little bit of what you might be needing. I like this!


Something_Smart

Quote

Cabin 
$3 – Action Reaction
+1 Card
+1 Action
   -
Directly after you finish playing an Action card, if you have no Actions left, you may play this from your hand.

This is a huge engine enabler. I almost wonder what this would be like if it did not +1 Action and gave a different benefit instead? You’re almost always guaranteed to be able to play this (how does this work with snowy village?) This will almost always drive a pile out as well.


Fragasnap

Quote

Redistrict
$4 – Action Looter
Trash a card from your hand. If the trashed card has at least 2 types: +1 Action and gain a card with only one type costing up to $5, putting it on top of your deck. Otherwise, gain a Ruins and play the Ruins twice.

Nice. I like the “gain a card with only one type” effect, and I like that it balances itself out by providing you with cards of at least two types in case there are none other than itself in any given game.


D782802859

Quote

Phantom
$2 – Night Reaction
Look through your discard pile. You may put a card from it onto your deck.
   -
When another player gains a Victory card, you may reveal this card from your hand to have them put the card onto their deck.

I like the idea that when you reveal this, it’s because the estate was haunted. Spooky. The played effect of this is nice, and its pricepoint is spot-on. I also like the reaction part, but shouldn’t it be an Attack as well? I thought about whether this should be discarded when it’s revealed as those turns when you gain multiple provinces/Victory cards are going to hurt, but I like it as it is – if you’ve top-decked 5 Victory cards in one turn then that’s on you.


spheremonk

Quote

Rebellion
$5 – Action Attack
Each other player discards the top card of their deck. If it is; an Action, you may play it (leaving it there); a Treasure, you may have them trash it; neither, they gain a Curse.

I’m going to start this one off by saying that I really like Tribute. That said, this card has a lot of effects going on and I can’t say it’s easy to follow. Playing with any more than 2 players it becomes a real slog with all the decisions and remembering what effects are beneficial to you. Also, if your opponent reveals an attack, does it affect you or your opponent? And this becomes so much worse when you stack this. How many cards should I have drawn? How many actions do I have remaining? This is one of those cards that is likely going to drive a game toward chaos. And yet, deep down, I know that I’ll enjoy having played this card.


Runners Up
Repurpose - [TP] Inferno
Crusader - grep
Wishing Fountain - Carline

Winner
Larder by spineflu! I liked that this started as a Harvest variant but thought it needed a bit more to make it worth $5. Now it is and I'd say better than Hunting Grounds too. I haven't thought too much about TR this or WotChameleon but even still it's a really solid card. Well done!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 18, 2020, 06:34:43 pm

Hey thank you! I really thought grep or D782802859 was gonna take it this week. Also impressed w how far segura's fishmonger has come since contest #39.

Contest #78 - Design a card/landscape that uses Trinkets
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5eebe89d869ece372fd0ba98/98827895e45944bc40fb01bfa68cb696/image.png)

I kinda teased this idea back in april (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20304.0) and got a little feedback that helped me tune it (in addition to thinking about how it'd work during contest #74).
Your goal is to design a card or landscape that gives Trinkets (above), a non-supply junk card variation on spoils.
Please include an image of the card(s) you've designed (via your own photoshop skills or shardofhonor's generator (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/) or whatever you find suitable) to ensure there's no missed posts during the contest.
Please no traveller lines. those are too hard to judge.

Unless you say otherwise, I'm going to assume there's 30 Trinkets in the pile (like horses) - if your card wants there to be "as many as curses" or some other scaling number, whatever, include that in your post.
It doesn't have to be a junking attack - it can be like, a Cache or Banquet variant, or something entirely else, that's totally fine.

and for all those plaintext/screenreader folks, here's what Trinket does:

Quote

Trinket • $0* • Treasure
You may pay $1 to return this to its pile.
-
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less.
(This is not in the supply)

I'll upvote (respect) your entry when i've added it to the trello board - it's just for me to keep track of which posts i've added/etc, not an endorsement - and i'll let you know if I have any pre-judgement questions about your entry.

Have fun and let me know if you have any questions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on June 18, 2020, 09:43:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/06czk2l.png)

Quote

Way of the Blue Jay

Follow this card's instructions. Gain and play a Trinket.

edit: Changed card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 18, 2020, 09:53:53 pm

Quote from: alion8me on June 18, 2020, 09:43:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Cc20Zlb.png)

Quote

Way of the Blue Jay

Play this. Gain and play a Trinket.

As written, would give you all the trinkets! (since each time you play it you can choose to "follow" the way) :)

You could use Chameleon's wording: "Follow this card's instructions, then gain and play a Trinket."

I'd also consider gaining the trinket to your hand (though that does play differently if you have cards in your hand that care about hand size; or allow you to trash it then), as playing Treasures during Action phase is a little weird, without a direct reason for it, like Black Market or Storyteller.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on June 18, 2020, 10:02:28 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 18, 2020, 09:53:53 pm

Quote from: alion8me on June 18, 2020, 09:43:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Cc20Zlb.png)

Quote

Way of the Blue Jay

Play this. Gain and play a Trinket.

As written, would give you all the trinkets! (since each time you play it you can choose to "follow" the way) :)

You could use Chameleon's wording: "Follow this card's instructions, then gain and play a Trinket."

I'd also consider gaining the trinket to your hand (though that does play differently if you have cards in your hand that care about hand size; or allow you to trash it then), as playing Treasures during Action phase is a little weird, without a direct reason for it, like Black Market or Storyteller.

Being able to gain an arbitrary number of Trinkets off of a single action card is unintentional, thank you for pointing this out. I used your fix, if you don't mind; it seemed like a simple wording that would be consistent with official cards.

When I originally thought of the idea, it was gain to hand, but I changed it in order to let it create interesting dynamics with gainers more often.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 18, 2020, 10:50:29 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on June 18, 2020, 05:14:52 pm

Carline

Quote

Wishing Fountain
$5 – Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card type, then reveal the top card of your deck. If it has the named type, put it into your hand or trash it. Otherwise, you may discard it.

This is now a really solid card. There’s not much more to really say - versatile in just the right way at just the right time.

Runners Up
Repurpose - [TP] Inferno
Crusader - grep
Wishing Fountain - Carline

Winner
Larder by spineflu! I liked that this started as a Harvest variant but thought it needed a bit more to make it worth $5. Now it is and I'd say better than Hunting Grounds too. I haven't thought too much about TR this or WotChameleon but even still it's a really solid card. Well done!

Thank you for the comments and runner-up position. Who deserves the credits for it is scolapasta, who suggested this better version of the card. Thank you scolapasta!

Congrats spineflu for the win!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on June 18, 2020, 11:18:07 pm

Discount Market
cost $2 - Action
+3 Buys
Gain a Trinket to your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on June 18, 2020, 11:18:28 pm

I have a strong feeling that Trinkets are somehow related to Tribbles.
(https://i.ibb.co/x8V9M3k/image.png)

Quote

Tribble
$3 - Action
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may gain a Tribble.
Look through your discard pile, reveal any number of Trinkets and put them to your hand.
-
When you gain this, gain a Trinket.

There are 16 Tribbles in the supply.

Update: The original version was too weak. Adding +Action and gaining before collecting.
Old version: (https://i.ibb.co/gVKMF6w/image.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on June 19, 2020, 12:26:48 am

Mad Inventor
Night/Attack - $4
Gain a card costing up to $4
You may gain a Trinket. If you did, each other player gains a Trinket.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on June 19, 2020, 04:21:55 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 18, 2020, 06:34:43 pm

Quote

Trinket • $0* • Treasure
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less.

You may pay $1 to return this to its pile.
(This is not in the supply)

Have fun and let me know if you have any questions.

Nitpick: Trinket's "while in play" effect should be below a dividing line.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 19, 2020, 05:12:25 am

Quote from: faust on June 19, 2020, 04:21:55 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 18, 2020, 06:34:43 pm

Quote

Trinket • $0* • Treasure
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less.

You may pay $1 to return this to its pile.
(This is not in the supply)

Have fun and let me know if you have any questions.

Nitpick: Trinket's "while in play" effect should be below a dividing line.

yeah i forgot the $0 in the corners too; this has been fixed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on June 19, 2020, 07:22:43 am

Because the system for uploading images still confuses me, I'll just put something in a really big font so it's hard to miss.

My Entry:

Item
$5
Treasure
$3
+1 Buy
Gain a Trinket.

Its a classic Contraband/Cache style $5 Gold. Except the junk this time is a Trinket. Item itself helps deal with the Trinket, though, it either gives money to return it, or gives Buys to use it well. Feedback is welcome, let me know if it needs to gain 2 Trinkets.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on June 19, 2020, 08:12:57 am

(https://i.imgur.com/CAyRcAL.png?1)
Sort of a midpoint between Workshop and a junking attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 19, 2020, 01:27:36 pm

When exactly do you pay $1 to return a Trinket? When you play it, or during cleanup, or some other time?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on June 19, 2020, 01:38:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/5D0L7e8.png)

Updated my submission. Was unfortunately not able to find the previous picture lol.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 19, 2020, 01:44:21 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 19, 2020, 01:27:36 pm

When exactly do you pay $1 to return a Trinket? When you play it, or during cleanup, or some other time?

when you play it; so if you want to get rid of it, it can't be the first card you play in a turn, and you don't get its benefit at all (because it moves out of play).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 19, 2020, 02:14:53 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 19, 2020, 01:44:21 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 19, 2020, 01:27:36 pm

When exactly do you pay $1 to return a Trinket? When you play it, or during cleanup, or some other time?

when you play it; so if you want to get rid of it, it can't be the first card you play in a turn, and you don't get its benefit at all (because it moves out of play).

Why can't it be the first card you play in a turn?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on June 19, 2020, 02:16:20 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 19, 2020, 02:14:53 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 19, 2020, 01:44:21 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 19, 2020, 01:27:36 pm

When exactly do you pay $1 to return a Trinket? When you play it, or during cleanup, or some other time?

when you play it; so if you want to get rid of it, it can't be the first card you play in a turn, and you don't get its benefit at all (because it moves out of play).

Why can't it be the first card you play in a turn?

You can't (usually) have any money without playing any cards other than this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on June 19, 2020, 02:19:46 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 19, 2020, 02:16:20 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on June 19, 2020, 02:14:53 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 19, 2020, 01:44:21 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 19, 2020, 01:27:36 pm

When exactly do you pay $1 to return a Trinket? When you play it, or during cleanup, or some other time?

when you play it; so if you want to get rid of it, it can't be the first card you play in a turn, and you don't get its benefit at all (because it moves out of play).

Why can't it be the first card you play in a turn?

You can't (usually) have any money without playing any cards other than this.

Oh, duh. Was reading this as first treasure played.

It could be first (and removed) if you had a fishing village, though, because there are always edge cases! :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 19, 2020, 02:20:09 pm

I just wanna say that Trinket is a brilliant design. Now you could argue that all Treasures are situationally good or bad. But this is one is even more sensitive, ranging in power between a Copper and a Platinum in megaturns.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on June 19, 2020, 04:34:25 pm

I'm risking no picture:

Quote

Antique Fair - Project, $4 cost.
At the start of your turn, gain a Trinket to your hand.

Here's a project that may actually not be trivial; timing and viability of purchase are factors.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 20, 2020, 11:42:40 am

Gewgaw (Treasure, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy
---
When you gain this, gain 2 Trinkets.

A Spices variant that hands out Trinkets. Trinkets are markedly different from Coffers, so $5 might be too high a price.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on June 21, 2020, 03:43:19 am

Quote from: alion8me on June 18, 2020, 09:43:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/06czk2l.png)

Quote

Way of the Blue Jay

Follow this card's instructions. Gain and play a Trinket.

edit: Changed card.

I'd honestly make it a project, especially considering this is quite busted with stuff like Market Square or Worker's Village.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on June 22, 2020, 05:47:33 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/HPU4qkG.jpg)

Quote

Scientist
Types: Action
Cost: <4>
+2 Cards, +1 Action. Gain a Trinket from the Trinket pile.

A Debt-cost Laboratory that floods you with Trinkets.
Getting rid of a Trinket is -1 Card and -$1, which makes Scientist a bit worse than Fugitive if you're paying to remove the Trinkets.
The debt-cost means that Trinkets don't help you buy Scientists when you want a bunch of them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on June 22, 2020, 07:11:07 pm

(https://imgur.com/A3ZDIuq.jpg)

Quote

Way of the Magpie

Discard the top card of your deck. If it is a Treasure, gain a Trinket.

Gains you Trinkets when you want them, mostly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on June 23, 2020, 01:03:41 am

I will make an image later I promise, I just don't want to forget this idea

Collector - Action - $4
+$2
Choose one: Reveal your deck, put the revealed Trinkets into your hand, and shuffle the rest back in; or gain a Trinket; or take the Collection.

Collection - Artifact
When you play a Trinket, +1 Buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 23, 2020, 02:42:14 am

Quote from: Marpharos on June 22, 2020, 07:11:07 pm

(https://imgur.com/A3ZDIuq.jpg)

Quote

Way of the Magpie

Discard the top card of your deck. If it is a Treasure, gain a Trinket.

Gains you Trinkets when you want them, mostly.

Trinkets suck in money, they are natural engine pieces that profit from decks that consistently provide several Buys per turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 23, 2020, 11:11:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/WlObNUe.png)

Quote

Iron Rod - Action-Attack-Looter, $5
Each player (including you) reveals the top card of their deck and discards it (you may choose not to). For each player, if it was a(n)... (you get the version in the parentheses)
Action card, gain a Ruins (2 Horses)
Treasure card, gain a Trinket (2 Spoils)
Victory card, gain a Curse ( +2% )

I think this is good enough for a $5, though it might be a little too weak. Should it be $4?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on June 23, 2020, 12:31:17 pm

Quote from: segura on June 23, 2020, 02:42:14 am

Trinkets suck in money, they are natural engine pieces that profit from decks that consistently provide several Buys per turn.

Exactly, you want Trinkets to reduce the cost of cards and you want money to get rid of Trinkets.

I feel like with Trinkets in play I would go for having enough to get a load of mega turns off consistently, so I don’t necessarily need money in my deck too much. Bridges can be drawn dead, Trinkets can’t so having these is much better. If the effect were that cards cost 1 more, that would be a different matter and would feel like junk you would want to get rid of quickly, but as they are I see Trinkets as more of a help in general.

I did consider having it just reveal the top card, but I liked the idea of magpies discarding their Trinkets out of greed. Also, if the magpie also provided +buy it would be too self-sufficient. I feel like Ways, in general, shouldn’t be too OP on their own.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on June 23, 2020, 04:12:26 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on June 21, 2020, 03:43:19 am

Quote from: alion8me on June 18, 2020, 09:43:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/06czk2l.png)

Quote

Way of the Blue Jay

Follow this card's instructions. Gain and play a Trinket.

edit: Changed card.

I'd honestly make it a project, especially considering this is quite busted with stuff like Market Square or Worker's Village.

I agree that Way of the Blue Jay and cantrip +Buy often enables megaturn strategies. However, I don't think making it a project significantly changes that gameplay, and it means that you miss out on interesting early game decisions re: whether or not to use Blue Jay to let you hit a key price point in exchange for what is a copper at that point in the game being added to your deck.

---

Quote from: mail-mi on June 23, 2020, 11:11:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/WlObNUe.png)

Quote

Iron Rod - Action-Attack-Looter, $5
Each player (including you) reveals the top card of their deck and discards it (you may choose not to). For each player, if it was a(n)... (you get the version in the parentheses)
Action card, gain a Ruins (2 Horses)
Treasure card, gain a Trinket (2 Spoils)
Victory card, gain a Curse ( +2% )

I think this is good enough for a $5, though it might be a little too weak. Should it be $4?

I think this should be $4 due to randomness. I would rather give more control to the player than change the price, though, because the benefits of the card can range from adding two more stop cards to your deck to essentially subtracting two stop cards with the horses. This is also hard to play when you want to draw your deck.

The randomness of the attack portion could also make it feel bad, especially in the uncommon case where the other player wants a Trinket. (Which is probably more common than wanting a Ruins or Curse.)

---

Quote from: segura on June 23, 2020, 02:42:14 am

Quote from: Marpharos on June 22, 2020, 07:11:07 pm

(https://imgur.com/A3ZDIuq.jpg)

Quote

Way of the Magpie

Discard the top card of your deck. If it is a Treasure, gain a Trinket.

Gains you Trinkets when you want them, mostly.

Trinkets suck in money, they are natural engine pieces that profit from decks that consistently provide several Buys per turn.

Even "gain a Trinket into your hand" seems like something you would very rarely want to play, let alone conditional gaining out of your hand.

---

Quote from: Aquila on June 19, 2020, 04:34:25 pm

I'm risking no picture:

Quote

Antique Fair - Project, $4 cost.
At the start of your turn, gain a Trinket to your hand.

Here's a project that may actually not be trivial; timing and viability of purchase are factors.

I feel like this is weak enough that it should cost less to pick up.

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 20, 2020, 11:42:40 am

Gewgaw (Treasure, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy
---
When you gain this, gain 2 Trinkets.

A Spices variant that hands out Trinkets. Trinkets are markedly different from Coffers, so $5 might be too high a price.

This feels very weak to me. I don't think you usually want Trinkets in your deck, unlike Coffers which are almost strictly beneficial.

---

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on June 19, 2020, 01:38:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YAexAjA.png)

This seems really game-warping to me, but in a good way. I wish it gave you the option at the start of your buy phase or something so that dudding with it wasn't possible, having your draw stuck on the bottom of your deck hurts enough already.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 24, 2020, 01:37:07 am

Quote from: alion8me on June 23, 2020, 04:12:26 pm

I think this should be $4 due to randomness. I would rather give more control to the player than change the price, though, because the benefits of the card can range from adding two more stop cards to your deck to essentially subtracting two stop cards with the horses. This is also hard to play when you want to draw your deck.

The randomness of the attack portion could also make it feel bad, especially in the uncommon case where the other player wants a Trinket. (Which is probably more common than wanting a Ruins or Curse.)

Stop cards is a bit of a disingenious term for one-shots and it is far from clear that those two Horses are superior to those 2 Spoils. The usefulness of either one-shot is highly situational and deck-dependent.
I agree that the card is a weak $5, but it obviously cannot cost $4 as the most likely option is a Ruins junker with the net effect of +2 Cards (which is weaker than Witch and Cultist but the latter is totally bonkers anyway and hardly the benchmark for anything so the effect is that of a weak $5).

Quote from: alion8me on June 23, 2020, 04:12:26 pm

This feels very weak to me. I don't think you usually want Trinkets in your deck, unlike Coffers which are almost strictly beneficial.

Well, an engine which yields 5 Buys and has enough draw power to draw into those Trinkets direly wants them as payload. But as the Buys come from a stop card in this instance, it is unlikely that such a situation can arise.

But in general, it is important to keep in ming that Trinkets are non-drawing Highways and potentially brilliant payload in an engine that yields enough Buys. That's the main point of it all, a Copper/Silver with Platinum potential.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 24, 2020, 09:29:06 am

Quote from: alion8me on June 23, 2020, 04:12:26 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 20, 2020, 11:42:40 am

Gewgaw (Treasure, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy
---
When you gain this, gain 2 Trinkets.

A Spices variant that hands out Trinkets. Trinkets are markedly different from Coffers, so $5 might be too high a price.

This feels very weak to me. I don't think you usually want Trinkets in your deck, unlike Coffers which are almost strictly beneficial.

Would it work better if it gave $3, rather than $2?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 24, 2020, 09:30:02 am

30ish hour warning
I'll be doing the judging tomorrow, aiming for around 4pm EDT.
If you've got an entry or revision, post it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 24, 2020, 02:26:01 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 23, 2020, 11:11:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/WlObNUe.png)

Quote

Iron Rod - Action-Attack-Looter, $5
Each player (including you) reveals the top card of their deck and discards it (you may choose not to). For each player, if it was a(n)... (you get the version in the parentheses)
Action card, gain a Ruins (2 Horses)
Treasure card, gain a Trinket (2 Spoils)
Victory card, gain a Curse ( +2% )

I think this is good enough for a $5, though it might be a little too weak. Should it be $4?

am I reading this right that you get each player's conditional bonus? like if you're playing a five player game and everyone including you reveals Harem, you'd get 10VP, 10 Spoils, and hand out four Trinkets and four Curses?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 24, 2020, 03:03:20 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 24, 2020, 02:26:01 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 23, 2020, 11:11:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/WlObNUe.png)

Quote

Iron Rod - Action-Attack-Looter, $5
Each player (including you) reveals the top card of their deck and discards it (you may choose not to). For each player, if it was a(n)... (you get the version in the parentheses)
Action card, gain a Ruins (2 Horses)
Treasure card, gain a Trinket (2 Spoils)
Victory card, gain a Curse ( +2% )

I think this is good enough for a $5, though it might be a little too weak. Should it be $4?

am I reading this right that you get each player's conditional bonus? like if you're playing a five player game and everyone including you reveals Harem, you'd get 10VP, 10 Spoils, and hand out four Trinkets and four Curses?

No, sorry, you just get your own bonus. So each player reveals Harem, you get +2VP and 2 spoils, and everyone else gets a Trinket and a Curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 24, 2020, 03:27:26 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 24, 2020, 03:03:20 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 24, 2020, 02:26:01 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on June 23, 2020, 11:11:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/WlObNUe.png)

Quote

Iron Rod - Action-Attack-Looter, $5
Each player (including you) reveals the top card of their deck and discards it (you may choose not to). For each player, if it was a(n)... (you get the version in the parentheses)
Action card, gain a Ruins (2 Horses)
Treasure card, gain a Trinket (2 Spoils)
Victory card, gain a Curse ( +2% )

I think this is good enough for a $5, though it might be a little too weak. Should it be $4?

am I reading this right that you get each player's conditional bonus? like if you're playing a five player game and everyone including you reveals Harem, you'd get 10VP, 10 Spoils, and hand out four Trinkets and four Curses?

No, sorry, you just get your own bonus. So each player reveals Harem, you get +2VP and 2 spoils, and everyone else gets a Trinket and a Curse.

ok cool that's much more reasonable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 24, 2020, 09:36:10 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/rdeg9gan.png)

Quote

Reclaimer - Action - $4
+1 Buy

Trash a card from your hand. For every $2 it costs, rounded down, gain a Trinket to your hand.

a Tfb card. Turns Coppers into nothing, estates into a single Trinket. The +buy almost makes it a +$2 for an estate, on par with salvager. This seems to compare a little poorly to Salvager for trashing, and will continue to do so, unless you can play multiple. Look at the following two scenarios:
1. you have two provinces and throne room and Salvager
2. you have two provinces and throne room and Reclaimer
In the first case you can mill two provinces.
In the second case you can mill two provinces and buy a third province (you got 8 trinkets to lower the cost of provinces to 0)

The idea I wanted to pursue here was helping use Trinkets for mega-turn potential and explore the t4b space with trinkets. I didn't want the card to so easily make a mega-turn all on it's own.

I would love feedback on this card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 24, 2020, 09:43:41 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on June 19, 2020, 01:38:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/YAexAjA.png)

I really love this card. I wonder if it's too strong. Basically 9 turns after I buy this, I can lower the cost of provinces to 0. That's really strong. It seems like any game with easy to come by +buys (and there's quite a few of these that are non-terminal -- worker village, squire, market square, spices, even to some extent forager. Then any engine that is capable of generating lots of +buys ) there's a simple tactic of buy Gold Tree, then spend 9 turns building a +buy engine, then triggering the gold tree and emptying provinces.

Maybe I'm overestimating the power of this strategy. It would lead me to pricing this up at $6

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 25, 2020, 01:35:52 am

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/728/292/full/Trinket_Box.png?1593062491)

Quote

Trinket Box - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may gain a Trinket to your hand.

Trinkets are good with +Buy, so it's a cantrip + Buy with an optional Trinket, which you can gain whenever you need it. It enables play a Trinket strategy during the game or set a megaturn in the end.

Comparing to Market and Highway, the cost of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} seems good to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 25, 2020, 03:44:18 am

A natural buff to make it more Highway-like and create interactions with gainers is to play the Trinket, although that could very well make the card overpowered.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on June 25, 2020, 03:53:43 am

Quote from: Carline on June 25, 2020, 01:35:52 am

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/728/292/full/Trinket_Box.png?1593062491)

Trinket Box - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may gain a Trinket to your hand.

I just wanted to post that! (expect the cardname). Now I have to think of somethin new

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 25, 2020, 11:13:44 am

Again, to avoid ambiguity, will set my entry as the following.

Gewgaw (Treasure, $5)

+$3
+1 Buy
---
When you gain this, gain 2 Trinkets.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 25, 2020, 12:01:06 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 25, 2020, 11:13:44 am

Again, to avoid ambiguity, will set my entry as the following.

Gewgaw (Treasure, $5)

+$3
+1 Buy
---
When you gain this, gain 2 Trinkets.

This is strictly superior to cache. Trinkets are better than coppers almost all the time (cuz they can be self trashed) and this comes with a +buy.

Maybe Cost it 6 or price it with debt or something.

Edit: I do think this design space is really really good (coming with trinkets as a cost, but providing a +buy so the trinkets aren’t actually bad). It just needs to be reworked as to not be so much better than a similarly priced card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on June 25, 2020, 12:06:23 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 25, 2020, 12:01:06 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 25, 2020, 11:13:44 am

Again, to avoid ambiguity, will set my entry as the following.

Gewgaw (Treasure, $5)

+$3
+1 Buy
---
When you gain this, gain 2 Trinkets.

This is strictly superior to cache. Trinkets are better than coppers almost all the time (cuz they can be self trashed) and this comes with a +buy.

Maybe Cost it 6 or price it with debt or something.

Edit: I do think this design space is really really good (coming with trinkets as a cost, but providing a +buy so the trinkets aren’t actually bad). It just needs to be reworked as to not be so much better than a similarly priced card.

Maybe even making it an Action instead, limiting the amount you can play per turn. It’s underpriced due to being a Treasure imo.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 25, 2020, 12:33:19 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 25, 2020, 12:01:06 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 25, 2020, 11:13:44 am

Again, to avoid ambiguity, will set my entry as the following.

Gewgaw (Treasure, $5)

+$3
+1 Buy
---
When you gain this, gain 2 Trinkets.

This is strictly superior to cache.

So what? Cache is super-super-bad so it should not serve as a benchmark for anything. Banquet basically shows that $3 would be OK as a price for Cache (and you could argue that you more often want a $5 than Gold).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 25, 2020, 01:20:49 pm

To avoid confusing things, I'll leave the card as it is and see what transpires. It may well work better as an Action or with a higher price, but time is short. Thanks for your feedback!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on June 25, 2020, 02:40:28 pm

Quote from: segura on June 25, 2020, 12:33:19 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 25, 2020, 12:01:06 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 25, 2020, 11:13:44 am

Again, to avoid ambiguity, will set my entry as the following.

Gewgaw (Treasure, $5)

+$3
+1 Buy
---
When you gain this, gain 2 Trinkets.

This is strictly superior to cache.

So what? Cache is super-super-bad so it should not serve as a benchmark for anything. Banquet basically shows that $3 would be OK as a price for Cache (and you could argue that you more often want a $5 than Gold).

Also, it's not strictly superior; there are some cards that care about Copper specifically, like Settlers, Counting House and Fountain. In addition, Trinkets cannot be used to buy Events and can be maliciously returned by another player via Possession.

Gewgaw is far superior to Cache in the majority of situations, though. Similarly to segura, I don't think this is a bad thing because of a) how terrible Cache is in general and b) many of the situations where you actually wanted Cache, you still want it, because of the Coppers specifically.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on June 25, 2020, 02:56:23 pm

Quote from: alion8me on June 25, 2020, 02:40:28 pm

Quote from: segura on June 25, 2020, 12:33:19 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on June 25, 2020, 12:01:06 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 25, 2020, 11:13:44 am

Again, to avoid ambiguity, will set my entry as the following.

Gewgaw (Treasure, $5)

+$3
+1 Buy
---
When you gain this, gain 2 Trinkets.

This is strictly superior to cache.

So what? Cache is super-super-bad so it should not serve as a benchmark for anything. Banquet basically shows that $3 would be OK as a price for Cache (and you could argue that you more often want a $5 than Gold).

Also, it's not strictly superior; there are some cards that care about Copper specifically, like Settlers, Counting House and Fountain. In addition, Trinkets cannot be used to buy Events and can be maliciously returned by another player via Possession.

Gewgaw is far superior to Cache in the majority of situations, though. Similarly to segura, I don't think this is a bad thing because of a) how terrible Cache is in general and b) many of the situations where you actually wanted Cache, you still want it, because of the Coppers specifically.

Yeah, I think it's kinda like thief/noble brigand, one is superior in almost every way but still allowable since it's not strictly superior.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 25, 2020, 04:04:43 pm

Not sure if this was a tough contest or if we're just at a slow time of the year for the board, but looks like we're down a couple entries from the last couple contests. Sorry if it was too tough or too weird, doing a collab on someone else's idea of a junk card,

Also nearly everyone tried to get The Most Use out of Trinket - would yall have tried the same with Ruins? It's interesting because with it being a Not-So-Painful junk card, you could give them out like wildfire and it'd probably be fine. If you ever wanted to make a 1-to-$1 overpay junker, this was your opportunity.
I suppose there are circumstances where that'd help more than hurt but it was just a very strange difference in how i perceived the card vs how you did, collectively.

I think the only revision I'd want to make with Trinket is make it cost $1*; that way it's extra annoying with Remake/Upgrade style remodelers.

---

On to the judging - i've kind of grouped similar cards but the groups are in no real order; i think i found everyone's stuff, and i tried to be a little more succinct than some of those essays i wrote last time. Feel free to disagree with my analysis; i'm sure given our differing perspectives on the viability of building decks around trinkets, there'll be disagreements over the viability of cards that give trinkets. Without further ado:

Quote

Way of the Blue Jay • Way • auth: alion8me
Follow this card's instructions. Gain and play a Trinket.

This might be too strong. Like, timing-wise, it'll still matter because you're flooding your deck with not-great cards, but add "cards cost $1 less this turn" to, say, Margrave. Or Wharf. maybe too beefy.

Quote

Way of the Magpie • Way • auth: Marpharos
Discard the top card of your deck. If it is a Treasure, gain a Trinket.

this seems bad. you don't generally want trinkets. like, they slow your deck down. I'm unsure when I'd use this unless i'm already set in like a Squire/City Quarter deck that has more buys than I know what to do with. You could probably also tack a +1 Action on there and it'd still be fine.

Quote

Item • $5 • Treasure • auth: [TP] Inferno
$3
+1 Buy
Gain a Trinket.

This doesn't really seem worth it at $5 imo; Even with the potential setup, if you're after a Gold, I'd probably just ... buy Gold. But spineflu, gold is $6! yeah and it's kind of a bad deal at $6. I feel like the only time this'd get a lot of use is when it's the only +buys on the board?
Kind of uninspired, even down to the name :/
I'd be curious how a Haggler variant of this would play, where you gain a Trinket each time you buy a card, That seems more worth $5.

Quote

Gewgaw • $5 • Treasure • auth: mandioca15
$3
+1 Buy
-
When you gain this, gain 2 Trinkets

this is an interesting take but I think it'll be passed on in games where there's no deck-draw potential and just be a dead pile (like Cache is in so many of the games its in). I think this will probably be a noob trap in a bunch of games and unskippable in others. I wish there was a bit more middle ground. You unlocked an achievement though, which was "make me google a title to make sure it isn't a cuss".

Quote

auth: Something_Smart

Quote

Collector • $4 • Action
+$2
Choose one: Reveal your deck, put the Trinkets into your hand, and shuffle the rest back in; or gain a Trinket; or take the Collection.

Quote

Collection • Artifact
When you play a Trinket, +1 Buy

A Counting House / Treasurer variant.

Collection is interesting. It could make for some awfully degenerate artifact chasing games, if nothing else provides +Buy. I think i'd try to narrow down the scope of Collection to something like, "at the start of your turn, +2 Buys" or "when you play a Trinket, if you have an odd number of Trinkets in play, +1 Buy" (which is still cheeseable to hit on every play via returning, but takes more doing and you don't get full cost reduction).

Collector, though, could use some work. Patron loves "Reveal your deck" and it seems way overpowered to do it in a way that benefits a "draw your deck" deck (compare/contrast with counting house, or settlers/bustling village, where you want to have your deck in the discard, a tougher thing to do). Maybe my read on that is wrong though. I just think it could use some tweaks.

Quote

Tribble • $2 • Action • auth: grep • 16/pile
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may gain a Tribble. Look through your discard pile, reveal any number of Trinkets, and put them in to your hand
-
When you gain this, gain a Trinket.

The Trouble with Trinkets, eh? This is neat - a little bit counting house, a little bit rats. I think i'd like it better with the Tribble gaining being mandatory and an option to trash a (copper? non-Treasure?) for another trinket.

Quote

Iron Rod • $5 • Action - Attack - Looter • auth: mail-mi
Each player (including you) reveals the top card of their deck and discards it (you may choose not to). For each player, if it was a(n)... (you get the version in the parentheses)
Action card, gain a Ruins (2 Horses)
Treasure card, gain a Trinket (2 Spoils)
Victory card, gain a Curse ( +2% )

text size issues aside, this is a neat fusion of the past two contests. It definitely throws a lot out there - VP tokens, spoils, trinkets, ruins, horses, and then cursing - but set up aside, i don't think it'd slow down the game too much. A very efficient junker in games with mixed "big 3 type" cards like Harem and Crown and what have you. Probably needs an FAQ but this isn't the Weekly FAQ Design Contest so i'll let that slide.

Quote

Discount Market • $2 • Action • auth: majiponi
+3 Buys
Gain a Trinket to your hand.

This would surely be a go-to card for rushed 3-piles. kind of reminds me of a reverse-beggar

Quote

Reclaimer • $4 • Action • auth: anordinaryman
+1 Buy

Trash a card from your hand. For every $2 it costs, rounded down, gain a Trinket to your hand.

I think, on the one hand, the scenario you outlined with the province milling makes a compelling case for this card, but this card will otherwise be a noob trap, Just, in general, you want trashers to get cards out of your deck, not flood it with more junk. I think it's going to be higher skill and/or more niche than you're presenting it (though it does have a fun synergy with Triumph).

I think maybe a direction to look into to fix this would be giving a choice of, per $2 rounded down, +$1 or a Trinket? like you could take the money or take the trinkets, but not a little of each. That keeps it worse than Salvager but not totally useless.

Quote

Scientist • @4 • Action • auth: Fragasnap
+2 Cards, +1 Action. Gain a Trinket from the Trinket pile.

This is an unexpectedly neat laboratory variant. Good analysis on Trinkets too, i hadn't thought of them in terms of adventure tokens. This is really great.

Quote

Trinket Box • $5 • Action • auth: Carline
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Buy
You may gain a Trinket to your hand.

this is fine, i guess? neither explosively good like some of the other entries, nor especially bad; it is going to pollute your deck and i feel like i'd expect better from a $5 card.

Quote

Gold Tree • $5 • Project • auth: grrgrrgrr
At the start of your turn, Exile a Trinket from its pile, or put all Trinkets you have in Exile into your hand.

I was super excited for this until I thought through how OP opening this w like, Hamlet or Squire or Ducat would be. There's probably a way to orchestrate a 9-turn game out of that.
I think it needs to be $6 or $7 but also with those being Exiled, it's kinda low-risk, so it turns into how fast can you buy it, and can you grab them from exile before game over?

Quote

Antique Fair • $4 • Project • auth: Aquila
At the start of your turn, gain a Trinket to your hand.

This is an interesting contrast to both Cathedral and Gold Tree. I think it requires a lot more strategy consideration - maybe there's some games where it acts as a sort of ongoing Canal (games with enough +Buys, maybe some Competent Trashing to keep your deck from getting overwhelmed). I think you did an excellent job demonstrating a project that's an "if to buy it" rather than a "when to buy it"

Quote

Charlatan • $4 • Action - Attack • auth: D782802859
Gain a card costing up to $4. Each other player gains a copy of it and a Trinket.

Ah, the fun part of messenger - junking yourself to junk your opponents. I like this card. Nice and succinct, good candidate for an under-the-line effect, but good as-is too.

Quote

Mad Inventor • $4 • Night - Attack • auth: NoMoreFun
Gain a card costing up to $4
You may gain a Trinket. If you did, each other player gains a Trinket.

man this is Quality. a gainer that can piggyback off the cost reduction, a junker for everyone else, well made. Gonna empty piles fast being non-terminal but the fix for that is inelegant and Devil's Workshop is already nonterminal so I'm not too worried.

---

Honorable Mentions: Antique Fair (Aquila), Charlatan (D782802859), Discount Market (majiponi)
Runner Up: Scientist by Fragasnap
Winner: Mad Inventor by NoMoreFun

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on June 25, 2020, 04:05:48 pm

I updated my submission, based on the feedback.

(https://i.imgur.com/5D0L7e8.png)

EDIT: Too late lol.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 25, 2020, 05:55:23 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on June 25, 2020, 04:05:48 pm

I updated my submission, based on the feedback.

(https://i.imgur.com/5D0L7e8.png)

EDIT: Too late lol.

yeah literally seconds late; it's fine though, i don't think this really changes my assessment, if anything it just punishes anyone who doesn't buy it turn 1

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on June 25, 2020, 06:31:07 pm

Thank you spineflu!

Contest #79: Different strokes for different folks

This is a more open ended one - design a card (shaped thing) that encourages players to pursue different strategies during the game. The card may explicitly distinguish between players (eg a split Landmark, or something that changes setup rules to give different starting decks). It could also be a card that more subtly creates more than one optimal strategy for the board, or gives different players different tools to work with (Black Market and Tournament), or encourages you to pursue unique cards (Gladiator), or involves competition for a single resource (Mountain Pass).

With difference baked into the card, balance, or at least the ability for players on either side of the inequality to win the game, will be more important than usual.

Similarly a card that does this differentiation solely by being very political (eg attacks that only affect one other player you choose), would fit the criteria, but probably wouldn't do very well.

All submissions are "eligible"; just think holistically about how a Dominion game involving your card (shaped thing)(s) would play out. If there is more than one "optimal strategy", or if players are actively trying to avoid doing the same thing as each other, then you have done well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 25, 2020, 10:58:52 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2020, 04:04:43 pm

Quote

Reclaimer • $4 • Action • auth: anordinaryman
+1 Buy

Trash a card from your hand. For every $2 it costs, rounded down, gain a Trinket to your hand.

I think, on the one hand, the scenario you outlined with the province milling makes a compelling case for this card, but this card will otherwise be a noob trap, Just, in general, you want trashers to get cards out of your deck, not flood it with more junk. I think it's going to be higher skill and/or more niche than you're presenting it (though it does have a fun synergy with Triumph).

I think maybe a direction to look into to fix this would be giving a choice of, per $2 rounded down, +$1 or a Trinket? like you could take the money or take the trinkets, but not a little of each. That keeps it worse than Salvager but not totally useless.

Ah, that's a really really good suggestion. I knew that Reclaimer was weak, but it still felt interesting to me. Your suggestion strengthens it in a thematic way (continuing to use the per $2 rounded down) and I think would be a much better designed card. Thanks for the feedback!

For what it's worth I thought this was a really good and interesting contest! You demonstrated that Trinkets definitely have a lot of interesting design space with all the varied submissions. The winner does a great job taking advantage of using both the Junking aspect of trinket and the beneficial aspect of Trinket.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on June 26, 2020, 03:07:38 am

Rialto - Landmark
At the start of the game, each player in turn order names a pile in the Supply (the choices must be different). When scoring, 3 VP per card in your deck from the pile named by the player to your right.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 26, 2020, 03:44:57 am

I like this but it massively increases the first player advantage if there is a crap terminal in the Kingdom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 26, 2020, 05:01:59 am

Will try this for size - it might be hideously bad.

Harbour (Landmark)
At the start of the game, select a different non-Victory card from the Supply for each player. That player cannot buy copies of that card in this game (they can still gain them).


Not sure how best to do the selection - the other players could decide between them, or it could be done randomly. The former might be too political, or take too long, while the latter is likely to be swingy.

This would presumably need some kind of token to mark the verboten cards, one per player.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 26, 2020, 06:20:13 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 26, 2020, 05:01:59 am

Will try this for size - it might be hideously bad.

Harbour (Landmark)
At the start of the game, select a different non-Victory card from the Supply for each player. That player cannot buy copies of that card in this game (they can still gain them).


Not sure how best to do the selection - the other players could decide between them, or it could be done randomly. The former might be too political, or take too long, while the latter is likely to be swingy.

This would presumably need some kind of token to mark the verboten cards, one per player.

have everyone pick one at the start of the game, shuffle those and deal them randomly? That way no one picks a card that's the most crucial because they might get it as their verboten card?
also three suggestions: 1- make copper a forbidden-to-embargo card, just to idiotproof it a little. 2- make it pile-based rather than card-based. 3- use a card marker like Young Witch does with the Bane pile

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on June 26, 2020, 06:52:00 am

Umm.............. This is a hard challenge.
How about this??

Investor
$5
Choose one: Gain 2 cards each costing up to $3; or gain a copy of your selected Investment card.
-------
Setup: Choose 2 random unused Victory cards. Each player then sets aside a random card from either pile in front of them. This is their Investment card.

This is a crazy idea, but hopefully it works. Feedback is welcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 26, 2020, 08:00:44 am

(https://i.imgur.com/n7RdF8E.png)

Simple Alt-VP support card that lifts all boats and thus makes all non-Province green slightly more attractive.

An alternative version would be: "When you gain a Victory card, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on June 26, 2020, 09:00:04 am

Spineflu, nothing wrong with your contest of the week! Honestly, I forgot to submit an entry because of 3 factors:

A. I was more focused on the thread I created for my custom cards.
B. I was a little uninspired.
C. I think some people's submissions were very good already. In fact, I thought there were so good that I would've preferred their entry to what I could've posted anyway. :)

Quote from: ConMan on June 26, 2020, 03:07:38 am

Rialto - Landmark
At the start of the game, each player in turn order names a pile in the Supply (the choices must be different). When scoring, 3 VP per card in your deck from the pile named by the player to your right.

Maybe this should be limited to Kingdom Supply piles or Action Supply piles. A player could simply mention "Curse" and that'd be annoying for the player who must collect them. Or a player could be disingenuous and say "Province" and massively aid the player to their left. Or a pile could be randomly selected for each player when building the Supply during the setup.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on June 26, 2020, 09:03:06 am

Quote from: spineflu on June 26, 2020, 06:20:13 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on June 26, 2020, 05:01:59 am

Will try this for size - it might be hideously bad.

Harbour (Landmark)
At the start of the game, select a different non-Victory card from the Supply for each player. That player cannot buy copies of that card in this game (they can still gain them).


Not sure how best to do the selection - the other players could decide between them, or it could be done randomly. The former might be too political, or take too long, while the latter is likely to be swingy.

This would presumably need some kind of token to mark the verboten cards, one per player.

have everyone pick one at the start of the game, shuffle those and deal them randomly? That way no one picks a card that's the most crucial because they might get it as their verboten card?
also three suggestions: 1- make copper a forbidden-to-embargo card, just to idiotproof it a little. 2- make it pile-based rather than card-based. 3- use a card marker like Young Witch does with the Bane pile

Being able to perm-Embargo Copper might be interesting in certain cases, though. I'm prepared to allow it.

Harbour (Landmark)
At the start of the game, each player chooses a different non-Victory card from the Supply. Shuffle these and deal one to each player. Each player cannot buy cards from their card's pile in this game (they can still gain them). Each player should place their Harbour token on the pile they cannot buy cards from. Return the shuffled cards to the Supply.

Bit of a long winded setup explanation, but hopefully it makes sense.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 26, 2020, 01:57:35 pm

I went with a probably-too-complicated Science Grant / Inheritance variant
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ef55fccc89dc367508123a7/28858b24f923e00299e8f6fc8ba50be0/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ef55fccc89dc367508123a7/7e8211013a7cc3997084d91cd8577462/image.png)

Quote

Breakthrough • PP • Event
Move your Alembic token to an Aqua Vitae card with no tokens on it. (During your turn Potions are also Actions with 'If it's your Action phase, play the card with your Alembic token on it.')

Quote

Breakthrough • (randomizer)
(Draw another randomizer)
Set Up:
Include the "Breakthrough" Event in the Kingdom.

Shuffle the Aqua Vitae Actions and place one per player, plus one extra, next to the Breakthrough Event; These are not in the Supply.

Return the rest to the box.

Important differences from Inheritance:
• You can buy this multiple times, to change what your Potions do
• You can still play Potion during your Buy phase for (Potion currency)
• You have to pick an Aqua Vitae action that doesn't have a token on it, so your potions can't do the same thing as other players potions. (This is how it qualifies for the contest.)
• You'll only have players+1 Aqua Vitae actions to choose from, so these won't all be available every game
• The setup instructions are on a randomizer (like castles) since the event itself was already super crowded; the randomizer tells you to draw another randomizer since you'd be down a pile otherwise.

I made up nine "Aqua Vitae" actions - they aren't as important as the event itself but they're all roughly a "Strong 5"; I'd consider these more "thoughts about where to go with Aqua Vitae actions" rather than "these are the Aqua Vitae actions, fullstop"; they probably aren't balanced currently.
My guidelines for Aqua Vitae actions are:
• no "incredibly unique" cards - there's a fair bit of functional overlap with these
• no durations - too hard to track
• worth roughly $5
• mostly non-terminal or remodel variants

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ef55fccc89dc367508123a7/e9ce981ee05f31d88597c1ac34a94141/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ef55fccc89dc367508123a7/2a3e52e42d8c6115bce5c2679c308b49/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ef55fccc89dc367508123a7/e044dc8e4703eb3bf7512a7b4763c337/image.png)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ef55fccc89dc367508123a7/1ce855dc56831a84cafbc4dc45c1dd03/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ef55fccc89dc367508123a7/54e58c5ceabf8332c1a078d790b70003/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ef55fccc89dc367508123a7/06aa15da242b1611846023fd7f2b52c6/image.png)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ef55fccc89dc367508123a7/bbe6b12cdc32d73459d79c0294020e90/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ef55fccc89dc367508123a7/83719fbf31e7cd1f23d7a27f61e4b3ee/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5ef55fccc89dc367508123a7/147b350fd89b724ba7b6fcab6e7d38a4/image.png)

Quote

Quote

Transfigure • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
 Trash a non-Victory card to gain a card that shares a type with it.

a remodel variant; can mill Curses but not trash them outright (until the Curse pile is gone). Can remodel copper into Gold and ruins into princes.

Quote

Grimoire • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
+1 Action
You may play a Treasure other than Potion from your hand.
Draw until you have five cards in hand.

Nonterminal library variant. The restriction on Potion is because it's confusing enough when you play Crown with Storyteller. of course, you can play Crown->Potion with this, which is its own can of worms but i figure that's niche enough that anyone who does that wants the complexity.

Quote

Radiant City • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
At the start of your Buy Phase, you may discard a Potion for +$1 per unspent Action (not Action Card).

"Diadem Village"

Quote

Oust • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck; you may Exile it or put it back.

dejunker that works a little smoother than native village, which is a trap card

Quote

Trestle • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
+1 Buy
Cards cost $1 less this turn.
You may reveal a card from your hand that you do not have a copy of in play for +$2.

potentially better bridge.

Quote

Agistment • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
+2 Cards
+1 Action
If you have an odd number of Potions in play, +1 Card.

Stables/Lab variant.

Quote

Symposium • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
+4 Cards
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Discard 3 cards from your hand.

Stronger Forum.

Quote

Abyss • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
Trash a card from your hand. Choose one:
Gain a card costing up to $4; or
Gain a card costing up to $1 per uniquely named card in the trash, and if the gained card was a Victory card, trash all Potions you have in play.

revised this to remove the early dud-ing.

Quote

Repair • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
+2 Cards
Trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.

If both cards share a type, +$2.

revised this to be slightly better than remodel

and then these are the Alembic tokens I quickly threw together; they're adventure tokens; i used the windows segoe emoji font with the 'alembic' emoji for the icon.
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5ef55fccc89dc367508123a7/520x334/18d4b463dec543ad07cf6ee50250950f/image.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 26, 2020, 04:25:57 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/732/393/full/Land_Grant_%282%29.png?1593203008)

Quote

Land Grant - <10> - Project

Once per game, place a cube on a Landmark of Land Grant set that has no cubes on it. When scoring, it applies only for you.

Setup: make a Land Grant set with the following Landmarks: Fountain, Museum, Obelisk, Orchard, Palace, Tower and Triumphal Arc. Choose at random Obelisk's supply pile.

EDIT: I UPDATED MY ENTRY, SEE POST OF JULY/04/20, AHEAD.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 26, 2020, 05:11:43 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 26, 2020, 01:57:35 pm

• You can buy this multiple times, to change what your Potions do

In the card image it is "once per game". I think you probably changed your mind and forgot to change image.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on June 26, 2020, 05:22:34 pm

This is a nice and challenging contest. Getting around the inequality whilst not creating unpleasant races to the best unique benefit (Tournament, Mountain Pass), swinginess (black market) or indirectly causing mirrors by the benefit of going unique being too strong.

This is my entry for now:

Quote

Monolith - Project, <8> cost.
Put your cube onto a kingdom pile with no other cube on it. When scoring, +2VP for each card you have from that pile.

An obelisk you can sculpt to suit your tastes. Go in early and you can seize the most hotly contested pile or deny one your opponent is focusing, or go late to pick a more obscure one. This might suffer from the unpleasant race problem, if going obscure late means picking undesirable stuff up.

---

@ Spineflu's entry: Grifter is the only attack; whilst you've done well in avoiding the race scenario, this one may still cause it.

---

Quote from: Carline on June 26, 2020, 04:25:57 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/732/393/full/Land_Grant_%282%29.png?1593203008)

Quote

Land Grant - <10> - Project

Once per game, place a cube on a Landmark of Land Grant set that has no cubes on it. When scoring, it applies only for you.

Setup: make a Land Grant set with the following Landmarks: Fountain, Museum, Obelisk, Orchard, Palace, Tower and Triumphal Arc. Choose at random Obelisk's supply pile.

This will surely make the race scenario, if not a 'first player wins' one, since Museum seems to stand out as vastly superior to the other Landmarks. Sometimes it's Tower with maybe a Silver flood strategy, but same thing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 26, 2020, 05:28:58 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 26, 2020, 05:11:43 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 26, 2020, 01:57:35 pm

• You can buy this multiple times, to change what your Potions do

In the card image it is "once per game". I think you probably changed your mind and forgot to change image.

yeah i've got too many revisions of it that are largely unlabelled. ty for pointing that out, i'll fix.

---

Quote from: Aquila on June 26, 2020, 05:22:34 pm

@ Spineflu's entry: Grifter is the only attack; whilst you've done well in avoiding the race scenario, this one may still cause it.

yeah good point - i'll just cut that one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Threa
Post by: segura on June 26, 2020, 05:32:04 pm

Quote from: X-tra on June 26, 2020, 09:00:04 am

A player could simply mention "Curse" and that'd be annoying for the player who must collect them.

If there is a good source of extra Buys, Curse is actually a pretty bad choice (from the perspective of th choosing player, it is brilliant for the player for whom the choice is made) as it is a Tunnel sans Reaction for $0.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 26, 2020, 06:12:49 pm

Quote from: Aquila on June 26, 2020, 05:22:34 pm

---

Quote from: Carline on June 26, 2020, 04:25:57 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/732/393/full/Land_Grant_%282%29.png?1593203008)

Quote

Land Grant - <10> - Project

Once per game, place a cube on a Landmark of Land Grant set that has no cubes on it. When scoring, it applies only for you.

Setup: make a Land Grant set with the following Landmarks: Fountain, Museum, Obelisk, Orchard, Palace, Tower and Triumphal Arc. Choose at random Obelisk's supply pile.

This will surely make the race scenario, if not a 'first player wins' one, since Museum seems to stand out as vastly superior to the other Landmarks. Sometimes it's Tower with maybe a Silver flood strategy, but same thing.

Thank you. Maybe I could remove Museum from the set. The case of Tower with Silvers seems more situational. But maybe the best solution is to create specific Landmarks for this set, I'll try to do it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on June 26, 2020, 07:09:13 pm

Quote from: Carline on June 26, 2020, 06:12:49 pm

Quote from: Aquila on June 26, 2020, 05:22:34 pm

---

Quote from: Carline on June 26, 2020, 04:25:57 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/732/393/full/Land_Grant_%282%29.png?1593203008)

Quote

Land Grant - <10> - Project

Once per game, place a cube on a Landmark of Land Grant set that has no cubes on it. When scoring, it applies only for you.

Setup: make a Land Grant set with the following Landmarks: Fountain, Museum, Obelisk, Orchard, Palace, Tower and Triumphal Arc. Choose at random Obelisk's supply pile.

This will surely make the race scenario, if not a 'first player wins' one, since Museum seems to stand out as vastly superior to the other Landmarks. Sometimes it's Tower with maybe a Silver flood strategy, but same thing.

Thank you. Maybe I could remove Museum from the set. The case of Tower with Silvers seems more situational. But maybe the best solution is to create specific Landmarks for this set, I'll try to do it.

The specific Landmarks I want to add to Land Grant set:

- When scoring, 3 VP for set you have of Province - Duchy – Estate
- When scoring, 2 VP for different named Action card you have
- When scoring, 3 VP for different named Treasure card you have
- When scoring, 1 VP per 4 cards you have (round down)
- When scoring, 3 VP for different type of cards you have
- When scoring, 3 VP for different type of cards in the trash
- When scoring, 1 VP per Action card you have from an empty supply pile
- Choose a card type besides Action, Treasure and Victory. When scoring, 1 VP for each card of that type you have

I’ll create names and arts. I don’t know for sure if they are well balanced. What do you think?

EDIT: I UPDATED MY ENTRY, SEE POST OF JULY/04/20, AHEAD.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on June 26, 2020, 08:38:36 pm

I think my last submission (WotMagpie) could've used that +1 Action, and maybe drawing Treasures as well. Hindsight, eh?

For this week, I had thought of doing a Tournament variant but it didn't seem all that worthwhile. Here's what I've got instead:

Metalworker

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/K0lMwN9.png)

Action - $5
Reveal a Treasure from your hand. The player to your left may reveal a copy from their hand. If they do, gain a copy of it. If not, take either the Copper Alloy, the Silver Charm, or the Gold Token.

Copper Alloy

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/yvxH665.png)

Artifact
Each Copper produces an extra $1 this turn.

Silver Charms

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/MpcPqs5.png)

Artifact
Each Silver provides +1 Buy this turn.

Gold Token

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/FsIcDbe.png)

Artifact
Each Gold in your deck gains the Attack - Doom type.
When you play a Gold, each other player receives the next Hex.

I'm not 100% on how I've worded some of these, especially Gold Token. I took inspiration from Capitalism for that, but because Artifacts aren't attacks and Metalworker isn't an attack I thought Golds gaining those types made the most sense?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 26, 2020, 08:51:18 pm

I'd reword Gold Token & Silver Charms
Silver Charms as "when you play a Silver, +1 Buy"
Gold Token, look to inheritance for wording - something like "On your turns, Gold is also an Attack - Doom card that reads '$3. Each other player receives the next Hex'"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Awaclus on June 27, 2020, 01:57:13 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on June 26, 2020, 08:38:36 pm

Silver Charms

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/MpcPqs5.png)

FUCKING GREAT! This is what silvers need!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on June 27, 2020, 03:02:48 pm

THIS SUBMISSION IS OBSOLETE. SEE PAGE 248 TO FIND THE UPDATED VERSION.


This week’s contest will be a tough one to judge; its open-endedness means that a lot of different concepts will be tossed here and there. A direct comparison between each user’s entry is going to be difficult, hahaha!

So for my submission, I tried to take a shot at a Traveler line. Here are the 5 cards part of that line:

(https://i.postimg.cc/MqfBS39D/A1-Successor-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/t9fFPQ78/Landowner-v1-1.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/1ypNgnhV/A3-Aristocrat-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/mbB17LBX/A4-Magnate-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/HTGys0KC/A5-Monarch-V1-EN.png)


The game-wrapping element here is that the Successor Traveler line is one that focus on Victory cards a lot. In fact, going for a Monarch takes even longer seeing as your deck will be inflated with Victory cards and stuff, thanks to Successor and Landowner. So while going for a Page or a Peasant is almost instinctive in most Dominion games, I’d argue that Successor could make one a little more hesitant if they want to aim for that.

I’m wondering if Monarch should always stay in play like Champion does. That’d be massively overpowered though, I think.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 27, 2020, 06:20:25 pm

This looks very good precisely because, as you said, it is not as crazy as Peasant or Page. The only thing I do not like is the massive power jump from the $4 to the $5. One of the first 3 cards might get away with a slight buff, perhaps making one non-terminal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on June 27, 2020, 06:44:55 pm

I have a concept that seems to be promising but I'm not really satisfied with either of the cards I've made using it yet. I will tentatively submit this:

Quote

Opera House - Action - $4
+1 Buy
+$4
--
While this is in play, when you buy a card, the player to your left may reveal a copy of it from their hand. If they do, take 2 Debt.

My other idea for the bottom half is "While this is in play, you can't buy cards that the player to your right played a copy of on their last turn." That solves the victory problem but it is a pain to track and also has nastier FPA. The first version has FPA but there's a lot more variance of whether they will have the card in hand or not, so it's probably less bad for the second player (but more prone to randomness).

Like I said I'm not satisfied with either version; I'll keep thinking about them. Any feedback is welcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on June 27, 2020, 07:15:09 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/n8gk2ST/image.png)

Quote

Royal Monopoly
Project - $5
Gain a card costing up to $4 from a Supply pile with no Patent tokens on it, and move your Patent token on that pile.
When any player gains a card from the pile with your Patent token, +1 Coffer

Technically it's another token similar to Ferry, but with a monopoly clause to encourage the patent holder and discourage the others. Yes, you can patent Curse or Ruins, and junk the opponents while getting profit. To nerf this feature, monopoly is once per game.
The wording is heavier than I prefer, I would really appreciate any help with rewording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on June 27, 2020, 07:27:26 pm

Quote from: X-tra on June 27, 2020, 03:02:48 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/MqfBS39D/A1-Successor-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/t9fFPQ78/Landowner-v1-1.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/1ypNgnhV/A3-Aristocrat-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/mbB17LBX/A4-Magnate-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/HTGys0KC/A5-Monarch-V1-EN.png)

I love the idea of a ladder relying on Victory cards.
Magnate needs a fix for accountability: You may discard a Victory card. As for me, it's too weak for a penultimate ladder step - probably should be +1 Action +2 Cards or something

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on June 27, 2020, 07:59:06 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 26, 2020, 08:51:18 pm

I'd reword Gold Token & Silver Charms
Silver Charms as "when you play a Silver, +1 Buy"
Gold Token, look to inheritance for wording - something like "On your turns, Gold is also an Attack - Doom card that reads '$3. Each other player receives the next Hex'"

You're right, Silver Charms does need that reworking. I found Gold Token problematic for wording but what you've suggested is definitely clearer.

The full updated lot then:

(https://i.imgur.com/RvTJPcc.png)

Quote

Metalworker - Action - $5
Reveal a Treasure from your hand. The player to your left may reveal a copy from their hand. If they do, gain a copy of it. If not, take either the Copper Alloy, the Silver Charms, or the Gold Token.

(https://i.imgur.com/yvxH665.png)

Quote

Copper Alloy - Artifact
Each Copper produces an extra $1 this turn.

(https://i.imgur.com/qK1slRw.png)

Quote

Silver Charms - Artifact
When you play a Silver, +1 Buy

(https://i.imgur.com/FJLQCuz.png)

Quote

On your turns, Gold is also an Attack - Doom card that reads: $3 Each other player receives the next Hex.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on June 27, 2020, 08:28:11 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Ww5vmox.png?1)
A simple little card that gives slower strategies a bump in speed while allowing others to gain key cards or buy more expensive cards early. The o-play also contributes, and is intended to help out a money strategy so that avenue is also an option.
EDIT
Card modified to this:
(https://i.imgur.com/O9R0DNT.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on June 27, 2020, 08:54:13 pm

Quote

Quote from: Carline on June 26, 2020, 04:25:57 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/732/393/full/Land_Grant_%282%29.png?1593203008)

Quote

Land Grant - <10> - Project

Once per game, place a cube on a Landmark of Land Grant set that has no cubes on it. When scoring, it applies only for you.

Setup: make a Land Grant set with the following Landmarks: Fountain, Museum, Obelisk, Orchard, Palace, Tower and Triumphal Arc. Choose at random Obelisk's supply pile.

The specific Landmarks I want to add to Land Grant set:

- When scoring, 3 VP for set you have of Province - Duchy – Estate
- When scoring, 2 VP for different named Action card you have
- When scoring, 3 VP for different named Treasure card you have
- When scoring, 1 VP per 4 cards you have (round down)
- When scoring, 3 VP for different type of cards you have
- When scoring, 3 VP for different type of cards in the trash
- When scoring, 1 VP per Action card you have from an empty supply pile
- Choose a card type besides Action, Treasure and Victory. When scoring, 1 VP for each card of that type you have

I’ll create names and arts. I don’t know for sure if they are well balanced. What do you think?

I like these a lot and the power of them would vary by game, but they benefit from not being cards themselves - especially the Gardens variant. I haven't given much thought about the numbers but it seems alright. I might change the one that's "3vp for different type of cards in the trash" as it might work better if it cared about number of cards in the trash? I think the last one is the weakest of them all. At what point do you choose the card type? If you pick Curse you're essentially unaffected by them.

Overall I think they're pretty well balanced though. I haven't thought about the cost of the project at all either but seems fair enough. In general you're looking at an easy 9+ vp.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on June 27, 2020, 09:06:47 pm

Quote from: grep on June 27, 2020, 07:15:09 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/n8gk2ST/image.png)

Technically it's another token similar to Ferry, but with a monopoly clause to encourage the patent holder and discourage the others. Yes, you can patent Curse or Ruins, and junk the opponents while getting profit. To nerf this feature, monopoly is once per game.
The wording is heavier than I prefer, I would really appreciate any help with rewording.

I think you mean Seaway, not Ferry? Here's my attempt:

Quote

Gain a card from a pile without a Patent token costing up to $4. Move your Patent token to its pile.
When another player gains a card from that pile, you first get +1 Coffer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 28, 2020, 11:36:27 am

Quote from: D782802859 on June 27, 2020, 08:28:11 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Ww5vmox.png?1)
A simple little card that gives slower strategies a bump in speed while allowing others to gain key cards or buy more expensive cards early. The o-play also contributes, and is intended to help out a money strategy so that avenue is also an option.

+2 Cards and 2 Coins is a strong $5 and this is hardly weaker.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on June 28, 2020, 11:38:38 am

Quote from: segura on June 28, 2020, 11:36:27 am

Quote from: D782802859 on June 27, 2020, 08:28:11 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Ww5vmox.png?1)
A simple little card that gives slower strategies a bump in speed while allowing others to gain key cards or buy more expensive cards early. The o-play also contributes, and is intended to help out a money strategy so that avenue is also an option.

+2 Cards and 2 Coins is a strong $5 and this is hardly weaker.

+2 Cards and +2 Coins isn't that strong of a 5, it's mostly just boring, and this doesn't increase handsize.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 28, 2020, 12:16:59 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 28, 2020, 11:38:38 am

+2 Cards and +2 Coins isn't that strong of a 5

Ehm, no:

Quote

"Highway:" This was "+2 Cards +$2," for $5. It was a solid card that I eventually decided not to do. It seemed strong and it's too easy to compare to other things. It had no special charm.

Source: The Continued Secret History of the Early Dominion Cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=5905.0)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on June 28, 2020, 12:38:48 pm

Quote from: Awaclus on June 27, 2020, 01:57:13 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on June 26, 2020, 08:38:36 pm

Silver Charms

Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/MpcPqs5.png)

FUCKING GREAT! This is what silvers need!

Now I want to know what it did.

Quote from: X-tra on June 27, 2020, 03:02:48 pm

I’m wondering if Monarch should always stay in play like Champion does. That’d be massively overpowered though, I think.

I don't think so at all. Compare it to what champion does: infinite actions and protection against everything. Now compare it to what teacher does.

I would probably make it stay in play forever and give victory cards lab effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on June 28, 2020, 03:20:17 pm

Quote from: segura on June 28, 2020, 12:16:59 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 28, 2020, 11:38:38 am

+2 Cards and +2 Coins isn't that strong of a 5

Ehm, no:

Quote

"Highway:" This was "+2 Cards +$2," for $5. It was a solid card that I eventually decided not to do. It seemed strong and it's too easy to compare to other things. It had no special charm.

Source: The Continued Secret History of the Early Dominion Cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=5905.0)

I think if tested, +2 Cards +$2 wouldn't be much better than existing fives. Regardless, I will definitely consider adding a third discard because it might be a bit too good without changing it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on June 28, 2020, 03:32:52 pm

This is what I thought of...

Quote

Stamp
$4 - Action-Victory
+1 Card, +1 Action.
If you have more than one Stamp in play, +$1. You may trash this. If you do, gain a gold.
-
Worth 2VP if you are not the player with the most Stamps (or tied for most). Otherwise, Worth 1VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on June 28, 2020, 06:55:35 pm

THE CARD BELLOW IS NOT PART OF MY FINAL SUBMISSION. SEE PAGE 248 TO FIND MY FINAL SUBMISSION.

Quote from: grep on June 27, 2020, 07:27:26 pm

I love the idea of a ladder relying on Victory cards.
Magnate needs a fix for accountability: You may discard a Victory card. As for me, it's too weak for a penultimate ladder step - probably should be +1 Action +2 Cards or something

Touché! Magnate shall receive a "You may". Ironically, Aristocrat just before him did have that "You may". Being consistent while making cards is hard, lol.

Quote from: silverspawn on June 28, 2020, 12:38:48 pm

I don't think so at all. Compare it to what champion does: infinite actions and protection against everything. Now compare it to what teacher does.

I would probably make it stay in play forever and give victory cards lab effect.

I was trying to fiddle a little bit around the idea of making Monarch stay in-play and came up with this:

(https://i.postimg.cc/0vF4dNby/Monarch-v2.png)

I am not committed to that version just yet though. For the time being, I’ll stay with Monarch V1 (the non-Duration one), unless this revision gains enough traction and is deemed good enough to replace the other version. I dunno, it just seems very strong to me. Like, Victory cards won’t be stop cards for you for the rest of the game. Anyway, I may be misjudging this whole affair too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 28, 2020, 07:58:35 pm

Quote from: X-tra on June 28, 2020, 06:55:35 pm

Quote from: grep on June 27, 2020, 07:27:26 pm

I love the idea of a ladder relying on Victory cards.
Magnate needs a fix for accountability: You may discard a Victory card. As for me, it's too weak for a penultimate ladder step - probably should be +1 Action +2 Cards or something

Touché! Magnate shall receive a "You may". Ironically, Aristocrat just before him did have that "You may". Being consistent while making cards is hard, lol.

Quote from: silverspawn on June 28, 2020, 12:38:48 pm

I don't think so at all. Compare it to what champion does: infinite actions and protection against everything. Now compare it to what teacher does.

I would probably make it stay in play forever and give victory cards lab effect.

I was trying to fiddle a little bit around the idea of making Monarch stay in-play and came up with this:

(https://i.postimg.cc/0vF4dNby/Monarch-v2.png)

I am not committed to that version just yet though. For the time being, I’ll stay with Monarch V1 (the non-Duration one), unless this revision gains enough traction and is deemed good enough to replace the other version. I dunno, it just seems very strong to me. Like, Victory cards won’t be stop cards for you for the rest of the game. Anyway, I may be misjudging this whole affair too.

does the v2 of Monarch stack? ie, getting two fully advanced would be a Lost City, 3, +3 Cards +3 Actions?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on June 28, 2020, 08:13:39 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 28, 2020, 07:58:35 pm

does the v2 of Monarch stack? ie, getting two fully advanced would be a Lost City, 3, +3 Cards +3 Actions?

I don't think it would. Because it modifies Victory card to a single thing. Playing another Monarch would just do the same thing; changing those Victory cards into the same thing once again. It's hard to argue about this when there isn't really an official Dominion counterpart we can base our conclusions onto. But for the sake of balance, I'd put into some kind of FAQ that this part of Monarch does not stack.

Now, for the +1 Action when a Traveller is played, it will stack with multiple Monarchs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on June 29, 2020, 10:20:05 am

Animal Market
cost $4 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Discard the top card of your deck. The player to your left discards the top card of their deck. If the discarded cards have different names, +1 Buy and +$1.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on June 29, 2020, 11:31:25 am

(https://i.ibb.co/n8gk2ST/image.png)

Quote from: Marpharos on June 27, 2020, 09:06:47 pm

I think you mean Seaway, not Ferry? Here's my attempt:

Quote

Gain a card from a pile without a Patent token costing up to $4. Move your Patent token to its pile.
When another player gains a card from that pile, you first get +1 Coffer.

Nope, I meant "Ferry" as it's a variant of the cost reduction theme. My version gives a Coffer when any player including the patent holder gains a card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on June 29, 2020, 11:39:30 am

Quote from: X-tra on June 28, 2020, 06:55:35 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/0vF4dNby/Monarch-v2.png)

I am not committed to that version just yet though. For the time being, I’ll stay with Monarch V1 (the non-Duration one), unless this revision gains enough traction and is deemed good enough to replace the other version. I dunno, it just seems very strong to me. Like, Victory cards won’t be stop cards for you for the rest of the game. Anyway, I may be misjudging this whole affair too.

Monarch v2 is very strong and balances the weakness of the ladder (without the Monarch, they are just a bunch of mediocre self-junking cards). And there is almost no marginal value of the second monarch, which is nice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on June 29, 2020, 07:43:33 pm

Quote from: grep on June 29, 2020, 11:39:30 am

Quote from: X-tra on June 28, 2020, 06:55:35 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/0vF4dNby/Monarch-v2.png)

I am not committed to that version just yet though. For the time being, I’ll stay with Monarch V1 (the non-Duration one), unless this revision gains enough traction and is deemed good enough to replace the other version. I dunno, it just seems very strong to me. Like, Victory cards won’t be stop cards for you for the rest of the game. Anyway, I may be misjudging this whole affair too.

Monarch v2 is very strong and balances the weakness of the ladder (without the Monarch, they are just a bunch of mediocre self-junking cards). And there is almost no marginal value of the second monarch, which is nice.

However there are some shenanigans you can do with monarch where because cards are in play, they can be copied by changeling and pilgrimage. Is that intended?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on June 30, 2020, 05:03:04 am

Does this qualify for the chalange:

*name - Project $7
Whenever you gain a duchy, gain a gold.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 30, 2020, 10:05:03 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on June 26, 2020, 06:52:00 am

Umm.............. This is a hard challenge.
How about this??

Investor
$5
Choose one: Gain 2 cards each costing up to $3; or gain a copy of your selected Investment card.
-------
Setup: Choose 2 random unused Victory cards. Each player then sets aside a random card from either pile in front of them. This is their Investment card.

This is a crazy idea, but hopefully it works. Feedback is welcome.

This is an Event? Or an Action?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on June 30, 2020, 01:24:23 pm

not a submission yet, still picking which of these variants to do.
Feedback requested!

I decided to go the route of having a card-shaped thing that encourages players to use different cards. It's a modification from a previous entry I did a long time ago. I can't figure out the best direction to go in. Would love some help in helping me figure out which of these directions to go in:

Quote

Council Chamber - Action - $5
Set aside an Action card from your hand under this. When other players play copies of that card, +1 card. When you play copies of that card, trash a card you have in play.

(This stays in play)

* note - heavy cost to gain the Action and line it up, plus cost of bad self-trashing. This encourages all players to avoid heavily relying on this card. The card does not junk your hand though because it stays in play

Quote

Council Chamber - Action - $5
Set aside an Action card from your hand under this. When other players play copies of that card, Exile a Horse. When you play copies of that card, trash a card you have in play.
-
When you trash this, Gain a Horse.

(This stays in play)

Same as above but weakened to gain Horses instead. I'm not sure I Like this.

Quote

Council Chamber - PROJECT - $6
Set aside an Action card from the Supply under this. When other players play copies of that card, gain a Horse.

Project variant is a lot stronger. Sort of an interactive path-finding variant. Slowed down by using Horses rather than immediate +1 draw, but does not allow discards. This encourages players to avoid a monolithic strategy. It does not discourage the buyer of Council Chamber from avoiding that card so encourages different strategies.

Quote

Council Chamber - Action - $5
Choose one: Trash this; or set aside an Action card from your hand. Move your Council Token to it. (When other players play copies of that card, Exile a Horse.)
-
When you trash this, Gain a Horse.

Sort of like the above -- encourages other players to avoid using that card, with a slow down through the exile of Horses. This card also slows down by self junking, although it can self-trash.

Quote

Council Chamber - Action - $5
Set aside an Action card from your hand. Move your Council Token to it. (When other players play copies of that card +1 card)

Similar to the above but without the horse or exile nonsense might be too powerful.

The ones that use Tokens mean they can't stack, the ones without tokens can stack. I'm curious y'alls thoughts on these variants. Thank you so much!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on June 30, 2020, 01:34:00 pm

The versions that Exile Horses are far too weak.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on June 30, 2020, 02:28:45 pm

I'd say simplicity is king here; go with the last token entry (#5)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on June 30, 2020, 02:32:13 pm

#5 is interesting, but I don't think it works as an action, especially at 5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on June 30, 2020, 05:09:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Co1DjU2.jpg)	(https://i.imgur.com/iZo2obS.jpg)
Quote Freemason Types: Action Cost: $4 +1 Buy. If you have the Grand Lodge, +2 Coffers. Otherwise, +3 Cards. While this is in play, when you buy a Treasure, you may take the Grand Lodge.	Quote Grand Lodge Types: Artifact At the end of your turn, put tokens here until there are 3. When any player (including you) plays a Freemason, remove a token from here. If you do, +1 Coffers and +1 Villager.

Freemason is one of two cards based on your ownership of an Artifact: either +3 Cards and +1 Buy; or a +1 Buy and +2 Coffers that profits from the first three Freemasons played per round, ending with yours, with +1 more Coffers and +1 Villager.  Owning the Artifact is what makes Freemason into that payload, so there's no way someone else can turn your draw into coin.  It also always gives you +1 Buy so you can buy a Copper to take the Grand Lodge in a pinch.

EDIT
Freemason changed to give +2 Coffers from +$2.
Grand Lodge changed from working once per turn to using tokens to make it work thrice per round.  This will normalize it in multiplayer and puts a single player relying on Freemason for draw in a tougher spot.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on June 30, 2020, 05:41:54 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 30, 2020, 02:32:13 pm

#5 is interesting, but I don't think it works as an action, especially at 5.

I agree, perhaps it’s better as an event? Maybe it needs repricing to 4 if it is? As an event, you can still move it around but you can’t stack it too, so doesn’t feel like such a dead card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on June 30, 2020, 07:39:10 pm

Wow was this weeks challenge tough.

(https://i.imgur.com/rijrFWF.jpg)

Quote

Specialize

Move your +1 Action, +1 Card, +$1, or +1 Buy token to an Action Supply pile without the same type of token already on it.

Event
5 Debt

Just to be clear in how the card works, this means that Specialize could be used to move your +1 Action token onto a pile with another player's +1 Card token on it, but not onto a pile with another player's +1 Action token.

---

Quote from: spineflu on June 25, 2020, 04:04:43 pm

...

Quote

Way of the Blue Jay • Way • auth: alion8me
Follow this card's instructions. Gain and play a Trinket.

This might be too strong. Like, timing-wise, it'll still matter because you're flooding your deck with not-great cards, but add "cards cost $1 less this turn" to, say, Margrave. Or Wharf. maybe too beefy.
...

Thank you! I think I agree with you and others now when you said it could be too strong. I think I would add the condition of flipping your Journey token to determine if you took a Trinket or not; that would fix being able to spam it too easily but would still be viable in small doses. (Or use a Blue Jay token that's like a Journey token, if this would break Journey token cards too much.)

---

Quote from: Marpharos on June 30, 2020, 05:41:54 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on June 30, 2020, 02:32:13 pm

#5 is interesting, but I don't think it works as an action, especially at 5.

I agree, perhaps it’s better as an event? Maybe it needs repricing to 4 if it is? As an event, you can still move it around but you can’t stack it too, so doesn’t feel like such a dead card.

I would even go as far as to say that spending $5 on that as an action card is weaker than as an event. I kind of like the idea of doing an event for it, but gaining Horses instead of just +1 card.

---

Quote from: LordBaphomet on June 29, 2020, 07:43:33 pm

Quote from: grep on June 29, 2020, 11:39:30 am

Quote from: X-tra on June 28, 2020, 06:55:35 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/0vF4dNby/Monarch-v2.png)

I am not committed to that version just yet though. For the time being, I’ll stay with Monarch V1 (the non-Duration one), unless this revision gains enough traction and is deemed good enough to replace the other version. I dunno, it just seems very strong to me. Like, Victory cards won’t be stop cards for you for the rest of the game. Anyway, I may be misjudging this whole affair too.

Monarch v2 is very strong and balances the weakness of the ladder (without the Monarch, they are just a bunch of mediocre self-junking cards). And there is almost no marginal value of the second monarch, which is nice.

However there are some shenanigans you can do with monarch where because cards are in play, they can be copied by changeling and pilgrimage. Is that intended?

I feel like Pilgrimage isn't that big of a deal because of how slow it is; in a non-colony game, you are getting 5 VP per turn which is pretty good but Monarch is a lot of work. Changeling sounds a lot more explosive potentially but you also need to have built up good draw, which is difficult to do whilst also going through the traveler line. I can't see it being more problematic than Horn of Plenty is. (I suspect HoP is actually quite a bit stronger than a Changeling megaturn because it also helps you build your deck). I guess this is to say; I think the interesting stuff you can do here makes the card more rather than less compelling.

---

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 30, 2020, 05:09:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7rsJLm3.jpg)	(https://i.imgur.com/Z2UTxVj.jpg)
Quote Freemason Types: Action Cost: $4 +1 Buy. If you have the Grand Lodge, +$2. Otherwise, +3 Cards. While this is in play, when you buy a Treasure, you may take the Grand Lodge.	Quote Grand Lodge Types: Artifact The first time any player plays a Freemason on each of their turns, +1 Coffers and +1 Villager.

Freemason is one of two cards based on your ownership of an Artifact: either +3 Cards and +1 Buy; or a +1 Buy and +$2 that profits from all players' first Freemason, even yours, with +1 Coffers and +1 Villager.  Owning the Artifact is what makes Freemason into that payload, so there's no way someone else can turn your draw into coin.  It also always gives you +1 Buy so you can buy a Copper to take the Grand Lodge in a pinch.

I'm open to suggestions for its power level and play patterns.  Maybe it's too powerful giving a functional +$3 with the Buy and Villager when you have the Grand Lodge (compare to Patron and Sacred Grove)?  You can typically only get there after playing it once to take the Grand Lodge, so it might be slow enough.  I'm not sure I have the best trigger to take the Grand Lodge (buy a Treasure), if someone can think up a better way.  I wanted something challenging enough to make denying the Grand Lodge a non-trivial choice, but that wouldn't imply shoving tons of Freemasons into your deck (as that is too reminiscent of Flag Bearer).

+3 Cards +1 Buy is already very strong for a $4 even without all of the other stuff on it. If there is not other, stronger draw on the board (and there often won't be because of how cheap this is) I can't imagine wanting to turn it into a Woodcutter for a few extra Coffers and Villagers very often; I can imagine doing so only in multiplayer or in situations where it is the only source of +Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on June 30, 2020, 08:57:21 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 30, 2020, 10:05:03 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on June 26, 2020, 06:52:00 am

Umm.............. This is a hard challenge.
How about this??

Investor
$5
Action
Choose one: Gain 2 cards each costing up to $3; or gain a copy of your selected Investment card.
-------
Setup: Choose 2 random unused Victory cards. Each player then sets aside a random card from either pile in front of them. This is their Investment card.

This is a crazy idea, but hopefully it works. Feedback is welcome.

This is an Event? Or an Action?

I meant it to be an Action, but I could make it an Event if it needs to be. Thanks for picking that up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 01, 2020, 09:04:18 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 30, 2020, 05:09:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7rsJLm3.jpg)	(https://i.imgur.com/Z2UTxVj.jpg)
Quote Freemason Types: Action Cost: $4 +1 Buy. If you have the Grand Lodge, +$2. Otherwise, +3 Cards. While this is in play, when you buy a Treasure, you may take the Grand Lodge.	Quote Grand Lodge Types: Artifact The first time any player plays a Freemason on each of their turns, +1 Coffers and +1 Villager.

Freemason is one of two cards based on your ownership of an Artifact: either +3 Cards and +1 Buy; or a +1 Buy and +$2 that profits from all players' first Freemason, even yours, with +1 Coffers and +1 Villager.  Owning the Artifact is what makes Freemason into that payload, so there's no way someone else can turn your draw into coin.  It also always gives you +1 Buy so you can buy a Copper to take the Grand Lodge in a pinch.

I'm open to suggestions for its power level and play patterns.  Maybe it's too powerful giving a functional +$3 with the Buy and Villager when you have the Grand Lodge (compare to Patron and Sacred Grove)?  You can typically only get there after playing it once to take the Grand Lodge, so it might be slow enough.  I'm not sure I have the best trigger to take the Grand Lodge (buy a Treasure), if someone can think up a better way.  I wanted something challenging enough to make denying the Grand Lodge a non-trivial choice, but that wouldn't imply shoving tons of Freemasons into your deck (as that is too reminiscent of Flag Bearer).

I'd swap the functions on Freemason, i think; Draw with a buy is Very Good at $4 and Still Desirable at $5; Woodcutter... well woodcutter was a $3. Even if you can stack some Coffers + Villagers doing it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on July 01, 2020, 09:17:48 am

(https://i.imgur.com/O9R0DNT.png?1)
Slightly changing my entry. In its original form, it was somewhat of a 4+ if compared to Fugitive and Embassy, so I'm upping the discards to three instead of two. I'm also lowering the cost to 3 so it doesn't compare poorly to Warehouse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on July 01, 2020, 05:28:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/S9IPii0.png)
Once a pile has been set-aside, it's no longer in the kingdom and can't be bought.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 01, 2020, 05:56:32 pm

Contest Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/qsxjhz2i.png)

Quote

Council Chamber - Action - $4
Move your Council Token to an Action Supply pile. (When other players play a card from that pile, +1 card)
-
Setup: Move each player's Council Token to the Council Chamber pile.

So, I listened to the feedback... sort of :p. It's still a card (I like the self-slow down like skulk). The major change is you don't need to lose a copy of the card to put a token on it. No worries about waiting to line this up. This card can be super powerful, it's sort of like a Pathfinding for 4! How is that balanced? Well this card has several drawbacks (that I think are interesting). It's a lot slower, you have to buy it and wait some turns to draw it, and then play it and wait for your next turn before you get the benefit. The draw is vulnerable to discard attacks. After you do that all, Council Chamber is a dead card in your deck. It gives all the other players +1 card immediately the first time you play it. It does have the benefit of starting your hand with lots of cards, but other players can choose to avoid playing the card you provide Council on.

In truth, it's hard for me to tell if this is totally balanced, but I think it's not broken and I think it is fun.

Open to feedback as always.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 01, 2020, 06:03:04 pm

Quote from: pubby on July 01, 2020, 05:28:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/S9IPii0.png)
Once a pile has been set-aside, it's no longer in the kingdom and can't be bought.

Hmmm... I love this concept. But it takes so long to get to 9. By the time you've gotten to 9, most likely everyone has bought one of the cards you want. Any card you want to gain every turn is a card you will want to gain to get you to 9. I'm not sure how to resolve this as pricing this lower is broken since it can be bought early. What if you make it that instead of limiting it's gain to piles that are full, what if this project does nothing until a Province is bought? I dunno some other condition? I also wonder if the set aside and eliminate the pile is a little bit too strong if you do this suggested variant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on July 02, 2020, 05:45:44 am

Update to my entry, with cards names and images:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/732/328/full/Land_Grant_%281%29.png?1593201707)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/836/full/Acreage_%281%29.png?1593680045)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/840/full/Barony_%283%29.png?1593682422[img width=500])

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/832/full/Bishopric_%281%29.png?1593679758)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/835/full/County_%283%29.png?1593680003)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/838/full/Domain_%283%29.png?1593680162)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/830/full/Grange_%281%29.png?1593679670)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/833/full/Virgin_Lands.png?1593679797)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/837/full/Yards_%282%29.png?1593680103)

Quote

Land Grant - <10> - Project
Once per game, place a cube in a Landmark of Land Grant set that has no cubes on it. When scoring, it applies only for you.
Setup: make a Land Grant set with the following Landmarks: Acreage, Barony, Bishopric, County, Domain, Grange, Virgin Lands and Yards.
Acreage - Landmark
When scoring, 2 VP for different named Action card you have.
Barony - Landmark
When scoring, 2 VP for different named Treasure card and Victory Card you have.
Bishopric - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for each 2 different named cards in the trash (round down).
County - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for different type of cards you have.
Domain - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for set you have of Province - Duchy – Estate.
Grange - Landmark
When scoring, 1 VP per Action card you have from an empty supply pile.
Virgin Lands - Landmark
Choose a card type besides Action, Treasure and Victory. When scoring, 3 VP for each 2 cards of that type you have (round down).
Yards - Landmark
When scoring, 1 VP per 4 cards you have (round down).

Feedbacks are always welcome!

EDIT: DUE TO FEEDBACKS, I MADE A NEW UPDATE TO MY ENTRY, SEE POST AHEAD.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on July 02, 2020, 04:54:20 pm

48 hour warning (would be 24 but I think I'll be quite busy tomorrow)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 02, 2020, 05:31:03 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 30, 2020, 05:09:03 pm

Quote Freemason Types: Action Cost: $4 +1 Buy. If you have the Grand Lodge, +$2. Otherwise, +3 Cards. While this is in play, when you buy a Treasure, you may take the Grand Lodge.

Quote Grand Lodge Types: Artifact The first time any player plays a Freemason on each of their turns, +1 Coffers and +1 Villager.

I came up with a wording using tokens that will let Grand Lodge proc more normally across player counts

Quote

Grand Lodge
Types: Artifact
At the end of your turn, put tokens here until there are 3.

---

When any player (including you) plays a Freemason, remove a token from here. If you do, +1 Coffers and +1 Villager.

Quote from: alion8me on June 30, 2020, 07:39:10 pm

I can't imagine wanting to turn it into a Woodcutter for a few extra Coffers and Villagers very often

Quote from: spineflu on July 01, 2020, 09:04:18 am

I'd swap the functions on Freemason, i think; Draw with a buy is Very Good at $4 and Still Desirable at $5; Woodcutter... well woodcutter was a $3. Even if you can stack some Coffers + Villagers doing it.

Both spineflue and alion8me's posts seem to identify Freemason for the Grand Lodge player being a Woodcutter.  For clarity, if you have Grand Lodge, your Freemasons also give you +1 Coffers and +1 Villager, so it's not Smithy+Buy versus Woodcutter: It's Smithy+Buy (that benefits another player) versus Woodcutter+1 Coffers+1 Villager.  Is there some way I can make that more clear?  Grand Lodge still procs a limited number of times, so I can't push all the words into Freemason.
If you were clear about that and still think Woodcutter+1 Coffers+1 Villager loses every time to Smithy+Buy+Other-Player-Benefit...

• Would increasing +$2 into +$3 be too much on Freemason?
• Would changing +$2 into +2 Coffers even address the issue?
• Would changing the whole set of benefits into +2 Coffers on Freemason and +2 Villagers on Grand Lodge (or the opposite) be more tempting?

If +Cards was the Grand Lodge function, someone taking the Grand Lodge and turning your source of draw into a coin payload would wreck your deck, leading to a lot of the same unfun play patterns of Flag Bearer.  Swapping those would make fighting for Grand Lodge the only thing you ever do with Freemason, which defeats the point of the challenge.  My hope is to make a non-zero number of games where players form a truce in which one player gets tokens where others get whatever else Freemason can do.  In order to make that happen, Freemason's other thing has to be something worth playing when another player benefits from it: +Buy with draw seems like a good one.

---

Quote from: spineflu on June 26, 2020, 01:57:35 pm

Quote

Breakthrough • PP • Event
Move your Alembic token to an Aqua Vitae card with no tokens on it. (During your turn Potions are also Actions with 'If it's your Action phase, play the card with your Alembic token on it.')

Quote

Breakthrough • (randomizer)
Set Up: Include the "Breakthrough" Event in the Kingdom. Shuffle the Aqua Vitae Actions and place one per player, plus one extra, next to the Breakthrough Event; These are not in the Supply. Return the rest to the box.

Quote

Abyss • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 per uniquely named card in the trash. If it's a Victory card, trash all Potions you have in play.

Quote

Oust • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
+1 Card, +1 Action. Exile the top 3 cards of your deck. You may discard a card from Exile.

Quote

Radiant City • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
If you have an odd number of Potions in play, +3 Actions; otherwise +2 Cards.
You may spend any number of Actions (not Action cards) for +$1 each

Quote

Repair • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card that costs up to $2 more than it. If both cards share a type, +$2.

Quote

Transfigure • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
Trash a non-Victory card to gain a card that shares a type with it.

Quote

Trestle • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
+1 Buy. Cards cost $1 less this turn. You may reveal a card from your hand that you do not have a copy of in play for +$2.

Abyss, Oust, Repair, and Transfigure are all very weak for the amount of effort the PP cost is.
Abyss is not a Horn of Plenty variant, but instead Altar variant that starts much weaker than Altar.  If Horn of Plenty were a terminal Action it would also be very bad.
Oust as a Laboratory that optionally exiled would likely be comparable to Sanctuary.  If you want the fast Exiling, you could make it more unique and much stronger by having it pull an Exiled card straight to hand.
Transfigure might work without the Victory restriction, but racing to PP would be frustrating when it was relevant.
Radiant City ends up trading invisible resources for other invisible resources, which makes tracking a bear.
Repair is functionally Remodel.  Sure it has a benefit attached to it, but you can't trash most Treasures into Treasures or Victory cards into Victory cards, so the only time it does anything is if you're trashing an Action you could play into another Action, which you don't tend to do very often.
Trestle has a lot of words attached to it considering any non-Potion Treasure and all Victory cards will typically fulfill its "reveal a card" condition.

Quote from: Carline on July 02, 2020, 05:45:44 am

Quote

Land Grant - <10> - Project
Once per game, place a cube in a Landmark of Land Grant set that has no cubes on it. When scoring, it applies only for you.

---

Setup: make a Land Grant set with the following Landmarks: Acreage, Barony, Bishopric, County, Domain, Grange, Virgin Lands and Yards.

Quote

County - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for different type of cards you have.

Quote

Domain - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for set you have of Province - Duchy – Estate.

Land Grant could be a "once-per-game" event that sets aside the Landmark in question.  You could minimize the wording by taking from Tournament and making the Landmarks into Victory cards with a special type.  Something like "Once per game, gain and set aside a Grant from the Grant pile." and then the eight cards are Victory-Grant cards that are not in the Supply.
County seems too volatile.  Many games have only 4 realistic card types, but some have 8 or more.
Domain looks much too weak compared to the others.

Quote from: alion8me on June 30, 2020, 07:39:10 pm

Specialize
Move your +1 Action, +1 Card, +$1, or +1 Buy token to an Action Supply pile without the same type of token already on it.
Event
5 Debt

You need a catch to ensure a single player can't put multiple of different tokens onto the same card, unless your intention is for each player to build different super-Laboratories every game or else try to stop each other from doing so.
Even then this looks like the ultimate first-player-advantage card.  <5> for a turn-1 Pathfinding that locks out other players' Pathfinding sounds crazy.
The +1 Buy token is the only token that works with this kind of function.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on July 02, 2020, 05:52:49 pm

Quote from: alion8me on June 30, 2020, 07:39:10 pm

Wow was this weeks challenge tough.

(https://i.imgur.com/rijrFWF.jpg)

Quote

Specialize

Move your +1 Action, +1 Card, +$1, or +1 Buy token to an Action Supply pile without the same type of token already on it.

Event
5 Debt

Just to be clear in how the card works, this means that Specialize could be used to move your +1 Action token onto a pile with another player's +1 Card token on it, but not onto a pile with another player's +1 Action token.

This might make 'first player wins' games with its debt cost. Like if there's one cantrip, the first player's first turn would be almost automatically put their +card token on it. (On turn 2 they can then specialise in something else.) Or +$ maybe, but the idea is there. Yes it's a slow start, and yes the other players can rush that pile, but the exclusive rights are surely too valuable. (If it's a card you want later, like +card City Quarter...)

Quote from: Carline on July 02, 2020, 05:45:44 am

Update to my entry, with cards names and images:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/732/328/full/Land_Grant_%281%29.png?1593201707)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/836/full/Acreage_%281%29.png?1593680045)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/840/full/Barony_%283%29.png?1593682422[img width=500]) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/832/full/Bishopric_%281%29.png?1593679758) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/835/full/County_%283%29.png?1593680003) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/838/full/Domain_%283%29.png?1593680162) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/830/full/Grange_%281%29.png?1593679670) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/833/full/Virgin_Lands.png?1593679797) (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/837/full/Yards_%282%29.png?1593680103)

Quote

Land Grant - <10> - Project
Once per game, place a cube in a Landmark of Land Grant set that has no cubes on it. When scoring, it applies only for you.
Setup: make a Land Grant set with the following Landmarks: Acreage, Barony, Bishopric, County, Domain, Grange, Virgin Lands and Yards.
Acreage - Landmark
When scoring, 2 VP for different named Action card you have.
Barony - Landmark
When scoring, 2 VP for different named Treasure card and Victory Card you have.
Bishopric - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for each 2 different named cards in the trash (round down).
County - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for different type of cards you have.
Domain - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for set you have of Province - Duchy – Estate.
Grange - Landmark
When scoring, 1 VP per Action card you have from an empty supply pile.
Virgin Lands - Landmark
Choose a card type besides Action, Treasure and Victory. When scoring, 3 VP for each 2 cards of that type you have (round down).
Yards - Landmark
When scoring, 1 VP per 4 cards you have (round down).

Feedbacks are always welcome!

Firstly a minor thing, Land Grant doesn't need to say once per game, it's a Project.
These look like a great set overall, each one having potential for a similar amount of VP.
Acreage could get more than the others for not too much effort, it could be a bit strong.
Barony is 12VP with not too much difficulty, a bit more sometimes, a lot more with castles (but that is an expensive commitment opponents can happily exploit)
Bishopric is my favourite here. It gets the notorious alt VP depending on the trash to work! It's very niche though, and maybe not worth it unless trash-for-benefit is in the game.
County is at least 12 VP easily, sometimes more without too much extra to do. It's probably too strong.
Domain might be on the strong side too? If you can hold all those greens that's a lot of extra VP in itself. It might be fine.
Grange becomes worthwhile if 2 piles empty. In some cases it can be crazy, like with horses (Livery).
Virgin Lands is nice in the set, sometimes it's doing nothing and sometimes it's doing lots. The way it's worded implies you choose the type when bought, but it would probably be nicer if you chose at the end (say 'when scoring, choose a type...')
Yards appears weak. Going for 12VP in line with Barony and County would need 48 cards. 3 Gardens in a deck with 48 cards in would give you that much, nearly 15.

Some ninja-ing from Fragasnap.

---

Edit: also editing my entry:

Quote

Monolith - Project, <8> cost.
Put your cube onto a kingdom pile with no other cube on it. When scoring, +2VP for each card you have from that pile.

A bit more influence and accessibility, so it's essentially a Landmark.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 03, 2020, 08:04:14 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 02, 2020, 05:31:03 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on June 30, 2020, 05:09:03 pm

Quote Freemason Types: Action Cost: $4 +1 Buy. If you have the Grand Lodge, +$2. Otherwise, +3 Cards. While this is in play, when you buy a Treasure, you may take the Grand Lodge.

Quote Grand Lodge Types: Artifact The first time any player plays a Freemason on each of their turns, +1 Coffers and +1 Villager.

I came up with a wording using tokens that will let Grand Lodge proc more normally across player counts

Quote

Grand Lodge
Types: Artifact
At the end of your turn, put tokens here until there are 3.

---

When any player (including you) plays a Freemason, remove a token from here. If you do, +1 Coffers and +1 Villager.

Quote from: alion8me on June 30, 2020, 07:39:10 pm

I can't imagine wanting to turn it into a Woodcutter for a few extra Coffers and Villagers very often

Quote from: spineflu on July 01, 2020, 09:04:18 am

I'd swap the functions on Freemason, i think; Draw with a buy is Very Good at $4 and Still Desirable at $5; Woodcutter... well woodcutter was a $3. Even if you can stack some Coffers + Villagers doing it.

Both spineflue and alion8me's posts seem to identify Freemason for the Grand Lodge player being a Woodcutter.  For clarity, if you have Grand Lodge, your Freemasons also give you +1 Coffers and +1 Villager, so it's not Smithy+Buy versus Woodcutter: It's Smithy+Buy (that benefits another player) versus Woodcutter+1 Coffers+1 Villager.  Is there some way I can make that more clear?  Grand Lodge still procs a limited number of times, so I can't push all the words into Freemason.
If you were clear about that and still think Woodcutter+1 Coffers+1 Villager loses every time to Smithy+Buy+Other-Player-Benefit...

• Would increasing +$2 into +$3 be too much on Freemason?
• Would changing +$2 into +2 Coffers even address the issue?
• Would changing the whole set of benefits into +2 Coffers on Freemason and +2 Villagers on Grand Lodge (or the opposite) be more tempting?

If +Cards was the Grand Lodge function, someone taking the Grand Lodge and turning your source of draw into a coin payload would wreck your deck, leading to a lot of the same unfun play patterns of Flag Bearer.  Swapping those would make fighting for Grand Lodge the only thing you ever do with Freemason, which defeats the point of the challenge.  My hope is to make a non-zero number of games where players form a truce in which one player gets tokens where others get whatever else Freemason can do.  In order to make that happen, Freemason's other thing has to be something worth playing when another player benefits from it: +Buy with draw seems like a good one.

Changing the "has Grand Lodge" function from +$ to +Coffers would make the sides read more evenly to me.
I think the problem is (1) you're trading the Flag Bearer's unfun play pattern for another unfun play pattern and (2) an induction problem: why would anyone take the Grand Lodge? - re-read your criticism here:

Quote

If +Cards was the Grand Lodge function, someone taking the Grand Lodge and turning your source of draw into a coin payload would wreck your deck

As-is it's going to be a trap - you take the Grand Lodge, all the sudden you lose your draw. It doesn't feel any better when you wreck your own deck.
I'd change it to something like:

Quote

Freemason • $4 • Action
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
If you have the Grand Lodge, +1 Coffers; otherwise, +1 Card.

also if you want to change Grand Lodge to be more thematically funny, you could have it trigger off of anything that gives +Buys, implying the Illuminati or whatever are responsible for Markets and Spice Merchants

---

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 02, 2020, 05:31:03 pm

Quote from: spineflu on June 26, 2020, 01:57:35 pm

Quote

Breakthrough • PP • Event
Move your Alembic token to an Aqua Vitae card with no tokens on it. (During your turn Potions are also Actions with 'If it's your Action phase, play the card with your Alembic token on it.')

Quote

Breakthrough • (randomizer)
Set Up: Include the "Breakthrough" Event in the Kingdom. Shuffle the Aqua Vitae Actions and place one per player, plus one extra, next to the Breakthrough Event; These are not in the Supply. Return the rest to the box.

Quote

Abyss • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $1 per uniquely named card in the trash. If it's a Victory card, trash all Potions you have in play.

Quote

Oust • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
+1 Card, +1 Action. Exile the top 3 cards of your deck. You may discard a card from Exile.

Quote

Radiant City • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
If you have an odd number of Potions in play, +3 Actions; otherwise +2 Cards.
You may spend any number of Actions (not Action cards) for +$1 each

Quote

Repair • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card that costs up to $2 more than it. If both cards share a type, +$2.

Quote

Transfigure • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
Trash a non-Victory card to gain a card that shares a type with it.

Quote

Trestle • $5 • Action - Aqua Vitae
+1 Buy. Cards cost $1 less this turn. You may reveal a card from your hand that you do not have a copy of in play for +$2.

Abyss, Oust, Repair, and Transfigure are all very weak for the amount of effort the PP cost is.
Abyss is not a Horn of Plenty variant, but instead Altar variant that starts much weaker than Altar.  If Horn of Plenty were a terminal Action it would also be very bad.
Oust as a Laboratory that optionally exiled would likely be comparable to Sanctuary.  If you want the fast Exiling, you could make it more unique and much stronger by having it pull an Exiled card straight to hand.
Transfigure might work without the Victory restriction, but racing to PP would be frustrating when it was relevant.
Radiant City ends up trading invisible resources for other invisible resources, which makes tracking a bear.
Repair is functionally Remodel.  Sure it has a benefit attached to it, but you can't trash most Treasures into Treasures or Victory cards into Victory cards, so the only time it does anything is if you're trashing an Action you could play into another Action, which you don't tend to do very often.
Trestle has a lot of words attached to it considering any non-Potion Treasure and all Victory cards will typically fulfill its "reveal a card" condition.

I think the only one of these criticisms I really disagree with here is Trestle - you may as well say "Imp has a lot of words for a Laboratory"; it's supposed to be easy enough to hit. I'll workshop up some better ones here in a sec.
updated entry (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg845106#msg845106) - changelog - no types or prices changed:
changed repair to:

Quote

Repair
+2 Cards
Trash a card from your hand to gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.
If both cards share a type, +$2.

changed Abyss to:

Quote

Abyss
Trash a card from your hand. Choose one:
Gain a card costing up to $4; or
Gain a card costing up to $1 per uniquely named card in the trash, and if the gained card was a Victory card, trash all Potions you have in play.

changed Oust to:

Quote

Oust
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck; you may Exile it or put it back.

changed Radiant City to

Quote

Radiant City
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
At the start of your Buy Phase, you may discard a Potion for +$1 per unspent Action (not Action Card).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 03, 2020, 03:09:41 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 03, 2020, 08:04:14 am

...

Quote

Oust
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Reveal the top card of your deck; you may Exile it or put it back.

...

Quote

Radiant City
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
At the start of your Buy Phase, you may discard a Potion for +$1 per unspent Action (not Action Card).

Both of these seem problematic because they enable drawing on boards without any other drawing, which could lead to games being decided by who buys Breakthrough first. Radiant City being the only village can also lead to the same issue. Radiant City also seems overtuned, even ignoring this problem; it turns Potions into Lost City+ for $4 that don't have an on-gain penalty.

---

Quote from: Aquila on July 02, 2020, 05:52:49 pm

Quote from: alion8me on June 30, 2020, 07:39:10 pm

Wow was this weeks challenge tough.

(https://i.imgur.com/rijrFWF.jpg)

Quote

Specialize

Move your +1 Action, +1 Card, +$1, or +1 Buy token to an Action Supply pile without the same type of token already on it.

Event
5 Debt

Just to be clear in how the card works, this means that Specialize could be used to move your +1 Action token onto a pile with another player's +1 Card token on it, but not onto a pile with another player's +1 Action token.

This might make 'first player wins' games with its debt cost. Like if there's one cantrip, the first player's first turn would be almost automatically put their +card token on it. (On turn 2 they can then specialise in something else.) Or +$ maybe, but the idea is there. Yes it's a slow start, and yes the other players can rush that pile, but the exclusive rights are surely too valuable. (If it's a card you want later, like +card City Quarter...)
...

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 02, 2020, 05:31:03 pm

...

Quote from: alion8me on June 30, 2020, 07:39:10 pm

Specialize
Move your +1 Action, +1 Card, +$1, or +1 Buy token to an Action Supply pile without the same type of token already on it.
Event
5 Debt

You need a catch to ensure a single player can't put multiple of different tokens onto the same card, unless your intention is for each player to build different super-Laboratories every game or else try to stop each other from doing so.
Even then this looks like the ultimate first-player-advantage card.  <5> for a turn-1 Pathfinding that locks out other players' Pathfinding sounds crazy.
The +1 Buy token is the only token that works with this kind of function.

The fact that each player can put multiple tokens on the same thing is a purposeful feature, specifically to try mitigating first player advantage; there are almost always going to be enough good things to do with this that you won't feel too bad. <5> is purposely low compared to the other token Events so that missing out on the best spot to put your token doesn't feel too bad.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 04, 2020, 01:16:56 am

This does not work. First player opens with this, puts the +1 Card on the village pile, thus makes the pile unattractive to token-ify for anybody else and can transform it into a level 3 City in the midgame.

As Fragasnap said, this is better than Pathfinding in 3 ways: cheaper, locks out other players, available at T1 which massively increases first player advantage. Utterly broken.

About the first problem, the adventure tokens are interesting because they imply a tradeoff between getting copies of the cards you want to improve and getting payload to buy the respective Event. This basically comes for free.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on July 04, 2020, 09:30:42 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 02, 2020, 05:31:03 pm

Quote from: Carline on July 02, 2020, 05:45:44 am

Quote

Land Grant - <10> - Project
Once per game, place a cube in a Landmark of Land Grant set that has no cubes on it. When scoring, it applies only for you.

---

Setup: make a Land Grant set with the following Landmarks: Acreage, Barony, Bishopric, County, Domain, Grange, Virgin Lands and Yards.

Quote

County - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for different type of cards you have.

Quote

Domain - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for set you have of Province - Duchy – Estate.

Land Grant could be a "once-per-game" event that sets aside the Landmark in question.  You could minimize the wording by taking from Tournament and making the Landmarks into Victory cards with a special type.  Something like "Once per game, gain and set aside a Grant from the Grant pile." and then the eight cards are Victory-Grant cards that are not in the Supply.
County seems too volatile.  Many games have only 4 realistic card types, but some have 8 or more.
Domain looks much too weak compared to the others.

Quote from: Aquila on July 02, 2020, 05:52:49 pm

Firstly a minor thing, Land Grant doesn't need to say once per game, it's a Project.
These look like a great set overall, each one having potential for a similar amount of VP.
Acreage could get more than the others for not too much effort, it could be a bit strong.
Barony is 12VP with not too much difficulty, a bit more sometimes, a lot more with castles (but that is an expensive commitment opponents can happily exploit)
Bishopric is my favourite here. It gets the notorious alt VP depending on the trash to work! It's very niche though, and maybe not worth it unless trash-for-benefit is in the game.
County is at least 12 VP easily, sometimes more without too much extra to do. It's probably too strong.
Domain might be on the strong side too? If you can hold all those greens that's a lot of extra VP in itself. It might be fine.
Grange becomes worthwhile if 2 piles empty. In some cases it can be crazy, like with horses (Livery).
Virgin Lands is nice in the set, sometimes it's doing nothing and sometimes it's doing lots. The way it's worded implies you choose the type when bought, but it would probably be nicer if you chose at the end (say 'when scoring, choose a type...')
Yards appears weak. Going for 12VP in line with Barony and County would need 48 cards. 3 Gardens in a deck with 48 cards in would give you that much, nearly 15.

Thank you both for feedbacks! Due to them, I’m making some adjusts in the amount of VPs of some landmarks.

I also remove the wording “once per game” in Land Grant. As Aquila said, it is not needed, because is a Project. Following his suggestion, I also changed the choice of Virgin Lands to be when scoring.

I wanted one more option for players with money based strategies, so added Gold Vein to the landmarks. This way, players may have very different goals from each other and so use very different strategies. Each landmark is better depending on kingdom. I hope with these adjusts they are well balanced in general.

Being Land Grant debt cost, you can buy it in your first turn if you want to choose before your landmark, with the cost of building nothing for some turns. Or you may buy it later, knowing which condition you fit better. You can even buy it in your last turn without paying, but there’s the risk of your opponent end the game before.

Feedbacks are always welcome!

UPDATE TO MY ENTRY:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/747/976/full/Land_Grant.png?1593862714)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/748/122/full/Acreage_%281%29.png?1593869302)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/840/full/Barony_%283%29.png?1593682422)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/832/full/Bishopric_%281%29.png?1593679758)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/748/121/full/County_%281%29.png?1593869270)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/838/full/Domain_%283%29.png?1593680162)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/748/007/full/Gold_Vein.png?1593864412)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/830/full/Grange_%281%29.png?1593679670)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/747/983/full/Virgin_Lands.png?1593862861)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/747/981/full/Yards.png?1593862830)

Quote

Land Grant - <10> - Project
Place a cube on a Landmark of Land Grant set that has no cubes on it. When scoring, it applies only for you..
Setup: make a Land Grant set with the following Landmarks: Acreage, Barony, Bishopric, County, Domain, Gold Vein, Grange, Virgin Lands and Yards.
Acreage - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for each two different named Action cards you have (round down).
Barony - Landmark
When scoring, 2 VP for different named Treasure card and Victory Card you have.
Bishopric - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for each 2 different named cards in the trash (round down).
County - Landmark
When scoring, 5 VP for each two different types of cards you have (round down).
Domain - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for set you have of Province - Duchy – Estate.
Gold Vein - Landmark
When scoring, 1 VP per Gold you have.
Grange - Landmark
When scoring, 1 VP per Action card you have from an empty supply pile.
Virgin Lands - Landmark
When scoring, choose a card type besides Action, Treasure and Victory. 3 VP for each 2 cards of that type you have (round down).
Yards - Landmark
When scoring, 1 VP per 3 cards you have (round down).

EDIT: DUE TO MORE FEEDBACKS, I MADE ANOTHER UPDATE TO MY ENTRY, SEE POST AHEAD.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on July 04, 2020, 11:13:23 am

Quote from: Carline on July 04, 2020, 09:30:42 am

Quote

Gold Vein - Landmark
When scoring, 1 VP per Gold you have.

I think Gold Vein is well balanced in the set, it is as if your Golds were all gained by buying Wedding. What do you think?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on July 04, 2020, 06:15:07 pm

Not ready to judge yet, so I'm giving everyone another 24 hours to finalise their entries (or submit new ones).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 04, 2020, 06:23:31 pm

Quote from: Carline on July 04, 2020, 11:13:23 am

Quote from: Carline on July 04, 2020, 09:30:42 am

Quote

Gold Vein - Landmark
When scoring, 1 VP per Gold you have.

I think Gold Vein is well balanced in the set, it is as if your Golds were all gained by buying Wedding. What do you think?

One suggestion I have for Land Grant is to make the cost less for each subsequent player.

i.e, change it to just set aside the Landmark you choose, (so you still place the cube on the Project as normal), and add the clause "this costs 2 less debt per cube on here".

That way the first person to buy gets the first choice, but the 2nd (and later players) get a discount.

This idea could work with any of the Projects / Events* that involves selecting one card / pile.

* just need to determine the best wording, as for Projects it's easy with the cubes

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 05, 2020, 03:48:55 am

Quote from: Carline on July 04, 2020, 11:13:23 am

Quote from: Carline on July 04, 2020, 09:30:42 am

Quote

Gold Vein - Landmark
When scoring, 1 VP per Gold you have.

I think Gold Vein is well balanced in the set, it is as if your Golds were all gained by buying Wedding. What do you think?

Seems OK, you rarely want more than 5 or 6 Golds. The Landmarks don’t have to be of perfectly equal strength (averaged over all Kingdoms) anyway as players can choose.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on July 05, 2020, 05:08:51 am

(https://i.imgur.com/5utmmz5.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on July 05, 2020, 10:28:21 am

Quote from: scolapasta on July 04, 2020, 06:23:31 pm

One suggestion I have for Land Grant is to make the cost less for each subsequent player.

i.e, change it to just set aside the Landmark you choose, (so you still place the cube on the Project as normal), and add the clause "this costs 2 less debt per cube on here".

That way the first person to buy gets the first choice, but the 2nd (and later players) get a discount.

This idea could work with any of the Projects / Events* that involves selecting one card / pile.

* just need to determine the best wording, as for Projects it's easy with the cubes

Great idea, thank you!

I thought to give discount of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png)} for each cube, but it seems to doesn’t make much difference.

So, it will be _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/c/c6/Debt2.png/18px-Debt2.png)} discount, as you suggested. It would make it cheap for last players to buy it in multiplayer games, but, since they don’t have the best choices for that kingdom anymore, it seems fair.

Due to the discounts, I make the initial cost at <12>. It seems well balanced to me to be attractive, as first choice would probably always give 12+ VP.

What do you think? Feedbacks are very welcome.

UPDATE TO MY ENTRY:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/749/863/full/Land_Grant_%286%29.png?1593957588)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/748/122/full/Acreage_%281%29.png?1593869302)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/840/full/Barony_%283%29.png?1593682422)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/832/full/Bishopric_%281%29.png?1593679758)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/748/121/full/County_%281%29.png?1593869270)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/838/full/Domain_%283%29.png?1593680162)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/748/007/full/Gold_Vein.png?1593864412)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/743/830/full/Grange_%281%29.png?1593679670)   (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/747/983/full/Virgin_Lands.png?1593862861)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/747/981/full/Yards.png?1593862830)

Quote

Land Grant - <12> - Project
Set aside a Landmark of Land Grant set. When scoring, it applies only for you.
-
This costs <2> less for each other player's cube on here.

Setup: make a Land Grant set with the following Landmarks: Acreage, Barony, Bishopric, County, Domain, Gold Vein, Grange, Virgin Lands and Yards.

Acreage - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for each two different named Action cards you have (round down).
Barony - Landmark
When scoring, 2 VP for different named Treasure card and Victory Card you have.
Bishopric - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for each 2 different named cards in the trash (round down).
County - Landmark
When scoring, 5 VP for each two different types of cards you have (round down).
Domain - Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP for set you have of Province - Duchy – Estate.
Gold Vein - Landmark
When scoring, 1 VP per Gold you have.
Grange - Landmark
When scoring, 1 VP per Action card you have from an empty supply pile.
Virgin Lands - Landmark
When scoring, choose a card type besides Action, Treasure and Victory. 3 VP for each 2 cards of that type you have (round down).
Yards - Landmark
When scoring, 1 VP per 3 cards you have (round down).

Edited to fix card cost in the quote.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 05, 2020, 01:05:42 pm

I hope this isn't to late to apply the last touchups for my submission. I wasn't home yesterday so I couldn't have done it then. But anyway, here it is just in case:

(https://i.postimg.cc/MqfBS39D/A1-Successor-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/t9fFPQ78/Landowner-v1-1.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/1ypNgnhV/A3-Aristocrat-V1-EN.png) (https://i.ibb.co/yfVpn6g/A4-Magnate-V2-EN.png) (https://i.ibb.co/Np0nSxV/A5-Monarch-V3.png)

Modified Monarch (yet again) and fixed a missing "you may" on Magnate. Everything else remained unchanged.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 05, 2020, 01:09:11 pm

Quote from: X-tra on July 05, 2020, 01:05:42 pm

I hope this isn't to late to apply the last touchups for my submission. I wasn't home yesterday so I couldn't have done it then. But anyway, here it is just in case:

(https://i.postimg.cc/MqfBS39D/A1-Successor-V1-EN.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/t9fFPQ78/Landowner-v1-1.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/1ypNgnhV/A3-Aristocrat-V1-EN.png) (https://i.ibb.co/yfVpn6g/A4-Magnate-V2-EN.png) (https://i.ibb.co/Np0nSxV/A5-Monarch-V3.png)

Modified Monarch (yet again) and fixed a missing "you may" on Magnate. Everything else remained unchanged.

I meant to ask the first time around, but what does Magnate do with Action-Victory cards like Nobles and Mill? Add to, replace, your choice?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 05, 2020, 01:14:38 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 05, 2020, 01:09:11 pm

I meant to ask the first time around, but what does Magnate do with Action-Victory cards like Nobles and Mill? Add to, replace, your choice?

I think you meant Monarch, but I believe it would add to the Victory-Action cards.

Yes, they become OP. Great Halls becoming a Lost Cities with 1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png). Or Nobles just being absolutely overpowered.

I suspect that if a Successor Traveller line existed for real and there was one or more "Action - Victory" cards in the Supply, it would look very attractive to go for it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on July 06, 2020, 05:44:42 am

So the contest turned out to be even more open ended than I intended.

I was hoping for designs that would get players to choose different paths to win the game (ie pursue different strategies from each other).

Instead there were quite a few entries that encouraged players to pursue a different strategy than usual, but would probably have the same effect on both players. This is ok as it opens up space for players to choose different paths; the goal of "more than one optimal strategy", but something like alt-VP wasn't what I had in mind for the competition.

I will try to account for this ambiguity in my judging but I won't necessarily succeed; don't be too disheartened if you don't end up doing well in this round.

Judgements

Rialto by Conman - Nice and simple and very much the sort of thing I had in mind. I have no idea how to play it strategically as ending up with Curse isn't necessarily that bad (on a board with +buys, it could be a nice late game gain), though I would probably rule it out. With a "crap terminal" it's still likely a better duchy that's interesting. I'd want to playtest.

Harbour by mandioca15 - Brutal, and it is quite likely to give one player too much of an advantage. The "gain" exemption is important and I think there's an idea here that would end up being more workable, but as is it won't lead to very fun games.

Investor by TP Inferno - I think this works - you have to put in a fair bit of effort to get to your unique card. I initially thought the sheer randomness of the Investment card would be a problem, but if you have a bad investment, then you wouldn't want to go for the Investor, and that makes it fair. A nice way of opening space, although I'm not sure about the cost or the alternate effect. Setup would also be quite cumbersome in IRL games (although in 2020 I am not going to penalise anything too much on that basis).

Shire by segura - Nice and simple and I could see this popping up in whatever expansion brings back landmarks. However I don't see this making for games where players diverge any more than usual - there will be a bit more of an emphasis on lower value VP cards (or alt VP if present) but I can still see players largely coming to the same conclusion on how to win the game.

Breakthrough et al. by spineflu - I like the concept and you clearly put in a lot of effort. The double potion cost is not easy to hit (a bit easier than treasure map, but not much easier) but the rewards are good, and the obvious effort you will need to put in to hit Breakthrough will make the other player think about whether they want to go for it or not, so it's hitting the contest objectives on two levels.

Land Grant by Carline - Basically gives players access to a victory card of their own one time. Good call on the debt cost as it's a persistent presence, and I like the cost varying with cubes mechanic, though there may be "open land grant" strategies that are unbeatable on some boards (haven't really gotten my head around the landmarks). Balance is going to be a nightmare and I commend you for the effort you put into creating Landmarks that would be great contest entries on their owm. One thing I can see happening is I think it will ironically encourage players to "steal" the land grant from players pursuing the strategy, but players being super aware of the strategies of their opponents and doing something different is the goal.

Monolith by Aquila - nice and simple and it would create very interesting gameplay in every mental scenario I can imagine with this in the kingdom.

Metalworker by Marpharos - this is a great idea, though the card is a bit weak as you need to line it up with a Treasure. A vanilla bonus (like Kiln) would be fine. Copper Alloy and Silver Charms are great, and Gold Token has a nice premise but I am very much not into hexes - if I was designing it I would do "When you play a Gold, gain a Horse" or "When you play a Gold, +1 Villager". I would be particularly interested in games where Silver Charms is the only buy.

Opera House by Something_Smart - I like the concept but it is way too strong early game. It would be good as a Prize or with buy restrictions that made it a late game card.

Royal Monopoly by grep - A nice Seaway variant if not for the Curse/Ruins patenting option, and on some boards it would also be too strong to patent Silver (i.e. if there are no other good sources of $). Indeed with a card like this I can see the value in the card designs that open up more space, as I can see this being used more to profit from patenting essential cards rather than carving out a niche.

Cordwainer by D782802859 - I don't see how this fits the challenge sorry. It's unlikely that a player would not opt for the free $4 as a way of getting to the(ir) ideal strategy earlier. The on play effect seems to lend itself to Big Money-Cordwainer.

Stamp by LibraryAdventurer - A lot going on here that I like. It's clearly a powerful card but what you do with it is highly variable.  What that might mean in practice is that you'd want to "win the Stamp Split" and then pivot as necessary to the best strategy from there, which probably isn't the ideal outcome. Still the individual ideas making up this card have me very captivated.

Animal Market by majiponi - I like this more than tribute, but it has some of the same issues regarding "feeling like being attacked". The tests for different decks are too random for it to really reflect a strategic difference between players. I am also not a fan of putting +buy behind an unpredictable effect - I would prefer it be a Market Square on play that sometimes gave you money.

*name by iompelutien - I did say everything qualifies. This is a neat little idea that I think is well reflected in official cards like Alliance, Hoard and Enclave; sacrifice point gains for maintaining (or even increasing) your deck quality as you green. An interesting choice.

Freemason by Fragasnap - Well this is interesting. You could win the split of these overpowered for their cost cards, but be hurt by that decision if you don't also secure the Grand Lodge. I think however the Grand Lodge variant is strong enough that the first freemason buyer would be tempted to open up the lodge with a Silver (or even Copper) the moment they see another player buy a Freemason, which would then be a risky play for them. My head is spinning thinking about this card but one thing is clear - both players would try to concoct the ideal Freemason related strategy and how the game plays out may come down to things like shuffle luck and first turn advantage more than divergent strategy. Still, a nice card.

Specialize by alion8me - First turn advantage looms large over this card. On many boards there will be a single ideal candidate for the +1 card token (eg a good cantrip) or +1 Action token (eg a terminal draw) and games will be decided by who can get to it first. It's a shame as there would be boards where this is a lot of fun and fit the idea behind the contest.

Reinforcements by pubby - This would be an interesting way of bringing less appreciated cards from the kingdom into the fold. $9 is the right cost as it's hard to spike early. I don't see this being good in a lot of games but I see it being very interesting nonetheless, and it encourages players to think early about what cards they want to have accessible later in the game.

Council Chamber by anordinaryman - I think the best thing about this card is it encourages all players not to overspecialise and use a variety of cards, both among themselves and between each other. It hovers over the board like a threat to any player who would spam a certain card. It seems fun.

Magic Book by grrgrrgr - On an engine board, a player can buy this and their opponent has the option to pivot back to money to overcome the advantage. It's only a sensible buy once the other player has a lot of actions and not many treasures, so late enough for its cheap cost not to matter so much. I could see the book sitting on the shelf in many games. However Lost Arts is a powerful enough engine enabler at any cost to make this interesting. I would only want this to appear in high skill games as a bad buy could be very costly.

Successor line by X-tra - Fits the competition as the very rough start on the traveller line means you will be "going for" this strategy rather than using it to enhance some other strategy, even if it makes sense for both players to "go for" it. Your deck turns to mush as your successors multiply and turn into more terminals and victory cards, but then it all pays off once you get to your Monarch and it turns out you have a big point advantage. I can see it leading to Successor/Estate/Duchy 3 pile endings. What I don't like is just how overwhelming it will be for your deck. There is some variety (eg adding in sifters, how you mix in provinces etc.) but Successor-BM is looking like the best way to make use of a successor deck - a "solo card" strategy where you get to play the benchmark the other player is measuring themselves against. Some nice ideas throughout however.

Results

Winner Land Grant by Carline
This wins the day for me above all for the sheer effort that went in. This card will create a very interactive game.

Runners Up: Monolith and Breakthrough
Monolith is a nice simple way to make the game more interesting while adding variety. Breakthrough was also quite interesting and had a lot of effort, but I think it ended up being more luck based than Land Grant which held it back.

Honourable Mention: Metalworker
Probably my favourite concept of the lot, but I couldn't look past the weakness of the card on play and my distaste for hexes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on July 06, 2020, 07:00:22 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 06, 2020, 05:44:42 am

Winner Land Grant by Carline
This wins the day for me above all for the sheer effort that went in. This card will create a very interactive game.

Runners Up: Monolith and Breakthrough
Monolith is a nice simple way to make the game more interesting while adding variety. Breakthrough was also quite interesting and had a lot of effort, but I think it ended up being more luck based than Land Grant which held it back.

Honourable Mention: Metalworker
Probably my favourite concept of the lot, but I couldn't look past the weakness of the card on play and my distaste for hexes.

Thank you very much NoMoreFun! The credits for the mechanic of cost varying with cubes are to scolapasta, who once again suggested a great feature to improve my card. Thank you scolapasta! Also thanks to Aquila, Marpharos, Fragasnap and segura who help me with their comments. I love the way people help each other in this forum.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on July 06, 2020, 07:32:35 am

Contest #80: More than a Phase

Create a card which can be played in more than one phase of the game
or
Create a card or card shaped thing which enables other cards to be played in more than one phase of the game

Examples of cards which can be played in more than one phase of the game: Crown, Werewolf, Caravan Guard, Black Cat, Sheepdog, Village Green, Falconer.

Examples of cards or card shaped things which enable other cards to be played in more than one phase of the game: Black Market, Storyteller, Scepter, Capitalism, Toil, Gamble, March.

The phases could be any phase of your turn or other players turn that already exists in the game. Create new phases is not allowed.

I’m here for any question. Good work for all, have fun!


Edit: Cards like Coin of the Realm that are put in play in more than one phase, despite not being exactly played, will be allowed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on July 06, 2020, 08:13:33 am

Guinea (Treasure, $3)

+$1
When you play this, you may play an Action card from your hand.

A Treasure version of Toil. Not sure if $3 is the right price for this, given that you can play any Treasures that your played Action puts into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 06, 2020, 08:59:54 am

Thanks for the in-dept thoughts NoMoreFun! Great competition last week, lotsa cool entries as usual. :)

Carline, question for this week's contest: Do you allow cards such as Coin of the Realm? As in, it's being played during your Buy phase, but is called from your Tavern Mat during your Action phase. Technically, calling a card isn't playing it, but it is in play after the call. So you'll have a Treasure card in play during your Action phase, an unusual scenario. So yeah, would Coin of the Realm work for this contest?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 06, 2020, 09:43:34 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f0328f2a94de220b55eedee/740e066ebbe23a05c449ae8dbb93fe59/image.png)

Quote

Alchemist's Guild • $2P • Action
+$1
Play a Treasure card from your hand (or reveal you can't).
If you have exactly 3 Treasures in play, trash one to gain a Prize; Otherwise, +1 Action and draw until you have 4 cards in hand.

Revisiting an entry from contest #40 (the good, non-boring half of my entry from that one). This time it's draw-to-x. This uses the same Prize pile (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Prize) from Tournament (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Tournament).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on July 06, 2020, 11:55:46 am

Quote from: X-tra on July 06, 2020, 08:59:54 am

Thanks for the in-dept thoughts NoMoreFun! Great competition last week, lotsa cool entries as usual. :)

Carline, question for this week's contest: Do you allow cards such as Coin of the Realm? As in, it's being played during your Buy phase, but is called from your Tavern Mat during your Action phase. Technically, calling a card isn't playing it, but it is in play after the call. So you'll have a Treasure card in play during your Action phase, an unusual scenario. So yeah, would Coin of the Realm work for this contest?

I think it's OK to include cards like Coin of the Realm that are put in play in more than one phase, despite not being exactly played. I'll edit the original post to add this information.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 06, 2020, 02:15:23 pm

Quote from: Carline on July 06, 2020, 07:00:22 am

Thank you very much NoMoreFun! The credits for the mechanic of cost varying with cubes are to scolapasta, who once again suggested a great feature to improve my card. Thank you scolapasta! Also thanks to Aquila, Marpharos, Fragasnap and segura who help me with their comments. I love the way people help each other in this forum.

Congratulations! I'm just glad I could suggest something useful (as I also very much value the feedback myself, so happy to give back)

Well, this may be the closest I've come to a win! :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 06, 2020, 04:13:59 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/fquzoo12.png)

Quote

Pendant - $4 - Action - Treasure
+$1

You may play a card from your hand. If you don't, +$1 and you may trash this for +1 buy.

Pendant allows you to play any card from your hand. Sometimes you need to lower your hand-size and you can "play" a victory card; however there's no psuedo-trashing with this... the cleanup phase will take care of discarding those again. More likely, you're going to use it to play Treasures that are useful for your action phase (access to a Quarry could really help your Workshops). If you had terminal collision, you can always play an Action card during your buy phase. This even works for playing Night cards in a different phase: Maybe play your Devil's workshop early to gain golds, or hit hard with Raider and still play your Coppers.

These are quite situational based on the rest of the Kingdom. It won't always be useful. That's why there's a one-shot +buy effect in order to make this card have use. Though you can't get the +buy if you chose to play a card with Pendant.

open to feedback of course!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 06, 2020, 04:23:23 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 06, 2020, 09:43:34 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f0328f2a94de220b55eedee/740e066ebbe23a05c449ae8dbb93fe59/image.png)

Quote

Alchemist's Guild • $2P • Action
+$1
Play a Treasure card from your hand (or reveal you can't).
If you have exactly 3 Treasures in play, trash one to gain a Prize; Otherwise, +1 Action and draw until you have 4 cards in hand.

Revisiting an entry from contest #40 (the good, non-boring half of my entry from that one). This time it's draw-to-x. This uses the same Prize pile (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Prize) from Tournament (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Tournament).

I was going to critique this because it seems to compare so favorably to tournament. And I was confused why it costed a potion. Assuming you have a copper in a hand of 4 other cards (extremely likely for most of the game), this is basically +1card +1action +1money. It's like tournament but harder to block. Then, any subsequent plays of Alchemist Guild is like +2card +1action +1money -- insanely powerful. And all you have to do is buy a bunch of these, you don't need to spike Province, and that seemed imbalanced because it's easy to get a bunch of Tournaments. But now I realize, the Potion cost makes it much more difficult to get a bunch of these. That's why it has to cost a Potion. Very nice. This also doesn't gain a Prize to the top of the deck and it's terminal in that case.

So, I think this is really interesting and much closer to balanced that I first thought. My only thought is that once you gain a prize, you're just one Alchemist Guild away from another prize. That I don't love so much. I wonder if you could have Alchemist Guild self-trash to gain a prize (and maybe to top of deck) or have it discard all treasures in play?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on July 06, 2020, 06:35:46 pm

Tenant
$4
Treasure-Reserve
$1
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-------
During your Action phase, you may call this, for +1 Card and +1 Action.

A bit more similar to Coin of the Realm. Lemme know if it needs tweaking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on July 06, 2020, 06:51:36 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on July 06, 2020, 06:35:46 pm

Tenant
$3
Action-Reserve
+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-------
During your Buy phase, you may call this, for +$2 and +1 Buy.

A bit similar to Coin of the Realm. Lemme know if it needs to cost more or something.

Yes, a Grand Market that you can save for a later turn if you want should probably cost more...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 06, 2020, 07:11:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/gc4JLTT.png)

A card that builds up on the tavern mat, then discards itself for VP. Also taking suggestions for a name, if that's allowed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 06, 2020, 08:30:54 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/gptFFrG9/Quiet-Alleyway-V1-EN.png)

A mini Tactician if you will. Had a crappy turn? Make up for that slack on a later turn! The reason why it's a Reserve card rather than a Duration one (getting the bonuses next turn instead) is because, first, it wouldn't work for the rules of this contest and second, because I want players to be able to hoard them on their Tavern mat should they want to aim for a mega-turn.

Design wise, I can think of 2 parameters that can be tweaked for Quiet Alleyway:

• 1. Making it 4 cards or less (including this) instead of 3 for it to be eligible to be put on your Tavern mat.
• 2. Dropping the "+1 Action" on the on-call effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 06, 2020, 08:59:44 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 06, 2020, 04:23:23 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 06, 2020, 09:43:34 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f0328f2a94de220b55eedee/740e066ebbe23a05c449ae8dbb93fe59/image.png)

Quote

Alchemist's Guild • $2P • Action
+$1
Play a Treasure card from your hand (or reveal you can't).
If you have exactly 3 Treasures in play, trash one to gain a Prize; Otherwise, +1 Action and draw until you have 4 cards in hand.

Revisiting an entry from contest #40 (the good, non-boring half of my entry from that one). This time it's draw-to-x. This uses the same Prize pile (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Prize) from Tournament (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Tournament).

I was going to critique this because it seems to compare so favorably to tournament. And I was confused why it costed a potion. Assuming you have a copper in a hand of 4 other cards (extremely likely for most of the game), this is basically +1card +1action +1money. It's like tournament but harder to block. Then, any subsequent plays of Alchemist Guild is like +2card +1action +1money -- insanely powerful. And all you have to do is buy a bunch of these, you don't need to spike Province, and that seemed imbalanced because it's easy to get a bunch of Tournaments. But now I realize, the Potion cost makes it much more difficult to get a bunch of these. That's why it has to cost a Potion. Very nice. This also doesn't gain a Prize to the top of the deck and it's terminal in that case.

So, I think this is really interesting and much closer to balanced that I first thought. My only thought is that once you gain a prize, you're just one Alchemist Guild away from another prize. That I don't love so much. I wonder if you could have Alchemist Guild self-trash to gain a prize (and maybe to top of deck) or have it discard all treasures in play?

This also cant do the Duchy piledriving that Tournament does; while you can stack them, that's going to require you having sufficient splitters around with which to stack them (since its singularly nonterminal) and once the prize pile is gone, its a trasher, not a point-gainer.

 I'm trying to keep the amount of things that it moves from in play to a single treasure, because otherwise overdrawing into those discarded treasures could happen and that seems much worse than letting you gain 2+ prizes in a row. Also the font size is getting pretty small already.

It does, however, love necropolis/way of the ox.

Lemme play with it, see if I can't fix that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 06, 2020, 09:01:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/vAHYA8T.png)

Quote

Lunar Ritual

This turn, you may play Action cards as Night cards.
$3
Event

Old version had a cost of 3 Debt instead of $3
Older version had a cost of $4 instead of 3 Debt

It's like Mission, except for all the ways that it's not. Please tell me if you can see any broken combos; I know that a gainer + Villa/Calvary lets you Champion for a turn at the cost of $4 but I don't think that should be a problem because it is limited by the size of the Villa/Calvary pile, and I suspect that any case where this lets you drain the supply in a single turn already had that property without the presence of Lunar Ritual so long as Villa was the enabler. I would appreciate feedback on both this particular aspect and the card in general.

---

Also thank you to NoMoreFun and also the other people who commented on my last entry. I wanted to try salvaging the idea of the card somehow; I didn't manage to figure out how to by the deadline though. I agree with the comments about first player advantage but I'm not sure how to fix it without introducing other similar problems.

---

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 06, 2020, 08:13:33 am

Guinea (Treasure, $3)

+$1
When you play this, you may play an Action card from your hand.

A Treasure version of Toil. Not sure if $3 is the right price for this, given that you can play any Treasures that your played Action puts into your hand.

Fun fact: this is identical to a card I have in my old files, down to the price (I never posted it anywhere though). It was called Affluent Village, and I wrote it up in early 2017 if the image's file date is to be believed. I later reused the name for the prize I submitted to the prize/prize gainer contest a while ago, although I changed it to be a gold that gave you +2 Actions and the Villa effect.

I think that this is better compared to a Village than Toil, because the power of Toil is that it always happens right when you need it to, whereas this has no such guarantee. Guinea ends up being like a non-duration Fishing Village that can't be drawn dead a lot of the time. This comparison makes me think that $3 is fine (I wouldn't be surprised if $2 was actually the correct price, given that Coin of the Realm feels better than this to me a significant portion of the time).

---

Quote from: spineflu on July 06, 2020, 09:43:34 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f0328f2a94de220b55eedee/740e066ebbe23a05c449ae8dbb93fe59/image.png)

Quote

Alchemist's Guild • $2P • Action
+$1
Play a Treasure card from your hand (or reveal you can't).
If you have exactly 3 Treasures in play, trash one to gain a Prize; Otherwise, +1 Action and draw until you have 4 cards in hand.

Revisiting an entry from contest #40 (the good, non-boring half of my entry from that one). This time it's draw-to-x. This uses the same Prize pile (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Prize) from Tournament (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Tournament).

This is hard to analyze for me. Buying this for its primary effect feels not-great because it's like a worse Oasis from a 5-card hand and only really works if you have discard synergies, and even then draw-to-4 isn't great with most of them. It also seems like it would be very difficult to access the Prize using that sort of deck, so most of the time you want to gain Prizes with this you would be putting what are essentially coppers into your deck. This seems like a very hard sell to me due to how Potion cost cards play. I'm not really sure if this is how it works in practice but it feels very weak to me.

---

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on July 06, 2020, 06:35:46 pm

Tenant
$3
Action-Reserve
+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-------
During your Buy phase, you may call this, for +$2 and +1 Buy.

A bit similar to Coin of the Realm. Lemme know if it needs to cost more or something.

This is a more flexible Grand Market for $3 unless you have thrones or a way to play Actions during your Buy phase. It either needs to cost way more or do far less (even if all it gave was a +$1 it would still have to cost $5 given the comparison with Baker).

---

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 06, 2020, 07:11:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/gc4JLTT.png)

A card that builds up on the tavern mat, then discards itself for VP. Also taking suggestions for a name, if that's allowed.

Why would you ever play this as an Action? If the intention is that you can only call it when it is not sideways, you should make that clearer.

If my above interpretation is correct, I don't think this is a very good card most of the time. I know this is a $3 and Groundskeeper is a $5, but this feels unbelievably weak in comparison. Unlike other types of cards (e.g. trashing, draw) where a bad version of it might be all you get in a given Kingdom, there is always a strong VP option in the form of Provinces. So, I don't see myself wanting to go for this a majority of the time because it takes a lot to setup and gives very little back in return.

---

Quote from: X-tra on July 06, 2020, 08:30:54 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/gptFFrG9/Quiet-Alleyway-V1-EN.png)

A mini Tactician if you will. Had a crappy turn? Make up for that slack on a later turn! The reason why it's a Reserve card rather than a Duration one (getting the bonuses next turn instead) is because, first, it wouldn't work for the rules of this contest and second, because I want players to be able to hoard them on their Tavern mat should they want to aim for a mega-turn.

Design wise, I can think of 2 parameters that can be tweaked for Quiet Alleyway:

• 1. Making it 4 cards or less (including this) instead of 3 for it to be eligible to be put on your Tavern mat.
• 2. Dropping the "+1 Action" on the on-call effect.

That's cute. I wish it only counted Action cards, but counted less of them or something because as is this is only good in the sloggiest of games. Alternatively, it could give you a better benefit instead, to make throwing away your turn more worthwhile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 06, 2020, 09:09:11 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 06, 2020, 09:01:00 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 06, 2020, 09:43:34 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f0328f2a94de220b55eedee/740e066ebbe23a05c449ae8dbb93fe59/image.png)

Quote

Alchemist's Guild • $2P • Action
+$1
Play a Treasure card from your hand (or reveal you can't).
If you have exactly 3 Treasures in play, trash one to gain a Prize; Otherwise, +1 Action and draw until you have 4 cards in hand.

Revisiting an entry from contest #40 (the good, non-boring half of my entry from that one). This time it's draw-to-x. This uses the same Prize pile (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Prize) from Tournament (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Tournament).

This is hard to analyze for me. Buying this for its primary effect feels not-great because it's like a worse Oasis from a 5-card hand and only really works if you have discard synergies, and even then draw-to-4 isn't great with most of them. It also seems like it would be very difficult to access the Prize using that sort of deck, so most of the time you want to gain Prizes with this you would be putting what are essentially coppers into your deck. This seems like a very hard sell to me due to how Potion cost cards play. I'm not really sure if this is how it works in practice but it feels very weak to me.

It's Peddler+-strength, not Oasis; you arent losing out on the Treasure you play. anordinaryman's got a better read on it upthread. It works enginewise kind of in the opposite fashion as most engine cards - those choke if you've got closer to 50/50 treasure/action, this excels.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 06, 2020, 09:28:45 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 06, 2020, 09:09:11 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 06, 2020, 09:01:00 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 06, 2020, 09:43:34 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f0328f2a94de220b55eedee/740e066ebbe23a05c449ae8dbb93fe59/image.png)

Quote

Alchemist's Guild • $2P • Action
+$1
Play a Treasure card from your hand (or reveal you can't).
If you have exactly 3 Treasures in play, trash one to gain a Prize; Otherwise, +1 Action and draw until you have 4 cards in hand.

Revisiting an entry from contest #40 (the good, non-boring half of my entry from that one). This time it's draw-to-x. This uses the same Prize pile (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Prize) from Tournament (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Tournament).

This is hard to analyze for me. Buying this for its primary effect feels not-great because it's like a worse Oasis from a 5-card hand and only really works if you have discard synergies, and even then draw-to-4 isn't great with most of them. It also seems like it would be very difficult to access the Prize using that sort of deck, so most of the time you want to gain Prizes with this you would be putting what are essentially coppers into your deck. This seems like a very hard sell to me due to how Potion cost cards play. I'm not really sure if this is how it works in practice but it feels very weak to me.

It's Peddler+-strength, not Oasis; you arent losing out on the Treasure you play. anordinaryman's got a better read on it upthread. It works enginewise kind of in the opposite fashion as most engine cards - those choke if you've got closer to 50/50 treasure/action, this excels.

You're right - this is quite a bit better than what I thought. I'm still not sold on the strength of using it to gain prizes though. Maybe the point is to make it harder to spam, but the potion cost already takes care of that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on July 06, 2020, 09:34:02 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zZVTQDh.png?1)

A small Scholar that can be saved for later if you don't need it. Not quite sure on the price tag but I don't think it's a good 4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on July 06, 2020, 11:01:08 pm

If you've seen my expansion, you know I like cards that use ruins in new ways...
It is kind of defends against it's own attack, but it doesn't make ruins good enough to actually be worth keeping your deck, so I think that's okay.

Quote

Mummy
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} - Action/Treasure/Attack/Looter
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.
If it's your action phase, each other player gains a ruins.
If it's your buy phase, set aside up to 3 actions cards costing less than $3 from your hand and play them at the start of your next turn.

(Do you think this needs the Duration type too?)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on July 07, 2020, 12:29:54 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on July 06, 2020, 06:51:36 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on July 06, 2020, 06:35:46 pm

Tenant
$3
Action-Reserve
+1 Card
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-------
During your Buy phase, you may call this, for +$2 and +1 Buy.

A bit similar to Coin of the Realm. Lemme know if it needs to cost more or something.

Yes, a Grand Market that you can save for a later turn if you want should probably cost more...

Oh. Oops. Didn't see that. I'll modify the card later to make it more balanced.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: stechafle on July 07, 2020, 08:26:41 am

Vespers
If it’s your Night phase, trash your hand.
Otherwise, +2 Actions.
$2 Action Night

A Chapel that can be a Necropolis. The trashing is less flexible than Chapel so I think it can cost $2 still. Vespers is a church service occurring at 6pm.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 07, 2020, 09:37:19 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on July 06, 2020, 11:01:08 pm

If you've seen my expansion, you know I like cards that use ruins in new ways...
It is kind of defends against it's own attack, but it doesn't make ruins good enough to actually be worth keeping your deck, so I think that's okay.

Quote

Mummy
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} - Action/Treasure/Attack/Looter
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.
If it's your action phase, each other player gains a ruins.
If it's your buy phase, set aside up to 3 actions cards costing less than $3 from your hand and play them at the start of your next turn.

(Do you think this needs the Duration type too?)

Maybe, but I think this is also pretty close functionally to Prince and that doesn't have the Duration type so you'd probably be fine either way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 09:53:00 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 06, 2020, 08:13:33 am

Guinea (Treasure, $3)

+$1
When you play this, you may play an Action card from your hand.

This is very weak, it effectively ends up as a worse version of +$1 +2 Actions, making it almost always worse than Squire for a higher cost.

Quote from: spineflu on July 06, 2020, 09:43:34 am

Quote

Alchemist's Guild • $2P • Action
+$1
Play a Treasure card from your hand (or reveal you can't).
If you have exactly 3 Treasures in play, trash one to gain a Prize; Otherwise, +1 Action and draw until you have 4 cards in hand.

I'm not sure this is great, the Potion cost makes it very hard to get 3 and you need 3 for that prize. I would suggest slightly bumping the strength of the on-play when it doesn't gain you a prize. Tournament is a useful card even when it isn't gaining you a prize.

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 06, 2020, 04:13:59 pm

Quote

Pendant - $4 - Action - Treasure
+$1

You may play a card from your hand. If you don't, +$1 and you may trash this for +1 buy.

As-worded, you can play victory cards and curses, which leads to confusion. Aside from that, it's also a Silver+ for 4, leaving no reason to buy silver over this in most cases.

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on July 06, 2020, 06:35:46 pm

Tenant
$4
Treasure-Reserve
+1 Buy
Put this on your Tavern mat.
-------
During your Action phase, you may call this, for +2 Cards.

This is best compared to Caravan, which it compares well to. Less benefit on the current turn, but more next turn. However, you can easily save these up for single giant megaturns and that seems like a problem. Being able to draw 4+ cards whenever is a bit crazy I think.

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 06, 2020, 07:11:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/gc4JLTT.png)

This has no reason to also be an action, like said previously in the thread. Maybe if played as an action it lets you put other cards on the tavern mat sideways? With that, it has somewhat of a utility function, as well as being better overall better.

Quote from: X-tra on July 06, 2020, 08:30:54 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/gptFFrG9/Quiet-Alleyway-V1-EN.png)

I agree that extending the cards played to 4 would make this more interesting and generally more feasible to pull off without harming yourself too much.
 

Quote from: alion8me on July 06, 2020, 09:01:00 pm

Quote

Lunar Ritual

This turn, you may play Action cards as Night cards.

$4
Event

A wording like "You may play actions during the Night phase this turn" would help with clarity, but otherwise this is pretty interesting. Nicely done.

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on July 06, 2020, 11:01:08 pm

Quote

Mummy
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} - Action/Treasure/Attack/Looter
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.
If it's your action phase, each other player gains a ruins.
If it's your buy phase, set aside up to 3 actions cards costing less than $3 from your hand and play them at the start of your next turn.

I think this should be a duration, Prince sets itself aside, which is why it isn't a duration, while this can be assumed to stay in play. The attack is so weak that I honestly see no reason to not just use the useful utility function of the buy phase ability.

Quote from: stechafle on July 07, 2020, 08:26:41 am

Vespers
If it’s your Night phase, trash your hand.
Otherwise, +2 Actions.
$2 Action Night

This usually just plays the same as Chapel. You rarely aren't trashing your whole hand with Chapel and a Necropolis isn't that good. The only place where it diverges is that it's bonkers with draw, meaning it's also probably overly strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 07, 2020, 10:19:13 am

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 09:53:00 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 06, 2020, 09:43:34 am

Quote

Alchemist's Guild • $2P • Action
+$1
Play a Treasure card from your hand (or reveal you can't).
If you have exactly 3 Treasures in play, trash one to gain a Prize; Otherwise, +1 Action and draw until you have 4 cards in hand.

I'm not sure this is great, the Potion cost makes it very hard to get 3 and you need 3 for that prize. I would suggest slightly bumping the strength of the on-play when it doesn't gain you a prize. Tournament is a useful card even when it isn't gaining you a prize.

Tournament isn't useful when it's getting blocked. This does not get blocked.
Still, your point about having 3 to Prize is a good one - in 4+ player, that'll be tough to do.
Also, for those who think nonterminal draw-to-x isn't good, I encourage you to really go in on Cursed Villages as your draw card in a game. It's extremely good, especially when you can dump some chaff in between plays (oasis, lurker, etc).
Also revised anordinaryman's point about double prizing
v0.21:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f0328f2a94de220b55eedee/c4c256e5862b46c163a93fe3016383d3/image.png)

Quote

Alchemist's Guild • $2P • Action
+$1
Play a Treasure card from your hand (or reveal you can't).

If you have 2 or more Treasures in play and you haven't gained a Prize yet this game, gain a Prize.

Otherwise, +1 Action and draw until you have 4 cards in hand.

revisions:
• dropped the treasure threshold to 2
• no more moving treasures
• once-per-game prizing (still terminal when gaining a prize)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 07, 2020, 10:24:47 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 06, 2020, 07:11:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/gc4JLTT.png)

A card that builds up on the tavern mat, then discards itself for VP. Also taking suggestions for a name, if that's allowed.

I think everyone is misreading this - can these only be called if they're regular-ways-facing? So you have to put one or more on normal, then the payload sideways, and then trigger it when you buy green?

also a name suggestion: Bribe, since you're loading up your tavern mat to have green pay off higher than it should.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 07, 2020, 01:19:31 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 09:53:00 am

Quote from: stechafle on July 07, 2020, 08:26:41 am

Vespers
If it’s your Night phase, trash your hand.
Otherwise, +2 Actions.
$2 Action Night

This usually just plays the same as Chapel. You rarely aren't trashing your whole hand with Chapel and a Necropolis isn't that good. The only place where it diverges is that it's bonkers with draw, meaning it's also probably overly strong.

This is better than Chapel in three nontrivial ways. It is nonterminal, it can trash more than 4 cards, it features a second option.
This is worse than Chapel in a very significant way. If you were unable to play all of your Actions, you are forced to trash good cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 01:29:08 pm

Quote from: segura on July 07, 2020, 01:19:31 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 09:53:00 am

Quote from: stechafle on July 07, 2020, 08:26:41 am

Vespers
If it’s your Night phase, trash your hand.
Otherwise, +2 Actions.
$2 Action Night

This usually just plays the same as Chapel. You rarely aren't trashing your whole hand with Chapel and a Necropolis isn't that good. The only place where it diverges is that it's bonkers with draw, meaning it's also probably overly strong.

This is better than Chapel in three nontrivial ways. It is nonterminal, it can trash more than 4 cards, it features a second option.
This is worse than Chapel in a very significant way. If you were unable to play all of your Actions, you are forced to trash good cards.

If this is on the board, you have access to a Village and the situation of drawing it with dead actions is very unlikely since it itself is nonterminal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on July 07, 2020, 01:37:29 pm

Quote

Replicate - Treasure, $6 cost.
When you play this, you may play an Action from your hand, changing its +Card amounts into + $. You may play it again like this and/or gain a copy of it. If you do both, trash this.

We can do Disciple on a Treasure can't we? You aren't gaining copies of itself, and here +card amounts are chameleoned to help slow cycling and the times you play it. Hopefully the $6 cost is roughly right for balance.

Edit: took off the $1 worth, added a Throne option and self-trash if both Throne and gain a copy are done. Thanks anordinaryman and alion8me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 07, 2020, 02:19:16 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 01:29:08 pm

Quote from: segura on July 07, 2020, 01:19:31 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 09:53:00 am

Quote from: stechafle on July 07, 2020, 08:26:41 am

Vespers
If it’s your Night phase, trash your hand.
Otherwise, +2 Actions.
$2 Action Night

This usually just plays the same as Chapel. You rarely aren't trashing your whole hand with Chapel and a Necropolis isn't that good. The only place where it diverges is that it's bonkers with draw, meaning it's also probably overly strong.

This is better than Chapel in three nontrivial ways. It is nonterminal, it can trash more than 4 cards, it features a second option.
This is worse than Chapel in a very significant way. If you were unable to play all of your Actions, you are forced to trash good cards.

If this is on the board, you have access to a Village and the situation of drawing it with dead actions is very unlikely since it itself is nonterminal.

That is utter nonsense. You pointed out yourself that Necro is weak and you will rarely want more than one Vespers in a deck.
Ignoring that, even the most well designed engine (with a village that draws) can dud. Your Smithy can always draw into Actions.

Of course you ar than not forced to trash good Actions, but it is an obvious and significant disadvantage of the card relative to Chapel which allows you to choose which cards you want to trash.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 07, 2020, 03:54:44 pm

Quote from: segura on July 07, 2020, 02:19:16 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 01:29:08 pm

Quote from: segura on July 07, 2020, 01:19:31 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 09:53:00 am

Quote from: stechafle on July 07, 2020, 08:26:41 am

Vespers
If it’s your Night phase, trash your hand.
Otherwise, +2 Actions.
$2 Action Night

This usually just plays the same as Chapel. You rarely aren't trashing your whole hand with Chapel and a Necropolis isn't that good. The only place where it diverges is that it's bonkers with draw, meaning it's also probably overly strong.

This is better than Chapel in three nontrivial ways. It is nonterminal, it can trash more than 4 cards, it features a second option.
This is worse than Chapel in a very significant way. If you were unable to play all of your Actions, you are forced to trash good cards.

If this is on the board, you have access to a Village and the situation of drawing it with dead actions is very unlikely since it itself is nonterminal.

That is utter nonsense. You pointed out yourself that Necro is weak and you will rarely want more than one Vespers in a deck.
Ignoring that, even the most well designed engine (with a village that draws) can dud. Your Smithy can always draw into Actions.

Of course you ar than not forced to trash good Actions, but it is an obvious and significant disadvantage of the card relative to Chapel which allows you to choose which cards you want to trash.

Without junking attacks, this will still effectively be a better Chapel most of the time, as most of the trashing Chapel does happens really early on in the game. I think this is noticeably worse with junking however (although still very strong, especially given that you can play a junker and this in the same turn, and in junk-heavy games you'll be able to play out all of your good cards in hand most turns anyways).

I'm not convinced this is a bad thing though, insane trashing games are fun and this is probably different enough from Chapel to be worthwhile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on July 07, 2020, 05:08:31 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 09:53:00 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on July 06, 2020, 11:01:08 pm

Quote

Mummy
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} - Action/Treasure/Attack/Looter
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.
If it's your action phase, each other player gains a ruins.
If it's your buy phase, set aside up to 3 actions cards costing less than $3 from your hand and play them at the start of your next turn.

I think this should be a duration, Prince sets itself aside, which is why it isn't a duration, while this can be assumed to stay in play. The attack is so weak that I honestly see no reason to not just use the useful utility function of the buy phase ability.

I thought about the attack part being weak, but I thought it would still be worth using if you have enough actions and maybe no $2 actions in hand. Maybe the ruins should be topdecked, like sea hag.
"If it's your action phase, each other player reveals the top card of their deck and discards it if it's an Action card, then they gain a ruins on top of their deck."
Then the card gets overly complex. hmmm... I'd consider just dropping the attack, but a lot of times, there aren't any $2 cost actions in the kingdom. Maybe I'll just leave it as-is. It's a weak attack, but still worth using I think.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on July 07, 2020, 06:27:59 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 07, 2020, 03:54:44 pm

Quote from: segura on July 07, 2020, 02:19:16 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 01:29:08 pm

Quote from: segura on July 07, 2020, 01:19:31 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 09:53:00 am

Quote from: stechafle on July 07, 2020, 08:26:41 am

Vespers
If it’s your Night phase, trash your hand.
Otherwise, +2 Actions.
$2 Action Night

This usually just plays the same as Chapel. You rarely aren't trashing your whole hand with Chapel and a Necropolis isn't that good. The only place where it diverges is that it's bonkers with draw, meaning it's also probably overly strong.

This is better than Chapel in three nontrivial ways. It is nonterminal, it can trash more than 4 cards, it features a second option.
This is worse than Chapel in a very significant way. If you were unable to play all of your Actions, you are forced to trash good cards.

If this is on the board, you have access to a Village and the situation of drawing it with dead actions is very unlikely since it itself is nonterminal.

That is utter nonsense. You pointed out yourself that Necro is weak and you will rarely want more than one Vespers in a deck.
Ignoring that, even the most well designed engine (with a village that draws) can dud. Your Smithy can always draw into Actions.

Of course you ar than not forced to trash good Actions, but it is an obvious and significant disadvantage of the card relative to Chapel which allows you to choose which cards you want to trash.

Without junking attacks, this will still effectively be a better Chapel most of the time, as most of the trashing Chapel does happens really early on in the game. I think this is noticeably worse with junking however (although still very strong, especially given that you can play a junker and this in the same turn, and in junk-heavy games you'll be able to play out all of your good cards in hand most turns anyways).

I'm not convinced this is a bad thing though, insane trashing games are fun and this is probably different enough from Chapel to be worthwhile.

I mean, Donate and Cathedral exist.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 07:16:27 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on July 07, 2020, 06:27:59 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 07, 2020, 03:54:44 pm

Quote from: segura on July 07, 2020, 02:19:16 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 01:29:08 pm

Quote from: segura on July 07, 2020, 01:19:31 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 09:53:00 am

Quote from: stechafle on July 07, 2020, 08:26:41 am

Vespers
If it’s your Night phase, trash your hand.
Otherwise, +2 Actions.
$2 Action Night

This usually just plays the same as Chapel. You rarely aren't trashing your whole hand with Chapel and a Necropolis isn't that good. The only place where it diverges is that it's bonkers with draw, meaning it's also probably overly strong.

This is better than Chapel in three nontrivial ways. It is nonterminal, it can trash more than 4 cards, it features a second option.
This is worse than Chapel in a very significant way. If you were unable to play all of your Actions, you are forced to trash good cards.

If this is on the board, you have access to a Village and the situation of drawing it with dead actions is very unlikely since it itself is nonterminal.

That is utter nonsense. You pointed out yourself that Necro is weak and you will rarely want more than one Vespers in a deck.
Ignoring that, even the most well designed engine (with a village that draws) can dud. Your Smithy can always draw into Actions.

Of course you ar than not forced to trash good Actions, but it is an obvious and significant disadvantage of the card relative to Chapel which allows you to choose which cards you want to trash.

Without junking attacks, this will still effectively be a better Chapel most of the time, as most of the trashing Chapel does happens really early on in the game. I think this is noticeably worse with junking however (although still very strong, especially given that you can play a junker and this in the same turn, and in junk-heavy games you'll be able to play out all of your good cards in hand most turns anyways).

I'm not convinced this is a bad thing though, insane trashing games are fun and this is probably different enough from Chapel to be worthwhile.

I mean, Donate and Cathedral exist.

Donate is pricey and Cathedral has a much bigger downside.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 08, 2020, 01:12:35 am

Quote from: alion8me on July 07, 2020, 03:54:44 pm

Quote from: segura on July 07, 2020, 02:19:16 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 01:29:08 pm

Quote from: segura on July 07, 2020, 01:19:31 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 09:53:00 am

Quote from: stechafle on July 07, 2020, 08:26:41 am

Vespers
If it’s your Night phase, trash your hand.
Otherwise, +2 Actions.
$2 Action Night

This usually just plays the same as Chapel. You rarely aren't trashing your whole hand with Chapel and a Necropolis isn't that good. The only place where it diverges is that it's bonkers with draw, meaning it's also probably overly strong.

This is better than Chapel in three nontrivial ways. It is nonterminal, it can trash more than 4 cards, it features a second option.
This is worse than Chapel in a very significant way. If you were unable to play all of your Actions, you are forced to trash good cards.

If this is on the board, you have access to a Village and the situation of drawing it with dead actions is very unlikely since it itself is nonterminal.

That is utter nonsense. You pointed out yourself that Necro is weak and you will rarely want more than one Vespers in a deck.
Ignoring that, even the most well designed engine (with a village that draws) can dud. Your Smithy can always draw into Actions.

Of course you ar than not forced to trash good Actions, but it is an obvious and significant disadvantage of the card relative to Chapel which allows you to choose which cards you want to trash.

Without junking attacks, this will still effectively be a better Chapel most of the time, as most of the trashing Chapel does happens really early on in the game. I think this is noticeably worse with junking however (although still very strong, especially given that you can play a junker and this in the same turn, and in junk-heavy games you'll be able to play out all of your good cards in hand most turns anyways).

I'm not convinced this is a bad thing though, insane trashing games are fun and this is probably different enough from Chapel to be worthwhile.

I agree that this is likely better than Chapel in most Kingdoms, but the card does have a disadvantage that Chapel does not have.
I also agree about the junking situation. You can easily imagine a Mountebank Kingdom in which both (yeah, might be the dominant strategy to go for two Mountebanks even though there is a good trasher) Mountebanks collide and trashing the Mountebank and some junk is worse than keeping it and the junk.

Such „shall I trash good stuff“ questions also arise with Count and, although merely on a meta level, with Lookout.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on July 08, 2020, 04:42:20 am

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 07:16:27 pm

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on July 07, 2020, 06:27:59 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 07, 2020, 03:54:44 pm

Quote from: segura on July 07, 2020, 02:19:16 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 01:29:08 pm

Quote from: segura on July 07, 2020, 01:19:31 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 09:53:00 am

Quote from: stechafle on July 07, 2020, 08:26:41 am

Vespers
If it’s your Night phase, trash your hand.
Otherwise, +2 Actions.
$2 Action Night

This usually just plays the same as Chapel. You rarely aren't trashing your whole hand with Chapel and a Necropolis isn't that good. The only place where it diverges is that it's bonkers with draw, meaning it's also probably overly strong.

This is better than Chapel in three nontrivial ways. It is nonterminal, it can trash more than 4 cards, it features a second option.
This is worse than Chapel in a very significant way. If you were unable to play all of your Actions, you are forced to trash good cards.

If this is on the board, you have access to a Village and the situation of drawing it with dead actions is very unlikely since it itself is nonterminal.

That is utter nonsense. You pointed out yourself that Necro is weak and you will rarely want more than one Vespers in a deck.
Ignoring that, even the most well designed engine (with a village that draws) can dud. Your Smithy can always draw into Actions.

Of course you ar than not forced to trash good Actions, but it is an obvious and significant disadvantage of the card relative to Chapel which allows you to choose which cards you want to trash.

Without junking attacks, this will still effectively be a better Chapel most of the time, as most of the trashing Chapel does happens really early on in the game. I think this is noticeably worse with junking however (although still very strong, especially given that you can play a junker and this in the same turn, and in junk-heavy games you'll be able to play out all of your good cards in hand most turns anyways).

I'm not convinced this is a bad thing though, insane trashing games are fun and this is probably different enough from Chapel to be worthwhile.

I mean, Donate and Cathedral exist.

Donate is pricey and Cathedral has a much bigger downside.

Oh.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 08, 2020, 07:14:16 am

Well, compared to two Junk Dealers, Donate is a great bargain and I am not sure that Chapel leads to much quicker games than Cathedral.
So yeah, the card is good and often stronger than Chapel but certainly not as game warping as Donate.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on July 08, 2020, 07:40:30 am

Watchdog
Action/Reaction - $3
+1 Coffers
Look through your discard pile.
You may trash a card from it.
You may put a card from it onto your deck
-
When you gain a card, you may play this from your hand

This is no longer my entry

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on July 08, 2020, 03:39:55 pm

Оverstrain
Event - $3
+1 Buy
Play a card you have in play once again. Trash it.

Give an extra chance to your Sea Hag before it renders useless, or just pay $1 to trash a Copper.
Update: Set cost to $3 to prevent chain reaction of trashing Coppers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 08, 2020, 04:06:30 pm

Updated Submission
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/st60nhd6.png)

Quote

Pendant - Action - Treasure - $3
+1 Action +$1

You may play an Action, Treasure, or Night Card from your hand.

You may trash this. If you do, play a non-Duration card you have in play.

Updated Pendant to remove the Silver+ness and it can't play Curses anymore. Now, even if you don't have a reason to play a card out of order, you can still use this as a Village during your action phase. So, it always have some use, albeit it would be the weakest village in the game. For fun, it can be a one-shot crown. The non-duration clause is to prevent confusing situations.

Edit: like always, open to feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 08, 2020, 04:18:28 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 06, 2020, 09:01:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/8mIlqtE.jpg)

Quote

Lunar Ritual

This turn, you may play Action cards as Night cards.

$4
Event

It's like Mission, except for all the ways that it's not. Please tell me if you can see any broken combos; I know that a gainer + Villa/Calvary lets you Champion for a turn at the cost of $4 but I don't think that should be a problem because it is limited by the size of the Villa/Calvary pile, and I suspect that any case where this lets you drain the supply in a single turn already had that property without the presence of Lunar Ritual so long as Villa was the enabler. I would appreciate feedback on both this particular aspect and the card in general.

This is a wonderful card and I'm pulling for it to win this contest. It's such a simple concept with some really interesting implications. I agree strongly with D782802859's comment to rephrase it like:

Quote

You may play actions during the Night phase this turn

If you do this, there actually isn't any broken Champion combos. Becuase if you return to your action phase, you still need actions to play all your action cards. And once you hit your night phase, there's no way to return to your action phase.

My only criticism is about price. I believe that you could price this lower.
If you buy this event, it means you have Action cards to play during your night Phase.
If you have Action cards to play during your night phase, it means you weren't able to play them during your Action phase.
If you weren't able to play Action cards during your Action phase, it's likely that your total payload was lower than you wanted.
If your total payload was smaller, using a buy has a much bigger impact, considering you can't buy anything else when you play your Action cards in your night phase.

Essentially, I believe that the fact that this costs a buy is the most expensive part of this card, rather than it's actual cost. I think it would be balanced (and more fun) to price it lower.

I'm thinking $3, possibly $2.

My gut says $2 would still not be broken, and thus the best pricing.

Quote from: Aquila on July 07, 2020, 01:37:29 pm

Quote

Replicate - Treasure, $6 cost.
$1
When you play this, you may play an Action from your hand, changing its +Card amounts into + $. You may gain a copy of it.

We can do Disciple on a Treasure can't we? You aren't gaining copies of itself, and here +card amounts are chameleoned to help slow cycling and the times you play it. Hopefully the $6 cost and the $1 worth are roughly right for balance.

I am thinking that this card doesn't need the $1 to be balanced, and for simplicity I would consider removing it. Non terminally gaining a copy of a card is pretty powerful, as is Chameleoning a collided terminal. This is great.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 08, 2020, 05:16:51 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 06, 2020, 09:01:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/8mIlqtE.jpg)

Quote

Lunar Ritual

This turn, you may play Action cards as Night cards.

$4
Event

Love it; agree with the other comments that it can probably be cheaper. Also a weird rules nitpick... Donald has "ruled (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17757.msg727787#msg727787)" that the Night Phase only exists in games that use Night cards. So you need some sort of special rule or wording to actually allow the Night Phase to exist. I'm sure it's fine to just have as a FAQ "In games using Lunar Ritual, there is a Night Phase".

I also agree with the other comment that it would be better if the cards were simply played "during" your Night Phase rather than "As Night cards". Although that may be confusing and unclear if it still costs action points. Perhaps a simple way to deal with both issues is:

Quote

This turn, your Action cards are also Night cards.

This way; all of your cards become Action-Night, like Werewolf. If you return to your Action phase, then you can play your actions like normal Actions. Or you can move on to the Night phase and play them like Night cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 08, 2020, 05:33:48 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 08, 2020, 05:16:51 pm

Love it; agree with the other comments that it can probably be cheaper. Also a weird rules nitpick... Donald has "ruled (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17757.msg727787#msg727787)" that the Night Phase only exists in games that use Night cards. So you need some sort of special rule or wording to actually allow the Night Phase to exist. I'm sure it's fine to just have as a FAQ "In games using Lunar Ritual, there is a Night Phase".

...

Quote

This turn, your Action cards are also Night cards.

This phrasing probably takes cards of the first nitpick too, since now there are Night cards in the game, therefore, there would a Night phase (at least that turn).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on July 08, 2020, 06:11:19 pm

Thank you NoMoreFun for the challenge this week and congrats on the win Carline, definitely deserved with the amount of effort you put in!

Updated downthread

My submission this week is Night Hag:

(https://i.imgur.com/EfNDGDf.png)

Quote

Night Hag
If it's your Night Phase, return to your Buy phase for +2 and each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise,
+2 Cards
+1 Buy

My concern was that this might be too powerful, so I added an heirloom to it. I don't think the heirloom needed to be cursed now that I think about it, but I've already put it on the cards... Oh well, here's Cursed(?) Locket:

(https://i.imgur.com/KmBfDAm.png)

Quote

Cursed Locket
$1
The first time you play a Copper this turn, +$1
-
While this is in play, when you return to a previous phase, each player may trash a Curse from their hand.

I wanted the heirloom to be $1.5 and figured that having a Merchant-like effect would achieve that nicely. It can't stack in the way Merchant can too, which I like. It can also trash those pesky Curses you have in your hand, but allows everyone else to do so as well. Maybe the locket is cursed because it eats curses? It was my way of trying to balance having lots of Night Hags played in the Night phase.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated. I don't know if Night Hag should cost $6, or whether the locket really is cursed...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on July 08, 2020, 06:24:45 pm

I think night hag's effect would make more sense as an action+treasure instead of an action+night. Obviously the heirloom is there, but it still feels like an abuse of the night mechanics to do it that way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 08, 2020, 06:31:36 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on July 08, 2020, 06:11:19 pm

Thank you NoMoreFun for the challenge this week and congrats on the win Carline, definitely deserved with the amount of effort you put in!

My submission this week is Night Hag:

(https://i.imgur.com/EfNDGDf.png)

Night hag should read "If it is your night phase, return to your action phase, +$2, and each player gains a curse. I think it seems right at 5. Comparing it to Witch - $2 is worse than 2 cards, but it is nonterminal. The return to action phase is only useful if you have actions left, which you would have used if you could have so it's not that powerful.

(https://i.imgur.com/KmBfDAm.png)

I would make cursed locket something bad like cursed gold so then people think should I keep this in my deck for the curse trashing or should I trash it? It seems kinda weird that its both better than a copper and also does something else beneficial.

I'm sorry if the quotes are janky I'm still new to this type of formatting

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on July 08, 2020, 06:45:26 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on July 08, 2020, 06:11:19 pm

Quote

Night Hag
If it's your Night Phase, return to your Buy phase for +2 and each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise,
+2 Cards
+1 Buy

Quote

Cursed Locket
$1
The first time you play a Copper this turn, +$1
-
While this is in play, when you return to a previous phase, each player may trash a Curse from their hand.

Night Hag's Night effect is basically a cursing Silver, it could easily be a Treasure with almost equivalent effect. Looks quite OP, much stronger than Idol.
The heirloom can add some balance by having an anti-cursing effect like "when you gain a Curse, you may discard this to trash that Curse".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 08, 2020, 09:06:40 pm

Quote from: grep on July 08, 2020, 06:45:26 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on July 08, 2020, 06:11:19 pm

Quote

Night Hag
If it's your Night Phase, return to your Buy phase for +2 and each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise,
+2 Cards
+1 Buy

Quote

Cursed Locket
$1
The first time you play a Copper this turn, +$1
-
While this is in play, when you return to a previous phase, each player may trash a Curse from their hand.

Night Hag's Night effect is basically a cursing Silver, it could easily be a Treasure with almost equivalent effect. Looks quite OP, much stronger than Idol.
The heirloom can add some balance by having an anti-cursing effect like "when you gain a Curse, you may discard this to trash that Curse".

A silver that curses is really really good. The way Idol gets around this is by making you have at least 2 in play to curse. I'm not sure if there's an effective way to balance this, unless the heirloom is a strong trasher, like goat. Maybe have it simply provide +buy? Or +1$. Honestly, I think you could give it 0 benefit and it would be best balanced. However, this then wouldn't qualify for the contest.

Actually, now that I think about it, it seems like Night Hag makes more sense as an Action - Treasure. That's essentially what it does. I wonder if there's a way to have the night-effect actually affect your buy phase? Like +1$ per card you've gained. Obviously that is way too strong, but you see the idea here -- you want to buy cards to gain them so it's stronger, and if it's stronger you want to go back to your buy phase to use the $. A Card like this would be justified as being Action - Night. But your card has no compelling reason not to be Action- Treasure other than you want it to qualify for this contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 08, 2020, 09:59:29 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 08, 2020, 04:18:28 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 06, 2020, 09:01:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/8mIlqtE.jpg)

Quote

Lunar Ritual

This turn, you may play Action cards as Night cards.

$4
Event

It's like Mission, except for all the ways that it's not. Please tell me if you can see any broken combos; I know that a gainer + Villa/Calvary lets you Champion for a turn at the cost of $4 but I don't think that should be a problem because it is limited by the size of the Villa/Calvary pile, and I suspect that any case where this lets you drain the supply in a single turn already had that property without the presence of Lunar Ritual so long as Villa was the enabler. I would appreciate feedback on both this particular aspect and the card in general.

This is a wonderful card and I'm pulling for it to win this contest. It's such a simple concept with some really interesting implications. I agree strongly with D782802859's comment to rephrase it like:

Quote

You may play actions during the Night phase this turn

If you do this, there actually isn't any broken Champion combos. Becuase if you return to your action phase, you still need actions to play all your action cards. And once you hit your night phase, there's no way to return to your action phase.

My only criticism is about price. I believe that you could price this lower.
If you buy this event, it means you have Action cards to play during your night Phase.
If you have Action cards to play during your night phase, it means you weren't able to play them during your Action phase.
If you weren't able to play Action cards during your Action phase, it's likely that your total payload was lower than you wanted.
If your total payload was smaller, using a buy has a much bigger impact, considering you can't buy anything else when you play your Action cards in your night phase.

Essentially, I believe that the fact that this costs a buy is the most expensive part of this card, rather than it's actual cost. I think it would be balanced (and more fun) to price it lower.

I'm thinking $3, possibly $2.

My gut says $2 would still not be broken, and thus the best pricing.
...

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 08, 2020, 05:16:51 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 06, 2020, 09:01:00 pm

lunar ritual again

Love it; agree with the other comments that it can probably be cheaper. Also a weird rules nitpick... Donald has "ruled (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17757.msg727787#msg727787)" that the Night Phase only exists in games that use Night cards. So you need some sort of special rule or wording to actually allow the Night Phase to exist. I'm sure it's fine to just have as a FAQ "In games using Lunar Ritual, there is a Night Phase".

I also agree with the other comment that it would be better if the cards were simply played "during" your Night Phase rather than "As Night cards". Although that may be confusing and unclear if it still costs action points. Perhaps a simple way to deal with both issues is:

Quote

This turn, your Action cards are also Night cards.

This way; all of your cards become Action-Night, like Werewolf. If you return to your Action phase, then you can play your actions like normal Actions. Or you can move on to the Night phase and play them like Night cards.

Thank ya'll! I like the wording GendoIkari suggests of "This turn, your Action cards are also Night cards" as it is clearer while being functionally identical.

I changed the cost to 3 Debt. This is to hopefully make the "use this to make a terrible hand better" part of the card easier to achieve while still preventing this from being automatic. I might bump up the cost to 4 Debt later, I'm kind of on the fence. The original price of $4 was just using Mission as a baseline, but reconsidering it I can see that this is usually weaker. The main concern is to prevent this from getting out of hand with a combination of easy +Buy and the duration attacks that only give you a resource on the second turn, I might be overcautious here though which is why this is at 3 Debt. Feedback re: the new price would be appreciated because I'm still pretty on the fence about it.

---

Quote from: grep on July 08, 2020, 06:45:26 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on July 08, 2020, 06:11:19 pm

Quote

Night Hag
If it's your Night Phase, return to your Buy phase for +2 and each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise,
+2 Cards
+1 Buy

Quote

Cursed Locket
$1
The first time you play a Copper this turn, +$1
-
While this is in play, when you return to a previous phase, each player may trash a Curse from their hand.

Night Hag's Night effect is basically a cursing Silver, it could easily be a Treasure with almost equivalent effect. Looks quite OP, much stronger than Idol.
The heirloom can add some balance by having an anti-cursing effect like "when you gain a Curse, you may discard this to trash that Curse".

I agree that Night Hag is most likely too strong as-is. I like the idea of having an effect that can return you to your buy phase after you've already bought cards, but it should probably be paired with something that makes that actually matter because the majority of the time it won't.

I don't think an Heirloom that turns into a silver in the opening is a good idea because of how bad 4-4 is compared to the other openings. The bottom half is interesting although its condition feels a bit contrived given that there are only 3 cards in the game that can return you to a previous phase.

---

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 08, 2020, 04:06:30 pm

Updated Submission
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/st60nhd6.png)

Quote

Pendant - Action - Treasure - $3
+1 Action +$1

You may play an Action, Treasure, or Night Card from your hand.

You may trash this. If you do, play a non-Duration card you have in play.

Updated Pendant to remove the Silver+ness and it can't play Curses anymore. Now, even if you don't have a reason to play a card out of order, you can still use this as a Village during your action phase. So, it always have some use, albeit it would be the weakest village in the game. For fun, it can be a one-shot crown. The non-duration clause is to prevent confusing situations.

Edit: like always, open to feedback.

This is cool, the bottom effect makes it interesting. I personally would have not included Night cards here but that is just a personal preference for cleaner wording over the very slight effect it would have (I feel like Devil's Workshop and Vampire are the only time it's relevant at all outside of extremely contrived edge cases).

---

Quote from: grep on July 08, 2020, 03:39:55 pm

Оverstrain
Event - $2
+1 Buy
Play a card you have in play once again. Trash it.

Give an extra chance to your Sea Hag before it renders useless, or just pay $1 to trash a Copper.

This is cute. It makes Bonfire feel bad, that might be ok though.

---

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 08, 2020, 07:40:30 am

Watchdog
Action/Reaction - $4
+1 Coffers
Look through your discard pile.
You may trash a card from it.
You may put a card from it onto your deck
-
When you gain a card, you may play this from your hand

This seems mechanically sound but feels kind of disjointed to me. I feel like it could also cost $3 to be slightly more attractive.

---

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on July 07, 2020, 05:08:31 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on July 07, 2020, 09:53:00 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on July 06, 2020, 11:01:08 pm

Quote

Mummy
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} - Action/Treasure/Attack/Looter
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}.
If it's your action phase, each other player gains a ruins.
If it's your buy phase, set aside up to 3 actions cards costing less than $3 from your hand and play them at the start of your next turn.

I think this should be a duration, Prince sets itself aside, which is why it isn't a duration, while this can be assumed to stay in play. The attack is so weak that I honestly see no reason to not just use the useful utility function of the buy phase ability.

I thought about the attack part being weak, but I thought it would still be worth using if you have enough actions and maybe no $2 actions in hand. Maybe the ruins should be topdecked, like sea hag.
"If it's your action phase, each other player reveals the top card of their deck and discards it if it's an Action card, then they gain a ruins on top of their deck."
Then the card gets overly complex. hmmm... I'd consider just dropping the attack, but a lot of times, there aren't any $2 cost actions in the kingdom. Maybe I'll just leave it as-is. It's a weak attack, but still worth using I think.

What if playing it during your action phase also gave you another bonus? That way it would also feel better after the Ruins run out.

---

Quote from: Aquila on July 07, 2020, 01:37:29 pm

Quote

Replicate - Treasure, $6 cost.
$1
When you play this, you may play an Action from your hand, changing its +Card amounts into + $. You may gain a copy of it.

We can do Disciple on a Treasure can't we? You aren't gaining copies of itself, and here +card amounts are chameleoned to help slow cycling and the times you play it. Hopefully the $6 cost and the $1 worth are roughly right for balance.

This feels very awkward to play to me. Saving non-terminal actions for your Buy Phase to use them with this doesn't feel great and using it on terminals floods you with them very easily. I feel like this would still be on the weaker end even at $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 08, 2020, 11:54:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0OV7EAI.png)

Captain's Quarters, part Village, part Delay/Turtle, with an interesting on-gain. The on-gain is the main idea of the card, the top is just something I came up with to match its theme.

EDIT: Updated downthread.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 01:26:56 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 08, 2020, 11:54:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0OV7EAI.png)

Captain's Quarters, part Village, part Delay/Turtle, with an interesting on-gain. The on-gain is the main idea of the card, the top is just something I came up with to match its theme.

This should probably limit itself to setting aside non-Duration cards to make it less confusing. It also seems like it might be a bit strong but I'm not very confident saying that. Otherwise, it's pretty cool, kind of like a Villa-lite.

Also, this really doesn't need to be able to play Night cards at all.

Edit: just thought about it a bit more and this is definitely quite strong. Using it on a draw card is a huge deal. It should probably cost $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 09, 2020, 01:53:04 am

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 01:26:56 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 08, 2020, 11:54:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0OV7EAI.png)

Captain's Quarters, part Village, part Delay/Turtle, with an interesting on-gain. The on-gain is the main idea of the card, the top is just something I came up with to match its theme.

This should probably limit itself to setting aside non-Duration cards to make it less confusing.

You mean like Ghost or Mastermind?

Duration-ing Durations is totally fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on July 09, 2020, 06:07:32 am

Quote from: alion8me on July 08, 2020, 09:59:29 pm

Quote from: Aquila on July 07, 2020, 01:37:29 pm

Quote

Replicate - Treasure, $6 cost.
$1
When you play this, you may play an Action from your hand, changing its +Card amounts into + $. You may gain a copy of it.

We can do Disciple on a Treasure can't we? You aren't gaining copies of itself, and here +card amounts are chameleoned to help slow cycling and the times you play it. Hopefully the $6 cost and the $1 worth are roughly right for balance.

This feels very awkward to play to me. Saving non-terminal actions for your Buy Phase to use them with this doesn't feel great and using it on terminals floods you with them very easily. I feel like this would still be on the weaker end even at $5.

It seems like you overlooked that 'you may' gain a copy, unlike Disciple. Still, when you choose not to gain it's a pretty feeble result, the power of one Action stretched across 2 cards.

So I updated it:

Quote

Replicate - Treasure, $6 cost.
When you play this, you may play an Action from your hand, changing its +Card amounts into + $. You may play it again like this and/or gain a copy of it. If you do both, trash this.

There's a Throne option so no power density is necessarily diluted. So you can gain things to build the deck then Throne them later, do both for a big one-shot, or keep this doing one function only. It's flexible, maybe worth $6 or even more.
Thank you and anordinaryman for feedback.

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 08, 2020, 04:06:30 pm

Updated Submission
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/st60nhd6.png)

Quote

Pendant - Action - Treasure - $3
+1 Action +$1

You may play an Action, Treasure, or Night Card from your hand.

You may trash this. If you do, play a non-Duration card you have in play.

Updated Pendant to remove the Silver+ness and it can't play Curses anymore. Now, even if you don't have a reason to play a card out of order, you can still use this as a Village during your action phase. So, it always have some use, albeit it would be the weakest village in the game. For fun, it can be a one-shot crown. The non-duration clause is to prevent confusing situations.

Edit: like always, open to feedback.

It looks like the on-trash ability wants to be Scepter. You can replay called Reserves for one thing, and for another, this makes infinite loops with Treasurer. Stick a +buy token on this for the win.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 09, 2020, 08:53:13 am

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 01:53:04 am

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 01:26:56 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 08, 2020, 11:54:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0OV7EAI.png)

Captain's Quarters, part Village, part Delay/Turtle, with an interesting on-gain. The on-gain is the main idea of the card, the top is just something I came up with to match its theme.

This should probably limit itself to setting aside non-Duration cards to make it less confusing.

You mean like Ghost or Mastermind?

Duration-ing Durations is totally fine.

yeah but playing a duration card this turn + next turn makes tracking harder - does it do effect 1 or effect 2 or both? combo that with using captains quarters to play captains quarters and it's ugly

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 09, 2020, 09:15:38 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 09, 2020, 08:53:13 am

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 01:53:04 am

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 01:26:56 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 08, 2020, 11:54:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0OV7EAI.png)

Captain's Quarters, part Village, part Delay/Turtle, with an interesting on-gain. The on-gain is the main idea of the card, the top is just something I came up with to match its theme.

This should probably limit itself to setting aside non-Duration cards to make it less confusing.

You mean like Ghost or Mastermind?

Duration-ing Durations is totally fine.

yeah but playing a duration card this turn + next turn makes tracking harder - does it do effect 1 or effect 2 or both? combo that with using captains quarters to play captains quarters and it's ugly

It is no different than what Ghost and Mastermind do. Mastermind is even more complex to track due to the throning yet everybody seems to be fine with it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 09, 2020, 09:24:47 am

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 09:15:38 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 09, 2020, 08:53:13 am

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 01:53:04 am

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 01:26:56 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 08, 2020, 11:54:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0OV7EAI.png)

Captain's Quarters, part Village, part Delay/Turtle, with an interesting on-gain. The on-gain is the main idea of the card, the top is just something I came up with to match its theme.

This should probably limit itself to setting aside non-Duration cards to make it less confusing.

You mean like Ghost or Mastermind?

Duration-ing Durations is totally fine.

yeah but playing a duration card this turn + next turn makes tracking harder - does it do effect 1 or effect 2 or both? combo that with using captains quarters to play captains quarters and it's ugly

It is no different than what Ghost and Mastermind do. Mastermind is even more complex to track due to the throning yet everybody seems to be fine with it.

mastermind/ghost does one thing and doesn't split a cards' plays over two turns. You always know whether to do the "this turn" or "next turn" ability.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on July 09, 2020, 10:02:59 am

Morning Market
cost $2 - Action
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Take an extra Buy phase immediately, during which you gain cards onto your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 09, 2020, 10:49:02 am

Updated Submission - UPDATED

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/1fi3p084.png)

Quote

+1 Action +$1

You may play an Action or Treasure Card from your hand.

You may set this aside. If you do, replay a card you played this turn that's still in play.

Uses feedback from Aquila to make it more like scepter. Pendant now removes itself from the game by being set-aside. There's no more infinite loops, once it is set aside, you can't gain it or play it (it's no longer in play, it's set aside. You can't even recover it from the trash).
I also did like the cleanness alion8me suggested so this can't play night cards any more.

In a FAQ I would say that this card cannot play itself (which would generate infinite $). I think the setting-aside justifies that.

Thank you for your feedback.

As always I'm very open to feedback :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on July 09, 2020, 11:59:33 am

Quote from: Carline on July 06, 2020, 07:32:35 am

The phases could be any phase of your turn or other players turn that already exists in the game. Create new phases is not allowed.

Quote from: majiponi on July 09, 2020, 10:02:59 am

Morning Market
cost $2 - Action
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Take an extra Buy phase immediately, during which you gain cards onto your deck.

majiponi, I think it's not according to the rules of the contest, which don't allow to create new phases.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 09, 2020, 12:37:14 pm

Quote from: Carline on July 09, 2020, 11:59:33 am

Quote from: Carline on July 06, 2020, 07:32:35 am

The phases could be any phase of your turn or other players turn that already exists in the game. Create new phases is not allowed.

Quote from: majiponi on July 09, 2020, 10:02:59 am

Morning Market
cost $2 - Action
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Take an extra Buy phase immediately, during which you gain cards onto your deck.

majiponi, I think it's not according to the rules of the contest, which don't allow to create new phases.

That's not how I would have interpreted that rule... it sounds to me like it just doesn't want to allow the creation of a phase that doesn't normally exist in Dominion, like when Night was first added.

That being said, technically this card cannot be played in more than 1 phase, nor does it allow cards to be played in more than 1 phase. Treasures can still only be played in buy phase technically. But the card could be re-worded to accomplish the same basic idea and still fit within the exact rules of the contest:

+1 Action
+1 Buy
Play any number of Treasures from your hand. Spend any number of buys; for each buy you spend you may buy a card. Cards bought this way are gained onto your deck.

The wording could use some work, but it's the same except for things like Crown and Villa. A simpler version could just let you buy up to X cards; not worrying about using up buys.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 09, 2020, 01:41:57 pm

I don't think we've had a Way yet, so here is Way of the Magpie:

(https://i.imgur.com/OTxCLEY.png)

Quote

Way of the Magpie
You may reveal an Action card from your hand. This turn, cards with the same name as it are also Treasures. Play that Action card.

A variation on Capitalism:
• costs "playing an Action card" to use
• only lasts one turn
• only "capitalisms" one named card
• can "capitalisms" any action, not just with coin amounts


Feedback welcome - the general idea for a Way that "capitalisms" one named card came early, but I struggled a bit with the right details.

At first I tried "follow its instructions, then cards with that name are treasure". But there'd rarely be a reason NOT to ever follow the way, so that's bad. There had to be a negative. Then, it was just "+1 Action, cards with the same name as this are Treasures". But that seemed a little weak, since the point is to allow you to play multiple terminals, and with this wording you would want at least 3 of the same name to follow the way.

So now you can use *any* action card to "capitalism" some other action.

Some interesting combos with Bandit, Magpie, Courtier, etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 09, 2020, 02:02:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pJDEovX.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 09, 2020, 02:44:54 pm

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 02:02:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pJDEovX.png)

The Buy phase ability should definitely be buffed. Maybe a coffer and a villager instead? Or adding a buy?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 02:58:23 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 09, 2020, 09:24:47 am

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 09:15:38 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 09, 2020, 08:53:13 am

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 01:53:04 am

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 01:26:56 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 08, 2020, 11:54:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0OV7EAI.png)

Captain's Quarters, part Village, part Delay/Turtle, with an interesting on-gain. The on-gain is the main idea of the card, the top is just something I came up with to match its theme.

This should probably limit itself to setting aside non-Duration cards to make it less confusing.

You mean like Ghost or Mastermind?

Duration-ing Durations is totally fine.

yeah but playing a duration card this turn + next turn makes tracking harder - does it do effect 1 or effect 2 or both? combo that with using captains quarters to play captains quarters and it's ugly

It is no different than what Ghost and Mastermind do. Mastermind is even more complex to track due to the throning yet everybody seems to be fine with it.

mastermind/ghost does one thing and doesn't split a cards' plays over two turns. You always know whether to do the "this turn" or "next turn" ability.

Yes, that is why I think it shouldn't be able to be used on duration. Ultimately you could probably keep the current behavior, but it would be more confusing than Procession a lot of the time and I don't know if that's worth it.

---

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 09, 2020, 12:37:14 pm

Quote from: Carline on July 09, 2020, 11:59:33 am

Quote from: Carline on July 06, 2020, 07:32:35 am

The phases could be any phase of your turn or other players turn that already exists in the game. Create new phases is not allowed.

Quote from: majiponi on July 09, 2020, 10:02:59 am

Morning Market
cost $2 - Action
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Take an extra Buy phase immediately, during which you gain cards onto your deck.

majiponi, I think it's not according to the rules of the contest, which don't allow to create new phases.

That's not how I would have interpreted that rule... it sounds to me like it just doesn't want to allow the creation of a phase that doesn't normally exist in Dominion, like when Night was first added.

That being said, technically this card cannot be played in more than 1 phase, nor does it allow cards to be played in more than 1 phase. Treasures can still only be played in buy phase technically. But the card could be re-worded to accomplish the same basic idea and still fit within the exact rules of the contest:

+1 Action
+1 Buy
Play any number of Treasures from your hand. Spend any number of buys; for each buy you spend you may buy a card. Cards bought this way are gained onto your deck.

The wording could use some work, but it's the same except for things like Crown and Villa. A simpler version could just let you buy up to X cards; not worrying about using up buys.

The suggested wording wouldn't let you buy landscapes, I don't know how important that is though (I suspect it's not really worth having more complicated wording).

If you don't care about buys that much (I suspect the number of times you want to use multiple buys on this are very rare, and when you do, it might be better for balance to only let you do one anyways), I would go with "+1 Action Play any number of treasures from your hand. You may buy a card from the supply, putting it on top of your deck."

---

Quote from: scolapasta on July 09, 2020, 01:41:57 pm

I don't think we've had a Way yet, so here is Way of the Magpie:

(https://i.imgur.com/OTxCLEY.png)

Quote

Way of the Magpie
You may reveal an Action card from your hand. This turn, cards with the same name as it are also Treasures. Play that Action card.

A variation on Capitalism:
• costs "playing an Action card" to use
• only lasts one turn
• only "capitalisms" one named card
• can "capitalisms" any action, not just with coin amounts


Feedback welcome - the general idea for a Way that "capitalisms" one named card came early, but I struggled a bit with the right details.

At first I tried "follow its instructions, then cards with that name are treasure". But there'd rarely be a reason NOT to ever follow the way, so that's bad. There had to be a negative. Then, it was just "+1 Action, cards with the same name as this are Treasures". But that seemed a little weak, since the point is to allow you to play multiple terminals, and with this wording you would want at least 3 of the same name to follow the way.

So now you can use *any* action card to "capitalism" some other action.

Some interesting combos with Bandit, Magpie, Courtier, etc.

The problem I see with this is that it is very hard to get it to be better than a Necropolis. I feel like it would be a lot better if it gave you +1 Action instead of playing the action you want to treasureify in order to make it less awkward to use with terminal actions. (I know that ways are supposed to be weak but as is, there needs to be a very specific combo in order for me to want to use this during a game at all).

---

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 09, 2020, 02:44:54 pm

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 02:02:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pJDEovX.png)

The Buy phase ability should definitely be buffed. Maybe a coffer and a villager instead? Or adding a buy?

I like that the Buy phase ability is not great, kind of like Werewolf in that you sometimes want it for its unique capability though. I would rather see this get +3 Cards +1 Buy on the action part of the card.

edit: fixed typo

 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 09, 2020, 04:38:34 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 02:58:23 pm

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 02:02:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pJDEovX.png)

The Buy phase ability should definitely be buffed. Maybe a coffer and a villager instead? Or adding a buy?

I like that the Buy phase ability is not great, kind of like Werewolf in that you sometimes want it for its unique capability though. I would rather see this get +3 Cards +1 Buy on the action part of the card.

edit: fixed typo
The problem is that this would make it even more into a mono-engine card than it already is (2 copies are now Market+Lab instead of Peddler+Lab).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 04:56:57 pm

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 04:38:34 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 02:58:23 pm

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 02:02:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pJDEovX.png)

The Buy phase ability should definitely be buffed. Maybe a coffer and a villager instead? Or adding a buy?

I like that the Buy phase ability is not great, kind of like Werewolf in that you sometimes want it for its unique capability though. I would rather see this get +3 Cards +1 Buy on the action part of the card.

edit: fixed typo
The problem is that this would make it even more into a mono-engine card than it already is (2 copies are now Market+Lab instead of Peddler+Lab).

Port City costs $5. I don't think being able to emulate 2 other $5 cards after playing it is an issue. Playing a deck of 50/50 Markets and Labs sounds like a losing strategy the majority of the time, I don't think this would encourage monolithic strategies more heavily than Labs themselves do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on July 09, 2020, 05:07:29 pm

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 02:02:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pJDEovX.png)

As others have stated this needs a small bump. Changing the coin to a coffer or even adding a second coin would do it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 09, 2020, 06:29:00 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 04:56:57 pm

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 04:38:34 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 02:58:23 pm

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 02:02:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pJDEovX.png)

The Buy phase ability should definitely be buffed. Maybe a coffer and a villager instead? Or adding a buy?

I like that the Buy phase ability is not great, kind of like Werewolf in that you sometimes want it for its unique capability though. I would rather see this get +3 Cards +1 Buy on the action part of the card.

edit: fixed typo
The problem is that this would make it even more into a mono-engine card than it already is (2 copies are now Market+Lab instead of Peddler+Lab).

Port City costs $5. I don't think being able to emulate 2 other $5 cards after playing it is an issue. Playing a deck of 50/50 Markets and Labs sounds like a losing strategy the majority of the time, I don't think this would encourage monolithic strategies more heavily than Labs themselves do.

It is only a benchmark. Smith with a Buy and then some is too good for $5. The nonterminal option seems stronger to me than Barges delaying.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 07:49:31 pm

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 06:29:00 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 04:56:57 pm

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 04:38:34 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 02:58:23 pm

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 02:02:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pJDEovX.png)

The Buy phase ability should definitely be buffed. Maybe a coffer and a villager instead? Or adding a buy?

I like that the Buy phase ability is not great, kind of like Werewolf in that you sometimes want it for its unique capability though. I would rather see this get +3 Cards +1 Buy on the action part of the card.

edit: fixed typo
The problem is that this would make it even more into a mono-engine card than it already is (2 copies are now Market+Lab instead of Peddler+Lab).

Port City costs $5. I don't think being able to emulate 2 other $5 cards after playing it is an issue. Playing a deck of 50/50 Markets and Labs sounds like a losing strategy the majority of the time, I don't think this would encourage monolithic strategies more heavily than Labs themselves do.

It is only a benchmark. Smith with a Buy and then some is too good for $5. The nonterminal option seems stronger to me than Barges delaying.

Margrave exists. Granted, it's very strong, but I don't think that makes it bad.

I suspect Port City would be strong in a fun way that creates interesting decisions, both because it's more of a strategy enabler than a strategy in and of itself and because the cadence of the Villager token gaining would be unique.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 09, 2020, 08:25:55 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 09, 2020, 09:24:47 am

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 09:15:38 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 09, 2020, 08:53:13 am

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 01:53:04 am

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 01:26:56 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 08, 2020, 11:54:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0OV7EAI.png)

Captain's Quarters, part Village, part Delay/Turtle, with an interesting on-gain. The on-gain is the main idea of the card, the top is just something I came up with to match its theme.

This should probably limit itself to setting aside non-Duration cards to make it less confusing.

You mean like Ghost or Mastermind?

Duration-ing Durations is totally fine.

yeah but playing a duration card this turn + next turn makes tracking harder - does it do effect 1 or effect 2 or both? combo that with using captains quarters to play captains quarters and it's ugly

It is no different than what Ghost and Mastermind do. Mastermind is even more complex to track due to the throning yet everybody seems to be fine with it.

mastermind/ghost does one thing and doesn't split a cards' plays over two turns. You always know whether to do the "this turn" or "next turn" ability.

Thanks for the tips! I think I'm going to simplify it greatly and buff its power slightly. (I'd make a new image but I can't since I'm on mobile)

Captain's Quarters - Action-Duration - $4
+2 Actions
At the start of Clean-up, set aside a non-duration Action card from play face-up (on top of this). At the start of your next turn, play it.
-
When you gain this, you may play an Action, Treasure, or Night card from your hand.

EDIT: Modified again, downtread. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 08:48:52 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 06, 2020, 09:01:00 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/vAHYA8T.png)

Quote

Lunar Ritual

This turn, you may play Action cards as Night cards.
$3
Event

Old version had a cost of 3 Debt instead of $3
Older version had a cost of $4 instead of 3 Debt

...

Just finished a playtest match with this at $3 instead of 3 Debt, I'm pretty sure that's the right price for it now.

---

Quote from: mail-mi on July 09, 2020, 08:25:55 pm

Quote from: spineflu on July 09, 2020, 09:24:47 am

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 09:15:38 am

Quote from: spineflu on July 09, 2020, 08:53:13 am

Quote from: segura on July 09, 2020, 01:53:04 am

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 01:26:56 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 08, 2020, 11:54:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0OV7EAI.png)

Captain's Quarters, part Village, part Delay/Turtle, with an interesting on-gain. The on-gain is the main idea of the card, the top is just something I came up with to match its theme.

This should probably limit itself to setting aside non-Duration cards to make it less confusing.

You mean like Ghost or Mastermind?

Duration-ing Durations is totally fine.

yeah but playing a duration card this turn + next turn makes tracking harder - does it do effect 1 or effect 2 or both? combo that with using captains quarters to play captains quarters and it's ugly

It is no different than what Ghost and Mastermind do. Mastermind is even more complex to track due to the throning yet everybody seems to be fine with it.

mastermind/ghost does one thing and doesn't split a cards' plays over two turns. You always know whether to do the "this turn" or "next turn" ability.

Thanks for the tips! I think I'm going to simplify it greatly and buff its power slightly. (I'd make a new image but I can't since I'm on mobile)

Captain's Quarters - Action-Duration - $4
+2 Actions
At the start of Clean-up, set aside a non-duration Action card face-up (on top of this). At the start of your next turn, play it.
-
When you gain this, you may play an Action, Treasure, or Night card from your hand.

Where is this setting aside an Action card from? That should be specified.

If this is still taking from in play, I still think it needs to be $5. The turn you play it, it's a Necropolis, which isn't great. However, on the second turn, it acts as a Lost City that draws into whatever action you set aside last turn! This seems like it's clearly too strong for $4 to me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 09, 2020, 09:48:01 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 08:48:52 pm

Where is this setting aside an Action card from? That should be specified.

If this is still taking from in play, I still think it needs to be $5. The turn you play it, it's a Necropolis, which isn't great. However, on the second turn, it acts as a Lost City that draws into whatever action you set aside last turn! This seems like it's clearly too strong for $4 to me.

It's from play, thanks.

Is it really that powerful? It seems a little more powerful than the "play a card this turn and next" duration that Donald tested and found to be too weak

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 10:55:20 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 09, 2020, 09:48:01 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 08:48:52 pm

Where is this setting aside an Action card from? That should be specified.

If this is still taking from in play, I still think it needs to be $5. The turn you play it, it's a Necropolis, which isn't great. However, on the second turn, it acts as a Lost City that draws into whatever action you set aside last turn! This seems like it's clearly too strong for $4 to me.

It's from play, thanks.

Is it really that powerful? It seems a little more powerful than the "play a card this turn and next" duration that Donald tested and found to be too weak

This is both easier to use on what you want to (instead of having to collide it directly with whatever you want to play next turn, you just have to play both in the same turn) and it does something on the turn you play it rather than effectively nothing. Also the something that it does on the turn you play it (being a Necropolis) encourages having a higher action density, which makes it easier to build a deck where you can use this on what you wanted.

Basically, I think this is way better because being a Ruined Village the turn you play it << being a Necropolis the turn you play it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 09, 2020, 11:58:31 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 10:55:20 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 09, 2020, 09:48:01 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 08:48:52 pm

Where is this setting aside an Action card from? That should be specified.

If this is still taking from in play, I still think it needs to be $5. The turn you play it, it's a Necropolis, which isn't great. However, on the second turn, it acts as a Lost City that draws into whatever action you set aside last turn! This seems like it's clearly too strong for $4 to me.

It's from play, thanks.

Is it really that powerful? It seems a little more powerful than the "play a card this turn and next" duration that Donald tested and found to be too weak

This is both easier to use on what you want to (instead of having to collide it directly with whatever you want to play next turn, you just have to play both in the same turn) and it does something on the turn you play it rather than effectively nothing. Also the something that it does on the turn you play it (being a Necropolis) encourages having a higher action density, which makes it easier to build a deck where you can use this on what you wanted.

Basically, I think this is way better because being a Ruined Village the turn you play it << being a Necropolis the turn you play it.

I've thought about having to pay $2 to set aside an action, do you think that weakens it enough? I want it to cost $4 so it can be gained by workshop variants.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 10, 2020, 01:06:25 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 09, 2020, 11:58:31 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 10:55:20 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 09, 2020, 09:48:01 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 08:48:52 pm

Where is this setting aside an Action card from? That should be specified.

If this is still taking from in play, I still think it needs to be $5. The turn you play it, it's a Necropolis, which isn't great. However, on the second turn, it acts as a Lost City that draws into whatever action you set aside last turn! This seems like it's clearly too strong for $4 to me.

It's from play, thanks.

Is it really that powerful? It seems a little more powerful than the "play a card this turn and next" duration that Donald tested and found to be too weak

This is both easier to use on what you want to (instead of having to collide it directly with whatever you want to play next turn, you just have to play both in the same turn) and it does something on the turn you play it rather than effectively nothing. Also the something that it does on the turn you play it (being a Necropolis) encourages having a higher action density, which makes it easier to build a deck where you can use this on what you wanted.

Basically, I think this is way better because being a Ruined Village the turn you play it << being a Necropolis the turn you play it.

I've thought about having to pay $2 to set aside an action, do you think that weakens it enough? I want it to cost $4 so it can be gained by workshop variants.

That sounds like it would make it massively weaker. I don't think it needs nearly as steep a penalty on play to be priced at $4. You could try having it discard a card after it plays set aside card on turn 2; I think that this would ordinarily make it weaker than you might want for a $4, but the on-gain should balance that out. Or something else like that, the important thing I think is that the penalty both be somewhat small and always manageable. The main litmus test I'm using here is, how does this compare to Shanty Town. It can obviously be a good bit better than Shanty Town because of how weak Shanty Town is (and its cost of $3 as opposed to $4), but I think the version of the card without any penalty is clearly in a league of its own.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 10, 2020, 01:09:42 am

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 08:48:52 pm

If this is still taking from in play, I still think it needs to be $5. The turn you play it, it's a Necropolis, which isn't great. However, on the second turn, it acts as a Lost City that draws into whatever action you set aside last turn! This seems like it's clearly too strong for $4 to me.

That is like saying that Merchant Ship should be a $7 because it is a DoublePeddler on the second turn or that Fishing Village needs to be a $5 because it is a Bazaar on turn 2.
Haunted Woods is even a triple Lab on turn 2, totally overpowered!

If you count the net effects of the card, it is + 2 Actions. It is better than DoubleVillage in one respect, Scheme-ing stuff (well, slightly worse as you are forced to play at the start of the turn) and worse in two respects, being a Duration and thus staying out and not drawing on the turn you play it.

So the crucial question to judge this card is whether a DoubleVillage is a $4 or $5.
If Port would not exist, I’d say $5. But I have a hard time imagining a situation in which I would pay $5 for this in a Port Kingdom. Of course this might say more about Port being too strong than the actual card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: ConMan on July 10, 2020, 01:48:53 am

Physician - Action - $6
+1 Action
Play any number of Treasures from your hand. You may spend any amount of $ to trash a card from your hand costing up to the amount spent. Then, draw until you have 5 cards in hand.

I feel like the card name requires some kind of self-trashing ability just to make a "Physician, heal thyself" joke, but that takes away from what I'm trying to do with the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 10, 2020, 02:14:26 am

Quote from: segura on July 10, 2020, 01:09:42 am

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 08:48:52 pm

If this is still taking from in play, I still think it needs to be $5. The turn you play it, it's a Necropolis, which isn't great. However, on the second turn, it acts as a Lost City that draws into whatever action you set aside last turn! This seems like it's clearly too strong for $4 to me.

That is like saying that Merchant Ship should be a $7 because it is a DoublePeddler on the second turn or that Fishing Village needs to be a $5 because it is a Bazaar on turn 2.
Haunted Woods is even a triple Lab on turn 2, totally overpowered!

If you count the net effects of the card, it is + 2 Actions. It is better than DoubleVillage in one respect, Scheme-ing stuff (well, slightly worse as you are forced to play at the start of the turn) and worse in two respects, being a Duration and thus staying out and not drawing on the turn you play it.

So the crucial question to judge this card is whether a DoubleVillage is a $4 or $5.
If Port would not exist, I’d say $5. But I have a hard time imagining a situation in which I would pay $5 for this in a Port Kingdom. Of course this might say more about Port being too strong than the actual card.

I think Port does this with some of the official $5 villages too. Bazaar in particular seems like it is almost never worth getting in a Port game, Bandit Camp also seems like it is very infrequently worth getting. A lot of the others are situational and it would depend on the kingdom.

It's not like Captain's Quarter has a similar enough effect to Port that it is almost strictly worse than it. It simply does something different, and pretty unique for a village.

The net effect of the card is not +2 Actions on turn 2, because you don't have to draw it or the card you used it with, that's why I made the Lost City comparison.

Also, I think it being a nonterminal action is a pretty big deal when it comes to making a next-turn comparison. The only thing that it costs when setting up is a card in your hand, in contrast to Haunted Woods and Merchant Ship. So even though the next turn effects of those are pretty hefty, they're moderated by the fact that they still cost an action to play at some point. Fishing Village doesn't which is why the next turn effect is only a single Bazaar rather than two of them or something. "Lost City into whatever action you want that was in play last turn" is just so much stronger than "Bazaar" that I can't imagine it should cost less than $5, even though Captain's Quarter doesn't give you +$1 the turn you play it like Fishing Village does. I will admit that I think it's close though, I doubt costing it at $4 would completely break the game open but I think $5 would make it more interesting in gameplay.

---

Quote from: ConMan on July 10, 2020, 01:48:53 am

Physician - Action - $6
+1 Action
Play any number of Treasures from your hand. You may spend any amount of $ to trash a card from your hand costing up to the amount spent. Then, draw until you have 5 cards in hand.

I feel like the card name requires some kind of self-trashing ability just to make a "Physician, heal thyself" joke, but that takes away from what I'm trying to do with the card.

This seems like something that could lead to monolithic money decks, even with it costing as much as it does. It's hard to know without actually trying it though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on July 10, 2020, 12:51:22 pm

Playtesting

I just started to playtest the submited cards. Being home alone due to quarantine, the best I can do is to play solo games and simulated matches in which I play for both players.

Such limited tests are inevitably biased by my style of playing and limitations as player. Maybe a card could have a cool feature or an intersting way of playing which I don't perceive at first.

So, if you want, please help me with tips of what do you think is the best way to play your card and the expected results from this playing.

Thank you!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 10, 2020, 02:01:35 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 10, 2020, 02:14:26 am

The net effect of the card is not +2 Actions on turn 2, because you don't have to draw it or the card you used it with, that's why I made the Lost City comparison.

I tried to illustrate with my last post why it is unwise to seperate the net effects of Durations. If you view the second turn stuff isolated from the first turn stuff, the card looks far better than it is:

Haunted Woods is a next turn triple Lab! And I thought even Double Labs are overpowered!
Well, yeah, but it is dead on the first turn and the net effect of the card is the same as that of Smithy, -1 Action and +2 Cards.

Captain's Quarters has gross effects of +2 Actions on the first turn and +1 Card and +1 Action on the second turn. That's a net effect of +2 Actions which is Double Village, which does no exist officially, which makes it tricky to evaluate while taking similar stuff like Port and Bustling Village as rough benchmarks.

OK, now we saw that the card is basically a splitter that also Schemes and delays the "draw". Delaying the draw sucks, providing the Actions spread over 2 turns like Fishing Village and the quasi-Scheming is brilliant for consistency.

Lost City on the other hand is net +1 Card and +1 Action and has very little to do with Captain's Quarters. The former net draws, the latter does not.

Net effects are only the first step, the subtleties of a card are much more interesting (and IMO very hard when it comes to Durations which is why I have no idea whether this is a $4 or a $5). But getting net effects right is important because it makes it less likely that you miscategorize and thus misevaluate a card (not saying you did!).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 10, 2020, 03:34:39 pm

Quote from: segura on July 10, 2020, 02:01:35 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 10, 2020, 02:14:26 am

The net effect of the card is not +2 Actions on turn 2, because you don't have to draw it or the card you used it with, that's why I made the Lost City comparison.

I tried to illustrate with my last post why it is unwise to seperate the net effects of Durations. If you view the second turn stuff isolated from the first turn stuff, the card looks far better than it is:

Haunted Woods is a next turn triple Lab! And I thought even Double Labs are overpowered!
Well, yeah, but it is dead on the first turn and the net effect of the card is the same as that of Smithy, -1 Action and +2 Cards.

Captain's Quarters has gross effects of +2 Actions on the first turn and +1 Card and +1 Action on the second turn. That's a net effect of +2 Actions which is Double Village, which does no exist officially, which makes it tricky to evaluate while taking similar stuff like Port and Bustling Village as rough benchmarks.

OK, now we saw that the card is basically a splitter that also Schemes and delays the "draw". Delaying the draw sucks, providing the Actions spread over 2 turns like Fishing Village and the quasi-Scheming is brilliant for consistency.

Lost City on the other hand is net +1 Card and +1 Action and has very little to do with Captain's Quarters. The former net draws, the latter does not.

Net effects are only the first step, the subtleties of a card are much more interesting (and IMO very hard when it comes to Durations which is why I have no idea whether this is a $4 or a $5). But getting net effects right is important because it makes it less likely that you miscategorize and thus misevaluate a card (not saying you did!).

I agree with a lot of the things you said here, especially the first two sentences. I've perhaps not been explicit enough in how the fact that the 1st turn effect is often passable (if Shanty Town is the only Village, you will probably buy it given good terminals, even if it is more often than not a Necropolis) combined with the strong second turn effect (it is not just a scheme combined with a village; this effectively gives you an extra draw ahead of the Scheme too).

Captain's Quarters can be said to net draw, if you're comparing it to Village. If I play Village, I get net +0 Cards. The first turn of Captain's Quarters, I get net -1 Cards, but on the second turn, I get net "+2 cards" where the two cards that I draw are Necropolis and whatever Action I set aside. The "+2 cards" are also stronger than any ordinary +2 cards because one of the two cards is going to be something I really want it to be.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on July 10, 2020, 04:05:06 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 10, 2020, 03:34:39 pm

Quote from: segura on July 10, 2020, 02:01:35 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 10, 2020, 02:14:26 am

The net effect of the card is not +2 Actions on turn 2, because you don't have to draw it or the card you used it with, that's why I made the Lost City comparison.

I tried to illustrate with my last post why it is unwise to seperate the net effects of Durations. If you view the second turn stuff isolated from the first turn stuff, the card looks far better than it is:

Haunted Woods is a next turn triple Lab! And I thought even Double Labs are overpowered!
Well, yeah, but it is dead on the first turn and the net effect of the card is the same as that of Smithy, -1 Action and +2 Cards.

Captain's Quarters has gross effects of +2 Actions on the first turn and +1 Card and +1 Action on the second turn. That's a net effect of +2 Actions which is Double Village, which does no exist officially, which makes it tricky to evaluate while taking similar stuff like Port and Bustling Village as rough benchmarks.

OK, now we saw that the card is basically a splitter that also Schemes and delays the "draw". Delaying the draw sucks, providing the Actions spread over 2 turns like Fishing Village and the quasi-Scheming is brilliant for consistency.

Lost City on the other hand is net +1 Card and +1 Action and has very little to do with Captain's Quarters. The former net draws, the latter does not.

Net effects are only the first step, the subtleties of a card are much more interesting (and IMO very hard when it comes to Durations which is why I have no idea whether this is a $4 or a $5). But getting net effects right is important because it makes it less likely that you miscategorize and thus misevaluate a card (not saying you did!).

I agree with a lot of the things you said here, especially the first two sentences. I've perhaps not been explicit enough in how the fact that the 1st turn effect is often passable (if Shanty Town is the only Village, you will probably buy it given good terminals, even if it is more often than not a Necropolis) combined with the strong second turn effect (it is not just a scheme combined with a village; this effectively gives you an extra draw ahead of the Scheme too).

Captain's Quarters can be said to net draw, if you're comparing it to Village. If I play Village, I get net +0 Cards. The first turn of Captain's Quarters, I get net -1 Cards, but on the second turn, I get net "+2 cards" where the two cards that I draw are Necropolis and whatever Action I set aside. The "+2 cards" are also stronger than any ordinary +2 cards because one of the two cards is going to be something I really want it to be.

By the same reasoning, isn't a Village really like Laboratory that draws you a Necropolis and something else? That just seems like a really convoluted way of thinking about it. Captain's Quarter loses a card the turn you play it (like Necro) and gets you a card the next turn (like Lost City). It's as if you played a Village this turn and next turn, except that the draw from this turn gets pushed back to next turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 10, 2020, 05:58:46 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on July 10, 2020, 04:05:06 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 10, 2020, 03:34:39 pm

Quote from: segura on July 10, 2020, 02:01:35 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 10, 2020, 02:14:26 am

The net effect of the card is not +2 Actions on turn 2, because you don't have to draw it or the card you used it with, that's why I made the Lost City comparison.

I tried to illustrate with my last post why it is unwise to seperate the net effects of Durations. If you view the second turn stuff isolated from the first turn stuff, the card looks far better than it is:

Haunted Woods is a next turn triple Lab! And I thought even Double Labs are overpowered!
Well, yeah, but it is dead on the first turn and the net effect of the card is the same as that of Smithy, -1 Action and +2 Cards.

Captain's Quarters has gross effects of +2 Actions on the first turn and +1 Card and +1 Action on the second turn. That's a net effect of +2 Actions which is Double Village, which does no exist officially, which makes it tricky to evaluate while taking similar stuff like Port and Bustling Village as rough benchmarks.

OK, now we saw that the card is basically a splitter that also Schemes and delays the "draw". Delaying the draw sucks, providing the Actions spread over 2 turns like Fishing Village and the quasi-Scheming is brilliant for consistency.

Lost City on the other hand is net +1 Card and +1 Action and has very little to do with Captain's Quarters. The former net draws, the latter does not.

Net effects are only the first step, the subtleties of a card are much more interesting (and IMO very hard when it comes to Durations which is why I have no idea whether this is a $4 or a $5). But getting net effects right is important because it makes it less likely that you miscategorize and thus misevaluate a card (not saying you did!).

I agree with a lot of the things you said here, especially the first two sentences. I've perhaps not been explicit enough in how the fact that the 1st turn effect is often passable (if Shanty Town is the only Village, you will probably buy it given good terminals, even if it is more often than not a Necropolis) combined with the strong second turn effect (it is not just a scheme combined with a village; this effectively gives you an extra draw ahead of the Scheme too).

Captain's Quarters can be said to net draw, if you're comparing it to Village. If I play Village, I get net +0 Cards. The first turn of Captain's Quarters, I get net -1 Cards, but on the second turn, I get net "+2 cards" where the two cards that I draw are Necropolis and whatever Action I set aside. The "+2 cards" are also stronger than any ordinary +2 cards because one of the two cards is going to be something I really want it to be.

By the same reasoning, isn't a Village really like Laboratory that draws you a Necropolis and something else? That just seems like a really convoluted way of thinking about it. Captain's Quarter loses a card the turn you play it (like Necro) and gets you a card the next turn (like Lost City). It's as if you played a Village this turn and next turn, except that the draw from this turn gets pushed back to next turn.

Yeah, that's probably a better way of thinking about it. I think the ability to choose which card you get next turn is really really important though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 10, 2020, 07:00:44 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 10, 2020, 05:58:46 pm

Yeah, that's probably a better way of thinking about it. I think the ability to choose which card you get next turn is really really important though.

Not getting 2 Actions but "play two Actions" is really important too, especially when it is on a splitter that does not draw. If there is only one other Action in your hand, it basically halves the power of the village.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 10, 2020, 10:24:56 pm

Quote from: segura on July 10, 2020, 07:00:44 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 10, 2020, 05:58:46 pm

Yeah, that's probably a better way of thinking about it. I think the ability to choose which card you get next turn is really really important though.

Not getting 2 Actions but "play two Actions" is really important too, especially when it is on a splitter that does not draw. If there is only one other Action in your hand, it basically halves the power of the village.

It's not clear to me that you have to select both actions before playing them; the way I'm reading it, you select and play action #1 from your hand before even selecting action #2. I agree that it is quite a bit weaker if you use that interpretation of the card.

The card should probably have an FAQ to make this question clear, given that we both interpreted it differently. (Alternatively, it could have "set aside" or "do this twice" wording to align more closely with existing cards.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 11, 2020, 02:33:28 am

You are right, it is a nested structure like with TRs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 11, 2020, 12:49:51 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 09, 2020, 02:58:23 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 09, 2020, 01:41:57 pm

I don't think we've had a Way yet, so here is Way of the Magpie:

(https://i.imgur.com/OTxCLEY.png)

Quote

Way of the Magpie
You may reveal an Action card from your hand. This turn, cards with the same name as it are also Treasures. Play that Action card.

A variation on Capitalism:
• costs "playing an Action card" to use
• only lasts one turn
• only "capitalisms" one named card
• can "capitalisms" any action, not just with coin amounts


Feedback welcome - the general idea for a Way that "capitalisms" one named card came early, but I struggled a bit with the right details.

At first I tried "follow its instructions, then cards with that name are treasure". But there'd rarely be a reason NOT to ever follow the way, so that's bad. There had to be a negative. Then, it was just "+1 Action, cards with the same name as this are Treasures". But that seemed a little weak, since the point is to allow you to play multiple terminals, and with this wording you would want at least 3 of the same name to follow the way.

So now you can use *any* action card to "capitalism" some other action.

Some interesting combos with Bandit, Magpie, Courtier, etc.

The problem I see with this is that it is very hard to get it to be better than a Necropolis. I feel like it would be a lot better if it gave you +1 Action instead of playing the action you want to treasureify in order to make it less awkward to use with terminal actions. (I know that ways are supposed to be weak but as is, there needs to be a very specific combo in order for me to want to use this during a game at all).

I didn't love the way this ended up either, partially because I prefer Ways that care about the card that followed the way (as opposed to, for example, Way of the Ox, which is +2 actions always). So yes, I would prefer that the card that becomes the Treasure is the "Way"ed card.

That said, here's a new take, that goes back to that concept, while still finding a way to have a negative consequence to following the instructions.

(https://i.imgur.com/jZIPnNN.png)

Quote

Way of the Magpie
This turn, cards with the same name as this are also Treasures. You may discard a Treasure to follow this card's instructions.

Early on it'll "cost" you a copper, but later, when you have better Treasure, it'll "cost" more. Or if your only Treasure is, say, a Platinum, you can always discard a copy fo this - it could still be reasonable to do if, for example, the card is Smithy and you prefer to get the +3 cards during your Action phase, instead of your Buy phase (depending on how you've managed your deck, you could just draw it back, as well).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 11, 2020, 03:28:41 pm

Small touch ups for my card:

(https://i.postimg.cc/PtRbG709/Quiet-Alleyway-v2-1.png)

• You now need 4 cards or less played that turn (instead of 3) to put Quiet Alleyway on your Tavern mat.
• Just switched the color scheme so it's consistent with stuff like "Night - Duration" cards (banner of the special type's colour, body of the card of Night colour).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on July 11, 2020, 07:14:58 pm

Seignorage
Action/Night - $4
+2 Coffers

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on July 12, 2020, 01:55:10 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 11, 2020, 07:14:58 pm

Curiosity Shoppe
Action/Night - $4
+2 Coffers

astonishing simple and nice - but don't like the name

perhaps Seigniorage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage) ?  https://imgur.com/ZS4h89V.png

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 12, 2020, 08:26:57 am

2 Coffers nonterminally is a $5 and the delaying does not nerf the card enough to justify a price of $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on July 12, 2020, 05:27:11 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jd9HzpA.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on July 12, 2020, 06:20:45 pm

I've redone my design. Thanks to pubby, LordBaphomet, grep, anordinaryman, alion8me, and sorry I don't entirely understand how quoting multiple people works on this.

I wanted Night Hag to be something that wakes you from sleep, it's thematic and I like it so I wanted to keep the night phase and not make it a Treasure. I also wanted it to have a cursing effect, like all good(?) hags. I also wanted there to be a reason to go back to the Action phase and not just to be a gimmick. This is what I've got now:

Night Hag

(https://i.imgur.com/gRnk2R0.png)

Quote

If it's your Night Phase, you may trash a Curse from your hand or gain a Curse to hand. If you do, return to your Action phase. Otherwise,
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
Each other player gains a Curse.

I am still torn about gaining a Curse to hand. I had it as gain a Copper/2 Coppers to hand, or gaining a Spirit of some sort. This seemed to be a fix. So, you might have some unfinished business in the action phase and really want that Curse, or want to trash that earlier curse you gave yourself. Most importantly though, I don't think it matters if that locket is cursed anymore...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 12, 2020, 07:28:40 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on July 12, 2020, 06:20:45 pm

I've redone my design. Thanks to pubby, LordBaphomet, grep, anordinaryman, alion8me, and sorry I don't entirely understand how quoting multiple people works on this.

I wanted Night Hag to be something that wakes you from sleep, it's thematic and I like it so I wanted to keep the night phase and not make it a Treasure. I also wanted it to have a cursing effect, like all good(?) hags. I also wanted there to be a reason to go back to the Action phase and not just to be a gimmick. This is what I've got now:

Night Hag

(https://i.imgur.com/gRnk2R0.png)

Quote

If it's your Night Phase, you may trash a Curse from your hand or gain a Curse to hand. If you do, return to your Action phase. Otherwise,
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
Each other player gains a Curse.

I am still torn about gaining a Curse to hand. I had it as gain a Copper/2 Coppers to hand, or gaining a Spirit of some sort. This seemed to be a fix. So, you might have some unfinished business in the action phase and really want that Curse, or want to trash that earlier curse you gave yourself. Most importantly though, I don't think it matters if that locket is cursed anymore...

I feel like this is a better direction for this card but right now it's strictly better than witch... not only does the action phase portion have a +buy, but it also has a strong night phase ability. I think you should just nerf the action phase part of it and it should work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 12, 2020, 11:11:41 pm

After careful consideration of the discussion of Captain's Quarters, I've decided to weaken it slightly because it did seem a little strong for $4. So, now, you have to set aside the next card you play. It makes it a little more flexible, in that it could be a Treasure that you set aside, but mostly makes it weaker because you have much less choice in what you set aside, and it nullifies the in-play effects of cards like Goons and Highway the turn you play them.

(https://i.imgur.com/A11Kz5p.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on July 13, 2020, 04:53:02 am

Quote from: Carline on July 09, 2020, 11:59:33 am

Quote from: Carline on July 06, 2020, 07:32:35 am

The phases could be any phase of your turn or other players turn that already exists in the game. Create new phases is not allowed.

Quote from: majiponi on July 09, 2020, 10:02:59 am

Morning Market
cost $2 - Action
+1 Action
+1 Buy
Take an extra Buy phase immediately, during which you gain cards onto your deck.

majiponi, I think it's not according to the rules of the contest, which don't allow to create new phases.

On second thought, I think this is ok and I'm evaluating it as it is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on July 13, 2020, 05:20:38 am

Many cool ideas! I'm playtesting all submited cards and a little bit more time is needed to conclude it. So, this will be a

48 hours warning.

You have two days more to make new entries or change yours.

Below, the cards by now (in alphabetical order). Any feedbacks will be very good to me as also to the designers.


Alchemist's Guild by spineflu

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/568/original/Alchemist's_Guild.png?1594627255)


Captains's Quarters by mail-mi

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/569/full/Captain's_Quarters.png?1594627289)


Guinea by mandioca15

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/570/full/Guinea.png?1594627326)


Lunar Ritual by alion8me

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/571/full/Lunar_Ritual.png?1594627367)


Morning Market by majiponi

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/572/full/Morning_Market.png?1594627416)


Mummy by LibraryAdventurer

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/573/full/Mummy.png?1594627447)


[Name] by LordBaphomet

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/574/full/Name.png?1594627508)


Night Hag by Marpharos

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/575/full/Night_Hag.png?1594627550)


Overstrain by grep

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/577/full/Overstrain.png?1594627595)


Pendant by anordinaryman

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/578/full/Pendant.png?1594627629)


Physician by ConMan

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/579/original/Physician.png?1594627659)


Port City by segura

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/581/full/Port_City.png?1594627730)


Quiet Alleyway by X-tra

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/582/full/Quiet_Alleyway.png?1594627770)


Replicate by Aquila

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/583/original/Replicate.png?1594627805)


Scribe by D782802859

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/584/full/Scribe.png?1594627841)


Seignorage by NoMoreFun

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/586/full/Seignorage.png?1594627901)


Tenant by [TP] Inferno

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/587/full/Tenant.png?1594627931)


Vespers by stechafle

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/588/original/Vespers.png?1594627960)


Way of the Magpie by scolapasta

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/589/full/Way_of_the_Magpie.png?1594627998)


Way of the Wolf by grrgrrgrr

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/590/full/Way_of_the_Wolf.png?1594628034)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on July 13, 2020, 06:39:22 pm

Here's my submission (It sadly has no name yet, suggestions welcomed)

------------------------------------------------
+ 1 Action
You may play any number of treasures from your hand. Discard your hand. Draw up to 4. Then exile this card.

Action 5$
------------------------------------------------
Kinda like a strong Minion that exiles itself to prevent monolithic decks with only this. I was thinking about making another card as a means to getting this, like Hermit/Madman, but I'm not sure about how I would go about doing it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on July 13, 2020, 07:14:48 pm

Quote from: Carline on July 13, 2020, 05:20:38 am

Many cool ideas! I'm playtesting all submited cards and a little bit more time is needed to conclude it. So, this will be a

Below, the cards by now (in alphabetical order). Any feedbacks will be very good to me as also to the designers.

Wow, thanks for putting in the extra effort to mock up and playtest these. You're going above and beyond as contest judge this week. that's awesome.   :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 13, 2020, 08:55:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jpqJ1kf.png)

New entry - rewards variety and gets stronger the earlier you play it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on July 14, 2020, 02:27:31 am

Quote from: Carline on July 13, 2020, 05:20:38 am

Many cool ideas! I'm playtesting all submited cards and a little bit more time is needed to conclude it. So, this will be a

48 hours warning.

[...]
Seignorage by NoMoreFun

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/586/full/Seignorage.png?1594627901)

[...]

BTW the right spelling is Seigniorage

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on July 14, 2020, 04:13:22 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 13, 2020, 08:55:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jpqJ1kf.png)

New entry - rewards variety and gets stronger the earlier you play it.

Isn't this supposed to have the Attack and Doom types also?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 14, 2020, 06:02:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/SV5xGAi.jpg)

Quote

Moneychanger
Types: Action
Cost: $6*
+1 Card, +1 Action. You may play a Treasure from your hand twice.

---

During your turns, this costs $1 less for each Buy you have.
Heirloom: Pouch

Peddler variant.  Typically costs $5, but can cost less with +Buys.  It does nothing if you have no Treasures in hand.  It's very powerful with bigger Treasures.  The Pouch Moneychanger provides can reduce its cost to $4, or even $3 in concert with another Moneychanger.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 14, 2020, 09:33:10 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on July 14, 2020, 04:13:22 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 13, 2020, 08:55:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jpqJ1kf.png)

New entry - rewards variety and gets stronger the earlier you play it.

Isn't this supposed to have the Attack and Doom types also?

It should have doom. It doesn't have action because you play it in your action or buy phase from the reaction.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 14, 2020, 09:48:52 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 14, 2020, 09:33:10 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on July 14, 2020, 04:13:22 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 13, 2020, 08:55:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jpqJ1kf.png)

New entry - rewards variety and gets stronger the earlier you play it.

Isn't this supposed to have the Attack and Doom types also?

It should have doom. It doesn't have action because you play it in your action or buy phase from the reaction.

He said Attack type, not Action type. And he's probably right; you should be able to defend against it.

The reward for playing it in your action phase is super strong, but also hard to ever get. That makes it hard to know if it's balanced or not... in games where you can get to 7 unique cards in play during your action phase, this might be far too powerful.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 14, 2020, 03:23:22 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 14, 2020, 09:48:52 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 14, 2020, 09:33:10 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on July 14, 2020, 04:13:22 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 13, 2020, 08:55:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jpqJ1kf.png)

New entry - rewards variety and gets stronger the earlier you play it.

Isn't this supposed to have the Attack and Doom types also?

It should have doom. It doesn't have action because you play it in your action or buy phase from the reaction.

He said Attack type, not Action type. And he's probably right; you should be able to defend against it.

The reward for playing it in your action phase is super strong, but also hard to ever get. That makes it hard to know if it's balanced or not... in games where you can get to 7 unique cards in play during your action phase, this might be far too powerful.

I feel like the action part of this is basically never helpful because if you can get 7 unique cards in play consistently, you are probably drawing your deck with or without Fae Market.

Black Market and Storyteller are maybe the only cases where this isn't true, but I'm still not sure of it, because playing a bunch of different treasures with Storyteller basically guarantees you draw your deck and playing BM into Fae Market still requires a bunch more cards for setup.

I also feel like you will very rarely be able to reveal this during your Night phase and not your Buy phase (it would basically require that there are night cards in the setup).

I think it should have an effect of payload during your Action phase, that would make the restriction on when it can be played mesh a lot better with what the card does.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 14, 2020, 03:49:06 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 14, 2020, 03:23:22 pm

I also feel like you will very rarely be able to reveal this during your Night phase and not your Buy phase (it would basically require that there are night cards in the setup).

Just a comment on this, the card is Night type, so it can always be played during the Night phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 14, 2020, 06:29:00 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 14, 2020, 03:49:06 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 14, 2020, 03:23:22 pm

I also feel like you will very rarely be able to reveal this during your Night phase and not your Buy phase (it would basically require that there are night cards in the setup).

Just a comment on this, the card is Night type, so it can always be played during the Night phase.

Oh that makes sense.

I would put the "When you have at least 7 unique cards in play, you may play this from your hand." under a dividing line, usually reaction effects are like that. I interpreted this as a pure reaction with the Night type added to it to force Night phase to be a phase in the current game because of the nonstandard placement of the reaction effect. My interpretation is still wrong either way but I think changing the formatting would make the correct interpretation more obvious.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 14, 2020, 10:23:46 pm

Updated entry - in text because im lazy...

Fae Market - $3 - Reaction/Night/Attack/Doom
If it is your action phase: +1 Card, +1 Action
If it is your action or buy phase: +1 Buy, +1 Coffer
Otherwise, each other player receives the next hex.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you have 5 or more unique cards in play, you may play this from your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on July 15, 2020, 03:40:14 am

I playtested my card in three solo games, and i bought the fourth province on round 17 two times and on round 11 the last time (but I might have counted wrong.) I didn't think it was too exiting, and every play felt risky. It may be slightly overpowered, since a play of it in a round 6 deck gives a pretty certain province, and if it is exiled you can pump a lot of them into your deck at once if you have played it some times before. It benefits from strong treasures, Peddlers and extra buys.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on July 15, 2020, 04:21:56 am

Submissions Closed

I have a few playtests to do, including the three new entries. I hope to post the results in the next 24 hours. Maybe a little more.

Thank you all!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on July 17, 2020, 09:02:25 am

Contest #80 - Results

Congratulations to all for so many creative ideas and great designs!

I saw by the posts in this forum that the most of you were already discussing Dominion in high level when I even didn’t know about the game. So, it was a hard task to me to judge your work. I don’t have the expertise you have to look a card and see all possible scenarios for it. The best I could do to have something useful to say about the cards was to playtest them and so it was what I did. Please take the following comments as what they are: just some notes of an average player, far from being the discerning opinion of an expert. And please, don’t be upset if even with the tests I misjudged or undervalued your card. On the other hand, please let me know if I did it, I like to know when I’m wrong.

Another hard task to me is to write in English. So please forgive any misspell and the poor vocabulary. I didn’t have time to revise the text, so there would be some mistypes too.

Thank you very much!

Playtests

I played 41 simulated matches using the submitted cards in which I played for both players (in one of them for 3 players). Early it was clear that so many more tests would be necessary to the conclusions be consistent and statistically relevant. As I said before in the forum, the tests also were biased by my style of play and limitations as player. So, any conclusions should be taken with reservations.

In general, I played the tested cards with a kingdom with the simplest cards of each category of the base set. Village as Village, Workshop as gainer, Smith to draw, Remodel as remodeler, etc. When necessary for test some feature I included other cards. When I say in the comments that I played a card against other, I mean that one player played with one of them and not the other and vice versa, being the rest of the kingdom available to both.

Comments

I will organize my comments in an order that groups cards with some similar features. There are four cards that are draw-to-x, so I’ll start by them:


(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/584/full/Scribe.png?1594627841)

Scribe by D782802859

I like the way it makes use of night phase to save the card if it was not used. However, in the playtests Scribe shows some weakness. The difference from Scholar is that Scholar normally draws you more cards that you have before. With Scribe it only happens if you manage to reduce your hand size before, which is not always easy, you have to play before cards that don’t draw and still have an action available to play Scribe. In general, it’s s sifter not a draw card. Even in the best scenario to it (with non-terminal trashers and villages that don’t draw), in which it sometimes draws, many times it ends up being only a terminal Cellar. I could see how important is that +1 Action in sifters like Cellar or Warehouse. Scribe would be better with that +1 Action too, but maybe this way it could have some resemblance to Hunting Lodge.

To deal with the question of reduce hand size before draw-to-x, three cards came with the same solution. Let’s see them:



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/579/original/Physician.png?1594627659)

Physician by ConMan

With it you have two ways to reduce your hand before draw-to-x, playing Treasures and trashing a card from your hand. As a trasher it is slow to get rid of you Coppers and States and the system of “pay to trash”, an opposite version of TFB, discourages you to trash other cards. Play treasures in action phase really reduces hand size, but it’s so effective to play Treasures that you don’t want to buy actions, except for some +Buy source. As said in forum comments, it leads to somewhat monolithic money strategies. Be too strong in only one predefined way is not very fun.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/775/718/full/No_Name_Yet.png?1594986488)

No Name Yet by Jonatan Djurachkovitch

A similar card to Physician. It doesn’t trash but discards your hand and draws up to 4. Its hand reducing is guaranteed by discard part. The exile penalty is intended to nerf it a little but if you playing with it you would want to buy other copies and release the ones in exile, so till pile ends the penalty is not much significant. It has the same issues as Physician, leading to money strategy. When played, it discards the Actions you have in hand, so it makes quite random to try to use Actions with it. It ends up that the +1 action it gives is more often used to chain with itself and play with money in a not very creative way.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/568/original/Alchemist's_Guild.png?1594627255)

Alchemist's Guild by spineflu

Since it came from a previous version of an old contest, probably Alchemist’s Guild was the first to came with the play-Treasures/draw-to-x idea. It is more balanced than the previous two cards, as it plays only one Treasure each time. The treasures play in action phase is also a condition to get a Prize. The Potion in cost and the fact that you need two in play at the same turn slow down the setup to gain a Prize. In tests I gained the prize around turn 8 or 9. Normally I prefer Followers, but Trusty Steed and Bag of Gold seems to interact better with Alchemist’s Guild. I tried to play with a deck half Action-half Treasures to see if it works with an engine. However, what is needed to it play well is in conflict to what makes an engine speeds up. It anti-synergizes with Actions with strong draw. With them, it many times was only less than a Peddler (as you would play anyway the Treasures it played). So, like previous cards, it was more effective playing with Treasures and chaining with itself, since the ones after the first played are more than a Lab. However, it is slow to start to produce its best results and, even with the help of the Prize, in my tests it lost to faster engines.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/572/full/Morning_Market.png?1594627416)

Morning Market by majiponi

Morning Market in a certain way make Treasures being played out of normal place, but it has some issues relating to the contest conditions. At first I said it was not according to the rule of not create a new phase. On second thought, I accepted the argument that this buy phase inserted into Action phase is not a new phase in the sense of a new type of phase. However, it leads to another issue with contest conditions. If this inserted phase is a Buy phase, there’s no card being played in more than one phase. Actions are still played only in Action phase and Treasures only in buy phase. What this card does is to change phases order not change cards properties, which is the object of the contest. Anyway, I played with it and it seems an interesting card. I like the theme, the anticipated Buy phase being the Morning Market. In many turns, specially the first ones, what happens is that the inserted Buy phase occurs but turn doesn’t progress to regular Buy phase. So it is like playing a game where everything is equal except that you topdeck all cards gained in buy phase. It makes the game to be fast. And even faster when you begin to have cards to resume Action phase after the inserted buy phase. In this case, you can draw the bought cards and will have another Buy phase. This cycle is powerful. I think is too much impact for a $2 cost card, but I really don’t know what price would be better.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/775/706/full/Moneychanger.jpg?1594985839)

Moneychanger by Fragasnap

Moneychanger is another card that play Treasures in the action phase. I like its cost system, based on the buys you have. If you have many buys it could be very cheap, but each one you buy makes it costs increase again. Use Pouch as Heirloom is a wise idea, to unsure some +Buy. However, it brings a lucky factor to the opening. If you have Pouch in your $4 hand, you can open with Moneychanger. As it plays a Treasure twice, it seemed to me at first to be a good card to unsure payload to an engine, since you can have few Treasures and make better use of them. The tests, however, demonstrate that it is too strong playing only with money. I used Chapel to clean a deck only to Moneychangers, Golds, Pouch and Chapel. Each pair of Moneychanger/Gold is $6 and was easy to align three pairs. Since Moneychanger is a cantrip, there’s no problem in having a lot of them. If the kingdom has a source of non-terminal +buy, it becomes broken.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/583/original/Replicate.png?1594627805)

Replicate by Aquila

A similar situation to the one that makes Moneychanger overpowered happens with Replicate. Here what is played twice is a chameleoned Action card in buy phase. Strong terminal draw cards already becomes very powerful and versatile when chameleoned, since they can be used as draw and payload. When Replicate doubles their payload power, they become insane. The Throne function is so powerful that I didn’t even want to use the gaining function. Replicate is expensive, so it seems better to buy others copies of actions than gaining them by trashing Replicate. Anyway, you don’t need so many copies of each action, since you can play each twice. I cleaned a deck to have only Replicates, Council Rooms and Chapel. Just a Council Room play was enough to put in hand with many pairs of Replicate/Council room, each one giving $8 and a buy. Even with the opponent drawing a lot of cards because of these throned Council Rooms, she didn’t have a chance against these somewhat broken strategy.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/577/full/Overstrain.png?1594627595)

Overstrain by grep

Another entry about playing a card again is Overstrain. Now the card is played twice when trashed from play. It’s an event that replaces the buy you used to buy it, so you spend only $3 to do it. The nearest comparison is to Bonfire, so I played it against Bonfire to see the results. Bonfire costs a buy but trash two cards each time. It is so much faster than Overstrain to trash your coppers. Most of the time, especially in first turns, that $1 I gained by trashing a Copper with Overstrain were useless. The same for the +Buy it replaces. I included in kingdom some actions like Sea Hag or Cutpurse that you want to trash after some uses. It was cool to throne them when trashing, but this swan song of a weak Action was too occasional to make a strong difference. Near to the end of the game Overstrain allows some more effective tricks like replay gainers or bridges to pile out. Don’t need to spend buys to do it is good. On the long run, it demonstrates to compensate with its own cool possibilities the initial slowness comparing to Bonfire and the results playing with one or the other were close.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/569/full/Captain's_Quarters.png?1594627289)

Captains's Quarters by mail-mi

Captain’s Quarters is other card that plays a card again, in this case in the start of next turn. It has some similarity with Cargo Vessel, a card I presented some contests ago that is a strong $5. Mail-mi tried to keep Captain’s Quarters at $4 by weakening from previous version, but the question is if the present version is still strong for a $4. What a Village it is! As pointed in forum comments, the global result is +2 actions after replace spent action and card. The nearest comparison is to Bustling Village without the Settlers part. But it is better than Bustling Village. With +3 actions in the same turn theirs is not uncommon to don’t use all of them. Using two this turn and one in the next tends to be more reliable in the long run. Other advantage of Captain’s Quarters is that the +Card it gives to replace the played village card is not a random card, it is a chosen card. You simply play now and in the next turn your best target for Captain’s Quarters you have in hand (It’s quite insane when it’s a Throne Room and you have good cards to throne). And you do it with the same copy of that card. This control over what is played and the speed in which you replay your best actions are features strong enough to compensate the delayed draw. I would say, enough to make Captain’s Quarters too strong for a $4. But besides it there’s still the on gain ability. In tests it was useful many times when Captain’s Quarters was gained by a Workshop, it already starts to act as a Village when gained. The few tricks you may do playing a Treasure or a Night card is only a small bonus to a lot of strong features. Conclusion: Captain’s Quarters is a nice card, comparable to the best Villages. Definitively it’s too much strong to be a $4. It would be cool as a $5 and still in the strong side. Though it would maybe disfigure the design in the on gain part, it seems to be necessary to raise its price.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/573/full/Mummy.png?1594627447)

Mummy by LibraryAdventurer

Another card that play cards at the start of next turn is Mummy. I agree with the comments that it has also to be a Duration. It would make it a five type card, which despite has nothing wrong, seems a bit inelegant to my taste. The design of this card seems to be too much oriented to try to make good things with ruins. It gives ruins to other players and finds a way to use those Ruins that are clogging your hand. It makes good use of phases structure, making different but interconnected things in action and buy phases. However, both abilities that it adds to a Silver seemed to be a little weak. The attack is slow. The ability of buy phase needs the set aside cards you play to be dead cards this turn. It happens with Ruins, but more often you have one or two in hand. The best scenario for the ability effect (but worst for the present turn) is when you have three, but even in this case what you get is three vanilla bonuses next turn (in best cases, something like the next turn part of a Wharf effect). It was not very effective. I tried to play it in a kingdom with many $2 cost good cards to see if the buy phase ability is better with them. However, most of times there’s no good reason to postpone their play to next turn neither much gain in doing so. I did with Mummy the only simulation of a three player game of my tests and it was better for the player that doesn’t play with it. If you attack with Mummy but your opponent has other way to get rid of the Ruins or to deal with them and don’t mirror you, you probably would have no use to buy phase ability and end up only with a terminal Silver with a weak attack.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/587/full/Tenant.png?1594627931)

Tenant by [TP] Inferno

Two other cards are also intended to produce results in future turns, using for that in their case the reserve mechanic. One is Tenant. It is very similar to Coin of the Realm, only changing one of the vanilla bonus from +Action to +Card and modifying the condition to call it to be in any moment of Action phase instead of after playing an action. These changes, however, make it so much better than Coin of the Realm when played. That +1 card is often better than an additional action. Call it at any moment helps a lot and many times ignites again what would be a weak turn. When I tried to buy many of them, however, my hand was often full of the Coppers they are before being reserved. The secret to play with it seems to be have only a few and call them in right moments. Playing this way, it’s an effective card, but, I don’t know, it still seems to me to occupy the same niche of Coin of the Realm.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/582/full/Quiet_Alleyway.png?1594627770)

Quiet Alleyway by X-tra

The other Reserve card is Quiet Alleyway. The reward when called is better, besides those +1 Card and +1 Action you also gain +$1. However, there’s a condition to send it to Tavern mat, not playing more than three cards before play it. I’m not a big fan of cards which do nothing in some situations and in this case this factor seems really to be an issue. In first turns the condition is easy to be achieved and early calls of this really boosts some of them. But as game advances more and more you have to face the decision between to sacrifice a turn or try to boost it. Many times I had one or two Quiet Alleways in Tavern mat and one in hand with some other medium cards and had to decide if I play one more mediocre turn or accept that this time this Quiet Alleyway in my hand will be a dead card. The sensation was that in both cases I was losing something. This conflict seems to be inherent to the card, in your good turns you often end up with one or more copies of it dead in hand. This possibility increases when you have good draws, so it anti-synergizes with strong drawers. The best scenarios for Quiet Alleway are the worst for the players: games with a lot of junk, no trashing or hand size reducers attacks. In these cases, it helps, but not at the point to be decisive by itself. Stack them to do a megaturn is slow and needs a lot of weak turns before. And, differently of a Tactician for example, it in fact doesn’t draw: for each additional card you have in your megaturn you had to play a card before in a previous turn.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/775/727/full/Fae_Market.png?1594986669)

Fae Market by LordBaphomet

Another card which has a special condition to be achieved is Fae Market. In this case the condition is to align unique cards in a similar way to Magic Lamp. I like very much its mechanic of a challenge that rewards you more the earlier you complete it. It makes very good use of the phases structure in its progression. And I love the fact of it being three-phase, having different behaviors in Action, Buy and Night phases. The idea is very cool, but playing with it shows that the condition of 5 uniques is hard to achieve. If you want to try, each duplicate you have in hand is an almost dead card that you can play only after react with Fae Market. If there’s no way to trash your Coppers and Estates, it is very difficult. In many plays it only distribute the hexes, which harm a little but are two random and often weak. With cheap cantrips and villages in kingdom plus a Silver, sometimes you reach the uniques in Buy phase, but what you get quite anti-synergizes with the condition. As you can only play one Copper, often you let one or two more in hand without playing to gain that Coffers. Coffers are better if you can stock them to use when you need, but, since you don’t have much money this turn ($3 from Copper and Silver and maybe a little more from actions), if you want to use the extra buy you gained you probably have to use the Coffers. In general, I preferred to save the Coffers, so most of the times I lost the extra buy. With good trashers to clean your deck and good actions in kingdom is easier to align 5 uniques and sometimes I did it in Action phase. Howewer, as pointed in the forum, with this kind of cards you probably can draw your deck anyway, so the bonus of Action phase is not very effective. I think Fae Market would be better if the condition would be to align different named cards played like Horn of Plenty, with no need to have only copy of each in play. With Magic Lamp it works because you have to do it only once in a game and the reward is very good. Needing to do it many times limits playing possibilities. I love the idea, though it needs improvements in its implementation.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/775/722/full/Seigniorage.png?1594986612)

Seigniorage by NoMoreFun

Talking about Coffers leads to Seigniorage. Maybe one of the cards ever with less wording, it’s cool and elegant. I like very much the way it uses the very same instruction in two phases and it has different results in each phase. Since, as I said, Coffers are best if can stock them rather than to be forced to play them in the same turn you gained them, it’s better to play Seigniorage in the Night, when it’s non-terminal. It’s what I did most in the tests. Early this tests confirmed what was told in the forum, gaining two Coffers non-terminally is too strong for a $4 cost card. It is better than Baker, even with Baker being a cantrip. I played with it against Baker and rapidly the player playing Seigniorage had a lot of Coffers more than the one playing with Baker.
Note: Before NoMoreFun changed his entry, I playtested Watchdog. It has the inconstancy of the cards that deals with discard pile, but had good results playing against Lookout, which has some similarities with it. It also has a cool interaction with Artificer.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/588/original/Vespers.png?1594627960)

Vespers by stechafle

Another Action-Night card is Vespers. The comparison to Chapel is immediate, so the questions about it is how they are different it and if Vespers is stronger than Chapel or not. The downside of Vespers is not being able to select the cards to trash. Comparing to Chapel, it has the advantages of doesn’t use an action to trash, being able to trash more than four cards and has other function, as a Necropolis. So, I played it against Chapel. Most of times they both played very equal. You normally use Chapel in the first turns and trash all your hand. The situations in which Vespers would be worse practically don’t happen. To they happen you should have two terminals and Vespers in hand plus some cards you want to trash (probably two). To trash that cards you have to trash one of the terminals. However, it’s not also a good situation if is Chapel in your hand instead of Vespers, if you play Chapel you are not playing both terminals. The Vespers solution to this situation ends up to being better: you play it this turn as a Necropolis and play both terminals. The advantages of Vespers over Chapel were most significant, specially being able to use it without spend an Action and becomes a Necropolis and not a dead card after conclude trashing. In a game without Villages it is worth even buy one more to use as Necropolis. Conclusion: Vespers is stronger than Chapel. Being Chapel already one of the strongest cards in the game, I think it doesn’t need a stronger version.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/575/full/Night_Hag.png?1594627550)

Night Hag by Marpharos

Another Action-Night is Night Hag, which is also a curser Attack. LordBaphomet alerted in the forum that it’s strictly better than Witch, so I was waiting to Marpharos change his entry to playtest the card. It was not changed, so I didn’t playtest it. It’s strictly better than Witch. Not being strictly better than an existent card is a basic principle of a card design. Anyway, there’s room for a night curser and you can persist in this good idea.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/590/full/Way_of_the_Wolf.png?1594628034)

Way of the Wolf by grrgrrgrr

In the night also comes the Wolf. In this case in the form of a Way by which you postpone an Action play to Night phase to gain a +$1 bonus. It’s cool to play some actions in the Night, but the playtests early revealed that Way of the Wolf leads to some automatic decisions. If an Action card is the type of Action you can play in Night phase with the same results, there’s no reason to not play it using the Way of the Wolf and gain that free +$1. The overall result is like some piles begin the game with the +$1 token of all players put on them. It makes the game faster to all players, but not in a very interesting way. Some decisions could take place when you have to choose the order you play the postponed actions in the Night phase start, but it often doesn’t make much difference.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/589/full/Way_of_the_Magpie.png?1594627998)

Way of the Magpie by scolapasta

Another entry to use the way mechanism is Way of the Magpie. It’s a kind of local Capitalism that applies only to targeted cards. You need to play an Action card in order to the others with the same name become treasures this turn. Why would you do it? In some cases, because there could be some cards in the kingdom which interacts with Treasure type cards and allow cool tricks, like Treasurer or Mandarin. In many situations, however, there’s nothing intrinsically better for an Action in being also a Treasure, except for the fact that you can play Treasures without spend an action. So, Way of the Magpie applies better to the situations you want to play many copies of the same action and don’t have good sources of +Action. That action also has to be of the kind that is good to play in buy phase, like a source of +Buy or payload. In playtests it revealed to be hard to setup. You need to have at least two copies of the same action this turn to it be useful. If you didn’t overbuy that action yet, so having few copies of it in your deck, and could count only with your initial hand of five cards to align two of them, it’s a kind of Treasure Map challenge, very random (and you have the additional penalty of discarding a Treasure if you want to play the first one). It conduces to a kind of paradox. If you want to increase your chances to align many copies of the same action in the same turn, you have to draw cards. It’s hard to draw many cards non-terminally, so if you want strong draw you have to play a terminal. The cards you want to Magpie don’t give actions (if they do, you don’t need to play them in Buy phase). So, to play both, the terminal drawer and the card you want to Magpie, you need a Village. But if you have Villages, you don’t need to play your actions in Buy phase. Capitalism works because you buy it once and it has a global effect for the rest of the game. Way of the Magpie needs to setup every turn to produce a more limited effect. In the tests it didn’t help so much the player who used it.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/570/full/Guinea.png?1594627326)

Guinea by mandioca15

Many of the submitted cards play Actions in Buy phase. The simplest of them is Guinea, a Copper that allows to play an Action. Playtests confirmed the initial impression that it is weak. It is not good to open with it, as you still don’t have many Actions. Even with a lot of Actions in deck, there aren’t so many situations in which it was useful. Sometimes it played a dead drawn Smith, but most of time it was only a Copper. As pointed in forum, Squire and many others $2 cost are better than it. It can make a strong combo with double Tactician, but all the cards of this contest that play Actions in Buy phase or Night phase do the same trick, so it’s not a differential.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/578/full/Pendant.png?1594627629)

Pendant by anordinaryman

Pendant do all Guinea do plus many other things. It is not only a Treasure that plays Actions, it’s also an Action that plays Treasures and Actions and replaces the Action you spent to do it. In both cases it gives +$1. It also has an additional option of being set aside to replay a card. (In this case, I don’t know for sure if it is returned to deck when scoring, which could make difference in some few cases. Also, I didn’t understand well the FAQ proposed. I don’t know how could it generate infinite money only by playing itself without being moved to hand again). Talking about playing it: play a Treasure card is useful to draw-to-x, as said above, and it may help in these cases. Eventually you would want to play a dead drawn action in Buy phase. The playtests show that the main use is in Action phase playing an Action card. In this use it’s like a one turn Fishing Village. The ability to trash it to replay a card is useful sometimes to save a turn, it’s the kind of trade-off of you do when trash a Mining Village. I played it against Fishing Village to see if this pack of little functions plus not being drawn dead would compensate the double play of Fishing Village. The results were very closed, indicating that pendant is a nice and balanced card.
Note: I liked the crazy idea of a previous version to make it play anything including Curses and Victories. I didn’t think about the implications or even viability of it, but it seems funny.



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/581/full/Port_City.png?1594627730)

Port City by segura

Other Action-Treasure card is Port City. Two simple instructions: + 3 cards in Action phase or +$1 and a Villager in Buy phase. It was said in the forum that it could be a one card engine, so I tried to play this way, chaining with itself. It didn’t work this solo way, it’s not so effective as the only Village and its payload is not so much. It is better described as a strong draw card that, despite being terminal in action phase, has another function in other phase which avoids it from being drawn dead. It’s similar to Werewolf in this aspect, but it is better than Werewolf in two things. First in the interaction between the two phases abilities. If you draw Port City dead for Action phase you have an alternative play in Buy phase and what you get in this alternative play is something (a Villager) that helps it to not being drawn dead in other turn. Also this alternative play gives something useful to this moment, a +$1. This Villager plus the coin makes the bonus of this alternative play often better than Werewolf random hex attack. Playing Port City as it is meant to be, a strong draw card with a versatile bonus proves to be very effective and with interesting decisions. A great and well balanced card, showing that there’s room to make good cards combining simple elements. I also like how it interacts thematically with other cards with similar features in the game (in the same semantic field of Port Market, a card I presented some contests ago).



(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/571/full/Lunar_Ritual.png?1594627367)

Lunar Ritual by alion8me

A simple and elegant instruction and many things happen. It transforms Night phase into a Mission/Champion mini-turn in which you play for free any actions that are good to play in a Mission turn: gainers, trashers, attacks, remodelers, deck spies and organizers and Actions with effects in next turn. In actual stage of Dominion, you can build engines around these kind of actions and win the game without need too many + Buys. Being an event, Lunar Ritual is always available when you want. You only have to spend $3 and a buy to trigger it, so many times you change the day by night. If the kingdom doesn’t have a Village but has good Actions, it’s mandatory. In tests the player who didn’t play with it lost by far. Even with Villages present many times was better to go directly to the most significant actions. Playing free Actions in the Night makes easier to do some cool tricks, like gain gainers, draw and play them to gain more cards. The combo with double Tactician has its best version with it, you can do all your stuff before play second Tactician. Lunar Ritual only is not so good when the kingdom doesn’t have gainers. Even then, it’s always there and you can have the balance between day and night you want and need. It was very fun to play with it. I also love the art, the theme, its interaction with mechanic and analogies it evokes, Night being a time of free actions. Great card!



Results


Honourable Mentions

- Captains's Quarters by mail-mi

- Fae Market by LordBaphomet

- Overstrain by grep

- Pendant by anordinaryman


Runner Up

- Port City by Segura


Winner

- Lunar Ritual by alion8me

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on July 17, 2020, 09:15:38 am

That was actually really good judging in my opinion. It was clear and concise, and even went to the effort of making mockups for each card! Very well done!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 17, 2020, 10:27:35 am

Yeah... I'm very impressed by the level of effort and attention to detail put in these judgings. Thank you!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 17, 2020, 10:38:15 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on July 17, 2020, 09:15:38 am

That was actually really good judging in my opinion. It was clear and concise, and even went to the effort of making mockups for each card! Very well done!

agree, on par with a secret history in terms of per-card detail. bravo, Carline.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 17, 2020, 10:59:59 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on July 17, 2020, 09:15:38 am

That was actually really good judging in my opinion. It was clear and concise, and even went to the effort of making mockups for each card! Very well done!

Now we just need a best-judging contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 17, 2020, 12:26:53 pm

Agreed with all the great judging comments  - very impressed, obrigado.

On my card (way of the Magpie), yeah, I knew I didn't love it, but didn't have time to think of ways to improve it. Your playtests revealed many of its flaws. The other one I saw, is that when it's good, it can make for a boring BM game, i.e. just buy Smithy and Treasure. For the cost of a Copper, you can keep drawing either the $ treasures or more draw.

Definitely needs a rethink.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on July 17, 2020, 12:49:48 pm

Very in depth, and well done to alion8me! I know my night hag needed some more work to make it either less better than witch or something but I didn’t have the time to give to it in the end. Maybe it needed to cost 6 or just have a weaker effect (probably the latter). Idk. Was lots of fun though, thank you Carline!!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 17, 2020, 02:02:08 pm

Added to the chorus of voices praising Carline's effort in judging. I am very happy to make honorable mention. I was rooting for alion8me's Lunar Ritual the whole time. It's simply phrased and complicated to use correctly. It expands the game without being game-warping. It really belongs in Dominion. I can only imagine that Donald X never thought of a similar idea. It's so good it should be in the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 17, 2020, 03:33:25 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 17, 2020, 02:02:08 pm

Added to the chorus of voices praising Carline's effort in judging. I am very happy to make honorable mention. I was rooting for alion8me's Lunar Ritual the whole time. It's simply phrased and complicated to use correctly. It expands the game without being game-warping. It really belongs in Dominion. I can only imagine that Donald X never thought of a similar idea. It's so good it should be in the game.

The first time I saw lunar ritual, I thought "wow, why didn't I think of that". I knew it was going to win right from the start, being very simple while having endless interactions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 17, 2020, 05:04:34 pm

Thank ya'll!

Also, I agree with everyone else that Carline's judging is fantastic - I'm worried about how I'll be able to follow that up!

Anyways...

---

Contest #81 - A Fine Line

Design a card/card-shaped thing that has a dividing line, where the effect under the line is unique. Reactions almost always have them, but there are other types of things you can do with them too: on-trash, on-gain, reserve, setup, while-in-play, or in-games-using-this effects just to name a few. Traveler lines and the use of other non-supply piles are fine, but below-the-line effects similar to "when you discard this from play, you may exchange this for an X" are not considered to be unique for the purposes of this contest, even if X isn't gained by any official card in this way. So, out of the official travelers, Page would not satisfy these rules but Peasant would due to Teacher. Double-line (or more) cards are fine, as long as at least one of the below-the-line effects are unique.

I'll be here to check if there are any questions regarding the rules of the contest throughout the week. Good luck!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 17, 2020, 05:50:10 pm

For reference the dividing lines in the game are:
Reveal after attack to be unaffected (Moat)
1 VP (Mill)
2 VP (Nobles, Harem, Island)
While in play, attacks don't affect you (Lighthouse)
Topdeck if you didn't buy Victory card (Treasury)
Topdeck treasure when you discard this from play (Herbalist)
Topdeck if you played potion (Alchemist)

Setup mat and coins (Trade route)
Reveal on gain to trash or topdeck (Watchtower)
Actions cost 2 less (Quarry)
Gain double on $4 or less buy (Talisman)
Trash treasures in play when bought (Mint)
May topdeck new gain (Royal Seal)
Gain gold when you buy Victory card (Hoard)
+1 VP on buy (Goons)
Can't buy if copper in play (Grand Market)
Costs 2 less per action in play during buy phase (peddler)

Set aside from hand on attack, +1 card and return to your hand next turn (Horse Traders)
Add bane (Young Witch)
Cards cost 2 less (Princess)

May gain this when you gain duchy (Duchess)
When other player gains province, trash this to topdeck gold (Fool's gold)
When dicarded, gain gold (tunnel)
This is gained onto deck (nomads)
Reveal to gain silver instead of other card (trader)
When gained, gain two coppers (hoard)
When gained, opponents gained silver (embassy)
cards cost 1 less (highway)
When gained, opponents gain a curse (igg)
Gain cheaper card on buy (haggler)
Shuffle any actions from discard into deck when gained (inn)
Topdeck treasures in play (mandarin)
gain cheaper card on gain (border village)
Remodel card when gained (farmland)

Discard when attacked to gain 2 silvers, topdecking one (beggar)
Gain attack when trashed (squire)
when dicarded without buying, trash this and gain X (hermit)
When you trash a card, may discard this for gold (market square)
When you play another attack, trash this and gain X (urchin)
Gain two ruins when gained (death cart)
gain 3 silvers when trashed (feodum)
put into hand when trashed (fortress)
+1 card when trashed (rats, overgrown estate)
gain cheaper card when trashed (catacombs)
+3 cards when trashed (cultists)
gain duchy or 3 estates when trashed (hunting grounds)
gain gold when trashed (sir vander)


setup: make bm deck (black market)
when you play silver, may trash card from your hand (sauna)
topdeck at end of turn if 2 or less actions in play (walled village)
while shuffling, place anywhere in your deck (stash)


Use these for inspiration or reference! Note: the wordings were altered to make it faster to type

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on July 17, 2020, 06:42:46 pm

Moat
cost $2 - Action - Reaction
+2 Cards
This turn, you are unaffected by other players' playing Attack cards.
---
When another player plays an Attack card, you may play this from your hand.


A moat variant. In 2-player games, almost strictly better than the official Moat (edge case: you cannot choose to be affected by another Attack). In 4-player game, for example, when Alice plays a Militia, you can draw and protect yourself "this turn"; you have to discard 3 cards when Bob plays another Militia.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on July 17, 2020, 06:45:25 pm

Thanks Caroline for judging and playtesting, and congrats alion8me on winning! This is my submission for the contest:

Scouting Pack
Action-Reserve - 4$
+1 Action
Put this onto your tavern mat
-------------------------------
You may call this before or after resolving an action to reveal the top 4 cards of your deck: discard any number and put the rest onto your deck in any order.
-------------------------------
When you buy this, gain another Scouting Pack, and put both onto your tavern mat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 17, 2020, 06:46:20 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 17, 2020, 05:50:10 pm

For reference the dividing lines in the game are:
Reveal after attack to be unaffected (Moat)
1 VP (Mill)
2 VP (Nobles, Harem, Island)
While in play, attacks don't affect you (Lighthouse)
Topdeck if you didn't buy Victory card (Treasury)
Topdeck treasure when you discard this from play (Herbalist)
Topdeck if you played potion (Alchemist)

Setup mat and coins (Trade route)
Reveal on gain to trash or topdeck (Watchtower)
Actions cost 2 less (Quarry)
Gain double on $4 or less buy (Talisman)
Trash treasures in play when bought (Mint)
May topdeck new gain (Royal Seal)
Gain gold when you buy Victory card (Hoard)
+1 VP on buy (Goons)
Can't buy if copper in play (Grand Market)
Costs 2 less per action in play during buy phase (peddler)

Set aside from hand on attack, +1 card and return to your hand next turn (Horse Traders)
Add bane (Young Witch)
Cards cost 2 less (Princess)

May gain this when you gain duchy (Duchess)
When other player gains province, trash this to topdeck gold (Fool's gold)
When dicarded, gain gold (tunnel)
This is gained onto deck (nomads)
Reveal to gain silver instead of other card (trader)
When gained, gain two coppers (hoard)
When gained, opponents gained silver (embassy)
cards cost 1 less (highway)
When gained, opponents gain a curse (igg)
Gain cheaper card on buy (haggler)
Shuffle any actions from discard into deck when gained (inn)
Topdeck treasures in play (mandarin)
gain cheaper card on gain (border village)
Remodel card when gained (farmland)

Discard when attacked to gain 2 silvers, topdecking one (beggar)
Gain attack when trashed (squire)
when dicarded without buying, trash this and gain X (hermit)
When you trash a card, may discard this for gold (market square)
When you play another attack, trash this and gain X (urchin)
Gain two ruins when gained (death cart)
gain 3 silvers when trashed (feodum)
put into hand when trashed (fortress)
+1 card when trashed (rats, overgrown estate)
gain cheaper card when trashed (catacombs)
+3 cards when trashed (cultists)
gain duchy or 3 estates when trashed (hunting grounds)
gain gold when trashed (sir vander)

Use these for inspiration or reference! Note: the wordings were altered to make it faster to type

I would like to note, this is missing a few;

When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, +2 Cards, then put 2 cards from your hand on top of your deck (Secret Chamber) (yes this counts even though it's a first edition only card)
When another player plays an Attack card, you may first reveal this from a hand of 5 or more cards, to draw 2 cards then discard 3 (Diplomat)

Overpay for Action cards (Stonemason)
Overpay for trashing (Doctor)
Overpay for Silvers (Masterpiece)
Overpay for topdecking (Herald)
Setup: each player starts with +1 Coffer (Baker)
When you buy a card, +1 Coffer (Merchant Guild)

Call for +2 Actions (Coin of the Realm)
Call for trashing (Ratcatcher)
When another player plays an attack card, play this from your hand (Caravan Guard)
Call for discard your hand, draw 5 cards (Guide)
Call for a copy of gained card costing up to $6 (Duplicate)
When this is your first buy, pick a card costing up to $4 to distribute (Messenger)
When you buy this, gain another one (Port)
Call for remodel-in-place effect (Transmogrify)
Worth 4VP on tavern mat (Distant Lands)
When you gain this, other players draw a card (Lost City)
Call for Throne effect (Royal Carriage)
Call if you have $2 unspent (Wine Merchant)
Call for Adventures tokens (Peasant/Teacher)
Exchanging for other cards upon discarding (Various)

When you gain or trash this, gain a silver, putting it somewhere special (Rocks)
When you gain this, take VP from its pile (Temple)
When you gain this, put it in your hand, +1 Action, and go to your Action phase (Villa)
When you discard this from play, take 6 Debt that you may pay off (Capital)
When you gain this, if you have at least 5 Action cards, +2 VP (Emporium)
When you buy this, +1 Buy (Forum)
While this is in play, when you gain a Victory card, +1 VP (Groundskeeper)
When you gain this, gain a Gold per Gladiator you have in play (Fortune)
Worth 1 VP per castle you have (Humble Castle)
When you gain or trash this, +1 VP and gain a Silver (Crumbling Castle)
When you gain this, gain a gold and discard attack (Haunted Castle)
3 VP (Opulent Castle)
When you gain this, gain a Duchy or 3 Estates (Sprawling Castle)
When you gain this, reveal your hand. +1 VP per Victory card in hand and/or in play (Grand Castle)
Setup: Add 1 debt to each supply pile (Tax)
Setup: Put 8 VP tokens on the Silver and Gold piles (Aqueduct)
Setup: Put 6 VP tokens here per player (Various)
Setup: Put 2 VP on each non-Gathering supply pile (Defiled Shrine)
Setup: Choose a random Action Supply pile (Obelisk)

Setup: Set aside the top 3 Boons face up (Druid)
When you discard this other than during clean up, set it aside and put it in your hand next turn (Faithful Hound)
This is gained to your hand (Various)
In games using this, when you gain a card costing $3 or more, you may exchange it for this (Changeling)
When you gain this, take a Boon and receive it either now or at the beginning of next turn (Blessed Village)
When you gain this, trash up to 4 cards from your hand (Cemetery)
Setup: Put the 3 Zombies into the trash (Necromancer)
When you gain this, gain a gold (Skulk)
When you gain this, receive a Hex (Cursed Village)
When you trash this, you may discard and Action card to gain a Ghost (Haunted Mirror)
Worth 1 VP per Estate (Pasture)

When you gain this, you may trash a Copper from your hand (Ducat)
When you gain this, +2 Villagers (Lackeys)
When you gain this, gain another one (Experiment)
When you gain or trash this, take the Flag (Flag Bearer)
When something causes you to reveal this, +1 Coffers (Patron)
When you gain or trash this, +1 Coffers and +1 Villager (Silk Merchant)
When you gain this, +2 Coffers (Spices)

When another player gains a Victory card, you may play this (Black Cat)
When you gain a card, you may discard this to topdeck/put it into hand (Sleigh)
When you gain this, Exile a Gold from the supply (Camel Train)
When you gain this, you may discard Treasures for Horses (Hostelry)
When you gain a card, you may play this (Sheepdog)
This has the same cost as the last other card gained this turn (Wayfarer)
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may trash an Action card from your hand (Animal Fair)
During your turns, this costs $1 less per card you've gained this turn (Destrier)
During your turns, this costs $3 less if your discard is empty (Fisherman)
When you gain this, +2 Cards, +1 Buy, return to your Action phase (Cavalry)
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may play it (Village Green)
When any player gains a multi-type card, you may play this (Falconer)
Setup: Set aside an unused Action costing $2 or $3 (Way of the Mouse)

I think this should be all of them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 17, 2020, 06:56:21 pm

Thank you alion8me but I guess I finished them off while you were compiling your post, and you wrote them up much nicer than me :). I'll delete the duplicates from my post.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 17, 2020, 07:13:43 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 17, 2020, 06:56:21 pm

Thank you alion8me but I guess I finished them off while you were compiling your post, and you wrote them up much nicer than me :). I'll delete the duplicates from my post.

Ah sorry! I just wanted to make sure that a partial list wasn't left up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 17, 2020, 07:24:29 pm

Treaty: a necromancer clone but its different! The allies come from a random small deck, and are shuffled and distributed each game.

(https://i.imgur.com/DuENEZ0.png)

Allies are as follows: (I will make images once I receive feedback and balance them)
Emissary [one per player] - Ally
+1 Card, +1 Action, exchange one of your other two allies with one of another payer's allies (that isn't an emissary).

Watchman - Ally
Draw up to six cards in your hand

Merchant - Ally
+2 Cards, +1 Buy

Thug - Ally - Attack
Discard a treasure. Each other player discards down to three cards in hand

Conman - Ally - Attack
+2$, Each other player takes their -1$ token

Craftsman - Ally
+1$, gain a card costing up to 3$.

Hag - Ally - Attack
Each player (including you) gains a curse. You may trash up to 2 card from your hand.

[Name Pending] - Ally
+1 Action, +1 Card, +2$. Take your -1 card token.

Courtesan - Ally - Victory
+2$
-----------------
This is worth 2 VP if on your Allies mat at the end of the game.

Propagandist - Ally - Victory
When this leaves your ally mat, take your -1$ token.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is worth 4 VP if on your Allies mat at the end of the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on July 17, 2020, 11:03:15 pm

Quote

(https://i.ibb.co/DCpsw6q/image.png)
Scenic Route
$5 - Action
+2 Cards
If the previous card you have played this turn was not Scenic Route, +2 Actions.

---

While this is in play, you cannot buy Attack cards.

A supervillage that imposes buy limitations.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 17, 2020, 11:14:58 pm

Quote from: grep on July 17, 2020, 11:03:15 pm

Quote

(https://i.ibb.co/DCpsw6q/image.png)
Scenic Route
$5 - Action
+2 Cards
If the previous card you have played this turn was not Scenic Route, +2 Actions.

---

While this is in play, you cannot buy Attack cards.

Well, best case scenario you are playing this every other action, so it averages to +1 Actions, +2 Cards, which is a lab, so with a drawback on the card it makes it seem rather weak. Additionally, the drawback is very swingy, not doing anything when there are no attacks, not mattering when there are garbage attacks, doesn't affect attacks you only want a few of early game like junkers, and makes the card a huge no-go with things like goons, margrave, etc. on the board.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on July 17, 2020, 11:30:48 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 17, 2020, 11:14:58 pm

Quote from: grep on July 17, 2020, 11:03:15 pm

Quote

(https://i.ibb.co/DCpsw6q/image.png)
Scenic Route
$5 - Action
+2 Cards
If the previous card you have played this turn was not Scenic Route, +2 Actions.

---

While this is in play, you cannot buy Attack cards.

Well, best case scenario you are playing this every other action, so it averages to +1 Actions, +2 Cards, which is a lab, so with a drawback on the card it makes it seem rather weak. Additionally, the drawback is very swingy, not doing anything when there are no attacks, not mattering when there are garbage attacks, doesn't affect attacks you only want a few of early game like junkers, and makes the card a huge no-go with things like goons, margrave, etc. on the board.

It's a lab when you play nothing but Scenic Routes. If you interlace them with payload cards, it's a Lost City. I found sequences like Route-Attack-Route-Attack-Route-... too severe and relatively easy to achieve, hence the non-Attack limitation.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 17, 2020, 11:45:50 pm

Quote from: grep on July 17, 2020, 11:30:48 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 17, 2020, 11:14:58 pm

Quote from: grep on July 17, 2020, 11:03:15 pm

Quote

(https://i.ibb.co/DCpsw6q/image.png)
Scenic Route
$5 - Action
+2 Cards
If the previous card you have played this turn was not Scenic Route, +2 Actions.

---

While this is in play, you cannot buy Attack cards.

Well, best case scenario you are playing this every other action, so it averages to +1 Actions, +2 Cards, which is a lab, so with a drawback on the card it makes it seem rather weak. Additionally, the drawback is very swingy, not doing anything when there are no attacks, not mattering when there are garbage attacks, doesn't affect attacks you only want a few of early game like junkers, and makes the card a huge no-go with things like goons, margrave, etc. on the board.

It's a lab when you play nothing but Scenic Routes. If you interlace them with payload cards, it's a Lost City. I found sequences like Route-Attack-Route-Attack-Route-... too severe and relatively easy to achieve, hence the non-Attack limitation.

I'm sorry, I misread that.  I now understand why it needs a limitation but I still think that an attack limitation is way too swingy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 18, 2020, 01:34:08 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 17, 2020, 11:45:50 pm

Quote from: grep on July 17, 2020, 11:30:48 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 17, 2020, 11:14:58 pm

Quote from: grep on July 17, 2020, 11:03:15 pm

Quote

(https://i.ibb.co/DCpsw6q/image.png)
Scenic Route
$5 - Action
+2 Cards
If the previous card you have played this turn was not Scenic Route, +2 Actions.

---

While this is in play, you cannot buy Attack cards.

Well, best case scenario you are playing this every other action, so it averages to +1 Actions, +2 Cards, which is a lab, so with a drawback on the card it makes it seem rather weak. Additionally, the drawback is very swingy, not doing anything when there are no attacks, not mattering when there are garbage attacks, doesn't affect attacks you only want a few of early game like junkers, and makes the card a huge no-go with things like goons, margrave, etc. on the board.

It's a lab when you play nothing but Scenic Routes. If you interlace them with payload cards, it's a Lost City. I found sequences like Route-Attack-Route-Attack-Route-... too severe and relatively easy to achieve, hence the non-Attack limitation.

I'm sorry, I misread that.  I now understand why it needs a limitation but I still think that an attack limitation is way too swingy.

The card is not swingy. Swingy means that the PLAY strength of the card varies a lot.

The card is overpowered in Kingdoms without Attacks and if there are good Attacks, you face a tough choice. That is all related to the question of whether you should GAIN the card or not.

It is likely overpowered with Attacks though too. You can simply Buy the Attack(s) first and then go for Scenic Routes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on July 18, 2020, 03:02:06 am

Waterwheel (Action, $5)

+3 Cards
You may trash a card from your hand.
———
When you gain this, trash a card from your hand. If you can’t, set this aside, and return this to its pile at the start of Cleanup.

Not quite sure how to phrase it so that you are forced to trash a card when gaining this card. This seems reasonable, but there may still be some shenanigans possible this way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on July 18, 2020, 03:36:33 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 18, 2020, 03:02:06 am

Waterwheel (Action, $5)

+3 Cards
You may trash a card from your hand.
———
When you gain this, trash a card from your hand. If you can’t, set this aside, and return this to its pile at the start of Cleanup.

Not quite sure how to phrase it so that you are forced to trash a card when gaining this card. This seems reasonable, but there may still be some shenanigans possible this way.

When vanilla cards have a requirement for an effect they use "if you did". Maybe "If you didn't" is a better wording in this case. If you want to rewrite it you can take inspiration from Animal Fair. If there is some shenanigans possible, maybe it is with watchtower or similar cards. Also, exiling it from the supply (as with Camel Caravan) doesn't count as gaining, and wont force you to trash a card, but I think that this is an acceptable loophole.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 18, 2020, 05:03:57 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 18, 2020, 03:02:06 am

Waterwheel (Action, $5)

+3 Cards
You may trash a card from your hand.
———
When you gain this, trash a card from your hand. If you can’t, set this aside, and return this to its pile at the start of Cleanup.

Not quite sure how to phrase it so that you are forced to trash a card when gaining this card. This seems reasonable, but there may still be some shenanigans possible this way.

There is no reason to not immediately return this to the pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on July 18, 2020, 06:03:31 am

(https://i.imgur.com/jrgFfva.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on July 18, 2020, 08:09:14 am

Having done some playtesting, Waterwheel is too strong for $5, so will increase the price. I will also reword the below-the-line effect (thanks for the suggestions).

Waterwheel (Action, $6)

+3 Cards
You may trash a card from your hand.
———
When you gain this, trash a card from your hand. If you didn’t, return this to its pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on July 18, 2020, 08:19:03 am

Quote from: Carline on July 17, 2020, 09:02:25 am

Contest #80 - Results




(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/765/584/full/Scribe.png?1594627841)

Scribe by D782802859

I like the way it makes use of night phase to save the card if it was not used. However, in the playtests Scribe shows some weakness. The difference from Scholar is that Scholar normally draws you more cards that you have before. With Scribe it only happens if you manage to reduce your hand size before, which is not always easy, you have to play before cards that don’t draw and still have an action available to play Scribe. In general, it’s s sifter not a draw card. Even in the best scenario to it (with non-terminal trashers and villages that don’t draw), in which it sometimes draws, many times it ends up being only a terminal Cellar. I could see how important is that +1 Action in sifters like Cellar or Warehouse. Scribe would be better with that +1 Action too, but maybe this way it could have some resemblance to Hunting Lodge.

Thanks for the feedback, Carline! I definitely made the card underpowered and could probably justify it at 2. I don't want to make it non-terminal though, because the core concept of the card wants to be terminal. A change of the draw amount from 5 to 6 could help, although that might warrant a price bump.

(https://i.imgur.com/nzPyCI2.png?1)

An idea for a duration I've had floating around. Grab an upgrade to your basic village, but it topdecks Victories. Of course, it wants to be a duration so the downside matters more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 18, 2020, 08:29:41 am

I've been on a Potion-cost kick and i see no real reason to stop now.
I started with this:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f12e92d3961228dc921104e/3dea844e7100c333f06905c8ceab084f/image.png)

Quote

Mycologist • $3P • Action
+$3. You may play a Mycologist from your hand.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay. For each $1 or P you overpay, reveal & discard the top card of your deck, setting aside any Mycologists; put them into your hand after drawing a new hand during clean up.

which, wow, overpay makes fonts tiny fast.

After putzing with it a little bit more, I got to
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f12e92d3961228dc921104e/ab749b336691e86ea33f15ac471d04d6/image.png)

Quote

Auramancer • $2^ • Action
+$2
-
While this is in play, Actions with +$ amounts in their text are also Treasures.

which i'm much happier with and will be my entry.
It's on-play capitalism.
And the name is less the mtg/"traditional" idea of an aura and instead from the latin for gold, "aurum".

---

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 17, 2020, 07:24:29 pm

[Name Pending] - Ally
+1 Action, +1 Card, +2$. Take your -1 card token.

might I suggest "Financier" as a name? since it's a Conspirator who always has $, yknow, he's bankrolling the whole operation, etc.?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on July 18, 2020, 09:13:11 am

I edit my submission, the "gain two"-clause wasn't in line with the pricing and what I wanted to do with the card. This is my new version:

Scouting Pack
Action-Reserve - 4$
+1 Action
Put this onto your tavern mat
-------------------------------
You may call this before or after resolving an action to reveal the top 5 cards of your deck: discard any number and put the rest onto your deck in any order.
-------------------------------
When you gain this, put it onto your tavern mat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on July 18, 2020, 07:01:31 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 18, 2020, 08:09:14 am

Having done some playtesting, Waterwheel is too strong for $5, so will increase the price. I will also reword the below-the-line effect (thanks for the suggestions).

Waterwheel (Action, $6)

+3 Cards
You may trash a card from your hand.
———
When you gain this, trash a card from your hand. If you didn’t, return this to its pile.

I was thinking of doing something really similar to this and have a below the line effect of "when you gain or trash this, trash a card from your hand." I like the idea of not gaining it if you can't trash something, so keeping it as it currently is maybe it should say "When you gain this, you may trash a card from your hand. If you didn't, return this to its pile." If there are still shenanigans to have with this then they're probably fine and edge-case scenarios anyway.

[Edit - I missed that there was a later version of this...]

---

My submission this week is Marooner. It's like a returning island with a Ghost Ship below the line effect.

Marooner $5 - Action - Attack - Reaction

(https://i.imgur.com/6HyrtZT.png)

Quote

+$3
Exile this and another card from your hand.
-
When you discard this from Exile, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand puts cards from their hand onto their deck until they have 3 cards in hand.

Maybe it wants to cost 4, or maybe it wants to give +$2 instead of +$3. I'm not sure how to value Exiling cards so any advice is appreciated!


UPDATED LATER

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 19, 2020, 12:49:47 am

Note: reactions would only be able to react to the card being played, not discarded from exile, so the Attack type is useless on the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on July 19, 2020, 01:39:04 am

Horseman
$3
Action-Reaction
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Discard 2 cards.
-------
When any player plays an Attack card, you may play this from your hand.
(+1 Action has no effect if it's not your turn)

The bottom half looks like Caravan Guard, but it triggers when any player plays an Attack card. So you can use your last Action on a Witch, but then play this, cycle a bit, and keep your turn going.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 19, 2020, 01:42:23 am

Fugitive is a $4.5 so Fugitive+ is a $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on July 19, 2020, 04:42:36 am

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on July 19, 2020, 01:39:04 am

Horseman
$3
Action-Reaction
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Discard a card.
-------
When any player plays an Attack card, you may play this from your hand.
(+1 Action has no effect if it's not your turn)

The bottom half looks like Caravan Guard, but it triggers when any player plays an Attack card. So you can use your last Action on a Witch, but then play this, cycle a bit, and keep your turn going.

triggers from hand only, so it is no duration card like caravan guard. - interesting

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on July 19, 2020, 05:41:43 am

Quote from: segura on July 19, 2020, 01:42:23 am

Fugitive is a $4.5 so Fugitive+ is a $5.

Oh yeah. Will fix.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 19, 2020, 11:58:37 am

Quote from: Marpharos on July 18, 2020, 07:01:31 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 18, 2020, 08:09:14 am

Having done some playtesting, Waterwheel is too strong for $5, so will increase the price. I will also reword the below-the-line effect (thanks for the suggestions).

Waterwheel (Action, $6)

+3 Cards
You may trash a card from your hand.
———
When you gain this, trash a card from your hand. If you didn’t, return this to its pile.

I was thinking of doing something really similar to this and have a below the line effect of "when you gain or trash this, trash a card from your hand." I like the idea of not gaining it if you can't trash something, so keeping it as it currently is maybe it should say "When you gain this, you may trash a card from your hand. If you didn't, return this to its pile." If there are still shenanigans to have with this then they're probably fine and edge-case scenarios anyway.

[Edit - I missed that there was a later version of this...]

---

My submission this week is Marooner. It's like a returning island with a Ghost Ship below the line effect.

Marooner $5 - Action - Attack - Reaction

(https://i.imgur.com/6HyrtZT.png)

Quote

+$3
Exile this and another card from your hand.
-
When you discard this from Exile, each other player with 4 or more cards in hand puts cards from their hand onto their deck until they have 3 cards in hand.

Maybe it wants to cost 4, or maybe it wants to give +$2 instead of +$3. I'm not sure how to value Exiling cards so any advice is appreciated!

I don't think this needs a reaction type at all, since all it reacts to is itself. It could just be a standard dividing line, similar to when-gain.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 19, 2020, 12:30:44 pm

Allies update:

Emissary [one per player] [I don't know how I feel about this being typeless, but it makes the wording comprehensible...]
+1 Card, +1 Action, exchange one of your Ally cards with another player's.

Watchman - Ally - Reaction
Discard a card. Draw up to 5 cards in hand.
-------------------------------------------
While this is on your ally mat, when you gain a card you may trash it.

Financier - Ally - Reaction
+1 Buy, +1$
--------------------
While this is on your ally mat, when you gain a treasure you may set this aside. If you do, play this and return this at the end of your turn.

Thug - Ally - Attack
Discard a card. Each other player discards down to three cards in hand

Conman - Ally - Attack
+2$, Each other player takes their -1$ token or gains a copper, their choice.

Craftsman - Ally
+1 Action, gain a card costing up to 3$.

Hag - Ally - Attack
+1 Action, each player (including you) gains a curse. You may trash up to 2 card from your hand.

Tavernkeeper - Ally
+2 Cards, +2 Actions, discard 2 cards.

Courtesan - Ally - Victory
+2$
-----------------
This is worth 2 VP if on your Allies mat at the end of the game.

Propagandist - Ally - Victory
When this leaves your ally mat, take your -1$ token.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is worth 5 VP if on your Allies mat at the end of the game.

Slaver - Ally - Curse
+3 Cards, +1 Buy
----------------------------------------------
This is worth -3 VP if on your Allies mat at the end of the game

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on July 19, 2020, 05:51:28 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 19, 2020, 12:49:47 am

Note: reactions would only be able to react to the card being played, not discarded from exile, so the Attack type is useless on the card.

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 19, 2020, 11:58:37 am

I don't think this needs a reaction type at all, since all it reacts to is itself. It could just be a standard dividing line, similar to when-gain.

The Reaction typing is that it reacts to a stimuli. Black Cat requires the card to be played to stop it from handing out all the curses in 1 turn with very few Black Cats. Not all reaction cards require it to be played, like Tunnel. Speaking of, the Tunnel wording is much more in line with what I'm trying to do I think. Also, if Ghost Ship is an attack then this is an attack, and you can attack if it's your turn or not.

Updated Downthread

(https://i.imgur.com/aUaLeXI.png)

Quote

+$3
Exile this and another card from your hand.
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may reveal it and each other player with 4 or more cards in hand puts cards from their hand onto their deck until they have 3 cards in hand.

It's effect can't really be triggered more than once per round unless something allows you to draw back up like Council Room, and even then you're going to be putting the same things back most likely. I didn't want to put too many more words on there as it's very crowded already, and I checked that it's effect would still happen if discarded from Exile. It just opens it up to more shenanigans too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 19, 2020, 06:36:09 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on July 19, 2020, 05:51:28 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on July 19, 2020, 12:49:47 am

Note: reactions would only be able to react to the card being played, not discarded from exile, so the Attack type is useless on the card.

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 19, 2020, 11:58:37 am

I don't think this needs a reaction type at all, since all it reacts to is itself. It could just be a standard dividing line, similar to when-gain.

The Reaction typing is that it reacts to a stimuli. Black Cat requires the card to be played to stop it from handing out all the curses in 1 turn with very few Black Cats. Not all reaction cards require it to be played, like Tunnel. Speaking of, the Tunnel wording is much more in line with what I'm trying to do I think. Also, if Ghost Ship is an attack then this is an attack, and you can attack if it's your turn or not.

Updated Submission: Marooner

(https://i.imgur.com/aUaLeXI.png)

Quote

+$3
Exile this and another card from your hand.
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may reveal it and each other player with 4 or more cards in hand puts cards from their hand onto their deck until they have 3 cards in hand.

It's effect can't really be triggered more than once per round unless something allows you to draw back up like Council Room, and even then you're going to be putting the same things back most likely. I didn't want to put too many more words on there as it's very crowded already, and I checked that it's effect would still happen if discarded from Exile. It just opens it up to more shenanigans too.

the problem with the attack type isn't so much this, but the way existing moats, etc are phrased - "when another player plays an attack"; since this isn't 'played', it's reacted with, it can't be defended against, and so despite having adverse effects to other players, it can't be an attack (since it's "when-played" effect is not an attack, and also for reasons about being conservative in the typing of cards - ie, don't give a card an extra type if it doesn't use it.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 19, 2020, 10:57:49 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 19, 2020, 10:25:07 pm

Warrant
Action/Reaction - $3
You may put a card from your hand on top of your deck.
Discard your hand. +6 Cards.
-
When you move or return this to the top of your deck, you may turn this face up, leaving it that way, for +1 Coffers

Rules clarification:
Includes

• gaining to the top of your deck
• putting cards from your hand or the bottom of your deck, or exile, or anywhere else on top of your deck
• revealing cards from the top of your deck and putting them back (even if not explicitly told to "put it back")
• Same with "looking at" cards

.

Shuffling does not count, nor does deck counting, nor does drawing cards the cards above it. In general, you should know that you're revealing this card; I can't think of effects that would have you think you're revealing this card and accidentally revealing another.

This is crazy for $3, comparing to scholar you get one less card but you get to keep one, which I think makes the card worth 5 even without the reaction. The reaction is weird, maybe do when this enters the top of your deck, you may set this aside, if you do, etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on July 20, 2020, 12:12:18 am

Good point. "+2 cards with sifting" is an official card, Embassy, and this is the draw to X version. Embassy is a strong card at the "$5 with a penalty" cost.

With Warrant you have (a lot) less choice over which 3 cards you discard (from a standard 5 card hand). It gets weaker on successive plays, but you get self comboing from the reaction in return, and you get all the draw to X combos too.

Back to the drawing board.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on July 20, 2020, 07:54:51 am

There are some problems with putting an attack on a reaction, since reacting with a card doesn't count as playing it, so it slips under the radar for reactions like Moat. The Moat reaction effect would only come into play as you put the Marooner in exile, not as you force the opponents to put cards on their deck. Either remove the Attack type completely, or use a wording that lets you play the card with the same effect (for example "When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may play it.") This could become a mess real fast, so I recommend the first option.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on July 20, 2020, 08:31:13 am

I update my submission once again. Comparing it to Cartographer makes 5 cards seem like a lot.

(https://i.imgur.com/a/I4CrGGG.png)

Quote

Scouting Party
Action-Reserve - 4$
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----------------------------------------------
You may call this before or after you resolve an Action to reveal the top 4 cards of your Deck: discard any number and put the rest back in any order.
----------------------------------------------
When you gain this, put it on your Tavern mat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 20, 2020, 10:08:18 am

This submission has been update (this version is now obsolete). Got to page 256 for the newest version.

An odd idea I first posted on the Discord in the "Variant" subcategory. Coincidentally, it fits like a glove within the rules of this week's contest, so hey, why not!

(https://i.postimg.cc/GccxNvnx/Specialty-Shop-V1-EN.png)    (https://i.postimg.cc/jj5NjQsV/Shop-mat-V1.png)

• Those blue spheres are not tokens, they are a vanishing-per-turn resource, just like Treasures are.
• The 3 Shop Kingdoms do count toward a 3-piles ending, just like a Young Witch's Bane pile does.
• There are no cost restriction on what can be on the shop mat. All 3 of them could thus be (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) cards. Or King's Court might be on there. Anything goes!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 20, 2020, 12:14:16 pm

Quote from: X-tra on July 20, 2020, 10:08:18 am

An odd idea I first posted on the Discord in the "Variant" subcategory. Coincidentally, it fits like a glove within the rules of this week's contest, so hey, why not!

(https://i.postimg.cc/GccxNvnx/Specialty-Shop-V1-EN.png)    (https://i.postimg.cc/jj5NjQsV/Shop-mat-V1.png)

• Those blue spheres are not tokens, they are a vanishing-per-turn resource, just like Treasures are.
• The 3 Shop Kingdoms do count toward a 3-piles ending, just like a Young Witch's Bane pile does.
• There are no cost restriction on what can be on the shop mat. All 3 of them could thus be (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) cards. Or King's Court might be on there. Anything goes!

So the only way to ever afford something that costs more than 3 Spheres is to get and play multiple Specialty Shops, right?

What about cards with costs other than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}? Are debt and potion costs excluded from being options in the shop?

Does buying a card from the shop use up a buy like normal?

What about overpay? Since it doesn't actually change the cost of a card, I would assume you could buy Doctor for 3 blue spheres and then overpay some amount of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} for the usual effect?

What about cost reduction? If you play Bridge and cards cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} less, does that reduce the cost of items in the shop? (Do those items actually cost blue spheres, or do you just use the blue spheres to pay the cost which is still in coins?)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 20, 2020, 02:07:06 pm

This message has been edited for clarifications further down this thread.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 20, 2020, 03:41:56 pm

Quote from: X-tra on July 20, 2020, 02:07:06 pm

Cards with a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/10px-Potion.png) in their cost… it’s touchy. I would be tempted to say that you need a Potion in play to buy these, but that would go against the statement saying that these cards “[…] can only be bought with (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png)”. Maybe another wording could be employed to tackle this issue. Or maybe a simple note in the FAQ could explain that unusual situation. But as it is, I’m just going to rule that you can buy such cards with a Potion in play. Yeah.
[/list]

It is the most natural solution. The only other option is to not use cards with Potion costs for the Shop.

I like the idea quite a lot. The only issue I see is the low granularity, i.e. to buy the good stuff from the shop you usually need two Speciality Shops.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 20, 2020, 04:24:29 pm

Quote from: X-tra on July 20, 2020, 02:07:06 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 20, 2020, 12:14:16 pm

What about cards with costs other than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}? Are debt and potion costs excluded from being options in the shop?

(https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png) is a direct, proportional cost to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png).

• Cards costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) should not cause any issue. For instance, having 6(https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png), you could buy an Overlord on the Shop mat and end up with (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/c/c6/Debt2.png) as usual.
  

I don't quite get how this works... if Overlord is on the Shop mat, then it costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png)} like normal. So when you buy it, you take _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png)}, and you wouldn't spend any (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png) as part of buying it. You then have the opportunity to pay off debt... it sounds like you're saying that you can pay off debt using (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png) in this case; but only if the reason you have debt is that you bought a card from the Shop mat? I don't see how that fits within a rules framework... you can always pay off debt using _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}; which means you would in this case be able to buy Overlord by indirectly spending 6(https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png) and _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}? Or you can spend _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)} to pay off your debt. Either way, nothing stops a player who has never played a Specialty Shop from buying an Overlord from the Shop mat.

Unrelated, but what if Animal Fair is on the Shop Mat?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 20, 2020, 04:35:49 pm

One other thing with Overpay... you are always allowed to Overpay other types of cost; such as Potion. So are you trying to say that when you Overpay with a card from the Shop mat, that you cannot use _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}? The rules need to be clarified extra here; because overpay is not part of the cost of the card or buying the card... it's a separate event that triggers after you buy the card that then lets you spend more stuff to get something else. So saying as a rule that cards on the Shop mat can only be bought with blue spheres is not enough to prevent someone from using _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} to get an overpay effect. I don't know a good way you could even clarify something like that... it's way more complicated to try and have a rule that says that if a card on the Shop mat has overpay, then you can only overpay by spending blue spheres (or Potions). And if you overpay with blue spheres, then it triggers whatever abilities there are on the card that normally trigger based on overpaying _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}. Instead you could simply say that spending blue Spheres for coins only applies to buying the card; overpay would still be dealt with normally.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 20, 2020, 04:36:23 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 20, 2020, 04:24:29 pm

Either way, nothing stops a player who has never played a Specialty Shop from buying an Overlord from the Shop mat.

The rules of Shop do:
These 3 Kingdom piles can only be gained by being bought with (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png).

The wording is not perfect but it is pretty obvious, and X-tra explicitly said so, that you need a Specialty Shop in play in order to be able to Buys stuff from Shop.
A rule like e.g. "you cannot buy cards from the Shop unless you have produced (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png) this turn" might make the whole Debt interaction thingy more clear.

About overpay, well, that is hyperobvious: you can only use the blue stuff for whatever you acquire from the Shop.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 20, 2020, 04:39:30 pm

Quote from: segura on July 20, 2020, 04:36:23 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 20, 2020, 04:24:29 pm

Either way, nothing stops a player who has never played a Specialty Shop from buying an Overlord from the Shop mat.

The rules of Shop do:
These 3 Kingdom piles can only be gained by being bought with (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png).

The wording is not perfect but it is pretty obvious, and X-tra explicitly said so, that you need a Specialty Shop in play in order to be able to Buys stuff from Shop.
A rule like e.g. "you cannot buy cards from the Shop unless you have produced (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png) this turn" might make the whole Debt interaction thingy more clear.

His own example showed that you can still buy Overlord. That doesn't make sense because you don't use spheres to buy Overlord. Unless by "being bought with blue spheres" he actually meant something like what you said, "being bought while you have at least one blue sphere". But that's not what people normally mean when they say "buy with something". My point was that you can't ever buy Overlord with blue spheres, just like you can't buy it with _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 20, 2020, 04:44:54 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 20, 2020, 04:39:30 pm

Quote from: segura on July 20, 2020, 04:36:23 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 20, 2020, 04:24:29 pm

Either way, nothing stops a player who has never played a Specialty Shop from buying an Overlord from the Shop mat.

The rules of Shop do:
These 3 Kingdom piles can only be gained by being bought with (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png).

The wording is not perfect but it is pretty obvious, and X-tra explicitly said so, that you need a Specialty Shop in play in order to be able to Buys stuff from Shop.
A rule like e.g. "you cannot buy cards from the Shop unless you have produced (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png) this turn" might make the whole Debt interaction thingy more clear.

His own example showed that you can still buy Overlord. That doesn't make sense because you don't use spheres to buy Overlord.

The point is that you need a non-zero amount of blue stuff in order to do anything on Shop.
That is what Shop says. And as always, stuff on cards or other game elements overwrites the general rules.

If you could Buy cards with Debt costs from Shop, it would make absolutely no sense at all. The whole idea of Shop (not a new one, plenty of fan cards play with this idea) is to have Kingdom cards that are "locked", that can only be gained if you have a particular card in play or jump through some other hoops. From this design idea the notion that you cannot Buy Debt cards unless you have a Specialty Shop in play emerges pretty naturally

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 20, 2020, 04:46:11 pm

Quote from: segura on July 20, 2020, 04:42:55 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 20, 2020, 04:39:30 pm

Quote from: segura on July 20, 2020, 04:36:23 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 20, 2020, 04:24:29 pm

Either way, nothing stops a player who has never played a Specialty Shop from buying an Overlord from the Shop mat.

The rules of Shop do:
These 3 Kingdom piles can only be gained by being bought with (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png).

The wording is not perfect but it is pretty obvious, and X-tra explicitly said so, that you need a Specialty Shop in play in order to be able to Buys stuff from Shop.
A rule like e.g. "you cannot buy cards from the Shop unless you have produced (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png) this turn" might make the whole Debt interaction thingy more clear.

His own example showed that you can still buy Overlord. That doesn't make sense because you don't use spheres to buy Overlord.

The point is that you need a non-zero amount of blue stuff in order to do anything on Shop.
That is what Shop says. And as always, stuff on cards or other game elements overwrites the general rules.

That might be what his intent is for Shop, but it's definitely not what Shop says... it says, as you quoted:

These 3 Kingdom piles can only be gained by being bought with (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png).

By normal understanding of the phrase "being bought with", it would mean "buying it by spending (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png)", not "being bought while you have at least 1 (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png)".

Quote

If you could Buy cards with Debt costs from Shop, it would make absolutely no sense at all. The whole idea of Shop (not a new one, plenty of fan cards play with this idea) is to have Kingdom cards that are "locked", that can only be gained if you have a particular card in play or jump through some other hoops. From this design idea the notion that you cannot Buy Debt cards unless you have a Specialty Shop in play emerges pretty naturally

I agree.. but that's still a different rule than what was said originally, and also different than his example of Overlord. The very fact that you could have only 1 (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png) available and still buy an Overlord from the Shop shows that. The (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png) is not being used as currency to buy the Overlord... rather it is simply being used as a resource that unlocks the right to buy an Overlord or the normal cost of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png)}. Then it gets extra weird because there's also an additional rule that presumably says that _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png)} can be paid off with either (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png) or _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 20, 2020, 04:54:17 pm

Sure, the wording could be improved (indirectly: the clarification text is probably too long and thus should be put into a virtual rule document or FAQ) but the idea is pretty clear.
The again something like "You cannot Buy cards from this unless you have a Specialty Shop in play / unless you have at least 1 (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png)." would be fairly short.

The other pragmatic solution to avoid funky rule issues is to never put cards with non-standard costs onto Shop.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 20, 2020, 04:55:23 pm

Quote from: segura on July 20, 2020, 04:52:12 pm

Sure, the wording could be improved (well, not really, that belongs into a virtual rule document or FAQ in order to reduce the amount of text on the card/mat) but the idea is pretty clear.

The idea is very clear (and good) for cards that only have cost in _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}. Likely the clearest, simplest, and best idea would simply be to limit the shop to cards that only cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)}. You'd still have to figure out a clear wording for the overpay rule, but that's it. But allowing Debt-cost cards requires answering the questions about how debt works in such a game. It might be clear that the intent is that you can't buy Overlord unless you have at least 1 blue sphere, but that still doesn't answer the question about how you are allowed to pay off debt.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 20, 2020, 04:57:49 pm

Yeah, it is not a biggie if those few Debt/Potion cards never appear in the Shop and it avoids all rule issues.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on July 20, 2020, 05:30:11 pm

Quote

Pushy Salesman
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} - Action - Duration - Attack
Now and at start of next turn: +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}, +1 Buy.
At the start of next turn: If no other player gained a curse since your last turn, +1 Coffers.
-
While this is in play, when another player ends their buy phase, they reveal their hand. If they have any unspent _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} or unplayed treasures, they gain a curse and a copper.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on July 20, 2020, 06:11:53 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/5LWZyK9.jpg)

Quote

Salt
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: $3
$1. When you play this and at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy.

---

While this is in play, when you gain or trash a card costing at most $4, you may Exile it.

A Copper with a Buy now and next turn.  Its in-play effect Exiles cheap Victory cards as you gain them, allows you to keep cheaper cards as you trash them for benefit or they are trashed by those rare trashing Attacks, and catches incoming junk cards.

It is capped at Exiling $4-cost cards because Exiling Provinces on-gain sounds silly, and Enclave suggests that exiling Duchies is pretty alright.  Throwing extra $2-Buys at +1VP seems pretty okay.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 20, 2020, 09:55:24 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7an7m1p.png)

Allies update:

Contracter [one per player]
+1 Card, +1 Action, exchange one of your Ally cards with another player's.

Watchman - Ally - Reaction
Discard a card. Draw up to 5 cards in hand.
-------------------------------------------
While this is on your ally mat, when you gain a card you may trash it.

Financier - Ally - Reaction
+1 Buy, +1$
--------------------
While this is on your ally mat, when you gain a treasure you may set this aside. If you do, play this and return this to your ally mat at the end of your turn.

Thug - Ally - Attack
+1$. Discard a card. Each other player discards down to three cards in hand

Conman - Ally - Attack
+2$, Each other player takes their -1$ token or gains a copper, their choice.

Craftsman - Ally
+1 Action, gain a card costing up to 3$.

Hag - Ally - Attack
Each other player gains a curse. You may trash up to 2 card from your hand.

Tavernkeeper - Ally
+2 Cards, +2 Actions, discard 2 cards.

Courtesan - Ally - Victory
+3$, take your -1 card token.
-----------------
This is worth 2 VP if on your Allies mat at the end of the game.

Propagandist - Ally - Victory
+1 Action, +1 Buy, +1$
----------------------------------------------------
When this leaves your ally mat, take your -1$ token.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is worth 5 VP if on your Allies mat at the end of the game.

Slaver - Ally - Curse
+3 Cards, +1 Buy
----------------------------------------------
This is worth -3 VP if on your Allies mat at the end of the game

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on July 20, 2020, 11:23:21 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 20, 2020, 09:55:24 pm

<Employ & Allies>

I like the idea, but a couple of them are very strong or weak compared to the others. Hag is probably a $5 equivalent, while Thug is weak enough to be a $2. Propagandist is also a $2 until the end of the game. Most of the others seem to be in the $3-4 range. Also, having VP on allies doesn't sound fun.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on July 21, 2020, 07:42:15 am

Quote from: X-tra on July 20, 2020, 10:08:18 am

An odd idea I first posted on the Discord in the "Variant" subcategory. Coincidentally, it fits like a glove within the rules of this week's contest, so hey, why not!

(https://i.postimg.cc/GccxNvnx/Specialty-Shop-V1-EN.png)    (https://i.postimg.cc/jj5NjQsV/Shop-mat-V1.png)

• Those blue spheres are not tokens, they are a vanishing-per-turn resource, just like Treasures are.
• The 3 Shop Kingdoms do count toward a 3-piles ending, just like a Young Witch's Bane pile does.
• There are no cost restriction on what can be on the shop mat. All 3 of them could thus be (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) cards. Or King's Court might be on there. Anything goes!

Adding a new resource in this way seems really sketchy, why not use a wording like "You may spend $ to buy cards from the shop mat costing up to 3$ per Speciality Shop you have in play. If you do: +1$ per $ you spent"? It is still very similar, gameplay-wise, but much less messy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 21, 2020, 09:19:05 am

Quote from: segura

Stuff about Specialty Shop.

Quote from: GendoIkari

Stuff about Specialty Shop.

Hehehe, you guys are really going all in into this debate. :)

Note that I think this is really cool that this discussion is happening. Discussing the shortcomings of a design is pretty noble and truly shows a desire to make a suggested card as good as it can be. I mean, you both do not get anything in return... Anyway, this is appreciated and thank you guys for trimming that time off your day just for this! I just hope it doesn’t look like I’m holding this thread hostage with this mega discussion though. :D

Now onto the card at hand:

I was pretty confident in my first answer to you regarding the Debt part. However, you made me question if I remembered how this gameplay element really played out. I had this all figured out in my mind. But I actually re-read Empires’ rule book. And yeah, turns out, you pay off your (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) AFTER buying the card. In my noggin’, the way I remembered Debt was that you only took as much (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) as the difference between what you pay and the bought card’s (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) cost. And surely enough, that’s not how it works. And so, my example with Overload is nullified. You are right, GendoIkari, you cannot pay off your (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) with (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png). However, you may pay the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) part of a card on the Shop mat and pay off the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) it comes with with the rest of your Treasures in play, as you would usually do (plus the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) you accumulated with your Action cards). So you could pay 8(https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png) to gain a Fortune, paying off the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) with like, 2 Golds and a Silver in play as usual.

This raises another concern with Overlord. Since only the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) part of a card is locked behind its (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png) equivalent, Overlord, which costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png), could be bought from the Shop mat even if you have no set aside Specialty Shops. That’s because you have 0(https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png), which is equivalent to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png). So you can buy it willy nelly. This is not intended. Similarly, I made a custom Kingdom Action card costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png) in another thread. This card, if on the Shop mat, would suffer the same consequence.

Thus, a lower cost limit must be imposed for it to work as intended. And so I will update my card; probably a little later since I think Specialty Shop has had enough attention for the time being. There are reasons why I do not want to put an upper bond for the cost of what can be put on the Shop mat, even if doing so would remove all (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png) and (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/10px-Potion.png) costing candidates from being put on that mat.

Side note: I’m going back onto what I said about Overpay. Wasn’t really thinking straight there too. You cannot overpay with (https://www.harmanbeads.com/assets/images/swarovski%20products/pearls/5860/5860_iridescentdarkblue.png). So you can only pay the base price of an overpay card on the Shop mat. All this stuff is trivial for the competition though. A simple FAQ would clarify these questions.

Thanks y’all!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 21, 2020, 01:30:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7an7m1p.png)

Allies update:

Contracter [one per player]
+1 Card, +1 Action, exchange one of your Ally cards with another player's.

Watchman - Ally - Reaction
Discard a card. Draw up to 5 cards in hand.
-------------------------------------------
While this is on your ally mat, when you gain a card you may trash it.

Financier - Ally - Reaction
+1 Buy, +1$
--------------------
While this is on your ally mat, when you gain a treasure you may set this aside. If you do, play this and return this to your ally mat at the end of your turn.

Thug - Ally - Attack
+2 Cards, each other player with 4 or more cards in their hand discards one card.

Conman - Ally - Attack
+2$, Each other player takes 1 debt or gains a copper, their choice.

Craftsman - Ally
+1 Action, gain a card costing up to 3$.

Hag - Ally - Attack
Each other player gains a curse. You may trash a curse from your hand.

Tavernkeeper - Ally
+2 Cards, +2 Actions, discard 2 cards.

Courtesan - Ally - Victory
+3$, take your -1 card token.
-----------------
This is worth 2 VP if on your Allies mat at the end of the game.

Propagandist - Ally
+1 Action, +1 Buy, +1$
----------------------------------------------------
When this leaves your ally mat, take your -1$ token.
----------------------------------------------------------------
While this is on your ally mat, if you bought a victory card this turn, you may take 1 debt to gain 1VP.

Slaver - Ally - Curse
+3 Cards, +1 Buy
----------------------------------------------
This is worth -2 VP if on your Allies mat at the end of the game

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on July 21, 2020, 04:56:27 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on July 21, 2020, 07:42:15 am

Quote from: X-tra on July 20, 2020, 10:08:18 am

An odd idea I first posted on the Discord in the "Variant" subcategory. Coincidentally, it fits like a glove within the rules of this week's contest, so hey, why not!

(https://i.postimg.cc/GccxNvnx/Specialty-Shop-V1-EN.png)    (https://i.postimg.cc/jj5NjQsV/Shop-mat-V1.png)

• Those blue spheres are not tokens, they are a vanishing-per-turn resource, just like Treasures are.
• The 3 Shop Kingdoms do count toward a 3-piles ending, just like a Young Witch's Bane pile does.
• There are no cost restriction on what can be on the shop mat. All 3 of them could thus be (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) cards. Or King's Court might be on there. Anything goes!

Adding a new resource in this way seems really sketchy, why not use a wording like "You may spend $ to buy cards from the shop mat costing up to 3$ per Speciality Shop you have in play. If you do: +1$ per $ you spent"? It is still very similar, gameplay-wise, but much less messy.

You can simplify this as follows:

Quote

Specialty shop
This stays in play
-
Setup: Add 3 unused kingdom piles onto the Shop mat, each costing up to $9.

Quote

Shop
At the start of your Buy phase, you may gain a card from here that costs up to $3 per Specialty Shop you have in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 22, 2020, 12:39:22 am

Well, relative to the original version this has an implicit extra Buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 23, 2020, 11:37:11 am

Contest 81 Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/i5qhdjzy.png)

Quote

Flea Market - Action - $3
+$2
During your buy phase this turn, you may buy cards from the Trash for $1 less than their cost but not less than $0.
-----------------------------
Setup: Put the top card of each Supply pile into the trash.

Flea Market is a terminal gold for cards in the trash. If you aren't buying things from the trash, it's a terminal silver, it doesn't even come with a buy, I mean what's the deal with that? Once there's nothing in the Trash, it's not so special. But in games with Flea Market, everything starts out in the trash. A two player game with Flea Market only has 7 provinces in the supply, one is available in the trash. There's also 9 curses in the supply, the 10th is hiding in the Trash. The edge case where you would want to buy a curse from the Trash is left as an exercise for the reader.

This card, like all cost reductions, likes +buys to accompany it. It also really likes trash for benefits. Remodel a province in hand to the last province, then buy back the Province you remodeled. The possibilities are endless. Games with Lurker + Flea Market are interesting. A double Lurker opening is actually viable on such boards. Flea Market impacts the game even if no one buys it, similar to Baker or any cards with heirlooms.

As always, I'm open to feedback on this card. I went through a lot of iterations of the bonus, I went with the simplest one. Another possibility would be bumping it up to +$3 and costing it 5 which could help reduce first player advantage, but I do like this card being cheap.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on July 23, 2020, 01:57:51 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 23, 2020, 11:37:11 am

Quote

Flea Market - Action - $3
+$2
During your buy phase this turn, you may buy cards from the Trash for $1 less than their cost but not less than $0.
-----------------------------
Setup: Put the top card of each Supply pile into the trash.

Crazy with Necromancer or Graverobber, otherwise it looks pretty simple and balanced, roughly as disruptive as Tax. The price tag is probably too punishing for the 5-2 split, I suggest $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 23, 2020, 02:16:47 pm

24 Hours Remaining

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 23, 2020, 02:45:45 pm

Oh woops, time does fly by. :D

Ok, so update to my submission:

(https://i.postimg.cc/z5ggttLr/Specialty-Shop-V2-EN.png)     (https://i.postimg.cc/xjvq0ZHN/Shop-mat-V1.png)

I don't think it's going to budge now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 23, 2020, 04:33:29 pm

Quote from: grep on July 23, 2020, 01:57:51 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 23, 2020, 11:37:11 am

Quote

Flea Market - Action - $3
+$2
During your buy phase this turn, you may buy cards from the Trash for $1 less than their cost but not less than $0.
-----------------------------
Setup: Put the top card of each Supply pile into the trash.

Crazy with Necromancer or Graverobber, otherwise it looks pretty simple and balanced, roughly as disruptive as Tax. The price tag is probably too punishing for the 5-2 split, I suggest $4.

Thank you for your feedback. I agree that if there's a card that's essential for the opening, the player with 5-2 can get absolutely screwed as they basically have a 3-2 opening while the other person as a 3-4. However; I disagree that Flea Market is an essential opening buy. The benefit of opening Flea Market is essentially it acts as a terminal gold for cards in the trash -- but why is that important? To help you get that expensive 5-cost card that starts in the trash. The player who opens 5-2 gets to buy that 5 cost card and play it in second shuffle! And if they want to, they can buy a Flea Market second shuffle and have the equal chance of being able to nab the second-best card in the trash.

The other reason to cost a card 4 is to prevent someone from opening w/ two of them. For example, Miser would be way more powerful if you could easily open 2 of them (although still not super strong. Maybe not the best example. Sea Hag would be horrendous at costing 3, a Sea Hag/Sea Hag opening leads to unfun games). I do not think there is any problem with someone opening Flea Market/Flea Market. Longterm they are polluting their deck with two terminal silvers right off the bat. There's reasons why a Black Market/Black Market opening is rare. Maybe Gladiator/Gladiator is the best comparison -- a terminal silver that can sometimes be a terminal gold. How many times have you opened double Gladiator? And if you did, was it game-breaking?

I see no problem with the card costing 3, and I like to cost the card the cheapest it can be that is balanced. I'll be sticking with the price of 3 for this. I am amenable to changing it to a 5-cost card that gives +$3, but I think the weaker version is a better, more interesting card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on July 23, 2020, 11:55:48 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/109836626_563524430981425_1922102982281197851_n.png?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=XGWkjElktnwAX9Dk1y4&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=a5a587fe443595b5bcdbd7f2d5338f6d&oe=5F3F66C1)

Quote

Horse Wrangler - Action Duration - $3
Now and at the start of your next turn, gain a Horse.
-
Until the end of your next turn, if you have fewer than 3 Horses in Exile, when you play a Horse, Exile a Horse from its pile.

Original version had +1 action when played, but with the potential delayed card draws in the form of horses, I was worried it would just be an overly cheap Lab knock off.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: [TP] Inferno on July 24, 2020, 05:02:47 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 23, 2020, 11:37:11 am

Contest 81 Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/i5qhdjzy.png)

Quote

Flea Market - Action - $3
+$2
During your buy phase this turn, you may buy cards from the Trash for $1 less than their cost but not less than $0.
-----------------------------
Setup: Put the top card of each Supply pile into the trash.

Flea Market is a terminal gold for cards in the trash. If you aren't buying things from the trash, it's a terminal silver, it doesn't even come with a buy, I mean what's the deal with that? Once there's nothing in the Trash, it's not so special. But in games with Flea Market, everything starts out in the trash. A two player game with Flea Market only has 7 provinces in the supply, one is available in the trash. There's also 9 curses in the supply, the 10th is hiding in the Trash. The edge case where you would want to buy a curse from the Trash is left as an exercise for the reader.

This card, like all cost reductions, likes +buys to accompany it. It also really likes trash for benefits. Remodel a province in hand to the last province, then buy back the Province you remodeled. The possibilities are endless. Games with Lurker + Flea Market are interesting. A double Lurker opening is actually viable on such boards. Flea Market impacts the game even if no one buys it, similar to Baker or any cards with heirlooms.

As always, I'm open to feedback on this card. I went through a lot of iterations of the bonus, I went with the simplest one. Another possibility would be bumping it up to +$3 and costing it 5 which could help reduce first player advantage, but I do like this card being cheap.

If there are a couple of Kingdom treasures or something, this gets crazy with Forager.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on July 24, 2020, 05:44:08 am

I didn't realize quite how easy it was to mock up cards now. Thanks @Violet CLM

Submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200724/j2k68q9g.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 24, 2020, 05:54:32 am

Quote from: silverspawn on July 24, 2020, 05:44:08 am

I didn't realize quite how easy it was to mock up cards now. Thanks @Violet CLM

Submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200724/j2k68q9g.png)

Ha!

One potential issue with this is that you can react multiple times to the same reveal, if you can draw in between. So like reveal hand - play Smithy to draw Scout again, reveal again. Not sure how big of a problem this is, but it can certainly be quite powerful e.g. in Hunting Party decks.

Another undefined behaviour is discarding this to play itself. Is this possible? And if so, will it end up in the discard or in play?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on July 24, 2020, 06:22:07 am

I think it first goes into the discard pile and then into play, since you pay the cost (discard) and then get the effect (play this).

You're right about the multiple reveals – no idea whether it would be fun or annoying in practice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 24, 2020, 06:23:56 am

Here's a submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/5UMO8zz.png)

Quote

Innkeeper - $4
Action - Reserve - Command

Gain a Gold. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you play a Gold, you may call this, to play a non-Command Action from the supply, leaving it there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on July 24, 2020, 07:53:35 am

Arbiter
Action - $5
+1 Buy
-
While this is in play, when you gain a card that isn't a Treasure, gain a Gold

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on July 24, 2020, 02:26:59 pm

Not sure if this is in time but I've updated mine so it is an attack.

Updated Submission (maybe in time?)

Quote

Marooner
+$3
Exile this and another card from your hand. Each other player reveals the top card of their deck and discards it if it costs $3 or more.
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may reveal it and each other player with 4 or more cards in hand puts a card from their hand onto their deck.

(https://i.imgur.com/xc1qocC.png)

There's a lot of text on the card, but I think I'm happier with how it is now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 24, 2020, 04:38:13 pm

I think this is a good place to put the absolute deadline for this week.

I'll have the results written up within 12 hours.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 24, 2020, 11:06:41 pm

Contest #81 Results

I wanted to use at least a bit of playtesting with my judging this week, but playing everybodys' cards just wasn't feasible. So, I picked the ones I thought were the best and then played those to decide on an actual winner. I'll comment on the ones I didn't test first before getting to those I have tested (which I am awarding honorable mentions) and ending with the one I have picked as the winner. Other than that though, these are in no particular order.

---

Scenic Route - grep

Quote from: grep on July 17, 2020, 11:03:15 pm

Quote

(https://i.ibb.co/DCpsw6q/image.png)
Scenic Route
$5 - Action
+2 Cards
If the previous card you have played this turn was not Scenic Route, +2 Actions.

---

While this is in play, you cannot buy Attack cards.

So, this is interesting. I like the way that the top does "Lost City, but weaker". However the bottom half doesn't feel great to me. In games without attacks, it does nothing to mitigate the power of the card, and in games with essential attacks either you can just buy some attacks before stocking up on these (with most attacks you don't want a ton of copies anyways, as many either don't stack or run out). I would really like to see the top half of this return someday with a different downside.

---

Moat - majiponi

Quote from: majiponi on July 17, 2020, 06:42:46 pm

Moat
cost $2 - Action - Reaction
+2 Cards
This turn, you are unaffected by other players' playing Attack cards.
---
When another player plays an Attack card, you may play this from your hand.


A moat variant. In 2-player games, almost strictly better than the official Moat (edge case: you cannot choose to be affected by another Attack). In 4-player game, for example, when Alice plays a Militia, you can draw and protect yourself "this turn"; you have to discard 3 cards when Bob plays another Militia.

I feel like this suffers from a variant of the attack-reflection problem - playing this out of your hand and completely no-selling an Attack is a very strong reaction effect, so in games with this the correct move may be for both players to avoid attacks and also Moat.

This dynamic doesn't occur in multiplayer though.

---

Waterwheel - mandioca15

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 18, 2020, 08:09:14 am

Waterwheel (Action, $6)

+3 Cards
You may trash a card from your hand.
———
When you gain this, trash a card from your hand. If you didn’t, return this to its pile.

A big problem I have with this card is how expensive it is. It's basically a masquerade+, but its high cost ($6.5 because you need to actually have a card in hand to trash too, which will often be Copper) makes buying this for trashing purposes not a viable strategy much of the time. Buying it just as a draw card, however, is super underwhelming. I feel like this would work much better at $5, or perhaps at $4 with mandatory trashing.

I am a big fan of the below the line effect on this one, but I don't think the rest of the card works well with it.

---

Auramancer - spineflu

Quote from: spineflu on July 18, 2020, 08:29:41 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f12e92d3961228dc921104e/ab749b336691e86ea33f15ac471d04d6/image.png)

Quote

Auramancer • $2^ • Action
+$2
-
While this is in play, Actions with +$ amounts in their text are also Treasures.

I feel like you rarely will want to buy this card. Unless this lets you play 3 or more additional cards it is worse than a Festival. It costing a potion is a major opportunity cost, especially given that you don't really want more than 1 or 2 copies (at least they turn into silvers upon being played though). I can see there being games where it ends up playing an interesting role but I believe those will be relatively rare and usually pretty obvious.

---

Scouting Party - Jonatan Djurachkovitch

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on July 20, 2020, 08:31:13 am

(https://i.imgur.com/a/I4CrGGG.png)

Quote

Scouting Party
Action-Reserve - 4$
+1 Action
Put this on your Tavern mat.
----------------------------------------------
You may call this before or after you resolve an Action to reveal the top 4 cards of your Deck: discard any number and put the rest back in any order.
----------------------------------------------
When you gain this, put it on your Tavern mat.

This is like a Cartographer effect with the differences that a) it's not a cantrip but instead just a +1 Action and b) it can be saved for use whenever you want it most. I feel like you'll want to call this right after playing itself the majority of the time because this sort of sifting is pretty strong. The most interesting thing it does is how it gains itself to the tavern mat - with that, buying one for its ability to be used next turn seems like an interesting play to make.

---

Horseman - [TP] Inferno

Quote from: [TP] Inferno on July 19, 2020, 01:39:04 am

Horseman
$3
Action-Reaction
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Discard 2 cards.
-------
When any player plays an Attack card, you may play this from your hand.
(+1 Action has no effect if it's not your turn)

I like the way that this lets you get a Village effect if you play an Attack card with it. However, the fact that it reduces your handsize combined with the rather specific reaction condition makes me feel as if it would be a better with a different top half that helps let it be an enabler more easily.

---

Pushy Salesman - LibraryAdventurer

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on July 20, 2020, 05:30:11 pm

Quote

Pushy Salesman
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} - Action - Duration - Attack
Now and at start of next turn: +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}, +1 Buy.
At the start of next turn: If no other player gained a curse since your last turn, +1 Coffers.
-
While this is in play, when another player ends their buy phase, they reveal their hand. If they have any unspent _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} or unplayed treasures, they gain a curse and a copper.

This feels rather centralizing to me. It's like a Mountebank that, rather than being able to discard a curse to defend against, you have to give up control over building your deck. I wish the attack was less severe, or at least ran out eventually, so that taking this was more of an option.

It's also swingy in that you often don't have control over your exact coin production so whether your plans will be unaffected by this or not is up to chance a lot of the time.

---

Salt - Fragasnap

Quote from: Fragasnap on July 20, 2020, 06:11:53 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/5LWZyK9.jpg)

Quote

Salt
Types: Treasure, Duration
Cost: $3
$1. When you play this and at the start of your next turn: +1 Buy.

---

While this is in play, when you gain or trash a card costing at most $4, you may Exile it.

This is an interesting effect, but a bit niche. I feel like it would be better as a Silver+ that worked on $5 cards, in order to make it more universally something worth considering while still letting it be good where it is now.

---

Employ - LordBaphomet

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 21, 2020, 01:30:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7an7m1p.png)
Contracter [one per player]
+1 Card, +1 Action, exchange one of your Ally cards with another player's.

Watchman - Ally - Reaction
Discard a card. Draw up to 5 cards in hand.
-------------------------------------------
While this is on your ally mat, when you gain a card you may trash it.

Financier - Ally - Reaction
+1 Buy, +1$
--------------------
While this is on your ally mat, when you gain a treasure you may set this aside. If you do, play this and return this to your ally mat at the end of your turn.

Thug - Ally - Attack
+2 Cards, each other player with 4 or more cards in their hand discards one card.

Conman - Ally - Attack
+2$, Each other player takes 1 debt or gains a copper, their choice.

Craftsman - Ally
+1 Action, gain a card costing up to 3$.

Hag - Ally - Attack
Each other player gains a curse. You may trash a curse from your hand.

Tavernkeeper - Ally
+2 Cards, +2 Actions, discard 2 cards.

Courtesan - Ally - Victory
+3$, take your -1 card token.
-----------------
This is worth 2 VP if on your Allies mat at the end of the game.

Propagandist - Ally
+1 Action, +1 Buy, +1$
----------------------------------------------------
When this leaves your ally mat, take your -1$ token.
----------------------------------------------------------------
While this is on your ally mat, if you bought a victory card this turn, you may take 1 debt to gain 1VP.

Slaver - Ally - Curse
+3 Cards, +1 Buy
----------------------------------------------
This is worth -2 VP if on your Allies mat at the end of the game

This is an interesting concept. I feel like there's too much going on here for how much depth it adds to the game though. It seems like a lot of the time the optimal play will be to use your first Employ each turn to take whatever Ally you want to play the others as - spending more than 1 Employ play in a turn taking Allies sounds like something that would be very difficult to justify, especially in multiplayer games.

I also agree with whoever else said that the VP at the end of the game shouldn't be on this type of card - as is it can potentially give a relatively easy 4VP to whoever ends the game in 2p.

---

Horse Wrangler - Xen3k

Quote from: Xen3k on July 23, 2020, 11:55:48 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/109836626_563524430981425_1922102982281197851_n.png?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=XGWkjElktnwAX9Dk1y4&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=a5a587fe443595b5bcdbd7f2d5338f6d&oe=5F3F66C1)

Quote

Horse Wrangler - Action Duration - $3
Now and at the start of your next turn, gain a Horse.
-
Until the end of your next turn, if you have fewer than 3 Horses in Exile, when you play a Horse, Exile a Horse from its pile.

This is an interesting take on Horses that I don't think I've seen before. It kind of worries me how much draw having 2 of these and playing them every turn adds to your deck though. (You get 5 Horses every turn for the cost of 1 terminal Action play each turn).

---

Scout - silverspawn

Quote from: silverspawn on July 24, 2020, 05:44:08 am

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200724/j2k68q9g.png)

It's everyone's favourite Intrigue 1st edition outtake! Scout was usually not an actively bad card to have and the new Reaction effect combined with the low price makes me think that this is actually rather strong for a $2 cost. I like the way you can use this as a makeshift Village although I don't think its particularly good at that function.

A minor complaint is that the cheap price makes it easy to load up on and make each turn take forever, as the Scout effect takes a while to resolve.

---

Innkeeper - faust

Quote from: faust on July 24, 2020, 06:23:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/5UMO8zz.png)

Quote

Innkeeper - $4
Action - Reserve - Command

Gain a Gold. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you play a Gold, you may call this, to play a non-Command Action from the supply, leaving it there.

This seems kind of crazy to me. The on-play effect is already decent, if a bit weak for its price (comparison with Leprechaun) but the reserve effect is so good considering that in games with this you will already easily have access to a lot of Golds, potentially letting you use a $4 terminal to play whatever terminal you want every turn. It is true that playing a bunch of these will dilute your hand, but that's easily ameliorated by the presence of TfB, which isn't uncommon. Even without TfB, dilution due to Golds isn't usually that bad because of how good a bunch of Golds are at buying things.

---

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 24, 2020, 07:53:35 am

Arbiter
Action - $5
+1 Buy
-
While this is in play, when you gain a card that isn't a Treasure, gain a Gold

This is usually going to be at least "Gain a Gold" for $5, which isn't great by itself, but it's relatively easy to get 2 or 3 golds out of this. The main reason I'm not rating this higher is because of the crazy potential it has with things that gain a lot of cards - with Haggler or one of the Horse gainers it's very easy to get to 4 golds or more off of this card. You won't always want that many Golds but, as with Innkeeper, there's often TfB that can put them to good use.

---

Quote from: Marpharos on July 24, 2020, 02:26:59 pm

Quote

Marooner
+$3
Exile this and another card from your hand. Each other player reveals the top card of their deck and discards it if it costs $3 or more.
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up, you may reveal it and each other player with 4 or more cards in hand puts a card from their hand onto their deck.

(https://i.imgur.com/xc1qocC.png)

I like the concept of a Stockpile-like attack. However, the on-play combined with the Reaction effect seems strong to me, and that makes me worry that games with this would often be very slow affairs. I don't think that there's anything wrong with it balance wise though.

---

Honorable Mention: Elite Village - D782802859

Quote from: D782802859 on July 18, 2020, 08:19:03 am

(https://i.imgur.com/nzPyCI2.png?1)

I really like how this makes building easier while being a pain during greening. However, the downside is just too harsh to consider taking this if there are any other decent Villages - when playing with this it's clear that putting more than one Victory card atop your deck (as one of the prime reasons to build up is to double-buy provinces) is just too harsh a downside. I think that this would be much improved if it did the Sea Hag thing so that it could only ever give you a 4 card hand - with that I think that the decision between going for this or not would be a lot more interesting.

---

Honorable Mention: Salesman - grrgrrgrr

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on July 18, 2020, 06:03:31 am

(https://i.imgur.com/jrgFfva.png)

The setup rule here is great - it can make a mediocre card great or a great card awesome but since it's only the +Buy token and not one of the others it can't make things completely broken. The event itself I didn't really think added much to the game though. Although the bottom half was a very clever way to ensure that it was always usable, it ultimately was just a slight increase in flexibility that didn't really require planning - the possibility of using Salesman doesn't make having Buys more enthralling than it normally is.

---

Runner-Up: Flea Market - anordinaryman

Quote from: anordinaryman on July 23, 2020, 11:37:11 am

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/i5qhdjzy.png)

Quote

Flea Market - Action - $3
+$2
During your buy phase this turn, you may buy cards from the Trash for $1 less than their cost but not less than $0.
-----------------------------
Setup: Put the top card of each Supply pile into the trash.

First, a technical note - the way this is worded, the cost reduction doesn't stack. This didn't matter in my tests and I doubt you'd often care about it though.

Using this as a building card was interesting. Using this leads to building differently than you would normally because of how good a deal you get via use of multiple buys, especially on cheaper cards.

However, it really suffers from wanting +Buys - using it as a terminal Gold isn't that great because of how it picks up from the trash most of the time. I also didn't get a chance to test this in multiplayer but I'm a bit worried about how it would do with more than 2 people. Even with these issues though, it still ended up creating a good game dynamic that felt unique.

---

Winner: Specialty Shop - X-tra

Quote from: X-tra on July 23, 2020, 02:45:45 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/z5ggttLr/Specialty-Shop-V2-EN.png)     (https://i.postimg.cc/xjvq0ZHN/Shop-mat-V1.png)

I remember seeing this on the variants part of the Discord a while back - I'm happy you didn't take my comments into account because it would be hard for me to pronounce it as winner if you had. Also I'm pretty convinced I was wrong now.

Playing with this just added a whole new dynamic to the game. It definitely has the capability to be game-warping (I experienced this) but it is in a good way because "buy Specialty Shop" is hardly a coherent strategy by itself - the timing of the buys and what to actually use it for are also key aspects.

It can also draw dud cards on the Shop mat in which case it's not fantastic - although putting one of these in play to gain cheap dud cards on a +Buy can still be a decent use.

The only thing I would do to change this would be to make it only put Kingdom card piles costing less than $6 - that way, no one can ever be locked out gaining a particular card completely (OK it can still happen in 6p but there are official cards that aren't great at 6p either so that doesn't concern me).

---

Results Summary:

Honorable Mentions: Elite Village by D782802859 and Salesman by grrgrrgrr

Runner-up: Flea Market by anordinaryman

Winner: Specialty Shop by X-tra

Overall this weeks cards were interesting, it was fun looking through all of these!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 25, 2020, 02:37:01 pm

Thank you for picking my submission ! Sorry that’s all I can say right now, I’m on mobile and not at home. Contest will be posted around 8PM EST. Expect a better message than this hahaha ! :D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 25, 2020, 09:17:08 pm

CONTEST #82: 2 SCOOPS OF VANILLA, PLEASE
Create a card that has exactly 2 vanilla effects.

Alright, time for the next contest. Sorry for the wait! So you’ve got to make a card that has exactly 2 vanilla effects. No more or no less. The effects can be placed anywhere in the card. It could be as simple as Village where the effects are just there, unconditional. Or it could be like Nobles where there are 2 vanilla effects (+2 Actions, +3 Cards), but you can only pick one of them. So it’s just, by reading the card, you must read 2 vanilla effects, no matter their context, no matter where they are within the card's text, no matter if both or one of them is under a dividing line, no matter if they are only played on a subsequent turn, etc.

I know a vanilla effect is somewhat subjective, but for the sake of it, here’s what will be considered as one for this contest:

• + Actions
• + Cards
• + Buys
• + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) (or (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) value given by Treasures)
• + Coffers
• + Villagers
• + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) (VP tokens!)

I do not consider flat (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) values as a vanilla effect for this competition. You may argue that it is a vanilla effect, but those are the rules for this week. I’ll let that one slide. For instance, Great Hall would be a valid candidate for this week’s competition (2 vanilla effects: +1 Card and +1 Action). Likewise, negative flat (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) values are not considered as vanilla effects for the sake of this competition (only 3 cards bear that effect: Curse, Miserable and Twice Miserable).

Negative amount of a vanilla effect listed above also counts as a vanilla effect (except for - (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) as mentioned above). For instance, Poor House would be a card that counts torward this week's contest (2 vanilla effects: +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) and -(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)).

If you design a set of cards with more than 1 card in it (Traveller lines, split piles, shuffled piles like Knights, etc...), then only ONE of those cards must follow the rules of this contest; the rest of the cards in that set, they can be anything else.


Short list of valid cards:

• Cavalry: +2 Cards and +1 Buy.
• Coin of the Realm: (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) and +2 Actions.
• Conclave: +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) and +1 Action.
• Council Room: +4 Cards and +1 Buy.
• Lackeys: +2 Cards and +2 Villagers.
• Plunder: (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) and +1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png).

Short list of not valid cards:

• Bishop: 3 vanilla effects, which is one too many (+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png), +1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) and another +1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)).
• Caravan: 3 vanilla effects, which is one too many (+1 Action, +1 Card and another +1 Card).
• Harem: Only one vanilla effect ((http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)).
• Lost Arts: Only one vanilla effect (+1 Action).
• Merchant Guild: 3 vanilla effects, which is one too many (+1 Buy, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) and +1 Coffers).
• Merchant Ship: Only one vanilla effect (+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)).

As always, if you have questions about whether this or that would be valid/acceptable, ask away! And good luck everyone. ;)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 25, 2020, 11:28:20 pm

Once again: here is a comprehensive list of double vanillers:
Harbringer, Merchant, Village, Council Room, Lab, Sentry, Woodcutter, Spy
Shanty Town, Steward, Wishing Well, Baron, Bridge, Diplomat, Secret Passage, Upgrade, Nobles, Great Hall,
Haven, Lighthouse, Pearl Diver, Warehouse, Salvager, Wharf
Herbalist, Alchemist, Familiar
Trade Route, Monument, Contraband, Vault
Horse Traders, Hunting Party
Crossroads, Scheme, Nomad Camp, Cartographer, Highway, Inn, Margrave, Stables, Border Village
Poor House?, Vagrant, Urchin, Fortress, Wandering Minstrel, Bandit Camp, Counterfeit, Cultist, Mystic, Sir Bailey, Madman, Mercenary
Herald
Coin of the Realm, Page, Peasant, Ratcatcher, Dungeon, Guide, Magpie, Messenger, Port, Ranger, Giant, Lost City, Storyteller, Wine Merchant, Treasure Hunter, Champion, Fugutive
City Quarter, Encampment, Plunder, Patrician, Settlers, Bustling Village, Farmers market, Gladiator, Capital, Charm
Pixie, Ghost Town, Blessed Village, Conclave, Shepherd, Tragic Hero, Pouch
Will-O-Whisp, Zombie Apprentice, Zombie Spy, The Field's Gift, The Forest's Gift, 
Ducat, Lackeys, Experiment, Hideout, Mountain Village, Recruiter, Seer, Swashbuckler, Exploration,
Goatherd, Stockpile, Bounty Hunter, Cavalry, Groom, Holstery, Village Green, Barge, Coven, Paddock, Destrier, Wayfairer, Desperation, Way of he Horse, Mole, Monkey, Mule, Pig, Horse

For inspirational and reference needs!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on July 26, 2020, 01:38:37 am

I have an old card that perfectly fits the contest:

(https://i.ibb.co/5nYg9Sz/image.png)

Quote

Way of the Coyote
You may discard a card for +2 Cards.
You may discard a card for +2 Actions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on July 26, 2020, 04:32:40 am

Ring
Treasure/Victory - $5
Worth $2
+1 Villager
---
Worth 2VP if you have 4 or more Villagers

Edit - Changed name and remembered to add a cost

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on July 26, 2020, 08:34:59 am

Quote from: X-tra on July 25, 2020, 09:17:08 pm

CONTEST #82: 2 SCOOPS OF VANILLA, PLEASE
Create a card that has exactly 2 vanilla effects.

[...]

what about -1 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) ? Is this a „bonus” too (like a curse)?
... and what about + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/10px-Potion.png) ?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 26, 2020, 09:27:37 am

Quote from: herw on July 26, 2020, 08:34:59 am

Quote from: X-tra on July 25, 2020, 09:17:08 pm

CONTEST #82: 2 SCOOPS OF VANILLA, PLEASE
Create a card that has exactly 2 vanilla effects.

[...]

what about -1 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) ? Is this a „bonus” too (like a curse)?
... and what about + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/10px-Potion.png) ?

Virtual Potions have obvious issues and negative VP tokens do not exist. You can emulate them via Exiling Curses or via giving each other player a VP token.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 26, 2020, 10:00:49 am

Quote from: segura on July 26, 2020, 09:27:37 am

Quote from: herw on July 26, 2020, 08:34:59 am

Quote from: X-tra on July 25, 2020, 09:17:08 pm

CONTEST #82: 2 SCOOPS OF VANILLA, PLEASE
Create a card that has exactly 2 vanilla effects.

[...]

what about -1 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) ? Is this a „bonus” too (like a curse)?
... and what about + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/10px-Potion.png) ?

Virtual Potions have obvious issues and negative VP tokens do not exist. You can emulate them via Exiling Curses or via giving each other player a VP token.

Why do virtual potions have obvious issues?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 26, 2020, 10:30:08 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 26, 2020, 10:00:49 am

Quote from: segura on July 26, 2020, 09:27:37 am

Quote from: herw on July 26, 2020, 08:34:59 am

Quote from: X-tra on July 25, 2020, 09:17:08 pm

CONTEST #82: 2 SCOOPS OF VANILLA, PLEASE
Create a card that has exactly 2 vanilla effects.

[...]

what about -1 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) ? Is this a „bonus” too (like a curse)?
... and what about + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/10px-Potion.png) ?

Virtual Potions have obvious issues and negative VP tokens do not exist. You can emulate them via Exiling Curses or via giving each other player a VP token.

Why do virtual potions have obvious issues?

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20123.msg824725#msg824725

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 26, 2020, 11:13:35 am

Quote from: segura on July 26, 2020, 10:30:08 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 26, 2020, 10:00:49 am

Quote from: segura on July 26, 2020, 09:27:37 am

Quote from: herw on July 26, 2020, 08:34:59 am

Quote from: X-tra on July 25, 2020, 09:17:08 pm

CONTEST #82: 2 SCOOPS OF VANILLA, PLEASE
Create a card that has exactly 2 vanilla effects.

[...]

what about -1 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) ? Is this a „bonus” too (like a curse)?
... and what about + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/10px-Potion.png) ?

Virtual Potions have obvious issues and negative VP tokens do not exist. You can emulate them via Exiling Curses or via giving each other player a VP token.

Why do virtual potions have obvious issues?

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20123.msg824725#msg824725

Thank you, I understand now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 26, 2020, 11:38:30 am

Quote from: herw on July 26, 2020, 08:34:59 am

what about -1 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) ? Is this a „bonus” too (like a curse)?
... and what about + (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/10px-Potion.png) ?

+1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/10px-Potion.png) (or simply (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/10px-Potion.png) to be more precise) and –1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) only appear on 2 cards, Potion and Curse respectively. Because those are part of the Base Supply cards and are nowhere to be found on Kingdom Supply cards, I do not consider these effects as vanilla, nor will they be considered as such for this week’s competition. So sure, feel free to use these effects on your cards as wanted, but be careful with them though. There are reasons why they aren’t on any other card after 13 expansions (here, I am not counting Miserable or Twice Miserable)!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on July 26, 2020, 01:09:54 pm

>WITHDRAWN<
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/116261927_1179807845708255_2580232066098143053_n.png?_nc_cat=103&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=u2N0zgtjh2MAX90sXGK&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=da11fecc5c19747e34a8783249b25163&oe=5F43E0E2)

Quote

Royal Estate - $4
Treasure - Victory
$2
--------
1VP
--------
When you buy this, reveal and Exile a Victory card from your hand, or return this to the supply.

A Harem variant. I think one of the issues is that in the first few turns getting rid of your Estates by buying this is too much of a no-brainer, but at $5 it does not feel worth getting.
>WITHDRAWN<

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 26, 2020, 01:15:49 pm

I repeat what I wrote somewhere else about a similar card:

This does not work due to playtesting experience with Hovel:

Quote

Hovel is the only one that changed. Originally it was an action you could trash by discarding your hand. It turned out that trashing it turn 1-2 usually seemed like the correct play, even if you drew it with four Coppers. So that was no good.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4318.0

Also, even without this playtesting experience Bonfire would be a good benchmark for how good trashing 1 Estate in the opening would be. Or Island, which is one VP more but does not immediately put the Estate into nirvana.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on July 26, 2020, 01:32:39 pm

Quote from: segura on July 26, 2020, 01:15:49 pm

I repeat what I wrote somewhere else about a similar card:

This does not work due to playtesting experience with Hovel:

Quote

Hovel is the only one that changed. Originally it was an action you could trash by discarding your hand. It turned out that trashing it turn 1-2 usually seemed like the correct play, even if you drew it with four Coppers. So that was no good.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4318.0

Also, even without this playtesting experience Bonfire would be a good benchmark for how good trashing 1 Estate in the opening would be. Or Island, which is one VP more but does not immediately put the Estate into nirvana.

I agree, but will likely stay with my submission as is unless suggested alterations seem better. I like Island and Royal Estate is similarly in that vein, if faster in effect. Could just be a bad idea, but idk.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 26, 2020, 01:58:39 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on July 26, 2020, 01:09:54 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/116261927_1179807845708255_2580232066098143053_n.png?_nc_cat=103&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=u2N0zgtjh2MAX90sXGK&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=da11fecc5c19747e34a8783249b25163&oe=5F43E0E2)

Truly sorry to be that guy, but this card does not fit within the criteria of this week's competition. There is only one vanilla effect depicted on Royal Estate, which is (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png), whereas 2 vanilla effects must be present on a card. Flat (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) values are not considered as vanilla effects for the sake of this competition, sorry!  :-[

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on July 26, 2020, 02:00:33 pm

Quote from: X-tra on July 26, 2020, 01:58:39 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on July 26, 2020, 01:09:54 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/116261927_1179807845708255_2580232066098143053_n.png?_nc_cat=103&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=u2N0zgtjh2MAX90sXGK&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=da11fecc5c19747e34a8783249b25163&oe=5F43E0E2)

Truly sorry to be that guy, but this card does not fit within the criteria of this week's competition. There is only one vanilla effect depicted on Royal Estate, which is (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png), whereas 2 vanilla effects must be present on a card. Flat (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) values are not considered as vanilla effects for the sake of this competition, sorry!  :-[

Dangit, ok. Thank you for letting me know. I appreciate the feedback I did get though.  ;) Consider this withdrawn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 26, 2020, 02:29:03 pm

Contest question: are designs with multiple cards permitted? And if so, does only one of the cards have to fulfill the two vanilla effects criterion?

I'm thinking about things like split piles, hermit/madman, vampire/bat, heirlooms, and travelers here.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on July 26, 2020, 02:59:15 pm

Oubliette (Action, $3)

+2 Cards
+1 Action

Reveal your hand. Discard the duplicates.

A Laboratory variant that rewards careful tracking and top-of-deck preparation. For example, if your hand after drawing 2 Cards is Copper, Copper, Estate, Estate, Silver, you would discard a Copper and an Estate.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on July 26, 2020, 03:37:20 pm

Submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200726/k5vcxhm6.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on July 26, 2020, 04:45:23 pm

Sophia
cost $5 - Action
+1 Action
Choose one: +$2; or +1 Potion.
---
Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile costing at least 1 Potion to the Supply.


Potion cards made much sadness.  "Oh, 5-2, can I buy Familiar? - 2P, as I guessed. gg.",  "1P only I have!", "5P only!".  Sophia gives us happiness.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on July 26, 2020, 05:06:14 pm

Quote

Figurine
$3 - Treasure
+1 Card
+$1
Put up to two cards from your hand on top of your deck.

Had this idea for a treasure that draws for a while.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 26, 2020, 07:56:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/uE3yaPv.png)

Steal your opponent's hand space if they are careless with money, and some extra coffers to boot.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 26, 2020, 11:08:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZLljoYI.png)

Quote

Yield

+1 Buy
Reveal your hand. +$1 per different card type you reveal.
-
During your turns, this costs $1 more per different card type you have in play.

Treasure
$4

A variety-themed payload card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on July 26, 2020, 11:35:44 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 26, 2020, 11:08:32 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZLljoYI.png)

Quote

Yield

+1 Buy
Reveal your hand. +$1 per different card type you reveal.
-
During your turns, this costs $1 more per different card type you have in play.

Treasure
$4

A variety-themed payload card.

Clearly, the best time to buy it is when you have Horses, Spoils, and/or Stockpiles (or Experiments, Encampments, etc)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on July 27, 2020, 12:27:12 am

Quote from: segura on July 26, 2020, 09:27:37 am

[...] negative VP tokens do not exist. You can emulate them via Exiling Curses or via giving each other player a VP token. [...] You can emulate them via Exiling Curses or via giving each other player a VP token.

That's not right for all cases but that's another thing.
f.i. : you cannot emulate a curse giving each other player a VP token because you can trash a curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 27, 2020, 09:40:50 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f1ed8ead4d5fb5bf2afc591/3d0b2586a16e06cd1b964fb88da76c5e/image.png)

Quote

Ikon • $4 • Treasure
If you have an odd number of Ikons in play, +2 Cards. Otherwise, +$2.

You may discard an Action card to gain an Ikon.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 27, 2020, 10:08:33 am

I like this a lot. Being on average a Treasure-Peddler, it is similar to LibraryAdventurer's Figurine. But whereas Figurine suffers from dominating Silver in money games, this is also useful in decks with a higher Action density (it should not be too high) and thus strategically more flexible.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 27, 2020, 10:17:33 am

Quote from: alion8me on July 26, 2020, 02:29:03 pm

Contest question: are designs with multiple cards permitted? And if so, does only one of the cards have to fulfill the two vanilla effects criterion?

I'm thinking about things like split piles, hermit/madman, vampire/bat, heirlooms, and travelers here.

Sorry about the slow answer. But yeah. At first I thought that all cards in a given suggested set should follow the "2 vanilla effects, no less, no more" rule, but then I decided to be more leniant.

So to answer your question: If you post a set of cards with more than 1 card in it, then only 1 of those cards need to follow the rules of this contest. This should give more design space that way. So for instance, if you design a split pile, then only one of those 2 cards must have exactly 2 vanilla effects. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 27, 2020, 10:18:00 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 26, 2020, 04:32:40 am

Flowers
Treasure - Victory
Worth $2
+1 Villager
---
Worth 2VP if you have 4 or more Villagers

is the cost on this $2? or is it a silver+ and its cost isn't present?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on July 27, 2020, 10:21:32 am

My experience is that treasures which draw are frustrating because you draw action cards you can't play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 27, 2020, 10:27:05 am

Quote from: silverspawn on July 27, 2020, 10:21:32 am

My experience is that treasures which draw are frustrating because you draw action cards you can't play.

That is why Ikon has a self-gaining mechanism similar to that of Magpie. But unlike Magpie, the self-gaining increases the strength of the card as the Treasure density of your deck rises.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on July 27, 2020, 10:41:58 am

Quote from: silverspawn on July 27, 2020, 10:21:32 am

My experience is that treasures which draw are frustrating because you draw action cards you can't play.

yes, correct; that's why you can discard them for more Ikons (which you might be able to draw into if you have enough Ikons). It's also not designed to be the only treasure in a deck (like other $4 treasures - talisman, quarry, etc) because it's average of a copper per-play is not great. It might be better to think of it as a mini Venture that can gain more Ventures.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on July 27, 2020, 11:09:45 am

(https://i.imgur.com/W3HZCb6.png) (https://i.imgur.com/gvCgrdN.png) (https://i.imgur.com/9wpS4Fb.png)

Quote

Mad Scientist
Action - Cost: $5
+$2
Trash 2 cards from your hand. If at least one costs $3 or more, gain a North Magnet and a South Magnet, both onto your deck.

North Magnet
Action - Cost: $4*
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
Look through your discard pile. You may reveal and play a South Magnet from your hand or discard pile.
(This is not in the Supply)

South Magnet
Action - Cost: $4*
+1 Action
+$2
Look through your discard pile. You may reveal and play a North Magnet from your hand or discard pile.
(This is not in the Supply)

Mad Scientist is a pretty decent trasher by itself, but if you trash a better card than Copper or Estate, you get some Magnets. The Magnets are decent by themselves, but if you're able to chain them, they become much more powerful.

I have a hard time deciding what the trashing qualification should be. Originally it said "if none were treasures" but that seems too easy to get your first two Magnets (although it makes it harder to get more than 2). Any thoughts/suggestions?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 27, 2020, 11:36:51 am

Quote from: mail-mi on July 27, 2020, 11:09:45 am

(https://i.imgur.com/W3HZCb6.png) (https://i.imgur.com/gvCgrdN.png) (https://i.imgur.com/9wpS4Fb.png)

Quote

Mad Scientist
Action - Cost: $5
+$2
Trash 2 cards from your hand. If at least one costs $3 or more, gain a North Magnet and a South Magnet, both onto your deck.

North Magnet
Action - Cost: $4*
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
Look through your discard pile. You may reveal and play a South Magnet from your hand or discard pile.
(This is not in the Supply)

South Magnet
Action - Cost: $4*
+1 Action
+$2
Look through your discard pile. You may reveal and play a North Magnet from your hand or discard pile.
(This is not in the Supply)

Mad Scientist is a pretty decent trasher by itself, but if you trash a better card than Copper or Estate, you get some Magnets. The Magnets are decent by themselves, but if you're able to chain them, they become much more powerful.

I have a hard time deciding what the trashing qualification should be. Originally it said "if none were treasures" but that seems too easy to get your first two Magnets (although it makes it harder to get more than 2). Any thoughts/suggestions?

Mad Scientist only has one vanilla bonus. The magnets probably should only be in your hand, not the discard pile as that would take too long to resolve and they would still be good (considering they both go onto your deck when gained).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 27, 2020, 11:45:04 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on July 27, 2020, 11:36:51 am

Mad Scientist only has one vanilla bonus.

This is actually something I tackled last page. Granted that precision was wedged between a lot of other posts, but eh. :D

In a set of multiple cards submitted together, only one of the cards must have 2 vanilla effects. This is to give you guys more design space for this week's competition. Therefore Mad Scientist is a valid candidate.

My contest post was edited to further clarify that aspect.  :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on July 27, 2020, 12:10:30 pm

ok - then I send this:

(https://i.imgur.com/EnHg9J7.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Q7pBsqw.png) (https://i.imgur.com/0CRj0sY.png) (https://i.imgur.com/s0hJOtO.png) (https://imgur.com/gToVWIk.png)

play tested several times

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on July 27, 2020, 12:28:24 pm

Shouldn't the VPs be at the bottom?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on July 27, 2020, 12:54:29 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on July 27, 2020, 12:28:24 pm

Shouldn't the VPs be at the bottom?

Yes - but doesn't change the idea. On top + 1 action or treasure, then VPs, then traveller`s comment.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 27, 2020, 01:19:01 pm

Quote from: herw on July 27, 2020, 12:10:30 pm

ok - then I send this:

(https://i.imgur.com/EnHg9J7.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Q7pBsqw.png) (https://i.imgur.com/0CRj0sY.png) (https://i.imgur.com/s0hJOtO.png) (https://imgur.com/gToVWIk.png)

play tested several times

Dude, X-tra explicitly said that he considers only VP token gaining as a vanilla effect, not static VP values.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on July 27, 2020, 01:21:50 pm

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2020, 01:19:01 pm

Dude, X-tra explicitly said that he considers only VP token gaining as a vanilla effect, not static VP values.

To be fair, the 3rd card in this Traveller line, Crossroad, fits within the rules ((http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) and +1 Buy). And one card being valid in a set is enough to be good for the competition.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on July 27, 2020, 01:26:10 pm

Quote from: X-tra on July 27, 2020, 01:21:50 pm

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2020, 01:19:01 pm

Dude, X-tra explicitly said that he considers only VP token gaining as a vanilla effect, not static VP values.

To be fair, the 3rd card in this Traveller line, Crossroad, fits within the rules ((http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) and +1 Buy). And one card being valid in a set is enough to be good for the competition.

thanks for clarifying  :)

(https://imgur.com/crxzH2I.png) (https://imgur.com/3tsq9fY.png) (https://imgur.com/n1x0ag3.png) (https://imgur.com/FFpxQsc.png) (https://imgur.com/TT9MZNQ.png)

BTW Dark Path is a curse too. Means you can buy it or get by a witch. You have to clarify before starting the game, whether it is player's or your choice (normal curse or dark path).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on July 27, 2020, 06:51:44 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/116263037_333786797786915_2427870753423454594_n.png?_nc_cat=107&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=sX20GTSf2PQAX9cHXNF&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=ae8a486f37716eb986e2ad532fe4cfb5&oe=5F4622C1)

Quote

Fairy Godmother - $3
Action - Reaction -Fate
+1 Buy
+$1
Receive a Boon.
-
When another player plays an Attack card, you may first reveal and discard this from your hand, to be unaffected by it. If you do, take a Boon. Receive it at the start of your next turn.

Pretty sure this one will meet the requirements. A Moat variant That gives you a Boon.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Alsterschwan on July 28, 2020, 02:39:39 am

Quote from: herw on July 27, 2020, 12:10:30 pm

ok - then I send this:

(https://i.imgur.com/EnHg9J7.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Q7pBsqw.png) (https://i.imgur.com/0CRj0sY.png) (https://i.imgur.com/s0hJOtO.png) (https://imgur.com/gToVWIk.png)

play tested several times

Traveller chain broken: Crossroad exchange to Crossroad

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on July 28, 2020, 03:02:38 am

Quote from: Xen3k on July 27, 2020, 06:51:44 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/116263037_333786797786915_2427870753423454594_n.png?_nc_cat=107&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=sX20GTSf2PQAX9cHXNF&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=ae8a486f37716eb986e2ad532fe4cfb5&oe=5F4622C1)

Quote

Fairy Godmother - $3
Action - Reaction -Fate
+1 Buy
+$1
Receive a Boon.
-
When another player plays an Attack card, you may first reveal and discard this from your hand, to be unaffected by it. If you do, take a Boon. Receive it at the start of your next turn.

Pretty sure this one will meet the requirements. A Moat variant That gives you a Boon.

I believe the rules allow you to reveal this any number of times in response to an attack and get that many boons.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 28, 2020, 03:19:59 am

The condition for getting the Boon is revealing and discarding.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on July 28, 2020, 03:58:00 am

Idk why I can't read cards anymore :( Maybe I got too used to knowing them already

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on July 28, 2020, 04:21:23 am

Quote from: Alsterschwan on July 28, 2020, 02:39:39 am

[...]
Traveller chain broken: Crossroad exchange to Crossroad

ah - thanks

(https://imgur.com/crxzH2I.png) (https://imgur.com/3tsq9fY.png) (https://imgur.com/IYWFr1G.png) (https://imgur.com/FFpxQsc.png) (https://imgur.com/TT9MZNQ.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Alsterschwan on July 28, 2020, 04:38:47 am

Quote from: herw on July 28, 2020, 04:21:23 am

Quote from: Alsterschwan on July 28, 2020, 02:39:39 am

[...]
Traveller chain broken: Crossroad exchange to Crossroad

ah - thanks

(https://imgur.com/crxzH2I.png) (https://imgur.com/3tsq9fY.png) (https://imgur.com/IYWFr1G.png) (https://imgur.com/FFpxQsc.png) (https://imgur.com/TT9MZNQ.png)

Where or what is Breath?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on July 28, 2020, 05:13:21 am

Quote from: segura on July 27, 2020, 01:19:01 pm

Quote from: herw on July 27, 2020, 12:10:30 pm

ok - then I send this:



play tested several times

Dude, X-tra explicitly said that he considers only VP token gaining as a vanilla effect, not static VP values.

arghhh, yes -breath was the old name of last card. Called it now atman (from Indian Philosophy). Breath is not a good translation for German „Lebenshauch”. Changed the text of Loophole.

Dark Path (Traveller)

(https://imgur.com/crxzH2I.png) (https://imgur.com/3tsq9fY.png) (https://imgur.com/IYWFr1G.png) (https://imgur.com/i0aJ1gY.png) (https://imgur.com/TT9MZNQ.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 28, 2020, 10:53:14 am

Quote from: silverspawn on July 28, 2020, 03:58:00 am

Idk why I can't read cards anymore :( Maybe I got too used to knowing them already

I was close to making the same reply you did, but then went back and re-read the card and saw it. Maybe it's because he referred to it as "a Moat variant" which put Moat's wording of just "reveal" on the mind.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on July 28, 2020, 09:45:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/dwAohCz.png?1)

A simple 2-cost card. Now or later duration are great fun and the buy clause seemed interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on July 28, 2020, 10:01:58 pm

So, I'm going to put up a card from a past contest, see if it gets any love:

(https://i.imgur.com/SL1tKb7.png)

Feedback still welcome - the biggest question I have is if the cost is fine at $4 or should this maybe be a $3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 28, 2020, 10:19:25 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on July 28, 2020, 10:01:58 pm

So, I'm going to put up a card from a past contest, see if it gets any love:

(https://i.imgur.com/SL1tKb7.png)

Feedback still welcome - the biggest question I have is if the cost is fine at $4 or should this maybe be a $3.

This feels like a potential $5 to me. The easiest comparison is with merchant guild - if you buy two of these you get a very similar effect as having one merchant guild provided that you draw into them, and unlike merchant guild it doesn't take up terminal space, although it does give you $1 less.
$4 might be more fun though provided that it isn't too crazy.

I'm pretty sure $3 would be underpricing this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on July 28, 2020, 11:41:07 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/n68isdma.png)

Quote

Seagull - Action - $4
+3 Cards
Discard a card. If it's an Action, +1 Action. If it's a Silver, gain a Seagull.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, trash a card from your hand.

The two most fun vanilla effects for me are +cards and +action. So here is a card that can do both. It can be sort of a worse lab (worse lab because you need to discard an action, which are the cards you usually want to play when you chain labs!), but also it helps in that it adds 1 extra card of sifting. The best way to take advantage of this card is to flood your deck with actions, so you don't mind discarding one. Seagull gives a way to gain more actions (more copies of itself) -- be careful though, discarding silver isn't entirely easy, and you just played a terminal and probably wanted that silver. Seagull helps in yet another way, if you overpay, you can trash cards in your deck that aren't actions to increase the action density.

The overpay mechanic means this card has to cost at least $4, otherwise it becomes way too strong of an opening. (4 will almost always be overpay seagull and trash an estate). Opening Silver / Seagull seems like it might be super strong, but it's usually weaker than opening Silver / Trasher or Trasher / Seagull. I say it's better than Smithy / Seagull, but not by too much and could depend on the rest of the board.

As always, open to feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 29, 2020, 12:36:09 am

As it is strictly better than Smithy, it has to cost $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 29, 2020, 01:14:14 am

Quote from: segura on July 29, 2020, 12:36:09 am

As it is strictly better than Smithy, it has to cost $5.

The discarding isn't optional.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 29, 2020, 03:24:23 am

My mistake. As it stands it is of course fine, being momost similar to Advisor (you net draw 1 but only get to keep the bad stuff ).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on July 29, 2020, 05:05:06 am

It's not strictly better than smithy, but it feels extremely strong to me. I'm not convinced that it's weaker than Laboratory in absolute terms. There are situations where it's weaker (play it and draw a copy of itself) and situations where it's stronger (draw 3 non-action cards). It's very strong early, and scales quite well.

It strikes me as quite strong for 4$ even if it were only "+3 Cards, discard a Card; if it's an Action, +1 Action." With the overpay effect, it seems a bit overkill.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 29, 2020, 05:17:25 am

I think that the Action-Stables is fine at 4. But as you said, the self-gaining and the on-gain trashing seem like a bit too much.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on July 29, 2020, 06:03:57 pm

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/cAkiIEG.png) (https://i.imgur.com/q5uazub.png)

Apiary
Action - Duration, $4

Quote

Now and at the start of your next turn, choose 1: +1 Villager and +1 Buy; or gain a Honey.

Honey
Treasure, $5*

Quote

+3 Coffers
-
Provides 1 Coffers less per Honey in play, other than this.

(This is not in the supply.)

I kept wanting to do something with Coffers and Villagers and Buys, this was the best way I could think to work it.

---

Quote from: D782802859 on July 28, 2020, 09:45:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/dwAohCz.png?1)

A simple 2-cost card. Now or later duration are great fun and the buy clause seemed interesting.

I really like this a lot, but I don't think it fits under the rules:

Quote from: X-tra on July 25, 2020, 09:17:08 pm

Short list of not valid cards:

• Caravan: 3 vanilla effects, which is one too many (+1 Action, +1 Card and another +1 Card).
• Merchant Guild: 3 vanilla effects, which is one too many (+1 Buy, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) and +1 Coffers).

I could be wrong with this though, if someone would like to correct me?
It might be worth making the effect above the line either now or next turn instead of splitting it up like that?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 29, 2020, 06:56:14 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on July 29, 2020, 06:03:57 pm

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/cAkiIEG.png) (https://i.imgur.com/q5uazub.png)

Apiary
Action - Duration, $4

Quote

Now and at the start of your next turn, choose 1: +1 Villager and +1 Buy; or gain a Honey.

Honey
Treasure, $5*

Quote

+3 Coffers
-
Provides 1 Coffers less per Honey in play, other than this.

(This is not in the supply.)

I kept wanting to do something with Coffers and Villagers and Buys, this was the best way I could think to work it.
...

Unless I'm misunderstanding Honey, it starts off as a Coffer-gold and just gets better in multiples. This seems way too strong to me - even if Honey was only a Coffer-silver and couldn't scale I still think it would be very strong to gain with Apiary.

Edit: I misread Honey as providing more coffers per copy of Honey in play rather than less. It still seems pretty strong though, especially given that the other mode of Apiary isn't completely terrible to have a copy of in your deck.

It also seems like it would encourage money strategies a lot but if that's what you're going for it's not an issue.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on July 29, 2020, 07:03:27 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 29, 2020, 06:56:14 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on July 29, 2020, 06:03:57 pm

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/cAkiIEG.png) (https://i.imgur.com/q5uazub.png)

Apiary
Action - Duration, $4

Quote

Now and at the start of your next turn, choose 1: +1 Villager and +1 Buy; or gain a Honey.

Honey
Treasure, $5*

Quote

+3 Coffers
-
Provides 1 Coffers less per Honey in play, other than this.

(This is not in the supply.)

I kept wanting to do something with Coffers and Villagers and Buys, this was the best way I could think to work it.
...

Unless I'm misunderstanding Honey, it starts off as a Coffer-gold and just gets better in multiples. This seems way too strong to me - even if Honey was only a Coffer-silver and couldn't scale I still think it would be very strong to gain with Apiary.

Edit: I misread Honey as providing more coffers per copy of Honey in play rather than less. It still seems pretty strong though, especially given that the other mode of Apiary isn't completely terrible to have a copy of in your deck.

It also seems like it would encourage money strategies a lot but if that's what you're going for it's not an issue.

I think the intent is to have it scale down, so the second Honey played gives 2 Coffers, the third gives 1 Coffer, and the rest played gives 0. Maybe the text below the line should read "Provider 1 fewer coffers for every Honey already in play"? Perhaps baking the reverse scaling into the Coffers gain?

Edit: You already got it. Disregard.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on July 29, 2020, 07:07:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/IDsKFLw.png?1)

To correct the issue with not being correct under the contest rules, I'm changing the card a little. It still functions the same in most cases, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: JimJammer on July 30, 2020, 11:13:30 am

(https://i.imgur.com/8ARZ9O9.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: JimJammer on July 30, 2020, 11:15:47 am

why is my image so big?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on July 30, 2020, 11:18:23 am

Quote from: JimJammer on July 30, 2020, 11:15:47 am

why is my image so big?

In imgur, go to edit image and set the width to 250.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on July 30, 2020, 11:44:09 am

Quote from: JimJammer on July 30, 2020, 11:13:30 am

(https://i.imgur.com/O7QnuXg.png?1)

I think this would be more fun as "$3 or more", since that lets it interact with more kinds of gainers (specifically, Silver and Horse gainers).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on July 30, 2020, 12:07:54 pm

That card seems far too weak. Death Cart trashes a worthless card (or itself, alternatively) and produces +5$, and that's a pretty weak card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on July 30, 2020, 12:40:24 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on July 29, 2020, 07:03:27 pm

Quote from: alion8me on July 29, 2020, 06:56:14 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on July 29, 2020, 06:03:57 pm

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/cAkiIEG.png) (https://i.imgur.com/q5uazub.png)

Apiary
Action - Duration, $4

Quote

Now and at the start of your next turn, choose 1: +1 Villager and +1 Buy; or gain a Honey.

Honey
Treasure, $5*

Quote

+3 Coffers
-
Provides 1 Coffers less per Honey in play, other than this.

(This is not in the supply.)

I kept wanting to do something with Coffers and Villagers and Buys, this was the best way I could think to work it.
...

Unless I'm misunderstanding Honey, it starts off as a Coffer-gold and just gets better in multiples. This seems way too strong to me - even if Honey was only a Coffer-silver and couldn't scale I still think it would be very strong to gain with Apiary.

Edit: I misread Honey as providing more coffers per copy of Honey in play rather than less. It still seems pretty strong though, especially given that the other mode of Apiary isn't completely terrible to have a copy of in your deck.

It also seems like it would encourage money strategies a lot but if that's what you're going for it's not an issue.

I think the intent is to have it scale down, so the second Honey played gives 2 Coffers, the third gives 1 Coffer, and the rest played gives 0. Maybe the text below the line should read "Provider 1 fewer coffers for every Honey already in play"? Perhaps baking the reverse scaling into the Coffers gain?

Edit: You already got it. Disregard.

I’ve seen there are issues with how my submission reads and will update Honey so it functions better, I’ve had some really good ideas from Dominionaer too. I intend on updating it before the competition closes but it’ll likely be tomorrow if I do. I’d do it now but I’m at work...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on July 30, 2020, 01:18:30 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on July 29, 2020, 06:03:57 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/cAkiIEG.png) (https://i.imgur.com/q5uazub.png)

I like it, but +3 coffers is too much. You really don't want players stockpiling large amounts of coin tokens so easily.

Suggestion: "+$2. If you have no Coffers, +1 Coffer."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 30, 2020, 02:05:40 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on July 29, 2020, 06:03:57 pm

Honey
Treasure, $5*

Quote

+3 Coffers
-
Provides 1 Coffers less per Honey in play, other than this.

(This is not in the supply.)

The wording to exclude the currently-playing Honey seems awkward, because it is in play. Recommend either of the following:

+3 Coffers
-1 Coffers for each other Honey in play

Or

+4 Coffers
-1 Coffers for each Honey in play (including this)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on July 30, 2020, 06:26:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/uE3yaPv.png)

Edit: Should probably say to a minimum of three.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 31, 2020, 12:04:25 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 30, 2020, 02:05:40 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on July 29, 2020, 06:03:57 pm

Honey
Treasure, $5*

Quote

+3 Coffers
-
Provides 1 Coffers less per Honey in play, other than this.

(This is not in the supply.)

The wording to exclude the currently-playing Honey seems awkward, because it is in play. Recommend either of the following:

+3 Coffers
-1 Coffers for each other Honey in play

Or

+4 Coffers
-1 Coffers for each Honey in play (including this)

This can provide negative Coffers which is weird if you have none.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on July 31, 2020, 12:56:15 am

Quote from: segura on July 31, 2020, 12:04:25 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on July 30, 2020, 02:05:40 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on July 29, 2020, 06:03:57 pm

Honey
Treasure, $5*

Quote

+3 Coffers
-
Provides 1 Coffers less per Honey in play, other than this.

(This is not in the supply.)

The wording to exclude the currently-playing Honey seems awkward, because it is in play. Recommend either of the following:

+3 Coffers
-1 Coffers for each other Honey in play

Or

+4 Coffers
-1 Coffers for each Honey in play (including this)

This can provide negative Coffers which is weird if you have none.

In terms of strength/weakness it's not an issue because you simply would choose not to play the card if it wouldn't help. In terms of rules weirdness, I feel like it's clear enough that "-1 coffers" simply means "remove a coffer from your coffers mat" and that if you have none there then "do as much as you can" would apply. But it's true that "-x coffers" is a mechanic that doesn't exist on any official cards/rules.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on July 31, 2020, 01:08:22 am

The difference between your card and the original is virtually inexistent, but there is Venture and Gamble.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on July 31, 2020, 06:34:10 am

Quote from: segura on July 31, 2020, 01:08:22 am

The difference between your card and the original is virtually inexistent, but there is Venture and Gamble.

Playing the card with Gamble is optional. It would suck playing it with Venture but you can just play your Ventures before your Honeys. Herald/Golem and Poor House have similar issues.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: JimJammer on July 31, 2020, 01:56:01 pm

Quote from: faust on July 30, 2020, 11:44:09 am

Quote from: JimJammer on July 30, 2020, 11:13:30 am

(https://i.imgur.com/O7QnuXg.png?1)

I think this would be more fun as "$3 or more", since that lets it interact with more kinds of gainers (specifically, Silver and Horse gainers).

I agree

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on July 31, 2020, 03:11:39 pm

Quote from: JimJammer on July 31, 2020, 01:56:01 pm

Quote from: faust on July 30, 2020, 11:44:09 am

Quote from: JimJammer on July 30, 2020, 11:13:30 am

(https://i.imgur.com/O7QnuXg.png?1)

I think this would be more fun as "$3 or more", since that lets it interact with more kinds of gainers (specifically, Silver and Horse gainers).

I agree

I think it needs to be easier to activate.

Even if you let it be $3 or more it still takes a ton of effort to use. Even if this is the only +Buy on the board I would skip this most of the time because of how difficult gaining and drawing a bunch of Horses/Silvers (or whatever it is you're gaining) is to do.

And when you do it with Silvers it's still super underwhelming - if you had kept the silvers in hand you would get the same amount of $.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on July 31, 2020, 05:52:53 pm

Quote from: pubby on July 30, 2020, 01:18:30 pm

I like it, but +3 coffers is too much. You really don't want players stockpiling large amounts of coin tokens so easily.

Suggestion: "+$2. If you have no Coffers, +1 Coffer."

I think I like this idea the most - it's clean and simple, stops stockpiling coffers and still limits the power of subsequent Honey played. One idea was for a Devil's Workshop-like effect which worked well too, but I think this is more streamlined!

UPDATED SUMBISSION

(https://i.imgur.com/g1wvzrl.png) (https://i.imgur.com/atWDybu.png)

Apiary
Action
$4

Quote

Choose 1: +1 Villager and +1 Buy; or gain a Honey.

I took the duration off this because technically it wouldn't count towards the competition with it on but I still like it.

Honey
Treasure
$5*

Quote

$2
If you have no Coffers, +1 Coffers

(This is not in the supply.)

It pleases me that both cards fit under the rules for this week, and that you pubby for your idea! :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 01, 2020, 04:00:25 am

Honey 2.0 is not necessarily weaker than the first version. This is now a Gold plus (except for Black Market, Gamble and Venture) as you can always immediately spend the Coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 01, 2020, 05:24:55 am

Apiary is much weaker now, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 01, 2020, 06:52:13 am

A Gold+ gainer for 4 with an extra option is nonetheless a bit too strong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 01, 2020, 07:13:53 am

I think it's extremely weak. I suspect it's almost never correct to buy it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 01, 2020, 07:23:19 am

Bandit and Leprechaun indicate that a Gold gainer is a $4. That is why I am fairly certain that the card, being better than a pure Gold gainer in two respects, is overpowered.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 01, 2020, 07:43:48 am

I've never bought Leprechaun without intending to gain wishes, I believe.

I'm more comparing it to Marauder, which seems significantly stronger and it's one of the cards that most strongly predicts that you lose the game. (As in, across all games where only one of both players buys Marauder, that player loses significantly more than 50% of the time -- unless I'm misunderstanding what the "winner-opponent" statistic means. Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mIlL9BaOczozPJISzTGIeGwsJxLJ11mL3A6x9GM9W9g/edit#gid=0)

Incidentally, Bandit is also a (somewhat weaker) predictor of you losing the game.

Certainly, either this or the previous version has to be unbalanced since the previous one was about twice as strong. I think the previous version was more balanced.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 01, 2020, 08:25:08 am

Quote from: silverspawn on August 01, 2020, 07:43:48 am

I've never bought Leprechaun without intending to gain wishes, I believe.

Leprechaun misfires far more often than it hits and I have witnessed better players than me open with Leprechaun and win.

I totally agree that gaining any stop card should be viewed critically. But Honey is better than Gold, money decks do still exist and +1 Villager and +1 Buy is a decent secondary option.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 01, 2020, 10:34:25 am

Quote from: segura on August 01, 2020, 08:25:08 am

Quote from: silverspawn on August 01, 2020, 07:43:48 am

I've never bought Leprechaun without intending to gain wishes, I believe.

Leprechaun misfires far more often than it hits and I have witnessed better players than me open with Leprechaun and win.

Well, since buying Leprechaun is evidence for a good deck, the "only one player bought it" statistics don't work here. The statistics for people who open with it look quite bad (silver/leprechaun openings have a 47% winrate) but the sample sizes are smaller.

I don't think I've ever opened Leprechaun, though I have seen my opponents do it a bunch.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 01, 2020, 12:08:54 pm

24 HOURS REMAINING

Sorry I did not put a judging date on my contest post, I kinda forgot. Also, contest this week is uhhh 1 week + 1 day. That's because I was really busy all week and couldn't really check the cards 'til today, so I'm giving myself a buffer day to judge everything nicely.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on August 01, 2020, 12:41:59 pm

Quote from: segura on August 01, 2020, 08:25:08 am

Quote from: silverspawn on August 01, 2020, 07:43:48 am

I've never bought Leprechaun without intending to gain wishes, I believe.

Leprechaun misfires far more often than it hits and I have witnessed better players than me open with Leprechaun and win.

I totally agree that gaining any stop card should be viewed critically. But Honey is better than Gold, money decks do still exist and +1 Villager and +1 Buy is a decent secondary option.

My thinking with Honey is that if you only gain 1 and always spend the coffer when it comes round then you’ve gained a single Gold, or if you save the Coffers for another turn you risk it being a Silver which is fine.
If you gain 2+ Honey, you’re really hoping they don’t collide and that you can spend the Coffers consistently enough. Apiary doesn’t allow them to collide directly, but the Villager it gives does encourage other draw cards to be played which increases the likelihood of drawing more Honey. Taking away the duration also stops you from gaining Honey too quickly probably makes it stronger, and also stops you gaining Villagers too quickly which affects its strength depending on the kingdom. (Ie, couldn’t quite work that one out...) If you flood your deck with Honey, you’ve mostly gained a ton of Silver.

Still, opening with Apiary the earliest you get the Honey in play is turn 5 most likely. Opening Skulk gets you a Gold turn 3 if you’re lucky.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 01, 2020, 01:17:35 pm

Updated Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/xc6xlbn8.png)

Quote

Seagull - Action - $5
+3 Cards

You may discard a Seagull from your hand. If you do, choose one: +1 Action; or gain a Seagull.

Seagull is now a Smithy+. I think there's a lot of directions to go with this concept (a terminal drawer that discards nice cards to become a lab). This is where I'm going for this contest. If you make it into a lab, it's a pretty bad lab since it forces you discard your other could be labs in order to make it non-terminal. More likely, this is a smithy that when it terminal collides, you can gain another one... but wait, if your seagulls are terminally colliding... do you want to flood your deck with more Seagulls? That's your choice, of course.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 01, 2020, 04:48:21 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on August 01, 2020, 12:41:59 pm

If you flood your deck with Honey, you’ve mostly gained a ton of Silver.

No. You have gained a bunch of ton of Gold+.

You seem to be confused about how the game works: you can spend Coffers before you buy anything, i.e. you can play a Honey and then immediately spend the Coffers independent of whether you played a Honey before or not. You can also first spend the Coffers you got in a previous turn before you play Honey.
There is no downside at all, Honey is strictly better than Gold (ignoring the aforementioned edge cases like Gamble, Venture and Black Market).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 01, 2020, 05:02:22 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on August 01, 2020, 10:34:25 am

Quote from: segura on August 01, 2020, 08:25:08 am

Quote from: silverspawn on August 01, 2020, 07:43:48 am

I've never bought Leprechaun without intending to gain wishes, I believe.

Leprechaun misfires far more often than it hits and I have witnessed better players than me open with Leprechaun and win.

Well, since buying Leprechaun is evidence for a good deck, the "only one player bought it" statistics don't work here. The statistics for people who open with it look quite bad (silver/leprechaun openings have a 47% winrate) but the sample sizes are smaller.

I don't think I've ever opened Leprechaun, though I have seen my opponents do it a bunch.

I don’t see the relevance of these statistics. My point is that Leprechaun is first and above all a Gold gainer. The Hex is a downside, the Wish is an upside. The latter matters more but you get the Hex more often than the Wish.

So Leprechaun basically tells us that a vanilla Gold gainer is too good for $3. Bandit says, it is too weak at $5. So we get $4 as the correct price.

The question is whether it is a weak or good $4 and how much the two extras of Apiary interact with that. I think that it the vanilla gainer would be a slightly weakish $4, but that the two extras of Apiary more than make up for that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 01, 2020, 05:21:32 pm

Quote from: segura on August 01, 2020, 05:02:22 pm

My point is that Leprechaun is first and above all a Gold gainer. The Hex is a downside, the Wish is an upside. The latter matters more but you get the Hex more often than the Wish.

So Leprechaun basically tells us that a vanilla Gold gainer is too good for $3. Bandit says, it is too weak at $5. So we get $4 as the correct price.

Well, first of all, I don't agree with the bolded part. I think if you're buying Leprechaun expecting to get hexes, you're just making a mistake almost all of the time. I'm pretty sure I get a wish more than half of the time that I play it, and I virtually always buy it with a reasonable expectation to get a wish.

There is also no such thing as "stronger than 3$ and weaker than 5$". Cards that cost 3$ aren't weaker than cards that cost 4$. Weirdly, they're probably stronger. There is a jump from 3/4 to 5$; there's no jump from 3$ to 4$.

But most importantly, just because Gold + Hex is weak at 3/4 doesn't mean just gaining gold is balanced. It could also be weak, and if so gold + hex is just super-duper weak. You also can't conclude much from Bandit because it has the attack and is also empirically overvalued.

Gaining a spoils and giving your opponent a ruins seems to me much stronger than gaining a gold, and, as I said, Marauder is  empirically an overvalued card. If the card is weaker than Marauder and Marauder is weak at 4$, it's probably also weak at 4$.

Edit: though, I admit that the coffer of Honey is really nice. If this card is playable, I suspect it'll be because Honey > gold.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 01, 2020, 05:46:35 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on August 01, 2020, 05:21:32 pm

Quote from: segura on August 01, 2020, 05:02:22 pm

My point is that Leprechaun is first and above all a Gold gainer. The Hex is a downside, the Wish is an upside. The latter matters more but you get the Hex more often than the Wish.

So Leprechaun basically tells us that a vanilla Gold gainer is too good for $3. Bandit says, it is too weak at $5. So we get $4 as the correct price.

Cards that cost 3$ aren't weaker than cards that cost 4$. Weirdly, they're probably stronger.

Yeah, Village is totally stronger than Walled Village and Oasis is totally stronger than Poacher ...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on August 01, 2020, 09:34:10 pm

Regarding Honey, a simple solution would be to just add a "If this is the first Honey you play this turn, +1 Coffers". Then you prevent is being a Gold all the time but still allows stockpiling Coffers, if you want that to be a thing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 01, 2020, 11:31:22 pm

Updated submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/AEwdEyj.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on August 02, 2020, 12:54:02 am

(https://i.imgur.com/IrZrKAz.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 02, 2020, 04:08:44 am

Quote from: segura on August 01, 2020, 05:46:35 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on August 01, 2020, 05:21:32 pm

Quote from: segura on August 01, 2020, 05:02:22 pm

My point is that Leprechaun is first and above all a Gold gainer. The Hex is a downside, the Wish is an upside. The latter matters more but you get the Hex more often than the Wish.

So Leprechaun basically tells us that a vanilla Gold gainer is too good for $3. Bandit says, it is too weak at $5. So we get $4 as the correct price.

Cards that cost 3$ aren't weaker than cards that cost 4$. Weirdly, they're probably stronger.

Yeah, Village is totally stronger than Walled Village and Oasis is totally stronger than Poacher ...

You can find a card costing 4$ stronger than a card costing 3$. It's also true that you can find cards costing 4$ which are strictly stronger than cards costing 3$ and not vice-versa. But none of that tells you whether 3$s or 4$s are stronger on average.

In the 2018 list, the top five 4$ cards were [Remake, Bridge, Tournament, Wandering Minstrel, Villa], whereas the top five 3$ cards were [Ambassador, Masquerade, Steward, Cathedral, Urchin]. This is more relevant for the question, and it's certainly not obvious that the first group is stronger in absolute terms.

From a design perspective, the question of whether something costs 3$ or 4$ should be "do I want people to have the ability to open with two of those." This is unrelated to powerlevel. For example, Treasure Map would not be overpowered at 3$, but it would probably be bad if people could open with two of them. Conversely, Steward is certainly not "too weak at 4$" but we arguably want people to be able to open double Steward.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 02, 2020, 04:38:41 am

All that is true. But you totally ignore that we talked about Gold gainers, i.e. cards that are SIMILAR. Here the power level is always proportional to the price which is why a vanilla Gold gainer would require a price between Bandit and Leprechaun just like vanilla village needs a price between Native and Walled Village.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 02, 2020, 05:39:07 am

Okay, but it's still the case that "it's weaker than bandit and stronger than Leprechaun" doesn't prove it's correctly priced at 4$. That requires that Leprechaun as a gold-gainer is a reasonable purchase at 3$, which I don't think is true. I'm not sure if it's a worthwhile purchase at 0$. I'm not sure a terminal that says "gain a gold and a hex" is something you want in your deck even if you got it for free.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on August 02, 2020, 01:34:47 pm

Quote from: segura on August 01, 2020, 04:48:21 pm

You seem to be confused about how the game works: you can spend Coffers before you buy anything, i.e. you can play a Honey and then immediately spend the Coffers independent of whether you played a Honey before or not. You can also first spend the Coffers you got in a previous turn before you play Honey.
There is no downside at all, Honey is strictly better than Gold (ignoring the aforementioned edge cases like Gamble, Venture and Black Market).

Good point, I tend to leave Coffers to the end because I don't think about how much money I'll have before playing all my treasures beforehand.

There's a way to get it to work well, and I like the ideas I've been given but I don't think I'll get it sorted in time for the deadline. I'll keep working on this one as I like the concept though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 02, 2020, 02:34:44 pm

CONTEST 82 JUDGING

As per tradition, here I am late with my judging. Woops. So the rules of this contest were a bit farfetched, I hope that did not stop some of you guys to enter something. I just wanted to try something different to see how it’d go! But still, I’m very please with what you guys entered. Like always, the creativity y’all display here is always so damn interesting. ‘Tis a shame we always have to pick only one winner, that’s the only disappointment. :D

Feel free to discuss my judging should you have any disagreement and stuff. So here we go again:

Quote from: grep on July 26, 2020, 01:38:37 am

Way of the Coyote (Way)
You may discard a card for +2 Cards. You may discard a card for +2 Actions.

The two Vanilla effects are: +2 Cards and +2 Actions.
Another cool Way from Grep! Basically, this transforms any Action you have into a possible stronger Hamlet. Hey I like that! With this in play, it is Way (lmao pun) easier to build up your Engine. Terminal collision of 2 draw cards? No problem my dude, just Way of the Coyote one of them into a +2 Action. Too many Action but juuuuust not enough draw that turn? Way of the Coyote one of your extra +2 Actions card into a +2 Cards. I like that flexibility. Although maybe this makes things a little too easy for you? Even then, I can’t say I dislike it. It’s still very fun indeed!

Quote from: NoMoreFun on July 26, 2020, 04:32:40 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) Ring (Treasure – Victory)
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)
+1 Villager
-----
Worth 2(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) if you have 4 or more Villagers.

The two Vanilla effects are: (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) and +1 Villager.
Back when this didn’t have a cost, I theorized that this was worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png). I dunno, I thought it compared favourably to Harem. And the non-terminal way of acquiring Villagers is pretty strong. Note that I’m cool with this being worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png); I just think this seems like a pretty powerful card! This card would love to be Crown’d, that’s for sure.
I like the design here, it seems pretty sound. I feel like the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) clause is a little hard to get to. Perhaps it’s not even worth getting there, since I believe one will get more value in using their Villagers rather than pilling them up. Recruiter could invalidate that statement by trashing a Ring, but you know what I mean, hahaha!

Quote from: mandioca15 on July 26, 2020, 02:59:15 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Oubliette (Action)
+2 Cards
+1 Action
Reveal your hand. Discard the duplicates.

The two Vanilla effects are: +2 Cards and +1 Action.
A Laboratory that rewards deck variety. Cornucopia says hello! This doesn’t work too well when you need multiple copies of a card in your deck. In fact, you might even reduce your hand size playing an Oubliette if you’re careless enough! But it does get its usefulness in certain type of decks, especially because of how cheap it is to acquire one of these. This seems to be a little outclassed by Menagerie, but maybe I’m seeing the whole thing wrong here.

Quote from: silverspawn on July 26, 2020, 03:37:20 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Dragon (Action)
+3 Cards
You may trash a card you have in play other than a Dragon. If you do, +1 Action.

The two Vanilla effects are: +3 Cards and +1 Action.
Moving stuff in play during the middle of a turn is always risky since the never-sleeping community here will find a way to create infinite loops with that kind of power. Luckily, I’m not that far into the rabbit’s hole and I won’t try to come up with crazy scenarios where this is possible. :D
The trashing clause here implies that you’ve been able to play at least 1 other card before Dragon which gave way for more Actions. Like a crusty ol’ Pearl Diver or what have you. Dragon really benefit from eating those lil’ inexpensive cantrip fellows.
I can see Dragon really benefiting from those “return to your Action phase” cards. Like, Dragon and Villa is a no brainer and looks like a very good combo. Likewise, Dragon + Black Market; or Dragon + Storyteller can be pretty badass if played right. The fact that I’m already thinking about stuff like that means I do like the card, so yay! :D

Quote from: majiponi on July 26, 2020, 04:45:23 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) Sophia (Action)
+1 Action
Choose one: +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png); or +1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/10px-Potion.png).
-----
Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile costing at least (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/10px-Potion.png) to the Supply.

The two Vanilla effects are: +1 Action and +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png).
Interesting. But I dunno, I feel like I wouldn’t spend my hard earned (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) on this. There’s tough competition at that price. I’d even consider other disappearing money more, like Festival. Potion stuff is always a little weird. This also screws up a little bit with Alchemist and Apothecary. Especially if they are the “extra Kingdom” out and the only P costing Supply pile. But I can see this being cool with stuff like Scrying Pool.

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on July 26, 2020, 05:06:14 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Figurine (Treasure)
+1 Card
+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)
Put up to two cards from your hand on top of your deck.

The two Vanilla effects are: +1 Card and +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png).
I’d prefer if it was just a big (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) coin symbol on top of the +1 Card, that’d fit more with the other Treasure cards out there. :)
This self-replacing Copper is weird, maybe even a little weak. I get that you can topdeck unused (or just drawn) Action cards with this, but I dunno if I’m ready to spend (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) for a Figurine to do so. But it is an utility card and so I’m sure some peeps out there will find a perfect spot in their deck for a Figurine.

Quote from: alion8me on July 26, 2020, 11:08:32 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/54/Coin4star.png/16px-Coin4star.png) Yield (Treasure)
+1 Buy
Reveal your hand. +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) per different card type you reveal.
-----
During your turns, this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more per different card type you have in play.

The two Vanilla effects are: +1 Buy and +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png).
I think it’d be a little (and emphasis on the word “little”, for I do not think the problem is a major one at all) hard to remember how much each Yield can be, since with each play of them, you must reveal your hand. And that value can fluctuate. Like if you play a Yield, revealing another Yield, playing that other Yield and then revealing a Treasure-less hand (two different values for two different Yields). Bank’s like that too, but at least the cards are in play and so it’s easier to see how much (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) each Bank gives.
But like I said, that’s only a teeny-tiny minor complain, so let’s disregard that for a moment. I like the idea of Yield. Deck variety is always a fun thing to toy around with and Cornucopia proved that. The +1 Buy on Yield is appreciated and should help you enable that card more. In fact, any Treasure card with a +1 Buy (ore more, perhaps, if we’re being crazy) is very nice in my book. Overall, cool design!

Quote from: spineflu on July 27, 2020, 09:40:50 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Ikon (Treasure)
If you have an odd number of Ikons in play, +2 Cards. Otherwise, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png). You may discard an Action card to gain an Ikon.

The two Vanilla effects are: +2 Cards and +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png).
Weew, lots of Treasures this time around! Ikon’s nice, let’s not lie to ourselves here. Ikon could justify being in an Action heavy deck more than your average Treasure card and that is nice. This flexibility makes for interesting strategies. I could see someone opening Ikon/Chapel, trashing stuff with the good ol’ Chap at first and discarding it later for more Ikons and more sweet cash. Overall, a nice and sound design.

Quote from: mail-mi on July 27, 2020, 11:09:45 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) Mad Scientist (Action)
+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)
Trash 2 cards from your hand. If at least one costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) or more, gain a North Magnet and a South Magnet, both onto your deck.

Quote from: mail-mi on July 27, 2020, 11:09:45 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/54/Coin4star.png/16px-Coin4star.png) North Magnet (Action)
+2 Cards
+1 Buy
Look through your discard pile. You may reveal and play a South Magnet from your hand or discard pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote from: mail-mi on July 27, 2020, 11:09:45 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/54/Coin4star.png/16px-Coin4star.png) South Magnet (Action)
+1 Action
+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)
Look through your discard pile. You may reveal and play a North Magnet from your hand or discard pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)

The two Vanilla effects are: +2 Cards and +1 Buy AND +1 Action and +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png).
Nice! I like how the 2 cards to be gained both qualify for this “2 vanilla effects” contest. The flavour’s pretty neat! Mad Scientist is a nice trasher (albeilt a little late to get one, since, you know (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) for a Mad Scientist isn’t much early game anyway; although I’d consider it more for that propriety if it’s the only trasher in the Kingdom or with a 5/2 split). I like that the Scientist can trash one of his Magnets to get… more Magnets! And the Magnets themselves are pretty swell. When you gain ‘em, you’ll pretty much be able to play both of them together since they come together, which makes you look forward for your next turn. Together, these are pretty much a Grand Market (+2 Cards instead of +1 Card, but it takes you 2 cards to get there, so it cancels out). Anyway, I like it. And I feel like the trash condition to obtain the Magnets isn’t too punishing either, so it’s definitely worth considering.

Quote from: Xen3k on July 27, 2020, 06:51:44 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) Fairy Godmother (Action – Reaction – Fate)
+1 Buy
+(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)
Receive a Boon.
-----
When another player plays an Attack card, you may first reveal and discard this from your hand, to be unaffected by it. If you do, take a Boon. Receive it at the start of your next turn.

The two Vanilla effects are: +1 Buy and +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png).
There is, I think, a little too much text for my taste on this card. Donald said that Secret Chamber’s reaction was a little too confusing, now imagine his reaction (I hate myself for that pun) to Fairy Godmother. I believe that you can simply say “You may first discard this from your hand” instead of shoehorning a “reveal” in there.
Still, despite all this, I like the Boon receiving reaction. It’s pretty unique and makes for a cool effect!

Quote from: herw on July 28, 2020, 05:13:21 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/5d/Coin0.png/16px-Coin0.png) Dark Path (Action – Curse – Traveler)
+1 Action
-----
-2(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)
------
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Jungle.

Quote from: herw on July 28, 2020, 05:13:21 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/a9/Coin3star.png/16px-Coin3star.png) Jungle (Treasure – Traveler)
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)
-----
-2(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)
------
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Crossroad.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote from: herw on July 28, 2020, 05:13:21 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/5/54/Coin4star.png/16px-Coin4star.png) Crossroad (Treasure – Traveler)
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)
+1 Buy
-----
-3(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)
------
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Loophole.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote from: herw on July 28, 2020, 05:13:21 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/86/Coin5star.png/16px-Coin5star.png) Loophole (Treasure – Traveler)
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)
-----
-4(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)
------
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for a Atman.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote from: herw on July 28, 2020, 05:13:21 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/60/Coin6star.png/16px-Coin6star.png) Atman (Treasure – Victory)
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)
Trash this.
-----
2(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)
------
(This is not in the Supply.)

The two Vanilla effects are: (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) and +1 Buy.
Well this is pretty exotic. I mean, I know what you’re doing here, but this is very hard to play it in my head. It messes a lot with the Curse givers like Witch since you can now choose to take a Dark Path instead. It’s not too hard to exchange these since they are all non-Terminal… Still I’ll just say that I’m not too big of a fan of the last guy in this Traveler line, Atman, which might as well not have the 2(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) printed on it. This is the Dame Josephine syndrome all over again.
Also, it is weird that Crossroad has a +1 Buy slapped on it as opposed to the rest of this line. Like, why that one in particular? I mean, at least this is that one effect that makes this set of cards eligible for this week’s contest.
I wonder why Jungle, Crossroad and Loophole don’t have a Curse label on the bottom. I mean, they’re out-of-Supply cards anyway, not like you can gain them when being attacked by a Witch anyway.
Lastly, I’ll just say I’m not the biggest fan of cards with 2 dividing lines. A card with 2 dividing lines is a good indicator to see if your design is stepping too far into card weirdness; I feel like it screams to be streamlined at this point.
But yeah, this is too different from anything I’ve seen in Dominion for me to truly comprehend what’s going on there (non-terminal Curse Traveler line which ends on a self-trash instead of an overpowered card).

Quote from: scolapasta on July 28, 2020, 10:01:58 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Gondolier (Night – Reserve)
For each card you’ve bought this turn, +1 Coffers. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-----
At the start of your Buy phase, you may call this for +1 Buy.

The two Vanilla effects are: +1 Coffers and +1 Buy.
I think you have priced this correctly. Yes, non-terminal +Coffers can be quite scary design wise. I think, however, that this is done well here. The Coffers cannot be immediately spent when you’re player Gondoliers. Gondoliers also go directly on your Tavern mat, meaning that their Coffers gaining ability get disabled every other turn. So yeah, play 3 Gondoliers on a turn where you’ve bought 2 cards for 6 Coffers. I think this is fair. But you know what, I’m a little narrow minded too and I might not be seeing the bigger, game breaking combo here if it exists.

Quote from: D782802859 on July 29, 2020, 07:07:41 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) Carpenter (Action – Duration)
Either now or at the start of your next turn, +2 Cards.
-----
While this is in play, the first time you gain a Treasure card each turn, +1 Buy.

The two Vanilla effects are: +2 Cards and +1 Buy.
Heh that’s funny. Back in the days, I made a (crappy) set of card with my bro for Dominion and he made a card called Carpenter with that exact same picture as well. Ahhh good memories. :D
So yeah. At first, I was a little confused by the wording of “each turn”. I dunno what that meant. Then I understood that this mean both turns the Duration is in play. I feel like there could be a less awkward way of wording that, but heck if I know. The card itself is pretty swell. Big fan of the new “either now or at the start of your next turn” introduced in Menagerie, like with Barge. A good and sometimes tough choice to make. Especially with the bottom clause of this here Carpenter. Do you need more cards now to fire off the +Buy? Or are you okay now and so you can save those 2 extra cards in anticipation for your next turn? I like it!

Quote from: JimJammer on July 30, 2020, 11:13:30 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Jhum (Action)
Reveal your hand. Trash 3 cards from your hand costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) or more. If you did, then +2 Buys and +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png).

The two Vanilla effects are: +2 Buys and +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png).
Ouch, this seems rather harsh for whoever plays this. Trashing cards costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) or more? These are starting to be pretty valuable cards. And 3 of them? In your hand at once? Even if you weren’t punishing yourself so hard with Jhum, gathering the ingredients for the benefit to be fired is not the easiest task. And the reward is pretty underwhelming honestly. I’ll just buy a Capital instead, which also gives me (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) and a Buy at the cost of no Action and I’ll be punished less harshly for doing so.

Quote from: Marpharos on July 31, 2020, 05:52:53 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Apiary (Action)
Choose 1: +1 Villager and +1 Buy; or gain a Honey.

Quote from: Marpharos on July 31, 2020, 05:52:53 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/86/Coin5star.png/16px-Coin5star.png) Honey (Treasure)
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)
If you have no Coffers, +1 Coffers.
(This is not in the Supply.)

The two Vanilla effects are: +1 Villager and +1 Buy AND (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) and +1 Coffers.
Nice little duo of cards both falling in line within the rules of this week’s contest :) . I appreciate the effort you took to ensure that this came to be even if only one card was required to have 2 vanilla effects. That’s very thematic!
Apiary has trouble being paired with the Honeys it dispatches since you probably want a draw card in your deck to have a bunch of Honeys at once. The +1 Villager and +1 Buy choice is a little disappointing, since you’ll eat through that Villager to play more Actions. So it’s one less card in your hand for an extra Buy. No truly, I think the “gain a Honey” clause is where it’s at. ‘Cuz Honey seems pretty swell to me. Play one Honey, spend the Coffers immediately, play another Honey, spend that other Coffers immediately, rinse and repeat.

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 01, 2020, 01:17:35 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) Seagull (Action)
+3 Cards
You may discard a Seagull from your hand. If you do, choose one: +1 Action; or gain a Seagull.

The two Vanilla effects are: +3 Cards and +1 Action.
A Smithy plus like you said. Or like a Forum, really, where you discard one less card, but a more valuable one. Difference between this and Forum is that this can gain another Seagull at the cost of your Action, whereas Forum gives a +Buy on gain. 2 niche effects, but that have a reason to exist. I like Seagull, it seems sound to me. The choice on a “if you do” thingy is a little funky, but the card itself is pretty simple anyway, so it’s fine.

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 01, 2020, 11:31:22 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) Extort (Action – Duration – Attack)
Until the start of your next turn, when a player ends their Buy phase with less than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png), +1 Card and they draw one less card for their next hand. At the start of your next turn, +2 Coffers.

The two Vanilla effects are: +1 Card and +2 Coffers.
First, I’ll say that I’m glad you gave this a name :) . I know this sounds silly, but I feel like the name plays a part of the whole card creation process, just like the price of the card does, just like the effects of the card does, etc.
Anyway, for the card itself: On a lil’ technical note, I think it’d be better to say “(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) unspent” (see Wine Merchant) for more clarity.
Okay, so I realize that this is unlikely, but what if you have a couple of err… Extorts out? At 3 Extorts in play, a careless opponent might end up with a starting hand of 2 cards for their next turn. Likewise, you could simply King’s court an Extort to get that effect. In fact, I’m pretty sure you can pin your opponent with this. King’s Court > King’s Court > Extort > Extort is sufficient to lock an opponent who has less than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) in unspent (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png). Because they’d then start their next turn with 0 cards, which means they’d have less than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) in unspent (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) once more. So you can lock their turns.

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 02, 2020, 12:54:02 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) Crumbling City (Action)
+2 Cards
+2 Actions
-----
When you discard this from play, set it aside and put it into your discard pile at the end of the turn (after drawing).

The two Vanilla effects are: +2 Cards and +2 Actions.
A pretty sexy (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) card. I kinda like the consequence of this Lost City variant, with its weird Faithful Hound mechanic of doing something directly after you draw your next hand. In fact, it’d be cool if more cards in Dominion did stuff like that, affecting your discard pile for your next turn and preventing these cards-into-discard-pile to be drawn in your next hand no matter what. I tried to do something like this in the Variant subcategory of the Dominion Discord server (you may remember what it was), but it was pretty eeeeeeh. Here, the idea is exploited way better. I like Crumbling City. And I feel like asking (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) for that card is correct.

---

Semifinalists: Gondolier; Ring; Mad Scientist; Seagull; Dragon

Finalist: Way of the Coyote; Ikon

Winner: Crumbling City


A late addition to this contest by Something_Smart, and yet a very interesting one, Crumbling City swoops in and snatch the Victory for this week. :D

Placing those finalists/semifinalists was torture. I kept changing them around. Dragon and Seagull were both finalists at first, but then I kept switching stuff around. In the end, I settled with this placement for the cards. This is cruel at best, hahaha!

Anyway, thank you everyone for your patience. Now the ball is in Something_Smart’s camp!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: herw on August 03, 2020, 01:43:01 am

congrats to Something_Smart with Crumbling city :)

As X-tra's comments on Dark Path are very long I have the wish to add the idea although I thought that it is clear.

Quote from: X-tra on August 02, 2020, 02:34:44 pm

[...]

Quote from: herw on July 28, 2020, 05:13:21 am

Dark Path (Traveller)

(https://imgur.com/crxzH2I.png) (https://imgur.com/3tsq9fY.png) (https://imgur.com/IYWFr1G.png) (https://imgur.com/i0aJ1gY.png) (https://imgur.com/TT9MZNQ.png)

The two Vanilla effects are: (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) and +1 Buy.
Well this is pretty exotic. I mean, I know what you’re doing here, but this is very hard to play it in my head. It messes a lot with the Curse givers like Witch since you can now choose to take a Dark Path instead. It’s not too hard to exchange these since they are all non-Terminal… Still I’ll just say that I’m not too big of a fan of the last guy in this Traveler line, Atman, which might as well not have the 2(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) printed on it. This is the Dame Josephine syndrome all over again.
Also, it is weird that Crossroad has a +1 Buy slapped on it as opposed to the rest of this line. Like, why that one in particular? I mean, at least this is that one effect that makes this set of cards eligible for this week’s contest.
I wonder why Jungle, Crossroad and Loophole don’t have a Curse label on the bottom. I mean, they’re out-of-Supply cards anyway, not like you can gain them when being attacked by a Witch anyway.
Lastly, I’ll just say I’m not the biggest fan of cards with 2 dividing lines. A card with 2 dividing lines is a good indicator to see if your design is stepping too far into card weirdness; I feel like it screams to be streamlined at this point.
But yeah, this is too different from anything I’ve seen in Dominion for me to truly comprehend what’s going on there (non-terminal Curse Traveler line which ends on a self-trash instead of an overpowered card).
[...]

Well I think this contest is made to give new ideas a chance nevertheless conform to Donald's idea. I chose a traveller's line because I like to have decisions while playing a strategy.
Dark Path is a decision on their way. The two important cards here are in the middle Crossroad and at the end Atman.
First as you said Dark Path is a curse which is an alternative to Donald's curse. So the decision is to get it by a witch or maybe by yourself with a buy at the lowest possible costs.
Why are jungle, crossroad and loophole no curses? hm - I bet that there would have been a discussion why you cannot get them by a witch or a buy although it is clear as you mentioned: as traveller they are not in the supply. I add the colour of a curse because I want to remember that they are used at the end of the game for calling victory points. That i need to add two lines in text is Donald's decision, I don't like two lines too, especially here as the symbol of -VP is big enough ;) .
But now to the Crossroad and Atman.
The principle is at every step in this line: you get a better treasure but more -VP. So you don't know whether you end up with the whole line. As they are non terminals you can always exchange them to the next traveller.
In the middle of the dark path there is Crossroad, better than gold because of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) +1 Buy but -3(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png). So perhaps your decision is: it is a powerful treasure but is it worth the Minus-Victory points? It depends on the game: perhaps it will be a short game ( <18 turns? ) or is it a long game, so you can travel through the whole line? - your decision. While play testing I got the impression, that you can play both buying or getting two lines.
Now after your decision the second important card is Atman (BTW it is not a guy, but philosophical expression). Indeed it is another decision. It is clear after exchanging from Crossroad to Loophole you want to get Atman. Loophole is much money but has no +1 buy like Crossroad. So your goal is to exchange it to Atman, mostly near the endgame.
Once you played Loophole you loose the Minus-Victory point and get +2 VP instead :) . So it is like getting a province instead (loosing -4VP and getting +2 VP) but with much money while traveling.
But there is another interesting decision effect of Atman: There are (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/60/Coin6star.png/16px-Coin6star.png) but you have to trash it when playing and you loose 2VP! On the other side maybe you have at your last turn(s) a +1 buy (perhaps with Crossroad!) and you can empty province pile or other attractive winners. But the other player have a chance too. As Atman is a treasure perhaps there is a treasure-trasher in the supply ;) .
So it is your decision. There are many interferences to other Dominion cards - try and have fun.
Dark Path is an interesting decision-strategy and gives a new idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on August 03, 2020, 02:00:23 am

Thank you, X-tra! I know I was tossing around some earlier ideas using the same concept of returning a card to your discard pile after drawing a new hand, but I'm happier with this one where it's a curse rather than a blessing.

Anyway, on to Contest 83. I bet this name has already been taken, but I can't be arsed to check.

Contest 83: Bigger is Better: Design a card or landscape that has a big number in it.

Obviously, what qualifies as a "big number" is subjective and context-dependent. Drawing 3 cards isn't very big, but gaining 3 Golds definitely is. My advice would be to compare your card to other cards with similar effects and see where it stands; if it's on the higher end of the spectrum, it's likely going to be fine. I won't disqualify anyone if I don't think their card is big enough, but I would say that for vanilla bonuses other than +Buy a big amount would be 4 or more, and for most other things 3 or more would be enough.

You can have a card with a big cost, but it would be nice if the big cost were there because of some big effect the card has, rather than just being unrelated.

Some official cards and landscapes that would satisfy this criterion include: Council Room, Baron, Treasure Map, Tactician, Platinum, Trusty Steed, Embassy, Poor House, Beggar, Feodum, Death Cart, Hunting Grounds, Wine Merchant, Capital, Royal Blacksmith, Windfall, Dominate, Fool, Pooka, Acting Troupe, Scholar, Snowy Village, Animal Fair, Stampede, and Envoy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 03, 2020, 04:52:31 am

(https://i.imgur.com/iAVkhEh.png)
I'm guessing 3 exiles is big.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 03, 2020, 06:29:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ntMW1w5.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 03, 2020, 07:57:36 am

Quote from: pubby on August 03, 2020, 04:52:31 am

(https://i.imgur.com/iAVkhEh.png)
I'm guessing 3 exiles is big.

I designed this card

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200803/zg3f7rbk.png)

For my expansion years ago.

... is that a coincidence?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 03, 2020, 08:02:32 am

couple questions: 1 - the printed number has to be big, not that a card has "explosive synergy potential" or whatever?
So like, this doesn't cut it?:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f27fc82f5b5196b4c26b5c0/07d97d03c3f2d934c25c5a6822629332/image.png)

2- does Mountain Pass qualify as an official landscape w big number?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on August 03, 2020, 08:22:14 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 03, 2020, 08:02:32 am

couple questions: 1 - the printed number has to be big, not that a card has "explosive synergy potential" or whatever?
So like, this doesn't cut it?:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f27fc82f5b5196b4c26b5c0/07d97d03c3f2d934c25c5a6822629332/image.png)

2- does Mountain Pass qualify as an official landscape w big number?

1 - As I said I'm not going to DQ anything, I see the contest criteria as less of a requirement and more of an inspiration. Your card doesn't literally have a high number printed on it, but in practice it seems to be pretty easy to use it to gain 4 or more cards at once which is certainly a lot, so I would say it fits well enough.

2 - Absolutely! I knew there were a few I was forgetting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 03, 2020, 08:32:27 am

Serious submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200803/7twxh8j6.png)

Joke Submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200803/b6ysifra.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 03, 2020, 08:40:30 am

ok cool then Sorceror will be my entry
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f27fc82f5b5196b4c26b5c0/07d97d03c3f2d934c25c5a6822629332/image.png)

Quote

Sorceror • $4^ • Action
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it, then gain a card costing exactly $2 more than it, and so on until there is a price not present in the Supply.

FAQ: if there is no card costing exactly $1 more, this stops there, you do not gain the $2-more-than-it card.

Thematically the card kind of resembles the plot of The Sorceror's Apprentice more than the Sorceror, but that great "conjure a butterfly" still works thematically with Way of the Butterfly for what it does.

This will, when trashing an Estate, be able to snag at least a Silver and a Potion (dubious whether that's good) and if there's a $5, that and a gold.

---

My alternate was less thrilling
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f27fc82f5b5196b4c26b5c0/72af7aa1bef0ab2955f064f154180b13/image.png)
and probably has some tempo issues.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: JimJammer on August 03, 2020, 09:26:16 am

(https://i.imgur.com/sj8JZIz.png?1)

20 in the pile

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on August 03, 2020, 10:27:12 am

Art School
cost $4 - Action
Gain a card costing up to $6.
Each other player may gain a card costing up to $3.

EDIT: This card is discarded.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 03, 2020, 12:15:02 pm

Quote from: majiponi on August 03, 2020, 10:27:12 am

Art School
cost $4 - Action
Gain a card costing up to $6.
Each other player may gain a card costing up to $3.

I like this but fear that there are too many Kingdoms without decent $2s and $3s. And when there are, the crazy piling could make Art School too centralizing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on August 03, 2020, 12:23:01 pm

Bequest (Event, $0)

Once per game: +$5, +1 Buy.

A Free Platinum! When will you use yours?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 03, 2020, 12:56:47 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on August 03, 2020, 12:23:01 pm

Bequest (Event, $0)

Once per game: +$5, +1 Buy.

A Free Platinum! When will you use yours?

Well, if there are junkers or trashers you will definitely use it in the opening.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 03, 2020, 03:40:48 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on August 03, 2020, 07:57:36 am

I designed this card

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200803/zg3f7rbk.png)

For my expansion years ago.

... is that a coincidence?

Ha, I just randomly picked a name and went with the first google image search.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on August 03, 2020, 06:28:49 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/116731270_772543519951993_7052560247698526099_n.png?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=4AY8AmYLF5wAX-SJDG7&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=5a8d33c6d25c1ef4ddf01f8e2f0f015f&oe=5F4F167D)

Quote

Warband - $7
Action - Attack - Looter
Gain a Horse and a Spoils.
Each other player gains a Ruins to the top of their deck.
If this is the first time you played a a Warband this turn, each player (including you) reveals their hand. You may gain a copy of a Victory or Treasure card revealed this way.

Yeah, so this may be a bit excessive, and I am not sure about the wording on the second half or if 7 is the right price, but this is what I came up with.

Edit: Updated the text on the second half of the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 03, 2020, 10:44:36 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on August 03, 2020, 06:28:49 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/116822075_297084178198587_2508469731063869579_n.png?_nc_cat=103&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=au6JAKcG6f0AX8igoNF&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=d6d051ccb22fe030ed34cf5b1f900954&oe=5F4CE937)

Quote

Warband - $7
Action - Attack - Looter
Gain a Horse and a Spoils.
Each other player gains a Ruins to the top of their deck.
The first time you play a Warband this turn, each player (including you) reveals their hand. You may gain a copy of a Victory or Treasure card revealed this way.

Yeah, so this may be a bit excessive, and I am not sure about the wording on the second half or if 7 is the right price, but this is what I came up with.

It is a bit unclear on when you mean for the last part to trigger. If you start your turn and play a single Warband, does it happen? Or do you mean for it to set up a thing that will happen when you next play one? As worded, it's a weird mix of both concepts and isn't clear which one you meant.

Look at Crossroads (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Crossroads) for a simple wording to make it so that it only happens the first time you play a Warband each turn. If you meant it to happen on the second play of Warband, you should say "the next time" instead of "the first time". Alternatively you could use a wording such as "if you have exactly 2 Warbands in play (including this)"; which would have some different interactions with Throne Room, Overlord, etc, but still usually work out the same.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on August 03, 2020, 11:03:53 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 03, 2020, 10:44:36 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on August 03, 2020, 06:28:49 pm

...

It is a bit unclear on when you mean for the last part to trigger. If you start your turn and play a single Warband, does it happen? Or do you mean for it to set up a thing that will happen when you next play one? As worded, it's a weird mix of both concepts and isn't clear which one you meant.

Look at Crossroads (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Crossroads) for a simple wording to make it so that it only happens the first time you play a Warband each turn. If you meant it to happen on the second play of Warband, you should say "the next time" instead of "the first time". Alternatively you could use a wording such as "if you have exactly 2 Warbands in play (including this)"; which would have some different interactions with Throne Room, Overlord, etc, but still usually work out the same.

Thanks a bundle! I completely forgot about Crossroads and was trying to Frankenstein the text for Merchant into what I wanted.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on August 03, 2020, 11:11:46 pm

Quote from: segura on August 03, 2020, 12:15:02 pm

Quote from: majiponi on August 03, 2020, 10:27:12 am

Art School
cost $4 - Action
Gain a card costing up to $6.
Each other player may gain a card costing up to $3.

I like this but fear that there are too many Kingdoms without decent $2s and $3s. And when there are, the crazy piling could make Art School too centralizing.

I tried giving $4, but too easy to piling out Art School, Duchy, and Estate.  We already have Governor, so giving $6 and $3 is ok.  I let gaining a Gold to avoid piling out too easily.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 04, 2020, 12:41:58 am

You will mostly gain $5s with this, not Golds.
In Kingdoms without decent cheap cards, it is nearly as good as Artisan.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 04, 2020, 03:35:19 am

Quote

Geologist - Action, $5 cost.
The player to your left names a type. Reveal your hand. +5 Cards less 1 for each card in your hand with the named type. If they named Action or Treasure, +1 Action.

You get a nice draw card of some description most of the time, with some situations where it's particularly bad or good.
A poor opponent to one's left and time to resolve might be issues. As might '+5 Cards less 1'; should it be 'draw 5 cards less 1' to be clearer you don't always draw 5 cards?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 04, 2020, 03:43:01 am

Business loan
9 Debt - Event
+ 5$
Spend any amount of $ to gain exactly two cards together costing up to the amount spent.

Please let me know if this has any rules issues. I think that you can spend $ even if you have debt, but you cannot buy cards. I also don't like the wording that much.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 04, 2020, 04:02:31 am

Quote from: Aquila on August 04, 2020, 03:35:19 am

Quote

Geologist - Action, $5 cost.
The player to your left names a type. Reveal your hand. +5 Cards less 1 for each card in your hand with the named type. If they named Action or Treasure, +1 Action.

You get a nice draw card of some description most of the time, with some situations where it's particularly bad or good.
A poor opponent to one's left and time to resolve might be issues. As might '+5 Cards less 1'; should it be 'draw 5 cards less 1' to be clearer you don't always draw 5 cards?

Use "minus" instead of "less". "Less" makes no grammatical sense, and reducing the amount of something you gain is often a bit akward, especially when drawing cards. Maybe use "Set aside 5 cards from the top of your deck (face down). The player to your left names a card type. Reveal your hand. For each revealed card with the named card type, discard one of the set aside cards. Put the rest into your hand." I feel like +1 action as a bonus is way too strong on a drawing card, and it creates a lot of variation between different decks. Maybe it is actually balanced, but it doesn't seem super fun playing this and drawing no cards. Maybe the bonus should be if you draw less than 2 cards. Its greatly varying drawing power makes it unreliable and oftern unviable in engines.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Alsterschwan on August 04, 2020, 08:46:29 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 04, 2020, 04:02:31 am

Quote from: Aquila on August 04, 2020, 03:35:19 am

Quote

Geologist - Action, $5 cost.
The player to your left names a type. Reveal your hand. +5 Cards less 1 for each card in your hand with the named type. If they named Action or Treasure, +1 Action.

You get a nice draw card of some description most of the time, with some situations where it's particularly bad or good.
A poor opponent to one's left and time to resolve might be issues. As might '+5 Cards less 1'; should it be 'draw 5 cards less 1' to be clearer you don't always draw 5 cards?

Use "minus" instead of "less". "Less" makes no grammatical sense, and reducing the amount of something you gain is often a bit akward, especially when drawing cards. Maybe use "Set aside 5 cards from the top of your deck (face down). The player to your left names a card type. Reveal your hand. For each revealed card with the named card type, discard one of the set aside cards. Put the rest into your hand." I feel like +1 action as a bonus is way too strong on a drawing card, and it creates a lot of variation between different decks. Maybe it is actually balanced, but it doesn't seem super fun playing this and drawing no cards. Maybe the bonus should be if you draw less than 2 cards. Its greatly varying drawing power makes it unreliable and oftern unviable in engines.

Quote

The player to your left names a type. Reveal your hand. +1 Card per revealed card without that type.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 04, 2020, 10:14:47 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 04, 2020, 04:02:31 am

Use "minus" instead of "less". "Less" makes no grammatical sense

I agree that it's not ideal for card wording, but that actually is a proper usage of "less". A common similar sentence might be "I got paid $50, less $10 in taxes". One listed definition of "less" is as a preposition, meaning "minus".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 04, 2020, 10:20:35 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 04, 2020, 10:14:47 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 04, 2020, 04:02:31 am

Use "minus" instead of "less". "Less" makes no grammatical sense

I agree that it's not ideal for card wording, but that actually is a proper usage of "less". A common similar sentence might be "I got paid $50, less $10 in taxes". One listed definition of "less" is as a preposition, meaning "minus".

Okay, sorry, I'm not a native english speaker.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on August 04, 2020, 02:17:24 pm

Assuming this fits with the theme this week, here's my submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/tiMGHRz.png)

Bank Teller
Action - $5

Quote

Play up to 3 Treasures from your hand. Then pay all of your $ and +1 Coffers per $1 you paid.
-
At the start of Clean-up, take (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png) per Treasure in play and then you may pay off (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png).

This is probably horribly broken, but I thought Storyteller was a good basis for a card becoming big. And obviously this is the theme for 'teller cards...
Absolutely no playtesting involved with this one, and seeing as this can go big with either Coffers or Debt I'm inclined to leave it as long as it fits the competition this week. I used Storyteller and Capital to figure out the wordings of these, so should be good!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 04, 2020, 03:26:49 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/D7Y8xjpS/Master-plan-V1-EN.png)

This is to King's Court what Royal Carriage is to Throne Room. The name "Master plan" follows the footsteps laid by Mastermind.

It's not particularly creative and I'm sure that card has been done before, but eh. I'm okay with that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 04, 2020, 03:31:07 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 04, 2020, 03:26:49 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/D7Y8xjpS/Master-plan-V1-EN.png)

This is to King's Court what Royal Carriage is to Throne Room. The name "Master plan" follows the footsteps laid by Mastermind.

It's not particularly creative and I'm sure that card has been done before, but eh. I'm okay with that.

I think this could get away with costing $6 (or $7 but certainly not $8) as it is unable to chain which is arguably the strongest part of King's Court.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 04, 2020, 03:45:52 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 04, 2020, 03:31:07 pm

I think this could get away with costing $6 (or $7 but certainly not $8) as it is unable to chain which is arguably the strongest part of King's Court.

Royal Carriage costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than Throne Room. The situation is the same here, except that this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than King's Court. That's the benchmark I'll base my pricing on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on August 04, 2020, 04:21:15 pm

Maybe too crazy/situational:

Quote

Name: Committee
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $5
Turn your Journey token over (it starts face up). Then if it's face up, the player to your left chooses a non-Command action card in the supply for you to play 5 times, leaving it there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on August 04, 2020, 04:29:06 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 04, 2020, 03:45:52 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 04, 2020, 03:31:07 pm

I think this could get away with costing $6 (or $7 but certainly not $8) as it is unable to chain which is arguably the strongest part of King's Court.

Royal Carriage costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than Throne Room. The situation is the same here, except that this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than King's Court. That's the benchmark I'll base my pricing on.

But the comparison is very different, because King's Courting a King's Court nets you an extra play of King's Court (as compared to just playing them both separately) whereas Throne Rooming a Throne Room does not net you an extra play of Throne Room. So losing that functionality when going from Throne Room to Royal Carriage isn't a huge loss, but losing the analogous functionality when going from King's Court to Master Plan is a pretty significant loss (in exchange for the Royal Carriage-like flexibility).

If both KC and Master Plan cost $7 and they were both on the board, I'd probably take one Master Plan for consistency but otherwise take King's Courts. So $7 seems like a fair price, and $6 might even be reasonable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 04, 2020, 04:59:24 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 04, 2020, 03:45:52 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 04, 2020, 03:31:07 pm

I think this could get away with costing $6 (or $7 but certainly not $8) as it is unable to chain which is arguably the strongest part of King's Court.

Royal Carriage costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than Throne Room. The situation is the same here, except that this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) more than King's Court. That's the benchmark I'll base my pricing on.

Well, I disagree. KC-KC is so much better than TR-TR that it is anything but clear that the Royal Carriage > TR notion holds when applied to KC.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 04, 2020, 05:16:29 pm

Hmmm. I see you guys’ point. It seems that what Master Plan brings in reliability, it loses in combo with itself. Okay, that tradeoff is enough for me to lower the price. I will edit my entry post later.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 04, 2020, 05:18:54 pm

My first entry ever in this Design Contest thread:
(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200804/7v4n2yth.png)

What is Big:
- How often The Round Table can play a card.
- The cost of The Round Table.
- The penalty when the opponents gain Wishes.
- The table in the artwork.

Why Debt:
- To avoid that The Round Table is a target for other cards (after cost reduction), especially Wishes and Emulators (e.g. Overlord).
- Everyone can afford The Round Table, i.e. no one gets a big advantage when they hit a high $ price point much earlier than others.

Why “up to”:
Gives more flexibility on how often a target card can be played. 

Rules:
- Choose how often you want to play the target card before you play it, i.e. in practice, right after you moved it from your hand to the playing area, and before you start following its instructions.
- Each other player gains a Wish after the player finished playing a card a third time, and another Wish after the player finished playing it the fourth time.

Tracking: A suggestion for tracking how often a card is played by The Round Table is to add 1 token to the targeted card for each time it is played (those tokens have no other purpose in the game and are removed when the card leaves play). This is especially helpful when multiple The Round Tables and Duration cards are involved.

It seems that there are some big Throne Room variants presented already.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 04, 2020, 09:10:14 pm

Would sinister plot count for this contest?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on August 04, 2020, 11:24:53 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 04, 2020, 09:10:14 pm

Would sinister plot count for this contest?

Hmm. It would count, but it doesn't feel very big, so it probably wouldn't do that well. But you can do something that uses a similar mechanic, yes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 05, 2020, 01:24:25 am

(https://i.imgur.com/knoZw7F.png)

A Cornucopia Woodcutter which I have used for some time. Seems crazy at first, but surprisingly it rarely yields more than 3 Coins. But in the right circumstances (Black Market or Villa are obvious combos), it can become huge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 05, 2020, 02:21:49 am

(https://i.imgur.com/HZVYahW.png)

Quote

Investor - 16D
Action

Lose 3D. Gain a card costing up to the amount of D you have in $.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 05, 2020, 02:29:00 am

Quote from: Marpharos on August 04, 2020, 02:17:24 pm

Assuming this fits with the theme this week, here's my submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/tiMGHRz.png)

Bank Teller
Action - $5

Quote

Play up to 3 Treasures from your hand. Then pay all of your $ and +1 Coffers per $1 you paid.
-
At the start of Clean-up, take (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png) per Treasure in play and then you may pay off (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/81/Debt.png/18px-Debt.png).

This is probably horribly broken, but I thought Storyteller was a good basis for a card becoming big. And obviously this is the theme for 'teller cards...
Absolutely no playtesting involved with this one, and seeing as this can go big with either Coffers or Debt I'm inclined to leave it as long as it fits the competition this week. I used Storyteller and Capital to figure out the wordings of these, so should be good!

Not commenting on how good this is, but there is no reason for it to have a dividing line.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 08:37:08 am

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on August 04, 2020, 04:21:15 pm

Maybe too crazy/situational:

Quote

Name: Committee
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $5
Turn your Journey token over (it starts face up). Then if it's face up, the player to your left chooses a non-Command action card in the supply for you to play 5 times, leaving it there.

This could quickly get horrible with forced trashers, maybe the player playing it should be able to name a card to exclude?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 05, 2020, 09:01:33 am

The design of the card is already such that it will be garbage on a lot of kingdoms. For example, suppose there is counting house. Or Workshop without good support. Or Beggar. I don't think anything changes fundamentally if you can exclude one card.

Being garbage on a lot of kingdoms isn't a property that means the card isn't good for the game. It just means it'll be a card that's rarely used but (perhaps) sometimes very strong. There are some official cards that are like that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on August 05, 2020, 11:06:17 am

I believe, gaining 5 Coppers qualifies as Big Number.

(https://i.ibb.co/hWzXGgj/image.png)
Fountain of Tears
$4D3 - Action
Gain up to 5 Coppers into your hand.

You can grab this as early as in the first two turns trying to rush Provinces, but the slow down effect of Coppers is severe enough to make this strategy not very feasible.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 05, 2020, 11:34:06 am

Quote from: grep on August 05, 2020, 11:06:17 am

I believe, gaining 5 Coppers qualifies as Big Number.

(https://i.ibb.co/hWzXGgj/image.png)
Fountain of Tears
$4D3 - Action
Gain up to 5 Coppers into your hand.

You can grab this as early as in the first two turns trying to rush Provinces, but the slow down effect of Coppers is severe enough to make this strategy not very feasible.

Gardens would like to say hi. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 02:34:48 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 04, 2020, 03:43:01 am

Business loan
9 Debt - Event
+ 5$
Spend any amount of $ to gain exactly two cards together costing up to the amount spent.

Please let me know if this has any rules issues. I think that you can spend $ even if you have debt, but you cannot buy cards. I also don't like the wording that much.

This is no longer my entry. Here is my new one:
(https://i.imgur.com/ETHJ5uy.png?1)

Quote

Depot
5$ - Action-Reaction
+1 Action
Do this five times:
Discard a card; draw up to 5 cards
-
When you discard this other than during cleanup you may reveal it for +1 Coffers

New version later in the thread

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 05, 2020, 02:43:37 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 02:34:48 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 04, 2020, 03:43:01 am

Business loan
9 Debt - Event
+ 5$
Spend any amount of $ to gain exactly two cards together costing up to the amount spent.

Please let me know if this has any rules issues. I think that you can spend $ even if you have debt, but you cannot buy cards. I also don't like the wording that much.

This is no longer my entry. Here is my new one:
(https://i.imgur.com/ETHJ5uy.png?1)

Quote

Depot
5$ - Action-Reaction
+1 Action
Do this five times:
Discard a card; draw up to 5 cards
-
When you discard this other than during cleanup you may reveal it for +1 Coffers

Interesting, but I'm worried it will be too long/tedious to resolve. Every time you play the card you have 5 different decisions to make.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 05, 2020, 02:44:49 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 02:34:48 pm

Depot
5$ - Action-Reaction
+1 Action
Do this five times:
Discard a card; draw up to 5 cards
-
When you discard this other than during cleanup you may reveal it for +1 Coffers

Fun idea but it's a little too strong. If your discard pile is empty and you have two Depots in hand, you can play one and repeatedly discard the other one to get +5 Coffers. Besides that, it still may be too strong compared to say, library or cursed village.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 02:54:30 pm

Quote from: pubby on August 05, 2020, 02:44:49 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 02:34:48 pm

Depot
5$ - Action-Reaction
+1 Action
Do this five times:
Discard a card; draw up to 5 cards
-
When you discard this other than during cleanup you may reveal it for +1 Coffers

Fun idea but it's a little too strong. If your discard pile is empty and you have two Depots in hand, you can play one and repeatedly discard the other one to get +5 Coffers. Besides that, it still may be too strong compared to say, library or cursed village.

This is really hard to get to, because you have to have played or trashed enough cards to have drawed your deck and still have 5 or less cards in hand. But you're right, it is very strong, I think that I will increase the cost to 6 or remove the +1 Action.

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 05, 2020, 02:43:37 pm

...
Interesting, but I'm worried it will be too long/tedious to resolve. Every time you play the card you have 5 different decisions to make.

You're right. I will also accomodate for this in my new version. Thank you for your feedback!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 05, 2020, 03:09:39 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 02:34:48 pm

Quote

draw up to 5 cards

What does this mean? Draw until 5 in hand or draw 0-5 cards (I guess the first one)?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 05, 2020, 03:54:05 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 05, 2020, 03:09:39 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 02:34:48 pm

Quote

draw up to 5 cards

What does this mean? Draw until 5 in hand or draw 0-5 cards (I guess the first one)?

Funny I didn't notice this before; but the standard wording is "draw until you have 5 cards in hand". Maybe to avoid this potential ambiguity.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LostPhoenix on August 05, 2020, 03:59:46 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 05, 2020, 03:09:39 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 02:34:48 pm

Quote

draw up to 5 cards

What does this mean? Draw until 5 in hand or draw 0-5 cards (I guess the first one)?

I'll give Jonatan the benefit of the doubt and say they didn't submit something that can draw 25 cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 04:04:41 pm

Quote from: LostPhoenix on August 05, 2020, 03:59:46 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 05, 2020, 03:09:39 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 02:34:48 pm

Quote

draw up to 5 cards

What does this mean? Draw until 5 in hand or draw 0-5 cards (I guess the first one)?

I'll give Jonatan the benefit of the doubt and say they didn't submit something that can draw 25 cards.

Haha, I didn't notice that either. Well, new version up soon  :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 05, 2020, 04:08:55 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 05, 2020, 03:09:39 pm

What does this mean? Draw until 5 in hand or draw 0-5 cards (I guess the first one)?

Quote

Funny I didn't notice this before; but the standard wording is "draw until you have 5 cards in hand". Maybe to avoid this potential ambiguity.

Quote

I'll give Jonatan the benefit of the doubt and say they didn't submit something that can draw 25 cards.

Me too, and I didn't want to sound harsh, but "up to" is a quite common phrase in Dominion terminology and, as you pointed out, can have a totally different outcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 04:17:13 pm

Here's the new version! Hopefully everything is fixed. It cycles through a lot of cards, which is good for tournament or treasure map, but hopefully it is balanced and fun. It doesn't work in big drawing engines with treasure payload, but in engines with lots of stop cards it can be powerful.

(https://i.imgur.com/iasPEl9.png)

Quote

Depot
5$ - Action-Reaction
Do this three times:
Discard two cards; draw until you have 5 cards in hand.
-
When you discard this other than in clean-up you may set it aside. If you do: +2 Coffers and discard it during clean-up

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 05, 2020, 04:33:36 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 04:17:13 pm

Here's the new version! Hopefully everything is fixed. It cycles through a lot of cards, which is good for tournament or treasure map, but hopefully it is balanced and fun. It doesn't work in big drawing engines with treasure payload, but in engines with lots of stop cards it can be powerful.

(https://i.imgur.com/iasPEl9.png)

Quote

Depot
5$ - Action-Reaction
Do this three times:
Discard two cards; draw until you have 5 cards in hand.
-
When you discard this other than in clean-up you may set it aside. If you do: +2 Coffers and discard it during clean-up

Quote

and discard it during clean-up

I don't want to be too nit-picky, but is this last part necessary (or does it even make sense)?
Edit: Forgot to say, that this looks much better than the previous version.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 05, 2020, 04:36:54 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 05, 2020, 04:33:36 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 04:17:13 pm

Quote

and discard it during clean-up

I don't want to be too nit-picky, but is this last part necessary (or does it even make sense)?

It is necessary... set-aside cards aren't discarded by default.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 05, 2020, 04:39:35 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 05, 2020, 04:36:54 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 05, 2020, 04:33:36 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 04:17:13 pm

Quote

and discard it during clean-up

I don't want to be too nit-picky, but is this last part necessary (or does it even make sense)?

It is necessary... set-aside cards aren't discarded by default.

You are absolutely right. I totally missed the set aside part. Edit: Just to add, I totally had a blind spot for the Reaction part, probably because I was happy with it in the first version. My Brain just picked up the words "discards...other than clean-up...+2 Coffers".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: WillhelmSchulz on August 05, 2020, 05:57:48 pm

My first entry in this contest.

(https://i.imgur.com/Ewm0fEA.png)


Designed to encourage Action chaining. In some way, a different, though optional Bandit Fort.
I am still unsure about it's price, might be to cheap.

Any feedback is always welcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on August 05, 2020, 06:46:19 pm

Quote from: WillhelmSchulz on August 05, 2020, 05:57:48 pm

My first entry in this contest.

(https://i.imgur.com/Ewm0fEA.png)


Designed to encourage Action chaining. In some way, a different, though optional Bandit Fort.
I am still unsure about it's price, might be to cheap.

Any feedback is always welcome.

I really like it, but I do have to say it ends up being an expensive Duchy if there is no trashing available.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 05, 2020, 09:37:21 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 05, 2020, 11:34:06 am

Quote from: grep on August 05, 2020, 11:06:17 am

I believe, gaining 5 Coppers qualifies as Big Number.

(https://i.ibb.co/hWzXGgj/image.png)
Fountain of Tears
$4D3 - Action
Gain up to 5 Coppers into your hand.

You can grab this as early as in the first two turns trying to rush Provinces, but the slow down effect of Coppers is severe enough to make this strategy not very feasible.

Gardens would like to say hi. :)

and guildhall

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 05, 2020, 09:54:40 pm

Contest 83: Bigger is Better Submission

Okay, got a wild one. Two big cards

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/3zrwduvw.png) (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/18q294vl.png)

Quote

Refine - Action - $4
Trash a card from your hand. Choose one: Gain a card that shares one of its types costing up to $3 more; or gain a card costing less than or equal to the trashed card.
Heirloom: Graveyard Key

Quote

Graveyard Key - Treasure - Heirloom - Duration - $0
You may pay $1. If you do, at the start of your next turn, you may put every non-Victory card in the trash into your hand and you may trash this.
-
Setup: Each player gets +1 Coffers.

Okay, there's a lot of concepts together here but it's the best way to balance it. The big Graveyard key allows you to gain tons of cards at once. In a two-player game with good trashing, that means you're gaining 14 coppers... wow! So big!. Graveyard Key is a confusion in your deck, that you can pay $1 to get rid of, and/or open the graveyard (gain all non-victory cards from trash). The higher cost of Graveyard Key is keeping it in your deck as a confusion and not-self trashing it until there's enough cards in the trash to be worth it. I needed to make some higher cost for the "gain all cards in the trash" so that's why the Graveyard Key is a self-junker that can also self-trash. I am unsure of the price for it.

But, graveyard key would only be useful if there are good cards in the trash. That's why it comes paired with a card that gives you a reason to put things in the trash. Refine is "big" for the "up to $3 more." Despite the $3 clause, it's actually fairly weak, you can't turn estates into action cards. You can, over two shuffles, turn an estate into a duchy and then turn that duchy into a 5-cost. In the end game, you can't turn golds into province, dang. I would probably buy Remodel over this card most times. It's weak, but I think still interesting and priced appropriately.

I am totally open to feedback on these cards, of course! I'm considering pricing Graveyard Key at $1 so that it can be refined into a Caravan, for example. Or even costing it 2 to be refined into a Den of Sin, Wharf, etc. Graveyard Key does have that helpful Duration type on it. Is Refine, too weak? I'm considering having the same-or-less-cost gain go to hand. (the $3 more can't go to hand because then it's strictly better than mine).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 06, 2020, 02:20:34 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 05, 2020, 09:54:40 pm

Contest 83: Bigger is Better Submission

Okay, got a wild one. Two big cards

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/3zrwduvw.png) (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/18q294vl.png)

Quote

Refine - Action - $4
Trash a card from your hand. Choose one: Gain a card that shares one of its types costing up to $3 more; or gain a card costing less than or equal to the trashed card.
Heirloom: Graveyard Key

Quote

Graveyard Key - Treasure - Heirloom - Duration - $0
You may pay $1. If you do, at the start of your next turn, you may put every non-Victory card in the trash into your hand and you may trash this.
-
Setup: Each player gets +1 Coffers.

Okay, there's a lot of concepts together here but it's the best way to balance it. The big Graveyard key allows you to gain tons of cards at once. In a two-player game with good trashing, that means you're gaining 14 coppers... wow! So big!. Graveyard Key is a confusion in your deck, that you can pay $1 to get rid of, and/or open the graveyard (gain all non-victory cards from trash). The higher cost of Graveyard Key is keeping it in your deck as a confusion and not-self trashing it until there's enough cards in the trash to be worth it. I needed to make some higher cost for the "gain all cards in the trash" so that's why the Graveyard Key is a self-junker that can also self-trash. I am unsure of the price for it.

But, graveyard key would only be useful if there are good cards in the trash. That's why it comes paired with a card that gives you a reason to put things in the trash. Refine is "big" for the "up to $3 more." Despite the $3 clause, it's actually fairly weak, you can't turn estates into action cards. You can, over two shuffles, turn an estate into a duchy and then turn that duchy into a 5-cost. In the end game, you can't turn golds into province, dang. I would probably buy Remodel over this card most times. It's weak, but I think still interesting and priced appropriately.

I haven't even gotten the chance to talk about the strategic implications of starting with $6 and a coffer have on your deck. It means that there is a higher chance that you can choose a 5/2 or 4/3 opening (It is possible to get stuck with a 5/2 if you have a hand of 5 coppers and a hand of 3estate, 1 copper, 1 Graveyard Key. But other than that one possibility, everyone get's to choose their opening. Yay!). Then there's the -- when do I sacrifice 1$ to trash this card?

I am totally open to feedback on these cards, of course! I'm considering pricing Graveyard Key at $1 so that it can be refined into a Caravan, for example. Or even costing it 2 to be refined into a Den of Sin, Wharf, etc. Graveyard Key does have that helpful Duration type on it. Is Refine, too weak? I'm considering having the same-or-less-cost gain go to hand. (the $3 more can't go to hand because then it's strictly better than mine).

I think that you would rarely use graveyard key, because if you're not the first one to use it you gain the other one from the trash! I don't think that is intended.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 06, 2020, 02:45:47 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 05, 2020, 04:17:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iasPEl9.png)

Quote

Depot
5$ - Action-Reaction
Do this three times:
Discard two cards; draw until you have 5 cards in hand.
-
When you discard this other than in clean-up you may set it aside. If you do: +2 Coffers and discard it during clean-up

I played a game with this with my dad, and I think that this is the final version. Here are my thoughts:

It is hard to make it work in an engine, since you don't want to draw a lot of cards and since it doesn't give +actions. With cards on the board to make up for that, especially Fishing Village that doesn't draw and gives +actions on your next turn so you can play Depot immediately, you can probably get it to work excellently. I think that it works great in big money decks too. With a bit of Gold and some Depots you can get $8 pretty consistantly, and with the added sifting you can green especially early without damaging your deck.

Overall a big and clumsy card that is powerful if you get it right! And I think that that is (or at least a part of) the intent of this challenge.

This isn't the final version!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 06, 2020, 05:52:16 am

Quote from: Xen3k on August 05, 2020, 06:46:19 pm

Quote from: WillhelmSchulz on August 05, 2020, 05:57:48 pm

My first entry in this contest.

(https://i.imgur.com/Ewm0fEA.png)


Designed to encourage Action chaining. In some way, a different, though optional Bandit Fort.
I am still unsure about it's price, might be to cheap.

Any feedback is always welcome.

I really like it, but I do have to say it ends up being an expensive Duchy if there is no trashing available.

That problem could be solved when Mountain is a trasher itself, e.g. when gained. This needs an extra dividing line, but I think you don't need the existing one. I also think you can skip the "but not less than 0 VP". If someone accumulates Treasures and goes for Mountains, then they are doomed anyway (Mountain of Doom).
So, my suggestions:

Quote

Worth 10 VP, less 1 VP for each treasure in your deck.
--------------------------------------
When you gain this, you may trash a card from your hand.

Some other possibilities for on-gain trashing:

Quote

When you gain this, choose one, trash a card from your hand; or each other player gains a Silver.

Quote

When you gain this, trash a card from your hand and each other player gains a Silver.

Quote

When you gain this, you may trash any treasure from your hand.

The cost of the card should be accordingly adjusted (whatever that means).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 06, 2020, 07:12:01 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 04, 2020, 04:02:31 am

Quote from: Aquila on August 04, 2020, 03:35:19 am

Quote

Geologist - Action, $5 cost.
The player to your left names a type. Reveal your hand. +5 Cards less 1 for each card in your hand with the named type. If they named Action or Treasure, +1 Action.

You get a nice draw card of some description most of the time, with some situations where it's particularly bad or good.
A poor opponent to one's left and time to resolve might be issues. As might '+5 Cards less 1'; should it be 'draw 5 cards less 1' to be clearer you don't always draw 5 cards?

Use "minus" instead of "less". "Less" makes no grammatical sense, and reducing the amount of something you gain is often a bit akward, especially when drawing cards. Maybe use "Set aside 5 cards from the top of your deck (face down). The player to your left names a card type. Reveal your hand. For each revealed card with the named card type, discard one of the set aside cards. Put the rest into your hand." I feel like +1 action as a bonus is way too strong on a drawing card, and it creates a lot of variation between different decks. Maybe it is actually balanced, but it doesn't seem super fun playing this and drawing no cards. Maybe the bonus should be if you draw less than 2 cards. Its greatly varying drawing power makes it unreliable and oftern unviable in engines.

This was trying to create interesting player interaction, but you're right, it's too swingy overall and you don't want swingy draw amounts. It's rather like a draw to X in practice anyway. Player interaction is hard to do well!

So thanks for this feedback. I'm scrapping this and going with a new entry in a card I've already made:

Quote

Migrate - Event, $3 cost.
Once per game: +1 Action and +1 Buy. You may trash an Action from your hand to put your deck and discard pile into your hand. Return to your Action phase.

Draw your whole deck at the cost of $3 and an Action card. You can flood your deck with all the stuff you like then go with the ultimate mega turn, but timing it can take skill. Swinginess might be a problem as well in that you may not get a good hand to buy this at the optimal time.

---

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 05, 2020, 09:54:40 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/3zrwduvw.png) (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/18q294vl.png)

Quote

Refine - Action - $4
Trash a card from your hand. Choose one: Gain a card that shares one of its types costing up to $3 more; or gain a card costing less than or equal to the trashed card.
Heirloom: Graveyard Key

Quote

Graveyard Key - Treasure - Heirloom - Duration - $0
You may pay $1. If you do, at the start of your next turn, you may put every non-Victory card in the trash into your hand and you may trash this.
-
Setup: Each player gets +1 Coffers.

I'm wondering if Graveyard Key isn't too vulnerable to swinginess and/or seating order. In the case where the trash has rapidly filled up and players are holding on to their keys, whoever happens to play their key first can get a huge swing in their favour. You could either limit how many cards are taken from the trash or make the key an Event to make it always available when you want it.

Refine looks like it's at the right price if its Rebuild function isn't too much.

---

Edit: added +1 Action to Migrate, thanks gambit05 for noticing. Made the Action card trash optional in case you just want the +Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 06, 2020, 07:49:54 am

I Realized that two coffers is way too much on my card, they strongly discourage many discarding attacks or cards like Rabble and Fortune Teller. Also gets overpowered with Hunting Party. Here is the new version:
(https://i.imgur.com/HJsTy83.png)

Quote

Depot
5$ - Action-Reaction
Do this three times:
Discard two cards; draw until you have 5 cards in hand
-
When you discard this other than during Clean-up you may set it aside. If you do: +1 Villager and discard it at the end of the turn

1 Villager instead of 2 Coffers fixes this issue and also gets rid of some of the terminal collision it brings. Maybe this is also overpowered, but hopefully it works okay.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: WillhelmSchulz on August 06, 2020, 08:04:28 am

Quote from: gambit05 on August 06, 2020, 05:52:16 am

Quote from: Xen3k on August 05, 2020, 06:46:19 pm

Quote from: WillhelmSchulz on August 05, 2020, 05:57:48 pm

My first entry in this contest.

(https://i.imgur.com/Ewm0fEA.png)


Designed to encourage Action chaining. In some way, a different, though optional Bandit Fort.
I am still unsure about it's price, might be to cheap.

Any feedback is always welcome.

I really like it, but I do have to say it ends up being an expensive Duchy if there is no trashing available.

That problem could be solved when Mountain is a trasher itself, e.g. when gained. This needs an extra dividing line, but I think you don't need the existing one. I also think you can skip the "but not less than 0 VP". If someone accumulates Treasures and goes for Mountains, then they are doomed anyway (Mountain of Doom).
So, my suggestions:

Quote

Worth 10 VP, less 1 VP for each treasure in your deck.
--------------------------------------
When you gain this, you may trash a card from your hand.

Some other possibilities for on-gain trashing:

Quote

When you gain this, choose one, trash a card from your hand; or each other player gains a Silver.

Quote

When you gain this, trash a card from your hand and each other player gains a Silver.

Quote

When you gain this, you may trash any treasure from your hand.

The cost of the card should be accordingly adjusted (whatever that means).

Thank you for your feedback. You've got some very good points. And you are absolutly right, it didn't need the dividing line in its first form.
Mountain of Doom would be fun, but I see it very problematic with swindler. That in it self could be fixed by lowering/increasing its price, but I don't really want to increase its price any further.
I kept the updated version as simple as possible, but I really liked this suggestions:

Quote

When you gain this, trash a card from your hand and each other player gains a Silver.

Here is my updated entry - Mountain:
(https://i.imgur.com/NyCOCu3.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 06, 2020, 09:20:46 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 06, 2020, 02:20:34 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 05, 2020, 09:54:40 pm

Contest 83: Bigger is Better Submission

Okay, got a wild one. Two big cards

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/3zrwduvw.png) (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/18q294vl.png)

Quote

Refine - Action - $4
Trash a card from your hand. Choose one: Gain a card that shares one of its types costing up to $3 more; or gain a card costing less than or equal to the trashed card.
Heirloom: Graveyard Key

Quote

Graveyard Key - Treasure - Heirloom - Duration - $0
You may pay $1. If you do, at the start of your next turn, you may put every non-Victory card in the trash into your hand and you may trash this.
-
Setup: Each player gets +1 Coffers.

Okay, there's a lot of concepts together here but it's the best way to balance it. The big Graveyard key allows you to gain tons of cards at once. In a two-player game with good trashing, that means you're gaining 14 coppers... wow! So big!. Graveyard Key is a confusion in your deck, that you can pay $1 to get rid of, and/or open the graveyard (gain all non-victory cards from trash). The higher cost of Graveyard Key is keeping it in your deck as a confusion and not-self trashing it until there's enough cards in the trash to be worth it. I needed to make some higher cost for the "gain all cards in the trash" so that's why the Graveyard Key is a self-junker that can also self-trash. I am unsure of the price for it.

But, graveyard key would only be useful if there are good cards in the trash. That's why it comes paired with a card that gives you a reason to put things in the trash. Refine is "big" for the "up to $3 more." Despite the $3 clause, it's actually fairly weak, you can't turn estates into action cards. You can, over two shuffles, turn an estate into a duchy and then turn that duchy into a 5-cost. In the end game, you can't turn golds into province, dang. I would probably buy Remodel over this card most times. It's weak, but I think still interesting and priced appropriately.

I haven't even gotten the chance to talk about the strategic implications of starting with $6 and a coffer have on your deck. It means that there is a higher chance that you can choose a 5/2 or 4/3 opening (It is possible to get stuck with a 5/2 if you have a hand of 5 coppers and a hand of 3estate, 1 copper, 1 Graveyard Key. But other than that one possibility, everyone get's to choose their opening. Yay!). Then there's the -- when do I sacrifice 1$ to trash this card?

I am totally open to feedback on these cards, of course! I'm considering pricing Graveyard Key at $1 so that it can be refined into a Caravan, for example. Or even costing it 2 to be refined into a Den of Sin, Wharf, etc. Graveyard Key does have that helpful Duration type on it. Is Refine, too weak? I'm considering having the same-or-less-cost gain go to hand. (the $3 more can't go to hand because then it's strictly better than mine).

I think that you would rarely use graveyard key, because if you're not the first one to use it you gain the other one from the trash! I don't think that is intended.

That’s not true. You may choose to gain the cards from the trash. You don’t have to.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 06, 2020, 09:37:15 am

Quote from: Aquila on August 06, 2020, 07:12:01 am

Quote

Migrate - Event, $3 cost.
Once per game: +1 Buy. Trash an Action from your hand to put your deck and discard pile into your hand. Return to your Action phase.

Is it on purpose that you return to your Action phase without +1 Action (= Cavalry), or do you want to also give +1 Action (= Villa)?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 06, 2020, 11:52:00 am

Changed Master Plan's cost:

(https://i.postimg.cc/tqGC7hKr/Master-Pan-V2-EN.png)

I get that this was too expensive at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png). But Master Plan is either a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) or a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png). But not a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) (because, y'know, Royal Carriage). I tried (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png) here, but maybe this is still not right? It's definitely better than the previous version at least.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 06, 2020, 12:28:41 pm

You can make it stronger by removing the "if it's still in play" clause. I don't like it on Royal Carriage, but it makes significantly less sense here since it doesn't prevent the card from being played without being in play. (For example, you could Play Mining Village, then Call Master Plan, play Mining Village and trash it, play mining village again anyway. This works with the current wording.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 06, 2020, 12:35:21 pm

But I don't want to fall into the weirdness of calling a Master Plan on a Master Plan you've just played. I believe this is why Royal Carriage had that clause in the first place, or part of the reason why.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 06, 2020, 12:36:01 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 06, 2020, 11:52:00 am

Changed Master Plan's cost:

(https://i.postimg.cc/tqGC7hKr/Master-Pan-V2-EN.png)

I get that this was too expensive at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png). But Master Plan is either a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) or a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png). But not a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) (because, y'know, Royal Carriage). I tried (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bc/Coin7.png/16px-Coin7.png) here, but maybe this is still not right? It's definitely better than the previous version at least.

Maybe I miss something, but I have the feeling that this has all the benefits of King's Court plus something, and thus is strictly better.
When I look at the following two scenarios:
1) You have KC vs. Master Plan and a strong card in your hand. They have the same outcome.
2) You have KC vs Master Plan and no Action card in hand. KC is for nothing, but Master Plan waits on the Tavern mat for better times (and they can be even piled up there).
What about making Master Plan a Night-Reserve card?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 06, 2020, 01:29:07 pm

No. You cannot do KC-KC with this which is why it is weaker than KC.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 06, 2020, 01:40:22 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 06, 2020, 12:35:21 pm

But I don't want to fall into the weirdness of calling a Master Plan on a Master Plan you've just played. I believe this is why Royal Carriage had that clause in the first place, or part of the reason why.

I don't get why that's such a big problem. I actually wanted to do it once for the +1 Action and was frustrated that you couldn't do it.

I mean, sure, yeah, it's slightly confusing. But who cares?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 06, 2020, 02:06:22 pm

Quote from: segura on August 06, 2020, 01:29:07 pm

No. You cannot do KC-KC with this which is why it is weaker than KC.

Good point! So, when you play KC to its full capacity it is better.
If both, KC and Master Plan are in the same Kingdom, decent trasher and all components for a strong engine available, which of the two would you first buy?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 06, 2020, 02:16:46 pm

At $7 always KC as there is a small chance that KC duds in the situation you described.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 06, 2020, 03:30:13 pm

Quote from: segura on August 06, 2020, 02:16:46 pm

At $7 always KC as there is a small chance that KC duds in the situation you described.

If both are of equal cost, still with the same situation described, I think I'd do Master Plan > King's Court > King's Court > etc... There is no real downside of running with only 1 Master Plan, as it can be used to replay a King's Court for the same effect of King's Courting a King's Court. And the upside is that it won't dud, ever, as opposed as a dead King's Court hand. As we go further into that game, King's Court are probably better. But one Master Plan is not bad to have.

In a Master Plan only game, I can still see it being viable. It takes that special kind of game though. Now I wonder if Master Plan should have its cost reduced to a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)... It's starting to be pretty good for its price down there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 06, 2020, 04:16:30 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 06, 2020, 03:30:13 pm

Quote from: segura on August 06, 2020, 02:16:46 pm

At $7 always KC as there is a small chance that KC duds in the situation you described.

If both are of equal cost, still with the same situation described, I think I'd do Master Plan > King's Court > King's Court > etc... There is no real downside of running with only 1 Master Plan, as it can be used to replay a King's Court for the same effect of King's Courting a King's Court. And the upside is that it won't dud, ever, as opposed as a dead King's Court hand. As we go further into that game, King's Court are probably better. But one Master Plan is not bad to have.

In a Master Plan only game, I can still see it being viable. It takes that special kind of game though. Now I wonder if Master Plan should have its cost reduced to a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)... It's starting to be pretty good for its price down there.

That is really interesting. I would tend to go for Master Plan first (1x) and then KC, like X-tra mentioned, but I am in no way a strong player. Thanks both of you for your input. Anyway, an interesting card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 06, 2020, 04:53:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/0bwCjrn.png)

A golem but not really. Watch out! If it plays a copper you can't buy another one. I think playing up to four cards counts as big?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 06, 2020, 05:03:13 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 06, 2020, 09:37:15 am

Quote from: Aquila on August 06, 2020, 07:12:01 am

Quote

Migrate - Event, $3 cost.
Once per game: +1 Buy. Trash an Action from your hand to put your deck and discard pile into your hand. Return to your Action phase.

Is it on purpose that you return to your Action phase without +1 Action (= Cavalry), or do you want to also give +1 Action (= Villa)?

Sure, at first I may have thought no Action to try and make it a bit more skillful, but that's really making things more open to swinginess in getting the starting hand just right. With +Action you can do some stuff to activate the big draw, so all the buildup won't be for nothing so easily. So:

Quote

Migrate - Event, $3 cost.
Once per game: +1 Action and +1 Buy. You may trash an Action from your hand to put your deck and discard pile into your hand. Return to your Action phase.

Like this you can get just the +Action if you really want, which might suit a thinner engine deck that draws itself every turn. In a way though, it could be less interesting with this option there? Like if you were going with a big buildup strategy, but there was one turn where getting the +Action by itself was the correct thing to do.
Leaving it like this for now, more functionality is generally good.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on August 06, 2020, 05:57:37 pm

Does this qualify?
The effect is REALLY big.

(https://abload.de/img/manera_del_chupacabrad8jdb.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on August 06, 2020, 06:44:59 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/RDoz0vO.png?1)

A simple project for this week. Strong sifter, but it lowers your handsize.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 06, 2020, 10:18:33 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 06, 2020, 06:44:59 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/RDoz0vO.png?1)

A simple project for this week. Strong sifter, but it lowers your handsize.

Not only is this really really good, but also will take way too long to resolve.
For reference, playing warehouse twice gives +6, discard six, so this is almost as good as a free double warehouse each turn

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on August 06, 2020, 11:04:37 pm

Tenshukaku (Japanese Throne Room)
cost $5 - Action
You may play an Action card from your hand twice.
If you have at least 3 Tenshukakus in play, replay that Action card.


Masterpiece has a big number, doesn't it? Its variant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 07, 2020, 12:51:42 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 06, 2020, 10:18:33 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 06, 2020, 06:44:59 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/RDoz0vO.png?1)

A simple project for this week. Strong sifter, but it lowers your handsize.

Not only is this really really good, but also will take way too long to resolve.
For reference, playing warehouse twice gives +6, discard six, so this is almost as good as a free double warehouse each turn

Warehouse net draws 2, not 3; two Warehouses thus reduce handsome by 2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 07, 2020, 01:05:18 am

Quote from: spheremonk on August 06, 2020, 05:57:37 pm

Does this qualify?
The effect is REALLY big.

(https://abload.de/img/manera_del_chupacabrad8jdb.png)

Please move to the "Really Bad Card Ideas" thread  ;D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on August 07, 2020, 07:44:40 am

Quote from: spheremonk on August 06, 2020, 05:57:37 pm

Does this qualify?
The effect is REALLY big.

(https://abload.de/img/manera_del_chupacabrad8jdb.png)

That's definitely one way to win, I suppose Lord Rattington would have to take over in these games?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 08, 2020, 10:37:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/1s2hnN4.png)

Quote

Arboretum

At the beginning of each of your turns, you may gain an Action card costing up to $5 to your hand if you have no tokens here. Otherwise, remove a token.

-

When you buy this, put 5 tokens here.

8 Debt
Project

An idea I originally presented in the variants channel of the discord server. I've only had a chance to test it once since then but it at least confirmed that these numbers are OK.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 09, 2020, 06:36:57 am

Quote from: alion8me on August 08, 2020, 10:37:03 pm

Arboretum

At the beginning of each of your turns, you may gain an Action card costing up to $5 to your hand if you have no tokens here. Otherwise, remove a token.

Cool idea. It seems like you would buy it either turn 1 or never. Maybe you could replace the tokens with debt: "If you have no debt, you may gain a card", and then make it cost like 15 debt. That way you could buy it later in the game and still use it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 09, 2020, 06:55:25 am

I am not so sure. If there is a trasher or some other crucial card, you might very well open with that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on August 09, 2020, 10:42:29 am

Hey, it's been a while since I participated in this contest.
I will try to enter more often now. Here is my entry for this week:

(https://i.imgur.com/g190O1s.png)

At first look, it does not satisfy the contest's conditions. But if you think of it, with the possibility of triple any non-Victory card you like, you can go big pretty fast. Just think of Platinum or King's Court, to name some examples.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on August 09, 2020, 08:13:34 pm

I will extend the deadline by an extra 12 hours to account for the fact that I was out of town over the weekend and haven't had much of a chance to look at the new entries. So this is an 18 hour warning.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on August 10, 2020, 03:06:40 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on August 06, 2020, 05:57:37 pm

Does this qualify?
The effect is REALLY big.

(https://abload.de/img/manera_del_chupacabrad8jdb.png)

We (now just I) play tested this a few times last night, and it turns out, both 2P and multiway, it leads to some very short games.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on August 10, 2020, 03:38:48 pm

Okay, time to get to this. I was able to playtest some of the cards last week, but unfortunately I was busy over the weekend and today so I was not able to playtest the later entries. I'll try to keep things fair despite this.

Inquisition by pubby (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg849811#msg849811)
This feels surprisingly balanced for how potentially nutty it looks. Its closest relative is Camel Train, which is way easier to get ahold of, but more costly to use. The condition of having no cards in Exile makes it a bit of a gamble; you can spring for expensive cards but it's going to be a long time before you can use it again, or you can grab some cheaper cards and be able to get Inquisition again in a few turns. A comparison to Pilgrimage can also be drawn; Pilgrimage is essentially $8 and 2 buys for whatever 3 non-Victory cards you want, whereas this is $6 and 1 buy for the same with the added requirement that you have to gain a copy of each before you get it from this. I like it.

Colorburst by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg849812#msg849812)
So this is nuts. I sure did bring it on myself with this prompt, but oh boy does this make potions into a powerful payload. It certainly biases towards engines, which is interesting, but it also just makes building big really really easy, like if you have a good enough engine you can just add potions until you can buy out everything. It's fun to play with, but it might be frustrating if your opponent collides potions while building and you don't. There's skill to colliding them of course, like Treasure Map, but unlike Treasure Map it does something you actually want in the early and midgame.

Stronghold by silverspawn (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg849822#msg849822)
In playtesting I never bought this, but admittedly I was playtesting against a not-particularly-strong bot and usually Provinces were enough to win with. Stronghold is, well, it's a victory card. It's almost always another Province pile, and usually better. In fact it pretty much seems like another Colony pile to me. Assuming the decks get big enough, winning the Stronghold split should decide the game. Given that the price tag is so high, it seems pretty unlikely that you would play this that differently than you would play Colonies, except for obviously not getting it if you don't expect your deck to reach at least 30 cards-- like I wouldn't skip trashing probably. I might load up on cheap cantrips I suppose. But a lot of the time I feel like this has a similar flaw to Fairgrounds where specifically building to maximize the score from it is not worth it so you just pick it up when you want some VP and whatever it's worth it's worth.

Sorceror by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg849823#msg849823)
This is brokenly powerful. The price of $4P makes it worse because it's easy to build to hit $4P on your third shuffle and then still miss it, and if your opponent hit it then you just lose. Being able to gain four good cards (Gold is a good card if you're not buying it) while thinning an Estate is absolutely centralizing, it's like Populate but you don't have to build to it. And god help you if there's a $7 in the kingdom... sure I'll take a King's Court and a Province on top of all the other goodies I'm getting.

Uprising by JimJammer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg849827#msg849827)
While I was playtesting this I forgot about having 20 in a pile and I only remembered it after I no longer had the time, but it doesn't seem to make a huge difference. This just does nothing unless it does everything, and I think the type of deck where you actually have use for it is like no thinning, no draw, no fast money strategy, good villages, and a particular reason to want your whole deck in your hand. And even then you need to waste enough turns getting Uprisings so that you can actually have one at the bottom of your shuffle. Like... maybe I can use this for a Bridge or Horn of Plenty megaturn? But that's still quite slow, and outside of the specific situation mentioned it seems pretty useless.

Bequest by mandioca15 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg849837#msg849837)
Pretty interesting given the question of whether to use it in the opening or not. It has a similar vibe to Seize the Day where you use it to pounce on something important, but less impactful. (Unless there's no +Buy in which case Seize is just sad.) I don't have a ton to say about this; it's nice, but a little dull, and it does feel kinda bad to use this for just +$1 to open with a $5, though there are surely situations where that's right. I do like stuff that gives more opening options though.

Warband by Xen3k (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg849869#msg849869)
Top part is pretty cool, though it could probably benefit from the Sea Hag restriction to keep Ruins from stacking up in multiplayer. I don't really get why the bottom half can give you free Provinces, though. Like doesn't that seem a little unbalanced to you? Gaining free Provinces is pretty good.

Bank Teller by Marpharos (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850000#msg850000)
This might be me being dumb, but I really don't see the appeal of this card. I'm paying $5 for a terminal stop card that lets me save a little bit of my money for later in return for... taking on a bunch of debt? It lets you go crazy with coffers but the cost of doing so is so high, I really struggle to see when this would be helpful. It's obviously better when playing bigger treasures, but the more you're able to collide it with big treasures, the more deck control you have and the less useful the coffers are anyway. I bought this a few times for playtesting purposes, but I felt like I was hurting myself each time I played it, rather than helping.

Committee by scott_pilgrim (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850024#msg850024)
This is too crazy/situational. I like the idea, but this just becomes bad as soon as there's one bad card on the board. Non-stacking actions like Counting House and Watchtower, forced trashers like Trader and Remake, drivel like Beggar, not to mention that if you play this as the payload for an engine your opponent can just name a draw card which doesn't help you much. I get that some cards are bad on certain boards. But this is bad if any other action in the kingdom is bad, which is just too common.

The Round Table by gambit05 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850040#msg850040)
Flexibility is nice. Balance seems pretty off. Wishes are, like, insanely good. There are very few actions that it would be worth giving the opponent a Wish to play a second time, unless I'm trying to end the game (like sure, The Round Table/Bridge can megaturn just like KC/Bridge can, but only a few cards are like that).

Pumpkin King by segura (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850078#msg850078)
I would like this more if it could find some way to be useful on money boards. As it is, it pretty much exclusively exists as an engine payload, and a pretty strong one at that although you need to basically already have the engine so it will be frustrating to build with. It seems pretty narrow in its use cases; you need to have at least two cards played before it for it to really be useful at all, and really at least three for it to be good, so you need to reliably be able to play that many actions. And, like, it's fine when you are? I wouldn't go out of my way to add more uniques like I would for Horn of Plenty or maybe Menagerie. And it's terrible when you aren't.

Investor by faust (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850087#msg850087)
This is quite a cool card. It reminds me of stuff like Rats in how it can wreck your deck if you're not really careful, but it can be pretty strong when played right. I tried playing an engine with Investor payload, and it was not overpowered or anything, but it was pretty inconsistent, and you really have to take care to add the Investor(s) late enough that you can just stop building (unless you have gainers). Quite an interesting card, and close enough in the realm of balanced to make me not hate it.

Fountain of Tears by grep (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850122#msg850122)
You know what the problem with Beggar is? That it doesn't give you enough Coppers. I'm sure if Beggar gave you even more Coppers then more people would buy it! :P Jokes aside, I don't really see the appeal of this outside of a few combos that people have mentioned (Gardens, Guildhall, arguably Triumph, arguably Monastery). Gaining Coppers is just... not something I'd like to be doing most of the time. I don't buy Beggar very much and when I do it's usually purely for the reaction.

Mountain by WillhemSchulz (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850192#msg850192)
My main complaint with this is similar to my one with Stronghold, only even worse because it costs the same as Province. When I have $8 and want to green, it's easy to determine whether Mountain or Province is going to be better for me. And, it's unlikely that I'll really build my deck around scoring with Mountain-- if I can use actions rather than treasures for my economy, I'd often want to be doing that anyway. There are times I can think of that I would build a deck with fewer treasures so I could score with Mountain, but I feel like that's obviously the right choice on a lot of boards where it's feasible. And then there's also the issue that someone pointed out of no Copper trashing making this garbage. I think Vineyard just does the concept of encouraging Actions better.

Refine/Graveyard Key by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850213#msg850213)
At first glance, Refine looks terrible to me. It's like a bad Rebuild, or a bad Mine, or a bad Graverobber. Sure, you get all three modes for only $4, but it also loses pretty much all the attractive parts of all three (if they can even be said to be attractive in the first place). Graveyard Key, on the other hand, is quite cool at first glance and at least partially saves the weakness of Refine by giving you an incentive to trash good cards for benefit. But even then... you're usually going to be trashing weak actions into stronger actions, and maybe Silvers into Golds? So it's not like the payoff for Graveyard Key is that great, and if people have been thinning their Coppers, then woo, have a bunch of Coppers too. See Fountain of Tears for why that's a bad idea. So I really like Graveyard Key, both mechanically and thematically, and I think the idea has potential, but I don't think the potential is really realized here and both cards end up feeling too limited to me.

Depot by Jonatan Djurachkovitch (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850251#msg850251)
I tested the old version of this with +2 Coffers. It was insane. This new version is probably a bit less so, but now it doesn't even need a village to function which is pretty crazy as well. The sifting is gonna end up looking like +7 Cards, discard 6 cards when played from the starting hand, and if you have a couple more Depots in your deck, then now it's a nonterminal +7 Cards, discard 6 cards. Whoa, that's like Forum on steroids, on steroids again, and due to the reaction it self-synergizes even more when you get more of them. This is still very strong, too centralizing I would say, especially when there's any sort of disappearing payload.

Master Plan by X-tra (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850320#msg850320)
I tested the old version of this as well (the one that cost $8). It's... well it's like a Royal Carriage. It doesn't play out all that differently from it. To be precise, it's like two Royal Carriages. Horribly awkward as the only village, otherwise a nice thing to pick up one or two of for use when you need it. Since it doesn't self-chain, it isn't as crazy or centralizing as King's Court, but I feel like that means it can almost never be centralizing, unless it is the only village and you REALLY need a village in the kingdom.

Automaton by LordBaphomet (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850389#msg850389)
Tracking is gonna be a pain, especially with things like Thrones where you play one Automaton while another one is still resolving and then you have to put the cards back in the right order afterward. This is why Golem and the like discard first, then play. As for the card itself, wow that's strong, and wow that buy restriction is annoying. This is even more centralizing than Grand Market, but it actually makes it harder to buy copies of itself rather than easier, so it's gonna end up being annoying and luck-based a decent portion of the time, while also forcing you to try to hit $6 sans Coppers as much as possible which is already irritating with Grand Market.

Migrate by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850392#msg850392)
This is a cool take on Seize the Day. Timing of it is interesting, though you probably want to try to save it for a dud if you can. You can also do tricks similar to the ones you can do with Villa/Cavalry, but you have to time it since you can only do them once. In big engine games this is less than impressive, but it still is neat to use it early on to get a boost while building.

Way of the Chupacabra by spheremonk (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850393#msg850393)
I gotta hand it to you, this is pretty big. In multiplayer games, it's probably pretty political, especially if you're playing with someone you don't like. First-player advantage in Shelters games is significant, and it also seems like it would be tricky to implement online.

Fortification by D782802859 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850397#msg850397)
Holy cow this is good, especially on a 5/2. I'm also with LordBaphomet that this will be really annoying in face-to-face games; City Gate is already bad enough. The $5 price tag gives it a decently steep opportunity cost, but I suspect that it will almost always be worth getting on your second $5, if not your first, barring extremely strong trashing-- you'll immediately start seeing your good cards way more often, and the handsize reduction probably won't matter much given you can dig for your draw cards anyway. (And if there are no draw cards, then the sifting is even more valuable.)

Arboretum by alion8me (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850541#msg850541)
We talked about this one in the Discord. Really sad I didn't get a chance to test this one to see how it played out, but my impression was that you buy it turn 2 in a lot of games. Gain to hand is just an enormous flexibility and even if you don't manage to do much with your deck before it kicks in you will just start having good turns super reliably once it does.

Scribe by Rhodos (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850572#msg850572)
This technically needs a "you may" for accountability, but that's very minor. As for the effect itself, it's not at all minor, and while it's probably too slow in a money game (by the time you collide it with Gold, you want to be buying Provinces, which this probably hinders), it seems quite strong in an engine game, especially with nonterminal draw like Hunting Party or Laboratory. I think like many of the cards submitted this week this one is niche but very strong when it is viable. That's not bad-- look at Counting House or Scepter for niche-- but it's pretty disappointing when the board isn't high-powered enough to reliably collide your Scribe with your other $5 actions. And in the midgame it's probably pretty RNG dependent as to whether you do get this along with good actions to copy.

--

Don't feel bad if you felt my criticism was harsh-- if I criticized something minor, it was because there were no major flaws for me to talk about. Overall I'm quite happy with how the contest turned out, there were a lot of concepts that were explored in some very cool ways, and I really liked a lot of the ideas even if I didn't end up liking the resulting cards.

Winner: Inquisition by pubby

Runner-up: Investor by faust

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 10, 2020, 04:32:37 pm

Fwiw, I found myself basically agreeing with the top 2 in the last two contests. Although that's without playtesting them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 10, 2020, 04:35:46 pm

Congratulations to pubby and faust as the runner up. Indeed 2 very interesting cards that deserve their spot in this round. Many thanks to Something_Smart for all their efforts, including all the testing.

I would like to mention one thing about my submitted card, The Round Table:

Quote

Flexibility is nice. Balance seems pretty off. Wishes are, like, insanely good. There are very few actions that it would be worth giving the opponent a Wish to play a second time, unless I'm trying to end the game (like sure, The Round Table/Bridge can megaturn just like KC/Bridge can, but only a few cards are like that).

Opponents get the benefit when The Round Table plays a card a third time! Thus, it can be always played as a Throne Room without penalty. Otherwise, it is indeed intended for a Megaturn, or when a nasty card can be played along the way. Anyway, thanks.
Edit:
(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200804/7v4n2yth.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on August 10, 2020, 07:22:50 pm

Oh yes, that was bad wording on my part; I did understand the card correctly. I should have written "another time," because the opportunity cost is one extra play for you and one extra Wish for them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 10, 2020, 07:48:11 pm

Cool! Thanks for the kind comments about our cards. I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything you've said in your judging. Inquisition, the first card submitted, already looked like a winning candidate in my book when pubby published it.  :D

Only small thing though... I think you forgot to judge majiponi's entry, Tenshukaku.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on August 11, 2020, 12:02:38 am

Oh oops, it seems I did. That's not small at all, sorry majiponi!

Tenshukaku by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg850406#msg850406)
This feels like a less swingy King's Court, since it is slower to get started but still pretty crazy once you get enough of them. But it's probably pretty hard to justify getting these unless you already have a pretty big engine. It feels like it snowballs harder once you actually get going, so it's maybe not less swingy at all, it just takes longer for the swing to come out. Strategically I feel like you'd usually only get this when you would get a $5 Throne Room. It doesn't seem obviously unbalanced, but it also doesn't seem really all that fun to play with either-- kinda like Mastermind, if there are good targets for it then you can't really skip it, but it's pretty easy for it to be underwhelming when you're still building.

I do like this card but I wouldn't have put it in the top 2, so it doesn't affect the judging results at all. Once again, my apologies.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 11, 2020, 04:57:42 am

Thanks Something_smart for the judging! I playtested my card (depot) a few times, but I didn't manage to get it to work so great, so I didn't really see its brokenness. Although the card is a lot worse than +7 cards discard 6 cards, since you don't have the full picture, and there is a possibility of having to discard good cards the third time for cards that are maybe worse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 11, 2020, 04:59:35 am

Are we going to have judging for the new contest on tuesday, or should we shorten it down this week to get back to sundays? I haven't been on this forun too long, and I don't know if weekday drifting is a common phenomenon

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 12, 2020, 05:17:00 am

Should faust take over this week? Pubby hasn't posted the new contest for more than 36 hours.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 12, 2020, 06:02:06 am

I think I'd wait until the 48 hour mark and then I'd post a new challenge in the interest of keeping things moving, if that's fine by everyone.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 12, 2020, 08:20:03 am

Oops sorry for the delay

Contest #84: Any Number - Create a card or landscape that has the text "any number" in it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 12, 2020, 09:48:37 am

Submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200812/aro9dwkg.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 12, 2020, 10:25:12 am

Here's my submission: a night storyteller.
(https://i.imgur.com/xVXZU2z.png)

Quote

Fabulist
$5 - Night-Duration
Pay any amount number of $. For each $ paid, set aside a card under this.
At the start of your next turn put the set-aside cards into your hand and +1 Action

This is not the final version

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 12, 2020, 10:29:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/48BwttB.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 12, 2020, 10:45:14 am

Quote from: faust on August 12, 2020, 10:29:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/48BwttB.png)

I see what you did there!  ;D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on August 12, 2020, 11:02:36 am

(https://i.imgur.com/kXBJnAo.png?1)

This is a Butcher variant using a new mechanic I've been thinking about: Apprentices. Apprentices are cards that get better over the course of the game by fulfilling certain actions. They do this via Experience tokens, represented by the purple gem. Experience tokens are limited, similarly to the wood cubes for projects. Each player can only have three.
EDIT: Modified
(https://i.imgur.com/gxv3u7e.png?1)
REPLACED. CURRENT ENTRY IS THIS.
(https://i.imgur.com/Mdq5RCv.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 12, 2020, 11:29:37 am

Quote from: D782802859 on August 12, 2020, 11:02:36 am

(https://i.imgur.com/kXBJnAo.png?1)

This is a Butcher variant using a new mechanic I've been thinking about: Apprentices. Apprentices are cards that get better over the course of the game by fulfilling certain actions. They do this via Experience tokens, represented by the purple gem. Experience tokens are limited, similarly to the wood cubes for projects. Each player can only have three.

I'm afraid that you will max out the apprentice tokens very fast, and then this becomes an inexpensive expand variant. In most cases you can have the full effect on your second buy of it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on August 12, 2020, 11:54:48 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 12, 2020, 11:29:37 am

Quote from: D782802859 on August 12, 2020, 11:02:36 am

(https://i.imgur.com/kXBJnAo.png?1)

This is a Butcher variant using a new mechanic I've been thinking about: Apprentices. Apprentices are cards that get better over the course of the game by fulfilling certain actions. They do this via Experience tokens, represented by the purple gem. Experience tokens are limited, similarly to the wood cubes for projects. Each player can only have three.

I'm afraid that you will max out the apprentice tokens very fast, and then this becomes an inexpensive expand variant. In most cases you can have the full effect on your second buy of it.

Yeah that's probably the case too often. I'll change it to an earlier version where the way to get tokens was on-play.
(https://i.imgur.com/gxv3u7e.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 12, 2020, 12:06:04 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 12, 2020, 11:54:48 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 12, 2020, 11:29:37 am

Quote from: D782802859 on August 12, 2020, 11:02:36 am

(https://i.imgur.com/kXBJnAo.png?1)

This is a Butcher variant using a new mechanic I've been thinking about: Apprentices. Apprentices are cards that get better over the course of the game by fulfilling certain actions. They do this via Experience tokens, represented by the purple gem. Experience tokens are limited, similarly to the wood cubes for projects. Each player can only have three.

I'm afraid that you will max out the apprentice tokens very fast, and then this becomes an inexpensive expand variant. In most cases you can have the full effect on your second buy of it.

Yeah that's probably the case too often. I'll change it to an earlier version where the way to get tokens was on-play.
(https://i.imgur.com/gxv3u7e.png?1)

This is busted. The correct play here is to discard three cards on the first play to turn this into an expand for 4$ with +1 card (btw +1 Card is imo an extremely awkward bonus and I think no terminal card in the game has it. If you need a small bonus to buff a card, use buy or money.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 12, 2020, 12:28:31 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 12, 2020, 11:54:48 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 12, 2020, 11:29:37 am

Quote from: D782802859 on August 12, 2020, 11:02:36 am

(https://i.imgur.com/kXBJnAo.png?1)

This is a Butcher variant using a new mechanic I've been thinking about: Apprentices. Apprentices are cards that get better over the course of the game by fulfilling certain actions. They do this via Experience tokens, represented by the purple gem. Experience tokens are limited, similarly to the wood cubes for projects. Each player can only have three.

I'm afraid that you will max out the apprentice tokens very fast, and then this becomes an inexpensive expand variant. In most cases you can have the full effect on your second buy of it.

Yeah that's probably the case too often. I'll change it to an earlier version where the way to get tokens was on-play.
(https://i.imgur.com/gxv3u7e.png?1)

I think this should cost $5. At $5 it is a slow Expand+ that can turn itself into provinces. Maybe you kan keep the on-gain if you raise the cost although I'm worried it will be all too easy triggering it in an engine. You could also try to just increase the cost of gaining tokens. If you have it in a fan expansion with other apprentice token cards you will have to balance them together, to make the costs and rewards of gaining apprentice tokens about the same. Right now though the tokens make more difference than any other self-upgrading card or traveller line in the canon, and I'm afraid that they will become too important.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 12, 2020, 12:37:12 pm

There is a reason cards like that can covert Estates into $5s, like Altar or Expand, have a prohibitive cost. Circumventing that hurdle is quite dubious.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 12, 2020, 12:51:13 pm

Raising the cost doesn't fix the card. From the third play onward, it's just "+1 Card; trash a card from your hand; gain a province."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 12, 2020, 12:54:22 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 12, 2020, 12:06:04 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 12, 2020, 11:54:48 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 12, 2020, 11:29:37 am

Quote from: D782802859 on August 12, 2020, 11:02:36 am

(https://i.imgur.com/kXBJnAo.png?1)

This is a Butcher variant using a new mechanic I've been thinking about: Apprentices. Apprentices are cards that get better over the course of the game by fulfilling certain actions. They do this via Experience tokens, represented by the purple gem. Experience tokens are limited, similarly to the wood cubes for projects. Each player can only have three.

I'm afraid that you will max out the apprentice tokens very fast, and then this becomes an inexpensive expand variant. In most cases you can have the full effect on your second buy of it.

Yeah that's probably the case too often. I'll change it to an earlier version where the way to get tokens was on-play.
(https://i.imgur.com/gxv3u7e.png?1)

This is busted. The correct play here is to discard three cards on the first play to turn this into an expand for 4$ with +1 card (btw +1 Card is imo an extremely awkward bonus and I think no terminal card in the game has it. If you need a small bonus to buff a card, use buy or money.)

I think that the +1 Card on this is comparable to the +2 Cards on Masquerade, providing more options and adding cykling to benefit earlier from a better deck. You could also compare it to the cantrip remodel variant for $5 I forgot the name of, just to get an idea of how to price it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on August 12, 2020, 01:23:43 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 12, 2020, 10:25:12 am

Here's my submission: a night storyteller.
(https://i.imgur.com/xVXZU2z.png)

Quote

Fabulist
$5 - Night-Duration
Pay any number of $. For each $ paid, set aside a card under this.
At the start of your next turn put the set-aside cards into your hand and +1 Action

It's a cross between Storyteller and Ghost Town. interesting.
As-is I think this would be good at $4. Storyteller gives you a coin to convert into +1 Card. This gives an extra action on the 2nd turn instead. The fact that it's a duration makes it weaker too. Also, I think it needs to say "set aside a card from your deck", otherwise it isn't clear if you set aside cards from your hand or deck or either.

Quote from: D782802859 on August 12, 2020, 11:02:36 am

This is a Butcher variant using a new mechanic I've been thinking about: Apprentices. Apprentices are cards that get better over the course of the game by fulfilling certain actions. They do this via Experience tokens, represented by the purple gem. Experience tokens are limited, similarly to the wood cubes for projects. Each player can only have three.
EDIT: Modified
(https://i.imgur.com/gxv3u7e.png?1)

Maybe try "+1 Exp.token for each 2 cards discarded"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 12, 2020, 01:28:58 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on August 12, 2020, 12:51:13 pm

Raising the cost doesn't fix the card. From the third play onward, it's just "+1 Card; trash a card from your hand; gain a province."

D782802859 said that the tokens are restricted to a maximum of 3:

Quote from: D782802859 on August 12, 2020, 11:02:36 am

Experience tokens are limited, similarly to the wood cubes for projects. Each player can only have three.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on August 12, 2020, 01:30:36 pm

Oh and here's my submission:

Quote

Merchant Fleet
$4 - Action - Duration
+$2.
At the start of your next turn: +$2 and +1 Buy.
-
While this is in play, at the start of each other player's turn, they may discard any number of cards for $1 per card discarded.

A cheaper Merchant Ship variant that helps other players.
(Obviously, it'll suck on boards with Cursed Village, but otherwise I think it'd be good.)

EDIT: FAQ: Multiple Merchant Fleets in play don't give other players more than $1 per card they discard. BUT if they have a Watchtower set aside with Way of the Turtle, they can discard cards for one opponent's Merchant Fleet, play Watchtower to draw up to 6, then discard cards for another opponent's Merchant Fleet...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 12, 2020, 01:42:45 pm

Do you think that the card might get away with being symmetrical, i.e. also providing a Buy on the first turn?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on August 12, 2020, 02:46:53 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on August 12, 2020, 01:30:36 pm

Quote

Merchant Fleet
$4 - Action - Duration
+$2.
At the start of your next turn: +$2 and +1 Buy.
-
While this is in play, at the start of each other player's turn, they may discard any number of cards for $1 per card discarded.

A cheaper Merchant Ship variant that helps other players.
(Obviously, it'll suck on boards with Cursed Village, but otherwise I think it'd be good.)

I assume that with multiple fleets in play the opponents will still get just $1 per discard. Otherwise it's crazy in multiplayer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 12, 2020, 03:27:32 pm

Quote from: faust on August 12, 2020, 10:29:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/48BwttB.png)

Way too powerful; this is basically a triple lab if it hits all victory cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 12, 2020, 03:51:13 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 12, 2020, 03:27:32 pm

Way too powerful; this is basically a triple lab if it hits all victory cards.

Since it's a Lab+, Any Number should at least cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png).  :D :D :D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 12, 2020, 06:07:36 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 12, 2020, 03:51:13 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 12, 2020, 03:27:32 pm

Way too powerful; this is basically a triple lab if it hits all victory cards.

Since it's a Lab+, Any Number should at least cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png).  :D :D :D

That doesn't help with any number, Any Number is still unbalanced.
Maybe, a penalty: Reveal your hand and discard any number of Any Number.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on August 12, 2020, 06:42:01 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/117367068_792895518182951_3478396551377986300_n.png?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=1_0OUt7fDw8AX-aorBg&_nc_oc=AQkejl-lbHAmtVqSH1F73-rsde9vbaRJld_6ZYOk-0pUq3Aek0qaQjevjlyiMq6vHZdOjiDjpWLgg_cGvac1km7y&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=f9abfbc110f0f3273fb0bc252f7ed5e2&oe=5F5B7517)

Quote

Angry Mob - $5
Night - Duration - Attack - Looter
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand.

At the start of your next turn you may discard any number of cards costing $0. Draw until you have 5 cards in hand.
-
In games using this, when you gain a Victory card, gain a Ruins.

I had an alternate version that had each other player gain a Ruins as the top text, but was concerned the below the line text would be inconsequential as the ruins would run out too quickly. The middle text is similar to Night Watchman but restricts what you can discard while at the same time managing to counteract both the Ruins and hand-size attack from the Angry Mob. Probably more text than is aesthetically pleasing, so I may drop the top or bottom text.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on August 12, 2020, 10:08:21 pm

EDIT: replacement card in later post
(https://i.imgur.com/lL4Ll5r.png)

Quote

Wee Folk - $2
Action
Discard any number of cards.
For each card discarded, if that card is an...
Action card, +$1
Treasure card, +1 card
Victory card, +1 action

I think the optimum case for this card is after you green while still having coppers in your deck, though it is still useful in other circumstances.  I tried it at $3, but it seemed awfully underwhelming and probably comparable to Crossroads and Cellar.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 13, 2020, 02:21:02 am

(https://i.imgur.com/bMjl6jf.png)

Way of the Snake
Way
Discard any number of cards for +$1 each

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 13, 2020, 03:23:01 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 12, 2020, 10:25:12 am

Here's my submission: a night storyteller.
(https://i.imgur.com/xVXZU2z.png)

Quote

Fabulist
$5 - Night-Duration
Pay any amount number of $. For each $ paid, set aside a card under this.
At the start of your next turn put the set-aside cards into your hand and +1 Action

Where are cards being set aside from? Your hand, or in play that would be discarded at Clean-up?

Quote from: chronostrike on August 12, 2020, 10:08:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/lL4Ll5r.png)

Quote

Wee Folk - $2
Action
Discard any number of cards.
For each card discarded, if that card is an...
Action card, +$1
Treasure card, +1 card
Victory card, +1 action

I think the optimum case for this card is after you green while still having coppers in your deck, though it is still useful in other circumstances.  I tried it at $3, but it seemed awfully underwhelming and probably comparable to Crossroads and Cellar.

Welcome to the forums and the contest!
You'll need to have players reveal their discarded cards so everyone can see what bonuses they're getting. It also seems weaker than Cellar in that you'll either have a very small hand or no extra Action from it; there are several ways you could boost it.

---

For my entry, I'll enter a card I once submitted before:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5e7f3d8b0b6db94c21ce2d22/5e7fb9723f8a00048b239300/a57e52e61d32bc049279ffcaf74d01c2/Farm_mock-up.png)

Quote

Farm - Action Duration Victory, $5 cost.
+1 Action
Set aside any number of Victory cards from your hand face up. At the start of your next turn, put them into your hand.
-
2 VP

Keep your green out of the way, potentially all the time with enough of these.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 13, 2020, 03:59:39 am

Here's a serious submission, with a different take on "any number".

(https://i.imgur.com/GoPzJJP.png)

Quote

Census - $0
Event

Once per turn: Name any number. Each other player reveals their hand. If the total number of Actions revealed is equal to your number, gain a Duchy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 13, 2020, 06:39:15 am

I would only pick one player to make this not decrease in power in multiplayer games.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 13, 2020, 07:10:08 am

Quote from: Aquila on August 13, 2020, 03:23:01 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 12, 2020, 10:25:12 am

Here's my submission: a night storyteller.
(https://i.imgur.com/xVXZU2z.png)

Quote

Fabulist
$5 - Night-Duration
Pay any amount number of $. For each $ paid, set aside a card under this.
At the start of your next turn put the set-aside cards into your hand and +1 Action

Where are cards being set aside from?
...

It is supposed to be from the top of your deck. I'll fix the wording when I can.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 13, 2020, 08:19:06 am

Quote from: segura on August 13, 2020, 06:39:15 am

I would only pick one player to make this not decrease in power in multiplayer games.

My thought was it might be perceived as unfair if only one player is forced to reveal thier hand. I also kind of like that in multiplayer, after player 1 buys Census, it's going to be better for player 2 since they already know player 3's hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 13, 2020, 09:35:58 am

That is a very good point which makes my suggestion moot: if all players buy Census consistently in the endgame, player count is irrelevant as only one hand is unknown.
Even if there are handsize Attacks, it is usually obvious how many Actions the player retains.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 13, 2020, 09:52:02 am

Official any number Dominion cards:
Cellar (discard, to draw)
Vault (discard, for coin)
Inn (reveal actions, to shuffle into deck)
Storeroom (discard, to draw), (discard, for coin)
Artificer (discard, to gain onto deck equal in cost to amount discarded)
Night Watchman (discard, from five cards revealed from deck)
Crypt (treasures, to put into hand on later turns)
Silos (discard coppers, to draw)
Hostelry (discard treasures, to gain horses)
Black Market (play treasures, for coin to buy from black market)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 13, 2020, 10:22:09 am

Here is my updated submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/WQsMvO1.png)

Quote

Fabulist
$5 - Night-Duration
Pay any number of $. For every $ paid, set aside a card from the top of your deck. At the start of your next turn, +1 Action and put the set-aside cards into your hand.
-
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).

I'm thinking of lowering the cost, too. I'll have to playtest it. It lacks the immediate drawing that storyteller has, but if you use this to increase your handsize every turn it can combo onto itself, until you draw your deck and have no cards to set aside. Maybe this can be very powerful if you play it right, but it requires a balanced deck.

This is not the final version

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 13, 2020, 10:34:31 am

THIS SUBMISSION HAS BEEN UPDATED. THE UPDATED VERSION (V3) CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 269.


(https://i.postimg.cc/zzcsxM7j/Wager-V1-EN.png)

A potentially dangerous idea here, but I'm waging (lol) that it could be okay. You can draw your entire deck with this one card without any external help. But at what cost? Well I'll tell you at what cost: a lot of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png).

This is incredibly potent with Traveller cards, junkers, trashers and gainers. In these situations, you do not mind drawing your entire deck without buying a card that turn. But as a pure draw card for your Engine? You might be losing too much income with it. And it goes without saying that this has no room in a Big Money deck.

This could be a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png) for all I know.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on August 13, 2020, 11:07:19 am

UPDATED wording to address the comment by Xen3k

(https://i.ibb.co/LknHJ5w/image.png)

Quote

Fyrd
$4 - Action
+1 Action
Trash any number of differently named cards from your hand. If you trashed 3 or more, gain an Action card into your hand.
-
When you trash this, draw 2 cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on August 13, 2020, 11:22:36 am

Quote from: grep on August 13, 2020, 11:07:19 am

(https://i.ibb.co/J7gqQTw/image.png)

Quote

Fyrd
$4 - Action
+1 Action
Trash any number of differently named cards. If you trashed 3 or more, gain an Action card into your hand.
-
When you trash this, draw 2 cards.

Unless I am mistaken, I think you need to specify from where you are trashing cards, right?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on August 13, 2020, 11:29:38 am

(https://i.imgur.com/1DsHz2m.png)

Quote

Wee Folk - $3
Action
Discard any number of cards.
For each card discarded, if that card is an...
Action card, +$2
Treasure card, +1 Card
Victory card, +2 Actions

Not tested in this format, but now it can serve as a village more easily, so I increased the price.

Quote from: X-tra on August 13, 2020, 10:34:31 am

(https://i.postimg.cc/zzcsxM7j/Wager-V1-EN.png)

You'll probably need to specify whether you can end up with negative money.  Poor House, for example, doesn't allow that.  Personally, I would say gain debt instead of -money.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 13, 2020, 12:20:08 pm

New version of my card. It is now helpful in draw-your-deck engines as a way to store your cards to your next turn, and also provides a way to generate some $ to use. Maybe this is too strong? (I'm sorry for updating my card this often, it's hard for me to know when something is finished.)

(https://i.imgur.com/k6qlAEy.png)

Quote

Fabulist
$5 - Night-Duration
Discard any number of cards from your hand for +$1 each. Pay all of your $. For every $ paid, set aside a card from the top of your deck. At the start of your next turn, +1 Action and put the set-aside cards into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 13, 2020, 02:49:14 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 13, 2020, 12:20:08 pm

New version of my card. It is now helpful in draw-your-deck engines as a way to store your cards to your next turn, and also provides a way to generate some $ to use. Maybe this is too strong? (I'm sorry for updating my card this often, it's hard for me to know when something is finished.)

(https://i.imgur.com/k6qlAEy.png)

Quote

Fabulist
$5 - Night-Duration
Discard any number of cards from your hand for +$1 each. Pay all of your $. For every $ paid, set aside a card from the top of your deck. At the start of your next turn, +1 Action and put the set-aside cards into your hand.

I am not sure whether I understand your intention for this card.
Are any $ (or +$) played, but not spent in the Buy phase still available? Do the rules say anything about that?
If you cannot use those $, then the number of cards you can set aside is equal to the number of cards you discard (more or less all the cards you have in hand); or do I misunderstand something?
If I am correct, you could just write:

Quote

Discard any number of cards from your hand
and set aside that many cards from the top
of your deck. At the start...

.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 13, 2020, 03:45:42 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 13, 2020, 02:49:14 pm

I am not sure whether I understand your intention for this card.
Are any $ (or +$) played, but not spent in the Buy phase still available? Do the rules say anything about that?
If you cannot use those $, then the number of cards you can set aside is equal to the number of cards you discard (more or less all the cards you have in hand); or do I misunderstand something?
If I am correct, you could just write:

Quote

Discard any number of cards from your hand
and set aside that many cards from the top
of your deck. At the start...

.

I'd assume that you also pay leftover $, as the wording is the same as in Storyteller.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 13, 2020, 03:57:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/209zGps.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 13, 2020, 04:23:40 pm

I don't get this. You take a quadrillion Villagers and spend of all them when the game is about to end.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 13, 2020, 04:32:33 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 13, 2020, 03:57:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/209zGps.png)

Quote from: segura on August 13, 2020, 04:23:40 pm

I don't get this. You take a quadrillion Villagers and spend of all them when the game is about to end.

But then, at Clean-up, you get a quadrillion Villagers back because you have that many unused Actions. I made the same mistake at first.

So it's potentially all the villages you're ever going to need for the game, after getting a few terminals first. But overindulge at your peril. I like the skill here...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 13, 2020, 04:37:07 pm

Play a snowy village on the last turn, then spend your villagers  8)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 13, 2020, 05:03:37 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 13, 2020, 04:32:33 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 13, 2020, 03:57:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/209zGps.png)

Quote from: segura on August 13, 2020, 04:23:40 pm

I don't get this. You take a quadrillion Villagers and spend of all them when the game is about to end.

But then, at Clean-up, you get a quadrillion Villagers back because you have that many unused Actions. I made the same mistake at first.

So it's potentially all the villages you're ever going to need for the game, after getting a few terminals first. But overindulge at your peril. I like the skill here...

True that. That makes the card interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 13, 2020, 05:21:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iUKhK4C.png)

Quote

Burgh

Reveal and set aside any number of Action cards from your hand.
Play them in any order.

$2
Action

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Barbarossa41 on August 13, 2020, 08:03:50 pm

Landscaper
$5 - Action
Discard any number of Victory cards from your hand.
+1 VP per card discarded.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on August 13, 2020, 11:37:59 pm

Note: Not an actual submission

Hoarder
Action _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}
Gain any number of Coppers

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 14, 2020, 02:24:31 am

Quote from: alion8me on August 13, 2020, 05:21:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iUKhK4C.png)

Quote

Burgh

Reveal and set aside any number of Action cards from your hand.
Play them in any order.

$2
Action

Dammit! Yesterday, I worker on a card with a similar concept. I had about 5-6 different versions. All of them had this part:

Quote

+2 Cards
Reveal any number of Action cards from your hand
with “+X Card” in their text, where X is any number.

.
First, my cards gave +1 Villager for each card revealed, until I noticed -when the text got too long/complex- e.g.

Quote

+2 Cards
Reveal any number of Action cards from your hand
with “+X Card” in their text, where X is any number.
For each card revealed, +1 Villager.
If you took more than 4 Villager tokens this way,
trash this or one of the revealed cards.

...that I don't need the "Villager" part and therefore any restrictions for massive hoarding of Villagers. My final version -ready for submission- was:

Quote

Accountant
Action $4
+2 Cards
Reveal any number of Action cards from your hand
with “+X Card” in their text, where X is any number.
Play them in any order.

I don't have the "set aside", because I compared it with Golem, which doesn't have it either.
Then, I just saw your card....

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on August 14, 2020, 06:13:01 am

Bankrupt Smithy
cost $5 - Action
+2 Coffers
Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers, and draw that many.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 14, 2020, 06:36:22 am

Quote from: gambit05 on August 14, 2020, 02:24:31 am

Quote from: alion8me on August 13, 2020, 05:21:38 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/iUKhK4C.png)

Quote

Burgh

Reveal and set aside any number of Action cards from your hand.
Play them in any order.

$2
Action

Dammit! Yesterday, I worker on a card with a similar concept. I had about 5-6 different versions. All of them had this part:

Quote

+2 Cards
Reveal any number of Action cards from your hand
with “+X Card” in their text, where X is any number.

.
First, my cards gave +1 Villager for each card revealed, until I noticed -when the text got too long/complex- e.g.

Quote

+2 Cards
Reveal any number of Action cards from your hand
with “+X Card” in their text, where X is any number.
For each card revealed, +1 Villager.
If you took more than 4 Villager tokens this way,
trash this or one of the revealed cards.

...that I don't need the "Villager" part and therefore any restrictions for massive hoarding of Villagers. My final version -ready for submission- was:

Quote

Accountant
Action $4
+2 Cards
Reveal any number of Action cards from your hand
with “+X Card” in their text, where X is any number.
Play them in any order.

I don't have the "set aside", because I compared it with Golem, which doesn't have it either.
Then, I just saw your card....

I do not see any similarities. Burgh is a Megalopolis, i.e. a nondrawing village that potentially provides more Actions than Necropolis.
Accountant is a Lab variant (sometimes Moat, sometimes Lost City or better). I think that the card is a 5 as the Moat option does not seem to occur more often than the Lost City+ option.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 14, 2020, 07:11:23 am

Quote

Accountant
Action $4
+2 Cards
Reveal any number of Action cards from your hand
with “+X Card” in their text, where X is any number.
Play them in any order.

Quote

I don't have the "set aside", because I compared it with Golem, which doesn't have it either.
Then, I just saw your card....

Quote from: segura on August 14, 2020, 06:36:22 am

I do not see any similarities. Burgh is a Megalopolis, i.e. a nondrawing village that potentially provides more Actions than Necropolis.
Accountant is a Lab variant (sometimes Moat, sometimes Lost City or better). I think that the card is a 5 as the Moat option does not seem to occur more often than the Lost City+ option.

I compared my card with exactly the same cards and also throw Smithy as target in the mix and Village for +Actions. Like you, I don't think that Accountant degraded to a Moat or upgraded to Lost City+ is a problem for the design. However, when compared just to Lab, I found that the latter is usually better (doesn't need support), and thus I set the cost of Accountant to $4.
Maybe, I submit it... I have designed another card in the meantime, which funnily enough shows some similarity with majiponi's card (although, I am sure you would disagree).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: JimJammer on August 14, 2020, 09:25:39 am

What do you get when you cross a chapel with a cellar?

(https://i.imgur.com/lx3UEhO.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on August 14, 2020, 10:06:02 am

Submission for this week:

(https://i.imgur.com/n27hN2P.png)

Maritime Trade
$3, Event

Quote

Discard any number of Actions, revealed, from your hand for +1 Buy and +$2 each.

The numbers might be off, but to get a real payload from it you need to sacrifice your actions which seems like a decent balance.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 14, 2020, 10:43:20 am

Quote from: JimJammer on August 14, 2020, 09:25:39 am

What do you get when you cross a chapel with a cellar?

(https://i.imgur.com/lx3UEhO.png)

This is rather like a super-powered apprentice with the same trashing potential as chapel. It doesn't provide any actions though, and needs village support. In the midgame it is a chapel and in the endgame it is an apprentice. And their combined cost in debt. Nice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 14, 2020, 11:07:31 am

Here's my entry: Gild
Apply Gold to your VPs to make them extra fancy. Likes gold gainers, but also has a mine capability built-in. An alt-VP strat that was inspired by Groundskeeper.
(https://i.imgur.com/xWjXODJ.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 14, 2020, 11:27:09 am

Quote from: JimJammer on August 14, 2020, 09:25:39 am

What do you get when you cross a chapel with a cellar?

(https://i.imgur.com/lx3UEhO.png)

There is already a card named Crypt. Also, you designed a card that is basically always a mandatory turn 2 buy, which means it's going to be swingy when the opening split is different for the players.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 14, 2020, 03:44:25 pm

Edit: My new submission:

Quote

Accountant
$4 – Action

+2 Cards
Reveal and set aside any number
of Action cards from your hand
with “+X Cards” in their text
(where X is any number greater
than 1). Play them in any order.

I added "and set aside" to make the instructions less ambiguous. Thanks to anordinaryman and GendoIkari.
Some information about Accountant and the ideas behind it can be found in my reply #6688.

Edit (20.08.): The instruction “+X Cards” (plural) already implies that cards with “+1 Card” (singular) are not targets of Accountant. However, the sentence in parentheses has been included to avoid any ambiguity.
-

The site for uploading seems to be currently down and the card images disappeared (temporarily, I hope).


(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200815/fkfcryzb.png)

Like version 2, but cheaper.

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200815/ywiw327c.png)

I changed the costs and the targets (+X Cards; X > 1).

My old submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200814/p8hlkj6h.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on August 14, 2020, 04:30:03 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 14, 2020, 11:07:31 am

Here's my entry: Gild
Apply Gold to your VPs to make them extra fancy. Likes gold gainers, but also has a mine capability built-in. An alt-VP strat that was inspired by Groundskeeper.
(https://i.imgur.com/xWjXODJ.png)

The alt-VP effect is quite hard to achieve. You are spending a Buy for Gild, and you also have to repay the debt to gain any Victory cards - $8 opportunity cost for the first 1VP.
It could be reasonable as a Project, especially in kingdoms with no +Buys

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on August 14, 2020, 07:46:57 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 14, 2020, 03:44:25 pm

My submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200814/p8hlkj6h.png)

This seems much, much more powerful than Imp.  It is relatively easy to acquire at $4, combos off of itself, and can be powered by a single cantrip pile, none of which are true of Imp.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on August 14, 2020, 09:58:44 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/lHZCqst.png)

This looks very similar to Artificer, but I would expect it to play out a lot differently, because its gain is mandatory rather than optional. Generally you'll want to be discarding 1 card to avoid having to gain something; use with Poor House at your own risk.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 15, 2020, 02:59:35 am

Quote from: chronostrike on August 14, 2020, 07:46:57 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 14, 2020, 03:44:25 pm

My submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200814/p8hlkj6h.png)

This seems much, much more powerful than Imp.  It is relatively easy to acquire at $4, combos off of itself, and can be powered by a single cantrip pile, none of which are true of Imp.

You are absolutely right. I missed the power of cantrips here. There are way too many cards around that fulfill this function. I changed my Accountant accordingly (costs $5 now and can only play cards with "+X Cards"). There are still plenty of such cards around, but not in combination with +Action. Thanks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 15, 2020, 03:14:11 am

I don’t know, if it can only interact with terminal draw besides itself it seems weaker than Lab.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 15, 2020, 03:41:59 am

Quote from: segura on August 15, 2020, 03:14:11 am

I don’t know, if it can only interact with terminal draw besides itself it seems weaker than Lab.

Maybe, but Laboratory is a quite strong $5 cost card (36/127 in the 2018 Qvist list). Early in the game, Accountant isn't of much use (but that was also true for the first version), but with a high enough Action card density, it can really shine. Accountant can for example play several Witches or Smithies, which Lab can't. Anyway, it is different enough and thus, if it is indeed weaker than Lab (on average), so be it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 15, 2020, 03:48:19 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 14, 2020, 11:07:31 am

Here's my entry: Gild
Apply Gold to your VPs to make them extra fancy. Likes gold gainers, but also has a mine capability built-in. An alt-VP strat that was inspired by Groundskeeper.
(https://i.imgur.com/xWjXODJ.png)

I don't understand this card. Both parts of what it does are extremely weak. The debt cost doesn't really make sense because you want to be buying something else after you bought this.

Let's say, best-case scenario, you have like 3 Golds in hand and enough cash lying around. You have to buy 3 of these and a Province in order to get the VP benefit from Dominate, which costs 23 for the buys plus $9 for not playing the Golds, plus 4 buys. This is enough for 2 Dominates.

EDIT: This analysis assume that the Vp bonuses stack, but looking at the wording I'm not even sure they do, which makes this even worse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: JimJammer on August 15, 2020, 05:09:59 am

Quote from: faust on August 14, 2020, 11:27:09 am

Quote from: JimJammer on August 14, 2020, 09:25:39 am

What do you get when you cross a chapel with a cellar?

(https://i.imgur.com/lx3UEhO.png)

There is already a card named Crypt. Also, you designed a card that is basically always a mandatory turn 2 buy, which means it's going to be swingy when the opening split is different for the players.

I'm not sure I follow, isn't it a decent turn 1 buy as you can then pay off the debt by the end of turn 2, regardless of the split you get?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 15, 2020, 05:33:59 am

Quote from: JimJammer on August 15, 2020, 05:09:59 am

I'm not sure I follow, isn't it a decent turn 1 buy as you can then pay off the debt by the end of turn 2, regardless of the split you get?

You're going to want to get a card for economy first, then get Crypt.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 15, 2020, 06:49:50 am

Quote from: gambit05 on August 15, 2020, 03:41:59 am

Quote from: segura on August 15, 2020, 03:14:11 am

I don’t know, if it can only interact with terminal draw besides itself it seems weaker than Lab.

Maybe, but Laboratory is a quite strong $5 cost card (36/127 in the 2018 Qvist list). Early in the game, Accountant isn't of much use (but that was also true for the first version), but with a high enough Action card density, it can really shine. Accountant can for example play several Witches or Smithies, which Lab can't. Anyway, it is different enough and thus, if it is indeed weaker than Lab (on average), so be it.

There are decks which use a mixture of terminal and non-terminal draw. But in my experience using only one source for draw power occurs more frequently.
That is why I think that the new version is so weak. It is not just the fact that this is strictly weaker than Lab in Kingdoms without other drawers. Even if there are others, you might not really want them for your deck.

Something between the first overpowered and the second underpowered version, i.e. either "Cards" at $5 or "Card" at $4, is the way to go.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 15, 2020, 07:03:05 am

(https://i.imgur.com/8lPTU5o.png)

Could be a $4, I don't know.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on August 15, 2020, 07:19:31 am

Here is my entry for this week's contest:

(https://i.imgur.com/bUFDu5I.png)   (https://i.imgur.com/zWH9J3y.png)

I like to design cards, that change existing strategies or even enable new ones. I always wanted something more that allows for a more Duchy focused strategy and here it is :)

Farmer can allow for huge payload, if you have some Duchies and can provide the draw. Note that you need to have a consistent deck since Duchies are stop cards that do absolutely nothing.

The Plough is there to support that strategy as it makes it easier to buy double Duchy or Duchy plus something. While it does that, it is also interesting enough on its own, even if no one goes for Farmer. It allows earlier greening, as you can buy Province plus more deck control. Or you can go for double Province with just $14 and 1 Buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 15, 2020, 10:10:00 am

Quote from: segura on August 15, 2020, 06:49:50 am

Quote from: gambit05 on August 15, 2020, 03:41:59 am

Quote from: segura on August 15, 2020, 03:14:11 am

I don’t know, if it can only interact with terminal draw besides itself it seems weaker than Lab.

Maybe, but Laboratory is a quite strong $5 cost card (36/127 in the 2018 Qvist list). Early in the game, Accountant isn't of much use (but that was also true for the first version), but with a high enough Action card density, it can really shine. Accountant can for example play several Witches or Smithies, which Lab can't. Anyway, it is different enough and thus, if it is indeed weaker than Lab (on average), so be it.

There are decks which use a mixture of terminal and non-terminal draw. But in my experience using only one source for draw power occurs more frequently.
That is why I think that the new version is so weak. It is not just the fact that this is strictly weaker than Lab in Kingdoms without other drawers. Even if there are others, you might not really want them for your deck.

Something between the first overpowered and the second underpowered version, i.e. either "Cards" at $5 or "Card" at $4, is the way to go.

I like it to be more restricted, i.e. only +Cards as targets. It avoids being too abusive in certain Kingdoms and it is more challenging for building an engine. And well, with a cost of 4$, players would buy it more often and in more situations (Kingdoms). So, I changed it this way. Thanks for your help.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 15, 2020, 10:33:05 am

Quote from: segura on August 15, 2020, 07:03:05 am

(https://i.imgur.com/8lPTU5o.png)

Could be a $4, I don't know.

I would buy it at $4, but I am not sure in how many situations I would buy it at $5, but that doesn't mean that $5 is too expensive. Early in the game one has better things to do, while late in the game, $5 could also be a Duchy. So, with a cost of 5$ one has to find a good timing, which can make it more interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 15, 2020, 11:30:30 am

THIS SUBMISSION HAS BEEN UPDATED. THE UPDATED VERSION (V3) CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 269.

Following a very good suggestion by user chronostrike, I will update my entre, Wager, to its v2 version:

(https://i.postimg.cc/h4WwnM38/Wager-V2-EN.png)

The Debt is indeed way better for what this card is trying to achieve, since it's easier to track, doesn't involve negative (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) shenanigans and carries over turns, making you more hesitant to draw your entire deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 15, 2020, 11:32:17 am

Quote from: X-tra on August 15, 2020, 11:30:30 am

Following a very good suggestion by user chronostrike, I will update my entre, Wager, to its v2 version:

(https://i.postimg.cc/h4WwnM38/Wager-V2-EN.png)

The Debt is indeed way better for what this card is trying to achieve, since it's easier to track, doesn't involve negative (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png) shenanigans and carries over turns, making you more hesitant to draw your entire deck.

The problem with this is that some decks just don't care at all about debt since they only progress via remodeling. This works especially well with Replace and Displace. In those cases, the card just draws your entire deck with no real downside.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 15, 2020, 11:59:25 am

Update to Gild - now a project, golds are only revealed so it encourages buying multiple cheap VPs.
(https://i.imgur.com/DL4swjo.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 16, 2020, 04:59:41 am

Quote from: segura on August 15, 2020, 07:03:05 am

(https://i.imgur.com/8lPTU5o.png)

Could be a $4, I don't know.

I think the price is right. It is very powerful with good draw and little to no good Estate trashing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 16, 2020, 08:07:36 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 16, 2020, 04:59:41 am

Quote from: segura on August 15, 2020, 07:03:05 am

(https://i.imgur.com/8lPTU5o.png)

Could be a $4, I don't know.

I think the price is right. It is very powerful with good draw and little to no good Estate trashing.

Agreed. Without estate trashing you are picking up 3 villagers per shuffle. It definitely isn't noticeably weaker than Academy..

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 16, 2020, 10:23:12 am

Quote from: majiponi on August 14, 2020, 06:13:01 am

Bankrupt Smithy
cost $5 - Action
+2 Coffers
Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers, and draw that many.

This is probably overpriced. If you play it once it draws 2 cards, draws 1 card and gains 1 coffers or gain 2 coffers, which are all <$3 cost effects. Would probably be balanced at $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on August 16, 2020, 11:32:46 am

I'm not really happy with my submission, and because it uses a sort of complex mechanic, I'm not likely to get it to a good point in the time alotted. I am going to be replacing it with this.

(https://i.imgur.com/bC9meou.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 16, 2020, 12:10:09 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 16, 2020, 11:32:46 am

I'm not really happy with my submission, and because it uses a sort of complex mechanic, I'm not likely to get it to a good point in the time alotted. I am going to be replacing it with this.

(https://i.imgur.com/Mdq5RCv.png?1)

I like it.
You can get powerful cards, e.g. Goons on turn 1, but with an increased cost. As every player can do it, it doesn't look swingy, in contrast to a $5-2 start with Baker on the board.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 16, 2020, 12:14:45 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 16, 2020, 11:32:46 am

I'm not really happy with my submission, and because it uses a sort of complex mechanic, I'm not likely to get it to a good point in the time alotted. I am going to be replacing it with this.

(https://i.imgur.com/Mdq5RCv.png?1)

You gotta phrase this as "costing less in Coins than".
I think that a difference of 1 is too small. I'd roll with 2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 16, 2020, 06:32:08 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/9h6znqle.png)

Quote

Cull - Action - $4
Choose to reveal any number of cards from your deck. If they are all uniquely named, put them in your hand. If they are not, discard them all.
-
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

Cull has unbounded draw. How much are you willing to gamble on having uniques? Get too greedy and you draw nothing. You can usually reveal 2 cards and it's safe. 3 if you've built a deck that has lots of uniques. Then you always have the on gain benefit. You open it on 4/3 you're happy to trash the estate, the the 5/2 is still happy to open and trash that copper since it really gets in the way of having unique cards to draw. A player can choose to reveal their whole deck to (likely) put it in the discard.

To clarify, you choose how many cards to reveal before revealing any. Like "I will reveal 3 cards" and then you reveal them all.

I anticipate some people not liking the gain clause. The way I see it, is some games you buy it just for the trashing, just like in many games you buy mint for the trashing. The best way to use it's trashing, from Cull's perspective, is to draw high and have lots of copper in hand so you can trash them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on August 16, 2020, 07:32:04 pm

Quote from: segura on August 16, 2020, 12:14:45 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 16, 2020, 11:32:46 am

I'm not really happy with my submission, and because it uses a sort of complex mechanic, I'm not likely to get it to a good point in the time alotted. I am going to be replacing it with this.

(https://i.imgur.com/Mdq5RCv.png?1)

You gotta phrase this as "costing less in Coins than".
I think that a difference of 1 is too small. I'd roll with 2.

mail-mi posted this card on this forum a while back. Seems awfully similar.

(https://abload.de/img/commonwealthmail-miv2kpx.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on August 16, 2020, 07:37:33 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on August 16, 2020, 07:32:04 pm

Quote from: segura on August 16, 2020, 12:14:45 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 16, 2020, 11:32:46 am

I'm not really happy with my submission, and because it uses a sort of complex mechanic, I'm not likely to get it to a good point in the time alotted. I am going to be replacing it with this.

(https://i.imgur.com/Mdq5RCv.png?1)

You gotta phrase this as "costing less in Coins than".
I think that a difference of 1 is too small. I'd roll with 2.

mail-mi posted this card on this forum a while back. Seems awfully similar.

(https://abload.de/img/commonwealthmail-miv2kpx.png)

It's a coincidence. The good ideas have all been thought of already.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 16, 2020, 07:40:41 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on August 16, 2020, 07:32:04 pm

Quote from: segura on August 16, 2020, 12:14:45 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 16, 2020, 11:32:46 am

I'm not really happy with my submission, and because it uses a sort of complex mechanic, I'm not likely to get it to a good point in the time alotted. I am going to be replacing it with this.

(https://i.imgur.com/Mdq5RCv.png?1)

You gotta phrase this as "costing less in Coins than".
I think that a difference of 1 is too small. I'd roll with 2.

mail-mi posted this card on this forum a while back. Seems awfully similar.

(https://abload.de/img/commonwealthmail-miv2kpx.png)

Well, it is better worded and it has the correct spread of 2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 16, 2020, 08:31:14 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 14, 2020, 03:44:25 pm

Edit: My new submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200815/fkfcryzb.png)

I like this concept a ton, but there's a bunch of issues with it.

There's a precedent for phrasing things that have specific vanilla bonuses. "Actions with +$ amounts in their text." So you should make this "Reveal any number of Action Cards with + Card amounts in their text."

However, your card is difficult to play. You reveal them... are they still in your hand? What if you reveal a throne room, can you throne room the card you already revealed  and thus play it three times (once from the Accountant, etc.) Look to another card for inspiration how to solve this problem: Golem. You should have this card set cards aside from your hand, so that it is clear that they are not in your hand anymore.

Those are two issues, but there's the bigger one with this being able to play cantrips. The solution to this is to simply have this card not be able to play cantrips. My change would be this:

Quote

Accountant - Action - $4
+2 Cards
Reveal and set Aside any number of Action cards from your hand without + Action amounts in their text. Play the set aside cards in any order.

Price, I am unsure about. At the very least this has the Cultist chaining ability. But it doesn't give ruins but is more versatile. I think 4-5 could be right. Probably 4 as it's a little difficult to use right.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 16, 2020, 09:23:13 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 16, 2020, 08:31:14 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 14, 2020, 03:44:25 pm

Edit: My new submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200815/fkfcryzb.png)

I like this concept a ton, but there's a bunch of issues with it.

There's a precedent for phrasing things that have specific vanilla bonuses. "Actions with +$ amounts in their text." So you should make this "Reveal any number of Action Cards with + Card amounts in their text."

However, your card is difficult to play. You reveal them... are they still in your hand? What if you reveal a throne room, can you throne room the card you already revealed  and thus play it three times (once from the Accountant, etc.) Look to another card for inspiration how to solve this problem: Golem. You should have this card set cards aside from your hand, so that it is clear that they are not in your hand anymore.

Those are two issues, but there's the bigger one with this being able to play cantrips. The solution to this is to simply have this card not be able to play cantrips. My change would be this:

Quote

Accountant - Action - $4
+2 Cards
Reveal and set Aside any number of Action cards from your hand without + Action amounts in their text. Play the set aside cards in any order.

Price, I am unsure about. At the very least this has the Cultist chaining ability. But it doesn't give ruins but is more versatile. I think 4-5 could be right. Probably 4 as it's a little difficult to use right.

I agree that "set aside" solves the main issue. I don't quite understand why it's a problem if it can play cantrips though? But you may have missed that it can only play cards that draw 2 or more cards; so it couldn't play Village, for example. But it could play Laboratory.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 16, 2020, 11:34:55 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 16, 2020, 09:23:13 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 16, 2020, 08:31:14 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 14, 2020, 03:44:25 pm

Edit: My new submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200815/fkfcryzb.png)

I like this concept a ton, but there's a bunch of issues with it.

There's a precedent for phrasing things that have specific vanilla bonuses. "Actions with +$ amounts in their text." So you should make this "Reveal any number of Action Cards with + Card amounts in their text."

However, your card is difficult to play. You reveal them... are they still in your hand? What if you reveal a throne room, can you throne room the card you already revealed  and thus play it three times (once from the Accountant, etc.) Look to another card for inspiration how to solve this problem: Golem. You should have this card set cards aside from your hand, so that it is clear that they are not in your hand anymore.

Those are two issues, but there's the bigger one with this being able to play cantrips. The solution to this is to simply have this card not be able to play cantrips. My change would be this:

Quote

Accountant - Action - $4
+2 Cards
Reveal and set Aside any number of Action cards from your hand without + Action amounts in their text. Play the set aside cards in any order.

Price, I am unsure about. At the very least this has the Cultist chaining ability. But it doesn't give ruins but is more versatile. I think 4-5 could be right. Probably 4 as it's a little difficult to use right.

I agree that "set aside" solves the main issue. I don't quite understand why it's a problem if it can play cantrips though? But you may have missed that it can only play cards that draw 2 or more cards; so it couldn't play Village, for example. But it could play Laboratory.

I did miss the 2 or more cards for X thing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 17, 2020, 01:54:46 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 16, 2020, 06:32:08 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/9h6znqle.png)

Quote

Cull - Action - $4
Choose to reveal any number of cards from your deck. If they are all uniquely named, put them in your hand. If they are not, discard them all.
-
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

Neat, but probably broken with Patron/Tunnel.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on August 17, 2020, 06:14:59 am

(https://i.imgur.com/2xfkFre.png)
Foundation (Landmark)

Set up: Each player secretly chooses a number.
---
When scoring: Score 5VP if your chosen number is closest to the number of cards in your deck.

We don't have a landmark yet.
Here comes one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: JimJammer on August 17, 2020, 06:22:48 am

Here's my fix to the card I was previously calling Crypt(I've changed the name because there is already a card with that name).

The new card is also quite a bit weaker,  which I think fixes the swinginess problem.

(https://i.imgur.com/eMQSnh8.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 17, 2020, 11:47:19 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 16, 2020, 11:34:55 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 16, 2020, 09:23:13 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 16, 2020, 08:31:14 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 14, 2020, 03:44:25 pm

Edit: My new submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200815/fkfcryzb.png)

I like this concept a ton, but there's a bunch of issues with it.

There's a precedent for phrasing things that have specific vanilla bonuses. "Actions with +$ amounts in their text." So you should make this "Reveal any number of Action Cards with + Card amounts in their text."

However, your card is difficult to play. You reveal them... are they still in your hand? What if you reveal a throne room, can you throne room the card you already revealed  and thus play it three times (once from the Accountant, etc.) Look to another card for inspiration how to solve this problem: Golem. You should have this card set cards aside from your hand, so that it is clear that they are not in your hand anymore.

Those are two issues, but there's the bigger one with this being able to play cantrips. The solution to this is to simply have this card not be able to play cantrips. My change would be this:

Quote

Accountant - Action - $4
+2 Cards
Reveal and set Aside any number of Action cards from your hand without + Action amounts in their text. Play the set aside cards in any order.

Price, I am unsure about. At the very least this has the Cultist chaining ability. But it doesn't give ruins but is more versatile. I think 4-5 could be right. Probably 4 as it's a little difficult to use right.

I agree that "set aside" solves the main issue. I don't quite understand why it's a problem if it can play cantrips though? But you may have missed that it can only play cards that draw 2 or more cards; so it couldn't play Village, for example. But it could play Laboratory.

I did miss the 2 or more cards for X thing.

Thanks for your feedback!
Some clarifications about how the card is intended to work: As you might have seen in my post where I have submitted the card, I had several versions, which basically differ in their power level and costs. chronostrike correctly pointed out that +X card (X is any number) allows playing cantrips, which could be too strong. So, with the suggestions of chronostrike and segura about power level and card costs in mind, I decided to go for the less powerful (+X Cards in text), cheaper ($4) version. This should be more balanced and also more interesting in terms of game play strategies.

With respect to the wording about revealing and setting aside:
The instructions (as given) boil down to “Reveal some cards….play them…” with some text in between about the details what can be revealed. I indeed looked at Golem; it doesn’t set cards aside, although here it is less problematic as the cards are revealed from the deck and not from the hand.
However, the actual “in between” state of the revealed cards before they are played (main problem: are they still part of the hand?) can indeed become problematic in some cases (e.g. with Scholar). So, I think you and GendoIkari are right: The most unambiguous way is to include “set aside” in the text of Accountant and so I will do.

Whatever wording is used, I cannot imagine a case where a Throne Room can be revealed with (any version of) Accountant. So, that shouldn’t be a problem.
Also, there are only a few cards that draw 2+ cards and also give +Actions. I see no problem with that either.

For anyone interested:
Any version of Accountant I presented ensures that there is at least one target in any possible Kingdom (i.e. Accountant itself).
I roughly/quickly* counted the number of cards with “+X Cards” (X >1) in their text. There are 64/354 = 18%. That means that ~80% of possible Kingdoms have, besides Accountant, at least 1 target card (with “+X Cards” in text). There are 139/354 = 39% cards with “+X Card” (X = any number) in their text. Here, ~97% of possible Kingdoms have, besides Accountant, at least one such card.

* I do not claim that the numbers are exact. I didn’t look into the details of split-piles, Exchange cards such as Travelers, non-Kingdom Supply piles etc. and I only counted once.

As a side note. some cards have the “+X Cards” in their text, but only as an option (e.g. Steward). Of course, you can play them via Accountant, but you do not have to choose that option. Some Duration cards get the “+X cards” in their next turn (e.g. Haunted Woods). Again, you can play them. Cavalry has “+2 Cards” in its text; you can play it, although this is an on-gain instruction. You do not get +2 Cards, but you gain 2 Horses here as per instructions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on August 17, 2020, 01:46:07 pm

Statute (Action, $4)

+1 Action

Pick any number. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If the total cost (in coins) of the revealed cards matches the number you picked, put the revealed cards into your hand. Otherwise, put one of the revealed cards into your hand and discard the rest.

No idea if this is the right price for the card. Might be too good for $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on August 17, 2020, 02:01:39 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on August 17, 2020, 01:46:07 pm

Statute (Action, $4)

+1 Action

Pick any number. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If the total cost (in coins) of the revealed cards matches the number you picked, put the revealed cards into your hand. Otherwise, put one of the revealed cards into your hand and discard the rest.

No idea if this is the right price for the card. Might be too good for $4.

This is pretty busted since it's good even if you don't guess correctly. You can guess correctly pretty consistently with thinning too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 17, 2020, 02:33:27 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 17, 2020, 02:01:39 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on August 17, 2020, 01:46:07 pm

Statute (Action, $4)

+1 Action

Pick any number. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If the total cost (in coins) of the revealed cards matches the number you picked, put the revealed cards into your hand. Otherwise, put one of the revealed cards into your hand and discard the rest.

No idea if this is the right price for the card. Might be too good for $4.

This is pretty busted since it's good even if you don't guess correctly. You can guess correctly pretty consistently with thinning too.

How can you guess "consistently"? Even if you only have 3 different costed cards in your deck (for example Statue as $4 for draw, some $5s for trashing/junking/whatever and Gold for payload), it is anything but obvious or clear that you can guess correctly most of the time.
At the first glance, Menagerie seems much easier to pull off.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on August 17, 2020, 02:49:12 pm

Quote from: segura on August 17, 2020, 02:33:27 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 17, 2020, 02:01:39 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on August 17, 2020, 01:46:07 pm

Statute (Action, $4)

+1 Action

Pick any number. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If the total cost (in coins) of the revealed cards matches the number you picked, put the revealed cards into your hand. Otherwise, put one of the revealed cards into your hand and discard the rest.

No idea if this is the right price for the card. Might be too good for $4.

This is pretty busted since it's good even if you don't guess correctly. You can guess correctly pretty consistently with thinning too.

How can you guess "consistently"? Even if you only have 3 different costed cards in your deck (for example Statue as $4 for draw, some $5s for trashing/junking/whatever and Gold for payload), it is anything but obvious or clear that you can guess correctly most of the time.
At the first glance, Menagerie seems much easier to pull off.

The problem isn't the payoff. It's the failcase. The non-activated effect is strong enough to be bought on its own, compared to Cartographer at 5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 17, 2020, 03:16:06 pm

Border Guard with Lantern for $4 does not impress me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 17, 2020, 03:51:01 pm

Quote from: majiponi on August 14, 2020, 06:13:01 am

Bankrupt Smithy
cost $5 - Action
+2 Coffers
Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers, and draw that many.

I'd honestly add "+1 Card" as a vanilla bonus, so that it acts like a proper Smithy when you spend the Coffers immediately. Right now, it's kinda week for a $5 cost, whereas +2 Coffers would make it iffy for a $4 cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 17, 2020, 04:50:17 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 17, 2020, 02:49:12 pm

Quote from: segura on August 17, 2020, 02:33:27 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 17, 2020, 02:01:39 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on August 17, 2020, 01:46:07 pm

Statute (Action, $4)

+1 Action

Pick any number. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If the total cost (in coins) of the revealed cards matches the number you picked, put the revealed cards into your hand. Otherwise, put one of the revealed cards into your hand and discard the rest.

No idea if this is the right price for the card. Might be too good for $4.

This is pretty busted since it's good even if you don't guess correctly. You can guess correctly pretty consistently with thinning too.

How can you guess "consistently"? Even if you only have 3 different costed cards in your deck (for example Statue as $4 for draw, some $5s for trashing/junking/whatever and Gold for payload), it is anything but obvious or clear that you can guess correctly most of the time.
At the first glance, Menagerie seems much easier to pull off.

The problem isn't the payoff. It's the failcase. The non-activated effect is strong enough to be bought on its own, compared to Cartographer at 5.

I think it makes much more sense to compare this to Forum (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Forum)... when this fails, it is is strictly worse than Forum, and by a good bit.

One problem with how this card fits into the contest is that "choose a number" would be a much more natural wording for the effect than "pick any number".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 17, 2020, 05:01:59 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 17, 2020, 02:49:12 pm

Quote from: segura on August 17, 2020, 02:33:27 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 17, 2020, 02:01:39 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on August 17, 2020, 01:46:07 pm

Statute (Action, $4)

+1 Action

Pick any number. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If the total cost (in coins) of the revealed cards matches the number you picked, put the revealed cards into your hand. Otherwise, put one of the revealed cards into your hand and discard the rest.

No idea if this is the right price for the card. Might be too good for $4.

This is pretty busted since it's good even if you don't guess correctly. You can guess correctly pretty consistently with thinning too.

How can you guess "consistently"? Even if you only have 3 different costed cards in your deck (for example Statue as $4 for draw, some $5s for trashing/junking/whatever and Gold for payload), it is anything but obvious or clear that you can guess correctly most of the time.
At the first glance, Menagerie seems much easier to pull off.

The problem isn't the payoff. It's the failcase. The non-activated effect is strong enough to be bought on its own, compared to Cartographer at 5.

Quote from: segura on August 17, 2020, 03:16:06 pm

Border Guard with Lantern for $4 does not impress me.

I think it should be also compared with Advisor. There, the player gets 2 out of 3 cards, but usually not the best one. Since there is a potential jackpot with Statute, the fail case could be weakened, e.g. "Otherwise put the first revealed card into your hand." One can think now whether the other 2 revealed cards are discarded (easier for balancing the card), or whether they go back to the deck, which allows a second Statute played thereafter to be more successful (seems to be more interesting game-play wise).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 17, 2020, 05:15:04 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 17, 2020, 05:01:59 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 17, 2020, 02:49:12 pm

Quote from: segura on August 17, 2020, 02:33:27 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 17, 2020, 02:01:39 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on August 17, 2020, 01:46:07 pm

Statute (Action, $4)

+1 Action

Pick any number. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If the total cost (in coins) of the revealed cards matches the number you picked, put the revealed cards into your hand. Otherwise, put one of the revealed cards into your hand and discard the rest.

No idea if this is the right price for the card. Might be too good for $4.

This is pretty busted since it's good even if you don't guess correctly. You can guess correctly pretty consistently with thinning too.

How can you guess "consistently"? Even if you only have 3 different costed cards in your deck (for example Statue as $4 for draw, some $5s for trashing/junking/whatever and Gold for payload), it is anything but obvious or clear that you can guess correctly most of the time.
At the first glance, Menagerie seems much easier to pull off.

The problem isn't the payoff. It's the failcase. The non-activated effect is strong enough to be bought on its own, compared to Cartographer at 5.

Quote from: segura on August 17, 2020, 03:16:06 pm

Border Guard with Lantern for $4 does not impress me.

I think it should be also compared with Advisor. There, the player gets 2 out of 3 cards, but usually not the best one.

You could argue that Border Guard with Lantern is the "inverse" of Advisor, i.e. you get the best out of 3.

I don't think that this gets us anywhere though. The card is either Borderguard with Lantern or it is a DoubleLab, i.e. it either sifts or draws. My guess is that it is a $3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 17, 2020, 05:19:57 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 17, 2020, 04:50:17 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 17, 2020, 02:49:12 pm

Quote from: segura on August 17, 2020, 02:33:27 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 17, 2020, 02:01:39 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on August 17, 2020, 01:46:07 pm

Statute (Action, $4)

+1 Action

Pick any number. Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. If the total cost (in coins) of the revealed cards matches the number you picked, put the revealed cards into your hand. Otherwise, put one of the revealed cards into your hand and discard the rest.

No idea if this is the right price for the card. Might be too good for $4.

This is pretty busted since it's good even if you don't guess correctly. You can guess correctly pretty consistently with thinning too.

How can you guess "consistently"? Even if you only have 3 different costed cards in your deck (for example Statue as $4 for draw, some $5s for trashing/junking/whatever and Gold for payload), it is anything but obvious or clear that you can guess correctly most of the time.
At the first glance, Menagerie seems much easier to pull off.

The problem isn't the payoff. It's the failcase. The non-activated effect is strong enough to be bought on its own, compared to Cartographer at 5.

I think it makes much more sense to compare this to Forum (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Forum)... when this fails, it is is strictly worse than Forum, and by a good bit.

One problem with how this card fits into the contest is that "choose a number" would be a much more natural wording for the effect than "pick any number".

To compare Statute with Forum is even better than comparing it with Advisor (I wrote my post at the same time as you did, but it took too long).
Out of curiosity (I am not a native English speaker), is there any relevant difference between pick/choose a/any number (in any combination)?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 17, 2020, 05:23:56 pm

Forum sifts from hand, Statue untriggered aka Borderguard+Lantern sifts from deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 17, 2020, 05:45:14 pm

Quote from: segura on August 17, 2020, 05:23:56 pm

Forum sifts from hand, Statue untriggered aka Borderguard+Lantern sifts from deck.

Yes, the difference is that Forum has more cards to choose from for discarding, but it costs $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 17, 2020, 05:56:49 pm

Forum is the best 5 out of 7. Borderguard+Lantern is 4 plus the best 1 out of 3.

Apart from the fact that we usually categorize these cards as sifters, they have little in common. For example Advisor plus a handsifter like Forum is a combo whereas Advisor plus a decksifter like Borderguard have no synergy at all.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 17, 2020, 06:54:26 pm

Quote from: segura on August 17, 2020, 05:23:56 pm

Forum sifts from hand, Statue untriggered aka Borderguard+Lantern sifts from deck.

Forum sifts from hand AND deck; since you draw first. Which is why Forum is much better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 17, 2020, 07:30:22 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 17, 2020, 06:54:26 pm

Quote from: segura on August 17, 2020, 05:23:56 pm

Forum sifts from hand, Statue untriggered aka Borderguard+Lantern sifts from deck.

Forum sifts from hand AND deck; since you draw first. Which is why Forum is much better.

Decksifters like Borderguard also draw. That is why it makes little sense to say that a handsifter is a decksifter. All sifters draw, the question is rather where they can DISCARD from, deck or hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 18, 2020, 09:45:19 am

24 hr

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 18, 2020, 09:51:12 am

Quote from: faust on August 17, 2020, 01:54:46 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 16, 2020, 06:32:08 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/9h6znqle.png)

Quote

Cull - Action - $4
Choose to reveal any number of cards from your deck. If they are all uniquely named, put them in your hand. If they are not, discard them all.
-
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

Neat, but probably broken with Patron/Tunnel.

Good eye! I am wondering whether this is worth designing around. Golem (just for tunnel) and rebuild also allow “broken” combos with on discard cards. Granted, cull is cheaper than both cards, though it is terminal (comparing it to rebuild). I feel that it’s fine to allow this combo, but could be designed around “if they are not, put them in your discard pile.”

What do you (or anyone else) think?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 18, 2020, 09:58:04 am

Tunnel is probably OK. For example 2 Tunnels plus Cull makes Cull a DoubleGoldGainer. Yeah, that is nice but unlikely to broken or anything.
Patron is potentially more problematic but I seriously doubt that this combo would be crazier than Hunting Party / Patron. Hunting Party always does something very useful whereas Cull is a stop card that yields some Coffers.

Hard to say without actual playtesting but I would not change the card because of two combos (that don't seem wacky at first glance to me).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 11:41:59 am

Usurer
$6 Action
Choose one: +1 Buy; or take any number of Coffers up to 5, and at the start of your buy phase, spend all of your coffers, and for each $1 you have unspent at the end of your turn, take 1 debt.

Just something off the top of my head to get me back in the game. Back when I joined the forum this was still on its second contest, I had no idea it would go this long.

Edit: changed wording and cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 18, 2020, 12:51:02 pm

Ignoring that the card is obviously too good, there is no reason to use Coffers instead of Coins (Black Market is the only thing I see now which would make a mechanical difference) if you are forced to spend them. Thus the only thing this achieves is to make tracking easier.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 01:09:00 pm

Quote from: segura on August 18, 2020, 12:51:02 pm

Ignoring that the card is obviously too good, there is no reason to use Coffers instead of Coins (Black Market is the only thing I see now which would make a mechanical difference) if you are forced to spend them. Thus the only thing this achieves is to make tracking easier.

I'd like to avoid the interactions with Storyteller, and I think the wording is slightly better.
As far as the strength, it's just a shot in the dark. How about at $6?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 18, 2020, 01:13:01 pm

No idea, Death Cart, Animal Fair and Harvest are the only three terminals that come to mind which yield more than 3 Coins. They are of little help for determining a price though. I am fairly certain though that it cannot cost less than $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on August 18, 2020, 01:14:54 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 11:41:59 am

Usurer
$6 Action
Choose one: +1 Buy; or take any number of Coffers up to 5, and at the start of your buy phase, spend all of your coffers, and for each $1 you have unspent at the end of your turn, take 1 debt.

Just something off the top of my head to get me back in the game. Back when I joined the forum this was still on its second contest, I had no idea it would go this long.

Edit: changed wording and cost.

This feels like the "any number" wording is forced. Why doesn't this card just say "up to 5 coffers"? I know that would disqualify it from this contest, but the wording is still awkward.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 01:34:30 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on August 18, 2020, 01:14:54 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 11:41:59 am

Usurer
$6 Action
Choose one: +1 Buy; or take any number of Coffers up to 5, and at the start of your buy phase, spend all of your coffers, and for each $1 you have unspent at the end of your turn, take 1 debt.

Just something off the top of my head to get me back in the game. Back when I joined the forum this was still on its second contest, I had no idea it would go this long.

Edit: changed wording and cost.

This feels like the "any number" wording is forced. Why doesn't this card just say "up to 5 coffers"? I know that would disqualify it from this contest, but the wording is still awkward.

I kind of forgot about that, originally I had a slightly different concept that had no limit, but it seemed a bit nuts. It probably doesn't count.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 01:36:42 pm

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this old RBCI card:

Attic
$2 Action
+1 Action
Draw any number of cards, then discard that many.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on August 18, 2020, 01:37:59 pm

This is a revised version of a card I entered in a past contest:

(https://i.imgur.com/pWiN5Md.png)

Quote

Consignor - Action - $4

Take any number of @.

Exile a non-Victory card from the Supply costing $1 per @1 you took.

You may play a cheaper Action or Treasure card from your Exile mat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 01:46:21 pm

Abbey
$5 Action
Choose one: +2 Villagers; or you may spend any number of Villagers to trash that many cards from your hand.

Quick new submission, how about this?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on August 18, 2020, 02:10:52 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 01:46:21 pm

Abbey
$5 Action
Choose one: +2 Villagers; or you may spend any number of Villagers to trash that many cards from your hand.

Quick new submission, how about this?

This could cost less.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 02:17:08 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 18, 2020, 02:10:52 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 01:46:21 pm

Abbey
$5 Action
Choose one: +2 Villagers; or you may spend any number of Villagers to trash that many cards from your hand.

Quick new submission, how about this?

This could cost less.

I don't know; I feel like it might compare too favorable to Hideout at $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 18, 2020, 02:58:11 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 02:17:08 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 18, 2020, 02:10:52 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 01:46:21 pm

Abbey
$5 Action
Choose one: +2 Villagers; or you may spend any number of Villagers to trash that many cards from your hand.

Quick new submission, how about this?

This could cost less.

I don't know; I feel like it might compare too favorable to Hideout at $4.

Looks like a fairly undesirable $2 to me. It is either a Villager-Necro or it is a terminal that trashes one card from your hand (actually it is slightly worse as you cannot trash anything after the first shuffle).
Hoarding the Villagers to trash later increases the efficiency of the card but is bad tempo-wise (you wanna trash now). Late-game junking situations in which this would shine, like e.g. Coven, are rare.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 03:39:54 pm

Yeah I think I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective. I'll think about for a bit more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 18, 2020, 05:54:35 pm

Quote from: segura on August 18, 2020, 02:58:11 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 02:17:08 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 18, 2020, 02:10:52 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 01:46:21 pm

Abbey
$5 Action
Choose one: +2 Villagers; or you may spend any number of Villagers to trash that many cards from your hand.

Quick new submission, how about this?

This could cost less.

I don't know; I feel like it might compare too favorable to Hideout at $4.

Looks like a fairly undesirable $2 to me. It is either a Villager-Necro or it is a terminal that trashes one card from your hand (actually it is slightly worse as you cannot trash anything after the first shuffle).
Hoarding the Villagers to trash later increases the efficiency of the card but is bad tempo-wise (you wanna trash now). Late-game junking situations in which this would shine, like e.g. Coven, are rare.

Why would it trash only one card from your hand? That's true if you spend a single villager; but you can spend more than 1 villager. Actually it's worse than a "terminal" from an actions perspective because you have to spend villagers, which makes it basically take up more than the 1 action that it costs to play a terminal.

Also what do you mean by "you cannot trash anything after the first shuffle"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 18, 2020, 06:10:06 pm

First time you play this, you take the Villagers. That is after the first shuffle.
Second time you play this, you use the Villagers to trash two cards. That is after the second shuffle.
The whole thing is nearly equivalent to playing on average a terminal that trashes one card, except that it is slightly worse as you could not trash during T3-T5.

This sucks. Of course you might use the card if there is no other splitter or trasher but it is pretty bad at either job.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 06:47:24 pm

One last shot:

Cleric
$4 Action
+2 Coffers
You may trash a card from your hand, then you may spend any number of coffers to trash that many cards from your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 18, 2020, 07:14:30 pm

I realised my old submission didn't need to say any number, so here's a new one: (sorry pubby)
(https://i.imgur.com/EP0N4ss.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/7m2A7Wg.png)
A scullion was the guy who swept and cleaned the kitchen.
Edit: whoops scullian should be duration. Sorry

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 18, 2020, 08:27:49 pm

I am so terribly sorry to post this so late, but I was still not satisfied with my entry, so I narrowed it to this:

(https://i.postimg.cc/54N2fFGN/Wager-v3-1.png)

Now, regardless if there still are some small hiccups with Wager V3, I'll leave it as is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 18, 2020, 11:15:56 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 01:36:42 pm

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this old RBCI card:

Attic
$2 Action
+1 Action
Draw any number of cards, then discard that many.

This  is strictly better than warehouse

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 18, 2020, 11:29:37 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 18, 2020, 11:15:56 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 01:36:42 pm

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this old RBCI card:

Attic
$2 Action
+1 Action
Draw any number of cards, then discard that many.

This  is strictly better than warehouse

It's way way better than warehouse, because it lets you swap out the cards in your hand with exactly what you want whenever it's played.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on August 19, 2020, 01:09:49 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 18, 2020, 01:36:42 pm

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this old RBCI card:

Attic
$2 Action
+1 Action
Draw any number of cards, then discard that many.

Lol, that's my RBCI. Wow, that was years ago.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 19, 2020, 05:04:40 am

Quote from: X-tra on August 18, 2020, 08:27:49 pm

I am so terribly sorry to post this so late, but I was still not satisfied with my entry, so I narrowed it to this:

(https://i.postimg.cc/54N2fFGN/Wager-v3-1.png)

Now, regardless if there still are some small hiccups with Wager V3, I'll leave it as is.

First of all, this is strictly better than Village.
Second, even at $4 it might be too strong. If you had to spend the Action to draw it would be OK.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: xyz123 on August 19, 2020, 07:05:02 am

A quick idea of a Forge variant for a late entry.

Smelting Pot
Cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png)}
Trash at least one card from your hand. You may gain any number of differently named cards whose total cost is not greater than the total cost of the cards trashed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 19, 2020, 08:38:31 am

Quote from: xyz123 on August 19, 2020, 07:05:02 am

A quick idea of a Forge variant for a late entry.

Smelting Pot
Cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/d4/Debt8.png/18px-Debt8.png)}
Trash at least one card from your hand. You may gain any number of differently named cards whose total cost is not greater than the total cost of the cards trashed.

This is strictly better than Forge yet massively cheaper. Scripted opening.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 19, 2020, 08:56:18 am

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2020, 05:04:40 am

First of all, this is strictly better than Village.
Second, even at $4 it might be too strong. If you had to spend the Action to draw it would be OK.

I don’t think it’s strictly better than Village. It’s more along the line of, it’s just different than Village. They’re kind of on 2 different scales. If we analyse Wager more thoroughly, we see that:

• It’s a Village if played as is.
• Then, it’s a Laboratory that makes you take (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png) (which is probably where you want to be more often than not with Wager).

If you keep drawing, it’s all downhill from there onward.

• At 3 cards drawn, it’s a Smithy that gives you (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/c/c6/Debt2.png/18px-Debt2.png). Pretty shit deal.
• Then, we have a Hunting Grounds that gives you (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png) AND that sucks one of your spare Actions out. Not even playing a Village before drawing 4 Cards with Wager will save you from it being terminal.

And it goes on. It’s just so different than Village in all the options you can do with it. I’ll concede that maybe the extra versatility of the whole affair is what should bump it to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), but no way with these below average choices should it be upgraded to a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png). But it doesn’t matter anyway. We’re so far into this competition that further changing the card would be a disservice to Pubby. So it’ll have to stay as is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 19, 2020, 09:54:59 am

Quote from: X-tra on August 19, 2020, 08:56:18 am

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2020, 05:04:40 am

First of all, this is strictly better than Village.
Second, even at $4 it might be too strong. If you had to spend the Action to draw it would be OK.

I don’t think it’s strictly better than Village.

Dude, it is a Village with an extra, non-mandatory option.
That is most definitely strictly better, so it has to cost at least $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 19, 2020, 10:01:31 am

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2020, 09:54:59 am

Dude, it is a Village with an extra, non-mandatory option.
That is most definitely strictly better, so it has to cost at least $4.

But the options morph Wager into something that really isn't "Village + something", like I listed. In fact, all of the options you can have with it are weaker than their other existing card counter part (except, maybe, when you decide to draw only one card with Wager). Like, a Smithy that gives (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/c/c6/Debt2.png/18px-Debt2.png)? Hardly justifiable at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png).

But regardless, you might have omitted to read this here quote:

Quote from: X-tra on August 19, 2020, 08:56:18 am

I’ll concede that maybe the extra versatility of the whole affair is what should bump it to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), […]

It addresses the concern you’re raising. ;)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 19, 2020, 10:34:26 am

This is like saying that Mining Village would be fine at $3 because, duh, what kind of idiot blow ups his village.
Contrary to your claim, the card is Village plus something. The first part is village, then you can either skip the second part or, if you want to, use the extra part.

It does not matter what the extra option is or that it involves converting one resource into another or whatever. The extra option is valuable and thus has to be priced in.

This is nothing controversial but Dominion 101: all villages with a cherry on top cost more than $3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on August 19, 2020, 10:35:53 am

Quote from: X-tra on August 19, 2020, 10:01:31 am

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2020, 09:54:59 am

Dude, it is a Village with an extra, non-mandatory option.
That is most definitely strictly better, so it has to cost at least $4.

But the options morph Wager into something that really isn't "Village + something", like I listed. In fact, all of the options you can have with it are weaker than their other existing card counter part (except, maybe, when you decide to draw only one card with Wager). Like, a Smithy that gives (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/c/c6/Debt2.png/18px-Debt2.png)? Hardly justifiable at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png).

But regardless, you might have omitted to read this here quote:

Quote from: X-tra on August 19, 2020, 08:56:18 am

I’ll concede that maybe the extra versatility of the whole affair is what should bump it to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), […]

It addresses the concern you’re raising. ;)

I think you're evaluatiing "strictly better" to mean that on play it is stronger than "+1 Card, +2 Actions". And you make good, reasoned arguments for the different play options.

But (and you do consider this with the versatility comment) the point segura is making is that if this is on the board, you would always buy this instead of village. Because it's always can be a village, and in a circumstance where you need it to something different, you can.

Aside from that, a couple of logistical questions:
• Can you draw more cards, than you have actions? As written it looks like it can. You still get the debt of course, but you can't lose a non existing action, and if you have villagers, you can spend them after.
• do you have to decide how many to draw before you draw the first card? Or can you draw 1, then decide if you want to draw another, then another,... As written, I would assume the latter. (otherwise you could just say "draw any number of cards. For each card you drew, ...."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on August 19, 2020, 11:37:45 am

Quote from: scolapasta on August 18, 2020, 01:37:59 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pWiN5Md.png)

This looks like fun :)

As a baseline, I would compare it to the on-play effect of market square. But of course there are a lot of things that make Consigner different, and some make it weaker and some stronger, also depending on the situation and the kingdom.
With that in mind, I would drop the price to $3. That seems to fit it's power level better. The other option, and that is the one I would love to see, is to give it +1 Action, making the baseline comparison being Worker's Village. And I really like games, where you have to get your basics like extra actions through non-standard ways (e.g. with Summon)!
(and it would also make playing Consigner with no Actions in Exile less of a pain)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 19, 2020, 12:48:30 pm

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2020, 10:34:26 am

This is like saying that Mining Village would be fine at $3 because, duh, what kind of idiot blow ups his village.
Contrary to your claim, the card is Village plus something. The first part is village, then you can either skip the second part or, if you want to, use the extra part.

It does not matter what the extra option is or that it involves converting one resource into another or whatever. The extra option is valuable and thus has to be priced in.

This is nothing controversial but Dominion 101: all villages with a cherry on top cost more than $3.

Counterargument: Hamlet. It does more (and less at the same time, yes) than a Village, but it ain't costing your precious (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png). Village doesn't give the Buy, but Hamlet can! What! Poorly designed official card if you ask me.

Okay. Now I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. In truth I don't really think what I said about Hamlet, I'm just being petty. Still, why do you refuse to read the part where I agree'd that it should be a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)? I'm just saying that I believe it should be so, not because it's a Village that gives something more, but because it's a Village that has the option of probably be shittier than a normal Village (again, always barring the case where its user turns it into a Laboratory).

Final test: Price me this hypothetical card: "+1 Card; +2 Actions; You may discard a card for +1 Buy". Hamlet, Worker's Village and Village all say good luck.

Quote from: scolapasta on August 19, 2020, 10:35:53 am

I think you're evaluatiing "strictly better" to mean that on play it is stronger than "+1 Card, +2 Actions". And you make good, reasoned arguments for the different play options.

But (and you do consider this with the versatility comment) the point segura is making is that if this is on the board, you would always buy this instead of village. Because it's always can be a village, and in a circumstance where you need it to something different, you can.

A sound argument. I did realise that after making the card. My focus was on the fact that, if you chose to overdraw with Wager, it'd be weaker and overpriced compare to stuff like the Smithy case I mentioned before. However it is true that just giving the user the option to do so, whereas Village do not, is worth bumping up the price by (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png), even if said choices are below mediocre. Choices that will probably put you in a more miserable position than nuking your Mining Villages for cash, dare I add. ;)


Edit: Okay. Removed the unnecessary mean undertones of this post. I'm not that kind of guy, sorry.  :-[

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 19, 2020, 01:14:27 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 19, 2020, 12:48:30 pm

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2020, 10:34:26 am

This is like saying that Mining Village would be fine at $3 because, duh, what kind of idiot blow ups his village.
Contrary to your claim, the card is Village plus something. The first part is village, then you can either skip the second part or, if you want to, use the extra part.

It does not matter what the extra option is or that it involves converting one resource into another or whatever. The extra option is valuable and thus has to be priced in.

This is nothing controversial but Dominion 101: all villages with a cherry on top cost more than $3.

Counterargument: Hamlet. It does more (and less at the same time, yes) than a Village, but it ain't costing your precious (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png). Village doesn't give the Buy, but Hamlet can! What! Poorly designed official card if you ask me.

Okay. Now I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. In truth I don't really think what I said about Hamlet, I'm just being petty. Still, why do you refuse to read the part where I agree'd that it should be a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)? I'm just saying that I believe it should be so, not because it's a Village that gives something more, but because it's a Village that has the option of probably be shittier than a normal Village (again, always barring the case where its user turns it into a Laboratory).

Final test: Price me this hypothetical card: "+1 Card; +2 Actions; You may discard a card for +1 Buy". Hamlet, Worker's Village and Village all say good luck.

Quote from: scolapasta on August 19, 2020, 10:35:53 am

I think you're evaluatiing "strictly better" to mean that on play it is stronger than "+1 Card, +2 Actions". And you make good, reasoned arguments for the different play options.

But (and you do consider this with the versatility comment) the point segura is making is that if this is on the board, you would always buy this instead of village. Because it's always can be a village, and in a circumstance where you need it to something different, you can.

A sound argument. I did realise that after making the card. My focus was on the fact that, if you chose to overdraw with Wager, it'd be weaker and overpriced compare to stuff like the Smithy case I mentioned before. However it is true that just giving the user the option to do so, whereas Village do not, is worth bumping up the price by (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png), even if said choices are below mediocre. Choices that will probably put you in a more miserable position than nuking your Mining Villages for cash, dare I add. ;)


Edit: Okay. Removed the unnecessary mean undertones of this post. I'm not that kind of guy, sorry.  :-[

You're missing a key idea about how strictly better works. Imagine this card:

Quote

Other Village - Action - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}
Choose One:
+1 Card, +2 Actions
OR
Gain a Curse

Almost every time you play this card, it's exactly Village. If you choose the other option, it's way worse than Village. But the card is still strictly better than Village, because every single thing that Village can do for you when you play it, this card can also do for you when you play it.

Hamlet, on the other hand, cannot do every thing for you that Village can do, no matter what choices you make with it. There are 4 total outcomes you can get from playing Village, and none of them have the net effect of +1 action while keeping your handsize the same, which is what Village does.

Other Village, on the other hand, can do what Village does for you (giving +1 action while keeping your handsize the same), but it can also do something else as well. That makes it strictly better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 19, 2020, 01:30:30 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 19, 2020, 01:14:27 pm

You're missing a key idea about how strictly better works. Imagine this card:

Quote

Other Village - Action - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}
Choose One:
+1 Card, +2 Actions
OR
Gain a Curse

Almost every time you play this card, it's exactly Village. If you choose the other option, it's way worse than Village. But the card is still strictly better than Village, because every single thing that Village can do for you when you play it, this card can also do for you when you play it.

Hamlet, on the other hand, cannot do every thing for you that Village can do, no matter what choices you make with it. There are 4 total outcomes you can get from playing Village, and none of them have the net effect of +1 action while keeping your handsize the same, which is what Village does.

Other Village, on the other hand, can do what Village does for you (giving +1 action while keeping your handsize the same), but it can also do something else as well. That makes it strictly better.

So is Other Village worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) or (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) in the example you’ve shown? You priced it at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), is it because you believe that it is worth this cost? If so, then you did the illegal move of pricing a strictly better Village under (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png).

Anyway, Segura said :

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2020, 10:34:26 am

It does not matter what the extra option is or that it involves converting one resource into another or whatever.

So technically, the loss of the 2 cards to Hamlet does not matter, since “converting one resource into another” doesn’t matter. That’s what irked me a lil’. But I get it, I understand. Hamlet can never be, at minimum, the same as Village. Like I said, I did not have faith in this argument, sorry I even brought this up. But yeah, to go back on my example in my previous post, a card that says “+1 Card; +2 Actions; You may discard a card for +1 Buy” should be a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), correct? Strictly better than Village cards must always be at least (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). But now, it’s strictly worse than Worker’s Village. What happens then?

Anyway, sorry for derailing this thread. The conclusion is that, yes, Wager is a card worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). I just had other reasons to believe that it was worth this cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on August 19, 2020, 01:38:32 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 19, 2020, 01:30:30 pm

But yeah, to go back on my example in my previous post, a card that says “+1 Card; +2 Actions; You may discard for +1 Buy” should be a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), correct? Strictly better than Village cards must always be at least (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). But now, it’s strictly worse than Worker’s Village. What happens then?

What happens then is you scrap (or tweak) that design, because such a card can't work.

(or do an alternative cost like _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png)})

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 19, 2020, 01:40:25 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 19, 2020, 01:30:30 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 19, 2020, 01:14:27 pm

You're missing a key idea about how strictly better works. Imagine this card:

Quote

Other Village - Action - _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}
Choose One:
+1 Card, +2 Actions
OR
Gain a Curse

Almost every time you play this card, it's exactly Village. If you choose the other option, it's way worse than Village. But the card is still strictly better than Village, because every single thing that Village can do for you when you play it, this card can also do for you when you play it.

Hamlet, on the other hand, cannot do every thing for you that Village can do, no matter what choices you make with it. There are 4 total outcomes you can get from playing Village, and none of them have the net effect of +1 action while keeping your handsize the same, which is what Village does.

Other Village, on the other hand, can do what Village does for you (giving +1 action while keeping your handsize the same), but it can also do something else as well. That makes it strictly better.

So is Other Village worth (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) or (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) in the example you’ve shown? You priced it at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), is it because you believe that it is worth this cost? If so, then you did the illegal move of pricing a strictly better Village under (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png).

Yeah I listed it at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} to be an example of what shouldn't be done. At _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} the card would be fine (well it would be a bad card, but it wouldn't break the strictly better principle).

Quote

Anyway, Segura said :

Quote from: segura on August 19, 2020, 10:34:26 am

It does not matter what the extra option is or that it involves converting one resource into another or whatever.

So technically, the loss of the 2 cards to Hamlet does not matter, since “converting one resource into another” doesn’t matter. That’s what irked me a lil’. But I get it, I understand. Hamlet can never be, at minimum, the same as Village.

Right, it's fine to think of discarding cards as part of converting resources, but the important thing is that Hamlet doesn't do everything Village does and also allow you to discard cards for more abilities. If you choose not to do any resource conversion with Hamlet, you get +1 card +1 action, not +1 card +2 actions.

Quote

But yeah, to go back on my example in my previous post, a card that says “+1 Card; +2 Actions; You may discard for +1 Buy” should be a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), correct? Strictly better than Village cards must always be at least (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). But now, it’s strictly worse than Worker’s Village. What happens then?

This is a problem that Donald has actually discussed a few times, just recently in fact in the Interview Thread (http://"http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=5799.msg850951#msg850951"). Basically the existence of some cards makes other cards impossible. The card you suggest cannot exist unless it uses something like a Debt cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 19, 2020, 01:56:27 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 19, 2020, 01:30:30 pm

But yeah, to go back on my example in my previous post, a card that says “+1 Card; +2 Actions; You may discard a card for +1 Buy” should be a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), correct? Strictly better than Village cards must always be at least (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). But now, it’s strictly worse than Worker’s Village. What happens then?

This card cannot cost $3, because it is always a Village+. To have it with a cost of $4 is difficult, because of the already existing cards (Workers Village), which is in most cases better, but not strictly better. If you would be really forced to make and price this specific card, give it a Debt cost as scolapasta pointed out, which looks awful, or another idea, as part of a split-pile, where the second card is a draw to X card, and then all of the sudden you want this card and not Workers Village. This is just an example to demonstrate that, if one card is not strictly better, but only better in most cases, there is a chance for the seemingly weaker card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 19, 2020, 02:01:22 pm

Interesting. Thank you guys for taking the time to have this lil’ chat with me, albeit a little off topic one (Sorry 'bout that)! And uh, thank you for doing so without making me feel like I’m a complete idiot who doesn’t know his “Dominion 101”, unlike uhh… *cough*

So I was looking at all Wager could be and considered all of these options and their appropriated cost as if they were cards on their own. “Oh so it can be Village, so that’s a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png).” “Then it can be a Lab that gives you (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png)”, that oughta be a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png).” “Okay, now a Smithy that gives you lotsa Debt, that’s a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), maybe even a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)?.” “Okay, overall, all these choices seem to average around (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), so that’s what it should cost.”

But Wager is more than the sum of its parts. The mere fact that the option to morph it into this or that card – with Village as its base – is definitely and unarguably setting the cost threshold of it at (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png). I guess I didn’t look at the “Village plus something” that Segura said with the same pair of eyes. ‘Cause in my head, it was all like, “Well, it’s almost Village minus something, actually.” Which is uhh balderdash. But again, no time to change the cost now.

Anyway uhhh sorry Pubby, have fun judging through all these cool walls of text. :D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 19, 2020, 03:14:00 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 19, 2020, 02:01:22 pm

“Okay, overall, all these choices seem to average around (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), so that’s what it should cost.”

Ironmonger also shows that this averaging-the-effects method doesn't necessarily make you arrive at a correct price. Depending on what it reveals, Ironmonger is either a Village+ (_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}), a Peddler+ (_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}), or a Lab+ (_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}), which averages out to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, which is higher than its cost (this is because you don't have full control over the effect, and the strongest effect is also the rarest).

When you just get to directly choose which effect your card has, then it has to cost at least as much as the maximum "effect-cost." In the case of Wager, you could just choose to always use the Lab- (_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}) effect, so it has to cost at least _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, even without the strictly-better-than-Village comparison. I'd even argue that Wager should actually cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, since Lab with _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png)} is probably worth _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, and Wager is strictly better than that, enough so to probably cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 19, 2020, 05:03:59 pm

Quote from: Gubump on August 19, 2020, 03:14:00 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 19, 2020, 02:01:22 pm

“Okay, overall, all these choices seem to average around (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), so that’s what it should cost.”

Ironmonger also shows that this averaging-the-effects method doesn't necessarily make you arrive at a correct price. Depending on what it reveals, Ironmonger is either a Village+ (_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}), a Peddler+ (_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}), or a Lab+ (_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}), which averages out to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, which is higher than its cost (this is because you don't have full control over the effect, and the strongest effect is also the rarest).

When you just get to directly choose which effect your card has, then it has to cost at least as much as the maximum "effect-cost." In the case of Wager, you could just choose to always use the Lab- (_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}) effect, so it has to cost at least _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, even without the strictly-better-than-Village comparison. I'd even argue that Wager should actually cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, since Lab with _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/43/Debt1.png/18px-Debt1.png)} is probably worth _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, and Wager is strictly better than that, enough so to probably cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

That is a quite brilliant point about Ironmonger.

About Wager, I find it very hard to evaluate. Asper had a Lab that comes with 1D for $3. I don’t know if it was balanced but the choice between the effect of two $3s doesn’t smell like a $5. Hard to say.
On the other hand, there is the third option use this as dead-terminal draw. In the absence of Villagers, only something for money decks and in Platinum Kingdoms it might be a real thing.

I think that this very third option, albeit perhaps only sometimes useful, is what might push this into $5 territory.
On a meta-level, the card should obviously get rid of the village part and focus on debt->money, that is interesting enough in itself without further complications.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 19, 2020, 09:52:43 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f3dd6a3e111651f625830ea/b36d1e959ad265c002733f4c7bdbf00e/image.png)

Quote

Rectory • $4 • Action
+2 Cards
Trash any number of cards from the top of your deck. For each card trashed this way, +$1.

Untested/off the cuff and getting it in right under the wire.
FAQ: you cannot trigger a reshuffle to trash more cards w this by declaring a large number (you can reshuffle if the +2 cards causes you to reshuffle). You do not look at the cards as you go and decide when to stop - you declare how many you're trashing, then do it, then for each card you trashed, +$1.

Priced at $4 for the same-ish reason chapel is priced at $2.
also sorry if this is the same as a card someone has entered already, i didn't have time to give the thread my usual perusal (school starting up).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 19, 2020, 09:58:59 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 19, 2020, 09:52:43 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f3dd6a3e111651f625830ea/b36d1e959ad265c002733f4c7bdbf00e/image.png)

Quote

Rectory • $4 • Action
+2 Cards
Trash any number of cards from the top of your deck. For each card trashed this way, +$1.

Untested/off the cuff and getting it in right under the wire.
FAQ: you cannot trigger a reshuffle to trash more cards w this by declaring a large number (you can reshuffle if the +2 cards causes you to reshuffle). You do not look at the cards as you go and decide when to stop - you declare how many you're trashing, then do it, then for each card you trashed, +$1.

Priced at $4 for the same-ish reason chapel is priced at $2.
also sorry if this is the same as a card someone has entered already, i didn't have time to give the thread my usual perusal (school starting up).

Fortress turns this into an infinite $ generator.

Ignore this - I didn't read the faq well at all.

It sounds interesting, although I think you probably don't want to use this often after the first shuffle.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 19, 2020, 11:17:49 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 19, 2020, 09:52:43 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f3dd6a3e111651f625830ea/b36d1e959ad265c002733f4c7bdbf00e/image.png)

Quote

Rectory • $4 • Action
+2 Cards
Trash any number of cards from the top of your deck. For each card trashed this way, +$1.

Untested/off the cuff and getting it in right under the wire.
FAQ: you cannot trigger a reshuffle to trash more cards w this by declaring a large number (you can reshuffle if the +2 cards causes you to reshuffle). You do not look at the cards as you go and decide when to stop - you declare how many you're trashing, then do it, then for each card you trashed, +$1.

Priced at $4 for the same-ish reason chapel is priced at $2.
also sorry if this is the same as a card someone has entered already, i didn't have time to give the thread my usual perusal (school starting up).

I'm not sure how the FAQ fits within the general rules of Dominion... from the main second edition rulebook:

Quote

If you have to do anything with your deck - for example draw, look at, reveal, set aside, discard, or trash cards - and you need more cards than are left in your deck, first shuffle your discard pile and put it under your deck, then do the thing.

It even calls out "trash" specifically as a thing you might need to do with your deck... so "trash the top 5 cards of your deck" would definitely trigger a reshuffle if there are fewer than 5 cards remaining in your draw pile. I think you need different card wording, not just a FAQ entry, if you want to actually change the rules.

Pretty much the only cards that care about thinking of the discard pile as anything other than a natural extension of your draw pile are things that let you search your discard pile, and Fisherman (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Fisherman) (as well of course as anything that gains cards).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on August 20, 2020, 08:44:06 am

(https://i.imgur.com/bmx2z0y.jpg)

Quote

Vintner
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card. Discard any number of cards. +1 Villager per card discarded.

Discard for Villagers.  A lot of existing Villager sources are limited: Acting Troupe pops; Lackeys, Patron, and Spice Merchant don't solve a desire for +Actions; Recruiter tends to eat most of its own Villagers to trash Coppers non-terminally; and Sculptor has to gain stop-cards.  It's only Academy where we regularly get to see how powerful huge numbers of +Villagers are.
Ideally you want to use Vintner as all your Villages at once each shuffle, but that might be kind of awkward, so maybe stock up a bit.  Skip a turn for +5 Villagers?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 20, 2020, 10:17:58 am

ok no more time to judge

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 20, 2020, 12:32:15 pm

Vinter - fragasnap
Seems like a very playable card. I like it, though maybe it's too cheap.

Rectory - spineflu
Too random and out of your control for a trasher. If one player gets to trash 5 junk on turn 3, and the other player gets to trash 1 junk and 1 good card on turn 4, clearly the turn 3 player has a huge advantage. I don't like that.

Wager - X-tra
It's pretty cool to have an unlimited drawing card, but I think there's too many restrictions on this one. Plus, it should cost more than Village.

Scullian - LordBaphomet
Seems like it should be a duration card. The effect seems reasonable and nice, albeit kinda low-impact. I think I'd prefer if the artifact were harder to get so that it doesn't ping-pong between players every turn.

Cleric - FlyEaglesFly
This is a very strong card. Like Chapel, it trashes quickly. Like Masquerade, it doesn't give up much buying power when using it. Honestly though, I'd prefer something like "+2 Coffers or spend your coffers to trash that much". That would be more more unique compared to Chapel and Steward.

Consignor - Scolapasta
I'm guessing "cheaper" is referring to the gained card's cost arnd not Consignor's cost. It's a neat effect, but seems weak. Camel train is not a very strong card either, but I think camel train would be faster than this. The debt cost is just to high compared to other gainers which do it for free.

Statute - mandioca15
It's a better border guard in the worst case, which is already a good effect, so maybe a bit strong. I like this card, but it needs tweaks.

Viaduct - JimJammer
This card is a better-than-chapel trasher, so you obviously want to open with it. I like the changes you made to this card, but I don't see it being very different from how Chapel or Donate plays.

Foundation - Artless
Pretty cool to see a Landmark entered. It's an alright card too, but I wish it had more built-in interaction between players.

Cull - anordinaryman
This card's pretty dang nifty. It's random, sure, but it's also skillful enough to make the randomness fun. The only thing I would change is to allow putting the cards back on your deck when you fail. That way, you can play a second cull to draw some of them. Also, I'm not convinced the trashing clause is necessary.

Dowry - D782802859
A well-made event. I think this one is very playable, but I do slightly prefer the version that costs $2 instead of $1 more.

Farmer - Rhodos
Plough looks great. It can be hard to come up with heirlooms, but I really like plough. Farmer doesn't excite me much though. It's just too similar in strategy to Harem, and I'm not excited by Harem either.

Feudalism - Segura
Nice little village-gaining project. I like it.

Craftsman - Something Smart
It's true it's very similar to Artificer, but I like this card slightly more. Still, not exactly a new idea.

Accountant - gambit05
Cool, creative card, but I prefer the version without text in parenthesis. If that verison is too good, I'd rather see it be nerfed in more elegant ways.

Maritime Trade - Marpharos
For $3 you get to turn all your actions into woodcutters. Very nice effect, but man it just costs too much for how little coin in generates. But it's still cool when this is the only +Buy.

Bankrupt Smithy - Majiponi
Nice, simple card. I like it.

Landscaper - Barbarossa41
A unique VP gainer. Only issue is that I prefer VP gainers to be bounded - if they can go on forever then games can drag or stalemate.

Burgh - alion8me
This is a cute little village. I like it a lot, though I wonder how confusing it gets when you start chaining these.

Pact - grrgrrgrr
Fun concept and a very nice use of the villager concept. It does debt well too, for it's expensive but not something you want on the first shuffle. And the "any number" part is truly unique.

Fabulist - Jonatan Djurachkovitch
Hmm it's a bit too complicated I think. I would prefer a version without the $ effect. I do like the top-of-deck setting aside though.

Wee Folk - chronostrike
Very cute card, but I worry it gives too many actions for discarding victory cards. IMO I'd rather see the original version with +1 Action tagged onto the top. Good job with this one though.

Fyrd - grep
Huh this is a wacky one. I guess you want to trash Copper, Estate, and a Fyrd with it, then gain another Fyrd for the bonus? But that's a little random in the opening.

Census - faust
Interesting take on "any number". Dunno how playable it is though - it really requires an extra buy in the kingdom, and duchy just isn't something you want much even for $0. And it's quite random.

Farm - Aquila
With two of these babies you can keep the green out of your deck forever. It's nice, though admittedly made less interesting by the introduction of Exile.

Way of the Snake - NoMoreFun
A nice, simple way. Don't see any problem with it really. Nice card.

Angry Mob - Xen3k
The ruins aspect is pretty cool. I wish it had more benefit besides the sifting though - as it stands it kinda insists upon itself to defend against its own junking.

Merchant Fleet - LibraryAdventurer
A simple, playable money-ish card. It's alright. For simplicities sake it really ought to give +Buy on both turns.

Festive Village - silverspawn
Another unique take on VP gaining. This one's mostly bounded in how much VP you can gain with it, which I like. It's a bit awkward to use though. By the time you can trash your starting cards, the game will be pretty far along. It definitely works, but it's a bit slow. I like it though.



WINNER: Pact by grrgrrgrr

RUNNERS UP: Burgh, Vinter, Wee Folk


Thanks for the entries.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 20, 2020, 02:10:49 pm

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway, next contest will we:

Contest nr 85: Maybe this will help

Design a Heirloom that is used on an official card.
Some clarifications:
* The official card can be a card that already has an Heirloom. Then you may either choose to get rid of that Heirloom, or to add a second one.
* With an exception of above, you cannot alter the official card in any way.
* You may create multiple Heirlooms for one card. However, you cannot create an Heirloom for multiple cards.
* The official card can also be a Landscape. Even a Way.
* Removed cards can also be used.

Example (very bad one):

Quote

Scout's bane (used on: Scout) (Treasure - Reaction - Duration, $0)
$1
-
When you reveal this using the word "reveal", gain a Curse.

With this, the Scout gets the words "Heirloom: Scout's bane" in its text. Scout's bane will replace one of your starting Coppers; and Scout finally gets the nerf it needs  ;D.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on August 20, 2020, 02:45:35 pm

Antique coin (used on horn of plenty) Treasure $0
$1 you may show your hand. If you show 3 different victory cards, trash it and gain a prize

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 20, 2020, 02:55:37 pm

Nice contest idea! I'm usually not that quick to enter my card, but I got inspired real quick this time. My goal was trying to help a poor bottom-of-the-barrel Qvist card and my attention immediately shifted toward Bureaucrat. The poor ol' Bureaucrat. Let's throw a goodie at him:

(https://i.postimg.cc/0vnFq235/Bureaucrat.png)     (https://i.postimg.cc/5bhkmHHg/Paperwork-v1.png)

I think it's rather obvious how Paperwork benefits from Bureaucrat's top-decking Silver ability (something which usually sucks). Bureaucrat can also top-deck your opponents' Paperwork. 4 out of your 10 starting cards are now prime candidates for the Attack. Maybe +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) is too much, but I wanted it to be akin to Baron's Estate thingy. The +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) is just there to not break the 4/3 and 5/2 opens.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on August 20, 2020, 03:11:41 pm

Paperwork still does some weird things if you draw it turn 2. 5/2 with turn 2 Paperwork is amazing, but 2/5 with turn 2 Paperwork is terrible.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on August 20, 2020, 03:18:58 pm

Thanks for judging pubby! And congrats to grrgrrgrr and the runners up, too!

And interesting new contest. I like these 'give existing cards a new tweak' :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on August 20, 2020, 03:27:09 pm

I just decided to roll a random card and see what kind of Heirloom I could come up with.

I'll probably do this multiple times to try to find the best one, but I came up with this one almost instantly, so I'll at least see if anyone has any feedback about it:

(https://i.imgur.com/2klnETW.png) (https://i.imgur.com/w3JXEIM.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on August 20, 2020, 03:28:06 pm

Here's my attempt at a Counting House heirloom:

(https://i.imgur.com/3D1vLIa.png)

The bottom part is to make it so you can pick up your Shilling from your discard pile when you play Counting House. Let me know if there's a better wording for it, this is the best I could come up with (it also lets it interact with Settlers and Coppersmith, which is fun).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 20, 2020, 03:37:25 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 20, 2020, 03:11:41 pm

Paperwork still does some weird things if you draw it turn 2. 5/2 with turn 2 Paperwork is amazing, but 2/5 with turn 2 Paperwork is terrible.

Ye. You could buy a Silver turn 1 and hope to flip it on turn 2. 1/6 chance if I'm not mistaken. The swing is real, but a Baron not hitting VS. one hitting also exist. Except that for a missing Baron, you wasted an Action. Not with Paperwork, which is something you didn't even Buy in the first place.

And when you play Paperwork (I used to have Shilling written here, my brain) on turn 2, you screw up your reshuffle anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 20, 2020, 03:42:19 pm

Bale for Harvest:
1. Harvest could use the extra naming power
2. Likes variety too, it's a mini-fairgrounds
3. Gets a bonus when discarded, and if harvest or other actions do it you can use it this turn
(https://i.imgur.com/Uqag4H6.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 20, 2020, 03:47:12 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 20, 2020, 03:42:19 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Uqag4H6.png)

With this, the opening splits would be: 3/3, 5/1 and 4/2. That's kinda cool in a way. I like the card too. :)


Edit: Oh but wait. The discarding clause, it happens even during Cleanup, correct? If so, then the Coffers makes the opening split even weirder.


Edit 2: I know I'm being annoying, but I wanted to see this through, lol. The openings can be seen this way, if the player decide to gain a Coffers and use it immediately next turn:

111BE EE111 > 3 / 4
EE111 111BE > 3 / 3
1BEEE 11111 > 1 / 6
11111 1BEEE > 5 / 1
1111B EEE11 > 4 / 3
11EEE 1111B > 2 / 4

Where 1 = Copper ; B = Bale ; E = Estate.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 20, 2020, 03:57:33 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 20, 2020, 03:47:12 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 20, 2020, 03:42:19 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Uqag4H6.png)

With this, the opening splits would be: 3/3, 5/1 and 4/2. That's kinda cool in a way. I like the card too. :)

Edit: Oh but wait. The discarding clause, it happens even during Cleanup, correct? If so, then the Coffers makes the opening split even weirder.

Some openings are strictly better then others though. Split the six coppers into two hands. Then if you put the bale in the first hand, that's better then putting it in the second hand, since you can use the coffer earlier. Is this a problem, or simply harmless luck that barely will affect the game?

For example 111BE/EE111 is better then 111EE/111EB since now the first player can open 3/4 if they want, or 3/3 while the second player doesn't have such a choice

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 20, 2020, 04:11:06 pm

I retract my submission for this contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 20, 2020, 04:17:38 pm

Edit: this is an outdated entry, see downthread for the new one

(https://i.imgur.com/l4uF2mg.png)

This is an heirloom for Philosopher's Stone. I might end up changing to a different card completely, I'm not sure if this is interesting to play with. Obviously it interacts with other potion cards in an interesting way but that happens relatively rarely.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 20, 2020, 04:57:57 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 20, 2020, 04:11:06 pm

My submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200820/n7iywdir.png) (https://s12.directupload.net/images/200820/ofzee672.png)

>Get my Copperfield trashed with thief
>Lose ~7 VP and quietly weep

Also btw 1VP per copper is i think way too much. Comparing to shepherd's pasture - Estates cost more, there are less of them, and they are a dead card in your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on August 20, 2020, 06:05:49 pm

See later post for current version.

(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/117922377_299632204630974_6441990385900608940_n.png?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=i2aqb_R-kDAAX_IeWqH&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=be3b258ff13511d41f0fef56381e1728&oe=5F63AFDB) (https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/117905686_2745901752178156_6666711664442619052_n.png?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=Y2omAhYs03gAX8I0TGt&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=db89da50a24c50e88a0d85e67447ca6e&oe=5F661167)

Quote

Cursed Mask - $0
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
-
When scoring, this is worth -2%.

When you trash this, gain a Curse and two Coppers.

This just a goofy Heirloom for Masquerade. It emphasizes the hot potato characteristic of the card as you don't really want to be the one to bite the bullet and junk your own deck by trashing the Heirloom. I am guessing if there are really good trashers in the Kingdom like Chapel this won't really matter. I was thinking of giving it the Fortress characteristic of never being able to trash it. I would love to hear what others think of it.

(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/117893360_991291447999747_3524444889115959280_n.png?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=jrIw24_1HJoAX_w97vS&_nc_oc=AQnKIdReuzeaRaun_XpcOcC0owGUJ5QZ6C1dWYGotk2eSUyfthdpEO_FYdRluTPM0Eo&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=93338f6dcddae4fded3570ee497e76e9&oe=5F657870)

Quote

Cursed Mask - $0
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
-
When scoring, this is worth -2%.

When you trash this, put it into your discard pile.

So, this is what it would look like if I go with the Fortress mechanic and it just can't be trashed. I think it is cleaner, but I do like the option to just trash the mask into a confetti of junk.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 20, 2020, 06:50:19 pm

Quote from: X-tra on August 20, 2020, 02:55:37 pm

Nice contest idea! I'm usually not that quick to enter my card, but I got inspired real quick this time. My goal was trying to help a poor bottom-of-the-barrel Qvist card and my attention immediately shifted toward Bureaucrat. The poor ol' Bureaucrat. Let's throw a goodie at him:

(https://i.postimg.cc/0vnFq235/Bureaucrat.png)     (https://i.postimg.cc/5bhkmHHg/Paperwork-v1.png)

I think it's rather obvious how Paperwork benefits from Bureaucrat's top-decking Silver ability (something which usually sucks). Bureaucrat can also top-deck your opponents' Paperwork. 4 out of your 10 starting cards are now prime candidates for the Attack. Maybe +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) is too much, but I wanted it to be akin to Baron's Estate thingy. The +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png) is just there to not break the 4/3 and 5/2 opens.

This is GREAT! I love this. Bureaucrat is a favorite card of me and it's sad that it's weak. I think this heirloom improves the card so much. It's making me think about not even submitting this contest.

The concept is great but I do have some ideas to maybe improve it. I personally think that there is no reason for it to give 2vp. Everyone starts off with it, giving it two VP just encourages people to not trash it, which I think is unnecessary and clouds the simple design. 1vp is better. Or, to be more focused on silvers, you could have it give you 1vp per every 4 silvers you have (as an example). Or even something like "this is worth 4vp if you have at least 10 silvers in your deck"

Since this is an heirloom, there's no need to compare it to existing cards like Baron for power. I think because it is relatively swingy (did I get lucky to have a silver or no), that you should weaken it slightly.
a couple of choices:

Quote

Choose one: +1$; or reveal the top card of your deck if it is not empty. If it's a silver, +3$

You can be swingier with this you could even do +$4 (although I'm unsure about that), since the gamble is in the player's hands.

Quote

If your deck is not empty, reveal the top card of your deck. If it's a silver, +$3. Otherwise, +$1

Quote

If your deck is not empty, reveal the top card of your deck. If it's a silver, +$2. Otherwise, +$1

I've snuck another clause into here: "If your deck is not empty" which addresses these issues:

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 20, 2020, 03:11:41 pm

Paperwork still does some weird things if you draw it turn 2. 5/2 with turn 2 Paperwork is amazing, but 2/5 with turn 2 Paperwork is terrible.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 20, 2020, 06:59:08 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Q6ltBaT.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/74/Pillage.jpg/374px-Pillage.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on August 20, 2020, 07:16:03 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/gOvHmhJ.png?1) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/b4/Bishop.jpg/200px-Bishop.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on August 20, 2020, 09:15:38 pm

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/d/dd/Navigator.jpg/200px-Navigator.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/7v7wNZP.png)

Quote

Sextant $2
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
-
When you discard this other than during clean-up, you may reveal it to look through your discard pile and put a card from it onto your deck.

A consolation prize for not liking your next hand.  I had an idea for Merchant Ship, but parsing the text to make it do what I intend is a nightmare.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 20, 2020, 10:41:42 pm

My thoughts about this contest:
First of all, this is a really great concept and there are lots of good ideas being posted. However some heirlooms seems to be elevating their heirloomees to a must-buy status, turning the game into something with only one strategy. I think even mine is guilty of this. If we look at the heirlooms:
Shepherd/Pasture: Firstly, pasture helps shepherd draw. That much is obvious. However, going for the estates is only feasible with buy and/or gainers. Even then, it's not like you get that many points out of it and it will need to be complemented by something else. Finally, shepherd doesn't work well with thin trashing decks or decks that like to hide away VPs (Island, exile, native village, etc.), and also with shelters
Haunted Mirror/Cemetary: Cemetary is only useful to get rid of curses and starting estates, maybe copper. You probably won't have more than two in your deck. Also, cemetary is a trasher just in case there isn't another one. Haunted mirror I think can be compared to arena, only you lose 1$ for that turn and get a ghost instead of 2VP. Early game that's good, but I don't think I'd take that deal with only a few turns left in the game. Plus, you can only use it once (barring Treasurer  I guess)
Magic Lamp/Secret Cave: tbh haven't played enough with this to know the strategy or how game-warping wishes are. Sorry.
Goat/Pixie: The only reason pixie has goat is so double flames gift isn't broken on a board with no trashing. Yeah goat is a good card, but doesn't really dominate strategies in any way other than some bonus trashing.
Tracker/Pouch: Again not much intersection, other than pouch's buy taking advantage of tracker's top decking effect. Easily one of the weaker heirlooms. Not much effect on boards, unless there is no other buy.
Cursed Gold/Pooka: Here's an heirloom that actually makes it's card weaker, by being explicitly referenced, but I guess we can't do that in the contest... Cursed gold really shakes up the openings and makes for interesting choices but again, not really a deciding factor on what strategy to play. Pooka's alright, I guess.
Fool/Lucky coin: Lucky coin was only put in to stop the boonage of fool, then Donald X. never took it out. No intersection here. I think Lucy Coin is best compared to Cursed Gold, as they can both be hard choices on whether to play. Again the silvers are rarely game-breaking, other than foedum I guess?

Point is, the heirlooms are all there either as little boosts to underpowered cards (tracker, shepherd), something to rein in a card's effect (Pooka, Pixie), or, y'know, just cuz its cool (fool, cemetary). Let's look at my entry: the whole being a unique card adds to harvest (also tying in the discard effect), and the discard for coffers is there so that it won't screw up openings. I'm worried the VP might be pushing it, though. Comparing to pasture/shepherd:
Unique name = Being VP for shepherd
Discard for coffers = 1$ treasure
Mini-museum for actions = VP for estates? Actions are something you'd want in your deck anyways, while the estate bonus plays more like a traditional alt-VP (i.e. you need enablers like gainers, buy, etc)

Thanks for staying with me for this wall of text...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on August 21, 2020, 02:11:54 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/7/70/Sage.jpg)

Quote

Scroll
$2 - Treasure - Reaction - Heirloom
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}
-
When you discard this other than during clean-up, set this aside and play it twice at the start of your buy phase.

I put "play it twice" instead of once because I want to make Sage actually worth buying... (And since it only works no more than once per shuffle and once per turn, it still isn't a huge buff to Sage.)

EDIT: added Reaction type which I forgot the first time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: schadd on August 21, 2020, 02:55:17 am

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/8/8e/Hermit.jpg/372px-Hermit.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/hPsRx42.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 03:12:20 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 20, 2020, 04:57:57 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 20, 2020, 04:11:06 pm

My submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200820/n7iywdir.png) (https://s12.directupload.net/images/200820/ofzee672.png)

>Get my Copperfield trashed with thief
>Lose ~7 VP and quietly weep

Also btw 1VP per copper is i think way too much. Comparing to shepherd's pasture - Estates cost more, there are less of them, and they are a dead card in your deck.

I am sorry to see you laughing at my cards. Let me tell you what I think about it:

You say Estates are dead. I say they are less dead in combination with Shepherd than Coppers with Thief; I wouldn’t exactly call the Coppers lively. Let’s say, Thief steals Copperfield, so what? The Thief player has gained ~6VP at that very moment, but for what prize? To get the VP through the finish line, the Thief player has a lot of ballast to carry around. For each single VP they want to score via Copperfield (2 VP if they stole a Copperfield and can keep them), they have to keep a Copper in their deck.

You mentioned in your post #6771 that the Heirloom-extended cards presented so far would dominate the game. I haven’t looked at all entries, but I would say that Thief +Copperfield would still not dominate a lot of games. If there is good trashing, or nowadays even Exiling, and all Engine components are around, a player not going for Thief (or doing so late in the game to upset their Thief opponents), would weep if their opponent steals their Copperfield and Coppers along the way –for joy.

However, if things are a bit different, e.g. no good trashing, the presence of some Engine components under par, maybe a strong Gold gainer, or some powerful Treasures (including other Heirlooms) around, Thief+ actually can be considered to be gained and is probably in some games a must-buy. That is how I view the power of Thief +Copperfield: Excellent in some games, ok-ish in some others, weak in still others.

Either way, the presence of Thief+ plus in a Kingdom and of Copperfield in the player’s decks, forces the players to think about the strength of Thief +Copperfield. I thought that’s a good criterion to make a card interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 21, 2020, 03:44:21 am

(https://i.imgur.com/POqVcuj.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/uIgOgHg.png)

Quote

Ritual Sword - $2
Treasure/Heirloom

+$1
Trash an Action you have in play. If you did, +$2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 21, 2020, 07:22:52 am

@ chronostrike's Sextant and LibraryAdventurer's Scroll: they need to be Reactions. #nitpick

---

My entry, for Explorer:

Quote

Tricorn - Treasure Heirloom, $2 cost.
$1
When you play this, you may play an Action from your hand.

Simple, gives Explorer the main benefit of Capitalism it misses out on and perhaps lets you draw a Province before playing it. It shouldn't make a centralising combo?

Edit: (for previous entry) specified non-Attack pulls from discard only, thanks to Faust's post below. But there are other issues with this that are making me consider a different entry. One less Copper to start is a different kind of dread to add to Mountebank's presence. So it now feels like it either should be moved to an early economy card, or this Heirloom effect should be on a Shelter or kingdom card instead.

Edit 2: changed entry to Tricorn, see previous entry in following post.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 21, 2020, 07:35:39 am

Quote from: Aquila on August 21, 2020, 07:22:52 am

@ chronostrike's Sextant and LibraryAdventurer's Scroll: they need to be Reactions. #nitpick

---

My entry, for Mountebank:

Quote

Bottle - Treasure Heirloom, $3 cost.
$0
When you play this, look through your discard pile. Set aside either or a card from it, or this. After you draw your next hand, put the set aside card into your hand.

It's trying to be a nifty Heirloom that makes Mountebank less dreadful and more interesting. One can put a Curse from the discard pile into their next hand, or get generic control for if and when the deck gets bloated. There are some interactions with Prosperity in general I've seen as well, like increased hand size for Vault or Bishop, or pulling Platina and Counting Houses out of a big discard pile.
The $0 worth hurts initially, but with $1 there's the temptation to basically have a Key for the whole game, adding an extra copper to each hand by always setting the Bottle aside.

I'm not sure this plays as you intend, maing Mountebank less dreadful. Indeed, this allows you to pull the Mounty out of discard to play it a second time in the same shuffle, which arguably makes it even worse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 09:14:15 am

Quote from: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 03:12:20 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 20, 2020, 04:57:57 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 20, 2020, 04:11:06 pm

My submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200820/n7iywdir.png) (https://s12.directupload.net/images/200820/ofzee672.png)

>Get my Copperfield trashed with thief
>Lose ~7 VP and quietly weep

Also btw 1VP per copper is i think way too much. Comparing to shepherd's pasture - Estates cost more, there are less of them, and they are a dead card in your deck.

I am sorry to see you laughing at my cards. Let me tell you what I think about it:

You say Estates are dead. I say they are less dead in combination with Shepherd than Coppers with Thief; I wouldn’t exactly call the Coppers lively. Let’s say, Thief steals Copperfield, so what? The Thief player has gained ~6VP at that very moment, but for what prize? To get the VP through the finish line, the Thief player has a lot of ballast to carry around. For each single VP they want to score via Copperfield (2 VP if they stole a Copperfield and can keep them), they have to keep a Copper in their deck.

You mentioned in your post #6771 that the Heirloom-extended cards presented so far would dominate the game. I haven’t looked at all entries, but I would say that Thief +Copperfield would still not dominate a lot of games. If there is good trashing, or nowadays even Exiling, and all Engine components are around, a player not going for Thief (or doing so late in the game to upset their Thief opponents), would weep if their opponent steals their Copperfield and Coppers along the way –for joy.

However, if things are a bit different, e.g. no good trashing, the presence of some Engine components under par, maybe a strong Gold gainer, or some powerful Treasures (including other Heirlooms) around, Thief+ actually can be considered to be gained and is probably in some games a must-buy. That is how I view the power of Thief +Copperfield: Excellent in some games, ok-ish in some others, weak in still others.

Either way, the presence of Thief+ plus in a Kingdom and of Copperfield in the player’s decks, forces the players to think about the strength of Thief +Copperfield. I thought that’s a good criterion to make a card interesting.

Sorry if it seems like I was laughing at your card, I was just making a joke to describe what I think it's problem is. I think it's a great idea, however should be worth less VP. This is worth more then a province, and it can be stolen by thief. This means that if someone buys theif, everyone else does; like a knights scramble but worse. However, you are right in the way that the power level of copperfield is different every game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 21, 2020, 09:15:53 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 09:14:15 am

Sorry if it seems like I was laughing at your card, I was just making a joke to describe what I think it's problem is.

I think its problem is that it puts Thief on the board.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on August 21, 2020, 10:15:52 am

Minecart Coaster for Mine
cost $3 - Treasure - Heirloom
$1
---
When you trash this, gain a Silver.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 10:28:38 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 09:14:15 am

Sorry if it seems like I was laughing at your card, I was just making a joke to describe what I think it's problem is. I think it's a great idea, however should be worth less VP. This is worth more then a province, and it can be stolen by thief. This means that if someone buys theif, everyone else does; like a knights scramble but worse. However, you are right in the way that the power level of copperfield is different every game.

Thanks for your opinion. I appreciate any feedback.
Please keep in mind that the VP worth a Province or more are spread over a lot of cards that are otherwise better junk. Just think about having a starting deck, where each Copper is a Mini-Harem ($1 / 1VP). Would you always keep them in your deck?

Boards that allow rapid trashing of the Coppers will largely ignore Thief+. If a player decides to go for Thief+ and the VP-Coppers, they do it at the cost of having a junk deck. This will be sometimes a valuable option, but other times not. I am confident that on many boards, if someone buys a Thief+, the opponents can still ignore it, even when the Thief+ player is able to steal all the Copperfields.

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 21, 2020, 09:15:53 am

I think its problem is that it puts Thief on the board.

Could you please tell me what the problem with Thief is?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 10:39:38 am

Quote from: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 10:28:38 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 09:14:15 am

Sorry if it seems like I was laughing at your card, I was just making a joke to describe what I think it's problem is. I think it's a great idea, however should be worth less VP. This is worth more then a province, and it can be stolen by thief. This means that if someone buys theif, everyone else does; like a knights scramble but worse. However, you are right in the way that the power level of copperfield is different every game.

Thanks for your opinion. I appreciate any feedback.
Please keep in mind that the VP worth a Province or more are spread over a lot of cards that are otherwise better junk. Just think about having a starting deck, where each Copper is a Mini-Harem ($1 / 1VP). Would you always keep them in your deck?

Boards that allow rapid trashing of the Coppers will largely ignore Thief+. If a player decides to go for Thief+ and the VP-Coppers, they do it at the cost of having a junk deck. This will be sometimes a valuable option, but other times not. I am confident that on many boards, if someone buys a Thief+, the opponents can still ignore it, even when the Thief+ player is able to steal all the Copperfields.

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 21, 2020, 09:15:53 am

I think its problem is that it puts Thief on the board.

Could you please tell me what the problem with Thief is?

The problem with copperfield is it is concentrated in one card, stealable by thief. This is a ~14-point swing, which can easily decide games. Thief sucks because:
1) It doesn't produce resources. Attacks should also produce resources (+2$ for militia, +2 Cards for witch, etc)
2) It trashes other's copper's, which helps them
3) It has been successfully re-implemented by noble brigand and by bandit (which replaced theif in the base second edition), so there is zero reason to play with theif when other cards do the same thing but better

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: JimJammer on August 21, 2020, 10:41:43 am

(https://i.imgur.com/iGyjEm5.png)(https://i.imgur.com/hgQ6u7T.png)

I messed up the wording, should be "When you play this, if you have already trashed a card this turn, you may trash a card from your hand"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 11:40:06 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 10:39:38 am

Quote

The problem with copperfield is it is concentrated in one card, stealable by thief. This is a ~14-point swing, which can easily decide games.

The VPs are not tagged to Copperfield, but to the Coppers. Without Coppers, Copperfield is worth nothing. Due to that, the VPs are attached to a lot of junk cards. You can have such a huge swing only when you keep all the Coppers in your deck; so the penalty is huge. And I am not talking about the boards, where a lot of Coppers (or even the Copperfields) are trashed or Exiled, or whatever.

Quote

Thief sucks because:1) It doesn't produce resources. Attacks should also produce resources (+2$ for militia, +2 Cards for witch, etc).

Thief produces Money by stealing it from others; Thief+ potentially produces VPs. If a given board doesn’t support Thief+, then it should not be bought.
 

Quote

2) It trashes other's copper's, which helps them

Whether stealing Coppers with Thief+ is good for the opponents or not is not trivial.

Quote

3) It has been successfully re-implemented by noble brigand and by bandit (which replaced theif in the base second edition), so there is zero reason to play with theif when other cards do the same thing but better.

Thief+ clearly does different things.
The whole point of Thief + Copperfield was to address all those problems. I wanted to design a Thief that can be useful and interesting on certain boards.
Maybe I miss something fundamentally, but so far none of the criticisms could convince me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 01:28:40 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 11:40:06 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 10:39:38 am

Quote

The problem with copperfield is it is concentrated in one card, stealable by thief. This is a ~14-point swing, which can easily decide games.

The VPs are not tagged to Copperfield, but to the Coppers. Without Coppers, Copperfield is worth nothing. Due to that, the VPs are attached to a lot of junk cards. You can have such a huge swing only when you keep all the Coppers in your deck; so the penalty is huge. And I am not talking about the boards, where a lot of Coppers (or even the Copperfields) are trashed or Exiled, or whatever.

Quote

Thief sucks because:1) It doesn't produce resources. Attacks should also produce resources (+2$ for militia, +2 Cards for witch, etc).

Thief produces Money by stealing it from others; Thief+ potentially produces VPs. If a given board doesn’t support Thief+, then it should not be bought.
 

Quote

2) It trashes other's copper's, which helps them

Whether stealing Coppers with Thief+ is good for the opponents or not is not trivial.

Quote

3) It has been successfully re-implemented by noble brigand and by bandit (which replaced theif in the base second edition), so there is zero reason to play with theif when other cards do the same thing but better.

Thief+ clearly does different things.
The whole point of Thief + Copperfield was to address all those problems. I wanted to design a Thief that can be useful and interesting on certain boards.
Maybe I miss something fundamentally, but so far none of the criticisms could convince me.

Listen, almost the entire community agrees thief is a bad card, and other then that there's nothing I can say to convince you (and yes, outside of cases like counting house or gardens you do always want to get rid of coppers and theif helps opponents do that).
As for my first point, let me run a scenario for you. Assume we both have 7 coppers. You play thief and reveal my copperfield and steal it. You now have an extra 7 points (new copperfield) and I lost seven points (my copperfeild is gone), so that's a 14-point swing in your favor which can easily decide games. All because you got lucky with thief. If you really want to make an heirloom for thief, I suggest instead making one for noble brigand or bandit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 02:13:39 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 01:28:40 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 11:40:06 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 10:39:38 am

Quote

The problem with copperfield is it is concentrated in one card, stealable by thief. This is a ~14-point swing, which can easily decide games.

The VPs are not tagged to Copperfield, but to the Coppers. Without Coppers, Copperfield is worth nothing. Due to that, the VPs are attached to a lot of junk cards. You can have such a huge swing only when you keep all the Coppers in your deck; so the penalty is huge. And I am not talking about the boards, where a lot of Coppers (or even the Copperfields) are trashed or Exiled, or whatever.

Quote

Thief sucks because:1) It doesn't produce resources. Attacks should also produce resources (+2$ for militia, +2 Cards for witch, etc).

Thief produces Money by stealing it from others; Thief+ potentially produces VPs. If a given board doesn’t support Thief+, then it should not be bought.
 

Quote

2) It trashes other's copper's, which helps them

Whether stealing Coppers with Thief+ is good for the opponents or not is not trivial.

Quote

3) It has been successfully re-implemented by noble brigand and by bandit (which replaced theif in the base second edition), so there is zero reason to play with theif when other cards do the same thing but better.

Thief+ clearly does different things.
The whole point of Thief + Copperfield was to address all those problems. I wanted to design a Thief that can be useful and interesting on certain boards.
Maybe I miss something fundamentally, but so far none of the criticisms could convince me.

Quote

Listen, almost the entire community agrees thief is a bad card, and other then that there's nothing I can say to convince you (and yes, outside of cases like counting house or gardens you do always want to get rid of coppers and theif helps opponents do that).

You are talking about the official Thief here. I never did that.



Quote

As for my first point, let me run a scenario for you. Assume we both have 7 coppers. You play thief and reveal my copperfield and steal it. You now have an extra 7 points (new copperfield) and I lost seven points (my copperfeild is gone), so that's a 14-point swing in your favor which can easily decide games. All because you got lucky with thief.

This scenario is the extreme case (6 Coppers by the way, one is replaced by Copperfield). It can happen of course, but often enough it will not. I don’t want to repeat all those other possibilities again; please have a look at my previous posts. Anyway, back to your scenario (the extreme case). I now have 2 Copperfields and a bunch of Coppers. If I want to score with those, I have to keep them for the rest of the game. You, who have lost your Copperfield, have the option to steal it back, or more interesting, ignore all that junk, get rid of your Coppers (my Thief+ may even help), buy nice Engine pieces and beat me, because you have a thin deck and I have all the ballast.

I have the feeling that you don’t understand Thief + Copperfield. On one hand you say it is too weak, on the other hand you say it is too strong. In the extreme case it could be swingy, but the VP swing is connected to a massive amount of junk. The real question is rather, how often it would happen that the Copperfield Thief with all the junk makes the better deal.

It would be nice if someone else could give their opinion about this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 21, 2020, 02:16:44 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f400eb60a46bd44ee61b2aa/0bb19b163d42321d358489729579f52f/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f400eb60a46bd44ee61b2aa/aca61b5850290f0edd87c7b57ec59bb0/image.png)

Quote

Booty • $0 • Treasure - Heirloom
Choose one: $1 or add a Coin token to your Pirate Ship mat.

This does have a similar issue to thief's stealing copperfields (that is, your pirate ships trash my booty) but Booty is just a little boost, rather than game-definingly essential, and i don't think i've ever seen a board where pship was the only viable money option.

Also: just what pirate ship needs, more text.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 02:42:05 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 01:28:40 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 11:40:06 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 10:39:38 am

Quote

The problem with copperfield is it is concentrated in one card, stealable by thief. This is a ~14-point swing, which can easily decide games.

The VPs are not tagged to Copperfield, but to the Coppers. Without Coppers, Copperfield is worth nothing. Due to that, the VPs are attached to a lot of junk cards. You can have such a huge swing only when you keep all the Coppers in your deck; so the penalty is huge. And I am not talking about the boards, where a lot of Coppers (or even the Copperfields) are trashed or Exiled, or whatever.

Quote

Thief sucks because:1) It doesn't produce resources. Attacks should also produce resources (+2$ for militia, +2 Cards for witch, etc).

Thief produces Money by stealing it from others; Thief+ potentially produces VPs. If a given board doesn’t support Thief+, then it should not be bought.
 

Quote

2) It trashes other's copper's, which helps them

Whether stealing Coppers with Thief+ is good for the opponents or not is not trivial.

Quote

3) It has been successfully re-implemented by noble brigand and by bandit (which replaced theif in the base second edition), so there is zero reason to play with theif when other cards do the same thing but better.

Thief+ clearly does different things.
The whole point of Thief + Copperfield was to address all those problems. I wanted to design a Thief that can be useful and interesting on certain boards.
Maybe I miss something fundamentally, but so far none of the criticisms could convince me.

Quote

Listen, almost the entire community agrees thief is a bad card, and other then that there's nothing I can say to convince you (and yes, outside of cases like counting house or gardens you do always want to get rid of coppers and theif helps opponents do that).

You are talking about the official Thief here. I never did that.

Quote

As for my first point, let me run a scenario for you. Assume we both have 7 coppers. You play thief and reveal my copperfield and steal it. You now have an extra 7 points (new copperfield) and I lost seven points (my copperfeild is gone), so that's a 14-point swing in your favor which can easily decide games. All because you got lucky with thief.

This scenario is the extreme case (6 Coppers by the way, one is replaced by Copperfield). It can happen of course, but often enough it will not. I don’t want to repeat all those other possibilities again; please have a look at my previous posts. Anyway, back to your scenario (the extreme case). I now have 2 Copperfields and a bunch of Coppers. If I want to score with those, I have to keep them for the rest of the game. You, who have lost your Copperfield, have the option to steal it back, or more interesting, ignore all that junk, get rid of your Coppers (my Thief+ may even help), buy nice Engine pieces and beat me, because you have a thin deck and I have all the ballast.

I have the feeling that you don’t understand Thief + Copperfield. On one hand you say it is too weak, on the other hand you say it is too strong. In the extreme case it could be swingy, but the VP swing is connected to a massive amount of junk. The real question is rather, how often it would happen that the Copperfield Thief with all the junk makes the better deal.

It would be nice if someone else could give their opinion about this.

I amnot contradicting myself. Thief is really weak. Copperfield is way too strong. It turns the game into a hot potato match of who can steal everyones copperfeilds.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 02:53:43 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 02:42:05 pm

I amnot contradicting myself. Thief is really weak. Copperfield is way too strong. It turns the game into a hot potato match of who can steal everyones copperfeilds.

My last try to argue with you about this. Imagine the following scenario: All Engine pieces around in sufficient quality, including a decent trasher. You start with 2 Copperfields, I have none. How often do you think you are you winning when you go for those extra-VPs?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 02:54:36 pm

Update to Bale - removed the +buy from the discard clause since it doesn't really need it
/Harvest           - was worth way too much VP. Now has a cap of 4 and lightly punishes big money, and also decks which use 1 card like lab, governor, etc.
(https://i.imgur.com/3K444Kt.png)
Edit - Should I raise the VP to discourage trashing the heriloom?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on August 21, 2020, 03:02:07 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 02:53:43 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 02:42:05 pm

I amnot contradicting myself. Thief is really weak. Copperfield is way too strong. It turns the game into a hot potato match of who can steal everyones copperfeilds.

My last try to argue with you about this. Imagine the following scenario: All Engine pieces around in sufficient quality, including a decent trasher. You start with 2 Copperfields, I have none. How often do you think you are you winning when you go for those extra-VPs?

I'll come in to offer a second opinion: Imagine a game without Copper trashing. Then, your thief luckily stealing my copperfield is at 12-point swing in your favor. Even if I get 5 provinces, you can still tie me by only having to buy 3 provinces. That's too big of a swing to be down to your good luck with your Thief. If this was a rare scenario, it wouldn't be bad, but there are probably as many games without good copper trashing as there are with good copper trashing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Titandrake on August 21, 2020, 03:23:45 pm

Heirloom for Counting House

Ledger
Cost $2: Treasure - Heirloom
$1
You may trash this, to gain 3 Coppers to your hand.

This guarantees you can open Counting House if you want to. You can also treat it as a one-time +$3 bonus in the late game, or a way to open an expensive card if you're very desperate (Forge? Less debt on Donate?)

I considered having it gain 4 Copper to take you directly to 10 Copper for Fountain, but decided that wasn't necessary, might be a bit too much money.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 03:29:57 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on August 21, 2020, 03:02:07 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 02:53:43 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 02:42:05 pm

I amnot contradicting myself. Thief is really weak. Copperfield is way too strong. It turns the game into a hot potato match of who can steal everyones copperfeilds.

My last try to argue with you about this. Imagine the following scenario: All Engine pieces around in sufficient quality, including a decent trasher. You start with 2 Copperfields, I have none. How often do you think you are you winning when you go for those extra-VPs?

I'll come in to offer a second opinion: Imagine a game without Copper trashing. Then, your thief luckily stealing my copperfield is at 12-point swing in your favor. Even if I get 5 provinces, you can still tie me by only having to buy 3 provinces. That's too big of a swing to be down to your good luck with your Thief. If this was a rare scenario, it wouldn't be bad, but there are probably as many games without good copper trashing as there are with good copper trashing.

Thank you very much for your input, it is much appreciated.

Copper trashing doesn't have to be good, if you want to avoid the "Copperfield battle". I just very quickly counted the number of cards that allow trashing Coppers (or Copperfields) on the Wiki page. I counted 59. I likely missed some, or counted some twice. On the other hand, I didn't include Landscape cards and I didn't include other cards that can get rid of Coppers or Copperfield (e.g. Island, Miser, Exiling cards) or hide them (e.g. Crypt, Haven and the like). Anyway, even only 59 would mean that 82% of Kingdoms have a possibility to avoid this scenario, and it is probably higher. Then, in the other cases, and on top of that, assuming that one player is really lucky, and even ignoring the fact that the other player can still get Copperfields back, the one with the Copperfields has two more junk cards in their deck. So even then, it is not a clear cut. Anyway, a valuable point one can think about, and to be sure about the numbers I threw in here, I have to look to the trashing cards more carefully. Thanks.

Edit: I forgot to mention: Before I posted Thief with Copperfield as Heirloom, I created 20 Kingdoms with a set generator (Thief always being in the Kingdom of course; and with the starting Copperfield in mind). On my level of understanding Dominion boards I found that 5 of them were clearly in favour of going for Thief+, 5 were clearly not, and for the remaining 10, it was difficult to decide. In my opinion clearly what you want from a card (design wise).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on August 21, 2020, 03:49:15 pm

Quote

(https://i.ibb.co/6Fv0JHC/image.png) (https://i.ibb.co/KXbn6DB/image.png)
Well
$2 - Treasure - Heirloom
$1
Look at the top card of your deck. If it's a Treasure card, you may play it.

A mini-Venture as a companion for Courtyard.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on August 21, 2020, 03:50:56 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 03:29:57 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on August 21, 2020, 03:02:07 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 02:53:43 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 02:42:05 pm

I amnot contradicting myself. Thief is really weak. Copperfield is way too strong. It turns the game into a hot potato match of who can steal everyones copperfeilds.

My last try to argue with you about this. Imagine the following scenario: All Engine pieces around in sufficient quality, including a decent trasher. You start with 2 Copperfields, I have none. How often do you think you are you winning when you go for those extra-VPs?

I'll come in to offer a second opinion: Imagine a game without Copper trashing. Then, your thief luckily stealing my copperfield is at 12-point swing in your favor. Even if I get 5 provinces, you can still tie me by only having to buy 3 provinces. That's too big of a swing to be down to your good luck with your Thief. If this was a rare scenario, it wouldn't be bad, but there are probably as many games without good copper trashing as there are with good copper trashing.

Thank you very much for your input, it is much appreciated.

Copper trashing doesn't have to be good, if you want to avoid the "Copperfield battle". I just very quickly counted the number of cards that allow trashing Coppers (or Copperfields) on the Wiki page. I counted 59. I likely missed some, or counted some twice. On the other hand, I didn't include Landscape cards and I didn't include other cards that can get rid of Coppers or Copperfield (e.g. Island, Miser, Exiling cards) or hide them (e.g. Crypt, Haven and the like). Anyway, even only 59 would mean that 82% of Kingdoms have a possibility to avoid this scenario, and it is probably higher. Then, in the other cases, and on top of that, assuming that one player is really lucky, and even ignoring the fact that the other player can still get Copperfields back, the one with the Copperfields has two more junk cards in their deck. So even then, it is not a clear cut. Anyway, a valuable point one can think about, and to be sure about the numbers I threw in here, I have to look to the trashing cards more carefully. Thanks.

Are you counting Remodel variants? Because unless there are good $2 actions, it's usually not worth trashing coppers into estates with those. That may put a dent in your 82% figure.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 04:00:35 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on August 21, 2020, 03:50:56 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 03:29:57 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on August 21, 2020, 03:02:07 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 02:53:43 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 02:42:05 pm

I amnot contradicting myself. Thief is really weak. Copperfield is way too strong. It turns the game into a hot potato match of who can steal everyones copperfeilds.

My last try to argue with you about this. Imagine the following scenario: All Engine pieces around in sufficient quality, including a decent trasher. You start with 2 Copperfields, I have none. How often do you think you are you winning when you go for those extra-VPs?

I'll come in to offer a second opinion: Imagine a game without Copper trashing. Then, your thief luckily stealing my copperfield is at 12-point swing in your favor. Even if I get 5 provinces, you can still tie me by only having to buy 3 provinces. That's too big of a swing to be down to your good luck with your Thief. If this was a rare scenario, it wouldn't be bad, but there are probably as many games without good copper trashing as there are with good copper trashing.

Thank you very much for your input, it is much appreciated.

Copper trashing doesn't have to be good, if you want to avoid the "Copperfield battle". I just very quickly counted the number of cards that allow trashing Coppers (or Copperfields) on the Wiki page. I counted 59. I likely missed some, or counted some twice. On the other hand, I didn't include Landscape cards and I didn't include other cards that can get rid of Coppers or Copperfield (e.g. Island, Miser, Exiling cards) or hide them (e.g. Crypt, Haven and the like). Anyway, even only 59 would mean that 82% of Kingdoms have a possibility to avoid this scenario, and it is probably higher. Then, in the other cases, and on top of that, assuming that one player is really lucky, and even ignoring the fact that the other player can still get Copperfields back, the one with the Copperfields has two more junk cards in their deck. So even then, it is not a clear cut. Anyway, a valuable point one can think about, and to be sure about the numbers I threw in here, I have to look to the trashing cards more carefully. Thanks.

Are you counting Remodel variants? Because unless there are good $2 actions, it's usually not worth trashing coppers into estates with those. That may put a dent in your 82% figure.

Yes, I included Remodel variants, and I am aware of this. I was mostly thinking about getting rid of Copperfield (rather than Coppers) if one player is really scared about losing it and while I replied to your previous post, I already realised that this potential problem could be simply avoided by increasing the cost of Copperfield to $2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 21, 2020, 04:49:01 pm

I think the problem with Thief and Copperfield isn't powerlevel but swinginess.

Since copperfield is strong, I expect that the card will just be extremely frustrating since you can lose 10 VP if it gets stolen. Not fun.

Rewarding Thief for hitting Coppers is a good idea. Being able to steal the entire payload is a terrible idea. The fix seems obvious: make Copperfield unaffected by Thief. (How to do this, I'm not sure, but there are several ways.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 21, 2020, 05:28:06 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on August 21, 2020, 04:49:01 pm

I think the problem with Thief and Copperfield isn't powerlevel but swinginess.

Since copperfield is strong, I expect that the card will just be extremely frustrating since you can lose 10 VP if it gets stolen. Not fun.

Rewarding Thief for hitting Coppers is a good idea. Being able to steal the entire payload is a terrible idea. The fix seems obvious: make Copperfield unaffected by Thief. (How to do this, I'm not sure, but there are several ways.)

Another helpful comment, thanks. I just got a bit angry about arguing about using Thief is bad, because well... Thief is bad, missing the point that I offer a Thief+ that provides something that may actually make it interesting and worth to buy. The comparison to Bandit and Noble Brigand doesn't help either.

The crucial point as far as I can see is: If someone steels a Copperfield, they have to deal with a lot of Coppers in their deck if they want to score. Are the opponents automatically doomed?
 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 21, 2020, 06:43:26 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/CLRDjfa.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/nCBAtQO.png)

Rack
Treasure/Heirloom - $3
Worth $1
+1 Villager

Playing Tormentor first to gain Imps is really rare, so Rack gives you villagers to make it possible to do that more as the game goes on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 21, 2020, 06:43:39 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on August 21, 2020, 04:49:01 pm

I think the problem with Thief and Copperfield isn't powerlevel but swinginess.

Since copperfield is strong, I expect that the card will just be extremely frustrating since you can lose 10 VP if it gets stolen. Not fun.

Rewarding Thief for hitting Coppers is a good idea. Being able to steal the entire payload is a terrible idea. The fix seems obvious: make Copperfield unaffected by Thief. (How to do this, I'm not sure, but there are several ways.)

I like to add that this is not academic: I once had Locusts on my Pasture and it hurt.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on August 21, 2020, 06:53:22 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on August 21, 2020, 04:49:01 pm

The fix seems obvious: make Copperfield unaffected by Thief. (How to do this, I'm not sure, but there are several ways.)

You could make it an Action card (+1 Action, +$1) or a Night card (+1 Coffers).

And heirlooms don't necessarily need to function as Coppers - Cursed Gold set a precedent for Heirlooms making traditional openings impossible so you have a lot of flexibility.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on August 21, 2020, 06:57:10 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 02:54:36 pm

Update to Bale - removed the +buy from the discard clause since it doesn't really need it
/Harvest           - was worth way too much VP. Now has a cap of 4 and lightly punishes big money, and also decks which use 1 card like lab, governor, etc.
(https://i.imgur.com/3K444Kt.png)
Edit - Should I raise the VP to discourage trashing the heriloom?

I think 4vp (3vp at the start due to coppers) is pretty rewarding to keep around, especially when it pops out a Coffer every time you discard it. I am unsure if it is intended, but with the current wording you can go into the negative vp value. Not a bad thing, just something of note. I really like this as a heirloom, even if I still dislike Harvest.

(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/117922377_299632204630974_6441990385900608940_n.png?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=i2aqb_R-kDAAX_IeWqH&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=be3b258ff13511d41f0fef56381e1728&oe=5F63AFDB) (https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/117716776_343792413323832_959002088928916401_n.png?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=KevWF0KsfoQAX8WUlVu&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=a11dfe97c68b34bfee8fe9797f1bc129&oe=5F65CD16)

Quote

Cursed Mask - $0
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
-
When scoring, this is worth -2%.

When you trash this, gain a Curse and 2 Coppers to your hand.

This will be my (tentative) final version. I am definitely going with a trashable version of Cursed Mask so players can go alternate strategies than Masquerade if they want. I also bumped up the value of the card and altered the junk gain so there is a mild benefit to just trashing it instead of passing it around. I think a 4 point swing by passing it to your opponent will be significant enough, but idk. Still welcome to any kind of feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on August 21, 2020, 08:22:49 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/t4OY2vi.jpg)	(https://i.imgur.com/d16zDDw.jpg)
Quote Temple (Reference) Types: Action, Gathering Cost: $4 +1VP. Trash from 1 to 3 differently named cards from your hand. Add 1VP to the Temple Supply pile. When you gain this, take the VP from the Temple Supply pile. Heirloom: Offer	Quote Offering (Heirloom for Temple) Types: Treasure, Heirloom Cost: $2 $1. When you play this, you may add 1VP to a Gathering Supply pile or Landmark. When you trash this, double your VP tokens if you haven't yet this game.

Note: You can use Offering to add VP tokens to Landmarks that have no way to remove them (like Palace or Tomb), it just doesn't do anything.  It's not mandatory to add VP tokens, so the presence of Landmarks doesn't change play.

Temple is very slow, so Offering lets you accelerate VP tokens onto Temple's pile (or keep a Landmark going) as well as double your VP tokens by popping it later in the game (which you can definitely do with Temple).  Other VP token sources make Offering especially explosive.  The wording prevents double-dipping Offering's on-trash with Treasurer or anything else that might let you retrieve Offering from the trash.
You might have your relevant Offering trashed with Bandit or Swindler and just lose the game, but that happens with Goat too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 22, 2020, 05:37:57 am

I like the idea but as Temple games can lead to around 20 VPs or so anywa, this might be too centralizing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 22, 2020, 07:52:57 am

What does adding to a landmark mean? The "six per player" ones deal them in twos, so what happens if there is an odd amount of tokens on them. What does it mean to put tokens on a landmark that doesn't give them out like Palace or Keep.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 22, 2020, 07:58:48 am

Isn’t it obvious? You always do as much as you can. If there is 1 VP on a Landmark, you just take 1 instead of 2.
And if you put a VP on a Landmark that does not interact with VPs on it, well, then it does not interact with it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 22, 2020, 08:24:55 am

Quote from: segura on August 22, 2020, 07:58:48 am

Isn’t it obvious? You always do as much as you can. If there is 1 VP on a Landmark, you just take 1 instead of 2.
And if you put a VP on a Landmark that does not interact with VPs on it, well, then it does not interact with it.

I just think that adding to landmarks is weird and outside of the rules and shouldn't be touched. It should stick to just adding to gathering piles. You'd also need lots of explanation in the rulebook...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 22, 2020, 09:49:29 am

I did not expect to come here and read a page and a half of that argument. I was just trying to make a Scout type of joke.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 22, 2020, 09:55:38 am

My first try; an heirloom for Junk Dealer after nobody bought Junk Dealer in a game yesterday because we were afraid of not having things to trash, and it does some other neat tricks like Fortress:

Scrap Metal
$2 Treasure-Heirloom
$1
When you trash this, you may put it into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on August 22, 2020, 09:58:21 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 22, 2020, 09:55:38 am

My first try; an heirloom for Junk Dealer after nobody bought Junk Dealer in a game yesterday because we were afraid of not having things to trash, and it does some other neat tricks like Fortress:

Scrap Metal
$0 Treasure-Heirloom
$1
When you trash this, you may put it into your hand.

Should probably cost $2 so it's useful with TfB.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: xyz123 on August 22, 2020, 10:33:05 am

An heirloom for Pearl Diver

(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?title=Special%3AFilePath&file=Pearl_Diver.jpg)

Question, how do you show a card you have created in the image generator? I will add the image when I have figured it out.

Anyway, the heirloom for Pearl Diver I have created is.

Pearl (Obvious that one)   
Treaure - Heirloom
Cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)}
+1 Buy
When you would put this on top of your deck, you may instead put it in your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 22, 2020, 10:42:06 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 22, 2020, 08:24:55 am

Quote from: segura on August 22, 2020, 07:58:48 am

Isn’t it obvious? You always do as much as you can. If there is 1 VP on a Landmark, you just take 1 instead of 2.
And if you put a VP on a Landmark that does not interact with VPs on it, well, then it does not interact with it.

I just think that adding to landmarks is weird and outside of the rules and shouldn't be touched. It should stick to just adding to gathering piles. You'd also need lots of explanation in the rulebook...

I disagree, putting a token on a landscape is quite simple and straightforward.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on August 22, 2020, 11:03:09 am

Quote from: xyz123 on August 22, 2020, 10:33:05 am

Question, how do you show a card you have created in the image generator? I will add the image when I have figured it out.

You'll have to download the image and then host it on some site. Are you asking about where to host your custom card image? You can host it on facebook or other social media if you want.

Sorry if that is not what you are asking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 22, 2020, 12:16:21 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 22, 2020, 09:58:21 am

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 22, 2020, 09:55:38 am

My first try; an heirloom for Junk Dealer after nobody bought Junk Dealer in a game yesterday because we were afraid of not having things to trash, and it does some other neat tricks like Fortress:

Scrap Metal
$0 Treasure-Heirloom
$1
When you trash this, you may put it into your hand.

Should probably cost $2 so it's useful with TfB.

I forgot heirlooms could cost more than $0, thanks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on August 22, 2020, 05:46:53 pm

I've seen a number of heirlooms for Mine, but I already had this idea so here's another one...

(https://i.imgur.com/eN8GPy2.png)

Canary
Heirloom: Mine
$3 Treasure Heirloom

Quote

$1
-
When you trash this, you may replay an Action card you played this turn that's still in play.

Edit: it’s supposed to have the heirloom type, whoops

Edit: I'm sticking with my original submission, it's more fun and simple

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 23, 2020, 04:00:34 am

My new submission:
Bronze as Heirloom for Monument.

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200823/xwvtcuua.png) (https://s12.directupload.net/images/200823/mygl925j.png)

Quote

Bronze
$0 Treasure – Heirloom

$1
When you play this, you may trash a Copper from your hand, for +1 Villager.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 23, 2020, 06:49:08 am

(https://i.imgur.com/wOG1AVY.png)

An Heirloom for Highway. At first I wanted to do kind of the inverse, a Bridge Heirloom for Market, but it felt fairly random as any card with +1 Buy wants it.
Slightly controversial as Highway is often a powerhouse anyway and as the Heirloom makes the opening slower.


EDIT: Added the Duration type. Thanks to spineflu who noted it!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 23, 2020, 08:37:51 am

should that be a duration type too?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 23, 2020, 11:35:33 am

I get the impression that a lot of submissions this time just try to find an elegant way to interact with the card, without questioning whether it will actually make the card more fun.

Specifically thinking about Penny (Highway) and Rack (Tormentor) and Well (Courtyard). Sure, gaining a villager feels elegant, but seems to me like it makes Tormentor significantly less interesting, since it removes the difficulty of getting Imps. Imps are so good that it was worth playing for them even though it's difficult; with the heirloom you get them almost for free. It also makes Tormentor much stronger, and it's plenty strong already.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 23, 2020, 11:55:32 am

Submission for Bureaucrat:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200823/rpb2gzuz.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 23, 2020, 03:39:04 pm

I think I found something that I'm quite a bit happier with than Elixir now.

(https://i.imgur.com/wByRhwN.png)

Treatise is an Heirloom to Governor.

edit: Just read the entry above this and wow is this too similar for me to enter it, hopefully I'll have something else before the deadline then.
edit2: Not sure why I was worried about the deadline, for some reason I thought it was today. Anyways...

(https://i.imgur.com/ORYqewL.png)

Quote

Equerry

$1
You may reveal the top two cards of your deck. If either of them costs from $3 to $6, +$1.

Treasure-Heirloom-Knight
$4

Equerry is an Heirloom to the Knights.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 23, 2020, 04:01:40 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 23, 2020, 03:39:04 pm

edit: Just read the entry above this and wow is this too similar for me to enter it, hopefully I'll have something else before the deadline then.

That's a crazy coincidence.

Funny that you designed it for a different card. It actually seems like a clever way to make Governor weaker. The cost is also neat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 23, 2020, 05:12:25 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on August 23, 2020, 11:35:33 am

It also makes Tormentor much stronger, and it's plenty strong already.

What makes you assume that Tormentor is strong?

The Attack option is extremely weak. For example Witch has a better vanilla bonus and a far better Attack.
As the Imp option is only possible to trigger early in the game or later, if you forsake engine play and Durations (which is kinda pointless if you want Imp!), it hardly compensates for the weak Attack.

Tormentor is weak and Villagers are a pretty natural way to buff it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 23, 2020, 05:19:27 pm

Imps are just so good

Maybe I wouldn't exactly say that it's strong generically. I'd say it's strong to open with because of Imps, pretty strong early, ok overall, and well-designed because getting imps is hard. With the modification, it's very strong at every point and pretty boring.

the powerlevel question seems noncentral though; the point is that it takes away interesting decisions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on August 23, 2020, 05:20:04 pm

Quote from: segura on August 23, 2020, 05:12:25 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on August 23, 2020, 11:35:33 am

It also makes Tormentor much stronger, and it's plenty strong already.

What makes you assume that Tormentor is strong?

The Attack option is extremely weak. For example Witch has a better vanilla bonus and a far better Attack.
As the Imp option is only possible to trigger early in the game or later, if you forsake engine play and Durations (which is kinda pointless if you want Imp!), it hardly compensates for the weak Attack.

Tormentor is weak and Villagers are a pretty natural way to buff it.

I disagree, Tormentor is at least a solid card most of the time. Imps are pretty good, and stacking up Hexes can be pretty harmful.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 23, 2020, 05:27:40 pm

I have a similar contest about updating past cards in the "Card Updating Contest" thread, if any of you are interested. Sorry if this is off-topic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 23, 2020, 06:18:52 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on August 23, 2020, 05:19:27 pm

Imps are just so good

Maybe I wouldn't exactly say that it's strong generically. I'd say it's strong to open with because of Imps, pretty strong early, ok overall, and well-designed because getting imps is hard. With the modification, it's very strong at every point and pretty boring.

the powerlevel question seems noncentral though; the point is that it takes away interesting decisions.

Which interesting decision is taken away? Be concrete, what would you do with the Heirloom that you would not do otherwise (except getting Tormentor more often which is not about decisions but the power level of the card).

Tormentor is a very weak $5 which you will never ever buy early if there is a junker or trasher. You will only buy it later if you got the terminal space for a terminal Silver with a weak Attack on top, which is quite rare.
 Of course gaining Imps is very strong (but then again, with Lab variants in the Kingdom, Haggler can do the very same thing far more consistently) but you cannot pull that off often with Tormentor so why not buff it? It is not like we talk about buffing Mountebank, Cultist, Coven or some other ridiculously overpowered Attack but buffing a very weak and random Attack.

There is a reason so many Hex Attacks violate the terminal Attack principle: the Attack is weak and random. Nobody would e.g. ever get Skulk because of the Attack, you either want the Gold or are in dire need of the extra Buy. The Hex Attack never matters decisions-wise.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on August 23, 2020, 06:31:20 pm

Quote from: segura on August 23, 2020, 06:18:52 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on August 23, 2020, 05:19:27 pm

Imps are just so good

Maybe I wouldn't exactly say that it's strong generically. I'd say it's strong to open with because of Imps, pretty strong early, ok overall, and well-designed because getting imps is hard. With the modification, it's very strong at every point and pretty boring.

the powerlevel question seems noncentral though; the point is that it takes away interesting decisions.

Which interesting decision is taken away? Be concrete, what would you do with the Heirloom that you would not do otherwise (except getting Tormentor more often which is not about decisions but the power level of the card).

Tormentor is a very weak $5 which you will never ever buy early if there is a junker or trasher. You will only buy it later if you got the terminal space for a terminal Silver with a weak Attack on top, which is quite rare.
 Of course gaining Imps is very strong (but then again, with Lab variants in the Kingdom, Haggler can do the very same thing far more consistently) but you cannot pull that off often with Tormentor so why not buff it? It is not like we talk about buffing Mountebank, Cultist, Coven or some other ridiculously overpowered Attack but buffing a very weak and random Attack.

There is a reason so many Hex Attacks violate the terminal Attack principle: the Attack is weak and random. Nobody would e.g. ever get Skulk because of the Attack, you either want the Gold or are in dire need of the extra Buy. The Hex Attack never matters decisions-wise.

This removes the decision of gaining Tormentor or not. You either always gain it for Imps or never gain it because it improves other strategies more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 23, 2020, 08:23:41 pm

Quote from: segura on August 23, 2020, 06:18:52 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on August 23, 2020, 05:19:27 pm

Imps are just so good

Maybe I wouldn't exactly say that it's strong generically. I'd say it's strong to open with because of Imps, pretty strong early, ok overall, and well-designed because getting imps is hard. With the modification, it's very strong at every point and pretty boring.

the powerlevel question seems noncentral though; the point is that it takes away interesting decisions.

Which interesting decision is taken away? Be concrete, what would you do with the Heirloom that you would not do otherwise (except getting Tormentor more often which is not about decisions but the power level of the card).

Tormentor is a very weak $5 which you will never ever buy early if there is a junker or trasher. You will only buy it later if you got the terminal space for a terminal Silver with a weak Attack on top, which is quite rare.
 Of course gaining Imps is very strong (but then again, with Lab variants in the Kingdom, Haggler can do the very same thing far more consistently) but you cannot pull that off often with Tormentor so why not buff it? It is not like we talk about buffing Mountebank, Cultist, Coven or some other ridiculously overpowered Attack but buffing a very weak and random Attack.

There is a reason so many Hex Attacks violate the terminal Attack principle: the Attack is weak and random. Nobody would e.g. ever get Skulk because of the Attack, you either want the Gold or are in dire need of the extra Buy. The Hex Attack never matters decisions-wise.

It's not really fair to ask "which interesting decision is taken away" and then exclude the category of decisions that is often most interesting with Tormentor. With Rack, Tormentor becomes a incredibly strong buy. This by itself isn't a bad thing, but in order to be a interesting strong card you ideally want to make it change the game in a way that forces you to play substantially differently than you would without the card. You can see this in official cards like Cathedral, Stockpile, and Goons - all three of these cards are incredibly powerful but they also fundamentally change the way you have to approach the game. In contrast, a more powerful Tormentor offers relatively little - getting 3 or 4 Imps is usually not going to change how I want to build my deck. Non-heirloom Tormentor's lack of strength is what makes it interesting - it can be viable to go for if you want the extra draw but it also isn't an obviously correct move.

This isn't really related to the card design aspect but I feel like I have to respond that Tormentor is, IMO, not a very weak $5. (I've interpreted "very weak" here to mean somewhere around Fool or below in power level). It's mediocre, but saying that you don't want to buy it early in the presence of a junker or a trasher isn't correct. If we're talking about Witch and Steward, I think it's reasonable to say it will be ignored. But with weaker junkers, like Jester or Sea Hag, this question is far less obvious. Same goes with weaker trashers, although not as much - however, there are a decent amount of trashers that can still be played while still getting an Imp gain, such as Exorcist and Loan. The attack is also sometimes very relevant - stacking Hexes really hurts in a way that few other attacks can. Your comment about Haggler here confuses me; Haggler's not particularly good at buying Lab variants most of the time because a) it needs to have a Lab variant present in the kingdom which is rare considering how few Lab variants there are in the game and b) many Lab variants cost $5 whereas Haggler is best at gaining >$4 costs.

edit: This all being said I like how Rack works as an Heirloom (a permanent but weak source of Villagers sounds like great gameplay), I just wish it went with a card that was less boosted by its presence.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 24, 2020, 02:19:25 am

Haggler is brilliant at getting Lab variants because your Gold or Province always comes with one. Somehow nobody is complaining about Haggler being overpowered though.
About getting junkers or trashers instead of Tormentor, I obviously meant trashers/junkers at $5.

The comparison with Cathedral, Goons and Stockpile is pretty weird. This is about Tormentor with Rack vs Tormentor without Rack. Neither of the two versions of Tormentor is as game-warping as the ones you mentioned.
So far the argument has boiled down to, well, that Tormentor is buffed and that this is boring because you will now always go for Tormentor. It is entirely related to power level, the first version is not strategically more deep than the second version.

I totally agree that that buff might be too much. But it is the most natural way to buff a weak card, just like your cut idea was a pretty natural way to nerf Governor.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 24, 2020, 03:19:35 am

Quote from: segura on August 23, 2020, 06:18:52 pm

Which interesting decision is taken away? Be concrete, what would you do with the Heirloom that you would not do otherwise (except getting Tormentor more often which is not about decisions but the power level of the card).

You draw a Tormentor in a mediocre hand with other non-terminal action card and have to decide whether to play those first or to ditch them and just play Tormentor. This is what I had in mind when I said it reduces decisions. I find myself ditching hands to get an Imp quite often.

With the heirloom, this decision is gone; you always play Tormentor first.

Quote from: segura on August 24, 2020, 02:19:25 am

Somehow nobody is complaining about Haggler being overpowered though.

I'd be pretty inclined to complain about Haggler if it came up. I think Tormentor (without the Heirloom) is a much better design than Haggler.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on August 24, 2020, 03:46:53 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 20, 2020, 02:45:35 pm

Antique coin (used on horn of plenty) Treasure $0
$1 you may show your hand. If you show 3 different victory cards, trash it and gain a prize

Here is a card variant. Change it to be an heirloom of Fairgrounds. More flavorful and a bit of synergy

(http://i.imgur.com/h9VqbWAm.png) (https://imgur.com/h9VqbWA)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on August 24, 2020, 03:52:30 am

Quote from: Xen3k on August 20, 2020, 06:05:49 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/117922377_299632204630974_6441990385900608940_n.png?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=i2aqb_R-kDAAX_IeWqH&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=be3b258ff13511d41f0fef56381e1728&oe=5F63AFDB) (https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/117905686_2745901752178156_6666711664442619052_n.png?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=Y2omAhYs03gAX8I0TGt&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=db89da50a24c50e88a0d85e67447ca6e&oe=5F661167)

Quote

Cursed Mask - $0
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
-
When scoring, this is worth -2%.

When you trash this, gain a Curse and two Coppers.

This just a goofy Heirloom for Masquerade. It emphasizes the hot potato characteristic of the card as you don't really want to be the one to bite the bullet and junk your own deck by trashing the Heirloom. I am guessing if there are really good trashers in the Kingdom like Chapel this won't really matter. I was thinking of giving it the Fortress characteristic of never being able to trash it. I would love to hear what others think of it.

(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/117893360_991291447999747_3524444889115959280_n.png?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=jrIw24_1HJoAX_w97vS&_nc_oc=AQnKIdReuzeaRaun_XpcOcC0owGUJ5QZ6C1dWYGotk2eSUyfthdpEO_FYdRluTPM0Eo&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=93338f6dcddae4fded3570ee497e76e9&oe=5F657870)

Quote

Cursed Mask - $0
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
-
When scoring, this is worth -2%.

When you trash this, put it into your discard pile.

So, this is what it would look like if I go with the Fortress mechanic and it just can't be trashed. I think it is cleaner, but I do like the option to just trash the mask into a confetti of junk.

Shouldn't that card not also be a curse type?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on August 24, 2020, 03:54:06 am

Quote from: Marpharos on August 22, 2020, 05:46:53 pm

I've seen a number of heirlooms for Mine, but I already had this idea so here's another one...

(https://i.imgur.com/eN8GPy2.png)

Canary
Heirloom: Mine
$3 Treasure Heirloom

Quote

$1
-
When you trash this, you may replay an Action card you played this turn that's still in play.

Edit: it’s supposed to have the heirloom type, whoops

I should reduce the cost, so the mine doesn't get you a gold (and a silver) right away. For the rest: Nice card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 24, 2020, 03:59:46 am

Quote from: silverspawn on August 23, 2020, 04:01:40 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 23, 2020, 03:39:04 pm

edit: Just read the entry above this and wow is this too similar for me to enter it, hopefully I'll have something else before the deadline then.

That's a crazy coincidence.

Funny that you designed it for a different card. It actually seems like a clever way to make Governor weaker. The cost is also neat.

I like the idea to have a Heirloom shared by different cards. For one card it is an advantage, and for another one it is rather a handicap. Since it is too rare that two unrelated cards are in the same Kingdom, this is better placed on split-piles (or Traveler lines, Exchange cards maybe). Worth to think about such a Fan-made card combination with a Heirloom (or Artifact).

Just a quick idea for existing, official cards:

A cheaper Sauna without the trashing ability:

Quote

Sauna
$2 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may play an Avanto from your hand.
Heirloom: Bucket

An unaltered Avanto:

Quote

Avanto
$5 – Action
+3 Cards
You may play a Sauna from your hand.

A shared Heirloom:

Quote

Bucket
$0 – Treasure
$1
When you play this, if you have Sauna, but not Avanto in play, you may trash a card from your hand.

Note: This is meant to demonstrate the general concept, and not to find the most interesting and most balanced way of these particular cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 24, 2020, 04:07:57 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 24, 2020, 03:54:06 am

I should reduce the cost, so the mine doesn't get you a gold (and a silver) right away. For the rest: Nice card.

Jumping from Canary to beyond Silver (there are sometimes $5 Treasures which you prefer over Gold) is half of the point of the card!
The Throne might sometimes very well be used for something else than Mine; e.g. if you still have an Action left, you might want to replay your Smithy instead of your Mine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 24, 2020, 04:56:44 am

Quote from: Marpharos on August 22, 2020, 05:46:53 pm

I've seen a number of heirlooms for Mine, but I already had this idea so here's another one...

(https://i.imgur.com/eN8GPy2.png)

Canary
Heirloom: Mine
$3 Treasure Heirloom

Quote

$1
-
When you trash this, you may replay an Action card you played this turn that's still in play.

Edit: it’s supposed to have the heirloom type, whoops

This, Treasurer and Watchtower make an infinite loop.

---

I'm also submitting a new entry, for Explorer:

Quote

Tricorn, Treasure Heirloom, $2 cost.
$1
When you play this, you may play an Action from your hand.

Quaint effect that helps engines, and lets Explorer access the effect of Capitalism. Its Treasures can still be immediately played, the Actions you play before it can help get a Province in hand, but it shouldn't by any means be centralising.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on August 24, 2020, 06:00:32 am

Quote from: segura on August 24, 2020, 04:07:57 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 24, 2020, 03:54:06 am

I should reduce the cost, so the mine doesn't get you a gold (and a silver) right away. For the rest: Nice card.

Jumping from Canary to beyond Silver (there are sometimes $5 Treasures which you prefer over Gold) is half of the point of the card!
The Throne might sometimes very well be used for something else than Mine; e.g. if you still have an Action left, you might want to replay your Smithy instead of your Mine.

I know, But I think that can lead to an overpowered turn early, with to much variance if it will happen. If you are luck with a 2/5 spiltt and then again with the canarie, you are a little to far ahead. You can also get a gold if it just cost 2. (trash, gain a silver, trash again, gain a gold)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 24, 2020, 07:01:54 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 24, 2020, 06:00:32 am

Quote from: segura on August 24, 2020, 04:07:57 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 24, 2020, 03:54:06 am

I should reduce the cost, so the mine doesn't get you a gold (and a silver) right away. For the rest: Nice card.

Jumping from Canary to beyond Silver (there are sometimes $5 Treasures which you prefer over Gold) is half of the point of the card!
The Throne might sometimes very well be used for something else than Mine; e.g. if you still have an Action left, you might want to replay your Smithy instead of your Mine.

I know, But I think that can lead to an overpowered turn early, with to much variance if it will happen. If you are luck with a 2/5 spiltt and then again with the canarie, you are a little to far ahead. You can also get a gold if it just cost 2. (trash, gain a silver, trash again, gain a gold)

Again, that is the very point of the Heirloom: to make a very weak card decent and viable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 24, 2020, 07:09:01 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 24, 2020, 06:00:32 am

Quote from: segura on August 24, 2020, 04:07:57 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 24, 2020, 03:54:06 am

I should reduce the cost, so the mine doesn't get you a gold (and a silver) right away. For the rest: Nice card.

Jumping from Canary to beyond Silver (there are sometimes $5 Treasures which you prefer over Gold) is half of the point of the card!
The Throne might sometimes very well be used for something else than Mine; e.g. if you still have an Action left, you might want to replay your Smithy instead of your Mine.

I know, But I think that can lead to an overpowered turn early, with to much variance if it will happen. If you are luck with a 2/5 spiltt and then again with the canarie, you are a little to far ahead. You can also get a gold if it just cost 2. (trash, gain a silver, trash again, gain a gold)

Again, that is the very point of the Heirloom: to make a very weak card decent and viable.

If Alice opens 4-3 with Moneylender while Bob opens 5-2 with Mine and no decent $2 in the Kingdom, Alice is actually ahead economy-wise after the first shuffle (and that is not taking into account the risk that Mine and Canary might not match).
The only advantage of Mine-Canary is that you get a Gold.

Does not seem crazy or overpowered to me at all but rather sounds like, well, how Mine should have been power-wise from the get-go (I think that it would be too weak even at $4).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on August 24, 2020, 07:23:56 am

Quote from: segura on August 24, 2020, 07:09:01 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 24, 2020, 06:00:32 am

Quote from: segura on August 24, 2020, 04:07:57 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 24, 2020, 03:54:06 am

I should reduce the cost, so the mine doesn't get you a gold (and a silver) right away. For the rest: Nice card.

Jumping from Canary to beyond Silver (there are sometimes $5 Treasures which you prefer over Gold) is half of the point of the card!
The Throne might sometimes very well be used for something else than Mine; e.g. if you still have an Action left, you might want to replay your Smithy instead of your Mine.

I know, But I think that can lead to an overpowered turn early, with to much variance if it will happen. If you are luck with a 2/5 spiltt and then again with the canarie, you are a little to far ahead. You can also get a gold if it just cost 2. (trash, gain a silver, trash again, gain a gold)

Again, that is the very point of the Heirloom: to make a very weak card decent and viable.

If Alice opens 4-3 with Moneylender while Bob opens 5-2 with Mine and no decent $2 in the Kingdom, Alice is actually ahead economy-wise after the first shuffle (and that is not taking into account the risk that Mine and Canary might not match).
The only advantage of Mine-Canary is that you get a Gold.

Does not seem crazy or overpowered to me at all but rather sounds like, well, how Mine should have been power-wise from the get-go (I think that it would be too weak even at $4).

It's a gold and a silver, and likely buying a Gold afterwards. So -1 copper, +1 gold vs. -2 copper, +2 gold, +1 silver. So you are ahead then, definitely if there was a good 2. Or you get just an silver, witch is pretty high variance.

Yes, power lever is always situational. I have very good games with the mine when high cycle cards are available, or as a one-of in a engine deck. I also agree that the mine would be better if it cost $4, as it in a vacuüm a little bit weaker then the money lender.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on August 24, 2020, 01:44:37 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 24, 2020, 04:56:44 am

Quote from: Marpharos on August 22, 2020, 05:46:53 pm

Canary
Heirloom: Mine
$3 Treasure Heirloom

Quote

$1
-
When you trash this, you may replay an Action card you played this turn that's still in play.

This, Treasurer and Watchtower make an infinite loop.

Good spot, I've fixed it now so it is a Treasure - Heirloom and the possibility for infinite loops are reduced:

(https://i.imgur.com/q4hEJQg.png)

Quote

$1
-
When you trash this, you may set aside an Action card you played this turn that's still in play and replay it.

The wording feels a bit clunky but setting it aside stops the loop you found. Also, I've been on the fence about whether it costs $2 or $3 and I'm happy with it at $3. Mine isn't that great, and I'd say a similar level to opening Skulk or Silver/Wedding in terms of getting a Gold in your hand by t3. Also, you may not be trashing it with Mine, you may not want to replay Mine, and other $5s are generally better than Mine. There's got to be some incentive to get Mine I feel, it's so slow normally.

EDIT: I'm sticking with my original submission

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 24, 2020, 02:05:22 pm

Bale (for Harvest):
(https://i.imgur.com/VUSaCCl.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on August 24, 2020, 04:25:10 pm

That updated version of Canary doesn't seem to fix the infinite loop. The Treasurer gets set aside and then returned to play when you play it again.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 24, 2020, 04:25:35 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 24, 2020, 02:05:22 pm

Bale (for Harvest):
(https://i.imgur.com/VUSaCCl.png)

Utterly lunatic with Copper trashing in multiplayer games (where you don’t get that many Actions anyway).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on August 24, 2020, 04:31:34 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 24, 2020, 04:25:10 pm

That updated version of Canary doesn't seem to fix the infinite loop. The Treasurer gets set aside and then returned to play when you play it again.

Yup, done it again haven't I. I had it discard the card after being played but the text becomes tiny no one can read it. It should be replay it and set it aside in that order so that it's no longer in play I think

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 24, 2020, 06:29:56 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on August 24, 2020, 04:31:34 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 24, 2020, 04:25:10 pm

That updated version of Canary doesn't seem to fix the infinite loop. The Treasurer gets set aside and then returned to play when you play it again.

Yup, done it again haven't I. I had it discard the card after being played but the text becomes tiny no one can read it. It should be replay it and set it aside in that order so that it's no longer in play I think

That wouldn't work because it wouldn't get set aside until after you've finished playing it.

My suggestion would be to make it just say "once per turn, when you trash this..."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 24, 2020, 07:04:16 pm

Quote from: segura on August 24, 2020, 04:25:35 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 24, 2020, 02:05:22 pm

Bale (for Harvest):
(https://i.imgur.com/VUSaCCl.png)

Utterly lunatic with Copper trashing in multiplayer games (where you don’t get that many Actions anyway).

Is it worth too many VPs? Should I bring it back to 4/-1 instead of 5/-2?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on August 24, 2020, 07:40:56 pm

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 24, 2020, 03:52:30 am

Quote from: Xen3k on August 20, 2020, 06:05:49 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/117922377_299632204630974_6441990385900608940_n.png?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=i2aqb_R-kDAAX_IeWqH&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=be3b258ff13511d41f0fef56381e1728&oe=5F63AFDB) (https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/117905686_2745901752178156_6666711664442619052_n.png?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=Y2omAhYs03gAX8I0TGt&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=db89da50a24c50e88a0d85e67447ca6e&oe=5F661167)

Quote

Cursed Mask - $0
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
-
When scoring, this is worth -2%.

When you trash this, gain a Curse and two Coppers.

This just a goofy Heirloom for Masquerade. It emphasizes the hot potato characteristic of the card as you don't really want to be the one to bite the bullet and junk your own deck by trashing the Heirloom. I am guessing if there are really good trashers in the Kingdom like Chapel this won't really matter. I was thinking of giving it the Fortress characteristic of never being able to trash it. I would love to hear what others think of it.

(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/117893360_991291447999747_3524444889115959280_n.png?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=jrIw24_1HJoAX_w97vS&_nc_oc=AQnKIdReuzeaRaun_XpcOcC0owGUJ5QZ6C1dWYGotk2eSUyfthdpEO_FYdRluTPM0Eo&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=93338f6dcddae4fded3570ee497e76e9&oe=5F657870)

Quote

Cursed Mask - $0
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
-
When scoring, this is worth -2%.

When you trash this, put it into your discard pile.

So, this is what it would look like if I go with the Fortress mechanic and it just can't be trashed. I think it is cleaner, but I do like the option to just trash the mask into a confetti of junk.

Shouldn't that card not also be a curse type?

Is it required to be a Curse type of card to be worth negative Victory points, or is it more a matter of signaling to the players that the card is significant at end of game scoring? I honestly did not even think about making it have the Curse type.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 25, 2020, 02:40:39 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 24, 2020, 07:04:16 pm

Quote from: segura on August 24, 2020, 04:25:35 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 24, 2020, 02:05:22 pm

Bale (for Harvest):
(https://i.imgur.com/VUSaCCl.png)

Utterly lunatic with Copper trashing in multiplayer games (where you don’t get that many Actions anyway).

Is it worth too many VPs? Should I bring it back to 4/-1 instead of 5/-2?

I’d do a straightforward Tunnel variant with fixed 2VPs because I prefer player scale invariant cards. But this just boring me.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 25, 2020, 03:36:13 am

@Canary: when you trash this, you may play an Action card you have in play. If you did, discard it.

EDIT: Alternatively, 'when you trash this, exile it, and you may play an Action card you have in play.'

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on August 25, 2020, 03:52:55 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 24, 2020, 04:25:10 pm

That updated version of Canary doesn't seem to fix the infinite loop. The Treasurer gets set aside and then returned to play when you play it again.

I don't see a lot of issue with the infinite loop. Al stars have to align from 3 different sets, and the combo does not have infinite buys. To be really overpowered you also need an engine with a lot of extra buys. If that would happen, and you manage to pull it of... YOU HAVE EARNED IT!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 09:08:52 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 25, 2020, 03:52:55 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 24, 2020, 04:25:10 pm

That updated version of Canary doesn't seem to fix the infinite loop. The Treasurer gets set aside and then returned to play when you play it again.

I don't see a lot of issue with the infinite loop. Al stars have to align from 3 different sets, and the combo does not have infinite buys. To be really overpowered you also need an engine with a lot of extra buys. If that would happen, and you manage to pull it of... YOU HAVE EARNED IT!

This is not even that hard to pull off. Just play treasurer to trash it. On a later turn, you only need those 3 specific cards in your hand to pull it off. Also, if tomb is in the kingdom that's infinite VP

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on August 25, 2020, 10:32:18 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 09:08:52 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 25, 2020, 03:52:55 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 24, 2020, 04:25:10 pm

That updated version of Canary doesn't seem to fix the infinite loop. The Treasurer gets set aside and then returned to play when you play it again.

I don't see a lot of issue with the infinite loop. Al stars have to align from 3 different sets, and the combo does not have infinite buys. To be really overpowered you also need an engine with a lot of extra buys. If that would happen, and you manage to pull it of... YOU HAVE EARNED IT!

This is not even that hard to pull off. Just play treasurer to trash it. On a later turn, you only need those 3 specific cards in your hand to pull it off. Also, if tomb is in the kingdom that's infinite VP

With small I mean that if you randomize the chance that this kingdom hits is very small.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 11:13:35 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 25, 2020, 10:32:18 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 09:08:52 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 25, 2020, 03:52:55 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 24, 2020, 04:25:10 pm

That updated version of Canary doesn't seem to fix the infinite loop. The Treasurer gets set aside and then returned to play when you play it again.

I don't see a lot of issue with the infinite loop. Al stars have to align from 3 different sets, and the combo does not have infinite buys. To be really overpowered you also need an engine with a lot of extra buys. If that would happen, and you manage to pull it of... YOU HAVE EARNED IT!

This is not even that hard to pull off. Just play treasurer to trash it. On a later turn, you only need those 3 specific cards in your hand to pull it off. Also, if tomb is in the kingdom that's infinite VP

With small I mean that if you randomize the chance that this kingdom hits is very small.

Still, it is possible and I don't think any way to get infinite VP should exist in this game

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on August 25, 2020, 11:56:53 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 11:13:35 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 25, 2020, 10:32:18 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 09:08:52 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 25, 2020, 03:52:55 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 24, 2020, 04:25:10 pm

That updated version of Canary doesn't seem to fix the infinite loop. The Treasurer gets set aside and then returned to play when you play it again.

I don't see a lot of issue with the infinite loop. Al stars have to align from 3 different sets, and the combo does not have infinite buys. To be really overpowered you also need an engine with a lot of extra buys. If that would happen, and you manage to pull it of... YOU HAVE EARNED IT!

This is not even that hard to pull off. Just play treasurer to trash it. On a later turn, you only need those 3 specific cards in your hand to pull it off. Also, if tomb is in the kingdom that's infinite VP

With small I mean that if you randomize the chance that this kingdom hits is very small.

Still, it is possible and I don't think any way to get infinite VP should exist in this game

While I want to promote reusing this effect in turns because it sounds fun, I agree there shouldn't be a way to receive infinite VP. I thought about Exiling vs trash and I think I like bringing it back if possible. Also, I know it's a small thing but in games where each player is only able to Exile a Canary and never bring it back where Canary is the only card that can be Exiled seems like a waste of setup time and table space.

I took a page out of the Necronomicon and figured turning cards over works just as nicely. No confusion with what cards are set aside that way and the loop becomes finite.

(https://i.imgur.com/W4KoT04.png)

Quote

$1
-
When you trash this, you may replay a face-up Action card you played this turn that's still in play. Turn it face-down for the turn.

Edit: I just wanted to include that I'm fully on board with lompeluiten's sentiment of if you can pull it off, you've earned it!

EDIT: I prefer the original submission, even if it's missing the Heirloom text across the bottom:

(https://i.imgur.com/eN8GPy2.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 25, 2020, 12:04:53 pm

Quote from: segura on August 25, 2020, 02:40:39 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 24, 2020, 07:04:16 pm

Quote from: segura on August 24, 2020, 04:25:35 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 24, 2020, 02:05:22 pm

Bale (for Harvest):
(https://i.imgur.com/VUSaCCl.png)

Utterly lunatic with Copper trashing in multiplayer games (where you don’t get that many Actions anyway).

Is it worth too many VPs? Should I bring it back to 4/-1 instead of 5/-2?

I’d do a straightforward Tunnel variant with fixed 2VPs because I prefer player scale invariant cards. But this just boring me.

I don't see any problem with having an interesting VP condition attached to it. It's more like a landmark than a Kingdom Victory card; under most circumstances each player will only get exactly one of these. (You could price it at $2 or less to avoid interactions with many of the trashing attacks in the game, too - this still leaves Locusts and Swindler but heirlooms like Magic Lamp and Pasture already suffer from this problem, and Bale is not significantly more points than Pasture. Having it be arguably weaker than Copper for its non-vp effect makes it hurt less when it is hit, also.)

I kind of wish the condition was tied to a lower number of copies though because this feels like it will not come up super often.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 12:15:55 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/B9yImwY.png)
It loses less VP each time, but the threshold is one lower. Costs two so it can't be trashed with most attacks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 26, 2020, 03:27:09 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 11:13:35 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 25, 2020, 10:32:18 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 09:08:52 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 25, 2020, 03:52:55 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 24, 2020, 04:25:10 pm

That updated version of Canary doesn't seem to fix the infinite loop. The Treasurer gets set aside and then returned to play when you play it again.

I don't see a lot of issue with the infinite loop. Al stars have to align from 3 different sets, and the combo does not have infinite buys. To be really overpowered you also need an engine with a lot of extra buys. If that would happen, and you manage to pull it of... YOU HAVE EARNED IT!

This is not even that hard to pull off. Just play treasurer to trash it. On a later turn, you only need those 3 specific cards in your hand to pull it off. Also, if tomb is in the kingdom that's infinite VP

With small I mean that if you randomize the chance that this kingdom hits is very small.

Still, it is possible and I don't think any way to get infinite VP should exist in this game

It already does (Goons/Forum/Highway/Trader).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 26, 2020, 10:25:18 am

Quote from: faust on August 26, 2020, 03:27:09 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 11:13:35 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 25, 2020, 10:32:18 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 09:08:52 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 25, 2020, 03:52:55 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 24, 2020, 04:25:10 pm

That updated version of Canary doesn't seem to fix the infinite loop. The Treasurer gets set aside and then returned to play when you play it again.

I don't see a lot of issue with the infinite loop. Al stars have to align from 3 different sets, and the combo does not have infinite buys. To be really overpowered you also need an engine with a lot of extra buys. If that would happen, and you manage to pull it of... YOU HAVE EARNED IT!

This is not even that hard to pull off. Just play treasurer to trash it. On a later turn, you only need those 3 specific cards in your hand to pull it off. Also, if tomb is in the kingdom that's infinite VP

With small I mean that if you randomize the chance that this kingdom hits is very small.

Still, it is possible and I don't think any way to get infinite VP should exist in this game

It already does (Goons/Forum/Highway/Trader).

Ism't that combo limited by the amount of silvers?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 26, 2020, 11:08:19 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 26, 2020, 10:25:18 am

Quote from: faust on August 26, 2020, 03:27:09 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 11:13:35 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 25, 2020, 10:32:18 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 09:08:52 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on August 25, 2020, 03:52:55 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 24, 2020, 04:25:10 pm

That updated version of Canary doesn't seem to fix the infinite loop. The Treasurer gets set aside and then returned to play when you play it again.

I don't see a lot of issue with the infinite loop. Al stars have to align from 3 different sets, and the combo does not have infinite buys. To be really overpowered you also need an engine with a lot of extra buys. If that would happen, and you manage to pull it of... YOU HAVE EARNED IT!

This is not even that hard to pull off. Just play treasurer to trash it. On a later turn, you only need those 3 specific cards in your hand to pull it off. Also, if tomb is in the kingdom that's infinite VP

With small I mean that if you randomize the chance that this kingdom hits is very small.

Still, it is possible and I don't think any way to get infinite VP should exist in this game

It already does (Goons/Forum/Highway/Trader).

Ism't that combo limited by the amount of silvers?

You can still use Trader once the Silver pile is empty, you just gain nothing. At least that's how it used to be. There was some discussion about changing Trader's wording a while ago, not sure where that went.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on August 26, 2020, 12:53:04 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 11:13:35 am

Still, it is possible and I don't think any way to get infinite VP should exist in this game

There's a lot of possible infinite loops that get infinite VPs, most of them almost impossible to happen in a random game. See this topic:

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20320.0

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 26, 2020, 04:30:19 pm

Quote from: Carline on August 26, 2020, 12:53:04 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 11:13:35 am

Still, it is possible and I don't think any way to get infinite VP should exist in this game

There's a lot of possible infinite loops that get infinite VPs, most of them almost impossible to happen in a random game. See this topic:

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20320.0

If we're being pedantic, it's impossible to get infinite VP because Dominion takes place in finite time. Eventually, the players die. Hopefully before that, they get bored and end the loop. Even more likely, the other player sees that they will lose and forfeit.

 It seems the real issue here is, should there be a strategy that, for any N, allows a player to reach more than N victory points? As Carline indicated, already these strategies exist. But this strategy can exist without any combos. Simply adding Monument to the game means players can reach any victory point they desire. Your opponent may seek to end the game. Or, they see that they will lose and forfeit. Or, they have a strategy to get more points quickly, even though there strategy is bounded in the number of points they can get.

All that being said, I think the smaller text, infinite-loop version of Canary is better. I don't know if the discrepancy of upvotes the two posts get is an indication of other people's thoughts. If you really must avoid infinite loops, you can try this:

Quote

$1
-
When you trash this, you may replay a face-up Action card you played once this turn that's still in play.

once you replay it, is no longer "played once." All infinite loops with Canary are thus avoided. This then means you can't throne room a card, trash a Canary to then play that card again. Is this nerf worth avoiding the infinite loop? Hard to say.

I have to root for Canary as I had the same idea (although mine [haha] allowed you to discard the Canary instead of trashing it, and it costed less as to not upgrade to gold. I think your version that stays trashed and upgrades to gold is better).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 26, 2020, 04:51:02 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 26, 2020, 04:30:19 pm

If we're being pedantic, it's impossible to get infinite VP because Dominion takes place in finite time. Eventually, the players die. Hopefully before that, they get bored and end the loop. Even more likely, the other player sees that they will lose and forfeit.

This seems less being pedantic as talking about a different thing. I think people generally discuss the logical game of dominion, not the real game.

You could still say that you can't get infinite VP, just arbitrarily high VP, even in the logical game of dominion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Archetype on August 26, 2020, 05:43:13 pm

Some really cool entries here. Haven't sat down and tried to design a card for a while, but felt inspired!

(https://i.postimg.cc/K4XwdfBC/Stables-1.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/d1hqFWZ0/Foal-v0-1.png)

Heirloom for Stables

Quote

Foal $2
Treasure - Reaction - Heirloom

$1
-
When you discard this from your hand (other than during Clean-up), you may reveal it to gain 2 Horses, putting one into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 26, 2020, 06:30:15 pm

This increases the draw power of Stables by 3. That is beyond crazy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Archetype on August 26, 2020, 06:33:10 pm

Quote from: segura on August 26, 2020, 06:30:15 pm

This increases the draw power of Stables by 3. That is beyond crazy.

It increases it by 2

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 26, 2020, 06:35:10 pm

Quote from: Archetype on August 26, 2020, 06:33:10 pm

Quote from: segura on August 26, 2020, 06:30:15 pm

This increases the draw power of Stables by 3. That is beyond crazy.

It increases it by 2

No. 2 Horses plus handgaining one equals an increase of draw power by 3.

A QuadrupleLab which you can trigger more than once per turn is not something you should really do. Just make it gain one Horse and the entire thing is fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Archetype on August 26, 2020, 06:38:36 pm

Quote from: segura on August 26, 2020, 06:35:10 pm

Quote from: Archetype on August 26, 2020, 06:33:10 pm

Quote from: segura on August 26, 2020, 06:30:15 pm

This increases the draw power of Stables by 3. That is beyond crazy.

It increases it by 2

No.
2 Horses plus handgaining one equals 3.

Playing the horse nets a total draw of 5 cards. Even if you’re including the second horse to be played later as “increasing draw power”, it would increase the draw power by 4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 26, 2020, 06:42:27 pm

Quote from: Archetype on August 26, 2020, 06:38:36 pm

Quote from: segura on August 26, 2020, 06:35:10 pm

Quote from: Archetype on August 26, 2020, 06:33:10 pm

Quote from: segura on August 26, 2020, 06:30:15 pm

This increases the draw power of Stables by 3. That is beyond crazy.

It increases it by 2

No.
2 Horses plus handgaining one equals 3.

Playing the horse nets a total draw of 5 cards. Even if you’re including the second horse to be played later as “increasing draw power”, it would increase the draw power by 4.

I don’t know what you mean. Just count the net effects (in case this is not clear, you can count net effects via doing an anti-cantrip, i.e. -1 Action and - 1 Card) which is +3 Cards. That is like playing 3 extra Labs, quadruples the power of Stables and is hyperobviously overpowered.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Archetype on August 26, 2020, 06:47:08 pm

I see. I think the assumption that the second Horse would be played immediately is hyperobviously overestimating the effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 26, 2020, 06:51:02 pm

Quote from: Archetype on August 26, 2020, 06:47:08 pm

I see. I think the assumption that the second Horse would be played immediately is hyperobviously overestimating the effect.

I did not assume anything of the kind, I merely counted net effects.
You on the other hand seem to assume that gaining a Horse is significantly weaker than drawing a card which is not merely dubious but plain wrong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Archetype on August 26, 2020, 06:52:53 pm

Quote from: segura on August 26, 2020, 06:51:02 pm

Quote from: Archetype on August 26, 2020, 06:47:08 pm

I see. I think the assumption that the second Horse would be played immediately is hyperobviously overestimating the effect.

I did not assume anything of the kind, I merely counted net effects.
You on the other hand seem to assume that gaining a Horse is significantly weaker than drawing a card which is not merely dubious but plain wrong.

Very dubious of me, I agree

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on August 27, 2020, 12:55:27 am

Foal should probably be once per turn, otherwise you can loop it and gain all the horses with way of the mole or way of the mouse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on August 27, 2020, 04:47:12 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 26, 2020, 04:30:19 pm

Quote from: Carline on August 26, 2020, 12:53:04 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 25, 2020, 11:13:35 am

Still, it is possible and I don't think any way to get infinite VP should exist in this game

There's a lot of possible infinite loops that get infinite VPs, most of them almost impossible to happen in a random game. See this topic:

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20320.0

All that being said, I think the smaller text, infinite-loop version of Canary is better. I don't know if the discrepancy of upvotes the two posts get is an indication of other people's thoughts. If you really must avoid infinite loops, you can try this:

Quote

$1
-
When you trash this, you may replay a face-up Action card you played once this turn that's still in play.

once you replay it, is no longer "played once." All infinite loops with Canary are thus avoided. This then means you can't throne room a card, trash a Canary to then play that card again. Is this nerf worth avoiding the infinite loop? Hard to say.

I have to root for Canary as I had the same idea (although mine [haha] allowed you to discard the Canary instead of trashing it, and it costed less as to not upgrade to gold. I think your version that stays trashed and upgrades to gold is better).

I think I prefer the first version of Canary anyway for simplicity. The idea for turning cards over is there because it makes tracking that much easier but just leaving the infinite loop in is much more fun in my opinion. And in fairness, using Treasurer gives you the option for several choices each time, I'd be happy to leave it in there honestly...

---

Quote from: pubby on August 27, 2020, 12:55:27 am

Foal should probably be once per turn, otherwise you can loop it and gain all the horses with way of the mole or way of the mouse.

I would put something like"when you discard this, other than during clean-up, set this aside. If you did, gain 2 Horses." It stops you looping Foals and doesn't gain to hand. If you did want it to gain to hand, I'd just gain 1 Horses total.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 27, 2020, 10:20:52 am

Honestly just simply "gain a Horse" is probably just fine; rather than gain 2 and one of them to hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on August 27, 2020, 11:33:08 am

Handgaining a Horse with a non-terminal is just plain weird. +2 Cards would be much simpler, unless you want those TR interactions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 27, 2020, 01:09:39 pm

24 hours left!!!!

Also, I have a couple of questions:

Quote from: faust on August 21, 2020, 03:44:21 am

(https://i.imgur.com/POqVcuj.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/uIgOgHg.png)

Quote

Ritual Sword - $2
Treasure/Heirloom

+$1
Trash an Action you have in play. If you did, +$2.

Are you forced to trash an action you have in play? Or can it also function like an ordinary copper?

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 02:54:36 pm

Update to Bale - removed the +buy from the discard clause since it doesn't really need it
/Harvest           - was worth way too much VP. Now has a cap of 4 and lightly punishes big money, and also decks which use 1 card like lab, governor, etc.
(https://i.imgur.com/3K444Kt.png)
Edit - Should I raise the VP to discourage trashing the heriloom?

Do you lose 1 VP per differently named card you have at least 4 copies of? Or is each individual copy going to bite when the 4-mark it hit? (also make sure the final version is mentioned in the original post)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 27, 2020, 03:49:46 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 27, 2020, 01:09:39 pm

24 hours left!!!!

Also, I have a couple of questions:

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 02:54:36 pm

Update to Bale - removed the +buy from the discard clause since it doesn't really need it
/Harvest           - was worth way too much VP. Now has a cap of 4 and lightly punishes big money, and also decks which use 1 card like lab, governor, etc.
(https://i.imgur.com/3K444Kt.png)
Edit - Should I raise the VP to discourage trashing the heriloom?

Do you lose 1 VP per differently named card you have at least 4 copies of? Or is each individual copy going to bite when the 4-mark it hit? (also make sure the final version is mentioned in the original post)

The heirloom itself is worth 1 VP less, not the cards. What do you mean final version in the original post?
Also, that is not the final version. The final version says 4 or more, instead of at least 4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 27, 2020, 04:15:14 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 27, 2020, 01:09:39 pm

24 hours left!!!!

Also, I have a couple of questions:

Quote from: faust on August 21, 2020, 03:44:21 am

(https://i.imgur.com/POqVcuj.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/uIgOgHg.png)

Quote

Ritual Sword - $2
Treasure/Heirloom

+$1
Trash an Action you have in play. If you did, +$2.

Are you forced to trash an action you have in play? Or can it also function like an ordinary copper?

The trashing is mandatory, as long as you have an Action in play. You can play it without Actions though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 27, 2020, 04:21:46 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 27, 2020, 03:49:46 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 27, 2020, 01:09:39 pm

24 hours left!!!!

Also, I have a couple of questions:

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 02:54:36 pm

Update to Bale - removed the +buy from the discard clause since it doesn't really need it
/Harvest           - was worth way too much VP. Now has a cap of 4 and lightly punishes big money, and also decks which use 1 card like lab, governor, etc.
(https://i.imgur.com/3K444Kt.png)
Edit - Should I raise the VP to discourage trashing the heriloom?

Do you lose 1 VP per differently named card you have at least 4 copies of? Or is each individual copy going to bite when the 4-mark it hit? (also make sure the final version is mentioned in the original post)

The heirloom itself is worth 1 VP less, not the cards. What do you mean final version in the original post?
Also, that is not the final version. The final version says 4 or more, instead of at least 4.

So the intent is that you can't lose VP for having both this and lots of cards that you have 4 or more of; rather the worst-case is that this is just worth 0_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}? As written it sounds like it could actually cost you _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} in your final score.

Also the reaction part should require you to reveal it, similar to Tunnel. Not every card you discard is revealed automatically, so it's missing accountability.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 27, 2020, 04:22:47 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 27, 2020, 03:49:46 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 27, 2020, 01:09:39 pm

24 hours left!!!!

Also, I have a couple of questions:

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 02:54:36 pm

Update to Bale - removed the +buy from the discard clause since it doesn't really need it
/Harvest           - was worth way too much VP. Now has a cap of 4 and lightly punishes big money, and also decks which use 1 card like lab, governor, etc.
(https://i.imgur.com/3K444Kt.png)
Edit - Should I raise the VP to discourage trashing the heriloom?

Do you lose 1 VP per differently named card you have at least 4 copies of? Or is each individual copy going to bite when the 4-mark it hit? (also make sure the final version is mentioned in the original post)

The heirloom itself is worth 1 VP less, not the cards. What do you mean final version in the original post?
Also, that is not the final version. The final version says 4 or more, instead of at least 4.

I think they're asking, if I had a deck of 4 Scouts and one Bale, would the Bale be worth 3 VP or 0 VP?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 27, 2020, 04:25:17 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 27, 2020, 04:22:47 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 27, 2020, 03:49:46 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 27, 2020, 01:09:39 pm

24 hours left!!!!

Also, I have a couple of questions:

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 02:54:36 pm

Update to Bale - removed the +buy from the discard clause since it doesn't really need it
/Harvest           - was worth way too much VP. Now has a cap of 4 and lightly punishes big money, and also decks which use 1 card like lab, governor, etc.
(https://i.imgur.com/3K444Kt.png)
Edit - Should I raise the VP to discourage trashing the heriloom?

Do you lose 1 VP per differently named card you have at least 4 copies of? Or is each individual copy going to bite when the 4-mark it hit? (also make sure the final version is mentioned in the original post)

The heirloom itself is worth 1 VP less, not the cards. What do you mean final version in the original post?
Also, that is not the final version. The final version says 4 or more, instead of at least 4.

I think they're asking, if I had a deck of 4 Scouts and one Bale, would the Bale be worth 3 VP or 0 VP?

Yes. Thank you.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 27, 2020, 05:08:23 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 27, 2020, 04:25:17 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 27, 2020, 04:22:47 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 27, 2020, 03:49:46 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on August 27, 2020, 01:09:39 pm

24 hours left!!!!

Also, I have a couple of questions:

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 21, 2020, 02:54:36 pm

Update to Bale - removed the +buy from the discard clause since it doesn't really need it
/Harvest           - was worth way too much VP. Now has a cap of 4 and lightly punishes big money, and also decks which use 1 card like lab, governor, etc.
(https://i.imgur.com/3K444Kt.png)
Edit - Should I raise the VP to discourage trashing the heriloom?

Do you lose 1 VP per differently named card you have at least 4 copies of? Or is each individual copy going to bite when the 4-mark it hit? (also make sure the final version is mentioned in the original post)

The heirloom itself is worth 1 VP less, not the cards. What do you mean final version in the original post?
Also, that is not the final version. The final version says 4 or more, instead of at least 4.

I think they're asking, if I had a deck of 4 Scouts and one Bale, would the Bale be worth 3 VP or 0 VP?

Yes. Thank you.

The bale would be worth 3 VP

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 27, 2020, 05:11:37 pm

Final Version!
(https://i.imgur.com/dBr75Us.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 27, 2020, 05:34:51 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 27, 2020, 05:11:37 pm

Final Version!
(https://i.imgur.com/dBr75Us.png)

The wording needs to have "for each differently named non-victory card" to get the 3_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} answer to the other question. As worded, if you have 4 Scouts, each of the 4 Scouts would subtract 1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 27, 2020, 05:38:25 pm

What about: "For each non-Victory card in excess of 3 copies"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 27, 2020, 05:54:53 pm

I can't make another mock-up rn, sorry grrgrrgrr!
Can we just pretend it says for each differently named non-Victory card you have four or more copies of?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 27, 2020, 06:05:53 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 27, 2020, 05:54:53 pm

I can't make another mock-up rn, sorry grrgrrgrr!
Can we just pretend it says for each differently named non-Victory card you have four or more copies of?

Oh I think it's fine for the contest, given that you've clarified what you mean. But if you continue to work on it or want to actually play with it; I recommend that wording update.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 27, 2020, 09:40:46 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on August 27, 2020, 05:38:25 pm

What about: "For each non-Victory card in excess of 3 copies"?

That would make it so that 5 Scouts reduces the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} of Bale by 2. Which I'm pretty sure isn't what LordBaphomet intends.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 28, 2020, 05:50:43 pm

Judging will be done within 12 hours. Sorry for the delay.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on August 29, 2020, 08:02:36 am

Contest 85 - Results
Lots of interesting ideas, so judging was very hard.

Paperwork (bureaucrat) by X-tra
This definitely provides a neat interaction with Bureaucrat, as it is a guarantueed extra $4 when those two cards collide. Problem is that it is very common to just buy a Silver. In those instances, this Heirloom will occasionally provide a massive tempo boost that is out of the player's hands. In other words, the swinginess is too great in those instances.
Also, 2 VP is kinda odd, and so is the $5 price tag. I'm not too keen on the anti-synergy with opposing Bureaucrats either.

Studies (scholar) by Something_Smart
This Heirloom is nice when it collides with Scholar, as that allows you to play the Treasures rather than discarding those. Otherwise it will be fairly useless; it doesn't prevent you from drawing actions dead. Therefore, a mild synergy. This Heirloom on the other hand has extremely potent synergies with Tactician, Cursed Village and Minion; all the sudden these cards "combo" with Scholar.

I think that this is great design. You chose a card that definitely can use a boost, but doesn't get too much of a boost by the heirloom. Meanwhile, greater synergies exist with other cards.  Finalist

Shilling (Counting House) by mail-mi
This Heirloom is a nice attampt to make Counting House less niche: it enables the money CH provides to grow, and it provides a much needed +Buy. Meanwhile, it also slows down all strategies that despise Copper (except Donate). And still, Counting House will remain hard to use.

I think this is pretty cool overall. It definitely alters CH quite significantly, so playtesting is required to judge how well balanced it truely is.

Bale (Harvest) by LordBaphomet
That's a very unusual color scheme you have for the Heirloom. The bottom-of-the-line part is also a clever way of merging a Night effect and a Tunnel-type activation. And it fits well with Harvest.
I'm not very excited about the top part, though. The penalty for having 4 of a kind is extremely mild, to the point no strategy is going to care about it at all. Compare with Orchard, which rewards having 3 identical cards with a staggering 4 points. You should probably make the card give no points at all when there is at least one non-Victory card you have at least 4 copies (excluding Coppers and Curses)

Loot Chest (Pillage) by pubby
This is a fairly nice way of making the effect of Pillage last longer. Problem is: this effect is pretty easily neutered by opposing Pillages. On top of that Spoils are very narrowly used, which means that the vast majority of the cases, this Heirloom is essentially a Copper. It is definitely going to be quite potent in Bandit Camp driven engines, though.

Tithe (Bishop) by D782802859
This card looks like a nice synergy with Bishop. It makes Bishop more attractive early-game, as it generates 3 VP from trashing Tithe, and the Gold gaining makes it easier to get a potential Golden Deck going.
The fear I have with this card is that it trivializes the trashing portion of Dominion. Normally, you have to make sure that your economy remains healthy. Now you can go completely carefree, and have a good buying turn when you hit that gold. I think it makes games with heavy trashing more boring.

Sextant (Navigator) by chronostrike
This Heirloom will have the same problems as Harbinger has: it only does something when you hit it at the end of the shuffle. With Navigator, this is even more problematic, as it will trigger a reshuffle when you have 4 or fewer cards in your deck. It can be quite good with Vault or Wandering Minstel, but even then, it's probably not THAT exciting. Also, it should be a Reaction.

Scroll (Sage) by LibraryAdventurer
Another Heirloom that synergises with sifters. This one is probably the most potent of the bunch, as getting $2 extra out of your extra card is huge! With Sage itself, this boon can lead to some early game swinginess: will the sage just find the other card of your deck, or also provide $2 in the process? I think that is a rather ugly effect, something I'd rather not see on every Sage game.

Bonsai (Hermit) by schadd
This heirloom's synergy with Hermit is spot-on, as it mores those turns you don't wanna buy anything to get Madmen more useful. Plus, it can power up those madmen. I like this interaction. I do think it's a little on the weak side, but it gives underspending some extra merit, which is a nice touch for any game. Finalist

Ritual Sword (Cultist) by faust
This is a very interesting Heirloom, but I'm not sure if pairing it up with such a strong and centralizing card is a good idea. On one hand, it is a decent way of trimming your deck from Ruins, as you spend an Action to trash a Ruins for $3; similar to playing a Moneylender. However, spending terminal space on this kind of trashing will remain hard to justify on single terminal boards. This simultaneously buffs Cultist as well, it gives your Cultist some very sick endgame potential, utilizing its on-trash effect. Overall, it warps the effectiveness of Cultist quite a bit, not sure in what direction. Mmmm.

Tricorn (Explorer) by Aquila
Explorer definitely needs a buff, especially with Falconer and Sculpter existing. However, this sounds like quite an unreliable way of buffing Explorer. It is definitely interesting for engines that rely on terminal virtual money as payload. However, Explorer is of no use in these situations.

Minecart Coaster (Mine) by majiponi
This card definitely helps Mine bolster its role as a Gold gainer, as the card itself can be upgraded into a Gold, and there is an extra $3-costing target. That said, it also slows down Mine even further, as trashing this card with it actively thickens your deck. And other trashers will find this card OK but nothing more (except Catapult, that thing is going to be quite savage with it). Overall, decent idea but kinda boring.

Pink Himalayan Rock Salt (Mine) by JimJammer
The PHRS on-play effect looks like an attempt to make Mine actually trim your deck. However, it seems very worthless in comparison to the on-trash effect. Given that colliding your Mine with PHRS isn't overly likely to happen, you really wanna get the most out of it when it does happen, which renders the on-play effect pointless. (I keep mentioning "Mine", but it applies to all trashers really).
On top of that, the on-trash effect seems overkill to me. Especially with stronger trashers like Recruiter or Junk Dealer, this is just too much.

Booty (Pirate ship) by spineflu
It is definitely a way to make those ships hit good money quite reliably, since you can increase the income by $1 every single shuffle. And Pirate Ships probably don't have to rob anything by themselves. I'm afraid that this is too much of a buff. It also doesn't help that this Heirloom has no effect whatsoever on other cards, and that a Pirate Ship play has the offchance to kill this Heirloom.

Ledger (Counting House) by Titandrake
This Heirloom is certainly interesting. It is a bit like a one-per-game version Banquet. In those rare instances where Copper is your friend, you'd likely wanna pop it fast. In other instances, it will be probably used to give one of your final turns some extra leverage. Although it is nowhere near enough to make Counting House viable, it is still quite an improvement to the card. Finalist

Well (Courtyard) by grep
This Heirloom is definitely going to impact the viability of Courtyard big time early game. This Heirloom will definitely stand out on its own, also mucking opening theory. Given that Courtyard is already very decent, I'd have preferred it if you chose a more underpowered card, like Bureaucrat. I mean, seeing Courtyard becoming a Smithy early game is cool and all, but not something I'd like to see every game that features Courtyard.

Also, nice strategy for taking the picture, just zooming in on the heirloomee (same for next nomination).

Rack (Tormentor) by NoMoreFun
Not sure if a Heirloom like Rack is a good idea to begin with, as this Heirloom in itself is going to accumulate a decent chunk of villagers early on. And if you do want to include a Heirloom like this, it is probably best used on an underpowered card that absolutely hates to collide in Shuffle 2 (like Bard or Nomad Camp). The synergy with Tormentor is definitely nice, but I think it is better if Tormentor "on average" is a card that gives a few Imps early on and then has to switch to his Hexing duties.

Cursed Mask (Masquerade) by Xen3k
This is a pretty interesting touch on the Masquerade, putting emphasis on the "Potato" aspect of the card. Problem is, Masquerade is already one of the best cards, and the presence of this card puts Masquerade at an even more favorable position among the trashers. Other trashers probably loathe this card immensely, whereas Masquerade has great use for it. Masquerade can try to stuff the opponent with it, or strategically pop it up to give the deck some extra juice to fend off opposing Masquerades (when the deck can handle it).
It should have an extra color. Whether it's green or purple is still conjecture to this day.

Offering (Temple) by Fragasnap
I think both effects are interesting, but they shouldn't be there simultaneously. The upper line part does a nice job at improving the value of Temple as a purchase and could be the tempo boost it needed. It is also interesting for luring the opponent into wasting their turn buying a "stupid" Temple. This makes Temple even more of a noobtrap than it already is.
The lower line part is probably a little too explosive in Goons or Groundskeeper games. Timing the popup will be tricky - you want to do it as late as possible, but before your deck stalls or the game ends. Mistiming will be extremely detrimental for your chances of winning the game, maybe a little too much. The game could boil down to whoever piles first wins, leaving any potential lead irrelevant.
Overall, nice idea, but the trashing effect is probably too centralizing.

Scrap Metal (Junk Dealer) by Fly-Eagles-Fly
This is a cute way of making Junk Dealer relevant after trashing. However, you still don't want to use your Junk Dealer when Scrap Metal isn't in your hand which can be rather frustrating. In general, your deck performance will be probably worse with usable JD+Scrap Metal than with unusable JD. If you want a card that is immune to being trashed, just include Fortress in your kingdom.

Pearl (Pearl Diver) by xyz123
Pearl Diver, unlikely to be more than a Page with growth failure, now gets an Heirloom that is even more unlikely to be more than a Copper. How cute. It is thematically very spot on, and it has nice interactions with Courtyards and opposing Ghost Ships, but it is too unimpactful overall.

Canary (Mine) by Marpharos
This looks pretty nice and has the potential of giving Mine the much needed tempo boost, as turning two coppers into a Silver and a Gold is very powerful. Even better is that for most of the already-powerful trashers, this isn't much more than trashing a second card. It still needs playtesting to judge how swingy this is, as being able to trash this in Shuffle 2 is much better than trashing this in later shuffles. Fun fact: when you replay the Mine with Canary's effect, you can't do it on the Treasure that Mine gained for you. This is because replaying the Mine happens between the trashing and the gaining.

About generating infinite loops, this is a legitimate concern, as all it takes is drawing Treasurer+Watchtower, while having a Canary in your hand or in the trash. That said, it is pointless to spit too many hairs on this, as there are countless of methods of fixing this when this card would go into production (like starting with "when you trash this, and haven't already this turn,..."). Finalist

Bronze (Monument) by gambit05
This does an awful lot early game, as losing a Copper and having an extra Villager prior to T3 is pretty sick. The fact that it only leaves you with $6 to spend in the opening makes up for it (unless you don't use Bronze... you gotta have a very good reason for that). What it also makes interesting is that the Villager supply it provides depletes at some point, which means that Monument can still be hard to justify when the terminal space is tight. Definitely needs playtesting to verify if the early game acceleration is too much, but very solid entry overall. Finalist

Penny (Highway) be Segura
The fact that it doesn't provide $1 will make the early game very stiff, and makes it inferior to Pouch in effect and design. On top of that, Highway synergises better with +Buy than any other card in the entire game, so giving it a +Buy Heirloom is kinda strange as well. On the flipside, Highway is nothing but a glorified Peddler, so always having single-use +Buy with it isn't completely unreasonable. That said, I think that other cards that need +Buy to function (Delay especially) would've been better choices.

Moonstone (Bureaucrat) by silverspawn
An heirloom that turns Silvers into Golds is probably too much of a boon for Big Money strategies, leading to boring games. And I'm not sure how badly it elevates Seer. The decision to put it with Bureaucrat is quite sound, but I don't think I want to play with his heirloom at all.

Equerry (Knights) by alion8me
Cool and creative way of nerfing the knights. The effect itself is quite neat, as it enables those with a 4/3 opening to get their hands on their first knight faster. It's otherwise not an effect you can really build around, or means night and day like Pouch, but it is still a cool way of making Knight games more peaceful.

Lucky Ticket (Fairgrounds) by lombeluiten
Having to show 3 distincts is quite a tall order. In typical Dominion games, having 3 distinct victory cards just doesn't happin 'till the endgame. And even if you do, trying to draw them together can be extremely painful. Prizes are also not really the best mechanic of Dominion. So, not a fan, sorry.

Foal (Stables) by Archetype
The community has spoken: this is just plain ridiculous. Stables is already a good drawing machine, and letting it effectively draw 5 cards by discarding a Foal is just crazy. The Horse gaining also ensures that drawing a Stables without treasures is less likely. It also doesn't help that this isn't nearly as great with terminal discarders like Vault or Embassy. It is also fairly wordy for an Heirloom.

This leaves us with the following top 5.
5. Bonsai (Hermit) by schadd
4. Ledger (Counting House) by Titandrake
3. Canary (Mine) by Marpharos
2. Bronze (Monument) by gambit05
1. Studies (scholar) by Something_Smart

Congrats, Something_Smart, for winning this contest and good luck with judging the next one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on August 29, 2020, 11:56:48 am

Congratulations to Something_Smart and the other Finalists. Many thanks to grrgrrgrr. Good work!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on August 29, 2020, 07:59:57 pm

Thank you!

I'm going to be out of town during Labor Day weekend, so if I judged the next contest, I'd have to push back the judging until at least Monday, and probably Tuesday. Would that be a problem?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 29, 2020, 09:38:54 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 29, 2020, 07:59:57 pm

Thank you!

I'm going to be out of town during Labor Day weekend, so if I judged the next contest, I'd have to push back the judging until at least Monday, and probably Tuesday. Would that be a problem?

sounds reasonable to me. weve had contests go long before

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 29, 2020, 09:59:29 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 29, 2020, 09:38:54 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 29, 2020, 07:59:57 pm

Thank you!

I'm going to be out of town during Labor Day weekend, so if I judged the next contest, I'd have to push back the judging until at least Monday, and probably Tuesday. Would that be a problem?

sounds reasonable to me. weve had contests go long before

Yeah, if this contest was truly weekly, we'd be on contest #102 by now. You're fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on August 30, 2020, 08:40:36 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 29, 2020, 09:38:54 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on August 29, 2020, 07:59:57 pm

Thank you!

I'm going to be out of town during Labor Day weekend, so if I judged the next contest, I'd have to push back the judging until at least Monday, and probably Tuesday. Would that be a problem?

sounds reasonable to me. weve had contests go long before

For instance, in Contest #80 I took 11 days between post the challenge and the final report.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on August 30, 2020, 07:48:54 pm

All right, sorry for the delay. I've had quite a busy weekend.

This seems like a pretty simple theme, but as far as I can recall it's never been used before, so here goes.

Contest #86: Not just 4/3 or 5/2

Design a card or card-shaped object that can in some way affect opening splits. This could be a card with an on-gain effect that can draw or sift cards (Cavalry, Night Watchman, Den of Sin, Doctor), or one that affects setup in some way (Baker, Pooka), or anything else, as long as it allows you to get an opening split other than 4/3 or 5/2.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 30, 2020, 09:27:23 pm

i suspect this'll be unpopular but:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f4c5082e25be027fdb9869d/80a0248e6d3af3bfb71c205b90d65cbf/image.png)

Quote

Tend • $2 • Action - Duration
+1 Action
Set aside any number of Victory or Shelter cards under this. At the start of your next turn, +$1 for each card set aside this way and put them in your hand.
-
Setup: Each player adds a copy of this card to their starting cards.

includes 16 copies; you only use 10 for the pile and the rest get added to everyones starting decks.
before anyone gets ornery about it mentioning Shelters when they might not be in the game: Vagrant also does this (altho yeah, vagrant comes in a set with shelters, i know)

Possible outlier openings in a standard game are:
• this + 4 copper / 2 copper 3 estates / one copper remaining (4/2)
• this + 3 estates + 1 copper / 5 copper (1 / 8 )
and then various flavors in-between.

Considered making this be a cantrip (keeps the same deck cycling as a regular split then) but, font was already getting small.
Updated copy is here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852807#msg852807 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852807#msg852807)

Also, for official things that qualify, Nomad Camp counts, yeah?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on August 30, 2020, 10:04:45 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 30, 2020, 09:27:23 pm

Also, for official things that qualify, Nomad Camp counts, yeah?

Yep. I'm sure there are other examples as well, just wanted to give a few in case people couldn't think of anything.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 30, 2020, 10:18:37 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 30, 2020, 09:27:23 pm

Possible outlier openings in a standard game are:
• this + 4 copper / 2 copper 3 estates / one copper remaining (4/2)
• this + 3 estates + 1 copper / 5 copper (1 / 8 )
and then various flavors in-between.

The setup says to add a copy to your opening hand, not replace one of the cards in your opening hand with it. Your examples should be 5/2 and 2/8.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 30, 2020, 10:57:48 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 30, 2020, 09:27:23 pm

before anyone gets ornery about it mentioning Shelters when they might not be in the game: Vagrant also does this (altho yeah, vagrant comes in a set with shelters, i know)

I don't think it's a problem to mention shelters, but it might not be worth doing so. If you leave that out, then hey, it's different and much weaker in Shelters games. So is Ambassador (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Ambassador). And it's less words on a wordy card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 30, 2020, 11:33:52 pm

Quote

Owl tower
$4 - Night-Duration
At the beginning of your next turn, put your deck into your discard pile, look through your discard pile, discard a card and put a card from your discard pile into your hand.
(This is gained to your hand instead of your discard pile.)

This can replace a 4/3 with a 4/4. I'm thinking of lowering the cost to $3 to make 3/5 possible, but maybe that's not appropriate for the power level of this card. Switch a card out for any card in your deck!


THIS VERSION IS OUTDATED

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on August 30, 2020, 11:47:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/CGVu8Qt.png)

This can add something to your opening, and mess with other players' openings in return. I want to make this a $3 so opponents can open with it in response to you opening with it. I'm comparing this to Enchantress and Ghost Town. The attack is weaker than Enchantress, but the duration effect is arguably stronger. It seems stronger than ghost town, but (except for when you first buy it) it's a terminal.

I could make it a night card and up it to $4, but that seems to make opening 4/3 vs. 3/4 matter too much.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 31, 2020, 12:15:20 am

Quote from: mail-mi on August 30, 2020, 11:47:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/CGVu8Qt.png)

This can add something to your opening, and mess with other players' openings in return. I want to make this a $3 so opponents can open with it in response to you opening with it. I'm comparing this to Enchantress and Ghost Town. The attack is weaker than Enchantress, but the duration effect is arguably stronger. It seems stronger than ghost town, but (except for when you first buy it) it's a terminal.

I could make it a night card and up it to $4, but that seems to make opening 4/3 vs. 3/4 matter too much.

This is busted. +1 Action +1 Card is already ghost town, so add in the $ and it is already worth 3$ even without the attack and the play-on-gain.
Also, how does the attack interact with expedition?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on August 31, 2020, 12:31:31 am

(https://i.ibb.co/VwzkkNF/image.png)
Litharge
$4 - Event
Gain a Silver onto your deck


Are your ready to buy a Silver for $4 in a hope of reaching $5?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 31, 2020, 01:16:47 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on August 31, 2020, 12:15:20 am

Quote from: mail-mi on August 30, 2020, 11:47:23 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/CGVu8Qt.png)

This can add something to your opening, and mess with other players' openings in return. I want to make this a $3 so opponents can open with it in response to you opening with it. I'm comparing this to Enchantress and Ghost Town. The attack is weaker than Enchantress, but the duration effect is arguably stronger. It seems stronger than ghost town, but (except for when you first buy it) it's a terminal.

I could make it a night card and up it to $4, but that seems to make opening 4/3 vs. 3/4 matter too much.

This is busted. +1 Action +1 Card is already ghost town, so add in the $ and it is already worth 3$ even without the attack and the play-on-gain.
Also, how does the attack interact with expedition?

In it's current state it's a terminal action and therefore quite a bit weaker after you gain it that Ghost Town is.
If you're talking about the Night card version - I agree, that sounds really strong for $4.

One way you could fix the wording is by saying "While this is in play, each other player draws one less card during their cleanup phase, down to a minimum of 4".
You could also use the -1 Card token instead, although that changes the functionality of the attack quite a bit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 31, 2020, 01:33:38 am

Quote from: grep on August 31, 2020, 12:31:31 am

(https://i.ibb.co/VwzkkNF/image.png)
Litharge
$4 - Event
Gain a Silver onto your deck

This is basically a treasure nomad camp, and maybe a bit stronger, since it's not terminal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on August 31, 2020, 04:12:41 am

(https://i.imgur.com/srsdWGy.png)

Quote

Migrate - $4
Event

Discard the top card of your deck. You may gain a card costing up to $6 that shares a type with it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on August 31, 2020, 05:13:12 am

Quote from: faust on August 31, 2020, 04:12:41 am

(https://i.imgur.com/srsdWGy.png)

Quote

Migrate - $4
Event

Discard the top card of your deck. You may gain a card costing up to $6 that shares a type with it.

ugh. swingy. That would really suck to discard an estate with this.
How about make it discard from your hand and then it can cost $3? Or maybe just have a consolation prize for if you do discard an Estate early in the game (like +1 or +2VP).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on August 31, 2020, 06:34:20 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on August 31, 2020, 05:13:12 am

ugh. swingy. That would really suck to discard an estate with this.
How about make it discard from your hand and then it can cost $3? Or maybe just have a consolation prize for if you do discard an Estate early in the game (like +1 or +2VP).

I don't think either of those work. getting 2 VP and having nothing vs a gold after your first shuffle isn't significantly less GG, and if it costs 3$ and discards from your hand, you can always open with a gold.

There are official cards who just have an obvious giant luck component (though not quite as extreme). Swindler is a good example -- it hits an estate, it helps you, it hits a lab, the game is... well, the primary reason why it's not over is that swindler luck could go into the opposite direction in the future. I don't like those cards (I would ban Migrate immediately) but some do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 31, 2020, 08:59:20 am

Quote from: Gubump on August 30, 2020, 10:18:37 pm

Quote from: spineflu on August 30, 2020, 09:27:23 pm

Possible outlier openings in a standard game are:
• this + 4 copper / 2 copper 3 estates / one copper remaining (4/2)
• this + 3 estates + 1 copper / 5 copper (1 / 8 )
and then various flavors in-between.

The setup says to add a copy to your opening hand, not replace one of the cards in your opening hand with it. Your examples should be 5/2 and 2/8.

no no no, you start with an eleven card deck. if i meant starting hand, i'd have said starting hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on August 31, 2020, 09:03:11 am

Quote from: spineflu on August 31, 2020, 08:59:20 am

no no no, you start with an eleven card deck. if i meant starting hand, i'd have said starting hand.

Oh I see. I too misunderstood and thought you had to add it to your starting cards in hand for a first hand of 6 cards. Perhaps wording it as such: "Setup: Each player adds a copy of this card to their starting deck." would be less misleading.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on August 31, 2020, 10:36:21 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f4c5082e25be027fdb9869d/a9941b492c3fa42e17a18b5f51872a80/image.png)

Quote

Tend • $2 • Action - Duration
+1 Card
+1 Action
Set aside any number of Victory cards under this. At the start of your next turn, +$1 for each card set aside this way and discard them.
-
Setup: Each player begins with a copy of this card in their starting deck.

Took your suggestions, X-tra and Gendo, and added in the +1 Card so you still cycle all eleven cards in your starting deck by turn 3 (unless this is the bottom card, in which case you get it then and have a regular opening); this changes the outlier hands to:
• 2 / 8
or
• 5 / 2 (and you get a bigger payoff on turn 3 + your estates miss the shuffle)
and then stuff in the middle like 3/5 or 4/4.

still 16 cards / use 10 for the pile, give one to each player, toss the rest in the box.
Also changed what you do with the set aside cards - i wanted them set aside so it was easier to track how much $$$ you get - and now you discard them, rather than put them in your hand (which can lead to an overly dominant play "Tend" every turn strategy that keeps your green out of your deck perpetually)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on August 31, 2020, 11:47:33 am

Highwayman (Action, $4)

+$2
+1 Buy
------
When you gain this, you may play it.

Turn your opening into 4-3-2, if you want it. How many Silver+ cards can your deck bear?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 31, 2020, 11:57:17 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on August 31, 2020, 11:47:33 am

Highwayman (Action, $4)

+$2
+1 Buy
------
When you gain this, you may play it.

Turn your opening into 4-3-2, if you want it. How many Silver+ cards can your deck bear?

I think this is a bit too similar to Nomad Camp, and probably a bit weaker.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 31, 2020, 11:59:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/GrYbTeX.jpg)

Here's a modified version of a card that I invented last week.
Edit: Changed to match Nomad Camp.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 31, 2020, 12:09:49 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 31, 2020, 11:59:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/PnGaqcM.jpg)

Here's a modified version of a card that I invented last week.

Shouldn't it be "shuffle into your deck"? Or do you mean "put it on top of your deck"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 31, 2020, 12:46:17 pm

My entry for the week: Chancellery and Emblem. A chancellery was where you would go to get official documents sealed.
(https://i.imgur.com/Iw1Hwzh.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/MLiXEyL.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 31, 2020, 01:47:25 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 31, 2020, 12:09:49 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 31, 2020, 11:59:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/PnGaqcM.jpg)

Here's a modified version of a card that I invented last week.

Shouldn't it be "shuffle into your deck"? Or do you mean "put it on top of your deck"?

Yes, thank you. Fixed to 'onto'.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 31, 2020, 01:55:46 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 31, 2020, 01:47:25 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 31, 2020, 12:09:49 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 31, 2020, 11:59:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/PnGaqcM.jpg)

Here's a modified version of a card that I invented last week.

Shouldn't it be "shuffle into your deck"? Or do you mean "put it on top of your deck"?

Yes, thank you. Fixed to 'onto'.

Are you intending this to work differently than Nomad Camp (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Nomad_Camp) in terms of visiting the discard pile? As worded, this goes to your discard pile and is then moved onto your deck, which is different than Nomad Camp which never visits your deck. It's different when combined with various "when gain" abilities.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on August 31, 2020, 01:57:14 pm

Quote

Manufacture - Event, $2 cost.
Once per game: +1 Buy. Choose one: gain a card costing up to $4; or gain a copy of a card you have in play; or +4VP.

Choose the early game, middle game or the late game bonus.

Former entry:

Quote

Recycle - Event, $3 cost.
Choose one: +2 Cards; or + $2; or gain a card costing $4.
-
In games using this: once per turn, when you gain a card costing $3, you may return it to its pile and get this.

It should probably be changed to become a Project affecting one gain per turn (which wouldn't fit the contest).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on August 31, 2020, 01:58:47 pm

EDIT: THIS IS AN OUTDATED SUBMISSION I PICKED A NEW CARD SEE LATER IN THREAD

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/l4igivqt.png)

Quote

Distribute - Event - 4debt
Gain a card costing up to $4. Set it aside. If you did, put it in your hand at the start of your next turn. Each other player gains a copy of that card.

My favorite part of messenger is the below the bottom part. So here's a card that does something similar. You gain the card sooner, your opponents gain it later. This costs debt so that you can always open with it, plus the gained card next turn helps you pay your debt back. Sometimes you can distribute a card your opponents don't even want. Towards the end of a player's shuffle, you could distribute them curses.

Here’s one fun idea. On 3/4 or 4/3, Open Distribute for Baron, and then next turn play your Baron to spike up 7!  Baron is probably one of the more powerful combos since people don’t want multiple Barons often.

Open to feedback, of course

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 31, 2020, 02:17:22 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 31, 2020, 01:55:46 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 31, 2020, 01:47:25 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on August 31, 2020, 12:09:49 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 31, 2020, 11:59:18 am

(https://i.imgur.com/PnGaqcM.jpg)

Here's a modified version of a card that I invented last week.

Shouldn't it be "shuffle into your deck"? Or do you mean "put it on top of your deck"?

Yes, thank you. Fixed to 'onto'.

Are you intending this to work differently than Nomad Camp (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Nomad_Camp) in terms of visiting the discard pile? As worded, this goes to your discard pile and is then moved onto your deck, which is different than Nomad Camp which never visits your deck. It's different when combined with various "when gain" abilities.

I forgot that Nomad Camp had a different wording, I'll change it to match.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on August 31, 2020, 02:31:29 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 31, 2020, 01:57:14 pm

Quote

Recycle - Event, $3 cost.
Choose one: +2 Cards; or + $2; or gain a card costing $4.
-
In games using this: once per turn, when you gain a card costing $3, you may return it to its pile and get this.

Instead of a $3 gain like a Silver, you can get 2 cards, $2, or a $4, something useful whenever you want to pop it. Change the role of your gainers, only once per turn so Trader isn't broken. The $4 and $3 costs referred to are exactly those costs, not 'up to' them.

This just makes every $4 cost cost three... and you can't "get" events.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on August 31, 2020, 02:51:34 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 31, 2020, 01:57:14 pm

Quote

Recycle - Event, $3 cost.
Choose one: +2 Cards; or + $2; or gain a card costing $4.
-
In games using this: once per turn, when you gain a card costing $3, you may return it to its pile and get this.

Instead of a $3 gain like a Silver, you can get 2 cards, $2, or a $4, something useful whenever you want to pop it. Change the role of your gainers, only once per turn so Trader isn't broken. The $4 and $3 costs referred to are exactly those costs, not 'up to' them.

This feels like it's doing too many different things on one card-shaped thing. The bottom part makes it feel nothing like an event; it's just a change-of-rules for this game. It only makes any sense with mid-turn gainers, at which point it changes "gain a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}" into either +3 cards or +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}".

When buying it as an Event, the only choice that makes any sense to use is the "gain a card costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}". And that just is also basically a global rule that says "in this game, cards that cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} instead".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on August 31, 2020, 06:14:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/GLT1Xa9.png?1)

An alt-vp that lets you grab some on-gain spirits.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on August 31, 2020, 07:17:35 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on August 31, 2020, 06:14:47 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/GLT1Xa9.png?1)

An alt-vp that lets you grab some on-gain spirits.

This seems way too easy to make it worth 3_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} to cost just _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} (also, since it has an overpay effect, it should cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/1/16/Coin3plus.png/16px-Coin3plus.png)}, not _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on August 31, 2020, 07:44:02 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/3Y3xSGi.jpg)

Quote

Sailor
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $3
+1 Action. Choose one: +1 Buy and +$1; or at the start of your next turn: +1 Card and +$1.

---

When this is your first gain in a turn, you may set it aside. If you do, play it.

Vanishing economy with a Buy or vanishing next-turn Laboratory+Peddler.  You get to play it when it is your first gain too, so you can make a Workshop-variant non-terminal with a Sailor.

• Turn 1 $5: Buy a Sailor with +1 Buy and +$1 to get another $3-cost card (which could be a Sailor with its next turn effect).
• Turn 1 $5: Buy a Sailor with its next-turn effect and get $4 turn 2.
• Turn 1 $4: Buy a Sailor with +1 Buy and +$1 to get a $2-cost card.
• Turn 1 $4: Buy a Sailor with its next-turn effect and get $4 (20% draw Estate) or $5 (80% draw Copper) turn 2.
• Turn 1 $3: Buy a Sailor with its next-turn effect and get $5 (40% draw Estate) or $6 (60% draw Copper) turn 2.

Sailor looks really good when you gain it but is a Copper with a Buy after that (and don't forget that you'll discard it from play immediately if you choose that option), unless you can afford the drag to your economy when you draw it in which case you're spending the card on your next turn.  Combos with Highway, but Sailor is a net-stop-card, so take care.

HISTORY:
Added "When this is your first gain in a turn," clause to reduce its pile threat.  The on-gain is still powerful and gives you some nice flexibility when you're using it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on August 31, 2020, 09:26:02 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118688358_313985789674834_3381210067011575131_n.png?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=jaf3kA_EVWIAX_Hfesy&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=5af93462ddc8a2e4a83502a478635007&oe=5F741EC8)

Quote

Boarding House - $2
Action - Looter
+1 Action
+$1
You may play an Action card from your hand.
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

Not sure about the wording or the power level for this. The on-gain effect is only really good early game to help get a $5, but the Ruins don't make it a guarantee and delays your first shuffle. I am thinking of making it shuffle all treasure in play into the deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on August 31, 2020, 09:42:53 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on August 31, 2020, 09:26:02 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118688358_313985789674834_3381210067011575131_n.png?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=jaf3kA_EVWIAX_Hfesy&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=5af93462ddc8a2e4a83502a478635007&oe=5F741EC8)

Quote

Boarding House - $2
Action - Looter
+1 Action
+$1
You may play an Action card from your hand.
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

Not sure about the wording or the power level for this. The on-gain effect is only really good early game to help get a $5, but the Ruins don't make it a guarantee and delays your first shuffle. I am thinking of making it shuffle all treasure in play into the deck.

Why "you may play an Action card from your hand" instead of just +2 Actions at the top?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on August 31, 2020, 09:57:03 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 31, 2020, 09:42:53 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on August 31, 2020, 09:26:02 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118688358_313985789674834_3381210067011575131_n.png?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=jaf3kA_EVWIAX_Hfesy&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=5af93462ddc8a2e4a83502a478635007&oe=5F741EC8)

Quote

Boarding House - $2
Action - Looter
+1 Action
+$1
You may play an Action card from your hand.
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

Not sure about the wording or the power level for this. The on-gain effect is only really good early game to help get a $5, but the Ruins don't make it a guarantee and delays your first shuffle. I am thinking of making it shuffle all treasure in play into the deck.

Why "you may play an Action card from your hand" instead of just +2 Actions at the top?

Yeah, I guess that would be simpler. I think that is a hold over from an earlier version of this card when you could trash the action you play off it.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118294169_304830144139169_2246344647527967215_n.png?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=OCqYhhH0j04AX8fVTMC&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=8f1efde2e4840bf88e89426529102be6&oe=5F717D65)

Quote

Boarding House - $2
Action - Looter
+2 Actions
+$1
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

So this would make it a bad Fishing Village. Hmm, not sure if I am happy with it. I may try and make the "play an action from your hand" work so if you play a Ruins you are rewarded or change it back so you can trash the action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 01, 2020, 12:03:57 am

My entry for this week:

EDIT:

Quote

Lease
Cost 1 - Event
Set aside an Action card from the supply and take <debt> equal to half its cost (rounded up). At the start of your next turn, play the set-aside action. When it leaves play, return it to the supply.

EDIT2: I wanted to round up the halved cost to make $5 cost cards cost more to lease than $4 cost cards.

FAQ: On-buy and on-gain effects are not triggered when you Lease a card.

Quote

Lease
Cost * - Event
Set aside an Action card from the supply. At the start of your next turn, play it. When it leaves play, return it to the supply.
-
*This costs $1 plus half the cost of the card you lease (rounded up).

Should I just make it cost $2 and then make you take debt of half the cost of the leased card?
...yeah I'll go ahead and do this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 01, 2020, 12:07:10 am

Quote from: Xen3k on August 31, 2020, 09:57:03 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 31, 2020, 09:42:53 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on August 31, 2020, 09:26:02 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118688358_313985789674834_3381210067011575131_n.png?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=jaf3kA_EVWIAX_Hfesy&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=5af93462ddc8a2e4a83502a478635007&oe=5F741EC8)

Quote

Boarding House - $2
Action - Looter
+1 Action
+$1
You may play an Action card from your hand.
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

Not sure about the wording or the power level for this. The on-gain effect is only really good early game to help get a $5, but the Ruins don't make it a guarantee and delays your first shuffle. I am thinking of making it shuffle all treasure in play into the deck.

Why "you may play an Action card from your hand" instead of just +2 Actions at the top?

Yeah, I guess that would be simpler. I think that is a hold over from an earlier version of this card when you could trash the action you play off it.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118294169_304830144139169_2246344647527967215_n.png?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=OCqYhhH0j04AX8fVTMC&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=8f1efde2e4840bf88e89426529102be6&oe=5F717D65)

Quote

Boarding House - $2
Action - Looter
+2 Actions
+$1
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

So this would make it a bad Fishing Village. Hmm, not sure if I am happy with it. I may try and make the "play an action from your hand" work so if you play a Ruins you are rewarded or change it back so you can trash the action.

This is strictly weaker than Squire (Vineyard is the only edge case that comes to mind). Why would you want a non-drawing splitter that comes with junk and makes the next turns worse via shuffling Coppers back in?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 01, 2020, 12:43:50 am

Fold
Event - $1
+1 Buy
Put your deck in your discard pile

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 01, 2020, 02:46:58 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on September 01, 2020, 12:03:57 am

My entry for this week:

EDIT:

Quote

Lease
Cost 1 - Event
Set aside an Action card from the supply and take <debt> equal to half its cost (rounded up). At the start of your next turn, play the set-aside action. When it leaves play, return it to the supply.

EDIT2: I wanted to round up the halved cost to make $5 cost cards cost more to lease than $4 cost cards.

FAQ: On-buy and on-gain effects are not triggered when you Lease a card.

Quote

Lease
Cost * - Event
Set aside an Action card from the supply. At the start of your next turn, play it. When it leaves play, return it to the supply.
-
*This costs $1 plus half the cost of the card you lease (rounded up).

Should I just make it cost $2 and then make you take debt of half the cost of the leased card?
...yeah I'll go ahead and do this.

Not sure how this would work with Debt and Potion costs. Also, you might be forced to buy this for Mountebank the first 10 turns of the game, not sure that's gonna be fun.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on September 01, 2020, 03:31:14 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on August 31, 2020, 02:51:34 pm

Quote from: Aquila on August 31, 2020, 01:57:14 pm

Quote

Recycle - Event, $3 cost.
Choose one: +2 Cards; or + $2; or gain a card costing $4.
-
In games using this: once per turn, when you gain a card costing $3, you may return it to its pile and get this.

Instead of a $3 gain like a Silver, you can get 2 cards, $2, or a $4, something useful whenever you want to pop it. Change the role of your gainers, only once per turn so Trader isn't broken. The $4 and $3 costs referred to are exactly those costs, not 'up to' them.

This feels like it's doing too many different things on one card-shaped thing. The bottom part makes it feel nothing like an event; it's just a change-of-rules for this game. It only makes any sense with mid-turn gainers, at which point it changes "gain a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}" into either +3 cards or +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}".

When buying it as an Event, the only choice that makes any sense to use is the "gain a card costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}". And that just is also basically a global rule that says "in this game, cards that cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} instead".

Sure, so it's trying to be a project but it's been shoehorned to fit the contest. I'll try again:

Quote

Manufacture - Event, $2 cost.
Once per game: +1 Buy. Choose one: gain a card costing up to $4; or gain a copy of a card you have in play; or +4VP.

Choose whether you want the early game bonus, the middle one or the late one. Analyse which is best.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 06:29:32 am

Submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200901/9sclkvt5.png)

Quote

Haunted Cruise -- Event -- 0$

Once per turn: +1 Buy, and Exile and Curse and a Copper from the supply. At the start of your next turn, put a card you have in Exile into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on September 01, 2020, 10:06:56 am

Quote from: segura on September 01, 2020, 12:07:10 am

Quote from: Xen3k on August 31, 2020, 09:57:03 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 31, 2020, 09:42:53 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on August 31, 2020, 09:26:02 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118688358_313985789674834_3381210067011575131_n.png?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=jaf3kA_EVWIAX_Hfesy&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=5af93462ddc8a2e4a83502a478635007&oe=5F741EC8)

Quote

Boarding House - $2
Action - Looter
+1 Action
+$1
You may play an Action card from your hand.
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

Not sure about the wording or the power level for this. The on-gain effect is only really good early game to help get a $5, but the Ruins don't make it a guarantee and delays your first shuffle. I am thinking of making it shuffle all treasure in play into the deck.

Why "you may play an Action card from your hand" instead of just +2 Actions at the top?

Yeah, I guess that would be simpler. I think that is a hold over from an earlier version of this card when you could trash the action you play off it.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118294169_304830144139169_2246344647527967215_n.png?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=OCqYhhH0j04AX8fVTMC&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=8f1efde2e4840bf88e89426529102be6&oe=5F717D65)

Quote

Boarding House - $2
Action - Looter
+2 Actions
+$1
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

So this would make it a bad Fishing Village. Hmm, not sure if I am happy with it. I may try and make the "play an action from your hand" work so if you play a Ruins you are rewarded or change it back so you can trash the action.

This is strictly weaker than Squire (Vineyard is the only edge case that comes to mind). Why would you want a non-drawing splitter that comes with junk and makes the next turns worse via shuffling Coppers back in?

Anything that makes you want extra gains for some reason makes this not strictly weaker. There are probably situations where you want this in Forager or Priest games just for food, although they are rare. I suppose the copper shuffling could also be nice for an overpay Doctor?

I do agree that "worse Squire with a usually bad on-gain" could use strengthening, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: artless on September 01, 2020, 10:31:38 am

Smuggled goods
Treasure - $1
+$1
---
When you buy this, gain a card costing up to the number of cards in your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 01, 2020, 01:12:26 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 06:29:32 am

Submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200901/9sclkvt5.png)

Quote

Haunted Cruise -- Event -- 0$

Once per turn: +1 Buy, and Exile and Curse and a Copper from the supply. At the start of your next turn, put a card you have in Exile into your hand.

I feel like even if this only Exiled a Copper from the supply and not also a Curse; you still wouldn't want to buy this in the opening pretty much ever. Compare to Borrow (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Borrow)... they both give you +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} to spend in your opening; but Borrow makes you put your -1 Card token on your deck as a penalty. Haunted Cruise makes you put your -1 Card token on your deck every single shuffle for the rest of the game (that's basically what gaining a junk card does); and also gives you -1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} score.

When combined with other cards that Exile things, it becomes interesting outside the opening; your basically losing a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} to  get a good card from Exile into your hand next turn; an interesting decision. But if there are no other cards that Exile good things in the game; I don't see this getting bought.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 01:35:38 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 01, 2020, 01:12:26 pm

I feel like even if this only Exiled a Copper from the supply and not also a Curse; you still wouldn't want to buy this in the opening pretty much ever. Compare to Borrow (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Borrow)... they both give you +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} to spend in your opening; but Borrow makes you put your -1 Card token on your deck as a penalty. Haunted Cruise makes you put your -1 Card token on your deck every single shuffle for the rest of the game (that's basically what gaining a junk card does); and also gives you -1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} score.

The curse does not enter your deck, only the copper does. If you want to model it as -1 card, you also have to model it as +1 coin since copper gives you +1 coin. With borrow, you get it once and next turn. With h/c, you get it many times, but much later since it doesn't affect you until you draw the copper the next time. Short term, h/c is much stronger than borrow, so the question is how heavily you want to discount.

But the card is not meant to be super strong in the opening. It may be better in the later game when you have thing that interact with the copper, either by wanting lots of cards or by trashing. Say you run out of cards for spice merchant or something. I don't think the situations where it'll be better than borrow will be rare.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on September 01, 2020, 01:41:41 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 06:29:32 am

Submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200901/9sclkvt5.png)

Quote

Haunted Cruise -- Event -- 0$

Once per turn: +1 Buy, and Exile and Curse and a Copper from the supply. At the start of your next turn, put a card you have in Exile into your hand.

First, I would never buy this unless I had camel train, way of the camel, transport, stockpile, or I bounty hunted my good cards away. Secondly, I think it has
a bit too much overlap with transport... being a worse version that is only usable in limited kingdoms.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 01:47:46 pm

You would not want 1 extra Copper in your deck and -1 VP in exchange for opening 3/5 rather than 3/4?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on September 01, 2020, 01:52:20 pm

It compares extremely poorly to Borrow.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 01, 2020, 01:56:09 pm

Maybe a bit late, but I simplified my card:

Stud
$3 – Action

Quote

Gain a Horse.
You may discard a Horse, for
+2 Actions.
------------------------------
When you gain this, gain a Horse onto your deck.

My first submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200901/yzb23llc.png)

Stud
$3+   Action

Quote

+1 Action
Gain a Horse.
You may discard a Horse, for
+1 Card and +$1.
------------------------------
When you buy this, gain a Horse.
You may pay $1 more for this to
put the Horse onto your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 02:02:05 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on September 01, 2020, 01:52:20 pm

It compares extremely poorly to Borrow.

I agree that Borrow is a better comparison than Transport, but gaining a Copper to your discard pile is not clearly worse than gaining 1 fewer card next turn. There are tons of situations where you rather have the copper.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 01, 2020, 02:23:02 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 01:47:46 pm

You would not want 1 extra Copper in your deck and -1 VP in exchange for opening 3/5 rather than 3/4?

I generally like the idea, but I think the penalty is too harsh. Also, are there any official Duration-Events around?

How about, a simplified and less harsh version; something like this:

Once per turn: +1 Buy. At the end of this turn, gain a Copper into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 02:44:19 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on September 01, 2020, 02:23:02 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 01:47:46 pm

You would not want 1 extra Copper in your deck and -1 VP in exchange for opening 3/5 rather than 3/4?

I generally like the idea, but I think the penalty is too harsh. Also, are there any official Duration-Events around?

How about, a simplified and less harsh version; something like this:

Once per turn: +1 Buy. At the end of this turn, gain a Copper into your hand.

I think that would make the card significantly worse. A, I don't think it needs a buff (I suspect you buy it quite a lot more than borrow as-is; it compares quite favorably to Desperation in the early games, and it's not rare that Desperation is something you want to buy), and B, the Curse is important to prevent you from auto-buying it every turn once the game goes late. Having a Copper in your discard pile is negligible harm to your deck in the late game. Think of how often you buy beggar just for the +3$ even though the junking effect is three times as strong and you have to invest in a card to do it.

Actually, the fact that it gets too strong once curses are gone is the biggest problem I see.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 01, 2020, 02:46:32 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 01:35:38 pm

The curse does not enter your deck, only the copper does. If you want to model it as -1 card, you also have to model it as +1 coin since copper gives you +1 coin. With borrow, you get it once and next turn. With h/c, you get it many times, but much later since it doesn't affect you until you draw the copper the next time. Short term, h/c is much stronger than borrow, so the question is how heavily you want to discount.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought the Curse would enter your deck. But a Copper entering your deck is still junk. True that it hurts a little less to draw Copper than it does to draw Curse/Estate; but junk is still junk; if you have trashing available you're going to trash your Coppers. And true that taking your -1 card token hurts more than adding Junk to your deck for the very next turn... but for the rest of the game after that it's the other way around. Just imagining this much stronger version:

Event - $0
Once per turn:
+1 buy
Gain a Copper, putting it in your hand

I think this would get almost never bought; and it doesn't give you -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} or make you wait a turn to have the extra _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} to spend.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 01, 2020, 02:48:36 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 01:47:46 pm

You would not want 1 extra Copper in your deck and -1 VP in exchange for opening 3/5 rather than 3/4?

The person who doesn't open this gets to open 3/4/5 instead of 3/5, because compared to the person who bought this, they gained an extra Lab on top of their 3/4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 02:51:35 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 01, 2020, 02:46:32 pm

Event - $0
Once per turn:
+1 buy
Gain a Copper, putting it in your hand

I think this would get almost never bought; and it doesn't give you -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} or make you wait a turn to have the extra _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} to spend.

Well, that card would never get bought because it doesn't do anything -- you can't play the copper after you've bought something.

But if it was the intended effect, i.e. "+1$, gain a copper" or something, I think you would buy it all the time. (Though, note that part of the intention with h/c is that you don't have to play the copper. You can use it to Discard to cellar and such. That's why it goes into your hand rather than being played.)

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 01, 2020, 02:48:36 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 01:47:46 pm

You would not want 1 extra Copper in your deck and -1 VP in exchange for opening 3/5 rather than 3/4?

The person who doesn't open this gets to open 3/4/5 instead of 3/5, because compared to the person who bought this, they gained an extra Lab on top of their 3/4.

I mean, we don't need to discuss this; we know that getting a junk card to gain a 5$ over a 3/4$ is correct quite often becaue Desperation does it and it's often correct to buy Desperation. And the junk is significantly worse. Unless you're trying to say that you never use Desperation to buy 5$'s in the opening?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 01, 2020, 03:01:16 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 01, 2020, 02:46:32 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 01:35:38 pm

The curse does not enter your deck, only the copper does. If you want to model it as -1 card, you also have to model it as +1 coin since copper gives you +1 coin. With borrow, you get it once and next turn. With h/c, you get it many times, but much later since it doesn't affect you until you draw the copper the next time. Short term, h/c is much stronger than borrow, so the question is how heavily you want to discount.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought the Curse would enter your deck. But a Copper entering your deck is still junk. True that it hurts a little less to draw Copper than it does to draw Curse/Estate; but junk is still junk; if you have trashing available you're going to trash your Coppers. And true that taking your -1 card token hurts more than adding Junk to your deck for the very next turn... but for the rest of the game after that it's the other way around. Just imagining this much stronger version:

Event - $0
Once per turn:
+1 buy
Gain a Copper, putting it in your hand

I think this would get almost never bought; and it doesn't give you -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} or make you wait a turn to have the extra _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} to spend.

I guess you mean something like play a Copper from the Supply.
I don’t see how this is automatically better or worse than Borrow. Depends on the sifting/trashing power of the Kingdom. The notion that it will never be bought is definitely wrong.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on September 01, 2020, 06:08:09 pm

Quote from: segura on September 01, 2020, 03:01:16 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 01, 2020, 02:46:32 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 01:35:38 pm

The curse does not enter your deck, only the copper does. If you want to model it as -1 card, you also have to model it as +1 coin since copper gives you +1 coin. With borrow, you get it once and next turn. With h/c, you get it many times, but much later since it doesn't affect you until you draw the copper the next time. Short term, h/c is much stronger than borrow, so the question is how heavily you want to discount.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought the Curse would enter your deck. But a Copper entering your deck is still junk. True that it hurts a little less to draw Copper than it does to draw Curse/Estate; but junk is still junk; if you have trashing available you're going to trash your Coppers. And true that taking your -1 card token hurts more than adding Junk to your deck for the very next turn... but for the rest of the game after that it's the other way around. Just imagining this much stronger version:

Event - $0
Once per turn:
+1 buy
Gain a Copper, putting it in your hand

I think this would get almost never bought; and it doesn't give you -_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} or make you wait a turn to have the extra _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} to spend.

I guess you mean something like play a Copper from the Supply.
I don’t see how this is automatically better or worse than Borrow. Depends on the sifting/trashing power of the Kingdom. The notion that it will never be bought is definitely wrong.

I feel like this is way better than Borrow early game. Borrow makes you draw less which is awful when you don't have lots of draw in your deck already. This has no immediate penalty and may even be a bonus going into turns 3 and 4 because the average value of each of your cards is so low.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on September 01, 2020, 06:58:19 pm

Quote from: mail-mi on August 30, 2020, 11:47:23 pm

Navy
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $3
While this is in play, each other player draws only 4 cards during their cleanup phase (instead of 5) for their next hand. At the start of your next turn: +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1

---

When you gain this, you may play it.

How does this interact with Outpost?  The "while this is in play" wording is awkward in its position, and I think prevents it from being an Attack for timing issues maybe.  This should probably just use the -1 Card token and be an Attack.
As a technicality, the card should be set aside and then played to avoid tracking issues with top-decking effects like Watchtower and Tracker (per Innovation).

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 31, 2020, 11:59:18 am

Fish
Types: Treasure
Cost: $2
$1, +2 Cards.

---

When you gain this, put it onto your deck.

If you have no Actions in your deck, this is Laboratory+Peddler in one card which will turn some heads at its printed cost of $2.

Quote from: anordinaryman on August 31, 2020, 01:58:47 pm

Distribute
Types: Event
Cost: <4>
Gain a card costing up to $4. Set it aside. If you did, put it in your hand at the start of your next turn. Each other player gains a copy of that card.

Pile sizes are a big problem in multiplayer games.  An important part of Messenger's on-gain ability is that to use it you have to gain Messenger, which is actually a pretty garbage card so you don't usually want to buy lots of them.  I'm not sure if delaying the effect by one turn really fixes how fast 4-player games can be 3-piled.

Quote from: D782802859 on August 31, 2020, 06:14:47 pm

Mausoleum
Types: Victory
Cost: $3+
Worth 3VP if you have at least ten Action cards.

---

When you buy this, you may overpay for it. Gain a Spirit costing less than the amount you overpaid, onto your deck.

Your expectation here is

• $3 + $0 = $3 => Mausoleum (can't overpay by $0)
• $3 + $1 = $4 => Mausoleum + Will-o'-Wisp
• $3 + $3 = $6 => Mausoleum + Imp
• $3 + $5 = $8 => Mausoleum + Ghost

Yes?  I think $2+ might be a better cost for Mausoleum to allow Will-o'-Wisp to draw it, and it brings Ghost down to a more reasonable $7-cost price point.  I concur with Gubump that its VP condition is trivial for a huge number of points.  The condition should probably be harder or else you may as well write the number it is worth on it.  I'd consider making the condition "3 differently named Spirits."

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on September 01, 2020, 12:03:57 am

Lease
Types: Event
Cost: $1
Set aside an Action card from the supply and take <debt> equal to half its cost (rounded up). At the start of your next turn, play the set-aside action. When it leaves play, return it to the supply.

This is cute, but I think it will have boring play patterns where it's most commonly used on a fast trasher or strong curser and almost never otherwise.

Quote from: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 06:29:32 am

Haunted Cruise
Types: Event
Cost: $0
Once per turn: +1 Buy, and Exile and Curse and a Copper from the supply. At the start of your next turn, put a card you have in Exile into your hand.

Quote from: silverspawn on September 01, 2020, 02:44:19 pm

Think of how often you buy beggar just for the +3$ even though the junking effect is three times as strong and you have to invest in a card to do it.

I virtually never buy Beggar outside of its most explicit combos.  You should really be comparing Haunted Cruise to Banquet (which is also bad).  If it is so good to use Haunted Cruise to get a $3/$5 opening, what about the ~42% of games were you're stuck with a $4/$3 opening?  Is it okay to be hosed that regularly?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 01, 2020, 07:12:43 pm

Quote from: alion8me on September 01, 2020, 10:06:56 am

Quote from: segura on September 01, 2020, 12:07:10 am

Quote from: Xen3k on August 31, 2020, 09:57:03 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 31, 2020, 09:42:53 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on August 31, 2020, 09:26:02 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118688358_313985789674834_3381210067011575131_n.png?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=jaf3kA_EVWIAX_Hfesy&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=5af93462ddc8a2e4a83502a478635007&oe=5F741EC8)

Quote

Boarding House - $2
Action - Looter
+1 Action
+$1
You may play an Action card from your hand.
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

Not sure about the wording or the power level for this. The on-gain effect is only really good early game to help get a $5, but the Ruins don't make it a guarantee and delays your first shuffle. I am thinking of making it shuffle all treasure in play into the deck.

Why "you may play an Action card from your hand" instead of just +2 Actions at the top?

Yeah, I guess that would be simpler. I think that is a hold over from an earlier version of this card when you could trash the action you play off it.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118294169_304830144139169_2246344647527967215_n.png?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=OCqYhhH0j04AX8fVTMC&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=8f1efde2e4840bf88e89426529102be6&oe=5F717D65)

Quote

Boarding House - $2
Action - Looter
+2 Actions
+$1
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

So this would make it a bad Fishing Village. Hmm, not sure if I am happy with it. I may try and make the "play an action from your hand" work so if you play a Ruins you are rewarded or change it back so you can trash the action.

This is strictly weaker than Squire (Vineyard is the only edge case that comes to mind). Why would you want a non-drawing splitter that comes with junk and makes the next turns worse via shuffling Coppers back in?

Anything that makes you want extra gains for some reason makes this not strictly weaker. There are probably situations where you want this in Forager or Priest games just for food, although they are rare. I suppose the copper shuffling could also be nice for an overpay Doctor?

I do agree that "worse Squire with a usually bad on-gain" could use strengthening, though.

All valid and welcome criticism. Comparing it to Squire really nailed it. I fiddled around with the design a bit more, and I know the copper shuffle really makes it unappealing, so I went a slightly different direction.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118535117_926696241150728_1777793612738049084_n.png?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=RGo5aZvbjQYAX8urYhb&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=6ebbbdc0675c318928bac08d792ffad5&oe=5F75A307)

Quote

Boarding House - $3
Action - Looter
+1 Buy
+$2
You may play an Action card from your hand. If you do, trash it and get +1 Card, +1 Action.
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

So now it is a Woodcutter+. The on-buy penalty is still present and is mainly there to discourage buying a bunch of them early on. If you play and trash an action it is a pseudo Grand Market, but it will be hungry for new action cards if you want to keep using it as a Grand Market. Not sure if this is too strong. I could probably reduce the money gain on play to $1 and it would be ok. Please let me know what you all think.

Also, I am not too happy with the name. I may change that in the final version, but am lacking inspiration. Recommendations would be welcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on September 01, 2020, 07:14:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/kJqgwwy.png)

Thanks for the feedback on Navy, y'all. Fragasnap, I think this wording should clarify the interaction with outpost. You "would draw" three from Outpost, and since that is less than the minimum of 4 from Navy, you get to draw all 3.

I don't want to just use the -1 Card token because I want it to specifically affect your next hand, not draw on this turn. It's basically a "topdeck a random card from your hand" attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 01, 2020, 09:59:53 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 01, 2020, 06:58:19 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 31, 2020, 11:59:18 am

Fish
Types: Treasure
Cost: $2
$1, +2 Cards.

---

When you gain this, put it onto your deck.

If you have no Actions in your deck, this is Laboratory+Peddler in one card which will turn some heads at its printed cost of $2.

Is it a problem with the cost or the card itself? Also, thanks for all the feedback you provide.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 01, 2020, 11:24:39 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 01, 2020, 09:59:53 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 01, 2020, 06:58:19 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 31, 2020, 11:59:18 am

Fish
Types: Treasure
Cost: $2
$1, +2 Cards.

---

When you gain this, put it onto your deck.

If you have no Actions in your deck, this is Laboratory+Peddler in one card which will turn some heads at its printed cost of $2.

Is it a problem with the cost or the card itself? Also, thanks for all the feedback you provide.

Mainly the cost. I had a card* similar to this one (but very slightly stronger) that cost $5 (or $4 under certain conditions). The other thing is that it sucks to draw Action cards in your buy phase when you can't play them (usually), so my card also had something like "Put up to 2 cards from your hand on top of your deck."**

*"Figurine" from an earlier weekly contest. I would link you to it, but it's so hard to find anything specific in this huge thread so I can't find it now. 
**And no, I don't mind at all if you want to steal my idea and add this on your card. Then again, it's always nicer for you if the card is all your idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on September 01, 2020, 11:59:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ECo4Mgc.png)(https://i.imgur.com/0Q0fIkK.png)
(You're allowed to immediately gain the phoenix back after it trashes itself)
Edit: updated

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 02, 2020, 12:42:08 am

Quote from: pubby on September 01, 2020, 11:59:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pzZmr5D.png)(https://i.imgur.com/MTvFXZy.png)
(You're allowed to immediately gain the phoenix back after it trashes itself)

So with phoenix you can make a Poor House cost P$2? Maybe specify a 4$-5$ cost card? And why is it a fate card, when it doesn't give boons?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 02, 2020, 01:05:04 am

Quote from: Xen3k on September 01, 2020, 07:12:43 pm

Quote from: alion8me on September 01, 2020, 10:06:56 am

Quote from: segura on September 01, 2020, 12:07:10 am

Quote from: Xen3k on August 31, 2020, 09:57:03 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 31, 2020, 09:42:53 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on August 31, 2020, 09:26:02 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118688358_313985789674834_3381210067011575131_n.png?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=jaf3kA_EVWIAX_Hfesy&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=5af93462ddc8a2e4a83502a478635007&oe=5F741EC8)

Quote

Boarding House - $2
Action - Looter
+1 Action
+$1
You may play an Action card from your hand.
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

Not sure about the wording or the power level for this. The on-gain effect is only really good early game to help get a $5, but the Ruins don't make it a guarantee and delays your first shuffle. I am thinking of making it shuffle all treasure in play into the deck.

Why "you may play an Action card from your hand" instead of just +2 Actions at the top?

Yeah, I guess that would be simpler. I think that is a hold over from an earlier version of this card when you could trash the action you play off it.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118294169_304830144139169_2246344647527967215_n.png?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=OCqYhhH0j04AX8fVTMC&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=8f1efde2e4840bf88e89426529102be6&oe=5F717D65)

Quote

Boarding House - $2
Action - Looter
+2 Actions
+$1
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

So this would make it a bad Fishing Village. Hmm, not sure if I am happy with it. I may try and make the "play an action from your hand" work so if you play a Ruins you are rewarded or change it back so you can trash the action.

This is strictly weaker than Squire (Vineyard is the only edge case that comes to mind). Why would you want a non-drawing splitter that comes with junk and makes the next turns worse via shuffling Coppers back in?

Anything that makes you want extra gains for some reason makes this not strictly weaker. There are probably situations where you want this in Forager or Priest games just for food, although they are rare. I suppose the copper shuffling could also be nice for an overpay Doctor?

I do agree that "worse Squire with a usually bad on-gain" could use strengthening, though.

All valid and welcome criticism. Comparing it to Squire really nailed it. I fiddled around with the design a bit more, and I know the copper shuffle really makes it unappealing, so I went a slightly different direction.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118535117_926696241150728_1777793612738049084_n.png?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=RGo5aZvbjQYAX8urYhb&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=6ebbbdc0675c318928bac08d792ffad5&oe=5F75A307)

Quote

Boarding House - $3
Action - Looter
+1 Buy
+$2
You may play an Action card from your hand. If you do, trash it and get +1 Card, +1 Action.
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

So now it is a Woodcutter+. The on-buy penalty is still present and is mainly there to discourage buying a bunch of them early on. If you play and trash an action it is a pseudo Grand Market, but it will be hungry for new action cards if you want to keep using it as a Grand Market. Not sure if this is too strong. I could probably reduce the money gain on play to $1 and it would be ok. Please let me know what you all think.

Also, I am not too happy with the name. I may change that in the final version, but am lacking inspiration. Recommendations would be welcome.

I’d price it at $4, like all Woodcutter+.
The trash for village thingy is nice and will be used in most games at least during your (anticipated) last turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 02, 2020, 01:41:39 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 02, 2020, 12:42:08 am

Quote from: pubby on September 01, 2020, 11:59:28 pm

<Gunpower & Phoenix>

So with phoenix you can make a Poor House cost P$2? Maybe specify a 4$-5$ cost card? And why is it a fate card, when it doesn't give boons?

Really Pubby?

For those who don't know, this is a reference to the forum's most infamous fan expansion: Gunpowder. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11402.0)
EDIT for further explanation: Infamous both because it was mostly terrible and because its designer didn't take feedback very well...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 02, 2020, 01:41:55 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 02, 2020, 12:42:08 am

Quote from: pubby on September 01, 2020, 11:59:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pzZmr5D.png)(https://i.imgur.com/MTvFXZy.png)
(You're allowed to immediately gain the phoenix back after it trashes itself)

So with phoenix you can make a Poor House cost P$2? Maybe specify a 4$-5$ cost card? And why is it a fate card, when it doesn't give boons?

In general I like the cost change of an additional Kingdom card, but it should be in a more narrowed range.

I think the top corners of Gunpowder should have a "?" symbol instead of $1P.

Thematically (flavor wise), the two cards don't fit very well, or do I miss something? It looks a bit like you have combined two largely unrelated cards to fit for this contest.

I am not sure how often I would buy Gunpowder. It doesn't seem to accelerate buying Potion cost cards, if that was the intention.
The Phoenix recovery seems to be too trivial, especially in the opening, i.e. trash it - gain it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 02, 2020, 04:06:41 am

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 01, 2020, 06:58:19 pm

I virtually never buy Beggar outside of its most explicit combos.  You should really be comparing Haunted Cruise to Banquet (which is also bad).

Oh yeah, Banquet is a great point. I hadn't thought about it.

So there you go. It's like a Banquet early, but with a significantly smaller penalty, and it doesn't get you from 3$ to 5$. And it doesn't have the property of Banquet that, if Coppers are good, you can just mass it. The Curses will start to hurt.

And later, it can do all sorts of things Banquet can't do.

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 01, 2020, 06:58:19 pm

If it is so good to use Haunted Cruise to get a $3/$5 opening, what about the ~42% of games were you're stuck with a $4/$3 opening?  Is it okay to be hosed that regularly?

Yeah, well, I've decided to make a card that does increase opening variance for once, even though I generally don't like that much. It doesn't add a super high amount of variance,  less than Taxes probably, but some.

Quote from: alion8me on September 01, 2020, 06:08:09 pm

I feel like this is way better than Borrow early game. Borrow makes you draw less which is awful when you don't have lots of draw in your deck already. This has no immediate penalty and may even be a bonus going into turns 3 and 4 because the average value of each of your cards is so low.

I don't know about way better, but I do agree that I think it's probably stronger, not weaker, than Borrow. And much stronger later in the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 02, 2020, 11:05:01 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on September 01, 2020, 11:24:39 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 01, 2020, 09:59:53 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on September 01, 2020, 06:58:19 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on August 31, 2020, 11:59:18 am

Fish
Types: Treasure
Cost: $2
$1, +2 Cards.

---

When you gain this, put it onto your deck.

If you have no Actions in your deck, this is Laboratory+Peddler in one card which will turn some heads at its printed cost of $2.

Is it a problem with the cost or the card itself? Also, thanks for all the feedback you provide.

Mainly the cost. I had a card* similar to this one (but very slightly stronger) that cost $5 (or $4 under certain conditions). The other thing is that it sucks to draw Action cards in your buy phase when you can't play them (usually), so my card also had something like "Put up to 2 cards from your hand on top of your deck."**

I know it sucks to draw actions in the buy phase, that's the general idea and is why it costs $2.I think it might be too strong in BM but too weak in Engines. Is it too weak if I have it only draw the first time each turn?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on September 02, 2020, 11:53:59 am

Does Ferry count as a way to change the split since it lets you go 3/6 or 4/5 but for only a specific card?  I have a similar idea that could cause 3/5 or 2/6 splits but only for one card per kingdom.

Quote from: gambit05 on September 02, 2020, 01:41:55 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 02, 2020, 12:42:08 am

Quote from: pubby on September 01, 2020, 11:59:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pzZmr5D.png)(https://i.imgur.com/MTvFXZy.png)
(You're allowed to immediately gain the phoenix back after it trashes itself)

So with phoenix you can make a Poor House cost P$2? Maybe specify a 4$-5$ cost card? And why is it a fate card, when it doesn't give boons?

In general I like the cost change of an additional Kingdom card, but it should be in a more narrowed range.

I think the top corners of Gunpowder should have a "?" symbol instead of $1P.

Thematically (flavor wise), the two cards don't fit very well, or do I miss something? It looks a bit like you have combined two largely unrelated cards to fit for this contest.

I am not sure how often I would buy Gunpowder. It doesn't seem to accelerate buying Potion cost cards, if that was the intention.
The Phoenix recovery seems to be too trivial, especially in the opening, i.e. trash it - gain it.

Nobody can buy Gunpowder because it's an heirloom.

I agree that the added pile should have a lower bound just to be worth buying in more games.

Phoenix seems like a very lame chapel in games without a good TfB

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 02, 2020, 11:59:15 am

Quote from: pubby on September 01, 2020, 11:59:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pzZmr5D.png)(https://i.imgur.com/MTvFXZy.png)
(You're allowed to immediately gain the phoenix back after it trashes itself)

You should allow this to gain trashed Victory cards. I know that'd normally be taboo but it's a potion-cost card and they can break the rules in fun ways.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on September 02, 2020, 12:05:48 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 02, 2020, 11:59:15 am

Quote from: pubby on September 01, 2020, 11:59:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pzZmr5D.png)(https://i.imgur.com/MTvFXZy.png)
(You're allowed to immediately gain the phoenix back after it trashes itself)

You should allow this to gain trashed Victory cards. I know that'd normally be taboo but it's a potion-cost card and they can break the rules in fun ways.

I think its been mentioned before, but why the fate type? It doesn't give boons.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 02, 2020, 03:08:18 pm

Quote from: chronostrike on September 02, 2020, 11:53:59 am

Nobody can buy Gunpowder because it's an heirloom.

Of course you are right. The part of my brain that wrote that sentence somehow expected the heirloom on the right side, like it would with other duos, like Hermit-Madman, Vampire-Bat etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 02, 2020, 03:38:23 pm

New Submission

Trying something entirely different.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/3717dni7.png)

Quote

Underling - Action - costs 3debt
+$1
-
When you gain this, gain a card costing up to $4 to the top of your deck.

You can quickly get a needed 4 cost, at the expense of cursing yourself with a terminal copper. Underling costs debt so it can't auto pile, and also so it can't be Trash For Benefitted very well. It's a bad card in your deck -- that's the penalty for the gain. It also can always be opened with. A Baron needs an underling, don't they? With 3/3 (one copper is not drawn at start of T2) you can hit $7 on turn 2. There's lots of 4-cost cards you want turn 2 bad enough to take in an underling, I assure you.

open to feedback, of course. I threw out last submission because it got no upvotes and comments, so maybe it wasn't as interesting as I thought. Let me know if this also is not interesting.

One idea I am considering: strengthening it to make it not cost debt during Action phase so that you can mid-turn gain it. For example "This costs 1$ and 3 debt during your buy phase, and $3 during your action phase." Another idea is removing debt entirely so it just costs $3 and has a clause about not self-gaining.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 02, 2020, 03:49:17 pm

I think this is interesting. I'm not a great judge of strength, but it might be too strong in a game with half decent trashing. Particularly with the top-decking.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 02, 2020, 03:53:54 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 02, 2020, 03:49:17 pm

I think this is interesting. I'm not a great judge of strength, but it might be too strong in a game with half decent trashing. Particularly with the top-decking.

I'm okay with it being a little strong, since it isn't strong in the sense you buy this instead of other cards. You still get the other cards, and you have to account for trashing this. It's sort of like an Event that comes with a slightly better Confusion, that allows you to still get the event when you recover the confusion from the Trash. It changes the game, in the same way that Delve, Chapel, and Donate all change the game, though probably less than all those.

Edit: My question is, is it better or worse if I make changes to allow it to be gained mid-turn. I am unsure whether that would be more interesting for the combos, or if doing so would make it too strong in a less interesting way? Now that I think about it the solution would be "gain a card that is not an Underling costing up to 4. This costs 0 debt during your Action phrase" which would allow it to still suck for t4b and allow mid turn gains. Not sure if that stronger version is better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 02, 2020, 04:04:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sQXtoMP.jpg)
Made a few changes here. Just a shot in the dark. Thoughts?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 02, 2020, 04:19:02 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 02, 2020, 04:04:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sQXtoMP.jpg)
Made a few changes here. Just a shot in the dark. Thoughts?

That seems too strong for a little Fish. You can gain it to your hand quickly and then you will often produce a Gold. It looks more like a Shark.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on September 02, 2020, 04:43:38 pm

Quote from: pubby on September 01, 2020, 11:59:28 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ECo4Mgc.png)(https://i.imgur.com/0Q0fIkK.png)

Here's the updated version based on y'all comments.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 02, 2020, 05:24:07 pm

Quote from: segura on September 02, 2020, 01:05:04 am

Quote from: Xen3k on September 01, 2020, 07:12:43 pm

Quote from: alion8me on September 01, 2020, 10:06:56 am

Quote from: segura on September 01, 2020, 12:07:10 am

Quote from: Xen3k on August 31, 2020, 09:57:03 pm

Quote from: alion8me on August 31, 2020, 09:42:53 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on August 31, 2020, 09:26:02 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118688358_313985789674834_3381210067011575131_n.png?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=jaf3kA_EVWIAX_Hfesy&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=5af93462ddc8a2e4a83502a478635007&oe=5F741EC8)

Quote

Boarding House - $2
Action - Looter
+1 Action
+$1
You may play an Action card from your hand.
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

Not sure about the wording or the power level for this. The on-gain effect is only really good early game to help get a $5, but the Ruins don't make it a guarantee and delays your first shuffle. I am thinking of making it shuffle all treasure in play into the deck.

Why "you may play an Action card from your hand" instead of just +2 Actions at the top?

Yeah, I guess that would be simpler. I think that is a hold over from an earlier version of this card when you could trash the action you play off it.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118294169_304830144139169_2246344647527967215_n.png?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=OCqYhhH0j04AX8fVTMC&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=8f1efde2e4840bf88e89426529102be6&oe=5F717D65)

Quote

Boarding House - $2
Action - Looter
+2 Actions
+$1
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

So this would make it a bad Fishing Village. Hmm, not sure if I am happy with it. I may try and make the "play an action from your hand" work so if you play a Ruins you are rewarded or change it back so you can trash the action.

This is strictly weaker than Squire (Vineyard is the only edge case that comes to mind). Why would you want a non-drawing splitter that comes with junk and makes the next turns worse via shuffling Coppers back in?

Anything that makes you want extra gains for some reason makes this not strictly weaker. There are probably situations where you want this in Forager or Priest games just for food, although they are rare. I suppose the copper shuffling could also be nice for an overpay Doctor?

I do agree that "worse Squire with a usually bad on-gain" could use strengthening, though.

All valid and welcome criticism. Comparing it to Squire really nailed it. I fiddled around with the design a bit more, and I know the copper shuffle really makes it unappealing, so I went a slightly different direction.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/118535117_926696241150728_1777793612738049084_n.png?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=RGo5aZvbjQYAX8urYhb&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=6ebbbdc0675c318928bac08d792ffad5&oe=5F75A307)

Quote

Boarding House - $3
Action - Looter
+1 Buy
+$2
You may play an Action card from your hand. If you do, trash it and get +1 Card, +1 Action.
-
When you gain this, gain a Ruins and shuffle it as well as all Copper you have in play into your deck.

So now it is a Woodcutter+. The on-buy penalty is still present and is mainly there to discourage buying a bunch of them early on. If you play and trash an action it is a pseudo Grand Market, but it will be hungry for new action cards if you want to keep using it as a Grand Market. Not sure if this is too strong. I could probably reduce the money gain on play to $1 and it would be ok. Please let me know what you all think.

Also, I am not too happy with the name. I may change that in the final version, but am lacking inspiration. Recommendations would be welcome.

I’d price it at $4, like all Woodcutter+.
The trash for village thingy is nice and will be used in most games at least during your (anticipated) last turn.

I know even I called it a Woodcutter+, but wouldn't the on-gain effect make it not a strictly better purchase than Woodcutter? Like if both would be in a Kingdom and cost $3, I would not always buy a Boarding House. Is the on-buy effect not detrimental enough to warrant a slightly better Woodcutter at $3?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on September 02, 2020, 06:18:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/r44uvfE.png)

Brazier
Action, $3

Quote

+1 Buy
+$2
-
When you gain or discard this, you may set aside a Copper from your hand or in play. If you do, at the start of your next turn, play it.

The text might be a bit clunky, but I'm happy with the concept. It's like Baker but can't be used until t2, so you might have:
$3, $5
$4, $4
$5, $3
or
$2, $5

Edit: Rookie mistake, the buy and $ are the wrong way round on the card. It’s a small change and one I might not have time to fix before judging.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on September 02, 2020, 07:16:38 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on September 02, 2020, 06:18:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/r44uvfE.png)

Brazier
Action, $3

Quote

+$2
+1 Buy
-
When you gain or discard this, you may set aside a Copper from your hand or in play. If you do, at the start of your next turn, play it.

The text might be a bit clunky, but I'm happy with the concept. It's like Baker but can't be used until t2, so you might have:
$3, $5
$4, $4
$5, $3
or
$2, $5

Strictly better than woodcutter

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 02, 2020, 07:30:17 pm

Remember when Nomad Camp was first revealed and how completely insane it was that openings were no longer just either 5/2 or 4/3?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on September 02, 2020, 07:36:55 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on September 02, 2020, 06:18:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/r44uvfE.png)

Brazier
Action, $3

Quote

+$2
+1 Buy
-
When you gain or discard this, you may set aside a Copper from your hand or in play. If you do, at the start of your next turn, play it.

The text might be a bit clunky, but I'm happy with the concept. It's like Baker but can't be used until t2, so you might have:
$3, $5
$4, $4
$5, $3
or
$2, $5

Woodcutter is removed and terrible. Plus, you need to basically pay extra for the effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on September 02, 2020, 08:01:41 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on September 02, 2020, 07:36:55 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on September 02, 2020, 06:18:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/r44uvfE.png)

Brazier
Action, $3

Quote

+$2
+1 Buy
-
When you gain or discard this, you may set aside a Copper from your hand or in play. If you do, at the start of your next turn, play it.

The text might be a bit clunky, but I'm happy with the concept. It's like Baker but can't be used until t2, so you might have:
$3, $5
$4, $4
$5, $3
or
$2, $5

Woodcutter is removed and terrible. Plus, you need to basically pay extra for the effect.

Still, no card should be strictly better than another.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on September 02, 2020, 08:41:35 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 02, 2020, 04:04:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sQXtoMP.jpg)
Made a few changes here. Just a shot in the dark. Thoughts?

I don't know if it's just me, but I can't see this image. Can you re-upload it or post a text version please?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on September 02, 2020, 09:03:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tp15WBw.png)

Quote

Glamour - $3
Action - Attack
+$2
Each other player discards a Lure card (or reveals a hand with no Lure cards).
-
Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile costing $5 or more to the Supply.  Cards from that pile are Lure cards and cost $1 less during the Buy phase.

This is my reverse Young Witch.  I'm not sure whether it meets the criteria, but it can cause 3/5 or 2/6 splits for one card at a time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 02, 2020, 09:59:25 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on September 02, 2020, 08:41:35 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 02, 2020, 04:04:15 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/sQXtoMP.jpg)
Made a few changes here. Just a shot in the dark. Thoughts?

I don't know if it's just me, but I can't see this image. Can you re-upload it or post a text version please?

Sorry, I think I accidentally deleted it. I'm probably going to come up with an entirely new entry, but here it was:

Fish
$2 Treasure
$1
+2 Cards. Discard 2 cards. If either of them was an Action, +1 Coffer.
-
When you gain this, put it onto your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 03, 2020, 12:52:29 am

Quote from: D782802859 on September 02, 2020, 07:36:55 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on September 02, 2020, 06:18:41 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/r44uvfE.png)

Brazier
Action, $3

Quote

+$2
+1 Buy
-
When you gain or discard this, you may set aside a Copper from your hand or in play. If you do, at the start of your next turn, play it.

The text might be a bit clunky, but I'm happy with the concept. It's like Baker but can't be used until t2, so you might have:
$3, $5
$4, $4
$5, $3
or
$2, $5

Woodcutter is removed and terrible. Plus, you need to basically pay extra for the effect.

Woodcutter is anything but terrible. It was not removed because it was underpowered but because it was too vanilla.

Quote

Woodcutter: Woodcutter is fine, it's totally fine. It's just, the main set had six vanilla cards, and did it need six?

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16338.0

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 03, 2020, 02:28:24 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on September 02, 2020, 08:01:41 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on September 02, 2020, 07:36:55 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on September 02, 2020, 06:18:41 pm

Brazier
Action, $3
+$2
+1 Buy
-
When you gain or discard this, you may set aside a Copper from your hand or in play. If you do, at the start of your next turn, play it.

Woodcutter is removed and terrible. Plus, you need to basically pay extra for the effect.

Still, no card should be strictly better than another.

I disagree with both of you. Woodcutter was fine, just considered too boring. You don't need to pay extra for the effect (because it says "or in play"). And there's nothing wrong with a card being strictly better than a removed card. A removed card is no longer an official card.

PS: For that matter, I also disagree with Donald in removing Woodcutter because there's nothing wrong with it, and now Base has no cheap +buy and too many peddler variants...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on September 03, 2020, 10:23:42 am

My entry: a Chancellory was where you went to get stuff signed and sealed.
(https://i.imgur.com/Iw1Hwzh.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/MLiXEyL.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 03, 2020, 05:15:54 pm

New entry:
(https://i.imgur.com/Gbmg8Ui.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: xyz123 on September 04, 2020, 11:54:45 am

Ancient Settlement
Action
Cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}

+ 2 Actions
+ 1 Buy
____________
When you gain this, if you have no actions in play + 2 Coffers

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 04, 2020, 12:13:57 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 03, 2020, 05:15:54 pm

New entry:
(https://i.imgur.com/Gbmg8Ui.jpg)

Develop and Doctor had a love child. Seems too strong though. If I pay 3 in the opening to get rid of 2 Coppers (Bonfire), I am most definitely paying 4 to get rid of 2-3 junk cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 04, 2020, 12:18:59 pm

Quote from: segura on September 04, 2020, 12:13:57 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 03, 2020, 05:15:54 pm

New entry:
(https://i.imgur.com/Gbmg8Ui.jpg)

Develop and Doctor had a love child. Seems too strong though. If I pay 3 in the opening to get rid of 2 Coppers (Bonfire), I am most definitely paying 4 to get rid of 2-3 junk cards.

Is it good if it trashes two? Also, it gets weaker after the first shuffle or two since you don't always get your junk at the top of the deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 04, 2020, 12:28:33 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 04, 2020, 12:18:59 pm

Quote from: segura on September 04, 2020, 12:13:57 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 03, 2020, 05:15:54 pm

New entry:
(https://i.imgur.com/Gbmg8Ui.jpg)

Develop and Doctor had a love child. Seems too strong though. If I pay 3 in the opening to get rid of 2 Coppers (Bonfire), I am most definitely paying 4 to get rid of 2-3 junk cards.

Is it good if it trashes two? Also, it gets weaker after the first shuffle or two since you don't always get your junk at the top of the deck.

No idea about how good it would be at 2. But at 3 it is very likely to be overpowered.
That the on-gain effect is weaker after the first shuffle is fairly moot; like with Doctor‘s overpay it mainly matters in the opening.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 04, 2020, 12:51:00 pm

Quote from: segura on September 04, 2020, 12:28:33 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 04, 2020, 12:18:59 pm

Quote from: segura on September 04, 2020, 12:13:57 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 03, 2020, 05:15:54 pm

New entry:
(https://i.imgur.com/Gbmg8Ui.jpg)

Develop and Doctor had a love child. Seems too strong though. If I pay 3 in the opening to get rid of 2 Coppers (Bonfire), I am most definitely paying 4 to get rid of 2-3 junk cards.

Is it good if it trashes two? Also, it gets weaker after the first shuffle or two since you don't always get your junk at the top of the deck.

No idea about how good it would be at 2. But at 3 it is very likely to be overpowered.
That the on-gain effect is weaker after the first shuffle is fairly moot; like with Doctor‘s overpay it mainly matters in the opening.

It also gives a huge advantage to opening 4/3 vs opening 3/4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on September 04, 2020, 01:00:34 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/CKR63VZM/Vagabond-v1-1.png)

Trying to materialise the dreaded impossible "+2 Cards, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)" card. This card allows for megaturns, but how much junk can your deck handle?

I'm still hesitant whether this is a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) or a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 04, 2020, 01:29:39 pm

Quote from: X-tra on September 04, 2020, 01:00:34 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/CKR63VZM/Vagabond-v1-1.png)

Trying to materialise the dreaded impossible "+2 Cards, +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)" card. This card allows for megaturns, but how much junk can your deck handle?

I'm still hesitant whether this is a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png) or a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png).

To confirm, you didn't intend this to be an action that lets you play it to put it on your Tavern mat?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 04, 2020, 01:34:30 pm

The current version is far too weak. The effect is stronger than Expedition but the 2 Coins are unlikely to compensate for a dead card in your deck.
The (seemingly intended?) Action version, which GendoIkari already pointed out, is obviously a $5 or $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on September 04, 2020, 01:45:54 pm

Once it's called off your Tavern mat, it's unplayable. It is not an Action card. It probably should cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png). Remember that you do not have to call it off your Tavern mat the next turn you buy/gain it. At (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png), you could technically have a Province on Turn 2 on a 3 / 4 opening split, lol.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 04, 2020, 01:48:40 pm

At $3 it is like a mixture of Expedition and Desperation.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 04, 2020, 05:21:59 pm

Quote from: segura on September 04, 2020, 01:48:40 pm

At $3 it is like a mixture of Expedition and Desperation.

Unlike both of these though, you can save up on these and trigger when needed. At $3, you could reasonably open with 2 of them and get a Platinum on turn 3. I think $4 is a good cost, it works well with TfB and gainers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 04, 2020, 05:41:03 pm

Quote from: faust on September 04, 2020, 05:21:59 pm

Quote from: segura on September 04, 2020, 01:48:40 pm

At $3 it is like a mixture of Expedition and Desperation.

Unlike both of these though, you can save up on these and trigger when needed. At $3, you could reasonably open with 2 of them and get a Platinum on turn 3. I think $4 is a good cost, it works well with TfB and gainers.

I don't think a deck of Platinum and 12 junk cards is something you would generally want after 3 turns. But then again last time I tried to argue against "self-junk for profit early on", a few people disagreed, so I could be wrong.

The card seemed weak at first, but kind of gets more interesting the more I've thought about it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 04, 2020, 06:02:19 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/118886933_336511814139884_3657259599779948037_n.png?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=yghB-5ysoukAX_P4PPA&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=03f6a3f4b058fa1d180e2af13ef972c9&oe=5F7679CF)

Quote

Workhouse - $3
Action - Looter
+1 Buy
+ $2
You may play an Action card from your hand. Trash it and +1 Action.
-
When you gain this, gain 2 Ruins. Shuffle them and all Copper you have in play into your deck.

So, a name change and a slight change to the top and bottom half. You no longer get a card for playing an Action off of this. You get an extra Ruins on-gain which will benefit Workhouse, but it makes the turns following your first purchase of this worse and delays the first shuffle. I am not sure if the additional Ruins is a buff or a nerf and am willing to go back to just 1 Ruins if it seems too good now. I still think it is a reasonable alternative to Woodcutter instead of a strictly better Woodcutter. Feedback is welcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 04, 2020, 06:24:25 pm

Quote from: faust on September 04, 2020, 05:21:59 pm

Quote from: segura on September 04, 2020, 01:48:40 pm

At $3 it is like a mixture of Expedition and Desperation.

Unlike both of these though, you can save up on these and trigger when needed. At $3, you could reasonably open with 2 of them and get a Platinum on turn 3. I think $4 is a good cost, it works well with TfB and gainers.

Spending 3 turns/buys on a Platinum and 2 junk cards is like buying two Silvers and a Copper.
I think in most Kingdoms, I prefer a $3, a $4 and whatever comes up at T3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on September 04, 2020, 07:09:18 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on September 04, 2020, 06:02:19 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/118886933_336511814139884_3657259599779948037_n.png?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=yghB-5ysoukAX_P4PPA&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=03f6a3f4b058fa1d180e2af13ef972c9&oe=5F7679CF)

Quote

Workhouse - $3
Action - Looter
+1 Buy
+ $2
You may play an Action card from your hand. Trash it and +1 Action.
-
When you gain this, gain 2 Ruins. Shuffle them and all Copper you have in play into your deck.

So, a name change and a slight change to the top and bottom half. You no longer get a card for playing an Action off of this. You get an extra Ruins on-gain which will benefit Workhouse, but it makes the turns following your first purchase of this worse and delays the first shuffle. I am not sure if the additional Ruins is a buff or a nerf and am willing to go back to just 1 Ruins if it seems too good now. I still think it is a reasonable alternative to Woodcutter instead of a strictly better Woodcutter. Feedback is welcome.

In terms of the action side of this, it’s a woodcutter or it’s a woodcutter, +2 actions and trash one? I think that needs a change. Maybe it could be more like death cart but +2 actions and either trash the next action card you play or itself?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 04, 2020, 07:50:19 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on September 04, 2020, 07:09:18 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on September 04, 2020, 06:02:19 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/118886933_336511814139884_3657259599779948037_n.png?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=yghB-5ysoukAX_P4PPA&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=03f6a3f4b058fa1d180e2af13ef972c9&oe=5F7679CF)

Quote

Workhouse - $3
Action - Looter
+1 Buy
+ $2
You may play an Action card from your hand. Trash it and +1 Action.
-
When you gain this, gain 2 Ruins. Shuffle them and all Copper you have in play into your deck.

So, a name change and a slight change to the top and bottom half. You no longer get a card for playing an Action off of this. You get an extra Ruins on-gain which will benefit Workhouse, but it makes the turns following your first purchase of this worse and delays the first shuffle. I am not sure if the additional Ruins is a buff or a nerf and am willing to go back to just 1 Ruins if it seems too good now. I still think it is a reasonable alternative to Woodcutter instead of a strictly better Woodcutter. Feedback is welcome.

In terms of the action side of this, it’s a woodcutter or it’s a woodcutter, +2 actions and trash one? I think that needs a change. Maybe it could be more like death cart but +2 actions and either trash the next action card you play or itself?

Do you think it is too strong, or too weak? An earlier version had you draw a card if you play and trash a card off it so it could chain multiple actions off of it.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/118714786_389684532022585_8233442849653489419_n.png?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=O3J7qp-r9voAX9wqjou&_nc_oc=AQlYRlUBHa6eGIsj5cEu12V7KYATFmdp_zfjljfKwte9EUyb1iDRb6pAmcix34drXbPw2D98iQW2q1-A01202YaB&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=29b6d0b6185df7b30af3b373156afd9b&oe=5F79174A)

Would this be along the lines of what you are suggesting?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 04, 2020, 08:57:35 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wEXNKj7.jpg)
Here's a new entry, now with image. I might revise Renovate later.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 04, 2020, 11:15:59 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 04, 2020, 08:57:35 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/wEXNKj7.jpg)
Here's a new entry, now with image. I might revise Renovate later.

Succinct, wonderful event. It even helps reduce 1st player advantage. And it synergizes in a good way where debt is about saving cost for later and coffers are about saving money for later. Really nice work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on September 05, 2020, 03:11:10 am

Quote from: Xen3k on September 04, 2020, 07:50:19 pm

Do you think it is too strong, or too weak? An earlier version had you draw a card if you play and trash a card off it so it could chain multiple actions off of it.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/118714786_389684532022585_8233442849653489419_n.png?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=O3J7qp-r9voAX9wqjou&_nc_oc=AQlYRlUBHa6eGIsj5cEu12V7KYATFmdp_zfjljfKwte9EUyb1iDRb6pAmcix34drXbPw2D98iQW2q1-A01202YaB&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=29b6d0b6185df7b30af3b373156afd9b&oe=5F79174A)

Would this be along the lines of what you are suggesting?

I’d say if this always gave +2 Actions, it’s too strong for $3 and might do better at $5.
I think something more like:

+1 Buy
+$2
You may trash this or an Action card from your hand, that you may play first, for +1 Action.

That way the +Actions are conditional on poor working conditions. I don’t know if it should be $3 or $4 like this, it’s either a stop card, +1 Action or +2 Actions depending on what you trash. But it giving 2 Ruins on gain is good here in my opinion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 05, 2020, 03:20:46 am

Quote from: Marpharos on September 05, 2020, 03:11:10 am

Quote from: Xen3k on September 04, 2020, 07:50:19 pm

<Workhouse>

Do you think it is too strong, or too weak? An earlier version had you draw a card if you play and trash a card off it so it could chain multiple actions off of it.

I’d say if this always gave +2 Actions, it’s too strong for $3 and might do better at $5.
I think something more like:

+1 Buy
+$2
You may trash this or an Action card from your hand, that you may play first, for +1 Action.

That way the +Actions are conditional on poor working conditions. I don’t know if it should be $3 or $4 like this, it’s either a stop card, +1 Action or +2 Actions depending on what you trash. But it giving 2 Ruins on gain is good here in my opinion.

I like your idea, but I disagree that it should cost $5 if it always gave +2 Actions. With +2 Actions, it's still Festival with two drawbacks (the on-gain effect and having to trash an action). With your idea, it'd still be fine at $3 I think.

I also think the wording "You may trash this or an Action card from your hand, that you may play first, for +1 Action." is weird. I prefer the wording of the earlier version of Workhouse "You may play an Action card from your hand. If you do, trash it and +1 Action."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on September 05, 2020, 03:39:27 am

Quote from: Xen3k on September 04, 2020, 07:50:19 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on September 04, 2020, 07:09:18 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on September 04, 2020, 06:02:19 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/118886933_336511814139884_3657259599779948037_n.png?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=yghB-5ysoukAX_P4PPA&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=03f6a3f4b058fa1d180e2af13ef972c9&oe=5F7679CF)

Quote

Workhouse - $3
Action - Looter
+1 Buy
+ $2
You may play an Action card from your hand. Trash it and +1 Action.
-
When you gain this, gain 2 Ruins. Shuffle them and all Copper you have in play into your deck.

So, a name change and a slight change to the top and bottom half. You no longer get a card for playing an Action off of this. You get an extra Ruins on-gain which will benefit Workhouse, but it makes the turns following your first purchase of this worse and delays the first shuffle. I am not sure if the additional Ruins is a buff or a nerf and am willing to go back to just 1 Ruins if it seems too good now. I still think it is a reasonable alternative to Woodcutter instead of a strictly better Woodcutter. Feedback is welcome.

In terms of the action side of this, it’s a woodcutter or it’s a woodcutter, +2 actions and trash one? I think that needs a change. Maybe it could be more like death cart but +2 actions and either trash the next action card you play or itself?

Do you think it is too strong, or too weak? An earlier version had you draw a card if you play and trash a card off it so it could chain multiple actions off of it.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/118714786_389684532022585_8233442849653489419_n.png?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=O3J7qp-r9voAX9wqjou&_nc_oc=AQlYRlUBHa6eGIsj5cEu12V7KYATFmdp_zfjljfKwte9EUyb1iDRb6pAmcix34drXbPw2D98iQW2q1-A01202YaB&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=29b6d0b6185df7b30af3b373156afd9b&oe=5F79174A)

Would this be along the lines of what you are suggesting?

I like the original a lot better and I disagree with Marpharos.

The only gripe with this I have is card that the on-gain effect is too harsh, as you really don't wanna feed Actions to this thing too often. I'd say that "gain 2 ruins" is more than sufficient, although that would disallow it from entering the contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 05, 2020, 08:56:51 am

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/118649260_350249666017641_2736942068949364302_n.png?_nc_cat=102&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=Q0i7GR837xkAX8A_vrK&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=6652daa54f2df37137f45524c334e2e4&oe=5F7A436D)

Quote

Workhouse - $3
Action - Looter
+1 Buy
+ $2
You may play an Action card from your hand. If you do, trash it and get +1 Card, +1 Action.
-
When you gain this, gain 2 Ruins. Shuffle them and all Copper you have in play into your deck.

Thank you to everyone for your feedback. I think I am going to stick with this version of the card for the competition. It give a bit more of a reward for trashing actions. This may be better priced at $4, but would rather it be slightly better than expected when trashing actions than not. Further feedback is more than welcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 05, 2020, 09:14:44 am

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on September 05, 2020, 03:39:27 am

...


The only gripe with this I have is card that the on-gain effect is too harsh, as you really don't wanna feed Actions to this thing too often. I'd say that "gain 2 ruins" is more than sufficient, although that would disallow it from entering the contest.

Maybe only shuffle in the coppers?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on September 05, 2020, 11:59:14 pm

My submission for this week:
(https://i.imgur.com/QYOaOpt.png)

Quote

Metronome

At the beginning of your turn, turn over your Journey token (it starts face up). If it is face up, discard down to 3 cards in hand. Otherwise, +2 Cards.

Project
$3

The "bad" effect happening when the Journey token is face up, instead of when it is face down, is intentional.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 06, 2020, 04:35:34 am

Quote from: alion8me on September 05, 2020, 11:59:14 pm

My submission for this week:
(https://i.imgur.com/QYOaOpt.png)

Quote

Metronome

At the beginning of your turn, turn over your Journey token (it starts face up). If it is face up, discard down to 3 cards in hand. Otherwise, +2 Cards.

Project
$3

The "bad" effect happening when the Journey token is face up, instead of when it is face down, is intentional.

This has very different interactions depending on if there are any journey token cards or not. Playing your giant in a 7-card hand every turn is very different from its tactician-like effect in other kingdoms. Maybe that's fun, but it makes pricing hard and sometimes promotes one specific deck setup and makes other strategies unviable. I like the idea though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 06, 2020, 06:44:20 am

I update the wording and the cost for my submission. Here's the new version:

(https://i.imgur.com/S73GVQ9.png)

Quote

Owl Tower
$3 - Night-Duration
At the start of your next turn you may put your deck in your discard pile. Look through your discard pile, and put a card from it into your hand. Discard a card.
-
This is gained to your hand (instead of your discard pile).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on September 07, 2020, 10:02:23 am

Young Smithy
cost $3 - Action
+3 Cards
Discard a card.
---
This card is gained onto your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on September 08, 2020, 06:40:04 pm

Judging will be... soon. I might get to it tonight, sorry if I don't.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on September 08, 2020, 06:46:16 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on August 31, 2020, 07:44:02 pm

Sailor
Types: Action, Duration
Cost: $3
+1 Action. Choose one: +1 Buy and +$1; or at the start of your next turn: +1 Card and +$1

---

When this is your first gain in a turn, you may set it aside. If you do, play it.

I decided it was worth adding a "when this is your first gain in a turn" clause to my own submission Sailor.
Emptying a pile all at once by reducing it to $0 is now an unfortunate happenstance rather than an untouchable design sin with 3 existing piles that can be so emptied.  However, emptying those 3 existing cards without cost reduction requires $31 (Villa), $40 (Cavalry, discrediting its draw), and $50 (Forum), where Sailor requires a mere $21, which might not be enough considering the pile will not necessarily be full.
The on-gain only triggering when it is your first-gain still lets Sailor do a lot of the fun things it wants to do without making it a constant pile-threat.  Does anyone think it dumpsters the card or does that sound reasonable?

---

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 01, 2020, 12:43:50 am

Fold
Types: Event
Cost: $1
+1 Buy. Put your deck in your discard pile.

I like this a lot, but I don't know that it really influences the opening in a fun way.  Do I buy Steward and Fold on a $4 turn 1 and just hope against hope to draw that Steward on turn 2?  That would be strong, but will miss around 50% of the time.

Quote from: artless on September 01, 2020, 10:31:38 am

Smuggled goods
Types: Treasure
Cost: $1
$1.

---

When you buy this, gain a card costing up to the number of cards in your hand.

This has fun functions with +Buys, but I'm not sure I'd buy it in the opening except on a $2 turn, and I don't know if it is good for $5/$2 to have such a boost when the Copper can be stomached.

Quote from: chronostrike on September 02, 2020, 09:03:17 pm

Glamour
Types: Action, Attack
Cost: $3
+$2. Each other player discards a Lure card (or reveals a hand with no Lure cards).

---

Setup: Add an extra Kingdom card pile costing $5 or more to the Supply.  Cards from that pile are Lure cards and cost $1 less during the Buy phase.

This is clever.  I worry that Glamour itself looks weak as a terminal Silver.  It is not likely enough to hit the chosen card unless the Lure is a card desired in large number like Governor, Laboratory, or Minion.

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 03, 2020, 05:15:54 pm

Renovate
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. You may gain a card costing up to $1 more than it.

---

When you gain this, look at the top three cards of your deck. You may trash any number of them. Put the rest back in any order.

This feels dangerous around $3/$4 ordered openings due to the chance of it finding itself and your buy from your $3 turn.  I like the $4-cost because it allows you to buy multiple Renovates and trash them for $5-cost cards.  I recommend having it trigger on Buy and look at the top 4 and trash up to 3 of them to alleviate the issue.

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 04, 2020, 11:15:59 pm

Quote from: Fly-Eagles-Fly on September 04, 2020, 08:57:35 pm

Negotiate
Types: Event
Cost: <5>
Gain a card costing up to $5. Each other player gets +1 Coffers.

Succinct, wonderful event. It even helps reduce 1st player advantage. And it synergizes in a good way where debt is about saving cost for later and coffers are about saving money for later. Really nice work.

A big problem is the way that giving Coffers to other players accelerates multiplayer games with a form of consistency that isn't present with the similar Bargain.  If A and B buy Negotiate, C gets 2 Coffers in the same amount of time.
If Negotiate is only ever relevant in the opening then it probably won't matter so much, but I don't think that will be true.  It might cause some pretty weird issues in multiplayer end-game scenarios with it gaining Duchies, too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on September 09, 2020, 05:59:03 pm

All right! Sorry this took so long! I got a chance to test most of these (anything that was submitted before like Friday, pretty much).

Contest #86 Results

Litharge by grep (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852786#msg852786)
This feels not all that distinct from Nomad Camp to me, except it's even less interesting because you sometimes get Nomad Camp for the +buy and have to suffer through the topdecking. And in the opening it has the same issue Nomad Camp does, which is that you might open it to hit $5... and then not hit $5. In fact on a 4/3 you have only a 40% chance of hitting 5, and the other 60% of the time you've opened silver/$4 and slowed your cycling. Sure, it's marginally better than buying Silver in money, but it is probably just a waste of a landscape most of the time. I'm not sure that I ever actually wanted to buy this in testing.

Migrate by faust (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852792#msg852792)
This is quite swingy in the early game. Opening it on turn 1 has a 60% chance of getting you Gold and a 40% chance of getting you nothing (except for stuff like Nobles). Later on, it becomes a slightly cheaper way to add actions if you have multiple buys and are drawing deck, which is... well, it's something, but that's kinda underwhelming. It's nice to get Golds for cheap, but it's not so nice to get nothing and it's especially not nice to see your opponent getting stuff like Goons or Grand Market while you flip Estates and get zip.

Tend by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852807#msg852807)
This is a really cool idea! It feels wrong to just stick an 11th card in the otherwise nicely-ordered 10-card starting deck, but it's kinda cool. In terms of not messing with openings, making it a cantrip is definitely less irritating than the old version without the +1 Card, since you could be stuck with a 3/3 on a board where the $4's are important. That said... holy crap this thing was already strong, and with the +1 Card, it's now insane. One of the reasons Church is strong is its ability to save green cards across shuffles, and this is like Church on steroids. It's a cantrip so you can spam it, and it costs $2, and you start with one already in your deck, and it has no cap on the number of cards it can set aside, and it gives you economy too? Sign me up! And this came out in testing, too-- Tend just makes engines work, and work really well. Turns out permanently removing all the green cards from your shuffles while also letting you start your turn with a bunch of coin is very good. So while it's a great idea to make a card that starts in your deck, I don't feel like it should be this one. It's just too crazy good.

Highwayman by mandioca15 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852815#msg852815)
This is somewhat interesting; it has the Villa effect of being buy-neutral to pick up when you anticipate needing more buys on future turns. But it doesn't really feel like it has a leg up on Villa; it's just far less interesting (aside from needing less cost reduction to autopile, but it sucks way more to autopile). If you think about it, it's really just a Woodcutter for $2 that's also buy-neutral. You get it when you want a Woodcutter, you don't otherwise, it just lets you wait a little longer before getting it. It's nice, but it doesn't feel that impactful to me.

Chancellory by LordBaphomet (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852822#msg852822)
Whoa, this is so good! Topdecking is a powerful effect, especially in the early game-- that's why Royal Seal is bad, and Tracker is sometimes a good open. Being able to open Chancellory and take advantage of the topdecking both immediately and consistently is crazy. I was only able to play against bots, and I didn't bother making a bot smart enough to contest this, so I basically got free rein of it. And it feels kinda like the Flag-- you pretty much have to contest it if your opponent goes for it, but there's not nearly as much of a first mover disadvantage since the first mover gets a $4 card onto their deck instead of a garbage terminal silver junking them up. A fun way to spice up the openings for sure, but way too centralizing in my opinion.

Manufacture by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852833#msg852833)
I didn't get a ton of time to play with this, but it feels underwhelming. The first choice is awkward, since early on it will probably just get you a free $2, which is not all that great. (Unless it's a power $2 like Peasant or Chapel, of course.) The second choice is... also awkward, since you need to already have to have the card you want, and there are not a ton of $5's that you want to spam but that don't help you as much on-play. As a result, you probably already hit $5 that turn, so instead of buying the $5 you can copy the $5 and buy a $3, so this option gets you a free $3, after a few shuffles. Also not that impressive. The third option... well, like I said, I'm not playing against humans, so I can't have intricate endgame dances. But I'd imagine that it's not really all that intricate; as soon as you get into greening, if you haven't cashed your Manufacture yet, you cash it for points asap.

Mausoleum by D782802859 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852865#msg852865)
Fun! But as other people have pointed out, overpowered. And also usually not a good source of spirits, because $6 is greater than the cost of an actual Lab and instead I get a worse Lab and a green card, or for $4 I can get a Wisp and a dead card that Wisp can't even draw. Ghost as the only village... maybe, but that seems on the level of awkwardness as Prince as the only village, possibly more because Ghost's effect isn't nearly as good as Prince's. So I'm mostly taking Mausoleum as a cheaper Duchy (and maybe grabbing some free spirits because why not), and in most cases it will be a cheaper Duchy because the condition is so easy to hit.

Sailor by Fragasnap (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852868#msg852868)
This is kind of a hard card to evaluate. It seems very good; it's like a slightly worse Caravan Guard/Supplies mashup that has a great on-gain effect (especially with gainers). I noticed that you said it's a net stop card, but it's actually not-- since it draws one card next turn, it's a net Peddler, like Supplies. Its Peddler mode is weaker than Supplies, but the +buy and the on-gain probably more than make up for that. And it has a high chance of hitting $5 for you in the opening (at the expense of triggering a probably-bad shuffle), so it seems pretty good. In testing, it usually felt like a nice supporting card, but never the star of the show, though I never got a board where it was the only +buy.

Lease by LibraryAdventurer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852880#msg852880)
I don't think I ever ended up testing this one, unfortunately. It seems to have little middle ground between useless and centralizing... but now I'm comparing Leasing Witch to Expedition, and I'm realizing that this is actually quite good. Though it still seems to me that Leasing attacks, especially junking attacks, is going to be dominant, and you usually won't be Leasing other things unless either you have nothing better to do or there's a strong synergy (such as Feast). Also, there might be tracking issues on when it "leaves play"-- for instance, I think as written you can Lease Fortresses and then steal them with Improve. Which is funny, I suppose. But overall... it's probably just right to be Leasing cursing attacks most of the time when they're on the board, which is just gonna lead to an infuriating game.

Fold by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852885#msg852885)
Cute. Powerful in a lot of situations, to cycle around to your better cards faster, or skip hands that you know will be bad. The main disadvantage? It requires constant deck tracking, because unlike Messenger you have the option to do this every turn. But in general, it doesn't REQUIRE deck tracking, since if you can afford it, it will help you shuffle faster and that's something you usually want (assuming your deck is better than it was last shuffle). I don't have much else to say about this. It's reminiscent of Save and Borrow-- not game-warping, but something to constantly be aware of.

Haunted Cruise by silverspawn (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852892#msg852892)
I don't think I ever bought this. I can imagine a board where you might... but it would not be pleasant. First, it only even works to hit $5 on a 3/4, so if it is that important, one person can just get screwed. And it's really only important with $5's that are either great junkers or great trashers-- Old Witch, Witch, Mountebank, Recruiter, and Sentry come to mind. Maybe Counterfeit. I guess it's also good with other Exilers, like Camel Train or maybe Stockpile. But it just feels like a sad cross between Borrow and Desperation that really only works in the opening.

Smuggled Goods by artless (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852906#msg852906)
Interesting! But probably not too great unless you have something to do with the Smuggled Goods after gaining it. Watchtower does nice double duty. Copper trashers like Spice Merchant or Counterfeit don't mind it... but most other things don't really have much to do with it. And it's a pretty sad hand that can generate $1 with 5 spare cards, but can't generate $5. So it seems like the extra junk is often not going to be worth the gain.

Stud by gambit05 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852927#msg852927)
I didn't get a chance to test the new version, but it looks way worse. The old version is a cantrip with a nice on-gain and Peddler potential if you had a Horse in hand, and this is... a really bad village, with a marginally better on-gain. I haven't tested it, but it's hard to imagine buying it, unless the nonterminal draw was REALLY good and I REALLY needed a village. Even the on-gain only has a 50% chance of getting you to $5 on turn 2, which is rarely gonna be worth it (and frustrating if my opponent hits it and I don't).

Navy by mail-mi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852981#msg852981)
This is quite strong. It's hard to see the impact of the attack versus bots, but it's about as strong as Minion's attack (just delayed by one turn), and Minion's attack is good. And this is a weaker Caravan Guard/Supplies, but it makes up for that by being playable on gain. There's a bit of a question of how this interacts with Squirrel/Flag and the like, but that seems like a minor issue. A more major issue is probably just that this attack is on what's effectively a cantrip, so it's very likely going to be inflicted every turn or almost every turn, and it's quite an annoying attack for that, so it probably isn't skippable, and it probably makes games less fun (though it being duration draw does counter its own attack, much like Haunted Woods).

Phoenix by pubby (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853011#msg853011)
This is so cool!! However Phoenix itself is pretty, uh, underwhelming. It doesn't look like it can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way :P Single-card trash for no benefit is... not great. One-shot trashing self to grab back a trashed card such as a Mining Village is... a little better, but hard to pull off. So I may never actually buy Phoenix, but still appreciate its presence, like Baker and Fool. That doesn't really feel like something you should be aiming for, though. I get that it's good to have multiple Potion-cost cards together, but one thing that does is always ensure that on the opening turn when you could blow up Gunpowder for Phoenix, you could also blow it up for something else... and that something else is probably going to be better.

Underling by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853056#msg853056)
This is a pretty sad card. It suffers from the same syndrome as Haunted Cruise and Smuggled Goods-- the junk is just not worth the benefit. And one of the hallmarks of bad cards with good on-gain effects (think Skulk) is the ability to feed it to trash-for-benefit... but because this has the debt cost, you can't even do that (barring things like Sacrifice and Zombie Apprentice). So you get a slight speed boost in return for a permanent slowdown. I would definitely be in favor of changing its cost to $3 and adding a clause to prevent autopiling, but I think improving the top would probably be a better way to fix this. I think it would be not too strong if it gave +$2, and probably more interesting.

Brazier by Marpharos (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853076#msg853076)
I had to implement this as a Reaction, because it basically is. It's also kinda unintuitive that it works during Clean-up as well? But as written, it does. Anyway, that makes it seem pretty dang strong. It's effectively a +1 Card, since it keeps one junk card out of your shuffle, and on top of that it works both on gain and on discard. And then there's the can of worms of it being strictly better than Woodcutter, which is still a design principle DXV adheres to, even though Woodcutter is removed.

Glamour by chronostrike (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853087#msg853087)
I was unimpressed by this at first glance. A weirdly focused attack, along with adding a deliberately OP card to the supply? That just seems bad and unbalanced. It took me about thirty seconds of playing with it to change my mind. The balance might not be completely right... but the design is amazing. Even playing against a dumb bot, I got burned by Glamour a lot-- getting to open the Lure is great, but having to discard it sucks! And gaining Glamour for no reason is bad, but when your opponent starts picking up Lures, you probably want to find time for one, especially if the Lure is an engine piece like a village or a draw card. This is just such a fun and interesting card.

Ancient Settlement by xyz123 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853166#msg853166)
This marks the point beyond which I wasn't able to test, sadly. This is kind of a weird one. I think it has enough going for it to be useful, especially on the 3/4 where you can open a $5 and still make out with a coffer. It's annoying as the only village... but sometimes you build Shanty Town engines. When Necropolis is useful, you don't mind hanging onto it. And this gives a buy, so it does serve two purposes, although neither of them well. I do like what the coffers do to the timing-- I wouldn't expect to trigger the coffers more than 2 or 3 times, but it might lead to me buying villages too early or intentionally not playing actions in order to get them. Interesting design.

Vagabond by X-tra (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853173#msg853173)
The idea here is neat. I just wish the call condition were a bit... flashier. The combination of +Cards and +$ is particularly ill-suited to a card like this, since you don't know whether you'll need the money after you see what you drew, and you'll probably just use it as a Sinister Plot-esque dud saver, with the money being ancillary. That feels bad. The dead card floating around in my deck ALSO feels bad in the absence of trash for benefit. I like the pure Reserve idea... but I think this was the wrong place to try +2 Cards, +$2.

Negotiate by Fly-Eagles-Fly (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853233#msg853233)
This is the kind of thing that would drive me up the wall, which isn't a bad thing per se, but I think this is pretty bad, because of the chance that the coffer gets your opponent to $5. This might legitimately be a second player advantage card, because it can (and should) only be bought by the second player on turn 2, unless the second player buys a $4 on turn 1 in which case the first player can buy this on turn 2. Beyond that... well, it seems to be a mostly desperation play, because unlike Bargain, the benefit to your opponent is immediate, which basically makes this not worth it most of the time. The reason Bargain works is because they need to wait one shuffle to play the Horse, and a second shuffle to play whatever they were able to buy because they had the Horse. Here, if they get a $5 because you got Negotiate, you both see your $5's at the same time, and you're out $1 extra.

Workhouse by Xen3k (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853265#msg853265)
This card's on-gain is so bad that I don't really think I would go for it unless it was late and I already had deck control and really needed the buy. I don't really think buying this in the opening helps your odds of hitting $5 much; at best it will put you with 7 Coppers, 2 useful Ruins (Library/Mine), and 1 Estate going into turn 2, which is... bad. You have to wait an entire extra turn to even have a chance of seeing your opens, and then you have more garbage in your deck which it will take a bit for Workhouse to clear out. If Workhouse is the only village... well that can't possibly be worth it. Though it is nice with Fortress, but what isn't.

Metronome by alion8me (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853301#msg853301)
Hmm. Interesting. I think I like it. In general, big turns and terrible turns are better than a bunch of mediocre turns, at least early on. And the fact that it makes you discard your two worst cards, and then draws you two random ones, makes it significantly better than just doing nothing. I suspect that this will be unskippable on most boards, like Sinister Plot (though probably not quite as powerful). But it will be a lot of fun to play with. It might be marred by certain attacks like Swamp Hag that are more devastating on the big turn which will cause it to be annoying if one player's big turn is perpetually right after the other's. Maybe it would be better to make the whole thing optional (no drawing or discarding unless you flip), but that would make it even STRONGER, and it's already really good.

Owl Tower by Jonatan Djurachkovitch (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853306#msg853306)
I must admit this surprised me; it looked terrible at first glance, like an even sadder version of Harbinger that's already a pretty sad card. But, actually, it plays out closer to Scheme-- it lets you set up any card for your next turn, with the obvious downside of being a duration and not being a cantrip. But the upside is pretty big: you get to pick which card you want after you see your hand. That does a heck of a lot for reliability. It still feels underwhelming in a consistent enough deck, but on sloggier boards where consistency is hard to hit, this can be pretty useful.

Young Smithy by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853320#msg853320)
Eh. It's a better draw card than Moat? It's pretty bad as the primary draw in an engine, though getting to start with one on top of your deck each turn while building is nice I guess. But the discards really add up, especially if you want to gain and play. I don't think this is a weak card, and it's not a bad design, but it's really not all that exciting. I much prefer the cards that let you topdeck other gains; they do similar things, but a lot more varied in what exactly you can accomplish with them. I get that this was shoehorned to fit the contest, but it definitely leaves the card worse off for it.

Winner: Glamour by chronostrike
Runner-up: Ancient Settlement by xyz123

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 10, 2020, 01:39:59 am

Thanks Something_Smart for the great judging, and congrats to chronostrike for the first place! About my card, maybe I should give it a +$2 option, for when you know you're going to draw your deck. Making it a reserve card would also be a possibility, but that's probably not going to fix the problem.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on September 10, 2020, 08:07:20 am

Thank you Something_Smart.  To quote Sheev Palpatine: "A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one."  I'll look at the card some more and try to come up with a better balance that doesn't make it even wordier.

Congratulations to xyz123.

I know that I can be a bit trash-happy so this is my challenge:


Contest #87: Worth More Dead Than Alive

Design a card that gives some additional benefit when trashed (by a separate card).  Existing examples include Rats (+1 Card), Haunted Mirror (gain a Ghost), Fortress (all the "fB" without the "T"), or even Peddler (buy low, trash high).  Cards that don't count include Death Cart, Raze, and Tragic Hero because they trash themselves.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: xyz123 on September 10, 2020, 08:24:47 am

More thanks to Something_Smart and congratulations to chronostrike.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 10, 2020, 08:39:46 am

I have just the card for this:

Quote

Rubber Duchy
$4 - Victory
Worth 2VP.
-
When you trash this, put it into your hand.
The second time you trash any Rubber Duchy in one turn, +1VP.

Rule: This isn't a kingdom card. In games using the Rubber Duchy, it replaces the Duchy pile.

Updated.
The old version said: "When you trash this, put it into your hand.
When you trash a Rubber Duchy for the second time in one turn, +1VP."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 10, 2020, 08:45:27 am

(Updated) Submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200910/6jguu4qc.png)

Quote

Reconstruct - Action - 2$
For the rest of this turn, copies of Reconstruct (anywhere) cost 3$ more.

Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to 0$ more than the trashed card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 10, 2020, 08:45:37 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on September 10, 2020, 08:39:46 am

I have just the card for this:

Quote

Rubber Duchy
$4 - Victory
Worth 2VP.
-
When you trash this, put it into your hand.
When you trash a Rubber Duchy for the second time in one turn, +1VP.

Rule: This isn't a kingdom card. In games using the Rubber Duchy, it replaces the Duchy pile.

It's impossible to trace whether you trashed the same Rubber Duchy both times.

EDIT: Maybe you just mean, trash any 2 Rubber Duchies, get the benefit. But the the wording is at least ambiguous.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 10, 2020, 09:07:56 am

Yeah, it should be

[upper text]
---
The first time you trash a Rubber Duchy each turn, put it into your hand. The second time, +1VP

or if you want it to go to your hand both times, "When you trash this, put it into your hand. If it's the second time you've trashed a RD this turn, +1VP."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 10, 2020, 01:46:47 pm

Here's a quick idea:

Split pile
Sawmill
$3 - Action
+$1
+1 Buy
If this is the first time you played a Sawmill this turn, +$1.
-
When you trash this, gain a Gold.

Landowner
$5 - Action - Command
Trash a card from your hand. You may play up to two differently named non-Command Action cards from the supply costing less than it, leaving them there. If you didn't play any cards, +1 Action.

THIS IS NO LONGER MY SUBMISSION, MY NEW SUBMISSION IS NEXT PAGE.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 10, 2020, 02:55:28 pm

Quote from: faust on September 10, 2020, 08:45:37 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on September 10, 2020, 08:39:46 am

I have just the card for this:

Quote

Rubber Duchy
$4 - Victory
Worth 2VP.
-
When you trash this, put it into your hand.
When you trash a Rubber Duchy for the second time in one turn, +1VP.

Rule: This isn't a kingdom card. In games using the Rubber Duchy, it replaces the Duchy pile.

It's impossible to trace whether you trashed the same Rubber Duchy both times.

EDIT: Maybe you just mean, trash any 2 Rubber Duchies, get the benefit. But the the wording is at least ambiguous.

It is intended to be the 2nd time you trash any Rubber Duchy. Is the following wording better or should I use Silverspawn's wording?

"When you trash this, put it into your hand.
The second time you trash any Rubber Duchy in one turn, +1VP."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on September 10, 2020, 04:35:33 pm

Here is my submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/JLgznOc.png)    (https://i.imgur.com/5ouykub.png)

Somehow I am into Heirlooms lately.

Glade together with its Heirloom Lost Book can provide a pretty fast thining boost early on. However, you have to hit $5 and pass on a 5 cost card in order to do so. Nevertheless, I think it is a strong card and I think it is fine to design strong cards. :)
 
EDIT: The Heirloom now has a cost and the text on Glade should be correct now. Thanks for the hints!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 10, 2020, 05:17:44 pm

Strategic Village
Action - $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
---
When you trash this, set it aside. If you did, for the rest of the game, +1 Card at the start of your turns

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 10, 2020, 06:27:54 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119011431_235552581209306_956920134236168016_n.png?_nc_cat=100&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=InEWBt6VJncAX-rbqpi&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=ab0c0fe88b38bb460dab6f54402fbe63&oe=5F808D7B)

Quote

Dandelion Field - $3
1VP
---------
When you gain this, trash up to 3 Copper in play.

When you trash this, gain a Wish from its pile.

A pretty efficient way to trash copper, but it does junk your deck with another Estate. If there are other trashers it can be traded in for a Wish. It may not be necessary to incorporate Wishes into the design, but I like it. Critiques, suggestions, and criticisms are welcome as always.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on September 10, 2020, 06:38:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/jTV0e6Q.jpg)

Quote

Agistor
Types: Action
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a Horse per $1 in the trashed card's cost.

---

When you gain or trash this, gain 2 Horses.

Trash-for-benefit, benefit being Horses, so like a terminal Apprentice.  Agistors come and go with extra Horses so you can get additional Agistors to trash to each other (Agistor trashes Agistor for 6 Horses!).  Coming with 2 Horses is similar to Experiment, but Agistor costs more and comes with Agistor, obviously.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on September 10, 2020, 06:43:58 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on September 10, 2020, 06:27:54 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119011431_235552581209306_956920134236168016_n.png?_nc_cat=100&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=InEWBt6VJncAX-rbqpi&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=ab0c0fe88b38bb460dab6f54402fbe63&oe=5F808D7B)

Quote

Dandelion Field - $3
1VP
---------
When you gain this, trash up to 3 Copper in play.

When you trash this, gain a Wish from its pile.

A pretty efficient way to trash copper, but it does junk your deck with another Estate. If there are other trashers it can be traded in for a Wish. It may not be necessary to incorporate Wishes into the design, but I like it. Critiques, suggestions, and criticisms are welcome as always.

This makes it too easy to gain Wishes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 10, 2020, 06:48:55 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on September 10, 2020, 06:43:58 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on September 10, 2020, 06:27:54 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119011431_235552581209306_956920134236168016_n.png?_nc_cat=100&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=InEWBt6VJncAX-rbqpi&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=ab0c0fe88b38bb460dab6f54402fbe63&oe=5F808D7B)

Quote

Dandelion Field - $3
1VP
---------
When you gain this, trash up to 3 Copper in play.

When you trash this, gain a Wish from its pile.

A pretty efficient way to trash copper, but it does junk your deck with another Estate. If there are other trashers it can be traded in for a Wish. It may not be necessary to incorporate Wishes into the design, but I like it. Critiques, suggestions, and criticisms are welcome as always.

This makes it too easy to gain Wishes.

Yeah, perhaps. Do you think that their is a price point for this card that would make that reward reasonable, or is a Wish too good of a reward?

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119122075_3250612131686148_9053256292970478365_n.png?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=mViD_kk9o0AAX--9IKf&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=eeee129a0a56a786097f1bde70283778&oe=5F81349B)

Quote

Dandelion Field - $3
1VP
---------
When you gain this, trash all Copper you have in play.

When you trash this, reveal a copper from hand to gain a Wish from its pile.

Ok, so the reward to get a Wish is now conditional, and the on-gain effect is not optional and makes meeting those conditions harder. So, I am not sure how often a Wish will actually be obtained by this, but it does at least hinders if not delays the ability to get a Wish.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on September 10, 2020, 07:53:01 pm

A similar but more balanced reward could just be a card costing up to $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 10, 2020, 07:57:44 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on September 10, 2020, 07:53:01 pm

A similar but more balanced reward could just be a card costing up to $5.

That is true, but I was trying to play off the whole connection between dandelions and wishes. If it ends up too ungainly I will likely just switch it over to something like that. Thanks for the response by the way.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119182117_935921483572847_8691864398819312300_n.png?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=BCH7pRt4BCIAX-r5kqP&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=461074bb9e405c176005e3910cdb8a45&oe=5F7F326A)

Quote

Dandelion Field - $3
1VP
---------
When you gain this, trash up to 2 Copper from play.

When you trash this, gain a card costing up to $2 more than this.

Yeah, on second thought, I think I was trying to be too fancy with it at first. Here is a version without the Wish as D782802859 suggested.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on September 10, 2020, 08:46:33 pm

Quote from: Rhodos on September 10, 2020, 04:35:33 pm

Here is my submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/9wkPMQS.png)    (https://i.imgur.com/hCW2st8.png)

Somehow I am into Heirlooms lately.

Glade together with its Heirloom Lost Book can provide a pretty fast thining boost early on. However, you have to hit $5 and pass on a 5 cost card in order to do so. Nevertheless, I think it is a strong card and I think it is fine to design strong cards. :)

The heirloom needs a cost too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on September 11, 2020, 03:00:46 am

Quote from: chronostrike on September 10, 2020, 08:46:33 pm

Quote from: Rhodos on September 10, 2020, 04:35:33 pm

Here is my submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/9wkPMQS.png)    (https://i.imgur.com/hCW2st8.png)

Somehow I am into Heirlooms lately.

Glade together with its Heirloom Lost Book can provide a pretty fast thining boost early on. However, you have to hit $5 and pass on a 5 cost card in order to do so. Nevertheless, I think it is a strong card and I think it is fine to design strong cards. :)

The heirloom needs a cost too.

and the comma on glade is on the wrong spot

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on September 11, 2020, 03:05:46 am

Silver ore $3
$1
-
When you gain or trash this, +2 coffers

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on September 11, 2020, 04:24:43 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 10, 2020, 05:17:44 pm

Strategic Village
Action - $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
---
When you trash this, set it aside. If you did, for the rest of the game, +1 Card at the start of your turns

+1 action at the start of the turn sounds more... symmetrical. (Also, Villages are for extra actions, trashing it now might be a bad thing)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 11, 2020, 04:44:01 am

Quote from: lompeluiten on September 11, 2020, 04:24:43 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 10, 2020, 05:17:44 pm

Strategic Village
Action - $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
---
When you trash this, set it aside. If you did, for the rest of the game, +1 Card at the start of your turns

+1 action at the start of the turn sounds more... symmetrical. (Also, Villages are for extra actions, trashing it now might be a bad thing)

You need to be... strategic about when you trash it

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on September 11, 2020, 09:17:59 am

(https://i.imgur.com/9NFIoCb.png?1) (https://i.imgur.com/8q5Wva2.png?1)

This is a split pile, with 5 copies of Snake Oil on top of 5 copies of Charlatan.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 11, 2020, 09:25:33 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f5b792997abf01dfaa47b20/dfc453b5a2515689eb520346fc370c4f/image.png)

Quote

Charity • $4@4 • Treasure
$2
You may +1 Coffers. If you do, each other player gets +1 Coffers.
-
When you trash this, gain a Wish.

I'm sure there's a better way to phrase the "you may" portion that actually verbs.
Priced the way it is so you can't gain it with wishes but that it's still useful for tfb.
Probably not worth it for the Coffers but may be useful for hitting certain price spikes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on September 11, 2020, 09:35:41 am

Quote from: spineflu on September 11, 2020, 09:25:33 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f5b792997abf01dfaa47b20/dfc453b5a2515689eb520346fc370c4f/image.png)

Quote

Charity • $4@4 • Treasure
$2
You may +1 Coffers. If you do, each other player gets +1 Coffers.
-
When you trash this, gain a Wish.

I'm sure there's a better way to phrase the "you may" portion that actually verbs.
Priced the way it is so you can't gain it with wishes but that it's still useful for tfb.
Probably not worth it for the Coffers but may be useful for hitting certain price spikes.

I think "You may get +1 Coffers" works

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on September 11, 2020, 10:20:41 am

Quote

Insurance
cost $4 - Treasure
$2
---
When you trash this, exchange it for a card costing up to $6 in trash.

Fortress variant.  It does not gain to prevent infinite loops with Watchtower.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on September 11, 2020, 01:21:20 pm

Wand (Treasure-Victory, $5)

+$3
+1 Buy
---
-2VP
---
When you trash this, gain a Gold.

A cheaper Gold-with-buy, but it comes with a penalty. Use it wisely to overcome that! It turns into a real Gold if you can find a way to trash it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on September 11, 2020, 01:45:11 pm

Here's an attempt at reworking a once-OP card I made years ago:

(https://i.imgur.com/XqaQk8Z.png)

Quote

Junkyard
Action - Looter, $4
+1 Action
You may gain a Ruins to your hand.
Set aside any number of Action cards. +2 Cards per card set aside this way. At the start of Clean-up, discard the set aside Action cards.
You may trash this.
-
When you trash this, +2 Cards

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on September 11, 2020, 02:07:36 pm

My entry for this week:
(Scraps is a non-supply pile with 20 cards.)
(https://i.imgur.com/e5np2vk.png) (https://i.imgur.com/tGc9BGy.png)

Quote

Grindstone

+5 Cards
Gain a Scraps.

$5
Action

Quote

Scraps

Return this to its pile.
-
When you trash this, return this to its pile and +1 Coffers.

(This is not in the supply.)

$3
Action

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 11, 2020, 02:11:41 pm

Worth more dead than alive, that is what Valkyries care about. In the Norse mythology, in the aftermath of a battle they pick up the fallen Warriors and take half of them to Valhalla, Odin’s eternal hall of heroes and the other half to the fields of Freyja, the goddess of fertility.

My new submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200913/j7tk7tw9.png)
Valkyrie
$5 – Action

Quote

Choose one: Exile a non-Victory
card from the Supply; or trash a
card from your hand.
------------------------------
When you trash this, +1 VP per
differently named card you have
in Exile that has at least one
copy in the trash.

My first submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200911/msggw9xr.png)

Valkyrie
$4 – Action - Night

Quote

If it’s your Action phase,
gain a card costing up to $4.
Otherwise, trash a card you
have in play.
----------------------------
When you trash this, +1VP
per differently named card
in the trash.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 11, 2020, 06:18:48 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on September 10, 2020, 07:57:44 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119182117_935921483572847_8691864398819312300_n.png?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=BCH7pRt4BCIAX-r5kqP&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=461074bb9e405c176005e3910cdb8a45&oe=5F7F326A)

Quote

Dandelion Field - $3
1VP
---------
When you gain this, trash up to 2 Copper from play.

When you trash this, gain a card costing up to $2 more than this.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119004572_651219882196322_3458631299087322488_n.png?_nc_cat=108&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=xwnyzwXfSGIAX93U218&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=01be52069b3c7cd261f588d07f8725cd&oe=5F82EE9E)

Quote

Dandelion Field - $4
Victory
Worth 1VP per 3 Copper you have in Exile (round down) (max 3VP).
-
When you gain this, Exile up to 3 Copper you have in play.

When you trash this, discard your Exiled Copper. If you discard 6 or more copper this way, gain a Wish.

Ok, here is another crack at being fancy with this card idea. It is now a scaling, cheap VP card that gets rid of Copper pretty nicely. You can later on Trash it for a Wish, but you drop the VP value of all your Dandelion Fields and add the Copper back into your deck. The far simpler version above is there for comparison. Feedback is welcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 12, 2020, 02:40:11 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 11, 2020, 02:11:41 pm

Worth more dead than alive, that is what Valkyries care about. In the Norse mythology, in the aftermath of a battle they pick up the fallen Warriors and take half of them to Valhalla, Odin’s eternal hall of heroes and the other half to the fields of Freyja, the goddess of fertility.

My submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200911/msggw9xr.png)

Valkyrie
$4 – Action - Night

Quote

If it’s your Action phase,
gain a card costing up to $4.
Otherwise, trash a card you
have in play.
----------------------------
When you trash this, +1VP
per differently named card
in the trash.

Wow this thing is bonkers bananas overpowered.

Without the trashing bit it's already a Workshop+ that could reasonably cost $4, though the Night ability isn't super amazing without the bottom part.

At its very baseline, the trashing bonus is +2 VP (Valkyrie will always be in the trash and pretty certainly you'll at least trash a Copper with this). the card might work with a straight +2 VP on trashing, I'll say that much. But if there's other trashing? then you'll have Estate in the trash, so that's +3 VP. If there are Shelters, this goes up to +5 VP (i.e. better than Distant Lands - okay, Distant Land you don't need to connect, but the self-gaining on this more than makes up for that - for $4). If there's even as much as Necromancer in the game, this gives at least as much VP as a Province, and won't end up a dead card in your deck. Consider a game with Looters - it will be worth 8 VP. And I've not even considered any trashing attacks so far, which easily push this over to being better than Dominate without putting in any effort.

This is broken. It needs at least an upper limit on the VP, and if you don't want to go with a flat +2 VP, you probably also need to stop the self-gaining.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 12, 2020, 04:39:28 am

Valkyrie cannot trash Hovel or Overgrown Estate. The card is definitely too good, but not that crazy. I’d simply get rid of the Night type and make it terminal.
The Monastery thingy is not novel anyway and that brings the power level down on a reasonable level. Of course it would then be a more expensive Workshop in Kingdoms without trashers but Fortress is also a more expensive Village in Kingdoms without trashers as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 12, 2020, 04:45:54 am

Maybe you could use something like this: "when you trash this, if there are at least 3 differently named cards in the trash, +3 vp."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 12, 2020, 05:05:12 am

Quote from: segura on September 12, 2020, 04:39:28 am

Valkyrie cannot trash Hovel or Overgrown Estate.

Hence the "If there's other trashing?" phrase before referring to Shelters.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 12, 2020, 05:23:06 am

Valkyrie
$4 – Action - Night

Quote

If it’s your Action phase,
gain a card costing up to $4.
Otherwise, trash a card you
have in play.
----------------------------
When you trash this, +1VP
per differently named card
in the trash.

Quote from: faust on September 12, 2020, 02:40:11 am

Wow this thing is bonkers bananas overpowered.

Without the trashing bit it's already a Workshop+ that could reasonably cost $4, though the Night ability isn't super amazing without the bottom part.

At its very baseline, the trashing bonus is +2 VP (Valkyrie will always be in the trash and pretty certainly you'll at least trash a Copper with this). the card might work with a straight +2 VP on trashing, I'll say that much. But if there's other trashing? then you'll have Estate in the trash, so that's +3 VP. If there are Shelters, this goes up to +5 VP (i.e. better than Distant Lands - okay, Distant Land you don't need to connect, but the self-gaining on this more than makes up for that - for $4). If there's even as much as Necromancer in the game, this gives at least as much VP as a Province, and won't end up a dead card in your deck. Consider a game with Looters - it will be worth 8 VP. And I've not even considered any trashing attacks so far, which easily push this over to being better than Dominate without putting in any effort.

This is broken. It needs at least an upper limit on the VP, and if you don't want to go with a flat +2 VP, you probably also need to stop the self-gaining.

Thank you for the feedback.
When I designed the card, I was unsure whether to give it a cost of $4 or of $5; I decided to go for $4, but immediately after posting I thought $5 would have been better and I think I’ll go for it.
You are right, when Ruins, Shelters, and/or Zombies are present, trashing Valkyrie gives way too many VP tokens. Giving it a fixed +2VP for trashing solves those problems easily, but makes the card less interesting; so I have thought about how to fix the “+1VP/something part”.
If I want to stick to the concepts of the card without clumsy wording, the best solution I came up with is: “…per differently named card in the trash costing $2 or more.”
This eliminates VP scoring through Ruins, Shelters and even Coppers.
What can still produce high VPs are Zombies and trashing attacks, especially Knights, but I can live with just a few official card that makes Valkyrie extraordinary strong. There are enough official cards that shine in situations that are even more likely to happen. The interplay with trashing attacks could even be interesting in a way that Valkyrie can serve as a counter, potentially making those nasty attack cards less desirable.

Quote from: segura on September 12, 2020, 04:39:28 am

Valkyrie cannot trash Hovel or Overgrown Estate. The card is definitely too good, but not that crazy. I’d simply get rid of the Night type and make it terminal.
The Monastery thingy is not novel anyway and that brings the power level down on a reasonable level. Of course it would then be a more expensive Workshop in Kingdoms without trashers but Fortress is also a more expensive Village in Kingdoms without trashers as well.

Most Kingdoms would have other trashers and allow trashing those Shelters.
I like the Night type as it separates trashing from gaining and compared to the gaining part, it makes the trashing a bit stronger as it can trash played cards and does not need an Action.

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 12, 2020, 04:45:54 am

Maybe you could use something like this: "when you trash this, if there are at least 3 differently named cards in the trash, +3 vp."

I have thought about the first part of your suggestion, except it was "2 differently named card". I also thought about "different named cards with at least 2 copies", but I don't think those changes would make the card better in terms of being balanced. I don't like the fixed VP score, as it seems to be less interesting.

The summary of changes I intend to make (for details see above): Card costs $5; I add “…costing $2 or more” at the end.

What do you think about these changes?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 12, 2020, 05:35:53 am

I change my submission because I don't like it. Here's my new submission:

Quote

$4 - Action-Treasure
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing excactly $1 more than it.
-
When you trash this, if it is your action phase: +2 Coffers, otherwise: +2 Villagers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 12, 2020, 05:58:26 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 12, 2020, 05:35:53 am

I change my submission because I don't like it. Here's my new submission:

Quote

$4 - Action-Treasure
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing excactly $1 more than it.
-
When you trash this, if it is your action phase: +2 Coffers, otherwise: +2 Villagers.

Since you can play it also as a Treasure, this seems to be too strong for that cost, giving the benefit when it is trashed. How about just skip the Treasure part completely? Might look not very interesting after all, but is it interesting as it is?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 12, 2020, 07:50:03 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 12, 2020, 05:23:06 am

Valkyrie
$4 – Action - Night

Quote

If it’s your Action phase,
gain a card costing up to $4.
Otherwise, trash a card you
have in play.
----------------------------
When you trash this, +1VP
per differently named card
in the trash.

Quote from: faust on September 12, 2020, 02:40:11 am

Wow this thing is bonkers bananas overpowered.

Without the trashing bit it's already a Workshop+ that could reasonably cost $4, though the Night ability isn't super amazing without the bottom part.

At its very baseline, the trashing bonus is +2 VP (Valkyrie will always be in the trash and pretty certainly you'll at least trash a Copper with this). the card might work with a straight +2 VP on trashing, I'll say that much. But if there's other trashing? then you'll have Estate in the trash, so that's +3 VP. If there are Shelters, this goes up to +5 VP (i.e. better than Distant Lands - okay, Distant Land you don't need to connect, but the self-gaining on this more than makes up for that - for $4). If there's even as much as Necromancer in the game, this gives at least as much VP as a Province, and won't end up a dead card in your deck. Consider a game with Looters - it will be worth 8 VP. And I've not even considered any trashing attacks so far, which easily push this over to being better than Dominate without putting in any effort.

This is broken. It needs at least an upper limit on the VP, and if you don't want to go with a flat +2 VP, you probably also need to stop the self-gaining.

Thank you for the feedback.
When I designed the card, I was unsure whether to give it a cost of $4 or of $5; I decided to go for $4, but immediately after posting I thought $5 would have been better and I think I’ll go for it.
You are right, when Ruins, Shelters, and/or Zombies are present, trashing Valkyrie gives way too many VP tokens. Giving it a fixed +2VP for trashing solves those problems easily, but makes the card less interesting; so I have thought about how to fix the “+1VP/something part”.
If I want to stick to the concepts of the card without clumsy wording, the best solution I came up with is: “…per differently named card in the trash costing $2 or more.”
This eliminates VP scoring through Ruins, Shelters and even Coppers.
What can still produce high VPs are Zombies and trashing attacks, especially Knights, but I can live with just a few official card that makes Valkyrie extraordinary strong. There are enough official cards that shine in situations that are even more likely to happen. The interplay with trashing attacks could even be interesting in a way that Valkyrie can serve as a counter, potentially making those nasty attack cards less desirable.

Quote from: segura on September 12, 2020, 04:39:28 am

Valkyrie cannot trash Hovel or Overgrown Estate. The card is definitely too good, but not that crazy. I’d simply get rid of the Night type and make it terminal.
The Monastery thingy is not novel anyway and that brings the power level down on a reasonable level. Of course it would then be a more expensive Workshop in Kingdoms without trashers but Fortress is also a more expensive Village in Kingdoms without trashers as well.

Most Kingdoms would have other trashers and allow trashing those Shelters.
I like the Night type as it separates trashing from gaining and compared to the gaining part, it makes the trashing a bit stronger as it can trash played cards and does not need an Action.

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 12, 2020, 04:45:54 am

Maybe you could use something like this: "when you trash this, if there are at least 3 differently named cards in the trash, +3 vp."

I have thought about the first part of your suggestion, except it was "2 differently named card". I also thought about "different named cards with at least 2 copies", but I don't think those changes would make the card better in terms of being balanced. I don't like the fixed VP score, as it seems to be less interesting.

The summary of changes I intend to make (for details see above): Card costs $5; I add “…costing $2 or more” at the end.

What do you think about these changes?

The VPs are not the issue, the non-terminality and self-trashing ability are.
If you wanna maintain the flavor of the challenge, keeping the ability to get man VPs such that you have an incentive to kill it off is the part that should remain.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 12, 2020, 09:28:51 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 12, 2020, 05:58:26 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 12, 2020, 05:35:53 am

I change my submission because I don't like it. Here's my new submission:

Quote

$4 - Action-Treasure
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing excactly $1 more than it.
-
When you trash this, if it is your action phase: +2 Coffers, otherwise: +2 Villagers.

Since you can play it also as a Treasure, this seems to be too strong for that cost, giving the benefit when it is trashed. How about just skip the Treasure part completely? Might look not very interesting after all, but is it interesting as it is?

You're right, compared to Remodel it has two benefits:
Non-terminality and the on-trash benefit.
But it has two downsides:
Smaller range and less flexibility.

How about I make it a Stonemason instead?

Quote

$4 - Action-Treasure
Trash a card from your hand. Gain up to two cards costing less than it.
-
When you trash this, if it is your action phase: +2 Coffers, otherwise: +2 Villagers.

Is it more balanced? Should I make the gaining not optional to make estate trashing harder? Is it possible for the on-trash benefit to be on-gain too? I want to keep the treasure type, to make it fit with the name and to justify the "if it is your action phase" clause.

Edit: forgot to include the name. It is supposed to be called "Refinery".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 12, 2020, 11:28:44 am

Quote from: segura on September 12, 2020, 07:50:03 am

The VPs are not the issue, the non-terminality and self-trashing ability are.
If you wanna maintain the flavor of the challenge, keeping the ability to get man VPs such that you have an incentive to kill it off is the part that should remain.

I think the VPs scoring has to be tamed as faust has pointed out. While a static +2VP would be on the safe side, a variable VP score looks more interesting, though of course is also more challenging - design wise. This is consistent with the idea of the challenge and with my own style, and it seems that you agree.

The self-trashing ability is a general problem in this challenge for any card proposed by anyone. When you do not have it, then a substantial number of games will be without any trashing (~1/5 I think), and then the part most important for this challenge is useless. On the other hand, most games will have a trasher of any sort, in which case the self-trashing ability isn't a big problem. Best I can think of is to have the trashing possibility, but restrict it as much as possible. One simple way is to trash from hand instead of in play; then you need to have at least 2 copies of Valkyrie in a given turn.

Remains the non-terminality, which also has to be viewed in the context of cost and self-gaining ability. If the card costs $4 it can gain copies, if it costs $5, and has a crippled VP scoring and restricted self-trashing, a terminal Action would be too weak in my opinion. So, why not move everything to the Night:

Valkyrie
$5 – Night

Quote

Choose one: Gain a card costing up
to $4; or trash a card from your hand.
----------------------------
When you trash this, +1VP
per differently named card
in the trash costing $2 or more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 12, 2020, 11:40:53 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 12, 2020, 09:28:51 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 12, 2020, 05:58:26 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 12, 2020, 05:35:53 am

I change my submission because I don't like it. Here's my new submission:

Quote

$4 - Action-Treasure
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing excactly $1 more than it.
-
When you trash this, if it is your action phase: +2 Coffers, otherwise: +2 Villagers.

Since you can play it also as a Treasure, this seems to be too strong for that cost, giving the benefit when it is trashed. How about just skip the Treasure part completely? Might look not very interesting after all, but is it interesting as it is?

You're right, compared to Remodel it has two benefits:
Non-terminality and the on-trash benefit.
But it has two downsides:
Smaller range and less flexibility.

I compared it with Upgrade (among other cards), which costs $5.

Quote

How about I make it a Stonemason instead?

Quote

$4 - Action-Treasure
Trash a card from your hand. Gain up to two cards costing less than it.
-
When you trash this, if it is your action phase: +2 Coffers, otherwise: +2 Villagers.

Is it more balanced? Should I make the gaining not optional to make estate trashing harder? Is it possible for the on-trash benefit to be on-gain too? I want to keep the treasure type, to make it fit with the name and to justify the "if it is your action phase" clause.

Edit: forgot to include the name. It is supposed to be called "Refinery".

I would make the gaining mandatory. With your wording you can trash anything without negative consequences. This is the second time I see you caring more about the name of a card than about its function.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 12, 2020, 12:11:21 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on September 12, 2020, 11:28:44 am

Quote from: segura on September 12, 2020, 07:50:03 am

The VPs are not the issue, the non-terminality and self-trashing ability are.
If you wanna maintain the flavor of the challenge, keeping the ability to get man VPs such that you have an incentive to kill it off is the part that should remain.

I think the VPs scoring has to be tamed as faust has pointed out. While a static +2VP would be on the safe side, a variable VP score looks more interesting, though of course is also more challenging - design wise. This is consistent with the idea of the challenge and with my own style, and it seems that you agree.

I think you could scale by something else than differently named card, for instance different type. However that still gets pretty powerful with Shelters and Heirlooms. Maybe different cost? That will usually keep you in an interesting range.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 12, 2020, 12:20:07 pm

Quote from: faust on September 12, 2020, 12:11:21 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on September 12, 2020, 11:28:44 am

Quote from: segura on September 12, 2020, 07:50:03 am

The VPs are not the issue, the non-terminality and self-trashing ability are.
If you wanna maintain the flavor of the challenge, keeping the ability to get man VPs such that you have an incentive to kill it off is the part that should remain.

I think the VPs scoring has to be tamed as faust has pointed out. While a static +2VP would be on the safe side, a variable VP score looks more interesting, though of course is also more challenging - design wise. This is consistent with the idea of the challenge and with my own style, and it seems that you agree.

I think you could scale by something else than differently named card, for instance different type. However that still gets pretty powerful with Shelters and Heirlooms. Maybe different cost? That will usually keep you in an interesting range.

I thought about that and I came up with different types, which I rejected for the reason you mentioned, but "different cost" looks... brilliant at a first glance. That could do it indeed. I think a bit more about it, but I already like the idea. Many thanks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on September 12, 2020, 03:20:45 pm

Quote

Curator - Action, $2* cost.
+1 Action
Play any number of differently named Treasures from your hand for + $1 each.
-
This costs $1 more per differently named card you have in play. When you trash this, gain a card costing up to this cost; if it's an Action or Treasure, set it aside, and if you do, play it.

Put simply, an investment card; get it early, and it pays off late. If you don't like the money it gives, change it for what else you need, including Victories (even another Curator, if you need more Actions). In the absence of trashing, there are a couple of other niche uses.
I've been fumbling around with balance tweaks for a while, and thought in the end that different names scale into the late game but conveniently cap so tfb can't go completely crazy.

Edit: name and wording changes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 12, 2020, 04:50:04 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on September 12, 2020, 11:40:53 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 12, 2020, 09:28:51 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 12, 2020, 05:58:26 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 12, 2020, 05:35:53 am

I change my submission because I don't like it. Here's my new submission:

Quote

$4 - Action-Treasure
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing excactly $1 more than it.
-
When you trash this, if it is your action phase: +2 Coffers, otherwise: +2 Villagers.

Since you can play it also as a Treasure, this seems to be too strong for that cost, giving the benefit when it is trashed. How about just skip the Treasure part completely? Might look not very interesting after all, but is it interesting as it is?

You're right, compared to Remodel it has two benefits:
Non-terminality and the on-trash benefit.
But it has two downsides:
Smaller range and less flexibility.

I compared it with Upgrade (among other cards), which costs $5.

Quote

How about I make it a Stonemason instead?

Quote

$4 - Action-Treasure
Trash a card from your hand. Gain up to two cards costing less than it.
-
When you trash this, if it is your action phase: +2 Coffers, otherwise: +2 Villagers.

Is it more balanced? Should I make the gaining not optional to make estate trashing harder? Is it possible for the on-trash benefit to be on-gain too? I want to keep the treasure type, to make it fit with the name and to justify the "if it is your action phase" clause.

Edit: forgot to include the name. It is supposed to be called "Refinery".

I would make the gaining mandatory. With your wording you can trash anything without negative consequences. This is the second time I see you caring more about the name of a card than about its function.

Well, theme is a part in card design, and it makes cards like Changeling stand out to me. I usually get a functional concept going before I decide on a name. Making the gain mandatory is just copying Stonecutter's on-play ability, which I am okay with. It is better than the "basically Silk Merchant" earlier version of this card. Well then, let's try again.

Quote

Refinery
$4 - Action-Treasure
Trash a card from your hand. Gain two cards each costing less than it.
-
When you gain or trash this, if it is your action phase: +2 Coffers. Otherwise: +2 Villagers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 13, 2020, 09:15:53 am

I think I have found now a version of Valkyrie that seems quite balanced, avoids much of the craziness we discussed before, and even better has a better flavor than the original version (reply #7049). It pinpoints the duality of the tasks of the mythical Valkyries:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200913/j7tk7tw9.png)

Valkyrie
$5 – Action

Quote

Choose one: Exile a non-Victory
card from the Supply; or trash a
card from your hand.
------------------------------
When you trash this, +1 VP per
differently named card you have
in Exile that has at least one
copy in the trash.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 13, 2020, 10:03:46 am

Quote from: Xen3k on September 11, 2020, 06:18:48 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on September 10, 2020, 07:57:44 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119182117_935921483572847_8691864398819312300_n.png?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=BCH7pRt4BCIAX-r5kqP&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=461074bb9e405c176005e3910cdb8a45&oe=5F7F326A)

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119004572_651219882196322_3458631299087322488_n.png?_nc_cat=108&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=xwnyzwXfSGIAX93U218&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=01be52069b3c7cd261f588d07f8725cd&oe=5F82EE9E)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50688783798_73f89eb62c_b.jpg)

Quote

Dandelion Field -$4
Victory - Reserve
2VP
----------
When you trash this, put it on your Tavern mat. If you have an even number of Dandelion Fields on your Tavern mat, gain a Wish

I was still not very happy with my submission, so I now have this. It is purely a VP card that stays in your deck if trashed and rewards you every so often with a Wish when you trash it. The catch is that it does not have any way to trash itself, so it is completely dependent on the rest of the Kingdom. This is probably my last attempt at the competition this week, but I welcome all feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 13, 2020, 10:16:04 am

Quote from: Xen3k on September 13, 2020, 10:03:46 am

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119065852_324117145367826_480129584482710092_n.png?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=XH2uMQ7Yx1oAX80JOFi&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=036cf6d5ef86a7cf87d2df1040bc1f2e&oe=5F8222D7)

Quote

Dandelion Field -$4
Victory - Reserve
2VP
----------
When you trash this, put it on your Tavern mat. Gain a Wish if you have an odd number of Dandelion Fields on you Tavern mat.

I was still not very happy with my submission, so I now have this. It is purely a VP card that stays in your deck if trashed and rewards you every so often with a Wish when you trash it. The catch is that it does not have any way to trash itself, so it is completely dependent on the rest of the Kingdom. This is probably my last attempt at the competition this week, but I welcome all feedback.

Just a spontaneous idea I have:

"When you trash this, +2VP. If there is an odd (even?) number of... in the trash, gain a Wish."

This avoids the use of the Tavern mat, gives the same amount of VP and is more interactive (though also more competitive), and probably more difficult to get the precious Wishes. I like "even" more than "odd".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on September 13, 2020, 10:31:28 am

Not entirely sure if this is allowed, but here is mu idea.

(https://i.imgur.com/8UFeH0x.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 13, 2020, 10:39:43 am

(https://i.ibb.co/VQ8psnx/Marshland-1.png)

Quote

Marshland - $4+
Victory

Worth 1 VP per copy of this in the trash.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it, to trash a copy of this from the supply per $1 you overpaid.

There are 1.5 times as many copies of this in the supply as for a regular Victory card, i.e. 12 for 2 players and 18 for 3-4 players.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 13, 2020, 10:52:14 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 13, 2020, 10:16:04 am

Quote from: Xen3k on September 13, 2020, 10:03:46 am

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119065852_324117145367826_480129584482710092_n.png?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=XH2uMQ7Yx1oAX80JOFi&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=036cf6d5ef86a7cf87d2df1040bc1f2e&oe=5F8222D7)

Quote

Dandelion Field -$4
Victory - Reserve
2VP
----------
When you trash this, put it on your Tavern mat. Gain a Wish if you have an odd number of Dandelion Fields on you Tavern mat.

I was still not very happy with my submission, so I now have this. It is purely a VP card that stays in your deck if trashed and rewards you every so often with a Wish when you trash it. The catch is that it does not have any way to trash itself, so it is completely dependent on the rest of the Kingdom. This is probably my last attempt at the competition this week, but I welcome all feedback.

Just a spontaneous idea I have:

"When you trash this, +2VP. If there is an odd (even?) number of... in the trash, gain a Wish."

This avoids the use of the Tavern mat, gives the same amount of VP and is more interactive (though also more competitive), and probably more difficult to get the precious Wishes. I like "even" more than "odd".

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119231543_891983791208350_144930667341146437_n.png?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=7xNloec_cEIAX__XbB3&_nc_oc=AQmYMfD44AoqBqHJ3rPP4BkWjmWyKbmjzxcw8NYZaEb4E7DACz2p6bYVyr6MHGSa1WDswmkN6t-brCUD44EGfEmc&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=4567238a09a000c64227b285615e94f2&oe=5F83FC32)

Like this?

I would be concerned that their would be even less of an incentive to purchase them if their is a chance you cannot get the reward of a Wish. I personally do not mind the Tavern mat and like the potential interactions with other cards that care for you to have it still in your deck. I do agree that rewarding an even number is more interesting as it requires you to commit.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50688783798_73f89eb62c_b.jpg)

Quote

Dandelion Field
Victory - Reserve
2VP
----------------
When you trash this, put it on your Tavern mat. If you have an even number of Dandelion Fields on your Tavern mat, gain a Wish

I am going to stick with the Reserve version, but will be taking your very good advise and changing it to even numbers giving the reward to make it take a bit more time. Thanks for the feedback!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Marpharos on September 13, 2020, 05:38:19 pm

Here's my submission. It had to cost $2 to be exempt from many trash attacks.

(https://i.imgur.com/w5fSwG1.png)

Attendant
Action
$2

Quote

You may discard up to 3 non-Action and non-Treasure cards. If you did, choose 1 per card discarded: +1 Card, or +1 Buy, or +$1.
-
When you trash this, +2 Actions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 13, 2020, 05:54:47 pm

Quote from: Marpharos on September 13, 2020, 05:38:19 pm

Here's my submission. It had to cost $2 to be exempt from many trash attacks.

(https://i.imgur.com/w5fSwG1.png)

Attendant
Action
$2

Quote

You may discard up to 3 non-Action and non-Treasure cards. If you did, choose 1 per card discarded: +1 Card, or +1 Buy, or +$1.
-
When you trash this, +2 Actions.

At first glance it seems kinda weak. The limitations on what you can discard may be a bit excessive, and it would feel real bad to get this in a hand full of copper. Just comparing the top part to Herbalist it seems weak. I think if it was non-terminal it would be decent, but it would not compare well to Warehouse.

The on-trash effect is pretty cool. If it gave Villagers you would not have to be concerned about trashing attacks, but just the plus actions are nice when using a trash-for-gain effect.

Hope that helps.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 14, 2020, 10:23:31 am

Quote from: faust on September 13, 2020, 10:39:43 am

(https://i.ibb.co/VQ8psnx/Marshland-1.png)

Quote

Marshland - $4+
Victory

Worth 1 VP per copy of this in the trash.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it, to trash a copy of this from the supply per $1 you overpaid.

There are 1.5 times as many copies of this in the supply as for a regular Victory card, i.e. 12 for 2 players and 18 for 3-4 players.

This looks interesting, but I am not sure I understand the card.
Since this is a large pile, I assume that you expect that this will be massively bought. But isn't the best strategy, after one player overpaid and trashed copies of Marshland, that other players just buy it for the regular cost? I can't see the benefit for the overpaying player, but I am sure I miss something as I often do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 14, 2020, 10:45:05 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 14, 2020, 10:23:31 am

This looks interesting, but I am not sure I understand the card.
Since this is a large pile, I assume that you expect that this will be massively bought. But isn't the best strategy, after one player overpaid and trashed copies of Marshland, that other players just buy it for the regular cost? I can't see the benefit for the overpaying player, but I am sure I miss something as I often do.

The benefit would be to either end the game or empty this pile on the turn you overpay for it. If you think about how to best counter such a strategy, maybe you can see the idea I had when designing this card.

The pile is larger because a lot of it will likely end up being trashed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on September 14, 2020, 10:54:16 am

Not sure if it fits the content, but it makes any card more valuable at death
(https://i.ibb.co/Zzxrftn/image.png)

Quote

Animate
$5 - Event
Gain an Action card costing up to $4.
Move your Spirit token onto its supply pile.
(When you trash a card from that pile, gain a Ghost)

There is one Spirit token per player, similar to Trashing or Ferry tokens.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 14, 2020, 11:47:29 am

Quote from: faust on September 14, 2020, 10:45:05 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 14, 2020, 10:23:31 am

This looks interesting, but I am not sure I understand the card.
Since this is a large pile, I assume that you expect that this will be massively bought. But isn't the best strategy, after one player overpaid and trashed copies of Marshland, that other players just buy it for the regular cost? I can't see the benefit for the overpaying player, but I am sure I miss something as I often do.

The benefit would be to either end the game or empty this pile on the turn you overpay for it. If you think about how to best counter such a strategy, maybe you can see the idea I had when designing this card.

The pile is larger because a lot of it will likely end up being trashed.

I have seen those strategies, but I thought why the heck is the pile so large. So, you increased the size of the pile to counteract such strategies on one hand, but on the other hand, the prize gets hotter. Clever.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 14, 2020, 11:55:07 am

Quote from: grep on September 14, 2020, 10:54:16 am

Not sure if it fits the content, but it makes any card more valuable at death
(https://i.ibb.co/Zzxrftn/image.png)

Quote

Animate
$5 - Event
Gain an Action card costing up to $4.
Move your Spirit token onto its supply pile.
(When you trash a card from that pile, gain a Ghost)

There is one Spirit token per player, similar to Trashing or Ferry tokens.

Is it too strong to allow you to gain any Spirit rather than specifically Ghost?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 14, 2020, 02:14:49 pm

Contest #87: Worth More Dead Than Alive Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/bu2nzd0c.png)

Quote

Angel - Companion - $2
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

When you trash this, gain an Action card costing up to $3.

Opening double Angel and getting to a third Angel could be pretty important (trashing 1 or 2 Angels with the third one) If there were 10 copies of this card, a 4 player game could hinge dramatically on turn order and luck.

Fortunately, Angel has a new card type with it that helps with this problem. It's a Companion. What does that mean? Companions have specific rules for card setup: I have updated the rules based on feedback after this. Ignore crossed out lines

• You play with the same number of Companions in the supply as Victory Cards. (8 for 2 player, 12 for 3-4, etc)
• Companion supply piles are separated into separate supply piles for each player. So, in a 3 player game, each player has their own pile of 4 copies they can gain.
• Players can only gain and buy Companions from the Supply if they are in their pile. (trash gainers can be used to gain any Companion from the trash)
• In order for a supply pile with a card type with Companion to be empty, every single copy has to have exited the supply. This can happen before a province merging or after.
• Once the first Province is gained, all companions that are copies of the same card merge to a single pile. Now, anyone can buy/gain them.

Essentially, Companions allow equal access to a card in the early game.

Angel isn't an Action or Treasure card. It is not playable. It is very strong trasher, and may have you skipping chapel, perhaps.

I've gone a lot of directions with the on trash benefit. Another method was "up to 4 that does not have +$ amounts in its text." An idea is to not make Angel/Angel/Angel the automatic opening for all card setups. However, even if it's super powerful, each player has equal access to do it because they are Companions.

It costs 2 because costing it 3 could really screw over the 5/2 opener.

Open to feedback!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on September 14, 2020, 02:36:51 pm

Quote from: Aquila on September 12, 2020, 03:20:45 pm

Quote

Curator - Action, $2* cost.
+1 Action
Play any number of differently named Treasures from your hand for + $1 each.
-
This costs $1 more per differently named card you have in play. When you trash this, gain a card costing up to this cost; if it's an Action or Treasure, set it aside, and if you do, play it.

Put simply, an investment card; get it early, and it pays off late. If you don't like the money it gives, change it for what else you need, including Victories (even another Curator, if you need more Actions). In the absence of trashing, there are a couple of other niche uses.
I've been fumbling around with balance tweaks for a while, and thought in the end that different names scale into the late game but conveniently cap so tfb can't go completely crazy.

Edit: name and wording changes.

I'm not sure I understand what happens when you play this.  If I lay down a Copper, a Silver, and a Gold; do I get 1+2+3+3 = $9?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on September 14, 2020, 03:22:14 pm

Quote from: chronostrike on September 14, 2020, 02:36:51 pm

Quote from: Aquila on September 12, 2020, 03:20:45 pm

Quote

Curator - Action, $2* cost.
+1 Action
Play any number of differently named Treasures from your hand for + $1 each.
-
This costs $1 more per differently named card you have in play. When you trash this, gain a card costing up to this cost; if it's an Action or Treasure, set it aside, and if you do, play it.

Put simply, an investment card; get it early, and it pays off late. If you don't like the money it gives, change it for what else you need, including Victories (even another Curator, if you need more Actions). In the absence of trashing, there are a couple of other niche uses.
I've been fumbling around with balance tweaks for a while, and thought in the end that different names scale into the late game but conveniently cap so tfb can't go completely crazy.

Edit: name and wording changes.

I'm not sure I understand what happens when you play this.  If I lay down a Copper, a Silver, and a Gold; do I get 1+2+3+3 = $9?

That's right; you could also play a platinum for 1+2+3+5, +4 for Curator. If that looks strong, it's a fair bit of work to line up, scales into the late game to match the scaling trash bonus (and also helps the trash by increasing Curator's cost), and it's not easy to repeat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 14, 2020, 03:57:00 pm

Quote from: faust on September 13, 2020, 10:39:43 am

(https://i.ibb.co/VQ8psnx/Marshland-1.png)

Quote

Marshland - $4+
Victory

Worth 1 VP per copy of this in the trash.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay for it, to trash a copy of this from the supply per $1 you overpaid.

There are 1.5 times as many copies of this in the supply as for a regular Victory card, i.e. 12 for 2 players and 18 for 3-4 players.

I love this concept! However, it may be too powerful at costing 4. The first player to buy a province would pay 8 for this. If they are able to afford 8 again, they have leveled up them to be both worth more than a province, and there’s only 2 left in supply (for 2 player game)

Could you cost this 5 and have it have some benefit. Like an action card that can trash a card from your hand for +1$? I just worry costing it 4 is a little too strong .

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 14, 2020, 03:57:31 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 14, 2020, 02:14:49 pm

Contest #87: Worth More Dead Than Alive Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/bu2nzd0c.png)

Quote

Angel - Companion - $2
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

When you trash this, gain an Action card costing up to $3.

Opening double Angel and getting to a third Angel could be pretty important (trashing 1 or 2 Angels with the third one) If there were 10 copies of this card, a 4 player game could hinge dramatically on turn order and luck.

Fortunately, Angel has a new card type with it that helps with this problem. It's a Companion. What does that mean? Companions have specific rules for card setup:

• You play with the same number of Companions in the supply as Victory Cards. (8 for 2 player, 12 for 3-4, etc)
• The single supply pile starts separated into even amounts for each players. So, in a 3 player game, each player has their own pile of 4 copies.
• You may only gain and buy Companions if they are in your pile.
• Once the first Province is gained, all companions that are copies of the same card merge to a single pile. Now, anyone can buy/gain them.
• In order for a supply pile with a card type with Companion to be empty, every single copy has to exited the supply. This can happen before a province merging or after.

Essentially, Companions allow equal access to a card in the early game.

Angel isn't an Action or Treasure card. It is not playable. It is very strong trasher, and may have you skipping chapel, perhaps.

I've gone a lot of directions with the on trash benefit. Another method was "up to 4 that does not have +$ amounts in its text." An idea is to not make Angel/Angel/Angel the automatic opening for all card setups. However, even if it's super powerful, each player has equal access to do it because they are Companions.

It costs 2 because costing it 3 could really screw over the 5/2 opener.

Open to feedback!

I am sure you have spend hours and hours for this mechanic and it looks like an interesting approach. I have been working though the set of rules of Companion cards for an hour or so, and I think I got it now more or less. Isn't it a bit too complex to introduce this all at once?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 14, 2020, 04:29:04 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on September 14, 2020, 03:57:31 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 14, 2020, 02:14:49 pm

Contest #87: Worth More Dead Than Alive Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/bu2nzd0c.png)

Quote

Angel - Companion - $2
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

When you trash this, gain an Action card costing up to $3.

Opening double Angel and getting to a third Angel could be pretty important (trashing 1 or 2 Angels with the third one) If there were 10 copies of this card, a 4 player game could hinge dramatically on turn order and luck.

Fortunately, Angel has a new card type with it that helps with this problem. It's a Companion. What does that mean? Companions have specific rules for card setup:

• You play with the same number of Companions in the supply as Victory Cards. (8 for 2 player, 12 for 3-4, etc)
• The single supply pile starts separated into even amounts for each players. So, in a 3 player game, each player has their own pile of 4 copies.
• You may only gain and buy Companions if they are in your pile.
• Once the first Province is gained, all companions that are copies of the same card merge to a single pile. Now, anyone can buy/gain them.
• In order for a supply pile with a card type with Companion to be empty, every single copy has to exited the supply. This can happen before a province merging or after.

Essentially, Companions allow equal access to a card in the early game.

Angel isn't an Action or Treasure card. It is not playable. It is very strong trasher, and may have you skipping chapel, perhaps.

I've gone a lot of directions with the on trash benefit. Another method was "up to 4 that does not have +$ amounts in its text." An idea is to not make Angel/Angel/Angel the automatic opening for all card setups. However, even if it's super powerful, each player has equal access to do it because they are Companions.

It costs 2 because costing it 3 could really screw over the 5/2 opener.

Open to feedback!

I am sure you have spend hours and hours for this mechanic and it looks like an interesting approach. I have been working though the set of rules of Companion cards for an hour or so, and I think I got it now more or less. Isn't it a bit too complex to introduce this all at once?

Hm, thank you so much for taking the time to puzzle through it! It’s my intention that this wasn’t so complicated. Any ideas on how to clarify it through better phrasing?

As far as introducing it all at once, this is a mechanic similar to heirlooms. It specifies set up rules. I have other card ideas that use Companion. For angel, I needed to solve two problems:
1. The possible 4 player turn order issue as mentioned above
2. This card has no types. (It’s not even a reaction).
Using the companion card type was the best thing way I was able to address both issues.
I could make this a victory card, but that felt tacked on just to give it a type. To me it would be inelegant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on September 14, 2020, 04:35:13 pm

Making the Companion piles combine after buying a Province seems tacked on and a bit too confusing for no reason.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 14, 2020, 04:53:55 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 14, 2020, 04:29:04 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on September 14, 2020, 03:57:31 pm

I am sure you have spend hours and hours for this mechanic and it looks like an interesting approach. I have been working though the set of rules of Companion cards for an hour or so, and I think I got it now more or less. Isn't it a bit too complex to introduce this all at once?

Hm, thank you so much for taking the time to puzzle through it! It’s my intention that this wasn’t so complicated. Any ideas on how to clarify it through better phrasing?

As far as introducing it all at once, this is a mechanic similar to heirlooms. It specifies set up rules. I have other card ideas that use Companion. For angel, I needed to solve two problems:
1. The possible 4 player turn order issue as mentioned above
2. This card has no types. (It’s not even a reaction).
Using the companion card type was the best thing way I was able to address both issues.
I could make this a victory card, but that felt tacked on just to give it a type. To me it would be inelegant.

I think it is great to have Companions that you cannot play, i.e. only having on gain/when trash abilities. However, I wouldn't make a whole pile of them (maybe one or two for each player), and not merging them after a Province is gained (or any other condition). It may come a bit close to Events, but it is far less confusing. I would stick to the basic principle (Companion type and no other types), but try to simplify it. Could be an interesting concept.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 14, 2020, 04:58:58 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 14, 2020, 03:57:00 pm

The first player to buy a province would pay 8 for this. If they are able to afford 8 again, they have leveled up them to be both worth more than a province, and there’s only 2 left in supply (for 2 player game)

That's not how it works. If the first player buys this for 8, the second says 'lol', buys it for 4, and is ahead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 14, 2020, 06:02:06 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 14, 2020, 02:14:49 pm

Contest #87: Worth More Dead Than Alive Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/bu2nzd0c.png)

Quote

Angel - Companion - $2
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

When you trash this, gain an Action card costing up to $3.

Opening double Angel and getting to a third Angel could be pretty important (trashing 1 or 2 Angels with the third one) If there were 10 copies of this card, a 4 player game could hinge dramatically on turn order and luck.

Fortunately, Angel has a new card type with it that helps with this problem. It's a Companion. What does that mean? Companions have specific rules for card setup:

• You play with the same number of Companions in the supply as Victory Cards. (8 for 2 player, 12 for 3-4, etc)
• The single supply pile starts separated into even amounts for each players. So, in a 3 player game, each player has their own pile of 4 copies.
• You may only gain and buy Companions if they are in your pile.
• Once the first Province is gained, all companions that are copies of the same card merge to a single pile. Now, anyone can buy/gain them.
• In order for a supply pile with a card type with Companion to be empty, every single copy has to exited the supply. This can happen before a province merging or after.

Essentially, Companions allow equal access to a card in the early game.

Angel isn't an Action or Treasure card. It is not playable. It is very strong trasher, and may have you skipping chapel, perhaps.

I've gone a lot of directions with the on trash benefit. Another method was "up to 4 that does not have +$ amounts in its text." An idea is to not make Angel/Angel/Angel the automatic opening for all card setups. However, even if it's super powerful, each player has equal access to do it because they are Companions.

It costs 2 because costing it 3 could really screw over the 5/2 opener.

Open to feedback!

This is a really cool idea and it reinforces the Solitaire aspect of Dominion, which is not something that I expected to be this interesting. I Think the only mechanic that may trip up my group is remembering to merge the piles when the Province trigger happens. I like the idea and would be interested to see what other cards you would design to be Companions. Angel itself seem really strong, and probably would not be added to my groups card rotation, but I commend the design of the Companion mechanic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 14, 2020, 06:55:56 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on September 14, 2020, 06:02:06 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 14, 2020, 02:14:49 pm

Contest #87: Worth More Dead Than Alive Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/bu2nzd0c.png)

Quote

Angel - Companion - $2
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

When you trash this, gain an Action card costing up to $3.

Opening double Angel and getting to a third Angel could be pretty important (trashing 1 or 2 Angels with the third one) If there were 10 copies of this card, a 4 player game could hinge dramatically on turn order and luck.

Fortunately, Angel has a new card type with it that helps with this problem. It's a Companion. What does that mean? Companions have specific rules for card setup:

• You play with the same number of Companions in the supply as Victory Cards. (8 for 2 player, 12 for 3-4, etc)
• The single supply pile starts separated into even amounts for each players. So, in a 3 player game, each player has their own pile of 4 copies.
• You may only gain and buy Companions if they are in your pile.
• Once the first Province is gained, all companions that are copies of the same card merge to a single pile. Now, anyone can buy/gain them.
• In order for a supply pile with a card type with Companion to be empty, every single copy has to exited the supply. This can happen before a province merging or after.

Essentially, Companions allow equal access to a card in the early game.

Angel isn't an Action or Treasure card. It is not playable. It is very strong trasher, and may have you skipping chapel, perhaps.

I've gone a lot of directions with the on trash benefit. Another method was "up to 4 that does not have +$ amounts in its text." An idea is to not make Angel/Angel/Angel the automatic opening for all card setups. However, even if it's super powerful, each player has equal access to do it because they are Companions.

It costs 2 because costing it 3 could really screw over the 5/2 opener.

Open to feedback!

This is a really cool idea and it reinforces the Solitaire aspect of Dominion, which is not something that I expected to be this interesting. I Think the only mechanic that may trip up my group is remembering to merge the piles when the Province trigger happens. I like the idea and would be interested to see what other cards you would design to be Companions. Angel itself seem really strong, and probably would not be added to my groups card rotation, but I commend the design of the Companion mechanic.

Thanks for all the feedback. I've decided to remove the province merging aspect of this for simplicity. My original intention was for that rule to allow it to pile out even if strategies differ. I realize now, thanks to everyone's feedback, that it isn't worth dealing with that.

I've updated the original post up above.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 15, 2020, 01:08:40 am

Nothing against new types, but why not simply make it a pure Reaction?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 15, 2020, 01:21:00 am

Quote from: segura on September 15, 2020, 01:08:40 am

Nothing against new types, but why not simply make it a pure Reaction?

Other cards with on-gain or on-trash abilities aren’t reactions though. Not that they couldn’t have been, but as I understand it, the reason they aren’t is because reactions happen when the card is in a hidden place; usually your hand, but maybe your discard. Though Patron seems to be a weird exception, it’s a reaction even though it is always publicly visible at the time that it is reacting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 15, 2020, 07:04:58 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 14, 2020, 03:57:00 pm

love this concept! However, it may be too powerful at costing 4. The first player to buy a province would pay 8 for this. If they are able to afford 8 again, they have leveled up them to be both worth more than a province, and there’s only 2 left in supply (for 2 player game)

Could you cost this 5 and have it have some benefit. Like an action card that can trash a card from your hand for +1$? I just worry costing it 4 is a little too strong .

I've already wondered whether $4 is too high rather than too low. I mean sure, one player could do what you describe, leaving 2 copies in the supply, but if they do, then the opponent can just grab the remaining 2 for half the price, so the analysis there isn't really complete.

And I think this already has enough going on, I wouldn't want to tack an extra ability onto it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 15, 2020, 02:16:04 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 15, 2020, 01:21:00 am

Quote from: segura on September 15, 2020, 01:08:40 am

Nothing against new types, but why not simply make it a pure Reaction?

Other cards with on-gain or on-trash abilities aren’t reactions though. Not that they couldn’t have been, but as I understand it, the reason they aren’t is because reactions happen when the card is in a hidden place; usually your hand, but maybe your discard. Though Patron seems to be a weird exception, it’s a reaction even though it is always publicly visible at the time that it is reacting.

Sure, but if you don't want to create a new type, it can only be a Reaction.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 15, 2020, 05:12:45 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 15, 2020, 01:21:00 am

Quote from: segura on September 15, 2020, 01:08:40 am

Nothing against new types, but why not simply make it a pure Reaction?

Other cards with on-gain or on-trash abilities aren’t reactions though. Not that they couldn’t have been, but as I understand it, the reason they aren’t is because reactions happen when the card is in a hidden place; usually your hand, but maybe your discard. Though Patron seems to be a weird exception, it’s a reaction even though it is always publicly visible at the time that it is reacting.

Yup. Angel doesn’t function as a Reaction in the same way cultist does not function as a reaction.

Also, I had to increase the pile so in a 4 player game, if the best opening is Angel/Angel/Angel, players 3 and 4 don’t get screwed. And, if you wanted to delay your angel opening and trash a bigger hand later, you have the option to do so since as a Companion, your copies are saved for you.

There’s another solution of making it a Victory card, but adding Vp to this muddled the core idea. A victory card also doesn’t allow the “save for later” that Companion type does.

Knowing those answers, do you still think Companion doesn’t make sense?

Thanks for the feedback! As always I am grateful and upvote helpful  discussion on my cards.

Quote from: faust on September 15, 2020, 07:04:58 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 14, 2020, 03:57:00 pm

love this concept! However, it may be too powerful at costing 4. The first player to buy a province would pay 8 for this. If they are able to afford 8 again, they have leveled up them to be both worth more than a province, and there’s only 2 left in supply (for 2 player game)

Could you cost this 5 and have it have some benefit. Like an action card that can trash a card from your hand for +1$? I just worry costing it 4 is a little too strong .

I've already wondered whether $4 is too high rather than too low. I mean sure, one player could do what you describe, leaving 2 copies in the supply, but if they do, then the opponent can just grab the remaining 2 for half the price, so the analysis there isn't really complete.

And I think this already has enough going on, I wouldn't want to tack an extra ability onto it.

I agree. After posting I realized it would be too much going on. I think 4 is pretty easy to pile out, and I never buy a province at first if they are in the supply. It’s guaranteed it to be worth as much or more than a province for the same price. If you cost it 5, I sometimes buy it over my first province. So I think 5 is more interesting there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 15, 2020, 11:07:57 pm

I would recommend making Angel one of the existing types for interactions. With a treasure (opening up some fun gaining and trashing interactions) you could clarify it does nothing on play with $0 signs in the top corners.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on September 17, 2020, 01:06:02 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 15, 2020, 01:21:00 am

Quote from: segura on September 15, 2020, 01:08:40 am

Nothing against new types, but why not simply make it a pure Reaction?

Other cards with on-gain or on-trash abilities aren’t reactions though. Not that they couldn’t have been, but as I understand it, the reason they aren’t is because reactions happen when the card is in a hidden place; usually your hand, but maybe your discard. Though Patron seems to be a weird exception, it’s a reaction even though it is always publicly visible at the time that it is reacting.

I think all reaction cards are visible when react (or are made visible by the reaction) and possible hidden before being triggered and Patron is not an exception (for instance, Moat also has to be revealed to react).

Patron is different because it's the only reaction without "you may" in the text. With the others, you can choose to make them visible or not, but, if you want to trigger the intendend effect of the reaction, you have to make them visible.

With some cards (Inn, Ambassador, Courtier and Gladiator, for example), you may sometimes choose if you want to reveal a Patron or not. In these cases, it works like the other reactions (revealing it and trigger the effect is optional). So, it's different from on trashing or on gaining effects, in which the target card (of trash or gain) is by definition already chosen and revealed when the act that trigger the effect occurs and so there's no more the option to not reveal that card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on September 18, 2020, 08:41:00 am

I am in the last stages of testing and will announce results later today.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 18, 2020, 01:31:14 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 15, 2020, 11:07:57 pm

I would recommend making Angel one of the existing types for interactions. With a treasure (opening up some fun gaining and trashing interactions) you could clarify it does nothing on play with $0 signs in the top corners.

Thank you, I hadn’t thought of that! A treasure pile with 12 copies would solve most design considerations. (It does not provide the ability to save for later that companions do, as someone could Buy your copies). I find it inelegant to have a playable card that does nothing on play. I appreciate your feedback, but I’m sticking with Companion.

I already have designs for a complementary Devil (a companion that attacks on gain), a Companion that remodels a card when gained or trashed, a Companion that grants an extra turn, and more. It’s a rich design space, and perhaps it seems overly complicated to introduce for just one card. I still think it’s the most elegant way to solve the design issues with Angel that other solutions do not solve.

I’m okay with not allowing those interactions — night cards don’t allow those interactions to expand dominion to create non victory cards that aren’t playable during action or buy phase. I’ve expanded it to create non victory cards that aren’t playable in any phase.

Thank you again for your feedback

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on September 19, 2020, 01:42:05 am

Agistor by Fragasnap (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853469#msg853469)
This is more like Research than Apprentice, and I treated it accordingly.  The major advantage over Research is that Agistor does not dud if you have already drawn your deck.  You also get the interesting self synergy of trashing a Horse to Agistor and netting two Horses.  Animal Fair plays very well with it, offering a compelling benefit no matter which trashes the other.  In fact, you will probably do both during the game.

Angel by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853605#msg853605)
A very interesting design space but also a highly centralizing specific card.  The most important effect that I noticed is that many $3 cards are not appealing anymore after opening Angel/Angel/Angel, so I would usually find myself gaining Silver.  I think the strength of the trashing needs to be cut back.  Please explore this card type more.

Animate by Grep (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853596#msg853596)
This one gets wild with self-trashing cards, promoting Pixie or Raze rushes, which, incidentally, is a good reason that it doesn't hand out Imps.  The smaller number of Ghosts compared to typical piles makes a good limiting factor.  Still, it can't go completely off the rails because you have to buy other actions so that you don't end up in a Village Idiot type situation where your Ghosts have no good targets.

Attendant by Marpharos (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853583#msg853583)
The on-trash effect is very useful to complement other trashers, but the on play is too inconsistent and minor to justify putting in the deck.  If you can regularly trigger two of the effects, you are probably choking on victory or curse cards.

Charity by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853486#msg853486)
This is another $5 Gold with drawback like Cache or Contraband, but the drawback here is especially painful.  You might spike to a useful price point, but you are also making it much easier for your opponent to do the same.  It does not seem worth it.  Other cards in the same design space (Governor, Council Room) have much greater disparities between the benefit to your and to your opponent.  On top of that, $4<4> is a very high price to get the card into your deck while not playing nice with TfB cards, and buying it specifically to gain the Wish later seems like a wasted opportunity to buy the card you want now.

Curator by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853513#msg853513)
I apologize, I never got around to testing this one.  It like that the money it can generate gets high for its cost but is necessarily limited by the turn count.  The synergy with draw-to-x is also very nice.  Keeping track of the cost in irl games seems like a chore, and the "set it aside" clause is overkill.  The gain is already rather strong.

Dandelion Field by Xen3k (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853575#msg853575)
Similar pile-out math to Rubber Duchy below.  The noteworthy differences are that it is not an eternal junk card in your deck and thus safer to buy earlier and that the payoff conditions may be met over multiple turns.  Appeals to the Distant Lands enthusiast who wants to get away with not spending actions.

Glade (Lost Book) by Rhodos (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853463#msg853463)
This pair offers very strong trashing once and weaker trashing otherwise.  It doesn't lend itself to over-trashing and is much better on the 3/4 split than other Woodcutter variants because of getting an Estate out of your deck, though then you have to calculate when it is worth it to have two Woodcutters in your deck in order to get rid of 4 Coppers--too early and you risk terminal collision.  Glade plays well with TfB cards by getting rid of the cards that are poor targets while supplying a nice $4 if necessary, especially if you want to risk buying that extra Glade specifically to trash one more junk card.

Grindstone (Scraps) by alion8me (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853512#msg853512)
Grindstone is certainly too powerful.  Five cards for $5 is more than the more expensive Hunting Grounds even if it does have a drawback.  On the other hand, Scraps is very fun.  It makes for a nice Ruins-like card with a hidden advantage.  I would like to see other cards that make use of it, though it needs a different name after Menagerie in order to prevent confusion.

Insurance by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853490#msg853490)
This one sees its best work in kingdoms with trashing attacks or self-trashing cards and a little less good with Remodel Variants.  It can pick up Golds that were Remodeled into Provinces, but, by the point in the game when that is happening, you may not have time to take advantage of it.  Being cavalier about trashing engine pieces will be more safe with this.

Junkyard by mail-mi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853510#msg853510)
Junkyard is like a Shepherd that provides its own fuel.  It has the potential to choke your deck, but this is reduced by pairing it with other sources of draw.  The calculus surrounding megaturns is very interesting: not only do you have to weigh trashing the Junkyard for that small bit of extra draw, but you may have already emptied the Ruins by that point in the game, making every Junkyard harder to activate.  Be careful that you have not helped your opponent three-pile you.

Marshland by faust (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853579#msg853579)
Marshland plays very differently in different kingdoms.  Ample gainers and you have a Gardens rush.  No buys or gains and you have a sort of overpay chicken.  There are bizarre interactions with Rogue and Graverobber since you can actually make the value go down instead of up.  Is it really a benefit to trash my copy when my opponent is holding his?  I would have to play this many more times before I really understand it.

Reconstruct by silverspawn (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853442#msg853442)
This card reminds me of a cross between Feast and Treasure Map.  The set up is hard, and the pay off is not very interesting.  Managing to play two in one turn and trash a third on the second play is enough for a Province, but that is three buys, good village support, and plenty of draw/sifting to get it to happen.  It is a better card in games with Desperation or Pooka as a way to lessen the blow of cursing yourself (also giving Pooka more to churn) or if there are especially good $2 cards for burning your estates.

Refinery by Jonatan Djurachkovitch (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853551#msg853551)
This card also plays differently in different kingdoms.  It reminds me of the bimodal Nocturne cards like Tragic Hero that could work for different strategies but have to be manipulated carefully to make it happen.  It plays especially well with other gainers.

Rubber Duchy by LibraryAdventurer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853441#msg853441)
A very amusing card.  It has certain qualities in common with Feodum: a TfB target that leaves behind more targets.  The major difference in that respect is that Feodum gives you payload after you crack it, whereas Rubber Duchy is the payload itself, but only if you can trash it twice in one turn.  The set-up rules also make Duchy-dancing less effective but simultaneously easier if you have the buys or gains.  I did not play enough games to tell, but I expect pile outs are a big deal.

Silver Ore by lompeluiten (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853481#msg853481)
Silver Ore spikes really hard due to the coffers.  It might be par without trashing, but with trashing, the extra coffers get you into a runaway loop.  Spices is already pretty strong, and Spices BM relies on the coffers to run smoothly.  Silver Ore, at $3, is a lot easier to get a larger pile of coffers out of (even if you are missing out on the buys).  I feel like it ought to cost more or cost less with reduced effect.

Snake Oil/Charlatan by D782802859 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853485#msg853485)
Snake Oil makes an interesting comparison with Mill.  Effectively having fewer Estates and more Coppers in your deck improves the average cost of cards you are buying early, though it is less impressive than Mill for that purpose unless you have support like cheap extra buys.  The on-trash effect is very nice for giving one last boost at the point when it has outlived its usefulness. 
Charlatan, on the other hand, is overtly powerful.  If it was its own pile, it would be wildly overpowered.  In one of my games, I used it to gain or buy a total of 5 Provinces and a Duchy in one turn.  That is definitely a split you can not afford to lose.  I would still price it higher because playing three actions total with the option to play treasures instead is all the best parts of Crown and Procession simultaneously.

Strategic Village by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853465#msg853465)
I played a game with this and Bishop which went sideways.  My opponents took advantage of my Bishop plays to get their own Hirelings on the board.  One did not even get his own trashers.  Speaking of Hireling, I think this is overpowered at $4.  It is far to easy to get that permanent +1 card.  The consideration of needing the bonus action could give pause on the decision to trash but not when other villages are present.  I find the balance on that decision very lopsided.

Valkyrie by gambit05 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853513#msg853513)
It looks balanced on its own, but it spirals out of hand with the right trasher or exiler.  Catapult, for example, is not especially fast, but it does easily get 6 different cards into the trash by itself.  Valkyrie handles the exiling side and then gets trashed at the right time for a giant pile of tokens (plus a Curse to your opponent for good measure).  I am not sure how to balance it because it seems either grindingly slow or bananas with no middle ground.

Wand by mandioca15 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853506#msg853506)
If you trash the card by the end of the game, there is no drawback, and you don't even lose buying power for doing so.  Far too powerful.

Way of the Tardigrade by grrgrrgrr (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853578#msg853578)
Absolutely bonkers.  Village+Death Cart is $10 without much effort.  Hermit makes an entire functional deck out of cards that cost 3 or less.  Urchin draws your entire deck.  The concept is a lot of fun, but it requires some sort of limiting factor, perhaps setting aside the card to be discarded at clean-up.


Winner: Marshland by faust  (7-3i points out of 10, would get confused again)
Runners-up: Junkyard by mail-mi, Dandelion Field by Zen3k and Rubber Duchy by LibraryAdventurer

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 19, 2020, 03:58:28 am

Thank you for the award! I always love to create cards that are difficult to use well, and I'm glad the concept for this one worked out so well.

Anyways, here comes the next round:

Challenge #88: Use all the design space!

Create a card or card-shaped object with a nonstandard back. Official examples are Stash, Miserable/Twice Miserable and Deluded/Envious. Please specify the way in which the back of your design differs from regular cards.

UPDATE: Anyone who designed a 2-sided card that can enter a player's deck should specify how shuffling is handled with the different back.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 19, 2020, 04:08:30 am

Congratulations to faust and the runner-ups. Thanks to chronostrike for the excellent judging.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 19, 2020, 08:04:20 am

Congrats to faust for winning, and thanks to Chronostrike for the excellent judging. Here is my submission, using a two-sided state.

Quote

Diplomacy
$5 - Event
Take Expansion if you don't have Expansion or Funds.

Expansion:
At the start of your turn, remove one coin token from here for +1 Card. If there are no coin tokens here at the end of your buy phase you may pay any amount of $ to flip this over to Funds and put that many coin tokens on it. Then, if you paid at least $3, +2 VP.

Funds:
At the start of your turn, remove one coin token from here for +1 Coffers. If there are no coin tokens here at the end of your buy phase you may pay any amount of $ to flip this over to Expansion and put that many coin tokens on it.

For clarification: there is one copy of Funds/Expansion per player.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on September 19, 2020, 08:18:52 am

Here's my entry, using a two-sided mat.

(https://i.imgur.com/pG2O6WE.png?1)

(https://i.imgur.com/1Xv2wnD.png?2) (https://i.imgur.com/TRGW6zH.png?2)

Each player starts with a copy of Dissent. Dissent tokens are added to this mat. At any time on your turn, you may flip it by removing three Dissent tokens. The rest of the tokens carry over to Revolution where they can be removed to draw cards. Dissent can still be added while it's flipped. At the end of the turn Dissent was flipped into Revolution, it flips back to Dissent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 19, 2020, 08:50:50 am

Looks weak. You gotta trash 2 Estates until this does something. I cannot see any situation in which this is superior to Junk Dealer, Update or Sanctuary.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 19, 2020, 08:56:23 am

Like the card! It feels weird as written that you can gain Dissent while you don't have it face up, and it is also unclear that the tokens on Dissent get carried over to Revolution. Maybe if you write "+1 Dissent/Revolution per $1..." or if you make it another card that gets flipped, instead of the mat with the tokens on it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 19, 2020, 09:00:46 am

Quote from: segura on September 19, 2020, 08:50:50 am

Looks weak. You gotta trash 2 Estates until this does something. I cannot see any situation in which this is superior to Junk Dealer, Update or Sanctuary.

I disagree, it is clearly a megaturn card, and with just your starting estates as fodder it can triplelab when you pull the trigger.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 19, 2020, 09:03:40 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 19, 2020, 09:00:46 am

Quote from: segura on September 19, 2020, 08:50:50 am

Looks weak. You gotta trash 2 Estates until this does something. I cannot see any situation in which this is superior to Junk Dealer, Update or Sanctuary.

I disagree, it is clearly a megaturn card, and with just your starting estates as fodder it can triplelab when you pull the trigger.

It takes a lot of time to trash all 3 Estates. Update would have netted you 3 Silvers in the meantime while Junk Dealer would have also helped your economy quite a bit.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 19, 2020, 09:06:57 am

I'd rather compare it to Apprentice than Junk Dealer but it still feels slightly weaker.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 19, 2020, 09:10:07 am

Well, it is. Apprentice draws far earlier than this card. I guess the problem is the 3 threshold, that simply makes it too weak.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 19, 2020, 09:17:38 am

You're right. Maybe if you lower it to two? That would make the second Estate trash stronger, and maybe that's too much variance? Another possibility is giving a bonus for turning it over, like +$3 or something.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 19, 2020, 09:19:17 am

I guess you would have to test and see the balance.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on September 19, 2020, 09:57:57 am

Wizard
cost $5 - Action - Attack
+3 Cards
If you have a Wizard in hand, each other player without a Wizard or a Valkyrie in hand gains a Curse.

Valkyrie
cost $5 - Action - Attack
+$3
If you have a Valkyrie in hand, each other player without a Wizard or a Valkyrie in hand discards down to 3 cards in hand.


Wizard/Valkyrie is two sided card. One side is Wizard, and the other is Valkyrie.  You may play this as whichever card you like.  To moat?  Just buy this.

EDIT: how to shuffle: put it anywhere in your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 19, 2020, 10:07:07 am

This needs some reveal formulation to keep all players honest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 19, 2020, 10:10:14 am

Quote from: segura on September 19, 2020, 10:07:07 am

This needs some reveal formulation to keep all players honest.

No it doesn't, it's two-sided so all players can see it already. But I would like to know how you deal with shuffling; can you place this anywhere Stash style, or should you keep your eyes closed while shuffling?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 19, 2020, 10:11:27 am

What does "Having a Valkyre in hand mean excactly? If I play a Wizard, with the attack because I have another Wizard and then draw a Wizard which I play as a Valkyre, does the other Wizard count toward the "if you have a Valkyre in hand" clause? Are they the same card, except you can play it with one of the options, or are they different cards that you can exchange for each other whenever?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 19, 2020, 10:18:55 am

Also relevant rules question for this: Which side is up and available to be played by Command cards while it's in the supply?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 19, 2020, 10:21:20 am

Quote from: faust on September 19, 2020, 10:18:55 am

Also relevant rules question for this: Which side is up and available to be played by Command cards while it's in the supply?

Non-issue. As the poster said, it is a card with dual use.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 19, 2020, 11:41:20 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f6625b55858d03988a5c87a/580a45f34ea6d01d5566540e133093b3/image.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/41/Stash-back-2.jpg/387px-Stash-back-2.jpg)

Quote

Assay • $4+ • Action - Treasure
+1 Action
+$2
You may place a card with a red back from anywhere in your deck on top of your deck.
-
When you buy this, you may overpay. For each $1 you overpay, gain an Assay.

12 cards in the supply pile (+ a regular blue-back randomizer). Has a red back like stash; can be used with other, future cards with red backs, as well as with itself or stash.
You don't get to reveal or look through your deck - you simply fan it out, face down, and pull a red card and put it on top if one exists, then put the rest of the deck back in order.
It's an Action - Treasure because this way you can pull red backed cards during your turn, or not use an action on it and just play it during your buy phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on September 19, 2020, 12:16:34 pm

Quote

Name: Shaman Village
Cost: $4
Types: Action, Attack
+1 card
+2 actions
Reveal your hand. Each other player gains a Curse per Shaman Village revealed.

---

When you shuffle, the player to your left puts this anywhere in your deck.

Like a reverse Stash, it goes wherever you don't want it to go in your deck. I have no idea whether $4 is a fair cost.

The concept of the card was the bottom half. I went through a lot of different ideas for the top half before settling on this one. I wanted a card like Treasure Map that wanted you to collide them, because that creates interesting decisions for the opponent in where to place it: put them all on the bottom to make them miss the shuffle, but then they all collide and get a huge benefit. I thought about a payload card that would give you +$ or +VP or "gain a card costing up to $x" based on the number revealed, but that seems to just reward you for drawing your deck. Handing out a Curse per copy revealed makes it so the collision effect matters early, but not after the curses run out, when you're more likely to be drawing your deck anyway. And being a Village makes it so you want to play it at the start of your hand, which makes it harder to have more copies of it in your hand when you play it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on September 19, 2020, 03:38:04 pm

Camping and Travelling mechanic

It's a two-sided 'blank state' that some kingdom cards have. At the start of your turn, choose which side you want ('Camping' or 'Travelling'), and it stays that way for the rest of the turn. Choose which mode you need to be in.

Some example camp/travel cards to demonstrate the possibilities:

Quote

Historian - Action, $5 cost.
If you're Camping, +3 Cards. If you're Travelling, draw until you have 7 cards in hand.

You can do cards with two play modes to choose from each turn. Do you need your draw to be smithies or draw to 7 this turn? Sometimes you want to flip modes during the game, other games you want to stick to one or the other.

Quote

Prospector - Action Reserve, $5 cost.
If you're Travelling, gain a card to your hand costing up to $6. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you flip to Travelling, you may discard this from your Tavern mat.

Slow and spiky. After you play it, you have to spend a later turn Camping, then the turn after flip to Travelling to discard it off the mat.

Quote

Provisioner - Action, $8* cost.
+1 Card
+1 Action
If you're Travelling, + $2.
-
If you're Camping, this costs $3 less.

Only works in one mode, but it's more purchasable in the other.

Balance may be off, and the qualification for this contest may be too loose, but maybe this is still interesting.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on September 19, 2020, 03:47:38 pm

Dual Event: Pillage and Enslave. The event starts on pillage, then flips every time it is bought to reveal the other one. One is big money, one is engine. Inspired by the symmetry between horses and spoils.
(https://i.imgur.com/ic0EAEt.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/LGCeH7u.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 19, 2020, 03:53:57 pm

I think they are both too good. With 1 instead of 2 Coffers/Villagers they look less crazy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on September 19, 2020, 04:39:58 pm

Quote from: segura on September 19, 2020, 03:53:57 pm

I think they are both too good. With 1 instead of 2 Coffers/Villagers they look less crazy.

What would be better: 1 coffer/villager at $3, or 2 at $4?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 19, 2020, 05:13:38 pm

there's already a card named Pillage (and there's a whole lot of potential baggage around naming a card "enslave"); can I suggest "Pilfer" and "Recruit" as alternate names? then the art could be like, a thieves guild type thing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on September 19, 2020, 07:39:09 pm

Quote from: spineflu on September 19, 2020, 05:13:38 pm

there's already a card named Pillage (and there's a whole lot of potential baggage around naming a card "enslave"); can I suggest "Pilfer" and "Recruit" as alternate names? then the art could be like, a thieves guild type thing.

Good idea, I'll change the names in my next mock-up

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 20, 2020, 04:04:11 am

This is not an easy challenge, but here's what I came up with:
EDIT: I have updated my entry here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853907#msg853907
I moved the card FAQ to the post with the updated version so all the important stuff is in one post.

Quote

Cheater
Cost $5 - Action - Attack
Put a card from your discard pile into your hand. +2 Cards.
Choose one for each other player: Turn over a Two-bit on their Tavern Mat, put a Two-bit from their discard pile onto their Tavern Mat, or put a Two-bit from the trash into their discard pile.
-
Heirloom: 2 Two-bits (replaces 2 Coppers).

Cheater has a normal back, its heirloom, Two-bits is double-sided:

Quote

Two-bit Heads
Cost $1 - Treasure - Heirloom - Reserve
Gain a Copper to your hand. When you discard this from play, +1 Coffers.
-
When you draw this during clean-up, put it on your Tavern Mat. If this is on your Tavern mat at the start of your turn, play the side that's face up.

Quote

Two-bit Tails
Cost $1 - Treasure - Heirloom - Reserve
+$2.
Discard down to 3 cards in hand.
-
When you draw this during clean-up, put it on your Tavern Mat. If this is on your Tavern mat at the start of your turn, play the side that's face up.

feedback is appreciated.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 20, 2020, 05:50:45 pm

Ok, this may not even function properly under current Dominion rules, but I took a shot at this.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119735141_322782025693686_5646133322734507802_n.png?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=n661lnulvlMAX-kPywT&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=33cb1403a54993db33354c350715f674&oe=5F8BF1C2)

You have a stack of 10 Hidden Witch cards as your Kingdom stack. Similar to Heirlooms, each player gets a Reference card for Hidden Witch. The Setup text on Hidden Witch may not be needed but I was unsure how else to set up the initial state of the Reference card. Could use some suggestions for this.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119882557_708441383362999_3426123535852297016_n.png?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=BE75P5KMv78AX-LoKUU&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=97cbb39c757eff546cae0d0a0364a464&oe=5F8D9894) (https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119922993_689666465235432_8201890118696346790_n.png?_nc_cat=100&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=h32ApXaHcPQAX84OOin&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=f11cd4aa682093d596e16c11b779067a&oe=5F8CDC97)

Spinster/Crone is the double sided Reference card for Hidden Witch. The Reference card is not considered to be part of your deck, but it does determine the text on the Hidden Witch cards in your deck.

So, a brief run-down of the rules for this (likely missed some things).
- Hidden Witch never has a different name than Hidden Witch.
- Hidden Witch has a set price, but I considered making it dependent on the Reference card.
- Hidden Witch does have the card type "Reference", even though it is not the double sided Reference Card. This may cause some issues, but am unsure how to resolve this.
- The card text on the actual Hidden Witch is primarily to point to the Reference card text and to establish that the text on Hidden Witch does not actually change when it is revealed. The text is set when revealed and stays the same until no longer revealed.
- The state of "being revealed" is kinda vague to me, but I am under the impression that cards that are set aside remain revealed, so the retention of card text and card types should not be too much of a hassle.
- Hidden Witch is  not considered revealed when in it's Kingdom stack, so when your Reference for it is Crone, the Hidden Witch cards in the Kingdom are considered "Night - Attack - Reference" cards, so trashing a Squire can get you a Hidden Witch at that time. This may need to be added to the text of Hidden Witch, idk.

As I said at the beginning I am not sure this actually even works. This is a really tough design challenge and I wanted to try something fancy. This is more of a proof of concept as I think this has a wide-open design space. Please let me know if this makes sense. Feedback and criticism is more then welcome.

Edit: Changed price to $4.

Edit 2: Working on a new post for this with cleaned up cards and rules. Ignore this entry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on September 20, 2020, 07:10:28 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on September 20, 2020, 05:50:45 pm

Ok, this may not even function properly under current Dominion rules, but I took a shot at this.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119676171_332338621440713_2263259021316154368_n.png?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=U64fVl1OlQUAX_QZro4&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=2fa7baa14c5b3489ce445b1cfe1813e1&oe=5F8EC056)

You have a stack of 10 Hidden Witch cards as your Kingdom stack. Similar to Heirlooms, each player gets a Reference card for Hidden Witch. The Setup text on Hidden Witch may not be needed but I was unsure how else to set up the initial state of the Reference card. Could use some suggestions for this.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119882557_708441383362999_3426123535852297016_n.png?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=BE75P5KMv78AX-LoKUU&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=97cbb39c757eff546cae0d0a0364a464&oe=5F8D9894) (https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119922993_689666465235432_8201890118696346790_n.png?_nc_cat=100&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=h32ApXaHcPQAX84OOin&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=f11cd4aa682093d596e16c11b779067a&oe=5F8CDC97)

Spinster/Crone is the double sided Reference card for Hidden Witch. The Reference card is not considered to be part of your deck, but it does determine the text on the Hidden Witch cards in your deck.

So, a brief run-down of the rules for this (likely missed some things).
- Hidden Witch never has a different name than Hidden Witch.
- Hidden Witch has a set price, but I considered making it dependent on the Reference card.
- Hidden Witch does have the card type "Reference", even though it is not the double sided Reference Card. This may cause some issues, but am unsure how to resolve this.
- The card text on the actual Hidden Witch is primarily to point to the Reference card text and to establish that the text on Hidden Witch does not actually change when it is revealed. The text is set when revealed and stays the same until no longer revealed.
- The state of "being revealed" is kinda vague to me, but I am under the impression that cards that are set aside remain revealed, so the retention of card text and card types should not be too much of a hassle.
- Hidden Witch is  not considered revealed when in it's Kingdom stack, so when your Reference for it is Crone, the Hidden Witch cards in the Kingdom are considered "Night - Attack - Reference" cards, so trashing a Squire can get you a Hidden Witch at that time. This may need to be added to the text of Hidden Witch, idk.

As I said at the beginning I am not sure this actually even works. This is a really tough design challenge and I wanted to try something fancy. This is more of a proof of concept as I think this has a wide-open design space. Please let me know if this makes sense. Feedback and criticism is more then welcome.

This is sort of broken, it's a Baker that also nonterminally curses. It can only do each once a turn, but that's still a lot for $3.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 20, 2020, 07:34:11 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on September 20, 2020, 07:10:28 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on September 20, 2020, 05:50:45 pm

Ok, this may not even function properly under current Dominion rules, but I took a shot at this.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119676171_332338621440713_2263259021316154368_n.png?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=U64fVl1OlQUAX_QZro4&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=2fa7baa14c5b3489ce445b1cfe1813e1&oe=5F8EC056)

You have a stack of 10 Hidden Witch cards as your Kingdom stack. Similar to Heirlooms, each player gets a Reference card for Hidden Witch. The Setup text on Hidden Witch may not be needed but I was unsure how else to set up the initial state of the Reference card. Could use some suggestions for this.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119882557_708441383362999_3426123535852297016_n.png?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=BE75P5KMv78AX-LoKUU&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=97cbb39c757eff546cae0d0a0364a464&oe=5F8D9894) (https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119922993_689666465235432_8201890118696346790_n.png?_nc_cat=100&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=h32ApXaHcPQAX84OOin&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=f11cd4aa682093d596e16c11b779067a&oe=5F8CDC97)

Spinster/Crone is the double sided Reference card for Hidden Witch. The Reference card is not considered to be part of your deck, but it does determine the text on the Hidden Witch cards in your deck.

So, a brief run-down of the rules for this (likely missed some things).
- Hidden Witch never has a different name than Hidden Witch.
- Hidden Witch has a set price, but I considered making it dependent on the Reference card.
- Hidden Witch does have the card type "Reference", even though it is not the double sided Reference Card. This may cause some issues, but am unsure how to resolve this.
- The card text on the actual Hidden Witch is primarily to point to the Reference card text and to establish that the text on Hidden Witch does not actually change when it is revealed. The text is set when revealed and stays the same until no longer revealed.
- The state of "being revealed" is kinda vague to me, but I am under the impression that cards that are set aside remain revealed, so the retention of card text and card types should not be too much of a hassle.
- Hidden Witch is  not considered revealed when in it's Kingdom stack, so when your Reference for it is Crone, the Hidden Witch cards in the Kingdom are considered "Night - Attack - Reference" cards, so trashing a Squire can get you a Hidden Witch at that time. This may need to be added to the text of Hidden Witch, idk.

As I said at the beginning I am not sure this actually even works. This is a really tough design challenge and I wanted to try something fancy. This is more of a proof of concept as I think this has a wide-open design space. Please let me know if this makes sense. Feedback and criticism is more then welcome.

This is sort of broken, it's a Baker that also nonterminally curses. It can only do each once a turn, but that's still a lot for $3.

It is a Baker that you can only play 1 of a turn and if you have a second one that turn you can play it as a curser. Getting more than 2 in your hand means one of them is a dead card that does nothing. You can never hand out more than 1 curse a turn with this even with villages.

It may very well need to be $4, honestly I thought I posted the $4 cost version.

Edit: And I managed to just repeat what you said. Good point, will edit the original post with a $4 cost version.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on September 21, 2020, 12:52:55 am

(https://abload.de/img/abundancecontestcwk7t.png)       (https://abload.de/img/subsistencecontest14jkc.png)


This two-sided card is a bit crazy, but this contest is really challenging (particularly if you don’t go sideways, and I wanted to try it the hard way). Abundance is face up in the pile and it’s the side you play as an Action (you never play Subsistence). The idea is that the front of the card can be very strong because the back does very little and the card is played less often than other cards.

My goals:

•  Make a card that feels like a Journey token;
•  Provide the most extreme version of the “Durations miss the shuffle” experience;
•  Avoid shuffling the card since we know which one it is.

Regarding Types: The “Journey” type is to remind you that it’s a strange card with strange instructions (I played with colors too, but settled for the slight shading difference between the front and back). Does Abundance need the Reaction type because of its “or discarded it other than at Clean-up” bit? (I would rather not add it and just say that "Journey" covers it.) I don’t think Subsistence needs the Action type or any additional type, as it isn’t played during your Action (or any other) phase. Is that ridiculous? Does it matter?

And one more thing: Pearl Diver is finally fun!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 21, 2020, 01:13:48 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on September 20, 2020, 04:04:11 am

This is not an easy challenge, but here's what I came up with:

Quote

Cheater
Cost $5 - Action - Attack
Put a card from your discard pile into your hand. +2 Cards.
Choose one for each other player: Turn over a Two-bit on their Tavern Mat, put a Two-bit from their discard pile onto their Tavern Mat, or put a Two-bit from the trash into their discard pile.
-
Heirloom: 2 Two-bits (replaces 2 Coppers).

Cheater has a normal back, its heirloom, Two-bits is double-sided:

Quote

Two-bit Heads
Cost $1 - Treasure - Heirloom - Reserve
Gain a Copper to your hand. When you discard this from play, +1 Coffers.
-
When you draw this during clean-up, put it on your Tavern Mat. If this is on your Tavern mat at the start of your turn, play the side that's face up.

Quote

Two-bit Tails
Cost $1 - Treasure - Heirloom - Reserve
+$2.
Discard down to 3 cards in hand.
-
When you draw this during clean-up, put it on your Tavern Mat. If this is on your Tavern mat at the start of your turn, play the side that's face up.

FAQ:
- Any Two-bits on your Tavern mat are played at the start of your turn. If you draw a Two-bit during your turn, you may play it at the start of your buy phase like a normal treasure, and you choose which side to play.
- When you first put a Two-bit on your Tavern m :'(at, you choose which side is face-up. Bdut if an opponent turns it over or puts it on your Tavern mat from your discard pile with Cheater, you can't turn it over again.
- Yes, I'm aware it gets political in 3+ player games. oh well. This probably won't win, but feedback is appreciated.

I don't think that handing out two-bits from the trash is going to be fun, especially not in 3+ player games, and they're already hard enough to get rid of.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 21, 2020, 04:23:08 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 21, 2020, 01:13:48 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on September 20, 2020, 04:04:11 am

<Cheater & two-bits>

I don't think that handing out two-bits from the trash is going to be fun, especially not in 3+ player games, and they're already hard enough to get rid of.

I didn't think about how hard they'd be to trash. So maybe I'll take out the part about giving them from the trash. I'm just concerned that Cheater might be too weak whenever players are able to quickly trash their Two-bits. Maybe I should have each player start with one Two-bit, and have Cheater make other players gain another Two-bit when you gain it. hmmm

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 21, 2020, 05:52:08 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on September 21, 2020, 04:23:08 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 21, 2020, 01:13:48 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on September 20, 2020, 04:04:11 am

<Cheater & two-bits>

I don't think that handing out two-bits from the trash is going to be fun, especially not in 3+ player games, and they're already hard enough to get rid of.

I didn't think about how hard they'd be to trash. So maybe I'll take out the part about giving them from the trash. I'm just concerned that Cheater might be too weak whenever players are able to quickly trash their Two-bits. Maybe I should have each player start with one Two-bit, and have Cheater make other players gain another Two-bit when you gain it. hmmm

You could always add a different attack for players without two-bits, so keeping around a two-bit is insurance against getting hit harder.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 21, 2020, 06:23:27 am

I think that you want to make keeping/getting rid of your two-bits a strategical desicion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 21, 2020, 07:00:16 am

Here's the updated (final) version of my entry:

I got rid of the gaining Two-bits from the trash and made Cheater give out Two-bits on gain instead of everyone starting with two of them.

Quote

Cheater
Cost $5 - Action - Attack
Put a card from your discard pile into your hand. +2 Cards.
Choose one for each other player: Turn over a Two-bit on their Tavern Mat, put a Two-bit from their discard pile onto their Tavern Mat.
-
When you gain this, each other player gains a Two-bit from its pile.
Heirloom: Two-bit.

Quote

Two-bit Heads
Cost $1 - Treasure - Heirloom - Reserve
Gain a Copper to your hand.  When you discard this from play, +1 Coffers.
-
When you draw this during clean-up, put it on your Tavern Mat. If this is on your Tavern mat at the start of your turn, play the side that's face up.

Quote

Two-bit Tails
Cost $1 - Treasure - Heirloom - Reserve
+$2.
Discard down to 3 cards in hand. If you discarded an Action card or a Two-bit, you may gain a Duchy.
-
When you draw this during clean-up, put it on your Tavern Mat. If this is on your Tavern mat at the start of your turn, play the side that's face up.

I also gave Two-bit Tails some incentive to keep them till the late game. Is it enough?
(Two-bit Heads is unchanged.)
FAQ:
- Any Two-bits on your Tavern mat are played at the start of your turn. If you draw a Two-bit during your turn, you may play it at the start of your buy phase like a normal treasure, and you choose which side to play.
- When you first put a Two-bit on your Tavern mat, you choose which side is face-up. But if an opponent turns it over or puts it on your Tavern mat from your discard pile with Cheater, you can't turn it over again.
- EDIT: Shuffling rule: When shuffling, you may put your Two-bit(s) anywhere in the top half of your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 21, 2020, 07:59:28 am

Impersonator
Action - $4
Gain a card costing up to $4
---
When shuffling this, you may look through your remaining deck, and may put this anywhere in the shuffled cards.

On the back, the following text is written:
While this card is on top of your deck, when you play an Action, you first get +1 Action

(Rules clarification: If you have an impersonator on top of your deck, then play a Smithy, you get +1 Action, then draw the cards. Revealing more Impersonators as you draw won't give you any more Actions).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 21, 2020, 08:20:07 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 21, 2020, 07:59:28 am

Impersonator
Action - $4
Gain a card costing up to $4
---
When shuffling this, you may look through your remaining deck, and may put this anywhere in the shuffled cards.

On the back, the following text is written:
While this card is on top of your deck, when you play an Action, +1 Action

(Rules clarification: If you have an impersonator on top of your deck, then play a Smithy, you get +1 Action, then draw the cards. Revealing more Impersonators as you draw won't give you any more Actions).

That looks interesting. Why not write on the back
...you first get +1 Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 21, 2020, 08:30:15 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 21, 2020, 08:20:07 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 21, 2020, 07:59:28 am

Impersonator
Action - $4
Gain a card costing up to $4
---
When shuffling this, you may look through your remaining deck, and may put this anywhere in the shuffled cards.

On the back, the following text is written:
While this card is on top of your deck, when you play an Action, +1 Action

(Rules clarification: If you have an impersonator on top of your deck, then play a Smithy, you get +1 Action, then draw the cards. Revealing more Impersonators as you draw won't give you any more Actions).

That looks interesting. Why not write on the back
...you first get +1 Action.

Could do that. I borrowed the wording directly from Champion (which I think gives you the Action first, not that it matters except for Black Market/Storyteller and Diadem)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 21, 2020, 09:19:53 am

Please be aware of the following addendum to this week's contest:

Quote from: faust on September 19, 2020, 03:58:28 am

UPDATE: Anyone who designed a 2-sided card that can enter a player's deck should specify how shuffling is handled with the different back.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 21, 2020, 10:05:42 am

My submission for contest #88

This tells the fictional story of an poor Earl’s son and a rich Merchant’s daughter, who marry for money and social status. Both don’t care much about each other and have affairs, which finally ends in a tragedy. The story was told in a series of six paintings by William Hogarth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_A-la-Mode_(Hogarth) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_A-la-Mode_(Hogarth))

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200921/rcgljwag.png) (https://s12.directupload.net/images/200921/8n8itl7a.png) (https://s12.directupload.net/images/200921/cxnh2bpi.png)

Couple $3 Action - Pact Quote If you have at least 3 cards in play, flip Marriage over (it starts with Convenience up).   Either way, follow the instructions    of the face-up side of Marriage.

Marriage - Convenience Pact Quote +1 Coffers and gain a Horse.                  Trash an Action card from the Supply.

Marriage - Affairs Pact Quote   Choose one: Gain a card from the Trash; or +2 Villagers.

Pacts are agreements of two (or more) parties, usually with the intention of mutual benefits.

Here, Pacts are double-sided card-shaped thingies that are shared by all players and are linked to a specific Kingdom card. This Pact is called Marriage and is associated with the Action-Pact card Couple. The two sides are Marriage-Convenience and Marriage-Affairs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 21, 2020, 11:50:58 am

Quote from: faust on September 19, 2020, 03:58:28 am

Official examples are Stash, Miserable/Twice Miserable and Deluded/Envious.

I feel like Deluded/Envious doesn't really belong on this list. There's no in-game mechanic that ever causes you to flip the State over to its other side; really the way it's used feels more like a publishing choice to save on supplies/cards. They would play out exactly the same if they had been printed on 2 separate pieces of paper instead. Of course Miserable is similar, but at least that would require new wording for Misery (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Misery) if it were printed as 2 separate States; and it's also not possible to ever get Twice Miserable until you have Miserable first.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 21, 2020, 11:54:21 am

Quote from: segura on September 19, 2020, 08:50:50 am

Looks weak. You gotta trash 2 Estates until this does something. I cannot see any situation in which this is superior to Junk Dealer, Update or Sanctuary.

Update?

*Edit* Ah you mean Upgrade (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Upgrade) I assume?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on September 22, 2020, 03:30:20 am

Quadrangle
Action - $5
+1 action
+3 cards
Put 2 cards on top of your deck

Flip side of the card
You may play this card if it is on top of your deck
+2 cards

The design of the back side must look like any back of a card, with only some difference in the middle, so you don't notice it while shuffeling.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 22, 2020, 03:57:32 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 21, 2020, 11:50:58 am

Quote from: faust on September 19, 2020, 03:58:28 am

Official examples are Stash, Miserable/Twice Miserable and Deluded/Envious.

I feel like Deluded/Envious doesn't really belong on this list. There's no in-game mechanic that ever causes you to flip the State over to its other side; really the way it's used feels more like a publishing choice to save on supplies/cards. They would play out exactly the same if they had been printed on 2 separate pieces of paper instead. Of course Miserable is similar, but at least that would require new wording for Misery (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Misery) if it were printed as 2 separate States; and it's also not possible to ever get Twice Miserable until you have Miserable first.

Well, it makes it so that you can't be Deluded and Envious at the same time, that's an effect on the game. But yeah, they are not going particularly deep into the double-sidedness; I included them to make clear that submissions that only make light use of that would also be accepted, and to inspire people to not only think about kingdom cards for the design.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on September 22, 2020, 12:12:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/pm3jYZU.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/tBNmGbR.png) (https://i.imgur.com/Kcjfjr2.png)

The State is double-sided. An Expedition variant, help your next turn at the cost of some cards during the turn after that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 22, 2020, 12:27:28 pm

Challenge #88: Use all the design space!

This card is double-sided. Both sides have the same text/image. There is no back to this card. This card shuffles as normally.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/kseg0jr4.png)

Quote

Eager Hound - Action - $3
+2 Cards
Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Discard any and put the rest back in any order.
-
When no Actions are resolving, if this is the top card of your deck, you may play it.

Another in a series of Dogs that do interesting things! It sifts (the dog digs?) to help you set up other Eager Hounds to trigger. This card can even be played during an Opponents turn, your opponent minions you and you get lucky and a dog is on top of your deck.

In reality, those cases don't happen much. You want some help to trigger these dogs. Cartographer, Courtyard, probably some other card that begins with a C to all can help you set this up. If you overload on Eager Hounds to get lucky, well, just know that terminal +2 cards isn't a great card to stuff your deck with.

The bottom line is to prevent it from being played in the middle of actions that have you reveal cards from your deck, which is confusing. So, after an Action is resolved, at the start of your turn, if this card is on top (you will see it because it's double-sided), then you get to play it!

Open to feedback. This originally was a cantrip that allowed you to play Action cards when played (like a village). But this got complicated quick. So I simplified it to a terminal draw. I like the price point, but is the sifting slightly too strong? Should I change it to 1 card sifting instead? Not sure. I could price it 2 without absolutely no self-synergy (no sifting) as well. Not sure what is best.
Should this be a reaction?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 22, 2020, 12:34:04 pm

Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/4Y1Pvk5/Village-Outpost.png)

Strictly better than village, or a trap? Can you build an engine if all of your villages are on top? Maybe if you draw your deck every turn, it can work out or even be really nice?

(To be clear on the ruling, this card has a different back, you don't shuffle it into your deck, but set it aside and then put it on top afterward. If you have any other mechanisms that trigger when you shuffle, this resolves last (because the others trigger during the shuffle and this after).)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 22, 2020, 02:46:22 pm

Interesting card. Basically gives +1 Action at the start of every shuffle, and if you shuffle often that's pretty good. Can make for a really consistent engine, if you have a few draw cards, but gives you terminal collission city when you mess it up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 22, 2020, 06:49:48 pm

Ok, here is an updated version of Hidden Witch. The card text should be a little cleaner.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-0/p480x480/119864761_698702700729581_5537325040500685956_n.png?_nc_cat=104&ccb=2&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=lKgKmIy6wP0AX_YQw3a&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=99c43e72730d201330df15743ffd69ab&oe=5FCA7234) (https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-0/p480x480/120035667_371353917205539_1319618673360279054_n.png?_nc_cat=111&ccb=2&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=llt6WU8mxokAX-2w0RM&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=8ef8e2a383a1f7278c02cf1cb65a35b6&oe=5FCAC9D3) (https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-0/p480x480/120014621_670645013555903_6493829706007724024_n.png?_nc_cat=104&ccb=2&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=f8GTzZA_HRkAX8_ydGx&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=beca4acf401d52ebe74202035896d0a8&oe=5FCAB7CB)

Quote

Hidden Witch -$4
(no Type) Reference: Spinster/Crone
This has the text and types of its Reference. Use the active players Reference when not part of a deck.
While revealed, this does not change if its Reference flips.
(playing a card reveals it)

Quote

Spinster -(no Cost)
Action - Reference
+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 Coffers
Flip the Reference to Crone.
At the start of your Clean-up, flip the Reference to Spinster.
(this side starts face up)

Quote

Crone - (no Cost)
Night - Attack - Reference
Each other player gainst a Curse.
You may trash an Action card in play to gain an Imp.
Flip the Reference to Spinster.(this side starts face down)

Hidden Witch is a normal 10 card Kingdom stack that has a normal back. Each player starts the game with a copy of its double sided Reference (Spinster/Crone) near them with Spinster face up (as indicated on that card). When in the Kingdom or the Trash, Hidden Witch uses the text and types of the active players copy of Spinster/Crone. When part of a players deck it uses that players copy regardless of whose turn it is. The text and type of Hidden Witch is set when revealed and does not change if its reference is flipped. When not revealed the text and type changes as the Reference is flipped.

Please let me know if this even works under the current rules of Dominion. I am intending this to be a proof of concept. If this just seems like a poor representation of the mechanic, I can try again. Thanks for your consideration.

Edit: Updated the image source. they should be viewable again. Added card text, but without the images it is hard to convey what I am trying to do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 22, 2020, 06:56:19 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 22, 2020, 12:27:28 pm

Challenge #88: Use all the design space!

This card is double-sided. Both sides have the same text/image. There is no back to this card. This card shuffles as normally.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/kseg0jr4.png)

Quote

Eager Hound - Action - $3
+2 Cards
Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Discard any and put the rest back in any order.
-
When no Actions are resolving, if this is the top card of your deck, you may play it.

This is a great concept.

How about "this may be played from the top of your deck (as it would be from your hand)". It is a nerf as you can't play an otherwise terminal card non terminally, but it is more robust rules wise.

Also "this card shuffles as normally" can't just be written in the rules for different backed cards. You will see the different back and a skilled shuffler can manipulate it. Stash was designed around that concept. It may be fine to just assume it has the effect of Stash when you're costing it without putting it in the card text.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mail-mi on September 22, 2020, 07:50:53 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 22, 2020, 12:27:28 pm

Challenge #88: Use all the design space!

This card is double-sided. Both sides have the same text/image. There is no back to this card. This card shuffles as normally.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/kseg0jr4.png)

Quote

Eager Hound - Action - $3
+2 Cards
Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Discard any and put the rest back in any order.
-
When no Actions are resolving, if this is the top card of your deck, you may play it.

Another in a series of Dogs that do interesting things! It sifts (the dog digs?) to help you set up other Eager Hounds to trigger. This card can even be played during an Opponents turn, your opponent minions you and you get lucky and a dog is on top of your deck.

In reality, those cases don't happen much. You want some help to trigger these dogs. Cartographer, Courtyard, probably some other card that begins with a C to all can help you set this up. If you overload on Eager Hounds to get lucky, well, just know that terminal +2 cards isn't a great card to stuff your deck with.

The bottom line is to prevent it from being played in the middle of actions that have you reveal cards from your deck, which is confusing. So, after an Action is resolved, at the start of your turn, if this card is on top (you will see it because it's double-sided), then you get to play it!

Open to feedback. This originally was a cantrip that allowed you to play Action cards when played (like a village). But this got complicated quick. So I simplified it to a terminal draw. I like the price point, but is the sifting slightly too strong? Should I change it to 1 card sifting instead? Not sure. I could price it 2 without absolutely no self-synergy (no sifting) as well. Not sure what is best.
Should this be a reaction?

You could make this an Action-Reaction and have the bottom worded as "Directly after any player finishes resolving an Action card, you may play this from the top of your deck." I think that would give you the same benefits and simplifies the wording a bit. (Also I think it should be a Reaction.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on September 23, 2020, 12:55:15 am

I think it is a $5. You can safely get two copies and converting played Actions into Imps is a pretty good ability; Exorcist can only do this with stuff from hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on September 23, 2020, 02:20:46 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 22, 2020, 12:27:28 pm

Challenge #88: Use all the design space!

This card is double-sided. Both sides have the same text/image. There is no back to this card. This card shuffles as normally.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/kseg0jr4.png)

Nice idea, but I'm not sure I get it entirely. If you shuffle a double-sided card "as normal," would you add an FAQ stating, "In games using this, players are instructed to close their eyes or stare at the ceiling while shuffling"? (In my experience, most Dominion players are warm, friendly, honest people who would never cheat intentionally, of course; but it might be difficult not to accidentally notice where a double-sided card was in the shuffle and consciously or unconsciously be influenced.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 23, 2020, 02:47:13 am

One way to avoid any intentional or unconscious manipulation of the shuffle is that after shuffling, the player to the right splits the shuffled deck randomly and puts the bottom cards on the top.
This is a common practice in the card games I know.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 23, 2020, 03:41:22 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 23, 2020, 02:47:13 am

One way to avoid any intentional or unconscious manipulation of the shuffle is that after shuffling, the player to the right splits the shuffled deck randomly and puts the bottom cards on the top.
This is a common practice in the card games I know.

Random splitting isn't really random. If the special-backed card is on top prior to the splitting, then that affects how the player to the right wants to split the deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 23, 2020, 03:49:00 am

Quote from: faust on September 23, 2020, 03:41:22 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 23, 2020, 02:47:13 am

One way to avoid any intentional or unconscious manipulation of the shuffle is that after shuffling, the player to the right splits the shuffled deck randomly and puts the bottom cards on the top.
This is a common practice in the card games I know.

Random splitting isn't really random. If the special-backed card is on top prior to the splitting, then that affects how the player to the right wants to split the deck.

Well yes, but it comes pretty close with a simple procedure.
One could argue that when the double-sided card is on top after shuffling, before splitting, is part of the feature of the card that gives a certain disadvantage as the other player has an additional option.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 23, 2020, 04:06:21 am

@Eager Hound: I think you shouldn't reveal cards when you don't need to. "Look at" works fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on September 23, 2020, 12:52:47 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on September 23, 2020, 03:49:00 am

Quote from: faust on September 23, 2020, 03:41:22 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 23, 2020, 02:47:13 am

One way to avoid any intentional or unconscious manipulation of the shuffle is that after shuffling, the player to the right splits the shuffled deck randomly and puts the bottom cards on the top.
This is a common practice in the card games I know.

Random splitting isn't really random. If the special-backed card is on top prior to the splitting, then that affects how the player to the right wants to split the deck.

Well yes, but it comes pretty close with a simple procedure.
One could argue that when the double-sided card is on top after shuffling, before splitting, is part of the feature of the card that gives a certain disadvantage as the other player has an additional option.

My point is that it's impractical. Whether it's your bias or the bias of another player who shuffles or cuts your deck, it seems to lie outside the spirit and dynamic of Dominion generally. (Involving a second player would also slow the game down.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 23, 2020, 01:18:51 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 22, 2020, 12:27:28 pm

Challenge #88: Use all the design space!

This card is double-sided. Both sides have the same text/image. There is no back to this card. This card shuffles as normally.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/kseg0jr4.png)

Quote

Eager Hound - Action - $3
+2 Cards
Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Discard any and put the rest back in any order.
-
When no Actions are resolving, if this is the top card of your deck, you may play it.

Another in a series of Dogs that do interesting things! It sifts (the dog digs?) to help you set up other Eager Hounds to trigger. This card can even be played during an Opponents turn, your opponent minions you and you get lucky and a dog is on top of your deck.

In reality, those cases don't happen much. You want some help to trigger these dogs. Cartographer, Courtyard, probably some other card that begins with a C to all can help you set this up. If you overload on Eager Hounds to get lucky, well, just know that terminal +2 cards isn't a great card to stuff your deck with.

The bottom line is to prevent it from being played in the middle of actions that have you reveal cards from your deck, which is confusing. So, after an Action is resolved, at the start of your turn, if this card is on top (you will see it because it's double-sided), then you get to play it!

Open to feedback. This originally was a cantrip that allowed you to play Action cards when played (like a village). But this got complicated quick. So I simplified it to a terminal draw. I like the price point, but is the sifting slightly too strong? Should I change it to 1 card sifting instead? Not sure. I could price it 2 without absolutely no self-synergy (no sifting) as well. Not sure what is best.
Should this be a reaction?

How do you see shuffling working with this? You say it shuffles as normal, but are you requiring people to shuffle with their eyes closed, or while avoiding looking down? As long as you can see your card backs in the deck while you are shuffling, it's basically impossible to avoid cheating, intentionally or unintentionally.

*Edit* I see now that there was already some discussion around this. But I would disagree that it takes a "skilled manipulator" to take advantage of it... just any person who is shuffling has to decide when to consider the shuffle as being done... if they can see whether the card on top of the deck is Eager Hound or not, it's impossible for them to not allow that to play a role in their decision of whether to shuffle another time or not.

*Edit again* I already experience this when playing in-person with my unsleeved sets, where basic cards are noticeably more worn than kingdom cards. I tend to avoid looking at the cards while shuffling, but it adds an extra difficulty to the process. It would be much worse with a 2-sided card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on September 23, 2020, 01:24:32 pm

Construct (Event, $4)

If you don't have Train, take Train; otherwise, flip over Train.

Train (State)
The first time you gain a card during each of your turns, put it here.

Reinforce (State)
At the start of each of your turns, put a card from here into your hand.

Train/Reinforce is a double-sided State card, which flips over whenever Construct is bought. Train allows you to build up a collection of cards, which Reinforce can then feed into your hand/deck, one at a time.

Cards on the Train/Reinforce card are not part of your deck, so don't leave any Victory cards there!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on September 23, 2020, 08:28:19 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/892/839/full/Master.png?1600922986)


(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/892/838/full/Young_Sorceress_%281%29.png?1600922950)  (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/892/841/original/Young_Saboteur_%281%29.png?1600923060)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/892/837/full/Young_Miner_%283%29.png?1600922907)  (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/892/840/full/Young_Bureaucrat_%282%29.png?1600923019)

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/892/572/full/Young_Merchant.png?1600905530)  (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/892/584/full/Young_Smith.png?1600905788)

Master is a Kingdom card.

Novice Cards are non supply double faced cards:

- Young Sorceress/Young Saboteur

- Young Miner/Young Bureaucrat

- Young Merchant/Young Smith

Setup: Put the Novice Cards on the table with Young Sorceress, Young Miner and Young Merchant faced up.

I don't know for sure:

- If _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} is a good cost for Master.

- Where to put the Attack type: in novice cards, in Master or both. (Edited: as said, it's better in Master)

Feedbacks are always welcome!


Edited to add Attack type to Master and remove from Novice Cards

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 23, 2020, 09:36:56 pm

Quote from: Carline on September 23, 2020, 08:28:19 pm

<Master & Novices>

I like the idea, but I think Master should cost $5 and have the attack type.
It would be fine at $4 if there were only 1 pair of attack novices with the pair of non-attack novices.
EDIT: I take that back. I was thinking you get the one and everyone else gets the other two. So, I think it's okay at $4 as it is, but I'd like it better if it always did something for the person playing it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 23, 2020, 09:56:00 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on September 23, 2020, 09:36:56 pm

Quote from: Carline on September 23, 2020, 08:28:19 pm

<Master & Novices>

I like the idea, but I think Master should cost $5 and have the attack type.
It would be fine at $4 if there were only 1 pair of attack novices with the pair of non-attack novices.

I take that back. I was thinking you get the one and everyone else gets the other two. So, I think it's okay at $4 as it is, but I'd like it better if it always did something for the person playing it.
(Double posting because you liked the post while I was editing it, so I wanted to let you know I edited it.)

I think if you just add +$1 for the player of the Master, then it would probably work at $5 cost. Or +$2 and remove the "if it's your turn" options on the Young Smith and Young Merchant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 23, 2020, 10:58:06 pm

Master should have the Attack type. As worded currently, the opponents being affected by the Attacks are also the ones playing them, which means that there's no way to block the attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 23, 2020, 11:43:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/J5DLe6V.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/cuCpWHM.png)(https://i.imgur.com/tq99JFE.png)

Clock starts out on the first side. When you take the Clock, it stays on whichever side it's on. If you take it while it's on the second side, you won't be able to trigger its effect until the next turn (unless you turn it over with the Clockmaker) because "the first time you play an Action card" will have already passed this turn by then.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on September 24, 2020, 12:52:02 am

This is a bit crazy idea I am struggling to formulate. An Event which has a card to the other side
(https://i.ibb.co/R6XBSQy/image.png) (https://i.ibb.co/MRh39cc/image.png)

Quote

Lair
$4 - Event
Trash a Treasure card costing $3 or more. If you did, flip this over and gain this.

Quote

Dragon
$6 - Action - Attack
+1 Action  +2 Cards  +3 Spoils
Each other player trashes a non-Victory card from hand costing $3 or more, or reveals their hand if they can't.
When this is discarded from play, flip it over and leave available as the Lair event.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 24, 2020, 12:55:14 am

I'm going to be traveling on the weekend, so I'm afraid I won't get to the judging until early Monday. You've got until then for new submissions/updates.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on September 24, 2020, 01:24:53 am

Quote from: grep on September 24, 2020, 12:52:02 am

This is a bit crazy idea I am struggling to formulate. An Event which has a card to the other side
(https://i.ibb.co/R6XBSQy/image.png) (https://i.ibb.co/MRh39cc/image.png)

Quote

Lair
$4 - Event
Trash a Treasure card costing $3 or more. If you did, flip this over and gain this.

Quote

Dragon
$6 - Action - Attack
+1 Action  +2 Cards  +3 Spoils
Each other player trashes a non-Victory card from hand costing $3 or more, or reveals their hand if they can't.
When this is discarded from play, flip it over and leave available as the Lair event.

Am I correct in assuming there's only one copy of this? If so, this gives too strong an advantage to the first player imo, since they'll be more likely to have the first opportunity to get the Dragon.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 24, 2020, 01:50:43 am

I don't think that the Dragon attack shouldn't be thronable. If you KC it you leave others with a hand of two coppers or something similar. I also think that three spoils is too much.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on September 24, 2020, 11:05:35 am

Quote from: grep on September 24, 2020, 12:52:02 am

Quote

Lair
$4 - Event
Trash a Treasure card costing $3 or more. If you did, flip this over and gain this.

Quote

Dragon
$6 - Action - Attack
+1 Action  +2 Cards  +3 Spoils
Each other player trashes a non-Victory card from hand costing $3 or more, or reveals their hand if they can't.
When this is discarded from play, flip it over and leave available as the Lair event.

Quote from: Gubump on September 24, 2020, 01:24:53 am

Am I correct in assuming there's only one copy of this? If so, this gives too strong an advantage to the first player imo, since they'll be more likely to have the first opportunity to get the Dragon.

It requires $4 + a spare Silver to be reached, which comes late enough to make the first player advantage negligible.

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 24, 2020, 01:50:43 am

I don't think that the Dragon attack shouldn't be thronable. If you KC it you leave others with a hand of two coppers or something similar. I also think that three spoils is too much.

I agree, throning might be quite devastating, will probably replace the hand reducing attack with something similar to Giant/Knights/Locusts to ensure that the opponent's hand is not completely destroyed and they have a chance to grab the dragon from the lair.
Three spoils are just fine, comparing to Pillage.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 24, 2020, 12:07:56 pm

Quote from: grep on September 24, 2020, 11:05:35 am

It requires $4 + a spare Silver to be reached, which comes late enough to make the first player advantage negligible.

Could get ugly with Cursed Gold/Lucky Coin though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 24, 2020, 04:57:15 pm

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 22, 2020, 06:56:19 pm

This is a great concept.

How about "this may be played from the top of your deck (as it would be from your hand)". It is a nerf as you can't play an otherwise terminal card non terminally, but it is more robust rules wise.

Thank you! I love your idea a lot, but I think the non-terminality is one of the cool parts of this card.

Quote from: mail-mi on September 22, 2020, 07:50:53 pm

You could make this an Action-Reaction and have the bottom worded as "Directly after any player finishes resolving an Action card, you may play this from the top of your deck." I think that would give you the same benefits and simplifies the wording a bit. (Also I think it should be a Reaction.)

Love it! I'm taking that wording!

Quote from: silverspawn on September 23, 2020, 04:06:21 am

@Eager Hound: I think you shouldn't reveal cards when you don't need to. "Look at" works fine.

Thanks for this! I'm actually going to remove look at too (no one gets to see), in order to speed it up and weaken it a little.


Lots of people had great discussion about the shuffle problems, and I thank each of you for your input.

Quote from: NoMoreFun on September 22, 2020, 06:56:19 pm

Also "this card shuffles as normally" can't just be written in the rules for different backed cards. You will see the different back and a skilled shuffler can manipulate it. Stash was designed around that concept. It may be fine to just assume it has the effect of Stash when you're costing it without putting it in the card text.

Quote from: spheremonk on September 23, 2020, 02:20:46 am

Nice idea, but I'm not sure I get it entirely. If you shuffle a double-sided card "as normal," would you add an FAQ stating, "In games using this, players are instructed to close their eyes or stare at the ceiling while shuffling"? (In my experience, most Dominion players are warm, friendly, honest people who would never cheat intentionally, of course; but it might be difficult not to accidentally notice where a double-sided card was in the shuffle and consciously or unconsciously be influenced.)

Quote from: gambit05 on September 23, 2020, 03:49:00 am

Quote from: faust on September 23, 2020, 03:41:22 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 23, 2020, 02:47:13 am

One way to avoid any intentional or unconscious manipulation of the shuffle is that after shuffling, the player to the right splits the shuffled deck randomly and puts the bottom cards on the top.
This is a common practice in the card games I know.

Random splitting isn't really random. If the special-backed card is on top prior to the splitting, then that affects how the player to the right wants to split the deck.

Well yes, but it comes pretty close with a simple procedure.
One could argue that when the double-sided card is on top after shuffling, before splitting, is part of the feature of the card that gives a certain disadvantage as the other player has an additional option.

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 23, 2020, 01:18:51 pm

How do you see shuffling working with this? You say it shuffles as normal, but are you requiring people to shuffle with their eyes closed, or while avoiding looking down? As long as you can see your card backs in the deck while you are shuffling, it's basically impossible to avoid cheating, intentionally or unintentionally.

*Edit* I see now that there was already some discussion around this. But I would disagree that it takes a "skilled manipulator" to take advantage of it... just any person who is shuffling has to decide when to consider the shuffle as being done... if they can see whether the card on top of the deck is Eager Hound or not, it's impossible for them to not allow that to play a role in their decision of whether to shuffle another time or not.

*Edit again* I already experience this when playing in-person with my unsleeved sets, where basic cards are noticeably more worn than kingdom cards. I tend to avoid looking at the cards while shuffling, but it adds an extra difficulty to the process. It would be much worse with a 2-sided card.

The direction I'm going with is to have the player to your right shuffle for you. This shouldn't slow down the game too much since it's the same number of shuffles. If the person to the right wants to shuffle in a "cheaty" way that leads to terrible placement of those cards... that's fine. There's plenty of deck-topping cards that allow you to still use this as a double lab. It just takes more work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 24, 2020, 05:04:04 pm

Challenge 88 Updated Submission

This card is double-sided. Both sides have the same text/image. There is no back to this card. In games using Eager Hound, the player to your right shuffles your deck when you need it shuffled. The intention of Dominion is that shuffling is random. If the other player does psuedo-random such that if they notice that Eager Hound is the 6th card in your deck or something, and they want to shuffle again, that is allowed. Think of this sort of like a lazy way that the player to the right can make the Eager Hounds not placed well, in a subtle way. If you are playing with a master card-manipulator like Ricky Jay, you were probably doomed even without Eager Hound.

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/gtaaa9xn.png)

Quote

Eager Hound - Action - Reaction - $3
+2 Cards
Discard up to 2 cards from the top of your deck
-
Directly after any player finishes resolving an Action card, you may play this from the top of your deck.

You may find your Eager Hounds not behaving so well since your shuffle luck is in the hands (pun intended) of your opponent. They still have the opportunity to help themselves line up, and this card behaves great with a card like Artisan.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 24, 2020, 10:06:03 pm

I like this new version of Eager Hound.

I have added a shuffling rule to my card's FAQ here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853907#msg853907
It is: When you shuffle, put the Two-bit(s) anywhere in the top half of your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on September 24, 2020, 10:31:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/W2FUUm4.png) (https://i.imgur.com/gD8KylW.png) (https://i.imgur.com/A8mlf9K.png)

Quote

Reassign

+1 Buy, flip over your Necessity or Luxury.
-
Setup: Each player takes Necessity.

Event
$1

Quote

Necessity

At the start of your turn, +1 Coffers.

State

Quote

Luxury

At the start of your turn, +1 Villager.

State

Necessity/Luxury is the two sided card-shaped thing, with 6 copies total so each player can have one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: infangthief on September 25, 2020, 10:01:58 am

How about an Event with a Landmark on the back:

(Face)

Quote

Event: Conservation; cost 6
Gain 3 Estates. If you do, flip this.

(Reverse)

Quote

Landmark: National Park
When scoring, +1VP per Victory card you have.

Preparation notes: When choosing a random kingdom, use the Estate randomiser to determine whether to use the Conservation/National Park landscape.

To clarify, this landscape always starts the game with the Conservation event uppermost; if any player gains 3 Estates with the Conservation event, then the Conservation event is no longer available and each player's score is modified by the National Park landmark.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on September 26, 2020, 05:41:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/xlZIJTD.png) (https://i.imgur.com/tQch7pD.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 27, 2020, 04:15:07 am

24 hours warning

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 27, 2020, 12:29:35 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on September 22, 2020, 06:49:48 pm

Ok, here is an updated version of Hidden Witch. The card text should be a little cleaner.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119864761_698702700729581_5537325040500685956_n.png?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=TKlNUH_NqLMAX-q44Hh&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=f79f1b2cee8a59fbfcac715f77e83efe&oe=5F917C8C) (https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/120035667_371353917205539_1319618673360279054_n.png?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=QAx9Kq40FIcAX9z9uE5&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=3f386f211dc391a2409248cc90c3d507&oe=5F8FD76B) (https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/120014621_670645013555903_6493829706007724024_n.png?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=r_zDhZNzdA4AX8m0W_s&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=741163503abfcdacfe7ed0adda86827d&oe=5F901E73)

Hidden Witch is a normal 10 card Kingdom stack that has a normal back. Each player starts the game with a copy of its double sided Reference (Spinster/Crone) near them with Spinster face up (as indicated on that card). When in the Kingdom or the Trash, Hidden Witch uses the text and types of the active players copy of Spinster/Crone. When part of a players deck it uses that players copy regardless of whose turn it is. The text and type of Hidden Witch is set when revealed and does not change if its reference is flipped. When not revealed the text and type changes as the Reference is flipped.

Please let me know if this even works under the current rules of Dominion. I am intending this to be a proof of concept. If this just seems like a poor representation of the mechanic, I can try again. Thanks for your consideration.

I used to be able to the the images, but it is now broken for me. If you want me to judge, please make them available again.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 27, 2020, 12:46:05 pm

Quote from: faust on September 27, 2020, 12:29:35 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on September 22, 2020, 06:49:48 pm

Ok, here is an updated version of Hidden Witch. The card text should be a little cleaner.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/119864761_698702700729581_5537325040500685956_n.png?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=TKlNUH_NqLMAX-q44Hh&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=f79f1b2cee8a59fbfcac715f77e83efe&oe=5F917C8C) (https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/120035667_371353917205539_1319618673360279054_n.png?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=QAx9Kq40FIcAX9z9uE5&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=3f386f211dc391a2409248cc90c3d507&oe=5F8FD76B) (https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/120014621_670645013555903_6493829706007724024_n.png?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=r_zDhZNzdA4AX8m0W_s&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=741163503abfcdacfe7ed0adda86827d&oe=5F901E73)

Hidden Witch is a normal 10 card Kingdom stack that has a normal back. Each player starts the game with a copy of its double sided Reference (Spinster/Crone) near them with Spinster face up (as indicated on that card). When in the Kingdom or the Trash, Hidden Witch uses the text and types of the active players copy of Spinster/Crone. When part of a players deck it uses that players copy regardless of whose turn it is. The text and type of Hidden Witch is set when revealed and does not change if its reference is flipped. When not revealed the text and type changes as the Reference is flipped.

Please let me know if this even works under the current rules of Dominion. I am intending this to be a proof of concept. If this just seems like a poor representation of the mechanic, I can try again. Thanks for your consideration.

I used to be able to the the images, but it is now broken for me. If you want me to judge, please make them available again.

I think I got it updated properly? Let me know if you can still not see the images.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 27, 2020, 04:25:04 pm

Well, I can see them from my phone, so maybe my adblocker registers them as ads for some reason.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on September 27, 2020, 09:52:19 pm

Final Version: Pilfer and recruit. I forgot to put this in, but they both cost $3.
(https://i.imgur.com/uFf8BIi.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/IVYqBLG.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 28, 2020, 05:56:54 am

We come to the judging, finally! I have ordered entries by username.

alion8me: Reassign (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854171#msg854171)
Having each player start out with Necessity will massively speed up the game, I think that's the biggest impact of this Event. Maybe Necessity and Luxury could change up the gameplay a bit more rather than being straight up boosts; for insteand Necessity could be "+1 Coffers, take your -1$ token". Still almost always positive, but not quite as powerful. I think I'd also prefer if it was a little bit harder to flip the State, right now it's pretty easy to get just what you need without much opportunity cost. Maybe get rid of the +buy or up the price.

anordinaryman: Eager Hound (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854158#msg854158)
I gotta say I don't like the fuzziness of the shuffling rules, like it's unclear what the opponent is allowed to do exactly, and that will create uncomfortable situations where someone might be accused of cheating when they believe they act within the intended rules. It's also unclear to me whether you're supposed to be able to see where those are in your deck, as in a regular game that can be hard to avoid. Speicifically, when you play this and "discard up to 2", can you see whether the second card in your deck is an Eager Hound before deciding on how much to discard? Finally, this is going to be a Double-Lab+ when it's on the top of your deck and as such I feel that it is underpriced.

Aquila: Camping and Travelling (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853843#msg853843)
This is a fairly simple way to open up design space, and I think it's neat. I would advise a retheme as currently it is both flavorwise and conceptually close to the Journey token while having subtly different mechanics. The cards all seem like good fits, though I am not sure that Historian really encourages switching it up. I might like Prospector better if it did nothing on play and you could call it when flipping for its effect, makes it even slower and spikier and more in the spirit of Reserve cards.

Carline: Master (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854081#msg854081)
This is a pretty cool concept, I like the idea of changing setups that you can force on your opponents if they don't suit you. So, the idea has a lot of potential. However, I think some more work needs to go into the Young X cards. In particular Young Saboteur needs some kind of limitation or will easily lead to pins. And you have double-junking here, which is Mountebank-level strong. So, some rebalancing to be done here, then this could be a really cool card.

D782802859: Traitor (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853814#msg853814)
So this is kind of like an Apprentice variant? It's always cantrip, which is an improvement over Apprentice, but slower and less effective at converting the trashed stuff into draw. I think it's definitely worthwile for megaturns and anyways cantrip trashers are never bad. And there's an interesting decision in here in whether to use the flipping more than once. With the right setup you can probably make double-Tactician-like strategies work. So, from that perspective, I like it. i will say that I think flipping the mat is not the best design choice here, it's fiddly with all the tokens on it and could probably be worded without having to be flipped, so I gotta subtract some points for that.

gambit05: Couple (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853917#msg853917)
This reminds me most of Lurker. Playing 2 Couples leaves you with an extra Villager, an extra Coffer, and a Horse compared to 2 Lurkers, but it's a bit harder to pull off since you need to play enough cards and Convenience gives you no Actions. So overall, the balance is fine I think, and the gameplay should be somewhat less frustrating than Lurker since it's harder for your opponent to snipe your trashed Actions. I like it.

grep: Lair/Dragon (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854097#msg854097)
Certainly a cool idea for a card. It is missing shuffling instructions though. Dragon should probably be returned upon play in order to prevent Scheme abuses. If you do this, you can also make a portion of it dependent on returning it, to limit the devastation of Smaug throning this. Lab is a kind of meh effect for a 1-shot, so I'd be in favor of changing the vanilla bonuses a bit.

grrgrrgrr: Magic Coin (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854325#msg854325)
It kind of rubs me the wruong way that a card called "Magic Coin" is not a treasure... well, I can look past that. I'm not sure it is enough of an upgrade for Coppersmith. THe main problem is that it can't do the thing that makes Coppersmith shine - make Coppers produce $4 or more; you'll never get better than Silver with this. And this card wants to be used with a deck that draws and discards a lot, so probably an engine, and Silvers are still bad in an engine. This kind of limits the use of this to engines that cannot trash Coppers (and Apothecary; admittedly it is very good with Apothecary). It's fine for those situations, but I can't help but feel that it is too weak overall.

Gubump: Clockmaker (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854094#msg854094)
An artifact was one of the first ideas that came to my mind for this contest, that's definitely a worthwile design space. It worries me though that this Artifact is extremely powerful. First side Clock is Innovation+, second side is Citadel, so both are like at least $7 projects. That makes having the clock an extremely swingy affair. I imagine that the gameplay would be super frustrating. Especially since having the Clock makes it easier to keep it as you can always gain and set aside a Clockmaker if necessary. So I think this needs to be weaker in order to be a fun experience.

infangthief: Conservation/National Park (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854213#msg854213)
Very clever use of the dobule-sided mechanic. This creates an interesting tension; it provides as many VP as a Province, so it's very good late game, but your opponent could plan for you buying it and load up on Duchies/Estates; so the timing and whether to get it at all makes for some very interesting decisions.

Jonatan Djurachkovitch: Diplomacy (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853813#msg853813)
It's not easy for me to judge how strong this is, it feels a bit weak. Clearly the Expansion side is better than the Funds side. I assume that's why the VP bonus incentive is there to encourage putting coins on Funds. But it does not seem particularly elegant to me, I would prefer if there was more of a focus to what the state does, here it's already "a little bit of everything" and then also giving VP exacerbates that. I also think that Diplomacy itself should be a Project rather than an Event as you'll only ever buy it once.

LibraryAdventurer: Cheater (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853907#msg853907)
A main unanswered question I have it what happen when I draw a Two-Bit for my first hand (i.e. not during cleanup)? Current wording suggests you don't put in on your Tavern mat, which means openings will significantly differ based on whether it's in your first or second hand. I'm also confused about gaining Two-Bits "from its pile" as usually there are no piles for Heirlooms, and I don't know how many Two-Bits there would be. I think overall the concept of "kinda bad Heirloom that's hard to get rid of" is interesting, but these cards seem to have too much going on, I would suggest trying to trim them down to more streamlined versions.

lompeluiten: Quadrangle (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853945#msg853945)
I'm not sure what the backside does, I assume giving you +2 cards instead of the card's frontside effect, but for that the wording needs to change I think. I feel like it's a bit too strong, like it would be fairly easy to trigger the backside when you draw through your deck, and that effect is that of a double Lab, and it can set itself up, so with 2 of these in hand you already have 2 Labs.

LordBaphomet: Pilfer/Recruit (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854438#msg854438)
This is largely fine but not super exciting. The Events are mostly something you buy when there's nothing better to do with your $3, and considering that it's just frustrating when the wrong side is up, but it's not like it's really worth it to engineer a situation where the wrong side is up for your opponent. Plus, the fact that only one side provides economy can lead to increased first player advantage.

mail-mi: Bartender (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853963#msg853963)
This is a neat variant on Expedition, the extra buy is significant but it comes with the downside of getting tired. I'm not sure all the numbers in this add up to a good balance, like maybe you want it to cost less or draw you more cards to justify the Tiredness, but then can be evaluated in testing. Conceptually, it definitely works and offers some interesting decisions without being too complex.

majiponi: Wizard/Valkyrie (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853826#msg853826)
It's cute to use the fact that this card will be visible to your opponent in your hand as part of the design, but I'm not sure I like the self-moating. The first player to get the junker is already at an advantage, and the fact that the junker can be used as defense against being junked yourself makes this worse. I think being able to put this anywhere in your deck can lead to intense analysis paralysis, and be potentially political, as you know where there other players put their Wizards and you can choose where you want it to be able to defend/attack best each shuffle. I think that might slow the game down too much.

mandioca15: Construct (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854049#msg854049)
This seems pretty weak? You pay $8 and 2 buys to get any benefit from this, and the benefit you're getting is that... you add cards to your deck later, but they go into your hand. I can't think of many times I'd want to delay getting a card into my deck so long just for that benefit. it might work if this cost less. There would be some megaturn potential here but the fact that you can only put them into your deck one at a time really breaks this. This needs to be either significantly cheaper or more powerful.

NoMoreFun: Impersonator (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853911#msg853911)
This design is quite neat, and I like the way its two abilities self-syngerize if you manage to topdeck your gains. It might be a bit powerful with topdecking; Impersonator + Courtyard gives you Labs+ for $2 pretty easily. It might be easier to balance if it discarded from the top if your deck upon activation (and maybe gave an extra action to make up for that). But maybe it's okay to keep it in; there aren't that many cards that topdeck from hand after all, and Mandarin can use all the boosts it can get.

scott_pilgrim: Shaman Village (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853834#msg853834)
I quite like the concept of reverse Stash. And this way of doing things certainly is interesting, even if it could make things take a bit as the other player decides where to put them. There is also a political element; if you know you'll have a Moat in hand you can just let them collide and watch the world burn. Finally, I believe it can escalate too much if you do manage to collide them. you probably want a bunch if them, and if you have 3 in hand it's 3 Curses per player, with 4 it's already 6. I think it would work better as "you may reveal a Shaman Village from your hand to make each other player gain a Curse".

silverspawn: Village Outpost (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853965#msg853965)
This is quite nice, it will definitely be more powerful than Village when your engine comes together but it might take longer for it to come together. I'm not certain this shouldn't maybe cost $4; it is particularly good when other Villages are also available, just to make sure your first hand post-shuffle doesn't suck. I like the simplicity and think it can work.

spheremonk: Abundance/Subsistence (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853898#msg853898)
There are some wording issues I think, like this seems to assume that flipping over a card activates its effect, which at least there is no precedent for (and Necromancer seems to suggest that it shouldn't work that way). I also think there can be situations where you shuffle a deck with this in it, and there are no instructions for how that works. but now to the actual effects. I cannot parse how long this stays out; it feels like the intention is three turns ($4 - +3 cards - $1 for an Estate) but on the other hand purely from the wording I'd say that the second and third option happen on the same turn. Power-wise it's probably fairly powerful if you can set it up reliably. but not particularly exciting, the bonuses are pretty vanilla after all, and it feels like it's going to be more frustrating than fun to play.

spineflu: Assay (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853833#msg853833)
This one didn't come with instructions about shuffling. I gotta assume that you're not allowed to put it anywhere as otherwise it would be strictly better than Stash for $4. It's also for the most part better than Masterpiece as written, since you can get the same number of Silver-equivalents but one less Copper-equivalent for the same price. The fact that it's largely better than Stash also seriously hamers the design where it tries to be a card that synergizes with other red-backed cards in your deck, but you won't have any incentive to buy Stash, the only other red-backed card to date, when this is in the supply.

Xen3k: Hidden Witch (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853983#msg853983)
There's a fun little rabbit's hole in that Hidden Witch has the Reference type, so when Hidden Witch refers to its Reference it might just refer to itself. I mean, it's clear what is meant here but it would be good if Hidden Witch could somehow be prevented from having the Reference type. Anyways. This card is, for the most part, a Journey token card. Though granted, it would be harder to implement the different types - could just be an Action/Night cards though. Its also quite powerful; Spinster is a straight up $5 effect, and Crone is it least as good as Sea Hag. Granted, for a junker only being able to junk every other time is unfortunate, but I still think Spinster could get away with being a regular Peddler. I think I'd prefer if Spinster was terminal though, in order to prevent Hidden Witch spams.

My finalists are: Village Outpost (silverspawn), Impersonator (NoMoreFun), Bartender (mail-mi) and Conservation/National Part (infangthief). All of these take the concept into very different directions, so it's not easy to compare them. With Impersonator I am a bit too worried about it being broken, and Village Outpost I just feel should cost $4. And thne, Conservation/National Park is just a little more exciting than Bartender.

So

Winner: Conservation/National Park by infangthief

Runners-up: Village Outpost by silverspawn, Impersonator by NoMoreFun, Bartender by mail-mi

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: infangthief on September 28, 2020, 06:25:21 am

Thanks faust!

As you said, there were so many potential directions to take that challenge in.
I must credit grep's Lair/Dragon as giving the idea for having a different type of thing on the face/reverse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: infangthief on September 28, 2020, 09:04:49 am

For the next round:

Challenge #89: Incentivise diversity

Design a card-shaped-thing which incentivises a diverse strategy, without directly translating diversity into VP.
Diversity could be defined as the number of differently named card-shaped-things which feature in the strategy, but I would be open to other interpretations also, within the scope of the game.

Examples of official card-shaped-things which incentivise diversity are: Menagerie (the card), Harvest, Horn of Plenty, Fairgrounds and Museum.

EDIT: Removed the restriction about whether VP can be used to reward diversity.

Deadline will be 12 noon forum time on 5th October.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 28, 2020, 09:17:56 am

Quote from: grep on September 24, 2020, 12:52:02 am

This is a bit crazy idea I am struggling to formulate. An Event which has a card to the other side
(https://i.ibb.co/R6XBSQy/image.png) (https://i.ibb.co/MRh39cc/image.png)

Quote

Lair
$4 - Event
Trash a Treasure card costing $3 or more. If you did, flip this over and gain this.

Quote

Dragon
$6 - Action - Attack
+1 Action  +2 Cards  +3 Spoils
Each other player trashes a non-Victory card from hand costing $3 or more, or reveals their hand if they can't.
When this is discarded from play, flip it over and leave available as the Lair event.

A bit late as this contest is over, but Lair needs "from your hand" in the wording. And Dragon has the same issue as previously discussed with how to shuffle your deck with it there. Still, very neat idea to have an Event/Card double-sided.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 28, 2020, 09:24:36 am

By the way, it's good practice to link to the cards you're judging (as faust just did); it's bothered me in the past that I had to look them up to know what the judgments referred to.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on September 28, 2020, 10:35:32 am

Cornucopia
cost $4 - Action
+$1 per a differently named card you have in play.
If this is the first time you played a Cornucopia in this turn, +3 Actions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 28, 2020, 11:24:18 am

Quote from: majiponi on September 28, 2020, 10:35:32 am

Cornucopia
cost $4 - Action
+$1 per a differently named card you have in play.
If this is the first Cornucopia you played in this turn, +3 Actions.

There's a slight wording difference from Crossroads (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Crossroads) which has the same ability:

"If this is the first time you played a Crossroads this turn, +3 Actions."

Pretty sure there are no situations where they act differently.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 28, 2020, 11:27:31 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 28, 2020, 11:24:18 am

Quote from: majiponi on September 28, 2020, 10:35:32 am

Cornucopia
cost $4 - Action
+$1 per a differently named card you have in play.
If this is the first Cornucopia you played in this turn, +3 Actions.

There's a slight wording difference from Crossroads (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Crossroads) which has the same ability:

"If this is the first time you played a Crossroads this turn, +3 Actions."

Pretty sure there are no situations where they act differently.

Throne Room?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on September 28, 2020, 11:29:16 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 28, 2020, 11:27:31 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 28, 2020, 11:24:18 am

Quote from: majiponi on September 28, 2020, 10:35:32 am

Cornucopia
cost $4 - Action
+$1 per a differently named card you have in play.
If this is the first Cornucopia you played in this turn, +3 Actions.

There's a slight wording difference from Crossroads (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Crossroads) which has the same ability:

"If this is the first time you played a Crossroads this turn, +3 Actions."

Pretty sure there are no situations where they act differently.

Throne Room?

Also there are tracking issues with removing it from play, which is why the Crossroads wording is better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 28, 2020, 11:30:56 am

Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/fttShgm/Tera.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 28, 2020, 11:47:44 am

Here's my card: a $6 Attack Duration Lab variant with a State.

(https://i.imgur.com/qZU05LE.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZQF8jYd.png)

Quote

Exploiter
$6 - Action-Attack-Duration
+1 Action
Each other player without exploited takes it. Now and at the start of your next turn: if this is your only card in play, +2 Cards. Otherwise, +1 Card.

Quote

Exploited
State
When you play an Action card, if you have at least one other copy of it in play, discard a card. At the end of your turn, return this.

Edit: Fixed obvious problems with the wording on Exploited.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on September 28, 2020, 12:03:05 pm

I made this a while ago, but I've never submitted it in this contest and it's just too perfect for the theme.

(https://i.imgur.com/kYYJUEk.png)

Quote

Yeoman

Reveal your hand. +1 Card per different card type you revealed.

$4
Action

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 28, 2020, 12:55:35 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 28, 2020, 11:27:31 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 28, 2020, 11:24:18 am

Quote from: majiponi on September 28, 2020, 10:35:32 am

Cornucopia
cost $4 - Action
+$1 per a differently named card you have in play.
If this is the first Cornucopia you played in this turn, +3 Actions.

There's a slight wording difference from Crossroads (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Crossroads) which has the same ability:

"If this is the first time you played a Crossroads this turn, +3 Actions."

Pretty sure there are no situations where they act differently.

Throne Room?

Hmm... with Throne Room, I guess technically the second time you play Cornucopia, it's still "the first Cornucopia you've played this turn"? Seems unlikely that was intended, though; I think it's confusing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on September 28, 2020, 01:26:44 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 28, 2020, 12:55:35 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on September 28, 2020, 11:27:31 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 28, 2020, 11:24:18 am

Quote from: majiponi on September 28, 2020, 10:35:32 am

Cornucopia
cost $4 - Action
+$1 per a differently named card you have in play.
If this is the first Cornucopia you played in this turn, +3 Actions.

There's a slight wording difference from Crossroads (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Crossroads) which has the same ability:

"If this is the first time you played a Crossroads this turn, +3 Actions."

Pretty sure there are no situations where they act differently.

Throne Room?

Hmm... with Throne Room, I guess technically the second time you play Cornucopia, it's still "the first Cornucopia you've played this turn"? Seems unlikely that was intended, though; I think it's confusing.

Meant the same way as Crossroads.  I'll rephrase it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 28, 2020, 01:48:34 pm

This was My submission, but it doesn't fit the criteria. So, it is just here for fun:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200928/j2yn89tv.png)

Hidden Places
$4 Action

Quote

Reveal and then discard the
top 3 cards of the Hidden
Places deck. Play one of them,
leaving it there.
---------------------------
Setup: Make a Hidden Places
deck out of different unused
Action cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 28, 2020, 02:03:37 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on September 28, 2020, 01:48:34 pm

My submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200928/j2yn89tv.png)

Hidden Places
$4 Action

Quote

Reveal and then discard the
top 3 cards of the Hidden
Places deck. Play one of them,
leaving it there.
---------------------------
Setup: Make a Hidden Places
deck out of different unused
Action cards.

I don't understand how this fits the theme? It allows you to play more differently-named cards in a single game; but it doesn't provide an incentive to build a diverse deck, does it? I wouldn't think Black Market would fit the theme, either.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 28, 2020, 02:08:36 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 28, 2020, 02:03:37 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on September 28, 2020, 01:48:34 pm

My submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200928/j2yn89tv.png)

Hidden Places
$4 Action

Quote

Reveal and then discard the
top 3 cards of the Hidden
Places deck. Play one of them,
leaving it there.
---------------------------
Setup: Make a Hidden Places
deck out of different unused
Action cards.

I don't understand how this fits the theme? It allows you to play more differently-named cards in a single game; but it doesn't provide an incentive to build a diverse deck, does it? I wouldn't think Black Market would fit the theme, either.

Maybe I misunderstood the task, but where does it say that one has to build a diverse deck?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 28, 2020, 02:36:13 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on September 28, 2020, 02:08:36 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 28, 2020, 02:03:37 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on September 28, 2020, 01:48:34 pm

My submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200928/j2yn89tv.png)

Hidden Places
$4 Action

Quote

Reveal and then discard the
top 3 cards of the Hidden
Places deck. Play one of them,
leaving it there.
---------------------------
Setup: Make a Hidden Places
deck out of different unused
Action cards.

I don't understand how this fits the theme? It allows you to play more differently-named cards in a single game; but it doesn't provide an incentive to build a diverse deck, does it? I wouldn't think Black Market would fit the theme, either.

Maybe I misunderstood the task, but where does it say that one has to build a diverse deck?

I may have interpreted "incentivize" too narrowly. I was reading the contest as "make it so that being diverse is stronger than it normally would be". But your card does increase the chances that a diverse strategy is a good one merely by providing a way to have a lot of diversity in a single card; so that is a type of "incentive".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on September 28, 2020, 02:39:09 pm

Challenge #89: Incentivise diversity Submission - EDIT THIS IS NOW AN OUTDATED SUBMISSION
 
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/9h6znqle.png)

Quote

Cull - Action - $4
Choose to reveal any number of cards from your deck. If they are all uniquely named, put them in your hand. If they are not, discard them all.
-
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

Cull has unbounded draw. It can draw a lot if you have a diverse deck. How much are you willing to gamble on having uniques? Get too greedy and you draw nothing. You can usually reveal 2 cards and it's safe. 3 if you've built a deck that has lots of uniques. Then you always have the on gain benefit. You open it on 4/3 you're happy to trash the estate, the the 5/2 is still happy to open and trash that copper since it really gets in the way of having unique cards to draw. A player can choose to reveal their whole deck to (likely) put it in the discard. Some games you buy this card just for the trashing, kind of like a mint.

To clarify, you choose how many cards to reveal before revealing any. Like "I will reveal 3 cards" and then you reveal them all.

I had gotten feedback to allow the player to top-deck the cards you looked at. However; this could slow down the game too much. Someone now has to decide the order of an unbounded number of cards? That would take too long to resolve.

 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on September 28, 2020, 03:01:39 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/5L1jaSX.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 28, 2020, 03:02:28 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 28, 2020, 02:36:13 pm

I may have interpreted "incentivize" too narrowly. I was reading the contest as "make it so that being diverse is stronger than it normally would be". But your card does increase the chances that a diverse strategy is a good one merely by providing a way to have a lot of diversity in a single card; so that is a type of "incentive".

I had to read the instructions at least 3 times. My immediate thought was that it is about giving an incentive for diverse strategies.
Then I saw the example (Harvest) and the early entries of the contest and thought okay it is somehow about diversity in the deck.
But then I read the text a bit more carefully, especially the part:

Quote from: infangthief on September 28, 2020, 09:04:49 am

Diversity could be defined as the number of differently named card-shaped-things which feature in the strategy, but I would be open to other interpretations also, within the scope of the game.

So, Hidden Places was my interpretation of incentivize diversity.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 28, 2020, 03:54:16 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on September 28, 2020, 02:39:09 pm

Challenge #89: Incentivise diversity Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/9h6znqle.png)

Quote

Cull - Action - $4
Choose to reveal any number of cards from your deck. If they are all uniquely named, put them in your hand. If they are not, discard them all.
-
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

Cull has unbounded draw. It can draw a lot if you have a diverse deck. How much are you willing to gamble on having uniques? Get too greedy and you draw nothing. You can usually reveal 2 cards and it's safe. 3 if you've built a deck that has lots of uniques. Then you always have the on gain benefit. You open it on 4/3 you're happy to trash the estate, the the 5/2 is still happy to open and trash that copper since it really gets in the way of having unique cards to draw. A player can choose to reveal their whole deck to (likely) put it in the discard. Some games you buy this card just for the trashing, kind of like a mint.

To clarify, you choose how many cards to reveal before revealing any. Like "I will reveal 3 cards" and then you reveal them all.

I had gotten feedback to allow the player to top-deck the cards you looked at. However; this could slow down the game too much. Someone now has to decide the order of an unbounded number of cards? That would take too long to resolve.

I feel like this needs to give some benefit on-play when it fails. Maybe instead of discarding them, you could put them back on your deck? This would allow you to play a second one for a smaller number with guaranteed success. Though I suppose that version would allow you to play it for your entire deck simply to set the order of your whole deck. While that would be annoyingly slow to resolve, it probably wouldn't be too strong. But as it is, you have to show at least 4 cards in order for this to not just be a worse Smithy.

The wording is a bit awkward... You don't need the "choose to"; simply "reveal any number of cards". And instead of "uniquely named", I would borrow Menagerie's wording, "If the revealed cards all have different names".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on September 28, 2020, 03:56:54 pm

My entry: bribe. Pay off the judges of the tournament to nab a prize.
(https://i.imgur.com/a8aGmar.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on September 28, 2020, 05:26:05 pm

I entered this before, but it didn't get runner-up:
(https://i.imgur.com/5HcK7mo.jpg)

Quote

Bridleway - Action, $6 cost.
+1 Buy
This turn, cards cost $2 less unless you've gained a copy of them during the turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 28, 2020, 05:35:49 pm

Quote from: faust on September 28, 2020, 05:56:54 am

Xen3k: Hidden Witch (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg853983#msg853983)
There's a fun little rabbit's hole in that Hidden Witch has the Reference type, so when Hidden Witch refers to its Reference it might just refer to itself. I mean, it's clear what is meant here but it would be good if Hidden Witch could somehow be prevented from having the Reference type. Anyways. This card is, for the most part, a Journey token card. Though granted, it would be harder to implement the different types - could just be an Action/Night cards though. Its also quite powerful; Spinster is a straight up $5 effect, and Crone is it least as good as Sea Hag. Granted, for a junker only being able to junk every other time is unfortunate, but I still think Spinster could get away with being a regular Peddler. I think I'd prefer if Spinster was terminal though, in order to prevent Hidden Witch spams.

Hey Faust, just wanted to thank you for your evaluation of my card. I just wanted to clarify that Hidden Witch is not actually spammable and that is the reason it is $4 and not $5. When you play it as a Spinster it flips the reference to Crone, so you can only ever play a single Hidden Witch as a Spinster in a given turn. Likewise, playing Hidden Witch as Crone flips the Reference to Spinster allowing you to only ever play one Hidden Witch as Crone. This makes a third Hidden Witch on a given turn a dead card. At least that was how I intended it to function. Again, not sure if the mechanic actually ends up working that way.

I agree that the "Reference" card type may be a problem, but was only ever intended to be a "pointer" to the Reference card like the Heirloom type. Perhaps having the wording on Hidden Witch say that it has it's Reference text in addition to its own would help? IDK, I personally thought  the design for the entries submitted by Gambit05 and mail-mis were cleaner and less confusing. Thanks again.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on September 28, 2020, 07:58:10 pm

Diverse Village
Action - $5
+2 Actions
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a second copy of a revealed card. Put one into your hand and discard the rest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on September 28, 2020, 08:38:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yQoFCNL.png)

Quote

Weird Sisters $6
Action Attack
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal 3 differently named cards.  Put one of each of those into your hand and discard the rest.  Each other player gains a curse.

I'm not really sure whether this is good enough to cost $6.  It's better than Witch, but I'm not sure if by enough.

Another possibility is to reveal a set number like 4 and pick up one of each name.

EDIT: new version below

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 28, 2020, 08:45:48 pm

Quote from: chronostrike on September 28, 2020, 08:38:17 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/yQoFCNL.png)

Quote

Weird Sisters $6
Action Attack
Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal 3 differently named cards.  Put one of each of those into your hand and discard the rest.  Each other player gains a curse.

I'm not really sure whether this is good enough to cost $6.  It's better than Witch, but I'm not sure if by enough.

Another possibility is to reveal a set number like 4 and pick up one of each name.

Doesn’t this disincentivized diversity; not incentivize it? The more diverse your deck is; the fewer cards you’re going to cycle through. And even a very non-diverse deck is going to find 3 unique cards to draw.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 28, 2020, 08:58:34 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50688783393_77e9a81216_b.jpg)

Quote

Gossipmonger - $4
Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck, discard any number, and put the rest back in any order. Choose a different thing per differently named card revealed this way: +1 Card; +1 Action; +1 Buy; +$1.

A sifter that gets better if it does not hit duplicates. I am not sure if it is priced correctly. It is something like a Cartographer crossed with Ironmonger.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 28, 2020, 10:07:43 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on September 28, 2020, 08:58:34 pm

Quote

Gossipmonger - $4
Action
Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck, discard any number, and put the rest back in any order. Choose a different thing per differently named card revealed this way: +1 Card; +1 Action; +1 Buy; +$1.

A sifter that gets better if it does not hit duplicates. I am not sure if it is priced correctly. It is something like a Cartographer crossed with Ironmonger.

Looks balanced at $4 to me.
I like this one and nearly all of the cards entered for this week so far better than the average week's contest entries.

Here's mine

Quote

Goonies
$5 - Action
+$2
+1 Buy.
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card that you don't have a copy of in play, +1VP.

It shows just how crazy strong Goons is that you can weaken it this much and still have it be balanced at only $1 less than the original. hmmm... Actually, I'm wondering if this may be a little too weak for $5. What do you think?

EDITED EDIT: I changed exactly one word/abbreviation to create a completely new entry and then changed my entry back to Goonies when it was un-disqualified.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on September 28, 2020, 10:19:45 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on September 28, 2020, 10:07:43 pm

Here's mine

Quote

Goonies
$5 - Action
+$2
+1 Buy.
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card that you don't have a copy of in play, +1VP.

It shows just how crazy strong Goons is that you can weaken it this much and still have it be balanced at only $1 less than the original. hmmm... Actually, I'm wondering if this may be a little too weak for $5. What do you think?

That +1VP can snowball fast. I think if it was $4 it would be an easy early buy as it will most of the time just passively give you VP. When compared to Monument, $5 seems fair.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on September 29, 2020, 02:09:17 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on September 28, 2020, 03:56:54 pm

My entry: bribe. Pay off the judges of the tournament to nab a prize.
(https://i.imgur.com/a8aGmar.png)

Trashing a Gold is necessary to gain the prize, right? Put '...to gain a prize'.

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on September 28, 2020, 10:07:43 pm

Quote

Goonies
$5 - Action
+$2
+1 Buy.
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card that you don't have a copy of in play, +1VP.

It shows just how crazy strong Goons is that you can weaken it this much and still have it be balanced at only $1 less than the original. hmmm... Actually, I'm wondering if this may be a little too weak for $5. What do you think?

It's quite interesting, but I think encouraging diversity via VP won't qualify for this contest.
Edit: OK it might qualify, it's not directly rewarding diversity like Museum is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: infangthief on September 29, 2020, 03:56:12 am

I'm going to clarify that by "incentivise" diversity, I don't mean just "increase" diversity or "care about" diversity.

I mean, when this card (-shaped-thing) is on the board, something about it will encourage you to consider ways to increase the diversity of your strategy.

Let me draw a comparison with Donate and trashing. Donate increases trashing, and on boards where Donate is present, a strategy which involves trashing will probably do better than one which doesn't. But I wouldn't say that Donate incentivises trashing. The presence of Donate on the board doesn't encourage me to start looking for ways of doing more trashing than normal for this game; it already is the way!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: infangthief on September 29, 2020, 04:19:49 am

So, while I like them, I'm ruling out the following entries (unless you can point to something about them that I've missed):
- Hidden Places (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854523#msg854523): Increases diversity but doesn't encourage you to look for ways to increase it.
- Bribe (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854543#msg854543): Increases diversity but doesn't encourage you to look for ways to increase it.
- Weird Sisters (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854560#msg854560): Cares about diversity, and causes you to consider the diversity of your deck, but doesn't incentivise it.
- Goonies (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854567#msg854567): The only incentive to diversify here is the +1VP, and the challenge is to incentivise diversity in other ways, not with VP directly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 29, 2020, 04:50:27 am

Sorry, I am even more confused than before.
Is your use of “incentivise” equivalent to “encourage”?
I would understand that a certain card encourages different (diverse) strategies (plural), but this seems not to be the case here as you are talking about a single strategy (singular). So, a single strategy that has a diversity of something.

In your original post you gave Harvest +1VP as a valid example. I am already not sure what “+1VP” means here? Is this on top of the card text, or is it instead of the “+$1”?
Either way, Harvest wants differently named cards in the deck. The strategy would be to have lots of them. In this context, what are the “ways to increase the diversity of this strategy”? The simplest way would be to add +1 Buy to Harvest, which allows to buy more cards (that are diverse).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 29, 2020, 04:54:37 am

I think the definition of infangthief's use of incentivize* is

"Card X incentivizes Y if the presence of X makes you do more of Y through means other than X itself"

So weird sisters (X), for example, is better the more duplicates you have. Thus, it makes you want to have more duplicates (Y), which is the opposite of more diversity. On the other hand, Meagerie (X) is better the more differently named cards (Y) you have, so it makes you want to have more differently named cards (Y), so it does inventivize diversity.

* which is pretty much what I think the word means, too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 29, 2020, 05:09:34 am

Quote from: silverspawn on September 29, 2020, 04:54:37 am

I think the definition of infangthief's use of incentivize* is

"Card X incentivizes Y if the presence of X makes you do more of Y through means other than X itself"

Is the name of the hypothethical Fan expansion "Rocket Science"?

Quote from: silverspawn on September 29, 2020, 04:54:37 am

So weird sisters (X), for example, is better the more duplicates you have. Thus, it makes you want to have more duplicates (Y), which is the opposite of more diversity. On the other hand, Meagerie (X) is better the more differently named cards (Y) you have, so it makes you want to have more differently named cards (Y), so it does inventivize diversity.

* which is pretty much what I think the word means, too.

Yes, I understand the examples, though Weird Sisters as a negative example is obvious. Could you explain this with Hidden Places? Or is "diversity" restricted to "physical cards"? and not diversity of "possibilities"?

Anyway, thanks for trying to explain it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 29, 2020, 05:48:34 am

Okay then, here:
(sorry about the not very creative names...)

Quote

Merchant Goon
$5 - Action
+$2
+1 Buy.
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card that you don't have a copy of in play, +1 Coffers.

Nevermind this one. I'll stick with my previous entry since it qualifies now: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854567#msg854567

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: infangthief on September 29, 2020, 06:50:59 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 29, 2020, 04:50:27 am

Sorry, I am even more confused than before.
Is your use of “incentivise” equivalent to “encourage”?

Yes, more or less.

Quote from: gambit05 on September 29, 2020, 04:50:27 am

I would understand that a certain card encourages different (diverse) strategies (plural), but this seems not to be the case here as you are talking about a single strategy (singular). So, a single strategy that has a diversity of something.

That second understanding is what I mean. I don't mean a diversity of strategies, I mean diversity of (something) within a strategy.

Quote from: gambit05 on September 29, 2020, 04:50:27 am

In your original post you gave Harvest +1VP as a valid example. I am already not sure what “+1VP” means here? Is this on top of the card text, or is it instead of the “+$1”?
Either way, Harvest wants differently named cards in the deck. The strategy would be to have lots of them. In this context, what are the “ways to increase the diversity of this strategy”? The simplest way would be to add +1 Buy to Harvest, which allows to buy more cards (that are diverse).

Harvest is a valid example (as are Menagerie and Horn of Plenty).
I had said I didn't want the diversity just to be incentivised using VP (like Museum does). The only reason I gave an example of Harvest +1VP (as in, Harvest card text with +1VP stuck at the start) was to make it clear that I wasn't completely outlawing VP from entries. Looks like that example did more harm than good - I'll go and update that post.
Harvest incentivises diversity in the sense that if Harvest is on the board, it encourages you to look for ways of getting more differently named cards into your deck.

Sorry gambit for the confusion. Hopefully I can update the challenge post to make it clearer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: infangthief on September 29, 2020, 07:00:06 am

In fact, I've updated the challenge to remove the restriction about whether VP can be used directly to reward diversity. I don't think it was helping the challenge.

LibraryAdventurer, go with whichever of Goonies or Merchant Goon you prefer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on September 29, 2020, 07:00:56 am

(https://i.imgur.com/g9YFX84.jpg)

Quote

Caste
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$2. You may play an Action from your hand costing at most $3 and an Action from your hand costing at least $5 in either order.

Caste is a Conclave variant (+2 Actions and +$2) that can play repetitive Actions, but they have to be at myriad price points.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on September 29, 2020, 07:24:17 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 29, 2020, 05:09:34 am

Yes, I understand the examples, though Weird Sisters as a negative example is obvious. Could you explain this with Hidden Places? Or is "diversity" restricted to "physical cards"? and not diversity of "possibilities"?

Hidden places doesn't seem to incentivize diversity in either direction. The card itself makes the game more diverse, but nothing about it makes you 'do' more diversity other than through the card itself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on September 29, 2020, 08:34:57 am

(https://i.imgur.com/XMQQggK.png)

Quote

Weird Sisters $5
Action - Attack
Reveal the top four cards of your deck.  Put three differently named cards from among them into your hand and discard the rest.  Each other player gains a curse.

Edited

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on September 29, 2020, 08:45:07 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f7203ca7eb5f6462045ef4f/60113857db42ad80ff2a782394d9bd44/image.png)

Quote

Yeoman • $5 • Action
+1 Action
Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Discard any cards there are duplicates of, then put the remainder into your hand.

faq: you discard all cards that a duplicate exists of - so if you draw Estate / Estate / Copper / Copper, you get nothing and discard all of them. You'll either get 4, 2, 1, or 0 cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on September 29, 2020, 09:06:16 am

Quote from: chronostrike on September 29, 2020, 08:34:57 am

Quote

Weird Sisters $5
Action - Attack
Reveal the top five cards of your deck.  Put three differently named cards from among them into your hand and discard the rest.  Each other player gains a curse.

This needs to cost $6 as-is. It is almost strictly better than Witch and Old Witch. When it draws 3 cards, which it will the majority of the time, it's stronger than Old Witch without letting other players trash a curse.
You could have it reveal 4 cards and put 2 differently named cards in hand and it would still be almost strictly better than Witch.

What I would suggest to let it cost $5 is to have it reveal 4 cards instead of 5 (so it's less likely to draw 3), and give the attack a drawback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 29, 2020, 12:41:37 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on September 29, 2020, 07:24:17 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 29, 2020, 05:09:34 am

Yes, I understand the examples, though Weird Sisters as a negative example is obvious. Could you explain this with Hidden Places? Or is "diversity" restricted to "physical cards"? and not diversity of "possibilities"?

Hidden places doesn't seem to incentivize diversity in either direction. The card itself makes the game more diverse, but nothing about it makes you 'do' more diversity other than through the card itself.

To put it another way, having lots of differently named cards isn't a better idea when Hidden Places is on the board; whereas having Menagerie or Harvest on the board does make having lots of differently named cards better.

And while "lots of differently named cards" seems to be not the only type of diversity allowed by the contest; I don't think Hidden Places deals with any diversity other than "more differently named cards". Same with anything dealing with Prizes, etc.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on September 29, 2020, 02:04:52 pm

Sundial (Landmark)

Setup: Put 1 VP token on each Supply pile. The first time a player buys a card from a pile, they get that pile's VP token.

This rewards you if you're the first player to buy a particular card. Can you make those cards work together if you buy something you don't particularly like?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on September 29, 2020, 02:09:32 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on September 29, 2020, 02:04:52 pm

Sundial (Landmark)

Setup: Put 1 VP token on each Supply pile. The first time a player buys a card from a pile, they get that pile's VP token.

This rewards you if you're the first player to buy a particular card. Can you make those cards work together if you buy something you don't particularly like?

Using VP as the incentive is disallowed by the contest... you could always put a Villager and Coffer on each pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: infangthief on September 29, 2020, 02:12:28 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 29, 2020, 02:09:32 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on September 29, 2020, 02:04:52 pm

Sundial (Landmark)

Setup: Put 1 VP token on each Supply pile. The first time a player buys a card from a pile, they get that pile's VP token.

This rewards you if you're the first player to buy a particular card. Can you make those cards work together if you buy something you don't particularly like?

Using VP as the incentive is disallowed by the contest... you could always put a Villager and Coffer on each pile.

I edited the contest to allow VP to be used as an incentive.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 29, 2020, 02:21:41 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on September 29, 2020, 12:41:37 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on September 29, 2020, 07:24:17 am

Quote from: gambit05 on September 29, 2020, 05:09:34 am

Yes, I understand the examples, though Weird Sisters as a negative example is obvious. Could you explain this with Hidden Places? Or is "diversity" restricted to "physical cards"? and not diversity of "possibilities"?

Hidden places doesn't seem to incentivize diversity in either direction. The card itself makes the game more diverse, but nothing about it makes you 'do' more diversity other than through the card itself.

To put it another way, having lots of differently named cards isn't a better idea when Hidden Places is on the board; whereas having Menagerie or Harvest on the board does make having lots of differently named cards better.

And while "lots of differently named cards" seems to be not the only type of diversity allowed by the contest; I don't think Hidden Places deals with any diversity other than "more differently named cards". Same with anything dealing with Prizes, etc.

I got it now. Thank you, silverspawn and infangthief for your patience.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on September 29, 2020, 02:29:54 pm

My submission:

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/200929/433qzmxe.png)

Vulcan
$4 – Action

Quote

+1 Card per differently
named Action card you
have in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on September 29, 2020, 04:19:46 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/QDNdnTd/image.png) (https://bit.ly/2S93VMD)

Quote

Student
$4 - Night - Duration
Look at the top two cards of your deck. Either discard them or put them back in any order.

At the start of your next turn, reveal your hand. If you have:
 3 or more card types: +$2;
 4 or more card types: +1 Action;
 5 or more card types: +1 Card

This card cares of the diversity of card types. You can study at night to slightly improve your mark, but probably not significantly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: infangthief on October 01, 2020, 09:40:06 am

Quote from: silverspawn on September 28, 2020, 11:30:56 am

Submission:

What is the symbol that Tera gives you and subsequently rewards you for?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 01, 2020, 01:32:17 pm

Quote from: infangthief on October 01, 2020, 09:40:06 am

Quote from: silverspawn on September 28, 2020, 11:30:56 am

Submission:

What is the symbol that Tera gives you and subsequently rewards you for?

The symbol means faith in Japanese, which I thought was funny/fitting. For how it works, it doesn't matter what the symbol is. You just need some way to count to five. You can have a new token, or put coin tokens on your Island mat, or have a die in front of you. The point is that the card's effect changes the fifth time you this thing happens to you. I didn't think specifying how that happens was important.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on October 01, 2020, 01:52:50 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on October 01, 2020, 01:32:17 pm

Quote from: infangthief on October 01, 2020, 09:40:06 am

Quote from: silverspawn on September 28, 2020, 11:30:56 am

Submission:

What is the symbol that Tera gives you and subsequently rewards you for?

The symbol means faith in Japanese, which I thought was funny/fitting.

I don't know why, but a couple of hours ago I tried to figure out what the symbol could mean, I searched only for a few minutes without success. Then later I visited a website (nothing special) and I got some ads in Japanese (no pictures, just text). Funny but also scary.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: infangthief on October 01, 2020, 02:18:21 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on October 01, 2020, 01:32:17 pm

Quote from: infangthief on October 01, 2020, 09:40:06 am

Quote from: silverspawn on September 28, 2020, 11:30:56 am

Submission:

What is the symbol that Tera gives you and subsequently rewards you for?

The symbol means faith in Japanese, which I thought was funny/fitting. For how it works, it doesn't matter what the symbol is. You just need some way to count to five. You can have a new token, or put coin tokens on your Island mat, or have a die in front of you. The point is that the card's effect changes the fifth time you this thing happens to you. I didn't think specifying how that happens was important.

Ok, so they carry over from one turn to another.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 01, 2020, 02:33:14 pm

Quote from: infangthief on October 01, 2020, 02:18:21 pm

Ok, so they carry over from one turn to another.

Yes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 01, 2020, 04:34:48 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on October 01, 2020, 02:33:14 pm

Quote from: infangthief on October 01, 2020, 02:18:21 pm

Ok, so they carry over from one turn to another.

Yes.

I think if you word as "take a {faith} token" instead of "+1 {faith}", it would be a bit clearer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 02, 2020, 03:03:36 am

I'll update it before the deadline

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: infangthief on October 02, 2020, 06:28:42 am

Deadline will be 12 noon forum time on 5th October.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 02, 2020, 08:22:28 am

Thematic update: you now begin with attachment tokens and lose them, rather than gaining faith tokens. Plays the same but you don't count past 5 for no reason.

Okay, actually it's pain tokens because attachment isn't just one symbol. But close enough.

I didn't call them tokens since the fact that you begin with 5 and lose them should make it clear how it works (can't reset to 0 now).

(Now updated again because conversation below.)

(https://i.ibb.co/CKXqjcN/Tera3.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 02, 2020, 01:54:27 pm

I agree the new wording is clearer. It might be too weak; I might be wrong. I'm thinking about a hypothetical, obviously stronger version:

+2 Actions
If you have 5 differently named cards in play, +2 cards.

So this works every time, not only after the 5th play. The thing is, it just seems like once you already have 5 differently named cards in play, +2 cards, +2 actions is no longer a very strong effect generally. You probably had to draw a good bit of your deck to get to that point, as well as have bought into a diverse strategy.

Of course in the presence of Black Market, Villa, Storyteller, or Cavalry it gets a lot stronger. And in the case of Duration cards, Summon, Prince, Reserves, etc. I'm just not sure that that version would be too strong, and if it isn't, then a adding the "only after the 5th play" clause just adds a lot of words and complexity that aren't needed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 02, 2020, 03:03:00 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 02, 2020, 01:54:27 pm

I agree the new wording is clearer. It might be too weak; I might be wrong. I'm thinking about a hypothetical, obviously stronger version:

+2 Actions
If you have 5 differently named cards in play, +2 cards.

Is that obviously stronger? With Tera as-is, it takes work to activate it initially, but once you do, you can play it at the start of your turn.

I think the way you would do it ideally is to buy one around turn 5 or something, then activate it three times, then maybe buy another to activate two at once, and then suddenly buy as many as possible because now they're boomtowns for 2$.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 02, 2020, 03:09:44 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on October 02, 2020, 03:03:00 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 02, 2020, 01:54:27 pm

I agree the new wording is clearer. It might be too weak; I might be wrong. I'm thinking about a hypothetical, obviously stronger version:

+2 Actions
If you have 5 differently named cards in play, +2 cards.

Is that obviously stronger? With Tera as-is, it takes work to activate it initially, but once you do, you can play it at the start of your turn.

I think the way you would do it ideally is to buy one around turn 5 or something, then activate it three times, then maybe buy another to activate two at once, and then suddenly buy as many as possible because now they're boomtowns for 2$.

Wait... I was reading it as you only getting the +2 cards if you have 5 differently named cards in play and no {attachment}... in other words, that "If you have 5 differently named cards in play" applies to everything after it.

I think it's ambiguous now; both interpretations could make sense. But but if he meant it the way you're reading it, then the last sentence should be in a separate paragraph, and maybe have "either way" instead of "then".

That version would be much stronger than I was thinking.

*Edit* Wait, you are the card creator; you know how you meant it. So yeah, would recommend clarifying that in the wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 02, 2020, 03:14:37 pm

But...

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/jMlwNdpMtqVHFoisN5l5AFZh5P2-TlJlFjcx6iwGmlJjtmCo5PPPLYZukH7rHHrRLbid89CZ4HwO2D-TPGQfh8lS1d6q7yIJpo-9lJK9WuOx5iCv-hQkwkJSp9kUK5Qo-PH3_T9txFG7YCG2lkpLtug_)

...  it's the same wording as Swashbuckler. Except that there's a comma rather than a period, does that make a difference?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 02, 2020, 03:16:03 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on October 02, 2020, 03:14:37 pm

But...

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/jMlwNdpMtqVHFoisN5l5AFZh5P2-TlJlFjcx6iwGmlJjtmCo5PPPLYZukH7rHHrRLbid89CZ4HwO2D-TPGQfh8lS1d6q7yIJpo-9lJK9WuOx5iCv-hQkwkJSp9kUK5Qo-PH3_T9txFG7YCG2lkpLtug_)

...  it's the same wording as Swashbuckler. Except that there's a comma rather than a period, does that make a difference?

Swashbuckler doesn't work like you think... from the official FAQ:

Quote

You cannot get the Treasure Chest unless your discard pile had at least one card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 02, 2020, 03:17:06 pm

What seriously? Lol @ me not knowing that.

Damn I guess I'll change the wording again.

Edit: Okay, the current version should finally be unambiguous.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 03, 2020, 01:23:05 pm

Updated submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/u18mu6fn.png)

Quote

Cull - Action - $4
Reveal 4 cards from your deck. Put one copy of each differently named card in your hand, and discard or put each duplicate back in any order.
-
When you gain this, you may trash your hand.

Cull is no longer unbounded draw. This makes it so you can put back duplicates ( or discard them). It also draws one of each uniquely named card, then it Sentries the duplicates. In the opening, it's probably going to draw a copper and an estate and discard the other two. Later on, it can start being a little bit of a smithy. In a deck with lots of uniques, you've got a cheap +4 cards.

Be careful playing this in the beginning, it has a higher chance of terminally drawing your unique card you wanted to play. You can only put the card back in the deck if it is a duplicate. Opening Cull/Peasant means that playing Cull T3 has a 4/6 shot of drawing your peasant dead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on October 04, 2020, 09:13:16 pm

The game I play in most often uses different tokens for Villagers, so this card would ideally use 1 Coffers, 1 Villager, 1 Victory token, and 1 debt token per pile, but playing the standard way, that either doesn’t work at all or is a tracking nightmare, and allowing players to take coin tokens as either Coffers or Villagers is too many words on a landscape. Games with this are silly fun and force you to think a bit differently.

I’ll say it again: Who doesn’t love Embargo tokens?

I recognize the first player advantage, but think its minor outside of the 4-player context. And really, if you have to play 4-player Dominion, your day was ruined long before this Landmark showed up.


(https://abload.de/img/wartimecontestz2jlk.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: infangthief on October 06, 2020, 07:36:03 am

Time to judge.

Yeoman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854508#msg854508) by alion8me: Nice and simple, and interesting to reward diversity of card types. There will be some boards where that diversity just isn't available, but on the right board it could be a lot of fun, especially if you have some control of what you draw for your next hand.

Cull (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855028#msg855028) by anordinaryman: I like how the sifting, drawing and trash-on-gain help each other, if you go for multiple Culls. The more diverse your deck, the more likely you are to draw 3 or 4.

Bridleway (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854545#msg854545) by Aquila: A cost reducer that doesn't encourage megaturn strategies. It rewards diversity in terms of what you buy each turn, and you'd want to be buying at least three differently-named cards in order for it to feel worth it.

Weird Sisters (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854606#msg854606) by chronostrike: This looks almost strictly better than Witch; you'd be unlucky not to be putting at least two cards in your hand, and discarding duplicates often works in your favour too.

Secret Society (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854537#msg854537) by D782802859: I like the concept, and it seems very strong, being able to set up your next turn at night. It's great for engines with at least three components (I'll top-deck my village, my terminal drawer and something else) but it doesn't offer any incentive to get more diverse than that.

Caste (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854604#msg854604) by Fragasnap: This encourages diversity in terms of card cost, which is a novel take on the challenge. It's nice to play your terminal drawer first and then hope to have some villages or cantrips to choose from. I'm struggling to get excited about diversity in terms of card cost, however.

Vulcan (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854657#msg854657) by gambit05: It is good how this rewards getting these diverse cards into play, not just into your deck. I wonder if it might be a bit too strong for 4, but nice and simple and I like that.

Student (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854678#msg854678) by grep: Interesting to reward diversity of card types and, being a Night-Duration itself, this ensures there will be at least 5 types available on the board. Little bit of sifting gives you some control of what you draw for your next hand. But so many words for the student to study on this card puts me off a bit.

Exploiter/Exploited (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854507#msg854507) by Jonatan Djurachkovitch: Strong enough that you really want one of these, so it's going to impact any game when it's on the board. I like how diversity is encouraged, to reduce the impact of the attack. I think the non-stacking of the attack and the self-weakening of the draw ensure it is not overpowered.

Goonies (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854567#msg854567) by LibraryAdventurer: Nice to see a less powerful, friendly, Goons variant. The reward for buying cards that you haven't played that turn is interesting but I think in a not-so-fun way. You either buy cards you won't want to play, or avoid playing cards that you do want to. And you'll get the +1VP if you buy a Province anyway.

Bribe (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854543#msg854543) by LordBaphomet: I like the concept, and nice to have a simple way to bring Prizes into the game. But as I discussed in #7215 and #7216 I don't think this event incentivises diversity.

Cornucopia (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854497#msg854497) by majiponi: It is good how this rewards getting these diverse cards into play, not just into your deck. Interesting comparisons with both Horn of Plenty and Harvest. It offers more predictability than Harvest, which is great. (I almost considered naming the challenge "Improve the Harvest".) The +3 Actions is helpful, but it would make me a bit sad if this was the only non-terminal in my starting hand.

Sundial (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854650#msg854650) by mandioca15: Introduces a mini-game around if/when to buy a less useful card just for the VP. Looks like it adds a straightforward first-player advantage. Also need to consider how this interacts with Gathering types; do you need to keep track of whether the Sundial effect has triggered for those piles?

Diverse Village (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854557#msg854557) by NoMoreFun: A village where you get to pick which card you draw, and you're more likely to find the right card if you've diversified. Potentially lots of deck-cycling too. Nice simple concept.

Tera (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854942#msg854942) by silverspawn: I like how Cities power up, and I like this, where you have to put lots of effort into playing diverse cards and then bam you've got second level Cities that only cost 2 each. Introducing another type of tokens just for this card puts me off a little.

Wartime (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855098#msg855098) by spheremonk: I should think this does change your priorities, in a diversifying way. I wonder if at some point the Silver and Gold become most attractive to avoid the embargo tokens (though sometimes buying Silver and Gold might count as diversifying :P). I am put off by the prospect of so many tokens sitting on the card piles.

Yeoman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854608#msg854608) by spineflu: +1 Action +4 Cards if you can get sufficient diversity/luck/deck control. In many games I think this will end up being a very swingy card. (Curiously another entry called Yeoman - are Yeomen known for their diversity?!)

Gossipmonger (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854563#msg854563) by Xen3k: I think I like this, with the sifting helping subsequent Gossipmongers find more juicy targets. There is a lot to resolve on each play though - could it benefit from costing 5, with slightly stronger rewards?


Hard to choose (I guess it always is), but I think my favourites are:

• Cull (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855028#msg855028) by anordinaryman
• Exploiter (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854507#msg854507) by Jonatan Djurachkovitch
• Tera (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854942#msg854942) by silverspawn

For the diversity impact it would have on boards which include it, I'm going to choose Exploiter as the winning entry.

Winner: Exploiter by Jonatan Djurachkovitch
Runners up: Cull by anordinaryman and Tera by silverspawn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 06, 2020, 08:30:15 am

Quote from: infangthief on October 06, 2020, 07:36:03 am

Yeoman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg854608#msg854608) by spineflu: +1 Action +4 Cards if you can get sufficient diversity/luck/deck control. In many games I think this will end up being a very swingy card. (Curiously another entry called Yeoman - are Yeomen known for their diversity?!)

i think i just looked up synonyms for "harvester" to name it; congrats Jonatan!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 06, 2020, 09:33:10 am

Challenge #90: Steal ideas!
For this challenge, you have to use a fan made mechanic that you haven't made up yourself. You could find a mechanic on this forum to use, but in case you don't want to have to find one, I have three examples here for you:

Neirai the Forgiven's "Shuffle into" mechanic (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FU_lzof4OAjrce5XO7StzY_VJ77sDaRm1Ec1OupBtvg/edit?usp=sharing)

Quote

Makes other piles like the Knights or Ruins piles, by shuffling another card into them. Both the cards that use this mechanic are shuffled into other piles and are gained when uncovered.

Asper's Edicts

Quote from: Asper on August 24, 2013, 12:25:40 pm

Sideways cards that introduce straight-up rules changes. These predate Projects, by the way.

Supernova888's Tools

Quote from: Supernova888 on April 06, 2020, 11:30:24 pm

Tools have different backs to regular cards. At the start of your turn, or directly after playing a card, you must play any Tools from your hand. This does not cost an Action; if you have multiple tools in your hand, you may play them in any order. Tools are regular Kingdom cards that exist in the Supply like any other card. Tools are their own type of card.

If you use a mechanic not included here, please include a link to where you got it from.

Judging criteria:
How balanced the card is.
How well the card uses the mechanic.
How well it adresses the potential flaws of the mechanic.
Creativity (How ironic.)
And lastly, it has to be fun to play with!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on October 06, 2020, 11:57:45 am

The mechanic my card uses is freezing by Gazbag in their expansion, Dominion: Ice Age, found here. http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17996.0
As a reminder, here's how the mechanic works.

Quote from: Gazbag on December 04, 2017, 04:30:07 pm

A number of cards in the set involve setting aside cards and putting a number of Ice tokens on them, referred to as "freezing" them. At the start of your turn you remove 1 Ice token from each card you own that is frozen with Ice tokens on it and when the last token is removed you put the card into your discard pile.

And here's the card.
(https://i.imgur.com/W9eBwZB.png?1)
Voyager is a cheaper Sentry variant, but it freezes the cards instead of trashing them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 06, 2020, 01:54:50 pm

Does 'dealing with debt in a different way' count as a new mechanic?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 06, 2020, 02:08:26 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on October 06, 2020, 01:54:50 pm

Does 'dealing with debt in a different way' count as a new mechanic?

No, it is already used in Mountain pass "in a different way", and debt isn't a fan mechanic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 06, 2020, 03:18:03 pm

Silverspawn's Faith/Attachment/Pain tokens is a great mechanic to steal. Can be summarized as "tokens that track how many times you have done something throughout the entire game; and a card that permanently changes once you have done that thing enough times."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 06, 2020, 03:29:19 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 06, 2020, 03:18:03 pm

Silverspawn's Faith/Attachment/Pain tokens is a great mechanic to steal. Can be summarized as "tokens that track how many times you have done something throughout the entire game; and a card that permanently changes once you have done that thing enough times."

yeah I'm looking forward to someone else using scolapasta's Worshipper tokens
(https://i.imgur.com/INrBVUr.png)

For the record, mechanics i've made are
Trinkets (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg844299#msg844299)
Morning Cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg823329;topicseen#msg823329)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 06, 2020, 04:33:05 pm

Do Trinkets count as a mechanic?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 06, 2020, 05:08:52 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on October 06, 2020, 04:33:05 pm

Do Trinkets count as a mechanic?

spoils, ruins, and horses do, why wouldn't trinkets?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 06, 2020, 05:16:09 pm

Definitely not saying they shouldn't, I just want to be sure before I design a card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 06, 2020, 05:19:27 pm

ah good point. i suppose a judge ruling is in order

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 07, 2020, 03:00:02 am

My entry:

Quote

Privateer
$5 - Action - Attack
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
Each other player gets +1 Mutineer.

Uses VioletCLM's Mutineers from the 5th Weekly card design contest (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19239.msg777727#msg777727). (short explanation: Mutineers are tokens worth -1VP, but you can discard a card during your action phase to get rid of one.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 07, 2020, 03:30:07 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on October 07, 2020, 02:04:50 am

Scrap Smithy
Action - $5
You may spend a Trade token to put your deck in your discard pile
Then do this three times: Look through your discard pile and put a card from it into your hand; +1 Card if you can't.
---
When you gain this, take a Trade token

Gazbag has a similar card minus the Trade token parts for the same price (in the Ice Age expansion). I've played with his card and he's playtested his card, so yours is almost certainly too strong at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 07, 2020, 03:47:58 am

Quote from: silverspawn on October 06, 2020, 04:33:05 pm

Do Trinkets count as a mechanic?

I'll allow it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 07, 2020, 04:05:47 am

I edited the challenge post to include judging criteria.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 07, 2020, 06:34:08 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 07, 2020, 03:47:58 am

Quote from: silverspawn on October 06, 2020, 04:33:05 pm

Do Trinkets count as a mechanic?

I'll allow it.

Good, because my brain has already gone off and generated the idea.

(https://s12.directupload.net/images/201007/wjnzlumi.png)

A peddler variant, a crappy self-junker with active anti-synergy, or a busted one-card mega turn engine? You decide.

I think the existing rules nail down how this works, but just in case (tell me if this doesn't sound right):

- If you play a trinket and have 3 Celebrations in play, you draw 3 cards.
- You can't play Action cards you draw because your Action phase is over.
- You can trash all three Celebrations in response to playing one Trinket and gain +3 buys, if you want.

Though, good luck playing three terminal actions in a deck full of trinkets.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 07, 2020, 07:16:46 am

Let's not forget about Seasons!

Quote from: Asper on August 24, 2013, 12:25:40 pm

Seasons
Season cards were created as a project together with the user C0okyL0rd. They change as the game progresses. When one or more Season cards are in the Supply, use the Season mat. The Season Mat has 20 spaces on it that go in a circle, and shows the 4 Seasons. A token is used to track the current time of year, starting the game on space 1, the first of Spring. After each full round (that is, after the last player in turn order took their turn) the token is moved forward one space. After each 5 turns a new Season begins. Summer starts with turn 6, Fall with turn 11, and Winter with 16. After turn 20 it is Spring again, and so on. Season cards check the current Season and do different things depending on it.

Quote

Glade - Victory Season, $4 cost.
3VP
-
When you gain this: if it's Spring or Summer, gain 2 Horses, otherwise gain a Curse.

It's quite similar to one of Asper's own seasons cards, but the premise makes sense to me; make a card that goes against the normal flow of the game. You want Victories late, but this is desirable early. Flavour is an attractive part of seasons too, so I tried there as well; when the grass is green the horses inhabit the glade, but when the cold months come they're stabled and the crows move in.

Edit: down to 1 Curse in fall and winter.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on October 07, 2020, 08:26:38 am

I like the mechanic, the flavor and the idea of your card, but if I understand it correctly, would that mean that when you gain Glade in Fall you will have 3 junk cards in your deck which have a net score of a mere 1 VP?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on October 07, 2020, 09:22:42 am

Quote from: gambit05 on October 07, 2020, 08:26:38 am

I like the mechanic, the flavor and the idea of your card, but if I understand it correctly, would that mean that when you gain Glade in Fall you will have 3 junk cards in your deck which have a net score of a mere 1 VP?

That's sort of the point. You're supposed to buy it earlier in the game. Plus, since it still nets you vp, it might be useful for pileouts.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on October 07, 2020, 09:55:52 am

Quote from: D782802859 on October 07, 2020, 09:22:42 am

Quote from: gambit05 on October 07, 2020, 08:26:38 am

I like the mechanic, the flavor and the idea of your card, but if I understand it correctly, would that mean that when you gain Glade in Fall you will have 3 junk cards in your deck which have a net score of a mere 1 VP?

That's sort of the point. You're supposed to buy it earlier in the game. Plus, since it still nets you vp, it might be useful for pileouts.

I think I got the point, but as it is, the alternatives to gaining Glades in fall are too good. So, that forces players either to ignore it completely, or buy it early. I think it would be more interesting, if there is a still an incentive left to gain Glades late in the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on October 07, 2020, 01:30:26 pm

I vaguely remember some kind of night ways, called dreams? Does anyone know where that mechanic lives?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on October 07, 2020, 01:41:49 pm

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20440.msg847989#msg847989
I think this is what you're talking about?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 07, 2020, 05:48:17 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f7e36407b0c7e1ddaf2fe99/bdd5a7076cc04835e8bb42b91fddb281/image.png)

Quote

Fjord • $5+ • Victory
3%
-
When you buy this, you may overpay. If you do, freeze it, placing an Ice token on it for each $1 you overpaid.

This uses Gazbag's Freeze/Ice tokens mechanic. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17996.msg736476#msg736476) You can buy this instead of a Duchy if you're in the $6-$7 range to cause it to miss the shuffle.

edit: withdrawing this; see downthread for new entry

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on October 07, 2020, 06:14:48 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 07, 2020, 05:48:17 pm

Quote

Fjord • $5+ • Victory
3%
-
When you buy this, you may overpay. If you do, freeze it, placing an Ice token on it for each $1 you overpaid.

That's strictly better than Duchy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 07, 2020, 06:29:52 pm

Quote from: grep on October 07, 2020, 06:14:48 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 07, 2020, 05:48:17 pm

Quote

Fjord • $5+ • Victory
3%
-
When you buy this, you may overpay. If you do, freeze it, placing an Ice token on it for each $1 you overpaid.

That's strictly better than Duchy.

that's fine, it's a filler entry until i work out how i want to make a Wonder. If i'm really hard pressed i'll just add "in games using this, this replaces the Duchies"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 07, 2020, 07:31:11 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on October 07, 2020, 09:55:52 am

Quote from: D782802859 on October 07, 2020, 09:22:42 am

Quote from: gambit05 on October 07, 2020, 08:26:38 am

I like the mechanic, the flavor and the idea of your card, but if I understand it correctly, would that mean that when you gain Glade in Fall you will have 3 junk cards in your deck which have a net score of a mere 1 VP?

That's sort of the point. You're supposed to buy it earlier in the game. Plus, since it still nets you vp, it might be useful for pileouts.

I think I got the point, but as it is, the alternatives to gaining Glades in fall are too good. So, that forces players either to ignore it completely, or buy it early. I think it would be more interesting, if there is a still an incentive left to gain Glades late in the game.

I disagree. I think the whole "buy victory cards early" is an interesting enough concept on its own. Muddling it with "but also buy this late game like usual" just weakens the idea.

The concept of Gardens is "have a huge deck." Muddling Gardens with ", or if you have less than 15 cards this is worth 5vp" is totally besides the point and weakens the idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 07, 2020, 08:57:57 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 07, 2020, 07:31:11 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on October 07, 2020, 09:55:52 am

Quote from: D782802859 on October 07, 2020, 09:22:42 am

Quote from: gambit05 on October 07, 2020, 08:26:38 am

I like the mechanic, the flavor and the idea of your card, but if I understand it correctly, would that mean that when you gain Glade in Fall you will have 3 junk cards in your deck which have a net score of a mere 1 VP?

That's sort of the point. You're supposed to buy it earlier in the game. Plus, since it still nets you vp, it might be useful for pileouts.

I think I got the point, but as it is, the alternatives to gaining Glades in fall are too good. So, that forces players either to ignore it completely, or buy it early. I think it would be more interesting, if there is a still an incentive left to gain Glades late in the game.

I disagree. I think the whole "buy victory cards early" is an interesting enough concept on its own. Muddling it with "but also buy this late game like usual" just weakens the idea.

The concept of Gardens is "have a huge deck." Muddling Gardens with ", or if you have less than 15 cards this is worth 5vp" is totally besides the point and weakens the idea.

I kind of agree with both of you. I mean, you can have it be much better to buy it in the early game, but I don't think you need quite as much of a punishment when buying it later on. I'd make it one curse when buying it in fall or winter. One curse vs two horses is plenty of motivation to buy it early, but it still does something for you if you buy it later.
(I don't think emptying piles is enough. If there's a cursing attack in the kingdom, the curses will probably empty anyway, otherwise, they probably won't empty anyway.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on October 07, 2020, 10:01:39 pm

Using Aquila's card costs: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.msg855268#msg855268 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.msg855268#msg855268)

(https://i.imgur.com/mXcna45.png)

Quote

Doppelgänger

Exchange this for a non-Command Action from the supply you have no copies of in play. Play it.
-
§: To buy this, discard an Action card that you have a copy of in play.

Action-Command
§

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 08, 2020, 06:00:40 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f7f557285adf42b65c62398/58386f9f0806a642592700d3cb521bea/sanctum_1_3_-_revised.png)
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f7f557285adf42b65c62398/0897d9dd9992c3639c6db1399557ea3a/sanctum_4_6_-_revised.png)

Quote

Sanctum • Wonder • Most steps at end of game: 4VP • $3 per step, 4 steps (2-3 player); $3 per step, 6 steps (4-6 player)

Build a step: Discard a Build card and pay the cost of a step.

On Completion, most steps built: Put your deck and discard pile into your hand and trash any number of cards from your hand, then discard your hand;

All others, +2 Coffers / step

What's a build card? Glad you asked:
(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f7f557285adf42b65c62398/2284ac9e9a69b0fa45500b8ea23181e4/build_undercard.png)
Build cards are an additional supply pile costing between $3 and $5. It works like Young Witch where it adds a pile to the Supply, rather than like Obelisk, which chooses a pile from the Supply.

Wonder concept was originally made by Tables here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20401.msg843748#msg843748) and was left pretty open ended. I branched off of X-tra's concept of it with a couple modifications: 1 - steps all cost the same. This makes it so you don't have to care which side you start on for filling in cubes and simplifies what the cost of a step is; 2 - getting rid of the potion-esque builder cards in favor of an additional pile that you just have to discard a card from. I kept the concept that building a step does not cost a Buy (unless the wonder would specify it costs a buy).

The most steps rewards are given to everyone who has the most steps done (so ties, they both get the event-y bonus and the VP).
The VP is given at the end of the game regardless of whether the wonder is completed - if six players all added one step, it's a wash, everyone gets 4VP.

Let me know what's unclear with this, i think i covered everything. IRL printing, i'd do the wonder card front+back printing, so on one side it's 4 spaces, the other, 6 (you can tell which side is which down by the art byline). As far as marking who built what, I'd suggest supplying (6) 8mm cubes in each color, each player gets a color. For reference, that's Terraforming Mars sized cubes, not Dominion's Project sized cubes (which are 10mm)

Update: change the "most steps" text to be clearer, it's roughly the same as Donate (except it happens during the turn due to space constraints); did not update the images because time constraints

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 08, 2020, 06:46:22 pm

Quote from: alion8me on October 07, 2020, 10:01:39 pm

Using Aquila's card costs: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.msg855268#msg855268 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.msg855268#msg855268)

(https://i.imgur.com/Bkfa3uE.png)

Quote

Doppelgänger

Exchange this for a non-Command Action from the supply you have no copies of in play. Play it.
-
§: To buy this, discard an Action card, revealed, that you have a copy of in play.

Action-Command
§

The “discard, revealed” wording is only used/needed when discarding multiple cards at once. If discarding a single card (Mountebank, Cutpurse, etc); “revealed” isn’t necessary.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on October 08, 2020, 07:06:03 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 08, 2020, 06:46:22 pm

*Doppelgänger*

The “discard, revealed” wording is only used/needed when discarding multiple cards at once. If discarding a single card (Mountebank, Cutpurse, etc); “revealed” isn’t necessary.

Thank you; the card post has been updated with the unnecessary wording removed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 09, 2020, 06:08:10 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 08, 2020, 06:00:40 pm

On Completion, most steps built: Put your deck into your discard pile, and trash any number of cards;

Minor nitpick: it has to be specified where you trash the cards from.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on October 09, 2020, 10:03:12 am

Quote from: alion8me on October 07, 2020, 10:01:39 pm

Using Aquila's card costs: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.msg855268#msg855268 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.msg855268#msg855268)

(https://i.imgur.com/mXcna45.png)

Quote

Doppelgänger

Exchange this for a non-Command Action from the supply you have no copies of in play. Play it.
-
§: To buy this, discard an Action card that you have a copy of in play.

Action-Command
§

What can I gain when I trash this with Remodel?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on October 09, 2020, 11:02:50 am

Quote from: majiponi on October 09, 2020, 10:03:12 am

Quote from: alion8me on October 07, 2020, 10:01:39 pm

Using Aquila's card costs: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.msg855268#msg855268 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.msg855268#msg855268)

(https://i.imgur.com/mXcna45.png)

Quote

Doppelgänger

Exchange this for a non-Command Action from the supply you have no copies of in play. Play it.
-
§: To buy this, discard an Action card that you have a copy of in play.

Action-Command
§

What can I gain when I trash this with Remodel?

In theory: A card from the Supply that costs up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) more; e.g. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/6/65/Randomizer.jpg).
In practice: Either you take a Randomizer card costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) more, or if you can't find it, discard an Action card with a copy in play and then you get one costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) more.
Finally, after some futile attempts you will get a 痛 token.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on October 09, 2020, 11:53:18 am

Quote from: gambit05 on October 09, 2020, 11:02:50 am

Quote from: majiponi on October 09, 2020, 10:03:12 am

Quote from: alion8me on October 07, 2020, 10:01:39 pm

Using Aquila's card costs: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.msg855268#msg855268 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.msg855268#msg855268)

(https://i.imgur.com/mXcna45.png)

Quote

Doppelgänger

Exchange this for a non-Command Action from the supply you have no copies of in play. Play it.
-
§: To buy this, discard an Action card that you have a copy of in play.

Action-Command
§

What can I gain when I trash this with Remodel?

In theory: A card from the Supply that costs up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) more; e.g. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/6/65/Randomizer.jpg).
In practice: Either you take a Randomizer card costing (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) more, or if you can't find it, discard an Action card with a copy in play and then you get one costing up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) more.
Finally, after some futile attempts you will get a 痛 token.

Aquila's post doesn't seem to definitively answer this. I assume that you get something that costs up to $2 § (though I really can't imagine why you would want to trash Doppelgänger in the first place).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on October 09, 2020, 12:15:13 pm

Quote from: alion8me on October 09, 2020, 11:53:18 am

Aquila's post doesn't seem to definitively answer this. I assume that you get something that costs up to $2 § (though I really can't imagine why you would want to trash Doppelgänger in the first place).

That is purely for flavor. You gain a second one with it, and then you have a doppel.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 09, 2020, 04:26:47 pm

Quote from: alion8me on October 09, 2020, 11:53:18 am

Quote from: gambit05 on October 09, 2020, 11:02:50 am

Quote from: majiponi on October 09, 2020, 10:03:12 am

Quote from: alion8me on October 07, 2020, 10:01:39 pm

...

Quote

...

What can I gain when I trash this with Remodel?

...

Aquila's post doesn't seem to definitively answer this. I assume that you get something that costs up to $2 § (though I really can't imagine why you would want to trash Doppelgänger in the first place).

Sorry about that, I didn't realise I hadn't put this on the first post of my thread. Here's what I think:

Quote

For abilities that care about costs: this is another different kind of cost to join Potion and Debt. You can't remodel a $ cost card into a [ ] or $[ ] cost or vice versa, or [ ] into Debt or Potion costs. Each differently described card cost is also incomparable, no matter how much $, Debt or Potion is with them and even though some might be distinctly easier to pay than others. So you can't remodel a [ ] into a differently described [ ], but you could remodel [ ] into $1[ ] or $2[ ] if the described cost on each card is identical.

So remodelling a Doppelganger would only let you get another Doppelganger, or a theoretical card costing $1[ ] or $2[ ] with 'to buy this, discard an Action card that you have a copy of in play'.

That said, I like the execution of the card cost with Doppelganger! It's elegant and thematic. There's always the possible issue of 'why not do it like Animal Fair?', and here it probably would be too open and easy to get. It can do better than Wish, after all.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 10, 2020, 06:24:03 am

24 hour warning!
No more submissions will be accepted after 24 hours! The judging will be out on monday.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on October 10, 2020, 08:54:39 am

My submission:

https://www.bilder-upload.eu/bild-00f6d6-1602333658.png.html

Sumisu $2 – Action Quote +6-X Cards, where X is the number of 痛 you have. If you have less Action cards in play (not counting this) than you have 痛, lose a 痛. ----------------------------- Setup: Each player takes 5 痛.

I have used silverspawn’s mechanic of 痛 (Pain) tokens, introduced in the last contest. While silverspawn used the tokens for an all or nothing activation of Tera after they are gone, I interpreted it a bit differently and let Sumisu gradually improve with each 痛 less. Sumisu with all tokens still around is equivalent to a Ruined Library. It gradually gets better, but with every token less, it becomes harder to get further improvement.

If anyone would ever be courageous enough to play with more than one 痛 tokens card, I recommend that respective Randomizers are modified so that there are sections with differently colored borders for the 痛 tokens of each player.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 10, 2020, 04:12:42 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 09, 2020, 06:08:10 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 08, 2020, 06:00:40 pm

On Completion, most steps built: Put your deck into your discard pile, and trash any number of cards;

Minor nitpick: it has to be specified where you trash the cards from.

it ok if i just revise the text? I don't have the time to fire up photoshop again before judgement time

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on October 10, 2020, 05:17:33 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/121060241_356357595802931_3730510170633702320_n.png?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=tYGUke-hf8EAX-UUGtc&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=53c567bff6b2067b6550165dfd591ccf&oe=5FA78A96)

Quote

War-Torn Village - $3
Action - Season
+2 Actions
You may trash a Treasure card from your hand. If you do, in Spring or Summer: +1 Cards; otherwise: Trash this to gain a Mercenary.

This uses Asper & Co0kieL0rd's Seasons (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20533.msg855247#msg855247) Mechanic.

A simple village that can start deck thinning early game and then you can trade it in for a Spoils and Mercenary late game. The Seasons mechanic is mainly there to delay the Mercenary attacks, but also punishes players that buy too many as it is a glorified Necropolis in Fall and Winter if you do not want the Mercenaries.

Edit: Nerfed hard at Silverspawns suggestion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 10, 2020, 05:21:21 pm

What's up with people making absurdly strong cards recently?

+2 Cards +2 Actions, trash a Treasure card from your hand, that makes masquerade look weak, and the other effect is even better. This seems semi-busted at 5$.

Just compare it to Spice Merchant, which is one of the strongest 4$s.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on October 10, 2020, 05:41:30 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on October 10, 2020, 05:21:21 pm

What's up with people making absurdly strong cards recently?

+2 Cards +2 Actions, trash a Treasure card from your hand, that makes masquerade look weak, and the other effect is even better. This seems semi-busted at 5$.

Just compare it to Spice Merchant, which is one of the strongest 4$s.

Well, you are right about that one. It was not my intention to make it busted, but is seems to be so. Alterations have been made. Thanks for the feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 10, 2020, 07:39:32 pm

Using Lastfootnote's Trade Tokens (this replaces my previous deleted entry)

Machinist
Action - $4
Gain a card costing up to $4. You may pay a Trade token to play it twice.
---
When you buy this, take a Trade Token

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on October 10, 2020, 08:33:43 pm

Since most of the entries this week are on the complicated side, I'm going simple. This just adds a bit of variety to the game.


(https://abload.de/img/upheavaledict9gk7q.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 11, 2020, 04:15:29 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 10, 2020, 04:12:42 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 09, 2020, 06:08:10 am

Quote from: spineflu on October 08, 2020, 06:00:40 pm

On Completion, most steps built: Put your deck into your discard pile, and trash any number of cards;

Minor nitpick: it has to be specified where you trash the cards from.

it ok if i just revise the text? I don't have the time to fire up photoshop again before judgement time

It is okay, as long as I understand how it is supposed to be played (which I do). This version still doesn't address the issue though, look at the wording on Chapel: "Trash up to 4 cards from your hand."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 11, 2020, 07:33:45 am

Submissions closed.
Judging will be out by Monday.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 12, 2020, 07:33:47 am

Okay, time to judge. The submissions will be in no particular order. I'm sorry if I'm harsh against your card, don't take it personally.

Doppelgänger by alion8me (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855307#msg855307)
This is a really interesting card, and it is a bit similar to a Wish. It is a bit hard to evaluate the power level of because of the weird cost. In some kingdoms it could be an automatic buy, but the cost and effect have a nice balancing interaction. Sometimes can be worth it to try to pick it up fast, with an all or nothing opening of moat/moat or something similar. I don't like that you could buy this and a $5 on a moderately good turn if you are lucky enough to do so, maybe you could add a low $ cost, to make that harder to do on accident?

Voyager by D782802859 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855173#msg855173)
Can be useful to have a few of these to thin your deck throughout the game, but doesn't solve the Freeze mechanic problem of leaving a mess of cards and tokens all over your table.

Celebration by Silverspawn (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855220#msg855220)
This one is probably pretty akward to play, what's with all this drawing in your buy phase? Feels like a sad Inventor, but isn't that useful except for megaturns.

Glade by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855222#msg855222)
Interesting, doesn’t seem broken, and two horses is an okay incentive to buy this early. I feel like you would want to buy this around turn 9 or 10 for most benefit, when you would typically want to green. Interesting concept, since there is not much incentive in Dominion to green early. I think I would prefer this if it only gave you one Curse instead of two, so it's better than estate points-wise.

War-torn Village by Xen3K (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855478#msg855478)
This is probably about as strong as Hideout in Spring or Summer. I like the late gaining of Mercenaries, but it doesn't at all fit with a Village, since you want to keep your Villages to support your terminals, and with this card you will probably not have any fodder for your Mercenaries by the time you can get them. That's why the Mercenary option is a big risk, and probably not worth it.

Privateer by LibraryAdventurer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855212#msg855212)
This is broken. Giving your opponents Mutineers is a bit like gaining a VP token, and since this one doesn't have any restriction, you can just keep playing 6 of these a round, gaining a Province's worth of point lead every turn. It has all the problems cantrip +VP would have, and can lead to unfun, drawn-out games and stalemates.

Machinist by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855481#msg855481)
This is probably really strong, playing a $4 twice is a strong one-shot effect, but this one leaves you with a workshop and the played card afterwards.

Sanctum by Spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855355#msg855355)
This is probably a good version of the Wonder mechanic, but the actual effects are no good. In a no-trashing game, letting one player Donate once would be extremely swingy, the one who makes most steps wins the game. This is worsened even more if the Build card is a $5, and one player gets it in the opening and the other one doesn't get it until turn 5, and doesn't have any chance of getting it.

Sumisu by gambit05 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855457#msg855457)
I like the idea of a draw card gradually getting better, but the wording is weird, and the interaction with other 痛 token cards is a bit unclear. If you have both this and silverspawn's Tera, does everyone start with 10 痛 tokens? That would make both cards much worse. Also, this has no reason to use specifically 痛 tokens, and could be any type of token, or have something similar to Pirate Ship.

Upheaval by spheremonk (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855482#msg855482)
This feels suspiciously similar to Imperialism by Asper, and doesn't add that much to the game. "Aha, this game we use Platinum but not Colony!".



Winner
Doppelgänger by alion8me (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855307#msg855307)
Uses the card costs in an interesting way, has an interesting duality. Although I don't think that this is the best version of the card, it is probably balanced.

Runner up
Glade by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855222#msg855222)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on October 12, 2020, 08:45:44 am

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 12, 2020, 07:33:47 am

Voyager by D782802859 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855173#msg855173)
Can be useful to have a few of these to thin your deck throughout the game, but doesn't solve the Freeze mechanic problem of leaving a mess of cards and tokens all over your table.

Thanks for the feedback. I think the best way to solve the Freeze mechanic's problem is just to add a mat. Of course, that brings up the issue that the mechanic doesn't do much that Exile can't and wouldn't make much sense as anything more than a one of a la Island.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 12, 2020, 09:35:52 am

I don't understand the supposed problem. As you said, if somebody wants to pool the frozen cards, they can put it on a mat or whatever. It is purely a matter of how you organize stuff on the table and is unrelated to the actual mechanic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 12, 2020, 01:09:49 pm

Quote from: segura on October 12, 2020, 09:35:52 am

I don't understand the supposed problem. As you said, if somebody wants to pool the frozen cards, they can put it on a mat or whatever. It is purely a matter of how you organize stuff on the table and is unrelated to the actual mechanic.

You're right, I should have criticised the card more than the organisatory problems its mechanic brought me. It still isn't that unique as a card, now when we have the Exile mechanic, although it is probably balanced.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on October 12, 2020, 10:50:40 pm

Weekly Card Contest 91: If Dominion is so good why didn't they make a Dominion Two?

This week's challenge is relatively simple: the card-shaped-thing you submit must have the number two on it somewhere, whether in the cost or in the actual text. Both expressions with the numeral "2", such as "+2 Cards", and with "two" spelled out, such as "Trash two cards from your hand", are acceptable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 13, 2020, 12:59:33 am

Here's my submission, a Reserve card similar to Fortress.

Quote

$2 - Action-Reserve
When you play or trash this, choose one: +2 Cards, or put it on your Tavern mat.
-
After you finish playing an Action card other than this, you may call this for +2 Actions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 13, 2020, 03:32:24 am

I once designed an expansion and published it on fds. Is it allowed for me to submit cards from that?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on October 13, 2020, 04:11:34 am

My 2 Cents:

(https://i.ibb.co/WcZPmgq/Twins.png)

Twins $2 – Action Quote Choose two:           +2 Cards; or +2 Actions;            or +2 Buys; or +$2. The choices must be different. Return this to the Supply.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 13, 2020, 05:36:19 am

Seems pretty strictly better than Ride. Which might not be terrible I guess.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 13, 2020, 08:26:41 am

Encampment is also strictly better than Ride which is no issue given how weak Ride is. Twins is basically Encampment and compensates for the lack of possibility to keep it in your deck via being more versatile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 13, 2020, 09:42:18 am

I'm open about it being okay, but encampment isn't really similar to ride, whereas this card is. With Encampment, there are only five, and you often try not to return them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 13, 2020, 10:26:50 am

I entered a version of this before, but now it's fixed up and it has a lot of 2s on it:

Quote

Caver - Action, $2 cost.
+2 Cards
If your deck is empty, + $2.
-
This is gained to the bottom of your deck (instead of your discard pile).

The bottom-deck gain is the fix: without it this is swingy in the opening, if it appeared in your turn 4 hand and drew the last 2 cards of the first shuffle deck. It's a card that reaches full power in a later shuffle.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on October 13, 2020, 10:30:06 am

Edict
cost $2 - Action
Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Discard them for +$2 or put them into your hand.

It was a friendly Oracle, but that was crazily friendly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on October 13, 2020, 05:22:34 pm

I can use one from a previous contest, right? I think it fits with the theme
(https://i.imgur.com/IiZs7uC.jpg)

Quote

Coachman
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}
Action

+2 Cards
You may take _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/c/c6/Debt2.png/18px-Debt2.png)}. If you did +2 Cards

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on October 13, 2020, 06:41:42 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/121699099_794200381314051_3281707204546246971_n.png?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=pJ8PmnovSYkAX92IakK&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=40e3711df6ecc82c993496fae68018dd&oe=5FAC1199)

Quote

Huckster - $3
Action-Attack
+$2
Each player (including you) discards down to 2 cards in hand, then draws 2 cards.

Not sure if this is balanced at $2, may need to be $3 simply because there is a potential to gain additional draws from it. The attack can hit repeatedly, but the quality of the two cards players keep will continue to improve, so consecutive attacks are somewhat weakened. Please let me know if this design is stronger than I think. Also, name suggestions would be welcome.

Edit: Changed it to cost $3 per suggestion below. I was hoping to keep the $2 cost combo going.

Edit 2: added a name and art.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 13, 2020, 08:18:22 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on October 13, 2020, 06:41:42 pm

Quote

??'?? - $2
Action-Attack
+$2
Each player (including you) discards down to 2 cards in hand, then draws 2 cards.

Not sure if this is balanced at $2, may need to be $3 simply because there is a potential to gain additional draws from it. The attack can hit repeatedly, but the quality of the two cards players keep will continue to improve, so consecutive attacks are somewhat weakened. Please let me know if this design is stronger than I think. Also, name suggestions would be welcome.

This definitely needs to cost $3. The attack is not much weaker than Militia, and the drawback isn't that bad of a drawback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on October 13, 2020, 08:33:20 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 13, 2020, 08:18:22 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on October 13, 2020, 06:41:42 pm

Quote

??'?? - $2
Action-Attack
+$2
Each player (including you) discards down to 2 cards in hand, then draws 2 cards.

Not sure if this is balanced at $2, may need to be $3 simply because there is a potential to gain additional draws from it. The attack can hit repeatedly, but the quality of the two cards players keep will continue to improve, so consecutive attacks are somewhat weakened. Please let me know if this design is stronger than I think. Also, name suggestions would be welcome.

This definitely needs to cost $3. The attack is not much weaker than Militia, and the drawback isn't that bad of a drawback.

Compare and contrast Cellar, which the extra effect will often resemble. This comes with a different bonus, trading non-terminality for +$2 and a pretty good attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 13, 2020, 09:53:24 pm

Butler
Action - $5
Choose one: +2 Coffers; or +2 Villagers; or play an Action card from your hand twice

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on October 14, 2020, 12:59:31 am

To clarify because multiple people asked: you can enter previously made cards as long as it hasn't been a winner or runner up to a contest before, if you want to.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 14, 2020, 07:08:27 am

Edit: Updated to fix wording, exclude Durations, and have a choice on play.

(https://i.ibb.co/FzVbVnF/Prayer.png)

I played with a version of this that didn't exile itself. It was extremely strong, but I found it strong in a fun way. (It has the name and art from a different card.)

It can become any card you have in play -1 Action. So if you have a Village in play, it can become a cantrip; if you have a Worker's Village in play, it can become a Market Square, if you have a Boomtown in play, it can become a lab. It can also become a smithy that takes 2 actions. And you may buy it just for the on-gain effect.

The exiling part is there to keep it in check if you have Throne Room or King's Court.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 14, 2020, 01:02:30 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on October 14, 2020, 07:08:27 am

(https://i.ibb.co/v33b8C3/Prayer.png)

I played with a version of this that didn't exile itself (and could top-deck cards on play) a bunch. It was extremely strong, but I found it strong in a fun way. (It has the name and art from a different card.)

It can become any card you have in play -1 Action. So if you have a Village in play, it can become a cantrip; if you have a Worker's Village in play, it can become a Market Square, if you have a Boomtown in play, it can become a lab. It can also become a smithy that takes 2 actions. And you may buy it just for the on-gain effect.

The exiling part is there to keep it in check if you have Throne Room or King's Court.

Both parts should say "that you have in play" instead of "from play." "From play" includes other player's Duration cards, and "that you have in play" is more in-line with official cards anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 14, 2020, 01:08:04 pm

It used to be 'you have in play' and I just changed it to 'from play' to make it shorter :( but yes, you're right.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on October 14, 2020, 01:45:26 pm

Quote from: Gubump on October 14, 2020, 01:02:30 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on October 14, 2020, 07:08:27 am

(https://i.ibb.co/v33b8C3/Prayer.png)

I played with a version of this that didn't exile itself (and could top-deck cards on play) a bunch. It was extremely strong, but I found it strong in a fun way. (It has the name and art from a different card.)

It can become any card you have in play -1 Action. So if you have a Village in play, it can become a cantrip; if you have a Worker's Village in play, it can become a Market Square, if you have a Boomtown in play, it can become a lab. It can also become a smithy that takes 2 actions. And you may buy it just for the on-gain effect.

The exiling part is there to keep it in check if you have Throne Room or King's Court.

Both parts should say "that you have in play" instead of "from play." "From play" includes other player's Duration cards, and "that you have in play" is more in-line with official cards anyway.

I would put non-duration on this because it is always bad to do this kind of thing with duration cards. Same reason procession has it; you remove the card but the effect is still there and you have nothing to remind you of it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on October 14, 2020, 01:47:32 pm

The good news is it doesn't need extra lines. The Exiling part is probably also necessary to keep the cost at $2.
I like it very much by the way.

Quote from: LordBaphomet on October 14, 2020, 01:45:26 pm

I would put non-duration on this because it is always bad to do this kind of thing with duration cards. Same reason procession has it; you remove the card but the effect is still there and you have nothing to remind you of it.

Edit: Well, then it's getting longer, but you are probably right.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 14, 2020, 02:32:05 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on October 14, 2020, 01:45:26 pm

I would put non-duration on this because it is always bad to do this kind of thing with duration cards. Same reason procession has it; you remove the card but the effect is still there and you have nothing to remind you of it.

I'm still salty about that change. I get the reason, but whenever I play procession and then can't play a duration card, I get reminded of how much better things used to be.

I begrudgingly updated it anyway. I also added the choice on play back. if it doesn't have it, it would be completely useless if you don't have 2 actions, which probably wouldn't feel great. This way, you can always topdeck a good card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 14, 2020, 05:26:07 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/fowhavvz.png)

Quote

Combine - Action - $4
Trash two non-Duration cards where each card is in your hand or in play. Gain a card with cost exactly equal to the total cost in $ of the trashed cards.

We got a sort of TFB Version of Trading Post here. It's also sort of like remodel. And it's like a weaker but more flexible Forge. And it's an Action Bonfire. It's sort of like a lot of things. You can choose to trash two cards in play, one card in play and 1 card from your hand, or two from your hand. Say, Combine is in play! You could trash itself and trash an estate in hand to gain a Goons! I wanted to incorporate more in-play trashing in the game. Now this is an Action card, which makes trashing in-play treasures difficult-- unless you manage to play this after you played a treasure in all the ways Dominion now allows (Black Market, Storyteller, Scepter, Cavalry, Villa, ...). You probably can't easily turn Combine into a 5 cost but there are some ways (Ferry, Poor House, Shelters, other cost reduction, ...)

Open to feedback. Especially around wording. I first tried "Trash two cards from either your hand your hand or in play" but this phrasing makes it seem like you can't trash itself an estate from hand together, which I want to allow.

EDIT: Thank you to spheremonk for helping me make this not trash duration cards as that leads to some difficult tracking issues.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on October 14, 2020, 05:49:17 pm

Oh, I made a very similar card that I was planning to test before submitting. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 14, 2020, 06:57:33 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f87821dd6bab25436e7c807/a2e4f2adb854fceab1e16386fc581227/image.png)

Quote

Import • $5 • Action
Discard a Treasure. If you did, gain two copies of a card costing $4 or less.

double gainer that does the Port thing. If you can't gain two copies (ie, Crumbling Castle, et al), you do as much as you can.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on October 14, 2020, 09:29:56 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 14, 2020, 05:26:07 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/68g65w25.png)

Should this say “non-Duration” to avoid tracking issues? When I trash an Estate from my hand with a Hireling from play to gain a Province, do we want to have to remember the rest of the game that I get an extra card every turn? I believe that's the sort of situation Donald X is trying to clean up going forward.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 14, 2020, 10:18:59 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on October 14, 2020, 05:49:17 pm

Oh, I made a very similar card that I was planning to test before submitting. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

For what it's worth, I don't mind you submitting your very similar card. I trust you aren't copying and that you just independently had a similar idea. It'd be fine with me if you submitted it.

Quote from: spheremonk on October 14, 2020, 09:29:56 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 14, 2020, 05:26:07 pm

Quote

Combine - Action - $4
Trash two cards where each card is in your hand or in play. Gain a card with cost exactly equal to the total cost in $ of the trashed cards.

Should this say “non-Duration” to avoid tracking issues? When I trash an Estate from my hand with a Hireling from play to gain a Province, do we want to have to remember the rest of the game that I get an extra card every turn? I believe that's the sort of situation Donald X is trying to clean up going forward.

Thank you! That's a really good idea!! I'm going to modify the original post.

EDIT: yikes, I deleted the old hosted picture so your comment doesn't make sense anymore, my apologies.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on October 15, 2020, 03:11:40 am

This feels pretty two-ish. It has at least two 2-related elements: there are two cards in the pile and the price is $2. (Unfortunately, they are ONE-shot Smithies, though sometimes two-shot.)

To be clear, this is a pile with 20 cards, and is a mixed pile (like Knights and Ruins), not a split pile (like Castles or Sauna/Avanto) – you shuffle 10 copies of Anvil together with 10 copies of Hammer.


(https://abload.de/img/anvil-hammercontest_scvkys.png)       (https://abload.de/img/anvilcontest87k9u.png)       (https://abload.de/img/hammercontestfije5.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on October 16, 2020, 10:11:05 am

(https://i.imgur.com/x5TuAdE.png?1)

The original version was a two shot gold, which morphed into a big treasure payload that needs to be played a couple times to do anything.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 16, 2020, 11:42:16 am

Quote from: spheremonk on October 15, 2020, 03:11:40 am

This feels pretty two-ish. It has at least two 2-related elements: there are two cards in the pile and the price is $2. (Unfortunately, they are ONE-shot Smithies, though sometimes two-shot.)

To be clear, this is a pile with 20 cards, and is a mixed pile (like Knights and Ruins), not a split pile (like Castles or Sauna/Avanto) – you shuffle 10 copies of Anvil together with 10 copies of Hammer.


(https://abload.de/img/anvil-hammercontest_scvkys.png)       (https://abload.de/img/anvilcontest87k9u.png)       (https://abload.de/img/hammercontestfije5.png)

Interesting!
I feel like the shuffled nature of those two piles make it difficult to incorporate into a strategy. You normally get your smithy's fairly early on, and you're likely to buy this and just have them trash themselves. I don't think the low price is worth such a drawback. Unless I am swimming in +Buys, I would rather build my draw engine with moats. I think you can make this more enticing by providing some sort of benefit +1$ or something. This might have to make it cost 3 though. Or perhaps it has a on-trash clause ("when you trash this +$2" for example), so now you might choose to self-trash a card, and it makes it less devastating when they don't line up. As written right now, your engine can snowball away from you. You get unlucky on one shuffle, and all the sudden your engine is gone, and that doesn't seem that fun. Adding some other benefit would help with this feeling.

Quote from: D782802859 on October 16, 2020, 10:11:05 am

(https://i.imgur.com/x5TuAdE.png?1)

The original version was a two shot gold, which morphed into a big treasure payload that needs to be played a couple times to do anything.

I love this concept! I think it would be better with a +Buy you always get. Your first one is essentially a confusion for two whole shuffles. You get a second one and now it turns the other activated wine cask into a confusion for one shuffle. That's a pretty steep price to play. If wine Cask always gave a +Buy I still think it would be balanced, and it would still provide some benefit on those initial plays. And it makes sense for it to provide a +Buy so you have something to do with all that money (Stockpile, Capital, and Fortune act similarly)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 16, 2020, 02:06:59 pm

The thing about Cask is that it becomes better the more of them you have. At first, you need to play 2 casks to activate one Shiny thing (where shiny thing is the thing in between gold and plat), then you need to play 2 casks to activate 2 shiny things, then 3, and so on. The cost of activation stays constant, but the payoff increases.

If you give it a buy, the correct play will be to buy the entire pile most of the time. If not, probably still that if you have buys from somewhere else. I share the reaction that the concept is very elegant, but I'm not sure it'll actually be fun to use.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on October 16, 2020, 02:10:55 pm

You gain tokens with each Cask gained, so if you gain two Casks, it takes 4 plays to activate two shiny things. The cost of activation very much increases.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 16, 2020, 02:39:38 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on October 16, 2020, 02:10:55 pm

You gain tokens with each Cask gained, so if you gain two Casks, it takes 4 plays to activate two shiny things. The cost of activation very much increases.

I understood how it worked, but in trying to explain the point better, I realized that I don't think it is true, anyway. Nvm. Good card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 16, 2020, 03:08:48 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on October 16, 2020, 02:10:55 pm

You gain tokens with each Cask gained, so if you gain two Casks, it takes 4 plays to activate two shiny things. The cost of activation very much increases.

You can then play Casks twice as quickly, though, which means that you still get rid of all your Fermentation tokens in roughly the same amount of time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on October 16, 2020, 03:59:40 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 16, 2020, 11:42:16 am

Quote from: spheremonk on October 15, 2020, 03:11:40 am

(https://abload.de/img/anvil-hammercontest_scvkys.png)       (https://abload.de/img/anvilcontest87k9u.png)       (https://abload.de/img/hammercontestfije5.png)

Interesting!
I feel like the shuffled nature of those two piles make it difficult to incorporate into a strategy. You normally get your smithy's fairly early on, and you're likely to buy this and just have them trash themselves. I don't think the low price is worth such a drawback. Unless I am swimming in +Buys, I would rather build my draw engine with moats. I think you can make this more enticing by providing some sort of benefit +1$ or something. This might have to make it cost 3 though. Or perhaps it has a on-trash clause ("when you trash this +$2" for example), so now you might choose to self-trash a card, and it makes it less devastating when they don't line up. As written right now, your engine can snowball away from you. You get unlucky on one shuffle, and all the sudden your engine is gone, and that doesn't seem that fun. Adding some other benefit would help with this feeling.

Thanks for your thoughts – I appreciate your taking the time. You make good point about what makes this a difficult card to build a reliable engine around in most circumstances. I'm guessing we disagree though about what makes a well-designed, well-balance card. A $2 card not solving all of your problems is not problematic as I see it. Under most circumstances, you wouldn’t want to build an engine around a one-shot Lab (Experiment) or even a one-shot Lost City (Encampment), but that doesn’t mean they’re not a useful pickup in many circumstances, or that they are not well designed. The same is true for a one-shot Smithy. Actually, I would argue it would be bad if you COULD easily build a reliable engine around a $2 Smithy in most situations. And then, sometimes, Workers Village, Squire, Hamlet, or similar +Action/+Buy-rich situations arise, where if you plan well, you can build a fairly solid engine around Anvil/Hammer.

The history of this card is that it started out as a regular 10-card pile of Anvils, where you would reveal an Anvil from your hand or return the Anvil you played to its pile. This was too easy to build an engine around. It had the problem of not really being balanced at any price. The addition of a second card, Hammer, shakes up the dynamic and makes it balanced at $2.

Essentially, I went through the same thoughts as you did in the development stage, and agree with the substance of what you’ve written. We simply disagree on our conclusions. For now, I will leave the card as is. Thanks again for your thoughts.     

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on October 18, 2020, 10:43:15 am

(https://i.imgur.com/mOzWIfS.png)

Quote

Extortionist • $5
Action - Attack
The player to your left chooses one of the following for you:
+2 cards, and each other player gains <1>; or +$2, and each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card

In the spirit of Torturer, this attack lets your opponent decide how hard he wants to get hit.  The weaker attack is paired with the stronger benefit.

EDIT: This card is bad; don't judge it.  Replacement below.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on October 18, 2020, 11:21:32 am

Quote from: chronostrike on October 18, 2020, 10:43:15 am

Quote

Extortionist • $5
Action - Attack
The player to your left chooses one of the following for you:
+2 cards, and each other player gains <1>; or +$2, and each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card

In the spirit of Torturer, this attack lets your opponent decide how hard he wants to get hit.  The weaker attack is paired with the stronger benefit.

Isn't this strictly worse than Militia?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on October 18, 2020, 11:30:15 am

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on October 18, 2020, 11:21:32 am

Quote from: chronostrike on October 18, 2020, 10:43:15 am

Quote

Extortionist • $5
Action - Attack
The player to your left chooses one of the following for you:
+2 cards, and each other player gains <1>; or +$2, and each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card

In the spirit of Torturer, this attack lets your opponent decide how hard he wants to get hit.  The weaker attack is paired with the stronger benefit.

Isn't this strictly worse than Militia?

Yes, yes it is.  I need to reconsider this card.

I think it may not qualify for the contest if I use my first idea, because then it would be +3 cards/+$3 to be more in line with Torturer's power.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 18, 2020, 12:55:28 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on October 18, 2020, 11:21:32 am

Isn't this strictly worse than Militia?

Not strictly, since you may want to discard 2 cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 18, 2020, 01:52:14 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on October 18, 2020, 12:55:28 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on October 18, 2020, 11:21:32 am

Isn't this strictly worse than Militia?

Not strictly, since you may want to discard 2 cards.

Sure "strictly' can be used in the most literal sense... Witch isn't strictly better than Ruined Library ignoring cost, because your opponent might want that Curse to make their Gardens better, and because drawing 2 cards instead of 1 could cause an unwanted reshuffle.

But "strictly" is also used in a more general sense that includes things like "+3 cards" is strictly better than "+2 cards". And "each opponent discards 2 cards" is strictly better than "each opponent discards 1 card".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on October 19, 2020, 11:59:00 am

24 Hours Remaining for Contest Entries

I've been a bit busy lately, sorry for the delay. Tomorrow after the submission deadline ends I'll start judging; hopefully I'll be able to finish the same day but there are a lot of entries so it's possible I won't have results until sometime on Wednesday.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on October 19, 2020, 01:26:28 pm

Here's mine (previously entered for a different contest, but then retracted):

(https://i.imgur.com/NJJCCcI.png)

Quote

Colosseum - Project - $2

During your turns, Events cost $1 less (but not less than $0).
-
Setup: Add two additional events. These can only be bought if you have bought Coliseum.

People have questioned $2 Projects, so maybe it should be $3? Whether you want to buy this will really depend on whether the events are worthwhile, and then it's a timing decision, so I wanted to allow a 5/2 player the opportunity, if they wanted it.

(I should probably move the "These can only be bought if you have bought Coliseum." concept to above the line, but that won't change how it plays.)

Feedback always welcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on October 19, 2020, 02:26:01 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on October 19, 2020, 01:26:28 pm

Here's mine (previously entered for a different contest, but then retracted):

(https://i.imgur.com/NJJCCcI.png)

Quote

Colosseum - Project - $2

During your turns, Events cost $1 less (but not less than $0).
-
Setup: Add two additional events. These can only be bought if you have bought Coliseum.

People have questioned $2 Projects, so maybe it should be $3? Whether you want to buy this will really depend on whether the events are worthwhile, and then it's a timing decision, so I wanted to allow a 5/2 player the opportunity, if they wanted it.

(I should probably move the "These can only be bought if you have bought Coliseum." concept to above the line, but that won't change how it plays.)

Feedback always welcome.

"On your turns, you may buy the set aside events" would fit nicely

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on October 19, 2020, 05:10:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7h96GMi.jpg)

Quote

Sycophants
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +1 Action. If the total cost in coins of cards you have in play is from... $10 to $19: +2 Actions. $20 to $29: +2 Cards. $30 to $39: +1 Buy and +$2.

Sycophants do different work for you depending on how wealthy you appear to be.  They go from cantrip, to Bustling Village, to activated Menagerie, to Grand Market.  Without cost-reduction shenanigans, you can play 4 as "+3 Cards and +1 Action" and 3 as Grand Markets, or the opposite.  It costs $3 so it does less to activate itself if you're just pile-driving it: Do something else, will ya?
Obviously combos with expensive cantrips like Market, Baker, Bazaar, and Laboratory.

HISTORY
Changed threshold values to make adding easier.  Added upper threshold to Grand Market function.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on October 19, 2020, 08:07:06 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/MOgVFHh.png)

Quote

Monk • $2
Action - Reaction
+2 cards
---
Whenever you trash a card, you may play this from your hand.

Perhaps this should be some kind of dog.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 19, 2020, 08:21:33 pm

Quote from: chronostrike on October 19, 2020, 08:07:06 pm

Quote

Monk • $2
Action - Reaction
+2 cards
---
Whenever you trash a card, you may play this from your hand.

Perhaps this should be some kind of dog.

Yeah. I made a card that I never posted (at least I don't remember posting it) exactly the same as that called Junkyard Stray.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 19, 2020, 08:22:46 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 19, 2020, 05:10:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Rgzgeti.jpg)

Quote

Sycophants
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +1 Action. If the total cost in coins of cards you have in play is... From $10 to $22: +2 Actions. From $23 to $32: +2 Cards. At least $33: +1 Buy and +$2.

Sycophants do different work for you depending on how wealthy you appear to be.  They go from cantrip, to Bustling Village, to activated Menagerie, to Grand Market.  Without cost-reduction shenanigans, you can play 4 as "+3 Cards and +1 Action."  It costs $3 so it does less to activate itself if you're just pile-driving it: Do something else, will ya?
Obviously combos with expensive cantrips like Market, Baker, Bazaar, and Laboratory.

Crazy good with Peddler and Treasury.

I feel like this will be annoying to resolve... you basically have to do a bunch of adding every time you play one of these.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on October 19, 2020, 08:37:58 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 19, 2020, 08:22:46 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 19, 2020, 05:10:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Rgzgeti.jpg)

Quote

Sycophants
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +1 Action. If the total cost in coins of cards you have in play is... From $10 to $22: +2 Actions. From $23 to $32: +2 Cards. At least $33: +1 Buy and +$2.

Sycophants do different work for you depending on how wealthy you appear to be.  They go from cantrip, to Bustling Village, to activated Menagerie, to Grand Market.  Without cost-reduction shenanigans, you can play 4 as "+3 Cards and +1 Action."  It costs $3 so it does less to activate itself if you're just pile-driving it: Do something else, will ya?
Obviously combos with expensive cantrips like Market, Baker, Bazaar, and Laboratory.

Crazy good with Peddler and Treasury.

I feel like this will be annoying to resolve... you basically have to do a bunch of adding every time you play one of these.

The first and third modes are also hard to track.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on October 19, 2020, 08:45:05 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on October 19, 2020, 08:37:58 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 19, 2020, 08:22:46 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on October 19, 2020, 05:10:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Rgzgeti.jpg)

Quote

Sycophants
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card, +1 Action. If the total cost in coins of cards you have in play is... From $10 to $22: +2 Actions. From $23 to $32: +2 Cards. At least $33: +1 Buy and +$2.

Sycophants do different work for you depending on how wealthy you appear to be.  They go from cantrip, to Bustling Village, to activated Menagerie, to Grand Market.  Without cost-reduction shenanigans, you can play 4 as "+3 Cards and +1 Action."  It costs $3 so it does less to activate itself if you're just pile-driving it: Do something else, will ya?
Obviously combos with expensive cantrips like Market, Baker, Bazaar, and Laboratory.

Crazy good with Peddler and Treasury.

I feel like this will be annoying to resolve... you basically have to do a bunch of adding every time you play one of these.

The first and third modes are also hard to track.

Change it to "Just before the end of your action phase" or "At the start of your buy phase" then the Total cost thing, and then you don't need to worry about tracking

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on October 20, 2020, 01:55:49 pm

Contest entries are now closed.

Results will be posted soon.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: alion8me on October 21, 2020, 12:22:02 pm

Weekly Card Contest 91 Results

This week I didn't have the ability to test the cards myself, so results are based on theory, this time.

Twins - gambit05

(https://i.ibb.co/WcZPmgq/Twins.png)

I believe this has the most twos out of any card submitted, coming in at a total of 6! The effect is pretty nice, although I do agree with commenters that it's almost a strict upgrade to Ride. I also can't remember the last time I've seen a fan card that would make a stronger Mouse than Encampment. The implications of having this be your only +Buy source are also pretty neat.

Caver - Aquila

Quote

Caver - Action, $2 cost.
+2 Cards
If your deck is empty, + $2.
-
This is gained to the bottom of your deck (instead of your discard pile).

It's a $2 Moat with the bonus effect being that overdrawing with it lets you get +$2 instead (and perfect draws that leave your deck empty, but I imagine it'll more often be used for the latter considering that buying terminal +2 Cards in a more money-ish deck isn't a very good idea usually). It strikes me as being fine power-level wise, but also I don't see it playing very differently from a vanilla +2 Cards.

Edict - majiponi

Quote

Edict
cost $2 - Action
Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Discard them for +$2 or put them into your hand.

Another $2 Moat; this one lets you sift instead of draw if the revealed cards are bad. It sounds pretty nice. A technical point: it can say "look" instead of "reveal", because other players don't need to see the cards for accountability reasons (see Catacombs VS Journeyman). I like it overall.

Coachman - Freddy10

(https://i.imgur.com/IiZs7uC.jpg)

This strikes me as powerful relative to its cost. The downside on this is fairly low, and it's also optional - you can choose not to take the extra +2 Cards after seeing your initial draw. That being said, it also leads to an interesting new dynamic regarding how you have to put your deck together compared to most other draw cards.

Huckster - Xen3k

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/121699099_794200381314051_3281707204546246971_n.png?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=pJ8PmnovSYkAX92IakK&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=40e3711df6ecc82c993496fae68018dd&oe=5FAC1199)

Now, an attack. I don't think I agree with other commenters at all that this is close to militia in power; it's somewhat reminiscent of Vault's optional benefit to other players, except that you're forced to do it. Although it won't always be a beneficial effect for your opponent, I suspect it will be often enough that you don't really want to play this at all, with all the cycling you'll be giving your opponent for free.

Butler - NoMoreFun

Quote

Butler
Action - $5
Choose one: +2 Coffers; or +2 Villagers; or play an Action card from your hand twice

A throne room variant. It obviously draws a comparison with Crown; usually the Throne effect will be the one you want, but the others are a nice consolation prize, and in the case of Butler, they are very nice indeed. The fact that you fundamentally want this to act as a Throne most of the time really makes it so this doesn't go off the rails easily. I like how this card solves the problem of "making Villagers take effort to get".

Prayer - silverspawn

(https://i.ibb.co/FzVbVnF/Prayer.png)

The first card I've reviewed thus far without multiple twos on it! It's a neat idea that I think solves the problem inherent with cards that take other cards out of play looping way too easily. It probably isn't worth buying in every game; you really want +Actions or some method to gain multiple cards a turn (probably both) in order to have this be effective. Being situationally useful isn't a bad thing to have in a card; I am somewhat worried that this is dead too often though.

Combine - anordinaryman

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/fowhavvz.png)

I like how it can trash cards in play; I think this ability is deceptively powerful, but in a way that makes the game more interesting rather than less. The main issue I have with it is that estate trashing with this is super swingy; if you buy it in the opening, the difference between drawing two estates in hand with this and one is enormous.

Import - spineflu

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f87821dd6bab25436e7c807/a2e4f2adb854fceab1e16386fc581227/image.png)

I really like this card; I have a soft spot for gainers, and this certainly does a lot of that. One concern is that it might empty piles too easily. I don't think that's the case, since it can't gain itself, but it would be worth keeping in mind when testing it. I especially like how this works early-game; it can potentially get you a lot of cheap cards very quickly, but it also makes it even harder for you to get more $5s unless you have a plan for it.

Anvil/Hammer - spheremonk

(https://abload.de/img/anvil-hammercontest_scvkys.png) (https://abload.de/img/anvilcontest87k9u.png) (https://abload.de/img/hammercontestfije5.png)

These feel weak to me. Trying to use these as your primary draw seems very difficult, and they're not a great supplemental one-shot given their terminality. I like the general concept of "shuffled pile of one-shots that you can reveal the other one to keep", though.

Wine Cask - D782802859

(https://i.imgur.com/x5TuAdE.png?1)

Very interesting. Playing with this seems difficult; it generates a crazy amount of money for how little it costs to add to your deck, so you probably want it at some point, but it also does nothing until then, making it hard to tell when exactly you should pick it up. Obviously it's also great if you can somehow get it into your deck without gaining it; I believe Camel Train is currently the only way to do this without cooperation from your opponent.

Colosseum - scolapasta

(https://i.imgur.com/NJJCCcI.png)

This project doesn't seem to me like it would add to the game in an interesting way. Events are, generally, quite strong; most of the time, at least one of the random events added to the kingdom with this will be good enough that buying Colosseum is worth it, especially with the cost reduction component. And then if the set aside events are both bad, you just don't buy it. Either way, I don't think this plays out differently enough from simply having 2 events on the table to be worth it.

Sycophants - Fragasnap

(https://i.imgur.com/7h96GMi.jpg)

This feels confusingly wordy to me. It also has the issue where +Cards is generally not as valuable a bonus later in your turn; in order to draw with Sycophants, you've probably already come close to drawing your deck anyways. It's final mode is also not as great as it sounds, as you probably won't get to take advantage of its cantrip nature. I'm not really sure why it has a cap, either.

Monk - chronostrike

(https://i.imgur.com/MOgVFHh.png)

I like this. It seems like you can get it to trigger fairly often, both from attacks and from yourself, while not being something you can just base your entire game around most of the time. Reactions like this are pretty fun to play with.


This week's winner was Wine Cask, by D782802859. The way that it would play is fairly unique (Miser, Pirate Ship, and Travelers are the only cards that I can think off the top of my head that start weak and power up over the course of the game for one player, and this is quite distinct from all those), and it really encourages you to think about building in a different way than you normally do. I'm not 100% certain on the numbers, but given that this is a weekly contest, that's kind of to be expected; it seems like it's in the ballpark, though.

The runners-up this week are Import, by spineflu, and Monk, by chronostrike. Both of these cards just hit a very nice point in "simple but interesting", to me.

Anyways, that was a great contest. The cards this week were fun to read through and it was also enjoyable to see how many twos ya'll tried to fit onto a single card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on October 21, 2020, 01:16:45 pm

Thanks for the win! This is honestly one of the highest quality weeks we've had so far.
Contest #92: Envious of Envious
Design a State and a card that uses it. A note here is that these states should not be like Lost in the Woods, because that's basically an Artifact. It should have a copy for each player.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 21, 2020, 01:34:27 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on October 21, 2020, 01:16:45 pm

A note here is that these states should not be like Lost in the Woods, because that's basically an Artifact. It should have a copy for each player.

Can you specify that more?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on October 21, 2020, 01:41:09 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on October 21, 2020, 01:34:27 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on October 21, 2020, 01:16:45 pm

A note here is that these states should not be like Lost in the Woods, because that's basically an Artifact. It should have a copy for each player.

Can you specify that more?

The way Lost In The Woods works is that only one person can have it at a time and it gets passed around, meaning it functions like Artifacts from Renaissance. The rest of the states can be held by multiple people.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 21, 2020, 02:56:41 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f908252575f841274b4d249/5db32a47bfcefd3631a6f069acb1f9a6/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f908252575f841274b4d249/872b8e9cc99ab8e171d1f4349658eb22/image.png)

Quote

Brazier • $4 • Action
If you don't have Brazen, take it.
-
While this is in play, Copper produces $1 extra.

Quote

Brazen • State
You are unaffected by Attack cards played by other players.

At the start of your Clean up phase, you may discard a Copper; if you do not, return this.

Coppersmith/Moat variant that costs being on the receiving end of a Cutpurse to keep around.
In the interest of heading off "strictly better" talk, Brazier isn't throneable or commandable like Coppersmith is. I kept it priced at $4 because of the opening - if Brazier is the best way to $$$$ on the board, it's too painful to give the 5/2 opener that big of an advantage.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 21, 2020, 03:40:29 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/4Rx1snX/Pharmacy.png) ‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎(https://i.ibb.co/8dKbvXj/Sleepwalking.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 21, 2020, 11:27:54 pm

Quote

Drunken Master
$5 - Action - Attack
+2 Cards.
Each other player gains a Ruins.
If you don't have Party in the Ruins, take it.

Quote

Party in the Ruins
State
All your Ruins have the Reserve type and the following text: "Put this on your Tavern Mat. | At the start of your turn, you may call this for +$2 and return Party in the Ruins."
At the start of your turn, return Party in the Ruins.

Calling a Ruins makes you return the state immediately to keep you from being able to call more than one Ruins in a turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on October 22, 2020, 12:56:17 am

Quote from: silverspawn on October 21, 2020, 03:40:29 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/4Rx1snX/Pharmacy.png) ‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎(https://i.ibb.co/8dKbvXj/Sleepwalking.png)

With Sleepwalking, empty deck, empty discard pile and two Minning Villages in hand, you can make a loop to generate infinite money and infinite actions.

There's also a possible loop with Raze, but to it generate something useful you also need something like Tomb or an Adventure token.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on October 22, 2020, 01:15:57 am

Shiny
State
When you play a Silver, +1 Buy, +$1
When you gain a Silver, return this

Polish
Event - $5
Take Shiny

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 22, 2020, 03:20:03 am

Quote from: Carline on October 22, 2020, 12:56:17 am

With Sleepwalking, empty deck, empty discard pile and two Minning Villages in hand, you can make a loop to generate infinite money and infinite actions.

With our Medicine, you can dream of being the richest person in the world!
Only at Pharmacy Pharmy. Pharmacy Pharmy, your best supplier for all things medical.
(Pharmacy Pharmy is not responsible for any externalities you experience as a result of using our products, such as RuinEd dreams or recurring Curses.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on October 22, 2020, 07:41:52 am

Hedonist (Action, $5)

Gain a card costing up to $5.
Take Penury.


Penury (State)

When you would gain a card, return this and gain a Copper instead.


There is one copy of Penury available for every player.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on October 22, 2020, 09:43:25 am

My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/TWBzTHY/Cheshire-Cat.png)

(https://i.ibb.co/2YzvmVf/Grinning.png) Grinning State Quote When you play an Action card, if you played another copy this turn, Exile it and return this.

Cheshire Cat       $5 – Action – Attack - Command                        Quote       Each other player without      Grinning takes it.      Choose one: +$3; or play      a non-Command Action      card on another player’s      Exile mat, leaving it there.

'Did you say pig, or fig?' said the Cat. 'I said pig,' replied Alice; 'and I wish you wouldn't keep appearing and vanishing so suddenly: you make one quite giddy.‘ 'All right,' said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. 'Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin,' thought Alice; 'but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!‘ - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on October 22, 2020, 12:50:31 pm

Monkey
$2 - Action
+2 Cards
Take Curious

Curious
State
When you would draw a card, instead:
Look at the top two cards of your deck, put one into your hand and discard the other. Return this.


Pictures TBD

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 22, 2020, 01:34:26 pm

The judge didn't include critique of my unnamed card that I posted in the beginning of this weekly challange.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on October 22, 2020, 02:09:23 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 22, 2020, 01:34:26 pm

The judge didn't include critique of my unnamed card that I posted in the beginning of this weekly challange.

Could it be that it vanished?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 22, 2020, 05:11:50 pm

Beginner, 1st Job Change, 2nd Job Change

Quote

Beginner - Action Attack, $4 cost.
+2 Cards
Each other player reveals the top card of their deck and discards it if it costs $3 or more.
At the end of your Buy phase, you may pay $4 to take 1st Job Change if you don't have it or 2nd Job Change, or gain a Duchy if you do.

Quote

1st Job Change - State
When you play a Beginner: first get + $1, and you may choose to flip this to 2nd Job Change if you pay $4.

Quote

2nd Job Change - State
During your turns, Beginners cost $3 more. When you play a Beginner: first get + $2; if another player discards a Victory card, they gain a Curse; if you gain a Duchy, +2VP.

Level up MMORPG style, with a two-sided State for everyone. It should be like this:

Beginner - $4 cost, +2 Cards, top deck discard attack
    V
Pay $4
    V
1st Job - $4 cost, +2 Cards + $1, top deck discard attack, may pay $4 for a Duchy
    V
Pay $4
    V
2nd Job - $7 cost,  +2 Cards + $2, top deck discard attack which if a Victory they gain a Curse, may pay $4 for a 5VP Duchy


Edit: changed Beginner's attack and adjusted wording.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 22, 2020, 05:51:29 pm

Having other players discard the top card of their deck is not an attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MiX on October 22, 2020, 05:52:27 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 22, 2020, 05:51:29 pm

Having other players discard the top card of their deck is not an attack.

But making them gain a Curse is, which is what the 2nd Job Change does.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on October 22, 2020, 11:09:49 pm

Prayer
cost $4 - Action
+$2
Take Small Wish.


Small Wish
State
At the start of your turn, you may return this to choose one: +1 Card; +1 Action; +$1; or +1 Buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 22, 2020, 11:49:15 pm

Contest #92: Envious of Envious - Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/4ppwenax.png)               (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/6qvhpgcg.png)

Quote

Chamberlain - Action - $5
Choose one: +1 Buy; or gain a card costing up to $4 onto your deck; or take Laboring
-
Setup: Each player takes Laboring

Quote

Laboring - State
When any player gains a non-Duration Action card, you may return this to play a copy of that card from the Supply, leaving it there.

Laboring lets you join in the fun when your opponent gets a card, you get to play it! Unfortunately, most cards are best to be played on your own turn. You might re-think buying a smithy this turn if your opponent is Laboring. You can choose to play cards you gain during your own turn. Out of actions? Gain a Village with Chamberlain and return Laboring to save your turn!

All games with Chamberlain everyone gets to start Laboring, so everyone gets to cash in on the fun at least once. This definitely mixes up the opening quite a bit and lessens player one advantage.

Open to feedback, of course!

Rule Clarifications: the choice to use Laboring happens in turn order starting with the person whose turn it is. You resolve all of those before the player whose turn it is continues their turn after gaining a card, even if this happened in the middle of resolving card. For example, Player A uses Inventor to gain a Village, then Player A choose to not return Laboring, then Player B returns Laboring to play a village from the supply drawing a card (the +2 actions does nothing), and then Player A finishes resolving Inventor so only now do cards cost $1 less.


Thematically, A Chamberlain is in charge of managing a royal household. It's like other royal cards that have "choose one." I imagine all the choices here are choices a Chamberlain could make, getting goods, investing in the market, or forcing the serfs to work harder. Laboring of course is thematically like the event Toil -- playing an action card out of the action phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 23, 2020, 04:31:25 am

Quote from: gambit05 on October 22, 2020, 02:09:23 pm

Quote from: Jonatan Djurachkovitch on October 22, 2020, 01:34:26 pm

The judge didn't include critique of my unnamed card that I posted in the beginning of this weekly challange.

Could it be that it vanished?

No, it's here:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg855637#msg855637

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on October 23, 2020, 07:37:05 am

That is unfortunate. I looked for your entry twice yesterday and couldn't find it, but I looked only from the last entry to mine, which I thought was the first one, and then back to the last. Probably alion8me missed it the same way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 23, 2020, 02:10:10 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 21, 2020, 02:56:41 pm

Quote

Brazen • State
You are unaffected by Attack cards played by other players.

At the start of your Clean up phase, you may discard a Copper; if you do not, return this.

Did you mean for this to say "discard a Copper from your Hand"? Right now, it seems you get to keep Brazen as long as you play at least one copper during your Buy phase.

Quote from: silverspawn on October 21, 2020, 03:40:29 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/4Rx1snX/Pharmacy.png) ‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎(https://i.ibb.co/8dKbvXj/Sleepwalking.png)

Sleep walking isn't bad when there's trash 4 benefit. I'm very happy to salvage/apprentice/bishop a province. Is this intended? If not, you can slightly weaken it in the non t4b case by having it not apply to victory cards.

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 21, 2020, 11:27:54 pm

Quote

Drunken Master
$5 - Action - Attack
+2 Cards.
Each other player gains a Ruins.
If you don't have Party in the Ruins, take it.

Quote

Party in the Ruins
State
All your Ruins have the Reserve type and the following text: "Put this on your Tavern Mat. | At the start of your turn, you may call this for +$2 and return Party in the Ruins."
At the start of your turn, return Party in the Ruins.

Calling a Ruins makes you return the state immediately to keep you from being able to call more than one Ruins in a turn.

I could be wrong on this, but ownership of cards isn't very clear. ("All your Ruins"). What about Command cards that play Ruins? Instead, Dominion usually uses "On your turn, Ruins have the Reserve type and the following test..." I recommend that change.

Quote from: mandioca15 on October 22, 2020, 07:41:52 am

Hedonist (Action, $5)

Gain a card costing up to $5.
Take Penury.


Penury (State)

When you would gain a card, return this and gain a Copper instead.


There is one copy of Penury available for every player.

Am I missing something? This seems super weak. a 5-cost card that terminally gains a card costing 5 with a self-junking drawback is not so good -- I'd rather just buy that 5 cost myself. I feel like this could cost 4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 23, 2020, 02:20:29 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 23, 2020, 02:10:10 pm

Sleep walking isn't bad when there's trash 4 benefit. I'm very happy to salvage/apprentice/bishop a province. Is this intended?

Yes (or at least it's planned - I might have preferred a version that can't help if I knew how to do that). This is the reason Pharmacy doesn't always attack but gives you a choice. That way, you can always choose to play it for the 3$, but without giving your opponent sleepwalking.

If you're the player without Pharmacy, you can even defend yourself against the attack by buying a remodel in addition to your junk dealer. Maybe your opponent will be so scared of you getting value out of sleepwalking that she doesn't attack, and then you get to trash with junk dealer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 23, 2020, 03:46:08 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 23, 2020, 02:10:10 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 21, 2020, 02:56:41 pm

Quote

Brazen • State
You are unaffected by Attack cards played by other players.

At the start of your Clean up phase, you may discard a Copper; if you do not, return this.

Did you mean for this to say "discard a Copper from your Hand"? Right now, it seems you get to keep Brazen as long as you play at least one copper during your Buy phase.

i really (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Oasis) wish people (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Cellar) would quit (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/The_Wind%27s_Gift) harping (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Poacher) on this (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Mill) because (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Torturer) its implicit (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Warehouse) for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Silos) "from hand" (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Crop_Rotation) on official (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Quest) cards (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Secret_Cave). happened with the "steal someone elses mechanic" contest too.

i'll fix it if the judge needs me to but yeah, from hand is the intention.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on October 23, 2020, 04:01:46 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 23, 2020, 03:46:08 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 23, 2020, 02:10:10 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 21, 2020, 02:56:41 pm

Quote

Brazen • State
You are unaffected by Attack cards played by other players.

At the start of your Clean up phase, you may discard a Copper; if you do not, return this.

Did you mean for this to say "discard a Copper from your Hand"? Right now, it seems you get to keep Brazen as long as you play at least one copper during your Buy phase.

i really wish people would quit harping on this because its implicit for "from hand" on official cards (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Oasis)

i'll fix it if the judge needs me to but yeah, from hand is the intention

Quote

Sometimes a card will tell you to discard a card from another location, but by default discarded cards come from hands.

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Discard (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Discard)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on October 23, 2020, 04:56:51 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on October 23, 2020, 02:20:29 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 23, 2020, 02:10:10 pm

Sleep walking isn't bad when there's trash 4 benefit. I'm very happy to salvage/apprentice/bishop a province. Is this intended?

Yes (or at least it's planned - I might have preferred a version that can't help if I knew how to do that).

You could add this line to Sleepwalking: "Cards you trash cost $0 until the end of your turn", but that might be unnecessary complication.

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 23, 2020, 02:10:10 pm

I could be wrong on this, but ownership of cards isn't very clear. ("All your Ruins"). What about Command cards that play Ruins? Instead, Dominion usually uses "On your turn, Ruins have the Reserve type and the following test..." I recommend that change.

I still prefer the original version of Inheritance which uses the term "Your Estates", so it's clear enough to me.
It's intuitive that the "leaving it there" clause on command cards means it's not yours.

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 23, 2020, 02:10:10 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on October 22, 2020, 07:41:52 am

<Hedonist & Penury>

Am I missing something? This seems super weak. a 5-cost card that terminally gains a card costing 5 with a self-junking drawback is not so good -- I'd rather just buy that 5 cost myself. I feel like this could cost 4.

I agree Hedonist would be fine costing $3 or $4 as-is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 23, 2020, 05:59:39 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 23, 2020, 04:56:51 pm

You could add this line to Sleepwalking: "Cards you trash cost $0 until the end of your turn", but that might be unnecessary complication.

I don't think I want to change the card now (I already designed it around helping others, and I like the current version), but it is a good idea. (Though, what happens with Wayfarer?)

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on October 23, 2020, 04:56:51 pm

I agree Hedonist would be fine costing $4 as-is.

I doubt it. I think this would be among the weakest 4$'s in the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on October 23, 2020, 06:09:43 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 23, 2020, 03:46:08 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 23, 2020, 02:10:10 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 21, 2020, 02:56:41 pm

Quote

Brazen • State
You are unaffected by Attack cards played by other players.

At the start of your Clean up phase, you may discard a Copper; if you do not, return this.

Did you mean for this to say "discard a Copper from your Hand"? Right now, it seems you get to keep Brazen as long as you play at least one copper during your Buy phase.

i really (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Oasis) wish people (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Cellar) would quit (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/The_Wind%27s_Gift) harping (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Poacher) on this (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Mill) because (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Torturer) its implicit (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Warehouse) for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Silos) "from hand" (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Crop_Rotation) on official (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Quest) cards (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Secret_Cave). happened with the "steal someone elses mechanic" contest too.

i'll fix it if the judge needs me to but yeah, from hand is the intention.

I agree that if your card was an Action card, it would not be ambiguous. You would be able to omit the "from hand" clause. During the clean up phase you discard cards from in-play, so I interpret your state like this: as long as I play a Copper during my turn, I can hold onto Brazen.

I apologize if my suggestion has rubbed you the wrong way. I am only trying to add clarity to improve your card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 23, 2020, 07:37:04 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 23, 2020, 06:09:43 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 23, 2020, 03:46:08 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on October 23, 2020, 02:10:10 pm

Quote from: spineflu on October 21, 2020, 02:56:41 pm

Quote

Brazen • State
You are unaffected by Attack cards played by other players.

At the start of your Clean up phase, you may discard a Copper; if you do not, return this.

Did you mean for this to say "discard a Copper from your Hand"? Right now, it seems you get to keep Brazen as long as you play at least one copper during your Buy phase.

i really (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Oasis) wish people (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Cellar) would quit (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/The_Wind%27s_Gift) harping (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Poacher) on this (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Mill) because (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Torturer) its implicit (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Warehouse) for (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Silos) "from hand" (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Crop_Rotation) on official (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Quest) cards (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Secret_Cave). happened with the "steal someone elses mechanic" contest too.

i'll fix it if the judge needs me to but yeah, from hand is the intention.

I agree that if your card was an Action card, it would not be ambiguous. You would be able to omit the "from hand" clause. During the clean up phase you discard cards from in-play, so I interpret your state like this: as long as I play a Copper during my turn, I can hold onto Brazen.

I apologize if my suggestion has rubbed you the wrong way. I am only trying to add clarity to improve your card.

no i get it, and i get that your intent wasn't malicious (i usually find your suggestions really helpful). its just, it plays the same as literally everything else (including wind's gift, quest, crop rotation) and thus uses the same verbiage (and is a similar situation to the other contest, where the same same issue happened). I reacted disproportionately negatively and i'm sorry, you didnt deserve that level of vitriol.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on October 25, 2020, 11:26:10 am

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/122669550_372839227489005_8115771733740788034_n.png?_nc_cat=100&ccb=2&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=TBUgJ3nyWx8AX8Qx1Tr&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=48d3e68051198b7bcf9fee09f15196cd&oe=5FBAC11D)

Quote

Planning Committee - $6
Action
+3 Cards
If you do not have Anticipation or Midnight Revelry, take Anticipation with a coin token on it.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/s2048x2048/122404448_778100336068674_1725150294586148814_n.png?_nc_cat=104&ccb=2&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=aCBUqiA3Om4AX9DxGXS&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=7f2318990db73ed4597e1be29d38e6a9&oe=5FB936DB)

Quote

Anticipation - State
At the start of your turn, if this has no Coin tokens on it, flip this to Midnight Revelry. Otherwise, remove a Coin token from this.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/s2048x2048/122848646_795588457680443_5167929615140656406_n.png?_nc_cat=111&ccb=2&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=YTYh-UfbU9IAX-PxJr9&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=ffe8e16027f6331ed5118130ec07e8bd&oe=5FBB89E4)

Quote

Midnight Revelry - State
While you have this, your Action cards have the Night card type. At the end of your Night phase, return this, and return to your Buy phase.

A Smithy variant that sets up a really big turn with the States where all Action cards are also Night cards and you return to your Buy phase at the end of the Night phase. I overpriced Planning Committee because I have no idea if the Action cards are Night cards as well mechanic breaks the game or not. Could be a terrible idea. If it is not as busted as I suspect, I think Planning Committee can probably be changed to $5, or other bells and whistles can be added to it. Feedback is more than welcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on October 26, 2020, 11:11:42 pm

This card started with a concept: I wanted to design a State that everyone (including you) would get at the same time, but you would still want to give it out because it would affect different players dramatically differently. I’m not sure I nailed it.

Does anyone have any guidance on what this should cost? I feel entirely lost in the woods (oops) on price. I’ve tried several different price points with various tweaks to the cards and can’t figure it out.


(https://abload.de/img/midaspekmg.png)

(https://abload.de/img/touched21kgp.png)    (https://abload.de/img/twicetouched21k78.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on October 26, 2020, 11:36:23 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on October 26, 2020, 11:11:42 pm

This card started with a concept: I wanted to design a State that everyone (including you) would get at the same time, but you would still want to give it out because it would affect different players dramatically differently. I’m not sure I nailed it.

Does anyone have any guidance on what this should cost? I feel entirely lost in the woods (oops) on price. I’ve tried several different price points with various tweaks to the cards and can’t figure it out.


(https://abload.de/img/midas4ejxo.png)

(https://abload.de/img/touched21kgp.png)    (https://abload.de/img/twicetouched21k78.png)

Midas will always give twice touched, and never give touched. I would put the switch to twice touched first, because otherwise you receive Touched, and then immediately flip it

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on October 27, 2020, 04:42:45 am

Quote from: LittleFish on October 26, 2020, 11:36:23 pm

Midas will always give twice touched, and never give touched. I would put the switch to twice touched first, because otherwise you receive Touched, and then immediately flip it

Great point! I've made the change in the OP. Thanks for the help. (It reads less intuitively to me the corrected way, but you're 100% right.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on October 27, 2020, 07:39:19 am

Will change my entry to the following. Hopefully it is now a sensible price.

Hedonist (Action, $3)

Gain a card costing up to $5.
Take Penury.


Penury (State)

When you would gain a card, return this and gain a Copper instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on October 27, 2020, 12:18:03 pm

24 hours until submissions close

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on October 27, 2020, 01:40:35 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/SndlwUs.png) (https://i.imgur.com/90ELB7H.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on October 28, 2020, 09:17:39 am

Submissions closed, I'll get judging out by around 2

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on October 28, 2020, 07:51:58 pm

Sorry for the late judging, I've been busy lately.
Brazier by spineflu
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856103#msg856103
A Coppersmith variant that also gives attack protection. I think this is just a Coppersmith without much difference a lot of the time. The attack protection doesn't matter enough to put this above a regular Coppersmith, particularly since it requires keeping Coppers around.
Pharmacy by silverspawn
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856107#msg856107
This is an anti-trashing attack for your opponents that forces them to get back junk if they trash it. This isn't very good. It has timing issues where you often can't activate the attack when it matters and that creates some feelsbad moments with a 5 cost oneshot.
Drunken Master by LibraryAdventurer
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856118#msg856118
A ruin-based junker that gives you a way to mitigate its attack with your own copy. The main issue I see here is that it can snowball, since the first player to get one can somewhat lock out their opponents with ruins, but it doesn't seem like a huge issue. The self-countering nature creates some interesting decisions.
Polish by NoMoreFun
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856124#msg856124
First impression is that this encourages boring strategies, since it just makes you gain a bunch of silvers to win. Not a lot of nuance here.
Cheshire Cat by gambit05
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856131#msg856131
The attack is pretty interesting, a good mix of punishing, but not so much that it makes games miserable, the command half especially so. It should be unable to hit durations with the attack and the command option, since that makes tracking tricky.
Monkey by grep
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856137#msg856137
A nice, simple 2-cost card. Not much to say, I like the sleek design.
Beginner by Aquila
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856155#msg856155
This is a good concept, but States don't seem like the best way to implement this. It's somewhat confusing.
Prayer by majiponi
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856164#msg856164
The versatility is very nice. I also like the decisions keeping or using it creates.
Chamberlain by anordinaryman
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856165#msg856165
This seems like it slows down games, since every single time you gain a card you have to wait for anyone with the states to make a choice and potentially resolve another card.
Planning Committee by Xen3k
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856331#msg856331
The abilities of this to do megaturns are interesting, but they're sort of awkward. This is more of a pseudo extra turn generator than anything else, so I think it's a bit overtuned.
Midas by Spheremonk
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856401#msg856401
Hexes as attacks are pretty underpowered, so this is weak. Best case scenario, this gives your opponents a curse and you get to make $3 per copy of this you have. That's not as much as it sounds because you need two copies of a 5 cost card and they can block it. I think lowering the cost and maybe changing the numbers a little would be best.
Hedonist by mandioca5
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856417#msg856417
This was super weak at $5, but I really like it at $3. It creates some extremely interesting gameplay. It's a bit narrow, but in a good way.
Genius by Something_Smart
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856435#msg856435
I like the concept, but it's a a tad overtuned, not losing it isn't hard.
Top 3:
Monkey/Curious
Prayer/Small Wish
Hedonist/Penury
WInner: Hedonist

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on October 29, 2020, 08:45:28 am

Thanks for the win, D782802859, and thanks to those who gave feedback to improve my card. It's the first time I've won this contest, which is nice.

I am prepared to set a new contest, but note that I probably won't be able to provide the kind of analysis for entries that makes this contest so wonderful, as I am a mediocre Dominion player. If someone else is prepared to provide better analysis for entries, then I suggest they set the next contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 29, 2020, 11:07:01 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on October 29, 2020, 08:45:28 am

Thanks for the win, D782802859, and thanks to those who gave feedback to improve my card. It's the first time I've won this contest, which is nice.

I am prepared to set a new contest, but note that I probably won't be able to provide the kind of analysis for entries that makes this contest so wonderful, as I am a mediocre Dominion player. If someone else is prepared to provide better analysis for entries, then I suggest they set the next contest.

As a random opinion from someone who hasn't participated in any of these other than giving random feedback sometimes, I don't think you need to be a great Dominion player to be a good judge of cards; and in-depth analysis of all entries isn't required. Balance and power level might require more Dominion skill to be able to judge well, but there are lots of other criteria used in judging that don't require much Dominion skill; mostly just how much you like the entry. And other members will give plenty of feedback/analysis anyway.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 29, 2020, 11:57:22 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 29, 2020, 11:07:01 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on October 29, 2020, 08:45:28 am

Thanks for the win, D782802859, and thanks to those who gave feedback to improve my card. It's the first time I've won this contest, which is nice.

I am prepared to set a new contest, but note that I probably won't be able to provide the kind of analysis for entries that makes this contest so wonderful, as I am a mediocre Dominion player. If someone else is prepared to provide better analysis for entries, then I suggest they set the next contest.

As a random opinion from someone who hasn't participated in any of these other than giving random feedback sometimes, I don't think you need to be a great Dominion player to be a good judge of cards; and in-depth analysis of all entries isn't required. Balance and power level might require more Dominion skill to be able to judge well, but there are lots of other criteria used in judging that don't require much Dominion skill; mostly just how much you like the entry. And other members will give plenty of feedback/analysis anyway.

just gonna +1 this, I'm awful at dominion (rating of 45 on dominion dot games) and I still judged a couple times. It's just for arbitrary forum funzies and to kinda demonstrate what you find interesting about the game, not to flex how good at dominion you are. 

(like there's valid reasons for not judging like time commitment and whatever, but don't let inexperience keep you from at least trying it out).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on October 29, 2020, 11:58:21 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 29, 2020, 11:07:01 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on October 29, 2020, 08:45:28 am

Thanks for the win, D782802859, and thanks to those who gave feedback to improve my card. It's the first time I've won this contest, which is nice.

I am prepared to set a new contest, but note that I probably won't be able to provide the kind of analysis for entries that makes this contest so wonderful, as I am a mediocre Dominion player. If someone else is prepared to provide better analysis for entries, then I suggest they set the next contest.

As a random opinion from someone who hasn't participated in any of these other than giving random feedback sometimes, I don't think you need to be a great Dominion player to be a good judge of cards; and in-depth analysis of all entries isn't required. Balance and power level might require more Dominion skill to be able to judge well, but there are lots of other criteria used in judging that don't require much Dominion skill; mostly just how much you like the entry. And other members will give plenty of feedback/analysis anyway.

I would like to add that you will learn a lot from evaluating other players cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on October 29, 2020, 12:07:35 pm

Very well, then, here goes:

Contest #93: Return to Sender

Design a card that has the capability of returning itself to the Supply (its pile). It does not always have to return itself (e.g. Encampment).

The card does not have to be a supply card (e.g. Horse). If your card is not a Supply card, design an additional card that can gain it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on October 29, 2020, 12:15:38 pm

I don't have a specific idea, but a general concept to throw out that I think might be cool to see done.

A non-supply card that only has 1 copy in the pile. Or possible only 1 per player if that works better. Of course it would return itself to its pile when played, along with some other effect that's powerful enough that players won't want to just gain it and then keep in in their deck forever without playing it. It would add some tension similar to what Lurker (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Lurker) does.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 29, 2020, 02:03:45 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/f8JZgJZ/Haunted-Mansion.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on October 29, 2020, 06:15:23 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5f9b3e6c0222a50d6f9747c0/a87ad18cefe8a859adc94b905ddd26bf/image.png)

Quote

Hacienda • $5 • Treasure
$2
You may return this to the Supply for +1 Card, +1 Action, then return to your Action phase.

a $5 silver, like scepter, that does a mix of the Villa/Cavalry effect. it was much more complicated and annoying (a choose one with two options that each had like three commas) but then i made it not do that. what a good story.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on October 29, 2020, 07:11:04 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/941/053/full/Golden_Spoils_%283%29.png?1604012995)

Quote

Golden Spoils • $5 • Treasure

_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}
-
If this is not the first Golden Spoils played this turn, +1 buy and return this to the Supply.

First one played in a turn is a Gold, the following ones are Spoils with an extra buy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on October 30, 2020, 02:38:53 pm

Quote

(https://i.ibb.co/vjygYWP/image.png)
Mail
$1 - Action
+1 Action
Return this and another card from your hand to the Supply.
-
When you buy this, if it's the first buy this turn, +1 Buy.

A cheap one shot pseudo-trasher. $1 cost to have extra fun with Remake and Transmogrify, and to be more accessible at startup

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on October 30, 2020, 10:30:16 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/MhXQnby.png?1) (https://i.imgur.com/3iiDOgI.png?1)
A two-shot Smithy, with a  small twist.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on October 30, 2020, 10:46:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Ny2gVpb.png)
A super hireling that gets bad eventually.

Edit: updated

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on October 31, 2020, 02:19:02 am

Quote from: pubby on October 30, 2020, 10:46:21 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tZZ8leB.png)
A super hireling that gets bad eventually.

There's a problem with this: There's no rule saying that Durations have to stay in play to keep their effects going, so you could return a Mountaineer to the Supply and its effect would still keep triggering every turn. Unless this is intended (which I'd assume it's not), it should say something like "at the start of each of your turns that this remains in play:"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 31, 2020, 04:29:05 am

The bigger problem is the frequency of boards on which the penalty doesn't matter

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on October 31, 2020, 04:54:03 am

I think that the card is far too strong. In engines and slogs and with Landmarks it is a no-brainer, so it might only suck in money Kingdoms.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on October 31, 2020, 10:27:42 am

I nerfed it slightly, but I do want to keep some of its craziness.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on October 31, 2020, 11:25:05 am

Quote from: pubby on October 31, 2020, 10:27:42 am

I nerfed it slightly, but I do want to keep some of its craziness.

The wording looks a bit awful to me. How about this:

Quote

Until this leaves play, at the
start of each of your turns:
+2 Cards.
--------------------------
When you buy a Victory card
or take VP tokens, return this
to the Supply.

I think the "stays in play" part is more confusing than helpful. While I cared more about the wording than the functionality, this change would make the card more powerful.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 31, 2020, 01:11:44 pm

There are some nice entries already! Here's a split pile:

Quote

Clue - Treasure, $1* cost.
$1
+ $1 per Clue you have in play. At Clean-up, return this to the Supply.
-
This can't cost less than $1. When you buy this, +1 Buy.

Quote

Hideaway - Night, $6 cost.
Gain a card costing up to how much $ you have unspent, or if this is your only Hideaway in play, one costing up to $3 more.

5 Clues on top of 5 Hideaways.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 31, 2020, 01:20:07 pm

Isn't hideaway the most useless thing ever? It allows you to turn x$ into x clues, which you can do anyway with clues on-buy ability. I might be misunderstanding how it works.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on October 31, 2020, 01:46:13 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on October 31, 2020, 01:20:07 pm

Isn't hideaway the most useless thing ever? It allows you to turn x$ into x clues, which you can do anyway with clues on-buy ability. I might be misunderstanding how it works.

I think you're misreading it - you don't gain x cards, you gain 1 card (will value up to $x).

Seems like with one hideaway, it's effectively +1 Buy. With multiple you get to repeat using that unspent $.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on October 31, 2020, 01:49:06 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on October 31, 2020, 01:20:07 pm

Isn't hideaway the most useless thing ever? It allows you to turn x$ into x clues, which you can do anyway with clues on-buy ability. I might be misunderstanding how it works.

One by itself is just a non-terminal +buy, but the ones played after that can each be like Fortunes; if you have $8, buy nothing and play 2 Hideaways, that's 2 Provinces. Of course that could be very weak and it might need to be 'gain a card costing up to $2 + $1 ...' or something. Or it's too crazy with Clues.

Ninja'ed, what scolapasta said.

Edit: I see how the wording is confusing now, maybe 'gain a card costing up to how much unspent $ you have'?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on October 31, 2020, 04:10:07 pm

Quote from: Aquila on October 31, 2020, 01:49:06 pm

Edit: I see how the wording is confusing now, maybe 'gain a card costing up to how much unspent $ you have'?

I did misread it in exactly the way scholapasta guessed, and yes, I think that phrasing would fix it. You could also say 'at most as much as you have unspent $'.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 01, 2020, 01:12:22 am

Quote from: Aquila on October 31, 2020, 01:11:44 pm

There are some nice entries already! Here's a split pile:

Quote

Clue - Treasure, $1* cost.
$1
+ $1 per Clue you have in play. At Clean-up, return this to the Supply.
-
This can't cost less than $1. When you buy this, +1 Buy.

Quote

Hideaway - Night, $6 cost.
Gain a card costing up to how much $ you have unspent.

5 Clues on top of 5 Hideaways.

I think only one Hideaway is worse than Market Square or Candlestick Maker, except for never being drawn dead. So, it’s good only if you have two or more. However, it’s not so easy to buy two or more Hideaways because Clues are returning to the top of the pile.

If you gain two Hideaways and use them to gain extra cards that cost $6 or less, only after the third card gained this way you have some gain, since the first two you would buy anyway instead of those Hideaways (and already play them in the turn you would gain them with Hideaways). As the game probably would be more near the to end when you gain your second Hideaway, maybe there’s not much time to do the trick three times or more.

So Hideaway seems to me to be a kind of an expensive and hard to trigger Duplicate, specific for $7 cost cards, Provinces, Platina and Colonies. For $7 cost cards and Platinum, if you have one in play, it’s easier to gain another with Changeling.

Also, there's a multiplayer issue: only two players can have more than one Hideaway, which doesn't seem too fair for a card that does its best only in pairs or multiples.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 01, 2020, 04:29:49 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 29, 2020, 12:15:38 pm

I don't have a specific idea, but a general concept to throw out that I think might be cool to see done.

A non-supply card that only has 1 copy in the pile. Or possible only 1 per player if that works better. Of course it would return itself to its pile when played, along with some other effect that's powerful enough that players won't want to just gain it and then keep in in their deck forever without playing it. It would add some tension similar to what Lurker (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Lurker) does.

I think that this is a cool idea and here is a variation of it. Not sure about the scaling, I'd first try it with 2 copies per player.

(https://i.imgur.com/1w9dGvw.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 01, 2020, 04:02:57 pm

My submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/M1PD8B9/Quay.png)  (https://i.ibb.co/SfwcWYB/Cart-v2.png)

Quay $4 – Action - Duration Quote +2 Cards At the start of your next         turn, choose one: Take 1 Debt          for +2 Cards; or exchange this for a Cart to your hand.

Cart $3* - Action Quote +2 Actions +$2 +1 Card per empty pile. Return this to its pile.             (This is not in the Supply.)

I have recently introduced Cart and some cards gaining it here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20541.0).

Two things important about Cart:

1) Any empty pile counts for the drawing capacity, not only Supply piles.

2) The Cart pile is supposed to be limited, i.e. there should be a reasonable chance that the pile is temporarily empty during a game. The current setting is 6 Carts for 2 players, plus 2 for each additional player. However, to determine the numbers that are the most interesting ones requires some play testing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on November 01, 2020, 04:17:02 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 01, 2020, 01:12:22 am

Quote from: Aquila on October 31, 2020, 01:11:44 pm

There are some nice entries already! Here's a split pile:
...

Quote

Hideaway - Night, $6 cost.
Gain a card costing up to how much $ you have unspent.

5 Clues on top of 5 Hideaways.

I think only one Hideaway is worse than Market Square or Candlestick Maker, except for never being drawn dead. So, it’s good only if you have two or more. However, it’s not so easy to buy two or more Hideaways because Clues are returning to the top of the pile.

If you gain two Hideaways and use them to gain extra cards that cost $6 or less, only after the third card gained this way you have some gain, since the first two you would buy anyway instead of those Hideaways (and already play them in the turn you would gain them with Hideaways). As the game probably would be more near the to end when you gain your second Hideaway, maybe there’s not much time to do the trick three times or more.

So Hideaway seems to me to be a kind of an expensive and hard to trigger Duplicate, specific for $7 cost cards, Provinces, Platina and Colonies. For $7 cost cards and Platinum, if you have one in play, it’s easier to gain another with Changeling.

Also, there's a multiplayer issue: only two players can have more than one Hideaway, which doesn't seem too fair for a card that does its best only in pairs or multiples.

Yes, thanks for all of this. I've added 'or if you have no other Hideaways in play, one costing up to $3 more', so the first one is a Gold with a mandatory +buy.

Quote from: segura on November 01, 2020, 04:29:49 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 29, 2020, 12:15:38 pm

I don't have a specific idea, but a general concept to throw out that I think might be cool to see done.

A non-supply card that only has 1 copy in the pile. Or possible only 1 per player if that works better. Of course it would return itself to its pile when played, along with some other effect that's powerful enough that players won't want to just gain it and then keep in in their deck forever without playing it. It would add some tension similar to what Lurker (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Lurker) does.

I think that this is a cool idea and here is a variation of it. Not sure about the scaling, I'd first try it with 2 copies per player.

(https://i.imgur.com/wqMK2ST.png)

It's good that this can become a Silver when there are no cheaper Actions, but shouldn't this specify non-Duration as there's nothing in play to track them? Changing a lost city to a weak terminal when the pile empties is certainly a harsh loss, so it's interactive to be sure, but maybe too harsh?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 01, 2020, 07:49:51 pm

When new BoM plays a Duration card, the BoM stays in play for tracking, so this would as well.

Though I am not completely exactly what the rule that makes this happens states / how it is worded. In the errata thread Donald said it “ These rules apply to all of the cards that play cards without putting them into play: currently, Band of Misfits, Overlord, Inheritance, Necromancer, and Captain.”

The question is what is the wording that makes it apply to those cards but not to Vassal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 02, 2020, 01:03:22 am

Quote from: Aquila on November 01, 2020, 04:17:02 pm

It's good that this can become a Silver when there are no cheaper Actions, but shouldn't this specify non-Duration as there's nothing in play to track them? Changing a lost city to a weak terminal when the pile empties is certainly a harsh loss, so it's interactive to be sure, but maybe too harsh?

Thanks for the feedback, I'll post a fixed version.
I wasn't sure about whether this should say "Treasure or Action card" as it is implicitly clear that you cannot play a Victory or Curse (it would become too wordy if it would have to specify that).

About the power level, I have no idea but a benchmark is that two copies, with the first one being returned and nothing better in the Supply for it to emulate but Silver, is equal to two Peddlers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 02, 2020, 01:41:33 am

Quote from: segura on November 01, 2020, 04:29:49 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on October 29, 2020, 12:15:38 pm

I don't have a specific idea, but a general concept to throw out that I think might be cool to see done.

A non-supply card that only has 1 copy in the pile. Or possible only 1 per player if that works better. Of course it would return itself to its pile when played, along with some other effect that's powerful enough that players won't want to just gain it and then keep in in their deck forever without playing it. It would add some tension similar to what Lurker (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Lurker) does.

I think that this is a cool idea and here is a variation of it. Not sure about the scaling, I'd first try it with 2 copies per player.

(https://i.imgur.com/1w9dGvw.png)

What about making it a bit stronger like this (bottom part):

Quote

Otherwise, exchange this with a card
to your hand costing less than this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 02, 2020, 06:35:53 am

It is a good idea, but I don't think that it is always a buff. You might not want that Silver in your deck and playing a Pearl Diver is a cantrip whereas gaining one to hand is terminal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 02, 2020, 01:06:47 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 01, 2020, 07:49:51 pm

When new BoM plays a Duration card, the BoM stays in play for tracking, so this would as well.

Problem is, it can't stay in play because it returns itself to the Supply when the command effect triggers.

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 01, 2020, 07:49:51 pm

Though I am not completely exactly what the rule that makes this happens states / how it is worded. In the errata thread Donald said it “ These rules apply to all of the cards that play cards without putting them into play: currently, Band of Misfits, Overlord, Inheritance, Necromancer, and Captain.”

The question is what is the wording that makes it apply to those cards but not to Vassal.

I think that the reason it doesn't apply to Vassal is because, barring edge-cases, Vassal doesn't play cards without putting them into play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 02, 2020, 01:38:02 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 02, 2020, 01:06:47 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 01, 2020, 07:49:51 pm

When new BoM plays a Duration card, the BoM stays in play for tracking, so this would as well.

Problem is, it can't stay in play because it returns itself to the Supply when the command effect triggers.

Ah yeah, I missed that.

Quote

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 01, 2020, 07:49:51 pm

Though I am not completely exactly what the rule that makes this happens states / how it is worded. In the errata thread Donald said it “ These rules apply to all of the cards that play cards without putting them into play: currently, Band of Misfits, Overlord, Inheritance, Necromancer, and Captain.”

The question is what is the wording that makes it apply to those cards but not to Vassal.

I think that the reason it doesn't apply to Vassal is because, barring edge-cases, Vassal doesn't play cards without putting them into play.

Right, my question was more about what the actual wording of the new rule is. Donald only told us which currently-existing cards the rule applies to; he didn't say what the wording of that rule is. Probably something along the lines of "when a card plays a Duration card without putting it into play..."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 02, 2020, 01:48:52 pm

Quote from: segura on November 02, 2020, 06:35:53 am

It is a good idea, but I don't think that it is always a buff. You might not want that Silver in your deck and playing a Pearl Diver is a cantrip whereas gaining one to hand is terminal.

Yeah, I was aware of those drawbacks even before I posted my suggestion. Sometimes, a simple wording is inferior to a complex wording. I mean there are more possibilities to buff it, but I don't want to interfere too much with your card design. Anyway, this seems to be the first card I am aware of that can emulate Treasures.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 02, 2020, 07:33:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oMv9xNV.jpg)

Quote

Escape Artist
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Exile a Treasure from the Supply.

---

When you discard this from play, you may return this to the Supply. If you do, choose one: Exile up to 3 cards from your hand; or Exile a Curse, a Duchy, and a copy of a card you have in play from the Supply.

Escape Artist is a one-shot Exiler, either exiling a large number of cards from your hand or netting +2VP from the Supply while copying a valuable card you have in play.  It goes back to the Supply so all players can use it as a mass-Exiler in multiplayer games and it won't arbitrarily drain piles (as in, including itself) in circumstances where it is strong.

Note its primary ability triggers when discarded from play, so that 1) You can use it to Exile from the Supply copies of Treasures you play, 2) Escape Artist thematically can't be fooled by Enchantress or Ways, and 3) Escape Artist can't be freely emulated and copied (by Necromancer or Band of Misfits or Throne Room) so its +2VP option is more expensive.

HISTORY
Added an on-play effect for clarity and it marginally reduces the delta of its strength in games with and without Ways.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 03, 2020, 06:09:35 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 02, 2020, 07:33:13 pm

Escape Artist thematically can't be fooled by Enchantress

The text in Escape Artist is a play instruction you execute when discard or a discard instruction? in the latter case, the text needs to be under a dividing line, doesn't?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 04, 2020, 02:39:21 am

Quote from: silverspawn on October 29, 2020, 02:03:45 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/f8JZgJZ/Haunted-Mansion.png)

I think there would be a big advantage for the first player to align it with a strong attack like Mountebank or Witch.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 04, 2020, 09:12:27 am

Quote from: Carline on November 04, 2020, 02:39:21 am

Quote from: silverspawn on October 29, 2020, 02:03:45 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/f8JZgJZ/Haunted-Mansion.png)

I think there would be a big advantage for the first player to align it with a strong attack like Mountebank or Witch.

play Bridge
play HM-HM-Workshop(2HMs,2Workshops)-Workshop(Smithy,any 3)-Smithy-HM-...

Easy to loop. Not infinite, but insane.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 04, 2020, 10:36:06 am

Well, since people didn't like it anyway, I think I'll just have the broken card as this week's entry. I'll make a non-broken card next time.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on November 04, 2020, 12:13:31 pm

Entries will close in 24 hours.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on November 04, 2020, 02:39:44 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/i78XaFV.png)

Quote

Rosary
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card
+1 Action
You may trash a card from your hand. If you do: +1 Card per $ it costs and return this to the Supply.

Wanted to do a card with optional Exil for benefit for some time. Due to contests theme, it returns to the pile now.

I wanted to do something, that gives you extra draw or actions for returning it, in case you need it. Could be a way to accelerate your early turns or a backup for bad turns. Then I thought of all the matches where one player connects his trasher with the right target and the other does not. (Just think of the difference between trashing an Estate/ a Copper with any TfB like say Salvager). With Rosary this situation is less critical, as a cantrip it replaces itself if not hitting and the one that hits is gone thereafter.

Although it returns itself, I think it can do similiar things to Apprentice. Maybe the only way to draw is to gain Rosary and Gold, and then trash Gold to Rosary. I like when you have to consider these alternative ways to get draw or whatever :D

EDIT: It now returns itself immediately instead of at the Clean-up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on November 04, 2020, 02:42:17 pm

Thoughts on the setting aside first instead of immediately returning it? The latter would make it less wordy, which would be nice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 04, 2020, 03:11:33 pm

Quote from: Rhodos on November 04, 2020, 02:42:17 pm

Thoughts on the setting aside first instead of immediately returning it? The latter would make it less wordy, which would be nice.

I see no problem in returning Rosary immediately. Encampment is set aside to allow easier access to Plunder, the bottom half of its split pile, as far as I see it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 04, 2020, 04:38:24 pm

Assistant
Action - $5
+3 Cards
You may gain an Assistant. If you didn't, return this to its pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 04, 2020, 05:42:21 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on November 04, 2020, 03:11:33 pm

Quote from: Rhodos on November 04, 2020, 02:42:17 pm

Thoughts on the setting aside first instead of immediately returning it? The latter would make it less wordy, which would be nice.

I see no problem in returning Rosary immediately. Encampment is set aside to allow easier access to Plunder, the bottom half of its split pile, as far as I see it.

The other aspect is to make it ungainable during the turn. This is no issue with Rosary at all so I also think that it can be returned immediately.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on November 04, 2020, 05:57:56 pm

Thanks for your answers! I changed the card accordingly, simpler is always better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 04, 2020, 06:49:32 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 03, 2020, 06:09:35 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 02, 2020, 07:33:13 pm

Escape Artist thematically can't be fooled by Enchantress

The text in Escape Artist is a play instruction you execute when discard or a discard instruction? in the latter case, the text needs to be under a dividing line, doesn't?

Scheme (in its 1st edition printing) and Improve have an "at the start of Clean-Up" wording because their Actions setup a thing (technical term, "thing" per Scrap).  Escape Artist shares the wording with Alchemist and Treasury of "when you discard this from play" as a thing triggered at a time other than playing it which is why it happens in the case of Enchantress or Ways.  Escape Artist does not have a dividing line like Alchemist or Treasury though because it does nothing (intrinsically) when you play it.
If that is so confusing, I could slap some weak Action thing on it to justify the dividing line.  It looks pretty crowded with even merely +$1 on it, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on November 04, 2020, 07:02:25 pm

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/123441834_387504339064140_5514133324063251581_n.png?_nc_cat=108&ccb=2&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=D_aXmBfibUIAX8hm4y1&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=ac7db83189541f72656e87f8fed35ea1&oe=5FD18DA5)  (https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/123713680_388586498991682_7541103492414649040_n.png?_nc_cat=106&ccb=2&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=tNyWvNMWIuYAX9rsVex&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=af7a34a10d09a6d50c5e3a395db12998&oe=5FCFA291)

Quote

Tobacco Box - $1
Treasure
Heirloom: Old Pipe
+1 Coffers
Return this to the Supply.

Quote

Old Pipe - $3
Treasure - Heirloom
+1 Buy
This turn, Treasure cards (everywhere) cost $1 less.
You may trash a non-Victory card from your hand. If you do, gain a card of equal cost.

A treasure that has a treasure heirloom! Tobacco Box is not an amazing card, but the heirloom lets you remodel Copper into them and allows you to pick up one with its extra buy. Not sure how appealing or interesting this idea is to people. Feedback is welcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 04, 2020, 09:54:12 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 04, 2020, 06:49:32 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 03, 2020, 06:09:35 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on November 02, 2020, 07:33:13 pm

Escape Artist thematically can't be fooled by Enchantress

The text in Escape Artist is a play instruction you execute when discard or a discard instruction? in the latter case, the text needs to be under a dividing line, doesn't?

Scheme (in its 1st edition printing) and Improve have an "at the start of Clean-Up" wording because their Actions setup a thing (technical term, "thing" per Scrap).  Escape Artist shares the wording with Alchemist and Treasury of "when you discard this from play" as a thing triggered at a time other than playing it which is why it happens in the case of Enchantress or Ways.  Escape Artist does not have a dividing line like Alchemist or Treasury though because it does nothing (intrinsically) when you play it.
If that is so confusing, I could slap some weak Action thing on it to justify the dividing line.  It looks pretty crowded with even merely +$1 on it, though.

To me it's a bit confusing, as the text in every Action card without a dividing line is a play instruction.

There's a consequence of its function not being affected by Ways, which I don't know if it's a problem. With the following Ways it would be an automatic decision to play Escape Artist using the Way: Camel, Monkey, Mule, Ox, Pig, Seal, Sheep, Squirrel and Worm. With Otter and Owl, it would be almost automatic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 04, 2020, 10:07:11 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 04, 2020, 02:39:21 am

I think there would be a big advantage for the first player to align it with a strong attack like Mountebank or Witch.

Quote from: silverspawn on November 04, 2020, 10:36:06 am

Well, since people didn't like it anyway, I think I'll just have the broken card as this week's entry. I'll make a non-broken card next time.

I like your card. I just think it could be overpowered with Attack cards. Maybe it could be more well balanced if it plays only non-Attacks or have its cost increased.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on November 05, 2020, 12:11:46 pm

Entries are now closed. I hope to post results within the next day or so.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on November 06, 2020, 11:21:10 am

Contest #93 Results

Firstly, thank you all for your entries. I had a lot of fun reading through them and thinking about their merits and demerits. Feel free to disagree with any or all of my analysis below.

Haunted Mansion (silverspawn)

A one-shot King’s Court-plus. While I have often wondered what a card would cost that allows you to play a card four times ($10?), this version feels rather swingy. If you line up a junking attack with this early on, it’s essentially game over. It also feels harsh that you lose your payload card too. I feel there is a good idea here, but it needs development (perhaps it could cost less, or retain the payload card, or play the card fewer times).

Hacienda (spineflu)

This follows in the footsteps of Villa and Cavalry in allowing you to switch turn phases. This one is unique, as it’s a Treasure that allows this. It is a nice effect - similar to Toil. It does feel pricy at $5, though, as you only get to use it once. I feel this might work better as a $4. If you don’t use the effect, it’s basically a tall Silver. Again, I like the idea, but some development is required.

Golden Spoils (Carline)

An inverse Fool’s Gold, as you don’t want to play more than one of these. Unless you can exert some kind of control over when you draw these or you need the buys, you’d probably only ever buy one, as a solitary Golden Spoils is better than Gold. Once you have one, getting Gold becomes easier. It’s a tricky balancing act. Overall, though, I like it, as I like Fool’s Gold.

Mail (grep)

An Ambassador-lite, almost. This is a cheap and accessible way of getting rid of cards you don’t want. I like the fact that it costs $1, for the reasons outlined in the original post, plus the fact that it’s another $1 card (we only have Poor House for that at present). In a game with trashing, you’d probably ignore this, so it does feel quite niche.

Mapmaker/Map (D782802859)

A Smithy that effectively gains itself, but as one shots. This feels similar to Lackeys, with a step up. It’s simple but effective. I like this concept.

Mountaineer (pubby)

A double Hireling that sticks around until you turn to green. This allows you to power up your deck effectively. It feels very powerful, even after being edited. I do like the strategic idea of having a useful resource that you need to blow up at some point - you have to decide when to do so. It still feels like there are many Kingdoms where this would be overpowered, so some development might be needed.

Clue/Hideaway (Aquila)

Another Fool’s Gold variant, this time paired with a gainer. Having the buy is necessary if you are to ever uncover the Hideaways. I haven’t played with Nocturne, so I’m not sure how good Hideway is, but it looks like a nice card. Overall, this feels like a good entry.

Cargo (segura)

A limited Lost City variant that gives you a reasonable consolation prize if they run out on your turn. This feels like an attempt to turn Artifacts into cards. I like the strategic idea of having a smaller number of relatively powerful cards to fight over. This is a good entry. This is the kind of idea I’d like to see developed into other cards, as I feel it has a lot of merit.

Quay/Cart (gambit05)

I liked Cart upon seeing it in a previous contest, so I’m glad to see it make a reappearance. It’s pretty powerful, but that’s fine, as it’s a one-shot. Quay looks simple and nice, and makes use of the debt mechanic, which was underused in Empires in my opinion. Overall, this is a nice package.

Escape Artist (Fragasnap)

A Camel Train variant that also allows you to exile cards during Cleanup, either from your hand or from the Supply. I liked the initial idea of having an Action card that did nothing upon playing it, but I’m glad you added an above-the-line effect to stop confusion. This feels very useful without being overpowered, so I like it.

Rosary (Rhodos)

A cantrip that allows you to go big with your draws when the time is right. It has a similar effect to Research. Again, deciding when to blow something up is a fun part of the game for me, so I like this card: simple, yet effective.

Assistant (NoMoreFun)

A self-gaining Smithy that eventually runs out of steam. Another simple yet effective card that I like. You probably don’t want loads of these, so there is a balancing act in deciding where to draw the line.

Tobacco Box/Old Pipe (Xen3k)

A Heirloom that acts as a Quarry for Treasures. Interesting to see a Treasure that allows trashing. Tobacco Box feels a little underwhelming - Ducat seems to accomplish this idea better. I think I would like this if Tobacco Box did more things.


Determining the winner was difficult, as there are some excellent cards here.

Runners-up: Rosary (Rhodos), Quay/Cart (gambit05), Golden Spoils (Carline)
Winner: Cargo (segura)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 06, 2020, 04:32:02 pm

Many thanks mandioca15! Excellent work indeed. I hope you enjoyed the cards and to evaluate them. Of course congratulations to segura for the win and Carline and Rhodos for the Runner ups. All nice and interesting cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on November 06, 2020, 04:51:23 pm

Wuuhuu Runners up. That's great ;D

Thanks mandioca15 and congrats to segura!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 06, 2020, 04:54:10 pm

mandioca15, I think you judged very well and did good comparisons with existing cards. Probably you are better judge and better player than you think. Thanks for runner-up. Congratulations to all winners!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 07, 2020, 03:16:51 am

Thansk mandioca15! My card was more of a rough sketch of GendoIkari's idea than a well designed card so I am surprised and humbled by the win.


Contest #94:

Man, with all those Courtiers wooing Dama Josephine right now, don't you also yearn for the simpler days when we spent our afternoons strolling in the Gardens?

Design a pure Victory card, i.e. a Victory card with no other types. This is the only restriction, it can feature all kinds of mechanics (e.g. the card could have a when gain trigger with Villagers).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 07, 2020, 09:02:54 am

Green
cost $4 - Victory
Worth 1vp per a Resident card you have.
---
When you gain this, you may move your Resident token to an Action Supply pile. Cards from that pile are Resident cards.


EDIT: Renamed Green cards to Resident cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 07, 2020, 10:06:01 am

^ That's... a bit confusing because Victory cards are green At first, I thought it just counted all victory cards, then that it counted victory cards + cards with the token. I would avoid that name.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 07, 2020, 10:24:13 am

Submission (Rice Paddy):

(https://i.ibb.co/XCLghSc/Rice-Paddy.png)

Drawing works like with Way of the Squirrel.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on November 07, 2020, 10:33:43 am

Cantref (Victory, $5)

1VP

---
When you gain this, trash a non-Victory card from your hand. +1VP token per $1 it costs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 11:08:42 am

Feudal Grant (Victory, $_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)})

1VP

---
When you gain this, +3_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}
When you trash this, each opponent receives +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on November 07, 2020, 11:15:11 am

Quote

Swamp
$3 - Victory
Worth 1VP
-
When you buy this, reveal your hand. +1 VP for every two Action or Treasure cards revealed.
When you trash this on your turn, lose 1 VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 07, 2020, 12:02:16 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5fa6d25f395a826b8907344e/293042d69c8979cc31c4077a0f7d8f87/image.png)

Quote

Bog • $5 • Victory
1%
-
When you buy this, +1 Buy and each other player gains a Curse.

Net 2VP, does the Forum thing where it doesn't cost a buy, does the IGG thing (but only on buy, not gain). It's net 2vp bc i didn't feel like getting into "strictly better than duchy" conversations by having it be a net 3vp.
was originally named swamp but i didn't want to get it mixed up with LibraryAdventurer's entry; i suppose the picture is actually a marsh or a fen, but i don't feel like re-doing that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on November 07, 2020, 12:30:16 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 11:08:42 am

Feudal Grant (Victory, $5)

1VP

---
When you gain this, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}
When you trash this, each opponent receives +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}

Why would you ever buy this over Duchy?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 12:33:10 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 07, 2020, 12:30:16 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 11:08:42 am

Feudal Grant (Victory, $5)

1VP

---
When you gain this, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}
When you trash this, each opponent receives +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}

Why would you ever buy this over Duchy?

I think I'll edit it down to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, or would _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} be better?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on November 07, 2020, 12:36:34 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 12:33:10 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 07, 2020, 12:30:16 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 11:08:42 am

Feudal Grant (Victory, $5)

1VP

---
When you gain this, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}
When you trash this, each opponent receives +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}

Why would you ever buy this over Duchy?

I think I'll edit it down to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, or would _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} be better?

Even at $3 I think it's still worse than Tunnel, because the best case outcome is that it's worth 2 VP. In fact, I'm not sure how it plays any differently from a pure victory card that's just worth 2 VP.

I do think the concept of "victory card that's worth less if you get it out of your deck" could be workable, but the on-gain VP then has to be worth more than the on-trash VP everyone else gets, because otherwise you gain nothing by trashing it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 12:40:18 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 07, 2020, 12:36:34 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 12:33:10 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 07, 2020, 12:30:16 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 11:08:42 am

Feudal Grant (Victory, $5)

1VP

---
When you gain this, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}
When you trash this, each opponent receives +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}

Why would you ever buy this over Duchy?

I think I'll edit it down to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, or would _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} be better?

Even at $3 I think it's still worse than Tunnel, because the best case outcome is that it's worth 2 VP. In fact, I'm not sure how it plays any differently from a pure victory card that's just worth 2 VP.

I do think the concept of "victory card that's worth less if you get it out of your deck" could be workable, but the on-gain VP then has to be worth more than the on-trash VP everyone else gets, because otherwise you gain nothing by trashing it.

Fixed it to +2_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} and costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. Look more plausible?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on November 07, 2020, 02:39:50 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 12:40:18 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 07, 2020, 12:36:34 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 12:33:10 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 07, 2020, 12:30:16 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 11:08:42 am

Feudal Grant (Victory, $5)

1VP

---
When you gain this, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}
When you trash this, each opponent receives +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}

Why would you ever buy this over Duchy?

I think I'll edit it down to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, or would _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} be better?

Even at $3 I think it's still worse than Tunnel, because the best case outcome is that it's worth 2 VP. In fact, I'm not sure how it plays any differently from a pure victory card that's just worth 2 VP.

I do think the concept of "victory card that's worth less if you get it out of your deck" could be workable, but the on-gain VP then has to be worth more than the on-trash VP everyone else gets, because otherwise you gain nothing by trashing it.

Fixed it to +2_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} and costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. Look more plausible?

Now I think it's better than Duchy...thinking about it more, I'm not sure if there actually are good parameters, because it basically has to not be comparable to any existing victory card, which means it would probably have to cost $6, which probably makes it too expensive to ever be worth trashing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 07, 2020, 03:12:13 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/951/727/full/Distant_Island_%281%29.png?1604788898)

Quote

Distant Island • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Victory

2 _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}
_____________________________________________________________

When you gain this, exile it. If you did, you may exile a card from your hand.

An instant Island, which does the Island trick in the moment you gain it.

Edited to change card name. Thinking about exile, "Distant Island" seems to be a better name.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on November 07, 2020, 03:12:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/rUNo2Q2.png)
edit: updated

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 07, 2020, 03:13:20 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/axlTVX3.jpg)

Quote

City State
Types: Victory
Cost: $4
Worth 1VP for every 4 +Actions in the text of cards in your deck (round down).

Clarification: City State has 0 +Actions in its text.  Teacher has 1 +Action in its text. Villa has 3 +Actions in its text.
An equal Village split leaves your City States worth 2VP each for your +10 Actions.  Get 2 Merchants and City States bump up to 3VP each.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 03:19:00 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 07, 2020, 02:39:50 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 12:40:18 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 07, 2020, 12:36:34 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 12:33:10 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 07, 2020, 12:30:16 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 11:08:42 am

Feudal Grant (Victory, $5)

1VP

---
When you gain this, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}
When you trash this, each opponent receives +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}

Why would you ever buy this over Duchy?

I think I'll edit it down to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}, or would _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} be better?

Even at $3 I think it's still worse than Tunnel, because the best case outcome is that it's worth 2 VP. In fact, I'm not sure how it plays any differently from a pure victory card that's just worth 2 VP.

I do think the concept of "victory card that's worth less if you get it out of your deck" could be workable, but the on-gain VP then has to be worth more than the on-trash VP everyone else gets, because otherwise you gain nothing by trashing it.

Fixed it to +2_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} and costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}. Look more plausible?

Now I think it's better than Duchy...thinking about it more, I'm not sure if there actually are good parameters, because it basically has to not be comparable to any existing victory card, which means it would probably have to cost $6, which probably makes it too expensive to ever be worth trashing.

Isn't it strictly better than Duchy now, because it's worth 3 VP, but then when you trash it you lose 1 from it's total, and you keep two? Trashing it is like using Island on it, where you keep the VP but get it out of your deck. In that way, it's also sort of like exiling it. Those are the closest things I can compare it to

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 07, 2020, 04:02:48 pm

Quote from: pubby on November 07, 2020, 03:12:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/DHRGu2I.png)

Cool card! I like very much the idea.

In a two player game, it seems to be very well balanced between the strategy of buying Native Lands and try to three-pile soon and the opposite strategy of buying Provinces to reduce the value of oponnent's Native Lands. It could lead to a very exciting tension.

In multiplayer, however, when Native Lands starts worthing 12 VP (3 or 4 players), 15 VP (5 players) or 18 VP (6 players), it seems that is always better to mirror Native Lands strategy than go to Provinces.

Edited to change $ to VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on November 07, 2020, 04:03:54 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/1AIIaaw.png?1)
An Estate that Changelings on gain.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on November 07, 2020, 04:18:08 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 07, 2020, 04:02:48 pm

Cool card! I like very much the idea.

In a two player game, it seems to be very well balanced between the strategy of buying Native Lands and try to three-pile soon and the opposite strategy of buying Provinces to reduce the value of oponnent's Native Lands. It could lead to a very exciting tension.

In multiplayer, however, when Native Lands starts worthing $12 (3 or 4 players), $15 (5 players) or $18 (6 players), it seems that is always better to mirror Native Land strategy than go to Provinces.

Very true point. I've posted an updated version, which should help somewhat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on November 08, 2020, 09:10:49 am

Quote

Franklin - Victory, $6 cost.
6VP
When you gain this, each other player gets +1VP per Treasure you have in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 08, 2020, 03:49:24 pm

The Regions share a single pile which is like a Split pile but a little bit different. The pile starts with a Barren Region on top and then alternates between the two. So in a 2-player game, there will always be 4 of each Region, and in a 3- or 4-player game, there will always be 6 of each Region.

(https://i.imgur.com/TF2Btbz.png) (https://i.imgur.com/R6NsmlZ.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 08, 2020, 03:53:41 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 08, 2020, 03:49:24 pm

The Regions share a single pile which is like a Split pile but a little bit different. The pile starts with a Barren Region on top and then alternates between the two. So in a 2-player game, there will always be 4 of each Region, and in a 3- or 4-player game, there will always be 6 of each Region.

(https://i.imgur.com/TF2Btbz.png) (https://i.imgur.com/R6NsmlZ.png)

Barren Region is strictly worse than Cemetery and costs more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 08, 2020, 04:12:08 pm

Yeah, that was intentional. Given that gaining Barren Region has the alternate effect of uncovering Bountiful Region, I thought it was all right.

I did consider making Barren Region cost $4, which would make the cost of the pile constantly shift which could be weird, but it would also probably fix Barren Region's power level, so maybe that would be better. (It'd still be strictly worse than Cemetery, but the strength of the card isn't just in the card itself but in the timing of revealing Bountiful Region.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on November 08, 2020, 04:23:51 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50587865018_8599baeb6c_k.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50588612511_c6cd2b7bee_k.jpg)

Quote

Plot of Land - $5
Victory
1%
-
When you gain or trash this, gain a Temp Worker from its pile and +1%.

Quote

Temp Worker
Action
+2 Cards
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to $2 more than it.
Return this to its pile.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Plot of Land is a bad Duchy that sets up the ability to Remodel it and keep the VP afterwards. Temp Worker is the real reward of getting a Plot of Land, and I am not sure it is correct, power level wise. I originally had it only draw 1 card, but that felt wonky. It being a one-shot is why I think it is ok for it to also draw 2 cards. The closest this compares to would probably be Farmland, and I thought of making Plot of Land cost $6, but remodeling it directly into a Province was not something I wanted to enable. Overall I think this differentiates itself from Farmlands well enough to warrant the design. Feedback is more than welcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on November 08, 2020, 05:24:52 pm

Quote

(https://i.ibb.co/X8c5wrn/image.png)
Senator
D4 - Victory
1VP per set of Estate-Duchy-Province you have

You can only gain advantage of the Senator if you have support in all the tiers of the society. Debt cost makes it more accessible but also easier to misuse

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on November 08, 2020, 08:54:05 pm

“You Can’t Have Your Cake And Eat It Too” doesn’t fit on the title line of a Dominion card, so I went with Magical Lands (plus cheesy artwork). The strategic emphasis here is on the friction between having Potions to buy Magical Lands and trashing Potions to increase their value. 

I spent a bunch of time on the ratio of VP to trashed Potions (I started at 1VP for 2 Potions and considered 2VP for 3 Potions – always rounding down), and ended up at a 1 to 1 rate. I realize that at first glance it seems absurd to have a theoretical maximum of 196VP in one Victory pile, but realistically, that’s almost never going to be relevant. Between buying Potions, lining them up, the competition between buying and trashing mentioned above, clogging your deck, and securing a 3-pile ending, you won't get anywhere close. But, you might just get enough VP to lock up a win.

THIS IS NOT THE CURRENT VERSION

(https://abload.de/img/magicallandsnewv1oxke3.png)


I would appreciate any input on the ratio of VP to trashed Potions or help with anything else about the card. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on November 08, 2020, 10:18:35 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on November 08, 2020, 08:54:05 pm

Magical Lands

It seems very weak to me. The 2 potion cost is prohibitively expensive, and I don't see the points scaling fast enough considering cards like Duke and Vineyards exist. But the bigger issue is that it's disadvantageous to be the player trashing potions. Just let your opponent do that and buy Magical Lands without trashing.

I like the idea though. Perhaps you can make it set-aside potions instead of trashing them, or something of that nature. And make it scale faster.



 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 08, 2020, 10:55:39 pm

Compost
Victory - $5
Worth 1VP
_____
When you gain this, you may set this aside for the rest of the game. If you did, you may Exile an Estate or a Compost when you gain a non-Victory card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 09, 2020, 02:23:45 pm

Card Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/vlpe01yv.png)

Quote

Estuary - Victory - $4
2VictoryPoints
-
When you gain this, set aside the top 2 cards of your deck. At the start of your next turn, put them in your hand.

Estuary is a card you may gain to help your next hand. You can think of it as an Expedition that clogs your deck up. Though the card you are clogging your deck up is worth 2vp, so it's not horrible. I'll just say be careful buying too many of these too early.

Open to feedback, of course.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 09, 2020, 02:32:23 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on November 07, 2020, 10:24:13 am

Submission (Rice Paddy):

(https://i.ibb.co/RpyksMg/Ridce-Paddy.png)

Drawing works like with Way of the Squirrel.

Donald is moving away from on-buy to on-gain triggers, but I think over-paying when you gain is a little confusing. Are you allowed to play treasures on your action phase to over-pay, or do you only get to overpay if you have virtual coin? What about using coffers? What if you gain this card on not your turn (swindler, messenger, etc), can you over-pay then?

I recommend changing this to an on-buy trigger. It resolves all the confusion and plays much more similar to the over-pay mechanic defined in the rule book. The rule book specifically says overpaying happens when you buy not when you gain.

Quote from: LittleFish on November 07, 2020, 11:08:42 am

Feudal Grant (Victory, $_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)})

1VP

---
When you gain this, +2_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}
When you trash this, each opponent receives +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}

So, if you trash this, it's like you paid $4 and used a trash action to get a net 1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png). That's pretty bad, so I think players are unlikely to ever trash it. If you upped the cost of this and gave out 3(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) when gaining, it could be a more interesting decision whether it is worth trashing or not.

Quote from: Carline on November 07, 2020, 03:12:13 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/951/727/full/Distant_Island_%281%29.png?1604788898)

Quote

Distant Island • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Victory

2 _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}
_____________________________________________________________

When you gain this, exile it. If you did, you may exile a card from your hand.

An instant Island, which does the Island trick in the moment you gain it.

Edited to change card name. Thinking about exile, "Distant Island" seems to be a better name.

This feels too strong to me. Because Exile is a mechanic where you can choose to gain the cards from discard, this card reduces down to
"gain 2 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png), exile a card from your hand", which is very strong for 5. Compared to other similar cards that give VP on gain without clouding your deck (conquest, salt the earth, wedding), it seems strong since it also gives the benefit of exiling a card from your deck.

To make it more interesting, you could add a clause "when you gain a Distant Island, discard all Distant Islands you have in exile" which then makes it a lot more interesting. Right now it's like a super strong event that psuedo-trashes a card and grants you 2vp.

Edit: upon reconsidering, it's not too strong in a game with trashers. But in a game with no-trashing and no-exiling, I think it might be a little powerful. But it's pretty fine, because 5s should be powerful. Though it does seem stronger than any other events that give VP which this basically is. So I'm a little conflicted. I still think the forced discarding of exiled Distant Islands makes the card more interesting, because then it plays a lot less like victory points and more with the exiled mechanic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 09, 2020, 02:37:50 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on November 09, 2020, 02:32:23 pm

Donald is moving away from on-buy to on-gain triggers, but I think over-paying when you gain is a little confusing. Are you allowed to play treasures on your action phase to over-pay, or do you only get to overpay if you have virtual coin? What about using coffers? What if you gain this card on not your turn (swindler, messenger, etc), can you over-pay then?

I recommend changing this to an on-buy trigger. It resolves all the confusion and plays much more similar to the over-pay mechanic defined in the rule book. The rule book specifically says overpaying happens when you buy not when you gain.

Oh ??? this was definitely not supposed to be an on-gain trigger. I think it happened because an earlier version I was thinking about had a different effect, and I forgot to fix it. Good catch! I'll update it right away.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 09, 2020, 02:50:40 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on November 06, 2020, 11:21:10 am

Cargo (segura)

A limited Lost City variant that gives you a reasonable consolation prize if they run out on your turn. This feels like an attempt to turn Artifacts into cards. I like the strategic idea of having a smaller number of relatively powerful cards to fight over. This is a good entry. This is the kind of idea I’d like to see developed into other cards, as I feel it has a lot of merit.

A few days late to notice this, but hey, I won!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on November 09, 2020, 02:56:16 pm

Quote from: pubby on November 08, 2020, 10:18:35 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on November 08, 2020, 08:54:05 pm

Magical Lands

It seems very weak to me. The 2 potion cost is prohibitively expensive, and I don't see the points scaling fast enough considering cards like Duke and Vineyards exist. But the bigger issue is that it's disadvantageous to be the player trashing potions. Just let your opponent do that and buy Magical Lands without trashing.

I like the idea though. Perhaps you can make it set-aside potions instead of trashing them, or something of that nature. And make it scale faster.

Thanks! These are very helpful, constructive ideas. When I settled on the posted version of the card, I was thinking about a similar dynamic existing with Forager, where everyone is helped by any player trashing, but I think you are correct that it overwhelms the entire concept here. I will think about alternatives (originally, I didn’t want to use Exile because of the Potions potentially going in and out, but ultimately, I don’t think that matters very much), and I may adjust the ratio of VP to Potions. I appreciate the help.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 09, 2020, 07:42:52 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on November 09, 2020, 02:32:23 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 07, 2020, 03:12:13 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/951/727/full/Distant_Island_%281%29.png?1604788898)

Quote

Distant Island • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Victory

2 _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}
_____________________________________________________________

When you gain this, exile it. If you did, you may exile a card from your hand.

An instant Island, which does the Island trick in the moment you gain it.

Edited to change card name. Thinking about exile, "Distant Island" seems to be a better name.

This feels too strong to me. Because Exile is a mechanic where you can choose to gain the cards from discard, this card reduces down to
"gain 2 (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png), exile a card from your hand", which is very strong for 5. Compared to other similar cards that give VP on gain without clouding your deck (conquest, salt the earth, wedding), it seems strong since it also gives the benefit of exiling a card from your deck.

To make it more interesting, you could add a clause "when you gain a Distant Island, discard all Distant Islands you have in exile" which then makes it a lot more interesting. Right now it's like a super strong event that psuedo-trashes a card and grants you 2vp.

Edit: upon reconsidering, it's not too strong in a game with trashers. But in a game with no-trashing and no-exiling, I think it might be a little powerful. But it's pretty fine, because 5s should be powerful. Though it does seem stronger than any other events that give VP which this basically is. So I'm a little conflicted. I still think the forced discarding of exiled Distant Islands makes the card more interesting, because then it plays a lot less like victory points and more with the exiled mechanic.

Thank you very much for feedbacks!

I think Distant Island is not exactly equal to an event that says “Gain 2 VP, exile a card from your hand”.

First, there are the differences of behaviors related to cards and events (Mission turns, gainers, cost reducers, etc.). As you may release them from exile when gain others, Distant Islands could be cards in your deck like any others (be trashed with a TFB, etc.).

Also, exile another card is optional, so sometimes, if you don’t have a card in hand you want to exile, it would be only “gain 2 VP”. Even so, there would be situations you would want to buy it only for these 2 VP.

I think the most relevant comparison is with Island itself, as the final result of gain Distant Island and exile a card is almost identical of the final result of gain an Island and play it in a future turn.

When I thought about which cost would be good for it, I did the following comparison, which I know is quite imperfect and uses a removed card, but helped to give me a north:

With Feast:
- Cost A: You spend S4 and a buy to get it
- Cost B: You play it in a future turn, spending an action to do so
- Final result: you gain something that you would pay $5 to get

With Island:
- Cost A: You spend S4 and a buy to get it
- Cost B: You play it in a future turn, spending an action to do so
- Result: 2 VP and you get rid of a card without losing it.

Both Feast and Island leave your deck when played. As the costs A and B are exactly the same in the two cases, it seems to me that what you get with gaining and playing Island has a value comparable to “something you would pay $5 to get”. And gain a Distant Island is the same to gain and play an island.

Distant Island is to Island what a $5 card is to Feast: something that is so better that justify go from $4 to $5, which we know is the biggest gap in terms of improve cards quality when we increase their cost by $1.

Other comparison which helped me is with Duchy. Many times near endgame, you buy a Duchy with an extra buy or because you didn’t reach $8 to buy a Province. In most of these situations, maybe would be better to buy a Distant Island instead of a Duchy (specially if you can exile a Province from your hand), but it’s not an obvious decision. There would be always a tension between gain 3 VP or gain 2 VP liberating one or two slots in future hands (and it's dinamic, changing with game situations). I think it's ok to a kingdom alternative VP card to be a better option than Duchy in many cases but not all of them.

So, I think Distant Island is a strong and helpful $5 card, but not overpowered. If it would be, maybe Island, which does the same indirectly, would be considered a much stronger card, but it’s only #82 in a rank of 95 $4 cost cards.

Your idea of forced discard from exile would make all but one Distant Island gained go to deck, which is not the spirit of the card. In this case, you would occupy the slot in your deck you gained exiling a card from your hand with the Distant Island discarded from exile, so your final gain, in all times after the first, would be only 2 VP. I think as it is it's according to exile mechanic: you may discard or not cards from exile when you gain other copy, if you want.

Of course, any more feedbacks will be very welcome!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on November 09, 2020, 09:29:04 pm

I think Distant Island is a reasonable power level, albeit strong, but cards like Cemetary exist so it's certainly not OP. The one concern I foresee is that on boards with weak thinning, Distance Island looks a lot like a Laboratory worth 2 VP. That's very, very good.

I like the card. If I had one suggestion, it's that I wish it was more different than regular Island.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on November 09, 2020, 09:37:48 pm

This is an updated version of Magical Lands that counts Potions in Exile (rather than in the trash), and gives 3VP for every 2 Potions there. This should make it a more viable strategy all around.


(https://abload.de/img/magicallandsv20pjia.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 09, 2020, 10:50:26 pm

Quote from: pubby on November 09, 2020, 09:29:04 pm

I think Distant Island is a reasonable power level, albeit strong, but cards like Cemetary exist so it's certainly not OP. The one concern I foresee is that on boards with weak thinning, Distance Island looks a lot like a Laboratory worth 2 VP. That's very, very good.

I like the card. If I had one suggestion, it's that I wish it was more different than regular Island.

Thank you!

Distant Island is intended to connect with Island by theme and funcionality, in the same way Gran Market is connected to Market and the various Witches are connected to each other. Like in these examples, I think the new member of the card family (Distant Island) brings its own new game possibilities.

(note: in this case, the connection is not perfect, because one uses Island Mat and the other Exile Mat, but, for the Island purpose to set aside a card for the rest of the game, both mats are similar enough to allow theme connection).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on November 10, 2020, 07:11:24 am

Quote from: spheremonk on November 09, 2020, 09:37:48 pm

(https://abload.de/img/magicallandsv20pjia.png)

I want to be the first one to play "Big Potion" with this on the board :D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on November 10, 2020, 12:43:58 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/GKPPk8i.png)

Quote

Waterfall - $4 - Victory
2 VP
When you trash this, gain a Waterfall and Exile this.

Some kind of a Victory Card Fortress. Of course Fortress is better as a TfB feeder than Waterfall, in fact it is often centralizing with Apprentice, Upgrade and their like. The idea with Waterfall is that it is more narrow, you have to evaluate whether it is good enough for your TfB and you cannot use it forever.

It also has some different characterics: You kind of get 1VP, when you "trash" it (which is limited by the pile) and you can empty a pile with it quite quickly, if that is what you want to do. There may be games where you gain it for that purpose only. And well, you can give your opponent an "untrashable" card with Swindler.

I guess there are more games I won't touch this than games where I do, but nevertheless I think this could make for interesting decisions.

EDIT: It now gives 2 VP instead of 1.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on November 10, 2020, 04:29:27 pm

Quote from: Rhodos on November 10, 2020, 12:43:58 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Pve6JmX.png)

Quote

Waterfall - $4 - Victory
1 VP
When you trash this, gain a Waterfall and Exile this.

Some kind of a Victory Card Fortress. Of course Fortress is better as a TfB feeder than Waterfall, in fact it is often centralizing with Apprentice, Upgrade and their like. The idea with Waterfall is that it is more narrow, you have to evaluate whether it is good enough for your TfB and you cannot use it forever.

It also has some different characterics: You kind of get 1VP, when you "trash" it (which is limited by the pile) and you can empty a pile with it quite quickly, if that is what you want to do. There may be games where you gain it for that purpose only. And well, you can give your opponent an "untrashable" card with Swindler.

I guess there are more games I won't touch this than games where I do, but nevertheless I think this could make for interesting decisions.

Looks cool, but I think it should be worth 2 VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on November 10, 2020, 06:32:23 pm

Quote

Name: Countryside
Cost: $4
Types: Victory
Worth 2 VP per differently named victory card you have more copies of than Countryside.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on November 11, 2020, 12:08:23 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on November 10, 2020, 04:29:27 pm

Quote from: Rhodos on November 10, 2020, 12:43:58 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Pve6JmX.png)

Quote

Waterfall - $4 - Victory
1 VP
When you trash this, gain a Waterfall and Exile this.

Looks cool, but I think it should be worth 2 VP.

Thanks for you comment, I thought the same some time after posting it, so here it is now with 2 VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 14, 2020, 06:33:19 am

Contest #94: Pure Victory card (with no other types)

No posts in three day, so I dare to judge without any 24h warnings.
There were so many submissions and great ideas this weak, lots of great stuff!
Which doesn't make the judging any easier.
Please correct me if I got anything about your card wrong.


green by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856913#msg856913)
This is simple and sound. Obviously it is stronger in 2P than multiplayer games, where you are more likely to get a larger part of the pile.
What I like most about this is the option of not immediately putting the token on a pile respectively later switching it. That could lead to bluffing and also helps you to get out of a deadlock.
The price is off though, this has to cost at least $5. Even in 3P games, you will want a cantrip that you can get 3-4 copies of.


Rice Paddy by silverspawn
 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856916#msg856916)I read this as an endgame-only Expedition variant. Very neat when you hit less than $8, don't want to settle for a mere Duchy and aim for a Province instead.
Which already indicates a problem, why not do this as an Event instead?
In the endgame, an extra card or not matters little (compared to an opening/middlegame card like Cemetery) and I doubt that the pile will often empty, so I don't see why a landscape would not be simpler.


Cantref by mandioca15 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856917#msg856917)
This seems to be slightly better than Ritual and I like that unlike Ritual, this is independent from the Curse pile (Ritual is basically dead in Kingdoms with Cursers).
So yeah, on the one hand a nice Ritual fix but on the other hand too similar to it.


Feudal Grant by LittleFish (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856918#msg856918)
I don't get this, in the absence of trashing Attacks it is strictly superior to Duchy.


Swamp by Library Adventurer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856919#msg856919)
Normally you play most of your Treasures and Actions. Say, I keep two Coppers. Then this is 2VP for basically $5.
Say, I drew 2 Actions dead. Then it is 2VPs for $3. Like Tunnel.
I probably miss something but I don't see how this is good enough


Bog by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856922#msg856922)
Not much to say here, I read it as an IGG fix. Hey, does IGG need a fix?
Well, it is totally subjective, I loate IGG rushes and this looks like a less crazy version of it.
I also love putting the extra Buy to a Victory card.


Distant Island by Carline (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856934#msg856934)
I don't want to be too critical of it, Insta-Island is good idea. I just think that it is too good compared to Duchy and too automatic.
Distand Lands makes you think about how quick you cycle through your deck and anticipate the end of the game. That's the beauty of games in general and good
Dominion cards in particular, tricky decisions.
But I don't want to sound to harsh, the idea is sound and cool.


Native Lands by pubby (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856935#msg856935)
So this is somewhere between 0 and 8 VPs. I somehow don't feel at ease with it but have to admit that this is a three-pile monster. Great design!
RUNNER-UP


City State by Fragasnap (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856936#msg856936)
Vineyard is most viable when there are lots of cantrips/terminals. They all yields Actions.
So what does this differently or better than Vineyard? I am afraid, not that much.


Rural Estate by D782802859 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856940#msg856940)
Cool idea, gain good stuff that comes with junk. I have a similar issue as with silverspawn's Rice Paddy (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856916#msg856916) though.
We are no longer Caching our Masterpieces, this would be more naturally implemented as an Event.


Franklin by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856959#msg856959)
At first this seems like a pure virtual Coins card but I think it is important to note than e.g. buying a Franklin with 2 Golds is fine.
One could argue that the Kingdom dictates the viability of virtual Coins but I think that would be too simple. Even a Conspirator engine might have a Silver flying around or have a Gold on top to spike and this makes player sweat much more about their deck composition.
That is why I like about it, that it makes you sweat about your deck composition more than normal!


Barren Reigion/Bountiful Region by Something Smart (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856972#msg856972)
OK, so if you are able to buy two in a row they are better than two Duchies.
Hey, you might even get rid of some of those lategame Curses from those Coven Witches. Or get a Gold somebody Remodeled. Or not.
I don't see the appeal of such narrow use cards.


Plot of Land/Temp Worker by Xen3k (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856977#msg856977)
This is very hard to judge without a lot of playtesting. So just a few idle, theoretical notes.
First, even with the draw of Temp Worker there is the problem of matching the pair. Not a huge problem, there is probably other stuff you want to Remodel.
Second, what do you want to remodel Plot of Land into? Another Plot of Land? Sounds OKish, you got a 2VP minigame running. A Gold for future Temp Workers? Well, but then you need more Plots of Lands for more Temp Workers.
Another $5? Nah, that probably makes no sense at all. Well, perhaps it does if it is the endgame and you only want a Duchy.

I cannot judge the power level of this in the least degree. My hunch is that it is too weak but that could be totally wrong.
What I like about the design is that it makes you think. Hard. And a lot. Or I am just too stupid. :D


Senator by grep (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856981#msg856981)
Finally, a set collection card!
I don't like the Debt cost, it makes it less accessible (except for the last turn) as it becomes ungainable by Workshop variants.
I also think that 1VP is far too little payoff. Even if you manage to get 2 sets, you get the same VPs as Tunnel for basically the same price.
One has to be incentivized much more to go for that set.


Compost by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856994#msg856994)
This is a beautiful idea. It is basically a race, you are forced to go for Compost at the very moment the opponent does so.
Gee, it could be even viable as an opener!
And there is the rub, it empties two piles and is likely too centralizing.


Estuary by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857018#msg857018)
This is similar to LFN's Floodgate (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2114.0). I like it, there is a nice balance between the VPs and the draw (i.e. neither is dominating in general / on average).
The card is simple and good.


Magical Lands by spheremonk (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857042#msg857042)
I am prejudiced about Double potion costs. Many people seriously underestimate the opportunity costs of Potion.
If you add the matching risk of two Potions to that, that is a huge bulk or risk / wasted gain/buy-Power / semi-dead cards in your deck.

But Magical Lands comes with a trick, if you make them match, they disappear!
Now as a card-carrying Double Potion cost inquisitor, I have to admit that this could be at thing.
There is a Kingdom with gainers, trashers and extra Buys and you could be all set up for the land of unicorns.

This is daring and innovative! Although the general principles dogmatist in me wants to see such designs land in the digital trashbin instantaneously, the creative dude in me likes it.
RUNNER-UP


Waterfall by Rhodos (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857061#msg857061)
Not much to say about this. It is viable without trashing and can shine with trashing, not just TfB.
Of course you would love to Forge your two Waterfalls into a Province, but if that Lookout spots a Waterfall that isn't so bad either. That's a crucial point, it is not just Fortress put on a green card, it is more than that.
Lovely design!
RUNNER-UP


Countryside by scott-pilgrim (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857077#msg857077)
Another stab at set collection!
This is basically a flexible and stronger version of "X VPs per set of Estate-Duchy-Province".
It is a conventional Province game with some Duchies coming in at the end? Hey, don't forget to make some Countrysides in your Ironworks (how does that work?)!
It is a Shepherd game? Sure, you want all green anyway, but now those Countrysides care about Estates and Provinces.

Also, my hunch the price is correct. You gotta work some to push this into 4VP territory and you gotta handle all that green.

This is absolutely brilliant!


RUNNER-UPS: We have pubby's Native Lands aka the three-piler monster., spheremonk's wild and creative Double Potion Magical Lands, Rhodos' Fortress-like Waterfall and scott-pilgrim's set-collection-ish Countryside.
WINNER: Countryside by scott-pilgrim. Basically, Silk Road done right.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on November 14, 2020, 10:14:08 am

Thanks for the win, glad people liked it!

Contest #95: The player to your (left/right)

Design a card that (meaningfully) contains the string "the player to your".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 14, 2020, 12:23:46 pm

Congrats scott-pilgrim! I thought countryside was really really great! I love the potential interaction of someone ambassador'ing you a country-side at the end of the game to lose you points (let's say you had 3 country sides and 4 duchies, 4 provinces. Gaining a country side would lose you 12 points!). I like this next challenge, too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on November 14, 2020, 02:35:52 pm

Wrangler (Action, $5)

+$2
+1 Buy

Gain a Horse per card the player to your right bought on their last turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on November 14, 2020, 03:53:28 pm

Quote

Councillor - Action, $4 cost.
Reveal your hand; the player to your right chooses one of the cards. You may discard it for + $3 and +1VP.

+ $3 and a VP minus your best card in hand at the time you play it. Is $4 enough of a bonus? And it's player to right so knowledge of what's in the hand is less likely to impact the opponents' turns.

Edit: clearer wording, and the discard is optional.
Edit 2: changed the bonus from $4 to $3 and +1VP. Throning this no longer means 'discard your hand. Gain a Province'.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 14, 2020, 04:22:50 pm

Investor - Action _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
+1 Buy
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}
The player to your left names a cost greater than
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} and less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)}. Gain a card that costs equal or less than the named cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the amount of  _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} in the cost they named.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on November 14, 2020, 04:35:05 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 14, 2020, 04:22:50 pm

Investor - Action _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
+1 Buy
Name a cost less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)}. Gain a card with that cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to the amount of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} in the cost you named.

This is really weak. It might be near-balanced if it were "The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the $ in the cost you named," though it might be too weak even then. It's also weird in multiplayer. If you're the only person using it, the player to your left has a significant advantage over the player to your right.

Quote from: Aquila on November 14, 2020, 03:53:28 pm

Quote

Councillor - Action, $4 cost.
Reveal your hand; the player to your right chooses a card for you to discard. If you discard a card, + $4.

+ $4 minus your best card in hand at the time you play it. Is $4 enough of a bonus?

I think $4 is good bonus, but the "if you discard" could make people think the discard is optional. You might want to make it clearer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 14, 2020, 04:44:25 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on November 14, 2020, 04:35:05 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 14, 2020, 04:22:50 pm

Investor - Action _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
+1 Buy
Name a cost less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)}. Gain a card with that cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to the amount of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} in the cost you named.

This is really weak. It might be near-balanced if it were "The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the $ in the cost you named," though it might be too weak even then. It's also weird in multiplayer. If you're the only person using it, the player to your left has a significant advantage over the player to your right.

I added +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} and made it half. Maybe the cost should change?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on November 14, 2020, 04:51:54 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 14, 2020, 04:44:25 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on November 14, 2020, 04:35:05 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 14, 2020, 04:22:50 pm

Investor - Action _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
+1 Buy
Name a cost less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)}. Gain a card with that cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to the amount of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} in the cost you named.

This is really weak. It might be near-balanced if it were "The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the $ in the cost you named," though it might be too weak even then. It's also weird in multiplayer. If you're the only person using it, the player to your left has a significant advantage over the player to your right.

I added +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} and made it half. Maybe the cost should change?

Now it seems to me, it would almost always be in the best interest of the player to the left to say $4 or $2 (in which case it's a self-junker with no decent $2 cost cards on the board) and there's still the multiplayer problem.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 14, 2020, 05:23:39 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 14, 2020, 04:22:50 pm

Investor - Action _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
+1 Buy
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}
The player to your left names a cost greater than
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png). Gain a card that costs equal or less than the named cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the amount of  _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} in the cost you named.

I assume that that last part should be "in the cost they named," since YOU didn't name a cost, the player to your left did?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on November 14, 2020, 05:46:39 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 14, 2020, 04:22:50 pm

Investor - Action _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
+1 Buy
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}
The player to your left names a cost greater than
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png). Gain a card that costs equal or less than the named cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the amount of  _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} in the cost they named.

With no upper bound, couldn't they name Graham's number? Sure you'd get a province, but they'd have unlimited money for the rest of the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 14, 2020, 06:14:47 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 14, 2020, 05:46:39 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 14, 2020, 04:22:50 pm

Investor - Action _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
+1 Buy
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}
The player to your left names a cost greater than
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png). Gain a card that costs equal or less than the named cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the amount of  _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} in the cost they named.

With no upper bound, couldn't they name Graham's number? Sure you'd get a province, but they'd have unlimited money for the rest of the game.

Yeah, this appears flawed.

Even without that upper bound issue; the card seems like a weaker version of Woodcutter... the player just names “$2”, and you’re stuck with a bad card you don’t want while they get a free Coffer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 14, 2020, 07:07:09 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 14, 2020, 04:22:50 pm

Investor - Action _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
+1 Buy
+_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}
The player to your left names a cost greater than
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} and less than _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)}. Gain a card that costs equal or less than the named cost. The player to your left takes Coffers equal to half the amount of  _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} in the cost they named.

thanks for all the feedback. I've adjusted the original post again, and quoted it above

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 14, 2020, 07:14:20 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5fb071759f34966a88185196/1feb26f51fb6aabecd7c13762c2a8a2e/image.png)

Quote

Judge • $5 • Action - Attack
+2 Cards
Reveal a card from your hand. For each type it has, the player to your left chooses a different option:

Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand: gains a Curse; gains a Copper; discards a card; or places a card from their hand on top of their deck.

Sorry the text on-card got a little small there. Torturer but one person hoses the rest of the table, and it's potentially an "and" rather than an "or". Having fewer than three cards in hand does let you dodge the Curse/Copper gain though. The "each other player" applies to everyone who isn't playing this card, not everyone who isn't choosing options on this card (so, like every other attack card).
so-titled because i had to judge the judge contest so i've never gotten to make one.

---

Quote from: segura on November 14, 2020, 06:33:19 am

Contest #94: Pure Victory card (with no other types)
[ ... ]
Bog by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg856922#msg856922)
Not much to say here, I read it as an IGG fix. Hey, does IGG need a fix?
Well, it is totally subjective, I loate IGG rushes and this looks like a less crazy version of it.
I also love putting the extra Buy to a Victory card.
[ ... ]

it does have one major difference on IGG tho, it can't empty the Curses in 2-player, which makes it harder for 3piling than a comparable IGG game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 15, 2020, 12:40:36 am

Commune
Action - $4
+2 Actions
Choose one: Draw until you have as many cards in your hand as the player to your left, or +$2 and each other player draws a card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 15, 2020, 04:22:51 am

Quote from: NoMoreFun on November 15, 2020, 12:40:36 am

Commune
Action - $4
+2 Actions
Choose one: Draw until you have as many cards in your hand as the player to your left, or +2 Cards and each other player draws a card.

This is cool, but it would have greater self-synergy if the second option wouldn't draw you cards but do something else instead.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 15, 2020, 04:55:25 am

Council
cost $5 - Action
The player to your both side reveals a card from their hand, at once. You may gain a copy of the revealed cards. If you do, the player who revealed a copy of it takes 2 Coffers. Otherwise, +2 Coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 15, 2020, 05:29:50 am

Do people like smugglers? I have the card banned. Ime, cards that punish you for doing good stuff with your deck (possession, smugglers, goatherd, masquerade), are among the most unfun things in dominion.

Plenty of submissions so far don't work like that, but just throwing that out there. If you share my dislike of the aforemsntioned cards, don't accidentally design a similar mechanic. It's part of the natural design space given the current theme.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 15, 2020, 05:44:02 am

Quote from: majiponi on November 15, 2020, 04:55:25 am

Council
cost $5 - Action
The player to your both side reveals a card from their hand, at once. You may gain a copy of the revealed cards. If you do, the player who revealed a copy of it takes 2 Coffers. Otherwise, +2 Coffers.

If I understand the card correctly, I think it doesn't work; the English wording and concept-wise.

The wording could be something like:

Quote

The players to your left and to your right reveal a card
from their hand, at once. You may gain a copy of a
revealed card. If you do, the player who revealed the
card takes 2 Coffers. Otherwise, +2 Coffers.

Still a bit odd and not 100% consistent with the requirements of the contest as there is an "s" in "players" instead of "the player to your".
For the concept, in a 3+ player game, no matter what the neighbors show (except Province or so), the player could always choose not to gain a copy and would take 4 Coffers. Is that right?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 15, 2020, 06:05:20 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 14, 2020, 07:14:20 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5fb071759f34966a88185196/0bf3b0292605e5f856d84e20b7377c4c/image.png)

Quote

Judge • $5 • Action - Attack
+2 Cards
Reveal a card from your hand. For each type it has, the player to your left chooses one:
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand:
...gains a Curse;
...gains a Copper;
...discards a card; or
...places a card from their hand on top of their deck.

Sorry the text on-card got a little small there. Torturer but one person hoses the rest of the table, and it's potentially an "and" rather than an "or". Having fewer than three cards in hand does let you dodge the Curse/Copper gain though. The "each other player" applies to everyone who isn't playing this card, not everyone who isn't choosing options on this card (so, like every other attack card).
so-titled because i had to judge the judge contest so i've never gotten to make one.

Can the player to the left choose the same option more than once?

Aside of that I think you can get a larger font if you combine the different options a la Scrap:

Quote

Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand:
gains a Curse; gains a Copper; discards a card;
places a card from their hand on top of their deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 15, 2020, 06:17:35 am

Quote from: gambit05 on November 15, 2020, 06:05:20 am

Quote from: spineflu on November 14, 2020, 07:14:20 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5fb071759f34966a88185196/0bf3b0292605e5f856d84e20b7377c4c/image.png)

Quote

Judge • $5 • Action - Attack
+2 Cards
Reveal a card from your hand. For each type it has, the player to your left chooses one:
Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand:
...gains a Curse;
...gains a Copper;
...discards a card; or
...places a card from their hand on top of their deck.

Sorry the text on-card got a little small there. Torturer but one person hoses the rest of the table, and it's potentially an "and" rather than an "or". Having fewer than three cards in hand does let you dodge the Curse/Copper gain though. The "each other player" applies to everyone who isn't playing this card, not everyone who isn't choosing options on this card (so, like every other attack card).
so-titled because i had to judge the judge contest so i've never gotten to make one.

Can the player to the left choose the same option more than once?

Aside of that I think you can get a larger font if you combine the different options a la Scrap:

Quote

Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand:
gains a Curse; gains a Copper; discards a card;
places a card from their hand on top of their deck.

no, i'll change that out for "chooses a different one:" and your wording, ty!

---

Quote from: silverspawn on November 15, 2020, 05:29:50 am

Do people like smugglers? I have the card banned. Ime, cards that punish you for doing good stuff with your deck (possession, smugglers, goatherd, masquerade), are among the most unfun things in dominion.

Plenty of submissions so far don't work like that, but just throwing that out there. If you share my dislike of the aforemsntioned cards, don't accidentally design a similar mechanic. It's part of the natural design space given the current theme.

i think smugglers is fine, the piggybacking variety of cards actually makes things interesting and, yknow, not multiplayer solitaire.

My banlist is cards that either make the game monotonic (rebuild) or provide a degree of randomness that makes the game unfun (swindler, wall [since trashing isnt guaranteed to show up]), or dont change the game in any meaningful way (quest). i think the only one i agree with you here on is possession, but for me thats mostly because d.g's implementation handles the event logging for it so badly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 15, 2020, 08:11:49 am

Quote from: gambit05 on November 15, 2020, 05:44:02 am

Quote from: majiponi on November 15, 2020, 04:55:25 am

Council
cost $5 - Action
The player to your both side reveals a card from their hand, at once. You may gain a copy of the revealed cards. If you do, the player who revealed a copy of it takes 2 Coffers. Otherwise, +2 Coffers.

If I understand the card correctly, I think it doesn't work; the English wording and concept-wise.

The wording could be something like:

Quote

The players to your left and to your right reveal a card
from their hand, at once. You may gain a copy of a
revealed card. If you do, the player who revealed the
card takes 2 Coffers. Otherwise, +2 Coffers.

Still a bit odd and not 100% consistent with the requirements of the contest as there is an "s" in "players" instead of "the player to your".
For the concept, in a 3+ player game, no matter what the neighbors show (except Province or so), the player could always choose not to gain a copy and would take 4 Coffers. Is that right?

Oh, I failed to rephrase.  I meant to say "+2 Coffers, or gain one of the revealed cards, giving the friendly opponent +2 Coffers." +4 Coffers is not intended.
I also noticed gaining option is too weak. Even if my opponent reveals Gold, giving +2 Coffers is a huge penalty. Maybe gaining to hand is nice.

Quote

The players to your left and to your right reveal a card
from their hand, at once. You may gain a copy of a
revealed card to your hand. If you do, the player who revealed the
card takes 2 Coffers. Otherwise, +2 Coffers.

Maybe saying "each other player" is nice, but it bumps up the power too much.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on November 15, 2020, 08:32:38 am

(https://i.imgur.com/0qPSABq.png)

Quote

Extortionist - $5
Action - Attack

The player to your left chooses one of the following for you:
+3 cards, and each other player takes @1; or +$3, and each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card.

Bringing this concept back since fixing it made it ineligible for the last contest I used it in.

Also, why is the font different?  I don't see any option to change the font on the card generator.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 15, 2020, 08:42:13 am

Quote from: chronostrike on November 15, 2020, 08:32:38 am

Also, why is the font different?  I don't see any option to change the font on the card generator.

That happened to me a few times as well. I think it is when I have bad internet connection and then the page doesn't load all its features. Have you tried to reload the page?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 15, 2020, 11:25:51 am

(https://i.imgur.com/U6IjTDq.jpg)

Quote

Draper
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Buy, +$1. If the player to your right gained exactly 1 card on their previous turn: +2 Coffers.

It is true that Draper is much weaker than Candlestick Maker if the player to your right gains 0 or multiple cards on their turn, but opening with Draper is strong because chances are high to get its Coffers.  How many times does Draper need to proc to be worth opening with an Herbalist?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on November 15, 2020, 12:22:52 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Er3XyvR.png)

Quote

Surveyor
Action - Fate _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
+1 card
+1 action
Reveal the top three boons. The player to your right chooses one for you to discard. Receive the other two.

Quote from: old

(https://i.imgur.com/F4WbN2Q.png)

Quote

Repossess
Action - Duration _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}
Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Coffers.
The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one. During that turn, whenever that player gains a card, you may gain a copy of it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on November 15, 2020, 03:13:42 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on November 14, 2020, 04:35:05 pm

Quote from: Aquila on November 14, 2020, 03:53:28 pm

Quote

Councillor - Action, $4 cost.
Reveal your hand; the player to your right chooses a card for you to discard. If you discard a card, + $4.

+ $4 minus your best card in hand at the time you play it. Is $4 enough of a bonus?

I think $4 is good bonus, but the "if you discard" could make people think the discard is optional. You might want to make it clearer.

Like this?

Quote

Councillor - Action, $4 cost.
Reveal your hand; the player to your right chooses one of the cards. You may discard it for + $4.

Now the discard is optional, but eh, to what consequence?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 15, 2020, 03:26:04 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on November 15, 2020, 12:22:52 pm

Quote

Repossess
Action - Duration _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}
Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Coffers.
The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one. During that turn, whenever that player gains a card, you may gain a copy of it.

Wait, what?

In 2p, the card is almost strictly worse than just gaining coin tokens since your opponent can choose not to gain cards. In 3p, it's arguably pretty good for you and that person, which makes it the most political thing ever.

Did you intend for this to help you more than your opponent?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 15, 2020, 03:47:04 pm

My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/sb36Ydb/Atlantis.png)

Atlantis
$4 – Action

Quote

+2 Cards
+2 Actions
The player to your right
gains this.
----------------------------
When you buy this and
when scoring, +1VP.

In case anyone is wondering, the shield icons in the top corners serve as visual aids and as a reminder that Atlantis in the players decks scores VP at the end of the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on November 15, 2020, 08:29:04 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on November 15, 2020, 03:47:04 pm

My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/sb36Ydb/Atlantis.png)

Atlantis
$4 – Action

Quote

+2 Cards
+2 Actions
The player to your right
gains this.
----------------------------
When you buy this and
when scoring, +1VP.

In case anyone is wondering, the shield icons in the top corners serve as visual aids and as a reminder that Atlantis in the players decks scores VP at the end of the game.

This card would be much more straightforward as an action/victory worth 1 VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 15, 2020, 09:40:20 pm

Quote from: chronostrike on November 15, 2020, 08:29:04 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on November 15, 2020, 03:47:04 pm

My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/sb36Ydb/Atlantis.png)

Atlantis
$4 – Action

Quote

+2 Cards
+2 Actions
The player to your right
gains this.
----------------------------
When you buy this and
when scoring, +1VP.

In case anyone is wondering, the shield icons in the top corners serve as visual aids and as a reminder that Atlantis in the players decks scores VP at the end of the game.

This card would be much more straightforward as an action/victory worth 1 VP.

I think the reason they're avoiding that is because then it would need two horizontal lines:

Quote

Action effect

---

When you Buy this, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}.

---

1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 15, 2020, 10:22:17 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 15, 2020, 09:40:20 pm

Quote from: chronostrike on November 15, 2020, 08:29:04 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on November 15, 2020, 03:47:04 pm

My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/sb36Ydb/Atlantis.png)

Atlantis
$4 – Action

Quote

+2 Cards
+2 Actions
The player to your right
gains this.
----------------------------
When you buy this and
when scoring, +1VP.

In case anyone is wondering, the shield icons in the top corners serve as visual aids and as a reminder that Atlantis in the players decks scores VP at the end of the game.

This card would be much more straightforward as an action/victory worth 1 VP.

I think the reason they're avoiding that is because then it would need two horizontal lines:

Quote

Action effect

---

When you Buy this, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}.

---

1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}

Are they supposed to gain an Atlantis, or gain the one that was in play? It may be better to have "return this to the supply, the player to your right gains an Atlantis" and possibly make it an attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 16, 2020, 04:52:45 am

Quote from: chronostrike on November 15, 2020, 08:29:04 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on November 15, 2020, 03:47:04 pm

Atlantis
$4 – Action

Quote

+2 Cards
+2 Actions
The player to your right
gains this.
----------------------------
When you buy this and
when scoring, +1VP.

In case anyone is wondering, the shield icons in the top corners serve as visual aids and as a reminder that Atlantis in the players decks scores VP at the end of the game.

This card would be much more straightforward as an action/victory worth 1 VP.

That actually was my initial idea, i.e. if you meant:

Quote

Action text
-----------------
1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)

w/o an on-buy effect.

The obvious idea of both versions is to combine a strong ability with the incentive not to play the card at a certain point later in the game because of the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png). After starting with the Action – Victory version shown above, I thought that the player who buys Atlantis needs a bonus since otherwise the other players would get the strong card without the need to buy it. This in turn could lead to a stalemate were nobody buys it. This can be avoided when the buying player gets a bonus; therefore the on-buy +1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png).

Now, if the card would just be

Quote

Action text
-----------------
On-buy +1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)

 
Atlantis cards would be played and “passed” till the end of the game without any consequences, which doesn’t look interesting to me. Therefore, I gave the card 1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) when scoring, which means that at a certain point during the game, players have to make the decision whether to play it and lose the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png), or whether it is better not to play it in order to keep the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png). (By the way, it is passed to the right because that player has a lower chance to end the game at that point.)

In summary, the way I see it:
The players need an incentive to buy Atlantis (i.e. an on-buy effect).
The players need an incentive to play (and “pass”) the card (i.e. a strong ability).
The players need an incentive not to play the card near the end of the game (i.e. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) scoring).
 

Quote from: Gubump on November 15, 2020, 09:40:20 pm

I think the reason they're avoiding that is because then it would need two horizontal lines:

Quote

Action effect

---

When you Buy this, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}.

---

1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}

Exactly. This would be the alternative with the same effect, which however doesn't look better.

Quote from: LittleFish on November 15, 2020, 10:22:17 pm

Are they supposed to gain an Atlantis, or gain the one that was in play? It may be better to have "return this to the supply, the player to your right gains an Atlantis" and possibly make it an attack.

I think the wording is simple and unambiguous, i.e. "this" means exactly this very card that has been played.
Why do you think this should be an Attack?

Well, thank you all for your comments. If anyone can convince me that a simpler version, e.g. like that one chronostrike suggested, is better, please feel free to make any further suggestions. I think the critical points of what I want to deliver with this card are summarized above (highlighted in blue).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 16, 2020, 05:34:51 am

Quote from: Aquila on November 15, 2020, 03:13:42 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on November 14, 2020, 04:35:05 pm

Quote from: Aquila on November 14, 2020, 03:53:28 pm

Quote

Councillor - Action, $4 cost.
Reveal your hand; the player to your right chooses a card for you to discard. If you discard a card, + $4.

+ $4 minus your best card in hand at the time you play it. Is $4 enough of a bonus?

I think $4 is good bonus, but the "if you discard" could make people think the discard is optional. You might want to make it clearer.

Like this?

Quote

Councillor - Action, $4 cost.
Reveal your hand; the player to your right chooses one of the cards. You may discard it for + $4.

Now the discard is optional, but eh, to what consequence?

I think the biggest problem with the original wording "...chooses a card for you to discard. If you discard a card, + $4" is the "a". This implies that it doesn't matter which card the other player chose, just discarding any card would give +$4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 16, 2020, 05:47:05 am

Quote from: silverspawn on November 15, 2020, 03:26:04 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on November 15, 2020, 12:22:52 pm

Quote

Repossess
Action - Duration _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}
Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Coffers.
The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one. During that turn, whenever that player gains a card, you may gain a copy of it.

Wait, what?

In 2p, the card is almost strictly worse than just gaining coppers since your opponent can choose not to gain cards. In 3p, it's arguably pretty good for you and that person, which makes it the most political thing ever.

Did you intend for this to help you more than your opponent?

I think the card could work if it would be just the regular turn of the other player ... but then, it may be difficult to keep the wording "The player to your", which is the requirement for this contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 16, 2020, 05:51:12 am

(https://i.ibb.co/Hpk9bMG/fanatic.png)

Does not overrule ways.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 16, 2020, 10:17:12 am

Quote from: gambit05 on November 15, 2020, 03:47:04 pm

My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/sb36Ydb/Atlantis.png)

Atlantis
$4 – Action

Quote

+2 Cards
+2 Actions
The player to your right
gains this.
----------------------------
When you buy this and
when scoring, +1VP.

In case anyone is wondering, the shield icons in the top corners serve as visual aids and as a reminder that Atlantis in the players decks scores VP at the end of the game.

I love this design and think that the wording is fine.
I worry though that 1VP is not enough of an incentive to not play the card in the endgame. On the other hands, at 2VPs when scoring it would be strictly better than Duchy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 16, 2020, 02:29:54 pm

Quote from: segura on November 16, 2020, 10:17:12 am

I love this design and think that the wording is fine.
I worry though that 1VP is not enough of an incentive to not play the card in the endgame. On the other hands, at 2VPs when scoring it would be strictly better than Duchy.

Thanks for your thoughts. I am happy to learn that you like the general idea of the card!

As you have pointed out, 2VP is out of question, even if the card would be more expensive and not strictly better than Duchy. I am confident that the current version would be frequently bought and played, while I doubt that that is the case with a 2VP version.

In the endgame, I assume that there are enough situations that favor not playing 1VP-Atlantis (and potentially even several copies of it), depending on the gap of VPs between the players, who is leading, what is expected to be drawn with it, etc.

Finally, in terms of design, I prefer having an Atlantis version that gives less incentive to stop playing it in the endgame (unless this would always happen) to a version where players stop playing it too early in a game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 16, 2020, 02:37:54 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on November 16, 2020, 05:51:12 am

(https://i.ibb.co/Hpk9bMG/fanatic.png)

Does not overrule ways.

I have no idea whether this is balanced, but I love the idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 16, 2020, 04:39:44 pm

Contest #95: The player to your (left/right) SUBMISSION
This is an outdated submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/uceuq560.png)

Quote

Developer | Action - Command | $4
Trash a card from your hand. The player to your left names a cheaper and a more expensive non-Command Action card in the Supply. Play both in either oder, leaving them in the Supply.

A developer develops ... sort of. "Non-Command" phrase means your opponent can't force you to trash additional cards in your hand. This Trash for Benefit is probably best at trashing 3s and 4s. In most cases, trashing a 5 is often strictly worse than trashing a 3. Although, trashing a 5 could be your key to playing a Kings Court.

Rules Clarification: your opponent names the cards before you play either of them, which should make the decision a little quicker.

Games where this is the only "Village" should be very wacky.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 16, 2020, 04:56:55 pm

Quote from: chronostrike on November 15, 2020, 08:32:38 am

(https://i.imgur.com/0qPSABq.png)

Quote

Extortionist - $5
Action - Attack

The player to your left chooses one of the following for you:
+3 cards, and each other player takes @1; or +$3, and each other player with 4 or more cards in hand discards a card.

Bringing this concept back since fixing it made it ineligible for the last contest I used it in.

Also, why is the font different?  I don't see any option to change the font on the card generator.

This is slightly political. In turn order A-B-C-D let's say A played a militia, B finishes turn and draws 5, then C plays Extortionist. D has a decision to choose discard a card which does NOT hurt B, but does hurt A, or 1@ which hurts both B and A. It is also political -- one player's deck might have a far greater ability to handle extra debt, and one player may have a far greater ability to handle 3 cards in hand. There's also the problem of this giving out unbounded debt to other players, which Donald X has avoided.
Whether those are problems depends on how much you care about cards being political. To address it, you could have each player make their own decision on how to be attacked and what benefit to give you, but it's incredibly awkward to phrase it. Here's my stab, but it makes it not strictly fit this context:
"The players who have the next three turns that are not yours each makes this decision: they take @1 and you get +1 card; or "discard" and you get +1$" It also doesn't work because it attacks one player stronger than the other...
To deal with this you could have one of the options being "take their -1 token" and then it doesn't attack one player more strongly than the other, if they choose so.

Quote from: gambit05 on November 16, 2020, 04:52:45 am

Quote from: chronostrike on November 15, 2020, 08:29:04 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on November 15, 2020, 03:47:04 pm

Atlantis
$4 – Action

Quote

+2 Cards
+2 Actions
The player to your right
gains this.
----------------------------
When you buy this and
when scoring, +1VP.

In case anyone is wondering, the shield icons in the top corners serve as visual aids and as a reminder that Atlantis in the players decks scores VP at the end of the game.

This card would be much more straightforward as an action/victory worth 1 VP.

That actually was my initial idea, i.e. if you meant:

Quote

Action text
-----------------
1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)

w/o an on-buy effect.

The obvious idea of both versions is to combine a strong ability with the incentive not to play the card at a certain point later in the game because of the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png). After starting with the Action – Victory version shown above, I thought that the player who buys Atlantis needs a bonus since otherwise the other players would get the strong card without the need to buy it. This in turn could lead to a stalemate were nobody buys it. This can be avoided when the buying player gets a bonus; therefore the on-buy +1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png).

Now, if the card would just be

Quote

Action text
-----------------
On-buy +1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)

 
Atlantis cards would be played and “passed” till the end of the game without any consequences, which doesn’t look interesting to me. Therefore, I gave the card 1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) when scoring, which means that at a certain point during the game, players have to make the decision whether to play it and lose the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png), or whether it is better not to play it in order to keep the (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png). (By the way, it is passed to the right because that player has a lower chance to end the game at that point.)

In summary, the way I see it:
The players need an incentive to buy Atlantis (i.e. an on-buy effect).
The players need an incentive to play (and “pass”) the card (i.e. a strong ability).
The players need an incentive not to play the card near the end of the game (i.e. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) scoring).
 

Quote from: Gubump on November 15, 2020, 09:40:20 pm

I think the reason they're avoiding that is because then it would need two horizontal lines:

Quote

Action effect

---

When you Buy this, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}.

---

1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}

Exactly. This would be the alternative with the same effect, which however doesn't look better.

Quote from: LittleFish on November 15, 2020, 10:22:17 pm

Are they supposed to gain an Atlantis, or gain the one that was in play? It may be better to have "return this to the supply, the player to your right gains an Atlantis" and possibly make it an attack.

I think the wording is simple and unambiguous, i.e. "this" means exactly this very card that has been played.
Why do you think this should be an Attack?

Well, thank you all for your comments. If anyone can convince me that a simpler version, e.g. like that one chronostrike suggested, is better, please feel free to make any further suggestions. I think the critical points of what I want to deliver with this card are summarized above (highlighted in blue).

I do not believe "gains this" makes any sense. Gaining only comes from designated piles. Masquerade sets the precdent for acquiring cards not from a pile. I think you should use "pass this card to the player to your right's discard pile."

As for your goals. 2VP swing is not much compared to playing a City. I think that if you removed the VP incentive it would play almost identically. I am unsure you properly incentivize not playing it. It also is political. In a three player game, I can pass the card as a Kingmaker. Yikes. Perhaps you could incentivize it a little stronger by attaching it to a Landmark, which would obfuscate the points and make it a little less political.
A landmark like "4VP at the end of the game if you have the most number of Atlantists in your deck." Something like that.
No idea what the right number is, I don't know if it's 4VP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 16, 2020, 05:55:51 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on November 16, 2020, 02:37:54 pm

I have no idea whether this is balanced, but I love the idea.

Thanks :) The powerlevel has a hard ceiling of +3 Cards, +2 Actions for 4$ once per turn, since that's what you get if your opponent names Fanatic on the first play. So it can't be so strong that it breaks the game. It could be too weak, but I think it should at least be playable most of the time, if there are a bunch of different viable action cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 16, 2020, 09:28:35 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on November 16, 2020, 02:37:54 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on November 16, 2020, 05:51:12 am

(https://i.ibb.co/Hpk9bMG/fanatic.png)

Does not overrule ways.

I have no idea whether this is balanced, but I love the idea.

I think it's priced correctly. It's worth noting that this is great for Big Money. Fanatic Big Money is strictly better than Smithy Big Money for the same cost. It even enables Fanatic + Terminal Draw Big Money strategies. I don't think that means it should cost 5 though. Engines like non-terminal draw even more than Big Money, but Engines can be ground to a stop with this card as your opponent can turn your payload into a terminal copper. So, I'm less likely to buy this card if I'm going for an engine. It's fun, the same way that Contraband is fun. And thankfully, it's a little stronger than Contraband, so it may get some use.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 17, 2020, 12:07:03 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on November 15, 2020, 12:22:52 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/F4WbN2Q.png)

Quote

Repossess
Action - Duration _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}
Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Coffers.
The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one. During that turn, whenever that player gains a card, you may gain a copy of it.

I think there are often many good things that the player to your left could do in this extra turn, besides gain cards: she can attack you, trash cards, exile cards, buy events, buy projects, play Coffers gainers, Villagers gainers or VPs gainers or do more specific things like gain a Madman, gain VP from Baths, play a Tactician, Play Barge or Village Green for next turn or play an Outpost and have a miniturn without gain restrictions.

If she gains the last card of a pile, you also gain nothing. Or she could gain cards that are good for her strategy but not for yours. She could even choose do nothing and in this case all you have is an expensive source of Coffers.

For all of this, I think Repossess tends to be better to the player to your left than to you.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 17, 2020, 02:08:56 am

Quote from: Carline on November 17, 2020, 12:07:03 am

For all of this, I think Repossess tends to be better to the player to your left than to you.

That's why it is like a $3 cost card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 17, 2020, 02:56:23 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on November 16, 2020, 04:56:55 pm

Quote

Atlantis
$4 – Action

Quote

+2 Cards
+2 Actions
The player to your right
gains this.
----------------------------
When you buy this and
when scoring, +1VP.

Quote from: anordinaryman on November 16, 2020, 04:56:55 pm

I do not believe "gains this" makes any sense. Gaining only comes from designated piles. Masquerade sets the precdent for acquiring cards not from a pile. I think you should use "pass this card to the player to your right's discard pile."

As for your goals. 2VP swing is not much compared to playing a City. I think that if you removed the VP incentive it would play almost identically. I am unsure you properly incentivize not playing it. It also is political. In a three player game, I can pass the card as a Kingmaker. Yikes. Perhaps you could incentivize it a little stronger by attaching it to a Landmark, which would obfuscate the points and make it a little less political.
A landmark like "4VP at the end of the game if you have the most number of Atlantists in your deck." Something like that.
No idea what the right number is, I don't know if it's 4VP.

Thank you for all the suggestions, very much appreciated!

Quote from: anordinaryman

I do not believe "gains this" makes any sense. Gaining only comes from designated piles. Masquerade sets the precdent for acquiring cards not from a pile. I think you should use "pass this card to the player to your right's discard pile."

Is that a written rule? Do you consider the trash as a designated pile? I do not. I think Masquerade is different mainly because multiple cards are involved in the process and any interruption of the “card transfer” e.g. through reaction cards would complicate things. This shouldn’t be a problem with a single card. Did you look up the description of “pass a card”?
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Pass
It would be ridiculous to do that for Atlantis.

Quote from: anordinaryman

As for your goals. 2VP swing is not much compared to playing a City. I think that if you removed the VP incentive it would play almost identically.

I don’t understand the comparison with City. The player buying Atlantis (without a benefit) has a clear disadvantage since they have to spend $ and a buy, whereas the other players would get that card for free. So, without an incentive to buy Atlantis, why would anyone buy it?

Quote from: anordinaryman

I am unsure you properly incentivize not playing it.

This might be a critical point of the concept of the card. Among the options I considered, the “+1VP when scoring” seems to be the best solution. It doesn’t scare people to buy and to play the card, it can keep the cost of the card low, it largely reduces potential problems of King-making (see below). If the +1VP is too rarely a reason to stop playing the card, it would be still better this way than the other way around, i.e. players stop playing the card too early. It also seem to contradict your suggestion to remove the VP (see above) and the potential problem of King-making (see below).

Quote from: anordinaryman

It also is political. In a three player game, I can pass the card as a Kingmaker. Yikes.

I think it is less political than many official cards; Swindler, Pillage, Masquerade and Jester come to my mind. Since the card (with +1VP when scoring) causes a swing of only 2VP between the player and the neighbor to the right, the player to the left has enough options to counteract that VP transfer as they are now in the driving seat. In addition, doesn’t your criticism about the card being political contradict your statement about the 2VP swing in relation to City (which I honestly haven’t understood)?

Quote from: anordinaryman

Perhaps you could incentivize it a little stronger by attaching it to a Landmark, which would obfuscate the points and make it a little less political.
A landmark like "4VP at the end of the game if you have the most number of Atlantists in your deck."

I think that would make it more complicated, and much more swingy and political (an all or nothing effect of getting the VP).

Anyway, thanks again.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on November 17, 2020, 09:29:11 am

Quote from: Carline on November 17, 2020, 12:07:03 am

Quote from: Doom_Shark on November 15, 2020, 12:22:52 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/F4WbN2Q.png)

Quote

Repossess
Action - Duration _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)}
Now and at the start of your next turn, +1 Coffers.
The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one. During that turn, whenever that player gains a card, you may gain a copy of it.

I think there are often many good things that the player to your left could do in this extra turn, besides gain cards: she can attack you, trash cards, exile cards, buy events, buy projects, play Coffers gainers, Villagers gainers or VPs gainers or do more specific things like gain a Madman, gain VP from Baths, play a Tactician, Play Barge or Village Green for next turn or play an Outpost and have a miniturn without gain restrictions.

If she gains the last card of a pile, you also gain nothing. Or she could gain cards that are good for her strategy but not for yours. She could even choose do nothing and in this case all you have is an expensive source of Coffers.

For all of this, I think Repossess tends to be better to the player to your left than to you.

Yeah, I hear you. I had trouble wording my original idea and so gave up and went for domething easier to template, which in retrospect completely screwed the design. I plan on re-doing it sometime this evening

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on November 17, 2020, 02:03:39 pm

Haven't posted in a competition for a while now. And for all I know, this could be horribly broken:

(https://i.postimg.cc/VsjhDRPy/Observer-v2.png)

Still, I wanted to try something fun like this. Best case scenario for the player to your left is playing a card that gives them +2 Cards or more (such as an Observer itself), a "at the start of your next turn" Duration card (Observer again), or a nasty Attack card (especially if they have a current terminal-collision hand).

(Didn't know if it needed to say "[...] play an Action card from their hand. But I think playing a card is implied to be from your hand.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on November 17, 2020, 03:09:53 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/VbPgqzp.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 17, 2020, 05:19:26 pm

Quote from: X-tra on November 17, 2020, 02:03:39 pm

(Didn't know if it needed to say "[...] play an Action card from their hand. But I think playing a card is implied to be from your hand.)

Only discarding is implied to be from hand. It needs to say from their hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 17, 2020, 05:20:06 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on November 17, 2020, 03:09:53 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZIt8Pol.png?1)

I think this should clarify "the player to your left chooses one for you to receive:"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on November 17, 2020, 05:33:53 pm

>Outdated Submission<

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50615123861_7c512e36db_b.jpg)

Quote

Fruitcake - $5
Action
+$2
Each other player gets +1 Coffers.
Place this in the discard pile of the player to your left.
--------
When you buy this, +2VP and place this in the discard pile of the player to your left.

Not sure how balance or even fun this is, but thought it would be a humorous non-attack card that feels like an attack. At $5 it is not a reasonable early buy as it will actually accelerate you opponent, and late game the VP it gives you is worse than Duchy even though it does not junk your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on November 17, 2020, 06:48:34 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 17, 2020, 05:20:06 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on November 17, 2020, 03:09:53 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/ZIt8Pol.png?1)

I think this should clarify "the player to your left chooses one for you to receive:"

Yup, totally should. I'll correct it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 17, 2020, 10:36:34 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on November 17, 2020, 05:33:53 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50615123861_7c512e36db_b.jpg)

Quote

Fruitcake - $5
Action
+$2
Each other player gets +1 Coffers.
Place this in the discard pile of the player to your left.
--------
When you buy this, +2VP and place this in the discard pile of the player to your left.

Not sure how balance or even fun this is, but thought it would be a humorous non-attack card that feels like an attack. At $5 it is not a reasonable early buy as it will actually accelerate you opponent, and late game the VP it gives you is worse than Duchy even though it does not junk your deck.

Fun idea!

Actually, even in mid-early game giving out a terminal silver will not accelerate your opponent much (depending on how easy terminal space is to come by). On the other hand wasting a $5 buy on this hurts you a lot, considering that it doesn't even help that much since your opponent only plays it once before passing it back to you (or n-1 opponents in a n-player game). So, I feel like it would never be bought (other than for VP points at end game, and even then Duchy is usually better). But what if you made the attack stronger? What if on-play it did not move? Once you gained the card, it stayed there (unless you trash it, exile it, ambassador, masquerade, etc). Now I feel a lot more willing to spend a $5 buy on that card to put that card in my opponents deck, so I get those coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on November 17, 2020, 11:11:21 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on November 17, 2020, 10:36:34 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on November 17, 2020, 05:33:53 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50615123861_7c512e36db_b.jpg)

Quote

Fruitcake - $5
Action
+$2
Each other player gets +1 Coffers.
Place this in the discard pile of the player to your left.
--------
When you buy this, +2VP and place this in the discard pile of the player to your left.

Not sure how balance or even fun this is, but thought it would be a humorous non-attack card that feels like an attack. At $5 it is not a reasonable early buy as it will actually accelerate you opponent, and late game the VP it gives you is worse than Duchy even though it does not junk your deck.

Fun idea!

Actually, even in mid-early game giving out a terminal silver will not accelerate your opponent much (depending on how easy terminal space is to come by). On the other hand wasting a $5 buy on this hurts you a lot, considering that it doesn't even help that much since your opponent only plays it once before passing it back to you (or n-1 opponents in a n-player game). So, I feel like it would never be bought (other than for VP points at end game, and even then Duchy is usually better). But what if you made the attack stronger? What if on-play it did not move? Once you gained the card, it stayed there (unless you trash it, exile it, ambassador, masquerade, etc). Now I feel a lot more willing to spend a $5 buy on that card to put that card in my opponents deck, so I get those coffers.

That would be quite a bit better. I personally don't like the idea of just punishing the person to the left as I usually play in  multiplayer games of Dominion with at least 4 players. I was also concerned about decreasing the cost as cheap attacks can be degenerative. An alternate way to improve this without decreasing the cost would be to make the player gain a Copper to pass it to the next player so it junks better. Thanks for the feedback. I'll take this into account and maybe adjust the design.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 18, 2020, 01:52:59 am

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/967/543/full/Buffoon_%283%29.png?1605681150)

Quote

Buffoon • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action – Attack - Command

The player to your left chooses and reveals a card from their hand. You choose one:
That player gains two copies of it;
That player exchanges it for a Copper;
You gain a copy of it; or
You play it, leaving it there.

Updated to :

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/967/578/full/Buffoon_%2817%29.png?1605693889)

Quote

Buffoon • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action – Attack - Command

The player to your left reveals a card from their hand.
Choose one:
Gain a copy of it; or
play it twice, leaving it there; or
each other player gains a copy of it and a Copper.

A mix of Jester/Overlord/Throne Room/Mountebank.

She chooses, then you choose: high interaction and many possible outcomes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 18, 2020, 01:53:29 am

Quote from: Carline on November 18, 2020, 01:34:03 am

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/967/543/full/Buffoon_%283%29.png?1605681150)

Quote

Buffoon • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action – Attack - Command

The player to your left chooses and reveals a card from their hand. You choose one:
That player gains two copies of it;
That player exchanges it for a Copper;
You gain a copy of it; or
You play it, leaving it there.

A mix of Jester/Saboteur/Overlord.

They choose, then you choose: high interaction and many possible outcomes.

Nice idea, but for me it looks like the first two options are way too harsh. In most cases I would choose one of them and that would hurt that specific player a lot. Aside of that you could give the "Attack" options to all other players.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 18, 2020, 02:58:16 am

Quote from: gambit05 on November 18, 2020, 01:53:29 am

Nice idea, but for me it looks like the first two options are way too harsh. In most cases I would choose one of them and that would hurt that specific player a lot. Aside of that you could give the "Attack" options to all other players.

Thank you for your feedbacks!

Maybe this updated version is more well balanced between options:

- Changed the first attack to each other player, but keep it two-junker (changing the second copy gained for a Copper). Otherwise, it could be a weak attack.

- Nerfed the second attack to original Saboteur (plus a discarding which results from exchanging). This way I think it's not so harsh, so it's ok to keep it only to that player, even because the others didn't revealed a card.

This way I think it will lead to tricky decisions from both players.

More feedbacks are always very welcome!

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/967/551/full/Buffoon_%285%29.png?1605684569)

Quote

Buffoon • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action – Attack - Command

The player to your left chooses and reveals a card from their hand.
You choose one:
Each other player gain a copy of it and a Copper;
That player exchanges it for a card costing at most $2 less than it;
You gain a copy of it; or
You play it, leaving it there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 18, 2020, 03:40:04 am

Quote from: Carline on November 18, 2020, 02:58:16 am

Quote from: gambit05 on November 18, 2020, 01:53:29 am

Nice idea, but for me it looks like the first two options are way too harsh. In most cases I would choose one of them and that would hurt that specific player a lot. Aside of that you could give the "Attack" options to all other players.

Thank you for your feedbacks!

Maybe this updated version is more well balanced between options:

- Changed the first attack to each other player, but keep it two-junker (changing the second copy gained for a Copper). Otherwise, it could be a weak attack.

- Nerfed the second attack to original Saboteur (plus a discarding which results from exchanging). This way I think it's not so harsh, so it's ok to keep it only to that player, even because the others didn't revealed a card.

This way I think it will lead to tricky decisions from both players.

More feedbacks are always very welcome!

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/967/551/full/Buffoon_%285%29.png?1605684569)

Quote

Buffoon • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action – Attack - Command

The player to your left chooses and reveals a card from their hand.
You choose one:
Each other player gain a copy of it and a Copper;
That player exchanges it for a card costing at most $2 less than it;
You gain a copy of it; or
You play it, leaving it there.

This looks much better (though I think it is still too harsh).
May I suggest some things on the wording?

1) I think you do not need the first "choose".
2) When a player has one choice out of several, all choices are separated by "or" see for example Steward.
3) Option 1:...gains...

[4) I know it is also not defined on Saboteur for some reason, but is it clear for option 2 who decides to which card it is exchanged for?]
[5) Lower case for "that" and "you" (sorry for this nit picking).]
Edit 2: [6) "Choose one" instead of "You choose one".]

Edit: Just saw that you edited while I was writing. Yes, much better!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 18, 2020, 03:45:18 am

Updated again. On second thought, I think it doesn't need the Saboteur part.

This way it's simpler, but keeps the tricky decisions of both players.


(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/967/578/full/Buffoon_%2817%29.png?1605693889)

Quote

Buffoon • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action – Attack - Command

The player to your left reveals a card from their hand.
Choose one:
Gain a copy of it; or
play it twice, leaving it there; or
each other player gains a copy of it and a Copper.

Edited to add wording suggestions from gambit05. Thanks for that!

Edited 2: Changed play option to throne.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on November 18, 2020, 07:41:09 am

Quote

Gangster
$5 - Action - Attack
+3 Cards.
The player to your left reveals the top card of their deck. You may discard a copy of the revealed card for +1 Coffers.
Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a copy of the revealed card. If they discarded an Action or Treasure costing at least $5, they get +1 Coffers.

hmmm, I already think it seems too strong, I think I'll switch to the +2 Card version:
...and cutting a piece and switching back to reduce wordiness...

My (EDITed) final entry:

Quote

Gangster
$5 - Action - Attack
+3 Cards.
The player to your left reveals the top card of their deck. Each other player with at least 5 cards in hand discards a copy of the revealed card (or reveals they can't). If they discarded an Action or Treasure costing at least $3, they get +1 Coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 18, 2020, 09:50:49 am

Quote from: Carline on November 18, 2020, 03:45:18 am

Updated again. On second thought, I think it doesn't need the Saboteur part.

This way it's simpler, but keeps the tricky decisions of both players.


(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/967/578/full/Buffoon_%2817%29.png?1605693889)

Quote

Buffoon • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action – Attack - Command

The player to your left reveals a card from their hand.
Choose one:
Each other player gains a copy of it and a Copper; or
you gain a copy of it; or
you play it twice, leaving it there.

Edited to add wording suggestions from gambit05. Thanks for that!

Edited 2: Changed play option to throne.

Nice. Old exchange option destroyed my hand eternally.

Exchange my Copper to Copper (similar to discarding). 5 times! My hand is empty!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on November 18, 2020, 11:25:21 am

Quote from: Gubump on November 17, 2020, 05:19:26 pm

Only discarding is implied to be from hand. It needs to say from their hand.

Mmmh. Right you are. I forgot about the wording of stuff like Throne Room that specifically says that it is a card being played from your hand. S'been a while since I haven't done one of these :D . Anyway, my original card has been edited to fix that.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 18, 2020, 12:07:00 pm

Changed it again.

As Buffoon is terminal and doesn't give the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} that Jester or Mountebank gives, I think the option of junking attack, which doesn't give you a resource in this turn, can be stronger. So I changed it to curse.

It also makes harder the decision of the player to your left about which card she reveals.

Feedbacks are welcome!

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/968/197/full/Buffoon_%2818%29.png?1605718489)

Quote

Buffoon • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action – Attack - Command

The player to your left reveals a card from their hand.
Choose one:
Gain a copy of it; or
play it twice, leaving it there; or
each other player gains a copy of it and a Curse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on November 18, 2020, 12:43:56 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 18, 2020, 12:07:00 pm

Changed it again.

As Buffoon is terminal and doesn't give the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} that Jester or Mountebank gives, I think the option of junking attack, which doesn't give you a resource in this turn, can be stronger. So I changed it to curse.

It also makes harder the decision of the player to your left about which card she reveals.

Feedbacks are welcome!

Quote

Buffoon • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action – Attack - Command

The player to your left reveals a card from their hand.
Choose one:
Gain a copy of it; or
play it twice, leaving it there; or
each other player gains a copy of it and a Curse.

If the Curses are empty and your opponent reveals a Curse, this does absolutely nothing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 18, 2020, 02:18:07 pm

Sorry LittleFish, i deleted the message to post a new version of it while you are commenting about it. The new message I was preparing is this:

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on November 18, 2020, 12:43:56 pm

If the Curses are empty and your opponent reveals a Curse, this does absolutely nothing.

Yes, thank you! I also don't like when a card does nothing.

I think the new version below fix it. It also can give Ruins if available.

In some situations, you can even choose other card than Curse, Copper or Ruins, for example with Bandit Fort or Wolf Den or if it makes you three-pile this turn.

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/968/512/full/Buffoon_%2823%29.png?1605725014)

Quote

Buffoon • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action – Attack - Command

The player to your left reveals a card from their hand.
Choose one:
Gain a copy of it; or
play it twice, leaving it there; or
each other player gains a copy of it and a card from a supply pile you choose (same pile for all players).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 18, 2020, 02:22:50 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 18, 2020, 02:18:07 pm

Sorry LittleFish, i deleted the message to post a new version of it while you are commenting about it. The new message I was preparing is this:

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on November 18, 2020, 12:43:56 pm

If the Curses are empty and your opponent reveals a Curse, this does absolutely nothing.

Yes, thank you! I also don't like when a card does nothing.

I think the new version below fix it. It also can give Ruins if available.

In some situations, you can even choose other card than Curse, Copper or Ruins, for example with Bandit Fort or Wolf Den or if it makes you three-pile this turn.

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/968/512/full/Buffoon_%2823%29.png?1605725014)

Quote

Buffoon • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action – Attack - Command

The player to your left reveals a card from their hand.
Choose one:
Gain a copy of it; or
play it twice, leaving it there; or
each other player gains a copy of it and a card from a supply pile you choose (same pile for all players).

It's okay, I can just move mine around.

In a 2 player possession game, this is now completely broken, as while possessing the opponent you could reveal a province to gain two provinces. Maybe make it a non-victory card?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 18, 2020, 02:40:43 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 18, 2020, 02:22:50 pm

In a 2 player possession game, this is now completely broken, as while possessing the opponent you could reveal a province to gain two provinces. Maybe make it a non-victory card?

Yes, thank you! Updated to add "non-Victory":

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/968/670/full/Buffoon_%2824%29.png?1605728242)

Quote

Buffoon • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action – Attack - Command

The player to your left reveals a card from their hand.
Choose one:
Gain a copy of it; or
play it twice, leaving it there; or
each other player gains a copy of it and a non-Victory card from a supply pile you choose (same pile for all players).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 18, 2020, 03:17:58 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 18, 2020, 03:45:18 am

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/967/578/full/Buffoon_%2817%29.png?1605693889)

Quote

Buffoon • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action – Attack - Command

The player to your left reveals a card from their hand.
Choose one:
Gain a copy of it; or
play it twice, leaving it there; or
each other player gains a copy of it and a Copper.

Sorry for commenting again on this card, but I have the feeling that too many changes have been made, which at a certain point do not improve the card anymore. You started with an interesting idea, but in my opinion with some "Attack" options that were too harsh and with some wording that could be easily improved.

Then after many changes, back and forth, people still find a situation where a certain 2-card combination could be game breaking. But how often would that actually happen with so many official cards? Is that a bad thing? I don't know, but I prefer an elegant but relatively simple version instead of a wall of text that deals with all possible scenarios.

I lost a bit the overview, but I thing the version above is the one that is the most elegant and least controversial one. Of course, I may be wrong, it is just my opinion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 18, 2020, 03:56:56 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on November 18, 2020, 03:17:58 pm

Sorry for commenting again on this card, but I have the feeling that too many changes have been made, which at a certain point do not improve the card anymore. You started with an interesting idea, but in my opinion with some "Attack" options that were too harsh and with some wording that could be easily improved.

Then after many changes, back and forth, people still find a situation where a certain 2-card combination could be game breaking. But how often would that actually happen with so many official cards? Is that a bad thing? I don't know, but I prefer an elegant but relatively simple version instead of a wall of text that deals with all possible scenarios.

I lost a bit the overview, but I thing the version above is the one that is the most elegant and least controversial one. Of course, I may be wrong, it is just my opinion.

Comments are always welcome.

I think you're right. This more complicated versions started when I thought the attack option would be a bit weak without a bonus for your turn, so changed "Copper" to "Curse" and tried to fix following issues.

I myself was not so satisfied with crescent wording and complexity, so I agree that the previous version you pointed is the best.

So I'm going back to it. To make it less confused in the forum, I edited my previous posts to reduce the size of images of intermediate versions.


Updated to go back to this version:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/967/578/full/Buffoon_%2817%29.png?1605693889)

Quote

Buffoon • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Action – Attack - Command

The player to your left reveals a card from their hand.
Choose one:
Gain a copy of it; or
play it twice, leaving it there; or
each other player gains a copy of it and a Copper.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 18, 2020, 04:31:16 pm

Updated Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/or88f7rx.png)

Quote

Developer | Action - Command | $4
Trash this or a card from your hand. The player to your left names
a cheaper and a more expensive non-Command non-Duration Action
card in the Supply. You may play any of them in any order, leaving
 them in the Supply.

Three Changes:
1. make the play of named cards  optional: It turns out that having the play be mandatory completely shuts Developer out of early trashing when cards like Beggar or Baron are on the table. And there's plenty of cards that you may not wish to play (not wanting to make a bad shuffle, not wanting to discard due to horse traders, not wanting a hex from a leprechaun, not wanting to silver-flood with trader... etc). I thought it was more interesting to give the option to play with -- otherwise in some kingdoms Developer will never be bought and that is less fun.
2. allow it to self-trash: I noticed the card was a little weak. Allowing the self trash strengthens it and allows you to play a random 5. Notice this isn't strictly better than Feast since you do not gain the 5 cost card, and your opponent chooses it for you.
3. not allow playing durations this would allow confusing situations if you self-trashed it. Now you have no card to keep track you have a duration to play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on November 18, 2020, 06:18:19 pm

>Outdated Submission<

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50618820026_f40f942c88_b.jpg)

Quote

Fruitcake - $4
Treasure
$2
Each other player gets +1 Coffers.
--------
When you buy this, +2VP and place this in the discard pile of the player to your left or right (you choose).

Ok, I have updated my submission to this version of Fruitcake. I reduced the cost so the VP reward is more in line with what is expected. It is a treasure card so it does not junk your opponents deck as effectively, but it cannot be passed back to you, so you can plan on getting those Coffers on a more regular basis. It is still a terrible investment if there is remodeling in the Kingdom. Still not completely sure if it is balanced or worth even buying.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on November 19, 2020, 04:58:27 am

Second edit for my entry:

Quote

Councillor - Action, $4 cost.
Reveal your hand; the player to your right chooses one of the cards. You may discard it for + $3 and +1VP.

I was bothered by Throning this basically meaning 'discard your hand. Gain a Province'. That's really boring. So it's no longer + $4 but this bonus.

---

Quote from: Xen3k on November 18, 2020, 06:18:19 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50618820026_f40f942c88_b.jpg)

Quote

Fruitcake - $4
Treasure
$2
Each other player gets +1 Coffers.
--------
When you buy this, +2VP and place this in the discard pile of the player to your left or right (you choose).

Ok, I have updated my submission to this version of Fruitcake. I reduced the cost so the VP reward is more in line with what is expected. It is a treasure card so it does not junk your opponents deck as effectively, but it cannot be passed back to you, so you can plan on getting those Coffers on a more regular basis. It is still a terrible investment if there is remodeling in the Kingdom. Still not completely sure if it is balanced or worth even buying.

This seems ultra political and/or game warping. Choose one of your adjacent opponents and heap these Silver-s on them. It will still decimate their strategy like copper junking, only the game could speed up massively; wouldn't a one-shot Baker be worth about the same as a Silver? Then that player can retaliate by throwing cakes back at you, and all the while the other players could enjoy the free coffers coming in and win.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 19, 2020, 06:29:24 am

Quote from: Aquila on November 19, 2020, 04:58:27 am

Second edit for my entry:

Quote

Councillor - Action, $4 cost.
Reveal your hand; the player to your right chooses one of the cards. You may discard it for + $3 and +1VP.

This is far too similar to Monument:
If you discard a Copper, it is equal to Monument.
If you play entirely with virtual Coins, this is better.
If you play with some non-Copper money, this is worse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 19, 2020, 07:55:11 am

Are you sure the same argument doesn't say "Destrier is far too similar to Laboratory?"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 19, 2020, 09:22:24 am

Quote from: silverspawn on November 19, 2020, 07:55:11 am

Are you sure the same argument doesn't say "Destrier is far too similar to Laboratory?"

In general your argument is correct, just because a card is similar to an existing one does not mean that it bad.

But Councillor started as pure terminal Coin card, the VP came later as buff so this definitely wasn't intended from the get-go as Monument variant. Momunent is far narrower than Village or Lab, i.e. it is not a basic card that warrants many variants but a fairly special card.

Also, Destrier does something interesting with its cost reduction. I don't see how the discarding of Councillor is similarly interesting (not to mention that it is likely weaker than Monument).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on November 19, 2020, 11:02:46 am

Quote from: Aquila on November 19, 2020, 04:58:27 am

---

Quote from: Xen3k on November 18, 2020, 06:18:19 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50618820026_f40f942c88_b.jpg)

Quote

Fruitcake - $4
Treasure
$2
Each other player gets +1 Coffers.
--------
When you buy this, +2VP and place this in the discard pile of the player to your left or right (you choose).

Ok, I have updated my submission to this version of Fruitcake. I reduced the cost so the VP reward is more in line with what is expected. It is a treasure card so it does not junk your opponents deck as effectively, but it cannot be passed back to you, so you can plan on getting those Coffers on a more regular basis. It is still a terrible investment if there is remodeling in the Kingdom. Still not completely sure if it is balanced or worth even buying.

This seems ultra political and/or game warping. Choose one of your adjacent opponents and heap these Silver-s on them. It will still decimate their strategy like copper junking, only the game could speed up massively; wouldn't a one-shot Baker be worth about the same as a Silver? Then that player can retaliate by throwing cakes back at you, and all the while the other players could enjoy the free coffers coming in and win.

I agree completely that is ultra political. I am kinda embracing the challenge even though I dislike this "neighbors matter" kind of mechanic. Would it be better if you can only drop it in the left hand players deck? Was it better when you passed it on play?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 19, 2020, 12:04:42 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on November 19, 2020, 11:02:46 am

Quote from: Aquila on November 19, 2020, 04:58:27 am

---

Quote from: Xen3k on November 18, 2020, 06:18:19 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50618820026_f40f942c88_b.jpg)

Quote

Fruitcake - $4
Treasure
$2
Each other player gets +1 Coffers.
--------
When you buy this, +2VP and place this in the discard pile of the player to your left or right (you choose).

Ok, I have updated my submission to this version of Fruitcake. I reduced the cost so the VP reward is more in line with what is expected. It is a treasure card so it does not junk your opponents deck as effectively, but it cannot be passed back to you, so you can plan on getting those Coffers on a more regular basis. It is still a terrible investment if there is remodeling in the Kingdom. Still not completely sure if it is balanced or worth even buying.

This seems ultra political and/or game warping. Choose one of your adjacent opponents and heap these Silver-s on them. It will still decimate their strategy like copper junking, only the game could speed up massively; wouldn't a one-shot Baker be worth about the same as a Silver? Then that player can retaliate by throwing cakes back at you, and all the while the other players could enjoy the free coffers coming in and win.

I agree completely that is ultra political. I am kinda embracing the challenge even though I dislike this "neighbors matter" kind of mechanic. Would it be better if you can only drop it in the left hand players deck? Was it better when you passed it on play?

Passed on play then means no one should ever buy it since it doesn't actually junk your opponents deck, and over time everyone gets the same amount of coffers since it goes back to the player who buys it. The 2VP isn't quite worth that. Think about how rarely Baths is "bought."

I like the concept though. I can think of two ways to keep it still an attack and thus a card people want to buy when there are more than 2 players. Both of them are complicated:
1. Have the fruitcakes exchange themselves for a differently named fruitcake when they pass. Have the exchanging mechanism end after n exchanges where n < # of players - 1, or have it change to a final good card after n exchanges where n  = # of players -1. This requires a complicated set up that changes based on the number of players, but once it is setup, it's very easy to follow the rules of.
2. keep track of who has bought fruitcakes with tokens. When you buy a fruitcake, take a fruitcake token. When you play a fruitcake, pass it to the next player who does not have more fruitcake tokens than you.

Now that I think about it, option 2 isn't as complicated as I thought and is potentially the best way to do it. You could tweak it to be "does not have more" or "has less" which change the effect if two people have equal tokens. You can play with 12 in the pile so theoretically players can have an equal number of fruitcake tokens.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 04:15:56 pm

This is the first time I have ever posted a fan card, so it probably is awful.

v1 (outdated)
? - Treasure
Cost - $4?

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers


Tell me how under/overpowered this card.

v2
Escrow - Action
Cost - $4 (outdated)

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

v3
Escrow - Action
Cost - $4

Reveal your hand. The player to your left chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 19, 2020, 04:45:15 pm

Quote from: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 04:15:56 pm

This is the first time I have ever posted a fan card, so it probably is awful.

? - Treasure
Cost - $4?

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

Tell me how under/overpowered this card.

It suffers from the "strictly better than Silver at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}" problem. Both options look pretty strong... if your opponent chooses +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}, then it's simply a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} Gold; which is clearly way too good. So the only way for it to not be too strong is if the other option gets chosen. A simple Silver that gives coffers instead of coins is probably balanced at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}; hard to say.

So the question is whether the fact that you will get whichever option is worse for you at this moment matters that much. And I don't think it will. No matter what is chosen, you're still getting a stronger-than-_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} effect from playing the card.

It might also be slow to play; your opponent needs to add up all the treasure that they see you have; and decide from that whether an extra _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} will help this turn or not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 05:12:17 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 19, 2020, 04:45:15 pm

Quote from: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 04:15:56 pm

This is the first time I have ever posted a fan card, so it probably is awful.

? - Treasure
Cost - $4?

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

Tell me how under/overpowered this card.

It suffers from the "strictly better than Silver at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}" problem. Both options look pretty strong... if your opponent chooses +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}, then it's simply a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} Gold; which is clearly way too good. So the only way for it to not be too strong is if the other option gets chosen. A simple Silver that gives coffers instead of coins is probably balanced at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}; hard to say.

So the question is whether the fact that you will get whichever option is worse for you at this moment matters that much. And I don't think it will. No matter what is chosen, you're still getting a stronger-than-_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} effect from playing the card.

It might also be slow to play; your opponent needs to add up all the treasure that they see you have; and decide from that whether an extra _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} will help this turn or not.

You are totally correct. Don't know how I didn't think of that given the fact that I have literally read through this every single card in this thread in the last couple weeks, and have also seen many, many other cards. What if it was a terminal action instead? I'm assuming that that is still too OP, but more experienced players will tell.

? - Action
Cost - $4

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 19, 2020, 05:22:50 pm

Quote from: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 05:12:17 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 19, 2020, 04:45:15 pm

Quote from: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 04:15:56 pm

This is the first time I have ever posted a fan card, so it probably is awful.

? - Treasure
Cost - $4?

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

Tell me how under/overpowered this card.

It suffers from the "strictly better than Silver at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}" problem. Both options look pretty strong... if your opponent chooses +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}, then it's simply a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} Gold; which is clearly way too good. So the only way for it to not be too strong is if the other option gets chosen. A simple Silver that gives coffers instead of coins is probably balanced at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}; hard to say.

So the question is whether the fact that you will get whichever option is worse for you at this moment matters that much. And I don't think it will. No matter what is chosen, you're still getting a stronger-than-_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} effect from playing the card.

It might also be slow to play; your opponent needs to add up all the treasure that they see you have; and decide from that whether an extra _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} will help this turn or not.

You are totally correct. Don't know how I didn't think of that given the fact that I have literally read through this every single card in this thread in the last couple weeks, and have also seen many, many other cards. What if it was a terminal action instead? I'm assuming that that is still too OP, but more experienced players will tell.

? - Action
Cost - $4

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

This seems good, or it might work at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} if it's too strong; I'm not good enough to tell.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 19, 2020, 05:36:34 pm

Definitely not 5$.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on November 19, 2020, 05:59:28 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50621636088_0096a80477_b.jpg)

Quote

Fruitcake - $4
Treasure
Choose one: +$2; or +1 Coffers.
Each other player gets +1 Coffers.
At the start of Cleanup, the next player to your left that does not have more Fruitcake Tokens than you gains this.
-------
When you buy this, +2%, take a Fruitcake token, and place this in the discard pile of the player to your left.

Ok, third version of this abomination. I have to admit that I gave it the optional portion at the top just so the text would be legible. I have incorporated the brilliant Fruitcake Token concept suggested by anordinaryman. The card will now pass left on play, but will skip players that have more Fruitcake tokens. You have to actually buy the card to get Fruitcake tokens, so players can't just ignore the Fruitcakes unless they think they can deal with them another way. The passing is done as a gain effect, so some reactions can interfere/interact with that. I am contemplating making it start in the deck of the player who buys it, but that does not really save any lines of text, and that would be the only reason for that change. I am going to likely just leave it at as is. Thanks for all the feedback, please provide more as it is a great help.

Edit: As suggested, this would be a 12 card stack to allow equal opportunity in multiplayer games.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 19, 2020, 06:05:32 pm

Quote from: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 05:12:17 pm

? - Action
Cost - $4

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 19, 2020, 05:22:50 pm

This seems good, or it might work at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} if it's too strong; I'm not good enough to tell.

Quote from: silverspawn on November 19, 2020, 05:36:34 pm

Definitely not 5$.

First option (terminal Gold) is like Legionary without attack or Livery without gain Horses. Second option (2 Coffers) is like Butcher without trashing or Villain without attack. So, I think it' ok at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 19, 2020, 06:07:14 pm

Quote from: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 05:12:17 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 19, 2020, 04:45:15 pm

Quote from: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 04:15:56 pm

This is the first time I have ever posted a fan card, so it probably is awful.

? - Treasure
Cost - $4?

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

Tell me how under/overpowered this card.

It suffers from the "strictly better than Silver at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}" problem. Both options look pretty strong... if your opponent chooses +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}, then it's simply a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} Gold; which is clearly way too good. So the only way for it to not be too strong is if the other option gets chosen. A simple Silver that gives coffers instead of coins is probably balanced at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}; hard to say.

So the question is whether the fact that you will get whichever option is worse for you at this moment matters that much. And I don't think it will. No matter what is chosen, you're still getting a stronger-than-_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} effect from playing the card.

It might also be slow to play; your opponent needs to add up all the treasure that they see you have; and decide from that whether an extra _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} will help this turn or not.

You are totally correct. Don't know how I didn't think of that given the fact that I have literally read through this every single card in this thread in the last couple weeks, and have also seen many, many other cards. What if it was a terminal action instead? I'm assuming that that is still too OP, but more experienced players will tell.

? - Action
Cost - $4

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

If you're looking for name, Escrow could work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 07:19:20 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 19, 2020, 06:07:14 pm

Quote from: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 05:12:17 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 19, 2020, 04:45:15 pm

Quote from: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 04:15:56 pm

This is the first time I have ever posted a fan card, so it probably is awful.

? - Treasure
Cost - $4?

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

Tell me how under/overpowered this card.

It suffers from the "strictly better than Silver at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}" problem. Both options look pretty strong... if your opponent chooses +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}, then it's simply a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} Gold; which is clearly way too good. So the only way for it to not be too strong is if the other option gets chosen. A simple Silver that gives coffers instead of coins is probably balanced at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}; hard to say.

So the question is whether the fact that you will get whichever option is worse for you at this moment matters that much. And I don't think it will. No matter what is chosen, you're still getting a stronger-than-_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} effect from playing the card.

It might also be slow to play; your opponent needs to add up all the treasure that they see you have; and decide from that whether an extra _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} will help this turn or not.

You are totally correct. Don't know how I didn't think of that given the fact that I have literally read through this every single card in this thread in the last couple weeks, and have also seen many, many other cards. What if it was a terminal action instead? I'm assuming that that is still too OP, but more experienced players will tell.

? - Action
Cost - $4

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

If you're looking for name, Escrow could work.

What is an escrow?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 19, 2020, 07:27:12 pm

Quote from: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 07:19:20 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 19, 2020, 06:07:14 pm

Quote from: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 05:12:17 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 19, 2020, 04:45:15 pm

Quote from: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 04:15:56 pm

This is the first time I have ever posted a fan card, so it probably is awful.

? - Treasure
Cost - $4?

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

Tell me how under/overpowered this card.

It suffers from the "strictly better than Silver at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}" problem. Both options look pretty strong... if your opponent chooses +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}, then it's simply a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} Gold; which is clearly way too good. So the only way for it to not be too strong is if the other option gets chosen. A simple Silver that gives coffers instead of coins is probably balanced at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}; hard to say.

So the question is whether the fact that you will get whichever option is worse for you at this moment matters that much. And I don't think it will. No matter what is chosen, you're still getting a stronger-than-_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} effect from playing the card.

It might also be slow to play; your opponent needs to add up all the treasure that they see you have; and decide from that whether an extra _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} will help this turn or not.

You are totally correct. Don't know how I didn't think of that given the fact that I have literally read through this every single card in this thread in the last couple weeks, and have also seen many, many other cards. What if it was a terminal action instead? I'm assuming that that is still too OP, but more experienced players will tell.

? - Action
Cost - $4

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

If you're looking for name, Escrow could work.

What is an escrow?

"a bond, deed, or other document kept in the custody of a third party and taking effect only when a specified condition has been fulfilled.".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on November 19, 2020, 09:04:22 pm

So, I've decided to scrap Repossess as I'm having trouble making it in a way I like. Instead, I give you:

(https://i.imgur.com/Er3XyvR.png)

Quote

Surveyor
Action - Fate _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
+1 card
+1 action
Reveal the top 3 boons. The player to your right chooses one of them for you to discard. Receive the other two.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BBobb on November 20, 2020, 12:12:25 am

Quote from: LittleFish on November 19, 2020, 07:27:12 pm

Quote from: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 07:19:20 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on November 19, 2020, 06:07:14 pm

Quote from: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 05:12:17 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 19, 2020, 04:45:15 pm

Quote from: BBobb on November 19, 2020, 04:15:56 pm

This is the first time I have ever posted a fan card, so it probably is awful.

? - Treasure
Cost - $4?

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

Tell me how under/overpowered this card.

It suffers from the "strictly better than Silver at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}" problem. Both options look pretty strong... if your opponent chooses +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}, then it's simply a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} Gold; which is clearly way too good. So the only way for it to not be too strong is if the other option gets chosen. A simple Silver that gives coffers instead of coins is probably balanced at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}; hard to say.

So the question is whether the fact that you will get whichever option is worse for you at this moment matters that much. And I don't think it will. No matter what is chosen, you're still getting a stronger-than-_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} effect from playing the card.

It might also be slow to play; your opponent needs to add up all the treasure that they see you have; and decide from that whether an extra _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} will help this turn or not.

You are totally correct. Don't know how I didn't think of that given the fact that I have literally read through this every single card in this thread in the last couple weeks, and have also seen many, many other cards. What if it was a terminal action instead? I'm assuming that that is still too OP, but more experienced players will tell.

? - Action
Cost - $4

Reveal your hand. Your opponent chooses one for you: +$3; or +2 Coffers

If you're looking for name, Escrow could work.

What is an escrow?

"a bond, deed, or other document kept in the custody of a third party and taking effect only when a specified condition has been fulfilled.".

That works! Thanks, LittleFish

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BBobb on November 20, 2020, 04:53:26 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on November 19, 2020, 09:04:22 pm

So, I've decided to scrap Repossess as I'm having trouble making it in a way I like. Instead, I give you:

(https://i.imgur.com/Er3XyvR.png)

Quote

Surveyor
Action - Fate _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
+1 card
+1 action
Reveal the top 3 boons. The player to your right chooses one of them for you to discard. Receive the other two.

Though I am in now way qualified to tell if this card is good or not, I probably think that this card is OP. Let's say that you get three vanilla boons: Forest's Gift (+$1, +1 Buy), Field's Gift (+1 Action, +$1), and Sea's Gift (+1 Card). That means that your opponent chooses you to either get:

+2 Cards, +1 Action, +1 Buy, +$1, which is a lab and a market

+2 Cards, +2 Actions, +$1, which is a lost city and a peddler

+1 Card, +2 Actions, +$2, which is a bazaar and a peddler

Maybe it is just me, but I think that even if your opponent gets to choose between these options the card is probably too good to cost $5.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 20, 2020, 05:14:41 pm

You also get a buy in the last case.

The defense here would be that some of the boons may be useless, and your opponent can leave those in. The list looks a lot worse if you add a useless Moon's gift.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 20, 2020, 05:16:58 pm

Quote from: Doom_Shark on November 19, 2020, 09:04:22 pm

So, I've decided to scrap Repossess as I'm having trouble making it in a way I like. Instead, I give you:

(https://i.imgur.com/Er3XyvR.png)

Quote

Surveyor
Action - Fate _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}
+1 card
+1 action
Reveal the top 3 boons. The player to your right chooses one of them for you to discard. Receive the other two.

So, Donald noticed that Boons slowed down the game a lot, that’s why most fates are stop cards and don’t draw, OR they only give a boon once (village, pixie, fool to an extent), or every other (like idol). Idol also makes it such that it doesn’t get played too often cu it throws curses around. There’s no even terminal draw fates as those would cause themselves to be played too often.
This is a cantrip and thus easily spammable. Played several times a turn
But it’s even slower than a normal fate because your opponent needs to decide each time, and THEN you have to resolve two separate boons.

This card goes against some design findings from Donald X. You don’t have to respect those rules, but I think they make sense.

I designed a can-trip fate. They way I got it to work is it only provided a boon on the first play. “If this is your only x in play.” You could also do an idol-like alternation.

Another option is making it less spammable — make it a terminal card, or don’t have it draw. It could even be a discard for benefit which would be interesting because discarding leaves you vulnerable to a lot of boons not being helpful.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on November 20, 2020, 07:17:23 pm

24 hour warning

Below is a list of submissions I have so far. Please let me know if I missed yours or linked to the wrong post:
Wrangler by mandioca15 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857192#msg857192)
Councillor by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857196#msg857196)
Investor by LittleFish (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857197#msg857197)
Judge by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857210#msg857210)
Commune by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857215#msg857215)
Council by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857218#msg857218)
Extortionist by chronostrike (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857224#msg857224)
Draper by Fragasnap (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857230#msg857230)
Surveyor by Doom_Shark (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857232#msg857232)
Atlantis by gambit05 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857247#msg857247)
Fanatic by silverspawn (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857271#msg857271)
Developer by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857400#msg857400)
Observer by X-tra (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857321#msg857321)
Regent by D782802859 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857323#msg857323)
Fruitcake by Xen3k (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857455#msg857455)
Buffoon by Carline (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857353#msg857353)
Escrow by Bbobb (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857445#msg857445)
Gangster by LibraryAdventurer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857368#msg857368)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on November 20, 2020, 07:32:45 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 20, 2020, 07:17:23 pm

24 hour warning

Below is a list of submissions I have so far. Please let me know if I missed yours or linked to the wrong post:

You're missing my entry here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857368#msg857368).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on November 20, 2020, 11:00:20 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on November 20, 2020, 07:32:45 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 20, 2020, 07:17:23 pm

24 hour warning

Below is a list of submissions I have so far. Please let me know if I missed yours or linked to the wrong post:

You're missing my entry here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857368#msg857368).

Thanks, I've added it to my list now.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on November 21, 2020, 07:59:21 pm

Judgment

Wrangler by mandioca15 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857192#msg857192)
A goatherd-like piggybacking card where the reward is Horses. I think this is probably fine balance-wise and I could see it being an actual card, but it doesn't seem particularly interesting to me.

Councillor by Aquila (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857196#msg857196)
I like this as a concept, but I agree with others that it's probably too similar to Monument, and also pretty much worse than it. Discarding a Copper puts you at the same level as Monument, but I imagine more often than not you'll be discarding something worse than Copper. I get the argument that with +$4 and a Throne Room it just means you can discard (almost) your hand for a Province, but I doubt that would happen much anyway, because it would only be that straightforward in a big money game, where you probably wouldn't be buying throne room anyway. In any case, I think the idea has potential, but probably needs some tweaking to work.

Investor by LittleFish (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857197#msg857197)
This is a novel concept, but I don't think it works well in practice. Due to the limited range of prices (which is pretty much necessary), they will only ever name $3, $4 or $6, and I imagine that, based on the board, the decision will be pretty much constant throughout the game. In fact, I think it compares unfavorably to Workshop: If they name $4, the +$2 you get is more or less a wash with the +2 coffers they get, so it's just a Workshop with a +buy for $5, which is already bad; but then it's even worse, because they have the option to name $3 or $6 instead. I don't know if there's a way to make the idea work.

Judge by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857210#msg857210)
(I assume the victory type in the card image is meant to be action-attack, as in the text below.) This seems like a bit of a combination between Witch and Courtier, but with another player making the decisions...I think I like it, though there is a lot of text on the card. And the fact that it has two types gives you a consolation prize if drawn dead, and also means it's never strictly worse than Witch. I do think it will generally be worse than Witch though, but Witch is a strong card anyway so I think that's okay.

Commune by NoMoreFun (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857215#msg857215)
This is a very cool card, it has a built-in self-synergy that rewards everyone (including yourself) when you take advantage of it. I think the self-synergy might make it too game-warping (everyone will start turns with huge hands), though it might be okay power-wise, because the benefit to other players is pretty significant. Regardless, this card is novel, unique, and clever. I love it!
Runner-up

Council by majiponi (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857218#msg857218)
Aside from the clunky wording, I think the idea of "bidding" to offer the best card to a player is neat, but inherently political and will make games un-fun. In a 2-player game, this is nearly strictly worse than Butcher, and the entire value of the card comes from the political nature of it, where pitting the players against each other incentivizes them to offer better cards. I don't think this idea really works well in practice.

Extortionist by chronostrike (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857224#msg857224)
I think I like this, except that it seems too weak to me. The idea is kind of like a Torturer, except that the vanilla bonus is also tied to the attack being chosen by another player. You usually want to play draw and payload at very different times in your turn, which means that not knowing which one you're getting (or worse, knowing that you'll generally get the worse of those two options) when you play it is a significant drawback, as well as the fact that you'll probably have to rely on other cards to do its jobs for it, since it will only ever be doing whichever job you don't want it to do. I think maybe if it were cheaper, or if the vanilla bonuses were stronger, it would work. Overall, I like it.

Draper by Fragasnap (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857230#msg857230)
This is deceptively interesting. I like that it provides +buy, so that there's a good chance that it gets weaker as the game goes. I imagine it's strong early and rapidly turns into an Herbalist, but the early momentum boost might be enough to make it worthwhile.

Surveyor by Doom_Shark (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857232#msg857232)
I normally do not like Boons, but I think this is a really good way of making them interesting. I like the card, but as others pointed out, it will be very slow to resolve, because you have to read 3 boons every time you play it, and the other player has to make a decision regarding those 3 boons as well. As a strong cantrip, you'll probably be playing it a lot. So I think it might be better to have a different vanilla bonus (and even then, I imagine it's a bit slow).

Atlantis by gambit05 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857247#msg857247)
This is one of the best hot potato-like cards I've seen. I don't like the wording, but I understand why you did it that way (I think it would be better to just make it an Action-Victory card and put two lines on it). I always like situational villages, and I think it would be really interesting to see how a game plays out where this is the only village. If you start building an engine, another player can hoard them all, but then they've effectively got a bunch of estates in their deck. It might encourage you to try to build a deck that can function well both with or without villages. I'm not sure if the 1 VP on buy is enough of an incentive to buy it; perhaps it could cost less.

Fanatic by silverspawn (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857271#msg857271)
This is very cool! It's a super powerful effect, but potentially shuts down the rest of your turn. It encourages you to have lots of variety, which I like, but does so in a novel and indirect way. I think it will lead to lots of new types of gameplay decisions that we haven't encountered before. My main concern is that it may favor big money too much, as it's generally hard to build an engine without whatever the strongest action on the board is. But what I hope (and this card is unique enough that you would probably only be able to determine whether this is the case by playtesting) is that it really encourages hybrid, "unstable" but adaptable engines, that won't run smoothly but will still do better than a deck without Fanatic.
Runner-up

Developer by anordinaryman (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857400#msg857400)
This is another brilliant card! I already think the idea of a trash-for-benefit where the benefit is to simply play a card from the supply based on the cost of your trashed card is very cool and original, but then pushing that choice onto the other player packs some player interaction into that concept, while also letting cards that would otherwise be too weak see some play. That's a lot of very nice principles packed into one card! My only concern is that it seems weak to me, though it's hard to judge its strength since it's so different from existing cards.
Runner-up

Observer by X-tra (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857321#msg857321)
I'm not sure if I understand this. Do they steal your card after playing it? There's no "leaving it there", but I don't think you would ever buy this (except maybe in big money?) if it meant you'd be handing all your actions out to the next player, so I assume it's not meant to go to the next player. Is it meant to stay in your hand, or go to your play area? Regardless, it seems somewhat political that only one player gets the bonus, and I don't like that it discourages you from getting lots of Actions, but I do kind of like the idea of letting other players play a card from your hand as a penalty on an otherwise strong card.

Regent by D782802859 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857323#msg857323)
I really love the elegance of this. It can either be a Smithy, or else a Moat with +$ or +buy; but always (what your opponent judges to be) the worst of those options. I also love conditional +buy, and I think this will make for very interesting games and interesting decisions, and it's a wonderfully simple design.
Runner-up

Fruitcake by Xen3k (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857455#msg857455)
Technically doesn't fit the challenge, but fits the spirit of the challenge, so I'll allow it. This is kind of a bizarre hot potato. It gets passed around between the players who have bought the fewest of them all game. I think I like the way it plays out, but not enough to justify all the text and the extra tokens.

Buffoon by Carline (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857353#msg857353)
This is like a more interactive variant of Jester, where they choose what they reveal, and you have more options for what to do with it. So I think usually they'll try to reveal middling cards like Silver, so either you give everyone a Silver and a Copper, or else you take +$4. If they reveal a victory card you can gain a copy of it, so there's good options whether they reveal a victory or non-victory card. I think I like this one a lot.
Runner-up

Escrow by Bbobb (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857445#msg857445)
The choices are very similar to each other, so it's a much more specific decision for the player to your left than most of the other entrants we've had. Basically they're just judging what they think you want to buy this turn. I think this card is fine, though I'd guess it's pretty weak. It could probably cost $3, maybe $2.

Gangster by LibraryAdventurer (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857368#msg857368)
I think this is a fine card, except possibly swingy, which I guess is what the +1 coffers reward is for if they discard a "good" card. But it is somewhat unique, and I could see it being an official card.

There were lots of great submissions this time! Here are my picks:
Runners-up:
4. Buffoon by Carline
3. Regent by D782802859
2. Commune by NoMoreFun
1. Developer by anordinaryman
And the winner is...
0. Fanatic by silverspawn

This was a tough choice, because I really loved all of the runner-ups, but I think Fanatic creates some really fresh and interesting gameplay. Congratulations silverspawn!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 22, 2020, 04:14:08 am

 :D

Thanks! I've really wanted to win one of the WDCs.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 22, 2020, 04:22:52 am

Contest #96: SOYLENT GREEN IS ACTION CARDS!

Design a card-shaped thing that can eat (i.e., trash) Action cards other than copies of itself from play. (It's fine if it can also trash copies of itself, but it can't only trash those, so Urchin, Death Cart, or Tragic Hero wouldn't qualify.)

Afaik, the only official cards that do this are Improve and Bonfire. A fan-made submission that would qualify is Ritual Sword (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg852047#msg852047).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 22, 2020, 04:38:54 am

Congratulations to silverspawn and all the runner-ups!

Would Procession qualify for the new contest?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 22, 2020, 05:07:25 am

Ah, procession.  Yes, it would.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on November 22, 2020, 06:38:55 am

Engine (Action, $4)

+1 Action

You may trash any number of Action cards you have in play (including this). If you did, +2 Cards per card you trashed.

A Lab variant that lets you draw many cards if you really want to. Just make sure it doesn't run out of fuel...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 22, 2020, 07:15:17 am

Thanks scott_pillgrim for runner-up! Congratulations silverspawn and all the winners!

My entry for new contest:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/974/184/full/Gravedigger_%2811%29.png?1606047181)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} •Night

You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card from the trash.
Trash a card you have in play. Per each _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} it costs, draw an extra card for your next hand.

UPDATED TO:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/978/179/full/Gravedigger_%2822%29.png?1606261810)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Night

Choose one:
Trash a card from your hand to gain a non-Victory card from the trash; or
Trash a card you have in play. Draw as many extra cards to your next hand as _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} it costs. After that, discard that many cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on November 22, 2020, 12:20:56 pm

I don't understand the requirements. How Rats and Death Cart don't qualify while Bonfire does?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on November 22, 2020, 12:28:06 pm

Death Cart trashes itself and Rats trashes cards in the hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 22, 2020, 12:56:48 pm

Quote

Overwork
Action-_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}
You may play a non-duration action that you have in play. If you do, trash it and +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}

My wording may need a fix, and the vanilla bonus may fit better at the start, and independent of playing the action.


Ver 2

Quote

Overwork
Action-_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}
You may play a non-duration action that you have in play other than Overwork. If you do, trash it and +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on November 22, 2020, 01:12:25 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50635729871_cf3b80bd98_b.jpg)

Quote

Looters - $3
Action - Looter
+1 Villager
+1 Buy
+$1
You may trash an Action card you have in play to gain a Spoils and +1 Card.
----
In games using this, when you buy a Treasure card, gain a Ruins.

Similar to Candlestick Maker only you can collect Villagers. The Villagers and optional trashing are to compensate for the junking that will happen if you buy treasure. Gaining treasure is a way to get around the Ruins so there are viable alternatives. On the other hand you can dive head first into self junking and rely on the Looters to trash the Ruins.

Edit: Updated to specify Action cards you have in play, at Gubump suggestion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 22, 2020, 05:51:57 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5fbae97c87d6640af8b46641/3ec129fd725b5c083a654ffa4f17f3f2/image.png)

Quote

Bodysnatcher • $5 • Night - Attack
Trash a non-Treasure card you have in play. Gain a card with the exact same types as it.

If the gained and trashed cards had different names and this is the first Night card you've played this turn, each other player gains a Silver and a Curse.

The attack is terminal (or, rather, non-repeatable); the remodel isn't. Exact same types means you can't trash Dame Josephine into Dame Molly (Molly lacks the "Victory" type) or vice versa. Non-treasure because copper into gold is too powerful, copper into platinum is right out.

I think it's different enough from changeling that both can exist (and this lets you do bonkers stuff like turn vagrants into princes). It does have the "durations in play" problem, but players aren't complete idiots and can use like mtg-style emblems or something to help remember what they've got going on that isn't there presently.

---

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 21, 2020, 07:59:21 pm

Judge by spineflu (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857210#msg857210)
(I assume the victory type in the card image is meant to be action-attack, as in the text below.) This seems like a bit of a combination between Witch and Courtier, but with another player making the decisions...I think I like it, though there is a lot of text on the card. And the fact that it has two types gives you a consolation prize if drawn dead, and also means it's never strictly worse than Witch. I do think it will generally be worse than Witch though, but Witch is a strong card anyway so I think that's okay.

(yeah the victory type was meant to be action - attack; kinda the problem with working on this + the other contest at the same time, hard to remember to change everything back.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on November 22, 2020, 06:04:22 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 21, 2020, 07:59:21 pm

Observer by X-tra (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857321#msg857321)
I'm not sure if I understand this. Do they steal your card after playing it? There's no "leaving it there", but I don't think you would ever buy this (except maybe in big money?) if it meant you'd be handing all your actions out to the next player, so I assume it's not meant to go to the next player. Is it meant to stay in your hand, or go to your play area? Regardless, it seems somewhat political that only one player gets the bonus, and I don't like that it discourages you from getting lots of Actions, but I do kind of like the idea of letting other players play a card from your hand as a penalty on an otherwise strong card.

Thanks for the judging! But uh, yeah. You did kind of misread my card, I suppose. The player from your left plays a card from THEIR hand, not YOUR hand. It's kind of like Sheepdog when someone plays a Witch: you can put your Sheepdog in play (where it stays in play until your next clean-up) even though it isn't your turn. Similarly, Observer makes it so that the player to your left can play one of their Action cards even though it isn't their turn. In practice, most of the time, it won't be too useful for your neighbour... sometimes it's even bad for them (they lose (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png), Buys and Actions the played Action card yield, since it's not their turn and, just like Caravan Guard, these resources vanish before they can use 'em). But sometimes, they can play an Attack in the middle of your turn, like Militia, which can really mess you up. It's pretty versatile, really!

In a game I played with Observer, the player to my left played an Observer in response to my own Observer, which made me also immediately play another Action even though I was out of Actions! It was pretty funny. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 22, 2020, 06:55:10 pm

Plagued Village
cost $4 - Action
+1 Card
+2 Action
You may trash an Action card you have in play, for +1 Card and +1 Buy.


Ruinkiller.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 22, 2020, 07:35:32 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on November 22, 2020, 01:12:25 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50634124451_8bdc52e791_b.jpg)

Quote

Looters - $3
Action - Looter
+1 Villager
+1 Buy
+$1
You may trash an Action card in play for +1 Card and gain a Spoils.
----
In games using this, when you buy a Treasure card, gain a Ruins.

Similar to Candlestick Maker only you can collect Villagers. The Villagers and optional trashing are to compensate for the junking that will happen if you buy treasure. Gaining treasure is a way to get around the Ruins so there are viable alternatives. On the other hand you can dive head first into self junking and rely on the Looters to trash the Ruins.

This needs to specify "an Action card you have in play."

Quote from: LittleFish on November 22, 2020, 12:56:48 pm

Quote

Overwork
Action-_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)}
You may play a non-duration action that you have in play. If you do, trash it and +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}

My wording may need a fix, and the vanilla bonus may fit better at the start, and independent of playing the action.

As worded, since the replaying occurs before the trashing, you can get infinite _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} from an Overwork by constantly replaying itself (the +_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} is based only on being able to play it, not trashing it).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on November 22, 2020, 07:58:45 pm

Quote from: X-tra on November 22, 2020, 06:04:22 pm

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 21, 2020, 07:59:21 pm

Observer by X-tra (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857321#msg857321)
I'm not sure if I understand this. Do they steal your card after playing it? There's no "leaving it there", but I don't think you would ever buy this (except maybe in big money?) if it meant you'd be handing all your actions out to the next player, so I assume it's not meant to go to the next player. Is it meant to stay in your hand, or go to your play area? Regardless, it seems somewhat political that only one player gets the bonus, and I don't like that it discourages you from getting lots of Actions, but I do kind of like the idea of letting other players play a card from your hand as a penalty on an otherwise strong card.

Thanks for the judging! But uh, yeah. You did kind of misread my card, I suppose. The player from your left plays a card from THEIR hand, not YOUR hand. It's kind of like Sheepdog when someone plays a Witch: you can put your Sheepdog in play (where it stays in play until your next clean-up) even though it isn't your turn. Similarly, Observer makes it so that the player to your left can play one of their Action cards even though it isn't their turn. In practice, most of the time, it won't be too useful for your neighbour... sometimes it's even bad for them (they lose (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png), Buys and Actions the played Action card yield, since it's not their turn and, just like Caravan Guard, these resources vanish before they can use 'em). But sometimes, they can play an Attack in the middle of your turn, like Militia, which can really mess you up. It's pretty versatile, really!

In a game I played with Observer, the player to my left played an Observer in response to my own Observer, which made me also immediately play another Action even though I was out of Actions! It was pretty funny. :)

Oh, that makes so much more sense! I'm really sorry I misread it. I like it a lot more now, though I don't think enough that it would have been a runner-up. But it is pretty cool. And the interaction with itself is fun too.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on November 22, 2020, 10:25:41 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on November 22, 2020, 12:28:06 pm

Death Cart trashes itself and Rats trashes cards in the hand.

Ah, you want to trash Action cards in play, and nothing else qualifies, correct?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 22, 2020, 11:47:05 pm

Contest #96: Soylent Green is Action Cards! Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/cook.png)

Quote

Cook | Night | $4
Trash a non-Duration card you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $2 more.
-
When you trash this, gain a Copper.

Rules Clarification: when you play this, it is in play, so you can self trash.

Non terminal remodeler!? How does this cost 4? Well, it has several weakness when compared to remodel:

• This cannot trash estates, curses
• This cannot mill provinces
• This can't gain cards that you can use that turn, since it plays in the night phase. So, no turn-accelerating.
• This cannot remodel duration cards

It's also similar to Feast, you could buy it and self-trash it. But it has a weakness compared to Feast that I think makes it okay -- you gain a copper when you self-trash, in exchange for being non-terminal. In this way, it's also similar to Banquet. Banquet costs 1 less and gives you an extra copper and the $5 you want immediately. Cook takes longer -- you have to wait to draw Cook first. So, it seems fairly priced around those benchmarks to me.

The name comes from similarity to Feast and Banquet, and the version of "remodeling/improving/etc" food is to cook it.

Open to feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 23, 2020, 03:54:06 am

Quote from: grep on November 22, 2020, 10:25:41 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on November 22, 2020, 12:28:06 pm

Death Cart trashes itself and Rats trashes cards in the hand.

Ah, you want to trash Action cards in play, and nothing else qualifies, correct?

yes

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 23, 2020, 04:53:17 am

Quote from: grep on November 22, 2020, 10:25:41 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on November 22, 2020, 12:28:06 pm

Death Cart trashes itself and Rats trashes cards in the hand.

Ah, you want to trash Action cards in play, and nothing else qualifies, correct?

My apologies if this is redundant.

When looking at Bonfire and some of the Fan cards already presented, I think the requirement for this contest is that the designed card has the ability to trash Action cards in play. This means it can but does not necessarily have to trash Action cards in play. This in turn means that such a card could exclusively trash non-Action cards in a given game as long as it has the potential to trash Action cards in play. Right?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 23, 2020, 05:12:15 am

Quote from: gambit05 on November 23, 2020, 04:53:17 am

Quote from: grep on November 22, 2020, 10:25:41 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on November 22, 2020, 12:28:06 pm

Death Cart trashes itself and Rats trashes cards in the hand.

Ah, you want to trash Action cards in play, and nothing else qualifies, correct?

My apologies if this is redundant.

When looking at Bonfire and some of the Fan cards already presented, I think the requirement for this contest is that the designed card has the ability to trash Action cards in play. This means it can but does not necessarily have to trash Action cards in play. This in turn means that such a card could exclusively trash non-Action cards in a given game as long as it has the potential to trash Action cards in play. Right?

yes

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on November 23, 2020, 10:49:35 am

This submission is obsolete. Updated version, Bifurcation V2, can be found here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857781#msg857781).

(https://i.postimg.cc/y8TXQNwc/Bifurcation-v1.png)

Let's try this. Has some kind of Stonemason-esque mechanic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on November 23, 2020, 01:15:41 pm

Quote

Hostile Village - Action, $4 cost.
+3 Cards
+2 Actions
Trash a card you have in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 23, 2020, 01:42:55 pm

Quote from: X-tra on November 23, 2020, 10:49:35 am

(https://i.postimg.cc/y8TXQNwc/Bifurcation-v1.png)

Let's try this. Has some kind of Stonemason-esque mechanic.

I like this stonemason-esque mechanic a lot! I wonder about the on-play vanilla bonus though...

I worry that it's self-trashing ability makes it a little too strong. It's basically, +$3 and gain a 5 (basically buy this instead of the 5 you want, then play it, self-trash to get two copies of the 5 you wanted)? Pretty damn strong. I wonder if this should not be able to trash itself, or if it should cost $6, or if it should give $2 and cost $4 instead. Maybe instead of money it could give a weaker bonus like a deck sifter/inspection or it could have the Tracker while this is in play. I kind of like that option most. You could also prevent self-trashing and leave it as is.

Quote from: Aquila on November 23, 2020, 01:15:41 pm

Quote

Hostile Village - Action, $4 cost.
+3 Cards
+2 Actions
Trash a card you have in play.

This is great. Of course you love this card with Villas, Black Markets, and Story tellers most. I also can't wait to send some Cultists to the Hostile village. Even without that, the village part of this allows you to play crappy cards (ruins) which is nice. But it's balanced that you must have some action card played first so you don't have to self-trash the hostile village. Nice work, this feels like it would have been a great addition to Dark Ages.

I do wonder, do you think you should restrict it from trashing duration cards? This is more of a personal taste. Other cards like Bonfire have a precedent for allowing duration cards to be trashed. It's more personal taste on whether you like that or not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on November 23, 2020, 01:45:13 pm

Quote

Landmine
$4 - Victory - Reaction
Worth 1VP.
-
When another player gains a victory card, you may set this aside to choose an Action card that player has in play. They choose: either you get +2VP or they trash the chosen card. Return this to your hand at the end of the turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 23, 2020, 02:04:32 pm

Quote from: Aquila on November 23, 2020, 01:15:41 pm

Quote

Hostile Village - Action, $4 cost.
+3 Cards
+2 Actions
Trash a card you have in play.

This might be far too powerful if Fortress is on the board. You only need a single Fortress in hand and you can play any number of Hostile Villages.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 23, 2020, 02:39:58 pm

My submission (update):

(https://i.ibb.co/J5k6y9W/Reanimate.png)

Reanimate $4 - Action Quote Trash a non-Duration Action card you have in      play, for +2 Actions and +$2.      For the rest of this turn, when you trash an Action card, set it aside and discard it at the start of Clean-up.

My submission (old version):

(https://i.ibb.co/2WWM31L/Reanimate.png)

Reanimate $4 - Action Quote Trash a non-Duration Action card you have in          play, for +1 Action and +$2.          For the rest of this turn, when you trash an Action card, Exile it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 23, 2020, 02:59:01 pm

Quote from: Aquila on November 23, 2020, 01:15:41 pm

Quote

Hostile Village - Action, $4 cost.
+3 Cards
+2 Actions
Trash a card you have in play.

With this being so compact, you could toss a lil kicker on the bottom to have it penalize self-trashing like "when you trash this, gain a Copper."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 23, 2020, 02:59:51 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 23, 2020, 02:04:32 pm

Quote from: Aquila on November 23, 2020, 01:15:41 pm

Quote

Hostile Village - Action, $4 cost.
+3 Cards
+2 Actions
Trash a card you have in play.

This might be far too powerful if Fortress is on the board. You only need a single Fortress in hand and you can play any number of Hostile Villages.

It already happens with Fortress and other non-terminal TFBs (Research, Upgrade, Governor, Apprentice, Raze, Recruiter, Scrap, Sacrifice). 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 23, 2020, 03:53:01 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 23, 2020, 02:59:51 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 23, 2020, 02:04:32 pm

Quote from: Aquila on November 23, 2020, 01:15:41 pm

Quote

Hostile Village - Action, $4 cost.
+3 Cards
+2 Actions
Trash a card you have in play.

This might be far too powerful if Fortress is on the board. You only need a single Fortress in hand and you can play any number of Hostile Villages.

It already happens with Fortress and other non-terminal TFBs (Research, Upgrade, Governor, Apprentice, Raze, Recruiter, Scrap, Sacrifice).

Fair point. Though I do think the fact that Hostile Village trashes from play makes the issue even stronger there... for one, because you don't actually have to collide them both in hand, you just have to have Fortress in play by the time you play Hostile Village. But also, because getting to play Fortress repeatedly is really good... if you have a Fortress in play, each Hostile Village becomes +4 Cards, +3 Actions. You will draw your deck and play all actions in it really easily.

Compared to the other combos you list... several of them cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, making it a lot harder to get a few of them as quickly. Upgrade becomes cantrip + gain a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}, which is obviously awesome but needs other good _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} cost cards to do anything with. Raze just becomes a cantrip with sifting; maybe it becomes as strong as Forum? Apprentice draws your deck easily but doesn't let you play extra terminals; so you need multiple villages/Fortresses. Recruiter is probably the closest to Hostile Village, and it costs _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} and requires playing many more Recruiters to draw your deck than Hostile Village takes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 23, 2020, 06:38:04 pm

Quote from: X-tra on November 23, 2020, 10:49:35 am

(https://i.postimg.cc/y8TXQNwc/Bifurcation-v1.png)

Let's try this. Has some kind of Stonemason-esque mechanic.

As the card wording is, I think you may trash a Horse or an Experiment you played this turn, which could be a bit confusing to track. Maybe it's better to say "an Action card you have in play".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 23, 2020, 07:00:01 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on November 23, 2020, 01:45:13 pm

Quote

Landmine
$4 - Victory - Reaction
Worth 1VP.
-
When another player gains a victory card, you may set this aside to choose an Action card that player has in play. They choose: either you get +2VP or they trash the chosen card. Return this to your hand at the end of the turn.

I think like in Sheepdog or Black Cat, you should say "from your hand". In this case, "...set this aside from your hand to choose..."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 23, 2020, 07:00:16 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 23, 2020, 06:38:04 pm

Quote from: X-tra on November 23, 2020, 10:49:35 am

(https://i.postimg.cc/y8TXQNwc/Bifurcation-v1.png)

Let's try this. Has some kind of Stonemason-esque mechanic.

As the card wording is, I think you may trash a Horse or an Experiment you played this turn, which could be a bit confusing to track. Maybe it's better to say "an Action card you have in play".

Horses and Experiments wouldn't be trashable by it due to the Stop Moving rule.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 23, 2020, 07:07:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 23, 2020, 07:00:16 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 23, 2020, 06:38:04 pm

Quote from: X-tra on November 23, 2020, 10:49:35 am

(https://i.postimg.cc/y8TXQNwc/Bifurcation-v1.png)

Let's try this. Has some kind of Stonemason-esque mechanic.

As the card wording is, I think you may trash a Horse or an Experiment you played this turn, which could be a bit confusing to track. Maybe it's better to say "an Action card you have in play".

Horses and Experiments wouldn't be trashable by it due to the Stop Moving rule.

Why not? The card text doesn't imply that you have to look for them in play area.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 23, 2020, 07:18:02 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 23, 2020, 07:07:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 23, 2020, 07:00:16 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 23, 2020, 06:38:04 pm

Quote from: X-tra on November 23, 2020, 10:49:35 am

(https://i.postimg.cc/y8TXQNwc/Bifurcation-v1.png)

Let's try this. Has some kind of Stonemason-esque mechanic.

As the card wording is, I think you may trash a Horse or an Experiment you played this turn, which could be a bit confusing to track. Maybe it's better to say "an Action card you have in play".

Horses and Experiments wouldn't be trashable by it due to the Stop Moving rule.

Why? The card text doesn't imply that you have to look for them in play area.

Excerpt from the wiki (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Stop-Moving_rule): "Played cards expect to be in play." If a card is played and then somehow leaves play, something else can't move it.

I am being a bit of a devil's advocate here, though. I'd word it as "you may trash an Action card you played this turn that's still in play" or "you may trash a non-Duration Action card you have in play" to be more in-line with official cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 23, 2020, 07:33:59 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 23, 2020, 07:18:02 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 23, 2020, 07:07:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 23, 2020, 07:00:16 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 23, 2020, 06:38:04 pm

As the card wording is, I think you may trash a Horse or an Experiment you played this turn, which could be a bit confusing to track. Maybe it's better to say "an Action card you have in play".

Horses and Experiments wouldn't be trashable by it due to the Stop Moving rule.

Why? The card text doesn't imply that you have to look for them in play area.

Excerpt from the wiki (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Stop-Moving_rule): "Played cards expect to be in play." If a card is played and then somehow leaves play, something else can't move it.

I am being a bit of a devil's advocate here, though. I'd word it as "you may trash an Action card you played this turn that's still in play" or "you may trash a non-Duration Action card you have in play" to be more in-line with official cards.

Thank you for clarifying. I think official cards are so precise to point where the card comes from just to avoid doubts like this one I had.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on November 23, 2020, 07:45:32 pm

I guess this is why Scepter says "[...] that's still in play."

You could otherwise use a Buy to Bonfire away an Action card in play, use another Buy to gain a Villa, end your new Action phase and play a Scepter to try to replay the trashed Action card. Will edit my card to fix this ambiguity tomorrow. ;)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Doom_Shark on November 23, 2020, 09:44:39 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/1Q3I45n.png)

Quote from: text:

Junkyard
Victory - Reaction _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}
2 _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}

---

Whenever you play a card, you may discard this to trash it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on November 23, 2020, 11:05:22 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/khLT0Kr/image.png)
Touch of Midas
$4 - Night
Trash an Action card from play to gain a Gold onto your deck.
-
This is gained into your hand.


Pretty straightforward limited remodeler. It's Night to be useful on decks with no +Actions; gaining into hand to allow quick Gold gaining when necessary, similar to Skunk.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on November 24, 2020, 03:43:55 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 23, 2020, 02:04:32 pm

Quote from: Aquila on November 23, 2020, 01:15:41 pm

Quote

Hostile Village - Action, $4 cost.
+3 Cards
+2 Actions
Trash a card you have in play.

This might be far too powerful if Fortress is on the board. You only need a single Fortress in hand and you can play any number of Hostile Villages.

Yes, this is silly isn't it? The problem is more to do with not losing the Fortress rather than on-trash effects in general (Cultist can slip by as a combo). So the best fix I think is:

'Trash a card you have in play. If it's in the trash, +3 Cards and +2 Actions.'

@anordinaryman: I could say non-Durations, but since we can do it anyway and the rules are in place I'd like to let them go as combos. The day I see a Hireling game go out of control would change my mind though.

Quote from: spineflu on November 23, 2020, 02:59:01 pm

With this being so compact, you could toss a lil kicker on the bottom to have it penalize self-trashing like "when you trash this, gain a Copper."

If this trashes itself straight away, it's basically Experiment with an extra Action. By itself this is about $4 strong, and I'm hoping the ability to pay for another use with trashing a different Action won't add much to the cost (and if you work to trash a Treasure, you can be allowed to have that).

Thank you all for your feedback!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 24, 2020, 05:32:26 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 23, 2020, 02:04:32 pm

Quote from: Aquila on November 23, 2020, 01:15:41 pm

Quote

Hostile Village - Action, $4 cost.
+3 Cards
+2 Actions
Trash a card you have in play.

This might be far too powerful if Fortress is on the board. You only need a single Fortress in hand and you can play any number of Hostile Villages.

This is like saying that Apprentice is far too powerful because it is a TripleLab with Fortress.
The craziness in those combos is mainly due to Fortress and not due the other card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 24, 2020, 05:47:17 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on November 22, 2020, 11:47:05 pm

Contest #96: Soylent Green is Action Cards! Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/cook.png)

Quote

Cook | Night | $4
Trash a non-Duration card you have in play. Gain a card costing up to $2 more.
-
When you trash this, gain a Copper.

Rules Clarification: when you play this, it is in play, so you can self trash.

Non terminal remodeler!? How does this cost 4? Well, it has several weakness when compared to remodel:

• This cannot trash estates, curses
• This cannot mill provinces
• This can't gain cards that you can use that turn, since it plays in the night phase. So, no turn-accelerating.
• This cannot remodel duration cards

It's also similar to Feast, you could buy it and self-trash it. But it has a weakness compared to Feast that I think makes it okay -- you gain a copper when you self-trash, in exchange for being non-terminal. In this way, it's also similar to Banquet. Banquet costs 1 less and gives you an extra copper and the $5 you want immediately. Cook takes longer -- you have to wait to draw Cook first. So, it seems fairly priced around those benchmarks to me.

The name comes from similarity to Feast and Banquet, and the version of "remodeling/improving/etc" food is to cook it.

Open to feedback.

The most obvious advantage over other Remodelers is that you can play the Gold and trash it afterwards. I doubt that this overcompensates the card's weaknesses though.

I like it, it looks like a Remodeler with more twists and differences than other variants.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 24, 2020, 06:32:23 am

(https://i.imgur.com/IOak2AQ.png)

Quote

Overwork
Event - $4

Put a token on this. For each token on this, trash an Action you have in play. If you did, and the previous turn wasn't yours, take an extra turn after this one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 24, 2020, 07:24:08 am

Quote from: faust on November 24, 2020, 06:32:23 am

(https://i.imgur.com/IOak2AQ.png)

Quote

Overwork
Event - $4

Put a token on this. For each token on this, trash an Action you have in play. If you did, and the previous turn wasn't yours, take an extra turn after this one.

I think it maybe gives a big advantage to the player who buys it first. Maybe it would work better if each player has different tokens and the card count only tokens from the player who is buying Overwork.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 24, 2020, 07:26:52 am

Quote from: Carline on November 22, 2020, 07:15:17 am

Thanks scott_pillgrim for runner-up! Congratulations silverspawn and all the winners!

My entry for new contest:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/974/184/full/Gravedigger_%2811%29.png?1606047181)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} •Night

You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card from the trash.
Trash a card you have in play. Per each _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} it costs, draw an extra card for your next hand.

Any comments? I would love to have some feedback!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 24, 2020, 07:29:39 am

Quote from: Carline on November 24, 2020, 07:24:08 am

Quote from: faust on November 24, 2020, 06:32:23 am

(https://i.imgur.com/IOak2AQ.png)

Quote

Overwork
Event - $4

Put a token on this. For each token on this, trash an Action you have in play. If you did, and the previous turn wasn't yours, take an extra turn after this one.

I think it maybe gives a big advantage to the player who buys it first. Maybe it would work better if each player has different tokens and the card count only tokens from the player who is buying Overwork.

I considered this but it is way too complicated and fiddly. I think the fact that getting it first is less costly is balanced out by the fact that an extra turn is less useful early on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 24, 2020, 07:35:25 am

Quote from: Carline on November 24, 2020, 07:26:52 am

Quote from: Carline on November 22, 2020, 07:15:17 am

Thanks scott_pillgrim for runner-up! Congratulations silverspawn and all the winners!

My entry for new contest:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/974/184/full/Gravedigger_%2811%29.png?1606047181)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} •Night

You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card from the trash.
Trash a card you have in play. Per each _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} it costs, draw an extra card for your next hand.

Any comments? I would love to have some feedback!

I think it's way too powerful with any Gold-gainers. It's basically a nonterminal Tactician+ that you can play in multiples then.

And even without any gaining shenanigans, the very baseline is quite powerful: Have 2 of these, use first one to trash itself and second one to regain it gives you a 10-card hand each turn - which is, again, better than Tactician and nonterminal.

It might be more reasonable if you make it an Action.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 24, 2020, 09:45:13 am

Quote from: faust on November 24, 2020, 07:35:25 am

Quote from: Carline on November 24, 2020, 07:26:52 am

Quote from: Carline on November 22, 2020, 07:15:17 am

Thanks scott_pillgrim for runner-up! Congratulations silverspawn and all the winners!

My entry for new contest:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/974/184/full/Gravedigger_%2811%29.png?1606047181)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} •Night

You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card from the trash.
Trash a card you have in play. Per each _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} it costs, draw an extra card for your next hand.

Any comments? I would love to have some feedback!

I think it's way too powerful with any Gold-gainers. It's basically a nonterminal Tactician+ that you can play in multiples then.

And even without any gaining shenanigans, the very baseline is quite powerful: Have 2 of these, use first one to trash itself and second one to regain it gives you a 10-card hand each turn - which is, again, better than Tactician and nonterminal.

It might be more reasonable if you make it an Action.

Thank you very much! You're right, this way it's too powerful.

I don't want to make it an Action, because I want it to be able to trash treasures, especially trash played Coppers if you don't have better otions of cards to trash this turn.

So i'll try a new version, nerfing it in three ways:

- Making both options alternative, not available at the same playing;

- Including "Expand" restriction to remodeling option;

- Making second option trash only non-Nights, so it can't trash itself.

Hope it's more well balanced now. I tried to keep the Lurkerlike interaction, in which if you don't play two Gravediggers this turn, maybe you would leave a good card available in trash for your opponents.

Also changed card art, because I found the image I used first is from a card of the game Arkham Horror. Hope the new one is not from other card game.

MY UPDATED ENTRY:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/977/203/full/Gravedigger_%2812%29.png?1606225741)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Night

Choose one:
Trash a card from your hand to gain a card from trash which costs up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} more; or
Trash a non-Night card you have in play. Per each _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} it costs, draw a card to your next hand.

More feedbacks are always welcome!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 24, 2020, 09:45:54 am

The last part seems to be still way too strong. With any Gold gainers, (and even a simple Silver would give 3 cards), with other cards like Peddler, Wayfarer, Animal Fair not to mention Fortress, Gravedigger would give tons of cards.

Edit: Regarding the image, I guess the new one is also licensed. If you want one from the public domain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vale_of_Rest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vale_of_Rest)

I have used it for a card called Undertaker.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on November 24, 2020, 10:19:14 am

Edited my entry. Just changed the wording to add "that's still in play" to make Bifurcation more thorough. But functionally, it stayed the same.

(https://i.postimg.cc/QMbxNrkr/Bifurcation-v2.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 24, 2020, 11:19:36 am

Quote from: Carline on November 23, 2020, 07:33:59 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 23, 2020, 07:18:02 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 23, 2020, 07:07:54 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 23, 2020, 07:00:16 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 23, 2020, 06:38:04 pm

As the card wording is, I think you may trash a Horse or an Experiment you played this turn, which could be a bit confusing to track. Maybe it's better to say "an Action card you have in play".

Horses and Experiments wouldn't be trashable by it due to the Stop Moving rule.

Why? The card text doesn't imply that you have to look for them in play area.

Excerpt from the wiki (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Stop-Moving_rule): "Played cards expect to be in play." If a card is played and then somehow leaves play, something else can't move it.

I am being a bit of a devil's advocate here, though. I'd word it as "you may trash an Action card you played this turn that's still in play" or "you may trash a non-Duration Action card you have in play" to be more in-line with official cards.

Thank you for clarifying. I think official cards are so precise to point where the card comes from just to avoid doubts like this one I had.

It's moot because I think including "that's still in play" is a needed thing for clarity and function in general, but this question is bugging me because I'm not sure of the answer.

I don't think Stop Moving actually applies, because you aren't starting to track the card until after it has been returned to the pile. With something like new-BoM + Embargo, Embargo tries to trash itself but fails because Embargo "thinks" that it is in play. It "thinks" this because it is its on-play instructions that are being followed; and on-play instructions are normally only followed after a card is moved into play.

But with original Bifurcation, you aren't choosing a card that's in play and then trying to trash it. The only condition of the card you choose is that it's one that you played this turn. If you are allowed to choose a card such as a Horse that has been returned to its pile, then I don't see what would stop it from getting trashed; because Horse was already in its pile before you played Bifurcation.

This might be wrong; it's possible that the very fact that "a card you played this turn" is the target also causes Bifurcation to assume that the card is in play. But I don't think that's clear from any rulings we have currently, and since no official card cares about such a distinction, I don't think we'll ever see such an official ruling.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 24, 2020, 11:47:50 am

Quote from: gambit05 on November 24, 2020, 09:45:54 am

The last part seems to be still way too strong. With any Gold gainers, (and even a simple Silver would give 3 cards), with other cards like Peddler, Wayfarer, Animal Fair not to mention Fortress, Gravedigger would give tons of cards.

Edit: Regarding the image, I guess the new one is also licensed. If you want one from the public domain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vale_of_Rest

I have used it for a card called Undertaker.

Thank you!

These combos you mentioned also gives you tons of cards with Apprentice or Research. In general, any TFB benefits a lot from alternative gain cost of Peddler, Wayfarer and Animal Fair (and also Fisherman). The same about returning ability of Fortress. About Gold gainers, I think only two cards (Bandit, Soothsayer) give you a Gold every time they are played without a condition or a penalty (and maybe Governor, which condition to gain Gold is often a bonus). Putting it all together, I think these are the few cases that make any TFB so much better.

That said, I, however, agree with you that last option of Graveddiger is still too strong, mainly because you first play the trashed card. So, I nerfed it a little more, making the first one you play in a turn draw one card less.

I like so much more the picture you suggested, because the graveddiger is a female, like me. Thank you very much for this!


UPDATE TO MY ENTRY:


(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/977/491/full/Gravedigger_%2817%29.png?1606236156)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Night

Choose one:
Trash a card from your hand to gain a card from trash which costs up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} more; or
Trash a non-Night card you have in play. If it costs $1 or more, put your -1 Card token on your deck.  Per each $1 the trashed card costs, draw a card to your next hand.

More feedbacks are always very welcome!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 24, 2020, 01:02:58 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 24, 2020, 11:47:50 am

Quote from: gambit05 on November 24, 2020, 09:45:54 am

The last part seems to be still way too strong. With any Gold gainers, (and even a simple Silver would give 3 cards), with other cards like Peddler, Wayfarer, Animal Fair not to mention Fortress, Gravedigger would give tons of cards.

Edit: Regarding the image, I guess the new one is also licensed. If you want one from the public domain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vale_of_Rest

I have used it for a card called Undertaker.

Thank you!

These combos you mentioned also gives you tons of cards with Apprentice or Research. In general, any TFB benefits a lot from alternative gain cost of Peddler, Wayfarer and Animal Fair (and also Fisherman). The same about returning ability of Fortress. About Gold gainers, I think only two cards (Bandit, Soothsayer) give you a Gold every time they are played without a condition or a penalty (and maybe Governor, which condition to gain Gold is often a bonus). Putting it all together, I think these are the few cases that make any TFB so much better.

That said, I, however, agree with you that last option of Graveddiger is still too strong, mainly because you first play the trashed card. So, I nerfed it a little more, making the first one you play in a turn draw one card less.

I like so much more the picture you suggested, because the graveddiger is a female, like me. Thank you very much for this!


UPDATE TO MY ENTRY:


(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/977/491/full/Gravedigger_%2817%29.png?1606236156)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Night

Choose one:
Trash a card from your hand to gain a card from trash which costs up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} more; or
Trash a non-Night card you have in play. If it costs $1 or more, put your -1 Card token on your deck.  Per each $1 the trashed card costs, draw a card to your next hand.

More feedbacks are always very welcome!

That seems kind of finnicky, since you're taking then losing your –1 Card token immediately. Why not just "Per each $2 the trash card costs (round up), +1 Card at the end of your turn when drawing a new hand" or similar?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 24, 2020, 01:59:08 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 24, 2020, 11:47:50 am

Thank you!

These combos you mentioned also gives you tons of cards with Apprentice or Research. In general, any TFB benefits a lot from alternative gain cost of Peddler, Wayfarer and Animal Fair (and also Fisherman). The same about returning ability of Fortress. About Gold gainers, I think only two cards (Bandit, Soothsayer) give you a Gold every time they are played without a condition or a penalty (and maybe Governor, which condition to gain Gold is often a bonus). Putting it all together, I think these are the few cases that make any TFB so much better.

That said, I, however, agree with you that last option of Graveddiger is still too strong, mainly because you first play the trashed card. So, I nerfed it a little more, making the first one you play in a turn draw one card less.

I like so much more the picture you suggested, because the graveddiger is a female, like me. Thank you very much for this!


UPDATE TO MY ENTRY:


(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/977/491/full/Gravedigger_%2817%29.png?1606236156)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Night

Choose one:
Trash a card from your hand to gain a card from trash which costs up to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} more; or
Trash a non-Night card you have in play. If it costs $1 or more, put your -1 Card token on your deck.  Per each $1 the trashed card costs, draw a card to your next hand.

More feedbacks are always very welcome!

Nice to see that you like and use the image!

I think the major difference between Gravedigger and the other cards mentioned, e.g. Research, is that Gravedigger trashes cards that are in play. This mean the player gets the full benefit for it, while with Research the player can't use its power.

If you don't insist on trashing played cards, I suggest a simple version like this:

Quote

Trash a card from your hand.
Choose one: Per $1 it costs,
+1 Card at the end of this turn;
or gain a card from the trash.

Clearer, simpler and not overpowered as far as I see it. As you can see I rearranged it a bit for clarity and removed the restriction "up to $3".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 24, 2020, 02:27:03 pm

Quote from: spineflu on November 24, 2020, 01:02:58 pm

That seems kind of finnicky, since you're taking then losing your –1 Card token immediately. Why not just "Per each $2 the trash card costs (round up), +1 Card at the end of your turn when drawing a new hand" or similar?

Quote from: gambit05 on November 24, 2020, 01:59:08 pm

Nice to see that you like and use the image!

I think the major difference between Gravedigger and the other cards mentioned, e.g. Research, is that Gravedigger trashes cards that are in play. This mean the player gets the full benefit for it, while with Research the player can't use its power.

If you don't insist on trashing played cards, I suggest a simple version like this:

Quote

Trash a card from your hand.
Choose one: Per $1 it costs,
+1 Card at the end of this turn;
or gain a card from the trash.

Clearer, simpler and not overpowered as far as I see it. As you can see I rearranged it a bit for clarity and removed the restriction "up to $3".

Thank you both!

If Gravedigger doesn't trash played cards, it wouldn't qualify for this contest.

Anyway, I think I found a better version which probably will fix all pointed issues. It doesn't increase your next hand size, only make it better. This way, I think it's ok to remove "Expand" restriction to first option and "non-Night" condition to second one.

See it below. I'm in doubt with its wording, it's ok?

UPDATE TO MY ENTRY:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/977/767/full/Gravedigger_%2821%29.png?1606244480)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Night

Choose one:
Trash a card from your hand to gain a card from trash; or
Trash a card you have in play. Draw as many extra cards to your next hand as _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} it costs. After that, discard that many cards.

More feedbacks are always very welcome!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 24, 2020, 02:27:21 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 24, 2020, 02:15:29 pm

If Gravedigger doesn't trash played cards, it wouldn't qualify for this contest.

Oops, I totally forgot about the contest.

Quote from: Carline

Anyway, I think I find a better version which probably will fix all pointed issues. It doesn't increase your next hand size, only make it better. This way, I think it's ok to remove "Expand" restriction to first option and "non-Night" condition to second one.

See it below. I'm in doubt with its wording, it's ok?

UPDATE TO MY ENTRY:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/977/767/full/Gravedigger_%2821%29.png?1606244480)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Night

Choose one:
Trash a card from your hand to gain a card from trash; or
Trash a card you have in play. Draw as many extra cards to your next hand as _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} it costs. After that, discard that many cards.

More feedbacks are always very welcome!

Yes, that looks nice. Well done. There may be some minor wording issues, but at least for me the instructions are clearly understandable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 24, 2020, 03:24:10 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on November 24, 2020, 02:27:21 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 24, 2020, 02:15:29 pm

If Gravedigger doesn't trash played cards, it wouldn't qualify for this contest.

Oops, I totally forgot about the contest.

Quote from: Carline

Anyway, I think I find a better version which probably will fix all pointed issues. It doesn't increase your next hand size, only make it better. This way, I think it's ok to remove "Expand" restriction to first option and "non-Night" condition to second one.

See it below. I'm in doubt with its wording, it's ok?

UPDATE TO MY ENTRY:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/977/767/full/Gravedigger_%2821%29.png?1606244480)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Night

Choose one:
Trash a card from your hand to gain a card from trash; or
Trash a card you have in play. Draw as many extra cards to your next hand as _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} it costs. After that, discard that many cards.

More feedbacks are always very welcome!

Yes, that looks nice. Well done. There may be some minor wording issues, but at least for me the instructions are clearly understandable.

Thank you! Maybe now Graveddigger could cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} to be possible to open with it with a 4/3 initial hand or it's ok at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on November 24, 2020, 05:52:31 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 24, 2020, 03:24:10 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on November 24, 2020, 02:27:21 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 24, 2020, 02:15:29 pm

If Gravedigger doesn't trash played cards, it wouldn't qualify for this contest.

Oops, I totally forgot about the contest.

Quote from: Carline

Anyway, I think I find a better version which probably will fix all pointed issues. It doesn't increase your next hand size, only make it better. This way, I think it's ok to remove "Expand" restriction to first option and "non-Night" condition to second one.

See it below. I'm in doubt with its wording, it's ok?

UPDATE TO MY ENTRY:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/977/767/full/Gravedigger_%2821%29.png?1606244480)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Night

Choose one:
Trash a card from your hand to gain a card from trash; or
Trash a card you have in play. Draw as many extra cards to your next hand as _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} it costs. After that, discard that many cards.

More feedbacks are always very welcome!

Yes, that looks nice. Well done. There may be some minor wording issues, but at least for me the instructions are clearly understandable.

Thank you! Maybe now Graveddigger could cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} to be possible to open with it with a 4/3 initial hand or it's ok at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}?

Does it allow to "Remodel Province to Province, and Gravedig Copper to Province?"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 24, 2020, 07:01:30 pm

Quote from: majiponi on November 24, 2020, 05:52:31 pm

Does it allow to "Remodel Province to Province, and Gravedig Copper to Province?"

I think so, but you should have a Remodel, a Province, a Gravedigger and a Copper in hand to do it. Maybe it's a specific situation, but your comment draw attention to the issues of gaining Victories from trash. With Rebuild or Salt the Earth things could be worse, so it's better to include "non-Victory" in first option. Thank you!


UPDATE TO MY ENTRY:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/978/179/full/Gravedigger_%2822%29.png?1606261810)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} • Night

Choose one:
Trash a card from your hand to gain a non-Victory card from the trash; or
Trash a card you have in play. Draw as many extra cards to your next hand as _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} it costs. After that, discard that many cards.

I'm still in doubt: better at _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} or _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 24, 2020, 08:10:02 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on November 23, 2020, 02:39:58 pm

My submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/2WWM31L/Reanimate.png)

Reanimate $4 - Action Quote Trash a non-Duration Action card you have in          play, for +1 Action and +$2.          For the rest of this turn, when you trash an Action card, Exile it.

Except for some Actions you don't need anymore after some time (Chapel, Moneylender, Spice Merchant, etc.), I think trash an Action card is more a cost than a bonus. As you already spent an Action to play Reanimate, what you get by trashing an Action card is _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} and  transform other Action cards trashed this turn in a kind of pseudo-Fortress (which have to be released from exile). To chain many Reanimates exiling all but the last, gaining _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} for each, doesn't seem to be so much better than play a serie of Stockpiles and has the same limitation, it can't be done anymore when pile is out. In some situations (like TFBs) the pseudo-Fortress feature would shine, but I think many times you wouldn't use it and would end up trashing an Action card to get only a non-activated Mystic playing, which could be a bit weak.

Reanimate has other limitation: If kingdom doesn't have Villages, it can't trash terminals. (edit: after post this, I saw that others cards of this contest that trashes actions in action phase and aren't villages themselves have the same limitation, so maybe it's not a problem). 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 24, 2020, 09:11:56 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 24, 2020, 07:26:52 am

Quote from: Carline on November 22, 2020, 07:15:17 am

Thanks scott_pillgrim for runner-up! Congratulations silverspawn and all the winners!

My entry for new contest:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/974/184/full/Gravedigger_%2811%29.png?1606047181)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} •Night

You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card from the trash.
Trash a card you have in play. Per each _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} it costs, draw an extra card for your next hand.

Any comments? I would love to have some feedback!

I'm not sure if it's a problem, but this would be the only card to allow you to ever gain Zombies. The _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} restriction from Graverobber and Rogue could work fine here; and then you wouldn't have to exclude victory cards. It's pretty rare that you would want to use it to gain a non-Province that doesn't fit in that cost range anyway.

Edit, never mind, Lurker (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Lurker) is a thing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 24, 2020, 09:35:27 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 24, 2020, 09:11:56 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 24, 2020, 07:26:52 am

Quote from: Carline on November 22, 2020, 07:15:17 am

Thanks scott_pillgrim for runner-up! Congratulations silverspawn and all the winners!

My entry for new contest:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/974/184/full/Gravedigger_%2811%29.png?1606047181)

Quote

Gravedigger • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} •Night

You may trash a card from your hand to gain a card from the trash.
Trash a card you have in play. Per each _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} it costs, draw an extra card for your next hand.

Any comments? I would love to have some feedback!

I'm not sure if it's a problem, but this would be the only card to allow you to ever gain Zombies. The _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} to _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)} restriction from Graverobber and Rogue could work fine here; and then you wouldn't have to exclude victory cards. It's pretty rare that you would want to use it to gain a non-Province that doesn't fit in that cost range anyway.

Edit, never mind, Lurker (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Lurker) is a thing.

I have already updated my card, present version is this:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/978/179/full/Gravedigger_%2822%29.png?1606261810)

As I said in a previous post, due to cards like Rebuild and Salt the Earth, I think it was better to exclude Victory cards gaining from its first option.

I didn't understand very well the part of your comment about Zombies. They cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}, so Graverobber and Rogue indeed can gain them.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on November 24, 2020, 09:37:38 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 24, 2020, 09:35:27 pm

I didn't understand very well the part of your comment about Zombies. They cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}, so Graverobber and Rogue indeed can gain them.

I have no idea whether I never knew that, or if I just forgot! Presumably the decision to make them cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} basically had to be specifically for the Graverobber/Rogue combo. Anyway, never mind to the whole thing, sorry!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scott_pilgrim on November 24, 2020, 09:49:22 pm

Quote

Name: Spellbook
Cost: $2
Types: Night
Trash two non-Duration Action cards you have in play with the same name. If you did, move your +1 card, +1 action, +1 buy, +$1, trashing, or -$2 cost token to their pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 24, 2020, 10:28:41 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on November 24, 2020, 09:37:38 pm

Quote from: Carline on November 24, 2020, 09:35:27 pm

I didn't understand very well the part of your comment about Zombies. They cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}, so Graverobber and Rogue indeed can gain them.

I have no idea whether I never knew that, or if I just forgot! Presumably the decision to make them cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} basically had to be specifically for the Graverobber/Rogue combo. Anyway, never mind to the whole thing, sorry!

I think Graverobbing a zombie is worse than leaving it there, as I believe that they're better cards when they're options for necromancer, due to them relying on the trash.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on November 25, 2020, 01:52:16 am

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on November 24, 2020, 09:49:22 pm

Quote

Name: Spellbook
Cost: $2
Types: Night
Trash two non-Duration Action cards you have in play with the same name. If you did, move your +1 card, +1 action, +1 buy, +$1, trashing, or -$2 cost token to their pile.

I like this concept a lot. (Lose a copy of a card to power up other copies) I've done design around setting the card aside so it can never be re-gained from the trash. I do like this implementation where you get to trash in play after playing it once. However, I think that the "trash 2" is an incredibly steep penalty. It only makes sense to put this on a card that is easy to get copies of, or you want copies of it even before it is powered up. In both of these cases, a competent opponent will be easily able to gain copies of the card. If you split the pile evenly, you're stuck to only 3 copies, rendering it not strong enough to be worthwhile likely. If you happen to win the split 6/4, then you get 4 powered-up copies, and your opponent effectively is locked-out of that card (2 powered up is not that strong). This turns the game into a sort of un-fun who happens to get the right number copies of that card.
The trash two also effectively means you really never play this twice on the same card (unless you are doing the absolutely bonkers fortress combo with this).

I recommend upping the price of this card, and having it only trash 1 copy in play. This makes the splits less essential. I also think you could do the Teacher "you have no tokens on" and it would improve this version.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 25, 2020, 05:51:13 am

Quote from: Carline on November 24, 2020, 08:10:02 pm

Quote from: gambit05

Reanimate $4 - Action Quote Trash a non-Duration Action card you have in          play, for +1 Action and +$2.          For the rest of this turn, when you trash an Action card, Exile it.

Quote from: Carline

Except for some Actions you don't need anymore after some time (Chapel, Moneylender, Spice Merchant, etc.), I think trash an Action card is more a cost than a bonus. As you already spent an Action to play Reanimate, what you get by trashing an Action card is _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} and  transform other Action cards trashed this turn in a kind of pseudo-Fortress (which have to be released from exile). To chain many Reanimates exiling all but the last, gaining _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} for each, doesn't seem to be so much better than play a serie of Stockpiles and has the same limitation, it can't be done anymore when pile is out. In some situations (like TFBs) the pseudo-Fortress feature would shine, but I think many times you wouldn't use it and would end up trashing an Action card to get only a non-activated Mystic playing, which could be a bit weak.

Reanimate has other limitation: If kingdom doesn't have Villages, it can't trash terminals. (edit: after post this, I saw that others cards of this contest that trashes actions in action phase and aren't villages themselves have the same limitation, so maybe it's not a problem).

I wanted to have a card with the following features: 1) make (other) Action cards one-shots (“trashing” effect) and 2) make Action cards subsequently “immune” to trashing (“recovery” effect). You have correctly pointed out these features. That the “trashing” effect is often a drawback was on purpose with the intention that the subsequent “recovery” effect provides the real benefits. In this context, please note that Reanimate can also trash itself as a last resort.

Before I presented the current version of Reanimate I had a “myriad” of precursors. Some of the differences were a) giving +2 Actions (instead of +1 Action), b) being a Remodel variant for the “trashing” effect, c) put the subsequently trashed cards into the discard (instead of Exiling them) as “recovery” effect.

Going through all those versions I encountered various problems until I ended up with the current version. As you have analysed this in great detail, it could well be that when I addressed those issues that I finally ended up with a version that is too weak or too “niche”. With a refreshed look at it, thanks to your input, I may just change the “recovery” effect back to a “discard” effect instead of “Exile it”. In fact, I have figured out a new way now to avoid the “devastating” effect of Exiling the cards and a potentially overpowered “immediate discard them”, by temporarily setting the trashed cards aside:

Reanimate $4 - Action Quote Trash a non-Duration Action card you have in play, for +2 Actions and +$2.      For the rest of this turn, when      you trash an Action card, set it aside and discard it at the start of Clean-up.

Edit: I gave +2 Actions upon trashing instead of +1 Action. With just +1 Action as bonus, a line up with other cards is relatively difficult as there is no card drawing included in the trashing benefit.

How does this look?
My rational behind this:
A Kingdom without any support for Reanimate should be fairly rare. Nevertheless, a Reanimate self-combo with two copies of it is still fairly easy. This would resemble a non-terminal +$4 one-shot, which doesn’t look too bad.

A Village variant, which should be present in a lot of Kingdoms, would already enable quite beneficial combos, e.g. with Smithies.

Edit: Not relevant anymore with +2 Actions instead of +1 Action.
 
The presence of Remodelers, of cards giving benefits when trashed themselves or of one of the few “Gravediggers” in a Kingdom would let Reanimate really shine. Most potential craziness is avoided by the “set-aside” clause. This feature was the important part that I missed when coming up with the version of Reanimate I presented.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful analysis. I appreciate it very much!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on November 25, 2020, 05:14:07 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on November 25, 2020, 05:51:13 am

Quote from: Carline on November 24, 2020, 08:10:02 pm

Quote from: gambit05

Reanimate $4 - Action Quote Trash a non-Duration Action card you have in          play, for +1 Action and +$2.          For the rest of this turn, when you trash an Action card, Exile it.

Quote from: Carline

Except for some Actions you don't need anymore after some time (Chapel, Moneylender, Spice Merchant, etc.), I think trash an Action card is more a cost than a bonus. As you already spent an Action to play Reanimate, what you get by trashing an Action card is _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} and  transform other Action cards trashed this turn in a kind of pseudo-Fortress (which have to be released from exile). To chain many Reanimates exiling all but the last, gaining _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} for each, doesn't seem to be so much better than play a serie of Stockpiles and has the same limitation, it can't be done anymore when pile is out. In some situations (like TFBs) the pseudo-Fortress feature would shine, but I think many times you wouldn't use it and would end up trashing an Action card to get only a non-activated Mystic playing, which could be a bit weak.

Reanimate has other limitation: If kingdom doesn't have Villages, it can't trash terminals. (edit: after post this, I saw that others cards of this contest that trashes actions in action phase and aren't villages themselves have the same limitation, so maybe it's not a problem).

I wanted to have a card with the following features: 1) make (other) Action cards one-shots (“trashing” effect) and 2) make Action cards subsequently “immune” to trashing (“recovery” effect). You have correctly pointed out these features. That the “trashing” effect is often a drawback was on purpose with the intention that the subsequent “recovery” effect provides the real benefits. In this context, please note that Reanimate can also trash itself as a last resort.

Before I presented the current version of Reanimate I had a “myriad” of precursors. Some of the differences were a) giving +2 Actions (instead of +1 Action), b) being a Remodel variant for the “trashing” effect, c) put the subsequently trashed cards into the discard (instead of Exiling them) as “recovery” effect.

Going through all those versions I encountered various problems until I ended up with the current version. As you have analysed this in great detail, it could well be that when I addressed those issues that I finally ended up with a version that is too weak or too “niche”. With a refreshed look at it, thanks to your input, I may just change the “recovery” effect back to a “discard” effect instead of “Exile it”. In fact, I have figured out a new way now to avoid the “devastating” effect of Exiling the cards and a potentially overpowered “immediate discard them”, by temporarily setting the trashed cards aside:

Reanimate $4 - Action Quote Trash a non-Duration Action card you have in play, for +2 Actions and +$2.      For the rest of this turn, when      you trash an Action card, set it aside and discard it at the start of Clean-up.

Edit: I gave +2 Actions upon trashing instead of +1 Action. With just +1 Action as bonus, a line up with other cards is relatively difficult as there is no card drawing included in the trashing benefit.

How does this look?
My rational behind this:
A Kingdom without any support for Reanimate should be fairly rare. Nevertheless, a Reanimate self-combo with two copies of it is still fairly easy. This would resemble a non-terminal +$4 one-shot, which doesn’t look too bad.

A Village variant, which should be present in a lot of Kingdoms, would already enable quite beneficial combos, e.g. with Smithies.

Edit: Not relevant anymore with +2 Actions instead of +1 Action.
 
The presence of Remodelers, of cards giving benefits when trashed themselves or of one of the few “Gravediggers” in a Kingdom would let Reanimate really shine. Most potential craziness is avoided by the “set-aside” clause. This feature was the important part that I missed when coming up with the version of Reanimate I presented.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful analysis. I appreciate it very much!

Thank you. I'm happy you liked my comments.

Yes, Reanimate is so much better with discarding than exiling. Set aside recovered actions is a wise solution to avoid them to go back to hand in the same turn. Give 2 actions is also very good, now it doesn't depends on other villages to be able to trash terminals.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: TheAgileBeast on November 26, 2020, 02:26:47 am

(https://abload.de/img/rejuvenatecardn3jii.png)

Quote

Rejuvenate | Treasure | $2

$1

You may trash an Action card you have in play. If you do, +1 card, +1 action and, if it's your Buy phase, return to your Action phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 26, 2020, 04:15:07 am

Question for everyone who designed Action cards that can trash arbitraty Action cards from play: does anyone not intend for the card targeting itself to be possible?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on November 26, 2020, 06:27:36 am

Quote from: TheAgileBeast on November 26, 2020, 02:26:47 am

(https://i.imgur.com/VgHQeHi.png)

Quote

Rejuvenate | Treasure | $2

$1

You may trash an Action card you have in play. If you do, +1 card, +1 action and, if it's your Buy phase, return to your Action phase.

So either it is a Copper or a Bazaar (Villa/Villager style). I like it, it is likely best in explosive / megaturn-ish engines.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 26, 2020, 09:20:51 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/nnKB406.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 26, 2020, 10:11:59 pm

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 26, 2020, 09:20:51 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/nnKB406.png)

Does it even need the +Buy? With something like fisherman, you can get a province a turn for 5 turns, and then you'd have to resort to something else.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on November 27, 2020, 01:05:56 am

I wanted it to be viable as a Copper trasher as well as a Province gainer, and without the buy it compares super poorly to Bonfire.

I don't follow your Fisherman example; the trashed cards need to be differently-named, so you would need to trash Fisherman along with other cards costing $5 or more to get a Province-- if you can repeat that for 5 turns, you had a pretty good deck to begin with.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 27, 2020, 01:18:35 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on November 27, 2020, 01:05:56 am

I wanted it to be viable as a Copper trasher as well as a Province gainer, and without the buy it compares super poorly to Bonfire.

I don't follow your Fisherman example; the trashed cards need to be differently-named, so you would need to trash Fisherman along with other cards costing $5 or more to get a Province-- if you can repeat that for 5 turns, you had a pretty good deck to begin with.

I missed the differently named part, sorry

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 29, 2020, 05:07:03 pm

It's been a week, but I suspect many of you are celebrating this Thanksgiving thing, so I'll extend the deadline by a couple of days.

Stay healthy!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on November 29, 2020, 07:25:57 pm

This idea just popped into my head.

(https://i.imgur.com/olD1GiH.png)

Quote

Silverfish $3
Night
Trash a card you have in hand or in play.  Gain a cheaper card.  If you can't, gain a Silverfish.

It's the Night version of Rats.  Notably, instead of drawing a card, you get a replacement.  Also, it can trash itself once no longer useful, though you better actually want that $2 card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on November 29, 2020, 09:40:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7KyuzKt.png?1)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on November 29, 2020, 09:58:25 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5fbae97c87d6640af8b46641/8cb3d0d25a8c3982a5c8eee5d54f512c/image.png)
No functional changes from the original post (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg857636#msg857636) but i had a minute to do a quick watercolor for the card so here it is with art.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on November 29, 2020, 10:41:57 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on November 29, 2020, 09:40:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7KyuzKt.png?1)

This is strictly better than Feast and by a lot.  I know Feast isn't completely relevant anymore, but it was removed for being boring, not weak.  This fixes why Feast is boring in a way that makes it much stronger, especially at a lower price.  I think it needs more restrictions.

It also compares very favorably to Improve.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on November 29, 2020, 11:02:13 pm

My entry inspired by Royal Carriage:

(https://i.imgur.com/gogwtTbl.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on November 29, 2020, 11:30:31 pm

Quote from: chronostrike on November 29, 2020, 07:25:57 pm

This idea just popped into my head.

(https://i.imgur.com/olD1GiH.png)

Quote

Silverfish $3
Night
Trash a card you have in hand or in play.  Gain a cheaper card.  If you can't, gain a Silverfish.

It's the Night version of Rats.  Notably, instead of drawing a card, you get a replacement.  Also, it can trash itself once no longer useful, though you better actually want that $2 card.

I think the cost should be lower.  It's not as useful for trashing Estates as other cards out there IMO. 

Also, if you don't have anything you want to trash, couldn't you choose not to play the card in order to avoid gaining another Silverfish?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 01:43:19 am

Quote from: Timinou on November 29, 2020, 11:02:13 pm

My entry inspired by Royal Carriage:

(https://i.imgur.com/gogwtTbl.png)

I play Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. Repeat 8 more times, for a total of 12 times. I trash the Chronicler, and since gaining Victories is contingent on playing, not trashing, I gain 12 Nobles.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on November 30, 2020, 03:49:52 am

Quote from: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 01:43:19 am

I gain 12 Nobles.

Are you playing a 3p game?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on November 30, 2020, 07:11:53 am

(https://i.imgur.com/rFpDJOJ.jpg)

Quote

King's Tent
Types: Action, Reaction
Cost: $2
You may play an Action from your hand twice, and then when you would discard it, trash it or this.

---

When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, gain a copy of the Attack, putting it into your hand.

King's Tent is a one-shot Throne Room at $2.  It pops either the thing you played or itself.  You can also use its Reaction to gain a copy of another player's Attack.  A part of the idea being that King's Tent can tear up the commonly-terminal Attack cards that it gains.
It edges towards the "reflect Attack" concept, but since you have to gain the Attack card and spend the action to play it, it both pushes game piles and often risks your terminal density.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on November 30, 2020, 07:51:03 am

Quote from: chronostrike on November 29, 2020, 10:41:57 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on November 29, 2020, 09:40:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/7KyuzKt.png?1)

This is strictly better than Feast and by a lot.  I know Feast isn't completely relevant anymore, but it was removed for being boring, not weak.  This fixes why Feast is boring in a way that makes it much stronger, especially at a lower price.  I think it needs more restrictions.

It also compares very favorably to Improve.

You're right, I'm removing it's ability to trash itself, which was actually totally unintentional.
(https://i.imgur.com/ebj7Oj4.png?1)
I'm fine with it in comparison to Improve because it lacks a lot of Improve's flexibility and Improve gives you some economy early.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on November 30, 2020, 08:51:48 am

Quote from: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 01:43:19 am

Quote from: Timinou on November 29, 2020, 11:02:13 pm

My entry inspired by Royal Carriage:

(http://*https://i.imgur.com/gogwtTbm.png)

I play Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. Repeat 8 more times, for a total of 12 times. I trash the Chronicler, and since gaining Victories is contingent on playing, not trashing, I gain 12 Nobles.

Thanks.  The intent was not to be able to replay the Chronicler itself, so I've tweaked the wording on the card.  I'm not sure if this completely gets rid of the issue:

(https://i.imgur.com/khCNkF1m.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on November 30, 2020, 09:10:43 am

Quote from: Timinou on November 30, 2020, 08:51:48 am

Quote from: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 01:43:19 am

Quote from: Timinou on November 29, 2020, 11:02:13 pm

My entry inspired by Royal Carriage:

(http://*https://i.imgur.com/gogwtTbm.png)

I play Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. Repeat 8 more times, for a total of 12 times. I trash the Chronicler, and since gaining Victories is contingent on playing, not trashing, I gain 12 Nobles.

Thanks.  The intent was not to be able to replay the Chronicler itself, so I've tweaked the wording on the card.  I'm not sure if this completely gets rid of the issue:

(https://i.imgur.com/khCNkF1m.png)

An easier fix would be to give Chronicler the Command type and let it only play non-Command actions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on November 30, 2020, 09:33:00 am

Quote from: faust on November 30, 2020, 09:10:43 am

Quote from: Timinou on November 30, 2020, 08:51:48 am

Quote from: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 01:43:19 am

Quote from: Timinou on November 29, 2020, 11:02:13 pm

My entry inspired by Royal Carriage:

(http://*https://i.imgur.com/gogwtTbm.png)

I play Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. Repeat 8 more times, for a total of 12 times. I trash the Chronicler, and since gaining Victories is contingent on playing, not trashing, I gain 12 Nobles.

Thanks.  The intent was not to be able to replay the Chronicler itself, so I've tweaked the wording on the card.  I'm not sure if this completely gets rid of the issue:

(https://i.imgur.com/khCNkF1m.png)

An easier fix would be to give Chronicler the Command type and let it only play non-Command actions.

Isn't it even simpler if the other card is first replayed and then trashed? And the wording would better connect trashing with gaining the Victory card.

By the way, Timinou, welcome to the Forum!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on November 30, 2020, 09:44:46 am

Quote from: Timinou on November 29, 2020, 11:30:31 pm

Quote from: chronostrike on November 29, 2020, 07:25:57 pm

This idea just popped into my head.

(https://i.imgur.com/olD1GiH.png)

Quote

Silverfish $3
Night
Trash a card you have in hand or in play.  Gain a cheaper card.  If you can't, gain a Silverfish.

It's the Night version of Rats.  Notably, instead of drawing a card, you get a replacement.  Also, it can trash itself once no longer useful, though you better actually want that $2 card.

I think the cost should be lower.  It's not as useful for trashing Estates as other cards out there IMO. 

Also, if you don't have anything you want to trash, couldn't you choose not to play the card in order to avoid gaining another Silverfish?

Yes, but that clause is there for if you trash a Copper or Curse.

It is kind of a bad trasher early, but it actually becomes surprisingly dangerous late.  A hand of Gold, Gold, Silver, Silverfish, Silverfish can be worth twelve points if you suspect the game will end soon.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on November 30, 2020, 01:41:53 pm

Quote from: TheAgileBeast on November 26, 2020, 02:26:47 am

(https://i.imgur.com/VgHQeHi.png)

Quote

Rejuvenate | Treasure | $2

$1

You may trash an Action card you have in play. If you do, +1 card, +1 action and, if it's your Buy phase, return to your Action phase.

Cool card! I was a little bored over the weekend, and I'm a lunatic about art (in the last contest I almost submitted versions of my card with four different pictures and two different names and asked people to choose), so if you're interested in a cleaned-up version, feel free to take this or alter it any way you want. (My apologies if the signature on the picture is intentional or preferred -- just trying to help out.)

(https://abload.de/img/rejuvenatecardn3jii.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 02:48:28 pm

Quote from: Timinou on November 30, 2020, 08:51:48 am

Quote from: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 01:43:19 am

Quote from: Timinou on November 29, 2020, 11:02:13 pm

My entry inspired by Royal Carriage:

(http://*https://i.imgur.com/gogwtTbm.png)

I play Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. Repeat 8 more times, for a total of 12 times. I trash the Chronicler, and since gaining Victories is contingent on playing, not trashing, I gain 12 Nobles.

Thanks.  The intent was not to be able to replay the Chronicler itself, so I've tweaked the wording on the card.  I'm not sure if this completely gets rid of the issue:

(https://i.imgur.com/khCNkF1m.png)

I don't think the "leave it in the trash and turn it face down for the turn" part is necessary, since replaying is now contingent on trashing the card.

EDIT: The "leave it in the trash" part is necessary, but turning it face down is not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on November 30, 2020, 02:49:46 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 02:48:28 pm

Quote from: Timinou on November 30, 2020, 08:51:48 am

Quote from: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 01:43:19 am

Quote from: Timinou on November 29, 2020, 11:02:13 pm

My entry inspired by Royal Carriage:

(http://*https://i.imgur.com/gogwtTbm.png)

I play Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. I replay Chronicler. Repeat 8 more times, for a total of 12 times. I trash the Chronicler, and since gaining Victories is contingent on playing, not trashing, I gain 12 Nobles.

Thanks.  The intent was not to be able to replay the Chronicler itself, so I've tweaked the wording on the card.  I'm not sure if this completely gets rid of the issue:

(https://i.imgur.com/khCNkF1m.png)

I don't think the "leave it in the trash and turn it face down for the turn" part is necessary, since replaying is now contingent on trashing the card.

There's no reason to turn it over, as once it's in the trash, you can't trash it from play again, as it isn't in play

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on November 30, 2020, 04:57:36 pm

Quote from: faust on November 30, 2020, 09:10:43 am

An easier fix would be to give Chronicler the Command type and let it only play non-Command actions.

Thanks for the suggestion!  This is definitely more elegant than what I had. 

Quote from: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 02:48:28 pm

I don't think the "leave it in the trash and turn it face down for the turn" part is necessary, since replaying is now contingent on trashing the card.

EDIT: The "leave it in the trash" part is necessary, but turning it face down is not.

Quote from: LittleFish on November 30, 2020, 02:49:46 pm

There's no reason to turn it over, as once it's in the trash, you can't trash it from play again, as it isn't in play

Thank you for the feedback!  I've revised the text now.

Quote from: gambit05 on November 30, 2020, 09:33:00 am

Isn't it even simpler if the other card is first replayed and then trashed? And the wording would better connect trashing with gaining the Victory card.

By the way, Timinou, welcome to the Forum!

Thank you!

Version 3 of Chronicler:
(https://i.imgur.com/vZjcc1Qm.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 05:22:52 pm

Quote from: Timinou on November 30, 2020, 04:57:36 pm

Version 3 of Chronicler:
(https://i.imgur.com/vZjcc1Qm.png)

Is the fact that it's back to being able to replay itself intentional?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on November 30, 2020, 05:28:38 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 05:22:52 pm

Quote from: Timinou on November 30, 2020, 04:57:36 pm

Version 3 of Chronicler:
(https://i.imgur.com/vZjcc1Qm.png)

Is the fact that it's back to being able to replay itself intentional?

I tried to fix it by making Chronicler a command-type card, so technically it cannot trash and replay itself.  Should the card indicate that it is a command-type? 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 05:38:06 pm

Quote from: Timinou on November 30, 2020, 05:28:38 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 05:22:52 pm

Quote from: Timinou on November 30, 2020, 04:57:36 pm

Version 3 of Chronicler:
(https://i.imgur.com/vZjcc1Qm.png)

Is the fact that it's back to being able to replay itself intentional?

I tried to fix it by making Chronicler a command-type card, so technically it cannot trash and replay itself.  Should the card indicate that it is a command-type?

Yes, as it isn't a Command-type card, and thus can trash and replay itself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on November 30, 2020, 05:40:57 pm

Quote from: chronostrike on November 30, 2020, 09:44:46 am

Quote from: Timinou on November 29, 2020, 11:30:31 pm

Quote from: chronostrike on November 29, 2020, 07:25:57 pm

This idea just popped into my head.

(https://i.imgur.com/olD1GiH.png)

Quote

Silverfish $3
Night
Trash a card you have in hand or in play.  Gain a cheaper card.  If you can't, gain a Silverfish.

It's the Night version of Rats.  Notably, instead of drawing a card, you get a replacement.  Also, it can trash itself once no longer useful, though you better actually want that $2 card.

I think the cost should be lower.  It's not as useful for trashing Estates as other cards out there IMO. 

Also, if you don't have anything you want to trash, couldn't you choose not to play the card in order to avoid gaining another Silverfish?

Yes, but that clause is there for if you trash a Copper or Curse.

It is kind of a bad trasher early, but it actually becomes surprisingly dangerous late.  A hand of Gold, Gold, Silver, Silverfish, Silverfish can be worth twelve points if you suspect the game will end soon.

Yes, and actually thinking about it a bit more I think $3 is an appropriate cost.  You still get the +$1 from the Coppers you play before you trash them, which could be helpful in the first few turns.  It's almost like a Forager early in the game without the +1 Buy. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on November 30, 2020, 05:46:45 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 05:38:06 pm

Quote from: Timinou on November 30, 2020, 05:28:38 pm

Quote from: Gubump on November 30, 2020, 05:22:52 pm

Quote from: Timinou on November 30, 2020, 04:57:36 pm

Version 3 of Chronicler:
(https://i.imgur.com/vZjcc1Qm.png)

Is the fact that it's back to being able to replay itself intentional?

I tried to fix it by making Chronicler a command-type card, so technically it cannot trash and replay itself.  Should the card indicate that it is a command-type?

Yes, as it isn't a Command-type card, and thus can trash and replay itself.

Thanks...hopefully it shouldn't be broken now: 

(https://i.imgur.com/mBfgKtkm.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on November 30, 2020, 10:37:16 pm

Reinforce
Action - $5
At the start of Clean-up trash a card fom your hand, or a card you would discard from play this turn. You may gain a card onto your deck costing up to $2 more than it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: TheAgileBeast on December 01, 2020, 02:40:33 am

Quote from: spheremonk on November 30, 2020, 01:41:53 pm

Quote from: TheAgileBeast on November 26, 2020, 02:26:47 am

(https://i.imgur.com/VgHQeHi.png)

Quote

Rejuvenate | Treasure | $2

$1

You may trash an Action card you have in play. If you do, +1 card, +1 action and, if it's your Buy phase, return to your Action phase.

Cool card! I was a little bored over the weekend, and I'm a lunatic about art (in the last contest I almost submitted versions of my card with four different pictures and two different names and asked people to choose), so if you're interested in a cleaned-up version, feel free to take this or alter it any way you want. (My apologies if the signature on the picture is intentional or preferred -- just trying to help out.)

(https://abload.de/img/rejuvenatecardn3jii.png)

Amazing, thanks! That looks really clean and whatever you did to the colors looks nice, I'll for sure use that. Signature was not intentional, it's just some image I found online. Artist was "Badriel".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 01, 2020, 02:55:13 am

Quote from: TheAgileBeast on December 01, 2020, 02:40:33 am

Quote from: spheremonk on November 30, 2020, 01:41:53 pm

Quote from: TheAgileBeast on November 26, 2020, 02:26:47 am

(https://i.imgur.com/VgHQeHi.png)

Quote

Rejuvenate | Treasure | $2

$1

You may trash an Action card you have in play. If you do, +1 card, +1 action and, if it's your Buy phase, return to your Action phase.

Cool card! I was a little bored over the weekend, and I'm a lunatic about art (in the last contest I almost submitted versions of my card with four different pictures and two different names and asked people to choose), so if you're interested in a cleaned-up version, feel free to take this or alter it any way you want. (My apologies if the signature on the picture is intentional or preferred -- just trying to help out.)

(https://abload.de/img/rejuvenatecardn3jii.png)

Amazing, thanks! That looks really clean and whatever you did to the colors looks nice, I'll for sure use that. Signature was not intentional, it's just some image I found online. Artist was "Badriel".

I don't want to spoil your excitement, but if you want to have this correct, you need the $1 coin symbol in the top corners.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on December 01, 2020, 11:49:35 am

Quote from: gambit05 on December 01, 2020, 02:55:13 am

I don't want to spoil your excitement, but if you want to have this correct, you need the $1 coin symbol in the top corners.

Funny! I was trying so hard to only work on the art, but respect all other choices made by TheAgileBeast on the original (he did a great job), that I completely missed the lack of previews at the top. Here you go . . .

(https://abload.de/img/rejuvenatecardaqjmx.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 01, 2020, 04:41:57 pm

Okay, deadline will be in 24 hours.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BBobb on December 03, 2020, 08:59:00 pm

I thought the deadline was supposed to be 24 hours? Its been almost 48 hours.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 03, 2020, 09:22:55 pm

Quote from: BBobb on December 03, 2020, 08:59:00 pm

I thought the deadline was supposed to be 24 hours? Its been almost 48 hours.

life happens, and judging is time consuming. silverspawn'll get to it when they can. be patient.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BBobb on December 03, 2020, 09:45:12 pm

Srry didn't mean to be rude. I just thought it might have been moved to a different thread or something. I was just trying to make sure that I will eventually be able to find the judging and future contests. Sorry if that was rude

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 04, 2020, 08:59:10 am

Judgment Day

Possible spoiler or anti-spoiler: my initial impression agrees with upvotes in that I liked Rejuvenate the best. However, last time I've changed my mind while thinking about cards more. Let's see if that happens again. (https://i.ibb.co/tH5NRD1/Engine.png)        Engine -- mandioca15 Very nice! I love the idea of being able to burn through arbitrary action cards for extra resources, which is of course why I chose the theme. This is exactly the kind of design I was thinking about myself. If you just use it to trash itself, you have a one-shot lab for 4$, which is quite weak (compares poorly to experiment and even Ride, which is weak), but still strong enough to be bought occasionally. It's great against ruins, which many of these cards are, and has quite a bit of potential in your final turns. Maybe the fact that your last turn could be so powerful is an issue? But it's probably fine;  Madmen can also be a one-shot draw your entire deck, and Madman is one of my favorite cards. I think the fact that this has to nuke your potential (i.e., eat all of your action cards) for a mega turn is neat. Runner-up (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/978/179/full/Gravedigger_%2822%29.png?1606261810)    Gravedigger -- Carline I know this one was updated a lot. I think the current version is particularly tricky to evaluate. As a mid-game utility card it seems quite underwhelming; sacrificing a good card to make your next turn better is eh. You can get it back next time, but even if that works and your opponent doesn't steal it from the trash first, you have played to 5$s to trash one card and make one turn better. Compares poorly to vampire. I think the ways in which it's strong enough are (a) to ignore the bottom and just get good cards from the trash (trash a card from your hand; gain a card costing 5+$ is altar power level, and it's non-terminal as well -- and imagine the combination with trash for benefit/platinum/gravedigger) or as an endgame card. Trash a gold that you don't need because the game ends next turn, get the 5 best cards out of 11 next turn. Overall, I think it's an interesting design. I'm not sure it needs to cost 5$, and I might like it better if it said 'card costing up to 6$' rather than 'non-victory card'. It would stop some of the strongest combos while enabling it to get back duchies. (https://i.ibb.co/HtM0ZLb/Overwork.png) Overwork -- LittleFish An interesting comparison here is Mining Village. If you have regular villlages, you can turn those into mining villages using this card. Or more generally, it gives other cards the 'get +2$ extra but trash this' bonus. Unlike Mining Village, it does nothing without support, and it can also target Action cards you don't want at all. In particular, you can make cards that are effectively cantrips into one-shot conspirators. Another difference is that Mining Village is a card you want to buy anyway just for the top effect, so it's only a question of when to trash it, not if. This one has more decision on buy. I like it. Runner-up. (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50635729871_cf3b80bd98_b.jpg) Looters -- Xen3k It is a mistake to underestimate Villagers. If this card only had the vanilla bonus, it would absolutely be worth buying. Now, the part below the horizontal line can be negative. However, you get it either way, so it doesn't make the card weaker. In a BM game, you'll probably want it since the chance to connect with a ruin is high, and in that case it's quite good. In an engine, you'll buy it because the top half is strong and connecting it with the few ruins you do have is a bonus. A side-effect of this design is that opening silver becomes much worse. This incentivizes double terminal openings. It also incentivizes silver/looters which is quite good if they connect immediately. In summary, not a bad design, but probably too swingy for my taste. I worry that you'll almost always buy it, and then it'll be mostly luck dependent how well it works out. (https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5fbae97c87d6640af8b46641/8cb3d0d25a8c3982a5c8eee5d54f512c/image.png) Bodysnatcher -- spineflu My biggest complaint about this one is that the top and bottom half don't feel connected. Why does upgrading a card attack the opponent? And why doesn't it work if you regain the same card? I would also ask the last question in terms of power level. I also worry that it's a bit strong. The primary reason why upgrading 3$'s into 5$'s isn't good is that it requires you to not play the Action card costing 3$. But upgrading a village into a lab after you've played it quite good, and this can also upgrade it into an Altar, or a Forge. That alone seems almost worth 5$, and the attack on top of it should make it a high priority buy. But it'll be useless if you don't draw it with an Action card. I do like the 'gain a silver and a curse' effect. (https://i.ibb.co/xqmpyvV/Plagued-Village.png) Plagued Village -- majiponi This is similar to Engine. I do like it, but not as much. In particular, it's more similar to Mining Village; you'll buy it just for the top half, and then it's just a question of when you use it. It also compares very favorably to Mining Village; the on-trash effect is quite a bit strong and it's a lot more flexible. (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/cook.png) Cook -- anordinaryman This does the 'upgrade village to lab' effect I've talked about earlier, but it's only 2$ more. This seems quite reasonable. The interesting aspect for me here is: this feels like something I could have designed, only I would have made it 'non-Duration Action card'. I think your version is better; it allows self-trashing to gain a card costing 6$, which is a nice compensation if it fails to connect with Action cards, and sometimes you may even do it on purpose. It then compares in an ok way to Feast. I like it. It seems well thought out. Very obscure art btw. Runner-up. (https://i.postimg.cc/QMbxNrkr/Bifurcation-v2.png) Bifurcation -- X-tra Cards costing 5$ that have a terminal +3$ have the property that the remaining bonus can be something experimental or situational, and that's still fine. (Existing cards include Legionary, Treasurer, Livery, and Mandarin, although that one should probably have +4$). This one is like that, too. I think this is a solid design. I like that gaining two cards is mandatory, and that they have to both be different. It narrowly misses Runner-up status since I kind of agree with what anordinaryman said. If there are two 5$s, this is bonkers. That wouldn't be terrible since it's not swingy, but still dominate the strategy a bit much, and you can just do it over and over again. I think I would prefer it better if it couldn't trash itself. (Fun note: imagine playing this on a Prince to gain a Province and a Sprawling Castle.) (https://i.ibb.co/NW2KQB3/Hostile-Village.png) Hostile Village -- Aquila If the +2 cards for trashing were voluntary, this would be the third card that's similar to Mining Village (and quite busted since it has the strongest vanilla bonus). However, here the trashing is mandatory. This changes the design a lot since you can't just stock up villages and trash them later. If you use it on itself, it's a one-shot double experiment+village. That is pretty strong. You pay 1$ extra for the +Action; that seems like a good deal. This will make it a very attractive target for workshop variants. Additionally, it can also turn other cards into double experiment+village. I think it's fine, but bordering on being too powerful. I do agree that the Fortress combination isn't an issue, although the combo is even more bonkers than Apprentice. (Both give you a 3 card advantage and this also gives you a 2 Action advantage.) Still, it's part of the design of Fortress that it enables extremely powerful effects, and I generally don't have an issue with that. Side Note: if you update an entry, edit the original post. I notice that a fix of this was discussed (though I don't think it's necessary), but it wasn't 'made official'. (https://i.ibb.co/C6vm4bR/Landmine.png) Landmine -- LibraryAdventurer My big gripe here is that this is political. Even though I never play dominion with more than 2 people, I think the non-political-card taboo is something we should honor. I get the idea: it returns to your hand, so you can use it on the next player's turn as well. But that doesn't make it non-political. it also just becomes stronger with more people. And a small penalty for small text. (https://i.ibb.co/J5k6y9W/Reanimate.png) Reanimate -- gambit05 If you play this once, it's pretty weak. The vanilla bonus is nothing extraordinary (you often get the same with Conclave) and the penalty is significant. Good as a Ruins/Necropolis trasher, of course. If you play it several times, the versions after this are Conclaves that trigger. Also, you can do other Trash for Benefit-y stuff and the Actions come back. I think the idea is good. My complaint is that it seems too weak. Almost all cards in Dominion trash from your hand, so the combo with other trashers is fairly hard to pull off, and the self-combo is too weak to be worth it; the vanilla bonus just isn't impressive. The updated version is certainly better than the original, but I don't think it's going far enough. I think I'd like it a lot more if it were +3 Actions. (https://i.imgur.com/1Q3I45n.png) Junkyard -- Doom_Shark I think this is a pretty solid design. it can non-terminally trash coppers for +1$ (since you play the copper), which is similar to Forager. A bit weaker, which is fine since this is also a Victory Card. Bonus points since it feels very elegant and cohesive. The effect is simple, makes sense, and fits with the name. However, I have three complaints. #1 is that the wording is ambiguous as to whether it trashes itself or the card played. No-one is likely to think the former since that would make it quite useless, but I still don't think it's good (could just say 'that card' instead of 'it'. #2, also on wording, is that, while I assume you get the effect of the card you play, this doesn't seem clear. (Maybe 'after you played a card'?) Third is that it would be quite annoying to resolve, especially online, since you have to make an extra decision after every card you play. (https://i.ibb.co/khLT0Kr/image.png) Touch of Midas -- grep Interesting. This is an entirely different take on the Soylent Green effect; instead of converting cards into better Action cards (which is the classical approach) or into Vanilla Boni (which is what I had in mind), it turns them into money. In practice, I think this commits you to playing a gold-heavy game. If you trash Action cards, it becomes harder to connect it in the future, and it's terrible if you can't connect it. However, I think the powerlevel is on the strong side. I like it a lot. Props for designing a Big Money card that could actually compete with Engines. Runner-up. (https://i.imgur.com/IOak2AQ.png) Overwork -- faust A Seize the day variant that costs Action cards instead of only being buyable once. I disagree with the public's take here; I like this a lot. The effect is powerful but also self-restricting since paying it makes your deck weaker. I don't think I particularly buy the first player advantage. These kinds of things have a self-regulating effect: you want to buy it before your opponent but as late as possible. The same thing exists in Prismata and works fine. I imagine this being a very high skill card, but in an elegant way. I also like it thematically; all of your Actions have to work extra hard to give you this turn. I believe it is possible to buy this several times in the same turn and take several extra turns since the previous turn wasn't yours. Is that broken? Maybe, but I'm going to guess no. You have to pay the cost up front, and if your deck is that good that you can trash at least three action cards and be fine, someone should have probably bought it earlier. Note that the font is only small because I'm normalizing the card-shaped entries for a fixed width, which makes events look worse than they really are. This looks perfectly fine in normal size. Runner-up. (https://i.ibb.co/jf6JMK3/Spellbook.png) Spellbook -- scott_pilgrim I usually always like scott's cards. This is an exception -- I think it's way too weak to be playable. Initially, I thought this said 'and' as in, you move all tokens to that pile. That made a lot more sense to me. Buying this, then connecting it with two cards, then trashing both, then keeping the dead spellbook, all for one token; no way that's strong enough. Did you, by any chance, intend for this to say 'and'? As an aside: the bonuses should be upper-case ('I.e., 'Card token' not 'card token'). (https://abload.de/img/rejuvenatecardaqjmx.png) Rejuvenate -- TheAgileBeast Another reminder to please edit your original post when you update a card. Don't make the judge search to find the right version. Anyway, here we are! This card has gotten some serious competition at this point, but I still like a it quite a lot. I think returning to your Action phase is a clever way to implement the Soylent effect. The way it's designed, the card is extremely strong. The vanilla bonus is like playing a Bazaar (replaces itself, and +1$ and +1 Action on net) in addition to saving your entire turn. Saving your turn is so valuable that you'd often be willing to trash a good Action card for it even without the additional boni. But Villa is also stronger than it needs to be, and I like the way it plays. Not much else to say here. It's great. Runner-up. (https://i.imgur.com/nnKB406.png) Ravage -- Something_Smart Getting you directly to provinces is certainly another way to do it. I think this is an okay idea, but less interesting than the various indirect ways we've seen so far (particularly thinking of faust's overwork here). It feels a bit too easy; you almost always want to buy Action cards anyway and you almost always want provinces; the only decision here is when to fire. The Copper/Ruins-trashing aspect is neat, though. Plus points for that. (https://i.imgur.com/olD1GiH.png) silverfish -- chronostrike I foresee people falling onto their noses pretty hard with this one. If you buy it as an early trasher, it's quite bad. Trashing your Coppers with this will give you more silverfish, which won't do much of anything. This is a big trap. It's kind of like rats in that way, but quite a bit worse since Rats draw a card and this doesn't. It can trash itself, but drawing two 3$s to then turn one of them into a 2$ is not good. The best usage is probably to turn Gold into Duchies in the late game. Which is fine, but not too exciting. (https://i.imgur.com/ebj7Oj4.png?1) Playwright-- D782802859 Please update your original posts! So this card turns other cards into Feasts. I think that's a perfectly fine idea. I don't think it's stronger than Improve; the vanilla bonus is significant. I don't like the 'would' phrasing, though. Why not the Improve wording with 'at the start of Clean-up'? (https://i.imgur.com/mBfgKtkm.png) Chronlicler -- Timinou So, this copies an Action card you have in play and then turns it into a Duchy. I like it (it narrowly misses Runner-up). You'll almost always buy it, but the timing and quantity could be tricky here. Also some neat interactions with Alt VP. (https://i.imgur.com/rFpDJOJ.jpg) King's Tent -- Fragasnap A one-shot throne room. That's a fine idea. The reaction is a neat idea, but it may be a bit much. At least, I feel like you should have to trash your King's tent to do this. Otherwise, you just gained a Rabble for free. Still, not a bad design. There were a lot of great cards here. It helps that I'm a fan of this design space, but really, there are a bunch that look like contest winners to me. Final Verdict: #6: Overwork (LittleFish) #5: Cook #4: Engine #3: Rejuvenate #2: Touch of Midas #1: Overwork (faust) Maybe not the result anyone expected, but if I go by 'how excited would I be to play with this', this card is the winner.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 04, 2020, 09:28:15 am

Quote from: silverspawn on December 04, 2020, 08:59:10 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5fbae97c87d6640af8b46641/8cb3d0d25a8c3982a5c8eee5d54f512c/image.png)
Bodysnatcher -- spineflu

My biggest complaint about this one is that the top and bottom half don't feel connected. Why does upgrading a card attack the opponent? And why doesn't it work if you regain the same card? I would also ask the last question in terms of power level.

same reason Replace does, i guess? I wanted it to. Because thematically it kinda feels like invasion of the bodysnatchers or vincent d'onofrio's performance in the first "Men In Black" movie. The same card thing is because if you're doing that, you're likely running down piles rather than aiming at improving your deck (with some niche cases like Catacomb or Silk Merchant).

Quote from: silverspawn on December 04, 2020, 08:59:10 am

I also worry that it's a bit strong. The primary reason why upgrading 3$'s into 5$'s isn't good is that it requires you to not play the Action card costing 3$. But upgrading a village into a lab after you've played it quite good, and this can also upgrade it into an Altar, or a Forge. That alone seems almost worth 5$, and the attack on top of it should make it a high priority buy. But it'll be useless if you don't draw it with an Action card.

I do like the 'gain a silver and a curse' effect.

It's way strong, but it can't gain victory cards (other than split-type victory cards like Harem/Nobles). The giving opponents money thing (high level "silver junking" aside) is to help make up for that. I hope other people take that idea and run with it, or reuse it in some way, because i think it'd be neat.


Anyhow, congrats faust

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 04, 2020, 11:18:13 am

Quote from: silverspawn on December 04, 2020, 08:59:10 am

Very obscure art btw.

I have no idea how other people find art. I always google image search "{card name} renaissance painting" AND "{card name} medieval painting," and if I don't find anything I like I search synonyms in place of {card name}.

I actually am curious, some people are really good at finding art. How do others find art?

@silerspawn
Also, each judge has their own preference on how to signal an update to a card. The judge should say exactly how they expect submissions to be made and updates to be done. That way if someone fails to do what you asked (update the original post), then it seems fair. Right now it's a guessing game for what the judge wants. For instance, I do NOT want people to update the original post. Apparently, you do! When I judge (which has been a loooong time now), I clarified rules to make it easier for me to see submissions (you have to use art, has to be the first thing in a post). Judges should be responsible for doing this.

Congrats faust!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 04, 2020, 11:55:36 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 04, 2020, 11:18:13 am

Quote from: silverspawn on December 04, 2020, 08:59:10 am

Very obscure art btw.

I have no idea how other people find art. I always google image search "{card name} renaissance painting" AND "{card name} medieval painting," and if I don't find anything I like I search synonyms in place of {card name}.

I actually am curious, some people are really good at finding art. How do others find art?

When I don't have a piece of my own art in mind, I usually do "{card name} oil painting" or "{synonym} {medium}"; sometimes "{synonym} abstract {platform}" with platform being instagram or deviantart or saatchi or whatever; sometimes I just browse {card name} as a hashtag on instagram. Adding "abstract", "expressionist", "cubist", "surrealist" or "impressionist" usually turns up interesting results.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 04, 2020, 12:35:12 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 04, 2020, 11:18:13 am

Also, each judge has their own preference on how to signal an update to a card. The judge should say exactly how they expect submissions to be made and updates to be done. That way if someone fails to do what you asked (update the original post), then it seems fair. Right now it's a guessing game for what the judge wants. For instance, I do NOT want people to update the original post. Apparently, you do! When I judge (which has been a loooong time now), I clarified rules to make it easier for me to see submissions (you have to use art, has to be the first thing in a post). Judges should be responsible for doing this.

Okay, fair enough. I did find all of the updates I believe, so nothing bad happened.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 04, 2020, 12:59:25 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 04, 2020, 12:35:12 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 04, 2020, 11:18:13 am

Also, each judge has their own preference on how to signal an update to a card. The judge should say exactly how they expect submissions to be made and updates to be done. That way if someone fails to do what you asked (update the original post), then it seems fair. Right now it's a guessing game for what the judge wants. For instance, I do NOT want people to update the original post. Apparently, you do! When I judge (which has been a loooong time now), I clarified rules to make it easier for me to see submissions (you have to use art, has to be the first thing in a post). Judges should be responsible for doing this.

Okay, fair enough. I did find all of the updates I believe, so nothing bad happened.

The first thing before I started submitting cards to this contest was that I read the original post with the entry criteria. One of them is:

Quote from: Doom_Shark on September 17, 2018, 01:21:20 pm

7. Discussion of other entries is permitted, as well as changing your entries. If you change your entry, please do so as an edit to the post with your original entry and keep a changelog

I actually think that is the best way. When I change my card, I leave the original version there (labeled as that) and above that enter the new version (again labeled as such).

By the way, thanks to silverspawn and congrats to faust and to all the runner ups!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 05, 2020, 05:57:41 am

Thanks for the judging! I didn't necessarily expect to win this based on initial reactions. Good catch also about buying multiple of these on the same turn; playtesting would need to show whether that's overpowered, but if so, it can be fixed rather easily with a "once per turn" clause.

Anyways... you've been waiting too long for the next challenge already!

Contest #97: A token effort

Create a submission that allows you to trade one set of tokens for another in some fashion. VP for coffers, Debt for Villagers, maybe even replace an Embargo token by a +Action token - anything goes so long as you have a different token in the place where there was previously another token after using the ability.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on December 05, 2020, 09:26:27 am

Heist Map
Treasure - $3
+$2, +<1>, +1 Buy
You may return this to its pile to pay all of your <_>. +1 Coffers per <_> you paid.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on December 05, 2020, 12:22:16 pm

Quote

Conscription - Event, $1 cost.
Once per game: +1 Buy, and choose one: discard your hand, +1 Villager per card discarded; or turn all your Villagers into Coffers.

Here the token conversion can't always work, so there's an option to always be able to get Villagers. I first designed this as a one-shot Event, so you build up your hand size or Villagers then time your use; but it could easily be changed to multi use if that's more interesting.
And is the 'turn into' wording fine?

---

Quote from: NoMoreFun on December 05, 2020, 09:26:27 am

Heist Map
Treasure - $3
+$2, +<1>, +1 Buy
You may trash this to pay all of your <_>. +1 Coffers per <_> you paid.

So you can play a chain of these then trash the last one to turn them all into super Golds, otherwise they're coppers with +buy. That's nice by itself, but of course it could be crazy with the other big debt cards (everyone wants 40 debt mountain pass so first province buyer wins; capital becomes $6 +6 coffers later), especially with the +buy making them easier to get.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 05, 2020, 02:07:03 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5fcbd82320c7997b34ef92ea/148290849ce94d9973cec5cb5bd9fd02/image.png)(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5fcbd82320c7997b34ef92ea/14678f1c753da4b23b5c7323917bd45a/image.png)

Quote

Cadet • $3 • Action
+1 Coffers
+1 Buy
This turn, when you buy a card, you may place it on your Caravel mat.

You may pay 3 Coffers to gain a Bosun and take @5.

Quote

Bosun • $6* • Action - Command
+3 Coffers

You may take @ up to the number of cards on your Caravel mat. For each @1 taken, play an Action or Treasure card on your Caravel mat, leaving it there.

(This is not in the Supply)

the last line on Cadet is phrased weird because i wanted to avoid the keyword "exchange". Otherwise, this is a coffers/debt-centric take on the exile mat (Caravel mat here) and Kudasai's "Army" mechanic. You can play the same card from your Caravel mat multiple times with Bosun, provided you have enough "other" stuff there to take extra debt for the extra plays.
Bosun has 10 cards in its pile and is non-supply. The Caravel mat, like other cards-go-on-these mats, holds cards that are part of your deck, but aren't shuffled in. There's no mechanism for removal from the Caravel mat.

... should cadet cost $4 because of the opening? I feel like it's a slowish card already

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on December 05, 2020, 04:05:51 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/3R1y7WBq/Settlement-v2.png)

Turn this into a stronger Market at the cost of 1(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png). Use the extra Buy to gain multiple Settlements to replenish your (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png) tokens reserve.

This and Goons together were always meant to be.


Edit: Applied a slight nerf. Used to cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), now it's been bumped up to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 05, 2020, 04:34:07 pm

This looks too good. Even if you don't convert, it is like a Double Great Hall.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 05, 2020, 05:51:51 pm

This contest made me remember this old MTG card:

(https://52f4e29a8321344e30ae-0f55c9129972ac85d6b1f4e703468e6b.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/products/pictures/80671.jpg)


So, here is my entry, converting points to resources:

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/926/full/Faithful.png?1607208597)


(i don't know why card generator doesn't put bold font in the "+1" before Victory symbol)

Quote

Faithful • _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} • Action

+1 Card
+1 _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}
You may convert any _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} Tokens you have into Coffers or Villagers.

Note: I posted my own first fan expansion, Dominion:Venus, all with female characters. I'll be very happy if you, who always help me here to improve my cards, would take a look at it and give me some feedback.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20585.0

Thank you very much!


Edited: new name and art to fit my Venus expansion.

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/818/full/Faithful_Knight2.png?1607312131)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 06, 2020, 12:47:45 am

Quote from: Carline on December 05, 2020, 05:51:51 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/926/full/Faithful.png?1607208597)

(i don't know why card generator doesn't put bold font in the "+1" before Victory symbol)

I assume your code for the +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} is "+1 %." It'll bold the +1 and have a reasonable size for the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} if you use "+1% ".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 06, 2020, 02:09:44 am

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/f6c87roh.png)

Quote

Shoemaker | Action | $2
+1 Card
+1 Coffers
You may discard a card from your hand to exchange any number of Coffers for Villagers.
-
Setup: Each player gets +1 Villagers

Rule Clarification: This only allows you to exchange Coffers for Villagers. You cannot go the other way around. You only need to discard a card once. So if you had 2 Coffers, you play this, now you have 3 Coffers. You can discard a card and lose 1-3 Coffers to gain 1-3 Villagers.

This is an attempt to make a terminal +1 card work. If you really want want to play that action you just drew, you can discard a card and exchange that Coffer you just gained to get a Villager. Which essentially makes the card +1 Card +1 Action, discard a card. That is very weak. The card is a lot more powerful if you take advantage of using the Coffers, or if you gained Villagers from a previous turn. This idea on how to use the card best is subtly given to the players through the setup of everyone starting with 1 villager. The first time you play Shoemaker, you will probably never exchange.

It's a weak card -- it's a 2. But still, games with Shoemaker are a little different since everyone starts with an extra villager. You can fearlessly open double terminal in games with Shoemaker and not worry about them colliding.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 06, 2020, 06:01:57 am

(https://i.ibb.co/qn1YLcv/Temple-Garden.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 06, 2020, 07:01:46 am

My submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/cDYhkXK/Hostage.png)

Hostage $4 – Action Quote +3 Cards You may remove a token from your Coffers for +1 Villager. Return this to the Supply. ---------------------------      When you gain this, +2 Coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 03:12:37 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50687139408_244d227072_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50690802216_9a89acf8df_b.jpg)

Quote

Leased Land - $3
Victory
1VP
-
When you gain this, you may pay up to 3 Coffers for +1VP for each Coffer paid.
(Heirloom: Work Order)

Quote

Work Order - $2
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
You may discard 1 Treasure card to take 1 Debt and +1 Coffers.

A victory card that allows you to get additional VP tokens when you gain it at the cost of Coffers. Scales pretty well up to a cost of $6 for 4vp. The heirloom allows you to get Coffers at a generous rate and has a built in remodel effect. The remodel effect was designed to not be a copper trashing effect. To remodel you do need to use a Coffer, and you do get a Debt. That may be excessive so I am thinking of changing that particular exchange. Not sure if everything is at a reasonable power level. Please criticize and give feedback!

Edit: Big change to Work Order thanks to Feedback from gambit05. No longer dumps Coffers on you and lost the remodel effect. The combination now is pretty vanilla with nothing too exciting happening. Will contemplate if I want to replace this entry.

Edit 2: Nerfed the Coffer gain a bit more on Work Order.

Edit 3: Decided to change Work Order again. Early game it still functions the same with it being a 2 to 1 conversion rate to get a Coffer. Now it should be appealing more often later in the game. It is still the worst source of Coffers in the game, so it being an Heirloom should be reasonable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 06, 2020, 03:34:35 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 03:12:37 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50687139408_244d227072_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50687969262_f307c69b26_b.jpg)

Quote

Leased Land - $3
Victory
1%
-
When you gain this, you may pay up to 3 Coffers for +1% for each Coffer paid.
(Heirloom: Work Order)

Quote

Work Order - $4
Treasure - Heirloom
Choose one: Discard a Treasure card for +2 Coffers; or exchange 1 Coffer for 1 @ to trash a card you have in play or in your hand. Gain a differently named card costing up to $1 more than it.

A victory card that allows you to get additional VP tokens when you gain it at the cost of Coffers. Scales pretty well up to a cost of $6 for 4vp. The heirloom allows you to get Coffers at a generous rate and has a built in remodel effect. The remodel effect was designed to not be a copper trashing effect. To remodel you do need to use a Coffer, and you do get a Debt. That may be excessive so I am thinking of changing that particular exchange. Not sure if everything is at a reasonable power level. Please criticize and give feedback!

For my taste too much is going on. It is too easy to get Coffers with Work order. I would skip the Remodel part. Work Order doesn't look like a Treasure at all.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 03:41:46 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 06, 2020, 03:34:35 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 03:12:37 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50687139408_244d227072_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50687969262_f307c69b26_b.jpg)

Quote

Leased Land - $3
Victory
1%
-
When you gain this, you may pay up to 3 Coffers for +1% for each Coffer paid.
(Heirloom: Work Order)

Quote

Work Order - $4
Treasure - Heirloom
Choose one: Discard a Treasure card for +2 Coffers; or exchange 1 Coffer for 1 @ to trash a card you have in play or in your hand. Gain a differently named card costing up to $1 more than it.

A victory card that allows you to get additional VP tokens when you gain it at the cost of Coffers. Scales pretty well up to a cost of $6 for 4vp. The heirloom allows you to get Coffers at a generous rate and has a built in remodel effect. The remodel effect was designed to not be a copper trashing effect. To remodel you do need to use a Coffer, and you do get a Debt. That may be excessive so I am thinking of changing that particular exchange. Not sure if everything is at a reasonable power level. Please criticize and give feedback!

For my taste too much is going on. It is too easy to get Coffers with Work order. I would skip the Remodel part. Work Order doesn't look like a Treasure at all.

I was worried the Coffer gain was too generous, but I figured it would be balanced with everyone having it as a Heirloom. I could change it to have an option to discard a Treasure to gain a Coffer.

Getting rid of the remodel effect seems reasonable. I Kinda wanted a way to exchange estates for Leased Lands and getting rid of Leased Lands, but it being too busy is a good criticism.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 06, 2020, 03:52:38 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 03:41:46 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 06, 2020, 03:34:35 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 03:12:37 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50687139408_244d227072_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50687969262_f307c69b26_b.jpg)

Quote

Leased Land - $3
Victory
1%
-
When you gain this, you may pay up to 3 Coffers for +1% for each Coffer paid.
(Heirloom: Work Order)

Quote

Work Order - $4
Treasure - Heirloom
Choose one: Discard a Treasure card for +2 Coffers; or exchange 1 Coffer for 1 @ to trash a card you have in play or in your hand. Gain a differently named card costing up to $1 more than it.

A victory card that allows you to get additional VP tokens when you gain it at the cost of Coffers. Scales pretty well up to a cost of $6 for 4vp. The heirloom allows you to get Coffers at a generous rate and has a built in remodel effect. The remodel effect was designed to not be a copper trashing effect. To remodel you do need to use a Coffer, and you do get a Debt. That may be excessive so I am thinking of changing that particular exchange. Not sure if everything is at a reasonable power level. Please criticize and give feedback!

For my taste too much is going on. It is too easy to get Coffers with Work order. I would skip the Remodel part. Work Order doesn't look like a Treasure at all.

I was worried the Coffer gain was too generous, but I figured it would be balanced with everyone having it as a Heirloom. I could change it to have an option to discard a Treasure to gain a Coffer.

Getting rid of the remodel effect seems reasonable. I Kinda wanted a way to exchange estates for Leased Lands and getting rid of Leased Lands, but it being too busy is a good criticism.

One problem with Working Order is that you already have it in your starting deck together with all the Coppers. So, without any effort you generate a lot of Coffers, can still buy the same stuff or even more expensive cards. Then you buy Leased Land, convert all the Coffers to VP, remodel Leased Land and all that is basically guaranteed in every possible Kingdom.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 04:00:47 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 06, 2020, 03:52:38 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 03:41:46 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 06, 2020, 03:34:35 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 03:12:37 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50687139408_244d227072_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50687969262_f307c69b26_b.jpg)

Quote

Leased Land - $3
Victory
1%
-
When you gain this, you may pay up to 3 Coffers for +1% for each Coffer paid.
(Heirloom: Work Order)

Quote

Work Order - $4
Treasure - Heirloom
Choose one: Discard a Treasure card for +2 Coffers; or exchange 1 Coffer for 1 @ to trash a card you have in play or in your hand. Gain a differently named card costing up to $1 more than it.

A victory card that allows you to get additional VP tokens when you gain it at the cost of Coffers. Scales pretty well up to a cost of $6 for 4vp. The heirloom allows you to get Coffers at a generous rate and has a built in remodel effect. The remodel effect was designed to not be a copper trashing effect. To remodel you do need to use a Coffer, and you do get a Debt. That may be excessive so I am thinking of changing that particular exchange. Not sure if everything is at a reasonable power level. Please criticize and give feedback!

For my taste too much is going on. It is too easy to get Coffers with Work order. I would skip the Remodel part. Work Order doesn't look like a Treasure at all.

I was worried the Coffer gain was too generous, but I figured it would be balanced with everyone having it as a Heirloom. I could change it to have an option to discard a Treasure to gain a Coffer.

Getting rid of the remodel effect seems reasonable. I Kinda wanted a way to exchange estates for Leased Lands and getting rid of Leased Lands, but it being too busy is a good criticism.

One problem with Working Order is that you already have it in your starting deck together with all the Coppers. So, without any effort you generate a lot of Coffers, can still buy the same stuff or even more expensive cards. Then you buy Leased Land, convert all the Coffers to VP, remodel Leased Land and all that is basically guaranteed in every possible Kingdom.

Good point. Hmm, I could make it trash the treasure to gain the Coffer. That would make it an effective Copper trasher, but would put a terminal point where you either need to buy more copper to fuel it or you can't produce more coffers with it. That could be a problem as it would promote a small deck from turn 1.

The other option would be to make the exchange rate worse. So make it so you have to discard 2 treasure for 1 Coffer. This would slow down the player that pursues the Leased Land strategy, but I am concerned that would make both cards unimpactful to the game as every other strategy is superior.

Thanks for the feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 06, 2020, 04:12:10 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 04:00:47 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 06, 2020, 03:52:38 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 03:41:46 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 06, 2020, 03:34:35 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 03:12:37 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50687139408_244d227072_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50687969262_f307c69b26_b.jpg)

Quote

Leased Land - $3
Victory
1%
-
When you gain this, you may pay up to 3 Coffers for +1% for each Coffer paid.
(Heirloom: Work Order)

Quote

Work Order - $4
Treasure - Heirloom
Choose one: Discard a Treasure card for +2 Coffers; or exchange 1 Coffer for 1 @ to trash a card you have in play or in your hand. Gain a differently named card costing up to $1 more than it.

A victory card that allows you to get additional VP tokens when you gain it at the cost of Coffers. Scales pretty well up to a cost of $6 for 4vp. The heirloom allows you to get Coffers at a generous rate and has a built in remodel effect. The remodel effect was designed to not be a copper trashing effect. To remodel you do need to use a Coffer, and you do get a Debt. That may be excessive so I am thinking of changing that particular exchange. Not sure if everything is at a reasonable power level. Please criticize and give feedback!

For my taste too much is going on. It is too easy to get Coffers with Work order. I would skip the Remodel part. Work Order doesn't look like a Treasure at all.

I was worried the Coffer gain was too generous, but I figured it would be balanced with everyone having it as a Heirloom. I could change it to have an option to discard a Treasure to gain a Coffer.

Getting rid of the remodel effect seems reasonable. I Kinda wanted a way to exchange estates for Leased Lands and getting rid of Leased Lands, but it being too busy is a good criticism.

One problem with Working Order is that you already have it in your starting deck together with all the Coppers. So, without any effort you generate a lot of Coffers, can still buy the same stuff or even more expensive cards. Then you buy Leased Land, convert all the Coffers to VP, remodel Leased Land and all that is basically guaranteed in every possible Kingdom.

Good point. Hmm, I could make it trash the treasure to gain the Coffer. That would make it an effective Copper trasher, but would put a terminal point where you either need to buy more copper to fuel it or you can't produce more coffers with it. That could be a problem as it would promote a small deck from turn 1.

The other option would be to make the exchange rate worse. So make it so you have to discard 2 treasure for 1 Coffer. This would slow down the player that pursues the Leased Land strategy, but I am concerned that would make both cards unimpactful to the game as every other strategy is superior.

Thanks for the feedback.

Both options look better than the current version. For the second option: Don't forget that the players already have Work Order in their deck. To discard a Copper for +1 Coffers it at worst no change in buying power, but has the potential of more. I also don't think that a $3 cost Victory card with the potential to create VP has no impact.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 04:32:23 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 06, 2020, 04:12:10 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 04:00:47 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 06, 2020, 03:52:38 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 03:41:46 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 06, 2020, 03:34:35 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 06, 2020, 03:12:37 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50687139408_244d227072_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50687969262_f307c69b26_b.jpg)

Quote

Leased Land - $3
Victory
1%
-
When you gain this, you may pay up to 3 Coffers for +1% for each Coffer paid.
(Heirloom: Work Order)

Quote

Work Order - $4
Treasure - Heirloom
Choose one: Discard a Treasure card for +2 Coffers; or exchange 1 Coffer for 1 @ to trash a card you have in play or in your hand. Gain a differently named card costing up to $1 more than it.

A victory card that allows you to get additional VP tokens when you gain it at the cost of Coffers. Scales pretty well up to a cost of $6 for 4vp. The heirloom allows you to get Coffers at a generous rate and has a built in remodel effect. The remodel effect was designed to not be a copper trashing effect. To remodel you do need to use a Coffer, and you do get a Debt. That may be excessive so I am thinking of changing that particular exchange. Not sure if everything is at a reasonable power level. Please criticize and give feedback!

For my taste too much is going on. It is too easy to get Coffers with Work order. I would skip the Remodel part. Work Order doesn't look like a Treasure at all.

I was worried the Coffer gain was too generous, but I figured it would be balanced with everyone having it as a Heirloom. I could change it to have an option to discard a Treasure to gain a Coffer.

Getting rid of the remodel effect seems reasonable. I Kinda wanted a way to exchange estates for Leased Lands and getting rid of Leased Lands, but it being too busy is a good criticism.

One problem with Working Order is that you already have it in your starting deck together with all the Coppers. So, without any effort you generate a lot of Coffers, can still buy the same stuff or even more expensive cards. Then you buy Leased Land, convert all the Coffers to VP, remodel Leased Land and all that is basically guaranteed in every possible Kingdom.

Good point. Hmm, I could make it trash the treasure to gain the Coffer. That would make it an effective Copper trasher, but would put a terminal point where you either need to buy more copper to fuel it or you can't produce more coffers with it. That could be a problem as it would promote a small deck from turn 1.

The other option would be to make the exchange rate worse. So make it so you have to discard 2 treasure for 1 Coffer. This would slow down the player that pursues the Leased Land strategy, but I am concerned that would make both cards unimpactful to the game as every other strategy is superior.

Thanks for the feedback.

Both options look better than the current version. For the second option: Don't forget that the players already have Work Order in their deck. To discard a Copper for +1 Coffers it at worst no change in buying power, but has the potential of more. I also don't think that a $3 cost Victory card with the potential to create VP has no impact.

Yeah, good points. I have changed it to the Discard 2 treasures for 1 Coffer version as I never really approached this design with the intent to have it trash Coppers. Thanks for the feedback.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 06, 2020, 06:43:26 pm

Good job on the critique and the fix; I agree that the new version is much better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 07, 2020, 12:07:03 am

I initially set out to create a Project card that would allow you to modify the ability of cards to give you one type of token instead of another, but then decided it would be more fun as an Action card that could also be an Attack.

The idea here is a card that lets you swap Coffers for VP or vice versa if you want on your turn, but forces other players to do so until your next turn.  I thought about allowing the player who played Trickster to decide whether or not other players should exchange them, but I am concerned this would slow the game down (Edit: Decided to allow the player who played Trickster to decide what happens).  As a result, like Enchantress, this can actually be a fairly weak attack in many cases and could even be beneficial for other players.  It probably works best against cards like Swashbuckler or Butcher.

I really struggled with the wording.  I initially had two separate sentences explaining the effects on your turn and on other players' turns, but there was too much text.  I'm open to any feedback on how to word this better.

EDIT: Revised submission:
I've decided to make a Split pile with Trickster and Fool's Wager.

The wording for Trickster has been simplified, the ability upgraded to provide +2 Coffers instead of +1, and he cost revised to $4. 
Fool's Wager has been revised substantially.  It's no longer an Heirloom, but at the bottom of the split pile.

The problem I was having with Trickster is that the attack is rather weak. Generally speaking, 1 Coffers is probably less valuable than 1 VP.  One alternative would have been to tweak Trickster so that the exchange was not 1:1 or forcing other players to give up gained token.

What I've done instead is to try and make Coffers potentially more valuable, so that this makes you think a bit harder about choosing between VP and Coffers.  That's the rationale behind the new Fool's Wager.  If you have no Coffers, it becomes worthless in your deck. 
If you discard 1 Coffer, it essentially becomes a Copper for that turn.  If you discard 2, it becomes equivalent to a Silver.  Not bad, but probably not worth the effort either.
The real benefit comes from stacking them, so that if you have enough Coffers to discard and play two Fool's Wagers, you would net $8 ($4 from the first FW and $8 from the second FW minus 4 Coffers).  If other players let you buy up all five Fool's Wagers, you could theoretically net $50 if you had a sufficient amount of Coffers and were able to draw all five of them in a single turn.  You don't get extra Buys with Fool's Wager though, so you probably don't want more than a couple in your deck, as tempting as it might be. It has a debt cost, so anyone could buy them.

It's far from perfect.  The balance is probably completely off.  It might be fun.  It needs playtesting.

Split Pile:
(https://i.imgur.com/0px5m6Y.png)(https://i.imgur.com/ADEurTe.png)

Rules clarification: You cannot exchange the Coffers gained by Trickster for a VP, unless you play another Trickster prior to it (or are affected by another player's Trickster).

Quote from: Version History

(https://i.imgur.com/Ra2QDAm.png)-->(https://i.imgur.com/4UxLGM4.png)(https://i.imgur.com/UPuA1H1.png)-->(https://i.imgur.com/ODPjcwA.png)(https://i.imgur.com/GNmC3U4.png)

 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 07, 2020, 03:02:58 am

Quote from: Timinou on December 07, 2020, 12:07:03 am

I initially set out to create a Project card that would allow you to modify the ability of cards to give you one type of token instead of another, but then decided it would be more fun as an Action card that could also be an Attack.

The idea here is a card that lets you swap Coffers for VP or vice versa if you want on your turn, but forces other players to do so until your next turn.  I thought about allowing the player who played Trickster to decide whether or not other players should exchange them, but I am concerned this would slow the game down.  As a result, like Enchantress, this can actually be a fairly weak attack in many cases and could even be beneficial for other players.  It probably works best against cards like Swashbuckler or Butcher.

I really struggled with the wording.  I initially had two separate sentences explaining the effects on your turn and on other players' turns, but there was too much text.  I'm open to any feedback on how to word this better:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ra2QDAm.png)

If I understand the instructions correctly, when other players gain an Action card and with this a Coffers (e.g. Silk Merchant) that they are forced to convert it to a VP token? That could be a good deal for them.
Anyway, more important is that this card is dead in most Kingdoms as there are too few cards that would trigger the effect.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on December 07, 2020, 12:26:07 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50690882992_453e51a410_b.jpg) VS (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50690802216_9a89acf8df_b.jpg)

Quote

Work Order (Current Version) - $2
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
You may discard 2 Treasure cards for +1 Coffers.

VS

Quote

Work Order (Alt Version) - $2
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
You may discard 1 Treasure card to take 1 Debt and +1 Coffers.

So I am thinking of changing Work Order again. See the current state of the cards here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg858623#msg858623). The idea I had was that the effectiveness of Work Order to get you a Coffer here and there drastically goes down as you build up your deck as for the Coffer gain to be reasonable you would need Work Order plus two Coppers or Copper equivalents otherwise the conversion rate would be greater than $2=1 Coffer. The new version that involves Debt includes itself in the conversion so you just need one Copper in hand instead of two. I have not made this change yet, but would greatly appreciate criticisms of my thought process here.

Edit: I decided to change Work Order to the Alt Version on the right. Feedback would still be welcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on December 07, 2020, 01:29:29 pm

You left the cost off of Work Order.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 07, 2020, 01:30:42 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 07, 2020, 03:02:58 am

Quote from: Timinou on December 07, 2020, 12:07:03 am

I initially set out to create a Project card that would allow you to modify the ability of cards to give you one type of token instead of another, but then decided it would be more fun as an Action card that could also be an Attack.

The idea here is a card that lets you swap Coffers for VP or vice versa if you want on your turn, but forces other players to do so until your next turn.  I thought about allowing the player who played Trickster to decide whether or not other players should exchange them, but I am concerned this would slow the game down.  As a result, like Enchantress, this can actually be a fairly weak attack in many cases and could even be beneficial for other players.  It probably works best against cards like Swashbuckler or Butcher.

I really struggled with the wording.  I initially had two separate sentences explaining the effects on your turn and on other players' turns, but there was too much text.  I'm open to any feedback on how to word this better:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ra2QDAm.png)

If I understand the instructions correctly, when other players gain an Action card and with this a Coffers (e.g. Silk Merchant) that they are forced to convert it to a VP token? That could be a good deal for them.

Yes, exactly...and I realize that makes Trickster rather weak as an attack relative to Enchantress.     

Quote

Anyway, more important is that this card is dead in most Kingdoms as there are too few cards that would trigger the effect.

That's a great point and I agree that it's definitely an issue with the original version.  My attempted fix for this is to give Trickster an Heirloom.  It's not the most elegant solution, but I didn't want to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new submission.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 07, 2020, 01:31:46 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 07, 2020, 12:26:07 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50690882992_cdc37db3bd_b.jpg) VS (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50690802216_699c898ac8_b.jpg)

Quote

Work Order (Current Version) - $4
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
You may discard 2 Treasure cards for +1 Coffers.

VS

Quote

Work Order (Alt Version) - $4
Treasure - Heirloom
$1
You may discard 1 Treasure card to take 1 Debt and +1 Coffers.

So I am thinking of changing Work Order again. See the current state of the cards here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg858623#msg858623). The idea I had was that the effectiveness of Work Order to get you a Coffer here and there drastically goes down as you build up your deck as for the Coffer gain to be reasonable you would need Work Order plus two Coppers or Copper equivalents otherwise the conversion rate would be greater than $2=1 Coffer. The new version that involves Debt includes itself in the conversion so you just need one Copper in hand instead of two. I have not made this change yet, but would greatly appreciate criticisms of my thought process here.

Yesterday, after you changed your original version to the version on the left, I first wanted to reply another time to congratulate you for the improvement and even wanted to tell you why that version is not only simpler and more balanced but also much more interesting. Then I thought, well let it as it is without further comments. But now here you have some of my thoughts about the version on the left:

In my opinion this opens a lot of different strategies and decisions depending on the presence of other cards in the Kingdom:

1) Do you have a strong trasher available? And if yes, is it okay to keep a few Treasures around or better not?
2) With Scenario 1) in mind, this further depends on other cards available. How fast and how strong is an engine?
3) Most of the time, players would not go for the discard option in the opening turns, as they could then buy only cards with lower costs. However, there are strong $2 cost cards (e.g. Page and Peasant), and in this way Working Order can discard Treasures without loosing buying power and thus gain the precious Coffers.
4) Now, a lot of times Leased Land will not be gained early in the game, because it is not easy to get the real benefit from it. But later, players may have saved some Coffers, greening is looming soon, and now Leased Land can become really interesting, for VP scoring, for 3-piling (also because of its cheap cost). With that in mind, players may find it a better option to spend the Coffers for something else, or they already have done it. Or maybe not!
5) Are there trash-for-benefit cards/Remodelers around? If yes, this again could change the attractiveness of investing in Leased Land.
In my opinion, the presence or absence of a lot of different (standard) cards already has a lot of impact on how to deal with Working Order and with Leased Land.

That is what I remember from yesterday.

Edit: 6) Just forgot the impact of other cards that produce Coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on December 07, 2020, 02:29:45 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 06, 2020, 12:47:45 am

Quote from: Carline on December 05, 2020, 05:51:51 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/926/full/Faithful.png?1607208597)

(i don't know why card generator doesn't put bold font in the "+1" before Victory symbol)

I assume your code for the +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} is "+1 %." It'll bold the +1 and have a reasonable size for the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} if you use "+1% ".

Also, a terminal action should never have +1 Card as it is a very awkward bonus to give unless you are also giving actions. Maybe try +1 Buy instead?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MiX on December 07, 2020, 02:47:39 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on December 07, 2020, 02:29:45 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 06, 2020, 12:47:45 am

Quote from: Carline on December 05, 2020, 05:51:51 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/926/full/Faithful.png?1607208597)

(i don't know why card generator doesn't put bold font in the "+1" before Victory symbol)

I assume your code for the +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} is "+1 %." It'll bold the +1 and have a reasonable size for the _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} if you use "+1% ".

Also, a terminal action should never have +1 Card as it is a very awkward bonus to give unless you are also giving actions. Maybe try +1 Buy instead?

It does give actions, in the form of villagers. At worst this is a cantrip.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on December 07, 2020, 03:30:01 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on December 07, 2020, 01:29:29 pm

You left the cost off of Work Order.

Thanks! I think I got it fixed everywhere.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread (OT)
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 07, 2020, 09:56:40 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on December 07, 2020, 02:29:45 pm

...a terminal action should never have +1 Card as it is a very awkward bonus to give unless you are also giving actions.
Maybe try +1 Buy instead?

I wish people would remember that this (and other similar "rules") are not rules, but general guidelines that are okay to break (especially in this case where the card provides a way to get Villagers).
It's fine to remind people of these guidelines that generally are more likely to make good cards, but it shouldn't be worded with "should never" in it.
Maybe say "it's usually better not to..."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread (OT)
Post by: LordBaphomet on December 07, 2020, 11:08:50 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 07, 2020, 09:56:40 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on December 07, 2020, 02:29:45 pm

...a terminal action should never have +1 Card as it is a very awkward bonus to give unless you are also giving actions.
Maybe try +1 Buy instead?

I wish people would remember that this (and other similar "rules") are not rules, but general guidelines that are okay to break (especially in this case where the card provides a way to get Villagers).
It's fine to remind people of these guidelines that generally are more likely to make good cards, but it shouldn't be worded with "should never" in it.
Maybe say "it's usually better not to..."

Yes, thank you. I still think that it's just awkward to look at, but if it does provide villagers then its fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 08, 2020, 12:48:01 am

Quote from: LordBaphomet on December 07, 2020, 02:29:45 pm

Also, a terminal action should never have +1 Card as it is a very awkward bonus to give unless you are also giving actions. Maybe try +1 Buy instead?

Quote from: MiX on December 07, 2020, 02:47:39 pm

It does give actions, in the form of villagers. At worst this is a cantrip.

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 07, 2020, 09:56:40 pm

I wish people would remember that this (and other similar "rules") are not rules, but general guidelines that are okay to break (especially in this case where the card provides a way to get Villagers).
It's fine to remind people of these guidelines that generally are more likely to make good cards, but it shouldn't be worded with "should never" in it.
Maybe say "it's usually better not to..."

Quote from: LordBaphomet on December 07, 2020, 11:08:50 pm

Yes, thank you. I still think that it's just awkward to look at, but if it does provide villagers then its fine.

It can even be a Village, if you saved a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} Token from previous playing.

This is the idea, you can convert your Victory Points into money or Actions whenever you need, but you have to try to manage to convert the least possible quantity of them to keep the points. Many times, convert would help you to save your turn, get a good card in the right moment or buy more VPs this turn than you spent in conversion.

The VPs can't be converted into cards, so draw it is a fixed feature of the card. Any time you want to play more Actions after it, it's possible.

I made other image with different art and name to fit my Venus expansion. The card is the same.

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/818/full/Faithful_Knight2.png?1607312131)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 08, 2020, 05:48:05 am

Quote from: Timinou on December 07, 2020, 12:07:03 am

EDIT: Revised submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/4UxLGM4.png)(https://i.imgur.com/UPuA1H1.png)

This is not about whether your cards are balanced or make sense, but about the readability of Trickster, which is painful with all those parentheses. What about:

+1 Coffers If it’s your turn: When you gain or play an Action card giving you VP or Coffers, you may exchange them for an equal number of tokens of the other type. If it is not your turn and another player gains or plays such an Action card they have to exchange the gained tokens for the other type.

Was that the intention of your instructions? It is still quite long, and it still uses some unusual phrases (exchanging tokens), but at least, it is much easier to read.

Edit: I am still not sure whether I fully understand the instructions, but is "if it's your turn" and "if it's not your turn" even necessary? Could it be just "When you..." and later then "when another player..."? Not exactly sure what happens in dependency of who's turn it is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 08, 2020, 09:57:55 am

Quote from: gambit05 on December 08, 2020, 05:48:05 am

Quote from: Timinou on December 07, 2020, 12:07:03 am

EDIT: Revised submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/4UxLGM4.png)(https://i.imgur.com/UPuA1H1.png)

This is not about whether your cards are balanced or make sense, but about the readability of Trickster, which is painful with all those parentheses. What about:

+1 Coffers If it’s your turn: When you gain or play an Action card giving you VP or Coffers, you may exchange them for an equal number of tokens of the other type. If it is not your turn and another player gains or plays such an Action card they have to exchange the gained tokens for the other type.

Was that the intention of your instructions? It is still quite long, and it still uses some unusual phrases (exchanging tokens), but at least, it is much easier to read.

Edit: I am still not sure whether I fully understand the instructions, but is "if it's your turn" and "if it's not your turn" even necessary? Could it be just "When you..." and later then "when another player..."? Not exactly sure what happens in dependency of who's turn it is.

Thanks for the feedback! I agree that the wording was too confusing and it shouldn't necessarily depend on whose turn it is.  I've revised the wording quite a bit, so hopefully it is clearer now.

I've also revised Fool's Wager.  A card that gives you $4 is probably too radical (let alone one that you start with), and I'm not sure it can be properly balanced.  I've changed it to give you $3, similar to Cursed Gold, but instead of gaining a Curse, you lose 1 Coffers or take 4 in debt.   

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 08, 2020, 10:31:28 am

Quote from: Timinou

(https://i.imgur.com/2e4Zmbs.png)(https://i.imgur.com/GNmC3U4.png)

The wording is much better. Now you have some problems with the concept.

1) Most games will only have Trickster as a source of one of the two types of tokens.
2) The Attack means in this case converting Coffers to VP. Not too bad for the opponent in most cases.
3) The connection between Trickster and Fools's Wager looks quite constructed and loose. In the case that my Coffers were all converted to VP tokens, I would still have the option to not play Fool's Wager.

What about skipping Fool's Wager, and include Debt tokens for conversion for Trickster? I wouldn't probably convert all Coffers and/or VP tokens, but just one.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 08, 2020, 10:35:50 am

Preventing you from playing an effectively-silver is a pretty big attack though. I think the card is okay now. I agree it's not super cohesive-feeling.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 08, 2020, 10:39:17 am

Quote from: silverspawn on December 08, 2020, 10:35:50 am

Preventing you from playing an effectively-silver is a pretty big attack though. I think the card is okay now. I agree it's not super cohesive-feeling.

True, but that was only the worst case scenario. If a player manages to keep a few Coffers they will only benefit from later Attacks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on December 08, 2020, 11:04:46 am

Isn't Trickster too political? You can specifically choose which player(s) to attack.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 08, 2020, 11:15:27 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 08, 2020, 11:04:46 am

Isn't Trickster too political? You can specifically choose which player(s) to attack.

You're right - I didn't think of that.  It's not just that you can choose who to attack, but this could actually become a kingmaker by choosing to give a player VP instead of Coffers. 

I'll have to think about how best to modify this.  I appreciate everyone's feedback!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 08, 2020, 12:25:07 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 08, 2020, 11:04:46 am

Isn't Trickster too political? You can specifically choose which player(s) to attack.

I don't think it's political at all. You attack every player, and choose the option that's the most harmful for them. How is that different from spy?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 08, 2020, 12:35:50 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 08, 2020, 12:25:07 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 08, 2020, 11:04:46 am

Isn't Trickster too political? You can specifically choose which player(s) to attack.

I don't think it's political at all. You attack every player, and choose the option that's the most harmful for them. How is that different from spy?

I think the issue is that in some cases the attack isn't much of an attack at all.  I'm thinking of making it so that instead of exchanging for an equal number of tokens of the other type, it would be one less of the other type.  So for example, if someone Tricksters your Trickster, they could choose to let you gain +2 Coffers as normal, or +1 VP instead.   I might also remove the choice element again and make it automatic...I'll have to think about it some more.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 08, 2020, 01:01:51 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 08, 2020, 12:35:50 pm

I think the issue is that in some cases the attack isn't much of an attack at all.

Also true for Spy or Rabble or Torturer or many others.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on December 08, 2020, 02:53:36 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 08, 2020, 12:25:07 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 08, 2020, 11:04:46 am

Isn't Trickster too political? You can specifically choose which player(s) to attack.

I don't think it's political at all. You attack every player, and choose the option that's the most harmful for them. How is that different from spy?

I think you're right that Spy is a good comparison for that point. Maybe the "political" criticism only applies top cards that would force you to choose a player to hurt, and not give the option to hurt all players? I do feel like kingmaking could be an issue here; especially if a newer player is using the card, and then a player who should have won ends up losing because the novice inadvertently (or purposefully?) helped the third player. Still also true with Spy, a novice player may discard a player's Coppers...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 08, 2020, 02:59:14 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 08, 2020, 02:53:36 pm

I think you're right that Spy is a good comparison for that point. Maybe the "political" criticism only applies top cards that would force you to choose a player to hurt, and not give the option to hurt all players?

Yeah, I think that's essentially it. Or even more generally, cards that introduce a tradeoff between [hurting one person] and [something else]. That's not really the case here, you just have separate choices for each player and can optimize them independently, as it is with other attacks that involve a choice.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: TheAgileBeast on December 08, 2020, 04:23:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Wmxb4Wu.png)

Quote

Monolith | Action | $4

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 VP
------------
When you gain this, convert all VP tokens into debt.

Kinda wacky, but seems fun. Can get you pretty reliable VP, but it's more or less going to be a dead card until you've decided you've bought all you're going to get. God help you if you go for a VP token strategy with this when there's a Swindler around.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on December 08, 2020, 05:07:24 pm

Quote from: TheAgileBeast on December 08, 2020, 04:23:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Wmxb4Wu.png)

Quote

Monolith | Action | $4

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 VP
------------
When you gain this, convert all VP tokens into debt.

Kinda wacky, but seems fun. Can get you pretty reliable VP, but it's more or less going to be a dead card until you've decided you've bought all you're going to get. God help you if you go for a VP token strategy with this when there's a Swindler around.

Probably too easy to have the only winning strategy be to play as many of these as you can forever and never end the game.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on December 08, 2020, 05:23:20 pm

Quote from: TheAgileBeast on December 08, 2020, 04:23:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Wmxb4Wu.png)

Quote

Monolith | Action | $4

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 VP
------------
When you gain this, convert all VP tokens into debt.

Kinda wacky, but seems fun. Can get you pretty reliable VP, but it's more or less going to be a dead card until you've decided you've bought all you're going to get. God help you if you go for a VP token strategy with this when there's a Swindler around.

I agree with GendoIkari above me. I think it is still a really interesting idea. Perhaps have it trash a copy of the cheapest Victory card from the supply whenever you play it? This would actually turn it into a card that promotes fast pile-out games. Just the thoughts I had when I saw your idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 09, 2020, 02:16:43 pm

Quote from: TheAgileBeast on December 08, 2020, 04:23:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Wmxb4Wu.png)

Quote

Monolith | Action | $4

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 VP
------------
When you gain this, convert all VP tokens into debt.

Kinda wacky, but seems fun. Can get you pretty reliable VP, but it's more or less going to be a dead card until you've decided you've bought all you're going to get. God help you if you go for a VP token strategy with this when there's a Swindler around.

I have a couple of questions on this:
- Does this convert only the VP tokens of the player who gains the card or everyone's? 
- Exiling this from the supply using Camel Train, Transport, or Invest wouldn't be considered "gaining", right?

In any case, think it's a bit too swingy if the effect is triggered by gaining this during another player's turn through Swindler or Messenger. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 09, 2020, 02:29:58 pm

Quote from: TheAgileBeast on December 08, 2020, 04:23:30 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Wmxb4Wu.png)

Quote

Monolith | Action | $4

+1 Card
+1 Action
+1 VP
------------
When you gain this, convert all VP tokens into debt.

Kinda wacky, but seems fun. Can get you pretty reliable VP, but it's more or less going to be a dead card until you've decided you've bought all you're going to get. God help you if you go for a VP token strategy with this when there's a Swindler around.

I think that this is a decent attempt at nerfing the card that you normally should not do. But I doubt that it is enough. With gainers you will simply not play your Monoliths until you have gained the last one that you want. If your deck can deal with those cards (that are quasi-dead between having gained the first and the last monolith) you are potentially then in the degenerate "I don't buy green but only play Monoliths" zone that will endure until Alice has a large enough VP token advantage over Bob and Charlie and then she will pile out.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 09, 2020, 02:30:23 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 09, 2020, 02:16:43 pm

I have a couple of questions on this:
- Does this convert only the VP tokens of the player who gains the card or everyone's? 
- Exiling this from the supply using Camel Train, Transport, or Invest wouldn't be considered "gaining", right?

Only the player who gains it/yes it wouldn't.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 09, 2020, 04:48:46 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 08, 2020, 10:31:28 am

The wording is much better. Now you have some problems with the concept.

1) Most games will only have Trickster as a source of one of the two types of tokens.

2) The Attack means in this case converting Coffers to VP. Not too bad for the opponent in most cases.

3) The connection between Trickster and Fools's Wager looks quite constructed and loose. In the case that my Coffers were all converted to VP tokens, I would still have the option to not play Fool's Wager.

What about skipping Fool's Wager, and include Debt tokens for conversion for Trickster? I wouldn't probably convert all Coffers and/or VP tokens, but just one.

I've revised both Trickster and Fool's Wager in my original post (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg858661#msg858661).  I think the new versions partially address the issues you've raised, albeit not completely.

With regards to the first point, I don't think I will be able to address this limitation unless I completely reimagine Trickster.  That said, I think this limitation also exists for other types of cards as well (e.g. certain Reaction cards).  The initial idea was to allow for interactions with other cards that give out VP tokens or Coffers, so it's a necessary evil in this case, IMO.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on December 09, 2020, 07:56:46 pm

Greedy Fairy
cost $2 - Action
+2 Buys
Choose one: +1 Coffer; or remove any 2 tokens you have, to duplicate a token you have.


From Heart of Crown.  Covert 2 Coffers to 1vp, or Convert 1 Debt and your -$1 token to 1 Coffer is awesome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 09, 2020, 10:16:26 pm

Quote from: majiponi on December 09, 2020, 07:56:46 pm

Greedy Fairy
cost $2 - Action
+2 Buys
Choose one: +1 Coffer; or remove any 2 tokens you have, to duplicate a token you have.


From Heart of Crown.  Covert 2 Coffers to 1vp, or Convert 1 Debt and your -$1 token to 1 Coffer is awesome.

I think if the Kingdom doesn't have a source of others tokens than Coffers, the second option would be useless;

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 10, 2020, 03:11:43 am

Quote from: Timinou on December 09, 2020, 04:48:46 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 08, 2020, 10:31:28 am

The wording is much better. Now you have some problems with the concept.

1) Most games will only have Trickster as a source of one of the two types of tokens.

2) The Attack means in this case converting Coffers to VP. Not too bad for the opponent in most cases.

3) The connection between Trickster and Fools's Wager looks quite constructed and loose. In the case that my Coffers were all converted to VP tokens, I would still have the option to not play Fool's Wager.

What about skipping Fool's Wager, and include Debt tokens for conversion for Trickster? I wouldn't probably convert all Coffers and/or VP tokens, but just one.

I've revised both Trickster and Fool's Wager in my original post.  I think the new versions partially address the issues you've raised, albeit not completely.

With regards to the first point, I don't think I will be able to address this limitation unless I completely reimagine Trickster.  That said, I think this limitation also exists for other types of cards as well (e.g. certain Reaction cards).  The initial idea was to allow for interactions with other cards that give out VP tokens or Coffers, so it's a necessary evil in this case, IMO.

Pros
The best updates of an original post of a Contest submission I have ever seen. It is easy to follow the history of the changes of the card(s) and which one is the newest version. (It would be helpful when you either include the actual versions in your later posts addressing them or to provide a link; then the interested reader doesn’t have to search for it.)

You acknowledge the artists. Most people here ignore it.

Trickster looks much better than the original version.

Cons
Didn’t you lost the connection of the two cards? It looks like they are now completely independent of each other.

A note to  the limited use
It is true that some cards have a limited use, like a Moat without the presence of Attack cards; Fortress’ special trash immunity without Trashers etc. They still have their limited use without the other cards and the same is true for Trickster, i.e. it would produce Coffers and it can convert them to VP tokens. So, that should be okay. However, to have the intended interaction with other cards, one has to ask how often the other cards are expected to be present in a Kingdom. Attacks and Trashers are relatively frequent, but how many cards use VP tokens or Coffers? Since Trickster ensures that Coffers are available, the card is playable, but the intended fun interaction with other cards might be relatively rare.  This shouldn’t be a problem per se, but keep in mind that this is a contribution to a contest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 10, 2020, 08:25:12 am

Thanks, gambit05!  I've added a link to the original post in the update.  I don't think the two cards are completely independent of each other.  Much like other split pile cards, you don't need one to play the other, but there are some synergies.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 10, 2020, 08:42:10 am

Quote from: Timinou on December 10, 2020, 08:25:12 am

Thanks, gambit05!  I've added a link to the original post in the update.  I don't think the two cards are completely independent of each other.  Much like other split pile cards, you don't need one to play the other, but there are some synergies.

Oh sorry, I totally missed that it is a Split pile now. That is of course a totally different thing and not an issue of being separate cards. (It would have been easier for me if you have mentioned this change in the latest post and not only in the original one hidden in a lot of text, which to be honest I haven't read).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on December 10, 2020, 06:06:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/GHbvX8Z.jpg)

Quote

Trade Union
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Villagers. Once per game: You may remove 7 tokens from your Villagers. If you do, move your +1 Action, +1 Buy, or +$1 token to an Action Supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you first get that bonus.)

Wording per Butcher ("...remove tokens from your...") and Teacher ("...you first get that bonus.")
Spend your villagers to upgrade an Action once per game representing the trade secrets of your union.  It takes 3.5 terminal plays of Trade Union to get to the token (barring spending Villagers or other sources of Villagers) which makes it easier and less flexible than Teacher but harder and more flexible than respective events.  The +Card token is omitted because it is too much better than the others.  You can also just use Trade Union as a repeatable source of Villagers.

Is +2 Villagers good at $2?  I'd probably rather players be able to open with it even on a $5/$2 even if it is a little strong so that token access isn't too big a problem.
Is a 7 token cost enough?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on December 10, 2020, 08:10:42 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 10, 2020, 06:06:13 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/GHbvX8Z.jpg)

Quote

Trade Union
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Villagers. Once per game: You may remove 7 tokens from your Villagers. If you do, move your +1 Action, +1 Buy, or +$1 token to an Action Supply pile. (When you play a card from that pile, you first get that bonus.)

Wording per Butcher ("...remove tokens from your...") and Teacher ("...you first get that bonus.")
Spend your villagers to upgrade an Action once per game representing the trade secrets of your union.  It takes 3.5 terminal plays of Trade Union to get to the token (barring spending Villagers or other sources of Villagers) which makes it easier and less flexible than Teacher but harder and more flexible than respective events.  The +Card token is omitted because it is too much better than the others.  You can also just use Trade Union as a repeatable source of Villagers.

Is +2 Villagers good at $2?  I'd probably rather players be able to open with it even on a $5/$2 even if it is a little strong so that token access isn't too big a problem.
Is a 7 token cost enough?

The "Once Per Game" may not make sense with an action card, as tracking would be hard. Maybe make a "Trade union token" similar to the journey token, or add "set this aside, while this is set aside, you may not use Trade unions for anything but +2 villagers"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on December 11, 2020, 01:24:06 am

(https://i.ibb.co/FnjL8Pt/image.png) (https://bit.ly/341XktA)

Quote

Commune
Project - D6
Whenever you would get a Coffer, get a Villager instead.
At Cleanup, if you have spare Actions left, +1 Villager.
At the end of the game, +1VP for each two Villagers you have, rounded down.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 05:39:17 am

hi everyone! ive never used dominion strategy forums before, but the WDC is really cool.
here is the card im considering as my submission for this weeks contest
(https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=8fd532c0d0&attid=0.1.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1685777325226778381&th=1765158bb08cdf0d&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ_-ZmODgG4CPnmG1GMDT9le0dbiI8y-exhgac93uPvpeOVMRe9OB8LNxLOnN2Nj11ThMMFeFgYp6wWWKyBpDNUjdKCeVOlB87fNUU7WgrYrK4o1A6Yq8JWEH9M&disp=emb)

hope im doing it right

(also i know the colors are wrong, but ill fix that in a future ittiration)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 11, 2020, 05:46:29 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 05:39:17 am

hi everyone! ive never used dominion strategy forums before, but the WDC is really cool.
here is the card im considering as my submission for this weeks contest
(https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=8fd532c0d0&attid=0.1.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1685777325226778381&th=1765158bb08cdf0d&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ_-ZmODgG4CPnmG1GMDT9le0dbiI8y-exhgac93uPvpeOVMRe9OB8LNxLOnN2Nj11ThMMFeFgYp6wWWKyBpDNUjdKCeVOlB87fNUU7WgrYrK4o1A6Yq8JWEH9M&disp=emb)

hope im doing it right

(also i know the colors are wrong, but ill fix that in a future ittiration)

heya!
welcome to the forum!
this isnt showing up for me, you might want to try using a host like imgur. Looks like youve got the syntax pretty much right though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 11, 2020, 06:21:29 am

I think the problem isn't how you embedded the image or that you didn't use a host, but that you copied the wrong link. Get to a point where you can rightclick -> copy image location on the picture. Then use that link.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 07:09:58 am

weird. i tried using imgr, doesnt work their either

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 11, 2020, 07:28:13 am

I don't think it's the hosting service, but just in case, https://imgbb.com/ definitely works and is super easy to use.

Drag the image in; click upload; then once it's done left click on the picture, then right click -> copy image location. That's the right link.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 07:32:09 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 05:39:17 am

hi everyone! ive never used dominion strategy forums before, but the WDC is really cool.
here is the card im considering as my submission for this weeks contest
(https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=8fd532c0d0&attid=0.1.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1685777325226778381&th=1765158bb08cdf0d&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ_-ZmODgG4CPnmG1GMDT9le0dbiI8y-exhgac93uPvpeOVMRe9OB8LNxLOnN2Nj11ThMMFeFgYp6wWWKyBpDNUjdKCeVOlB87fNUU7WgrYrK4o1A6Yq8JWEH9M&disp=emb)

hope im doing it right

(also i know the colors are wrong, but ill fix that in a future ittiration)

(https://i.imgur.com/6f46YaL.png)

does this work?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 07:57:16 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 07:32:09 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 05:39:17 am

hi everyone! ive never used dominion strategy forums before, but the WDC is really cool.
here is the card im considering as my submission for this weeks contest
(https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=8fd532c0d0&attid=0.1.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1685777325226778381&th=1765158bb08cdf0d&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ_-ZmODgG4CPnmG1GMDT9le0dbiI8y-exhgac93uPvpeOVMRe9OB8LNxLOnN2Nj11ThMMFeFgYp6wWWKyBpDNUjdKCeVOlB87fNUU7WgrYrK4o1A6Yq8JWEH9M&disp=emb)

hope im doing it right

(also i know the colors are wrong, but ill fix that in a future ittiration)

(https://i.imgur.com/6f46YaL.png)

does this work?

an alternate fireplace design suggested by Funfighter that i like
(https://i.imgur.com/yzvqhNg.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 11, 2020, 07:59:21 am

Yes. Now if you add " width=250" into your image tag, it also gets scaled appropriately. Like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/6f46YaL.png)

You can see how other people formatted their posts by clicking on the "Quote" button on the top right; that gives you their source code.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 11, 2020, 08:09:02 am

This looks too strong. A cantrip Villager village is already strong for $4 and with an extra Villager instead of the Action plus the reaction this is pushed too deeply into $4.5 territory.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 11, 2020, 08:56:30 am

The first card is busted for sure. The second may be reasonable, though.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 11, 2020, 10:24:33 am

24 hour warning!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on December 11, 2020, 08:53:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/gDVJE6L.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 03:53:37 am

Quote from: D782802859 on December 11, 2020, 08:53:05 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/gDVJE6L.png)

May I suggest a simpler wording?
Well, I am not waiting for an answer. So here it is:

Quote

+1 Action
Take up to 4 Debt to draw an equal
number of cards. This turn, …

Or: … to draw that many cards. This turn...

It is functionally the same, except that drawing 1 Card for 1 Debt is included as an option.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 12, 2020, 04:02:42 am

Quote from: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 03:53:37 am

May I suggest a simpler wording?
Well, I am not waiting for an answer. So here it is:

Quote

+1 Action
Take up to 4 Debt to draw an equal
number of cards. This turn, …

Or: … to draw that many cards. This turn...

It is functionally the same, except that drawing 1 Card for 1 Debt is included as an option.

This, however, doesn't interact with the -1 card token in the same way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 12, 2020, 04:06:42 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 07:57:16 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 07:32:09 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 05:39:17 am

hi everyone! ive never used dominion strategy forums before, but the WDC is really cool.
here is the card im considering as my submission for this weeks contest
(https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=8fd532c0d0&attid=0.1.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1685777325226778381&th=1765158bb08cdf0d&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ_-ZmODgG4CPnmG1GMDT9le0dbiI8y-exhgac93uPvpeOVMRe9OB8LNxLOnN2Nj11ThMMFeFgYp6wWWKyBpDNUjdKCeVOlB87fNUU7WgrYrK4o1A6Yq8JWEH9M&disp=emb)

hope im doing it right

(also i know the colors are wrong, but ill fix that in a future ittiration)

width=250 (https://i.imgur.com/6f46YaL.png)

does this work?

an alternate fireplace design suggested by Funfighter that i like
width 250 (https://i.imgur.com/yzvqhNg.png)

newest itteration width=250 (https://i.imgur.com/fhSZI8M.png)

i think this will by my submission unless i post another version

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 05:01:20 am

Quote from: faust on December 12, 2020, 04:02:42 am

Quote from: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 03:53:37 am

May I suggest a simpler wording?
Well, I am not waiting for an answer. So here it is:

Quote

+1 Action
Take up to 4 Debt to draw an equal
number of cards. This turn, …

Or: … to draw that many cards. This turn...

It is functionally the same, except that drawing 1 Card for 1 Debt is included as an option.

This, however, doesn't interact with the -1 card token in the same way.

I can't see the difference. What is it?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 12, 2020, 05:05:59 am

Quote from: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 05:01:20 am

Quote from: faust on December 12, 2020, 04:02:42 am

Quote from: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 03:53:37 am

May I suggest a simpler wording?
Well, I am not waiting for an answer. So here it is:

Quote

+1 Action
Take up to 4 Debt to draw an equal
number of cards. This turn, …

Or: … to draw that many cards. This turn...

It is functionally the same, except that drawing 1 Card for 1 Debt is included as an option.

This, however, doesn't interact with the -1 card token in the same way.

I can't see the difference. What is it?

The current version counts the cards you actually drew. So if you have the token, choose the +2 cards option, only draw one card - then you will only take one Debt, whereas your version would have you end up with 2 debt.

There is also a difference in interaction with Way of the Chameleon, I suppose.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 05:20:33 am

Quote from: faust on December 12, 2020, 05:05:59 am

Quote from: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 05:01:20 am

Quote from: faust on December 12, 2020, 04:02:42 am

Quote from: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 03:53:37 am

May I suggest a simpler wording?
Well, I am not waiting for an answer. So here it is:

Quote

+1 Action
Take up to 4 Debt to draw an equal
number of cards. This turn, …

Or: … to draw that many cards. This turn...

It is functionally the same, except that drawing 1 Card for 1 Debt is included as an option.

This, however, doesn't interact with the -1 card token in the same way.

I can't see the difference. What is it?

The current version counts the cards you actually drew. So if you have the token, choose the +2 cards option, only draw one card - then you will only take one Debt, whereas your version would have you end up with 2 debt.

There is also a difference in interaction with Way of the Chameleon, I suppose.

I am not sure I understand. When a player chooses +2 Cards, they draw 2 cards and take 2 Debt. If they cannot draw 2 cards, because there are not enough cards left to draw, then they draw 1 card and take 1 Debt.
But with my version, who would take 2 Debt, if they can only draw 1 Card?
I am sure I am missing something...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 05:25:29 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 12, 2020, 04:06:42 am

newest itteration width=250 (https://i.imgur.com/fhSZI8M.png)

i think this will by my submission unless i post another version

You have to put the width=250 like this: [img width=250]

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 12, 2020, 06:30:45 am

Quote from: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 05:20:33 am

Quote from: faust on December 12, 2020, 05:05:59 am

Quote from: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 05:01:20 am

Quote from: faust on December 12, 2020, 04:02:42 am

Quote from: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 03:53:37 am

May I suggest a simpler wording?
Well, I am not waiting for an answer. So here it is:

Quote

+1 Action
Take up to 4 Debt to draw an equal
number of cards. This turn, …

Or: … to draw that many cards. This turn...

It is functionally the same, except that drawing 1 Card for 1 Debt is included as an option.

This, however, doesn't interact with the -1 card token in the same way.

I can't see the difference. What is it?

The current version counts the cards you actually drew. So if you have the token, choose the +2 cards option, only draw one card - then you will only take one Debt, whereas your version would have you end up with 2 debt.

There is also a difference in interaction with Way of the Chameleon, I suppose.

I am not sure I understand. When a player chooses +2 Cards, they draw 2 cards and take 2 Debt. If they cannot draw 2 cards, because there are not enough cards left to draw, then they draw 1 card and take 1 Debt.
But with my version, who would take 2 Debt, if they can only draw 1 Card?
I am sure I am missing something...

With the original version: Player chooses to draw n cards. Because of the -1 Card token, player only draws n - 1 cards, and as a result, takes n - 1 debt.
With your suggested version: Player chooses to take n debt. Because of the -1 Card token, player only draws n - 1 cards, but still takes n debt.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 12, 2020, 06:48:13 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 12, 2020, 04:06:42 am

newest itteration (https://i.imgur.com/fhSZI8M.png)

i think this will by my submission unless i post another version

I like the idea, but I think it could use better wording. As it is, it seems like the "other than from Fireplace's reaction" and "You may react with multiple fireplaces" parts contradict each other.

Also, I think it needs to be set aside instead of discarded because if you're drawing your deck it can be really strong even for $5. Tell me if I'm reading this right: I play one Fireplace for +2 Villagers and +1 Card. Then discard another Fireplace to get +4 Coffers instead of the 2 Villagers, and another +1 Card. Then I can draw and play the discarded Fireplace later in the turn.

So here's my suggestion for the reaction: "When you would take Coffers or Villagers other than from Fireplace's reaction, you may set this aside from your hand for +1 Card and instead take twice the amount of either token. If you do, discard this at the start of clean-up."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 06:59:07 am

Quote from: Gubump on December 12, 2020, 06:30:45 am

Quote from: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 05:20:33 am

Quote from: faust on December 12, 2020, 05:05:59 am

Quote from: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 05:01:20 am

Quote from: faust on December 12, 2020, 04:02:42 am

Quote from: gambit05 on December 12, 2020, 03:53:37 am

May I suggest a simpler wording?
Well, I am not waiting for an answer. So here it is:

Quote

+1 Action
Take up to 4 Debt to draw an equal
number of cards. This turn, …

Or: … to draw that many cards. This turn...

It is functionally the same, except that drawing 1 Card for 1 Debt is included as an option.

This, however, doesn't interact with the -1 card token in the same way.

I can't see the difference. What is it?

The current version counts the cards you actually drew. So if you have the token, choose the +2 cards option, only draw one card - then you will only take one Debt, whereas your version would have you end up with 2 debt.

There is also a difference in interaction with Way of the Chameleon, I suppose.

I am not sure I understand. When a player chooses +2 Cards, they draw 2 cards and take 2 Debt. If they cannot draw 2 cards, because there are not enough cards left to draw, then they draw 1 card and take 1 Debt.
But with my version, who would take 2 Debt, if they can only draw 1 Card?
I am sure I am missing something...

With the original version: Player chooses to draw n cards. Because of the -1 Card token, player only draws n - 1 cards, and as a result, takes n - 1 debt.
With your suggested version: Player chooses to take n debt. Because of the -1 Card token, player only draws n - 1 cards, but still takes n debt.

That was helpful. I got it now. It is relevant for the next Penance played. Many thanks!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 12, 2020, 08:02:26 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 07:57:16 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 07:32:09 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 05:39:17 am

hi everyone! ive never used dominion strategy forums before, but the WDC is really cool.
here is the card im considering as my submission for this weeks contest
(https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=8fd532c0d0&attid=0.1.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1685777325226778381&th=1765158bb08cdf0d&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ_-ZmODgG4CPnmG1GMDT9le0dbiI8y-exhgac93uPvpeOVMRe9OB8LNxLOnN2Nj11ThMMFeFgYp6wWWKyBpDNUjdKCeVOlB87fNUU7WgrYrK4o1A6Yq8JWEH9M&disp=emb)

hope im doing it right

(also i know the colors are wrong, but ill fix that in a future ittiration)

(https://i.imgur.com/6f46YaL.png)

does this work?

an alternate fireplace design suggested by Funfighter that i like
(https://i.imgur.com/yzvqhNg.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 12, 2020, 10:19:28 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 12, 2020, 06:48:13 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 12, 2020, 04:06:42 am

newest itteration (https://i.imgur.com/fhSZI8M.png)

i think this will by my submission unless i post another version

I like the idea, but I think it could use better wording. As it is, it seems like the "other than from Fireplace's reaction" and "You may react with multiple fireplaces" parts contradict each other.

Also, I think it needs to be set aside instead of discarded because if you're drawing your deck it can be really strong even for $5. Tell me if I'm reading this right: I play one Fireplace for +2 Villagers and +1 Card. Then discard another Fireplace to get +4 Coffers instead of the 2 Villagers, and another +1 Card. Then I can draw and play the discarded Fireplace later in the turn.

So here's my suggestion for the reaction: "When you would take Coffers or Villagers other than from Fireplace's reaction, you may set this aside from your hand for +1 Card and instead take twice the amount of either token. If you do, discard this at the start of clean-up."

you undertood it right. i made another version of the card i think im settling on

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 12, 2020, 10:20:57 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 12, 2020, 08:02:26 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 07:57:16 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 07:32:09 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 11, 2020, 05:39:17 am

hi everyone! ive never used dominion strategy forums before, but the WDC is really cool.
here is the card im considering as my submission for this weeks contest
(https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=8fd532c0d0&attid=0.1.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1685777325226778381&th=1765158bb08cdf0d&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ_-ZmODgG4CPnmG1GMDT9le0dbiI8y-exhgac93uPvpeOVMRe9OB8LNxLOnN2Nj11ThMMFeFgYp6wWWKyBpDNUjdKCeVOlB87fNUU7WgrYrK4o1A6Yq8JWEH9M&disp=emb)

hope im doing it right

(also i know the colors are wrong, but ill fix that in a future ittiration)

(https://i.imgur.com/6f46YaL.png)

does this work?

an alternate fireplace design suggested by Funfighter that i like
(https://i.imgur.com/yzvqhNg.png)

i think i'm settling for this version, version 8.0. so this is my submission

(https://i.imgur.com/LYj86Lj.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 12, 2020, 11:05:23 am

I think that card is reasonable.

However, formatting-wise, Villager and Action should be non-plural, and there should be less space after the vanilla boni.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 12, 2020, 11:51:33 am

The results

Here come my thoughts on the cards, ordered alphabetically by designer. I think I may have been a bit critical overall, please don't take that to mean that I didn't like your submission. I just try to provide helpful feedback. (https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/f6c87roh.png) Shoemaker - anordinaryman Right away I like the setup rule and how it mirrors Baker. Adding a Villager at the start is a subtle but impactful change, as it makes double terminal openings much more viable. The card itself is very situational, but then that is fine for a $2. It works with other Coffers, with draw-to-X, and cards that care about discarding, I think these are enough scenarios in which it can be good. (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/818/full/Faithful_Knight2.png?1607312131) Faithful Knight - Carline A simple and maybe a bit obvious card to make here. I am not 100% sure whether you can get both Coffers and Villagers from a single play of this - it seems that way though. I think I would rather have you get just one type of token back on a single play, this would encourage getting more than 1 copy of this. Overall, I think this is solid. It can always be a cantrip and is otherwise quite situational, but it allows for some fun plays. I do wonder a bit whether "convert any number of tokens" would not work better as an Event, but this card goes some way towards making me think otherwise. (https://i.imgur.com/gDVJE6L.png) Penance - D782802859 I don't know that this needs a "you may". The existing card that seems the most similar to this is Storyteller, so that will be my comparison. This also provides draw in exchange for buying power. With Storyteller, you get one extra card compared to this, but you need to already be able to generate the $. The -1 card token thing seems a little bit fiddly and easy to forget, not sure it needs to be there, there could be another penalty. of course I understand that then it would no longer qualify for this contest, but leaving a card design suboptimal just to meet some random criteria isn't a good call. Otherwise I think it's a nice and probably balanced variant on Storyteller. (https://i.imgur.com/LYj86Lj.png) Fireplace - fika monster Discarding a Fireplace gives +2 tokens of a kind, which is usually weaker than its cost (+2 Villagers is a $2, +2 Coffers is a $4, roughly). That's fine, since open discarding it's also nonterminal. and it does the swapping, which is quite neat. Overall I think this is a solid design; I worry a little bit about Villager spam as that takes some complexity out of the game, but I think the reaction can be quite fun even when it only reacts to itself. Good job on the first submission! (https://i.imgur.com/GHbvX8Z.jpg) Trade Union - Fragasnap I think +2 Villagers for $2 is fairly good. Usually Villages that don't draw are hard, but with this you are not required to play it before your draw card, so that makes it better. The "once per game" on an Action is a bit confusing as it's unclear whether it's once per copy of this or once in total (I assume the latter). I'm not sure about the token adding, it seems probably balanced, but somehow I am not excited for it. I guess having to slog through a couple of bad turns for the later benefit doesn't excite me. (https://i.ibb.co/cDYhkXK/Hostage.png) Hostage - gambit05 This is a neat little one-shot, but I am not quite happy with the power level. I think it is best compared to Experiment. Compared to that, this one clumps the draw together (which I'd say is usually better), costs $1 more, gives you an extra Coffers and if you don't need it to be nonterminal gives you another token of choice on top. So I feel like overall, it compares a bit too favorably. (https://i.ibb.co/FnjL8Pt/image.png) Commune - grep I feel like this has a bit much going on. Swap all Coffers for Villagers, okay, interesting concept for a project. Then a Villager Pageant, that's kind of neat but I'm not sure why these things are slapped together. And finally a scoring thing, that I think is supposed to make the conversion more viable... I don't know, I feel like a project should do a specific thing and this is a bit all over the place, I suppose to make it relevant on more boards. And also, why does it cost Debt? I don't really see a reason for that. And balance-wise, I think this is just going to completely warp the game on the right boards, say with Recruiter or Merchant Guild. That can be interesting, but I just wish it was a little more focused. Quote Greedy Fairy cost $2 - Action +2 Buys Choose one: +1 Coffer; or remove any 2 tokens you have, to duplicate a token you have. Greedy Fairy - majiponi I think the design is solid. There are some wording peculiarities with "any token you have": At the start of the game, when you did not place your +1 card token, do you "have" it? And what does it mean to remove it then? Do you "have" your Journey token? These cases should probably be excluded. And do you "have" your -1 card token when it's on top of your deck? While this needs further clarfication, the card is fine otherwise. +2 buys, +$1 is an option for Squire, and this is better than that, so even without other tokens it's going to be worth it. I am not sure how often you'll want to trade 2 tokens for one, especially at the cost of a weak terminal though, so I'm not sure the second option is going to see all that much use even when other tokens are available. Quote Heist Map Treasure - $3 +$2, +<1>, +1 Buy You may return this to its pile to pay all of your <_>. +1 Coffers per <_> you paid.         Heist Map -- NoMoreFun This seems to be, in effect, a mix of Fool's Gold and Stockpile - you can play lots of them in a turn in order to get +$2, +1 Coffers, +1 buy each, but have to return one. It seems a bit strong - considering that the final Heist Map you play already finances itself. I think some numbers tweaking would be required to make this work. I'm also unsure about the use of Coffers here; I understand that was necessary to meet the criteria for the contest, but I'm wondering whether this might not be better off providing +$ per <_>. And yeah, the interaction with Mountain Pass is completely broken. I don't usually complain too much about 2-card combos, but this just makes the game unplayable when both are in a Kingdom. (https://i.ibb.co/qn1YLcv/Temple-Garden.png) Temple Garden - silverspawn This one sure got a bunch of upvotes, and I can definitely see the appeal. It's neat, it makes you wonder whether it's not too powerful only to then concluse that it's probably fine, which is admirable design. I liked this one a lot upon first reading. now comes the bad stuff, of course. I thought about how this is actually going to play out, and there are two major issues. the first: if you have lots of draw and hardly ever make use to the conversion - it makes a Stockpiling strategy very viable, where you don't buy any Victory cards until the very last turn. It's not quite a megaturn deck, more like a Golden Deck, since you can play pretty much the same every turn until you pull the trigger. And it think by also being a card that you want lots of anyways, it makes these sorts of strategies a bit too viable. The second problem I see is less on the strategic and more on the tactical side: it is going to be hard to decide what you want to do for the conversion. You need constant awareness of your deck and how likely you are to draw what you need, and since you are playing a bunch of these, I worry about intense analysis paralysis. (https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5fcbd82320c7997b34ef92ea/148290849ce94d9973cec5cb5bd9fd02/image.png) (https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5fcbd82320c7997b34ef92ea/14678f1c753da4b23b5c7323917bd45a/image.png)    Cadet/Bosun-- spineflu Disregarding Bosun completely, Cadet allows for instant Exile of Victory cards, I don't think that is a fun mechanic (and too powerful for a $3 cost). I would suggest adding a non-Victory clause. I feel like you would usually just use Cadet to load Coppers onto your Caravel mat, and put one card there that you want to play lots of. Would be more interesting if Bosun only counted differently named cards on the Caravel mat. Bosun is very strong - it's baseline is play the set aside action three times, which is like King's Court-level strong (though you cannot Bosun a Bosun). I big issue is that getting one Bosun quickly snowballs, as the 3 Coffers lead you to quickly pick up more Bosuns. (https://i.imgur.com/Wmxb4Wu.png) Monolith - TheAgileBeast I am assuming the text should read "convert all your VP tokens into debt", otherwise it would be quite the devastating attack. I think the nerf used here is interesting, but the card will lead to a rush too frequently, leaving one player with a strong advantage but a lot of game still to play, especially with Workshop variants. It might be worthwile to explore a version of this that runs out and returns itself to the supply at some point. (https://i.imgur.com/0px5m6Y.png) (https://i.imgur.com/ADEurTe.png) Trickster/Fool's Wager - Timinou It's an interesting design space to explore for an attack, as things don't really mess with tokens so far. I think +2 Coffers at $4 is already quite decent value, so it doesn't matter that the attack isn't super powerful. What I'm more worried about is the number of decisions this creates. Every time an opponent, or you yourself play Chariot Race, you have to make a call of whether they would benefit more from VP or from Coffers. I would suggest either trying to get rid of the choices, or to make a single choice that affects the tokens they already have. For Fool's Wager, I think the wording could be improved, get rid of the "when you play this" and maybe set aside tokens and remove them at the end of the turn in order to make tracking easier. This can be quite powerful, but is limited by being on the bottom of a split pile and there only being 5 copies. I think it's a decent design (and it works with Trickster's attack). (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50687139408_244d227072_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50690802216_9a89acf8df_b.jpg) Leased Land/Work Order - Xen3k Work Order seems nerfed a little bit too much I feel, not sure you need the Debt. The Coffers gain is rarely worth it now. And in situations where it will be worth it, it can be quite swingy (3/4 opening with Work Order in the first hand). Leased Land is interesting, it's roundabout like a Duchy+ if you have the Coffers. And it interacts nicely with Workshop variants as the Coffers conversion is on gain rather than on buy. But if Work Order is the only source of Coffers, effectively you pay $2 for 1 Coffers, making the effective price for Leased Land much higher. So my thoughts are: Drop the Debt from Work Order and you have a quite interesting submission. As it stands, it's all a little bit too situational. (https://i.postimg.cc/3R1y7WBq/Settlement-v2.png) Settlement -- X-tra This is a fairly simple concept, and there is value in that already. It can work on its own, but it gets particularly powerful with more VP token generators. My only complaint would be that it's a bit automatic, i.e. you almost always want to do the conversion, especially when you have a steady supply of tokens -  2 Coffers are just better than 1 VP (2 Coffers are 1/4 Province and thus 2 VP, put crudely).

Runners-up:
Settlement by X-tra
Fireplace by fika monster
Faithful Knight by Carline

Winner:
Shoemaker by anordinaryman

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 12, 2020, 12:26:49 pm

Quote from: faust on December 12, 2020, 11:51:33 am

now comes the bad stuff, of course. I thought about how this is actually going to play out, and there are two major issues. the first: if you have lots of draw and hardly ever make use to the conversion - it makes a Stockpiling strategy very viable, where you don't buy any Victory cards until the very last turn. It's not quite a megaturn deck, more like a Golden Deck, since you can play pretty much the same every turn until you pull the trigger. And it think by also being a card that you want lots of anyways, it makes these sorts of strategies a bit too viable.

The second problem I see is less on the strategic and more on the tactical side: it is going to be hard to decide what you want to do for the conversion. You need constant awareness of your deck and how likely you are to draw what you need

Hm, I agree with both of those, but they both sound like good things to me, especially the second. But I totally grant you that it's a matter of taste.

Congrats anordinaryman!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on December 12, 2020, 02:14:49 pm

Awesome judging! And in time too, unlike a certain someone (*angrily stares in a mirror*  :-[)...

This contest was pretty tough. But I'm glad people pulled through and submitted awesome ideas nonetheless. 'Grats to Anordinaryman for the win! And oh, I did like Temple Garden a lot, Silverspawn. :)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 12, 2020, 03:35:28 pm

Thanks for the nod, faust! I thought there were a lot of great submissions, and I'm honored you liked mine!

Contest #98: Feeling sideways
Some mechanics that originally felt wild and exotic became "normal" as we got used to them. For example, Durations and Events freely appear in expansions -- they seem almost as standard as Action cards now! Let's imagine a hypothetical world where all the sideways cards were introduced earlier on (say in the original Game), such that they are a standard "part of Dominion."

Design an Event, Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way for an existing expansion that does not currently have that type of sideways card in it.

Judging Criteria for the card-shaped thing:

• It is well-balanced and fun.
• It "fits" the expansion well. Acknowledging the main-theme and perhaps sub-themes for the expansion. For example, Seaside has sub-themes of top-of deck, your later turns, mats, condition gold-gaining, and more.
• It "fits" Dominion well -- following the design principles of Donald X.
• There is a meaningful reason for it to be that particularly side-wise card-shaped thing.

Submission Guidelines:

• It will help me if you provide a brief explanation on why your card fits well in the expansion you designed it for
• Please submit an image of your card as the first thing in a post. You do not need card art. It is easy for me to miss quoted text -- it is harder for me to miss images. If you want to comment on other people's cards in the same post as a submission (or updated submission), please put this after your submission in that same post.
• Please edit submissions by writing a new post.

Some Rule Clarifications:
* You may design a card-shaped thing that comes with a non-sidewise actual card. (An event that you buy that gives out a card, or a card that can come with artifacts or give out states, etc).
* You may design a card-shaped thing for an expansion that has different kinds of card-shaped things. For example, you could design a State for Adventures (although make sure it wouldn't be better implemented with the tokens mechanic)
* You may design a card-shaped thing for an expansion that comes with different card-shaped things that are already in that expansion. (You may design an Event for Adventures that when purchased gives a State out).
* You may consider Cornucopia and Guilds to be the same expansion if you want to design for that since they are now sold together.
* Sideways is meant literally. You are primarily designing a card-shaped thing (Event, Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 12, 2020, 03:58:52 pm

To make sure I understand, the task is to design a card that (a) belongs to a particular expansion, and (b) is on-theme but off-mechanic for that expansion? So a sifting duration card for hinterlands, or a variety-encouraging way for Cornucopia?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 12, 2020, 04:57:28 pm

what are the core design principles that Donald has for dominions? as much as i love Secret history of dominion, i would prefer to not reread all of them

also, is there any list of the subthemes for every expansion?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 12, 2020, 05:07:07 pm

Quote from: fika monster on December 12, 2020, 04:57:28 pm

what are the core design principles that Donald has for dominions? as much as i love Secret history of dominion, i would prefer to not reread all of them

also, is there any list of the subthemes for every expansion?

Use the wiki to look up expansion themes. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Main_Page)

Design Principles, on top of my head, no political cards, no long choices on attacks (so Rabble rather than Spy), attacks should produce resources (no Sea Hag), cards should never require specific other mechanics to make sense, no terminal +1 card, and aim for simplicity whenever possible. There are probably others I've missed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on December 12, 2020, 05:12:18 pm

Are sideway cards that require other sideway cards (both of which are not from that expansion) allowed?

e.g. an Event with an Artifact for, say, Alchemy

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grrgrrgrr on December 12, 2020, 05:14:43 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 12, 2020, 03:58:52 pm

To make sure I understand, the task is to design a card that (a) belongs to a particular expansion, and (b) is on-theme but off-mechanic for that expansion? So a sifting duration card for hinterlands, or a variety-encouraging way for Cornucopia?

If I understand correctly, it is...

- An Event, Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way for one of the pre-Advantures expansions
- A Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way for Adventures
- A State, Project, Artifact, or Way for Empires
- An Event, Landmark, Project, Artifact (*), or Way for Nocturne
- An Event, Landmark, State (*), or Way for Renaissance
- A Landmark, State, Project or Artifact for Menagerie

(*) States and Artifacts are functionally similar, so not sure how that counts for Nocturne or Renaissance.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 12, 2020, 05:34:26 pm

Ah, 'sideways' is meant literally. That makes sense. It read it as a standin for 'weird'.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 12, 2020, 05:53:01 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on December 12, 2020, 05:14:43 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 12, 2020, 03:58:52 pm

To make sure I understand, the task is to design a card that (a) belongs to a particular expansion, and (b) is on-theme but off-mechanic for that expansion? So a sifting duration card for hinterlands, or a variety-encouraging way for Cornucopia?

If I understand correctly, it is...

- An Event, Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way for one of the pre-Advantures expansions
- A Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way for Adventures
- A State, Project, Artifact, or Way for Empires
- An Event, Landmark, Project, Artifact (*), or Way for Nocturne
- An Event, Landmark, State (*), or Way for Renaissance
- A Landmark, State, Project or Artifact for Menagerie

(*) States and Artifacts are functionally similar, so not sure how that counts for Nocturne or Renaissance.

Yes! My apologies for not making it clear. Thank you grrgrrgrr for the clarification. Both asterisk'ed cases are allowed. You can do States and Artifacts for Renaisance/Nocturne. If you do, make sure that it really makes sense that the card be a state and not and artifact and vice versa.

Quote from: silverspawn on December 12, 2020, 05:07:07 pm

Quote from: fika monster on December 12, 2020, 04:57:28 pm

what are the core design principles that Donald has for dominions? as much as i love Secret history of dominion, i would prefer to not reread all of them

also, is there any list of the subthemes for every expansion?

Use the wiki to look up expansion themes. (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Main_Page)

Design Principles, on top of my head, no political cards, no long choices on attacks (so Rabble rather than Spy), attacks should produce resources (no Sea Hag), cards should never require specific other mechanics to make sense, no terminal +1 card, and aim for simplicity whenever possible. There are probably others I've missed.

Some of those can be violated, but they are good guidelines. I'd say political is a super strong guideline. I'd also add on
ards with massive amounts of text (like two more lines than any published card), Cards that are "strictly" better than another card, Cards that use some thing outside of the state of the game to determine things (a role of dice, physical dexterity, etc). None of those are likely to show up on actual dominion cards. There are cards that are fun fan designs that violate those rules, but they aren't Dominion-y.

The reason I wrote that rule is because I implicitly judge cards to fit in Dominion, and I wanted to explicit about that to be fair. If you design a super fun and balanced political card, it will not win this contest. Honestly, don't overthink this criteria, most fan submissions easily fit in easily.

As far as a list of sub-themes for expansions, an easy way to know is if your card interacts with multiple cards in the set, or it does something other cards in the set do variations of, it's probably on the sub-theme. There's some obvious ones, horse gaining in menagerie, boons in Nocturne, etc. Not sure if you care to dig around, but the last time I did a contest I did themed-cursers and from the truly amazing submissions there, you can see examples of cards that stick on theme for different early expansions. The contest starts on this page (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg804962#msg804962)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on December 12, 2020, 05:58:01 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 12, 2020, 05:53:01 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on December 12, 2020, 05:14:43 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 12, 2020, 03:58:52 pm

To make sure I understand, the task is to design a card that (a) belongs to a particular expansion, and (b) is on-theme but off-mechanic for that expansion? So a sifting duration card for hinterlands, or a variety-encouraging way for Cornucopia?

If I understand correctly, it is...

- An Event, Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way for one of the pre-Advantures expansions
- A Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way for Adventures
- A State, Project, Artifact, or Way for Empires
- An Event, Landmark, Project, Artifact (*), or Way for Nocturne
- An Event, Landmark, State (*), or Way for Renaissance
- A Landmark, State, Project or Artifact for Menagerie

(*) States and Artifacts are functionally similar, so not sure how that counts for Nocturne or Renaissance.

Yes! My apologies for not making it clear. Thank you grrgrrgrr for the clarification. Both asterisk'ed cases are allowed. You can do States and Artifacts for Renaisance/Nocturne. If you do, make sure that it really makes sense that the card be a state and not and artifact and vice versa.

The only true difference is the name of card

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 12, 2020, 06:39:14 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on December 12, 2020, 05:58:01 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 12, 2020, 05:53:01 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on December 12, 2020, 05:14:43 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 12, 2020, 03:58:52 pm

To make sure I understand, the task is to design a card that (a) belongs to a particular expansion, and (b) is on-theme but off-mechanic for that expansion? So a sifting duration card for hinterlands, or a variety-encouraging way for Cornucopia?

If I understand correctly, it is...

- An Event, Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way for one of the pre-Advantures expansions
- A Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way for Adventures
- A State, Project, Artifact, or Way for Empires
- An Event, Landmark, Project, Artifact (*), or Way for Nocturne
- An Event, Landmark, State (*), or Way for Renaissance
- A Landmark, State, Project or Artifact for Menagerie

(*) States and Artifacts are functionally similar, so not sure how that counts for Nocturne or Renaissance.

Yes! My apologies for not making it clear. Thank you grrgrrgrr for the clarification. Both asterisk'ed cases are allowed. You can do States and Artifacts for Renaisance/Nocturne. If you do, make sure that it really makes sense that the card be a state and not and artifact and vice versa.

The only true difference is the name of card

That's not the only true difference. Look at the design space of the two: There can be multiple copies of a state for each player. States can be double-sided. States can be given to other players. None of those are true for artifacts. Because of lost in the woods, it means that states can do anything an artifact can do (not the other way around), but it makes sense to me that a single-sided state where there is only one copy per player is probably actually an artifact. If you follow that reasoning, it also looks like there's the common breakdown that artifacts are good for you and states are bad for you.

You can implement many sidewise cards as a normal-ways duration card that stays in play. But you have to think about whether it's smoother to use the side-ways card. Often it is. Likewise, if you have a "state" that is one per player and it is positive to have it, it probably makes more sense to make it an artifact. And if you have an "artifact" that breaks convention by having one copy per player, well, you should probably make it a "state." It's the smoothest thing to do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 04:24:05 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 12, 2020, 06:39:14 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on December 12, 2020, 05:58:01 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 12, 2020, 05:53:01 pm

Quote from: grrgrrgrr on December 12, 2020, 05:14:43 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 12, 2020, 03:58:52 pm

To make sure I understand, the task is to design a card that (a) belongs to a particular expansion, and (b) is on-theme but off-mechanic for that expansion? So a sifting duration card for hinterlands, or a variety-encouraging way for Cornucopia?

If I understand correctly, it is...

- An Event, Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way for one of the pre-Advantures expansions
- A Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way for Adventures
- A State, Project, Artifact, or Way for Empires
- An Event, Landmark, Project, Artifact (*), or Way for Nocturne
- An Event, Landmark, State (*), or Way for Renaissance
- A Landmark, State, Project or Artifact for Menagerie

(*) States and Artifacts are functionally similar, so not sure how that counts for Nocturne or Renaissance.

Yes! My apologies for not making it clear. Thank you grrgrrgrr for the clarification. Both asterisk'ed cases are allowed. You can do States and Artifacts for Renaisance/Nocturne. If you do, make sure that it really makes sense that the card be a state and not and artifact and vice versa.

The only true difference is the name of card

That's not the only true difference. Look at the design space of the two: There can be multiple copies of a state for each player. States can be double-sided. States can be given to other players. None of those are true for artifacts. Because of lost in the woods, it means that states can do anything an artifact can do (not the other way around), but it makes sense to me that a single-sided state where there is only one copy per player is probably actually an artifact. If you follow that reasoning, it also looks like there's the common breakdown that artifacts are good for you and states are bad for you.

You can implement many sidewise cards as a normal-ways duration card that stays in play. But you have to think about whether it's smoother to use the side-ways card. Often it is. Likewise, if you have a "state" that is one per player and it is positive to have it, it probably makes more sense to make it an artifact. And if you have an "artifact" that breaks convention by having one copy per player, well, you should probably make it a "state." It's the smoothest thing to do.

maybe a stupid question, but are we supposed to design an event or card for any artifacts or states we make? ie, "here the way to get the artifact/state"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on December 13, 2020, 05:13:15 am

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpHBVmrVQAEpqP0?format=jpg&name=900x900)

For Dominion.  There is no "2nd player" without this, but this lets you gain the most vps even if you have 0% chance of winning.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 08:31:28 am

A card im considering submiting for this contest, im probably submiting another one. this one is obviously "nocturne" themed

(https://i.imgur.com/B2bFYKe.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 13, 2020, 10:46:14 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 04:24:05 am

maybe a stupid question, but are we supposed to design an event or card for any artifacts or states we make? ie, "here the way to get the artifact/state"

Yes, please. Otherwise I don’t know how it is used.

My apologies everyone. Clearly I did not make this contest very clear! In my head I considered this to be a clear and interesting contest—perhaps it is not so. In any case I very much look forward to seeing the creative submissions everyone comes up with.

Quote from: majiponi on December 13, 2020, 05:13:15 am

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpHBVmrVQAEpqP0?format=jpg&name=900x900)

For Dominion.  There is no "2nd player" without this, but this lets you gain the most vps even if you have 0% chance of winning.

To clarify, is a league point in the context of the online dominion league where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket (or wins if in the top bracket)?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on December 13, 2020, 11:10:31 am

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50719996712_397975b95b_b.jpg)

Quote

Way of the Vermin
Way
Trash this.
Each other player gains a Ruins.
If this is the first Action card played this turn, gain a Spoils.

A Way for Dark Ages. It is a self trashing conditional Spoils gainer that hands out Ruins, like a one-shot Marauder. I am not sure how good of an idea this is as it definitely can snow-ball, but seeing as it is a counter to itself it won't devolve into a slog straight away. Villages will be highly sought after as using the Way will eat up Actions. I think of this as more of a tactical Way as you want to be the first to trash a particular card to get the Spoils reward, but handing a Ruins to other players means they will get the Spoils from that card and send Ruins back your way. I would want to play test it to see if it is actually fun, but I like the idea. Feedback is more than welcome!

Edit: Changed the Spoils gain condition. It is now contingent on using the Way first and should prevent players from feeling like they are missing out. Could promote Big Money a bit more than usual, but you still need Actions to use the way.

Quote

Old Version
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50714796172_184a0f459e_b.jpg)

Quote

Way of the Vermin
Way
Trash this.
If there wasn't a copy of this in the Trash, gain a Spoils.
Each other player gains a Ruins.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on December 13, 2020, 12:30:12 pm

Quote from: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 08:31:28 am

A card im considering submiting for this contest, im probably submiting another one. this one is obviously "nocturne" themed

(https://i.imgur.com/B2bFYKe.png)

Shouldn't it be an action card from their hand? (Or an "Action, treasure, or night" card). Playing a victory card doesn't work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 13, 2020, 12:41:21 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 13, 2020, 11:10:31 am

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50714796172_184a0f459e_b.jpg)

Quote

Way of the Vermin
Way
Trash this.
If there wasn't a copy of this in the Trash, gain a Spoils.
Each other player gains a Ruins.

A Way for Dark Ages. It is a self trashing conditional Spoils gainer that hands out Ruins, like a one-shot Marauder. I am not sure how good of an idea this is as it definitely can snow-ball, but seeing as it is a counter to itself it won't devolve into a slog straight away. Villages will be highly sought after as using the Way will eat up Actions. I think of this as more of a tactical Way as you want to be the first to trash a particular card to get the Spoils reward, but handing a Ruins to other players means they will get the Spoils from that card and send Ruins back your way. I would want to play test it to see if it is actually fun, but I like the idea. Feedback is more than welcome!

I love Ways and I think this is a nice idea.  It could allow for some interesting tactical decisions.  However, I think the part I would personally enjoy less is the extra layer of randomness that arises from it.  If you're unlucky, when someone plays this Way, you could gain a Ruins that is already in the trash whereas someone else could gain one that isn't.  Or you could be lucky and be the first to draw a Ruins that isn't in the trash.  The benefit isn't huge, but if it happens often enough in a game, that could have a significant impact on the outcome.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on December 13, 2020, 12:53:04 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 13, 2020, 12:41:21 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 13, 2020, 11:10:31 am

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50714796172_184a0f459e_b.jpg)

Quote

Way of the Vermin
Way
Trash this.
If there wasn't a copy of this in the Trash, gain a Spoils.
Each other player gains a Ruins.

A Way for Dark Ages. It is a self trashing conditional Spoils gainer that hands out Ruins, like a one-shot Marauder. I am not sure how good of an idea this is as it definitely can snow-ball, but seeing as it is a counter to itself it won't devolve into a slog straight away. Villages will be highly sought after as using the Way will eat up Actions. I think of this as more of a tactical Way as you want to be the first to trash a particular card to get the Spoils reward, but handing a Ruins to other players means they will get the Spoils from that card and send Ruins back your way. I would want to play test it to see if it is actually fun, but I like the idea. Feedback is more than welcome!

I love Ways and I think this is a nice idea.  It could allow for some interesting tactical decisions.  However, I think the part I would personally enjoy less is the extra layer of randomness that arises from it.  If you're unlucky, when someone plays this Way, you could gain a Ruins that is already in the trash whereas someone else could gain one that isn't.  Or you could be lucky and be the first to draw a Ruins that isn't in the trash.  The benefit isn't huge, but if it happens often enough in a game, that could have a significant impact on the outcome.

I agree completely, and this randomness has been a consistent issue when I have used Ruins in card designs. I really like Ruins, but I do understand their randomness is unwanted by some players. I am gonna stick with this design for now, but the critique that it has randomness is valid and appreciated. I welcome additional criticisms and appreciate the responses!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 13, 2020, 01:20:38 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/Dg48bc4/Troubadours.png)

The connection to Cornucopia isn't super strong, but it's engine-friendly, which is arguably a subtheme.

Note that this doesn't give you your buy back, so even though it costs 0$, it's not really free.

Edit: as requested, I made a new post for the updated version (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg859112#msg859112).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on December 13, 2020, 01:57:42 pm

Consulate: a project for empires. It was originally just provinces, but I think adding colonies, farmland, and fairgrounds makes it a bit more interesting.

(https://i.imgur.com/BurlHZc.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 13, 2020, 02:01:30 pm

^Missing the "project" label

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LordBaphomet on December 13, 2020, 02:13:11 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 13, 2020, 02:01:30 pm

^Missing the "project" label

oop thanks. I'll put that when I'll update the card

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 13, 2020, 02:40:46 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on December 13, 2020, 01:57:42 pm

Consulate: a project for empires. It was originally just provinces, but I think adding colonies, farmland, and fairgrounds makes it a bit more interesting.

(https://i.imgur.com/BurlHZc.png)

Out of curiosity, how did you determine the cost for Consulate? 

I was thinking about a two-player Province game, where one player buys Consulate and the other doesn't.  Assuming they buy Provinces only and no Duchies, the player who bought Consulate wins if they have an equal number of Provinces.  But in scenarios where they have even one less Province than the player that didn't buy Consulate, the extra points gained with Consulate won't be sufficient to make up the difference.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 13, 2020, 03:22:24 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/000/828/full/Way_of_the_Dolphin_%287%29.png?1607916893)

A Way for Seaside. A card jumps like a Doplhin out of your deck and goes to your next hand.

It interacts with Seaside in many ways: thematically, affecting next turn, giving the played actions Duration effect and caring about the top of your deck. This last feature interacs with Pearl Diver, Lookout, Navigator and Ghost Ship. It also could help you to match Treasure Maps or a Province with Explorer.

The effect next turn is similar to Caravan but a bit weaker. With Caravan you can draw next turn a card played or gained this turn. It's also, as segura pointed in comments, a Haven variant without choice.

I think it's ok to a Way to not be too strong as an existing Action card. In fact it seems that they are meant to not be too powerful , since any Action card can play them at any situation. The existing Ways are also not so strong themselves, they are powerful mainly for their availability.  Way of the Pig, for instance, does  less than any Cantrip.

Edited to add Seaside icon to the image and more comments.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 03:41:33 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on December 13, 2020, 12:30:12 pm

Quote from: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 08:31:28 am

A card im considering submiting for this contest, im probably submiting another one. this one is obviously "nocturne" themed

(https://i.imgur.com/B2bFYKe.png)

Shouldn't it be an action card from their hand? (Or an "Action, treasure, or night" card). Playing a victory card doesn't work.

oops, thats right. i updated it
(https://i.imgur.com/678xFmz.png)

also, just a whole bunch of Ways for every expansion i could think of, its fun to make up ways. Ill decide what to submit later
(https://i.imgur.com/Cf0kGkp.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/TkO1ifw.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Lk2d4Ae.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/0asHtR5.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/4Q67kUO.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/9yimxGm.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ICtBb5S.png)

obviously im not submitting all of these, but i wanted to share regardless. couldnt come up with a good one for empires and alchemy tho. it was pretty fun finding good art online for these.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 03:44:48 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 13, 2020, 01:20:38 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/Dg48bc4/Troubadours.png)

The connection to Cornucopia isn't super strong, but it's engine-friendly, which is arguably a subtheme.

Note that this doesn't give you your buy back, so even though it costs 0$, it's not really free.

I kinda like this. maybe this change would improve its connection. the +1 per action card feels a bit stiff too me. "once per game: +1 action, +1card and +1€ per card with a different name you have in play. return to your action phase."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 03:47:01 pm

Quote from: Carline on December 13, 2020, 03:22:24 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/000/543/full/Way_of_the_Dolphin_%283%29.png?16078888650)

A Way for Seaside. A card jumps like a Doplhin out of your deck and goes to your next hand.

It interacts with Seaside in many ways: thematically, affecting next turn, turning the played actions into Durations and caring about the top of your deck. This last feature interacs with Pearl Diver, Lookout, Navigator and Ghost Ship. It also could help you to match Treasure Maps or a Province with Explorer.

The effect next turn is similar to Caravan but a bit weaker. With Caravan you can draw next turn a card played this turn.

Dang i really like this. feels way better than my seaside way idea, lol. Its quasi-thinner if you plan well too, i love quasi-thinning.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 03:49:22 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 13, 2020, 02:40:46 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on December 13, 2020, 01:57:42 pm

Consulate: a project for empires. It was originally just provinces, but I think adding colonies, farmland, and fairgrounds makes it a bit more interesting.

(https://i.imgur.com/BurlHZc.png)

Out of curiosity, how did you determine the cost for Consulate? 

I was thinking about a two-player Province game, where one player buys Consulate and the other doesn't.  Assuming they buy Provinces only and no Duchies, the player who bought Consulate wins if they have an equal number of Provinces.  But in scenarios where they have even one less Province than the player that didn't buy Consulate, the extra points gained with Consulate won't be sufficient to make up the difference.

I feel like i would like this more in Adventures, and have the cost be much lower (say, 3€) and instead give you a range of negative penalties via Tokens like the minus card token and the -coin token. it would have to be renamed tho

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 13, 2020, 04:04:20 pm

Quote from: Carline on December 13, 2020, 03:22:24 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/000/581/full/Way_of_the_Dolphin_%284%29.png?1607892587)

A Way for Seaside. A card jumps like a Doplhin out of your deck and goes to your next hand.

It interacts with Seaside in many ways: thematically, affecting next turn, turning the played actions into Durations and caring about the top of your deck. This last feature interacs with Pearl Diver, Lookout, Navigator and Ghost Ship. It also could help you to match Treasure Maps or a Province with Explorer.

The effect next turn is similar to Caravan but a bit weaker. With Caravan you can draw next turn a card played this turn.

Edited to add Seaside icon to the image.

It is actually a Haven variant.
Worse than Haven as Haven allows you to choose out of your entire hand what to set aside.
Better than Haven as it is not kept in play until the next turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 13, 2020, 04:09:30 pm

Quote from: segura on December 13, 2020, 04:04:20 pm

Quote from: Carline on December 13, 2020, 03:22:24 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/000/581/full/Way_of_the_Dolphin_%284%29.png?1607892587)

A Way for Seaside. A card jumps like a Doplhin out of your deck and goes to your next hand.

It interacts with Seaside in many ways: thematically, affecting next turn, turning the played actions into Durations and caring about the top of your deck. This last feature interacs with Pearl Diver, Lookout, Navigator and Ghost Ship. It also could help you to match Treasure Maps or a Province with Explorer.

The effect next turn is similar to Caravan but a bit weaker. With Caravan you can draw next turn a card played this turn.

Edited to add Seaside icon to the image.

It is actually a Haven variant.
Worse than Haven as Haven allows you to choose out of your entire hand what to set aside.
Better than Haven as it is not kept in play until the next turn.

Yes, thank you. Added this information to original post.

I think, according to the FAQ to Way of the Mouse, that the action played have to stay in play next turn. Anyway, I think it's ok to a Way to be no too strong, as any Action card can play it at any situation. The existing Ways are also not so powerful themselves, they are powerful mainly for their availability. Way of the Pig, for instance, is worse than any Cantrip.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 04:15:46 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 13, 2020, 12:53:04 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 13, 2020, 12:41:21 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 13, 2020, 11:10:31 am

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50714796172_184a0f459e_b.jpg)

Quote

Way of the Vermin
Way
Trash this.
If there wasn't a copy of this in the Trash, gain a Spoils.
Each other player gains a Ruins.

A Way for Dark Ages. It is a self trashing conditional Spoils gainer that hands out Ruins, like a one-shot Marauder. I am not sure how good of an idea this is as it definitely can snow-ball, but seeing as it is a counter to itself it won't devolve into a slog straight away. Villages will be highly sought after as using the Way will eat up Actions. I think of this as more of a tactical Way as you want to be the first to trash a particular card to get the Spoils reward, but handing a Ruins to other players means they will get the Spoils from that card and send Ruins back your way. I would want to play test it to see if it is actually fun, but I like the idea. Feedback is more than welcome!

I love Ways and I think this is a nice idea.  It could allow for some interesting tactical decisions.  However, I think the part I would personally enjoy less is the extra layer of randomness that arises from it.  If you're unlucky, when someone plays this Way, you could gain a Ruins that is already in the trash whereas someone else could gain one that isn't.  Or you could be lucky and be the first to draw a Ruins that isn't in the trash.  The benefit isn't huge, but if it happens often enough in a game, that could have a significant impact on the outcome.

I agree completely, and this randomness has been a consistent issue when I have used Ruins in card designs. I really like Ruins, but I do understand their randomness is unwanted by some players. I am gonna stick with this design for now, but the critique that it has randomness is valid and appreciated. I welcome additional criticisms and appreciate the responses!

To mitigate the randomness, maybe add "if there is a copy of this in the trash, +1 action" so its a non terminal self trasher.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 13, 2020, 04:34:51 pm

Quote from: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 03:44:48 pm

I kinda like this. maybe this change would improve its connection. the +1 per action card feels a bit stiff too me. "once per game: +1 action, +1card and +1€ per card with a different name you have in play. return to your action phase."

That would be very different, though. As-is, the effect just says 'you have infinite actions for one turn', which was the idea.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 13, 2020, 04:51:12 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 13, 2020, 04:34:51 pm

Quote from: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 03:44:48 pm

I kinda like this. maybe this change would improve its connection. the +1 per action card feels a bit stiff too me. "once per game: +1 action, +1card and +1€ per card with a different name you have in play. return to your action phase."

That would be very different, though. As-is, the effect just says 'you have infinite actions for one turn', which was the idea.

The original idea is cool. I think, as it is once per game, maybe it could replace the Buy you spend to buy it (and be really free). Otherwise, if the Kingdom doesn't have a source of +Buy, you could not get the best of your super Action turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 13, 2020, 05:26:00 pm

Quote from: Carline on December 13, 2020, 04:51:12 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 13, 2020, 04:34:51 pm

Quote from: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 03:44:48 pm

I kinda like this. maybe this change would improve its connection. the +1 per action card feels a bit stiff too me. "once per game: +1 action, +1card and +1€ per card with a different name you have in play. return to your action phase."

That would be very different, though. As-is, the effect just says 'you have infinite actions for one turn', which was the idea.

The original idea is cool. I think, as it is once per game, maybe it could replace the Buy you spend to buy it (and be really free). Otherwise, if the Kingdom doesn't have a source of +Buy, you could not get the best of your super Action turn.

I was going to do that initially, then decided not to, but rn I'm more leaning toward adding it in again. It's true that not having a buy makes it dead in many kingdoms.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on December 13, 2020, 09:52:57 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 13, 2020, 10:46:14 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 04:24:05 am

maybe a stupid question, but are we supposed to design an event or card for any artifacts or states we make? ie, "here the way to get the artifact/state"

Yes, please. Otherwise I don’t know how it is used.

My apologies everyone. Clearly I did not make this contest very clear! In my head I considered this to be a clear and interesting contest—perhaps it is not so. In any case I very much look forward to seeing the creative submissions everyone comes up with.

Quote from: majiponi on December 13, 2020, 05:13:15 am

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpHBVmrVQAEpqP0?format=jpg&name=900x900)

For Dominion.  There is no "2nd player" without this, but this lets you gain the most vps even if you have 0% chance of winning.

To clarify, is a league point in the context of the online dominion league where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket (or wins if in the top bracket)?

No in the context of offline dominion leagues, like Waseda Tournament in 2014, where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 14, 2020, 04:44:02 am

Updated Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/TTkYFhh/Troubadours.png)

Now, you can decide to activate it after being out of actions, and it gives you back your buy. In effect, you now just have one turn with infinite actions, no strings attached.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on December 14, 2020, 09:55:12 am

For intrigue

(https://i.imgur.com/dfg0oXM.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 14, 2020, 10:18:02 am

Quote from: pubby on December 14, 2020, 09:55:12 am

For intrigue

(https://i.imgur.com/dfg0oXM.png)

at first glance i didnt like it, but now when i think about it, i actually like it. it created an incentive to get way more estates, and makes provines less important, since estates are 150% more points with empire, but provinces are just 25% more points with empire. its really simple, but it changes the game.

Im not sure i like the name though for it. Maybe "realm" or "commonwealth" or "confederation"?

also, the intrugue expansion symbol is missing.

---
heres the math i did on how much more points you get from this being a landmark
3 estates obviously 9 points here
8 estates goes from 8 to 24 points    (an extra 16 points, 150% increase)
8 duchies goes from 24 to 40 VP       (66% increase)
8 provinces goes from 48 VP to 64 Vp (33% increase)
.
it also makes mills and other action-victory cards much more valuable. good job

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Rhodos on December 14, 2020, 10:19:26 am

Quote from: silverspawn on December 14, 2020, 04:44:02 am

Updated Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/TTkYFhh/Troubadours.png)

You could put the first "+1 Action" right in front of the "+1 Buy".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BBobb on December 14, 2020, 11:14:04 am

Quote from: pubby on December 14, 2020, 09:55:12 am

For intrigue

(https://i.imgur.com/dfg0oXM.png)

I feel like this is really redundant with Battlefield

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 14, 2020, 11:42:11 am

(https://i.ibb.co/cT8MwgP/salvage-yard.png)(https://i.ibb.co/dggpXkg/over-encumbered.png)

Quote

Salvage Yard • $5 • Event
Gain a Treasure costing up to $6. Each other player gains a copy of it and takes Over Encumbered if they don't have it already

Quote

Over Encumbered • State
At the start of your turn, you may return this for -1 Action; if you don't, take your -1 Card token.

I picked this for Adventures - it already has -1 Card and -$1 tokens, -1 Action seems like it should exist; I've implemented it as a state here. This was going to use Aquila's -1 Action card, "Exhausted", but i didn't like how it was immediately mandatory. This gives an option as to when you -1 Action, but at the cost of a card.

This is also a good fit for Adventures since it has Attack-events like Raid and potential attack-treasure cards to make other people gain like Treasure Trove.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on December 14, 2020, 12:23:48 pm

For Empires:

Quote

Way of the Eagle - Way
If you haven't trashed a copy of this during this turn, trash this. If you do, +1VP per 2 copies of it in the Supply (round up).

Eagles were a symbol of victory to the Romans, and they thrive better with less competition. Oh, and they like rats. Most Empires strategies look for competing select piles; this adds strategies that run counter to this trend, to hopefully create interesting games. Maybe it prolongs the game too often by creating a starting VP phase, but most of the time building up should be optimal?

Edit: added once per different Action each turn, because Fortress.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 14, 2020, 12:32:22 pm

Quote from: Rhodos on December 14, 2020, 10:19:26 am

You could put the first "+1 Action" right in front of the "+1 Buy".

Another thing I've literally done and then changed, believe it or not. I was torn between 'vanilla boni should be in a row!' and 'having the Action after returning to your action phase is more natural'.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on December 14, 2020, 12:32:45 pm

Quote from: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 04:15:46 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 13, 2020, 12:53:04 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 13, 2020, 12:41:21 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 13, 2020, 11:10:31 am

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50714796172_184a0f459e_b.jpg)

Quote

Way of the Vermin
Way
Trash this.
If there wasn't a copy of this in the Trash, gain a Spoils.
Each other player gains a Ruins.

A Way for Dark Ages. It is a self trashing conditional Spoils gainer that hands out Ruins, like a one-shot Marauder. I am not sure how good of an idea this is as it definitely can snow-ball, but seeing as it is a counter to itself it won't devolve into a slog straight away. Villages will be highly sought after as using the Way will eat up Actions. I think of this as more of a tactical Way as you want to be the first to trash a particular card to get the Spoils reward, but handing a Ruins to other players means they will get the Spoils from that card and send Ruins back your way. I would want to play test it to see if it is actually fun, but I like the idea. Feedback is more than welcome!

I love Ways and I think this is a nice idea.  It could allow for some interesting tactical decisions.  However, I think the part I would personally enjoy less is the extra layer of randomness that arises from it.  If you're unlucky, when someone plays this Way, you could gain a Ruins that is already in the trash whereas someone else could gain one that isn't.  Or you could be lucky and be the first to draw a Ruins that isn't in the trash.  The benefit isn't huge, but if it happens often enough in a game, that could have a significant impact on the outcome.

I agree completely, and this randomness has been a consistent issue when I have used Ruins in card designs. I really like Ruins, but I do understand their randomness is unwanted by some players. I am gonna stick with this design for now, but the critique that it has randomness is valid and appreciated. I welcome additional criticisms and appreciate the responses!

To mitigate the randomness, maybe add "if there is a copy of this in the trash, +1 action" so its a non terminal self trasher.

I have updated my submission and it can be seen here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg859064#msg859064).

Quote

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50719996712_397975b95b_b.jpg)

Quote

Way of the Vermin
Way
Trash this.
Each other player gains a Ruins.
If this is the first Action card played this turn, gain a Spoils.

As I posted in the Edit, the new version no longer has the issue of missing out and randomness in regards to the Spoils gain. This version may push Big Money more than the other, but you still need Actions to take advantage of the Way, so I think it breaks even. Additional feed back is more than Welcome!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 14, 2020, 12:40:41 pm

No joke. I like it!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on December 14, 2020, 01:23:07 pm

Quote from: majiponi on December 13, 2020, 09:52:57 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 13, 2020, 10:46:14 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 04:24:05 am

maybe a stupid question, but are we supposed to design an event or card for any artifacts or states we make? ie, "here the way to get the artifact/state"

Yes, please. Otherwise I don’t know how it is used.

My apologies everyone. Clearly I did not make this contest very clear! In my head I considered this to be a clear and interesting contest—perhaps it is not so. In any case I very much look forward to seeing the creative submissions everyone comes up with.

Quote from: majiponi on December 13, 2020, 05:13:15 am

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpHBVmrVQAEpqP0?format=jpg&name=900x900)

For Dominion.  There is no "2nd player" without this, but this lets you gain the most vps even if you have 0% chance of winning.

To clarify, is a league point in the context of the online dominion league where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket (or wins if in the top bracket)?

No in the context of offline dominion leagues, like Waseda Tournament in 2014, where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket.

I still don't understand. There is no official tournament format for Dominion, so isn't the concept of a "league point" completely undefined except if specific tournaments choose to use it? Any given tournament may or may not have "points" or "brackets". It sounds like this card would only work for certain very specific tournaments.

On top of that, I don't understand how the Landmark would change any outcome. Again different tournaments may do things differently, but wouldn't most of them, if they have a need to award second or third places in a game, already do so based on VP? This landmark sounds like it's just solidifying that rule into a tournament.

Finally, wouldn't this completely imbalance any tournament where it was used in some games but not others? One game gives you 60 "league points", and then eventually your score gets compared to players in other games where they didn't have this landmark? I'm very confused.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 14, 2020, 02:08:42 pm

Quote from: spineflu on December 14, 2020, 11:42:11 am

(https://i.ibb.co/cT8MwgP/salvage-yard.png)(https://i.ibb.co/dggpXkg/over-encumbered.png)

Quote

Salvage Yard • $5 • Event
Gain a Treasure costing up to $6. Each other player gains a copy of it and takes Over Encumbered if they don't have it already

Quote

Over Encumbered • State
At the start of your turn, you may return this for -1 Action; if you don't, take your -1 Card token.

I picked this for Adventures - it already has -1 Card and -$1 tokens, -1 Action seems like it should exist. This was going to use Aquila's -1 Action card, "Exhausted", but i didn't like how it was immediately mandatory. This gives an option as to when you -1 Action, but at the cost of a card.

This is also a good fit for Adventures since it has Attack-events like Raid, potential attack-treasure cards to make other people gain like Treasure Trove, and an existing "counter" to Over Encumbered, Coin Of The Realm.

This is mainly a clarification question about how -1 Action works. Normally you start your turn with +1 Action. If you have Over-Encumbered, you may choose to return it to now have 0 Actions. However, if you played a Fishing Village last turn, you would then have 1 action at the start of your turn after resolving both of those?

If that is all true, Coin of the realm is not a counter, right? Because coin of the realm says "directly after playing an Action card," but you can't play an Action card if you have 0 actions, right? So that would mean you couldn't call Coin of the realm?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 14, 2020, 03:21:49 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 14, 2020, 02:08:42 pm

Quote from: spineflu on December 14, 2020, 11:42:11 am

(https://i.ibb.co/cT8MwgP/salvage-yard.png)(https://i.ibb.co/dggpXkg/over-encumbered.png)

Quote

Salvage Yard • $5 • Event
Gain a Treasure costing up to $6. Each other player gains a copy of it and takes Over Encumbered if they don't have it already

Quote

Over Encumbered • State
At the start of your turn, you may return this for -1 Action; if you don't, take your -1 Card token.

I picked this for Adventures - it already has -1 Card and -$1 tokens, -1 Action seems like it should exist. This was going to use Aquila's -1 Action card, "Exhausted", but i didn't like how it was immediately mandatory. This gives an option as to when you -1 Action, but at the cost of a card.

This is also a good fit for Adventures since it has Attack-events like Raid, potential attack-treasure cards to make other people gain like Treasure Trove, and an existing "counter" to Over Encumbered, Coin Of The Realm.

This is mainly a clarification question about how -1 Action works. Normally you start your turn with +1 Action. If you have Over-Encumbered, you may choose to return it to now have 0 Actions. However, if you played a Fishing Village last turn, you would then have 1 action at the start of your turn after resolving both of those?

If that is all true, Coin of the realm is not a counter, right? Because coin of the realm says "directly after playing an Action card," but you can't play an Action card if you have 0 actions, right? So that would mean you couldn't call Coin of the realm?

You're correct in all of this, and i was incorrect in my recollection of how CotR works; I'll edit that and stew on whether i want this to still be my entry with no counter existing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 14, 2020, 03:44:56 pm

Quote from: Aquila on December 14, 2020, 12:23:48 pm

For Empires:

Quote

Way of the Eagle - Way
Trash this. If you do, +1VP per 2 copies of it in the Supply (round up).

Eagles were a symbol of victory to the Romans, and they thrive better with less competition. Oh, and they like rats. Most Empires strategies look for competing select piles; this adds strategies that run counter to this trend, to hopefully create interesting games. Maybe it prolongs the game too often by creating a starting VP phase, but most of the time building up should be optimal?

I know you designed this for Empires, but wouldn't this be a bit broken with Fortress? 

Also, if you happen to have Tomb as a Landmark, I feel like that this could favor a strategy of buying up Action cards to trash and this turns into a completely different game.

I think this would work better in 3- or 4-player games since the Supply piles will run out faster and trashing cards perhaps becomes more of a tactical decision, but I worry about how this would play out with 2 players. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 14, 2020, 03:47:09 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 14, 2020, 12:32:45 pm

Quote

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50719996712_397975b95b_b.jpg)

Quote

Way of the Vermin
Way
Trash this.
Each other player gains a Ruins.
If this is the first Action card played this turn, gain a Spoils.

As I posted in the Edit, the new version no longer has the issue of missing out and randomness in regards to the Spoils gain. This version may push Big Money more than the other, but you still need Actions to take advantage of the Way, so I think it breaks even. Additional feed back is more than Welcome!

I like this better than the original version.  It's pretty neat!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on December 14, 2020, 04:32:57 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 14, 2020, 03:44:56 pm

Quote from: Aquila on December 14, 2020, 12:23:48 pm

For Empires:

Quote

Way of the Eagle - Way
Trash this. If you do, +1VP per 2 copies of it in the Supply (round up).

Eagles were a symbol of victory to the Romans, and they thrive better with less competition. Oh, and they like rats. Most Empires strategies look for competing select piles; this adds strategies that run counter to this trend, to hopefully create interesting games. Maybe it prolongs the game too often by creating a starting VP phase, but most of the time building up should be optimal?

I know you designed this for Empires, but wouldn't this be a bit broken with Fortress? 

Also, if you happen to have Tomb as a Landmark, I feel like that this could favor a strategy of buying up Action cards to trash and this turns into a completely different game.

I think this would work better in 3- or 4-player games since the Supply piles will run out faster and trashing cards perhaps becomes more of a tactical decision, but I worry about how this would play out with 2 players.

Right, so Champion + Fortress = infinite VP. Bother. How to fix this...?
A cold, inelegant '...if it's in the trash, +VP' would be the only way to fully stop this, if the little window when Fortress visits the trash wouldn't make it still count. It probably would.
'Once per turn: ...' limits things to 'spend an Action each turn for some VP' if the players don't decide to empty the Fortresses out, but is that nice for everything else? You couldn't blow up your deck on the last turn/near game end.
'If you haven't trashed a copy of this during this turn, trash this...' could work, it would prevent hoarding one pile (putting your +Action token on it) then trashing them all at once, which isn't too smart anyway.
I'll go with this latter option (at bottom).

With Tomb, the potential existing problem (if players see it as such) in creating a starting VP phase would be exaggerated. I hope it wouldn't go on all game and come down to a boring ritual decided by shuffle luck. I could reduce the VP to 1 per 3 cards round up if it is like this. Testing is needed here.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Revised entry:

Quote

Way of the Eagle - Way
If you haven't trashed a copy of this during this turn, trash this. If you do, +1VP per 2 copies of it in the Supply (round up).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on December 15, 2020, 12:25:11 am

Quote from: Aquila on December 14, 2020, 04:32:57 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 14, 2020, 03:44:56 pm

Quote from: Aquila on December 14, 2020, 12:23:48 pm

For Empires:

Quote

Way of the Eagle - Way
Trash this. If you do, +1VP per 2 copies of it in the Supply (round up).

Eagles were a symbol of victory to the Romans, and they thrive better with less competition. Oh, and they like rats. Most Empires strategies look for competing select piles; this adds strategies that run counter to this trend, to hopefully create interesting games. Maybe it prolongs the game too often by creating a starting VP phase, but most of the time building up should be optimal?

I know you designed this for Empires, but wouldn't this be a bit broken with Fortress? 

Also, if you happen to have Tomb as a Landmark, I feel like that this could favor a strategy of buying up Action cards to trash and this turns into a completely different game.

I think this would work better in 3- or 4-player games since the Supply piles will run out faster and trashing cards perhaps becomes more of a tactical decision, but I worry about how this would play out with 2 players.

Right, so Champion + Fortress = infinite VP. Bother. How to fix this...?
A cold, inelegant '...if it's in the trash, +VP' would be the only way to fully stop this, if the little window when Fortress visits the trash wouldn't make it still count. It probably would.
'Once per turn: ...' limits things to 'spend an Action each turn for some VP' if the players don't decide to empty the Fortresses out, but is that nice for everything else? You couldn't blow up your deck on the last turn/near game end.
'If you haven't trashed a copy of this during this turn, trash this...' could work, it would prevent hoarding one pile (putting your +Action token on it) then trashing them all at once, which isn't too smart anyway.
I'll go with this latter option (at bottom).

With Tomb, the potential existing problem (if players see it as such) in creating a starting VP phase would be exaggerated. I hope it wouldn't go on all game and come down to a boring ritual decided by shuffle luck. I could reduce the VP to 1 per 3 cards round up if it is like this. Testing is needed here.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Revised entry:

Quote

Way of the Eagle - Way
If you haven't trashed a copy of this during this turn, trash this. If you do, +1VP per 2 copies of it in the Supply (round up).

There's a much simpler solution that already exists in the wording of actual Ways... return it to the pile instead of trashing it, like Way of the Horse (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Way_of_the_Horse) and Way of the Butterfly (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Way_of_the_Butterfly) do. Of course since you are counting the number of copies in the pile, that will mess with the balance of it somewhat, but it's not like it would prevent piles from draining; people  in either version people are going to probably buy cards from full piles in order to use Eagle.

I'm guessing it's too strong; you'll buy bad cards that are being otherwise unbought in order to get more VP. It also has the downside of being better when used with worse cards (because weak cards will have more copies in the supply than strong cards in general). All of the official ways either act the same no matter what action you use it on; or they are better when you use them with better actions. You could argue that Horse and Butterfly are better when used on weak cards, because with strong cards you want to keep them in your deck. Eagle takes that a step further by giving more VP on average when the card is bad.

What if the VP were based on card cost rather than number left in the supply? The more you put into it the more you get out of it.

Way of the Bishop's Eagle - Way
You may return this to its pile, for +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} per _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} it costs (round down).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on December 15, 2020, 03:19:00 am

Quote from: pubby on December 14, 2020, 09:55:12 am

For intrigue

(https://i.imgur.com/dfg0oXM.png)

segura posted this a while back (which seems conceptually similar with slightly different math):

Quote from: segura on June 26, 2020, 08:00:44 am

(https://i.imgur.com/n7RdF8E.png)

Simple Alt-VP support card that lifts all boats and thus makes all non-Province green slightly more attractive.

An alternative version would be: "When you gain a Victory card, +1_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}."

I remember because it resulted in me not posting this (which started out rewarding all Victory cards, but didn't playtest particularly well in that version):

(https://abload.de/img/real_estate_boomotk3t.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: majiponi on December 15, 2020, 11:14:24 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 14, 2020, 01:23:07 pm

Quote from: majiponi on December 13, 2020, 09:52:57 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 13, 2020, 10:46:14 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 04:24:05 am

maybe a stupid question, but are we supposed to design an event or card for any artifacts or states we make? ie, "here the way to get the artifact/state"

Yes, please. Otherwise I don’t know how it is used.

My apologies everyone. Clearly I did not make this contest very clear! In my head I considered this to be a clear and interesting contest—perhaps it is not so. In any case I very much look forward to seeing the creative submissions everyone comes up with.

Quote from: majiponi on December 13, 2020, 05:13:15 am

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpHBVmrVQAEpqP0?format=jpg&name=900x900)

For Dominion.  There is no "2nd player" without this, but this lets you gain the most vps even if you have 0% chance of winning.

To clarify, is a league point in the context of the online dominion league where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket (or wins if in the top bracket)?

No in the context of offline dominion leagues, like Waseda Tournament in 2014, where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket.

I still don't understand. There is no official tournament format for Dominion, so isn't the concept of a "league point" completely undefined except if specific tournaments choose to use it? Any given tournament may or may not have "points" or "brackets". It sounds like this card would only work for certain very specific tournaments.

On top of that, I don't understand how the Landmark would change any outcome. Again different tournaments may do things differently, but wouldn't most of them, if they have a need to award second or third places in a game, already do so based on VP? This landmark sounds like it's just solidifying that rule into a tournament.

Finally, wouldn't this completely imbalance any tournament where it was used in some games but not others? One game gives you 60 "league points", and then eventually your score gets compared to players in other games where they didn't have this landmark? I'm very confused.

Every game in that tournament uses this Landmark, or a kind of thing.  This Landmark is a declaration that "This game rewards 2nd place or 3rd place".  (Remember that the original Dominion game rewards ONLY 1st place player.)  The definition of LP is up to the host of the championship.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on December 15, 2020, 11:24:25 am

Quote from: spheremonk on December 15, 2020, 03:19:00 am

(https://abload.de/img/real_estate_boomotk3t.png)

I know this isn't your submission, but wouldn't having more land mean it's worth less because of supply and demand?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on December 15, 2020, 12:40:12 pm

Quote from: majiponi on December 15, 2020, 11:14:24 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 14, 2020, 01:23:07 pm

Quote from: majiponi on December 13, 2020, 09:52:57 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 13, 2020, 10:46:14 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 04:24:05 am

maybe a stupid question, but are we supposed to design an event or card for any artifacts or states we make? ie, "here the way to get the artifact/state"

Yes, please. Otherwise I don’t know how it is used.

My apologies everyone. Clearly I did not make this contest very clear! In my head I considered this to be a clear and interesting contest—perhaps it is not so. In any case I very much look forward to seeing the creative submissions everyone comes up with.

Quote from: majiponi on December 13, 2020, 05:13:15 am

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpHBVmrVQAEpqP0?format=jpg&name=900x900)

For Dominion.  There is no "2nd player" without this, but this lets you gain the most vps even if you have 0% chance of winning.

To clarify, is a league point in the context of the online dominion league where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket (or wins if in the top bracket)?

No in the context of offline dominion leagues, like Waseda Tournament in 2014, where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket.

I still don't understand. There is no official tournament format for Dominion, so isn't the concept of a "league point" completely undefined except if specific tournaments choose to use it? Any given tournament may or may not have "points" or "brackets". It sounds like this card would only work for certain very specific tournaments.

On top of that, I don't understand how the Landmark would change any outcome. Again different tournaments may do things differently, but wouldn't most of them, if they have a need to award second or third places in a game, already do so based on VP? This landmark sounds like it's just solidifying that rule into a tournament.

Finally, wouldn't this completely imbalance any tournament where it was used in some games but not others? One game gives you 60 "league points", and then eventually your score gets compared to players in other games where they didn't have this landmark? I'm very confused.

Every game in that tournament uses this Landmark, or a kind of thing.  This Landmark is a declaration that "This game rewards 2nd place or 3rd place".  (Remember that the original Dominion game rewards ONLY 1st place player.)  The definition of LP is up to the host of the championship.

Ok I understand the idea now. I'm just not sure that it really fits as a Dominion card / card-shaped thing. It's just a rule that tournaments can choose to use; why would you need to include that as part of the game setup? As a Landmark, it would take up a slot in the "2 landscapes per game" recommendation; so you couldn't have both this and 2 events without ignoring that recommendation. If it is intended to be used in every game in a tournament, then that goes against the "random kingdom design" principle of Dominion in general. You have to purposefully exclude this card from your home games because you aren't running a tournament?

And even within a tournament, I'm unclear on what is gained by having this rule printed on a Landmark... tournaments can choose whether they want to award second place or not; and any tournament-related rule that will get used in every game of a tournament doesn't need to be on a Landmark; the point of a Landmark is so that different games will play differently.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 15, 2020, 04:49:38 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 15, 2020, 12:40:12 pm

Quote from: majiponi on December 15, 2020, 11:14:24 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 14, 2020, 01:23:07 pm

Quote from: majiponi on December 13, 2020, 09:52:57 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 13, 2020, 10:46:14 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 04:24:05 am

maybe a stupid question, but are we supposed to design an event or card for any artifacts or states we make? ie, "here the way to get the artifact/state"

Yes, please. Otherwise I don’t know how it is used.

My apologies everyone. Clearly I did not make this contest very clear! In my head I considered this to be a clear and interesting contest—perhaps it is not so. In any case I very much look forward to seeing the creative submissions everyone comes up with.

Quote from: majiponi on December 13, 2020, 05:13:15 am

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpHBVmrVQAEpqP0?format=jpg&name=900x900)

For Dominion.  There is no "2nd player" without this, but this lets you gain the most vps even if you have 0% chance of winning.

To clarify, is a league point in the context of the online dominion league where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket (or wins if in the top bracket)?

No in the context of offline dominion leagues, like Waseda Tournament in 2014, where whoever has the most points goes up a bracket.

I still don't understand. There is no official tournament format for Dominion, so isn't the concept of a "league point" completely undefined except if specific tournaments choose to use it? Any given tournament may or may not have "points" or "brackets". It sounds like this card would only work for certain very specific tournaments.

On top of that, I don't understand how the Landmark would change any outcome. Again different tournaments may do things differently, but wouldn't most of them, if they have a need to award second or third places in a game, already do so based on VP? This landmark sounds like it's just solidifying that rule into a tournament.

Finally, wouldn't this completely imbalance any tournament where it was used in some games but not others? One game gives you 60 "league points", and then eventually your score gets compared to players in other games where they didn't have this landmark? I'm very confused.

Every game in that tournament uses this Landmark, or a kind of thing.  This Landmark is a declaration that "This game rewards 2nd place or 3rd place".  (Remember that the original Dominion game rewards ONLY 1st place player.)  The definition of LP is up to the host of the championship.

Ok I understand the idea now. I'm just not sure that it really fits as a Dominion card / card-shaped thing. It's just a rule that tournaments can choose to use; why would you need to include that as part of the game setup? As a Landmark, it would take up a slot in the "2 landscapes per game" recommendation; so you couldn't have both this and 2 events without ignoring that recommendation. If it is intended to be used in every game in a tournament, then that goes against the "random kingdom design" principle of Dominion in general. You have to purposefully exclude this card from your home games because you aren't running a tournament?

And even within a tournament, I'm unclear on what is gained by having this rule printed on a Landmark... tournaments can choose whether they want to award second place or not; and any tournament-related rule that will get used in every game of a tournament doesn't need to be on a Landmark; the point of a Landmark is so that different games will play differently.

When I play IRL with my friends, we often play this kind of tournament as a house rule. It rewards the best player on the long run, but changes some things in each match:

- players can't resign
- sometimes, who's winning doesn't want to end the match to gain more points
- sometimes, who is behind wants to end the match to lose by less points

It's fun, anyway.

That said, I also don't think a card is needed to determine it. I think it's better if each card would be always meaningful, even if you play only one match.

Another point about League in present contest is that it doesn't seem to be more related  to an specific expansion set than to others.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 15, 2020, 05:16:38 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on December 15, 2020, 11:24:25 am

Quote from: spheremonk on December 15, 2020, 03:19:00 am

(https://abload.de/img/real_estate_boomotk3t.png)

I know this isn't your submission, but wouldn't having more land mean it's worth less because of supply and demand?

I think the setup clause is needed to the Landmark works. Otherwise, you have to count on a lucky randomize to have a Kingdom Victory pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 15, 2020, 05:31:17 pm

I think the version that gives VP for all victory cards is more elegant. Alt VP tends to be quite strong anyway. I still like the Setup clause, though. I think my favorite version would be '2 VP per victory card, add an extra victory pile'.

Although, I am just realizing that it's very close to Battlefield.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on December 15, 2020, 06:24:39 pm

Quote from: Carline on December 15, 2020, 05:16:38 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on December 15, 2020, 11:24:25 am

Quote from: spheremonk on December 15, 2020, 03:19:00 am

(https://abload.de/img/real_estate_boomotk3t.png)

I know this isn't your submission, but wouldn't having more land mean it's worth less because of supply and demand?

I think the setup clause is needed to the Landmark works. Otherwise, you have to count on a lucky randomize to have a Kingdom Victory pile.

I understand the mechanical requirement for it, I'm just saying that thematically, more land would mean less value.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on December 15, 2020, 08:18:59 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on December 15, 2020, 06:24:39 pm

Quote from: Carline on December 15, 2020, 05:16:38 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on December 15, 2020, 11:24:25 am

Quote from: spheremonk on December 15, 2020, 03:19:00 am

(https://abload.de/img/real_estate_boomotk3t.png)

I know this isn't your submission, but wouldn't having more land mean it's worth less because of supply and demand?

I think the setup clause is needed to the Landmark works. Otherwise, you have to count on a lucky randomize to have a Kingdom Victory pile.

I understand the mechanical requirement for it, I'm just saying that thematically, more land would mean less value.

I think the theme is that a real estate boom has occurred; and thus people who owned more land are rewarded more than people who owned less land. "Having more land" means that one person owns more land; it's not like more land was just created.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 15, 2020, 09:28:25 pm

EDIT:  Updated with a new submission:
(https://i.imgur.com/lQm9zqf.png)

Quote from: Previous Submission

(https://i.imgur.com/AS6OGcj.png)

The Exile mat is one of my favorite things about Menagerie.   This is my attempt to retrofit Dark Ages with it.  This could probably work with most expansions, but I chose Dark Ages because of the heavy emphasis on trashing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 15, 2020, 11:00:38 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 15, 2020, 09:28:25 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/AS6OGcj.png)

The Exile mat is one of my favorite things about Menagerie.   This is my attempt to retrofit Dark Ages with it.  This could probably work with most expansions, but I chose Dark Ages because of the heavy emphasis on trashing.

For the contest rules, the only thing that gets retroactively added to all expansions is all the side-wise card-shaped things. Other mechanics like Horses, Boons, etc are not involved in this. The exile mechanic is specific to Menagerie, and so I would evaluate this card for fitting in Menagerie, not Dark Ages, since Dark Ages does not have Exiling.

This may seem arbitrary to you. The point of the contest is to apply a very small subset of mechanics (Event, Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way) that are not currently in a set to the theme/mechanics of that set. In the case of Dark Ages you have mechanics/themes like on-trash, self-trash, the trash in general, ruins, spoils, non-supply cards, 1-cost cards, upgrading, and more. In menagerie you have Exile, Ways, now-or-later, durations, caring about supply pile emptiness, weird costs, reactions, and more.

If you want this to fit in Dark ages you'd have to get rid of the Exiling. If you want this to fit in with Menagerie, you could incorporate one of the theme/mechanics of menagerie

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 16, 2020, 01:55:32 am

Quote from: Timinou on December 15, 2020, 09:28:25 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/AS6OGcj.png)

The Exile mat is one of my favorite things about Menagerie.   This is my attempt to retrofit Dark Ages with it.  This could probably work with most expansions, but I chose Dark Ages because of the heavy emphasis on trashing.

I had a similar idea some time ago but this is broken with TfB, especially cards like Forge and Salvager.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 16, 2020, 08:05:42 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 15, 2020, 11:00:38 pm

For the contest rules, the only thing that gets retroactively added to all expansions is all the side-wise card-shaped things. Other mechanics like Horses, Boons, etc are not involved in this. The exile mechanic is specific to Menagerie, and so I would evaluate this card for fitting in Menagerie, not Dark Ages, since Dark Ages does not have Exiling.

This may seem arbitrary to you. The point of the contest is to apply a very small subset of mechanics (Event, Landmark, State, Project, Artifact, or Way) that are not currently in a set to the theme/mechanics of that set. In the case of Dark Ages you have mechanics/themes like on-trash, self-trash, the trash in general, ruins, spoils, non-supply cards, 1-cost cards, upgrading, and more. In menagerie you have Exile, Ways, now-or-later, durations, caring about supply pile emptiness, weird costs, reactions, and more.

If you want this to fit in Dark ages you'd have to get rid of the Exiling. If you want this to fit in with Menagerie, you could incorporate one of the theme/mechanics of menagerie

I don't know why I assumed borrowing other sideways things from other expansions was allowed, so thanks for clarifying the rules.  I'll try to come up with something else.

Quote from: segura on December 16, 2020, 01:55:32 am

I had a similar idea some time ago but this is broken with TfB, especially cards like Forge and Salvager.

Thanks for the feedback!  You're right.  You could use Forge or Salvager to essentially duplicate Provinces or Colonies with this.  I'll think about how to address this if I ever recycle this for a different contest.  Perhaps restricting Amnesty's ability to non-Victory cards would be better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 16, 2020, 09:17:55 am

The problem is that trashing instead of Exiling matters most for Victory cards. The other situations in which it matters are either esoteric, like slim Garden games (e.g. gain Coppers, trash them to Exile them) or again TfB to trash good stuff and later get it back.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 16, 2020, 09:54:03 am

Quote from: segura on December 16, 2020, 09:17:55 am

The problem is that trashing instead of Exiling matters most for Victory cards. The other situations in which it matters are either esoteric, like slim Garden games (e.g. gain Coppers, trash them to Exile them) or again TfB to trash good stuff and later get it back.

I would probably adjust the cost of Amnesty and/or instead of restricting it to non-Victory cards, restrict it to cards costing up to X.  I think it is still quite useful with remodelers and other TfB cards.  It also mitigates the impact of some trashing attacks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on December 16, 2020, 10:19:19 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ahVCCBU.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/GK1zGcN.png)

For Intrigue, to lean into the Victory card themes of the set.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 16, 2020, 10:37:52 am

Cool idea, but slightly political. (Suppose we're 3p, discarding a victory card will give +x utility for you, but discarding a Treasure -y for me, with x > y, what do I choose?)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 16, 2020, 01:53:42 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on December 16, 2020, 10:19:19 am

(https://i.imgur.com/ahVCCBU.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/GK1zGcN.png)

For Intrigue, to lean into the Victory card themes of the set.

Clarification question. How does Bounty work with Action-Victory cards? With Bounty, when you play Dame Josephine on your Treasure phase,do you get +2$ and you attack other players? Do you choose one of those options, but you are allowed to choose either while playing in your treasure phase? Same questions apply for all the action-victory cards. Another question -- Pasture is currently a treasure worth $1. Bounty says also so does that mean Pasture is worth $1 and worth $2? Is it now a gold?

Normally I'd suggest a way to resolve these ambiguities, but I feel that offering specific suggestions is a little unfair of me for a judge. It also feels unfair for me to hold back on a suggestion too, but I guess that's the choice I'm landing on today. Best of luck designing the card to clarify these confusing points!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 16, 2020, 02:38:59 pm

I'm replacing my previous submission with a Landmark for Alchemy.

Alchemy provides some of the most powerful engine parts in Dominion, but novice players often don't like the expansion due to the awkwardness of Potions.  This provides some additional incentive to add Potions to your deck.  It would be good to playtest a few variations (e.g. 9VP per 3 Potions you have), but this is the version I am submitting:

(https://i.imgur.com/lQm9zqf.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 16, 2020, 02:49:03 pm

How about 5VP if you have at least two potions? The only situation where buying more for VP would ever be worth it is Vineyards, which don't need a buff.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 16, 2020, 02:54:05 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 16, 2020, 02:38:59 pm

I'm replacing my previous submission with a Landmark for Alchemy.

Alchemy provides some of the most powerful engine parts in Dominion, but novice players often don't like the expansion due to the awkwardness of Potions.  This provides some additional incentive to add Potions to your deck.  It would be good to playtest a few variations (e.g. 9VP per 3 Potions you have), but this is the version I am submitting:

(https://i.imgur.com/lQm9zqf.png)

Unfortunately, the majority of games don't have Potion cost cards, and thus no Potions. It would need a special set up.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 16, 2020, 02:54:44 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 16, 2020, 02:38:59 pm

I'm replacing my previous submission with a Landmark for Alchemy.

Alchemy provides some of the most powerful engine parts in Dominion, but novice players often don't like the expansion due to the awkwardness of Potions.  This provides some additional incentive to add Potions to your deck.  It would be good to playtest a few variations (e.g. 9VP per 3 Potions you have), but this is the version I am submitting:

(https://i.imgur.com/lQm9zqf.png)

that seems like to much vp for potions to me. 2 potions is 8 money, , and 8 money for 5 vp is a good deal. i fear that potions will keep being picked up too much untill endgame and risk dragging the game out.

also, there are plenty of games where 1 potion is the optimal number, so having it be per 2 potions might give novice players the wrong idea and maybe burn them on potions. i think i like just giving "2vp" per potion more . i am by no means an expert designer tho

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on December 16, 2020, 03:08:27 pm

A simple one for the base set:

Dome (Landmark)

When scoring, -1VP per Copper you have.

This nudges newer players towards the idea that trashing weak cards is a good thing to do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 16, 2020, 04:26:12 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on December 16, 2020, 03:08:27 pm

A simple one for the base set:

Dome (Landmark)

When scoring, -1VP per Copper you have.

This nudges newer players towards the idea that trashing weak cards is a good thing to do.

liked your idea enough that i made a card of it in the card image generator
(https://i.imgur.com/bLORvMT.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 16, 2020, 04:41:13 pm

This looks like a boring version of Tomb.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: grep on December 17, 2020, 02:46:41 am

A Way for Cornucopia. +1 Action gives life to otherwise useless terminals, but only if it's the only copy.
This is stronger than an ordinary Way, probably on par with Mouse.

(https://i.ibb.co/37bpd5P/image.png) (https://bit.ly/2KyKw7f)
Way of the Silkworm
If you don't have other copies of this in play,
+1 Action, +1 Card, +$1

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 17, 2020, 03:06:47 am

A project for Menagerie that's like a bigger Way of the Mouse.

Quote

Cat Tower
$4 - Project
When you play an action card, instead of following its instructions, you may play the card set aside with this, leaving it there.
-
Setup: Set aside an unused action card costing $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on December 17, 2020, 03:34:38 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 13, 2020, 03:49:22 pm

Quote from: LordBaphomet on December 13, 2020, 01:57:42 pm

Consulate: a project for empires. It was originally just provinces, but I think adding colonies, farmland, and fairgrounds makes it a bit more interesting.

(https://i.imgur.com/BurlHZc.png)

I feel like i would like this more in Adventures, and have the cost be much lower (say, 3€) and instead give you a range of negative penalties via Tokens like the minus card token and the -coin token. it would have to be renamed tho

I feel like I would like this more in Guilds, and have it be an Event called Jennifer that gives +Coffers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 17, 2020, 03:47:14 am

Nocture, obviously. Should probably be a nocturnal animal but Bear it is:

(https://i.imgur.com/2bOIkFY.jpg)

Note that this is not an Attack, so Reactions are not triggered. There is a smart way to deal with this which Carline showed some time ago (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20585.0): you make the Way play a non-Supply, non-ever-gainable Attack card.
I think that is a totally fine solution. But as Hexes are random and weakish anyway (which is why Nocturne can get away with two non-terminal Hexers) I think it is OK to have to deal with unblockable Skulks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 17, 2020, 04:18:12 am

Quote from: segura on December 17, 2020, 03:47:14 am

Nocture, obviously. Should probably be a nocturnal animal but Bear it is:

(https://i.imgur.com/2bOIkFY.jpg)

Note that this is not an Attack, so Reactions are not triggered. There is a smart way to deal with this which Carline showed some time ago (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20585.0): you make the Way play a non-Supply, non-ever-gainable Attack card.
I think that is a totally fine solution. But as Hexes are random and weakish anyway (which is why Nocturne can get away with two non-terminal Hexers) I think it is OK to have to deal with unblockable Skulks.

This will be quite brutal in games including Shelters.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 17, 2020, 04:35:22 am

I honestly think that it is OK. Necro with Way of the Horse is a Lab while an unblockable Skulk without the extra Buy and the Gold is not something you usually want (which is the power level any Way should aim for, weaker than a $2 respectively Kingdom card at any price).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 17, 2020, 04:47:41 am

Quote from: segura on December 17, 2020, 04:35:22 am

I honestly think that it is OK. Necro with Way of the Horse is a Lab while an unblockable Skulk without the extra Buy and the Gold is not something you usually want (which is the power level any Way should aim for, weaker than a $2 respectively Kingdom card at any price).

I agree with the general power level of Way of the Bear, but the opening turns with Necropolis can devastating and swingy. It is not about whether the players want a Skulk without the extra features, they already have it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 17, 2020, 06:15:34 am

Sure, but the effect is nonetheless a < $2 effect. Necro with Way of the Horse is a Laboratory, which is a $5 effect and thus far stronger. It is not just Lab's net effect of +1 Card, it makes Necro non-dead (except for those situations in which you actually play Necro as itself) so it is like +2 Cards.

You are right about the swinginess, but that is a general feature of Hexes.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 17, 2020, 01:43:05 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 16, 2020, 02:49:03 pm

How about 5VP if you have at least two potions? The only situation where buying more for VP would ever be worth it is Vineyards, which don't need a buff.

You're right that you probably wouldn't want to buy more than two Potions for VP in most situations, but I'd rather keep it as-is just to allow for some variability.  It could be useful in some endgame scenarios as an alternative to Provinces or Duchies. 

Are you concerned that this would encourage players to empty out the Potions pile?  With Bibliotheca, Potions are potentially worth slightly more than Obelisks.  I think that's fine because more often than not, having multiple copies of an Action card will be more useful / less detrimental than multiple Potions.

Quote from: gambit05 on December 16, 2020, 02:54:05 pm

Unfortunately, the majority of games don't have Potion cost cards, and thus no Potions. It would need a special set up.

For the purposes of this contest, I didn't think it would be an issue since if this is added to Alchemy, then chances are you would have a card with a Potion cost.  In any case, I take your point and will add a setup clause to add Potions to the Supply if not already on the board.

Quote from: fika monster on December 16, 2020, 02:54:44 pm

that seems like to much vp for potions to me. 2 potions is 8 money, , and 8 money for 5 vp is a good deal. i fear that potions will keep being picked up too much untill endgame and risk dragging the game out.

also, there are plenty of games where 1 potion is the optimal number, so having it be per 2 potions might give novice players the wrong idea and maybe burn them on potions. i think i like just giving "2vp" per potion more . i am by no means an expert designer tho

8 money for 5VP is a good deal, but worse than buying a Province and moreover you clog your deck with an additional card (granted that you can spend the money on two separate turns).
It also seems like you would get better slightly value with Potions ($0.625 per VP) than Duchies ($0.6 per VP), but this is mitigated by the fact that you need more buys to get sufficient Potions and you need to ensure that you have an even number to optimize the scoring.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 17, 2020, 02:06:24 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 17, 2020, 01:43:05 pm

Are you concerned that this would encourage players to empty out the Potions pile?  With Bibliotheca, Potions are potentially worth slightly more than Obelisks.  I think that's fine because more often than not, having multiple copies of an Action card will be more useful / less detrimental than multiple Potions.

Concerned? No. It'll happen sometimes, but rarely, which seems fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 19, 2020, 01:06:42 pm

24 hour Warning Submission

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 19, 2020, 01:14:25 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 17, 2020, 01:43:05 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 16, 2020, 02:49:03 pm

How about 5VP if you have at least two potions? The only situation where buying more for VP would ever be worth it is Vineyards, which don't need a buff.

You're right that you probably wouldn't want to buy more than two Potions for VP in most situations, but I'd rather keep it as-is just to allow for some variability.  It could be useful in some endgame scenarios as an alternative to Provinces or Duchies. 

Are you concerned that this would encourage players to empty out the Potions pile?  With Bibliotheca, Potions are potentially worth slightly more than Obelisks.  I think that's fine because more often than not, having multiple copies of an Action card will be more useful / less detrimental than multiple Potions.

Quote from: gambit05 on December 16, 2020, 02:54:05 pm

Unfortunately, the majority of games don't have Potion cost cards, and thus no Potions. It would need a special set up.

For the purposes of this contest, I didn't think it would be an issue since if this is added to Alchemy, then chances are you would have a card with a Potion cost.  In any case, I take your point and will add a setup clause to add Potions to the Supply if not already on the board.

Quote from: fika monster on December 16, 2020, 02:54:44 pm

that seems like to much vp for potions to me. 2 potions is 8 money, , and 8 money for 5 vp is a good deal. i fear that potions will keep being picked up too much untill endgame and risk dragging the game out.

also, there are plenty of games where 1 potion is the optimal number, so having it be per 2 potions might give novice players the wrong idea and maybe burn them on potions. i think i like just giving "2vp" per potion more . i am by no means an expert designer tho

8 money for 5VP is a good deal, but worse than buying a Province and moreover you clog your deck with an additional card (granted that you can spend the money on two separate turns).
It also seems like you would get better slightly value with Potions ($0.625 per VP) than Duchies ($0.6 per VP), but this is mitigated by the fact that you need more buys to get sufficient Potions and you need to ensure that you have an even number to optimize the scoring.

Island or Cemetery are $4 2VP Victory cards with a cherry on top. So Potion for (something slightly worse than) 2.5 VP should be totally fine. What I like most about the Landmark is that it works independent of the existence of Kingdom cards with Potion cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 19, 2020, 01:47:13 pm

EDITED: this used to have a big list of all the card submissions for this contest.. For clarity of people looking through this thread in the future, I have removed that so there isn't this big post clogging up while looking through the threads.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on December 19, 2020, 02:01:32 pm

My entry is missing from the list. Not because you missed it, but because I haven't posted it yet! :)


An updated version of a past contest entry, an Event and an Artifact for Alchemy:

(https://i.imgur.com/UjWDEPp.png) (https://i.imgur.com/pzcenfm.png)

Feedback welcome (and encouraged!).
(especially since we have lots of new people on the forum since the earlier version was posted)_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f5/Debt3.png/18px-Debt3.png)}

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 19, 2020, 02:21:34 pm

What is the idea for "Play any number of Treasures from your hand"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 19, 2020, 02:35:50 pm

ive decided upon using this (sorry for any confusion)
"way of the hamster
+1 coffer"
(https://i.imgur.com/gkpi3SW.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on December 19, 2020, 02:36:55 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 19, 2020, 02:21:34 pm

What is the idea for "Play any number of Treasures from your hand"?

Good question: the idea is to allow you to play your now "infused" (by Cauldron) potions. For example:
• first play one potion
• buy Infusion, trash a treasure and take the Cauldron
• now play the rest of your potions and choose the +$3 option

As a side effect, it would also combo with Treasures / Events that have you draw cards (from other expansions), e.g. using a Scepter to replay Smithy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 19, 2020, 02:45:11 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on December 19, 2020, 02:36:55 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 19, 2020, 02:21:34 pm

What is the idea for "Play any number of Treasures from your hand"?

Good question: the idea is to allow you to play your now "infused" (by Cauldron) potions. For example:
• first play one potion
• buy Infusion, trash a treasure and take the Cauldron
• now play the rest of your potions and choose the +$3 option

As a side effect, it would also combo with Treasures / Events that have you draw cards (from other expansions), e.g. using a Scepter to replay Smithy.

Yes, I thought something like that. This can be really strong. I would probably ignore the +$1 per $2 of the card cost early on and rather trash my Coppers for the Cauldron. The thing I like is that it encourages players to gain more than just one Potion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on December 19, 2020, 03:35:30 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/Nfyn8XJ3/Porcelain-Supplier-v1.png)

A Project for poor old and easily forgotten Hinterlands. The strongest comparison here is, in my opinion, the other Project, Fair, which simply gives you an extra Buy no matter what. Here, you can rack up more Buys than with Fair, provided that you collect Silvers in your deck. Hence why the pricier cost of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png), as opposed to (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png) Fair.

Why Hinterlands? Well, because it has a little bit of focus on Silver gaining. I also feel like Hinterlands is scarce in +Buys, so there it is. The theme here is that porcelain is a luxury obtained in other countries, like chinaware is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 19, 2020, 04:01:22 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 19, 2020, 02:45:11 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on December 19, 2020, 02:36:55 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 19, 2020, 02:21:34 pm

What is the idea for "Play any number of Treasures from your hand"?

Good question: the idea is to allow you to play your now "infused" (by Cauldron) potions. For example:
• first play one potion
• buy Infusion, trash a treasure and take the Cauldron
• now play the rest of your potions and choose the +$3 option

As a side effect, it would also combo with Treasures / Events that have you draw cards (from other expansions), e.g. using a Scepter to replay Smithy.

Yes, I thought something like that. This can be really strong. I would probably ignore the +$1 per $2 of the card cost early on and rather trash my Coppers for the Cauldron. The thing I like is that it encourages players to gain more than just one Potion.

I like that Cauldron is an Artifact rather than a Project, as it also keeps the power level in check.  It can create some interesting decisions early on about whether to use your Potion to buy a card with a Potion cost or to take the Cauldron from another player. 

I'm not sure that Infusion needs to give extra money for trashing, as it's quite good as-is.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 19, 2020, 04:22:01 pm

I've just made a minor revision to add a Setup clause for Bibliotheca:

(https://i.imgur.com/imWV6Z9.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 19, 2020, 06:27:35 pm

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/jfCEUEN.png)

This is, ofc, for Nocturne.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 19, 2020, 06:49:29 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 19, 2020, 06:27:35 pm

<Observatory>

Seems to me there aren't enough Action cards worth playing during the night phase to make this worthwhile most of the time since none of the basic vanilla bonuses do any good at night. Maybe "During your turns, you may play one non-Night Action card per turn during your Night phase." At least then you could include attack cards since it's one per turn.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on December 19, 2020, 07:48:44 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 19, 2020, 04:01:22 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 19, 2020, 02:45:11 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on December 19, 2020, 02:36:55 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 19, 2020, 02:21:34 pm

What is the idea for "Play any number of Treasures from your hand"?

Good question: the idea is to allow you to play your now "infused" (by Cauldron) potions. For example:
• first play one potion
• buy Infusion, trash a treasure and take the Cauldron
• now play the rest of your potions and choose the +$3 option

As a side effect, it would also combo with Treasures / Events that have you draw cards (from other expansions), e.g. using a Scepter to replay Smithy.

Yes, I thought something like that. This can be really strong. I would probably ignore the +$1 per $2 of the card cost early on and rather trash my Coppers for the Cauldron. The thing I like is that it encourages players to gain more than just one Potion.

I like that Cauldron is an Artifact rather than a Project, as it also keeps the power level in check.  It can create some interesting decisions early on about whether to use your Potion to buy a card with a Potion cost or to take the Cauldron from another player. 

I'm not sure that Infusion needs to give extra money for trashing, as it's quite good as-is.

Yes, strategically, I agree with using it first to trash your coppers; but eventually you'll have to trash better treasures.

Originally, Infusion did not have the 1/2 Salvager clause, but the trashed card needed to cost $4 or more to take the Cauldron (the idea being you would trash the potion you just used to buy it). That wasn't great, so I added the 1/2 Salvager, but still didn't like it, so changed it from any card costing $4 or more to any treasure.

With that change, maybe it doesn't need the 1/2 salvager anymore? But the reason I still like it is that it allows to replace a Potion you trash with just one other Potion to play ($2 + $3). So another alternative would be to just give +$1 if you trash. Something along the lines of:

Quote

+1 Buy. Trash a card you have in play for $1. If it's a Treasure, take the Cauldron. Play any number of Treasures from your hand.

Slight stronger, when trashing Coppers, equal for Silvers, weaker for Potions or Golds.

When I play test, I'll likely try both versions, and see what other tweaking may be needed. But I'm overall happy with the general design of spending a one Potion to add value to your other Potions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on December 19, 2020, 07:57:47 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 19, 2020, 06:49:29 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 19, 2020, 06:27:35 pm

<Observatory>

Seems to me there aren't enough Action cards worth playing during the night phase to make this worthwhile most of the time since none of the basic vanilla bonuses do any good at night. Maybe "During your turns, you may play one non-Night Action card per turn during your Night phase." At least then you could include attack cards since it's one per turn.

I'd be concerned that with this change, it wouldn't be different enough from Barracks.

Differences:
• costs $1 less
• can be more limited during action phase (e.g. can't play Smithy, then Smithy)
• allows playing an Action that was drawn during Buy or later phase

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 20, 2020, 06:13:41 am

@anordinaryman, you missed my entry:

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 17, 2020, 03:06:47 am

Quote

Cat Tower
$4 - Project
When you play an action card, instead of following its instructions, you may play the card set aside with this, leaving it there.
-
Setup: Set aside an unused action card costing $4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 20, 2020, 07:22:52 am

Quote from: Gubump on December 19, 2020, 06:27:35 pm

My submission:

(https://i.imgur.com/jfCEUEN.png)

This is, ofc, for Nocturne.

i would make it cheaper

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 20, 2020, 11:49:54 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 20, 2020, 06:13:41 am

@anordinaryman, you missed my entry:

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 17, 2020, 03:06:47 am

Quote

Cat Tower
$4 - Project
When you play an action card, instead of following its instructions, you may play the card set aside with this, leaving it there.
-
Setup: Set aside an unused action card costing $4.

Thanks for pointing it out. I probably missed it because you missed following these instructions:

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 12, 2020, 03:35:28 pm

Submission Guidelines:

• It will help me if you provide a brief explanation on why your card fits well in the expansion you designed it for
• Please submit an image of your card as the first thing in a post.
  

. . .

I am not being snarky here. I'm being honest ... I'm a dummy and it's very easy for me to miss submissions that don't have images and aren't the first thing in a post! If I ever win in the future, I will have this same guideline, so that's why I'm posting this reminder -- so that in the future I don't miss submissions like yours. Thanks for pointing out the omission, I'll write up thoughts on it now :)

Less than two hours left!
I have seen the updates/submissions for Gubump, Timinou, X-tra, fika monster, scolapasta, LibraryAdventurer

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 20, 2020, 01:07:47 pm

Quote from: fika monster on December 19, 2020, 02:35:50 pm

ive decided upon using this (sorry for any confusion)
"way of the hamster
+1 coffer"
(https://i.imgur.com/gkpi3SW.png)

btw, this is a Way for Guilds. i decided to keep it uber simple

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 20, 2020, 02:22:05 pm

Contest #98: Feeling sideways  | JUDGING

Analysis of each submission

majiponi for Dominion	(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpHBVmrVQAEpqP0?format=jpg&name=900x900)	I find this card incredibly unlikely to ever have been printed. Dominion doesn't group the game into larger "sets" of games. That's an aspect of tournament organization not Dominion. Design principles aside, let's imagine a world in which the original rules of Dominion said: play 3 rounds, whoever has the most points wins (basically this landmark is part of the game). I believe that would be a bad choice. Right now, when someone is pummeling the other player with vicious attacks, there's an incentive to end the game and win already. But now, someone has a major incentive to keep playing a string of ghost ships, Sea Hags, Haunted Woods, and monuments forever in order to win. Do you see how this design would incentivize less fun games? The case where this landmark works well is super close games. Now I feel a little better about getting super close because my points help me later... but that isn't so fun. Now in the next game I can't do a fun and clever 3-pile because winning by a large margin is more important, this takes away strategic decisions and again makes the game less fun. I can't think of anyway to implement this in a way that wouldn't take away from some of the strengths of Dominion. I know that you said you like the ways that this changes the game, I guess you can take this as just one person's opinion on this, just because I am averse to it doesn't mean other people are. I'm sure other people would enjoy this as well, it's just not for me.
fika monster for Guilds	(https://i.imgur.com/gkpi3SW.png) Quote way of the hamster +1 coffer	For guilds it fits in with coffers. This is a pretty simple way for Coffers. Compared to other Ways it is "balanced." I don't have much to say about this. It doesn't add a lot of strategic depth -- if you have leftover terminals and you don't need the money this turn you get a Coffer. I came back after making my judgement results to say. I know it's disappointing to get a card the judge has no critical feedback on and it still doesn't make the top 5. So I wanted to take some time to just explain my opinion. This is a simple card that would absolutely fit in with Dominion. Sometimes simple cards are personally interesting, and sometimes they aren't. For whatever reason, this one isn't so interesting to me. But please don't take that as an indication that this is bad design. I think it's fine and good and applaud your ability to find something simple that is balanced.
Xen3k for Dark Ages This is in the top 5	(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50719996712_397975b95b_b.jpg) Quote Way of the Vermin Way Trash this. Each other player gains a Ruins. If this is the first Action card played this turn, gain a Spoils.	Great add to Dark Ages. With all the on-trash benefits with dark ages, it's lovely to turn each card into self trash. I think having a self-trash would be a good "Way", even if there was no benefit attached to it. I don't love turning every card into an Attack that can't be blocked is very good, but the good news is in games with Way of the Vermin, each ruin you get you can self-trash and attack your opponents. And, if their turn was rotten, they can gain a spoils for the effort. This really combos with tons of the cards in Dark Ages and works really well. It's a little "strong" for a way, but it's fine for it to be strong since everyone has equal access to it. Even Big Money even gets access to it because they get ruins to use as Vermin I really love this Way, and when whittling down from the top 5, I took a second pass at the judgement here, and I think there's a big problem here. Necropolis means that everyone will start their second shuffle with (#players -1) ruins in their deck. That's pretty aggressive and a slow start to the game. And, even though those ruins are-self trashing, they take actions so players can't play their actions and just slow the game down more and more, passing out spoils which prevent the actions from being played more. It also means that shuffle luck on the second shuffle can really effect the game. I collide my Armory with my ruins. You draw your ruin by itself with two coppers, essentially being able to "pay $2" for thinning your ruin, attacking me, and getting a spoils. I think you could add a "non-shelter" clause to it and it would solve most of these tempo issues.
silverspawn for Cornucopia	(https://i.ibb.co/TTkYFhh/Troubadours.png)	This was submitted for Cornucopia, but it doesn't have anything to do with any of the sub-themes. The posit that Cornucopia is about engines isn't really true, definitely not significantly more than any expansion. Menagerie doesn't even have terminal draw (other than Followers), which would be the power of Troubadours. So this doesn't fit in that expansion at all. I really don't think Donald X would have ever put this in Cornucopia. It would fit a little better in Adventures since Champion sets the precedent for +1 Action. All that aside, the mechanic of one time having a super great turn is interesting. I feel like this is more likely going to get used to save a turn -- which I think is a great design space. It really sucks to get behind because all your villages are at the bottom of your deck. Cards like this help offset those un-fun situations. Nice. No real suggestions.
LordBaphomet for Empires	(https://i.imgur.com/BurlHZc.png)	The idea of a project boosting Victory cards is really cool! I just don't think this is priced correctly. If I pay 7, I probably could have gotten a province instead. Sure, it doesn't bloat my deck, but it's pretty close to that. If I do that and we split provinces 5/3 I lose. If we do provinces 4/4 and the other person gets an Extra duchy and estate (instead of buying this event), it's tied. So in many games this isn't really quite strong enough to be worth while. I think this card becomes more interesting if it counts victory cards costing 5 or more, and then you can cost it even higher, (not sure... 10 debt?) and enable alternate paths towards victory. This would make it a little similar to silk roads but I think that's fine.
Carline for Seaside This is in the top 5	(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/000/828/full/Way_of_the_Dolphin_%287%29.png?1607916893)	As someone pointed out, this is basically Haven where you have no choice but to haven the top card of your deck. So, it's strictly worse than Haven. But Ways aren't evaluated in the same way cards are, the fact and Action cna do this Dolphin makes it very useful. With terminal collision you just Dolphin one of the cards to start your next hand with 6 cards. Also top of the deck combos with tons of other cards in Seaside since top-of-the-deck is a very prevalent sub theme, so there's many times that you know what that top card is (Pirate Ship, Lookout, Pearl Diver, Sea Hag, Ghost Ship) which makes this even more useful. Nice work designing a Way that really fits into seaside. This seems fun and interesting and appropriately balanced for a Way. The only point of criticism here is that it makes Haven a lot less appealing. But still, Haven's flexibility in what card you set aside means there are still games where I buy Haven even when Way of the Dolphin is possible.
pubby for Intrigue	(https://i.imgur.com/dfg0oXM.png)	I think this fits in with Intrigue by incentivizing Victory Cards, what with all the fun Victory Cards Intrigue adds. The problem is that all those cards are properly balanced with their action/treasure and the victory points they provide. Once you add two more VP to them, they become over-powered. Even without alt-vp, this changes up the game dramatically -- Provinces no longer seem that important when two duchies are worth a lot more. For my money, the more interesting Landmarks are one that open up different avenues of play, not ones that are so powerful you have to go for them. The additional 2VP per victory card is a little too game warping. I think this card becomes a lot more subtle and interesting if it was 1VP instead. Someone else mentioned this is a less interesting form of battlefield. It no longer matters when you buy the victory cards.
spineflu for Adventures	(https://i.ibb.co/cT8MwgP/salvage-yard.png) (https://i.ibb.co/dggpXkg/over-encumbered.png) Quote Salvage Yard • $5 • Event Gain a Treasure costing up to $6. Each other player gains a copy of it and takes Over Encumbered if they don't have it already Quote Over Encumbered • State At the start of your turn, you may return this for -1 Action; if you don't, take your -1 Card token.	I first wanted to analyze Over Encumbered. -1 Action is really bad at the start of the turn, that's a devastating punish to Engines. And there's no counter for this in Adventures. Even Champion requires you to first play a card. And because this isn't an Attack, Champion doesn't protect against it. So this is pretty oppressive. Even if they don't take the -1 Action ever, then they start every turn with their -1 card token, which is a SUPER strong attack. Notice the only way to give -1 card tokens to other players is $5 event. So, I think the attack here is way too strong and it's especially disabling towards Engines. Clever design where the benefit of buying Salvage Yard is weak (similar to how IGG works) and especially weak for the engine. So this is an Event that is Big Money's solution to fighting Engines. Except, this costs a buy, which Big Money doesn't normally have a surplus of, so it's hard to justify buying this over a Gold, especially if you're racing before the Engine activates. I'll point out one final thing about the event -- it's political. If a player has finally bitten the -1 Action bullet, and another player hasn't... should I  buy Salvage Yard? A political decision. I think the attack is interesting, I'd recommend looking into ways to make it counter-able and perhaps a little weaker (only attacks when the Journey token is a certain way, and/or the -1 Action happens after the first Action you play)
aquila for Empires This is in the top 5	Quote Way of the Eagle - Way If you haven't trashed a copy of this during  this turn, trash this. If you do, +1VP  per 2 copies of it in the Supply (round up).	Just having the ability to self-trash is interesting when there's on-trash abilities. Unfortunately, Empires has no on-trash benefits for Action cards. So, that aspect of the card isn't so interesting in the context of Empires. I like the "if you haven't trashed a copy of this during this turn" clause. It's a clever way to limit its strength. I like the fact that this encourages you to trash cards earlier in the game for higher VP, nice! Near the endgame you're happy to grab a scout as a Distant Lands. This is a good point for me to bring this up ... this card is basically Distant Lands early on (funnily enough the first Distant Lands itself in a 3 player game is now worth more points trashed than on the Tavern Mat). I also like the idea that you can turn early cards (trashers) into VP. There's something so appealing about cannibalizing your deck for more Victory Points. I can't think of any ways to improve this. It fits into Empires with the carrying about supply piles and the VPs.
Timinou for Alchemy	(https://i.imgur.com/imWV6Z9.png)	Basically, every potion is now 2.5 points. at $4 this is basically balanced. It's a little strong Victory Points wise, but basically works. How often do you buy a Cemetery just for the points? Rarely. And imagine you have two potions, towards the end of the game it's a big risk to buy a single potion because you have to get a pair to get any points. This risk is interesting, but it's just not enough points to be worth that risk often, so not so interesting. This is most interesting in Alchemy where you already have one potion, and then you buy a second one at the end of the game for a whopping 5 Victory points. Outlining all of these cases, I'm not convinced this is so interesting. It pushes me slightly towards buying a potion in the first place, but the whole point of Potion-costing cards is they are strong enough to be worth buying a potion for if they exist anyway, even without VP. So, I don't think this Landmark has a huge impact in the game and does not open up a ton of interesting possibilities.
D782802859 for Intrigue	(https://i.imgur.com/ahVCCBU.png) (https://i.imgur.com/GK1zGcN.png)	I'm disappointed you didn't update Bounty to clarify the questions I had about this card. It's tough to evaluate because there's so much ambiguity about the card. A way of making it less ambiguous would be to say "You may discard Victory cards at the start of your Buy phase for +$2 each." It's a shame because this state is really cool and adds a lot to intrigue. Unfortunately Assassin is political. Do I choose to discard a Victory card or not so you get Bounty? I hope you keep iterating on this concept because Bounty is a really interesting state. With the ambiguity and the political-nature of this card, I can't see it ever being printed in Intrigue. I really hope you iterate on this card because Bounty is so interesting and a version of this concept definitely could have won the contest. To reiterate my questions in case you didn't see them: "How does Bounty work with Action-Victory cards? With Bounty, when you play Dame Josephine on your Treasure phase, do you get +2$ and you attack other players? Do you choose one of those options, but you are allowed to choose either while playing in your treasure phase? Same questions apply for all the action-victory cards. Another question -- Pasture is currently a treasure worth $1. Bounty says also so does that mean Pasture is worth $1 and worth $2? Is it now a gold?"
mandioca15 for Dominion	(https://i.imgur.com/bLORvMT.png) credit to fika monster for making the image	This is essentially a less interesting version of Tomb. I prefer the way Money Lender instructs new players: they play to get that big $3 (not realizing it only adds $2) and then they discover the benefit of coppers being gone. I don't have much more to say. I do appreciate its simplicity. If Tomb wasn't in the game, I could see this existing. But Tomb exists.
grep for Cornucopia	(https://i.ibb.co/37bpd5P/image.png) (https://bit.ly/2KyKw7f) Quote Way of the Silkworm If you don't have other copies of this in play, +1 Action, +1 Card, +$1	First of all, +1 Card always occurs before +1 Action when there are non-conditional bonuses. Keep this in mind because I read this as +1 Action +1 Buy +$1 because that's the normal order. Obviously this fits in with Cornucopia for the variety it encourages. Turning any card into a Peddler is nice. The thing is, this expansion already has Tournament which is a more interesting Peddler. And it causes a ton of AP as you try to figure out, on each first play of a card, should I draw one more card or should I use the normal function of the action? I think that games with the Way of the Silkworm will be slower, and less fun because of that. I like the concept, but I think the Vanilla bonuses could be better. I wonder if you made it stronger, then maybe the choice is more obvious and it leads to less AP and makes it more fun. If it were a Lab, that would encourage strong variety because you would love to have 10 cheap labs in your deck. And you'd very often immediately choose to make the first play of each Action a lab.
segura for Nocturne	(https://i.imgur.com/2bOIkFY.jpg)	This is an attack which gives no benefit. Donald X shied away from those... except Nocturne has Skulk AND Werewolf. So this is sort of a sub-theme of Nocturne. But I do really object to making it not an Attack. Donald X. has shied away from "discard from top of your deck" that aren't even Attacks because players perceive them as attacks and are not react-able. I can't imagine something that is actually an attack without having the attack type would get by. Especially something so easily spammable. This definitely fits in Nocturne. I just think it would make it less fun to play with for many players.
scolapasta for Alchemy	(https://i.imgur.com/UjWDEPp.png) (https://i.imgur.com/pzcenfm.png)	Wow, neat concept, turning Potions into golds! I think you added too many benefits to this design. I think you're underestimating turning a Potion into a Goat. (It's a goat because you get to still produce $1 from the copper in play you trash). On its own, Infusion makes Potions a little too strong. Well, Potion-costing card-shaped-things need to be strong in order to justify the Potion expense. I just think you went overboard here with the +Buy. Now on my turns Potions (other than the first one) are $4-costing Golds. I just only buy Potions here, no other $ needed (except for a Copper to trash each turn with the first Potion). I think you need have to get rid of the +Buy here. Then it becomes a little more difficult to trade back Cauldron every turn, and introduces more complexity of whether to sacrifice a buy to take the Cauldron back. Also, I think the Event costing 4 that says "trash a a card you have in play for +$1 per $2 it costs (rounded down)" is roughly balanced, maybe it could work for 3. Adding a +Buy and a great Artifact on top of that and it's way over-powered, and less interesting because of that. I really applaud the design that would make me want to fill my deck with Potions, and I absolutely adore the trash-in-play aspect. I can't wait to sacrifice a hunting grounds for +$3 and a duchy. Nice work. I think this card does make Alchemy appealing, so nice work on that front! I hope you consider my thoughts around the +Buy.
X-tra for Hinterlands This is in the top 5	(https://i.postimg.cc/Nfyn8XJ3/Porcelain-Supplier-v1.png)	You've done it. You've design a silver+ for less than $4... who knew it would be Silver all along! This combos great with Hinterland sub-themes of silvers and on-buy/gain (by having silvers provide a gain). Most strong engines ignore silver. I love that silver-haters would have to begrudgingly load up on silvers for those non-terminal +Buys. This is simple and definitely fits in with Hinterlands. I think the price is right: you often pay $5 for a silver+ with a +Buy  (Charm, Spices, and Counterfeit), so I think this works to turn all your silvers into +Buys. Nice work!
Gubump for Nocturnes	(https://i.imgur.com/jfCEUEN.png)	This is pretty similar to alion8me's Lunar Ritual (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg847021#msg847021) , which won Dominion Design Contest 80. I personally like the concept far more as an Event -- you have to buy it each time, which is pretty expensive since you lose a buy and 3 money. As an event it aims to "save" a turn and can be cheaper. But this is an artifact you only buy it once and have it forever, so it's appropriately more expensive. In games where this is good (remodeler and a draw to x or a +3 cards), it's incredibly good. Those games are interesting because you essentially avoid $. I do think the clever design of removing attack cards is good so that it doesn't become super oppressive. Games where it isn't good, it's not going to be worth that high price point of $5. Let's look at Nocturne itself. The strongest payload we can get from an Action card in the Night phase is either Gold gaining (Leprechaun, Tragic Hero, boons), $4 cost gaining (boon), or getting lucky with Zombie Mason. Well, none of those are that strong at all. You can't even gain imps (which would be great to play in the night phase phase) because Tormenter is an attack (well, that's not true -- you can actually play Tormenters using Night imps). There is room for situational design, but I think it's far better to have a card that is situational, but still a decision whether to use. It sort of feels like a non-decision. Either this is good and you have to get it, or it's bad and you never do. There's no middle-ground. I think the best situational cards have ambiguous middle ground that introduce strategic complexity. I disagree with someone's proposed solution of making this cheaper. Again, in the games where it's good, it's very very good and $5 is appropriate. How to improve this design? It's difficult to do so. You'd have to add some other bonus to make it stronger in the weak-case that didn't make it stronger in the strong-case. I'm not so sure here.
LibraryAdventurer for Menagerie This is in the top 5	Quote Cat Tower $4 - Project When you play an action card, instead of following its instructions, you may play the  card set aside with this, leaving it there. - Setup: Set aside an unused action card costing $4.	I'm glad you reminded me of this submission because I really like it! So this fits in with a few themes of Menagerie -- it is a Way that you pay for, which is interesting. Then it also works with horses. Menagerie has a way to gain lots of Actions so you can play that set aside card that even costs more than horses (so might be better). I think the price is right, sometimes the $4 cost card is insanely good, at sometimes it's just okay. I don't think costing this $5 would be appropriate because now I'm a lot less likely to build a cat tower for say a Cutpurse. I think $5 is too much, and $3 doesn't make sense. I like this a lot. It's simple, but fits in with Menagerie well. Sometimes even you build a Cat tower for Spy because you want that added flexibility of non-terminallity. That's probably where Cat tower shines most, when the $4 set aside is a weak non-terminal, and those are the situations where it's most interesting to me. But the games where you have a $4 village there, well it's a little strong, but for some reason I'm okay with that strength. It's a different sort of game, and I mean, that's what all the ways do anyway.

Whittling it down

Originally submissions from Xen3k, silverspawn, Carline, aquila, scolapasta, X-tra, and LibraryAdventurer were all in my short-list and I had a tough time even weaning them down to top 5. But I had to do a top 5. Troubadours really didn't follow the contest to fit in with an expansion. Infusion, as much as I love it, is really hurt by the +buy in my opinion.

Way of the Vermin is not in the top-3 because of the Shelter/early ruins issue. Porcelain Supplier is also a truly wonderful Project, but it just isn't exciting enough compared to the other top 5 entries. I imagine if I judged on a different day my opinion could have reversed on Porcelain Supplier.

It only gets harder narrowing down a final between Cat Tower, Way of the Eagle, and Way of the Dolphin. All three excellent cards I can think of no way to improve. Both Cat Tower and Way of the Dolphin do things similar to what's already in those expansions, and Way of the Eagle offers net new functionality.

(almost but not quite Runner Up): Cat Tower by LibraryAdventurer

Runner Up: Way of the Dolphin by Carline
(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/000/828/full/Way_of_the_Dolphin_%287%29.png?1607916893)

And the winner is...

Winner: Way of the Eagle by aquila
(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/wayoftheeagle.png)
(card mock up by me)

This is such an interesting Way. Do I trash cards early to lose tempo? I love that choice, and I'm a sucker for cards that make you re-think the "green at the end of the game" strategy. There's even really fun dynamics. Oh, my opponent just bought 2 scouts, maybe I will buy a scout to deny them 2VPs on their next turn. It opens up a lot of interesting dynamics where you have to consider what your opponent is doing. Congratulations aquila.

Closing Thoughts

As always, I am impressed and feel inspired by the many wonderful designs y'all made. Judging is always difficult because of all the wonderful ideas! I am open to feedback. Do you think I terribly judged this? Did I make a horrible mistake? This is all one person's opinions. I am often wrong. Still, I am excited to hear any positive or negative reflection you have towards my judging. Looking forward to aquilla's contest!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 20, 2020, 03:55:47 pm

I think you did a very nice job, overall very well presented, explained what you liked and what not and if you saw a possibility you suggested how you would improve it. I could easily follow your evaluations and my own judgment would have been similar for most of the cards. For one card though I was a bit surprised that is grep's Way of the Silkworm. You said  that the Peddler effect is a bit weak, and a Lab effect would have been better. In my opinion, the Peddler effect makes the Way more a unique card than a Lab, which would then be relatively similar to Way of the Horse. I think the Way as is is fine and balanced. Sorry for the criticism, but you asked for feedback.

Anyway, congratulations to the winner Aquila, the runner-up Carline and for the good 3rd place for LibraryAdventurer!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 20, 2020, 04:17:19 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 20, 2020, 03:55:47 pm

. For one card though I was a bit surprised that is grep's Way of the Silkworm. You said  that the Peddler effect is a bit weak, and a Lab effect would have been better. In my opinion, the Peddler effect makes the Way more a unique card than a Lab, which would then be relatively similar to Way of the Horse. I think the Way as is is fine and balanced. Sorry for the criticism, but you asked for feedback.

Thanks for the feedback. I could be wrong on this one. Just to clarify my thought process here:

My criticism was more that it should be over-powered, otherwise every time I have to stop and think hard about whether to play as a silkworm was not. Peddlers are just on that border of "they don't hurt" but not that strong such that I am struck with Action Paralysis before every action I play for the first time. And they are non-terminal. If they were very strong, or terminal, then I have a lot less AP because the choice becomes more obvious. At least, that is what I was trying to explain, just to clarify. But you definitely don't have to agree with my point, and I could be wrong on that point. Just trying to clarify that I do not think Way of the Silkworm is weak. It's an interesting Way and can positively impact some games for sure.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 20, 2020, 04:32:06 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 20, 2020, 04:17:19 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 20, 2020, 03:55:47 pm

. For one card though I was a bit surprised that is grep's Way of the Silkworm. You said  that the Peddler effect is a bit weak, and a Lab effect would have been better. In my opinion, the Peddler effect makes the Way more a unique card than a Lab, which would then be relatively similar to Way of the Horse. I think the Way as is is fine and balanced. Sorry for the criticism, but you asked for feedback.

Thanks for the feedback. I could be wrong on this one. Just to clarify my thought process here:

My criticism was more that it should be over-powered, otherwise every time I have to stop and think hard about whether to play as a silkworm was not. Peddlers are just on that border of "they don't hurt" but not that strong such that I am struck with Action Paralysis before every action I play for the first time. And they are non-terminal. If they were very strong, or terminal, then I have a lot less AP because the choice becomes more obvious. At least, that is what I was trying to explain, just to clarify. But you definitely don't have to agree with my point, and I could be wrong on that point. Just trying to clarify that I do not think Way of the Silkworm is weak. It's an interesting Way and can positively impact some games for sure.

I think we should have a separate thread in which we discuss interesting cards from the Weekly Design Contest and the Expansion Contest after respective contest rounds concluded. This may be immensely helpful to improve such cards and maybe even to learn more about the judgement criteria of different people. I already had the idea a while back but I was too lazy. The idea is basically avoiding interference of extensive aftermath discussions with the next contest rounds.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on December 20, 2020, 04:36:26 pm

Yay, that's satisfying! The Latin for eagle is Aquila~.
Thanks anordinaryman, that was an interesting contest!

We're almost at contest 100, and we're at a somewhat significant time of year, so I propose something big (and challenging to judge):

Contest #99: Free For All
Just one restriction: no new mechanics. Go nuts; put together the best design you can think of! Sift through all the options and select something you know works. I will attempt to keep an open mind towards different audiences, and I anticipate a very big shortlist of potential runners-up. To choose a winner I guess may involve some personal preference if things are really close.

No bonus points for holiday theme by the way, but a narrow margin may be decided by relevance of theme to the mechanics. I will heavily favour mechanical balance and interest however.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on December 20, 2020, 04:49:26 pm

Quote

Heist- Event _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}
Everyone (including you) reveals the top two cards of their deck. Gain a treasure costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} up to the number of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} revealed. Return the cards back to the top of their deck in any order (player's choice)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 20, 2020, 05:35:48 pm

Quote from: Aquila on December 20, 2020, 04:36:26 pm

Just one restriction: no new mechanics. Go nuts; put together the best design you can think of!

Thank you! I really wanted to use this traveler line. I've almost never been so happy with a design.

(https://i.ibb.co/qjrzMCQ/Orphan.png)          (https://i.ibb.co/6g25Nvd/Servant.png)

(https://i.ibb.co/VTTBvy3/Wanderer.png)          (https://i.ibb.co/grRMDNY/Night-Owl.png)

                                               (https://i.ibb.co/kGCP34W/Sorceress.png)
 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 21, 2020, 04:59:12 am

(https://i.imgur.com/pVWHMVc.png)

At best something like a Bazaar with tokens/Horses. Potentially neat with draw to X due to the Treasure-playing in the Action phase and supporting a higher density of green.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 21, 2020, 05:27:59 am

Quote from: LittleFish on December 20, 2020, 04:49:26 pm

Quote

Heist- Event _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}
Everyone (including you) reveals the top two cards of their deck. Gain a treasure costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} up to the number of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} revealed. Return the cards back to the top of their deck in any order (player's choice)

Seems risky, pay $3 adn gain a Copper. So perhaps make it non-mandatory?
I'd also reconsider the scaling, in 3P games it is 50% better than in 2P games.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MochaMoko on December 21, 2020, 05:57:33 am

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/685147225470271508/790526775557619732/Rally_FINAL.png)  (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/685147225470271508/791226109647388682/Campaign_FINAL.png)  (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/685147225470271508/790523369585377300/Homecoming_FINAL.png)

Quote

Rally ⑤ Action - Traveller
+1 Buy
+②
You may discard 2 cards
to gain a Rally.
-
When you discard this from
play, you may exchange it for
a Campaign.

Quote

Campaign ⑥* Action - Traveller
+2 Actions
-
When you discard this from
play, if you've gained at least
3 cards this turn, choose one:
+2 VP, or exchange this for a
Homecoming.
(This is not in the Supply.)

Quote

Homecoming ⑦* Action
You may play an Action
card from your hand twice.
If you do, +2 Cards.
-
(This is not in the Supply.)

This is a Traveller line that I've been fiddling with for quite a while. I have a lot to say about it, but I'll try to make my explanation short! (´ε｀；)

Rally is not powerful, but hey it's +Buy, and it gains itself, which makes the Traveller entry cost of ⑤ less expensive if you have dreams to build big.

Campaign was originally +2 VP on play, which was the impetus behind making the line in the first place (try to make an unconditional +2 VP Action card!). I ended up giving up on that, and now the line plays a little minigame instead.

Homecoming can only be gotten by forgoing some +VP, but we can get back to doing that after building some more! The +2 Cards only comes after you finish Throning an Action card. This is significantly weaker than +2 Cards outright, but it should still make for a pretty powerful card.

I'd like there to be 6 copies of Campaign and Homecoming instead of the usual 5 (maybe even 8? Nah, probably too many). Homecoming will likely not be able to sustain an engine by itself, but I think the line as a whole will be able to give powerful enough support and payload to an otherwise-decent engine board to be worth getting, with simple +buy/gains from Rally, and alt-VP from Campaign.

CHANGES (23 Dec):
Rally: Changed from "may discard 3 cards" to "2 cards"
Campaign: Changed from "+1 Action" to "+2 Actions"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 21, 2020, 08:06:45 am

Quote

Drunken Huntsman
$5 - Action - Attack
+1 Card, +1 Action, +$1.
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand. Then each player with any cards in hand passes one to the next such player to their left, at once.

I've been waiting for a chance to use this card for one of these contests.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 21, 2020, 08:13:32 am

Quote from: MochaMoko on December 21, 2020, 05:57:33 am

<Rally/Campaign/Homecoming>

Welcome to the forums!

I like these ideas, but I think they'd be balanced fine if you reduced the cost for each of them by $1. Or, if you want Rally's self-gaining to make up for the high cost, you could make it only need to discard 2 cards to gain another Rally.

Actually I think Campaign and Homecoming could use to be slightly stronger even after reducing the cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 21, 2020, 09:58:06 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 21, 2020, 08:06:45 am

Quote

Drunken Huntsman
$5 - Action - Attack
+1 Card, +1 Action, +$1.
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand. Then each player with any cards in hand passes one to the next such player to their left, at once.

I've been waiting for a chance to use this card for one of these contests.

There are two cantrip Attacks in the game. Urchin is weak and only rarely worthwhile in and of itself (Governor, Council Room) and Familiar is hard to get.
This is a Peddler+ that has, unlike the above two cards, no downsize while featuring at the same time an Attack that is similar in strength to Militia (discard a bad card, keep a bad card is not that different from discarding two bad cards).

The idea is fine but it has to be put on a terminal (IMO even a non-cantrip, non-terminal would be too harsh).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 21, 2020, 10:13:19 am

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5fe0b12aa6f4ee0d5d4499ef/24c5cca88464afe7fbc3b12977278339/image.png)

Quote

Hedge Fund • Landmark
At Clean-Up, if you have exactly 1 unspent Buy, take 1% from here
-
Setup: Place 3 % here per player. Each player starts with their entire deck in their hand. On your first turn, +1 Buy.

Your first two turns are now your first turn.
Has some comparisons to Baths, especially in No-Plus-Buy games, but the opening change up is really the meat and potatoes of the card - the VP is negligible except in extremely close games.
Inspired by listening to an old Adam Horton podcast where he lets opponents choose their openings.

Named because it allows me to make the visual pun of a hedge maze, and because Hedge Funds are (in theory, anyway) judicious with their buys.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 21, 2020, 10:23:16 am

Quote from: segura on December 21, 2020, 09:58:06 am

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 21, 2020, 08:06:45 am

Quote

Drunken Huntsman
$5 - Action - Attack
+1 Card, +1 Action, +$1.
Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand. Then each player with any cards in hand passes one to the next such player to their left, at once.

I've been waiting for a chance to use this card for one of these contests.

There are two cantrip Attacks in the game. Urchin is weak and only rarely worthwhile in and of itself (Governor, Council Room) and Familiar is hard to get.
This is a Peddler+ that has, unlike the above two cards, no downsize while featuring at the same time an Attack that is similar in strength to Militia (discard a bad card, keep a bad card is not that different from discarding two bad cards).

The idea is fine but it has to be put on a terminal (IMO even a non-cantrip, non-terminal would be too harsh).

Why? It only attacks once per turn. A cantrip attack is only bad if it stacks.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 21, 2020, 10:34:24 am

Masquerade and Militia / Goons has to be set up, you need quite some splitters to make it work.
Here you get the entire thing in just one card (albeit with a weaker, only half-power handsize Attack). And we just talk about the cherry on top, the main course is the Peddler.

That's simply too good / centralizing / easy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on December 21, 2020, 11:27:27 am

Quote from: segura on December 21, 2020, 05:27:59 am

Quote from: LittleFish on December 20, 2020, 04:49:26 pm

Quote

Heist- Event _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}
Everyone (including you) reveals the top two cards of their deck. Gain a treasure costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} up to the number of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} revealed. Return the cards back to the top of their deck in any order (player's choice)

Seems risky, pay $3 adn gain a Copper. So perhaps make it non-mandatory?
I'd also reconsider the scaling, in 3P games it is 50% better than in 2P games.

would adding "may gain a treasure" and then making only the player to left/right balance it slightly?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on December 21, 2020, 12:19:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Elg8Uiy.png)

FAQ: The two set-aside cards should usually be different, but can be the same card. It's recommended to pick them randomly.

Edit: made changes susggested by Xen3k and gambit05

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on December 21, 2020, 12:31:46 pm

Quote from: pubby on December 21, 2020, 12:19:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/T4qI7cy.png)

I like this idea. I think the first part can probably be simplified as "Discard a card. Play the two set-aside cards in any order leaving them there."

Seeing as you discard a card and the card you are playing are limited to $3 or less, I think this could possibly work as a $5 cost card. Need to look at the list of card to see if that would be busted in any combination, but that is my first take.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 21, 2020, 03:57:34 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on December 20, 2020, 04:49:26 pm

Quote

Heist- Event _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}
Everyone (including you) reveals the top two cards of their deck. Gain a treasure costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} up to the number of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} revealed. Return the cards back to the top of their deck in any order (player's choice)

What happens if someone reveals a Victory card worth variable _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}, such as Gardens? You don't know how much _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} was revealed then.

Quote from: MochaMoko on December 21, 2020, 05:57:33 am

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/685147225470271508/790523366787907604/Rally_FINAL.png)  (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/685147225470271508/790523367777763368/Campaign_FINAL.png)  (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/685147225470271508/790523369585377300/Homecoming_FINAL.png)

First of all, welcome to the forums.

Second, I think all of these are WAAAAYYYYY too weak. It's extremely difficult to make Campaign be not a Ruined Village (and a payoff of +2_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} isn't usually worth getting so many cards you frequently don't want, especially with how difficult it is to gain 3 cards in one turn), and with how hard it is to get Homecoming, I'd expect something even more powerful than King's Court, and I think Homecoming would be too weak for how difficult it is to get even if the +2 Cards was unconditional and came first. And Rally's only worth buying because you need to in order to get Campaign, which you need to get Homecoming, so the weakness of Homecoming and Campaign makes Rally weak by extension. Just look at the official Traveller lines: Every official Traveller costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} and up is either slightly or blatantly overpowered for its "cost," and they don't have special conditions that need to be met before you can upgrade them. Whereas both Rally and Campaign are underpowered for their costs, and Campaign is even arguably actually worse than Rally, and while Homecoming is overpowered for its cost, it's not enough overpowered to make up for how difficult it is to get.

Just to outline how hard it is to get Homecoming in a set with this and no other source of +Buys or gainers (or just no Villages or Villagers, even if you do have other +Buy sources and gainers), this is what you'd have to go through:
1. Get a Rally and a Campaign both in the same hand.
2. Play the Campaign, then the Rally. Discard the 3 cards to gain a Rally. You'll probably have no hand left at this point since Rally and Campaign don't draw, and 3 discarded + 1 Rally + 1 Campaign = 5, the default handsize.
3. You have _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} and 2 Buys. You've gained a Rally so far this turn, so you need to spend both your Buys to get Campaign to trigger. So you buy a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)} cost card (probably either a weak Action or an Estate, if this Kingdom has no _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}'s). And then you need to buy a Copper.

So in order to get a Homecoming, you need to first buy a _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} cost, exchange it for a Campaign, buy another _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} cost to replace the Rally you just lost, get the stars to align well enough to collide your Rally and Campaign, and then gain yet another underpowered Rally along with two cards you almost definitely don't want just to get a card that's maybe on par with King's Court, and probably could've just bought with a lot less hassle by now if it was in the Supply. And don't forget that because you needed to buy Rally twice, you had to forgo two buys of good _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}s just to get here, thus making Homecoming weaker because you have fewer good cards to Throne in your deck than you would if you weren't trying to get the Homecoming.

All of this said, I think this Traveller line would be fine if Campaign was changed to:

+1 Card
+1 Action

---

When you discard this from play, you may exchange this for a Homecoming. If you don't, and you gained at least 3 cards this turn, +2_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}.

This way, it isn't completely dead when it doesn't trigger, and all the problems with Homecoming's difficulty of acquisition are fixed. Although tbh, because of Rally's self-gaining, this may reverse the issue to making Homecoming too easy to gain...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on December 21, 2020, 04:50:39 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 21, 2020, 03:57:34 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on December 20, 2020, 04:49:26 pm

Quote

Heist- Event _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}
Everyone (including you) reveals the top two cards of their deck. Gain a treasure costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} up to the number of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} revealed. Return the cards back to the top of their deck in any order (player's choice)

What happens if you reveal a Victory card worth variable _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}, such as Gardens? You don't know how much _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} you revealed then.

Good point. Any ideas for a fix?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on December 21, 2020, 05:10:31 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 21, 2020, 12:31:46 pm

I like this idea. I think the first part can probably be simplified as "Discard a card. Play the two set-aside cards in any order leaving them there."

Seeing as you discard a card and the card you are playing are limited to $3 or less, I think this could possibly work as a $5 cost card. Need to look at the list of card to see if that would be busted in any combination, but that is my first take.

Those seem like good changes to make. Thanks!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 21, 2020, 08:43:15 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on December 21, 2020, 04:50:39 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 21, 2020, 03:57:34 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on December 20, 2020, 04:49:26 pm

Quote

Heist- Event _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}
Everyone (including you) reveals the top two cards of their deck. Gain a treasure costing _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} up to the number of _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} revealed. Return the cards back to the top of their deck in any order (player's choice)

What happens if you reveal a Victory card worth variable _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)}, such as Gardens? You don't know how much _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/VP.png/16px-VP.png)} you revealed then.

Good point. Any ideas for a fix?

You could make it depend on the number of Victory cards revealed rather than the amount of VP revealed.  However, this card doesn't really scale well (much weaker in a 2-player game than a 4-player game). 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on December 21, 2020, 10:21:12 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50745133718_157b06369d_b.jpg)

Quote

Treadwheel Crane $5
Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing $1 to $2 more than it. If the card you gain is an...
Action Card, +1 Villager.
Treasure card, +1 Coffer.
Victory card, +1VP.

A Remodel variant. I was looking for an alternate name, but the synonyms for Upgrade or Remodel are all mostly used up. Basically it is similar to Ironworks in the bonus rewards, but uses tokens. I was originally going to give a reward based on what was trashed, but I think it is far more interesting to reward based on what is gained as their should be more options to get the reward you want. It should be ok at $5, but I am open to making adjustments to the design. Over-all a pretty simple design. Critiques are appreciated!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MochaMoko on December 22, 2020, 12:35:55 am

Quote from: Gubump on December 21, 2020, 03:57:34 pm

I think all of these are WAAAAYYYYY too weak.

　　Thanks for the feedback!

　　I don't think that these cards are so strong, definitely weaker than the official Travellers. They are not something you go for every game. Teacher and Champion make engines from almost nothing (of course, there are the rare Page-skip and Peasant-skip boards too). Homecoming is more like Disciple in that it's really good when there's already mostly something going on, since they're both Throne Room-pluses (Disciple is probably stronger than Homecoming, you got me there).

　　A Kingdom with only Rally will never see Rally ever exchanged, yes. It takes quite a lot of work to get that deck going, but the idea is that there will be times where you can spare that effort to make a bigger engine.
　　If there is either some draw or some other sort of gains on the board, Campaigns become easier to activate. Then Homecomings help activate more Campaigns, with their draw. If there is no trashing, no draw, or no other gains, we skip Campaign.

　　That being said, 3 cards is a lot to discard. The only card that really has that as a payment is Secret Cave, and that's a cantrip.
Rally should probably be discard 2 cards (as LibraryAdventurer pointed out. I deliberated between 2 and 3 cards at the last moment, but I settled on 3). I could see Campaign being +2 Actions. I might even be able to see the starting cost reduced. But I want these cards to be hard to get. Extra gains are not hard to come by on a modern Dominion board, so I think that 3 gains makes it more likely to be an interesting minigame (Labyrinth is one of the most trivial Landmarks).

　　I am currently considering changing Rally to "you may discard 2 cards to gain a Rally" and Campaign to giving +2 Actions. More feedback is appreciated!

Quote

Treadwheel Crane $5
Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing $1 to $2 more than it. If the card you gain is an...
Action Card, +1 Villager.
Treasure card, +1 Coffer.
Victory card, +1VP.

　　I like the simplicity. "Renovate" is still an unused synonym, sounds vaguely like Renaissance, too, which is cute.
　　What's the problem with the standard wording of "Gain a card costing up to ② more than it"? If you don't want someone to mill Provinces or something, you can say "a differently named card" like Displace does. And I think it's fine to permit people to get cheaper cards, if they so wish. Remodel variants quite appreciate that flexibility.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 22, 2020, 12:58:58 am

Revised Submission:

At it's most basic level, Archaeologist can be used to get rid of Ruins from your deck; however, it can also be used to turbo-charge an Action card that you play on your turn.

(https://i.imgur.com/lERAXuP.png)

Revisions to original version:
- Made Archaeologist non-terminal and prevented it from being called after playing a Command card (e.g. itself), in order to slow it down a bit
- Addressed the potential swinginess by making it play Ruins from the trash rather than each player's Exile mat
- Removed the requirement for it to play differently named Ruins, but instead capped it at playing 32 Ruins from the trash
- Revised wording as per Gubump's suggestion

Quote from: Original Submissions

Version 2:(https://i.imgur.com/dVO9JVj.png)
Version 1:(https://i.imgur.com/2s8Lz15.png)

Quote

Archaeologist
+1 Action
You may Exile a Ruins from your hand or the Supply. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you play an Action card, you may call this to play any number of differently named Ruins on your Exile mat, leaving them there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on December 22, 2020, 01:26:06 am

Quote from: Timinou on December 22, 2020, 12:58:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/2s8Lz15.png)
Edit: Added Looter to the card type.

Quote

Archaeologist
+1 Action
You may Exile a Ruins from your hand or the Supply. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you play an Action card, you may call this to play any number of differently named Ruins on your Exile mat, leaving them there.

At it's most basic level, this can be used to get rid of Ruins from your deck; however, it can also be used to turbo-charge an Action card that you play on your turn.  I've priced it at $2 because it takes a bit of work and you are somewhat at the mercy of how the Ruins deck is shuffled.

Rules clarification: You can play the differently named Ruins on your Exile mat in any order.  I'm not sure if that needs to be on the card, or if it is self-explanatory.

I think this should be worth more than two, because with enough plays of it, you'll surpass a village (_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)}) quite quickly

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 22, 2020, 01:46:33 am

Quote from: Timinou on December 22, 2020, 12:58:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/2s8Lz15.png)
Edit: Added Looter to the card type.

Quote

Archaeologist
+1 Action
You may Exile a Ruins from your hand or the Supply. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you play an Action card, you may call this to play any number of differently named Ruins on your Exile mat, leaving them there.

At it's most basic level, this can be used to get rid of Ruins from your deck; however, it can also be used to turbo-charge an Action card that you play on your turn.  I've priced it at $2 because it takes a bit of work and you are somewhat at the mercy of how the Ruins deck is shuffled.

Rules clarification: You can play the differently named Ruins on your Exile mat in any order.  I'm not sure if that needs to be on the card, or if it is self-explanatory.

1. This should copy the wording of Coin of the Realm and Royal Carriage's call effects: "Directly after you finish playing an Action card, you may call this..."
2. Is it intentional that you can play an Archaeologist and then immediately call it on itself?
3. This card has a similar design flaw to Card tokens (the hypothetical Coffers of +Cards): Once you get both a Ruined Village and a Ruined Library in Exile (and you don't even need the Village if called after playing a non-terminal), players will almost always just call it as soon as they have the opportunity and have Actions left over, which kind of defeats the purpose of it being a Reserve card. Unlike the other vanilla effects, you pretty much always want +Cards as soon as possible rather than saving them for the opportune moment.
EDIT:
4. I think this is too swingy based on the way the Ruins pile is shuffled. If Alice gets to Exile a Ruined Library from the Supply, she's a lot better off than Bob, who only Exiled a Survivors. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that it can't play multiple copies of the same Ruin, so Bob could get completely screwed over by getting 4 Survivors in a row while Alice gets 4 different Ruins.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 22, 2020, 02:28:04 am

Quote from: Gubump on December 22, 2020, 01:46:33 am

Quote from: Timinou on December 22, 2020, 12:58:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/2s8Lz15.png)
Edit: Added Looter to the card type.

Quote

Archaeologist
+1 Action
You may Exile a Ruins from your hand or the Supply. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you play an Action card, you may call this to play any number of differently named Ruins on your Exile mat, leaving them there.

At it's most basic level, this can be used to get rid of Ruins from your deck; however, it can also be used to turbo-charge an Action card that you play on your turn.  I've priced it at $2 because it takes a bit of work and you are somewhat at the mercy of how the Ruins deck is shuffled.

Rules clarification: You can play the differently named Ruins on your Exile mat in any order.  I'm not sure if that needs to be on the card, or if it is self-explanatory.

1. This should copy the wording of Coin of the Realm and Royal Carriage's call effects: "Directly after you finish playing an Action card, you may call this..."
2. Is it intentional that you can play an Archaeologist and then immediately call it on itself?
3. This card has a similar design flaw to Card tokens (the hypothetical Coffers of +Cards): Once you get both a Ruined Village and a Ruined Library in Exile (and you don't even need the Village if called after playing a non-terminal), players will almost always just call it as soon as they have the opportunity and have Actions left over, which kind of defeats the purpose of it being a Reserve card. Unlike the other vanilla effects, you pretty much always want +Cards as soon as possible rather than saving them for the opportune moment.
EDIT:
4. I think this is too swingy based on the way the Ruins pile is shuffled. If Alice gets to Exile a Ruined Library from the Supply, she's a lot better off than Bob, who only Exiled a Survivors. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that it can't play multiple copies of the same Ruin, so Bob could get completely screwed over by getting 4 Survivors in a row while Alice gets 4 different Ruins.

Thanks for the feedback.  I'll review the wording based on Coin of the Realm.  I agree that there is randomness involved here, but I think the scenario you mentioned has a very low probability of happening. I also don't agree that you would always want to call Archaeologist for +cards as soon as possible. 

In any case, I'll think about the cost a bit more and will see if there is a way to mitigate the randomness.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 22, 2020, 03:37:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/AJfozdp.png)

Quote

Yard Sale - $0
Event

Once per turn: Gain a non-Victory card costing exactly $1 per card you have discarded this turn.

EDIT: Restricted to non-Victory cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on December 22, 2020, 03:55:55 am

Cascade (Action, $5)

You may play an Action card costing less than this from your hand three times.

A KC variant that only works for cheaper cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 22, 2020, 05:30:37 am

Quote from: pubby on December 21, 2020, 12:19:10 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/2Eda2bm.png)

You can further simplify the text:

"Setup: Set aside two different* unused non-Command Action cards costing $3 or less."

See Black Market and Way of the Mouse.

*If that is your intention.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 22, 2020, 07:22:54 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on December 22, 2020, 03:55:55 am

Cascade (Action, $5)

You may play an Action card costing less than this from your hand three times.

A KC variant that only works for cheaper cards.

i like the idea. i made cardimage for it (not sure i understand what cascade means in this instance tho)
(https://i.imgur.com/Aa6h66Y.png)
(heres the card image generator link for it https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/?title=Cascade&description=You%20may%20play%20an%20Action%20card%20costing%20less%20than%20this%20from%20your%20hand%20three%20times.&type=action&credit=art%3A%20marcus%20stone%2C%201891&creator=v1.0%20mandioca15&price=5%24&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1&picture=%5Blocal%20image%5D&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0 (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/?title=Cascade&description=You%20may%20play%20an%20Action%20card%20costing%20less%20than%20this%20from%20your%20hand%20three%20times.&type=action&credit=art%3A%20marcus%20stone%2C%201891&creator=v1.0%20mandioca15&price=5%24&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1&picture=%5Blocal%20image%5D&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 22, 2020, 07:44:34 am

Quote from: faust on December 22, 2020, 03:37:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/pveKz0Z.png)

Quote

Yard Sale - $4
Event

Once per turn: Gain a card costing exactly $1 per card you have discarded this turn.

Do I understand this correctly that when a player buys Yard Sale only cards count that have been discarded before?

Edit: I just saw that the costs differ between image and text.

Quote from: fika monster on December 22, 2020, 07:22:54 am

Quote from: mandioca15 on December 22, 2020, 03:55:55 am

Cascade (Action, $5)

You may play an Action card costing less than this from your hand three times.

A KC variant that only works for cheaper cards.

i like the idea. i made cardimage for it (not sure i understand what cascade means in this instance tho)
(https://i.imgur.com/Aa6h66Y.png)
(heres the card image generator link for it https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/?title=Cascade&description=You%20may%20play%20an%20Action%20card%20costing%20less%20than%20this%20from%20your%20hand%20three%20times.&type=action&credit=art%3A%20marcus%20stone%2C%201891&creator=v1.0%20mandioca15&price=5%24&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1&picture=%5Blocal%20image%5D&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0 (https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/?title=Cascade&description=You%20may%20play%20an%20Action%20card%20costing%20less%20than%20this%20from%20your%20hand%20three%20times.&type=action&credit=art%3A%20marcus%20stone%2C%201891&creator=v1.0%20mandioca15&price=5%24&preview=&type2=&color2split=1&boldkeys=&picture-x=0&picture-y=0&picture-zoom=1&picture=%5Blocal%20image%5D&expansion=&custom-icon=&color0=0&color1=0&size=0)

You messed up the cost. It should be $5 (not 5$). Also, the "A" in Action should be larger.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 22, 2020, 08:55:42 am

Quote from: faust on December 22, 2020, 03:37:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/pveKz0Z.png)

Quote

Yard Sale - $4
Event

Once per turn: Gain a card costing exactly $1 per card you have discarded this turn.

I did a little test here, bought only Cellars in turns 1, 2 and 3. I discarded 9 cards in turn 4.

I think it could be too strong also with Artificer, Storeroom, Scholar, Minion, Vault and Hunting Lodge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 22, 2020, 06:57:58 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 22, 2020, 02:28:04 am

Quote from: Gubump on December 22, 2020, 01:46:33 am

Quote from: Timinou on December 22, 2020, 12:58:58 am

(https://i.imgur.com/2s8Lz15.png)
Edit: Added Looter to the card type.

Quote

Archaeologist
+1 Action
You may Exile a Ruins from your hand or the Supply. Put this on your Tavern mat.
-
When you play an Action card, you may call this to play any number of differently named Ruins on your Exile mat, leaving them there.

At it's most basic level, this can be used to get rid of Ruins from your deck; however, it can also be used to turbo-charge an Action card that you play on your turn.  I've priced it at $2 because it takes a bit of work and you are somewhat at the mercy of how the Ruins deck is shuffled.

Rules clarification: You can play the differently named Ruins on your Exile mat in any order.  I'm not sure if that needs to be on the card, or if it is self-explanatory.

1. This should copy the wording of Coin of the Realm and Royal Carriage's call effects: "Directly after you finish playing an Action card, you may call this..."
2. Is it intentional that you can play an Archaeologist and then immediately call it on itself?
3. This card has a similar design flaw to Card tokens (the hypothetical Coffers of +Cards): Once you get both a Ruined Village and a Ruined Library in Exile (and you don't even need the Village if called after playing a non-terminal), players will almost always just call it as soon as they have the opportunity and have Actions left over, which kind of defeats the purpose of it being a Reserve card. Unlike the other vanilla effects, you pretty much always want +Cards as soon as possible rather than saving them for the opportune moment.
EDIT:
4. I think this is too swingy based on the way the Ruins pile is shuffled. If Alice gets to Exile a Ruined Library from the Supply, she's a lot better off than Bob, who only Exiled a Survivors. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that it can't play multiple copies of the same Ruin, so Bob could get completely screwed over by getting 4 Survivors in a row while Alice gets 4 different Ruins.

Thanks for the feedback.  I'll review the wording based on Coin of the Realm.  I agree that there is randomness involved here, but I think the scenario you mentioned has a very low probability of happening. I also don't agree that you would always want to call Archaeologist for +cards as soon as possible. 

In any case, I'll think about the cost a bit more and will see if there is a way to mitigate the randomness.

I've updated my original post with a new version of Archaeologist: 

(https://i.imgur.com/dVO9JVj.png)

I've followed your suggestion on using the wording from Coin of the Realm. 

I wasn't so concerned about the example you raised about one player get 4 Survivors and the other getting 4 different Ruins, because I don't think it is very likely to happen.  Nevertheless, I still wanted to mitigate the randomness of how the Ruins deck is shuffled.  I had an intermediate version which would Exile a Ruins when Archaeologist was gained, in order to give players more control over which Ruins end up on their Exile mat.  However, it didn't address the fundamental issue of certain Ruins being better than others.

The original version only let you play differently named Ruins as a way to mitigate some of the swinginess if a player ended up with more than one Ruined Library, for instance.  Now that it is more democratized, I don't think that restriction is necessary.

Trashing instead of Exiling also opens up more potentially interesting interactions with other cards.

I've tried to keep the cost at $2 because I think it would be nice to be able to Remodel a Ruins or a Copper into an Archaeologist.   

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on December 22, 2020, 07:14:23 pm

Quote from: faust on December 22, 2020, 03:37:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/pveKz0Z.png)

Quote

Yard Sale - $4
Event

Once per turn: Gain a card costing exactly $1 per card you have discarded this turn.

I think this is too hard to track... if there are ways to discard lots of cards in a turn, most people aren’t going to know how many cards they have discarded this turn, and it would be a pain to count as you go without mistake.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on December 22, 2020, 08:01:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/C3p7FFr.jpg)

Quote

Worker
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Choose one: +2 Cards and then discard 2 cards; or +1 Action; or gain a Horse.
Choose one: +1 Action; or +$1; or trash a card from your hand.

Worker is a low-cost tempo-trasher that can be used as a strong Silver-flooder weak horser (even pseudo-cantrip), weak sifter, or weak splitter once its done trashing. It offers you two choices that amount to 9 options:

• +2 Cards, +1 Action. Discard 2 cards.
• +2 Cards, +$1. Discard 2 cards.
• +2 Cards. Discard 2 cards, and then trash a card from your hand.
• +2 Actions.
• +1 Action, +$1.
• +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand.
• +1 Action. Gain a Horse.
• +$1. Gain a Horse.
• Gain a Horse, and then trash a card from your hand.

But what is particularly neat about Worker is that the two choices allow you to first draw and discard before you choose the second option.

I considered making it draw and discard 1 card, but that seems pretty bad compared to the other options.

HISTORY:
Original gained a Silver instead of a Horse, but that permanent boost seemed too much on a good $2-cost tempo-trasher.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 22, 2020, 08:48:25 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 22, 2020, 08:01:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Bpi0jkz.jpg)

Quote

Worker
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Choose one: +2 Card and then discard 2 cards; or +1 Action; or gain a Silver.
Choose one: +1 Action; or +$1; or trash a card from your hand.

Worker is a low-cost tempo-trasher that can be used as a strong Silver-flooder, weak sifter, or weak splitter once its done trashing. It offers you two choices that amount to 9 options:

• +2 Cards, +1 Action. Discard 2 cards.
• +2 Cards, +$1. Discard 2 cards.
• +2 Cards. Discard 2 cards, and then trash a card from your hand.
• +2 Actions.
• +1 Action, +$1.
• +1 Action. Trash a card from your hand.
• +1 Action. Gain a Silver.
• +$1. Gain a Silver.
• Gain a Silver, and then trash a card from your hand.

But what is particularly neat about Worker is that the two choices allow you to first draw and discard before you choose the second option.

I considered making it draw and discard 1 card, but that seems pretty bad compared to the other options.

Thematically, it's a sister of this card of my Venus expansion:

(https://i.imgur.com/Bpi0jkz.jpg)     (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/834/full/Workers_%281%29.png?1607315616)

I like the versatility of your Worker and the options seems well balanced.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 23, 2020, 03:43:53 am

Quote from: gambit05 on December 22, 2020, 07:44:34 am

Quote from: faust on December 22, 2020, 03:37:26 am

Quote

Yard Sale - $4
Event

Once per turn: Gain a card costing exactly $1 per card you have discarded this turn.

Do I understand this correctly that when a player buys Yard Sale only cards count that have been discarded before?

Edit: I just saw that the costs differ between image and text.

Yeah, $0 is the correct one. Thanks for pointing out.

Not sure what you mean about the discarding. Clearly Yard Sale cannot look into the future, so only cards you discarded up until the point where you buy Yard Sale matter.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 23, 2020, 03:49:13 am

Quote from: Carline on December 22, 2020, 08:55:42 am

Quote from: faust on December 22, 2020, 03:37:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/pveKz0Z.png)

Quote

Yard Sale - $4
Event

Once per turn: Gain a card costing exactly $1 per card you have discarded this turn.

I did a little test here, bought only Cellars in turns 1, 2 and 3. I discarded 9 cards in turn 4.

I think it could be too strong also with Artificer, Storeroom, Scholar, Minion, Vault and Hunting Lodge.

Well, this is why it says "exactly"; if you have lots of sifting, playing too many sifters will result in you not getting anything out of Yard Sale.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 23, 2020, 03:53:52 am

Quote from: GendoIkari on December 22, 2020, 07:14:23 pm

Quote from: faust on December 22, 2020, 03:37:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/pveKz0Z.png)

Quote

Yard Sale - $4
Event

Once per turn: Gain a card costing exactly $1 per card you have discarded this turn.

I think this is too hard to track... if there are ways to discard lots of cards in a turn, most people aren’t going to know how many cards they have discarded this turn, and it would be a pain to count as you go without mistake.

I don't think it's any harder to track than how many cards you gained (Triumph, Treasure Hunter), especially since you can safely stop counting once you discarded more than 8. If this is in the game, then you just know you need to track how much you discard.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 23, 2020, 06:42:12 pm

Quote from: faust on December 23, 2020, 03:49:13 am

Quote from: Carline on December 22, 2020, 08:55:42 am

Quote from: faust on December 22, 2020, 03:37:26 am

(https://i.imgur.com/pveKz0Z.png)

Quote

Yard Sale - $4
Event

Once per turn: Gain a card costing exactly $1 per card you have discarded this turn.

I did a little test here, bought only Cellars in turns 1, 2 and 3. I discarded 9 cards in turn 4.

I think it could be too strong also with Artificer, Storeroom, Scholar, Minion, Vault and Hunting Lodge.

Well, this is why it says "exactly"; if you have lots of sifting, playing too many sifters will result in you not getting anything out of Yard Sale.

Yes, but I could have discarded 8 cards instead of 9, Cellar gives you this control. So, I could have gained a Province in turn 4. Provinces don't clog your deck for Cellar.

I did some more little tests. Only doing nothing more than buying Cellars, discarding cards and gaining Provinces, I was gaining 5th Province around turn 12. I don't know for sure if it's a excelent result in general, but I think it is for such automatic strategy. 

EDIT: I did the test with Storeroom. It's even faster, as any time Storeroom is in your initial hand you have 8 guaranteed discards and 4 of them gives you money to buy more Storerooms. With Storeroom I was gaining 5th Province around Turn 8.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on December 23, 2020, 09:27:40 pm

I enjoy exploring cards that interact with Ruins, Rats, and certain non-Supply cards in a manner that the official cards don't, and junkers that don’t necessarily empty piles (Donald X talks about using the latter space with Idol). Forbidden City does both, though the fact that the Ruins pile could still empty out, nerfing both the Attack and non-Attack abilities of the card, adds a strategic element as well.

(https://abload.de/img/forbiddencitycontestg8j5s.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on December 24, 2020, 12:42:36 am

This was a design suggested on the Discord server. People seemed to like it. Therefore, I present this little bugger for this week's challenge:

(https://i.postimg.cc/T1xs2pp2/District-v1.png)

The pile consists of 16 cards. This number was determined after some play testing. Otherwise, the District pile empties itself too quickly. And if contested, it doesn't quite achieve what it tries to do.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 25, 2020, 03:03:50 pm

Quote from: Fragasnap on December 22, 2020, 08:01:27 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/Bpi0jkz.jpg)

Quote

Worker
Types: Action
Cost: $2
Choose one: +2 Card and then discard 2 cards; or +1 Action; or gain a Silver.
Choose one: +1 Action; or +$1; or trash a card from your hand.

I feel that this should cost 3. In the early game trashing it compares well to several single-card trashers. Masquerade, Trade Route, Raze. Plus it can stay useful later by being a weak village or sifter. In many decks turning coppers into silvers is amazing for 2. I think with all this flexibility, it makes sense to cost 3. I think with the added flexibility over squire, plus the fact it can non-terminally trash (trashing is amazing), it just feels very three-y to me. And the fact you can choose to make it non-terminal after sifting cards... it's pretty good.

Yeah, this is definitely $3. I think with $3 would help so that people don't automatically get it on 5/2. You don't want people to get a ton of these cards, 6 decisions on each play can slow the game down a bunch. So pricing it slightly higher would make games with this slightly better.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 26, 2020, 10:34:44 am

My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/wp7fh86/Magi.png)		Magi $4 – Night - Duration Quote When you discard your Action cards from play, set one aside face up. Until your next turn, when any other player plays a    copy of it, they get +1 Villager    and you +1 Coffers.   At the start of your next turn, play the set-aside card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 26, 2020, 03:17:27 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 26, 2020, 10:34:44 am

My Submission:

(https://i.ibb.co/wp7fh86/Magi.png)		Magi $4 – Night - Duration Quote When you discard your Action cards from play, set one aside face up. Until your next turn, when any other player plays a    copy of it, they get +1 Villager    and you +1 Coffers.   At the start of your next turn, play the set-aside card.

I think you are underestimating how strong this is even without the tokens. Gaining a copy of a card you have in play is very good, and you get to play it the next turn. For reference, changling costs 3 and has to self-trash. Magi is only 1 more, doesn't self-trash, and allows you to play the copy next turn! It's like Summon: a 5-cost event (which means it actually costs more than 5 because it costs a buy on each "play").

Now we have the fact that they give me a Coffer each time you play it... it's fairly easy to slap this on a Village for tons of free money. There are games where Villagers are essential and then this card becomes a "can't play" (unless your opponent doesn't have the card you gain, and if so, why have the tokens anyway?), then there are games where they don't matter (so this is just free coffers and becomes even stronger -- so why have the tokens?), and then there are rare games where the villagers are a nice bonus that helps pad opponent's turns, but doesn't become game-breaking. But in those third type of game, you don't need villagers either, and therefore the coffers are probably an excellent trade in your favor.

A card like this can't be appropriately priced. Because the non-token element of it is too good and the token part of it swings too wildly in its effect.

I do really like the concept. Here are a few ideas to explore:
1. Reconsider allowing Magi to non-terminally gain and summon. That's just insanely good. (There's a bunch of directions to go here, getting rid of the "summon" on next turn, getting rid of the gain, making it a terminal Action)
2. Reconsider having the tokens fire every time. (Other directions: only on their first play, or on only when they gain a copy of that card).
3. Reconsider allowing you to pick a card in-play, and instead force it to set-aside from hand. This adds the hidden cost of not being able to play that card this turn.
4. Reconsider having tokens at all.

Neat concept. In some combination of these areas to explore, there is an excellent and balanced card waiting.

---

Quote from: spheremonk on December 23, 2020, 09:27:40 pm

I enjoy exploring cards that interact with Ruins, Rats, and certain non-Supply cards in a manner that the official cards don't, and junkers that don’t necessarily empty piles (Donald X talks about using the later space with Idol). Forbidden City does both, though the fact that the Ruins pile could still empty out, nerfing both the Attack and non-Attack abilities of the card, adds a strategic element as well.

(https://abload.de/img/forbiddencitycontestg8j5s.png)

This is great! Awesome theming of a city that devolves. And you made a non-terminal junker work. It even comes with a village, so opponents at least have a way of playing those ruins. Really nice work!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 26, 2020, 03:43:41 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 26, 2020, 03:17:27 pm

I think you are underestimating how strong this is even without the tokens. Gaining a copy of a card you have in play is very good, and you get to play it the next turn.

Before I try to understand the other comments you wrote, I would like to clarify this point. Maybe, I worded it badly, but Magi does not gain any card. It sets aside an Action card when it leaves play, Scheme like.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 26, 2020, 03:45:13 pm

My submission: An artist Themed traveller line

(https://i.imgur.com/puBt4Tx.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/HdV1AZe.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/w71dBbn.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/8DT4GQ3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/3CdlIlh.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 26, 2020, 03:52:16 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 26, 2020, 03:43:41 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 26, 2020, 03:17:27 pm

I think you are underestimating how strong this is even without the tokens. Gaining a copy of a card you have in play is very good, and you get to play it the next turn.

Before I try to understand the other comments you wrote, I would like to clarify this point. Maybe, I worded it badly, but Magi does not gain any card. It sets aside an Action card when it leaves play, Scheme like.

oh dear lord, that is my fault. Somehow I read a word that was not there. Welp, this is embarrassing. Still some of the token points are valid, but the bulk of this being impossible to price is not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 26, 2020, 04:00:11 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 26, 2020, 03:52:16 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 26, 2020, 03:43:41 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 26, 2020, 03:17:27 pm

I think you are underestimating how strong this is even without the tokens. Gaining a copy of a card you have in play is very good, and you get to play it the next turn.

Before I try to understand the other comments you wrote, I would like to clarify this point. Maybe, I worded it badly, but Magi does not gain any card. It sets aside an Action card when it leaves play, Scheme like.

oh dear lord, that is my fault. Somehow I read a word that was not there. Welp, this is embarrassing. Still some of the token points are valid, but the bulk of this being impossible to price is not.

Thanks for your comments. I've tried to understand the other parts, but to be honest I am rather confused and don't know exactly what you meant. Sorry.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 26, 2020, 05:28:49 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 26, 2020, 04:00:11 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 26, 2020, 03:52:16 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 26, 2020, 03:43:41 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 26, 2020, 03:17:27 pm

I think you are underestimating how strong this is even without the tokens. Gaining a copy of a card you have in play is very good, and you get to play it the next turn.

Before I try to understand the other comments you wrote, I would like to clarify this point. Maybe, I worded it badly, but Magi does not gain any card. It sets aside an Action card when it leaves play, Scheme like.

oh dear lord, that is my fault. Somehow I read a word that was not there. Welp, this is embarrassing. Still some of the token points are valid, but the bulk of this being impossible to price is not.

Thanks for your comments. I've tried to understand the other parts, but to be honest I am rather confused and don't know exactly what you meant. Sorry.

Basically, the token thing makes it hard to balance. There possibilities situations:
1. A game with no Villages/Splitters, such that gaining Villagers is an incredible benefit.
2. A game that has enough Villages/Splitters, such that gaining Villagers is of little to no benefit.
3. A game that is in between, Villagers help smooth turns out.

In scenario 1, you simply can't play Magi if your opponent has that card. The tokens don't come into play because giving Villagers to your opponents is too good. So this card is too bad and overpriced.
In scenario 2, you don't care about villagers at all, and this becomes a vastly superior March/Delay, that also produces tons of Coffers. So this is a little too good and underpriced.
In scenario 3, you still don't care about villagers too much, (and you're going to get some from your opponents plays), and this becomes a vastly superior March/Delay, that also produces tons of Coffers. So this is a little too good and underpriced.

Essentially, you just put this on a Village to kick-start your next turn basically with a lost city, and then rake in a plethora of coffers when your opponents play the Village they are forced to play. This potential to gain tons of tokens (that does not scale well at all in multiplayer), makes the card tricky to balance. I still think the card is stronger than you're considering. Having the ability to March a card you played this turn is incredibly good and on its own is worth 5 or more.

Did you not understand my recommendations to explore? I wasn't sure how to make those clearer so I'm restating them with some mildly updated wording and removing the suggestion that was a result of my misreading of the card.

1. Reconsider having the tokens fire every time. (Perhaps it would give coffers/villagers only on the first play of the card on someone's turn, or perhaps only when they gain a copy of that card).
2. Reconsider allowing you to pick an Action card in-play, and instead have it to set-aside from hand. This adds the hidden cost of not being able to play that card this turn.
3. Reconsider having Coffers/Villagers at all.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 27, 2020, 03:06:40 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 26, 2020, 03:45:13 pm

My submission: An artist Themed traveller line

(https://i.imgur.com/puBt4Tx.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/HdV1AZe.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/w71dBbn.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/8DT4GQ3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/3CdlIlh.png)

Updated and changed some of them, heres the newest versions.
(https://i.imgur.com/yC7C7d4.png)
"Dissatisfied Worker
+1 Action +1 Card
Turn your Journey token over (it starts face up). If it's face up, all players gain a silver.
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Beginning Artist."

(https://i.imgur.com/tTQNdMG.png)
Beginning artist
$2
Turn your Journey token over.
When you Turn your Journey token this turn, +1 buy, +1$
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange it for Starving artist.
(This card is not in the Supply.)

(https://i.imgur.com/RvaEtsz.png)
Starving artist
+1 Action
Trash up to 3 cards from your hand, and Gain a card with cost exactly equal to the total cost in $ of the trashed cards.
Turn over your Journey token. If it is face down, Gain two Curses (or if you can't, two Curses from the trash
-
When you discard this from play, you may exchange this for Patronaged artist.
(This is not in the supply).

(https://i.imgur.com/9ecXvT0.png)
+2 action, +2 cards
Turn over your Journey token.
-
When you discard this from play, if your Journey Token is face up, you may exchange it for Renaissance man.
(This card is not in the supply.)

(https://i.imgur.com/DdAemIV.png)
Renaissance man
Turn over your Journey token. Then if it's face up, you may gain 2 cards costing up to $6 unto your deck.
-
(This card is not in the supply.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 05:55:31 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 26, 2020, 05:28:49 pm

Basically, the token thing makes it hard to balance. There possibilities situations:
1. A game with no Villages/Splitters, such that gaining Villagers is an incredible benefit.
2. A game that has enough Villages/Splitters, such that gaining Villagers is of little to no benefit.
3. A game that is in between, Villagers help smooth turns out.

In scenario 1, you simply can't play Magi if your opponent has that card. The tokens don't come into play because giving Villagers to your opponents is too good. So this card is too bad and overpriced.
In scenario 2, you don't care about villagers at all, and this becomes a vastly superior March/Delay, that also produces tons of Coffers. So this is a little too good and underpriced.
In scenario 3, you still don't care about villagers too much, (and you're going to get some from your opponents plays), and this becomes a vastly superior March/Delay, that also produces tons of Coffers. So this is a little too good and underpriced.

Thank you very much for your comments and for your efforts in trying to help improving my card Magi.

You have dissected the different scenarios about how Magi would perform in a similar way as I did when I designed the card. Your conclusion is that in the majority of boards (scenarios 2 and 3), Magi would be slightly overpowered (“a little too good”) and that Magi would be underpowered in a relatively few Kingdoms, i.e. those without Villagers/Splitters (scenario 1).

Even if a minority of Kingdoms exists that disfavor Magi, I see no reason to change Magi just based on that. It would just share a feature that a lot of official cards have. However, I would argue that in the case of Magi, the sole presence of Magi in such Kingdoms can have an impact on the strategies of the players, even if it wouldn’t be bought at the end. Players would still have to make decisions on how to construct their decks. This would certainly encourage diversity of their deck and to develop strategies different to those of their opponents. By the way, the same is true for Kingdoms with Villagers/Sifters (scenarios 2 and 3), since the potential to get Villagers has an influence on the desired ratios of Villagers, cantrips and terminal cards.

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 26, 2020, 05:28:49 pm

Did you not understand my recommendations to explore? I wasn't sure how to make those clearer so I'm restating them with some mildly updated wording and removing the suggestion that was a result of my misreading of the card.

My perception of this statement is that you either think that I am ignorant or too stupid to understand your previous comments. I am sorry, but this was based on the fact that it was you who didn’t understood my instructions given in a much shorter card text.

In summary, I appreciate your input, but I see no reason to change the concept of Magi right now. If this card turns out to be unbalanced in real games, it could be buffed in different ways, including some of your suggestions. However, I do not have that information yet.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 27, 2020, 12:22:16 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 05:55:31 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 26, 2020, 05:28:49 pm

Did you not understand my recommendations to explore? I wasn't sure how to make those clearer so I'm restating them with some mildly updated wording and removing the suggestion that was a result of my misreading of the card.

My perception of this statement is that you either think that I am ignorant or too stupid to understand your previous comments. I am sorry, but this was based on the fact that it was you who didn’t understood my instructions given in a much shorter card text.

Oh dear! I'm so sorry. I did not mean to imply you were ignorant or stupid. I was trying to say that I wasn't sure how to make those clearer. If anything, I was trying to suggest that I was too stupid to make my point any clearer, so I was just re-stating it.

Thank you so much for letting me know how my words made you feel. I do apologize. I really had no intention of that, and I see how my poor phrasing led you to that conclusion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 12:26:26 pm

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 27, 2020, 01:04:28 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ynrverh9.png)

Quote

Dispatch | Event | @4 (costs 4 debt)
Set aside an Action or Treasure card from the Supply costing up to $4. At the start of your next turn, play it. Each other player may Exile a copy of that card.

The concept behind dispatch is "I gain now, you gain later." There's certainly some cards that are worth getting in hand T2 -- trashers, sometimes gainers, even a silver on T1 to guarantee you get a 5 on turn 2. If it's the last copy in the Supply, no one else gets one -- it's like a cheap summon! Well, I lied in the beginning, it's not "I gain now." You never "gain" the card, although you get to put in in your Discard pile of next turn's clean-up phase. This means no on-gain triggers happen (like villagers from Lackeys), which means sometimes you want to buy a card, even if it's the last copy in the Supply. Most importantly, if you never gain the card, that means you never get to discard from Exile. So, if my opponent kindly Dispatched out a Village Green on their turn, and on my turn I do the same thing, I don't get to discard my Village Green from Exile.

Pricing this was difficult. At first it was $4, but then I saw that it made a huge unfair difference for 3/4 and 5/2, and I don't like introducing that much varying early on. Then I made it @5, but then this removed fun things like Dispatching a Silver to increase your payload (4/3 means you just open silver/4). At @4, you can now Dispatch a Silver, pay off your debts, and buy a 5 cost card. Everyone gets to open a 5 if this costs @4, and I like that equalizing effect. In order to differentiate it against Summon I removed triggering on-gain effects, and this also made it feel a little better to cost 4 debt. It also can gain treasures to differentiate it against Summon. And also, Summon doesn't give out copies to opponents. So, yeah, it's a different event.

Definitely open to feedback!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 01:49:53 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 27, 2020, 12:22:16 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 05:55:31 am

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 26, 2020, 05:28:49 pm

Did you not understand my recommendations to explore? I wasn't sure how to make those clearer so I'm restating them with some mildly updated wording and removing the suggestion that was a result of my misreading of the card.

My perception of this statement is that you either think that I am ignorant or too stupid to understand your previous comments. I am sorry, but this was based on the fact that it was you who didn’t understood my instructions given in a much shorter card text.

Oh dear! I'm so sorry. I did not mean to imply you were ignorant or stupid. I was trying to say that I wasn't sure how to make those clearer. If anything, I was trying to suggest that I was too stupid to make my point any clearer, so I was just re-stating it.

Thank you so much for letting me know how my words made you feel. I do apologize. I really had no intention of that, and I see how my poor phrasing led you to that conclusion.

Now I would like to apologize. As I've written above, it was my perception from what I've read, but hey, this is the internet. I would say, there is no ill will intended from either side. Anyway, I am still grateful for the efforts you made to comment on my card. So, thanks again.

By the way, I like your Dispatch.

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 12:26:26 pm

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Unfortunately, this could be indeed a problem. An easy fix is to change "a copy of it" to "one or more copies of it". It looks a bit tame then, but it is only a $4 cost card. So, better that than allowing too much craziness. Thanks for your suggestion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 27, 2020, 02:05:03 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 01:49:53 pm

Unfortunately, this could be indeed a problem. An easy fix is to change "a copy of it" to "one or more copies of it". It looks a bit tame then, but it is only a $4 cost card. So, better that than allowing too much craziness. Thanks for your suggestion.

I don't see an easy fix either.  It could be based on what the player to your left does rather than all opponents, but that might take some of the fun out of it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:08:19 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 12:26:26 pm

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 27, 2020, 02:09:40 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 27, 2020, 01:04:28 pm

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ynrverh9.png)

Quote

Dispatch | Event | @4 (costs 4 debt)
Set aside an Action or Treasure card from the Supply costing up to $4. At the start of your next turn, play it. Each other player may Exile a copy of that card.

The concept behind dispatch is "I gain now, you gain later." There's certainly some cards that are worth getting in hand T2 -- trashers, sometimes gainers, even a silver on T1 to guarantee you get a 5 on turn 2. If it's the last copy in the Supply, no one else gets one -- it's like a cheap summon! Well, I lied in the beginning, it's not "I gain now." You never "gain" the card, although you get to put in in your Discard pile of next turn's clean-up phase. This means no on-gain triggers happen (like villagers from Lackeys), which means sometimes you want to buy a card, even if it's the last copy in the Supply. Most importantly, if you never gain the card, that means you never get to discard from Exile. So, if my opponent kindly Dispatched out a Village Green on their turn, and on my turn I do the same thing, I don't get to discard my Village Green from Exile.

Pricing this was difficult. At first it was $4, but then I saw that it made a huge unfair difference for 3/4 and 5/2, and I don't like introducing that much varying early on. Then I made it @5, but then this removed fun things like Dispatching a Silver to increase your payload (4/3 means you just open silver/4). At @4, you can now Dispatch a Silver, pay off your debts, and buy a 5 cost card. Everyone gets to open a 5 if this costs @4, and I like that equalizing effect. In order to differentiate it against Summon I removed triggering on-gain effects, and this also made it feel a little better to cost 4 debt. It also can gain treasures to differentiate it against Summon. And also, Summon doesn't give out copies to opponents. So, yeah, it's a different event.

Definitely open to feedback!

It seems weak to me, comparing to Alms.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:13:09 pm

Alms does not set aside and play. Summon is the most similar landscape and to me Dispatch looks pretty strong. All the Messenger tricks work.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 02:18:43 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 27, 2020, 02:05:03 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 01:49:53 pm

Unfortunately, this could be indeed a problem. An easy fix is to change "a copy of it" to "one or more copies of it". It looks a bit tame then, but it is only a $4 cost card. So, better that than allowing too much craziness. Thanks for your suggestion.

I don't see an easy fix either.  It could be based on what the player to your left does rather than all opponents, but that might take some of the fun out of it.

No, the "one or more copies" is per other player. It doesn't matter what the first opponent does.

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:08:19 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 12:26:26 pm

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

I think the point is that it is getting stronger with an increasing number of players. In a 2-player game, it is mostly a 1-1 gain (Villager vs Coffers) and one opponent can better adapt to the situation by building a different deck. With more players, the ratios will increase on average, 1-2, 1-3 (per opponent-Magi player), and what I think might be crucial, it is getting increasingly difficult to go for different strategies (means key cards).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:28:46 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 02:18:43 pm

I think the point is that it is getting stronger with an increasing number of players. In a 2-player game, it is mostly a 1-1 gain (Villager vs Coffers) and one opponent can better adapt to the situation by building a different deck. With more players, the ratios will increase on average, 1-2, 1-3 (per opponent-Magi player), and what I think might be crucial, it is getting increasingly difficult to go for different strategies (means key cards).

I don't get your point. I just showed that the average number of tokens that you get from Magi increases but the curve is concave, i.e. the differences themselves decrease.
Different strategies? Either you need a splitter or you don't, either your Magi suffice or the Villagers you get via other Magi suffice. I don't see how this scales badly with player count. In multiplayer you are actually more likely to freeride on the Villagers, i.e. Magi might ironically be actually be weaker than in 2P in this respect.

To me it looks like a perfect, self-balancing design. It definitely has far less player number scaling issues than official cards like Pirate Ship or Jester.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 27, 2020, 02:29:38 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:08:19 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 12:26:26 pm

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:36:30 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 27, 2020, 02:29:38 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:08:19 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 12:26:26 pm

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

And? In a 3P game in which Alice and Bob get a Witch while Charlie does not, he gets Curses at DOUBLE THE SPEED than in a 2P game. Doesn't mean that each and every junker is a horribly broken design.
If I player Jester in a 2P game I might get 1 Laboratory. If I play a 4P game I might get 3 Laboratories. Doesn't mean that Jester is a horrible design (if you do the maths with probabilities, it becomes e.g. obvious that the likeliehood for the last event is fairly small, i.e. Jester behave like a normal junker and as gainer it is slightly stronger than in 2P).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:39:49 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 27, 2020, 02:29:38 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:08:19 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 12:26:26 pm

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

Exactly. There's multiple good reasons that cards that give some benefit based on opponents' activities (like Goatherd and Treasure Hunter) only base it off one opponent.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:40:43 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:39:49 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 27, 2020, 02:29:38 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:08:19 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 12:26:26 pm

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

Exactly. There's multiple good reasons that cards that give some benefit based on opponents' activities (like Goatherd and Treasure Hunter) only base it off one opponent.

You mean like Jester which can gain several cards? Or like Pirate Ship whose hitting probability increases with player count?  ::)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:40:58 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:36:30 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 27, 2020, 02:29:38 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:08:19 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 12:26:26 pm

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

And? In a 3P game in which Alice and Bob get a Witch while Charlie does not, he gets Curses at DOUBLE THE SPEED than in a 2P game. Doesn't mean that each and every junker is a horribly broken design.

Each individual Witch is still the same strength, though. In a 3P game, each individual copy of Magi is stronger. 3P does not make each individual Witch any stronger than normal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:42:32 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:40:43 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:39:49 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 27, 2020, 02:29:38 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:08:19 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 12:26:26 pm

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

Exactly. There's multiple good reasons that cards that give some benefit based on opponents' activities (like Goatherd and Treasure Hunter) only base it off one opponent.

You mean like Jester? Or Pirate Ship?  ::)

Pirate Ship doesn't give you a Coin token per Treasure trashed by it. Magi is like if Pirate Ship did. And both of those are badly designed cards anyway, IMO. Using badly designed official cards doesn't prove your point.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:43:08 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:40:58 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:36:30 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 27, 2020, 02:29:38 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:08:19 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 12:26:26 pm

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

And? In a 3P game in which Alice and Bob get a Witch while Charlie does not, he gets Curses at DOUBLE THE SPEED than in a 2P game. Doesn't mean that each and every junker is a horribly broken design.

Each individual Witch is still the same strength, though. In a 3P game, each individual copy of Magi is stronger. 3P does not make each individual Witch any stronger than normal.

True and irrelevant as Dominion is not a solitaire game.

Magi scales far better than many official cards. I think that it scales far better than junkers which are far less skippable in multiplayer than in 2P games (unless there is really good trashing that can deal with double or triple the Curses coming in).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 02:48:11 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:28:46 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 02:18:43 pm

I think the point is that it is getting stronger with an increasing number of players. In a 2-player game, it is mostly a 1-1 gain (Villager vs Coffers) and one opponent can better adapt to the situation by building a different deck. With more players, the ratios will increase on average, 1-2, 1-3 (per opponent-Magi player), and what I think might be crucial, it is getting increasingly difficult to go for different strategies (means key cards).

I don't get your point. I just showed that the average number of tokens that you get from Magi increases but the curve is concave, i.e. the differences themselves decrease.

No need to argue here. I agree.

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:28:46 pm

To me it looks like a perfect, self-balancing design. It definitely has far less player number scaling issues than official cards like Pirate Ship or Jester.

Well, difficult to argue against my own card design. I actually like it very much the way I've presented it.

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:28:46 pm

Different strategies? Either you need a splitter or you don't, either your Magi suffice or the Villagers you get via other Magi suffice. I don't see how this scales badly with player count. In multiplayer you are actually more likely to freeride on the Villagers, i.e. Magi might ironically be actually be weaker than in 2P in this respect.

This part is more difficult to answer properly. It is not only about Splitters. It could be an Attack card that the Magi player sets aside with the knowledge (or a high certainty) that the single opponent doesn't have it in hand or deck. In a similar way, it could be a Smithy allowing a big draw at the start of the next turn. Not a good idea if the opponent can make their Smithy non-terminal.

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:51:18 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:42:32 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:40:43 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:39:49 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 27, 2020, 02:29:38 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:08:19 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 12:26:26 pm

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

Exactly. There's multiple good reasons that cards that give some benefit based on opponents' activities (like Goatherd and Treasure Hunter) only base it off one opponent.

You mean like Jester? Or Pirate Ship?  ::)

Pirate Ship doesn't give you a Coin token per Treasure trashed by it. Magi is like if Pirate Ship did. And both of those are badly designed cards anyway, IMO. Using badly designed official cards doesn't prove your point.

The likelihood of Pirate Ship hitting increases with the player count. Pirate Ship can actually be pretty decent in 3P and 4P game precisely because of that hitting likelihood (and because more players fight for a fixed number of cards that yield virtual Coins). It is a card which is wrongly evaluated because so many people play 2P games online.

You cannot ignore that Magi gives tokens to the other players. You also cannot ignore that in multiplayer, the village power of Magi becomes less relevant because you get more Villagers via other players' Magi.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:51:22 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:43:08 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:40:58 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:36:30 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 27, 2020, 02:29:38 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:08:19 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 12:26:26 pm

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

And? In a 3P game in which Alice and Bob get a Witch while Charlie does not, he gets Curses at DOUBLE THE SPEED than in a 2P game. Doesn't mean that each and every junker is a horribly broken design.

Each individual Witch is still the same strength, though. In a 3P game, each individual copy of Magi is stronger. 3P does not make each individual Witch any stronger than normal.

True and irrelevant as Dominion is not a solitaire game.

Magi scales far better than many official cards. I think that it scales far better than junkers which are far less skippable in multiplayer than in 2P games (unless there is really good trashing that can deal with double or triple the Curses coming in).

Which is exactly our point. And junkers aren't "far less skippable in multiplayer than in 2P games." If you're playing a 2P game, both of you having a Witch vs your opponent having a Witch and you not having one is a 5-5 vs 10-0 Curse split. In a 3P game, all players having a Witch vs both opponents having a Witch is a 6.67-6.67-6.67 vs 10-5-5 split. In 2P, getting a Witch avoids 5 Curses and gives them to your opponent, whereas in 3P, getting a Witch only avoids 3.33 Curses and gives 1.67 to each of your opponents. Factor in the fact that the Curse pile runs out faster in 3P than 2P, and the skippability is about equal.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:53:51 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 02:48:11 pm

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:55:57 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:51:18 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:42:32 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:40:43 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:39:49 pm

Quote from: Timinou on December 27, 2020, 02:29:38 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:08:19 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 12:26:26 pm

My issue with Magi is how much it scales with player count. It gets exponentially stronger the more players there are.

Exponentially? Nah. That’s mathematical nonsense.

Suppose we have deck drawing engines and it is a crucial cantrip with an empty pile. Assuming even splits, it is 5:5 in a 2P game and 3:3:4 in a 3P game. So we talk about getting 5 Coffers versus getting 6.66 Coffers (vs 7.5 Coffers in a 4P game, i.e. the difference is decreasing, the curve is concave and not convex like an exponential process). And, most importantly, the difference between Villagers and Coffers is not that huge.

You're correct about the amount of coffers gained not increasing exponentially.  But the trade-off for each opponent does change quite a lot.
In the example you gave assuming equal distribution of the set-aside card, in a 2-player game you gain 5 Coffers, your opponent gains 5 Villagers.  In a 3-player game, you gain 6-7 Coffers, each opponent gains 3-4 Villagers.  In a 4-player game, you gain 7-8 Coffers, each opponent gains 2-3 Villagers.

Exactly. There's multiple good reasons that cards that give some benefit based on opponents' activities (like Goatherd and Treasure Hunter) only base it off one opponent.

You mean like Jester? Or Pirate Ship?  ::)

Pirate Ship doesn't give you a Coin token per Treasure trashed by it. Magi is like if Pirate Ship did. And both of those are badly designed cards anyway, IMO. Using badly designed official cards doesn't prove your point.

The likelihood of Pirate Ship hitting increases with the player count. Pirate Ship can actually be pretty decent in 3P and 4P game precisely because of that hitting likelihood (and because more players fight for a fixed number of cards that yield virtual Coins). It is a card which is wrongly evaluated because so many people play 2P games online.

You cannot ignore that Magi gives tokens to the other players. You also cannot ignore that in multiplayer, the village power of Magi becomes less relevant because you get more Villagers via other players' Magi.

The reward for Pirate Ship hitting doesn't increase with the player count, though. With Magi, the reward and likelihood both increase. And as gambit05 has said multiple times, the ratio of Coffers to Villagers changes in multiplayer. In 2P games, you get the exact same number of Coffers as players get Villagers. In 3P games, you get twice as many Coffers as each player gets Villagers, and so on.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:56:21 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:51:22 pm

Which is exactly our point. And junkers aren't "far less skippable in multiplayer than in 2P games." If you're playing a 2P game, both of you having a Witch vs your opponent having a Witch and you not having one is a 5-5 vs 10-0 Curse split. In a 3P game, all players having a Witch vs both opponents having a Witch is a 6.67-6.67-6.67 vs 10-5-5 split. In 2P, getting a Witch avoids 5 Curses and gives them to your opponent, whereas in 3P, getting a Witch only avoids 3.33 Curses and gives 1.67 to each of your opponents. Factor in the fact that the Curse pile runs out faster in 3P than 2P, and the skippability is about equal.

As expected, you ignore what I pointed out: tempo. Tempo and cycling matter far, far more than how many Curses you end up with at the end of the day. Getting a trasher after the first shuffle vs. getting a trasher in the opening can make a huge difference not due to static but dynamic aspects.

Gee, that is Dominion 101. You play a game, analyze your decks at the end of the game and Bob wonders why the decks are virtually identical but Alice has 2 more Provinces than him.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:58:19 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:53:51 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 02:48:11 pm

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

It applies to any card, not just Villages. You're nitpicking about the specific example he chose.

Also, if Magis are giving out so many Villagers that players can just freely spam whatever cards they want, that's going to make for a boring strategy, regardless of whatever other problems we were talking about.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 02:59:56 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:53:51 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 02:48:11 pm

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

Sorry, but this is really hilarious. Are you aware that this looks like you defend Magi against the designer of the card?
I've thought a lot about the self-balancing aspects you've mention when I designed the card. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 03:02:12 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:58:19 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:53:51 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 02:48:11 pm

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

It applies to any card, not just Villages. You're nitpicking about the specific example he chose.

I am not nitpicking, I am emphasizing an important element that you ignore: that you get more Villagers on average in a 3P than in a 2P game via others players' Magi and that this makes Magi less attractive (Magi is a splitter dude, not just a Coffers generating thingy!).

That likely only partly compensates what you emphasize, that you get more token if you play Magi in 3P than in 2P. But thise self-balancing make the power of Magi increase concavely and not, as you falsely and with extremy hyperbole claimed, exponetially with player count.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 03:05:11 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 02:59:56 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:53:51 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 02:48:11 pm

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

Sorry, but this is really hilarious. Are you aware that this looks like you defend Magi against the designer of the card?
I've thought a lot about the self-balancing aspects you've mention when I designed the card.

No, I am defending your design against Gubump who bluntly ignores all the subtleties of your design. Critique is important, unwarranted hyperbole, mathetical fallacies and ignorance of self-balancing ingredients is not.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 03:08:11 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 03:05:11 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 02:59:56 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:53:51 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 02:48:11 pm

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

Sorry, but this is really hilarious. Are you aware that this looks like you defend Magi against the designer of the card?
I've thought a lot about the self-balancing aspects you've mention when I designed the card.

No, I am defending your design against Gubump who bluntly ignores all the subtleties of your design. Critique is important, unwarranted hyperbole, mathetical fallacies and ignorance of self-balancing ingredients is not.

I am very grateful for what you are doing, because you do it better than I could and you seem to type faster than I can read.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 03:12:05 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 03:02:12 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 02:58:19 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:53:51 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 02:48:11 pm

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I think you ignore here that Villages become less relevant in 3P games than in 2P games because you already get all them Villagers from Magi. That's the self-balancing aspect that is bluntly ignored.
I cannot stand the hyperbolic arguments in this thread against a card which does indeed behave differently with different number of players but has so many self-balancing ingredients that it is unlikely to not work well.

It applies to any card, not just Villages. You're nitpicking about the specific example he chose.

I am not nitpicking, I am emphasizing an important element that you ignore: that you get more Villagers on average in a 3P than in a 2P game via others players' Magi and that this makes Magi less attractive (Magi is a splitter dude, not just a Coffers generating thingy!).

That likely only partly compensates what you emphasize, that you get more token if you play Magi in 3P than in 2P. But thise self-balancing make the power of Magi increase concavely and not, as you falsely and with extremy hyperbole claimed, exponetially with player count.

You're still ignoring that the ratio of Coffers to Villagers is also higher, so yes, Villagers are given out more frequently in mutliplayer, but that also means that Coffers are given out even more often. And having an excess of Coffers is more powerful than having an excess of Villagers. There's a reason Coffers are harder to get than Villagers.

If everyone is buying Magi in multiplayer, then everyone will end up just being flooded with Coffers and Villagers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 03:14:26 pm

It is the DeLorean, man.

No, seriously, I rarely put cards nowadays from the forum into my "might print them the next time I print Dominion cards" data folder. But this is a such a cool design with Scheme and Village and the tokens and everybody thinking about what card that dudes with Magi choose and what you think that the other dudes think that the dudes with Magi choose that I already put it into that folder.
It might totally not work, like any interactive card with potential scaling issues. But I love non-Attack interaction in Dominion and it is very hard to come up with such designs (I virtually never achieve it).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 27, 2020, 03:15:27 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:13:09 pm

Alms does not set aside and play. Summon is the most similar landscape and to me Dispatch looks pretty strong. All the Messenger tricks work.

With Alms you spend a Buy and gain a card.

With Dispatch you spend $4 and a Buy, gain a card and the others players gain a duplication for free when they gain that card.

I really don't know if play the card compensate these differences.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on December 27, 2020, 03:18:40 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 03:05:11 pm

No, I am defending your design against Gubump who bluntly ignores all the subtleties of your design. Critique is important, unwarranted hyperbole, mathetical fallacies and ignorance of self-balancing ingredients is not.

Whatever the case is, there are ways to put forth arguments and, as it has happened before, you are not doing a very good job of keeping this friendly. From the sarcastic emotes, to the low-key insults, to the hypocrisy of accusing Gubump of ignoring you while you abuse that privilege yourself, to the absolutely condescending attitude of saying stuff like: “gee, idiot, this is Dominion 101”, it is fair to say that you are not trying to argue in good faith.

It is good to have discussions about card balance. I will accept anyone's critique with open arms. After all, that’s what we love and improving our skills at designing is always welcomed! But there are ways to do so, a decorum to respect if you will. Being vindictive as you vilify those you argue with just brings the whole friendliness of this thread down and lemme tell you, that just makes things heavy, man.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 03:20:12 pm

Quote from: Carline on December 27, 2020, 03:15:27 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:13:09 pm

Alms does not set aside and play. Summon is the most similar landscape and to me Dispatch looks pretty strong. All the Messenger tricks work.

With Alms you spend a Buy and gain a card.

With Dispatch you spend $4 and a Buy, gain a card and the others players gain a duplication for free when they gain that card.

I really don't know if play the card compensate these differences.

Suimmon tells you that story. Summon is better than: +1 Card +1 Action Gain a $4
Good players can run engines with Summon as only splitter.
You often pay $3 for +2 Cards (Experiment, Expedition).

I don't get the comparison with Alms. All that Alms does, ignoring tricks when you run engines with virtual Coins and a Buy to spare and really get a free $4, is to always generate a minimum of 4 Coins for you. That is cool but not wild.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 03:31:45 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on December 27, 2020, 02:48:11 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 02:28:46 pm

Different strategies? Either you need a splitter or you don't, either your Magi suffice or the Villagers you get via other Magi suffice. I don't see how this scales badly with player count. In multiplayer you are actually more likely to freeride on the Villagers, i.e. Magi might ironically be actually be weaker than in 2P in this respect.

This part is more difficult to answer properly. It is not only about Splitters. It could be an Attack card that the Magi player sets aside with the knowledge (or a high certainty) that the single opponent doesn't have it in hand or deck. In a similar way, it could be a Smithy allowing a big draw at the start of the next turn. Not a good idea if the opponent can make their Smithy non-terminal.

If it is a Village, and the opponents are more or less forced to play at least one Village, as their turn would otherwise suck, then with one opponent that one would get 1 Villager (assuming one Village was played) and the Magi player gets 1 Coffers (1-1 ratio). With 3 opponents, and all opponents play exactly 1 Village, each of them gets one Villager, but the Magi player gets 3 Coffers (1-3 ratio). I think that is what Gubump had in mind.

I quote my own post as I think this is important and it got buried in a flood of posts.
The lower part shows that the Magi player gets more tokens than each individual opponent with an increasing number of players. That is what Gubumb means, I think.

However, the top part about Attack cards and Smithies (and likely other cards) shouldn't be ignored. And here, this part of Magi becomes weaker with more players as the Magi player looses flexibility (or suffers more drawbacks).

And this could very well mean that the two aspects with respect to player count balance each other out.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 03:33:09 pm

Quote from: X-tra on December 27, 2020, 03:18:40 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 03:05:11 pm

No, I am defending your design against Gubump who bluntly ignores all the subtleties of your design. Critique is important, unwarranted hyperbole, mathetical fallacies and ignorance of self-balancing ingredients is not.

Whatever the case is, there are ways to put forth arguments and, as it has happened before, you are not doing a very good job of keeping this friendly. From the sarcastic emotes, to the low-key insults, to the hypocrisy of accusing Gubump of ignoring you while you abuse that privilege yourself, to the absolutely condescending attitude of saying stuff like: “gee, idiot, this is Dominion 101”, it is fair to say that you are not trying to argue in good faith.

It is good to have discussions about card balance. I will accept anyone's critique with open arms. After all, that’s what we love and improving our skills at designing is always welcomed! But there are ways to do so, a decorum to respect if you will. Being vindictive as you vilify those you argue with just brings the whole friendliness of this thread down and lemme tell you, that just makes things heavy, man.

Quote from: X-tra on December 27, 2020, 03:18:40 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 03:05:11 pm

No, I am defending your design against Gubump who bluntly ignores all the subtleties of your design. Critique is important, unwarranted hyperbole, mathetical fallacies and ignorance of self-balancing ingredients is not.

Whatever the case is, there are ways to put forth arguments and, as it has happened before, you are not doing a very good job of keeping this friendly. From the sarcastic emotes, to the low-key insults, to the hypocrisy of accusing Gubump of ignoring you while you abuse that privilege yourself, to the absolutely condescending attitude of saying stuff like: “gee, idiot, this is Dominion 101”, it is fair to say that you are not trying to argue in good faith.

It is good to have discussions about card balance. I will accept anyone's critique with open arms. After all, that’s what we love and improving our skills at designing is always welcomed! But there are ways to do so, a decorum to respect if you will. Being vindictive as you vilify those you argue with just brings the whole friendliness of this thread down and lemme tell you, that just makes things heavy, man.

I don't apologize for defending a sublime design against an irrational attack (the respective poster first claimed that the card is too good in multiplayer and then he claimed that the villager leeching is too good; such contradictory claims are the most clear sign of an irrational analysis). If that makes me the villain, so be it. I did not insult anybody and I certainly don't mean to disrespect Gubump in any way. He is a hiqh quality content poster but in this instance, he errs.

Sometimes we go too far here. Everybody posts here for the feedback that helps us to improve our designs. But sometimes folks just nitpick and critique for no reason at all and use far harsher criteria than they use for official cards.
If a card is great, applause is warranted.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on December 27, 2020, 03:43:17 pm

I dunno man. I feel like that, based on this exchanged, I'm not too confident in placing a word about this or that about someone's design. Should I say something, uh, "not worthy of criticism", I'd be in danger of being accused to not know my "Dominion 101". That's not very inviting and, rather than taking the risk to embark on the wonderful journey of discussion, I think it's best I don't say anything at all. That is the vibe I'm getting from this. It's not a very positive one.

It ain’t a hivemind here. Where this guy likes a card very much, maybe this gal over there will think there are shortcomings. It’d be within that person’s right to say at least why they think like that. Just like it’s anyone’s right to refute their judgement. So long as it’s done in respect, man, I’m all for it.

Anyway! Let's not dwell on that too much. I still have some Christmas spirit left after all.  :D

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 03:44:49 pm

So how about discussing all the interaction that Magi brings into the game? A lot of stuff about card design is technical but those technicalities are "the beginning of wisdom, not the end". Whether a card is actually great to play with has far less to do with how balanced it is (that is the easy part, design- and analysis-wise) and far more with how fun and interesting it is (that is the tricky part, that is the magic and the art of designing Dominion cards in specific and boardgame-wise in general).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 27, 2020, 03:51:11 pm

Dispatch is almost certainly not weak. The value of playing a trashing card on T2 is bonkers. There's no way you don't start T1 dispatching Steward, Ambassador, Chapel, or Rebuild.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on December 27, 2020, 03:58:45 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 03:44:49 pm

So how about discussing all the interaction that Magi brings into the game? A lot of stuff about card design is technical but those technicalities are "the beginning of wisdom, not the end". Whether a card is actually great to play with has far less to do with how balanced it is (that is the easy part, design- and analysis-wise) and far more with how fun and interesting it is (that is the tricky part, that is the magic and the art of designing Dominion cards in specific and boardgame-wise in general).

Hehe, I actually agree with this. But! This might be because to know if a card is "feelsgood", there's no better way to pinpoint that than by playtesting. And I bet most people here would find it too heavy of an endeavour to do so on each and everyone's submissions. Technicalities are the easier stuff to spot, so I guess that's what gets discussed the most here. Usually, you can be more confident discussing these technicalities rather the feeling of the card itself.

More often than not, these nit-picks are good at polishing the card. I've observed on certain situations however that people's attempts to "fix" things, while being absolutely nice and generous in nature, sometimes degenerate a card into what it ain't trying to be. This doesn't happen enough for it to be annoying, but it can be... errr, some kind of pitfall. Hate that word though. Anyway! The feeling of a card is what makes it so awesome to begin with, as you have correctly noted. That should be the most important thing to keep in mind. And the small "on-the-side" fixes shouldn't go against that core idea. Or ideally, they should try to avoid to do so.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 04:10:36 pm

Often the power level really is off, the wording is bad or you ignored rule issues and interactions. I don’t think I ever had a design without any such issues.
But I sometimes worry that if somebody posted Chariot Race (in a mirror universe in which the card did not officially exist) that it would be ripped apart, that nobody would notice that a supposed golden deck with only Chariot Races would not work due to their low cost ... and that nobody would point out the interactive merits and numerous feedback effects on your ideal deck construction (e.g. potentially greening earlier to increase the average cost of cards in your deck) of this hypothetical fan card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 27, 2020, 06:13:20 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 03:44:49 pm

So how about discussing all the interaction that Magi brings into the game? A lot of stuff about card design is technical but those technicalities are "the beginning of wisdom, not the end". Whether a card is actually great to play with has far less to do with how balanced it is (that is the easy part, design- and analysis-wise) and far more with how fun and interesting it is (that is the tricky part, that is the magic and the art of designing Dominion cards in specific and boardgame-wise in general).

The interactive element is definitely what makes Magi super-interesting. 

I don't see why it is debatable that Magi  is more powerful at higher player counts (your own hypothetical example shows that the power of the card increases with more players).  Whether that's a bad thing is an entirely different question; it can still work even if it is more powerful at higher player counts.  There is some self-balancing that comes from the in-built trade-off between playing an Action card and gaining Villagers vs. giving the opponent Coffers, but that is completely independent of player count.

My initial impression is that at high player counts Magi might be too centralizing (at the same time, Magi might be the perfect antidote to other cards that can be super-centralizing).  Nonetheless, I don't think there's any point in tweaking the card without first playtesting it at different player counts.  In fact, in an earlier comment to gambit, I mentioned that I think trying to address how the card scales at different player counts might take the fun out of Magi.  I like the fact that each time your opponent has the opportunity to play the set-aside card, they need to analyze the trade-off between playing the Action and gaining something, or giving you something else (the concept could work with something other than Villagers and Coffers).  I love the fact that its very presence in the Kingdom will force you think about how you want to construct your deck. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 06:29:41 pm

The point about the independence of the self balancing is wrong. In 3P, there are on average double the amount of Magis of other players in play so you get on average double the amount of Villagers, i.e. it becomes much more feasible to actually skip Magi as a splitter.
Whether this over- or undercompensates the increase in Coffers tokens that you get when you use the card actively is anything but clear. DXV mentioned that a cantrip that yields Villagers is basically a $4.5 (it is trivial: Peddler is better than Village but engine consistency matters matters more than Coins so you strangely want relatively more of the weaker card; same with the tokens versions) I seriously doubt that that it swings much in either direction.

Or in other words, the built in self balance mechanism very likely works pretty well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 06:49:12 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 06:29:41 pm

The point about the independence of the self balancing is wrong. In 3P, there are on average double the amount of Magis of other players in play so you get on average double the amount of Villagers, i.e. it becomes much more feasible to actually skip Magi as a splitter.
Whether this over- or undercompensates the increase in Coffers tokens that you get when you use the card actively is anything but clear. DXV mentioned that a cantrip that yields Villagers is basically a $4.5 (it is trivial: Peddler is better than Village but engine consistency matters matters more than Coins so you strangely want relatively more of the weaker card; same with the tokens versions) I seriously doubt that that it swings much in either direction.

Or in other words, the built in self balance mechanism very likely works pretty well.

I think you've changed my mind about Magi. There is one more point I want to bring up, however; I agree that for the most part Villagers are more important than Coffers, but there's a point at which getting more Villagers is pointless. Once you have over a dozen Villagers, you're probably not going to need very many more for the rest of the game. The same cannot be said of Coffers. There isn't really such a thing as an excess of Coffers like there is for Villagers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on December 27, 2020, 06:53:01 pm

True that, there is a satiation level with Villagers but not with Coffers. Perhaps that is why Recruiter is „only“ overpowered and not utterly bonkers.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 27, 2020, 07:18:52 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/SkW9V4f.png)

This card's been mildly playtested. The fact that you have to wait until Clean-up to put it on your Tavern mat means that you won't be able to call it the same turn you play it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on December 27, 2020, 08:55:49 pm

Quote from: segura on December 27, 2020, 06:29:41 pm

The point about the independence of the self balancing is wrong. In 3P, there are on average double the amount of Magis of other players in play so you get on average double the amount of Villagers, i.e. it becomes much more feasible to actually skip Magi as a splitter.
Whether this over- or undercompensates the increase in Coffers tokens that you get when you use the card actively is anything but clear. DXV mentioned that a cantrip that yields Villagers is basically a $4.5 (it is trivial: Peddler is better than Village but engine consistency matters matters more than Coins so you strangely want relatively more of the weaker card; same with the tokens versions) I seriously doubt that that it swings much in either direction.

Or in other words, the built in self balance mechanism very likely works pretty well.

It's a good point about having a higher probability of having multiple Magis in play at higher player counts (assuming players buy a similar number of Magis) but I think you're then more likely to hit the point of diminishing returns with Villagers.

Just as a thought exercise (not suggesting gambit needs to change anything now), do you think the card would still be fun if the boni from Magi were immediate (or at the start of the next turn in the case of the player who played Magi) rather than tokens?

On a side note, I'm really curious how this would play out in real games.  Will players be more likely to mirror or less?  I'm not actually sure.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 28, 2020, 02:46:11 am

Quote from: Aquila on December 20, 2020, 04:36:26 pm

Yay, that's satisfying! The Latin for eagle is Aquila~.
Thanks anordinaryman, that was an interesting contest!

We're almost at contest 100, and we're at a somewhat significant time of year, so I propose something big (and challenging to judge):

Contest #99: Free For All
Just one restriction: no new mechanics. Go nuts; put together the best design you can think of! Sift through all the options and select something you know works. I will attempt to keep an open mind towards different audiences, and I anticipate a very big shortlist of potential runners-up. To choose a winner I guess may involve some personal preference if things are really close.

No bonus points for holiday theme by the way, but a narrow margin may be decided by relevance of theme to the mechanics. I will heavily favour mechanical balance and interest however.

whens the deadline? its been a week,  i thought it was a weekly contest?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on December 28, 2020, 08:06:19 am

(https://i.imgur.com/fH9f63F.png)

Tried this with 3 choices, but it's too wordy that way by far. I prefer the either/or decision.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on December 28, 2020, 11:49:20 am

Quote from: fika monster on December 28, 2020, 02:46:11 am

whens the deadline? its been a week,  i thought it was a weekly contest?

I allowed a little more time for the holidays, for those who spent time with family.

Now I'm calling: 24 hours left.

I anticipate judging to be up by ~17:00 forum time tomorrow.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 28, 2020, 12:59:40 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/053/full/Dangerous_Ground.png?1607149682)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on December 29, 2020, 05:20:56 pm

Results

Maybe free for all was so open a brief the sheer number of options was a challenge, or maybe you were convinced in one particular idea. Looks like the latter was the case more often. There's a wide variety of entries here, so time to open my mind...

And nice work on presenting the last contest results anordinaryman, I'll copy you:

---

littlefish	Quote Heist - Event, $3 cost. Each player (including you) reveals the top 2 cards of their deck. Gain a Treasure costing up to $1 per 1VP revealed. Then each player puts their revealed cards back in any order.	You can get a Gold if you find a Province or enough Duchies and Estates to add up to 6. Seeing that this costs the same as Silver this is pretty much the principle use; kingdom Treasures costing $4+ and Platinum add more of course. It’s more likely to work late game and with more players.   How often will buying $3 Golds late game be interesting? It might be worth it sometimes, but with a chance of failing and having to swallow a Copper, maybe not. Is the player interaction interesting? Rather like Tribute, not particularly, and of course it’s almost pointless if you set up a Province to reveal in your own deck. There’s also the question of what happens with variable VP cards. Cheaper price, optional gain, clarity with all Victory cards or maybe more excitement from the player interaction would be possible areas to improve.
silverspawn	(https://i.ibb.co/qjrzMCQ/Orphan.png)  (https://i.ibb.co/6g25Nvd/Servant.png)  (https://i.ibb.co/VTTBvy3/Wanderer.png)  (https://i.ibb.co/grRMDNY/Night-Owl.png)  (https://i.ibb.co/kGCP34W/Sorceress.png)	Firstly an individual stage run-through: Orphan - super weak, you’re obviously supposed to advance her. She can set up the later stages, and the option to flip the journey token lets double Orphan openings work safely for triggering the first Servant. Servant - Chapel that comes in a shuffle later than usual. Significantly weaker than it since the chance of good cards showing up with it is higher, and Servant will very likely be the priority play in a terminal clash, to upgrade her. Wanderer - now the journey token flip gets non-terminal. Here you can spend the token use on doubling the size of your next hand; certainly worthwhile, a bit like a non-terminal Ranger. If you then have a Servant and a face down token, kaboom. Night Owl - a mass trasher not looking at your hand. Maybe you need to trim your deck right down - like Donate but at a more sensible time of game - or you’re getting heavily junked. The latter is going to possibly happen because Sorceress. Sorceress - looks a bit like Vampire in being a gainer and Attack every other play. All those Coppers your Servants and Night Owls trashed will fly your opponents’ way, until their Servants and Night Owls send them back. You set up Ambassador wars with two or more cards from this line, all the while building up your deck. You want to be sitting as far right to the Sorceress player as possible, so you may not have to get so many Coppers. Overall: big spikes of engine power. I think that if you go for this line, you'll invest in a lot of it so everything works more often. You'll get 2 or even 4 Orphans and build up to one or two Sorceresses, or use Wanderer for draw with some trashing on the way. Upgrading accelerates very quickly with the effects of each stage. At first I thought Sorceress didn't use the journey token and worked every turn, so its junking negated the earlier trashing a bit. I'm wondering if as it is now it might be a tad weak for the end card, even though you can get to it quickly? Possibly some people would like Orphan to do something for you now as well. Conclusion: I'm liking the progression and overall strategy of the line. It would likely make a pleasing substitute for Chapel and Donate haters. If Sorceress is strong enough, it is convincing.
segura	(https://i.imgur.com/pVWHMVc.png)	If you pull off the Action play, it's a better Necropolis; this potential Village function saves it from being a pure token Baker. Add the Treasure play and you get a Coffers with it, together with the Treasure playing in Action phase niche; Black Market and Storyteller play Treasures then for necessary functionality, whilst this does it for elegance, it just needs to check there’s a Treasure in hand. Then the Victory check. The Horse gain not only develops the later power theme of the Villager and Coffers but it helps to not let the discarded Victory be redrawn. Altogether, it likes sifting and absolutely loves draw cards. The single Horse gain feels just right for self-synergy here, being an Action to play and providing effectively just +1 Card. When a stronger draw is present (indeed draw to x), then these can become an effective Village for your deck. Elegant and fun when it works, I like this.
MochaMoko	(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/685147225470271508/790526775557619732/Rally_FINAL.png)  (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/685147225470271508/791226109647388682/Campaign_FINAL.png)  (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/685147225470271508/790523369585377300/Homecoming_FINAL.png)	Welcome to the forum and the contest. The individual cards: Rally - the woodcutter bonus is tame for a $5, though the ability to get more copies for more of the later stages is neat and can be good with trash-for-benefit. There are good reasons to upgrade this, and it does support the later stages, but the bonus could still be a little stronger or this could be cheaper. Campaign - Necropolis that sometimes gives 2VP. It needs Rally with it to work all the time, and giving VP couples with Rally's direct payload bonuses well, but this is a very underwhelming total effect for an upgrade from a $5 cost card. Either it's meant to be upgraded again or it needs more power. Homecoming - draw and throne are a strong pairing, and the ability to gain copies of it at Rally is neat. You could definitely draw first here though, to expand the search range for the action to throne; this would come closer to something stronger than $7 cost. Overall: I'm basically in agreement with what has already been said that this line is weak as is. But I do like the set of effects all together, engine and payload but needing some support.
LibraryAdventurer	Quote Drunken Huntsman $5 - Action - Attack +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1. Each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand. Then each player with any cards in hand passes one to the next such player to their left, at once.	Peddlers are easy to add to any deck, so we can straight away assume the attack will always be launched, so the presence of this in the game will always shape play. There's a mild hand size attack and what could be seen as a form of junking for everyone (Masquerade every turn is asking everyone to keep junk around) all in one package. Especially with the latter, this will be heavily warping and I'm not sure in a very fun way; cantrip Masquerade means either junk you can't get rid of unlike cursers with trashing, or deck destruction like Swindler. Having a smaller hand size beforehand compounds this even further, and maybe you must discard something good. Also, there may be some people who want to show a Moat to this to not be affected by the Masquerade bit. Maybe say 'those who discarded any cards' take part, if that should be an issue, and that would truly make it a once-per-turn attack.
spineflu	(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5fe0b12aa6f4ee0d5d4499ef/24c5cca88464afe7fbc3b12977278339/image.png)	If there are extra +buys besides the first turn change this makes, the VP part means a little. If there aren't, just use Baths. In this light, it definitely looks like this wanted to be an Edict with just the first turn change, but has the VP bit to qualify for the contest. Is the change interesting? Sometimes, I'm thinking, but often not, like when a strong $6+ card (Forge, Goons) is in the kingdom and it's the automatic opening with the extra VP further scripting it. Some $5s fall into this category too, and Cemetery. You could say take all these cards out when playing with this, but you're not left with much to build towards mid game so it's hard to see how this could be fun.
pubby	(https://i.imgur.com/Elg8Uiy.png)	The effect of this is random each game, so that makes it very replayable. Do 2 $3s make a $5 with the discarding as well? Thinking of a few combos… - +2 Cards and a cantrip, that's double lab plus whatever else the cards do. Stronger than lab at the same price. - Similarly, Experiment + anything. - +2 Cards and a + $2, plus extra things, is probably more than $5. - Oasis and Watchtower with the initial discard will be strong. - Scheme will let multiples of the other $3 be played every turn. So there are cases when it's clearly stronger than $5 and the game is potentially scripted. And there are times when it's bad, like say Storeroom and Fool. I feel that often there will be a lot of control at setup selecting a pair of cards that will be an interesting decision to go for in the game, and overall a higher price would be more balanced. It may be fun at first, 'what's Twins going to do this time?', but that seems to quickly disappear.
Xen3k	(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50745133718_157b06369d_b.jpg)	The card gained is going to be different from the trashed one; so it can't simply mill Provinces for a VP each time, it's going to always be a builder card. The Action gaining will be particularly strong, adding Action cards to the deck whilst removing bad cards and getting Villages to play them. Add in the VP advantage at the greening phase as well and this feels like either a top tier $5 or a $6. A powerful engine piece, it feels nice to play with. If it's balanced at $5, I like it.
Timinou	(https://i.imgur.com/lERAXuP.png)	So during the same turn, this can give + $2 and 1 or 2 Ruins effects, with a possible deck thinning Ruins trash, if you play a Village then this then another Action. The potential is very high, like it could become a double peddler in total. It starts off tame, but I think that the cost would average out at something higher than $2. And that's not considering the extra flexibility of storing these up for a mega turn. The way it escalates as each player plays it can feel quite fun, especially with how this will be different each game, though with a lot of players it could speed up to its optimal condition, the right 2 Ruins in the trash, very quickly. It's also like Trade Route, where players can wait until it's made strong enough so the first buyer can be at a disadvantage; the possible benefit to the first player, instead of buys and trashing, is having some one-shot silvers and a buildup to a spike of Ruins plays mid game. Overall, it feels like a potentially fun card, but it's perhaps a little too cheap.
faust	(https://i.imgur.com/AJfozdp.png)	This struggles in all random games, as there could easily be no means of discarding, but Windfall is sometimes impossible to trigger as well. As an Event, it's easy to swap out if desired. Is it interesting when it can work? With sifting more can usually be done after discarding, but the need for a precise number to discard limits flexibility; and some sifting has fixed discard value so some prices will be impossible to hit, e.g Forum by itself could never hit $5. With payload discard-for-benefit, the benefit can be near enough doubled so if good hand size increase is also in the game and probably also a +Buy it will be the way to go. Overall, a niche card that seems a little too narrow to be interesting. Windfall nearly always complements the intended strategy, whereas this can conflict a little with some of its intended strategies.
mandioca15	Quote from: mandioca15 on December 22, 2020, 03:55:55 am Cascade (Action, $5) You may play an Action card costing less than this from your hand three times. (https://i.imgur.com/Aa6h66Y.png)	This is a card that can’t be changed, either it works or it doesn't and testing will tell. One neat thing is that you can never Cascade a Cascade, so it's a much simpler play than KC. If balanced, this is simple, effective and likeable.
Fragasnap	(https://i.imgur.com/C3p7FFr.jpg)	A cheap multi-purpose card like Pawn and Squire. It might at first cause analysis paralysis with this many options, but it does seem to have ways to understand it simply. You know if it needs to be a trasher or a necropolis. If you're looking to sift, you know afterwards if you need the second +Action. So if you have a clear objective when buying this, it will reward with its flexibility. If not, it will hurt, as it reduces hand size. I imagine in most games you start with sift or Horse and trash, unless you need +action to play other purchases, then make this a Village or more ideally economy and use better villages. So it works, but it may be a bit more than $2 cost. Is it interesting? It can do lots, but it has fixed overall niches, so yes; it's just balance that’s the question. Edit: Horse gain instead of Silver. If anything this makes the $2 cost even more questionable as trash and Horse to start is arguably stronger than trash and Silver.
spheremonk	(https://abload.de/img/forbiddencitycontestg8j5s.png)	The ruins Command means this is sometimes: a Bazaar, $5 cost; Lost City $6; Bustling Village, maybe $5; Worker's Village or a sifting Village, less than $5. The average is about right. The attack is capped at once per turn, and comes at a cost to all players using this if it's overused; it's also trickier if it's the only non-terminal action in a game - the attack must be used - but then it’s the only village even after the Ruins empty so still useful. Is it interesting? The randomness of the command should be fun rather than annoying, since there is always +1 Card (the important bonus with +Actions) and +2 is unlikely so it's unwise to trust in it, or indeed in the others. And the attack is unlikely to create slogs like with Cultist, but it forces the command to change so sometimes adaptation is needed. So it's a contender.
X-tra	(https://i.postimg.cc/T1xs2pp2/District-v1.png)	The ideal is hoard them then chain them. The result is some draw and more than enough Actions. Even lining two up is 1 Card 4 Actions, a pretty good deal for two $2s. Three brings the hand size back to the same, so it's a nice benchmark to reach, and four and beyond increase hand size. So there is a strong impetus to getting one of these very early to really contest the pile; the setback is foregoing some economy to hit $5 reliably and increasing the need for trashing or sifting until enough are collected to reliably connect. If, though, the deck is all drawn and 2 Districts are played, the player gains the rest of the pile, which can be a win condition seeing there are 16 of them; but doing that quickly is often skillful (ignoring Chapel and Donate). Is it interesting? Skill or chance can determine how well the split is won; the times when it takes skill are good, but the times when someone tries but fails by chance won't be. The worst case is some mediocre but not useless Necropoli. With two players, the average split is 8 each, which is pretty massive and ample engine support. So overall, I see how it's fun, but also how it kills the fun in some games. Scaling the number of Districts to be per player might help a bit, but not in the auto empty scenario.
gambit05	(https://i.ibb.co/wp7fh86/Magi.png)	The splitting function this has is quite strong, it's like Scheme followed by Lost City start of next turn. Or it's like a non-terminal easier to connect half Prince, and two rotated are a more flexible Prince. Now factoring in the tokens. This itself is a potent splitter, so the villager gift is a little limited in desirability. The Coffers the player gets can be very volatile, particularly with more players and/or later game when Action piles are more empty. So either players ignore the Coffers and/or want Villagers, play normally or mirror the Magi player, and the game is over fast; or they're avoiding collecting too many of one card to lessen the Coffers. It's unrealistic to expect the latter to happen that often with more players. In 2-player...it seems to depend on when Magi are gained? If early the latter can happen, if too late the volatile situation may happen? Yet if they're the only splitter then riding on free Villagers will point to the volatile way too. Hard to tell without testing with multiple players, which I'm not in a position to do. Overall, it looks too strong and probably too centralising. It might be worth testing at $5.
fika monster	(https://i.imgur.com/yC7C7d4.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/tTQNdMG.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/RvaEtsz.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/9ecXvT0.png)  (https://i.imgur.com/DdAemIV.png)	Starting with an individual consideration: Dissatisfied Worker - a cantrip start means these are easy to add to the deck and upgrade. Their journey token flip supports the later stages nicely, absorbing the face downs. The face up Silver to everyone is situationally useful, but since it's on a cantrip it could be made into a junking attack of sorts. Beginning Artist - right away here's something that likes cantrip token flip, but this will also junk you (and the opponents) with Silver. Like Priest, it's hard to pull off well, and more time will be needed to get the support of the fourth stage. Starved Artist - Forge capped at 3 cards, that is strong. The balancing downside is a clever use of the journey token to gain 2 curses if it's on the negative side. The windows Forge works in can be small, and the curses here make those windows even smaller. Supporter of Art - a support card for the rest of the line, if it can flip the token face down. There are times when collecting lots of these just because they're Lost Cities might be merited, especially with Beginning Artist being available payload. Renaissance man - very similar to silverspawn’s Sorceress, swapping junking and moving to top of deck at Clean-up for another $6 gain and easier activation with a cantrip first stage. If you get to play this early enough, it can set up amazing next turns. Going late, it can gain 2 Duchies but sacrifice next turn (if there is a next turn). Overall: this line has almost every engine component in it; the only thing missing is strong draw. There isn't much interaction to consider with the rest of the kingdom. This sets the interest back a bit for me, but it has a fun feel with the interactions amongst each stage.
anordinaryman	(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/ynrverh9.png)	A cheap Summon is definitely worth using, but the setback adds some differences; the pile you Summon from will quickly get emptier, with the opponents' Exiled cards and later their gained copies to free them from Exile. This creates issues, especially with more players. If there is a later Dispatch from the same pile, it's very likely opponents won't Exile a copy, so it becomes a more free cheap Summon. Also, players further right from the Dispatch user are at a greater risk of being unable to free their Exiled cards, further strengthening the Dispatch. So, rather close to Summon, and the extra mechanics here don't seem worth it. Summon itself would be a nicer card to use.
Gubump	(https://i.imgur.com/SkW9V4f.png)	An OK +$ +buy now, a stronger one later. It's fine balance wise when compared to Haggler - it's across 2 turns and the +$ can’t boost the gain effect - and the store up for mega turn potential adds interest. It could be questioned why it calls on buy rather than gain. It seems to restrict its uses for not much reason. It could potentially be played on two consecutive turns with an Action phase or out of turn gain then drawing it, which seems rare enough to allow as combo potential. And the Buy phase function is the same. Still, it's a sweet card despite this.
D782802859	(https://i.imgur.com/fH9f63F.png)	It can be a cheap Workshop that sometimes gives your opponents a big bonus, or sometimes you give away nothing; or, it's a draw for you and forced Workshop for them. That latter option is not nice for your opponents, especially when you have an empty discard and it's just that part, as it can be like junking when used a lot. Those further right of the user (in 3+ player games) are hurt more on average as the nice cards disappear. If the Workshop was optional...the draw option would be strong for a $2 when you want to use it and your good cards are in the discard, and balanced by the gift. Those times are few; but you can put a Workshop gain in the discard first with this...if they haven't got a good discard pile. That would be too big a gift for a mere Workshop for those fortunate enough to benefit from it. I'm not feeling too convinced here either.
Carline	(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/991/053/full/Dangerous_Ground.png?1607149682)	Straightforward draw with a few twists. Without other Curse gaining, it gives the player a Curse if an odd number of them are played, the Curse going to hand also further increasing hand size so some discard-for-benefit combos are helped a bit further; or Ambassador and Masquerade passing the Curse on. With other Curse gaining, it heals quite well but doesn’t progress the Curse pile towards emptying so Witch has an everlasting battle with this. It should be balanced, but is it interesting? There are a few fun interactions. Without those, an even number played is just pure vanilla draw, and whilst lining them up together is the skill, with large amounts of draw it should be quite easy. In a no Village game where only one can be played per turn, it’s viable for a money strategy, and it will need to find the Curses it gets on later turns so it can lose them; that could be quite chance based, nice when it works, not when it doesn’t. So overall, it’s...quite nice.

---

---

Shortlist: Orphan line, Aristocrat, Treadwheel Crane, Archaeologist, Cascade, Worker, Forbidden City, Dissatisfied Worker line, Magic Shop, Dangerous Ground.

After eliminating the shaky ones balance wise, then sorting the rest out by interest level, I conclude:


Runners-up: Aristocrat by segura, Cascade by mandioca15


Winner: Forbidden City by spheremonk

All three of these designs simply work. My final decision was whether I preferred the non-interactive deck strategy in Aristocrat, or the interactive Forbidden City. And Forbidden City felt more fun and interesting in more situations. So we have a new winner! On to the century!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 30, 2020, 01:41:53 am

Cool. I completely agree with Aquila because Forbidden City was my favorite entry this week followed by Aristocrat.

Since we're starting a new year, it seems like a good time to start a new thread for the weekly contests to make it slightly easier to find cards from past contests rather than having a neverending thread. Anyone else agree?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on December 30, 2020, 08:27:59 am

Maybe moving to a child board, and making shorter threads?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 30, 2020, 08:52:24 am

a new thread per contest would be kinda nice, yeah.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 30, 2020, 09:32:40 am

Let's make one more contest i this thread so that we have the full 100 and then switch?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on December 30, 2020, 10:41:23 am

Thank you, Aquila! It means a lot. I really appreciate all the love people gave the card. I agree with Aquila that segura’s Aristocrat is elegant and interesting and would’ve been a great winner as well.

We should all thank and congratulate Doom_Shark: he started this thing that we’ve all come to enjoy, and now, over two years later, we’re at the 100th contest!     

The quality of last couple of week’s contests is going to be tough to follow. I’ve been very impressed (and am a bit intimidated) by the job – both of presentation and analysis – that anordinaryman and Aquila accomplished. Also, the contests themselves left a wonderful amount of open breathing space for real creativity.

I certainly won’t be able to equal the analytical strength of recent judging (I simply don’t have the Dominion skills), but it would be great if the contest itself were worthy of the 100th. I have an idea that isn’t quite polished enough, that I will use if necessary, but if no one objects, I would like to leave this space open for 24 hours for contest suggestions. If anyone has a big idea to celebrate the 100th (cards with at least 100 words? cards costing $100? but seriously . . . ), it would be great to hear it. Anyone?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 30, 2020, 11:25:12 am

I think my idea would have been 'no restrictions' for contest #100, but we just did that.

If you want it to be especially big, you could require a submission with at least 2 card-shaped components. (Traveler line or split pile or vampire-ish exchange thing Hermit-style or card with heirloom ...)

Or even with at least 3 components, which would be much harder.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on December 30, 2020, 11:39:42 am

Quote from: silverspawn on December 30, 2020, 11:25:12 am

I think my idea would have been 'no restrictions' for contest #100, but we just did that.

If you want it to be especially big, you could require a submission with at least 2 card-shaped components. (Traveler line or split pile or vampire-ish exchange thing Hermit-style or card with heirloom ...)

Or even with at least 3 components, which would be much harder.

I agree that "no restrictions" would've made sense for 100, but alas, it was 99. Coincidentally, the backup idea that I will use if necessary involves two components, as you suggest, but it's still not really big or fun enough for the 100th. So let's have a little one-day mini-contest to pick a 100th contest . . .

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 30, 2020, 01:01:59 pm

Contest suggestion: either do the first challenge again (treasure reaction) or do a card based on a real historical figure

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 30, 2020, 01:10:24 pm

You could make 'exactly 3 card-shaped pieces' to make it extra difficult. We have almost none of those.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 30, 2020, 01:44:49 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on December 30, 2020, 10:41:23 am

Thank you, Aquila! It means a lot. I really appreciate all the love people gave the card. I agree with Aquila that segura’s Aristocrat is elegant and interesting and would’ve been a great winner as well.

We should all thank and congratulate Doom_Shark: he started this thing that we’ve all come to enjoy, and now, over two years later, we’re at the 100th contest!     

The quality of last couple of week’s contests is going to be tough to follow. I’ve been very impressed (and am a bit intimidated) by the job – both of presentation and analysis – that anordinaryman and Aquila accomplished. Also, the contests themselves left a wonderful amount of open breathing space for real creativity.

I certainly won’t be able to equal the analytical strength of recent judging (I simply don’t have the Dominion skills), but it would be great if the contest itself were worthy of the 100th. I have an idea that isn’t quite polished enough, that I will use if necessary, but if no one objects, I would like to leave this space open for 24 hours for contest suggestions. If anyone has a big idea to celebrate the 100th (cards with at least 100 words? cards costing $100? but seriously . . . ), it would be great to hear it. Anyone?

It may be a good idea, but I, myself, don't feel so confortable to suggest a theme for a contest in which I will propably participate as candidate.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on December 30, 2020, 02:02:22 pm

Quote from: Carline on December 30, 2020, 01:44:49 pm

It may be a good idea, but I, myself, don't feel so comfortable to suggest a theme for a contest in which I will probably participate as candidate.

I considered the ethical issue before I suggested it. If the judge and rule-maker of a contest solicits potential contestants to suggest ideas for the contest, it is per se non-problematic for such a potential contestant to suggest a topic.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 30, 2020, 02:08:20 pm

"Design a potion cost card"?
jk
but there's a thread full of ideas here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20501.0)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 30, 2020, 02:08:36 pm

This is one of the ideas I had for the next contest, but I still have plenty of ideas left, so I'll suggest it for this contest: Make me skip King's Court. Making the most powerful card in the game somehow skippable seems fitting for contest #100, no?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on December 30, 2020, 02:11:31 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on December 30, 2020, 02:02:22 pm

Quote from: Carline on December 30, 2020, 01:44:49 pm

It may be a good idea, but I, myself, don't feel so comfortable to suggest a theme for a contest in which I will probably participate as candidate.

I considered the ethical issue before I suggested it. If the judge and rule-maker of a contest solicits potential contestants to suggest ideas for the contest, it is per se non-problematic for such a potential contestant to suggest a topic.

Of course, I don't see any problem in you ask and others make suggestions. I told only about how I feel to suggest.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on December 30, 2020, 02:11:59 pm

I think that will be much harder to do with Goons than King's Court. And probably more interesting since you can't just design a slog-inducing card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 30, 2020, 02:15:14 pm

Here's the thread of weekly design contest ideas: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20501.0

a few of my favorites:
- A kingdom treasure that doesn't cost $5
- A unique village
- A card with a unique combination of types (that isn't on any official card) -suggested by Jonatan Djurachkovitch
- A card-shaped thing that costs more than $8  (or just more than $6 would also be good) -suggested by Marpharos
- An Action-Treasure card  -suggested by Gubump

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 30, 2020, 02:16:31 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 30, 2020, 02:11:59 pm

I think that will be much harder to do with Goons than King's Court. And probably more interesting since you can't just design a slog-inducing card.

I agree, actually. I don't know how I didn't think of that.

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 30, 2020, 02:15:14 pm

- A unique village

What do you mean by a "unique" village? Village variant was the prompt for Contest #38 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg806146#msg806146).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 30, 2020, 02:48:33 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 30, 2020, 02:16:31 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on December 30, 2020, 02:11:59 pm

I think that will be much harder to do with Goons than King's Court. And probably more interesting since you can't just design a slog-inducing card.

I agree, actually. I don't know how I didn't think of that.

+1 to the "Make me skip Goons" idea

Quote from: Gubump on December 30, 2020, 02:16:31 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 30, 2020, 02:15:14 pm

- A unique village

What do you mean by a "unique" village? Village variant was the prompt for Contest #38 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.msg806146#msg806146).

uh... I don't know. I guess I was just thinking village variant. maybe we can repeat that one sometime, but nevermind that idea for this week...

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on December 30, 2020, 03:01:33 pm

My ideas for something special for the big 100. These to me feel a little "special"

• The very first contest again. Design a Treasure Reaction (fika monster already said this, I independently had that idea, too)
• Using the last three contest winners, design a card that somehow interacts with some of them
• Design a card that is good on its own and combos with a previous contest winner. OR we can narrow this down by letting participants choose on of the last 5 winners.
• Make a second edition of an existing expansion -- remove 1 card and add 2 or some variant to Seaside. Or some other expansion.
• Submit any previously submitted card by anyone
• Design a card that breaks a design-philosophy. Perhaps we would pick one to break like "don't do sliver+ for 4" or "no strictly better cards at same or cheaper price point" or "don't be political"
• Create a set of cards that replace Estates, Duchies, Provinces, Coppers, Silvers, and/or Golds. The thought behind this is these are the untouchable aspects of Dominion. Would be wild to do something different here.
• Fix Scout, or add a card-shaped-thing that combos with Scout and makes Scout strong
• Propose a fan "fix" to any card. Pirate Ship and Contraband stick out to me personally as interesting mechanics that don't work due to weakness often.
• Design a "Knight/Castles" like pile where each card is different. Could be a bit of a nightmare of judging complexity which is why I would only propose it for the big 100. I also think we would give the judge extra time to evaluate cards.

I disagree with splitting this off each contest to a new thread. Having a new thread for each contest makes it just as hard to find previous submissions... now you have to search in multiple threads threads for the card you're trying to find. I find it cleanest just to have this same thread. Also, in the contest of the forum, is very fun to have a historical thread that goes on for a long time. It makes you feel connected to a wider history.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 30, 2020, 03:14:45 pm

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 30, 2020, 03:01:33 pm

• Using the last three contest winners, design a card that somehow interacts with some of them
• Design a card that is good on its own and combos with a previous contest winner. OR we can narrow this down by letting participants choose on of the last 5 winners.
• Design a "Knight/Castles" like pile where each card is different. Could be a bit of a nightmare of judging complexity which is why I would only propose it for the big 100. I also think we would give the judge extra time to evaluate cards.

I like these three ideas.

Quote from: anordinaryman on December 30, 2020, 03:01:33 pm

I disagree with splitting this off each contest to a new thread. Having a new thread for each contest makes it just as hard to find previous submissions... now you have to search in multiple threads threads for the card you're trying to find. I find it cleanest just to have this same thread. Also, in the contest of the forum, is very fun to have a historical thread that goes on for a long time. It makes you feel connected to a wider history.

I disagree that making new threads would make it just as hard to find previous submissions. As long as you know which contest the card you're looking for was submitted to (which is not a very tall ask, since a lot of cards were blatantly made with the contest in mind), then you know which thread to look for. Currently, you'd have very little idea which of the >160 pages the card you're looking for is in unless you know which # the contest was, which is a lot harder to remember than specific prompts, for obvious reasons, and still doesn't narrow it down nearly as much as new threads would.

I somewhat agree with making new threads for this reason. But this problem would be fixed (or at least alleviated) by making the Trello (https://trello.com/c/mpOl64Ez/571-list-of-contests) easier to find and more up-to-date.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Freddy10 on December 30, 2020, 03:52:11 pm

Can a Child board like Mini-Set Design Contest be done? I think it solves both problems. I think this thread is popular enough to upgrade it

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 30, 2020, 09:52:22 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on December 30, 2020, 03:52:11 pm

Can a Child board like Mini-Set Design Contest be done? I think it solves both problems. I think this thread is popular enough to upgrade it

who do we talk to about that? theory?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on December 30, 2020, 10:39:44 pm

Quote from: spineflu on December 30, 2020, 09:52:22 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on December 30, 2020, 03:52:11 pm

Can a Child board like Mini-Set Design Contest be done? I think it solves both problems. I think this thread is popular enough to upgrade it

who do we talk to about that? theory?

We could report the post, so a moderator looks at it. I hope that isn't against the rules.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 30, 2020, 10:41:06 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on December 30, 2020, 10:39:44 pm

Quote from: spineflu on December 30, 2020, 09:52:22 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on December 30, 2020, 03:52:11 pm

Can a Child board like Mini-Set Design Contest be done? I think it solves both problems. I think this thread is popular enough to upgrade it

who do we talk to about that? theory?

We could report the post, so a moderator looks at it. I hope that isn't against the rules.

I feel like it probably is. Either way, we shouldn't do it that way.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on December 30, 2020, 11:09:47 pm

We could just use the mini set design subfolder

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on December 30, 2020, 11:39:19 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on December 30, 2020, 11:09:47 pm

We could just use the mini set design subfolder

Isn't that for a separate contest?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on December 31, 2020, 04:41:36 am

Quote from: Gubump on December 30, 2020, 10:41:06 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on December 30, 2020, 10:39:44 pm

Quote from: spineflu on December 30, 2020, 09:52:22 pm

Quote from: Freddy10 on December 30, 2020, 03:52:11 pm

Can a Child board like Mini-Set Design Contest be done? I think it solves both problems. I think this thread is popular enough to upgrade it

who do we talk to about that? theory?

We could report the post, so a moderator looks at it. I hope that isn't against the rules.

I feel like it probably is. Either way, we shouldn't do it that way.

We can always send them a message. I went ahead and did that. It's probably good to host the next contest in this thread while we give theory some time to handle it.

If anyone would like to be a moderator of the new subboard, it might be good to let theory know as well. I offered to do this so that we can go ahead, but I'm also fine not taking that responibility.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: infangthief on December 31, 2020, 08:50:49 am

My suggestion for the 100th contest... Make a card called "Donald".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on December 31, 2020, 11:02:53 am

Contest #100: Fun with Non-Supply Cards

Create a card-shaped thing that interacts with an existing (i.e., official) non-Supply card. It can be any type of card-shaped thing and can interact in any way whatsoever, big or small, with any existing non-Supply card (or more than one). Please name or show the existing non-Supply card and describe the interaction. Feel free to wander – please do not focus too much on the contest criteria.

As long as there is any interaction whatsoever, very little attention will be paid in the judging to the quality or degree of the of interaction – I prefer flexible creativity to adherence to restrictions. While I believe that personal preference is always a substantial factor in judging these contests, I will try to focus on balance, playability and, most of all, fun. Also, just a hint, but certainly not necessary to win, I tend to enjoy cards that honor an overall theme or story.

Good luck to everyone!  Have a happy and safe 2021!

(I almost went with a 2020-themed contest, but didn’t really want to look at 100 cards featuring Ruins, Rats and Curses.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 31, 2020, 11:37:59 am

Neat theme!

heres the wiki for non supply cards in dominion for anyone that wants to look at it

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Category:Non-Supply_cards

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on December 31, 2020, 11:52:21 am

Not an actual submission, as my memory of the card was incorrect. I will submit a new one in the future

Quote

Asylum
Reaction _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/a9/Coin3star.png/16px-Coin3star.png)}
When one of your cards would be trashed, you may discard this to exile it instead.
-----
In games using this, when you end your turn without buying a card, you may trash an action card you have in play to gain a Asylum

Interacts with Madman, as you can save it in exile for when you gain another. Maybe it should be just reveal and not discard, as it could be pretty weak otherwise

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 31, 2020, 11:58:03 am

Quote from: LittleFish on December 31, 2020, 11:52:21 am

Quote

Asylum
Reaction _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/a9/Coin3star.png/16px-Coin3star.png)}
When one of your cards would be trashed, you may discard this to exile it instead.
-----
In games using this, when you end your turn without buying a card, you may trash an action card you have in play to gain a Asylum

Interacts with Madman, as you can save it in exile for when you gain another. Maybe it should be just reveal and not discard, as it could be pretty weak otherwise

This doesn't interact with Madman the way you want it to. Madman is returned to its pile, not trashed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on December 31, 2020, 12:13:06 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 31, 2020, 11:58:03 am

Quote from: LittleFish on December 31, 2020, 11:52:21 am

Quote

Asylum
Reaction _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/a/a9/Coin3star.png/16px-Coin3star.png)}
When one of your cards would be trashed, you may discard this to exile it instead.
-----
In games using this, when you end your turn without buying a card, you may trash an action card you have in play to gain a Asylum

Interacts with Madman, as you can save it in exile for when you gain another. Maybe it should be just reveal and not discard, as it could be pretty weak otherwise

This doesn't interact with Madman the way you want it to. Madman is returned to its pile, not trashed.

I must have mixed up the wording on Hermit and Madman. Haven't played a game with Hermit in some time

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on December 31, 2020, 12:18:01 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on December 31, 2020, 11:02:53 am

Contest #100: Fun with Non-Supply Cards

Create a card-shaped thing that interacts with an existing (i.e., official) non-Supply card. It can be any type of card-shaped thing and can interact in any way whatsoever, big or small, with any existing non-Supply card (or more than one). Please name or show the existing non-Supply card and describe the interaction. Feel free to wander – please do not focus too much on the contest criteria.

As long as there is any interaction whatsoever, very little attention will be paid in the judging to the quality or degree of the of interaction – I prefer flexible creativity to adherence to restrictions. While I believe that personal preference is always a substantial factor in judging these contests, I will try to focus on balance, playability and, most of all, fun. Also, just a hint, but certainly not necessary to win, I tend to enjoy cards that honor an overall theme or story.

Good luck to everyone!  Have a happy and safe 2021!

(I almost went with a 2020-themed contest, but didn’t really want to look at 100 cards featuring Ruins, Rats and Curses.)

Stupid question, but when you say non supple card, are you specificly talking about card that you can play with "(this is not in the supply)"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on December 31, 2020, 12:40:32 pm

Quote from: fika monster on December 31, 2020, 12:18:01 pm

Stupid question, but when you say non supple card, are you specificly talking about card that you can play with "(this is not in the supply)"?

It doesn't have to have those words on it. Everything on the list of non-Supply cards you sent around is in-bounds. Also, it doesn't have to use the non-Supply card(s) the way they are used in the official sets. For example, you could have a card that junked by giving out Shelters (or one particular Shelter), if you thought that was interesting. Or it can be as simple as a card that gains Prizes or Ghosts or Wishes. Anything at all involving ANY non-Supply card. Just have fun.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on December 31, 2020, 12:46:12 pm

(https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5d34c84e360a440d0d16278b/5fee09669b30de6c5646ee47/fb282e4b38eefe3efefbe3eb14c7937e/image.png)

Quote

Medium • $4 • Action
+1 Buy
Play the Spirit with your Ouija token, leaving it there.
-
On your turn, when one or more Mediums leave play, choose one: Move your Ouija token to a different Spirit, whose cost is up to $2 more that its current Spirit; or place your Ouija token on Will-O'-Wisp.

what if spirits were travellers?
The first play is a dud, intentionally. Then you can go Will-O'-Wisp -> Imp -> Ghost, or swap to a lower cost spirit, or whatever. You can even advance it more than one step by Bonfiring a Medium with more than one in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 31, 2020, 03:12:01 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on December 31, 2020, 11:02:53 am

Contest #100: Fun with Non-Supply Cards

Create a card-shaped thing that interacts with an existing (i.e., official) non-Supply card. It can be any type of card-shaped thing and can interact in any way whatsoever, big or small, with any existing non-Supply card (or more than one). Please name or show the existing non-Supply card and describe the interaction. Feel free to wander – please do not focus too much on the contest criteria.

As long as there is any interaction whatsoever, very little attention will be paid in the judging to the quality or degree of the of interaction – I prefer flexible creativity to adherence to restrictions. While I believe that personal preference is always a substantial factor in judging these contests, I will try to focus on balance, playability and, most of all, fun. Also, just a hint, but certainly not necessary to win, I tend to enjoy cards that honor an overall theme or story.

Good luck to everyone!  Have a happy and safe 2021!

(I almost went with a 2020-themed contest, but didn’t really want to look at 100 cards featuring Ruins, Rats and Curses.)

Just to clarify, does our card have to interact with a non-Supply card directly (such as gaining Spoils or Horses, etc. or Commanding them a-la spineflu's entry) or can our card just combo with some non-Supply card in some way without necessarily guaranteeing that it's in use (like LittleFish's entry does)?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on December 31, 2020, 03:23:55 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 31, 2020, 03:12:01 pm

Quote from: spheremonk on December 31, 2020, 11:02:53 am

Contest #100: Fun with Non-Supply Cards

Create a card-shaped thing that interacts with an existing (i.e., official) non-Supply card. It can be any type of card-shaped thing and can interact in any way whatsoever, big or small, with any existing non-Supply card (or more than one). Please name or show the existing non-Supply card and describe the interaction. Feel free to wander – please do not focus too much on the contest criteria.

As long as there is any interaction whatsoever, very little attention will be paid in the judging to the quality or degree of the of interaction – I prefer flexible creativity to adherence to restrictions. While I believe that personal preference is always a substantial factor in judging these contests, I will try to focus on balance, playability and, most of all, fun. Also, just a hint, but certainly not necessary to win, I tend to enjoy cards that honor an overall theme or story.

Good luck to everyone!  Have a happy and safe 2021!

(I almost went with a 2020-themed contest, but didn’t really want to look at 100 cards featuring Ruins, Rats and Curses.)

Just to clarify, does our card have to interact with a non-Supply card directly (such as gaining Spoils or Horses, etc. or Commanding them a-la spineflu's entry) or can our card just combo with some non-Supply card in some way without necessarily guaranteeing that it's in use (like LittleFish's entry does)?

(Like my entry would do if I remembered correctly)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on December 31, 2020, 03:32:42 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 31, 2020, 03:12:01 pm

Just to clarify, does our card have to interact with a non-Supply card directly (such as gaining Spoils or Horses, etc. or Commanding them a-la spineflu's entry) or can our card just combo with some non-Supply card in some way without necessarily guaranteeing that it's in use (like LittleFish's entry does)?

I definitely meant the first thing – some more direct interaction, no matter how small – especially since almost any card in Dominion interacts in some way with any other card. That said, I’m really trying not to be restrictive, so as long as the explanation of the interaction seems reasonable, I would rather not disqualify cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 31, 2020, 04:30:02 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/eo9uPQf.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Fragasnap on December 31, 2020, 05:07:43 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/uBD5uyQ.jpg)

Quote

Corral
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Actions. You may discard a card. If you do, gain a Horse. You may discard 2 cards or a Horse. If you do, gain a Horse.

Echoes of Hamlet.  Non-terminal Horsers apparently made the game too slow, so this one has a limited scaling discard at the benefit of being a splitter.
You can put a Horse into your Corral (as in discard it) to keep it and get another Horse.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on December 31, 2020, 05:15:58 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50784994293_8da73c9bd0_b.jpg)  (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/3/3e/Lucky_Coin.jpg)

Quote

Fae Queen - $6
Action - Doom
+3 Cards
You may trash this or a Treasure from your hand, for +2 Actions. If you don't or you trash a Copper, receive a Hex.
----
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may trash a Lucky Coin from your hand.

Lab variant. Most comparable to Stables. It has some bells and whistles added for flavor and to meet the contest criteria. Not sure if completely balanced or appealing, but I am not a huge fan of Fool and wanted to try my hand at coming up with an alternate companion to Lucky Coin. Feedback is appreciated.

Edit: Thanks to Gubump for feedback. Adjusted wording to better conform to the Death Cart and Stables wording while keeping the spirit of the original version. I still think $6 is the correct price point on this, but open to changes.

Edit: Changed to reward +2 Actions if you trash something. Hopefully a more appealing card at a price point of $6.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 31, 2020, 05:19:42 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 31, 2020, 05:15:58 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50784827271_bf81740ea1_b.jpg)  (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/3/3e/Lucky_Coin.jpg)

Quote

Fae Queen - $6
Action - Doom
+3 Cards
+1 Action
Trash this or a Treasure from your hand. If you trash a Copper, receive a Hex.
----
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may trash a Lucky Coin from your hand.

Lab variant. Most comparable to Stables. It has some bells and whistles added for flavor and to meet the contest criteria. Not sure if completely balanced or appealing, but I am not a huge fan of Fool and wanted to try my hand at coming up with an alternate companion to Lucky Coin. Feedback is appreciated.

You should probably word this like Death Cart: "You may trash this or a Treasure from your hand, for +3 Cards and +1 Action. If you trashed a Copper, receive a Hex."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on December 31, 2020, 05:23:38 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 31, 2020, 05:19:42 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 31, 2020, 05:15:58 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50784827271_bf81740ea1_b.jpg)  (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/3/3e/Lucky_Coin.jpg)

Quote

Fae Queen - $6
Action - Doom
+3 Cards
+1 Action
Trash this or a Treasure from your hand. If you trash a Copper, receive a Hex.
----
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may trash a Lucky Coin from your hand.

Lab variant. Most comparable to Stables. It has some bells and whistles added for flavor and to meet the contest criteria. Not sure if completely balanced or appealing, but I am not a huge fan of Fool and wanted to try my hand at coming up with an alternate companion to Lucky Coin. Feedback is appreciated.

You should probably word this like Death Cart: "You may trash this or a Treasure from your hand, for +3 Cards and +1 Action. If you trashed a Copper, receive a Hex."

I was hoping to have the trash trigger after the draw. Gives it more oomph and makes it more appealing at $6 compared to Stables.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 31, 2020, 05:37:25 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 31, 2020, 05:23:38 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 31, 2020, 05:19:42 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 31, 2020, 05:15:58 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50784827271_bf81740ea1_b.jpg)  (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/3/3e/Lucky_Coin.jpg)

Quote

Fae Queen - $6
Action - Doom
+3 Cards
+1 Action
Trash this or a Treasure from your hand. If you trash a Copper, receive a Hex.
----
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may trash a Lucky Coin from your hand.

Lab variant. Most comparable to Stables. It has some bells and whistles added for flavor and to meet the contest criteria. Not sure if completely balanced or appealing, but I am not a huge fan of Fool and wanted to try my hand at coming up with an alternate companion to Lucky Coin. Feedback is appreciated.

You should probably word this like Death Cart: "You may trash this or a Treasure from your hand, for +3 Cards and +1 Action. If you trashed a Copper, receive a Hex."

I was hoping to have the trash trigger after the draw. Gives it more oomph and makes it more appealing at $6 compared to Stables.

Ah, right. Since you Hex yourself if you trash a Copper, it would actually be pretty sorry compared to Stables if you had to trash before drawing.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on December 31, 2020, 05:46:06 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 31, 2020, 05:37:25 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 31, 2020, 05:23:38 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 31, 2020, 05:19:42 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 31, 2020, 05:15:58 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50784827271_bf81740ea1_b.jpg)  (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/3/3e/Lucky_Coin.jpg)

Quote

Fae Queen - $6
Action - Doom
+3 Cards
+1 Action
Trash this or a Treasure from your hand. If you trash a Copper, receive a Hex.
----
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may trash a Lucky Coin from your hand.

Lab variant. Most comparable to Stables. It has some bells and whistles added for flavor and to meet the contest criteria. Not sure if completely balanced or appealing, but I am not a huge fan of Fool and wanted to try my hand at coming up with an alternate companion to Lucky Coin. Feedback is appreciated.

You should probably word this like Death Cart: "You may trash this or a Treasure from your hand, for +3 Cards and +1 Action. If you trashed a Copper, receive a Hex."

I was hoping to have the trash trigger after the draw. Gives it more oomph and makes it more appealing at $6 compared to Stables.

Ah, right. Since you Hex yourself if you trash a Copper, it would actually be pretty sorry compared to Stables if you had to trash before drawing.

Right, if the concern is regarding its interaction with emulators, which I think is why Death Cart has that wording, I can always change it to a Command card. I guess the potential issue is when you cannot trash the Fae Queen (Necromancer) and have no treasures in hand to trash (or claim to have none).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on December 31, 2020, 05:56:17 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 31, 2020, 05:46:06 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 31, 2020, 05:37:25 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 31, 2020, 05:23:38 pm

Quote from: Gubump on December 31, 2020, 05:19:42 pm

Quote from: Xen3k on December 31, 2020, 05:15:58 pm

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50784827271_bf81740ea1_b.jpg)  (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/3/3e/Lucky_Coin.jpg)

Quote

Fae Queen - $6
Action - Doom
+3 Cards
+1 Action
Trash this or a Treasure from your hand. If you trash a Copper, receive a Hex.
----
Instead of paying this card's cost, you may trash a Lucky Coin from your hand.

Lab variant. Most comparable to Stables. It has some bells and whistles added for flavor and to meet the contest criteria. Not sure if completely balanced or appealing, but I am not a huge fan of Fool and wanted to try my hand at coming up with an alternate companion to Lucky Coin. Feedback is appreciated.

You should probably word this like Death Cart: "You may trash this or a Treasure from your hand, for +3 Cards and +1 Action. If you trashed a Copper, receive a Hex."

I was hoping to have the trash trigger after the draw. Gives it more oomph and makes it more appealing at $6 compared to Stables.

Ah, right. Since you Hex yourself if you trash a Copper, it would actually be pretty sorry compared to Stables if you had to trash before drawing.

Right, if the concern is regarding its interaction with emulators, which I think is why Death Cart has that wording, I can always change it to a Command card. I guess the potential issue is when you cannot trash the Fae Queen (Necromancer) and have no treasures in hand to trash (or claim to have none).

You could make the non-terminality conditional on being able to trash itself or a Treasure.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Erick648 on December 31, 2020, 07:07:10 pm

Conscript
_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/3/3d/Coin2.png)} Action - Looter
Draw until you have 7 cards in your hand, then discard 2 cards.
---
When you discard this from play, you may discard a Treasure costing more than $0.  If you do, exchange this for a Mercenary.  Otherwise, exchange this for a Madman and gain a Ruins.

Interacts with: Madman (gains Madman), Mercenary (gains Mercenary).
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/1/19/Madman.jpg)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/c/c5/Mercenary.jpg)

Also interacts with Ruins, but they're not non-Supply.
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/7/7a/Survivors.jpg)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/f/fe/Ruined_Library.jpg)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/a/ae/Ruined_Village.jpg)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/f/f2/Ruined_Market.jpg)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/6/6d/Abandoned_Mine.jpg)

The conscript will help undo the effects of attacks for a single turn (or just get you a slightly better hand in general), but then you need to decide whether you want to actually pay him.  If you do, he continues working for you as a mercenary.  If not, he goes on a rampage and winds up mad.

Note that these effects interact with each other to some degree: Mercenary can trash the Ruins you get with your Madman (and getting those Ruins will keep Mercenary fueled), Conscript can draw you back up after you've trashed to Mercenary, and Madman can ensure you have actions (although normal Villages are probably easier for this).  The Ruins keep you from massing Madmen too easily, and Mercenary makes Madman harder to kick off (although Conscript can counteract this somewhat), so I don't think a mass Madman strategy is dominant with this even if theoretically you could get more Madmen with this than with Hermit.  On a lighter note, Conscript makes Ruined Village less terrible compared to the other Ruins (since you can play it for "free" before playing a Conscript).

This started off as the idea, "What if there was another way to gain the two Dark Ages pseudo-travelers?" which led to the idea of a peasant who was conscripted into the military and how well you treat him determines his fate.  I then tried to balance it without making the on-play ability too long.  My original idea was a Moat variant (since a conscript might be recruited to defend against invaders), but I didn't want two dividing lines and a Reaction-only Moat doesn't work if there's no Attacks, so I eventually settled on draw-to-X-and-discard as a way of countering the effects of most Attacks (directly countering handsize attacks and also providing sifting to counter junkers and deck-order attacks).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MochaMoko on January 01, 2021, 07:38:54 am

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/685147225470271508/794541245333766164/Way_of_the_Hermit_Crab_3.png)
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/c/ce/Treasure_Hunter.jpg/200px-Treasure_Hunter.jpg) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/95/Warrior.jpg/200px-Warrior.jpg) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/26/Hero.jpg/200px-Hero.jpg)
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/e/e3/Soldier.jpg/200px-Soldier.jpg) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/b/bd/Fugitive.jpg/200px-Fugitive.jpg) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/9/92/Disciple.jpg/200px-Disciple.jpg)

And then there's Page (Pig) and Peasant (Monkey) as well, as you all know.
This Way gives huge power to cards with high cost (a Disciple for ⑥, that's really freaking good). Without Hero/Disciple as options, though, the Way feels a little bit underwhelming. We've got Pig or Monkey, but only for cards costing ③ or more (even more with enough cost reduction in place), Sheep+ and Mule+ for cards costing ④ or more, which is hey, not bad, considering you also have the option of Pig or Monkey. And ⑤-cost cards now can choose from four on-play options! You know what, it might be okay even without Hero and Disciple. The Way just is quite underwhelming for cheaper cards, and absolutely useless for low-cost cards. Though, this is not the only Way that behaves this way.

BTW, if you're playing with Travellers on the same board as a Way of the Hermit Crab, the Crab can pull cards from the Supply and non-Supply piles, potentially making the Page pile start with 9 cards or the Fugitive pile start with only 4.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on January 01, 2021, 10:47:49 am

Quote

Pirate
$3 - Action
+1 Card for each 2 Treasures on your Pirate Ship mat (rounded up). If you have at least 3 Treasures on your Pirate Ship mat, gain a Spoils. Otherwise, +$1 and gain a Silver.
At the start of your clean-up phase, you may put a Silver or Gold you have in play onto your Pirate Ship mat.

(EDIT: ditched the horizontal line.)

A miser for +Cards, Pirate uses Spoils of course.
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?title=Special%3AFilePath&file=Spoils.jpg)

First time you play it: +$1 and gain a Silver. Then put a Silver from play onto the mat.
Second and third times you play it: +1 Card, +$1, and gain a Silver. Put a Silver from play onto the mat.
Fourth and fifth times you play it: +2 Cards, gain a Spoils.
OTOH, if you don't bury a Silver on the mat all of your first few plays, you can gain more Silvers to use to upgrade the effect later.

Can potentially get very strong, but only if you sacrifice a lot of Treasure to it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 01, 2021, 12:56:49 pm

Quote from: LibraryAdventurer on January 01, 2021, 10:47:49 am

Quote

Pirate
$3 - Action
+1 Card for each 2 Treasures on your Pirate Ship mat (rounded up). If you have at least 3 Treasures on your Pirate Ship mat, gain a Spoils. Otherwise, +$1 and gain a Silver.
-
At the start of your clean-up phase, you may put a Silver or Gold you have in play onto your Pirate Ship mat.

Depending on whether you intend for placing Silvers and Golds onto the Pirate Ship mat to require playing a Pirate Ship, you should either ditch the horizontal line (if playing a Pirate Ship is required) or say "In games using this, at the start of your Clean-up phase..."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: notevenodd on January 01, 2021, 02:11:28 pm

Hi, I'm new here. Happy New Year to all  :)
This is my first submission in this contest, I though an emulator specifically so we got more chance to play the cool cards that are Prizes could actually be interesting (feedback welcome):

(https://i.postimg.cc/HrnBtVgG/victor-context100.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/HrnBtVgG)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 01, 2021, 03:44:36 pm

I don't think Prizes are a pile? But I'm not sure.

Otherwise, it's not a bad idea, but it'll probably mostly become a rush to get many of those to play Follows/Trusty Steed.

Also worth noting that Princess becomes a Ruined Market because the under-the-horizontal-line-effect won't trigger.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 01, 2021, 03:55:56 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on January 01, 2021, 03:44:36 pm

I don't think Prizes are a pile?

They are:
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/c/c4/Tournament.jpg/373px-Tournament.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 01, 2021, 04:03:58 pm

Quote from: notevenodd on January 01, 2021, 02:11:28 pm

Hi, I'm new here. Happy New Year to all  :)
This is my first submission in this contest, I though an emulator specifically so we got more chance to play the cool cards that are Prizes could actually be interesting (feedback welcome):

(https://i.postimg.cc/HrnBtVgG/victor-context100.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/HrnBtVgG)

Quote from: silverspawn on January 01, 2021, 03:44:36 pm

I don't think Prizes are a pile? But I'm not sure.

Otherwise, it's not a bad idea, but it'll probably mostly become a rush to get many of those to play Follows/Trusty Steed.

Also worth noting that Princess becomes a Ruined Market because the under-the-horizontal-line-effect won't trigger.

The prizes are a pile. Tournament establishes this with its parenthetical text. I don't know if you're supposed to keep them face up (so you can see what's left in the pile) but dominion dot games seems to think you do, so i think this is fine.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on January 01, 2021, 04:58:15 pm

All non-Supply cards that form a pile are labelled with an asterisks at their cost and with (This is not in the Supply.).
All non-Supply cards that are not part of a pile do not have that (Shelters, Heirlooms, Zombies).
Only notable  exception are the cards of the Black Market pile for obvious reasons.

The Prizes are labelled with an asterisks and with (This is not in the Supply.). Tournament mentions that there is a Prize pile. Thus, Prizes are non-Supply cards in a pile.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: notevenodd on January 01, 2021, 05:13:12 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 01, 2021, 04:03:58 pm

Quote from: notevenodd on January 01, 2021, 02:11:28 pm

Hi, I'm new here. Happy New Year to all  :)
This is my first submission in this contest, I though an emulator specifically so we got more chance to play the cool cards that are Prizes could actually be interesting (feedback welcome):

(https://i.postimg.cc/HrnBtVgG/victor-context100.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/HrnBtVgG)

Quote from: silverspawn on January 01, 2021, 03:44:36 pm

I don't think Prizes are a pile? But I'm not sure.

Otherwise, it's not a bad idea, but it'll probably mostly become a rush to get many of those to play Follows/Trusty Steed.

Also worth noting that Princess becomes a Ruined Market because the under-the-horizontal-line-effect won't trigger.

• About rushing to get many Victors: maybe price could be same as a province ($8), so that there wouldn't be too many Victors?
• About Princess: Is there really an issue? Victor specifies "you may play...", and princess says "while this card is in this play...", so I understand its effect does in fact apply

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on January 01, 2021, 05:15:40 pm

Quote from: notevenodd on January 01, 2021, 05:13:12 pm

• About Princess: Is there really an issue? Victor specifies "you may play...", and princess says "while this card is in this play...", so I understand its effect does in fact apply

But it won't be in play, because it's in the prize pile

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on January 01, 2021, 05:20:27 pm

Quote from: notevenodd on January 01, 2021, 05:13:12 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 01, 2021, 04:03:58 pm

Quote from: notevenodd on January 01, 2021, 02:11:28 pm

Hi, I'm new here. Happy New Year to all  :)
This is my first submission in this contest, I though an emulator specifically so we got more chance to play the cool cards that are Prizes could actually be interesting (feedback welcome):

(https://i.postimg.cc/HrnBtVgG/victor-context100.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/HrnBtVgG)

Quote from: silverspawn on January 01, 2021, 03:44:36 pm

I don't think Prizes are a pile? But I'm not sure.

Otherwise, it's not a bad idea, but it'll probably mostly become a rush to get many of those to play Follows/Trusty Steed.

Also worth noting that Princess becomes a Ruined Market because the under-the-horizontal-line-effect won't trigger.

• About rushing to get many Victors: maybe price could be same as a province ($8), so that there wouldn't be too many Victors?
• About Princess: Is there really an issue? Victor specifies "you may play...", and princess says "while this card is in this play...", so I understand its effect does in fact apply

The key phrase is "...leaving it there" on Victor. So, it is not in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 01, 2021, 05:21:28 pm

Quote from: notevenodd on January 01, 2021, 02:11:28 pm

Hi, I'm new here. Happy New Year to all  :)
This is my first submission in this contest, I though an emulator specifically so we got more chance to play the cool cards that are Prizes could actually be interesting (feedback welcome):

(https://i.postimg.cc/HrnBtVgG/victor-context100.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/HrnBtVgG)

Welcome to the forum! 

I’m assuming that Tournament wouldn’t need to be in the Kingdom for the Prize pile to be available, right?  How would this work with Diadem?  Since you would be playing it during your Action phase, would you count the number of unused Actions you have at that instance?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: scolapasta on January 01, 2021, 05:28:22 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on January 01, 2021, 03:44:36 pm

Also worth noting that Princess becomes a Ruined Market because the under-the-horizontal-line-effect won't trigger.

Using wording like Prince would allow Princess to still be useful:

Quote

Set aside a Prize from its pile. If you do, play it, returning it to its pile when you discard it from play.

This also helps with the rushing to get many Victors, as you could only play each prize once per turn.

Other kingdom specific consequences I can think of (I'm sure there are more, there are always more :) )

• ability to add Diadem to your deck (though not officially gain) by buying Mandarin
• similarly, ability to add Trusted Steed to your deck by buying Mandarin (having previously bought Capitalism)
• ability to gain any of the Action Prizes by buying Bonfire, then Lurker (having previously bought Innovation)


Edited to add "from its pile"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 01, 2021, 05:39:03 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 01, 2021, 05:28:22 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on January 01, 2021, 03:44:36 pm

Also worth noting that Princess becomes a Ruined Market because the under-the-horizontal-line-effect won't trigger.

Using wording like Prince would allow Princess to still be useful:

Quote

Set aside a Prize. If you do, play it, returning it to its pile when you discard it from play.

This also helps with the rushing to get many Victors, as you could only play each prize once per turn.

Other kingdom specific consequences I can think of (I'm sure there are more, there are always more :) )

• ability to add Diadem to your deck (though not officially gain) by buying Mandarin
• similarly, ability to add Trusted Steed to your deck by buying Mandarin (having previously bought Capitalism)
• ability to gain any of the Action Prizes by buying Bonfire, then Lurker (having previously bought Innovation)

You could also use Changeling to trash Prizes (might be useful if you fall behind in a Victor race). 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 01, 2021, 05:43:16 pm

Quote from: Timinou on January 01, 2021, 05:39:03 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 01, 2021, 05:28:22 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on January 01, 2021, 03:44:36 pm

Also worth noting that Princess becomes a Ruined Market because the under-the-horizontal-line-effect won't trigger.

Using wording like Prince would allow Princess to still be useful:

Quote

Set aside a Prize. If you do, play it, returning it to its pile when you discard it from play.

This also helps with the rushing to get many Victors, as you could only play each prize once per turn.

Other kingdom specific consequences I can think of (I'm sure there are more, there are always more :) )

• ability to add Diadem to your deck (though not officially gain) by buying Mandarin
• similarly, ability to add Trusted Steed to your deck by buying Mandarin (having previously bought Capitalism)
• ability to gain any of the Action Prizes by buying Bonfire, then Lurker (having previously bought Innovation)

You could also use Changeling to trash Prizes (might be useful if you fall behind in a Victor race).

Changeling only trashes itself.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 01, 2021, 06:07:35 pm

Quote from: Gubump on January 01, 2021, 05:43:16 pm

Quote from: Timinou on January 01, 2021, 05:39:03 pm

Quote from: scolapasta on January 01, 2021, 05:28:22 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on January 01, 2021, 03:44:36 pm

Also worth noting that Princess becomes a Ruined Market because the under-the-horizontal-line-effect won't trigger.

Using wording like Prince would allow Princess to still be useful:

Quote

Set aside a Prize. If you do, play it, returning it to its pile when you discard it from play.

This also helps with the rushing to get many Victors, as you could only play each prize once per turn.

Other kingdom specific consequences I can think of (I'm sure there are more, there are always more :) )

• ability to add Diadem to your deck (though not officially gain) by buying Mandarin
• similarly, ability to add Trusted Steed to your deck by buying Mandarin (having previously bought Capitalism)
• ability to gain any of the Action Prizes by buying Bonfire, then Lurker (having previously bought Innovation)

You could also use Changeling to trash Prizes (might be useful if you fall behind in a Victor race).

Changeling only trashes itself.

Doh! I misremembered what it did.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: notevenodd on January 01, 2021, 06:12:16 pm

Thank you. Here's an update to my card. I think, this may help with the problem which have been raised (thank you)

(https://i.postimg.cc/CKvDWkXD/victor-v2.jpg)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 01, 2021, 06:32:23 pm

Quote from: notevenodd on January 01, 2021, 06:12:16 pm

Thank you. Here's an update to my card. I think, this may help with the problem which have been raised (thank you)

(https://i.postimg.cc/CKvDWkXD/victor-v2.jpg)

Is the intention that a player could now gain a Prize using Victor, and then use a card like Cellar to discard it and add it to their deck this way?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on January 01, 2021, 10:41:19 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/zQOotKD.png)
There's a bit of player interaction if multiple people go for this.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on January 01, 2021, 10:44:11 pm

Quote from: pubby on January 01, 2021, 10:41:19 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/hcKuh1z.png)
There's a bit of player interaction if multiple people go for this.

Should the be an attack so you can block people taking Spoils from your mat? Or is it intentionally without that?

Edit: The first time someone takes all the spoils into their hand, won't it lead to a megaturn without other methods to get spoils, as there'd be 15 spoils? Or am I misreading this completely, and it's only spoils from your exile mat?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on January 01, 2021, 10:51:27 pm

It was supposed to be take the spoils from your mat only. I'll update the text to make it clearer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on January 01, 2021, 11:16:11 pm

Quote from: pubby on January 01, 2021, 10:41:19 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tFYqosu.png)
There's a bit of player interaction if multiple people go for this.

I think it's needed to write "Exile a Spoils from Spoils pile. (...)"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on January 01, 2021, 11:41:28 pm

Quote from: pubby on January 01, 2021, 10:41:19 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tFYqosu.png)
There's a bit of player interaction if multiple people go for this.

Think about this situation: No other Spoils gainer on Kingdom. Alice exiled 8 Spoils, Bob exiled 7 Spoils. Bob plays Dragon Egg. Spoils pile is empty, so he put 7 Spoils in hand. If he plays all of them this turn (hiting $21 and having at least 1 extra buy!), Alice would be 7 plays of Dragon Egg away from remove her Spoils from exile. An extraordinary advantage for Bob. Knowing this, nobody would want to leave in the Spoils pile less Spoils than Dragon Eggs their opponent has, so it could lead to a situation in which noboby wants to play Dragon Egg anymore and the Spoils already exiled rest useless in the Exile mats.   

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BBobb on January 02, 2021, 03:03:51 am

Quote from: Carline on January 01, 2021, 11:16:11 pm

Quote from: pubby on January 01, 2021, 10:41:19 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tFYqosu.png)
There's a bit of player interaction if multiple people go for this.

I think it's needed to write "Exile a Spoils from Spoils pile. (...)"

Now with the 2019 Rules Changes and Tweaks, this is no longer necessary.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on January 02, 2021, 03:13:26 am

Quote from: BBobb on January 02, 2021, 03:03:51 am

Quote from: Carline on January 01, 2021, 11:16:11 pm

Quote from: pubby on January 01, 2021, 10:41:19 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tFYqosu.png)
There's a bit of player interaction if multiple people go for this.

I think it's needed to write "Exile a Spoils from Spoils pile. (...)"

Now with the 2019 Rules Changes and Tweaks, this is no longer necessary.

No. "Gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile" would not require the last part anymore, but "Exile a Spoils from the Spoils pile" (or alternatively "...from its pile") is necessary. Compare with the official Exilers (e.g. Camel Train), which say "... from the Supply".

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on January 02, 2021, 03:30:43 am

Quote from: notevenodd on January 01, 2021, 06:12:16 pm

Thank you. Here's an update to my card. I think, this may help with the problem which have been raised (thank you)

(https://i.postimg.cc/CKvDWkXD/victor-v2.jpg)

This update is a mess. The original version was much better.

By the way, Welcome to the Forum and Happy New Year!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 02, 2021, 03:56:23 am

Yeah, this version doesn't really work because you aren't forced to play the card. Just playing it (with no 'leave it there' clause) should work. (And then returning it at Cleanup.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Aquila on January 02, 2021, 04:02:45 am

Quote

Unsung Hero - Action, $5 cost.
You may play a Spoils from your hand to gain a Treasure. If you don't, gain a Spoils.
If this is your only card in play, gain a Spoils.

He does more when not noticed by other cards you have.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 02, 2021, 04:22:08 am

re: Victor: you could just make it the old style of emulator (use the old BoM/Overlord wording) because theres no issue like there was with inheritance

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 02, 2021, 09:17:34 am

(https://i.imgur.com/uDD2rNT.png) (https://i.imgur.com/zT2yqIt.png)

Not specifically designed for this contest but per chance an appropriate fit due to being connected with two official non-Supply cards.
About Fame, the mechanic is by Asper (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0). The idea is that you achieve a Feat (and mark it via putting one of your tokens on the respective slot) if you fulfilled the condition and if you got at least one of the two Feats beneath it.

The non-terminal Attack is stronger than Cutpurse but mitigated as it is not unconditional. Stacking is still possible, one player could have two Corsairs or Charlie is behind in Feats and gets hit by Alice as well as Bob.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 02, 2021, 09:51:47 am

Quote from: segura on January 02, 2021, 09:17:34 am

(https://i.imgur.com/uDD2rNT.png) (https://i.imgur.com/zT2yqIt.png)

Not specifically designed for this contest but per chance an appropriate fit due to being connected with two official non-Supply cards.
About Fame, the mechanic is by Asper (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9231.0). The idea is that you achieve a Feat (and mark it via putting one of your tokens on the respective slot) if you fulfilled the condition and if you got at least one of the two Feats beneath it.

The non-terminal Attack is stronger than Cutpurse but mitigated as it is not unconditional. Stacking is still possible, one player could have two Corsairs or Charlie is behind in Feats and gets hit by Alice as well as Bob.

When do you place your token to mark a Feat?  Is it as soon as you achieve it or during the Clean-up phase?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 02, 2021, 11:10:58 am

Anytime. If somebody swindlers your $6 into a Gold, you achieve the respective Feat.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 02, 2021, 11:15:35 am

Quote from: segura on January 02, 2021, 11:10:58 am

Anytime. If somebody swindlers your $6 into a Gold, you achieve the respective Feat.

Thanks - that's what I figured.  So if you have Corsair in your hand and nobody else achieved any Feats, you could gain a Gold during your turn and then when you play the Corsair at Night, the attack would be triggered.  I think the only Feat you wouldn't be able to claim before playing Corsair would be "had $2 or more left at the end of the turn", since technically your turn ends after the Night phase.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 02, 2021, 11:30:45 am

(https://i.imgur.com/syUOR51.png)

Quote

Magician - $4
Action/Attack

+$2
Each other player with 4 or more cards in hand reveals their hand and discards a card costing at least $3 to draw a card per card costing $0 they revealed.
If any cards were drawn by this, gain a Will-o-Wisp.

It's an Attack... or is it? A Magician's contest might end up helping both players, and adds a bit of magic to their decks!

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on January 02, 2021, 09:44:52 pm

Quote from: Carline on January 01, 2021, 11:41:28 pm

Quote from: pubby on January 01, 2021, 10:41:19 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/tFYqosu.png)
There's a bit of player interaction if multiple people go for this.

Think about this situation: No other Spoils gainer on Kingdom. Alice exiled 8 Spoils, Bob exiled 7 Spoils. Bob plays Dragon Egg. Spoils pile is empty, so he put 7 Spoils in hand. If he plays all of them this turn (hiting $21 and having at least 1 extra buy!), Alice would be 7 plays of Dragon Egg away from remove her Spoils from exile. An extraordinary advantage for Bob. Knowing this, nobody would want to leave in the Spoils pile less Spoils than Dragon Eggs their opponent has, so it could lead to a situation in which noboby wants to play Dragon Egg anymore and the Spoils already exiled rest useless in the Exile mats.

I think you're right about the swinginess; whoever pops it first has a huge advantage. But I don't see stalemates occurring. One can always buy an extra Dragon Egg which breaks the stalemate immediately.

Here's an updated version though:
(https://i.imgur.com/zQOotKD.png)
Should be less swingy. The +$3 effect has some interesting behavior - sometimes it's better than the spoils business.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 03, 2021, 01:27:44 pm

(https://i.ibb.co/DL5QrVB/Royal-Feast.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: X-tra on January 03, 2021, 07:58:03 pm

Posted this in the Dominion Discord, mostly to get the wording right:

(https://i.postimg.cc/0yhDjyZ6/Eerie-Lands-v2.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 03, 2021, 10:59:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/cIUFywJ.png)
EDIT: Revised wording

Quote

Tooth Fairy - Night/Duration, $4 cost
Set aside a card from your hand under this. At the start of your next turn, put it into your hand or trash it. 
If you trash it: gain a Wish if it costs $5 or more, otherwise gain a Silver.

EDIT: I might revise it to allow you to gain any Treasure with up to the same cost, instead of a Silver.  It would make the card a little more wordy, but I think the added flexibility would make it more appealing.

I've decided to maintain the simplicity of gaining a Silver, rather than allowing Tooth Fairy to gain other types of Treasures.  Trashing a card to gain a Silver won't always be desirable, but Tooth Fairy also has a Save function, so overall I think it works as a $4-cost card.     

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on January 03, 2021, 11:01:48 pm

Quote from: Timinou on January 03, 2021, 10:59:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oYnL5lW.png)

Quote

Tooth Fairy - Night/Duration, $4 cost
Set aside a card from your hand under this. At the start of your next turn, you may put it into your hand or trash it.  If you trash it, gain a Wish if it costs $5 or more, otherwise gain a Silver.

Do you get the silver if you don't trash it, or only if you trash it and it costs less than 5?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 03, 2021, 11:10:26 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on January 03, 2021, 11:01:48 pm

Quote from: Timinou on January 03, 2021, 10:59:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oYnL5lW.png)

Quote

Tooth Fairy - Night/Duration, $4 cost
Set aside a card from your hand under this. At the start of your next turn, you may put it into your hand or trash it.  If you trash it, gain a Wish if it costs $5 or more, otherwise gain a Silver.

Do you get the silver if you don't trash it, or only if you trash it and it costs less than 5?

Only if you trash the card and it costs less than 5.  The wording isn't super clear; I'm wondering if changing the first comma in the last sentence to a colon would make it clearer: "...If you trash it: gain a Wish if it costs $5 or more, otherwise gain a Silver."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 03, 2021, 11:12:13 pm

Quote from: Timinou on January 03, 2021, 11:10:26 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on January 03, 2021, 11:01:48 pm

Quote from: Timinou on January 03, 2021, 10:59:31 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/oYnL5lW.png)

Quote

Tooth Fairy - Night/Duration, $4 cost
Set aside a card from your hand under this. At the start of your next turn, you may put it into your hand or trash it.  If you trash it, gain a Wish if it costs $5 or more, otherwise gain a Silver.

Do you get the silver if you don't trash it, or only if you trash it and it costs less than 5?

Only if you trash the card and it costs less than 5.  The wording isn't super clear; I'm wondering if changing the first comma in the last sentence to a colon would make it clearer: "...If you trash it: gain a Wish if it costs $5 or more, otherwise gain a Silver."

I think it would be clearer if it used a colon instead of a comma there.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: NoMoreFun on January 03, 2021, 11:30:41 pm

Sanitarium
Action - $4
+$2
You may discard your hand to gain a Madman
---
While this is in play, when a Madman leaves play, gain a Madman

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: chronostrike on January 04, 2021, 12:42:36 am

Quote from: X-tra on January 03, 2021, 07:58:03 pm

Posted this in the Dominion Discord, mostly to get the wording right:

(https://i.postimg.cc/0yhDjyZ6/Eerie-Lands-v2.png)

I think it is far too easy to get wishes here, not to mention allows a feedback loop.  Open Silver/Eerie Lands.  Use wishes to acquire more Eerie Lands until you have as many as you care to.  Play them immediately because wishes don't stay in play.  Fill your deck with $5 treasures.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Xen3k on January 04, 2021, 12:52:41 am

Quote from: X-tra on January 03, 2021, 07:58:03 pm

Posted this in the Dominion Discord, mostly to get the wording right:

(https://i.postimg.cc/0yhDjyZ6/Eerie-Lands-v2.png)

I like the idea, however, as chronostrike says above, it does seem pretty easy to get a ton of Wishes. Perhaps have a contingency on the Wish gain that you can only have at most 1 Night card in play as well as at most 1 Action card. It would at least slow the gain to 1 Wish a turn. Just a thought, but I think it has potential.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on January 04, 2021, 07:59:02 am

Magical Bridge - $3
Action
+ action
-
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but never less then $0.
-
Whenever you buy a card, gain a Will-o'-Wisp

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 04, 2021, 08:01:36 am

Should probably be formatted like this:

Quote

Magical Bridge - $4
Action

+1 Action.

For the rest of this turn, cards cost 1$ less.
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a Will-o'-Wisp.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: lompeluiten on January 04, 2021, 08:05:48 am

Quote from: silverspawn on January 04, 2021, 08:01:36 am

Should probably be formatted like this:

Quote

Magical Bridge - $4
Action

+1 Action.

For the rest of this turn, cards cost 1$ less.
-
While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a Will-o'-Wisp.

Look at all those different formats for this machanic:
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Cost_reduction
I modeled it after the highway

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 04, 2021, 08:45:04 am

Highway is outdated. 'Cards can't cost less than 0$' has been added as a rule since, so new cards don't need that clause anymore. Separately, Donald has gone back from 'while this is in play' to 'for the rest of this turn'. (See Inventor.) This would ordinarily be much less important, but not in this case because it also prevents your card from having two horizontal lines.

Also, if you look into the Client rather than the wiki, you'll see that Highway also doesn't have the "no less than 0$" clause anymore.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on January 04, 2021, 08:12:52 pm

(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/014/422/full/Blessing_%2812%29.png?1609037057)     (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/782/full/Blessed_Gems_%281%29.png?1607306740)   

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Something_Smart on January 05, 2021, 12:02:24 am

Quote from: Timinou on January 03, 2021, 10:59:31 pm

Quote

Tooth Fairy - Night/Duration, $4 cost
Set aside a card from your hand under this. At the start of your next turn, you may put it into your hand or trash it.  If you trash it, gain a Wish if it costs $5 or more, otherwise gain a Silver.

You might want to take out the "you may". As written, you can choose to neither put it into your hand nor trash it, which causes... I'm not sure what, but I don't think it's intended.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 05, 2021, 01:08:58 am

Quote from: silverspawn on January 04, 2021, 08:45:04 am

Highway is outdated. 'Cards can't cost less than 0$' has been added as a rule since, so new cards don't need that clause anymore. Separately, Donald has gone back from 'while this is in play' to 'for the rest of this turn'. (See Inventor.) This would ordinarily be much less important, but not in this case because it also prevents your card from having two horizontal lines.

Also, if you look into the Client rather than the wiki, you'll see that Highway also doesn't have the "no less than 0$" clause anymore.

Of course, the Will-o-Wisp gaining can be "for the rest of this turn" as well.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 07:20:57 am

Ive been very tired this week, but i hope this card is at least somewhat interesting

(https://i.imgur.com/b4oGCaA.png)

An overpay-golem variant.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 05, 2021, 08:00:41 am

Quote from: Something_Smart on January 05, 2021, 12:02:24 am

Quote from: Timinou on January 03, 2021, 10:59:31 pm

Quote

Tooth Fairy - Night/Duration, $4 cost
Set aside a card from your hand under this. At the start of your next turn, you may put it into your hand or trash it.  If you trash it, gain a Wish if it costs $5 or more, otherwise gain a Silver.

You might want to take out the "you may". As written, you can choose to neither put it into your hand nor trash it, which causes... I'm not sure what, but I don't think it's intended.

Thanks for pointing that out!  I'll fix it in the OP.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 05, 2021, 09:20:02 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 07:20:57 am

Ive been very tired this week, but i hope this card is at least somewhat interesting

An overpay-golem variant.

I feel like this allows you to gain too many Will-o-Wisps too easily; you can very quickly win the split there. Maybe it would be better to do "you may overpay for this to gain a Spirit costing less than the amount you overpaid".

Also, I suggest discarding the revealed cards before any other cards are played, to prevent confusion.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 05, 2021, 11:28:57 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 07:20:57 am

Ive been very tired this week, but i hope this card is at least somewhat interesting

(https://i.imgur.com/b4oGCaA.png)

An overpay-golem variant.

This would be pretty strong on boards with cost-reducers like Highway, Inventor, or Bridge.  I don't know if it's necessarily overpowered in these situations, but it opens up the possibility of allowing you to reveal other Magicians and play them (not to mention other Action cards normally costing $4 or more).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 05, 2021, 12:37:21 pm

I suspect the Overpay effect is pretty busted even without support. Will-O'-Wisps are really good. Mass Druid + Will-O'-Wisp is a legit stategy whenever Swamp's gift is set aside, and this gets them much more quickly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 02:05:55 pm

Quote from: faust on January 05, 2021, 09:20:02 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 07:20:57 am

Ive been very tired this week, but i hope this card is at least somewhat interesting

An overpay-golem variant.

I feel like this allows you to gain too many Will-o-Wisps too easily; you can very quickly win the split there. Maybe it would be better to do "you may overpay for this to gain a Spirit costing less than the amount you overpaid".

Also, I suggest discarding the revealed cards before any other cards are played, to prevent confusion.

Thanks for the suggestion. how is this?
(https://i.imgur.com/PsfM8Pu.png)
Or this?
(https://i.imgur.com/9TmKnkd.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 05, 2021, 02:38:28 pm

Quote from: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 02:05:55 pm

Quote from: faust on January 05, 2021, 09:20:02 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 07:20:57 am

Ive been very tired this week, but i hope this card is at least somewhat interesting

An overpay-golem variant.

I feel like this allows you to gain too many Will-o-Wisps too easily; you can very quickly win the split there. Maybe it would be better to do "you may overpay for this to gain a Spirit costing less than the amount you overpaid".

Also, I suggest discarding the revealed cards before any other cards are played, to prevent confusion.

Thanks for the suggestion. how is this?
(https://i.imgur.com/PsfM8Pu.png)

I would take out the "and isn't a Magician" part.  It would only be applicable if there are cost-reducers available; if you think Magician would be overpowered in those situations, then maybe the better way to nerf the card would be to have it reveal fewer than 5 cards from the top of your deck.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: GendoIkari on January 05, 2021, 03:19:36 pm

Quote from: Timinou on January 05, 2021, 02:38:28 pm

Quote from: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 02:05:55 pm

Quote from: faust on January 05, 2021, 09:20:02 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 07:20:57 am

Ive been very tired this week, but i hope this card is at least somewhat interesting

An overpay-golem variant.

I feel like this allows you to gain too many Will-o-Wisps too easily; you can very quickly win the split there. Maybe it would be better to do "you may overpay for this to gain a Spirit costing less than the amount you overpaid".

Also, I suggest discarding the revealed cards before any other cards are played, to prevent confusion.

Thanks for the suggestion. how is this?
(https://i.imgur.com/PsfM8Pu.png)

I would take out the "and isn't a Magician" part.  It would only be applicable if there are cost-reducers available; if you think Magician would be overpowered in those situations, then maybe the better way to nerf the card would be to have it reveal fewer than 5 cards from the top of your deck.

It's not just an issue of power level, but also tracking. If Magician plays Magician then you have multiple sets of set-aside cards. A simple fix is to replace "that cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} or less" with "costing less than this."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 05, 2021, 03:38:11 pm

I think that version is pretty good. I think the wording can be improved into

"Look at the top 5 cards of your deck. You may reveal any number of Action cards costing less than this from them. Discard the others, then play the revealed cards in any order."

This is almost exactly as long as the card is right now. You can get it to be shorter if you just replace '3$ or less and isn't a Magician' with "less than this", but the grammar isn't quite right. (I think you need 'any number of' rather than 'any' and 'aren't copies of Magician' rather than 'isn't a Magician'.)

Below the line wording is good.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 03:48:54 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 05, 2021, 03:19:36 pm

Quote from: Timinou on January 05, 2021, 02:38:28 pm

Quote from: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 02:05:55 pm

Quote from: faust on January 05, 2021, 09:20:02 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 07:20:57 am

Ive been very tired this week, but i hope this card is at least somewhat interesting

An overpay-golem variant.

I feel like this allows you to gain too many Will-o-Wisps too easily; you can very quickly win the split there. Maybe it would be better to do "you may overpay for this to gain a Spirit costing less than the amount you overpaid".

Also, I suggest discarding the revealed cards before any other cards are played, to prevent confusion.

Thanks for the suggestion. how is this?
(https://i.imgur.com/PsfM8Pu.png)

I would take out the "and isn't a Magician" part.  It would only be applicable if there are cost-reducers available; if you think Magician would be overpowered in those situations, then maybe the better way to nerf the card would be to have it reveal fewer than 5 cards from the top of your deck.

It's not just an issue of power level, but also tracking. If Magician plays Magician then you have multiple sets of set-aside cards. A simple fix is to replace "that cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} or less" with "costing less than this."

(https://i.imgur.com/suPQsdO.png)
How is this? i just added the text silverspawn suggested

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 05, 2021, 03:50:38 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on January 05, 2021, 03:38:11 pm

I think that version is pretty good. I think the wording can be improved into

"Look at the top 5 cards of your deck. You may reveal any number of Action cards costing less than this from them. Discard the others, then play the revealed cards in any order."

This is almost exactly as long as the card is right now. You can get it to be shorter if you just replace '3$ or less and isn't a Magician' with "less than this", but the grammar isn't quite right. (I think you need 'any number of' rather than 'any' and 'aren't copies of Magician' rather than 'isn't a Magician'.)

Below the line wording is good.

Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason you are suggesting "Look at..." rather than "Reveal...".  Aside from not triggering Patron's effect if it's in your deck (which is a non-issue), I'm wondering if there is an accountability issue (e.g. a player discarding Ruins or an Action card that they don't want to play that turn for whatever reason)?

EDIT: Just saw that the revised wording doesn't force you to play all the Action cards costing less than it.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 05, 2021, 05:20:49 pm

One reason is that official cards tend to 'look at' rather than 'reveal' unless there is a reason to reveal. The other is that, if you start by revealing all of them, you have to set aside. Which is not terrible, but feels cleaner to me this way.

Quote from: Timinou on January 05, 2021, 03:50:38 pm

EDIT: Just saw that the revised wording doesn't force you to play all the Action cards costing less than it.

I thought that the original version didn't either, but looking at it now, I guess it's clear. Either way, I don't think that's a major consideration.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Meta on January 06, 2021, 08:25:36 am

(https://i.postimg.cc/BvQqfJpR/grafik.png)

Translation:
Band of robbers

+1 Buy, +2$
Gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Illustration: stolen

Spoils:
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/9/9f/Spoils.jpg)

Edit: Improved formatting

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BBobb on January 06, 2021, 11:31:27 am

Quote from: Meta on January 06, 2021, 08:25:36 am

(https://i.postimg.cc/BvQqfJpR/grafik.png)

Translation:
Band of robbers

+1 Buy, +2$
Gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Obviously this is comparable to Band of Misfits. Band of Misfits is a village, while this is a Woodcutter. Cards that cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)} should generally be more powerful than cards that cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} (Alchemist and Laboratory). In most cases, I would prefer to have village over Woodcutter, so I would usually want Band of Misfits over Band of robbers. Which should be the opposite, so maybe this should cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)}?

EDIT: I meant Bandit Camp for all the times I say Band of Misfits

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: LittleFish on January 06, 2021, 11:32:49 am

Quote from: BBobb on January 06, 2021, 11:31:27 am

Quote from: Meta on January 06, 2021, 08:25:36 am

(https://i.postimg.cc/BvQqfJpR/grafik.png)

Translation:
Band of robbers

+1 Buy, +2$
Gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Obviously this is comparable to Band of Misfits. Band of Misfits is a village, while this is a Woodcutter. Cards that cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)} should generally be more powerful than cards that cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} (Alchemist and Laboratory). In most cases, I would prefer to have village over Woodcutter, so I would usually want Band of Misfits over Band of robbers. Which should be the opposite, so maybe this should cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)}?

Do you mean Bandit Camp?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 11:38:11 am

Quote from: Meta on January 06, 2021, 08:25:36 am

(https://i.postimg.cc/BvQqfJpR/grafik.png)

Translation:
Band of robbers

+1 Buy, +2$
Gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Illustration: stolen

Spoils:
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/9/9f/Spoils.jpg)

First, welcome to the forum!

Second, you can resize images by putting a width in the opening tag, like so:

Code: [Select]

[img width=250]imagehost/image_url.jpg[/img]If you're ever curious how another poster did something, you can use the "Quote" button to see the bb-markup for how they did it.

Lastly, your card needs... idk. something. I'm a huge fan of potion-cost cards and Rauberbande is overpriced considering what it does. Like $4 is probably a reasonable price for a Woodcutter+, as is; If you want to keep it as a potion cost card, consider either boosting the power level (give like, +2 Cards in addition to the other benefits, or "When you buy a card, gain a Spoils"). Remember the general notion behind potion-cost cards is you want to buy a lot of them for your deck - even if I did want a woodcutter+, I'd consider that a less critical card to have in bulk than like, cards that draw lots of cards, or cards that enable me to play lots of cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 11:51:36 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 03:48:54 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 05, 2021, 03:19:36 pm

Quote from: Timinou on January 05, 2021, 02:38:28 pm

Quote from: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 02:05:55 pm

Quote from: faust on January 05, 2021, 09:20:02 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 07:20:57 am

Ive been very tired this week, but i hope this card is at least somewhat interesting

An overpay-golem variant.

I feel like this allows you to gain too many Will-o-Wisps too easily; you can very quickly win the split there. Maybe it would be better to do "you may overpay for this to gain a Spirit costing less than the amount you overpaid".

Also, I suggest discarding the revealed cards before any other cards are played, to prevent confusion.

Thanks for the suggestion. how is this?
(https://i.imgur.com/PsfM8Pu.png)

I would take out the "and isn't a Magician" part.  It would only be applicable if there are cost-reducers available; if you think Magician would be overpowered in those situations, then maybe the better way to nerf the card would be to have it reveal fewer than 5 cards from the top of your deck.

It's not just an issue of power level, but also tracking. If Magician plays Magician then you have multiple sets of set-aside cards. A simple fix is to replace "that cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} or less" with "costing less than this."

(https://i.imgur.com/suPQsdO.png)
How is this? i just added the text silverspawn suggested

two quick critiques and a format note:
first - $6 for a will-o-wisp seems like a lot. $8 for an imp is quite a lot. Consider dropping the price to $4 and make it gain a spirit costing up to the amount you overpaid, not "less than" the amount you overpaid? that way you can do will-o-wisp for $5 or $4+potion, imp for $6, ghost for $8, which seems like the right price point (and if people want to do dumb stuff like overpay $10 for a will-o-wisp, then they can.)

second - five cards is a lot. even the better sifters/preppers like cartographer only do four cards; border guard when lantern'd only does 3 (and you're probably going to be able to play one). considering you're going to play them immediately you should probably reduce that, which will make that price drop to $4 easier to justify. If you're going to keep it as "play all costing less than this", i'd go with three cards; If "play a card costing less than this," four cards.

lastly, the format note: you should add the "+" into the cost to signify you can overpay for this card. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 06, 2021, 01:59:57 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on January 06, 2021, 11:32:49 am

Do you mean Bandit Camp?

This is a pretty amusing mistake. I also immediately thought about Band of Misfits when I saw the card. It might even be how I would have translated it, had I thought about it. Band of Robbers is more accurate of course, but doesn't sound as good.

I propose Band of Bandits to maximally mix up everything.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 06, 2021, 02:03:13 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 11:51:36 am

[...]

lastly, the format note: you should add the "+" into the cost to signify you can overpay for this card. 

Clear-cut good catch on the formatting.

As for balance, you propose a buff and a nerf, so do you think the card is too strong or too weak right now -- and if it's neither, why does it need to change?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BBobb on January 06, 2021, 02:06:05 pm

Quote from: LittleFish on January 06, 2021, 11:32:49 am

Quote from: BBobb on January 06, 2021, 11:31:27 am

Quote from: Meta on January 06, 2021, 08:25:36 am

(https://i.postimg.cc/BvQqfJpR/grafik.png)

Translation:
Band of robbers

+1 Buy, +2$
Gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Obviously this is comparable to Band of Misfits. Band of Misfits is a village, while this is a Woodcutter. Cards that cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)} should generally be more powerful than cards that cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)} (Alchemist and Laboratory). In most cases, I would prefer to have village over Woodcutter, so I would usually want Band of Misfits over Band of robbers. Which should be the opposite, so maybe this should cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7a/Potion.png/9px-Potion.png)}?

Do you mean Bandit Camp?

No definitely not…… I would never screw up that badly………… (Yeah I meant Bandit Camp)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 02:07:46 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on January 06, 2021, 02:03:13 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 11:51:36 am

[...]

lastly, the format note: you should add the "+" into the cost to signify you can overpay for this card. 

Clear-cut good catch on the formatting.

As for balance, you propose a buff and a nerf, so do you think the card is too strong or too weak right now -- and if it's neither, why does it need to change?

I think the buy-in cost is too high - if you have $8, the consensus correct move is buy a province, right? (ignoring context about current pile position), and the power (five cards, play the cheap actions) too strong. A smaller version of each is more sensible. In general, the high buy-in cost is going to cause swing, with the rich getting richer because they can play it more often.

It's like the Familiar feelsbad problem - both players open silver/potion, player A can buy a familiar turn 3, use it turn 5; player B gets a copper, 3 estates, and the potion turn 3, can't afford familiar, and then it sucks to suck until turn 5 at least, right? meanwhile player A can hit them with cantrip curses and split the curse pile in their own favor.

This is doubly exacerbated if Magician is the only "village" in the game.

So to directly answer your question: i think the effect is too strong, and also i think it's priced wrong (esp. in consideration of its overpay effect).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 06, 2021, 02:08:14 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on January 06, 2021, 01:59:57 pm

I propose Band of Bandits to maximally mix up everything.

Banditenbande does sound cool! 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 06, 2021, 02:42:08 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 02:07:46 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on January 06, 2021, 02:03:13 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 11:51:36 am

[...]

lastly, the format note: you should add the "+" into the cost to signify you can overpay for this card. 

Clear-cut good catch on the formatting.

As for balance, you propose a buff and a nerf, so do you think the card is too strong or too weak right now -- and if it's neither, why does it need to change?

I think the buy-in cost is too high - if you have $8, the consensus correct move is buy a province, right? (ignoring context about current pile position), and the power (five cards, play the cheap actions) too strong. A smaller version of each is more sensible. In general, the high buy-in cost is going to cause swing, with the rich getting richer because they can play it more often.

I agree on both points.  I didn't notice that fika monster increased the cost to $5.  With the new version, it would be difficult to take advantage of the overpay mechanic, so then it raises the question of why have it in the first place?

Regarding the amount of cards: you could end up discarding 5 cards from your deck without finding any suitable Action cards.  This could end up being quite good if it helps you cycle through your deck faster and discard a lot of junk, or on the other extreme, it could make you discard a bunch of strong cards. On average, you'll probably end up discarding both good and bad cards, but I think it would be a good idea to try and limit the potential for extremes.  I think it would be less swingy if you only looked at 3 or 4 like you suggested, and I think it would still be fun to play with.  Without playtesting, I think looking at the top 3, and playing any Actions costing $3 or less would be a good balance. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Meta on January 06, 2021, 02:54:46 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/J4HX677M/grafik.png)

Translation:
Band of robbers

+2 Buys, +2$
When you buy a card this turn, take a spoils.
While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Illustration: stolen

This way, it'll be useful to own multiple Bands of robbers in order to gain exponentially more spoils, or if it's the only card with +Buy.
I'll have to do some playtesting to see if +2 Buys is too op, otherwise I think this is a good buff.

Quote from: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 11:38:11 am

Quote from: Meta on January 06, 2021, 08:25:36 am

(https://i.postimg.cc/BvQqfJpR/grafik.png)

Translation:
Band of robbers

+1 Buy, +2$
Gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Illustration: stolen

Spoils:
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/9/9f/Spoils.jpg)

First, welcome to the forum!

Second, you can resize images by putting a width in the opening tag, like so:

Code: [Select]

[img width=250]imagehost/image_url.jpg[/img]If you're ever curious how another poster did something, you can use the "Quote" button to see the bb-markup for how they did it.

Lastly, your card needs... idk. something. I'm a huge fan of potion-cost cards and Rauberbande is overpriced considering what it does. Like $4 is probably a reasonable price for a Woodcutter+, as is; If you want to keep it as a potion cost card, consider either boosting the power level (give like, +2 Cards in addition to the other benefits, or "When you buy a card, gain a Spoils"). Remember the general notion behind potion-cost cards is you want to buy a lot of them for your deck - even if I did want a woodcutter+, I'd consider that a less critical card to have in bulk than like, cards that draw lots of cards, or cards that enable me to play lots of cards

Thanks for the tips regarding formatting

Edit: revised wording in the card translation, according to the 2019 errata

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 06, 2021, 03:31:03 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 02:07:46 pm

It's like the Familiar feelsbad problem - both players open silver/potion, player A can buy a familiar turn 3, use it turn 5; player B gets a copper, 3 estates, and the potion turn 3, can't afford familiar, and then it sucks to suck until turn 5 at least, right? meanwhile player A can hit them with cantrip curses and split the curse pile in their own favor.

This is doubly exacerbated if Magician is the only "village" in the game.

So to directly answer your question: i think the effect is too strong, and also i think it's priced wrong (esp. in consideration of its overpay effect).

I see what you mean, but I'm not buying it. Familiar is maximally simple (just buy potion+x, usually x=silver, and hope, no decisions involved), and maximally bad if you miss it. I don't think Magician is particularly bad on either of those metrics. I can think of a ton of cards that are worse there, like Altar, Margrave, Vampire, Witch, Mountebank, Cultist -- really most junkers and trashers that cost 5$. Magician seems less swingy than Prince (you can get different things for 6$, 8$, and 11$), and Prince isn't particularly swingy.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 03:57:47 pm

i don't agree re: Prince not being particularly swingy - maybe at a higher level, when people can better get deck control to only ever have prince collide with cards it can set aside - but from where i play, it's super swingy, especially if you botch the collision, especially if you botch the early $8 to get a prince. Treasure Map is generally thought of as being swingy and you've only gotta make one real collision to proc that.

I get what you're saying about the buy-in cost at $6/$8/$10 ($11? i'm assuming you meant $10) but you don't think it'd be better at $5/$6/$8? I think it makes way more sense at $5/$6/$8.

Also, like, can you clarify how you're coming to your conclusion that Magician is not that swingy?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: BBobb on January 06, 2021, 04:07:46 pm

Quote from: Meta on January 06, 2021, 02:54:46 pm

(https://i.postimg.cc/J4HX677M/grafik.png)

Translation:
Band of robbers

+2 Buys, +2$
While this is in play, when you buy a card, gain a spoils from the spoils pile.

Action

Illustration: stolen

This way, it'll be useful to own multiple Bands of robbers in order to gain exponentially more spoils, or if it's the only card with +Buy.
I'll have to do some playtesting to see if +2 Buys is too op, otherwise I think this is a good buff.

I would word it as "this turn, when you buy a card, gain a Spoils." Donald X. has moved away from while in play triggers to this turn triggers. Also, as from the 2019 Rules Changes and Tweaks (or something like that), the "from the Spoils pile" is implied. It is no longer necessary to put.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 06, 2021, 04:13:05 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 03:57:47 pm

($11? i'm assuming you meant $10)

Ah, yes. I was calculating up for 6$ (because you need 6$ for the wisp?), but yeah, 10$ gets the ghost.

Quote

Also, like, can you clarify how you're coming to your conclusion that Magician is not that swingy?

Tbh, I don't see any argument for it being swingy that doesn't apply as much and more to a ton of official cards. Take Altar, for example. Isn't everything you've written at least as true about Altar as it is about Magician? And you can substitute something like a third of all cards costing 6$+ in this question.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Meta on January 06, 2021, 04:16:50 pm

Quote from: BBobb on January 06, 2021, 04:07:46 pm

I would word it as "this turn, when you buy a card, gain a Spoils." Donald X. has moved away from while in play triggers to this turn triggers. Also, as from the 2019 Rules Changes and Tweaks (or something like that), the "from the Spoils pile" is implied. It is no longer necessary to put.

The german wording is based on the HiG version, as it's my prefered version, and I won't change it.
I will change the english version though. (It's currently based on Bandit camp and Goons)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 04:38:15 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on January 06, 2021, 04:13:05 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 03:57:47 pm

($11? i'm assuming you meant $10)

Ah, yes. I was calculating up for 6$ (because you need 6$ for the wisp?), but yeah, 10$ gets the ghost.

Quote

Also, like, can you clarify how you're coming to your conclusion that Magician is not that swingy?

Tbh, I don't see any argument for it being swingy that doesn't apply as much and more to a ton of official cards. Take Altar, for example. Isn't everything you've written at least as true about Altar as it is about Magician? And you can substitute something like a third of all cards costing 6$+ in this question.

I dont think thats a fair comparison tho - those $6s arent "get this and a card that combos with it (which is otherwise difficult to get)", they're "get this card". If this just straight up gave you a will-o-wisp on buy, it'd be great at $5. since we're trying to roll in the rest of the spirits, i think using that as a baseline is a reasonable starting point for what overpay should look like. $6 to gain a will-o-wisp seems pretty bad.

I wonder if it'd be better at $5 with "you may overpay for this to gain a spirit costing the amount you overpaid; if you didnt overpay, gain a will-o-wisp"

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 06, 2021, 04:45:30 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 04:38:15 pm

I dont think thats a fair comparison tho - those $6s arent "get this and a card that combos with it (which is otherwise difficult to get)", they're "get this card". If this just straight up gave you a will-o-wisp on buy, it'd be great at $5. since we're trying to roll in the rest of the spirits, i think using that as a baseline is a reasonable starting point for what overpay should look like. $6 to gain a will-o-wisp seems pretty bad.

I wonder if it'd be better at $5 with "you may overpay for this to gain a spirit costing the amount you overpaid; if you didnt overpay, gain a will-o-wisp"

But surely the fact that you get two cards rather than one isn't what matters; what matters is how much impact it has on the game. And I don't see this card + a wisp having as much impact as an Altar. Or a Forge. Or a Margrave. Or a KC. Or a Prince.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 04:51:21 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on January 06, 2021, 04:45:30 pm

Quote from: spineflu on January 06, 2021, 04:38:15 pm

I dont think thats a fair comparison tho - those $6s arent "get this and a card that combos with it (which is otherwise difficult to get)", they're "get this card". If this just straight up gave you a will-o-wisp on buy, it'd be great at $5. since we're trying to roll in the rest of the spirits, i think using that as a baseline is a reasonable starting point for what overpay should look like. $6 to gain a will-o-wisp seems pretty bad.

I wonder if it'd be better at $5 with "you may overpay for this to gain a spirit costing the amount you overpaid; if you didnt overpay, gain a will-o-wisp"

But surely the fact that you get two cards rather than one isn't what matters; what matters is how much impact it has on the game. And I don't see this card + a wisp having as much impact as an Altar. Or a Forge. Or a Margrave. Or a KC. Or a Prince.

i think if you hit 3+ cards that magician hits, its very comparable to KC

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 06, 2021, 05:32:05 pm

I don't disagree that it's comparable to KC (both are best later in the game, too). Is that bad? I like KC.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on January 06, 2021, 09:44:35 pm

I like the rubberband card, but dislike the potion cost. In general, potion cards should be something you want a lot of, and rubberband isn't that. $5 makes more sense IMO.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on January 07, 2021, 03:57:42 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 03:48:54 pm

Quote from: GendoIkari on January 05, 2021, 03:19:36 pm

Quote from: Timinou on January 05, 2021, 02:38:28 pm

Quote from: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 02:05:55 pm

Quote from: faust on January 05, 2021, 09:20:02 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 05, 2021, 07:20:57 am

Ive been very tired this week, but i hope this card is at least somewhat interesting

An overpay-golem variant.

I feel like this allows you to gain too many Will-o-Wisps too easily; you can very quickly win the split there. Maybe it would be better to do "you may overpay for this to gain a Spirit costing less than the amount you overpaid".

Also, I suggest discarding the revealed cards before any other cards are played, to prevent confusion.

Thanks for the suggestion. how is this?
(https://i.imgur.com/PsfM8Pu.png)

I would take out the "and isn't a Magician" part.  It would only be applicable if there are cost-reducers available; if you think Magician would be overpowered in those situations, then maybe the better way to nerf the card would be to have it reveal fewer than 5 cards from the top of your deck.

It's not just an issue of power level, but also tracking. If Magician plays Magician then you have multiple sets of set-aside cards. A simple fix is to replace "that cost _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} or less" with "costing less than this."

(https://i.imgur.com/suPQsdO.png)
How is this? i just added the text silverspawn suggested

Thanks for the feedback everyone. i chose to reduce the cost 1 by one, and make it look at top 3 cards like someone suggested. Also, some minor formatting fixes.
(https://i.imgur.com/asjxmz1.png)

THinking about adding "when you gain this, gain a will o wisp" but thats too strong

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 07, 2021, 06:05:49 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 07, 2021, 03:57:42 am

(https://i.imgur.com/asjxmz1.png)

THinking about adding "when you gain this, gain a will o wisp" but thats too strong

This card is still underwhelming to me. The closest official card in functionality is Herald, and Magician sucks compared to that. The problem is that this card is mainly useful as a Village, and thus you'd usually want a lot of Magicians. But then Magicians cannot play themselves, and so you just added a bunch of cards to your deck that will block you. On a given board it is relatively likely that there aren't even any $3 or less Actions in the supply that you want, and thus Magician only works with Spirits, but it's impossible to reach a high enough Spirit density to make Magicians viable.

The problem seems fundamental, and I doubt that some tweaks in the numbers are going to fix it. The best solution I can come up with is to make it more Golem-like and let Magician dig for the cards it wants to play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Meta on January 07, 2021, 08:22:10 am

(https://i.postimg.cc/SNsBJHg3/grafik.png)

Translation:
Band of robbers

+2 Buys, +2$
When you buy a card this turn, take a spoils.

If this is the only card in the game with potion costs, this card costs 6$.

Action

Illustration: stolen

Quote from: pubby on January 06, 2021, 09:44:35 pm

I like the rubberband card, but dislike the potion cost. In general, potion cards should be something you want a lot of, and rubberband isn't that. $5 makes more sense IMO.

I think 5 is too cheap, as you could be able to buy it T1, but this way you only have to buy potions with multiple potion cards in game which should make it more viable.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrFrog on January 07, 2021, 09:30:45 am

First time I enter the competition! This event is playtested a few times in 2 player and 4 player games and is quite interesting in my opinion. I happily take advice for a better (and maybe shorter) wording, English is not my first language.

(https://i.postimg.cc/KzGtS9yj/Setting-Sail-Creator.png)

Quote

Setting Sail - $7D7
Event

Put 4 Wishes from their pile on your Pirate Ship mat. As long as there is at least one left: During Clean-Up draw 1 card less for your hand and put one of the Wishes on your hand afterwards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on January 07, 2021, 09:52:47 am

Quote from: MrFrog on January 07, 2021, 09:30:45 am

First time I enter the competition! This event is playtested a few times in 2 player and 4 player games and is quite interesting in my opinion. I happily take advice for a better (and maybe shorter) wording, English is not my first language.

(https://i.postimg.cc/KzGtS9yj/Setting-Sail-Creator.png)

Quote

Setting Sail - $7D7
Event

Put 4 Wishes from their pile on your Pirate Ship mat. As long as there is at least one left: During Clean-Up draw 1 card less for your hand and put one of the Wishes on your hand afterwards.

How did you manage to play with 4 players and only having 12 Wishes?

A bit shorter wording: "....During Clean-Up draw 1 card less; then put one of the Wishes into your hand."

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spineflu on January 07, 2021, 10:07:31 am

Quote from: gambit05 on January 07, 2021, 09:52:47 am

Quote from: MrFrog on January 07, 2021, 09:30:45 am

First time I enter the competition! This event is playtested a few times in 2 player and 4 player games and is quite interesting in my opinion. I happily take advice for a better (and maybe shorter) wording, English is not my first language.

(https://i.postimg.cc/KzGtS9yj/Setting-Sail-Creator.png)

Quote

Setting Sail - $7D7
Event

Put 4 Wishes from their pile on your Pirate Ship mat. As long as there is at least one left: During Clean-Up draw 1 card less for your hand and put one of the Wishes on your hand afterwards.

How did you manage to play with 4 players and only having 12 Wishes?

A bit shorter wording: "....During Clean-Up draw 1 card less; then put one of the Wishes into your hand."

TTS would let you do this. Or you do comparisons where one person doesn't buy it but others do, make sure it's fair.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 07, 2021, 11:40:11 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 07, 2021, 03:57:42 am

Thanks for the feedback everyone. i chose to reduce the cost 1 by one, and make it look at top 3 cards like someone suggested. Also, some minor formatting fixes.
(https://i.imgur.com/asjxmz1.png)

THinking about adding "when you gain this, gain a will o wisp" but thats too strong

Is it possible to overpay by 0 to gain a will o'wisp?  I actually don't think an automatic will o'wisp gain would be that strong with the new version. 

Just a minor formatting comment if you make any further changes: "Spirit" should be capitalized as per the official cards.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 07, 2021, 11:46:47 am

No, you're not allowed to overpay cards by $0. This matters for Stonemason; you can't buy it for 0$ and get two Laboratories if you have 5 Highways in play.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrFrog on January 07, 2021, 02:20:05 pm

Quote from: gambit05 on January 07, 2021, 09:52:47 am

Quote

Setting Sail - $7D7
Event

Put 4 Wishes from their pile on your Pirate Ship mat. As long as there is at least one left: During Clean-Up draw 1 card less for your hand and put one of the Wishes on your hand afterwards.

How did you manage to play with 4 players and only having 12 Wishes?

Before playing I was afraid this would be an issue, but in reality it is very unlikely that all four players buy the event in the same round, and usually you don't want to buy it two turns in a row, so the Wishes come back to their pile quite quickly.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on January 07, 2021, 02:59:56 pm

Quote from: faust on January 07, 2021, 06:05:49 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 07, 2021, 03:57:42 am

(https://i.imgur.com/asjxmz1.png)

THinking about adding "when you gain this, gain a will o wisp" but thats too strong

This card is still underwhelming to me. The closest official card in functionality is Herald, and Magician sucks compared to that. The problem is that this card is mainly useful as a Village, and thus you'd usually want a lot of Magicians. But then Magicians cannot play themselves, and so you just added a bunch of cards to your deck that will block you. On a given board it is relatively likely that there aren't even any $3 or less Actions in the supply that you want, and thus Magician only works with Spirits, but it's impossible to reach a high enough Spirit density to make Magicians viable.

The problem seems fundamental, and I doubt that some tweaks in the numbers are going to fix it. The best solution I can come up with is to make it more Golem-like and let Magician dig for the cards it wants to play.

(https://i.imgur.com/Mvs2cJ5.png)

Noted. Hows this?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 07, 2021, 03:17:48 pm

Quote from: fika monster on January 07, 2021, 02:59:56 pm

Quote from: faust on January 07, 2021, 06:05:49 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 07, 2021, 03:57:42 am

(https://i.imgur.com/asjxmz1.png)

THinking about adding "when you gain this, gain a will o wisp" but thats too strong

This card is still underwhelming to me. The closest official card in functionality is Herald, and Magician sucks compared to that. The problem is that this card is mainly useful as a Village, and thus you'd usually want a lot of Magicians. But then Magicians cannot play themselves, and so you just added a bunch of cards to your deck that will block you. On a given board it is relatively likely that there aren't even any $3 or less Actions in the supply that you want, and thus Magician only works with Spirits, but it's impossible to reach a high enough Spirit density to make Magicians viable.

The problem seems fundamental, and I doubt that some tweaks in the numbers are going to fix it. The best solution I can come up with is to make it more Golem-like and let Magician dig for the cards it wants to play.

(https://i.imgur.com/Mvs2cJ5.png)

Noted. Hows this?

The problem I have with this version is that if Magician is the only source of Spirits in the Kingdom, then unless you buy another Magician, this becomes a one-shot thing and then becomes a weak Herald/Golem hybrid. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on January 07, 2021, 04:18:51 pm

Quote from: Timinou on January 07, 2021, 03:17:48 pm

Quote from: fika monster on January 07, 2021, 02:59:56 pm

Quote from: faust on January 07, 2021, 06:05:49 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 07, 2021, 03:57:42 am

(https://i.imgur.com/asjxmz1.png)

THinking about adding "when you gain this, gain a will o wisp" but thats too strong

This card is still underwhelming to me. The closest official card in functionality is Herald, and Magician sucks compared to that. The problem is that this card is mainly useful as a Village, and thus you'd usually want a lot of Magicians. But then Magicians cannot play themselves, and so you just added a bunch of cards to your deck that will block you. On a given board it is relatively likely that there aren't even any $3 or less Actions in the supply that you want, and thus Magician only works with Spirits, but it's impossible to reach a high enough Spirit density to make Magicians viable.

The problem seems fundamental, and I doubt that some tweaks in the numbers are going to fix it. The best solution I can come up with is to make it more Golem-like and let Magician dig for the cards it wants to play.

(https://i.imgur.com/Mvs2cJ5.png)

Noted. Hows this?

The problem I have with this version is that if Magician is the only source of Spirits in the Kingdom, then unless you buy another Magician, this becomes a one-shot thing and then becomes a weak Herald/Golem hybrid.

what if i gave it "play the revealed card, or gain a Wisp"?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 07, 2021, 08:01:55 pm

Quote from: fika monster on January 07, 2021, 04:18:51 pm

Quote from: Timinou on January 07, 2021, 03:17:48 pm

Quote from: fika monster on January 07, 2021, 02:59:56 pm

Quote from: faust on January 07, 2021, 06:05:49 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 07, 2021, 03:57:42 am

(https://i.imgur.com/asjxmz1.png)

THinking about adding "when you gain this, gain a will o wisp" but thats too strong

This card is still underwhelming to me. The closest official card in functionality is Herald, and Magician sucks compared to that. The problem is that this card is mainly useful as a Village, and thus you'd usually want a lot of Magicians. But then Magicians cannot play themselves, and so you just added a bunch of cards to your deck that will block you. On a given board it is relatively likely that there aren't even any $3 or less Actions in the supply that you want, and thus Magician only works with Spirits, but it's impossible to reach a high enough Spirit density to make Magicians viable.

The problem seems fundamental, and I doubt that some tweaks in the numbers are going to fix it. The best solution I can come up with is to make it more Golem-like and let Magician dig for the cards it wants to play.

(https://i.imgur.com/Mvs2cJ5.png)

Noted. Hows this?

The problem I have with this version is that if Magician is the only source of Spirits in the Kingdom, then unless you buy another Magician, this becomes a one-shot thing and then becomes a weak Herald/Golem hybrid.

what if i gave it "play the revealed card, or gain a Wisp"?

That would fix the issue I mentioned, but at the expense of making it even wordier.  Then there’s the issue of balance.  This would basically be like a Scrying Pool that doesn’t trip up on Treasures, Curses, or Victory cards. 

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on January 08, 2021, 01:29:54 pm

I think i decided to just ditch the current concept. heres my new Submission: Medium, a treasurer but spirit and exile

(https://i.imgur.com/EMrlufY.png)

with its artifact
(https://i.imgur.com/MtGMi4s.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 08, 2021, 02:02:55 pm

Utterly broken as even "Draw 2 and Exile 2" would be crazy at any price.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 08, 2021, 02:07:00 pm

Quote from: segura on January 08, 2021, 02:02:55 pm

Utterly broken as even "Draw 2 and Exile 2" would be crazy at any price.

I cannot argue with the utterly broken part, but maybe if it cost 8$? (Or $7?) Regardless, I would cut the gaining-from-exile option.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on January 08, 2021, 02:25:10 pm

Quote from: segura on January 08, 2021, 02:02:55 pm

Utterly broken as even "Draw 2 and Exile 2" would be crazy at any price.

hows this?
(https://i.imgur.com/S1pTKKf.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: gambit05 on January 08, 2021, 02:32:53 pm

I would start simple. Then it is helpful to look at the wording of official cards and to avoid random capitalisation of words.

A simple start would be:
"Exile an Action card from your hand. Gain a cheaper Spirit from one of the Spirit piles."

Then one can think whether "from one of the Spirit piles" is really necessary. It is the official wording of Exorcist, but wording changes over time and tends to get shorter.

More importantly, concept-wise, one can also think about whether allowing to Exile Treasures, which would then be "Exile a non-Victory card..." 

If that all looks interesting, you may add more or, usually better, leave it as it is and think about the cost.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Timinou on January 08, 2021, 02:38:00 pm

Quote from: fika monster on January 08, 2021, 02:25:10 pm

Quote from: segura on January 08, 2021, 02:02:55 pm

Utterly broken as even "Draw 2 and Exile 2" would be crazy at any price.

hows this?
(https://i.imgur.com/AI3ntbF.png)

I would suggest limiting the situations when you would be able to take the Artifact.  It should either be on gain, or as an option when you play the card, but not both.  I mean, the Artifact does have an expiry date because of the limited number of Will-o'Wisps (Silver gaining is nice, but wouldn't be the reason for getting the Artifact), but it's quite strong to be able to gain a Will-o'Wisp each turn.  Being able to also take the Artifact upon trashing Medium seems like overkill, and I'm not sure it is needed.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: segura on January 08, 2021, 03:50:22 pm

Quote from: silverspawn on January 08, 2021, 02:07:00 pm

Quote from: segura on January 08, 2021, 02:02:55 pm

Utterly broken as even "Draw 2 and Exile 2" would be crazy at any price.

I cannot argue with the utterly broken part, but maybe if it cost 8$? (Or $7?) Regardless, I would cut the gaining-from-exile option.

Doesn't work as you get it far too late in the game. High costs, i.e. beyond $5, doesn't work for (pure) trashers or Exilers (note that the two $7 trashers from Prosperity are also gainers).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Carline on January 08, 2021, 08:31:18 pm

Quote from: fika monster on January 08, 2021, 02:25:10 pm

Quote from: segura on January 08, 2021, 02:02:55 pm

Utterly broken as even "Draw 2 and Exile 2" would be crazy at any price.

hows this?
(https://i.imgur.com/S1pTKKf.png)

- Exile two cards
- Gain  a Spirit costing less than the cheapest card you exile
- Trash a card in exile costing more than $1
- Gain a cheaper card
- Take Faery Gift on play
- Take Faery Gift on gain
- Take Faery Gift on trash
- Exile one card instead of pay
- Exile two cards instead of pay
- Gain a Will-O’-Wisp
- Gain a silver

Independently of how they are divided between options or between card and artifact, I think it’s a lot of functions associated to only one card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: pubby on January 09, 2021, 12:29:43 am

Medium should be renamed Long :P

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on January 09, 2021, 07:18:12 am

Quote from: Carline on January 08, 2021, 08:31:18 pm

Quote from: fika monster on January 08, 2021, 02:25:10 pm

Quote from: segura on January 08, 2021, 02:02:55 pm

Utterly broken as even "Draw 2 and Exile 2" would be crazy at any price.

hows this?
(https://i.imgur.com/S1pTKKf.png)

- Exile two cards
- Gain  a Spirit costing less than the cheapest card you exile
- Trash a card in exile costing more than $1
- Gain a cheaper card
- Exile two cards
- Take Faery Gift on gain
- Take Faery Gift on trash
- Exile one card instead of pay
- Exile two cards instead of pay
- Gain a Will-O’-Wisp
- Gain a silver

Independently of how they are divided between options or between card and artifact, I think it’s a lot of functions associated to only one card.

ok, i removed a lot of the options, how is this?
(https://i.imgur.com/IdkPI6x.png)

now the functions are
- Exile two cards
- +3 cards
- Take Faery Gift on gain
- Exile one card instead of pay
- Exile two cards instead of pay
- Gain a Will-O’-Wisp
- Gain a silver

is this better?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on January 09, 2021, 01:01:06 pm

I tried to leave a little extra time for those getting back from the holidays, and ideas seemed to still be percolating, but it looks like things have settled down, so:

THIS IS THE 24  HOUR WARNING

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on January 09, 2021, 03:35:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/io5qqbB.png) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/68/Wish.jpg/200px-Wish.jpg)
A mostly vanilla wish gainer.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 09, 2021, 05:43:56 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on January 09, 2021, 03:35:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/io5qqbB.png) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/68/Wish.jpg/200px-Wish.jpg)
A mostly vanilla wish gainer.

As worded, this gives you a Silver regardless of whether you overpaid any _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} or not. Is that intentional?

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: anordinaryman on January 10, 2021, 01:51:54 am

Contest Submission

(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/f58i6px3.png)

Quote

Haunt | Event | $4
Each other player with 5 or more cards puts 2 cards from their hand onto their deck. You may put 2 cards from your hand onto your deck. If you do, gain a Ghost.

Wanted to create a card that bridged the gap between the "Haunted" sub-theme (Haunted Woods, Ghost Ship, Haunted Castle) and the Ghost card.

One fun self-synergy: if you have Ghosts in hand, the cards you top-decked in Haunt to gain another Ghost aren't a problem at all.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on January 10, 2021, 03:41:54 am

Quote from: fika monster on January 09, 2021, 07:18:12 am

Quote from: Carline on January 08, 2021, 08:31:18 pm

Quote from: fika monster on January 08, 2021, 02:25:10 pm

Quote from: segura on January 08, 2021, 02:02:55 pm

Utterly broken as even "Draw 2 and Exile 2" would be crazy at any price.

hows this?

- Exile two cards
- Gain  a Spirit costing less than the cheapest card you exile
- Trash a card in exile costing more than $1
- Gain a cheaper card
- Exile two cards
- Take Faery Gift on gain
- Take Faery Gift on trash
- Exile one card instead of pay
- Exile two cards instead of pay
- Gain a Will-O’-Wisp
- Gain a silver

Independently of how they are divided between options or between card and artifact, I think it’s a lot of functions associated to only one card.

ok, i removed a lot of the options, how is this?


now the functions are
- Exile two cards
- +3 cards
- Take Faery Gift on gain
- Exile one card instead of pay
- Exile two cards instead of pay
- Gain a Will-O’-Wisp
- Gain a silver

is this better?

Currently the latest version (https://i.imgur.com/0XJUYii.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/LTU561B.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 10, 2021, 07:43:14 am

Points that stand out:

- Fairy spelling is inconsistent (Faery/Fairy).
- Possession (the 's) is also consistent.
- 'Silver' should be uppercase (even though it looks much better lowercase :P)
- 'price' should be 'cost'
- there should be an 'or' before '+3 cards'
- The existing 'or' should be lower case.
-'Gain' and 'Turn' on the Artifact should also be lower case.
- I think cost has to be 6* rather than 6, but I'm not sure about that one.
- I think it should be 'the' Fairy's Gift, but I'm not sure about that one either.

As for the mechanics, when I look at this, my immediate reaction is to just take out the entire part under the horizontal line. Aim for simplicity!

... or to be a bit more abstract, I feel like cards should have an idea that makes them worth existing. Ideally, they feel cohesive. With this one, the unique part is Fairy's gift. That means medium is predominantly a card that can take Fairy's gift. It's cool if it does other stuff that complements that, but the bottom line feels more like just another thing that's going on, unless I'm missing the interaction. (But this paragraph is just my design philosophy, no idea of others agree with that.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: D782802859 on January 10, 2021, 07:47:25 am

Quote from: Gubump on January 09, 2021, 05:43:56 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on January 09, 2021, 03:35:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/io5qqbB.png) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/68/Wish.jpg/200px-Wish.jpg)
A mostly vanilla wish gainer.

As worded, this gives you a Silver regardless of whether you overpaid any _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} or not. Is that intentional?

You can't overpay by 0. You have to pay more than the current cost of the card.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 10, 2021, 08:25:10 am

I believe the point is that the grammar is difficult. It could be

You may [overpay for it. If you overpaid by $4 or more, gain a Wish.] Otherwise, gain a Silver.

or

You may overpay for it. (If you [overpaid by 4$ of more], gain a Wish. Otherwise, gain a Silver.)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: notevenodd on January 10, 2021, 12:34:28 pm

Updating my submission (Victor) as there were some issues in the text.
(https://i.postimg.cc/15L12dgH/Victor-notevenodd-3.png)

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: mandioca15 on January 10, 2021, 12:44:39 pm

Carthorse (Action, $5)

+1 Action
+1 Card
+$1

This turn, when you gain a card, gain a Horse (that doesn't come with another).

A Livery variant that doesn't impose any cost restriction on Horse-gaining.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 10, 2021, 01:06:07 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on January 10, 2021, 07:47:25 am

Quote from: Gubump on January 09, 2021, 05:43:56 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on January 09, 2021, 03:35:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/io5qqbB.png) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/68/Wish.jpg/200px-Wish.jpg)
A mostly vanilla wish gainer.

As worded, this gives you a Silver regardless of whether you overpaid any _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} or not. Is that intentional?

You can't overpay by 0. You have to pay more than the current cost of the card.

As worded, it's not "if you overpaid but didn't overpay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} or more, gain a Silver," (which is what you intend) it's "if you didn't overpay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} or more, including if you didn't overpay at all, gain a Silver." Because the otherwise in your wording means "if you didn't overpay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} or more," which includes not overpaying at all. I recommend this wording:

Quote

When you buy this, you may overpay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} for it to gain a Wish. Otherwise, you may overpay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} for it to gain a Silver.

This takes away the ability to overpay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}-_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} or _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}+ for it, but there was no point in doing so to begin with (why pay more when you don't get anything for doing so?).

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: silverspawn on January 10, 2021, 01:31:24 pm

Quote from: mandioca15 on January 10, 2021, 12:44:39 pm

Carthorse (Action, $5)

+1 Action
+1 Card
+$1

This turn, when you gain a card, gain a Horse (that doesn't come with another).

A Livery variant that doesn't impose any cost restriction on Horse-gaining.

This seems busted. If you get just one horse, you have Delayed Laboratory & Peddler for just 5$. Delaying the draw is not that big of a downside.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: MrFrog on January 10, 2021, 02:14:38 pm

I am updating my wording (thanks to gambit05 for the suggestion):

Quote

Setting Sail - $7D7
Event

Put 4 Wishes from their pile on your Pirate Ship mat. As long as there is at least one left: During Clean-up draw 1 card less, then put one of the Wishes into your hand.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on January 10, 2021, 03:49:07 pm

THE PERIOD FOR SUBMISSIONS IS CLOSED.

It may take a bit of time for judging – it's my first time and there are lots of great submissions.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 11, 2021, 01:50:07 am

Quote from: Gubump on January 10, 2021, 01:06:07 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on January 10, 2021, 07:47:25 am

Quote from: Gubump on January 09, 2021, 05:43:56 pm

Quote from: D782802859 on January 09, 2021, 03:35:34 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/io5qqbB.png) (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/68/Wish.jpg/200px-Wish.jpg)
A mostly vanilla wish gainer.

As worded, this gives you a Silver regardless of whether you overpaid any _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/16px-Coin.png)} or not. Is that intentional?

You can't overpay by 0. You have to pay more than the current cost of the card.

As worded, it's not "if you overpaid but didn't overpay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} or more, gain a Silver," (which is what you intend) it's "if you didn't overpay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} or more, including if you didn't overpay at all, gain a Silver." Because the otherwise in your wording means "if you didn't overpay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} or more," which includes not overpaying at all. I recommend this wording:

Quote

When you buy this, you may overpay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)} for it to gain a Wish. Otherwise, you may overpay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/f/f7/Coin1.png/16px-Coin1.png)} for it to gain a Silver.

This takes away the ability to overpay _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png)}-_{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png)} or _{(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)}+ for it, but there was no point in doing so to begin with (why pay more when you don't get anything for doing so?).

However, with the original wording, you could overpay P.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on January 11, 2021, 04:56:07 am

Below is a list of what I believe are all of this week's entries. Please let me know if I missed yours. I would hate not to cover everyone who made the effort of submitting.

Blessing/Blessed Gems – Carline
Brownie – D782802859
Carthorse – mandioca15
Convoy – Gubump
Conscript – Erick648
Corral – Fragasnap
Corsair – segura
Dragon Egg – pubby
Eeerie Lands – X-tra
Fae Queen – Xen3k
Haunt – anordinaryman
Magical Bridge – lompeluiten
Magician – faust
Medium – fika monster
Medium – spineflu
Pirate – LibraryAdventurer
Räuberbande – Meta
Royal Feast – silverspawn
Sanitarium – NoMoreFun
Setting Sail – MrFrog
Tooth Fairy – Timinou
Unsung Hero – Aquila
Victor – notevenodd
Way of the Hermit Crab – MochaMoko

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: spheremonk on January 12, 2021, 06:57:29 am

Contest #100 – Results

The entries this week were varied and strong. After judging for my first time, I now have tremendous respect for previous judges, and am awed by the job Aquila and anordinaryman did the prior two weeks. I gave it my best shot.

I mocked up cards where necessary. My apologies if anyone hates the artwork I chose for their card. I tried not fuss with the words at all (except for very minor things, like a couple of periods).
 
It’s great to have several new contestants join us – if I missed saying it to you below, Welcome!

---

Blessing Blessed Gems –– Carline	(https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/003/014/422/full/Blessing_%2812%29.png?1609037057)  (https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/images/002/992/782/full/Blessed_Gems_%281%29.png?1607306740)	Blessing trashes for Victory tokens, but in a manner that plays entirely differently from the way the official cards that do – it’s difficult to build a long-term strategy around, but helps a lot right away. Then, instead of putting you to the difficult “must trash” decision of some cards, it provides a back-door of promoting it to a Wish that you can use to improve your deck for the long run. The Wish gain seems reasonable given the $5 cost. Add the interaction with its Heirloom, Blessed Gems, which rewards you if you line them up, and there’s a bunch to consider and plan for. All of this just works, and should also add some fun strategic considerations.
Brownie –– D782802859	(https://i.imgur.com/io5qqbB.png)	To start with, leaving aside the wording issues, this card is fairly straightforward and gets the pricing of the Wish-gaining overpay exactly right. I really like this idea. Unfortunately, the wording issue makes this a tough card to judge: as worded, you really do gain Silver anytime you don’t gain a Wish (it’s not a question of overpaying zero, which, of course you can’t, but the simple fact that “otherwise” means “if not”); however, I’m pretty sure you intended that any actual overpay other than $4 gains a Silver. But there’s no clarifying update to the wording. That makes it difficult to know what to judge. I’ll just say that I think this card is a great idea, and I’m sorry I can’t do more (if you feel I’m being too narrow-minded here, I really do apologize).
Carthorse –– mandioca15	(https://abload.de/img/carthorseuhjfx.png)	A good, simple card. It’s a Peddler that can gain Horses. In an environment with lots of + Buy, this could feel overpowered, but the fact that it doesn’t facilitate that by providing Buys itself feels right. My concern is that non-terminal Horse-gainers are not included among the official cards for good reasons, chiefly because it makes piling up Horses too easy, and pretty soon, you run through your whole deck without much planning or effort. Perhaps that’s alleviated by the fact that the Horses aren’t gained until your Buy phase, so you generally won’t draw them on the same turn you gain them? I think at some point you have enough Horses that it doesn’t matter. Either way, I imagine that in-game this card would be fun to play.
Convoy –– Gubump	(https://i.imgur.com/eo9uPQf.png)	Sometimes you look at an unofficial card and think, “This isn’t already a card?” or at least, “This general concept isn’t already represented in the game?” That’s how well Convoy fits into the Dominion universe. The simple +3 Cards and discard an Action card for +1 Action is elegant. I wouldn’t have come up with the conditional Horse gain myself, but that’s exactly what saves the card’s balance at $6 – if the card functioned as a straight Smithy too frequently, it certainly wouldn’t support that price, but would also be difficult to balance at any price. Putting it all together works perfectly. This is a great design.
Conscript –– Erick648	(https://abload.de/img/conscript6xj1h.png)	Welcome to the contest! First of all, your narrative wins best narrative of the week hands down. Whenever judging felt like a slog, I went back, read it again, and enjoyed it immensely. The whole story works. This card is a great use of both Madman and Mercenary and the Ruins penalty is rather creative and an efficient way to limit the upside of the card from getting out of control. I’m having a hard time deciding though whether the card is balanced at $2. It protects from Attacks; it sifts (with or without Attacks); it gets to promoted to Madman/Mercenary. I think coupling the Madman with a Ruins and the Mercenary with a (usually Silver) discard, probably keeps it in check at $2, but it’s close. Ultimately, I would enjoy playing with this card.
Corral –– Fragasnap	(https://i.imgur.com/uBD5uyQ.jpg)	The comparison to Hamlet makes this card seem simpler than it is. It’s a smart workaround to the problem of non-terminal Horse gainers causing choas or making it too perfunctorily easy to build engines on any board. This should generate some fun decisions whether or not the Kingdom includes other villages, both in terms of buying Corral and deciding how to play it. I think this works at $2, but it feels strong on early turns. Overall, very well thought out. I like this.
Corsair –– segura	(https://i.imgur.com/uDD2rNT.png)     (https://i.imgur.com/zT2yqIt.png)	I suspect this is the most interesting possible use of a not-so-interesting mechanic. Fame (which I realize isn’t your submission) adds a mini-game that sets goals that don’t really make the game itself more interesting to a degree that supports the added fiddliness. Compared, for example, to the way that most Landmarks effect the strategic context, Fame wouldn’t seem to produce particularly interesting in-game decisions. To be fair, your card sets up a contest that certainly adds significant interest, and makes Fame itself more engaging in the process. Also, I really like the connection in terms of economy between your gaining Spoils and your opponent discarding Treasures. I just wish the contest were based on something more interesting than Fame. I also wonder whether taking the Treasure Chest is a bit too easy, compared to how much goes into the official way – Swashbuckler is a steep hill to climb.
Dragon Egg –– pubby	(https://i.imgur.com/zQOotKD.png)	Games with lots of Spoils flowing can be fun. Actually, Dragon Egg has a bit of the flavor of Stockpile on steroids. This card certainly would have a major effect on any game where it’s in the Supply. My concern is that it is not only swingy and centralizing, but that it doesn’t present many complicated choices in games using it. You are right that the +$3 makes it more interesting, and I like the lower price as well. I feel like there’s still a really compelling idea here, but the card in its current form doesn’t quite execute on it in a way that works practically most of the time.
Eeerie Lands –– X-tra	(https://i.postimg.cc/0yhDjyZ6/Eerie-Lands-v2.png)	The central idea of this card plays into what makes Night cards most strategically compelling: when they directly affect how you play the earlier phases of your turn. I like how this card does that. I also appreciate the way the Treasure-related piece scales up as you gain (and are able to reveal) more valuable Victory cards (though clearly, Kingdom Victory cards will significantly change that). That said, games using this will be overwhelmed by Wishes, particularly in the early stages when, where you can buy his before the first shuffle and have few Action cards to play. You’re onto something interesting here, but the Wishes need to be limited somehow.
Fae Queen –– Xen3k	(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50784994293_8da73c9bd0_b.jpg)	This card has a lot going on, and all of it is interesting. The edits you made dramatically improve the quality of the card. This pairing of Lucky Coin is significantly more robust than that with Fool – an alternate cost of trashing an Heirloom is a nice new idea, though I worry a bit whether it makes it too easy to gain a strong early-game card (the fact that it’s usually limited to one per customer probably makes this ok). Overall, I like this aspect of the card. The on-play abilities should set up some thought-provoking decisions and difficult tradeoffs. I wonder though whether $6 is too much: it’s a close call for a card that may be reduced in the late stages to either a Smithy (actually, a self-Hexing Smithy) or a strong one-shot. This needs some playtesting, but hey, that should be fun.
Haunt –– anordinaryman	(https://files.coding4.coffee/selif/f58i6px3.png)	I love the concept of this Event, both from the perspective of the story it tells (Ghost Ship/Ghost) and strategically. Mirroring the non-defendable topdecking attack (not technically an Attack) and your similar topdecking for benefit is a nice symmetrical touch. The self-synergy you point to also furthers that. I worry a bit that Haunt may gain Ghosts to easily, especially in the early game (though I realize that after spending $4, it might not be so easy to find two more cards to topdeck, and they may be awful if you do). A compelling idea well executed.
Magical Bridge –– lompeluiten	(https://abload.de/img/magicalbridge194kjm.png)	This card clearly hovers somewhere in the neighborhood of Bridge and Highway. It gives you +Action, but no +Card, facilitating multiple plays, but less so than Highway as it can’t draw itself. Added to that is the Wish-gaining. It is a bit difficult to judge this card, as “Whenever you buy a card, gain a Will-o’-Wisp” is not by its terms limited in any way – though I assume “this turn” is intended, it could be “while this is in play” or it could (though I imagine it doesn’t) mean what it literally says – any time at all (for the rest of the game?). Though silverspawn tried to clarify the language, it didn’t seem as if you accepted his clarification. In any event, under almost any interpretation, the card gains too many Will-o’Wisps, on top of the non-terminal price reduction, for only $4.
Magician –– faust	(https://i.imgur.com/syUOR51.png)	The interplay for your opponents between discarding a meaningful card and drawing to compensate for their cheapest cards sets up an unusual dynamic that, as you say, makes it an Attack . . . or maybe not. Very creative indeed. I worry this may generate too many Will-o’-Wisps, particularly in games with more than two players. Otherwise, it looks balanced at $3. This card certainly will add an exciting bit of interaction to any game it’s in.
Medium Fairy’s Gift –– fika monster	(https://i.imgur.com/0XJUYii.png)     (https://i.imgur.com/LTU561B.png)	The final version of this card is vastly improved from earlier versions. Simplicity helps. That said, the card still isn’t all that simple. It still has three different on-play options, an Artifact, and a complex alternate cost. Also, as the card got simpler, it lacked cohesion. I don’t really understand how the options relate or what strategic interaction is intended. Finally, the Artifact probably results in too many gains of Will-‘o-Wisp. All of that said, I appreciate your obvious enthusiasm for the game and all of the effort you made to improve the card.
Medium –– spineflu	(https://abload.de/img/mediumamka1.png)	Having Spirits function as Travelers is exactly the sort of creative idea I was hoping a relatively non-restrictive contest would engender. The fact that the first play is a dud parallels Travelers as well. The strongest card is far weaker than in the Traveler line, but you get there quicker, so that makes sense. Playing Ghost during your Action phase (I assume that’s what’s intended?) should make it hit an Action more often, but sets up some tricky choices in terms of when exactly to play Medium in sequence, particularly since it is terminal. The overall  mechanic seems to work cleanly and the card feels balanced at $4. An all-around strong effort. (Somehow, I hate Travelers, but really liked this.)
Pirate –– LibraryAdventurer	(https://abload.de/img/pirate2xkqn.png)	This feels like an entirely new concept that fits into the game seamlessly nonetheless. In addition to using Spoils well, it makes creative use of the Pirate Ship mat (the more we can do with those limited-use Seaside mats the better). The decisions about sacrificing Treasure will remain interesting throughout the game, and will change significantly on different boards – both things you want in a Dominion card. And as you say, there’s an early game/late game trigger effect that should spice things up as well. $3 is the right price. An intriguing card.
Räuberbande –– Meta	(https://i.postimg.cc/SNsBJHg3/grafik.png)  (https://abload.de/img/bandofrobbers8bj5u.png)	Welcome to the contest! I am evaluating the English translation, which I hope tracks the German well enough. The card is much improved from the original Woodcutter version. I like the idea gaining Spoils for buys, and you are correct that this will increase the value of multiple copies. That said, one concern is that as a terminal non-drawing card, it may be tough to pull off. Also, when there is village support, the game will be overrun by Spoils (this is my experience with other unofficial cards and Projects I’ve played with that earn Spoils for buys or gains), but when there isn’t village support, this card is a tough buy at either $3P or $6. The alternate $6 cost is novel fix. Räuberbande feels as if it is only a step or two away from a being a great card – the idea is there, but I don’t think the execution has fully caught up. Great first effort. Nice to have you in the contest.
Royal Feast –– silverspawn	(https://i.ibb.co/DL5QrVB/Royal-Feast.png)	I think I said we wanted big, fun cards for the 100th contest, and no question, Royal Feast is all of that. All I could think when I first looked at it was. “Wow! Crazy fun!” It is difficult assess the balance of a card that has big things for you and big things for your opponents. Ultimately though, it seems that you draw seven cards, but then your opponents can gain a Royal Feast PLUS draw seven cards on their very next turn. So whether that means you shouldn’t buy the card to begin with, or that the game devolves into an ultra-fast Wish-fest with 11-card hands, I’m not sure this works well in practice. Perhaps if the Wishes were not gained to hand or were somehow conditional? In any event, it’s a fun card to ponder and definitely contains a cool idea at its core.
Sanitarium –– NoMoreFun	(https://abload.de/img/sanitarium1kjs2.png)	I like the idea of something akin to a delayed Tactician. You discard your hand and, on some future turn, you double your hand. Of course, you don’t get the other benefits of Tactician, and the effect is delayed (and you could get more of fewer cards depending on the circumstances), so naturally, it costs less than Tactician. The below-the-line effect of saving Madman from return is an interesting wrinkle that requires some planning to use effectively. Even though you generally only play one Sanitarium a turn, and the below-the-line effect will not activate on those turns, it may be a bit too easy to accumulate Madmans (Madmen?) with this card. You might have to playtest it to know for sure. Either way, as is or nerfed in some way to prevent that, this card could facilitate some really complex long-term (not necessarily mega-turn) strategies.
Setting Sail –– MrFrog	(https://abload.de/img/settingsailbgkak.png)	Welcome to the contest! (Personally, I always welcome anyone who doesn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition.) This Event looks like it could really shake the game up. The effect is big, but so is the cost, so I don’t think that’s a problem. It generally won’t be bought too early, so even four Wishes shouldn’t break the game. I wish (sorry) I had more to say about it, because I like it, and expect it makes for enjoyable games – with all the flexibility, everyone likely feels as if they were able to execute the strategy they wanted to pursue. It even reduces shuffle luck to a degree for four critical turns. I wonder a little about running out of Wishes in the four-player context, but I imagine the effect would be brief if it happens at all, given how quickly the Wishes should return. And really, if you’re playing Dominion with four people, are you having any fun anyway? A great first submission. I hope we see more from you in the future.
Tooth Fairy –– Timinou	(https://i.imgur.com/cIUFywJ.png)	This card combines Haven with trashing in a more interesting manner than Church. The decision is more direct, as you only have one card, so you must do one or the other. That should result in more interesting strategic choices. At the same time, the Wish gain is reasonable, as it is mostly just a delayed upgrade. The Silver gain will generally be good early and worse later. The card seems balanced at $4. I’m not sure why this card wants to be a Night card. Since you forgo using the set aside card this turn either way, it saves an Action as Night card, but should it? A good solid, useful card.
Unsung Hero –– Aquila	(https://abload.de/img/unsung_herov8kge.png)	As I wrote above, games that get the Spoils flowing are always fun. This seems to be the rare Spoils-gainer that strikes the right balance between gaining enough Spoils to have a significant effect, but not so many that they overwhelm the game. The Treasure gaining seems like the right idea as well, though I wonder whether it’s slightly overpowered in Colony games. The $5 price seems spot-on – I wouldn’t even consider any other. In all, a good, solid, balanced card.
Victor –– notevenodd	(https://i.postimg.cc/15L12dgH/Victor-notevenodd-3.png)	Welcome to the forum! Everyone enjoys cards that involve Prizes – they’re used so little in the official game, but are all fun to play with. Mostly (maybe exclusively?) on this forum, we’ve seen Prize-gainers (there was even a whole contest of them a while back). This is an interesting new approach: an emulator. As you saw with all the comments and edits, it’s a tough one to pull off. The final version is definitely the best version you submitted. Using the old-school Band of Misfits approach solves several problems. At the end of the day though, the $8 cost is necessary to avoid a centralizing rush for the card, but will limit its use and effectiveness. Colony games with this card should be more fun. This is a great first attempt. I look forward to seeing more of your cards.
Way of the Hermit Crab –– MochaMoko	(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/685147225470271508/794541245333766164/Way_of_the_Hermit_Crab_3.png)	I can certainly understand the appreciation for this card in the voting. Under the right circumstances, it should lead to big, fun games. My son has been yelling at me all week about how great this card is. I have no doubt every game with Way of the Hermit Crab would be an adventure with lots of interesting decisions. It also makes novel use of the Traveler line, which isn’t an easy trick to pull off. All of that said, I think there are good reasons why: (1) the official Ways are mostly limited to smaller effects; and (2) the rules suggest no more than one Way. Strong Ways lead to over-powered, unbalanced cards, and too many decisions slow down the game. That said, this is a huge attempt at something very cool.

---

---

There were a bunch of great entries this week. It was difficult to pick runners-up and winners, and I’m sure on a different day I would’ve picked different ones. But here goes . . .

Runners-up (in no particular order): Blessing/Blessed Gems by Carline; Corral by Fragasnap; Medium by spineflu

Winner: Convoy by Gubump

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: fika monster on January 12, 2021, 07:32:32 am

Good job judging here! I actually agree with your judgement on my card submission this week, for some reason i really struggled to come up with anything. anyways, i feel like you were fair and nice in your judgement.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: faust on January 12, 2021, 09:20:17 am

Thanks for the judging!

Regarding the future of this thread: I contacted theory and he said that he'd make us a subboard but it seems he did not get around to it yet.

Title: Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread
Post by: Gubump on January 12, 2021, 11:45:20 pm

Contest #101 is now in its own thread. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20637.0)